No. I read quite a lot of it, and most of it ignored how the real world actually functions or proposed ideas that aren't functional.
Yeah you haven't read any of it
Rothbard wasn't interested in creating a decent society, he was interested in removing barriers to wealth and power for the capitalist class.
Even though he's written extensively about how the state allows individuals to become artificially wealthy compared to a free market?
Wow, this is simple stuff. You either A, have zero reading comprehension whatsoever, or B, haven't read a single book by rothbard. Probably both, I'm guessing.
And this whole notion of "classes" in utter nonsense
Dude, you've heard of the Spanish Civil War, come on. It holds a lot more weight than any free market fantasy.
Again, you're talking about movements. These "free market fantasies" involve millions of people rising out of poverty, and everyday people like you and me living like kings compared to people mere centuries ago.
There is no example of syndicalism working on a large scale, and so it fails dramatically in theory and has no empirical support.
And yet civil unrest is peaking worldwide,
caused by the state
caused by the state. Pure market conditions lead to maximum possible productivity, and econ 101 the same money chasing more goods = goods becoming cheaper = real wages rising.
The state both prevents maximum production and inflates the money supply, causing real wages to stagnate/fall.
people are still being bombed and killed by the thousand in the name of profit,
Yeah mcdonalds bombs pakistan.
No wait, that's the state I'm thinking of.
suicide rates in Western countries are high and depression is widespread in industrialised nations.
Yeah but people in Africa are super-happy, right?
Private property is turning humans into robotic automata.
Sorry, where are these examples on non-private property economies working well?
Because workers were well off under the soviet union right?
Things lik these can be considered only in relative terms, and so nothing compares to capitalism. ANd of course, as I seem to have said over 9000 times, it's not a free market, and everything you described can be attributed to this fact.
What about the pre-Reagan American economic system? Far better off than under his economic conservatism.
AND once again you reveal your complete ignorance of history. Despite his rhetoric, Reagan greatly expanded the size of government.
http://mises.org/daily/5009/The-Reagan-Fraud-and-After
That's a logical fallacy.
Things aren't working well at all. Are we on the same planet?
By working well I mean we're not fucking Africa or India or soviet union.
Syndicalism can advocate a price system.
Funny, considering most syndicalists say that money is evil...
Anyway, the two are not compatible. Wages aren't determined by supply and demand, and so there's no reason to expect labour to be allocated efficiently.
What's that based on? History paints a different picture.
It's based on ECONOMICS, and history supports this. Notice how America became the world's richest nation in less than two centuries, while nations that were thousands of years old were in a state of poverty? It was because of free enterprise and entrepreneurship.
People living on the street outside of a skyscraper seems like chaos to me.
Never mind that without my advocated system, the thousands of various inputs of resources and labour could never have been coordinated to allow said building to exist.
It's apparent you don't really understand what I mean by chaos. Without money and prices, it''s impossible to determine how much of everything to produce, how many people should work in a particular industry or profession, where resources need to go and so forth. This is what entrepreneurs are responsible for, and you want to get rid of them.
The free market doctrine is the ultimate expression of Rand's staunch individualist ideology.
Mises was around before Rand, idiot.
They do, but that's not what a stateless free market provides. A stateless free market provides private tyrannies and gross inequalities in wealth and thus social standing and individual rights.
A free market leads to the highest and most efficient level of productivity possible, meaning there's more shit produced, meaning things become cheaper and everyone is wealthier.
The state erects barriers to entry which minimises competition with the rich, and so they can become artificially wealthier. The barriers to entry would not exist on a free market and so the rich would have to compete with up and coming entrepreneurs and so would not be so wealthy.
Equality would be greater on a free market, not that it's something I'm even concerned about. I'm pretty sure Africans would be thankful to have people thousands of times wealthier than them if it meant they could live a life remotely comparable to your average westerner.
Really? Look at India, the poster child for the free market. The amount of billionaires in India shot up considerably, and yet it has fallen several places on the HDI.
India is one of the most corrupt governments in the world and is nothing resembling a truly free market.
It actually demonstrates the brilliance of free trade and enterprise, though.
Throughout the twentieth century India had extremely severe restrictions on trade, and surprise surprise they were poor and miserable. In the nineties, they greatly reduced these restrictions, and millions of people were able to rise out of poverty. AND, it meant that millions of men and women were able to get decent jobs after working as prostitutes and drug traffickers/criminals, respectively.
It must be pretty embarrassing when you have nothing to support your theories with.
Pointing out the supposed flaws in a certain system (which is in reality not a free market) is not enough to oppose it. You have not shown any alternatives other than some syndicate nonsense with fails in theory and has no practical evidence, and apparently rests purely on the virtue of it's INTENDED goals, though economics suggests that achieving said goals is not possible.
