MenKlash

Government police "services" must be abolished.

In other words there’s no hope

Privatize everything.

That's just FIAT money in action.

VLLC!

The free market is not, as the social Darwinists imagine, a struggle between rich and poor, strong and weak. It is the principal means by which human beings cooperate in order to live. If each of us had to produce all his food and shelter by himself, almost no one could survive. The existence of large-scale society depends absolutely on social cooperation through the division of labor.

Believing that banning a piece of fabric will stop police oppression is, ironically, encouraging such oppression by coercively violating the right to private property and freedom of expression.

Easy money is slavery.

The existence of FIAT money (that is, the state monopoly of the money supply) is the mere source of the business cycle and the discoordination emerged in the economy.

Can we afford for everybody to try to live at the expense of everybody?

Moral outrage against corrupt leaders is not an isolated historical phenomenon but a common precursor of change. It happens again and again whenever one era gives way to another. . . . This widespread revulsion comes into evidence well before people develop a new coherent ideology of change. As we write, there is as yet little evidence of an articulate rejection of politics. That will come later. It has not yet occurred to most of your contemporaries that a life without politics is possible.

No amount of prolix explanation excuses even the act of stereotyping.

It depends on why and how you use stereotypes.

Prejudice only properly refers to judgments formed without consideration of the available information.

Prejudging is legitimate when we do not have all the relevant facts of an object or subject, having to resort to inductive reasoning in order to try to induce and predict its individual characteristics.

It's all about trying to make new information about someone or something, so we can economize information.

The idea of a "social contract" is flawed in the sense that it is not a contract at all, as it is unilateral in nature.

Voting and taxation do not necessarily imply explicit consent with how government (the monopoly on violence) works.

The dilemma is how you define harming others and what implies being intolerant to an idea rather than a person holding that idea.