Do not buy food raised by slaves- it is always nutrient-poor!

[TylerDurden]

This is nonsense.The big problem nowadays is that big companies control the so-called democratic  governments. Forbid growth completely past a  certain point and all they could do is split up into much smaller companies, most of which would quickly diversify and become widely  different due to having different people in charge.

[dariorpl]

There are plenty of small companies which supply low quality foods. It's not being small that provides the quality. It's the demand of the customers. And because there is little demand for high quality foods, all the companies that produce them must be small. Any company which produces food and wants to be big, must produce low quality, because that's what their customers want and are willing to pay for.

Also, the State makes all sorts of laws, regulations, subsidies and controls designed to keep food quality at a minimum. A dumbed down, sickly population is more easy to keep dependent, enslaved and under control.

Your suggestion is nothing but a socialist pipe dream, you have no clue about economics and if you ever got your way, things would be much worse off. Look at Venezuela for an example of what you want. If you want to learn about the policies that maximize the productivity and production of high quality, low cost products of all kinds, and those that do the opposite, read austrian economics.

[marcuspaleo]

Then to harvest your own meat you may have to travel far and wide and buy whole animals, learn how to kill them and put them away so as to not waste any.

Are u killing your own animals sabertooth? Do u hunt or buy them? How do you store it? I read freezing is bad. Im thinking of getting a group together and sourcing a quality animal every week or two, killing it and distributing the parts. I think i can fleece the laws here which prevent commercial sale of specific animal parts by doing this, while at the same time reducing costs and avoiding freezing bulk meat.

[TylerDurden]

There are plenty of small companies which supply low quality foods. It's not being small that provides the quality. It's the demand of the customers. And because there is little demand for high quality foods, all the companies that produce them must be small. Any company which produces food and wants to be big, must produce low quality, because that's what their customers want and are willing to pay for.

You are quite  wrong. Being small allows the owner of the company far more flexibility and choice, thus enabling  the possibility of selling decent high quality foods at a reasonable price. Mass-production also does not have to involve low-quality.

Also, the State makes all sorts of laws, regulations, subsidies and controls designed to keep food quality at a minimum. A dumbed down, sickly population is more easy to keep dependent, enslaved and under control.

The State is controlled by the large companies, so has no power if the large companies are effectively neutered.

Your suggestion is nothing but a socialist pipe dream, you have no clue about economics and if you ever got your way, things would be much worse off. Look at Venezuela for an example of what you want. If you want to learn about the policies that maximize the productivity and production of high quality, low cost products of all kinds, and those that do the opposite, read austrian economics.

Dear God! I was not promoting socialism at all, just the opposite, namely individualist anarchy.Austrian economics, just like socialism, is heavily flawed, especially given the fact that, nowadays,  too much wealth is now concentrated in the hands of too few individuals.

[sabertooth]

I heavily disagree.  I myself have come across plenty of cheap, high quality foods.The trick is to find small-time farmers/producers who care about their product.  I once knew a fishmonger at a  London  farmers' market who sold me raw scallops, raw mussels and raw oysters at very cheap prices. He would deliberately avoid fishing for seafood that was out of season. Similiarly, I have been always able to buy raw wild game that was much cheaper than raw, 100% grassfed meat. You just have to make an effort to find the right source. The best  idea would be to simply ban big companies from getting involved in the food business, but that would never happen.

I agree that one must do a little work to find the right source, and that big companies are ruining the quality of the worlds food supply, but I was speaking in general about the fact that there are certain areas where it is impossible to get good quality food unless you are wealthy. Even going to some of the upscale stores in my own area with money in hand, it is difficult to find paleo quality meat and produce. There are many upscale people who buy the second rate beef from whole foods for a premium price, because there isn't anything else in town, unless you are willing to buy a quarter of an animal from a farm, and even then finding good quality grass fed animals can be difficult.

Wealthy BTW is a relative term..... many people I know who work for a living, simply cant afford good quality food, even if they had access to a good source, and in America there are vast stretches of land that are labeled food deserts, because the only stores around are corner markets that exclusively sell processed and packaged foods.

[TylerDurden]

Well, if one is living in a  desert, it might be a problem, but that's all.In my experience, most RVAF newbies complain about the total lack of high quality sources in their local area, but, inevitably, after a great deal of research, they inevitably find suitable quality sources of raw foods.I did not have to go to wholefoods when I had problems finding raw foods, I simply searched for local farmers' markets and found high quality weston-price-friendly farmers' markets which were a cut above the rest.Here in Austria, I found after  some internet-searching a warehouse selling raw wild game to the public at half the price of  100%  grassfed meats.Ok, it meant that i had to travel to the suburbs once a fortnight, but that was no big deal.

[dariorpl]

The State is controlled by the large companies, so has no power if the large companies are effectively neutered.

No, it will just be controlled by somebody else. The companies are simply buying what power the State already has, they're not creating it. There were no large companies in the USSR, was the State powerless?

Dear God! I was not promoting socialism at all, just the opposite, namely individualist anarchy.Austrian economics, just like socialism, is heavily flawed, especially given the fact that, nowadays,  too much wealth is now concentrated in the hands of too few individuals.

You have no idea what you're saying, and yes you are promoting socialism, you just don't realize it. The only ideology which cares about wealth distribution is socialism.

And btw, most anarchists are communists, which is the end goal of socialism. The only difference is that they want to skip that step, and go directly to communism.

[TylerDurden]

Pure, meaningless semantics.The companies do not just buy power, they ARE the power. Big SU companies included  Amtorg, OKB Gidropress, Hydroproject, and other State-owned large companies of various sorts.

I was not promoting socialism.I was attacking capitalism, which is not the same thing at all. Banning large companies also does not per se  involve wealth distribution , as owners could still diversify into other sectors of the market, creating other small companies, provided each was quite separate and had its own unique culture etc.

I know re anarchists, but individualist anarchists are not socialists in any way.

[dariorpl]

Pure, meaningless semantics.The companies do not just buy power, they ARE the power. Big SU companies included  Amtorg, OKB Gidropress, Hydroproject, and other State-owned large companies of various sorts.

A "company" that is not for profit and is funded through taxation is not a company. It is a part the State.

I was not promoting socialism.I was attacking capitalism, which is not the same thing at all.

Yes it is. Well, I suppose you could be more towards the middle ground and supporting fascism, but no, you are supporting socialism.

Banning large companies also does not per se  involve wealth distribution , as owners could still diversify into other sectors of the market, creating other small companies, provided each was quite separate and had its own unique culture etc.

Now you're talking about wealth redistribution. In any case, in the post I was responding to, you said it was a problem that some people have too much wealth. That is socialist thinking.

Also, you don't understand the benefits of specialization and division of labor. If someone is really good at running a company which produces beef, forcing them to diversify into other areas of the market necessarily makes them less productive, thus everybody except their competitors will be made worse off.

[TylerDurden]

Well, you are now just going off-track.  I simply pointed out the obvious, that in democratic societies  companies in effect own the government, not just buying influence.The democratic state itself  has no real power since the politicians are owned by special interests, those special interests usually being large companies.

No, it isn't the same thing at all!  Attacking capitalism does not imply socialism at all, as there are multiple other  anti-capitalistic, non-socialist philosophies such as individual anarchism, fascism and libertarianism.

You are clearly very limited/deluded  in your political philosophy if you think that wealth  redistribution is solely socialistic.And I was not per se thinking about wealth redistribution as such, just blocking companies from growing.I do not believe in egalitarianism.However, a meritocratic society based on peoples' real personal value/contribution to society  rather than money, would be the best option.

Making them less productive is The Whole Point(if they are only competent in one sector of the market)! They can only become  greatly wealthy then if they constantly add value to customers and provide the best prices and quality in every small company they own etc.If they try to reduce the value of their product or try to eliminate the far bigger competing multitudes of small companies via unethical practices, then they are screwed.

[dariorpl]

The democratic state itself  has no real power since the politicians are owned by special interests, those special interests usually being large companies.

If is through the State that they exert power, it is the State system where the power lies. For everybody else, it is considered a crime if they steal, murder, rape and torture. But for State agents, it is considered not only acceptable, but a social good (or necessary evil). The State is the only agency that people at large will accept this from. They won't accept it directly from the companies. Hence the power lies with the State, not the companies that happen to control it temporarily. And as I explained, many countries in the past and present have had very large, powerful and destructive States with not a single large company in sight, and while these companies were made illegal just like you propose. The problem is not the companies. The problem is the delusion that gets the masses to accept oppression if it's coming from someone in an official uniform. Your proposal makes these people in funny costumes a lot more powerful. Your proposal is nothing but rebranded socialism. And I'm not even sure about the rebranded part.

No, it isn't the same thing at all!  Attacking capitalism does not imply socialism at all, as there are multiple other  anti-capitalistic, non-socialist philosophies such as individual anarchism, fascism and libertarianism.

Capitalism simply means economic freedom for everyone in an area. Socialism means economic slavery for everyone or most in that area. There is only one axis along which this can be measured. You're either for freedom, or you're a socialist. Sure there are points along the middle of the line, like fascism. Libertarianism and capitalism in this sense are one and the same. Your ideology, by your own explanations and suggestions, is much closer to socialism than even to fascism.

However, a meritocratic society based on peoples' real personal value/contribution to society  rather than money, would be the best option.

That is what capitalism is.

Making them less productive is The Whole Point

Socialism is the only ideology which can claim that they want to reduce someone's productivity as a goal in and of itself. When someone is more productive in a civilized society based on trade, everybody in that society, -except their competitors-, benefits. The only reason to want to destroy that is out of envy. Socialists feel better when others are made worse off, even if they are made worse off too in the process, because it quenches their envious nature.

[TylerDurden]

If is through the State that they exert power, it is the State system where the power lies. For everybody else, it is considered a crime if they steal, murder, rape and torture. But for State agents, it is considered not only acceptable, but a social good (or necessary evil). The State is the only agency that people at large will accept this from. They won't accept it directly from the companies. Hence the power lies with the State, not the companies that happen to control it temporarily. And as I explained, many countries in the past and present have had very large, powerful and destructive States with not a single large company in sight, and while these companies were made illegal just like you propose. The problem is not the companies. The problem is the delusion that gets the masses to accept oppression if it's coming from someone in an official uniform. Your proposal makes these people in funny costumes a lot more powerful. Your proposal is nothing but rebranded socialism. And I'm not even sure about the rebranded part.

Utter nonsense, of course. I already pointed out that politicians in democratic states  are owned by the big companies. The reason is simple:- as long as they kowtow to the companies, they can get future company directorships etc. once they leave politics.This practice has to be implemented in a democratic society as politicians cannot spend their whole lives in power unlike in other political systems. In short, democratic politicians have no power, much like the queen of england, it is merely symbolic and therefore meaningless. And I note that most UKers feel no real loyalty to the queen(or  to current  UK politicians)precisely because she(and they) has/have  no power. People kowtow only to those with real power. And please do not go on making baseless accusations of socialism, it is clear that it is a meaningless word that you use just to describe anything that does not conform to your beliefs, nothing more.

Capitalism simply means economic freedom for everyone in an area. Socialism means economic slavery for everyone or most in that area. There is only one axis along which this can be measured. You're either for freedom, or you're a socialist. Sure there are points along the middle of the line, like fascism. Libertarianism and capitalism in this sense are one and the same. Your ideology, by your own explanations and suggestions, is much closer to socialism than even to fascism.

Wrong again, or as politically-correct teachers in the US now have to say, you are "nearly right!". LIbertarianism and capitalism are mutually exclusive concepts, with capitalism not involving much in the way of freedom.And you still have not remotely understood what my ideology actually is.

Socialism is the only ideology which can claim that they want to reduce someone's productivity as a goal in and of itself. When someone is more productive in a civilized society based on trade, everybody in that society, -except their competitors-, benefits. The only reason to want to destroy that is out of envy. Socialists feel better when others are made worse off, even if they are made worse off too in the process, because it quenches their envious nature.

Again,  pure nonsense. Monarchies and theocracies, among many other examples throughout history,  have set out to reduce the productivity of their citizens in  various ways. The church tithe is a classic example. And capitalism is NOT a meritocracy, it is a plutocracy. One only has to look at rich people nowadays in democratic societies. They are mostly not known for their high intelligence, to put it mildly, they are usually hopelessly corrupt or incompetent, and so on.

[dariorpl]

You have no idea what you're saying, and don't even deserve a reply. Please educate yourself on these topics before making such blatantly ridiculous statements.

[TylerDurden]

You have no idea what you're saying, and don't even deserve a reply. Please educate yourself on these topics before making such blatantly ridiculous statements.

The pot calling the kettle black......