>Yes it is. It's a massive advantage and destroys the relatively level playing field needed to make the market work properly.
I think this is the place where we actually disagree. What I'm saying that without state interference, even if you have parasitical individuals, they can't really accomplish much just from charity of individuals. Free market obviously assumes not helping any businesses or individuals monetarily, unless someone does that completely willingly. I don't believe that individual charity is able to help malicious individuals to become powerful without the interference of the state. I'm not an anarchist mind you, just a minarchist
It is the interference of the state that causes those problems to begin with, as it tries to exert more control over the economy and the populace. My point is, that if you have a very small state, and malicious individuals which want to infiltrate and take over the community, then you are pratically taking away the tools they need to cause destruction.
>It's clearly hyperbole, and if you want to have a real conversation, you need to be willing to not be so autistic. Yes, I know where we are, but come on.
You never know here whether it's said seriously or not. Remember that Hitler had some esoteric views, it is not uncommon to see people who are esoterists so I argued in this line.
>Indeed. And those are worse cultures with worse societies. It's a bad trait to have, and a society that doesn't have it must keep those that to have it away. But of course the problem is that that very trait lessens their defenses. It's a double edged sword.
Parasitical behavior is something that happens in all cultures, I agree that in some cultures it is worse than in others, but it's not a trait that you can just throw completely onto Jews. Many post-communist countries including Poland
have a parasitical culture mostly because the civilians were forced to survive by parasitical means. And you could argue that the same was the case with Jews, seeing as they were for the most time, forcibly relegated to only be able to work in a parasitical manner. Still, I believe that free market is exactly the cure to that. Simply because it does punish such behaviors, as you cannot force anyone to give you their money, you have to get it from them voluntarily. Even for most basic services, there are other competing businesses that vow for your attention, so you have to either provide a better or cheaper service, therefore offering something in a non-parasitical manner. Parasitism in a free market society should theoretically I do not claim that I'm 100% right about this, but I believe it as of right now and think that my logic is completely sound
exist, but be pretty unprofitable, therefore discouraging it.
>There's a whole society.
But there are less tools to siphon money from that society. Free market necessarily means the crippling of the state. Free market is always an antagonist to the state, because to control the populace, the state needs to exert control over the economy. Economy after all, is the means through which all services, including services surrounding violence are conducted. A police force will not do your bidding if you don't have weapons to arm them with and don't have money to pay them for their service. Men will not be transported if you have no fuel and so on and so forth. A crippled economy leaves a crippled nation, and a controlling state, a crippled state and a booming economy leaves a booming nation is what I believe. If therefore, the state is mostly out of the picture, any malicious individuals, be it jewish or any other race, really don't have that many tools to siphon wealth from society simply because the main means of doing so are crippled.
<Threat of violence from the state is kept low with an armed society, therefore the society is able to prosper and turn against the state if need be
<Monopolies should not be a problem, as so far monopolies seem to be the effect of the state favoring certain businesses over others
<Taxes should be low enough to keep a minimal state running but siphoning from them should not give a malicious individual much leeway to control the populace more.
Obviously, it would eventually become more centralised and more controlling as societies do by nature, but any society is bound to crumble eventually or turn into a tyrannical dystopia. A decentralised society like that has the biggest chance to keep malicious individuals out of power, at least for a long time where another decentralisation effort can happen.
>Could be cultural.
I feel distasteful towards Jewish culture myself, so I don't have a disagreement here. Honestly if you were to point to something I would say that it's religious rather than purely cultural. I am anti-religious in general though.
>No, the parasitic behavior would be an advantage to them. They're the parasites, not the hosts.
And free market in my opinion is the best defense against parasitic behavior.
>Only if their hosts made them, which they don't, they keep feeding them.
And introducing free market policies would mean cutting the feed in my opinion. Even if we would agree that Jews are naturally, racially parasitical and they will never change, free market economy is still the best defense against a parastical group like that. And even if, there are also other parasitcial individuals who want power and control over others by any means necessary, free market policies, once again, are the best defense to my knowledge about them. Regardless of what race they are.