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?
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?