I’m in Australia: we had a telecommunications business run by the government (Telstra) it was privatised in 1974 and became a monopoly, so in 1989 the government legislated that another telecommunications company (Optus) could use the infrastructure that the government have sold to telstra then we had a duopoly. Then the government built our national broadband network and now we have viable competition in the Telecommunications market with more players like vodaphone and ISP options. How would a laissez-faire market do a better job of creating competition in this situation?
Do you think it is government that enables corporations to create monopolies? I thought Laissez-faire economics was desirable because government crippled business?
How does the nation-state protect shareholder’s? It is often the government that steps in to break up monopolies. Rich people know how to make money, form a monopoly corporation with the other rich people and exploit the workers.
Who will prevent powerful actors from using violence to monopolise resources?
Will the corporations become the new central governments for new smaller regional entities that resemble the old nation states?
Interesting proposal: Voluntary welfare contributions. How do you see funding for infrastructure, tax or also voluntary?
I agree with the need for some examples. Your post is very abstract. I abhor victim culture as well, but what do you see as the things that are “right side up”? What truth are you advocating for?
Is it possible to combine Laissez-faire economics with socially responsible welfare?
Is Nietzsche’s Übermensch a valid response to the Absurd?
⚡ Big News + Zap Giveaway! ⚡
I've officially stepped away from centralized social media and gone all-in on Nostr—the decentralized future of communication. It's more than a platform; it's a movement I'm proud to support. From now on, my creative focus is entirely on making and editing videos within the Nostr ecosystem.
To celebrate, I’m running a #value4value giveaway:
☑️ Follow me
☑️ Repost this note
☑️ Receive 500 sats (directly zapped to you!)
I have a total of 250k sats set aside, so be early to secure your zap.
Need a video for your project, profile, or promotional campaign? Feel free to reach out—I’m excited to collaborate with creators who believe in freedom, resilience, and building something better together.
Let’s amplify Nostr’s reach and shape the future together!
https://blossom.primal.net/a62f93bcd6575baf0bb7b4322a0bf6ec8950ffef1cfa02b6689664b1f2437918.mp4
Done
Oh that’s great. Thank you leadbyexample.
I don’t get what it is. I just saw a bunch of images going by. Please explain, thank you.
Are you old enough to remember Everybody Love Raymond? If not give it a try, might help you laugh at the situation.
Ayn Rand says “Reason is man’s only means of grasping reality and of acquiring knowledge” but Camus advocates for “facts the heart can feel” how would you reconcile these views in order to blend Absurdism and Objectivism?
Yes rebellion against the absurd is a key component of absurdist theory, but rebellion is against the lack of purpose and meaning not against physics or science. Why should my rebellion conflict with objectivism?
Is Absurdism compatible with objectivism? I certainly see absurdism as fitting more with Aristotle and existentialism than with Plato and the abstract forms, but can it be blended with objectivism? The idea that the universe of the cat is different to the universe of people is very post modern, but Camus also says that “The absurd is lucid reason noting its limits.” This seems to adhere with objectivist commitment to reason. What do you think Nostriches?


