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.

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.

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.

Then all that will happen is that once a company reaches that size, it will split into two different companies, and it'll be the same thing, but more costly for the consumer because of the additional costs associated with running two companies instead of one. What you will get is lower quality products, and for a higher price.

The problem is not big companies. The problem is the State which has power to sell, and big companies buy protection. And with protection, comes the thinning out of their competition. If you want to solve this problem, the way is not to attack big companies, but to remove the State, and in particular the democratic republican State, which is the most dangerous of all. Your proposal gives more power to the State, not less. So it is the very cause of the problems you are troubled with.

Yeah, there are many ways to age it. Some age it in the fridge, some at room temperature. I haven't aged mine so far. If you're gonna age them, they need to be pressed first. You can make an improvised press with items you'll have in your home, but if you get serious about it then you're probably gonna want to either buy one already made, or manufacture a proper press if you're skillful like that.

Many people who age their cheese add wax at a certain point to air-seal the cheese and prevent it from losing moisture and from getting mold on the outside. But in most cases this mold would be good for your cheese and for your health, and the wax wouldn't be. But it's up to you what you want to do.

Really? Dude, we've all heard this hyper-libertarian Randian stuff before. Many times. Stop acting like it's so special. Just shut up about it.  It's irrelevant to the purpose of the board, and that's that.

We'll see if it is irrelevant when all the things that make you healthy are made illegal because your lifestyle is deemed to not be in tune with the "common good".

Jeune, you have no idea what rights are.

Well in Belgium there is, and I'm pretty sure these worker's rights can be found all throughout the European union, including Spain.

You're not talking about rights, you're talking about laws. Someone doesn't magically gain a new right that they didn't have before (and that others don't have) when a politician writes a new law.

If they are being harmed with pesticides because they are not provided the necessary protection (protective suit, masks...), then their right to good health is being violated.

There is no right to good health, there is a right to not have your property polluted against your will. They have no right to be provided protective suits, masks or whatever. If they want those and the employer doesn't offer them, they can quit. You have a right not to have pesticides pollute the air on your land. You don't have a right not to have the air you breathe sprayed with pesticides when you are on somebody else's land and quite aware that pesticides are being sprayed on top of you, and you are staying in there by choice.

This is very simple. If you go into someone else's house, you don't have a right to demand that they put out their cigarette because the smoke is bad for you. You can ask. If they refuse to put it out, you can leave. Your rights have not been violated if you choose to stay in their house and knowingly breathe in smoke you didn't want. You don't suddenly gain a right that you didn't have before when your reason for being in somebody else's property is for work rather than leisure. Just like they don't suddenly lose a right that they had before if their reason for having you there is for work instead of leisure.

Among other things. Right to hygiene must be written somewhere there too.

Again, there's no such thing as a right to hygiene. Just because some politician wrote somewhere that these things must be provided, doesn't mean they are rights. It also doesn't mean that whoever is not provided with these things is now a slave. If anybody is the slave here, it is the employer who is being forced at gunpoint to provide things to his employees besides that which he contractually agreed to provide for them.

Well, in french, the word "exploited" is commonly used in situations where the person is abused, works a lot in often bad conditions, and is given little in return.

That's a lot of different terms which describe different situations. And again, nobody has a right to work conditions that they deem appropriate or to wages that they deem good. If they don't like what they are being offered, they are the ones who should quit. In the same way that an employer doesn't have a right to employees that provide good quality labor for a low price. If the employer doesn't like what his employees provide, he should fire them.

You need a cheese cloth or any kind of cotton cloth to strain the curds (solids). That's cheese. Some people use metal strainers. It'd work but you'll probably lose some of your solids. I also hear metal will disturb or kill the bacteria in the whey (liquids).

Unless someone puts a gun to their head or a chain around their ankle, or there is a threat of such if they refuse to comply, they are NOT slaves. To say that they are negates the evil of real slavery. If someone wants to hire them and they want to work, it's a mutual agreement. If they then complain that their work conditions are too bad... Well guess what, quit!

But they're not interested in quitting, what they want is to shock the media and then use the gun of the State to point it against their employers and extort money from them.

This is the one I mentioned where he uses math/physics to disprove the pangea theory:

Neal Adams - Science: 10 - Proof Positive! Earth Grows!


And the following is the one on Europa:

Neal Adams - Science: 05 - Conspiracy: Europa is Growing!

I don't know. Maybe the way we think of gravity is wrong. Gravity the way it's explained either by Newtonian physics or special relativity never made a lot of sense to me. And magnetic fields made even less sense. However, some of this has to be correct, if scientists could manage to get nuclear power plants working.

I know what I'll do, instead of throwing away my skimmed milk, I'll try doing kefir with that, to advance the bacteria and yeast generations on raw milk, and then I'll just keep harvesting the grains and throwing away the kefired skim milk.

EDIT: It seems that using skim milk actually increases kefir grain production a little.