Equity is a component of justice, isn't it?

What do you think about this -
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-science-gender-idUSKBN0N421420150413?irpc=932

The point is that to me, it looks like you are trying to use state or societal power to control what normally people do, for something of which there will always be sparse evidence. It is neither prudent nor just.

If there is a society, there is authoritarianism. Authoritarianism is what creates justice and trust.

There are some things even anarchists are against. Authoritarianism is mere realisation that to preserve something consistently, force over what might be little different is required

How can one be libertarian but not a cultural libertarian?

There is none. All states are authoritarian.

But don't you think that if bias can easily be turned opposite, it might be that there is no bias at all?

What you want on a society needs to be incentivised and what you don't want disincentivised. You cannot get people to do something without a top down approach. And if people make right choices themselves, then there would be no need for any debate ever.

Government's role is not to protect liberties, property and life and health. It is to issue directives and make people behave a certain way.

So, basically, what you are arguing for Zayan is that government, which is run on tax dollars protect people's liberty. But there is no reason why a person who does not agree with a said liberty would want his tax paid dollars being used to protect that endeavor. The only way he would, then, is if he is forced. So, basically libertarianism is nothing but a government program to protect degeneracy.

As I see it, Right is based on order, while Left sees order as oppressive. Right is based on morals, but Left sees them as bigoted. And Right sees spirituality as a goal, while Left sees materialism.
Both are different from Liberalism, which is based on chaos and hedonism.

European Nationalism is Leftist not Right Wing. Its only association with Right is that Left is pro-immigration.

Well resurgence of religion is happening right now.

You know that Islam is more socially close to Right than Western Liberalism. Most of the people in it are to save Western Liberalism

Nationalism goes into chaos without something to keep it together

The point is that nationalism is dependent on what is behind it. If a left wing ideal is behind it, it is left wing. Many Stalinists also are very proud nationalist

It often is but is may be left wing too

Tariffs just shift the time scale of benefits, theoretically. Nothing else. And what the heck is a moral tariff? Tariff on countries having different type of government?

That is simply not true. Let us say all countries have equal tariffs. So who is losing out?

Lol, on equal tariffs, there would be no net change in competition. It shows that you don't know how economics works

Yes, It would cost more. That money would go to government and then again to public. So, what changed?

That is a case to explain it better. In reality,money is never lost. It comes back in some or the other manner. The only delay theoretically, is time delay.

Even if money is used in social welfare, it is in hands of another person, who will spend it. And it will come back in system

You are talking about wrong people getting money. That is different than what I am talking about. It does not matter who has those billions of dollars. It would be spent one day or invested and would come back in system.

It won't magically disappear.

The point is that does not change nation's economy. Let us say that Bill Gates earn $100 trillion because of monopoly. Then, he would spend it. The nations economy would suffer from zero effect of Bill Gates acquiring of money by unethical or even illegal means.

So, basically it is a form of pro-poor argument?

That is a myth perpetuated by free marketers. There is no theoretical argument for that.

And that specialisation is achieved because a lot of capital is lost because home companies are destroyed by free markets

That is a different type of specialisation. What it has to do with free market?

Technological specialisation increases productivity.

It is not. What Autarky does is something like social welfare. Everyone survives, so overall quality is lower. Free market destroys weak competitors so quality is higher. But this higher quality also entails destruction of relatively poor business owners, who cannot compete with MNCs.

So, you destroy businesses today and benefit tomorrow

They won't. If they are imposed on nations which export more to the country putting tariffs. That is why Trump's tariffs are a success.

You were talking short term. You said immediate damage

In short term they are benefiting USA

No. I am saying that they are theoretically equal.

That overall loss is equalised by earlier boons and increase in government exchequer. You can literally prove it via mathematical equations

Do you know what is cost of capital?

So, that continually increasing damage, if discounted would be actually decreasing.

Because it would be divided by exponential series

And exponential series is one of the fastest growing series that naturally exists

1/r^n

So? You know that for every passing year, we increase exponent by 1

Discount rate effect increases exponentially.

That would never overtake growth in exponential series.

A $100 gain today will be more than $10,000 gain after 100 years. That is a factor of 100. So, if USA's share even becomes a quarter than it currently is, it would still be more beneficial to have a short term gain.

I am not sure what more I can show you. No, it does not happen that way. The more liberal econmonies did benefit by globalisation but they also were the biggest sufferers of depression because of lack of autarky. Data shows that developing nations were lesser affected than developed nations.
That happened because these nations were entirely dependent on other nations for certain products.

It was in 2000, then 2008

When one nation got affected, others linked to it also got affected, creating a chain reaction, especially in the real estate crash in 2008

USA's GDP growth rate for example, decreased by 200%, while India's GDP growth rate only decreased by 66%

UK's GDP growth rate also decreased by 200%

And do you know how much of growth rate Uganda lost?

20%

But it is growth rate

Not actual amount

It already factors in their less assets

Increased liberalisation has increased frequency of depression. First it occurred in 1830s, and then in 1920s, which is almost 100 years. Then in 50 years, in 1973. Then in 30 years in 2000. And then in 8 years.
And all this, when we understand economics better (perhaps) and have so good communication systems and technology.

Free market is a subset of capitalism. Yes, there have been many depressions but I am talking about major ones, because they are documented, and they had a large effect.
Protectionism is like creating a wall around house. You cannot go out and make use of opportunities, but you also prevent risk of bad people hurting you. In Free Marketers' or Liberalists theory, somehow there are no bad people.

And also, I don't think Bible says that a man confused about his sexuality, wearing tattoos and ornaments in an attempt to look like what he is not, could hex anything.

If every degenerate person killed themselves, you would not have even 1% of population left.

You forgot Trotsky

😂

For me it is - authority, order and spirituality

Right Wing is not necessarily free trade or protectionist

Authority, Order and Discipline/Spirituality exist everywhere. The ideologies that pretend they don't, thus, end up making them perverse. Marx, in the end, proposed, what may essentially be, the abolition of authority. USSR was based on idea of equality of class, and thus, equality of people. Of course, in practice, it was not so.
@Enigmatic★Chromatic Similarly, Marxists revolutions are against order. Women can be man. Protests are the way to get heard. Victimization mentality is common. This is because, Communism thrives in disorder.
And lastly, giving people free stuff is not teaching them discipline.

Communism is also not pro-worker. In the end, you'd have to do rationing and to get stuff, you would have to lick the boots of authority. If that is what one is willing to do, why not just become a monarchist and a boot-licker for a king?

And finally, bankers indeed have much to gain from Communism

@Enigmatic★Chromatic Your argument is very strange. Just because you cannot achieve equality, does not mean Marxists do not make it as a goal. Your argument is that Marx was ok with some inequality. That is like saying that capitalists are not completely capitalists because they think human labour has value too.

_"The secret of the expression of value, namely, that all kinds of labour are equal and equivalent, because, and so far as they are human labour in general, cannot be deciphered, until the notion of human equality has already acquired the fixity of a popular prejudice. This, however, is possible only in a society in which the great mass of the produce of labour takes the form of commodities, in which, consequently, the dominant relation between man and man, is that of owners of commodities."_

_"The necessity for a generalisation of the Factory Acts, for transforming them from an exceptional
law relating to mechanical spinning and weaving – those first creations of machinery – into a law
affecting social production as a whole, arose, as we have seen, from the mode in which modern
industry was historically developed. In the rear of that industry, the traditional form of
manufacture, of handicraft, and of domestic industry, is entirely revolutionised; manufactures are
constantly passing into the factory system, and handicrafts into manufactures; and lastly, the
spheres of handicraft and of the domestic industries become, in a, comparatively speaking,
wonderfully short time, dens of misery in which capitalistic exploitation obtains free play for the
wildest excesses. There are two circumstances that finally turn the scale: first, the constantly
recurring experience that capital, so soon as it finds itself subject to legal control at one point,
compensates itself all the more recklessly at other points;233 secondly, the cry of the capitalists for
equality in the conditions of competition, i.e., for equal restrain on all exploitation of labour.234"_

Both these quotes are by Marx, wherein he declares equality to be his goal

Also, I think you are seeing too much of Cuck Philosophy. lol

_"until the notion of human equality has already acquired the fixity of a popular prejudice"_

Marx lauds this notion and calls it precursor to Communist Revolution

The Labour Theory of Value is an extension of equality to Economics

In the second comment, he says how Industrial Revolution would bring in Communism

You are just saying that because Marx was not very egalitarian, he was not egalitarian. By that logic, no one supports free speech because everyone thinks threats are not ok

Ok. Do you think if someone thinks manspreading is ok, he cannot be egalitarian/

Lol, the point I am alluding to is that egalitarians do not believe everyone should be equal in all senses, either. So, Marxists have made their own definition of egalitarianism to claim that Marx and Engels were not egalitarian.

He says he will supersede equality not that he is anti-equality

I know that quote

One of the goals of Communism is Equality. It is not the only goal.

Equality in all respects as a standard egalitarian today believes.

This is true. Can you find me one statement from Marx wherein he differed from a concept of equality, an egalitarian proposes today?

This is how Marxists shift goal posts. Nobody in this world has ever proposed absolute equality. They say that because we are not for absolute equality, we are not for equality. By that logic, no one would be anything except if he is a fundamentalist. Have you watched Cuck Philosophy?

This is what a standard egalitarian believes. I have never seen an egalitarian say that different wealth is against equality.
The difference is that a normal egalitarian still believes that boss is boss, while a Marxists even denies the difference there. So, he is more egalitarian than egalitarian

This is why Cuck Philosophy says equality but then makes it about absolute equality. Because it is clear from Marx's writings that he was more egalitarian than most people at that time

Lol, it is strange you'd say that because if you read Marxist Literature, you see hundreds of mention of equality. So, if this was a bastardization, why were Marxists so quiet about it for years until egalitarianism became unpopular

And what I am trying to tell you is that Marxism is about equality. This is necessary because that is what makes it different from Right. You asked what Right is. Didn't you?

_A number of other passages in Capital illustrate that Marx held a much more nuanced view of the position of women in the workforce than most feminists acknowledge. For example, as women entered the workforce, he writes, they potentially gained power in their private lives since they now contributed monetarily to the family’s welfare, and were no longer under the direct control of their husbands or fathers for a large portion of the day. This had a significant effect on the family. Here, Marx shows both sides of this development. On one hand, long hours and night-work tended to undermine traditional family structures, as women were to a certain extent “masculinized” by their work and were often unable to care for their children to the same extent that they had been able to do in the past. On the other, in a later passage, Marx notes that this seeming “deterioration of character” led in the opposite direction—towards “a higher form of the family” in which women would be the true equals of men._

This is another passage wherein Marx applauds women becoming men as a net positive

So, Marx believed that masculinized women are net positive

Which even Sargon and other "Egalitarians" do not believe

lol.

So, why are we arguing this? You are egalitarian Marxist

Free stuff?

lol

Feminism, in minds of most of its proponents and by definition is egalitarian

What you and others are doing is just changing definitions

Lol, nothing is a monolith

But does its definition mentions equality?

Feminism is a range of political movements, ideologies, and social movements that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve political, economic, personal, and social equality of sexes

Lol