Defining Economic Liberty

The following is a conversation between 2 users about differing interpretations of 'economic liberty' and its association with left vs right ideologies, highlighting the complexity of political labels.

@Patriot-#1776Constitution from Washington commented…1yr1Y

Engaged Abortion

Nor was he a rightist, as he did not agree with economic liberty in any way, shape or form. He was a centrist dictator of sorts, but definitely more left than right.

▲▲ 1 Replies Reply to this Agree 1 Disagree Link •••Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Report Block user Follow

@VulcanMan6 from Kansas commented…1yr1Y

How are you defining "left" vs "right"..? And is your argument solely using an economic scale? If someone was an economic centrist, but was socially and politically far-right, would you still consider them "moderate but not right-wing"? What exactly are you basing your "right-wing" vs "left-wing" positioning on?

Additionally, what do you consider "economic liberty"? Because I would argue that right-wing economics are NOT in favor of economic liberty, since capitalism (a fundamentally right-wing economic system) has an inherent and… Read more structural class hierarchy that divides people based on whether or not they are actually allowed economic liberty, in which the capital-owing class has economic liberty, but the working class does not. So already we have a fundamental disagreement on the only criteria you provided for determining "left" vs "right"...so obviously that's not a very useful or objective metric.

▲ 3 ▲ 1 Replies Reply to this Agree Disagree 1 Link •••Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Report Block user Follow 1

@Patriot-#1776Constitution from Washington commented…1yr1Y

Engaged Abortion

Right-wing people support economic liberty but are in general more willing to see the government spy on its civilians via unconstitutional surveillance, and some rightists subscribe to an interventionist foreign police. Left-wing people support economic tyranny with a massive regulatory bureaucracy but are in general less willing to see the government spy on its civilians, and originally many supported a policy of peace and non-intervention, though sadly this has wavered away in recent years, especially under the current warmongering occupant of the White House, who has sent billions to Ukrai… Read morene, Israel, and Taiwan. I am a libertarian conservative who blends the economic liberty and support for Life of the right with the privacy and peace (originally) espoused by leftists, which they have departed from.

By economic liberty, I mean a laissez-faire (from French Laissez Nous Faire, or Leave Us Alone) system wherein individuals are free to make economic transactions and trade with one another without any regulation, or any form of plunder, legal (taxation) or illegal (theft), with a system of written property deeds and land titles, a Gold-backed, uninflatible currency, no central banking, and enforcement of the terms of contracts. This is due to economic calculation – in a free trade, without force or fraud, both sides will benefit the vast majority of the time, as each is giving up something he wants less for something he wants more, thereby resulting in a slightly-raised standard of living for both participants in the trade. When millions of these free and voluntary trades happen every day, you have a rising standard of living and security, prosperity, and happiness. Obviously, even the majority of economic transactions occurring today benefit both sides, for if even one did not see a net benefit in the transaction, or even saw a potential for harm and exploitation, why should he trade at all? That's the question Marxists never answer. But introduce force of fraud into a transaction, which the vast majority of times in the modern age, takes the form of bureaucratic regulation and taxation, and odds are that at least one side will suffer a loss, resulting in no net gain to society and often a net loss. Taxation is money that is plundered by force, and regulation is also another means of force and coercion to force an individual to do something the State wants him to. Both disrupt trade significantly, which is why I support their repeal.

The fundamental disagreement between right and left wing is as much your fault as my own, it is irrational and hilariously absurd to act like I'm the one purposely overcomplicating this conversation.

Lastly, why do I think Hitler considered socialists, counists, anarchist, labor unionists to be political opposition? Because those who campaign on a certain ideology, when placed in a position of political power, seldom ever hold true to the ideology upon which they were elected. They strive only for political power and personal advancement at the expense of others – that's human nature. So when these leftists, with whom he had minor disagreements, spoke out against him, Hitler sent the to concentration camps not mainly for ideological reasons but because he saw them as a threat to his bulldog grip on political power, which he was addicted, like all politicians, to. Just as left-anarchists and left-socialists have major disagreements despite both being left, just because Hitler has some major disagreements with other leftists does not make him a leftist, especially when he campaigned on many leftist principles, as can be seen if you read the Nazi Party platform he wrote. Without regard to whether you believe his style of governance was inherently left or right, the fact cannot be denied that he campaigned on leftist principles, won on leftist principles, and was allowed to get into the position of power that allowed him to do the damage he did on leftist principles. This should be a cause for alarm and reflection to all liberals to seriously evaluate whether the intentions of their preferred candidates are just for political power or are indeed pure, which is almost never the case in politics.

▲▲Reply to this Agree Disagree Link •••Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Report Block user Follow

@VulcanMan6 from Kansas commented…1yr1Y

Right-wing people support economic liberty...

Again, I already explained to you that I believe "the right" is fundamentally ANTI-economic liberty, so obviously this buzzword claim is not inherent or objective on its own.

By economic liberty, I mean a laissez-faire (from French Laissez Nous Faire, or Leave Us Alone) system wherein individuals are free to make economic transactions and trade with one another without any regulation, or any form of plunder, legal (taxation) or illegal (theft), with a system of written property deeds and land titles, a Gold-backed, uninflatible currency,… Read more no central banking, and enforcement of the terms of contracts.

A big problem is that your interpretation of economic liberty doesn't even apply to all right-wing ideologies. If this is genuinely how you define economic liberty, then your initial claim that "right wing people support economic liberty" already excludes every right-wing ideology that isn't YOUR hyper-specific branch of Anarcho-Capitalism. In fact, nearly every other right-wing ideology besides yours is fine with one or more of those things, and disagrees with one or more of those other things. Your requirements are so overly-specific that you've actually moved the criteria enough that the majority of right-wingers are excluded with your definition...which, along with the fact that I would definitely describe economic liberty differently, makes it a bad basis for "the right".

For example, I would argue that "liberty" is the state of being free from the imposed decisions of a hierarchical authority, hence "economic liberty" is the state of being free from the imposed economic decisions of a hierarchical authority. According to MY interpretation of economic liberty, right-wing ideologies are fundamentally AGAINST economic liberty. Additionally, my interpretation of economic liberty ALSO excludes some left-wing ideologies, which is why I would disagree with your initial premise that "economic liberty" is the categorical metric that determines left vs right. Not only is "economic liberty" somewhat subjective, but even our own interpretations of it exclude members of our own "side". It just isn't a good metric.

...in general more willing to see the government spy on its civilians via unconstitutional surveillance, and some rightists subscribe to an interventionist foreign police.

If you have to specify "in general" or "some rightists", then you've already recognized that those things are not definitive classifiers. If only some, or even most, ideologies subscribe to that metric, then it isn't a good metric for something that is supposed to be binary like "left vs right". People across the board can believe in varying levels of either of these, and for varying reasons. Even models as basic as the political compass understand this.

...especially under the current warmongering occupant of the White House...

Biden is not left-wing. The Democratic Party is not left-wing. Biden, and the Democratic Party that supports him, are moderate neoliberals (at best), which is a right-wing ideology (not quite as far right as Republicans, but still further right than Social Democracy, which is the left-most right-wing ideology). I would argue that anything further right than Socialism is "right-wing", hence every Liberal is a right-wing moderate/centrist. Liberals are ideologically NOT left-wing, because Liberals are still pro-capitalism. I do not like or support Liberals, or Biden, or the Democratic Party, BECAUSE they are all right-wing...and I am not.

Obviously, even the majority of economic transactions occurring today benefit both sides, for if even one did not see a net benefit in the transaction, or even saw a potential for harm and exploitation, why should he trade at all? That's the question Marxists never answer.

I'm not a Marxist Socialist (not all socialists or leftists are Marxists, if you didn't know that), but I can answer as a Leftist that, yes, we absolutely have answered this: coercion. Your idea of "fair trade" assumes that all parties involved are on equal footing, which is not true. If you need food, and some other person owns the food, then you will have to do whatever you need to do to meet their demands to acquire it. So long as someone else owns the things that you need, there is a fundamental imbalance of power within the interaction. This kind of private economic ownership organizing society like a hostage situation, in which the ownership-class utilizes their power over the production and distribution of society's goods and resources to make demands over everybody else to access things. I'm sure you disagree with this analysis, but this is one of the many answers that many leftists have given in response to this assertion.

The fundamental disagreement between right and left wing is as much your fault as my own, it is irrational and hilariously absurd to act like I'm the one purposely overcomplicating this conversation.

What do you mean? All I did was ask you a series of clarifying questions; not because you were overcomplicating the issue, but because you were oversimplifying the issue. You asserted that right=economic liberty and that left=anti-economic liberty, which I'm sure we should both be able to agree is ridiculous, for more reasons than one, as I've expressed here already. I am the one arguing that this dichotomy is more complex than what you previously implied, hence why I asked all those questions...

Because those who campaign on a certain ideology, when placed in a position of political power, seldom ever hold true to the ideology upon which they were elected.

So you are arguing that Hitler campaigned as a leftist, but once he got into his position of power, he instead used his power to enact non-leftist things?

Just as left-anarchists and left-socialists...

What is a "left-socialist"? It makes no sense to be "left-socialist" because there is no such thing as "right-socialist" either. Socialism is an inherently left-wing economic system, just as capitalism is an inherently right-wing economic system. You can be an Anarcho-Socialist (me) or an Anarcho-Capitalist (you), but Socialist is not a left-or-right ideology. There are different kinds of Leftists and Socialists, yes, so I understand the point of the claim, but I wanted to clarify that "left-socialist" is a fundamental misunderstanding of what "Leftist" and "Socialist" are.

...especially when he campaigned on many leftist principles, as can be seen if you read the Nazi Party platform he wrote.

Care to provide any examples of these principles, and why you think they are leftist? (I use this site at work so I really can't be looking up Nazi stuff lol)

Without regard to whether you believe his style of governance was inherently left or right, the fact cannot be denied that he campaigned on leftist principles, won on leftist principles, and was allowed to get into the position of power that allowed him to do the damage he did on leftist principles.

Ah, so are you arguing that Hitler was never actually a leftist himself, he merely lied about being a leftist and advocating for leftist policies, in order to appear more favorable to the actual leftists?

▲ 2 ▲Reply to this Agree Disagree Link •••Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Report Block user Follow 1

@Patriot-#1776Constitution from Washington commented…1yr1Y

Engaged Abortion

Again, I already explained to you that I believe "the right" is fundamentally ANTI-economic liberty, so obviously this buzzword claim is not inherent or objective on its own.

And I offered a different perspective. Is that not allowed...?

A big problem is that your interpretation of economic liberty doesn't even apply to all right-wing ideologies. If this is genuinely how you define economic liberty, then your initial claim that "right wing people support economic liberty" already excludes every right-wing ideology that isn't YOUR hyper-specific branch of Anarcho-Ca… Read morepitalism.

I'm not an Anarcho-Capitalist, I still believe in the necessity of a minarchy, minimal government, or night watchman state to protect life, liberty, and property by enforcing the Higher Law and punishing those who encroach upon these God-given rights. I am not an anarchist in any form, merely a libertarian conservative who wants to limit the scope of government to its one legitimate function – securing preexisting rights to life, liberty, and property. The difference is that I will never tolerate it departing from that function.

If you have to specify "in general" or "some rightists", then you've already recognized that those things are not definitive classifiers. If only some, or even most, ideologies subscribe to that metric, then it isn't a good metric for something that is supposed to be binary like "left vs right". People across the board can believe in varying levels of either of these, and for varying reasons. Even models as basic as the political compass understand this.

Did I ever say that right and left was a clear-cut issue of liberty vs authoritarianism? No, I didn't. All I said was that Hitler's brand of National Socialism agreed more with the views that, in general, left wing ideologies hold than that, in general, right wing ideologies hold. I am not accusing you of agreeing with Adolf Hitler, which seems to be what you think, rather I have said Hitlerism its one example of a left-wing ideology, but I never denied that there are many left-wing ideologies greatly diverse and with greatly different ideas. For example, your brand of social anarchism definitely has some disagreements with Bidenism.

Care to provide any examples of these principles, and why you think they are leftist?

Here I will quote from the Nazi Party Platform Hitler wrote:

We demand the abolition of incomes unearned by work [and] the breaking of slavery of interest.

In view of the enormous sacrifices of life and property demanded of a nation by any war, personal enrichment from war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. We demand therefore the ruthless confiscation of all war profits.
We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts).
We demand profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises.
We demand the extensive development of insurance for old age.
We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, the immediate communalizing of big department stores, and their lease at a cheap rate to small traders, and that the utmost consideration shall be shown to all small traders in the placing of State and municipal orders.
We demand a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation; the abolition of ground rent, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.
The State must consider a thorough reconstruction of our national system of education (with the aim of opening up to every able and hard-working German the possibility of higher education and of thus obtaining advancement). The curricula of all educational establishments must be brought into line with the requirements of practical life. The aim of the school must be to give the pupil, beginning with the first sign of intelligence, a grasp of the notion of the State (through the study of civic affairs). We demand the education of gifted children of poor parents, whatever their class or occupation, at the expense of the State.
The State must ensure that the nation’s health standards are raised by protecting mothers and infants, by prohibiting child labor, by promoting physical strength through legislation providing for compulsory gymnastics and sports, and by the extensive support of clubs engaged in the physical training of youth.

These are leftist principles. You, as an anarchy-socialist, may not agree with them, but they are fundamentally left-wing, as most leftist support social programs to help the poor and educate people, and redistribution of wealth and property, as is listed in Hitler's manifesto numerous times...

▲▲ 1 Replies Reply to this Agree Disagree 1 Link •••Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Report Block user Follow

@VulcanMan6 from Kansas commented…1yr1Y

And I offered a different perspective. Is that not allowed...?

Right, that's the point: you and I have fundamentally different interpretations of what "economic liberty" means, hence why I argued that it is not a good metric of determining a left or right ideology, since both sides can claim they believe in it and the other doesn't. It was a counter to your previous assertion that economic liberty is a right-wing value/belief. Obviously it is something else that is a determining factor...

I'm not an Anarcho-Capitalist

Yea I think I confused you with another… Read more similar user I often had discussions with months ago (which I may have also brought up in another post, so my apologies for the confusion if that wasn't actually you lol).

Regardless, we obviously disagree on nearly every position you listed; however, we can still switch out "anarcho-capitalist" with "libertarian-capitalist" in my previous argument and the point still stands (although I understand the frustration of someone misclassifying your ideology lol).

Did I ever say that right and left was a clear-cut issue of liberty vs authoritarianism? No, I didn't.

Right, I never said you did, but you did say: "Right-wing people support economic liberty but are in general more willing to see the government spy on its civilians via unconstitutional surveillance, and some rightists subscribe to an interventionist foreign police. Left-wing people support economic tyranny with a massive regulatory bureaucracy but are in general less willing to see the government spy on its civilians, and originally many supported a policy of peace and non-intervention, though sadly this has wavered away in recent years, especially under the current warmongering occupant of the White House..." which is also wildly incorrect and is the thing I was arguing against.

"Right-wing people support economic liberty..." is not true because it is entirely dependent on how you personally interpret "economic liberty", as I've repeatedly explained. I would argue that left-wing people support economic liberty, and right-wing people don't, so obviously your claim is not objectively true.

"Left-wing people support economic tyranny..." is not true for the exact same reasons: it is entirely dependent on how you personally interpret "economic tyranny". I would easily consider capitalism's system of private property ownership to be economic tyranny, hence I argue that right-wing people support economic tyranny...so again, your claim is not objectively true, and I am merely providing a counterargument to your claims.

"...though sadly this has wavered away in recent years, especially under the current warmongering occupant of the White House" is not true because neither Biden nor the Democratic Party are left-wing. They are absolutely warmongers and I, as both a leftist and just as a decent human being, despise them...but they're definitely not leftist by any means. If you're viewing left-right politics in America as "Democrats=left and Republicans=right", then I would argue you are already wildly off-base.

All I said was that Hitler's brand of National Socialism agreed more with the views that, in general, left wing ideologies hold than that, in general, right wing ideologies hold.

And again, to be clear, they called themselves the "National Socialist German Worker's Party" because it sounded positive to the working class voter base, NOT because they were, or had any intentions of being, left-wing. Another easy example is the North Korean state, the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea"; just because a state/party calls themselves something, does NOT mean they actually ARE that thing.

Even further, a state/party can also claim to advocate for things, without actually being that thing, or doing anything to actually become it. Even our politicians here do that, by claiming that they'll do and fight for all these things, just to not actually do anything about it even when they win...it doesn't actually make them that thing. Perhaps the heart of this disagreement is what we each mean by "being a leftist (or x ideology)". I would argue that someone can claim to be leftist, and even advocate for leftist things, but if, in a direct position of power, they do not actually do those things, then they are NOT actually leftist, they are something else and just lying. People can SAY anything, but the actual policies they enact determine their real ideology. It appears as though you determine this differently, so I'm curious to understand your thoughts.

I am not accusing you of agreeing with Adolf Hitler, which seems to be what you think...

No, no, I do understand that neither of us are accusing the other of being aligned with Naziism. We both clearly agree that "left and right-wing ideologies" encompass a wide variety of thoughts and beliefs and systems and whatnot, we simply seem to disagree on where we draw that left/right dividing line, which is what I want to narrow down with this discussion.

"In view of the enormous sacrifices of life and property demanded of a nation by any war, personal enrichment from war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. We demand therefore the ruthless confiscation of all war profits."

This definitely sounds nice, yes. The issue here is obviously that they didn't actually adhere to that, given that the Nazis famously stole vast amounts of artworks, gold, even up to just blatantly stealing the possessions of anyone they sent to the camps, and that's not even including the additional destruction of conquered properties they didn't like, such as the many book burnings. This isn't necessarily a left/right issue, moreso just an authoritarian one.

"We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts)."

I would be all for the nationalization/collectivization of every industry, yes, but again they ended up doing the opposite. Not only did they further privatize their economy by siphoning small businesses into the hands of larger "big business" private owners, but they also actively dissolved and dismantled any worker unions and labor laws, thus further driving the economy away from the hands of the working class (which is fundamentally antithetical to all left-wing ideologies).

These are leftist principles.

Most of these, including the next five bullet points, just sound like basic policies of any social democracy. These policies can exist in different forms within both left or right-wing systems, because none of these policies are exclusive to one or the other. For example, a capitalist nation with universal healthcare is still right-wing, because the core system, capitalism, is fundamentally right-wing. Any number of progressive policies can never make a right-wing system left-wing, without actually changing the system itself. And importantly, while most of these policies are progressive, sure, they didn't even do most of them (not that they would've been good if they did, obviously).

Again the fundamental disagreement here is what characteristic actually distinguishes "left" from "right", of which I argue that the core system in which a society/ideology adheres to is the differentiating metric.

...they are fundamentally left-wing, as most leftist support social programs to help the poor and educate people, and redistribution of wealth and property, as is listed in Hitler's manifesto numerous times...

According to my above argument, someone can believe in an ideology that calls for strong social safety nets and free welfare/healthcare/etc. programs under a capitalist system (Social Democracy)...and that would still be a right-wing ideology, because capitalism is fundamentally right-wing. Literally ANY number of progressive policies under a capitalist system will only ever be right-wing, because it's the system itself that determines left from right, not the additive policies built onto it. That is the entire basis of my argument, actually.

As such, even IF the Nazis had actually enacted the policies they claimed to have cared about (which they didn't), it still would not even make them theoretically leftist, because they still ultimately held and defended and enacted a system of private economic ownership over the means of production, aka capitalism. We can definitely agree that they claimed to be very progressive, but they clearly were not actually such in practice.

▲▲Reply to this Agree Disagree Link •••Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Report Block user Follow 1

@Patriot-#1776Constitution from Washington commented…1yr1Y

Engaged Abortion

but you did say: "Right-wing people support economic liberty but are in general more willing to see the government spy on its civilians via unconstitutional surveillance, and some rightists subscribe to an interventionist foreign police. Left-wing people support economic tyranny with a massive regulatory bureaucracy but are in general less willing to see the government spy on its civilians, and originally many supported a policy of peace and non-intervention, though sadly this has wavered away in recent years, especially under the current warmongering occupant of the White House..."… Read more; which is also wildly incorrect and is the thing I was arguing against.

▲▲Reply to this Agree Disagree Link •••Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Report Block user Follow

@VulcanMan6 from Kansas commented…1yr1Y

I have explained to you what I meant by "economic liberty" so there's no fallacy there, as I have defined my terms and you have defined yours. The true debate should be over why we believe economic liberty is what it is.

Yes that is quite literally the entire point I have been trying to make: our own interpretations of "economic liberty" are entirely subjective, and even largely antithetical to each other's, hence why it is not a useful term to claim categorizes left and right-wing ideological thought. We could both have logically sound reasons as to why we believ… Read moree the definitions and categorical metrics that we hold true, while still ultimately having two different conclusions, because we clearly each have differing core values with which we premise our entire perception of reason and morality.

If you want to explain WHY you believe "economic liberty" should be defined by the extensive policy list you gave,

By economic liberty, I mean a laissez-faire (from French Laissez Nous Faire, or Leave Us Alone) system wherein individuals are free to make economic transactions and trade with one another without any regulation, or any form of plunder, legal (taxation) or illegal (theft), with a system of written property deeds and land titles, a Gold-backed, uninflatible currency, no central banking, and enforcement of the terms of contracts.

then by all means feel free. Personally, I think your description has excessively turned a basic concept into a hyper-specific set of rules and organizational means for structuring an economic/political system. I mean, you're even describing a specific monetary system that requires "gold-backed, uniflatable currency", which is an entirely unrelated thing to the concept of economic liberty. Like, are you implying that economic liberty is impossible under a monetary system backed by silver? Why is that relevant? Why does having economic liberty rely on whether your system has a central bank or not? Your criteria for "economic liberty" just seems ridiculously over-exaggerated for what is supposed to be an intangible concept. So yes, I am very curious as to why your interpretation is what it is.

My point exactly. If so many people have been fooled so many times by authoritarians advocating for things that sound good to time, why should we not be more skeptical of those who promise the very things Hitler did? Historically, these people have a horrible track record of tyranny once they come into office, and it would be presumptuous to assume that's changed now...

No I understand that we agree that politicians absolutely will lie about believing in nice things in order to take power, my disagreement was simply in the claim that lying about a belief somehow actually makes you that thing. Saying "Hitler was a leftist" or "the nazis were socialist", while simultaneously recognizing and acknowledging that they were only ever lying about believing in any of the remotely progressive things they claimed, should be enough to prove the ridiculous falsehood of those kinds of claims. You aren't defined by the beliefs you lie about, you're defined by the beliefs you actually hold and act on.

In terms of trusting political leaders, I agree. In fact, I think you should inherently be critical of ALL political leaders ("authoritarian" or otherwise) because I am fundamentally anti-hierarchy to begin with. I do not believe that ANY person should hold a structural position of hierarchical power over others, at all, ever. I do not think politicians should exist. I am against all hierarchical, including representative, forms of government. I think republics/"representative democracies" are blatant oligarchies. So yes, I agree, I think all people should be critical of all leaders...because I think leaders are inherently bad and that they should not exist in the first place.

▲ 3 ▲Reply to this Agree Disagree 1 Link •••Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Report Block user Follow 1

@8ZN3PC2Capitalism from Oregon disagreed…5mos5MO

Expert Economic policy Expert economy

Here’s the thing: if economic liberty is as subjective as you claim, how can we ever have any coherent economic policy? What you’re describing is pure relativism applied to economics, which leads to chaos. If two people can define "economic liberty" in entirely opposite ways, then what stops them from defining "freedom" or “rights” in equally contradictory terms? And where does that leave us? In a world where words lose meaning and decisions become arbitrary. That’s dangerous, especially when it comes to policy-making. Society functions on sha… Read morered definitions; otherwise, you’re left with a cacophony of incompatible interpretations, which leads to gridlock or, worse, authoritarianism under the guise of "just another interpretation."

Let’s take an example: the collapse of the Soviet Union. Before that, the Soviet leadership could have argued, "Hey, we believe in economic liberty too, but in our own way!" But their version of economic liberty—state control over production and distribution, in the name of 'the people'—ended up bankrupting the nation and stifling individual initiative. Why? Because their "interpretation" went against the grain of human nature: people generally thrive when they can innovate, trade, and keep the fruits of their labor.

And to your point about my definition of economic liberty being "hyper-specific"—that’s not a flaw; it’s a strength. A gold-backed currency, for example, reins in inflation and government overreach. Look at the hyperinflation in 1920s Weimar Germany or present-day Venezuela, where unchecked fiat currencies led to people needing wheelbarrows of cash just to buy bread. Do you really think economic liberty exists when your savings lose value overnight due to government manipulation of the currency? Central banks, inflationary policies—all of these are mechanisms of control that strip real economic freedom from individuals. That’s why I advocate for something like a gold standard. It’s not about silver vs. gold; it’s about limiting government power over money itself.

Here’s something to chew on: If you argue that "representative democracy is a blatant oligarchy," what’s your alternative? How do you propose we manage a complex, interconnected modern society without leaders or representatives? Direct democracy in large-scale nations has historically been a logistical nightmare. And if you’re truly anti-hierarchy, what do you do when people *voluntarily* choose leaders or experts to guide them? Are you going to tell them they can’t do that because it violates your principle of anti-hierarchy, even if they want to?

I'd love to hear your solution for scaling leadership-free governance to a global economy. How would you prevent the inevitable power vacuums that arise in "leaderless" systems from being filled by opportunists or demagogues?