Like I said, the free market would also be used to distribute luxuries that a company would produce then sell.

Very similarly to our own, but would be modified not to produce corporations or monopolies that manipulate populations to their will.

There is a fundamental problem here. I guess we cannot continue.

Free market without capitalism is an oxymoron. It can only be used as a stop-gap in some instances of need.

And yes, I do mean that private property should and always should exist.

Let people compete for workers aristocracy position

I would argue otherwise, as I believe that if you removed the juden behind it who used the system to manipulate governments and people, and modified it so that they could never exist again, then you could have it work more for the benefit of humanity.

Nothing exist always even stars

?

I do mean that private property should and always should exist.

1. People become successful in free market
2. Work towards their own interests
3. Personal interest conflict with public interest
IT WAS THE JEWS

Really?

I don't know what you are getting at, even if you are shit posting.

@Deleted User Red Power means that technically, nothing lasts forever, not even private property. He's just being autistic.

@Chopin#0138 If you take notice almost all owners of extremely large corporations, tend to either fall under jewish decent, this combined with the fact that they often manipulate governments and populations to their will IE: george soros funding islamic terror groups and antifa.

Though I also believe that in the free market, people should be stopped when their interests in the company begin to overlap the interest of the state, and should be shut down.

>shut it down

(That or when they begin to manipulate or oppress people with their company)

I'm afraid you cannot have both. Either free market and personal interest wins, or the state and social interest wins. There is no inbetween because they are contradictory aims. But that's fine, you can pretend otherwise

Hmm....

I do believe that people should have free will, but not to the extent where they believe they are above the state and begin to manipulate the world to their will.

People should have free will, but not to the extent where they harm the state.

It's a conflict of interest. You want all good things and no bad things. But there is contradiction here. You are too optimistic.

That's my impression.

Hmm.

Can you elaborate on that?

Thanks for the chat. It is always interesting to talk with different people.

I can try.

The basic critique is that personal and public interest are two contradictory aims. Private and public property. They cannot co-exist together without coming in direct conflict.

That is true, which is why I believe that it may be possible to manipulate the free market into serving public interest, while not completely removing private property.

But the free market doesn't want to be manipulated.

Which is why you must control it with an iron grasp.

In an attempt to make the free market 'unfree', a state will become authoritarian and need to control all transactions intensely. It will get to a point where it is just turn socialist and make all property public. That way the public interest is served and the constant battle is over, which is really impossible to win.

If you still think it could work, you should think more deeply at what such an authoritarian state would look like that tries to control a 'free market' so intensely that no individual financial interests are allowed to develop.

Hmm.

Now ultiminately I do not want the state destroying all public property or killing off personal interest, I just want the international jewery to come to an end.

Jews are created by class and imperialism (in Israel). Without private property there are no jews.

Quite merchant in yourself fool.

Kill the inner one

But then you destroy personal property and personal interests, effectively hurting the majority more rather than the juden.