She was also a snitch, and helped with Hollywood blacklisting.

monopoly and company town economic enslavement was the basis, you are completely ignoring all of the history, as usual. And doing it because you have a bias against competition.

@@stevengoldstein114 No, I am taking history seriously, and I am not a socialist idiot, I have no bias against competition.

@@abramgaller2037 When people hit a dead end they resort to baiting with insults, it is a joke. Antitrust laws are NOT Socialist. You are the one promoting idiotic ideas like this. I have 2 business degrees from a nationally recognized university, San Jose State University. What are you able to discuss other than name calling?

@@stevengoldstein114 I am not at a dead end. Historically there has never been a destructive monopoly without massive government involvement. Consumers suffer the brunt of the damage from antitrust actions .

@@abramgaller2037 that is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. What antitrust case can you produce that ever hurt consumers when successful antitrust law was implemented? This is why you are totally unrealistic.

I am here with you and I do not see how bitcoin solves any of these problems.

If/when Trump comes back, dollars getting pegged to B!TCoin. The other day he said "maybe we can pay the 35 Trillion Dollars debt with b!tcoin ‼

So, if taxation is morally wrong, then how should a nation defend itself against a technologically adept enemy? Who should fund the development of technologically advanced weapons? And what should be the process of funding them?

Yes, I’m sure the poor young girl who grows up doing her friends and family’s hair and wants to start a business is thrilled to find out she needs to take a year of classes and pay for licenses to be allowed to do what she’s already able to do.

Literally the opposite of that statement is true.

Technically she didn’t take it. She was recovering it. The money was taken from her and she was getting some of it back. I plan to do the sake thing when I retire . . . if there is anything left. The first thing about Socciial Seccuurity which should grab your attention is fact that it is mandatory (no choice). The second thing is the fact that for many years, politicians spent the surplus they collected on unrelated projects. Eventually the payments SS needs to make will exceed the tax revenue-and those future retirees will be out of luck. Is that fair?

⁠@@Shozb0tPoliticians still spend money from the social security fund. The administrators of social security take money from the fund & use it to buy bonds from the treasury - which increases the debt. The treasury then spends the money - which increases the money supply. Over 7 trillion dollars from the national debt is debt the government owes to itself. Social security is the largest, but military retirement funds, Medicare, & a few other funds are drawn from this way, as well.

@@dariusgoatland10 But that’s what the people want, I suppose.

that's such a flawed view. she never advocated for anyone to pay into a mandatory system and then voluntarily reject the benefits you're therefore entitled to. she's totally fine with voluntarily paying into a similar system just like insurance; and then taking out the benefits in case you qualify.

AR’s detractors constantly pound that one key on their piano. One can be opposed to a government program, still have their money taken for said program, & then claw back, lawfully, what was taken from you. She also made the argument that leaving that money for the state to do their mischief would be less desirable.

Companies would not poison water supplies because that would still be illegal. The person who owns the river has the right for it not to be poisoned. Also, the company would quickly lose customers from boycotts after people found out that they pollute so callously. Job security would still exist because employers and employees would sign employment contracts. It would be in the contract that they can’t just fire an employee for no reason. There doesn’t need to be government regulations for these things, humans can resolve issues on our own.

When you say job security, do you mean having a specific job with a specific employer for 40 years?

that's the biggest misconception ever. unregulated capitalism in its core essence is the freedom of two consenting parties to agree on any contract they like to set up without government guidelines. if this legally binding agreement is violated by one party, the other one has the right to sue. the exact same goes for any uninvolved third party that happens to get harmed by the action of such contract. if a company poisons water, they do hurt others and will therefore get sued. this is what Milton Friedman called the, "don't dirty my shirt"-case. he said, if some factory puts out dust particles into the air through their smokestacks and his white shirt gets dirty (it's an analogy and you can replace this with any form of pollution done to the environment), then he can sue the responsible company for compensation. and therefore, they do have a vetted interest in avoiding this. however, that's how pure capitalism would work. it could be argued that state managing this aspect enables companies to legally pollute the environment up to a certain level the state-not its citizens-deems acceptable. it also opens doors to brybary (i must modify this word due to the almighty censor in here), because you created a centralized decision making entity which is always the weakest, most susceptible point and thus first point of attxck if you want something to go your way and you've the means to help it a little. however, Milton Friedman then went on to say that since the environment belongs to everyone and everyone has the right to a clean one, it's acceptable that in this case, the state makes general rules on behalf of the citizens as going the legal pathway might be too tedious in this specific case. so, he is okay with some regulations and just don't damage the environment was one of them. sidenote: all critics of capitalism say that capitalists shamelessly want to pollute the environment, which is absolutely not true and a very mean way of putting up a totally wrong premise (aka, straw man argument.) I do not know what Ayn Rand thought about damaging the environment. but I know one thing: she surely didn't assume, people will just voluntarily not cause any harm to it because of how intrinsically good they are-no! no one assumes this; only the "left" postulates this about people favoring capitalism. so, that without some mechanism in place to protect the environment, meaning that when this becomes an option to do without consequences, this this will not work out well can be safely assumed that everyone knows. of course, there's always the option to let people directly vote on certain agendas like they do it in Switzerland (and quite successfully so.) for instance, you can ask whether people want to lower carbon dioxide emissions and pay so and so much for a transition, or whether they just wanna risk it and continue using low cost energy sources (at the possible expense of building more infrastructure to contain a "wilder" climate.) you should only ask the question in a fair and just way and present all main pro and contra points (and not hide one side) and then accept the popular will of the people. edit: furthermore, opponents of capitalism usually confuse it with corporatism (which is bad) and then behave like as if this is capitalism. for instance, workers forming unions to leverage their negotiation powers is actually a great example for how capitalism works. that's totally fine to do and gives companies the incentive to figure ways to replace workers with machines, which is what everyone profits from. the only thing a union shouldn't do (but it happens) is to directly collude with the government and have some of their demands legislated. this is a free market interference. (like in construction, for instance: certain elements cannot be pre-assembled in a factory but only on site to "ensure" workers have enough work. this is directly preventing the most efficient, less labor intensive way to conduct this operation; akin to outlawing farming machines to artificially give people jobs in farming, lol.)

Say what you want but you don’t say you’re a capitalist.

@@ominousparallel3854 is this a general statement? if so, why should one deny it?!

Good for whom?

@@Tagurrit for everybody if the state GTFO of the economics

@@Tagurritall of us, you and me and joe

I too despise the fact that Google tends to tilt the political scales on many of their search results. That does NOT mean I'm willing to allow the government further control over our trade and economy. If we don't like the way Google, or anyone else, conducts business, we are all free to use another provider. Pretending Google has a monopoly is absurd.