MenKlash

We need thousands of companies to be forced to do zero waste perfectly.

Forced by who? By an oligarchy of politicians that are being influenced by those companies, and viceversa?

Because we voted for them.

The fraud of representative democracy. What about those who didn’t vote them (the tyranny of the majority)? We, the common citizens, have really any power if our vote is secret?

The rights and obligations of a contractual act are generated by explicit consent of both members. This does not happen when we our vote is completely secret, without our names and surnames. Politicians are free to impose their monopolical powers, even if we don’t choose them.

“Representative democracy is the illusion of universal participation in the use of institutional coercion."

We didn’t vote for the board of directors of private companies.

Because we shouldn’t. Except for the lobbyists, they are using their private property and their factors of production achieved by social-cooperation.

There’s plenty of waste and corruption in private enterprise. It’s not voluntary if they lie cheat and steal just like bad politicians.

The only difference is that, in a free-market setting, they wouldn’t have any monopolical privileges to mantain their economical power and reputation in the market, as their permanence is dependent of supply and demand.

Taxes exist because public goods are actually good, and benefit everyone.

Taxes raise money for transfers to special interests and public employees. Why would you trust an oligarchy of politicians (the State) to decide which goods are useful “for a community” and which don’t?

In contrast to private businesses that supply the goods that consumers voluntarily want to buy, public officials lack of the capacity to pick data as to what people truly demand, much less how to go about meeting those demands economically. They don’t have direct feedback of what every individual in the community want; they don’t pass the test of economic rationality.

If the Monopoly of Violence can’t act economically, they have no other choice but respond to interest groups, so tax money will necessarily end up with narrow interest groups rather than the provision of “public goods”

The sum of the parts is greater than the individual parts.

The end does not justify the means. The mere existence of taxation is detrimental (and antithetical) to the very source of economic growth, that is, voluntary exchange.

Goods like education and roads, for example, are goods like any other: they can be supplied by markets and markets alone.

The only privilege we need is a better community.

A better community will be formed if it’s achieved by voluntary means. Moral obligation is not the same as legal obligation. How can individuals be virtuous? By letting them act freely.

Economic inequality being one of the biggest drivers of democratic back sliding.
Shitty part is that authoritarian doesn’t really offer anything better.

Hey! Let’s solve “economic inequality” with more statism! That’s not authoritarian at all!

Obviously, wanting to reduce the monopolical privileges of politicians, public spending and taxes (robbery), erradicating the central bank, increasing work flexibility and advocating for individual rights and liberty is fascist af. Believe me, guys!

Regardless of the socio-economic system imposed, commerce always persists because natural rights are inherent to human beings. Even in socialist systems, grey and black markets are going to be there.

Your (socialist) distinction between “personal property” (consumer goods) and private property (producer goods) is purely arbitrary. The difference between consumer and producer goods is totally subjective, as it depends of the individual using that good.

Each people as its own goals, they can use various means to achieve them and their knowledge, preferences and skills are not the same.

By “ideal capitalism” I think you meant praxeology (Mises’s Human Action) and Austrian Economics.

People are not perfect, and if they make mistakes, they should be the ones responsable for their own actions. This does not happen by the existence of FIAT money, subsidies, taxation, positive rights and every regulation the Monopoly of Violence does in our private lifes and commerce.

“Commerce” is only possible if both parties are willing to respect each other’s natural right to have private property and each other’s right to express consent (voluntary exchange). By trading these goods, there is a mutual benefit (social cooperation) that emerges from wanting to satisfy their own self interest.

I think this is pretty capitalist for my taste. (And please, it’s not the same as corporatocracy).