your home is your castledo what you wish in your own homedo what you think is best with your own family in your own homenepotism only applies to businesses, and more specifically to management positions and executivesHow is the logic any different?
EQUALITY = PROVABLY FAIREQUALITY = NO "HEAD-STARTS"NO GIFTSNO INHERITANCENO NEPOTISMNO CHEATINGOut of curiosity, what are some advantages for which you'd be on board?
OLIGARCHY IS THE ANTITHESIS OF ANARCHYOLIGARCHY IS THE INEVITABLE CONSEQUENCE OF NEPOTISM + INHERITANCEAssuming of course that we're focused on the concentration of wealth. And there will always be concentration where the most commerce is generated, nepotism + inheritance notwithstanding. (Yes even trust-fund babies learn how to maintain their wealth given that wealth too is finite.)
parental focus may give someone an emotional advantage or disadvantage
training and or popular style may give a person a social advantage or disadvantage
personal and or parental and or social priority may give someone an intellectual advantage or disadvantage
are you suggesting that just as many oligarchs would exist in a world without NEPOTISM + INHERITANCE ?
Is a person's prospective homelessness and starvation a fault of the system?
So in your dystopia, a person with bad parents is just fucked, right?
So in your dystopia, a person with bad schools is just fucked, right?
So in your dystopia, a person with bad lifestyle choices is just fucked, right?
what do you believe is the primary function of government ?
are you suggesting that just as many oligarchs would exist in a world without NEPOTISM + INHERITANCE ?Only 8.5% of global high-net-worth individuals were categorized as having completely inherited their wealthWhy on earth are your panties so irredeemably twisted over 8.5% of the super elite oligarchy?
what do you believe is the primary function of government ?To protect the public from jealous people (criminals) or jealous nations (invaders) and allow people the freedom to pursue happiness, not engage in equity schemes that reward jealous people while punishing ambitious people...
'World's richest 1% get 82% of the wealth
government regulation currently crushes small business and insulates big businesses
government regulation currently crushes small business and insulates big businessesBig businesses are jealous of successful competitors.
in your own imagination,
who are the current "ambitious and deserving geniuses" ?
please explain how you managed to leap to this ridiculous conclusion
let's see if we can square this circledo you believe there should be some rules to govern commerce ?
if you do believe there should be some rules to govern commerce, what moral theory
, and or what primary goal should those rules be aimed at ?
public sphere requires regulationprivate sphere is private
parental focus may give someone an emotional advantage or disadvantagetraining and or popular style may give a person a social advantage or disadvantagepersonal and or parental and or social priority may give someone an intellectual advantage or disadvantage
are you suggesting that just as many oligarchs would exist in a world without NEPOTISM + INHERITANCE ?
and for the record, any "self-made" oligarchs that might arise from a provably-fair game, that could not gift their assets to their friends and or relatives would be 100% "acceptable".
what do you believe is the primary function of government ?
HERE'S YOUR PRECIOUS EFFICIENT "FREE-MARKET" IN ACTION,
HERE'S YOUR PRECIOUS EFFICIENT "FREE-MARKET" IN ACTION,Explain your contention against that which was described in the video you referenced.
please explain how you managed to leap to this ridiculous conclusionBecause modeling jobs require no particularly stringent merits, correct? How different is it that one is born beautiful from one's being born into money?
let's see if we can square this circledo you believe there should be some rules to govern commerce ?Yes, privatized rules. That is, the involved parties can determine their participation by the rules they've conceived, and to which they've agreed.
if you do believe there should be some rules to govern commerce, what moral theoryIndividualist moral theory.
, and or what primary goal should those rules be aimed at ?Maintaining the interests of the involved.
public sphere requires regulationprivate sphere is privateAnd management and executive positions are (necessarily) within the public sphere?
parental focus may give someone an emotional advantage or disadvantagetraining and or popular style may give a person a social advantage or disadvantagepersonal and or parental and or social priority may give someone an intellectual advantage or disadvantageOn what measure do you base a distinction between a "fair" advantage and an "unfair" advantage? How do the advantages you've list meet that criterion/criteria?
are you suggesting that just as many oligarchs would exist in a world without NEPOTISM + INHERITANCE ?I wouldn't characterize them as "oligarchs," but yes, there'd still be a concentration of wealth in the absence of nepotism and inheritance.
I've never endorsed the concept of equality, and I will never endorse the concept of equality because it necessarily undermines individuality--especially if this equality is to be enforced. Neither MRM/MRA/AVfM/MGTOW nor Feminism has a legitimate gripe against the sex whom they've claimed has victimized them. And these movements have done more to sow conflict rather than promote cohesion.
I'm not sure how anyone can claim we're "participating" in a "capitalist" economy when a commodity can be so obviously price fixed by the oligarchs.
"Merit" in a modeling job is "looks".
I've never once suggested that every job should be available for every human.never.once.
What happens when the "privatized rules" inevitably become insular, raising anti-competitive barriers to entry?
How do you propose we protect the individual from the collective?
Do those interests include all citizens?
If your company serves the public, then they are within the public sphere.
I've been pretty clear on this from the word go.NO NEPOTISM.NO INHERITANCE.
Please provide your personally preferred definition of "oligarch".
None of those groups really criticize women at all, so no legitimate gripe would be correct.
They typically argue that some aspects of feminism are harmful to society, as well as both females and males.
They do recognize that men are different than women both psychologically and physically. It's not a statement of superiority though. It's just a recognition of key differences.
None of those differences are used to villianize women. Also most of the differences talked about are around sexual dating strategy.
That is incorrect. At best, those "male" groups criticize "females" for being indirectly complicit by not providing a voice against the system which benefits them.
I'm not suggesting that these groups are antagonizing women because males and females are sexually dimorphic. I'm suggesting that their gripes, which should be against the State, is misdirected toward females. And they're using that as a pretext to claim victimization. Take MGTOW for example, "Men Going Their Own Way." From whom? And why?
Men Going their own way is just men who wish to remain single, not necessarily sexless though some do refrain from sex.
I'm redpill. I love women, I love my nieces and my mom and sister. They are what they are. They are just different from men. Like ants are different from alligators.
Women are even superior in some ways perhaps. G y the rational male website. Rollo Tomassi is one of the more intelligent members of the redpill community and actually argue against something he says, instead of strawmans.
