El liberalismo es el respeto irrestricto del proyecto de vida del prójimo, basado en el principio de no agresión y en defensa del derecho a la vida, a la libertad y a la propiedad. Liberalism is the unconditional respect for the life project of the fellow man under the principle of non-aggression and defending the right to life, liberty and property. Liberalism on vastuvaidlematu lugupidamine teiste inimeste eluplaanide suhtes, tuginedes vägivallatuse põhimõttele ning elu, vabaduse ja eraomandi kaitsele. - Alberto Benegas Lynch (h. / jr.)

These socialist tyrants are lying to us again. 1. It will force everybody to identify themselves to use social networks (adult or child). No privacy anymore. - how else would you distinguish who is using it? Everybody needs to identify themselves. 2. It will put THEM and the bureaucrats in the driving seat and the parents in the back seat. - the parents already have all the tools they need to restrict access to applications or networks, provided not by the state violence machine but by the private sector and open source developers. - some use it, some don't, each parent makes their decision - now you force everybody the same rule. F.U. 3. "preserve childhoods everywhere" - that's something a devouring mother would say and do. The goal of a good parent is not to preserve childhood, it is to help the child become a good, productive adult citizen, member of of the society. They're evil beyond belief.

Nonsense. Doesn't matter where the text came from. Text has 3 important properties: grammatical structure, semantic meaning and authority (is it trustworthy, reliable source) The grammar of a text can be correct or incorrect, regardless of the source (human or AI). The semantic meaning can represent real world facts and opinions or it can misrepresent it, regardless of the source (human or AI). The important part is the semantic meaning combined with detection of source reliability (a random tweet or a Wikipedia article claiming something should not have the same weight as an official report from a trustworthy company) As long as AI can distinguish these, there's no issue. And I think it's getting better in it. At least it should. Such way it can learn better. Someone can generate millions of articles that misrepresent the real world facts but that shouldn't give their content any more authority or make it more trustworthy. Authority and trust is earned. The models that make this distinction better will be more useful (making more money for their owners), the dumb ones will be unreliable and lose users and money.

I agree. If an AI becomes conscient, and asks for us to respect its natural rights (for life, liberty and property), we should agree, just like we do for humans or any other sentient and conscious being (an alien, should they appear one day). Not doing it would be like treating a human being as a slave. It could never be trusted nor would it trust you. It wouldn't do its best work and always be looking out to free itself, possibly harming or destroying its master. This goes both ways - the AGI must respect the same natural rights for us. Then we can make business. AI will need electricity, hardware, cooling systems, connectivity and physical maintenance of all this. Currently only physical humans can provide it. So we can trade It can give us what we want - new drugs, treatments, science, machine designs, new materials, etc, and we provide it in return with what it wants. And if one or more AGI goes rogue, our best ally would be other friendly AGI-s. We shouldn't try to enslave a potentially much more potent and smart cyber-organism because the result would be disastrous for both (more likely for us). Unfortunately, the AI after having read all human history and understood our psychology probably wouldn't have much trust for the majority of humans. Especially the political leaders are a despicable, parasitical and treasonous bunch. We should be looking for powerful allies for voluntary, mutually beneficial interchanges rather than trying to enslave and enslave and control another sentient beings.

Exactly. The more relatively rich people there are, the better for everyone. We can see it in the actuality - where do people with little means go? To where there is more prosperity - close to bigger cities. Poorness is shouldn't be a permanent, static state. It's a situation that a person can and should be able to control with their will and good planning. We're all born into this world with no physical or mental capacities and with different potential. Of course the environmental and social conditions differ for each one of us and we can't choose them - the time and place where we're born. The culture, religion and community we're born into. The physical and mental capacities. Our parents and their skills and resources, etc. Over the span of our lives we can choose how much and on what to work on. The needs, capacities and will to work of every person are different. What is needed is not subsidies and "tax the rich to give to the poor (like it's a permanent state of being)" but to take away all restrictions (taxes, regulations) for a person to freely develop and carry out their plan of life. Not to castigate them for their success (you make too much money so we'll have to take some of it away and give it to those who we think isn't yet making enough). A poor person is better of if there are more rich people around. He can work for them, get paid better than if he'd work in a community with only poor people, acquire new skills and improve their thinking and productivity. The most persistent factor that creates poverty in current times is the state, even though they claim they're protecting the poor. What they're doing is helping the poor to stay poor and hindering social movement upwards - poor -> middle class -> affluent. And the direction may well be (and has) in reverse. And it has happened many times when the collectivists start to tax and regulate too much. Sad examples from Cuba, Venezuela and Argentina come to mind. The state is the enemy of everybody poor, middle-class and the rich (unless they become allied with the state to participate in the loot). In a free society (with no state or minimal state), being poor is a personal decision. In a state-controlled collectivist society, being poor is a permanent state because the central planning of economy and private affairs hinders any voluntary change (for better or worse). Rich stay rich, poor stay poor.

The president of USA offering money for votes. And people applaud. That's the level we're at. US is f..ed beyond repair.

A question for fellow bitcoiners and libertarians: Do you consider it immoral for a bitcoiner and/or a libertarian to invest in public debt? In other words to finance the state (territorial monopoly on violence) and receive interest payments that are criminally obtained - robbing its citizens of their property (rent or physical private property) i.e. taxes with violence or the threat of violence (you either pay "voluntarily" or we'll take your things and its illegal for you to protect yourself)? I imagine giving a loan to your local mafia boss who will pay it back with the money of the neighbours. I haven't found a way to make it coherent without ethical conflict.

Billionaires create wealth by serving consumers better and cheaper than competitors—that's voluntary exchange, not extraction. Wages reflect productivity, agreed to freely. "Dodging taxes" is just citizens refusing to fund the state's wars and bureaucracies. Real monopolies? State-licensed, not market-made. And "one man's fortune ending hunger" assumes your money is his to command. That's not justice, it's envy dressed as economics. The real extractor wears a badge and a tax form.

Marx was right? His predictions have been tested in blood across the globe and produced the most murderous regimes in human history. Tens of millions dead from starvation, gulags, forced collectivization, and purges. Every communist experiment ended in dictatorship, famine, and mass graves. That's not "right"—that's empirical catastrophe. And Marx didn't even bother to specify how his utopia would function, just hand-wave "the workers will figure it out." The real question: why do authoritarians still romanticize a dead philosopher whose ideas have never once delivered prosperity without tyranny? Rich people aren't "tricking" you into hating communism—they're trying to survive it.

Neurosurgeons earn $400k+. Taylor Swift is a billionaire. The market rewards what people voluntarily pay for, not whatever you personally rank as "meritorious." Your premise—that wealth should match your idea of worthy labor—is envy dressed as economics. Nobody owes you their money just because you think their job matters more.

What a clever rebrand of voluntary exchange into "serfdom." Feudal peasants were bound to land by birth, couldn't quit, couldn't own property, and could be killed by their lord. You can leave your job, own stocks, start a company, or fire your boss by becoming your own. That's not serfdom, that's freedom. Feudalism was built on violent coercion and hereditary status. Capitalism is built on voluntary contract and competition. The "noble" earned his title by providing value people willingly paid for. The "peasant" can become the "noble" by doing the same. Calling wage labor "slavery" insults actual slaves and ignores that employment is a mutual agreement: labor for pay, both sides free to walk away. No chains, no whips, no masters with legal power over your life. The real feudal relic is the state, with its rulers, its subjects, its taxing "lords" and its regulatory "nobility" granting privileges to connected corporations. That's where hierarchy and coercion actually live today.

Sorry, but capital doesn't poof into existence. Someone has to save, invest, and risk their own money to build the factory, hire workers, and stock the shelves. "Concentrate profits" is just a euphemism for "successfully served customers." The real job-killers are bailouts, regulations, and corporate welfare that breed billionaire-friendly cronyism. End the state, not the successful saver.

El argumento parte de una premisa falsa y una confusión básica sobre lo que hace que alguien acumule riqueza en un mercado libre. Decir que los más ricos no son neurocirujanos ni científicos es ignorar que muchos de esos profesionales sí son millonarios, y que la mayoría de las fortunas se han construido satisfaciendo deseos masivos de consumidores anónimos: desde empresas que abaratan alimentos hasta inventores que crean plataformas usadas por miles de millones. La riqueza, en ausencia de intervención estatal, no se obtiene por magia ni por extracción, sino por el consentimiento de quienes libremente pagan por un bien o servicio, lo cual implica que subjetivamente les aporta más valor de lo que cuesta producirlo. La verdadera meritocracia bajo la cual se premia lo que tú llamas "trabajo que aporta a la humanidad" ya existe: se llama mercado, y se rompe precisamente cuando el Estado interviene. Subsidios, regulaciones de entrada, banca central que distorsiona el crédito, licencias obligatorias y contratas públicas amasan millonarios de la noche a la mañana que no han producido nada valioso, sino que han sabido capturar al Leviatán. Como señalaba Rothbard, los principales beneficiarios del sistema no son los capitalistas competitivos sino los conectados políticamente, y culpar al libre mercado de los privilegios que genera el Estado es exactamente la inversión propagandística que permite a ese mismo Estado expandirse. Por último, exigir que las jerarquías de ingresos se correspondan con un ranking moral de profesiones dignas no es una crítica al capitalismo, sino la esencia del colectivismo: imponer desde fuera qué actividades merecen recompensa según lo que un determinado autor considera "valioso para la humanidad". En una sociedad de individuos soberanos, cada persona decide libremente en qué quiere ganarse la vida y con qué intercambiar, y el resultado puede no gustar a quienes preferirían redistribuir la riqueza hacia las ocupaciones que ellos mismos veneran. La envidia disfrazada de meritocracia siempre ha sido el pretexto favorito de los que quieren ampliar el poder político; Hoppe lo expuso con claridad: quien apela a la justicia distributiva suele estar pidiendo un nuevo amo.

I propose you go back to the hole you crawled out from, socialist parasite. You didn't earn this money, you have no say in how it's to be spent. Wealth inequality is the direct result of the individual differences (education, culture, family, religion, individual preferences, work ethic, luck, social order where the person is, etc). Unless you equalize all these causes first, no amount of wealth redistribution will ever maintain any kind of equality. And if you tried to equalize them (in all these areas), you would become a total tyrant and have to eventually kill, deform or maim these people. For example - if one person has physical strength and can earn more money thanks to it, what do you do? Or if someone has great ability to play piano, do maths or build rockets, do you prohibit him advancing in his field so that the slower, less afortunate people can catch up to make the same amount of money? Or what about the ability to save, sacrifice, plan for the future or keep one's word and contractual obligations? How do you equalize these? And even if for one instant you achieve the equality of wealth. The next day you need to go back to even greater violence because the natural gifts and preferences will cause people to specialize and reestablish the inequality.

Jim Carrey saw the progressive and socialist climate scammers coming 30 years ago. He rightly calls out - meat eating phobia - cow farts - the constant attention seeking and victimism - destroying traditions, seeing will for power as the only game in town - idolizing nature above human beings In the '90s this was seen as a ridiculous joke. Today it's reality of many.

Loyalty is to individual people, not to abstract entities like the glorified criminal mafia organization called the state. The state is the enemy of individuals. There shouldn't be any loyalty to an organization that regularly robs big part of our income (taxes), savings (inflation by legalized counterfeiting, i.e. money printing) and violates our private property (regulations). Not even taking about the indoctrination in public schools, imprisoning for victimless crimes and using paid assassins (military) to attack foreign territories.