The only uniqueness that NFTs provide is that of the token on the blockchain. The only exception to that is digital art that's small enough to store directly on the blockchain itself (e.g. small pixel art), although even in that case nothing precludes storing it more than once. Either way, if the NFT author wants to issue multiple tokens, there's nothing preventing them from doing so. They're still "non-fungible" in a sense that you can distinguish between them - and, in particular, know which ones were issued earlier, and thus e.g. who the current "owner" of the first one is.

You should learn the difference between "capital" and "money", for starters. It's kinda important to understanding the meaning of the word "capitalism", and why that's not the same as "free market".

As for "Marxist professors"... I was a radical ancap in college, actually, arguing with them. The real world cured me of this cultism quickly enough.

Thank you for reiterating what I said - the wealth is produced by someone else, the only thing that the investor brings to the table is the capital to produce it with. The person actually performing the work is entitled to more than the person providing the tools to do it. Especially when the reason why the latter can even do that is because they hoarded them.

But of course. In an unregulated labor market, employers - i.e. owners of capital - are going to extract as much economic rent from their workers as they can get away with. The higher the concentration of capital, the more rent can be extracted this way.

There are only two ways to get away from that. If you want to keep the ability to concentrate capital without limits (i.e. capitalism), then you have to regulate the amount of rent that can be extracted via non-market mechanisms, such as legislation - i.e. ditch the free market on labor. This is the typical Western welfare state model. The problem is that it requires a strong centralized state to enforce such regulation, and that power will not stay confined to economic matters long term.

The other way is to allow free market on labor, but prevent unlimited accumulation of capital, so that the disparity between the average employer and their workers is not large enough to strong-arm the latter.

You're assuming that your "steps and advice" are universally applicable because they worked for you. The truth is that luck is a major, if not primary, component in most such cases. Yes, you do have to work hard etc to dig yourself out of poverty - but you also have to get lucky for all that hard work to pay off. There are far more people in the world who also work hard, but don't have anything to show for it.

How about, for starters, we tax capital gains (i.e. wealth that somebody else has produced, by definition!) at the same rate as sweat-of-the-brow income?

What you're saying in practice is that, by virtue of hoarding most wealth, the rich also effectively control the direction of our techonological development.

I'm pretty sure the union can't force a mandatory meeting where every worker gets to see their propaganda.

George Orwell - you know, a bona fide democratic socialist who actually volunteered to fight in a civil war against fascists in Spain - wrote a lengthy essay on freedom of speech back in 1940s. It is still very much applicable, mutatis mutandis:

Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban. Anyone who has lived long in a foreign country will know of instances of sensational items of news—things which on their own merits would get the big headlines—being kept right out of the British press, not because the Government intervened but because of a general tacit agreement that ‘it wouldn’t do’ to mention that particular fact. So far as the daily newspapers go, this is easy to understand. The British press is extremely centralised, and most of it is owned by wealthy men who have every motive to be dishonest on certain important topics. But the same kind of veiled censorship also operates in books and periodicals, as well as in plays, films and radio. At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is ‘not done’ to say it, just as in mid-Victorian times it was ‘not done’ to mention trousers in the presence of a lady. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals.

There was a huge output of anti-Russian literature, but nearly all of it was from the Conservative angle and manifestly dishonest, out of date and actuated by sordid motives. On the other side there was an equally huge and almost equally dishonest stream of pro-Russian propaganda, and what amounted to a boycott on anyone who tried to discuss all-important questions in a grown-up manner. You could, indeed, publish anti-Russian books, but to do so was to make sure of being ignored or misrepresented by nearly the whole of the highbrow press. Both publicly and privately you were warned that it was ‘not done’. What you said might possibly be true, but it was ‘inopportune’ and played into the hands of this or that reactionary interest.

One of the peculiar phenomena of our time is the renegade Liberal. Over and above the familiar Marxist claim that ‘bourgeois liberty’ is an illusion, there is now a widespread tendency to argue that one can only defend democracy by totalitarian methods. If one loves democracy, the argument runs, one must crush its enemies by no matter what means. And who are its enemies? It always appears that they are not only those who attack it openly and consciously, but those who ‘objectively’ endanger it by spreading mistaken doctrines. In other words, defending democracy involves destroying all independence of thought.

In 1940 it was perfectly right to intern Mosley, whether or not he had committed any technical crime. We were fighting for our lives and could not allow a possible quisling to go free. To keep him shut up, without trial, in 1943 was an outrage. The general failure to see this was a bad symptom, though it is true that the agitation against Mosley’s release was partly factitious and partly a rationalisation of other discontents. But how much of the present slide towards Fascist ways of thought is traceable to the ‘anti-Fascism’ of the past ten years and the unscrupulousness it has entailed?

But at least let us have no more nonsense about defending liberty against Fascism. If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. The common people still vaguely subscribe to that doctrine and act on it. In our country — it is not the same in all countries: it was not so in republican France, and it is not so in the USA today — it is the liberals who fear liberty and the intellectuals who want to do dirt on the intellect: it is to draw attention to that fact that I have written this preface.

Just FYI, except for tactical nukes, all of the things that you've listed are legal for civilians to own in the USA.

Grenade launchers, rocket launchers and AA guns would be classified as destructive devices, which means that you have to submit paperwork to the ATF to get one (assuming you can find a seller). However, so long as you pay the transfer tax, they can't arbitrarily reject your application.

Military vehicles are generally legal so long as any weapons on them are. So e.g. there are some people who own tanks with a working main gun, registered as a destructive device. I haven't heard any examples of civilian-owned military aircraft registered as such, but in principle, I don't see why it wouldn't work, if somebody has the cash to afford it.

The irony is that addressing suicides requires dealing with the underlying root causes - e.g. better (ideally, universal and free) access to preventative mental health care for the former. But such policies are generally seen as "leftist", so the right-wingers are loathe to adopt them, for the most part. And, conversely, the (mainstream) left tends to focus on access as part of the overall guns-are-evil narrative, instead of talking about how its universal public healthcare would make a huge benefit here.

Working 3D-printed plastic guns also exist - .22 LR is low-pressure enough to allow barrels, even (with very thick plastic walls). Obviously not something I'd want to use, either, but you can shoot quite a few rounds through it before it disintegrates.

For higher-pressure stuff, you need a steel barrel. But it turns out that some standard-size metal piping can work just fine for 9mm - Luty's homemade machine gun famously used this approach. Such a barrel is smoothbore, so accuracy is dismal at range, but if that's not a concern...

Meanwhile, the DIY gun community has been figuring out creative ways to produce rifled barrels without the usual heavy equipment - e.g. by chemical etching with 3D-printed polymer jigs.

The question that you eventually end up asking is: so, why is everything owned by assholes? And how to change that?

Like so?

It's not a binary choice between "no government" and "Big Brother is watching you", you know?