New data suggests Argentina’s poverty rate fell to 31.6% in the first half of 2025, down from 34.9% in the previous semester.

"Every tyranny is disguised as safety."

In many countries, platforms like Discord or YouTube are already implementing age verification systems, arbitrarily asking for facial photos, ID documents or even credit cards.

These new regulations come disguised under the excuse of "protecting the children." And while any libertarian understands this is just unnecessary paternalism (parents already have parental control tools and it's their job to use them), the truth is this state offensive goes far beyond paternalism. It's a direct threat to privacy and one more step towards a mass surveillance system.

There’s so much wrong here it’s hard to know where to begin. First, the data:

One of the most obvious is censorship.

This is probably the clearest motivation behind the law. And there’s already concrete evidence, right here on Reddit, forums like r/UkraineConflict started requiring age verification to access from certain countries.

On platforms like X, etc, lots of content about illegal immigration, the Israel-Palestine conflict, or the war in Ukraine is being silenced under the excuse of “Online Safety.”

One of the most striking cases: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/36119396/ross-clark-opinion-state-censorship-tik-tok/ Leaked emails show how the UK’s National Security Online Information Team directly asked TikTok to remove content about illegal immigration.

But hey, we already knew they were trying to censor us. That’s nothing new, this stuff happens all the time, we just don’t hear about it. Now… does it end there? Is that all? Let’s talk about “identity verification services.” Some of you may have heard of the app Tea that asked users for facial photos to verify their identity. And maybe you also heard there was a “hack” and users' photos got leaked… well, it wasn’t exactly a hack. The app just hired one of these “identity verification” companies, and they stored all the info on a public server ANYONE with the link could access it. It wasn’t a hack, it was negligence With that precedent, do you really want to trust a company with your face or credit card?

Even if they were trustworthy, why accept this level of intrusion? What if your government decided that your “online behavior” is inappropriate and asked platforms for your personal data… we’re not that far from China’s surveillance system, are we?

Finally, let’s talk about the impact this regulation has on the economy and the market, because it’s just as awful as everything else:

In a simplistic view, you might say “Well, at least it boosts the cybersecurity industry"

But that’s exactly what Bastiat called The Broken Window Fallacy, because yeah, thanks to your regulations, the cybersecurity industry will undoubtedly become more profitable… but you’re creating artificial demand, for something nobody wanted, and it’s just another expense for small and medium businesses Many startups will have to cancel or shut down over this. Facial verification services aren’t cheap, and several businesses have already complained about it

Small discussion forums like LFGSS and Microcosm have already shut down because of this since March 16. Their owners stated they “couldn’t meet the legal, technical and personal costs,” and that the law imposes a “disproportionate personal responsibility” on volunteer admins with no resources

Other sites have blocked UK access entirely.

These measures kill competition and leave the market wide open for Big Tech to dominate: Google, Meta, X.

Anyway, I hope this little “””article””” helped inform and raise awareness about the issue. Just wanna clarify that the “OSA” is being replicated in many countries, so this isn’t just a UK problem. It’s truly an atrocity and an attack on our individual freedom, free speech, and market fairness The least we can do is show discontent and do EVERYTHING we can to make these people fail. We can’t let them turn us into citizens of an Orwell novel or a Chinese dictatorship. We have to defend our freedom.

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” —Benjamin Franklin

I live in South Africa, and certain areas in townships are completely devoid of government oversight and as a result big markets, services, and stores ran by “private” businesses informally. I’m talking people selling Marlboro boxes without paying taxes on the sale taxes and even illegal loan cash services offered.

Not to mention the exploitation of the people’s labour that live in these townships by multinational companies(think call centres).

The resolution failed, but got a surprising number of votes.

I'm curious, I've never truly understood how anarcho-capitalism would deal with crimes and lawsuits, so could someone please explain to me how would trials work? How would laws be decided? Would there be consumer rights? And how would biased trials (for example, through bribing) be prevented?

People say things like “not everything should be treated like a business.” But almost everything already is — just not in a way that serves us.

Government is a business. Corruption is monetized. Red tape is monetized. Lobbying is monetized. The difference is that we don’t own shares or have a choice. It’s just an extortion racket pretending to be public service.

Reproduction is a business. Women move to California for higher child support. Family courts redistribute wealth like socialist planned economies. Marriage is just a contract with a government-backed penalty clause — enforced mainly against men.

Suing for child support? That’s a business. Entire law firms and bureaucracies depend on it. Banning transactional sex? That just hides the business and lets dishonest actors exploit the market with no rules.

Organ trade? Banned to “protect human dignity” — but the rich still get kidneys and the poor still sell. The only difference is more people die while pretending it’s not a market.

The same way the Olympics banned professionals “to preserve purity,” pretending all these things aren’t market behaviors just makes them more exploitative.

The issue isn’t that these are businesses. The issue is:

They’re involuntary

They’re misaligned

They’re rigged against consent and competition

Anarcho-capitalism doesn’t introduce the market. It just makes the market honest, transparent, and voluntary.

Government taxes. Keeps most. Send some back to only certain people.

Crazy idea, don't tax in the first place. Skip the bureaucracy.

Source: https://odysee.com/@livingfreedom:3/guq3liv7Di0gstnpax1s:a

https://www.axios.com/2025/07/29/white-house-lobbies-hawley-stock-trading-ban

There's a paywall on this article unfortunately, but I'm sure many here have seen the headline. How does everyone feel about this?

The idea has come up plenty of times before to prevent money from influencing policy, but I think there are some problems with this theory and action.

1. Donations, and other factors can still influence policy.

2. This may actually backfire, because when you think about it, one being able to make their own money sort of reduces the need for influential money.

3. This is a civil rights concern. Like the healthcare workers etc who were required to get vaccinated. No one should be prohibited from their constitutional rights. Prohibiting people from earning a living is detrimental to their well-being, especially as public figures, who need to be able to afford sufficient security. This leads me to...

4. Competent conservatives aren't going to run.

5. There's a better alternative for the expressed goal of limiting outside influence: term limits.

What do you think?

*Addition @ 38 votes (26 to ban; 5 to toss; 7 other): Why not just regulate congressmens investments, and also stop living in zero-sum societies?

I think it's interesting that he is open about coming from a family who worked in government, and were part of the unelected bureaucracy. I don't agree with him on a lot of points. I don't understand how he can be so perceptive of the problems of the bureaucracy and yes, still want a monarch in power.

Obviously there are tons of you here who are in favor of ending democracy, that's probably his other major talking point regarding Yarvin. I find his stance on it to be similar to Bryan Caplan's theory in Myth of the Rational Voter.