Or perhaps the far-right just has the habit to coopt members of others groups. Not only free market supporters, e.g. Sara Winter and Carla Zambelli were from the feminist group FEMEN, and nowadays are Bolsonaro supporters.
Or freedoms to be bad. Freedoms to say bad things, freedoms to lie, freedoms to pollute the environment, freedoms to sell harmful things. They all share a "for my benefit, the collateral damage inflicted on others be damned" element.
There is a strong association between free market principles and the principle of non-aggression.
Others advocate that it is acceptable to use violent aggressive force against people who do not conform to your opinion of how things should be governed.
Tell me where the problematic ethics are again?
(FWIW, I don't watch any of the people mentioned above and have only heard of the first, so I am not here to defend them or what they may have said. I'm only defending the Non-aggression principle, which implies that markets are free.)
non-aggression is not the same as non-oppression. I can non-aggressively disenfranchise a group of people. I believe the problem lies in the trust placed in the free market to take the place of empathy and social unity required for creating and protecting civil liberties and equality.
> empathy and social unity required for creating and protecting civil liberties and equality.
"empathy," but it's OK to use violent aggressive force against people who don't share my empathy.
"social unity," but it's OK to use violent aggressive force against people who don't share our opinions.
The non-aggression principle is the only ethically consistent one. As soon as you advocate for violence to be used, your other opinions mean shit.
A free market is implied by the non-aggression principle, because the only way you can stop people trading freely if they don't agree with you is to use violence.
Civil liberties are protected by individuals themselves, by asserting their rights, and conforming to the non-aggression principle to avoid getting into conflicts with others.
As for "equality", I really could not give a shit. Me and my immediate family come first. My extended family come second. My community comes third. The rest are dead last. It doesn't matter what sex, color, orientation or other perceived victimization they have - if they attempt or advocate for violence to be used against those I care about, they are the problem.
I am a strong proponent of the non-aggression principle, and will interact with anybody on good terms unless they are in violation of it.
Also, regarding trust in free markets: What is a democratic vote? Why does this free market opinion have a free pass but other free market opinions are not allowed?
> Civil liberties are protected by individuals themselves, by asserting their rights, and conforming to the non-aggression principle to avoid getting into conflicts with others.
Some people are are not in positions to "assert" their rights. Furthermore, by claiming they have a duty to not use violence in order to reclaim the rights being denied you further give power to a group of individuals to are systematically denying people rights. Again, arguments that the free market works this sort of shit it out is just philosophical thinking not founded in reality and obviously coming from a lack of experience with systematic oppression.
> As for "equality", I really could not give a shit.
That's where we're just going to disagree and you reveal your values. There isn't room in the future for people who think this way. You're going to become further polarized as it becomes increasingly clear that the global community is increasingly concerned with equality and you're standing on the sidelines.
> Some people are are not in positions to "assert" their rights.
That some people are unable to assert their rights does not give you blanket permission to violate the rights of others. It is up to their family or guardians to assert their rights in their place.
> Furthermore, by claiming they have a duty to not use violence in order to reclaim the rights being denied you further give power to a group of individuals to are systematically denying people rights.
You just described government.
Everyone has rights. Rights are not granted, they exist. They can only be taken away, and the principle entity which does so is government. Anybody who attempts to take away one's rights is in violation of the NAP, and it should be open season on them. The government should be no exception. Many of the problems are the result of the government being beyond reproach.
A big problem is some people don't understand what is meant by a "right".
You have a right to gain employment, but you have no right to have somebody else employ you. The latter right belongs to the employer, who also has the right to not employ you.
You have a right to be treated by a physician, but you have no right to have a physician treat you. The latter right belongs to the Physician, who also has the right to not treat you.
> Again, arguments that the free market works this sort of shit it out is just philosophical thinking not founded in reality and obviously coming from a lack of experience with systematic oppression.
The government is oppressing everybody. Everybody has experienced this. The problem is not your neighbour, or the white man, or the black man - it's the NAP-violating State which uses violence against other human beings, steals from them and purposely devalues their capital to maintain their status-quo.
> There isn't room in the future for people who think this way.
This is how everyone who can THINK thinks. Others either don't think, or do not say what they really think.
It's very easy to virtue signal and support social justice behind a keyboard, but if you or your family were under threat of violence, you would not give two shits about any of the nonsense you previously espoused and would care only for the immediate safety of yourself and those you love. This is not going to change and should not need to change because protecting your loved ones is a virtue and not a vice.
Rather than pretending this is not the case, it is better to be absolutely clear that this is the case, and work to build harmony with others around the principle that nobody may use aggression against other human beings, else they are to face consequences, where the ultimate consequence may mean loss of their own life.
The killing of another human being in self-defence is a non-violent act and is consistent with the NAP. It is also ethically consistent, no matter what act was performed by the aggressor if the act was deliberate.
Consider Alice to be an aggressor against Bob. Alice commits a violation of the NAP by stealing a loaf of bread from Bob. Is it acceptable for Bob to use deadly force against Alice?
The answer is yes, otherwise, knowing that Bob may use deadly force against her for stealing the loaf, she would not attempt to steal it. Alice, of her own volition, risks her own life for the bread: she values the bread more than her own life. It is only right that Bob agrees, and sees the loaf as more valuable than Alice's life. There is no disagreement here - both Bob and Alice agree that the loaf is more important than Alice's life.
Of course, most humans have empathy and would see the stealing of a loaf of bread as an act of desperation and would rather be charitable than defensive. This does not imply that Alice should have a free reign to go around stealing: she should instead go around begging for alms.
For other kinds of theft, such as valuable item theft, Bob should not need even to justify the use of deadly defensive force. The assailant has made it clear that the valuable item is worth more than their own life.
> You're going to become further polarized as it becomes increasingly clear that the global community is increasingly concerned with equality and you're standing on the sidelines.
I fully intend that to be the case. I want nothing to do with violent lunatics and will instead prefer to interact only with those who share my opinions on the NAP. There are many like me who are electing to "leave" existing systems of robbery and Oppression Olympics so that we can just get on with our lives and be left alone. Thankfully, we now have a key technology which enables this: Bitcoin. Oh, and guns.
Also, in regards to "equality". The problem with the everything-must-be-equal types is that they assume stereotypes are 100% wrong, all of the time, which is simply not true. Even if the stereotype is only 1% true, it is still 1% that say, a potential employer may not want to take the risk on. The correct thing to do here is to educate so that people are clear that the stereotype is largely untrue - but the strategy which is now underway is not one of education, but bullying into submission. This will backfire. For example, the current BLM madness is not going to do any favours for regular black folk looking to find employment. Sorry ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Restrict access to institutions of power such as legislatures, the church, banks and financial institutions, civil service, the military, lower or higher education, business, the ballot box.
Use selection criteria which are impersonal but demonstrably discriminate against the class.
Locate polluting industry in neighbourhoods inhabited by the group. Especially contaminants (lead, mercury, asbestos, etc.) with long term cognitive and behavioural health effects.
Encourage (and prosecute) drugs trade and use in the group's ccommunities. Differentiate in prosecution and sentencing between "their" and "our" drugs.
Establish wholly separate "segregation schools" for the privileged group. Ensure that the privileged poor have scholarship access, but the disenfranchised group does not.
Create exclusions based on redlining, restrictive covenants, actuarial risk, AI, or other mechanisms reducing access to assets, insurance, business financing, and other opportunity-enhancing resources, often "objective" and "based in data".
How can you non-aggressively disenfranchise a group of people? Further, how can you maintain non-aggression if the group you are attempting to disenfranchise resists your attempts to disenfranchise them (which would make clear that your attempt to do so is counter to their wishes, and thus aggressive).
If you try to do something to someone, and they tell you to stop or try to get you to stop, continuing to do the thing is an act of aggression.
Ah, got it. Point taken. I believe what you say is true, but I think the aggression can often be so obscured as to not be visible. Systematically hiring 10% less people of of color, or passing over a resume with a funny sounding name isn't overtly aggressive, but over the course of centuries it becomes quite oppressive. Combine a nuanced action like that with a thousand other nuanced behaviors and you end up with a group of people who are disenfranchised, yet any specific claim they make sounds trite, any specific protest they makes seems out of line with an individual nuanced behavior.
That makes a lot of sense. If each (and every) of the actions is nuanced, I can see a group being oppressed without violence and possibly even without aggression if the oppressors believe they are helping the oppressed with their policies. Though of course the nature of the actions is such that there is plausible deniability should motive come into question. Goodness.
Just to be clear, Molyneux had long been an anarcho-capitalist, which is already an extreme take on free market economics. I wouldn’t look too far into it, and I certainly wouldn’t conclude that white nationalism is the logical conclusion of thinking that free markets have their place in society.
