I guess if you think about it that way then everything is luck and we live in a deterministic world where none of your choices matter. That still wouldn’t support the argument in the OP meme though.

Removed by mod

Capital is more like stored labour. The first ever capital was just a starp stick or spear. Someone spent labour and it resulted in a more productive way to hunt animals. This almost immediately would’ve resulted in inequality as the spear hunter caught more game. It’s not that the capital was taking anything from the labourer, it’s actually that capital and labour work really well together and humans are more productive with capital.

You’re also taking a snapshot of the most regulated industry in the US. Building high rises is illegal in huge swaths of urban areas. Before we say the free market isn’t providing an answer cab we actually try it? I’m talking removing exclusionary zoning, speeding up the permit process and reducing the power of local action committees, and reforming the broken heritage process that’s used by rich people to keep their areas from densifying.

What do you think he’s saying here?

You didn’t read the article you linked. In it Walter Block states that slavery violates the non-aggression-principle and is not permissible under libertarianism.

This is not at all a debate in libertarianism. Libertarians recognize the role of a limited small government to protect individual rights. Like please pull up one example of this debate going on in a libertarian space.

Libertarians don’t believe murder should be legal and crazy shit like that. Libertarians believe in a guaranteed freedoms like freedom of speech, economic liberalism and are often social progressives who believe in gay marriage and drug legalization.

The bill of rights was brought to you by libertarians.

So where are you going in Australia?

“No idea mate. Figure I’ll sort it out when i get there.”

Then no.

What size of feather?

It’s not that i don’t agree ona subjective level, it’s that surplus value’s axioms don’t hold true, which makes it bad at explaining economic phenomenon and even worse at making predictions. If a commodity’s value was derived from how much labour went into it, then commodities that had more imbued labour would be inherently more expensive, but this is not the case in reality. Commodities that are easily produced with very little labour per unit (for example a hand-woven basket) can sell for a very low price, whereas a commodity that doesn’t have much labour per unit at all (for example an app downloaded from an online store) can have a high price.

Similarly surplus value assumes that the difference in price between the exchange value of a commodity and the labour value of its inputs are due to exploitation, but this ignores other factors of production such as land and capital. Surplus value fails to account for the very common phenomenon of capitalists starting some venture, paying employees a salary but running into some issue or another, watching the value of their stock fall to zero and declaring bankruptcy. In such cases how could you claim there was any surplus value at all?

Then you shouldn’t go around saying it’s “empirically true” because at best there is no evidence.

The way they measure economic freedom is based on how free you are to start a business and things like that.

I’m sure you’ll get there. Just keep educating yourself.

Surplus value is not even close to being an accepted economic theory.

Oh I’m sorry i didn’t realize there was empirical evidence for socialism. Please send me a link to some of these successful socialist societies.

Oxford English Dictionary defines a capitalism as :

1. ​a person who supports capitalism

2. a person who owns or controls a lot of wealth and uses it to produce more wealth

You wouldn’t be any better off on a socialist system. The people at the top of the party would control everything and the working class would be even poorer than they are now. You’re just licking the left boot instead of the right one.

You seem to be really good at coming up with excuses why you can’t access the data or why the data isn’t admissible for this or that reason. And awfully good at coming up with reasons why you cannot produce any data. Too much so IMO for someone that makes the claim of others of being intellectually dishonest and that they cannot think for themselves.

But it’s okay. Why don’t we just agree to disagree? That was my original point. Some people have centrists views on the economy where they believe in socially progressive causes, free markets and strong institutions. That this view is both rational and supported by data. That disagreements are based not on misinterpretation of facts but on differences in values.

This is a study by an independent researcher from the University of North Dakota. The economic freedom index is published by the Fraser institute. There is no alternative index at this time. Here is a link beyond the paywall. Here’s a few others as well:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10902-015-9616-x

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11482-017-9543-6

You’re welcome to share your own studies on economic freedom and happiness btw. . I’m “not thinking” yet i am the only one sharing scientific literature.