The Frenchman Who Took A Stand Against Socialism

ISBN: 9562916448

This book warns against the dangers of socialism and how its hijacking of a nation’s laws will erode the liberties of citizens. It was written by French politician Frederic Bastiat in 1849.

Bastiat argues that the purpose of law is to protect a person’s liberty and property but no more. It should not be used by the state in order to burden its citizens, but that’s exactly what socialism requires. Instead of being used to protect liberty, the laws of socialist states specifically impinges on liberty while taking the property of others. This is sanctioned by a large percentage of the population because it’s human nature to want to avoid the pain of work by taking what has been earned from another man’s labor:

Now, labor being in itself a pain, and man being naturally inclined to avoid pain, it follows, and history proves it, that wherever plunder is less burdensome than labor, it prevails; and neither religion nor morality can, in this case, prevent it from prevailing. When does plunder cease, then? When it becomes less burdensome and more dangerous than labor. It is very evident that the proper aim of law is to oppose the powerful obstacle of collective force to this fatal tendency; that all its measures should be in favor of property, and against plunder.


…as long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true mission, that it may violate property instead of securing it, everybody will be wanting to manufacture law, either to defend himself against plunder, or to organize it for his own profit.


When a portion of wealth passes out of the hands of him who has acquired it, without his consent, and without compensation, to him who has not created it, whether by force or by artifice, I say that property is violated, that plunder is perpetrated.

The result is the legal plunder of certain classes by other classes. In other words, socialism. Bastiac argues that the injustice of inequality does not make right the injustice of plunder. The law should not be used to create a “self-serving fountain” for people to grab what they want simply because they have less.

But how is [legal plunder] to be distinguished? Very easily. See whether the law takes from some persons that which belongs to them, to give to others what does not belong to them. See whether the law performs, for the profit of one citizen, and, to the injury of others, an act which this citizen cannot perform without committing a crime.


Here I am encountering the most popular prejudice of our time. It is not considered enough that law should be just, it must be philanthropic. It is not sufficient that it should guarantee to every citizen the free and inoffensive exercise of his faculties, applied to his physical, intellectual, and moral development; it is required to extend well-being, instruction, and morality, directly over the nation. This is the fascinating side of socialism.

An absense of liberty is required for any state to legally take from one class to give to another.

When prosperous, we should not, it is true, have to thank the State for our success; but when unfortunate, we should no more think of taxing it with our disasters, than our peasants think of attributing to it the arrival of hail or of frost.

Socialists want to tinker with societies from the top down to create their ideal utopias because they believe humanity is inherently flawed. Only they have the vision to make it better.

This tendency of the human race, it must be admitted, is greatly thwarted, particularly in our country, by the fatal disposition, resulting from classical teaching, and common to all politicians, of placing themselves beyond mankind, to arrange, organize, and regulate it, according to their fancy.


…liberty consists, not only in the right granted, but in the power given to man, to exercise, to develop his faculties under the empire of justice, and under the protection of the law.

Socialists believe that citizens need constant guidance and instruction from the state, never to be trusted with their own choices in regard to education or commerce. This requires an authoritarian government with a thick book of law to uphold their vision of morality and righteousness, which often goes against human nature. Therefore, liberty and socialism are mutually exclusive.

Ask a socialist what facet of man’s life should be untouched by state interference and you will find a short list. Nearly everything must be regulated. Sadly, in spite of this, the lot of the average man (and woman) are quick to pick socialism over liberty, because such a scheme requires less labor of them while they can receive legal plunder from those who are more successful. If you’re on the fence about socialism and whether it is just or not, I recommend this book to put you on the right path.

Read More: “The Law” on Amazon

140 thoughts on “The Frenchman Who Took A Stand Against Socialism”

  1. Unfortunately there are folk in my generation who see not a thing wrong with socialism/communism, even with history backing this up. If I have zero dollars and the person next to me has 100, it’s not right for me to go and take their money that they earned. Socialists don’t get this.

    1. Something to ponder, Damien, is that a lot of ultra wealthy people didn’t earn their money but rather either inherited it or gained it via political connections (ironically, socialism winds up enabling such cronies to rig regulations, including anti-trust regulations, in their favor to better perpetuate inequality. Consider’s billion dollar price tag going to Michelle Obama’s college roommate).
      Attempts to deal with perpetual inheritance of wealth has been the death tax but Bill Gates’ father notoriously exploits and sells loopholes in the law
      to get wealthy clients around it (much like his son, their wealth is generated by shuffling around people and consumers like cattle. Only fools think that MS Windows is a superior OS)
      One solution is a simple property tax, non regressive. A poor person who works and gets by and spends what he takes in, but doesn’t go on welfare, pays zero property taxes. His “punishment” for not being more ambitious is a lack of a savings buffer and living paycheck to paycheck. Property, unlike income, is not something that requires a lot of IRS regulations to
      define (if a GE “earns” a million dollars but finds a way to declare 2 million in losses even if most are not real, they don’t pay a cent). Property taxes get around that simply: Whatever they have left over is taxed. Period. Same for the middle class.
      The bigger question is the welfare state: Do we, as a society, allow children to starve on the streets when the poor cannot take care of them? Will charity guarantee their upkeep or do we go with the third world style of having the children taken into slavery? It’s a tough question. Certainly the
      abuse of the welfare system by the poor who deliberately have children
      into poverty in order to live off of them (typically unwed mothers) has
      undermined the very purpose of the welfare state to begin with (to end
      poverty as LBJ promised). But that observation doesn’t make the problem
      go away.

      1. What have attractive women done to earn their beauty? Do they owe skin transplants to the horribly disfigured?
        Do we need to ponder how “we” should distribute “our” kidneys?
        Whether something is deserved or not doesn’t play into whether you have a right to steal it. Create your own wealth or face the opposition of the righteous.

        1. If you want to get deep down philosophical about it, most of us “earn” things based upon our natural assets. A smart person doesn’t have to “work” as hard to be successful at math while a ditch digger may work harder. But yes, if you want to see a pretty woman squander her beauty, America is a perfect place as they tattoo and pierce their faces and dress either like hobos or wear overpriced junk.
          One thing that astounds my foreign wife is how cheap it is for a young woman to be pretty in America. There are plenty of inexpensive cosmetics and discount last-years fashions at Ross and Burlington Coat Factory.
          In answer to your next question, America continues to have a system that owns our bodies. Ever register for selective service?
          Regarding the wrath of the righteous. Sadly, either socialists or capitalist oligarchs are in power now. The anti-communist right talks up a good game, but they’re like yapper dogs.

      2. Crony capitalism is not capitalism. When the state’s as small as Bastiat advocates, the only way you’ll be able to keep inherited wealth is to responsibly manage it.

        1. Agreed.Crony capitalism stems from socialism. It’s quite ironic that socialism is the primary institution that wipes out the people it’s trying to help: the middle class.

        2. and those individuals who create a lot of wealth and rise to the top totally won’t try to take over the state and use it for their advantage, right?

        3. The bigger the State, the more easily it can choose winners and losers, the more it can regulate businesses out of existence, the harder they’ll try to take over the State.
          Our best defense against crony capitalism is a government that does only what it needs to do, for when it can make or break people’s livelihoods, when being friends with your Senator can make you a millionaire, when we’re ruled by an Aristocracy of Pull, everybody but everybody’s going to do everything they can to have as much influence in that government as possible.
          If all it does is issue passports, etc., nobody gives a damn who runs it.

        4. One of the single biggest thefts in human history is rarely addressed by free market capitalist advocates: the draft.
          Forcing men to fight for a country is involuntary servitude that goes back to the Czar and Pharaoh days. “But men are needed to fight for their country!” you say? OK, men are needed to pick cotton. Did that make slavery necessary?
          Men should be paid a “free market” wage for their labor in the defense of their nation. If that means, say, a lifetime annuity for survivors and a death pension for their widows that costs 1/2 of the wealth of the same capitalists who claim that a “minimum state” is defense and police, then so be it. How about it? WWI should have been funded in this manner. A general property tax to pay the soldiers. JP Morgan would have paid most of his wealth out to the men who defended the interests of his nation. Free market all around!

        5. That’s because socialism is so easy for corporate interests to take over. I’m reminded of a line in The Simpsons where Homer asks how much being Union leader pays. Lenny says: “Nothing. Unless you’re corrupt. Then you make a ton in bribes.” Homer says: “whoo hoo!”
          Heck, even before socialism as we knew it, social justice and business were in bed such as The Catholic church which was supposed to help the poor wound up with the Medicis and the royalty oppressing serfs. But even so, out of that, emerged the ideals of chivalry (old school style) which required the wealthy to respect the rights of the serfs of BOTH genders.
          But yeah, socialism requires a tight set of controls greater than capitalism (consider Fukushima) to be decent but socialists wind up drinking cool aid and then ignoring and even celebrating the abuses of socialism which not only wipes out the middle class but their own electorate. Stalin murdered millions of his own people and in America we have The Knockout Game and affirmative action. I distrust BOTH ideologies. I drink neither sets of cool aid.

        6. True capitalism is probably like true communism, near to non existent in a major state level. If America or any country could do better they would. All the capitalist states are basically socialist states or crony capitalism or corporatism. They really are all just socialist. Socialist and communist are just more blatant and is really the ultimate form of crony capitalism.
          the truth is once people get in government and start to see all that money they start seeing money they think they should be having.

        7. A free market includes unions and the right to withdraw labour, it is based entirely on willingness of both parties to work. A free market and draft are incompatible. How about draft all the femicunts and make them shields for the real soldiers?

        8. even if that state is incredibly small, the wealthy and powerful are going to try to use it to their advantage. in fact, they’re probably gonna make it bigger, and use it to pass regulations, subsidies, and tax plans that favor them and destroy their competition. Sound familiar?
          The problem isn’t “the state”. It’s who controls the state, and the power they have with or without the state. This is the Capitalist Class, and the only way to solve the problem is to oust them permanently. How we do that exactly, I don’t know.

      3. People who inherit money are basically the reincarnation of the person who earned it. I guess it’s a problem when money gets too concentrated, but the solution is for the wealthy to spend more, not for the government steal it, which just makes everyone hold onto their cash tighter.

        1. yeah and worse still the government ‘stealing’ involves a huge array of inefficient departments with no performance incentive and more and more onerous regulations on Joe Public. Of the $2.5 Trillion dollars in federal tax revenues a huge part of it is spent employing people in government to run the system and nothing more. All that money does is create ‘jobs for the boys and girls’ and no benefit to anyone.
          It’s no different to charity… give $100 to the red cross and 75% of it goes on admin and operating expenses….

      4. Also, it somebody has “too much” money, it’s not in any way robbing from anybody else. Socialists view economic distribution as varying slices of economic pie, so to them one person having “too much” means that somebody else has “too little.”
        Wealth isn’t to be distributed, it’s to be created. Make the pie bigger instead.

      5. Death tax- you should watch Milton Friedman. People are motivated to work to provide for their children. In any case these people generally spend it and stimulate the economy and it gets divided. Don’t question people’s motivation for earning money. Furthermore it’s only under socialism where rubbing shoulders with politicians gets you deals like Michelle Obama which are at the expense of the average tax payer. Take away power from politicians then the market dictates the deals.

        1. Not only under socialism. Heck, one reason why socialism became popular was because of crony capitalists of the 19th century totally screwing over the common man and the market. Watch “The Men Who Made America” on the History channel. I know it’s socialist influenced but they still make a powerful argument. JP Morgan basically used the law and money to steal patents from Tesla and Westinghouse. Carnegie used the threat of economic blackmail to buy out his competitors at favorable prices. They all threatened economic blackmail to keep workers from leaving one factory to take their labor to another. (It was called blackballing.) Even today, companies look at someone with a resume of moving around as “jumpers” even as they engage in routine layoffs.
          If capitalism was so great, then the socialist douchbags wouldn’t be so popular.

        2. I disagree.
          To those who have little to offer or don’t trust that they will ever be able to offer much, capitalism just don’t have any appeal.
          It only promises you to keep what you earn. If you think you can’t earn anything, you’ll be attracted to socialist ideas.
          It has nothing to do with any alleged injustice in the past.

        3. I think the death tax Friedman objected to on those grounds was the 100% inheritance tax. An inheritance tax of 10-20% won’t reduce motivation significantly, but it’s still wrong anyway.
          Inheritance is a private matter. The state should stay the fuck out.

      6. ask yourself Polish Knight … who is it that allows the large corporations run by lazy entitled inheritance kids… to manipulate the rules and regulations ? In a true capitalist system companies must compete or die… tech being very capitalist…. Microsoft is a shadow of it’s former self….. never created such a monopoly people were worried about…..
        in other industries – banking for example, where the government footprint treads heavy and the shadow of rules and regulations is ever present…. look at how bankrupt corporations carry on ad infinitium.

        1. Ray, I just pointed out above that socialism winds up empowering crony capitalism via economic fascism (note where I said “ironically…” In fact, it’s something I routinely throw in the face of white-male hating leftists.
          I can’t stand the “real capitalism” argument. It’s similar to “real” Islam being the religion of peace or “real” socialism being a paradise. Here’s a way of looking at things: If you
          “real” X isn’t NATURAL and can’t come about in the real world, then it’s not anymore real than the tooth fairy.
          And even without socialism, crony capitalism is inevitable. Before Karl Marx wrote up his manifesto in his sisters’ factory, influential businessmen wrote up favorable regulations to block out competition and deny consumers choices. Is the fact you can’t buy a car outside of paying a car dealer BY LAW a consequence of socialism? Try to buy a home without a Realtor ™ 5% kickback, er, commission.
          And if government should only be about defense and police, then what about roads? Should I have to pay a toll every half mile for each different owner? (This was the case in pre-socialist feudal Europe.) And the space program? Well, that’s a mess now. The problem is we live in a culture war run by powerful interests in every ideology.
          With all that said, I lean towards natural capitalist/limited government for this reason: Men are the “rich”. We’re the ones who generates wealth to keep society going while women are spenders. Without the welfare state to rescue single women unable to find husbands, this blog wouldn’t exist.

    2. The scarey thing is that the generation Y crew….. even late Gen. X… anyone born post 1980… has all but forgotten that the cold war ever happened…. communism is some forgotten glitch in history…. I wonder looking at Obama if the US actually won the cold war at all… perhaps the fall of the USSR was part of the grand scheme to make the whole world look like North Korea….

      1. Ray, interesting statistic. In the 2012 election, for the first time since the 1950’s and the election of Ronald Reagan (which was a special case), a slim majority of young, white college students voted Republican. This is because the socialist left in America is no longer concerned about economic prosperity for the middle class (it’s a cheap slogan) and rather about race entitlements.
        Sadly, the crony capitalist left that is in bed with the socialists and seeking to outsource all jobs or bring in poor foreigners to do them and then go on welfare aren’t helping to motivate young people to get up and vote Republican.

    3. True but if you have 100 dollars and are surrounded by 10 people with nothing they might just kill you. Democracy is mob rule. Best to spread out some of your wealth so they don’t murder you.

        1. Yes and so do the poor. I’m not saying its right, I’m saying you create a grossly inequal society your going to get a violent revolution and your guns won’t protect you when your heavily outnumbered like that. One of the largest armies in the world couldn’t stop a few french peasants with no weapons from killing the king and queen of france. It took about 100,000 protestors to overthrow the government of Egypt, which had more than 100,000 soldiers

  2. I don’t like these anti- socialist articles here in the manosphere. I see myself as a communist, and still subscribe to the views of the manosphere when it comes to women.
    It’s just that when most people here talk about socialism, they talk about social democracies and about state capitalism; they do not talk about real marxism, leninism or trotskyism, which is at the root of the real idea.
    I would suggest reading Slavoj Zizek, the ”hippest” philosopher on the left. He gives a great view of what the modern left is all about, and what we value.
    A little sneak peak; we love liberty as much as you do, but the only way we can have real liberty is in a radically different society.

    1. There are obviously zillions of little schools of socialism, many of which bitterly oppose all of the others.
      But what they all have in common is that they’re never the “true” socialism that’s been tried anywhere. Lots of American lefties thought the USSR was great until the Stalinist purges or Budapest invasion or whatever, at which point they decried the very Soviet Communism they used to love as a harmful mutation of Marxism.
      If your brand of socialsm ever gets tried anywhere, when things look good (or when the press has successfully kept people from finding out how awfully it’s working), lots of other socialists will think it’s awesome. Then as soon as they find out you’ve been liquidating your bourgeious opponents and they can no longer hide how awful it was, they’ll view you the same way you probably look at Mao.
      Same “principles”, same instrinsic oppression, same crap, new fancy names for it.

      1. The way socialism/communism was meant to be implemented was succesfull at 1 point in history; that was in the Soviet- Union between 1917 – 1924. During this period the Soviet- Union was one of the most progressive countries in the world, far more modern than the ”civilized West” was.
        However, when Stalin seized power it wasn’t socialism anymore; it was state capitalism, so it isn’t about all these little schools. It’s about people using the brand ”socialism” to sell their ideas while it isn’t anywhere close to socialism.
        As I said, please look into people like Slavoj Zizek and Alain Badiou, it will enlighten you when it comes to the modern left; know you enemies, right?

        1. Communes and communist run communities can and do exist under the free market. It’s sick that you would seek a system of such control instead of the free market where you could have your lifestyle with people who wanted it voluntarily instead of forcing me to pay into it. Feminism and your religion of equality are linked so people like you are a disease to me

        2. Implemented properly? Lenin signed the papers to give Germany the caucus. Germany smashed Russia WWI. There was was starvation in Russia so much so that the military likes of Stalin came to power. There were many rebellions against Lenin too!

      2. If Leninism were so damn successful, then why did it lead so easily into Stalinism?
        I’d have to brush up on the period, but I’m certain that under Lenin there was plenty of censorship, lots of executions, etc.
        Nevertheless, I’ll concede that sometimes right after a revolution things seem to go fairly well. As Thatcher said, “socialism is great until you run out of other people’s money”, so right after you steal it there’s “plenty to go around”.
        But when it comes to actually creating wealth just a few years down the road, it doesn’t work so well.

    2. Everywhere communism has been tried (Russia, Vietnam, South Africa, North Korea etc.. etc.. etc..) it produced pretty much the same outcomes: the economy went back to the stone age, governments turned against their own citizens and started hunting “capitalists” and killing their own citizens by the millions, and people were being imprisoned or killed for trying to leave the country.
      Yet, each time it was “not the real communism”..

      1. Exactly. It’s estimated that up to 100 million people were killed by communist regimes. And that’s *not* in wars pitting country against another. It means governments killing their *own* people.
        You’d think that was enough deaths to convince some people that it just doesn’t work in practice. But still we get wankers believing in a communist utopia.

    3. Got news for you, one of the primary tenants emerging from the manosphere is that scum like you are a primary cause of the feminization of the West. Communism is most definitely a matriarchal system which seeks to crush the competitive drive of man.

    4. When I think about communists or free market capitalists I just shrug and turn the page.
      Because they are both as irrelevant as each other. The Third Industrial Revolution is already creating mass unemployment. It will eventually do to the working classes what the IT revolution did to the middle classes.
      Our entire society is being reordered and I believe that this will affect game.
      Consider this. A few hundred years ago a stocky, overweight man was considered quite a catch and he was because he was clearly able to take care of his survival needs. In a world of 80% unemployment who will stand out as “good breeding stock”? Nerds. That’s who.
      In a world of 80% unemployment there is no point in being a rugged individual and the chasm between the few bosses and the clients of the state will be such that communism will be a distant memory.
      As Buddy Holly put it “I guess it doesn’t matter anymore”.
      It really doesn’t. Most of our current social issues such as feminism, unemployment, education, the pensions “crisis” and so many others are not going to matter for much longer.
      Good luck everyone.

      1. You’re right! I prefer capitalism as an ideology over the socialist message. But the new age is coming and I think you are right machines will replace people as capital and it will matter very little what profession you do bar medecine to avoid getting hit by this new age. The only answer is to redistribute that top 20% wealth and they will do it to provide calm.( the world will look like hunger games) but the real kicker is there will be a trade off. Eugenics will come into full swing the wealthy will want to limit the people they are paying as much as possible. I don’t think nerds will get benefits though conputers will do IT jobs too. I think women will swoon for who they swoon for now. Women don’t care for money they just like being entertained. Unfortunately the market tells guys they can only entertain wonen with a tonne of money.

        1. You could well be right about all of that.
          In my opinion Arthur C. Clarke had the future of humanity taped.
          I recommend 3001: The Final Odyssey and Songs of Distant Earth for examples of what I mean.
          That guy was a stone cold genius.

        2. I think society will be a hybrid between Orwell’s 1984 and Huxley’s Brave New World. Where we will have the watchful eye of the state( NSA) and the social conditioning of Neo- Pavlovian educational system. A mix more deadly and sinister than one alone.

        3. those systems never last long…. the inefficiencies of hiding all the state secrets and keeping the masses ignorant slowly bring down the system itself…. because the intelligent people shy away from it, while the thugs move into positions of power and thugs are not smart enough to maintain the peace for very long…
          plus the current financial system and social security system, is absolutely bankrupt….. one wrong move and we’re back to a barter system….. a big californian earthquake or a couple of hurricanes like katrina is all it will take for insurance companies and banks to start failing again… Katrina had a lot to do with the 2008 collapse…

    5. Men of strength and power don’t need a government to tell them how to live. You are only ever as free as your tax rate. Socialism is just taxing people and giving it to those who didn’t sacrifice their time. It is theft of the most precious assert a man has…his time.

    6. This is too good- “we love liberty as much as you do, but the only way we can have real liberty is in a radically different society.” Read: we must radically remold human nature by fire and sword to establish our own vision of utopia. “Nature we will teach, freedom we will reach” was the slogan of the brutal Soviet gulags. Trying to abolish the family and private property is as anti-liberty as you can get. But I guess for the sake of equality and diversity and tolerance, we should give Slavoj Zizek a chance…

    7. You people are fucking hilarious. The Soviet Union collapsed, the Chinese packed it in and switched sides, the Vietnamese quietly flipped the script and all the african countries that gave it a shot, eventually took their dictators outside and shot them. So where has this been a success?
      I bet your one of these dipshits that thinks Cuba is a great place to live, when the truth is it’s so bad the fuckers won’t let you leave (news flash – this is the hall mark of a trash society). The Europeans did just as poorly promising state welfare that they just can’t deliver, the consequences of which are very evident today.
      This has to tell you something. I have a better idea why don’t you and your friends form a commune and split all your shit. Oh ya, you don’t have any shit to split do you.

  3. Roosh, I’m glad you’re on the side of capitalism and I’m glad you even dig out the lesser known philosophers to promote it.
    There is an important connection between masculinity and capitalism as well as femininity and socialism that needs to gain wider understanding.
    Men need freedom to be men. Women don’t need freedom to be women.

    1. Women crave authority that’s why when men don’t provide it they look for an authoritarian government to provide it! To quote Sylvia Plathe: every woman adores a Fascist,the boot, the boot in the face, the heart of a brute.

      1. Yea, just cuz some dumb bitch likes Fascism, that doesn’t make it a good idea. What we really need is a system and a set of institutions that gain from volatility, uncertainty, and randomness. After all, volatility, uncertainty, and randomness are a given.

        1. Yes, I agree as does my previous comment. In simpler terms when men don’t have the system of competition aka capitalism and let socialism take hold then women look up to the authoritarian government as it now sets the rules for their life.

        2. fascism was better known as National Socialism … aka. NAZI….
          So while woman might adore the fascist boot, that’s not the correct modus operandi for a real man.

        3. Once again I agree. NSDAP in an German initialism for national socialism. Socialism being a key part of the Nazi junta power structure.Men of power prefer individual authority yet when emasculated ; as Germany was after The treaty of Versailles they looked towards a national identity of manliness. One of power. Which women adore.

        4. I’d take any strong patriarchy including Nazism over murka whale socialism. If the nazi’s weren’t so fixed on killing jews it would actually have been a great country. Best of all…. no fat chicks.
          Women love facist, they loved mussolini and hitler.

        5. Exactly, the Nazis (National Socialism, named to compete with International Socialists) can’t be viewed properly except from a post-WW1 perspective. From the east, Germany faced a huge threat from the USSR and internal attempts to make Germany international socialist, and nothing short of a similar level of authoritarian power would win. Basically, if the Nazis didn’t exist, Germany would have become communist.

        6. it still became communist and it’s not like today it is much better… It could have been the same without the wars and genocides

    2. Hello John,
      In your opinion, where is the best governed country in the world at the moment? How do you believe we should quantify how successful a country’s system of governance is, and does this include some measure of the ‘happiness’ of its citizens?
      I’m curious as here in the UK there was a recent attempt to measure the nations ‘happiness levels’, widely met (predictably!) with hoots of derision. I think because most Brits probably believe our glorious leaders shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near anything personal like this, and in any case any attempts to measure something so abstract will be boiled down to meaningless bean-counting and slogans. But perhaps not a terrible idea in theory – what do you think?
      My tuppence (or ‘two cents’, for the Americans – I do so love your way with words! Especially the Texans!) – the problem with the above (socialism = plundering by the ‘have nots’) is that (here anyway), capitalism isn’t really much better. Go far enough back down the family trees of many of the ‘haves’, and you will see a fair amount of plundering, and/or people in positions of extreme power through their network of private school chums . Either option is ugly because our top politicians (left or right wing) and business leaders come from great privilege, have cosy protective relationships, and are able to do pretty much what they like with little repercussion. *stares into drink* – mutter mutter, grumble, mutter.

      1. My attitutes are quite reactionary, although I’m German (and did live and work in the UK for a number of years – I’m back in Germany now, and I’ve never been to the US).
        My first question would: Who’s happiness? The *average* citizen’s happiness?
        If so, then you can increase that simply by drafting the most beautiful 10% of women between 18 and 28 and force them into sexual slavery for a year. Since the number of males the happiness of whom this increases is much greater than the number of women the happiness of whom it decreases, the average happiness is probably increased.
        This is a very simple thought experiment that shows how utterly unethical the premises must have been.
        A government can be on the side of the average person, but then it is simply not on mine and I will seek to escape, evade or undermine it’s power somehow.
        The more someone has to offer (productiveness, beauty, etc.), the more he will like a government that simply upholds law and order and otherwise leaves him alone. That’s why such governments attract the most productive and allow them to thrive. I would call them objectively better for that reason.
        I’m not sure which governments are best at the moment according to this standard. I would mention America, Singapore, China, the UK and Germany in no particular order as some examples of countries that still or again have some elements of what I would like to see.

        1. Thanks for replying. Did you like the UK? I’ve always wanted to visit Germany – it looks so beautiful. Aber, mein Deutsche ist nicht so gut!
          Was about to type something about ‘that’s drivel, no one would be happy with their women in slavery’ but then realised it’s a thought experiment and your reasoning is sound. I say this typing on an Apple machine I know damn fine someone likely suffered terribly in the factory it was made in. Isn’t that appalling; the knowledge is there, and yet I feel nothing.
          Asked about happiness because there are some studies showing that where wealth inequality is greater, happiness (for both the poorest and the richest, interestingly!) is lower – though of courses there are studies that say the opposite. I truly believe that liberals and conservatives think of each other as different species. That is, liberals believe that all right-wing voters are heartless and perfectly happy in a country where the poorest and most vulnerable were offered no help at all (irrespective of whether poor through lack of effort or for reasons beyond their control).
          So my next question – to anyone that might know:
          has there ever existed a truly capitalist country where little government assistance was given to the weakest, yet where the richest people *voluntarily* assisted the poorest? Where they happier for it?

        2. Yes, I liked the UK very much. I only returned for a better opportunity of career advancement.
          I especially like how people are more subtle in England, I fit into that climate quite well.
          Visiting Germany is obviously easy even if you don’t know German, most Germans speak English fairly well. Even working in Germany should be possible for Englishpeople in some professions.
          I recall two Brits working in the Nokia research center in Bochum where I once did a placement at the end of my university time. They didn’t speak German beyond a few words and they still could live and work here full time. Obviously that limits you socially, because it’s difficult to enter conversations natives have with each other.

        3. Not exactly a reply to your last question, but philanthropy is greater per capita in the poorer and more conservative states of the U.S. Liberals are often quite miserly in personal behavior.

  4. People can find Bastiat’s book online for free just by googling it. I find that rich people and poor people use the government for their own ends. So many of our laws are made-to-order.

  5. You always hear about how true socialism has never been tried or was never practised very long. This is especially true for anarcho communism. I think that the reason for this is that socialism as a form of government is against the laws of nature. Societies with vertical power structures are simply more efficient and powerful for various reasons. Horizontal power structures on a large scale lead to disorder.

    1. Humans are mammals and mammals work in packs, not hives.
      That’s why socialism always ends up as a thuggish dictatorship.

  6. Really good article, Roosh. I have been meaning to get around to reading more Bastiat so now I will. And, yes, very glad to see you coming down on the side of Capitalism. You are emerging as an important organizing intellect.
    Read much Ayn Rand? Her views of the feminine ideal are really some of the most useful. Try telling a woman who is already sprung on you that you think (and a female author informed you) that the essence of femininity is man-worship. They protest greatly at first, but in a few days are often much more docile.

    1. “For a woman qua woman, the essence of femininity is hero-worship—the desire to look up to man.” – Ayn Rand

        1. What an incisive analysis, Tick. Please continue on to explaining how we can achieve world peace and make time travel a reality.

        2. We will achieve world peace when our scientists make us the masters of both energy and matter. After all people do not fight over air because it is always in plentiful supply.
          As for time travel I’m keeping that good shit for myself.

        3. Ah, I see. When you have fully enslaved John Galt, the world will know freedom. Got it.
          Yes, please keep your shit to yourself.

        4. Freedom? Who said anything about freedom?
          Who is free? You?
          Or are you a victim of your circumstances social, historical and biological just like everyone else.
          Here is a handy analysis of just how crazy Ayn Rand was;

          Take care.

        5. Freedom, in a political context, has only one meaning: the absence of physical coercion.
          -Ayn Rand

        6. So, day to day, I am relatively free. I don’t have much fear of physical attack. But when it comes to tax time, it is a different story.

        7. Please, by all means enjoy your life.
          None of this matters because the left and the right are as irrelevant as each other.

        8. Ayn Rand’s philosophy is the opposite of solipsism. In fact, it is based on the single axiom “Existence exists.” So, I guess you are resting your case on nothing.

        9. All I can suggest is that we respectfully agree to disagree until future events prove that I was right all along.
          I don’t think I can be any fairer than that.

        10. Do you honestly think that this video is a reasonable critique of Rand?
          It starts of by calling Rand a “shitty writer” and the proof for that claim is the opinion of someone else.
          It then goes on to argue against freedom because in society “everyone affects everybody else” anyway.
          I couldn’t be bothered to stare into that douches face any longer, so I can’t comment about the remaining three “stupid things”.
          Dude, you’re not going to convince someone by just laughing about it. If you have an argument, make it. If you don’t, state your opinion and leave it at that.
          By posting videos of an obvious moron you just look like one yourself.

        11. This “guy” Ticker is very feminine. His arguments lack logical context and he can only imitate and post critiques from authority. I would be willing to bet “he” has several cats and a Frapuccino addiction.

        12. Ayn Rand is the only female author I have read and currently read. If you can, or haven’t done so, try to get your hands on her newsletters. They’re good. I don’t know if they’re online, but any good quality library should carry them in microfilm form.

        13. You think I’m feminine?
          That’s actually quite funny. Maybe we will meet one day and I will have the opportunity to accept your gracious apology.
          Ayn Rand really was cracked though. To an extent that is understandable. After all she witnessed what the commies did to Russia.
          But like Machiavelli she was damaged goods and so everything she said has to be considered with that in mind.
          Good luck matey.

        14. Hilarious. You keep proving my point. Try saying something with some substance. All you are doing is emoting and rationalizing.That’s what women do. If you are a woman, just admit it. Is it really that important to post messages on ROK?

      1. That’s the one. Its funny watching a woman dance around for a while trying to integrate the idea with all the ones pumped into her head by her lesbian professors. Again, it takes a few days but, if she likes you, that one passage will make her not only more compliant but much more willing to get down.

  7. Fortunately socialism attracts people with conflicting agendas. If we can get these factions to fight each other, that will slow down their takeover of civilization:
    Fat acceptance, versus scolding about obesity as a public health crisis.
    Natural foods without artificial chemicals, versus filling women with artificial hormones so they can fuck without getting pregnant.
    Human biodiversity = pseudoscience, versus LGBT defectives as examples of biodiversity who deserve tolerance and special rights.
    Opposition to objectifying the human body sexually, except when gay men do it.
    We need to “live lightly upon the earth,” versus the need to raise the living standards of the world’s poorest people who do just that. (Seriously, if you can live on an income of about a dollar a day, you can only live more lightly on the earth than that by dying.)

  8. Socialism will never work. look at communist russia. It goes directly against man’s nature. Man is greedy.

  9. I can see that author has had little or no insight in socialism.
    For example
    “Socialists want to tinker with societies from the top down to create
    their ideal utopias because they believe humanity is inherently flawed”
    You inverted it. Socialist actually think humanity is inherently kind and cooperative. Philosophers of civil societies believed humanity is flawed.
    Said it multiple times and will say again. World is not black and white. There is no socialism vs liberty, or socialism vs capitalism. World is ideological mess in which you simply cannot pick sides. You can only implement good ideas and that’s how far it goes.

    1. And another thing. Both socialists and capitalists claim that their ideas work bottom-top way. It’s funny how both capitalist and socialist societies turned up working top-bottom. It’s story as old as time with one same conclusion – powerful seize the day.

    2. One truth. There are Rich and there are poor, always has been always will be. It doesn’t matter what society you live in. If you aren’t in the first category, you’re in the second. The rich rule.

    3. You and Roosh are both right, in a way. Socialists claim that they believe that human nature is good and has been corrupted by the evils of capitalism. All that’s needed is to utterly reprogram every aspect of how they think and act and we can get them back to their natural state of goodness.
      So Roosh is right in that they think that our current modes of thinking are flawed, but you’re right in that they think our ‘true” natures are good.
      However, their view of human nature (derived from Rousseau) is hopelessly naive while giving totalitarians carte blanch to do whatever it takes to reform us. It’s the worst of both worlds.

      1. Socialism = economy. It does not contain any ideas of any kind. Socialism can be bundled with feminism for example, but Socialism IS NOT equal either feminism or liberalism.
        Nazis worshiped socialism
        Democrats worshiped socialism
        Communits worshiped socialism
        So its economy, not ideology. You cannot put socialism opposite of liberty, because those two are not related.
        After all, i don’t think you can ever have free society, you can only have free individuals. If you had free society, we would not know what freedom is in the first place.

        1. Everything you’ve said is wrong.
          Wait,no ,what you’ve said is ‘not even wrong’ it’s bugfuck insane.
          1)Socialism =economy
          2)Democrats worshiped socialism
          3)Therefore,from 1 and 2. Democrats worshiped economy. DOUBLEYOU TEE EFF?

        2. Yes, there are many political parties that worshiped socialist economical model, problem ?

        3. You are literally the worst kind of liberal. You have your head so far up your ass, you’ve actually convinced yourself socialism (and all the market incentives completely scrambled through government regulation taxation and bureaucratic mismanagement) is justthe economy. Thays just what an economy should be. No i’ll tell you wht an economy should be. People creating products or services that people will pay for because it will help them or selling yourself as a resource (your labor and time for money). That called capitalism. You simply have a market that people freely participate. All of the plundering the mainstream liberal media has told you is the fault of capitalism is only possible when you have the ability to force others economic decisions. The market is voluntary. Government is coercive.

        4. Hey man, Armchair General is sharing serious stuff with everyone and you come here to try to put him down with your ridiculous business-management-textbook dogmas and your semi effeminate demeanor.
          I will teach you how to save some valuable time and make some extra money much more efficiently. This is the work-smarter-not-harder kind of stuff that fills my days with love and virtual cocaine… Are you ready?
          You know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about economic and political models of organization. You are JUST REPEATING the same bullshit they told you in business school.
          You need to understand Central Banking before talking about Economics and embarrassing yourself by letting everyone at ROK that you are extremely ignorant.
          In the meantime, please ban yourself from this site. You will be better off by not sharing with us insider information on how fuckin’ stupid you are.

        5. armchair is pretty thin at times, but with courtesy, aren’t you too? would you not take your own advice? though sometimes relevant, each of you exhibit thoughts empowered by incomplete messages. messages designed to be repeated, as they omit too much for any critical new thought. post less (ideology). listen more. then come back.

        6. I’m not liberal. I’m mildly conservative, centrist, republican (type of government), and secular. That’s the farthest i would go to describe my current political views.
          Socialism is economy. Use google for christ sake.
          What you described is liberal capitalism – yeah that’s also economy.
          Slavery is also economy. You have slaves who work and produce goods that you freely handle. Yeah that’s also economy, believe it or not.
          Free market is not free. Big participants in free market “race” have big funds. They use funds to make state do what they want in order to get more funds and to make their competition easier. That’s how biggest corporations in America got themselves status of “being too big to go under”. They, participants in free market, bought state. That’s what has been happening since forever, and will keep happening until forever
          State started intervening in market, because market started intervening in state in the first place. Now state (bought by corporations from “free market”) is dealing with social issues, so big corporations can rule in peace.
          Powerful buy those who are not as powerful as they are. Anarchy is for kids.

        7. “Powerful buy those who are not as powerful as they are”
          Are you serious? Does your hypothesis explain all the current mini-wars around the world?
          No, it doesn’t.
          Do you know why?
          Because some people just don’t take shit from the powerful.
          Your previous definitions of socialism were relatively decent, and I believe that is due in part to the fact that you are involved in partisan politics and that requires having a decent understanding of your potential ideological adversaries.
          Nevertheless, this does not change the fact that the representative democracy you favor is a fuckin’ lie that only benefits you and your friends.
          Long live Anarchy

        8. I don’t think parliamentary democracy is most important part of western society. I think it is judicial system and rule of law instead. As long as bottom has ways to send inputs to top of social tier, society works. On the other hand, no matter how cohesive society is, lack of law and equality before law, ruins it and brings dismay.
          For people who don’t take shit from powerful – the more modernized society gets, the more only one type of rebels can take it against those who oppress – other competitive highly technologically advanced states, or Taliban. And Taliban can take it against the powerful only as long as they will keep replenishing manpower. If for every dead American you have 100 dead Taliban, then that is a lost cause.

        9. Technologically advanced states?
          Well, explain Vietnam to France, Japan, The US, China and The Mongol Empire.
          Try to understand how the Zapatistas have survived almost 20 years of low intensity warfare against Citibank (The US) and the Mexican government?
          The Mapuches in Chile were never colonized by the Spaniards and they do not ask the Chilean govt. for permission to live the way they want to live.
          And the list goes on… I just need one example to prove you that Freedom is cool and Power is not.

        10. Powerful buy those who are not as powerful as they are = Collective freedom is bullshit.
          That was a nice Republican move.
          Power cannot be transferred. It must be destroyed.

        11. All of these are “free” (in fact, they respond to their own laws, instead of someone else which is same shit) only because cost of subjugating them is much bigger then potential gain. Vietnam fought USA back at cost of 1 million men compared to 50.000 Americans. American cost was too big, Vietnamese was not. But ultimately, nobody won freedom, they only preserved their own laws for short while. Those who have means to conquer (West) are stronger than ever. They will be back. Freedom has not been won.
          Jewish Kingdom, Caesar, Napoleon, Washington, Lenin, none of them liberated anybody, but themselves, in order to rule the world according to their own principles (sometimes noble principles yes). But do not mistake noble cause of strong individuals and their followers as general freedom.

        12. Whenever you get into position to remove a powerful entity – you are the one who became powerful. You cannot destroy your own power, you can only reject it. That does not mean others will not claim it

        13. I don’t remove anything by myself. That was the modus operandi of the early anarchists, who were honestly exploring their options to achieve freedom.
          The majority agrees to dismantle illegitimate organizations, the laws and the reputation of the people who support them and protect them and then it is all good.
          This is why anarchism is so hard to destroy. We show you how small a dick the powerful has and let you decide what to do with this information. The powerful can’t take anything away from us except life and health through the use of physical violence.
          And we might as well lose life and health on a Sunday morning while watering the flowers, so FUCK FEAR AND RESIGNATION.
          Long live Anarchy!

        14. I rejoice in the bravery of the Vietnamese. They make me feel very proud of being part of the human race.
          Freedom has not been won? Good luck in your political career. You are well educated in the wrong ideas and you can keep your cool. But right now you are out of your intellectual league. That economic system you defend is a set of ridiculous contradictions just like that of Jesus and his mentally retarded sheep.
          Long live_________ (Please fill in the blank spaces. 10pts).

        15. I do not remember ever defending any economic system, particularly not socialism. I’m merely stating that it is very unwise and uneducated for a person to state that world is separate in black and white entities of liberty and socialism, when nothing of it makes sense. World is full of different ideas, one never completely being opposite of any other, of different economies which after all have one common goal, of different interpretators of different ideas and cetera. Not to mention cultural differences. American view of economy, liberty etc is not the view a Chinese man shares. What American calls liberty, a Chinese calls arrogance and ignorance.

        16. You entirely missed my point. Just because you will tomorrow reject the power given to you, does not mean other 7 billion people on planet will. You cannot destroy power you can only reject it. When you do, someone else will claim it, and the in order to destroy it you have to fight him again and again. And we are back to regular order.
          People who claim power will gather followers around them and create society in order to strive toward peace. Powerful do not want their power challenged endlessly. That is why we have society and laws.

        17. Yes, you are defending the economic system that the Republican party approves, which is basically a market economy with a little bit of socialism for the masses and big tax breaks for the corporations, or whatever new combination of contradictory goals and policies they come up with every 4yrs. That is called manipulation. And it is very dishonest.
          Socialism, real socialism, socializes education, land and means of production. And this is the future. I believe human nature is good when individual freedom is a feasible option.
          By the way, American liberty, as defined in the original constitution, is 100% cool. And it was written on hemp (when cannabis fibers for clothing and etc. were legally produced).
          But that is just a beautiful part of history. As of today, The US is nothing but a private corporation and the masses of creative and hardworking American people have been tricked into becoming lifetime corporate employees.

        18. No, i do not even know what economic system Republicans approve, and i do not support any economic system separate of politics that handle it.

  10. Bob was born into abject poverty, and currently works 70 hours a week at some shitty 8 dollar/hour job, which he was lucky to find, and must try looking for a second job because he must pay the medical care of his uninsured ailing mother, and is desperately afraid of losing his own meager health plan at his current job. Since he spends the majority of his time at work, he lives most of his life being restricted from saying certain things, going on the internet, eating, pissing, talking to friends, or even sitting down. But he just has to deal with it, or he and his mother will face even more hardship.
    But Bob lives in a Capitalist society, so he has LIBERTY and FREEDOM.

  11. Looking at the extremities of both socialism and capitalism, I’m starting to think that feudalism was a heck of a lot better than either one…

    1. Of course, laissez-faire capitalism taken to its extreme leads to a sort of feudalism as mega-corporations freed of legal and regulatory constraints form monopolies and regional and political fiefdoms where they are free to exploit the starving masses. A healthy balance of socialism and capitalism/market forces is necessary to maximize liberty for ALL individuals in a technologically advanced society such as ours (as opposed to maximizing the liberty of a small ruling elite). But I have a feeling such nuanced concepts are beyond the intellectual capacity of many of the readers and writers of this website.

  12. These sorts of books are largely useless. It’s not that I agree or disagree with any of these arguments, it’s just that such arguments can go on and on, like a bad internet comment board trollfest, and accomplish nothing.
    The bottom line is, about 50% of the people of the world love socialism because it’s better for them, and the other 50% like capitalism because it’s better for them. There is no “right answer”. It’s 2 groups of people who will always disagree about the nature of “good”.
    There is no objective “better” system.
    You just have to try to find a compromise that allows both parties to get a bit of what they want, hopefully without resorting to guns.
    The power of the US Consitution, and various British-derived parliamentary systems, is that they allow this pendulum to swing back and forth freely, without requiring revolutions by armed mobs to affect change. This is why the US and Brit nations for all their flaws has been so successful for hundreds of years.

  13. Friedrich Hayek argued persuasively that socialism always ends in chains. Hayek’s mentor and teacher Ludwig von Mises, went a step further by proving that socialism is fucking impossible. Even if men were angels, it’s impossible that a centrally planned economy could allocate resources as well as a capitalist one. Yes capitalism is harsh and it can hurt, but if we’re talking socialism then the proposed cure is much, much worse than the disease.
    To rephrase what a great man once said, capitalism is the worst economic system ever devised by man, except for all the others.

  14. Too bad Monsieur Bastiat’s way of thinking did not win over his countrymen. France has a socialist government right now, and even people who identify as right wing don’t question socialist ideals.

  15. Frederic Bastiat also did say that government subsidy should be available but “under extraordinary circumstances, for urgent cases, the State should set aside some resources to assist certain unfortunate people, to help them adjust to changing conditions”. Even a free-market advocate like Bastiat realised that there should be a bit of assistance to help those whom the free market has left out. But ultimately, I think that Bastiat, like Adam Smith, also realised that self-interest was not the only facet of Human behaviour. Compassion and empathy are also parts of Human nature and not even the most hard core free market capitalist can deny its existence.

    1. Especially those don’t.
      It’s people like you who deny them by associating compassion and empathy with being generous with money they took from unwilling tax payers.
      Compassion and generosity is when you give *your own* money.

  16. Some form of socialism and capitalism need to exist in order for productive societies to be prosperous and successful. Along with rights to private property, and other individual rights. Rewarding the innovative, along with helping the disabled, and those who were born with a lesser hand, educating the next generation of inventors by grants, and tax breaks to companies that hire workers here, we also must invest in some public programs like a police force, a fire department, and public works that hire more workers to better our roads, and sustain more income for these workers to freely purchase the products they need and freely can acquire. I disagree with you on this issue. Yes, socialism by itself does not work (see socialist France and Sweden as an example), but free-market capitalism does not work either, it was responsible for the great depression, and the great recession of 08. Your warning would serve for nations heading towards a path like Venezuela, but not for the United States, which is far from becoming a socialist state.

    1. i thought to reply the same, but then realized the article doesn’t actually touch any of that. labels are thrown around, so you have to move past them to see the specific behavior targeted for admonishment and the specific behavior proposed for correction. the article doesn’t actual advocate unregulated capital or social models. it focuses on minimizing forced-taking, concluding that what’s taken for fire/police/works rapidly ends up re-appropriated into bad actors. it’s just too easy. if i recall, the context that bastiat wrote in was actually in such an era of over-take tax expansion. it goes beyond institutions, as these are claimed to be fictional facades. it’s too easy for a person to take without giving back the intended thing that those who paid agreed to fund.
      no doubt there are other implied things. i’m assuming quite a bit here. but all that you bring to light actually supports bastiat. innovation has been horribly corrupted, helping the disabled is now exploiting disability, education is now merit-less feminist life-support, etc.

  17. A decent govement should protect the weak from the strong.
    Socialism protects the weak from themselves.

    1. A decent government is a participatory democracy run by everyone, not a representative democracy run by the mentally ill.
      It is either this or the underground economy where no one can tax me or catch me red-handed.
      Long live the A revolution!

    2. Socialism protects the elite at the expense of the weak and hopeless.
      A decent government should protect our liberties from the corrupt and tyrannical.

  18. Whatever destructive combination of unfree market capitalism and welfare state policies that the governments put into place through the use of administrative violence should be called a different name.
    Socialism is in essence the socialization of EDUCATION, land and means of production (technology, in simpler terms). If these three are not available to everyone, then socialism does not exist.
    Bastiat did the same thing that Milton Friedman did. He developed theories that sped up the process of capital accumulation in a few hands. He worked for the rich.
    Please check out “The hidden secrets of money. The biggest scam in the history of humanity.”. <–Documentary on YouTube.
    I think the 4th episode explains in detail the process by which central banks print money out of thin air and how inflation is created and exported to other countries.
    All of the facts and evidence this documentary provides can be verified: fractionary reserves or the money multiplier is the greatest thief in history and it is not a human being:
    It is a law.
    Long Live (A)!

    1. responding to the second half only: much of currency today arose over the course of two centuries of short reactionary patches to evolve into the pure-fiat dual-private-public banking model we have now. in the context of their times, these changes weren’t scams. the whole picture shows a more fair compromise at each step, with valid public and private good being done. everyone profited. some more than others.
      but times moved on, and bankers do what they do, and insidious scams re-emerged from 1970s onward. further, the old solutions don’t fit any more. worse still, many of them have been systematically removed, culminating in 1980s-savings-and-loans, 1990s-future-commodities-(enron), 2000s-venture-capital-(dotcom), mid-2000s-housing, late-2000s-default-swap, and so on. each (de)regulation bubble was facilitated by specific actors over the course of years. most actors were not held responsible then, and none have been held responsible lately. the picture winds all over the place, and so do your thoughts. it’s hard to respond to. and those youtube vids have short sighted patch agendas of their own. i don’t know the way out, but i do know that those vids and your post are revisionist selectivist historians.

      1. Are you aware of the fact that everything you say is bullshit?
        “but times moved on and bankers do what they do”
        What kind of stupid argument is that?
        These crises you mention were
        artificially created in order to control artificial inflation caused by ridiculously excessive printing of money.
        But you will not understand this unless you understand how central banking fuckin’ works. The Federal Reserve is the central bank of the US but it is privately owned and its stockholders get a 6% of the profit.
        Do you want me to go on? Or do you want me to slap you in the face until you wake up and realize that we have all been scammed by the central bankers of the world and the people they represent.
        I am not gonna spend my morning explaining monetary theory to you because I prefer to spend it smoking cannabis and playing with my son.
        Now go get a beer, turn on the sports tv channel and lie to yourself until truth does not bother you anymore.
        Fuckin’ blue-piller.

        1. my appreciation for your reply. i reject nothing stated. i am more than willing to throw myself all away, consider an even larger picture, and reevaluate all that i think i know. i still claim far too much is omitted by simply blaming the fed/central bank. won’t such a simplistic picture will lead to an inaccurate attribution and a terrible fix? only to repeat each of the scandals from the 1980s onward?
          for clarity, i know we’ve all been scammed terribly. i know full well the central bank’s central failure: those that control the debt of the nation get the profit of the nation. i never stated otherwise. but i also know that full public ownership would not stop inflation any more than the private federal reserve hasn’t stopped inflation. in fact, the public-private system lessened the massive over printing seen in other fiat-like currencies during the last two centuries. unfortunately, the fed-model only slowed the printing presses down, but it could have been much worse. thus the pattern is independent of the institutions and the fed was a compromise to prevent the worst case scenario. it mostly worked, back then. much of the usa’s monetary changes from inception to the late 1960s follow the same pattern: an old idea stops working enough, change fix some things, and lawfully wicked exploitation resumes – but is at least lessened.
          and this is what i alluded to: many changes in the past were good enough for the past, though still criminal in the long run. stated another way: after each policy revolution, the bankers adapted and found new ways to profit obscenely – it’s part of their job. despise it rightfully, but i see past the fed.
          close inspection shows monetary policy has always been drastically changing, and we do need yet another drastic change. i will take the pill that solves monetary policy today. we have all been searching for it. but overly simplistic outrage is the first pill. not the final pill.

  19. Roosh, don’t you live in your father’s basement? You have no steady job, and claimed you can’t get a corporate job anymore. You’ll be sucking at the government teat in no time.

  20. What an absolute load of libertarian garbage written by a Yank who wouldnt know socialism if it jumped up and bit him in the bollocks. This is what Marx said, “Let democracy increase until the state withers away”. Socialism liberates mankind whereas capitalism enslaves it through the shackles of exploitation and corporatist greed. Marx understood this in 1848 whereas Roosh in 2014 is still writing manosphere rubbish which will be forgotten about in a couple of years.

Comments are closed.