"The greatest broadband increase in standards of living in human history was in the US in the 2-3 decades following WW2."
Nope.
It was the Gilded Age, under laissez-faire capitalism.
"The Gilded Age, lasting from 1865 to World War I, was an era of economic growth never before seen in the history of the world. The standard of living of the modern age was born during this time of phenomenal transition. Lives lengthen. Wealth exploded. The middle class lived better than kings a century earlier."
~ Robert Higgs, The Transformation of the American Economy, 1865-1914. Download it to educate yourself on real history, rather than Keynesian government claptrap:
See also Milton Friedman and Anna J. Schwartz, A Monetary History of the United States, Princeton University, 1963.
As for fossil fuels, certainly they are a critical input for our modern standard of living, but they did not play much of a factor during the Gilded Age, until Rockefeller's Standard Oil dramatically reduced the cost making them affordable to the common man, like all good capitalists, and as a no doubt unintended benefit saved the whales.
An anarchist, eh? You say you are a K12 teacher. Are you a unionized government employee?
You also apparently advocate for government involvement in education and the economy, stating that "[t]he free market can't solve the challenge of education in the 21st century"*.
I've been around quite a while, and don't think I've ever encountered a statist anarchist before. And they say there is nothing new under the sun.
The root of the term "liberal" is the latin *liber*, meaning freedom, which is the polar opposite of the leftist authoritarians calling themselves "liberals" these days, as well as many of those calling themselves "conservatives", even though they have yet to conserve much of anything.
There you go again! Reasoned arguments, backed up by real-world examples. It won't work, you know. Rational points have the same effect in a religious argument as do knives in gunfights.
I'm the least religious person here. I've been using real world examples throughout. I'm simply saying that the religion of free markets is not the silver bullet to every problem in society, yet the zealots insist that reality conform to their ideology.
Really? How, exactly, do you know that? Do you know the spiritual proclivities of everyone on this board? By divination, perhaps?
You make absurd statements like this, and refuse to address the herd of elephants in the room raised by many, instead pontificating on some sort of "anarchism" and making countless unsubstantiated assertions and engaging in ad hominem.
The Gilded Age is characterized by gross inequality and squalor for the many. Revolutionary sentiments thrummed, necessitating heavy government intervention before and during to protect the interests of capital. It was made possible by massive government intervention to secure land and protect the interests of the rail industry. Extreme margin debt in unregulated financial markets caused Black Tuesday and the Great Depression.
In other words, laissez-faire is the right choice if you want to live fast and die young.
P.S. You should read more anarchist history. Anarchism first spread in the US as Russian (and later Soviet) refugees fled state tyranny throughout the Gilded Age. They quickly observed, however, that laissez-faire capitalism and the business oligarchy you deified is every bit as oppressive as the tyrants and communists. Writers like Emma Goldman insisted that all forms of hierarchy must be abolished, including the state, but also capital and property rights, because any hierarchical system becomes tyrannical.
Try and tell me with a straight face that what Google, Meta, Twitter, and others do is less Orwellian than China. Now folks on the right want the state to stop private enterprise from exercising their executive will. See? We all see the need for balance.
My preferred outcome is the elimination of all hierarchy, but in the meantime? Balance. Not that this government is doing a good job of it. They're terrible.
FWIW, I also practice anarchy locally, by assembling a network of farmers, mechanics, nurses, and other professionals for community resilience in the face of state retreat and market disruptions.
Emma Goldman plotted with her lover to murder, in cold blood, Henry Clay Frick, chairman of the Carnegie Steel Company.
You've now mentioned her multiple times, so if anyone is "deifying" anything, it is you worshipping a would-be murderess, which I'm afraid eclipses some of her other, worthy positions, such as opposition to the draft (a.k.a. involuntary servitude).
Laissez-faire capitalism is really just *free* people creating goods and services, and engaging in *voluntary* transactions with each other. No government or other coercion wanted or allowed.
Tell me, when you "assemble your network" do you do so by force? Do some parties dictate to others what they can buy and sell to each other, and under what conditions?
If the answer is no, then you are engaging in free market capitalism.
I would wager that some of those in your "network" are better off than others. Does this mean that those people are "oppressing" those of lesser means?
The assertion is preposterous on its face, which is why no serious person criticizes free-market wealth inequality, which with notable exceptions, is fleeting for most given competitors are omnipresent wherever profits are to be had.
The only way to abolish this naturally occurring economic hierarchy is by aggressive force, which is anathema to freedom and is therefore both uncivilized and immoral.
The only proper use of force is defensive, by individuals or groups.
Barbarism, of the sort we now endure, and far worse sorts in the recent past, are the alternative.
I guess we know where you and Emma stand on this, eh?
"The greatest broadband increase in standards of living in human history was in the US in the 2-3 decades following WW2."
Nope.
It was the Gilded Age, under laissez-faire capitalism.
"The Gilded Age, lasting from 1865 to World War I, was an era of economic growth never before seen in the history of the world. The standard of living of the modern age was born during this time of phenomenal transition. Lives lengthen. Wealth exploded. The middle class lived better than kings a century earlier."
~ Robert Higgs, The Transformation of the American Economy, 1865-1914. Download it to educate yourself on real history, rather than Keynesian government claptrap:
https://mises.org/library/transformation-american-economy-1865-1914
See also Milton Friedman and Anna J. Schwartz, A Monetary History of the United States, Princeton University, 1963.
As for fossil fuels, certainly they are a critical input for our modern standard of living, but they did not play much of a factor during the Gilded Age, until Rockefeller's Standard Oil dramatically reduced the cost making them affordable to the common man, like all good capitalists, and as a no doubt unintended benefit saved the whales.
An anarchist, eh? You say you are a K12 teacher. Are you a unionized government employee?
You also apparently advocate for government involvement in education and the economy, stating that "[t]he free market can't solve the challenge of education in the 21st century"*.
I've been around quite a while, and don't think I've ever encountered a statist anarchist before. And they say there is nothing new under the sun.
The root of the term "liberal" is the latin *liber*, meaning freedom, which is the polar opposite of the leftist authoritarians calling themselves "liberals" these days, as well as many of those calling themselves "conservatives", even though they have yet to conserve much of anything.
* You should really watch the Glasgow TED talk I linked to previously: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzv4nBoXoZc
There you go again! Reasoned arguments, backed up by real-world examples. It won't work, you know. Rational points have the same effect in a religious argument as do knives in gunfights.
Exactly. Not a cite in sight.
Oh I know it won't work, but there are so few opportunities to debunk this sort of nonsense on gato's board that it is simply irresstiible.
I'm the least religious person here. I've been using real world examples throughout. I'm simply saying that the religion of free markets is not the silver bullet to every problem in society, yet the zealots insist that reality conform to their ideology.
You are "the least religious person here"?
Really? How, exactly, do you know that? Do you know the spiritual proclivities of everyone on this board? By divination, perhaps?
You make absurd statements like this, and refuse to address the herd of elephants in the room raised by many, instead pontificating on some sort of "anarchism" and making countless unsubstantiated assertions and engaging in ad hominem.
You have beclowned yourself.
The Gilded Age is characterized by gross inequality and squalor for the many. Revolutionary sentiments thrummed, necessitating heavy government intervention before and during to protect the interests of capital. It was made possible by massive government intervention to secure land and protect the interests of the rail industry. Extreme margin debt in unregulated financial markets caused Black Tuesday and the Great Depression.
In other words, laissez-faire is the right choice if you want to live fast and die young.
P.S. You should read more anarchist history. Anarchism first spread in the US as Russian (and later Soviet) refugees fled state tyranny throughout the Gilded Age. They quickly observed, however, that laissez-faire capitalism and the business oligarchy you deified is every bit as oppressive as the tyrants and communists. Writers like Emma Goldman insisted that all forms of hierarchy must be abolished, including the state, but also capital and property rights, because any hierarchical system becomes tyrannical.
Try and tell me with a straight face that what Google, Meta, Twitter, and others do is less Orwellian than China. Now folks on the right want the state to stop private enterprise from exercising their executive will. See? We all see the need for balance.
My preferred outcome is the elimination of all hierarchy, but in the meantime? Balance. Not that this government is doing a good job of it. They're terrible.
FWIW, I also practice anarchy locally, by assembling a network of farmers, mechanics, nurses, and other professionals for community resilience in the face of state retreat and market disruptions.
Emma Goldman plotted with her lover to murder, in cold blood, Henry Clay Frick, chairman of the Carnegie Steel Company.
You've now mentioned her multiple times, so if anyone is "deifying" anything, it is you worshipping a would-be murderess, which I'm afraid eclipses some of her other, worthy positions, such as opposition to the draft (a.k.a. involuntary servitude).
Laissez-faire capitalism is really just *free* people creating goods and services, and engaging in *voluntary* transactions with each other. No government or other coercion wanted or allowed.
Tell me, when you "assemble your network" do you do so by force? Do some parties dictate to others what they can buy and sell to each other, and under what conditions?
If the answer is no, then you are engaging in free market capitalism.
I would wager that some of those in your "network" are better off than others. Does this mean that those people are "oppressing" those of lesser means?
The assertion is preposterous on its face, which is why no serious person criticizes free-market wealth inequality, which with notable exceptions, is fleeting for most given competitors are omnipresent wherever profits are to be had.
The only way to abolish this naturally occurring economic hierarchy is by aggressive force, which is anathema to freedom and is therefore both uncivilized and immoral.
The only proper use of force is defensive, by individuals or groups.
Barbarism, of the sort we now endure, and far worse sorts in the recent past, are the alternative.
I guess we know where you and Emma stand on this, eh?