The oxymoronic identity is libertarianism. It masquerades as anarchy but doesn’t oppose capitalist oppression.
You don’t seem to understand that what’s profitable isn’t always what’s best. You are ignoring the scale of waste.
In the off chance that you’re interested, here’s a really accessible apolitical video about climate (likely from a liberal perspective, but apolitical like I said) that does a great job summarizing https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4GDLaYrMCFo. Liberal regulations might help there, but it’s capitalist forces at play.
Regarding your “what about iphone?” comments, I’m sick of that tired argument and won’t engage further. You might consider that there’s been technological progress long before capitalism and even in recent history the Soviets outperformed the Americans in quite a few areas.
I’m not pro-soviet, but it’s interesting that a serfdom-turned-communist nation that was brutally destroyed and lost much of its population in world war 2 was able to maintain global superpower status against a nation that was relatively unscathed and gained economically from ww2.
China is absolutely a capitalist nation, but they don’t need American style capitalism to dominate the Americans in green technologies.
Attributing all technological progress to your vision of capitalism is pure worship, not fact.
The oxymoronic identity is libertarianism. It masquerades as anarchy but doesn’t oppose capitalist oppression.
I see a pattern here - you’re operating on a twisted set of definitions - this isn’t the first time I’m seeing this when debating people online
Particularly, you have completly different definition of anarchy. You probably consider it some sort of organized social system, but I consider it lack of any framework being enforced.
If you don’t understand the difference between these definitions, you can’t have any dialogue.
With the definition I use (and many other people BTW), basically anarcho-anything is an oxymoron. When somone talks about anarcho-capitalism, it’s nothing but gibberish to me.
In light of different definition, consider this:
Libertarianism has nothing to do with anarchy - it’s a system that minimizes state intervention to the absolute minimum, leaving as much to free market forces as possible, providing only minimal legal rails for enforcement of agreements.
There’s no paradox here if you run with that thought process.
The oxymoronic identity is libertarianism. It masquerades as anarchy but doesn’t oppose capitalist oppression.
You don’t seem to understand that what’s profitable isn’t always what’s best. You are ignoring the scale of waste.
In the off chance that you’re interested, here’s a really accessible apolitical video about climate (likely from a liberal perspective, but apolitical like I said) that does a great job summarizing https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4GDLaYrMCFo. Liberal regulations might help there, but it’s capitalist forces at play.
Regarding your “what about iphone?” comments, I’m sick of that tired argument and won’t engage further. You might consider that there’s been technological progress long before capitalism and even in recent history the Soviets outperformed the Americans in quite a few areas.
I’m not pro-soviet, but it’s interesting that a serfdom-turned-communist nation that was brutally destroyed and lost much of its population in world war 2 was able to maintain global superpower status against a nation that was relatively unscathed and gained economically from ww2.
China is absolutely a capitalist nation, but they don’t need American style capitalism to dominate the Americans in green technologies.
Attributing all technological progress to your vision of capitalism is pure worship, not fact.
I see a pattern here - you’re operating on a twisted set of definitions - this isn’t the first time I’m seeing this when debating people online
Particularly, you have completly different definition of anarchy. You probably consider it some sort of organized social system, but I consider it lack of any framework being enforced.
If you don’t understand the difference between these definitions, you can’t have any dialogue.
With the definition I use (and many other people BTW), basically anarcho-anything is an oxymoron. When somone talks about anarcho-capitalism, it’s nothing but gibberish to me.
In light of different definition, consider this:
Libertarianism has nothing to do with anarchy - it’s a system that minimizes state intervention to the absolute minimum, leaving as much to free market forces as possible, providing only minimal legal rails for enforcement of agreements.
There’s no paradox here if you run with that thought process.