NationStates Jolt Archive

Commonly held arguments against libertarian view-points:

Child-labor:

Sorry to say, but during the time of child labor, our technological and economic advancement was so great that despite the fact we had children working they were living in even better conditions than before. Note, in a lib. society it would still be illegal to force children to work.

Welfare:

Before the creation of welfare, the community had adequately provided for its poor. Many pro-welfare peeps today point to low donation rates -- first of all, if taxes were cut more people would donate. Second of all, the government is providing welfare for beggars so why should you donate at all?

Environment:

Quite simply, people are more inclined to protect the environment when they own the land. Proof? Look at any public property (public housing, bathrooms, etc.) and compare them to their private counterparts. Also, stronger private property rights and tort laws would allow peeps to more easily file lawsuits against corporations. You may cite the Pinto incident; the small cost to Ford was due to the fact that the weak tort laws made it hard for people to bring as many lawsuits as there should have been against the company.

Depression:

It is, of course, natural for the market to have periods of expansion and recession and many peeps cite the Great Depression as proof that laissez-faire doesn't work. Unfortunately, they fail to realize that the depression was brought about by government regulation of the economy -- namely the money supply. The work of FDR did nothing but expand the government's powers -- it was only WWII that brought us out of the slump. Had private business been left alone in the first place, there would have been no depression.

Patents:

You cannot claim the right to an idea, first of all. Second of all, the Industrial Revolution did fine without patents. Regardless, even without patents to protect work there are people willing to create something great. Wikipedia and Linux come to mind.

Drug Legalization:

All of the arguments used against alcohol legalization are used against drug legalization and look at how that turned out.

My argument against welfare is a lot simpler [and funnier]:

"Welfare is to charity what rape is to sex."

Indeed, mate.

My argument against welfare is a lot simpler [and funnier]:

"Welfare is to charity what rape is to sex."
Sadly this is precisely why welfare is necessary: the cunts with all the money refuse to open their legs without coercion.

Sadly this is precisely why welfare is necessary: the cunts with all the money refuse to open their legs without coercion.
So? It's their money. If you want to feed people with your pocketbook, then do it: don't go out and buy computers or cars and then tell that guy to feed the poor. The idea that the rich should be forced to provide for the poor is an evasion of responsibility not only on a personal level [since you obviously would rather have bought a computer than $1000 worth of food for the bum on the corner of High and 17th] but on a cultural one too [since, most people argue no one would donate to the poor in a free society: the implication being that society doesn't value the poor and ought to be forced to].

Sadly this is precisely why welfare is necessary: the cunts with all the money refuse to open their legs without coercion.

I wouldn't necessarily say that. There are plenty of rich people who give tons of money to charaties and research grants.

I wouldn't necessarily say that. There are plenty of rich people who give tons of money to charaties and research grants.
Yes, but most of them are doing it to get out of paying taxes, which wouldn't happen in the libertarian utopia.

[edited for what sounds unpleasantly like bragging.]

The last time I sold a television script I gave half of the money to Shelter. If you don't know what you're talking about, shut your fucking mouth.
Touched a nerve, have I? Telling a Moderator to "shut his fucking mouth" is hardly an advisable practice.

What you choose to do with your own money is your business, and I won't admonish you for putting it to use however you see fit. The suggestion that other people should be forced to share your values, however, is a despicable one.

It must be noted that child labour was not something capitalism caused, it was, like poverty, a condition that capitalism inherited.

The cause of child labour wasn't "profiteering robber-barons", or "greedy capitalists", the cause of it was the inability of parents to provide enough to support the family.

The only thing that could ever possibly change this was the accumulation and investment of capital. This meant that a single member of a family could provide enough to support the family. You can't legislate that sort of thing. Child labour laws can't realistically decree "adults will now be able to produce enough income to support the family", all they can do is make it illegal to employ children. Without the accumulation and investment to make one worker more productive than several, all child labour laws would have done is create poverty.

Why is this important? We live in an age of increasing interventionism, by not only national and sub-national governments, but by international institutions. This interventionism, like all interventions, destroys wealth, and trade.

Having reached the point where one income could support a family, we are now back to the stage where both husband and wife must work to pay the bills.

It must be noted that child labour was not something capitalism caused, it was, like poverty, a condition that capitalism inherited.

The cause of child labour wasn't "profiteering robber-barons", or "greedy capitalists", the cause of it was the inability of parents to provide enough to support the family.

The only thing that could ever possibly change this was the accumulation and investment of capital. This meant that a single member of a family could provide enough to support the family. You can't legislate that sort of thing. Child labour laws can't realistically decree "adults will now be able to produce enough income to support the family", all they can do is make it illegal to employ children. Without the accumulation and investment to make one worker more productive than several, all child labour laws would have done is create poverty.

Very true. Those child labor laws prevent that family that needs money from getting it; trapping them in an endless cycle of poverty.

Depression is caused by inflation, which is caused by funny games with the money supply. If you have a specie monetary system that can't be expanded (other than by somehow accumulating additional specie), the business cycle settles down considerably.

since when did Libertarians become against patents?

Most of the basis of Libertarian ideals come from classical liberalism and newer writers like Ayn Rand.

Both schools of thought are impassioned and ardent proponents of intellectual property, and theft of, or copying, intellectual property, are seen as the worst crimes possible by most Libertarians and similar thinkers.

Go read "The Fountainhead" and try to tell me that "you cannot claim the right to an idea." I can't think of any other libertarian that would agree with you.

Sadly this is precisely why welfare is necessary: the cunts with all the money refuse to open their legs without coercion.

So if all the cunts refused to open their legs to you without coercion - this is just a hypothetical here, of course - would that be justification for you to rape women?

(Hint: The correct answer is: "No.")

You don't have a right to have sex, so rape is not ever justified.

You don't have a right to have my money, so taxes are not ever justified.

Touched a nerve, have I? Telling a Moderator to "shut his fucking mouth" is hardly an advisable practice.

What you choose to do with your own money is your business, and I won't admonish you for putting it to use however you see fit. The suggestion that other people should be forced to share your values, however, is a despicable one.
I love the way you follow a threat with an attempt at reason. Cute and a better attack on your values than I could come up with.

evidence that high taxes reduce charitable giving;
http://www.afpnet.org/tier3_cd.cfm?folder_id=2345&content_item_id=10008

"While the percentage of tax-filers remains virtually the same, there is a substantial difference between the two countries in the percentage of income donated. In aggregate, Americans donated 1.63 percent of income, while Canadians gave 0.65 percent of income to registered charities."

So if all the cunts refused to open their legs to you without coercion - this is just a hypothetical here, of course - would that be justification for you to rape women?

(Hint: The correct answer is: "No.")

You don't have a right to have sex, so rape is not ever justified.

You don't have a right to have my money, so taxes are not ever justified.
The two aren't analogous, given that mosat capitalists acquire their pussies by exploiting other people's labour.

I'm glad to find some other libertarians on this game.... Though I can't say I'm really in agreement with your patent arguement.... Libertarian Party forever.

I love the way you follow a threat with an attempt at reason. Cute and a better attack on your values than I could come up with.

I'm pretty sure everything he's said to you so far has been pretty rational and calm. While your choice of words thus far have been "****" and "motherfucker," respectively.

since when did Libertarians become against patents?

There is a difference between a copyright, and a patent. A copyright merely means you cannot directly copy my work, or trade in it without my permission.

A patent is a monopoly over a particular idea (which tends to be defined widely). It criminalises the independent development of equivalents.

Cahnt, I'd like to see you answer Santa Barbara's point.

The two aren't analogous, given that mosat capitalists acquire their pussies by exploiting other people's labour.

Way to dodge the question. If you didn't think the two were analogous, why did you use the analogy in the first place?

I think you DO see that taxes are like rape, and you advocate one but don't have the balls to advocate the other.

And I do believe you forgot something.

Gun ownership:

Under the second amendment, there should be no law denying any person the use of arms. That's it, it never said what calibur people can have or what rate of fire.... Therefore, under constitutional law, the government has no right to restrict these weapons. However cleche it sounds, guns don't kill people, people kill people. It's time to hold people accountable for their actions instead of blaming the item used. People are killed all the time by knives, should restrict knives too? That would make eating a steak very difficult if you ask me....

I'm pretty sure everything he's said to you so far has been pretty rational and calm. While your choice of words thus far have been "****" and "motherfucker," respectively.
**** wasn't specifically applied to him, I didn't call him a motherfucker, and I haven't threatened him.

Way to dodge the question. If you didn't think the two were analogous, why did you use the analogy in the first place?

I think you DO see that taxes are like rape, and you advocate one but don't have the balls to advocate the other.
I didn't use the anology in the first place, I was refering to an argument somebody else had already raised.

Very true. Those child labor laws prevent that family that needs money from getting it; trapping them in an endless cycle of poverty.

Which is unquestionably the cause for the US and Britain's continued Third-World status. Oh wait. . .

Child labor existed in the pre-revolution years, certainly, but never in the scope, scale, and degree seen during the Industrial Revolution. There is a substantial difference between helping your father build a fence for forty hours a week from the standard sixty-hour workweek that pervaded the turn of the century industrializing nations: one helps your family bring in food directly without the need for a middleman, while the other subjects you to subhuman conditions at an early stage of life where you are incapable of rendering informed consent to those practices. Moreover, children in the Industrial Age were specifically selected to carry out some of the most dangerous work, because their hands were the ones small enough to fit into the machinery. On top of that, they were also paid less than the prevailing wage, precisely because they were so easy to exploit.

So what you are really suggesting is that the practice of putting children into a troglodyte lifestyle for roughly one third of his life when he is around ten, denying him the opportunity for education, subjecting him to inadequate health conditions and substandard amount and quantity of food, and casting him out to become a vagrant, a thief, or an unhirable beggar if the very likely possibility that one of his hands or legs gets crushed in the machinery, thereby rendering him incapable of producing for the rest of his life, is a completely hunkey-dorey decison. My only possible answer to that is fairly obvious and to the point: what frapping planet do you live on?

Moreover, if you were as well-versed in capitalism as you seem to think you were, you'd know that when you reduce the amount of labor in the market, the remaining labor, by simple virtue of supply and demand, ought to rise in value in proportion with the amount of labor lost relative to the new rate of production. In other words, adults earn more because they are no longer competing for jobs with kids. So the whole notion that adults need children in the workplace in order to make ends meet for the family doesn't even fit with pure capitalist theory.

I love the way you follow a threat with an attempt at reason. Cute and a better attack on your values than I could come up with.
I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where I threatened you. Care to quote it for the rest of us?

I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where I threatened you. Care to quote it for the rest of us?
Here you go:
Telling a Moderator to "shut his fucking mouth" is hardly an advisable practice.

The two aren't analogous, given that mosat capitalists acquire their pussies by exploiting other people's labour.

Dadaist logic perhaps?

Is someone agreeing of his own free will to work at $2/hr exploitation?

Or is it simply a purchase of a commodity?

As to gun ownership: Restrictions on ownership of weapons is to the right to life, what restrictions on the use of computers is to free speech.

It's all very well to say one has the right to unarmed self-defence, and every 6'4", 100kg karate black belt will have cause to thank you, but a petite, unskilled person needs an equaliser to meet the aggression of criminals and the state.

And I do believe you forgot something.

Gun ownership:

Under the second amendment, there should be no law denying any person the use of arms. That's it, it never said what calibur people can have or what rate of fire.... Therefore, under constitutional law, the government has no right to restrict these weapons. However cleche it sounds, guns don't kill people, people kill people. It's time to hold people accountable for their actions instead of blaming the item used. People are killed all the time by knives, should restrict knives too? That would make eating a steak very difficult if you ask me....

Under constitutional law, Congress does have the power to regulate firearms, because the Supreme Court interpreted the 2nd Amendment as such. Moreover, the Constitution states that right in context of the militia, and under Article I and II, it is the stated power of the federal government to arm and otherwise regulate the militia. If the term "militia" does not apply to the citizens, then the right to bear weapons at all for citizens is not protected by the Constitution. If the term "militia" does apply, then it follows that Congress has the right to determine what caliber and rate of fire they can carry as part of their power to arm and regulate the militia. You can't have it both ways.

I didn't use the anology in the first place, I was refering to an argument somebody else had already raised.

You were using the analogy that someone else had made. You used the analogy as the core part of your statement that:

why welfare is necessary

So are you actually rescinding your statement, saying that the analogy, since it's flawed, is NOT a good reason why welfare is necessary?

Or is the analogy only valid when it agrees with your pro-welfare stance?

Commonly held arguments against libertarian view-points:

Child-labor:

Sorry to say, but during the time of child labor, our technological and economic advancement was so great that despite the fact we had children working they were living in even better conditions than before. Note, in a lib. society it would still be illegal to force children to work.

Well, up until the corporations decide that it's in their best interests for children to be working. Go go corporatism!

Welfare:

Before the creation of welfare, the community had adequately provided for its poor. Many pro-welfare peeps today point to low donation rates -- first of all, if taxes were cut more people would donate. Second of all, the government is providing welfare for beggars so why should you donate at all?

HAHHAHAHAHA you seriously believe this? That somehow before any form of welfare that the communities took care of their impoverished? I have a modest proposal for you...

Environment:

Quite simply, people are more inclined to protect the environment when they own the land. Proof? Look at any public property (public housing, bathrooms, etc.) and compare them to their private counterparts. Also, stronger private property rights and tort laws would allow peeps to more easily file lawsuits against corporations. You may cite the Pinto incident; the small cost to Ford was due to the fact that the weak tort laws made it hard for people to bring as many lawsuits as there should have been against the company.

Not really. Go to any area where un-controlled suburban sprawl is blighting the land or where subdivisions are wrecking prime grazing/crop land in Colorado. Private ownership of land only leads to corporate ownership of land or direct misuse of land for the sake of short-term profits. It's irresponsible.

Depression:

It is, of course, natural for the market to have periods of expansion and recession and many peeps cite the Great Depression as proof that laissez-faire doesn't work. Unfortunately, they fail to realize that the depression was brought about by government regulation of the economy -- namely the money supply. The work of FDR did nothing but expand the government's powers -- it was only WWII that brought us out of the slump. Had private business been left alone in the first place, there would have been no depression.

Actually it was FDR's work-fare initiatives that increased our infrastructure and put Americans back to work to the point where a wartime economy could actually benefit our crippled nation. The government regulations you refer to were placed there by corruption via corporate interests. Be careful where you point your finger.

Patents:

You cannot claim the right to an idea, first of all. Second of all, the Industrial Revolution did fine without patents. Regardless, even without patents to protect work there are people willing to create something great. Wikipedia and Linux come to mind.

Yeah and then there are people who want to make sure their ideas aren't seized and made profitable by a larger company like say, Texas Instruments which keeps ALL work and ideas you come up with under their patents and you don't see a drop of royalties until you're old and grey, if ever. Without patents you have nothing but people releasing imperfect goods without recourse.

Drug Legalization:

All of the arguments used against alcohol legalization are used against drug legalization and look at how that turned out.

Hey, we agree on something ;)

Here you go:
Unfortunately, you're not given license to tell anyone on this board to "shut their fucking mouth," the fact that I'm a Moderator makes it doubly stupid. If you consider a promise that I will, if the situation escalates, uphold the site's rules as a [presumably] unreasonable "threat," you might want to think about taking your leave of this forum.

Ok melkor and liberts.

I am a child of welfare.

Divorsed woman with 2 children and no skills.

How could we have been handled it better?

Mom did welfare for only a year or two. She only admited to it in the last couple of years.

Dadaist logic perhaps?

Is someone agreeing of his own free will to work at $2/hr exploitation?
If the alternative is starving to death rather than finding a better paying job, yes.

nfortunately, you're not given license to tell anyone on this board to "shut their fucking mouth," the fact that I'm a Moderator makes it doubly stupid. If you consider a promise that I will, if the situation escalates, uphold the site's rules as a [presumably] unreasonable "threat," you might want to think about taking your leave of this forum.
I was unaware that moderators expect special treatment, when making false statements about how other people dispose of their income.

Just a quick point of clarification: are we talking about libertarianism, or Libertarianism here?

Anyway, I'll throw in on the gun arguement since I have a great deal of interest in that topic. Considering that the unorganized militia is the last line of national defense in a crisis (or in the event that we overthrow a corrupt government), it seems to follow that the militia referenced in the Constitution would be the masses. And as I recall, the current administrations stance is that "militia" does, in fact, refer to the unorganized militia.

Under constitutional law, Congress does have the power to regulate firearms, because the Supreme Court interpreted the 2nd Amendment as such. Moreover, the Constitution states that right in context of the militia, and under Article I and II, it is the stated power of the federal government to arm and otherwise regulate the militia. If the term "militia" does not apply to the citizens, then the right to bear weapons at all for citizens is not protected by the Constitution. If the term "militia" does apply, then it follows that Congress has the right to determine what caliber and rate of fire they can carry as part of their power to arm and regulate the militia. You can't have it both ways.

I don't know about Mon Capitaine's response to this, but mine is as follows: The Second Amendment has about as much to do with the case for the right to keep and bear arms as my right little finger has to do EU fishing quotas.

The real case for the right to keep and bear arms is the basic right to life, liberty, and property. There is no proper basis for restricting one's ability to protect these rights.

Which is unquestionably the cause for the US and Britain's continued Third-World status. Oh wait. . .

Child labor existed in the pre-revolution years, certainly, but never in the scope, scale, and degree seen during the Industrial Revolution. There is a substantial difference between helping your father build a fence for forty hours a week from the standard sixty-hour workweek that pervaded the turn of the century industrializing nations: one helps your family bring in food directly without the need for a middleman, while the other subjects you to subhuman conditions at an early stage of life where you are incapable of rendering informed consent to those practices. Moreover, children in the Industrial Age were specifically selected to carry out some of the most dangerous work, because their hands were the ones small enough to fit into the machinery. On top of that, they were also paid less than the prevailing wage, precisely because they were so easy to exploit.

So what you are really suggesting is that the practice of putting children into a troglodyte lifestyle for roughly one third of his life when he is around ten, denying him the opportunity for education, subjecting him to inadequate health conditions and substandard amount and quantity of food, and casting him out to become a vagrant, a thief, or an unhirable beggar if the very likely possibility that one of his hands or legs gets crushed in the machinery, thereby rendering him incapable of producing for the rest of his life, is a completely hunkey-dorey decison. My only possible answer to that is fairly obvious and to the point: what frapping planet do you live on?

Moreover, if you were as well-versed in capitalism as you seem to think you were, you'd know that when you reduce the amount of labor in the market, the remaining labor, by simple virtue of supply and demand, ought to rise in value in proportion with the amount of labor lost relative to the new rate of production. In other words, adults earn more because they are no longer competing for jobs with kids. So the whole notion that adults need children in the workplace in order to make ends meet for the family doesn't even fit with pure capitalist theory.

While your case is superficially logical, it doesn't work that way in practice, and has little to do with capitalism.

Firstly, what ended child labour was the accumulation and investment of capital by industrialists. The effect increased capital has is to make a worker more productive.

Here is a simple example. Say I have a pen factory. I make the pens, then must move them to the airport for export. I employ you, but I have very little capital. Just a few dollars. I give you bags, and say "fill 'em up, and start walking", you get a few hundred pens, and take a day getting them to the airport, and another day coming back for more. You're not going to be very productive, so your labour can only command a small price. If I had a few hundred thousand dollars of capital, I could buy a semi-trailer. You could take a million or more pens to the airport, and go there and back in two hours or less. Your labour is more valuable in this instance.

Another point I would like to make is that everyone in a market who is attempting to purchase goods and services looks for the lowest price. If you do it, everyone calls it prudence. It is prudent for you to shop around for the cheapest home loan, or the lowest fuel costs. It is smart for you to save, and use discount coupons.

When an employer does that, it is not exploitation, it is prudence.

since when did Libertarians become against patents?

Most of the basis of Libertarian ideals come from classical liberalism and newer writers like Ayn Rand.

Both schools of thought are impassioned and ardent proponents of intellectual property, and theft of, or copying, intellectual property, are seen as the worst crimes possible by most Libertarians and similar thinkers.

Go read "The Fountainhead" and try to tell me that "you cannot claim the right to an idea." I can't think of any other libertarian that would agree with you.

i completely agree

Just a quick point of clarification: are we talking about libertarianism, or Libertarianism here?

Anyway, I'll throw in on the gun arguement since I have a great deal of interest in that topic. Considering that the unorganized militia is the last line of national defense in a crisis (or in the event that we overthrow a corrupt government), it seems to follow that the militia referenced in the Constitution would be the masses. And as I recall, the current administrations stance is that "militia" does, in fact, refer to the unorganized militia.
This is true, but you've yet to overthrow Bush.

Sadly this is precisely why welfare is necessary: the cunts with all the money refuse to open their legs without coercion.
Oh no you didn't brother! Preach *sits back in chair with arms folded and throws down a sick beat from gehto blasater for cahnt*

If the alternative is starving to death rather than finding a better paying job, yes.

Is working for $40,000/hr exploitation?

Is working for $40,000/hr exploitation?
Given that you could work for a couple of hours and then retire, no.

How could we have been handled it better?

Ignoring, for the moment, the fact that this biographical information is a bit vague for the purposes of suggesting what one might have done wrong, it would appear to me that your largest mistake lies within your concession that you have "no skills." I've never taken kindly to the idea that humans are talentless, and the people who resign themselves to such a state may be fashioning a self-fulfilling prophecy for themselves.

I can't speak for the libertarians, but Objectivism doesn't even pretend to be able to solve everyone's problems, since your query would seem to assume that we do.

For example, the current way of working things is a bit more hostile to poverty than you might think: anyone who's ever worked paycheck to paycheck can tell you that it's very easy to wind up broke at the end of the month, and it's not made any easier by the fact that a good 25% of your paycheck is yanked out of it before the paper even hits your hands. Welfare advocates frequently like to invoke other hardships, waving the tax concern off as irrelevant, since you can "get it all back when you file your return" anyway. I've been in the workforce for about 4 years now, and I've been systematically fucked in the ass on my tax return every year: most recently, they're trying to tell me that they only witheld $350 out of about $10,000 in wages, which means that my return is going to be about 10% of what it should be--and they have done this to me every year. One year, I was working at $5.65 an hour and they tried to tell me that I owed them money.

In a free society, I'm prepared to admit that a certain amount of people will be screwed horribly, and there really isn't anything that can be done about it. People like yourself and Potaria are quick to come forward with horror stories about their own situation, with the expectation that your conditions justify what is essentially theft from the remainder of the populace. The problem with Welfare as a concept is that it panders to the "malevolent universe" theory of metaphysics, which invariably treats emergencies such as yours or Potaria's as the natural state of existence, ignoring the fact that the conditions of life, as a general rule, are not emergencies, since an emergency by definition is transient in nature. It asks that we dispense values to you not because of your virtues, but because of your vices personally, since I don't know you and can't exactly ascribe any such vices to you, but rather I meant "you" to mean the Welfare-receiving populace as a whole].

Given that you could work for a couple of hours and then retire, no.

So what? The alternative to even a 40,000 dollar/hr job is STILL "find another job or starve." What's changed? Nothing. It should still be capitalist exploitation by your previous logic, but I notice you enjoy changing the goal posts so that you aren't hemmed in by your own fallacious reasoning.

And am I to take it that you just *have* no answer to my post here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10310565&postcount=29)?

In a free society, I'm prepared to admit that a certain amount of people will be screwed horribly, and there really isn't anything that can be done about it. People like yourself and Potaria are quick to come forward with horror stories about their own situation, with the expectation that your conditions justify what is essentially theft from the remainder of the populace. The problem with Welfare as a concept is that it panders to the "malevolent universe" theory of metaphysics, which invariably treats emergencies such as yours or Potaria's as the natural state of existence, ignoring the fact that the conditions of life, as a general rule, are not emergencies, since an emergency by definition is transient in nature. It asks that we dispense values to you not because of your virtues, but because of your vices personally, since I don't know you and can't exactly ascribe any such vices to you, but rather I meant "you" to mean the Welfare-receiving populace as a whole].
No it doesn't: if it took the assumption that everybody's broke and a step removed from the workhouse as a baseline, it wouldn't assume that anybody was solvent enough to bail the people who've screwed over out.

I was unaware that moderators expect special treatment, when making false statements about how other people dispose of their income.
Who said anything about special treatment? Go into another random thread and tell its participants to "shut their fucking mouth" and see what happens. A number of people have been banned for such behavior in the past. Saying it to a Moderator is especially stupid, but that doesn't mean you'll be treated any ifferently for it. It would be like if you held up a gas station and stayed in the parking lot to scratch off the lotto tickets-- you're not going to do any additional time for it, but people are going to laugh at you more than they would otherwise.

Also, my statement, when taken as a whole [since the "you" was meant to be applied in a more general sense, as is sometimes the case in philosophical discussions] is not "false" since more people buy things for themselves with their own money than dispense the equivalent amount to the local bums, at least in this country. A better way of phrasing it, admittedly, would have been "If one want to feed people with your pocketbook, then do it." I didn't think you'd take it so personally.

I don't know about Mon Capitaine's response to this, but mine is as follows: The Second Amendment has about as much to do with the case for the right to keep and bear arms as my right little finger has to do EU fishing quotas.

The real case for the right to keep and bear arms is the basic right to life, liberty, and property. There is no proper basis for restricting one's ability to protect these rights.



While your case is superficially logical, it doesn't work that way in practice, and has little to do with capitalism.

Firstly, what ended child labour was the accumulation and investment of capital by industrialists. The effect increased capital has is to make a worker more productive.

Here is a simple example. Say I have a pen factory. I make the pens, then must move them to the airport for export. I employ you, but I have very little capital. Just a few dollars. I give you bags, and say "fill 'em up, and start walking", you get a few hundred pens, and take a day getting them to the airport, and another day coming back for more. You're not going to be very productive, so your labour can only command a small price. If I had a few hundred thousand dollars of capital, I could buy a semi-trailer. You could take a million or more pens to the airport, and go there and back in two hours or less. Your labour is more valuable in this instance.

Another point I would like to make is that everyone in a market who is attempting to purchase goods and services looks for the lowest price. If you do it, everyone calls it prudence. It is prudent for you to shop around for the cheapest home loan, or the lowest fuel costs. It is smart for you to save, and use discount coupons.

When an employer does that, it is not exploitation, it is prudence.


Well, first what ended child labor was Supreme Court decisions upholding state and federal laws that outlawed the practice and/or Parliament passing laws abolishing it. But that is mere semantics. The real point, however, was that what you are forgetting is that capital doesn't have to be simply accumulated; it must also be applied to solving the problem at hand. In this case, the capital that people could have used to buy better and more efficient machines that didn't rely on little kids risking their hands in the gears to clean already existed, and had existed since probably around the 1870's and 1880's. The problem, however, is that business didn't want to expend said capital, because in the short term it would have been and briefly was bad for their bottom line. Once they changed the laws and put kids in school, however, they quickly found that they were making ultimately more money than before: non-crippled people were working longer years than before, and they were making more money so they could buy more products. In other words, the real problem wasn't that capitalism hadn't developed enough yet, but rather that people interested only in the bottom line and not the general welfare were making ultimately pennywise, pound-foolish decisions.

The same thing applies with shopping at Wal-Mart today. Sure it saves money in the short term. In the long term, however, it only contributes to a race to the bottom and the continued atrophy of American industrial capacity, something that is good for no one. This isn't good for capitalism, because ultimately it only undermines the primary world market for goods of the money to pay for those goods, and creates a labor class in other countries that cannot pay for the goods they produce, resulting in the debt-based economy we're using now. That isn't going to last, and the crash is going to be catastrophic. It isn't good for America, it isn't good for India, it isn't good for Nike. The only thing it is good for is shareholder's next quarterly dividend. That does not make for a stable foundation upon which to base economic decisions.

Given that you could work for a couple of hours and then retire, no.

You've walked right into it. I find that hard to believe.

I shall quote Walter Williams, a Doctor in Economics at UCLA.

Whenever there's voluntary exchange, the only clear conclusion that a third party can make is that both parties, in their opinion, perceived themselves as better off as a result of the exchange; otherwise, they wouldn't have exchanged. I was free to keep my three dollars, and the grocer was free to keep his milk. If you think it's obvious that both parties benefit from voluntary exchange, then how come we hear pronouncements about worker exploitation?

Say you offer me a wage of $2 an hour. I'm free to either accept or reject your offer. So what can be concluded if I'm seen working for you at $2 an hour? One clear conclusion is that I must have seen myself as being better off taking your offer than my next best alternative. All other alternatives were less valuable, or else why would I have accepted the $2 offer? How appropriate is it to say that you're exploiting me when you've given me my best offer? Rather than using the term exploitation, you might say you wish I had more desirable alternatives.

While people might characterize $2 an hour as exploitation, they wouldn't say the same about $50 an hour. Therefore, for the most part, when people use the term exploitation in reference to voluntary exchange, they simply disagree with the price. If we equate price disagreement with exploitation, then exploitation is everywhere. For example, I not only disagree with my salary, I also disagree with the prices of Gulfstream private jets.

I certainly disagree with the price of Gulfstream jets. They should be $15 each, then one hour of work would have up, up, and away!

Can you answer him (and me), how does a simple price disagreement constitute exploitation?

$2/hr is a better offer than starving. Why is offering someone somthing better than he has exploitation, or even any sort of bad thing at all?

No it doesn't: if it took the assumption that everybody's broke and a step removed from the workhouse as a baseline, it wouldn't assume that anybody was solvent enough to bail the people who've screwed over out.
Except that Welfare propoents are quick to cry "But if the Govenrment doesn't provide for them, no one will!" It suggests that the problem will become more widespread unless the popluace is, by and large, [i]forced to fix it. Also, I said it panders to that idea, rather than embodying it fully.

So what? The alternative to even a 40,000 dollar/hr job is STILL "find another job or starve." What's changed? Nothing. It should still be capitalist exploitation by your previous logic, but I notice you enjoy changing the goal posts so that you aren't hemmed in by your own fallacious reasoning.

And am I to take it that you just *have* no answer to my post here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10310565&postcount=29)?
I've already answered that: I replied to a crude and unpleasant metaphor in the same crude and unpleasant terms, but that doesn't mean that I don't see rape and taxation as being terribly comparable: if tyhey were, I'd hardly be in favour taxing anybody, would I.

Melkor: I assumed that was a specific personal dig aimed at me. If not, I probably did overreact. My mistake.

Under constitutional law, Congress does have the power to regulate firearms, because the Supreme Court interpreted the 2nd Amendment as such. Moreover, the Constitution states that right in context of the militia, and under Article I and II, it is the stated power of the federal government to arm and otherwise regulate the militia. If the term "militia" does not apply to the citizens, then the right to bear weapons at all for citizens is not protected by the Constitution. If the term "militia" does apply, then it follows that Congress has the right to determine what caliber and rate of fire they can carry as part of their power to arm and regulate the militia. You can't have it both ways.

It's an ammendment, so of course you can have it both ways. Just like the US government can raise income taxes, despite the fact that article I prohibits that.

Except that Welfare propoents are quick to cry "But if the Govenrment doesn't provide for them, no one will!" It suggests that the problem will become more widespread unless the popluace is, by and large, [i]forced to fix it. Also, I said it panders to that idea, rather than embodying it fully.
Given that your government has allowed the corporations to outsource almost all of the manual labour out of the country, there's no work for the bulk of people with no skills, unfortunately. This is an example of the libertarian approach causing problems: it's cheaper for the companies to take the manufacturing base to where people are willing to work for a fiver a week, but it doesn't do any good for the country these concerns are based in in the long run.

I've already answered that: I replied to a crude and unpleasant metaphor in the same crude and unpleasant terms, but that doesn't mean that I don't see rape and taxation as being terribly comparable: if tyhey were, I'd hardly be in favour taxing anybody, would I.

I'll repeat, you used that metaphor as a way to show that "welfare is necessary." Regardless of how crude or unpleasant the metaphor is, this implies that, when it comes to showing how welfare is needed, you accept the metaphor as valid.

So is the metaphor's logic valid when it justifies welfare, and invalid when it justifies rape? Or is entirely invalid and therefore not a way to justify welfare?

Pretty simple question, but I checked, you haven't answered it.

Child-labor:

Sorry to say, but during the time of child labor, our technological and economic advancement was so great that despite the fact we had children working they were living in even better conditions than before. Note, in a lib. society it would still be illegal to force children to work.Death from black lung from working as a chimney sweep is better conditions than before?

Welfare:

Before the creation of welfare, the community had adequately provided for its poor. Many pro-welfare peeps today point to low donation rates -- first of all, if taxes were cut more people would donate. But not enough people would donate in order to solve the problem - your claim that the community adequately provided for its poor is erroneous, and welfare was necessary to adequately provide for the poor.

Depression:

It is, of course, natural for the market to have periods of expansion and recession and many peeps cite the Great Depression as proof that laissez-faire doesn't work. Unfortunately, they fail to realize that the depression was brought about by government regulation of the economy The Depression was a result of stock speculation, which the government really didn't have much of a role in.

Patents:

You cannot claim the right to an idea, first of all. Second of all, the Industrial Revolution did fine without patents. Regardless, even without patents to protect work there are people willing to create something great. Wikipedia and Linux come to mind. True, which is one of the reasons that communism/socialism/anarchism can work.

Drug Legalization:

All of the arguments used against alcohol legalization are used against drug legalization and look at how that turned out.Prohibition failed for a number of reasons; namely that they insisted that people stop drinking without providing them with any additional means to do so. However, I'm not going to talk about this issue too much as it is relatively unimportant to me.

Why is this important? We live in an age of increasing interventionism, by not only national and sub-national governments, but by international institutions. This interventionism, like all interventions, destroys wealth, and trade.

Having reached the point where one income could support a family, we are now back to the stage where both husband and wife must work to pay the bills.The lack of ability for a single person in a household to be able to work and still pay the bills has more to do with a lack of government intervention (at least in the U.S.) as opposed to being a result of government intervention.

I'll repeat, you used that metaphor as a way to show that "welfare is necessary." Regardless of how crude or unpleasant the metaphor is, this implies that, when it comes to showing how welfare is needed, you accept the metaphor as valid.

So is the metaphor's logic valid when it justifies welfare, and invalid when it justifies rape? Or is entirely invalid and therefore not a way to justify welfare?

Pretty simple question, but I checked, you haven't answered it.
Do I need to use glove puppets?
Somebody produced a simplistic metaphor "charity is a zipless fuck and welfare is rape" (prostitution might be a better metaphor than rape, but that's neither here nor there). I mentioned, upholding the initial metaphor, that a lot of people would not give to charity so in this case (and this case alone) that rape and/or prostitution would be necessary before everybody got laid.
As far as I'm aware, a lot of business make charity donations purely in order to avoid paying taxes. Were taxes abolished, these would dry up and an unemployed underclass starving to death in the streets would allow the owners and winners to drop the minimum wage (here is a concept that libertarians abhor, and that will never be applied without some form of coercion). This is why I have a problem with the libertarian argument, I can't see it leading to anything besides feudalism. Clear now?

Given that your government has allowed the corporations to outsource almost all of the manual labour out of the country, there's no work for the bulk of people with no skills, unfortunately. This is an example of the libertarian approach causing problems: it's cheaper for the companies to take the manufacturing base to where people are willing to work for a fiver a week, but it doesn't do any good for the country these concerns are based in in the long run.
I would argue that the government forced the outsourcing of these jobs by a number of means, not the least of which being unreasonable business restrictions brought about by altruists such as yourself and Saint Roosevelt, among others.

Also, I refuse to beleive that there are people with "no skills," since humans, by defnition, possess a reasoning mind and [hopefully] an understanding of how it should be used. There may be people without training, but anyone with a good enough idea and the motivation to see it become reality can free himself from the chains of poverty: for proof of this one only need to consult the countless rags-to-riches stories that have saturated our culture.

Do I need to use glove puppets?

At this point I think that would be more confusing for you than me, but I won't stop you.


Somebody produced a simplistic metaphor "charity is a zipless fuck and welfare is rape" (prostitution might be a better metaphor than rape, but that's neither here nor there). I mentioned, upholding the initial metaphor, that a lot of people would not give to charity so in this case (and this case alone) that rape and/or prostitution would be necessary before everybody got laid.

Right, so it's a valid metaphor when it supports welfare and invalid when it makes it seem like you support legalized rape.

As I said, changing the goal posts. Thanks for answering.

I would argue that the government forced the outsourcing of these jobs by a number of means, not the least of which being unreasonable business restrictions brought about by altruists such as yourself and Saint Roosevelt, among others.

Also, I refuse to beleive that there are people with "no skills," since humans, by defnition, possess a reasoning mind and [hopefully] an understanding of how it should be used. There may be people without training, but anyone with a good enough idea and the motivation to see it become reality can free himself from the chains of poverty: for proof of this one only need to consult the countless rags-to-riches stories that have saturated our culture.
Quadraplegics are capable of working an eight hour day, then? How about the retarded? Amputees?
There are a lot of rags to riches stories, it's true. Possibly I'm a cynic, but I suspect that there have been rather more people who've failed to make anything of themselves and died in squalor and poverty. The terrible thing is that the people at the top of the ladder are doing everything in their power to pull it up after them, rather than opening opportunities for the untermensch.

At this point I think that would be more confusing for you than me, but I won't stop you.



Right, so it's a valid metaphor when it supports welfare and invalid when it makes it seem like you support legalized rape.

As I said, changing the goal posts. Thanks for answering.
It was a stupid metaphor in the first place: I merely placed a corollary in the terms it set up. I don't believe the world is quite that simplistic, to be honest.

Ignoring, for the moment, the fact that this biographical information is a bit vague for the purposes of suggesting what one might have done wrong, it would appear to me that your largest mistake lies within your concession that you have "no skills." I've never taken kindly to the idea that humans are talentless, and the people who resign themselves to such a state may be fashioning a self-fulfilling prophecy for themselves.


She had no skills. She couldn't even type. She was raised with the principle that women stayed at home.

So how do you obtain skills and yet take care of two kids when you don't even have family support?


I can't speak for the libertarians, but Objectivism doesn't even pretend to be able to solve everyone's problems, since your query would seem to assume that we do.


Ahh but it is easier to trash which you decide in unworthy.


For example, the current way of working things is a bit more hostile to poverty than you might think: anyone who's ever worked paycheck to paycheck can tell you that it's very easy to wind up broke at the end of the month, and it's not made any easier by the fact that a good 25% of your paycheck is yanked out of it before the paper even hits your hands. Welfare advocates frequently like to invoke other hardships, waving the tax concern off as irrelevant, since you can "get it all back when you file your return" anyway. I've been in the workforce for about 4 years now, and I've been systematically fucked in the ass on my tax return every year: most recently, they're trying to tell me that they only witheld $350 out of about $10,000 in wages, which means that my return is going to be about 10% of what it should be--and they have done this to me every year. One year, I was working at $5.65 an hour and they tried to tell me that I owed them money.


Ok. Well looking past your so called rape experiences.

Why can't it be looked at as an investment? I don't know what welfare was back then or even today. But mom did it for a year two at most while she went to school and worked 2 job(waitress in a small town). She was able to become a nurse (has over 40000 births to her career) and raised two kids that are a network engineer and a costume designer on Broadway.

It would appear for what was paid out a great deal was made from this small investment.


In a free society, I'm prepared to admit that a certain amount of people will be screwed horribly, and there really isn't anything that can be done about it. People like yourself and Potaria are quick to come forward with horror stories about their own situation, with the expectation that your conditions justify what is essentially theft from the remainder of the populace.


Sure it's theft when your world view is based on "I, Me, and Mine"

Notice that you never hear of any good stories that resulted from help people. You can't say everybody that went on welfare stayed on welfare and raised kids that are on welfare.


The problem with Welfare as a concept is that it panders to the "malevolent universe" theory of metaphysics, which invariably treats emergencies such as yours or Potaria's as the natural state of existence, ignoring the fact that the conditions of life, as a general rule, are not emergencies, since an emergency by definition is transient in nature.


Ahhhh you speak from the world of the single white male. Far eaiser when you are not a woman with 2 children.

Again no skills with 2 children.

With the world view of "I, me and mine" I guess it easier to say so sorry but you remain in poverty. Life is a bitch you know.

Never mind the fact of other ramifications that arise from high poverty rates.


It asks that we dispense values to you not because of your virtues, but because of your vices personally, since I don't know you and can't exactly ascribe any such vices to you, but rather I meant "you" to mean the Welfare-receiving populace as a whole].

So what vices did we have. We didn't have AC or central heating. We only had so much food. We had a tiny black and white tv with rabit ears. We had a used crappy death mobile. So what vices are those?

So what are the values of a woman who stole money say from you and used it to keep her children reasonably fed(the money didn't go all the way as people thinks. I remember going with very little in those days). We didn't have all these toys that people seem to think every welfare recipient buys with their "stolen" money.

So what viture and values does a woman with no skills have that became a nurse? What values does her kids have since they never needed welfare?

Quadraplegics are capable of working an eight hour day, then? How about the retarded? Amputees?
Exceptions. Not rules. Policy should not be forumlated to assume that the treatment of these people is of paramount importance, since they are a distinct minority.

There are a lot of rags to riches stories, it's true. Possibly I'm a cynic, but I suspect that there have been rather more people who've failed to make anything of themselves and died in squalor and poverty. The terrible thing is that the people at the top of the ladder are doing everything in their power to pull it up after them, rather than opening opportunities for the untermensch.
It's probably true that more people fail at life than succeed at it. That's not an endictment of the system, it's a commentary on how man excersizes his powers [or lack thereof] any any given society. Some people have ability and can turn their thought into reality, and some can't.

The second half of the above is primarily the result of irrational egoism, where it exists. People who do things like force competitors out of business or cook their books are denying others the very standards that they demand for themselves. It's dishonesty at its worst, but just because some people are irresponsible doesn't mean that we should operate under the notion that everyone is.

Except that Welfare propoents are quick to cry "But if the Govenrment doesn't provide for them, no one will!" It suggests that the problem will become more widespread unless the popluace is, by and large, [i]forced to fix it. Also, I said it panders to that idea, rather than embodying it fully.

And the anti welfare types are quick to suggest "Don't worry; be happy" because somebody else will come forward and help you.

Sorry but the system should punish the abusers of the system rather then the system.

It was a stupid metaphor in the first place: I merely placed a corollary in the terms it set up. I don't believe the world is quite that simplistic, to be honest.

Like all metaphors, it has it's practical limitations.

It's not a 100% fit, true.

Rape victims are usually physically, spiritually and mentally traumatized by their experience.

Taxpayers are usually not.

Rape victims are the victims of a criminal act.

Taxpayers are usually not.

I tend to liken taxation more to theft instead. Because it's not about vaginas being penetrated, it's about what's mine - what I earned - being taken away with the threat of force. Sure, the government supposedly does good things with the money - invading foreign countries, for example - but a mugger might too.

Both cases still involve taking what isn't yours.

Very true. Those child labor laws prevent that family that needs money from getting it; trapping them in an endless cycle of poverty.
So? Increase wages.

Exceptions. Not rules. Policy should not be forumlated to assume that the treatment of these people is of paramount importance, since they are a distinct minority.
Probably not. But it should at least take account of the poor bastards' existence and make some attempt to accomodate their needs. I cannot for the life of me see how that is going to happen in libertarian sytem without any government intervention as their existence profits nobody and achieves nothing.


It's probably true that more people fail at life than succeed at it. That's not an endictment of the system, it's a commentary on how man excersizes his powers [or lack thereof] any any given society. Some people have ability and can turn their thought into reality, and some can't.
But you've just argued that everybody has useful skills they can use to sustain themself.

The second half of the above is primarily the result of irrational egoism, where it exists. People who do things like force competitors out of business or cook their books are denying others the very standards that they demand for themselves. It's dishonesty at its worst, but just because some people are irresponsible doesn't mean that we should operate under the notion that everyone is.
It may be dishonest, but it's how capitalism works in practice. If you can see any way to prevent this sort of abuse in a system with no government intervention then do tell. Bear in mind that expecting consumers to embargo businesses who aren't playing fair is extremely unlikely to have any impact: Nestle and Gap are doing fine at the moment.

*snip*
I probably shouldn't have responded to your post in the first place, as it's obviously an attempt to trap me into making the response you knew was inevitable. If you have any specific questions about my opinions of welfare as a policy, you're free to ask them here or look over the rest of the the thread, but I'm not interested in telling you [or your mother] how to life ought to be lived.

Maybe you couldn't have survived without a handout, but at the risk of sounding callous [which I don't particularly care about anymore] that in and of itself has never been a compelling justification for the appropriation of my work.

Oh, and if it's an "investment," I'd like my money back, if you'd be so kind. If the "benefit" is that you're not sticking a gun in my face for the money [since we all know Welfare activists love to point out that Welfare "reduces crime"], I direct you to the fact that a zero cannot hold mortage over a value: a con man does not earn virtue by not shooting someone in exchange for a fistful of cash: likewise the welfare program doesn't earn any virtue on merit of the fact that by paying it, the citizenry stays out of jail, or that bums aren't sticking guns in our faces at every street corner.

Well, first what ended child labor was Supreme Court decisions upholding state and federal laws that outlawed the practice and/or Parliament passing laws abolishing it. But that is mere semantics. The real point, however, was that what you are forgetting is that capital doesn't have to be simply accumulated; it must also be applied to solving the problem at hand. In this case, the capital that people could have used to buy better and more efficient machines that didn't rely on little kids risking their hands in the gears to clean already existed, and had existed since probably around the 1870's and 1880's. The problem, however, is that business didn't want to expend said capital, because in the short term it would have been and briefly was bad for their bottom line. Once they changed the laws and put kids in school, however, they quickly found that they were making ultimately more money than before: non-crippled people were working longer years than before, and they were making more money so they could buy more products. In other words, the real problem wasn't that capitalism hadn't developed enough yet, but rather that people interested only in the bottom line and not the general welfare were making ultimately pennywise, pound-foolish decisions.

Firstly, outlawing a practice doesn't end it. It merely makes it illegal, and drives it underground, or overseas.

Secondly, the legislation came into force when child labour was already in decline, and of course the rationale behind them was that children competed with unions, and union-backed politicians' purpose is to criminalise competition with unionised labour.

Thirdly, there is no logical basis for what you've said. If child labour was banned, and capitalists didn't want to spend more money on new equipment, they have the incentive to move their production underground.

If the laws get the children out of the on the books factory work, that doesn't solve the parent's underlying problem, which is that they can't bring in enough to support the family. There is an off the books alternative, prostitution.

What you talk about simply doesn't happen:

In the early 1990s, the United States Congress considered a piece of legislation called the "Child Labor Deterrence Act," which would have taken punitive action against companies benefiting from child labor. The Act never passed, but the public debate it triggered put enormous pressure on a number of multinational corporations. One German garment maker that would have been hit with trade repercussions if the Act had passed laid off 50,000 child workers in Bangladesh. The British charity organization Oxfam later conducted a study which found that thousands of those laid-off children later became prostitutes, turned to crime, or starved to death.

In 1995, a consortium of anti-sweatshop groups threw the spotlight on football (soccer) stitching plants in Pakistan. In particular, the effort targeted enforcing a ban on sweatshop soccer balls by the time the 1998 World Cup began in France. In response, Nike and Reebok shut down their plants in Pakistan and several other companies followed suit. The result: tens of thousands of Pakistanis were again unemployed. According to UPI, mean family income in Pakistan fell by more than 20%.

http://www.aworldconnected.org/article.php/525.html

The same thing applies with shopping at Wal-Mart today. Sure it saves money in the short term. In the long term, however, it only contributes to a race to the bottom and the continued atrophy of American industrial capacity, something that is good for no one. This isn't good for capitalism, because ultimately it only undermines the primary world market for goods of the money to pay for those goods, and creates a labor class in other countries that cannot pay for the goods they produce, resulting in the debt-based economy we're using now. That isn't going to last, and the crash is going to be catastrophic. It isn't good for America, it isn't good for India, it isn't good for Nike. The only thing it is good for is shareholder's next quarterly dividend. That does not make for a stable foundation upon which to base economic decisions.

Specialisation is always good for capitalism, it is a key element of it. If countries other than the US can produce better manufactured goods at a better price than US firms, then it is a good thing. America, like everywhere else, should do what it is best at, what it does best at the best price. Specialisation increases overall wealth.

As for labourers not being able to pay for the goods they produce, should workers at Lockheed Martin be paid enough so that each man with less than 1 years wages can buy a demilitarised F-16E (unit cost about $26-9mil)? Should Boeing workers be paid enough to buy 777's (unit cost $250mil for a B777-300ER)?

Probably not. But it should at least take account of the poor bastards' existence and make some attempt to accomodate their needs. I cannot for the life of me see how that is going to happen in libertarian sytem without any government intervention as their existence profits nobody and achieves nothing.
In a free society, you're perfectly able to put your funds or life to use solving such a problem--with the power of your own mind, rather than the forceful appropriation of someone else's. America is the most generous society on the face of the planet: observe that we donate more money to charity than any other nation on the planet, due in part to the fact that we happen to have more of it than anyone else.

But you've just argued that everybody has useful skills they can use to sustain themself.
And most don't take advantage of them. Indeed, many resign themselves to having "no skills" and convince themselves that the system has failed them rather than the other way around: they don't bother to extricate themselves from the situation on the power of their own volition, rather they fall into the all too common philosophical trap of assuming that someone else is obligated to provide for their existence.

It may be dishonest, but it's how capitalism works in practice. If you can see any way to prevent this sort of abuse in a system with no government intervention then do tell. Bear in mind that expecting consumers to embargo businesses who aren't playing fair is extremely unlikely to have any impact: Nestle and Gap are doing fine at the moment.
I don't remember ever advocating anarchy, which would have to be the case if I were advocating an utter lack of government involvement. Rather, I suggest, that the government should be concerned primarily with force and the people who use it to achieve their ends. Offering someone a job [which they're free to decline] is not force even if the wages are shitty, but on the other side of the coin Trade Unions (!) regularly force their employees to join in oder to gain employment in that particular profession

Also, if the embargos aren't going to work because society will still buy the products, hasn't society expressed its values accordingly? How, in light of this admission, can you make the case that the business ought to operate in your desired fashion in the "best interests" of the public, whom you've already admitted don't hold these values?

Like all metaphors, it has it's practical limitations.

It's not a 100% fit, true.

Rape victims are usually physically, spiritually and mentally traumatized by their experience.

Taxpayers are usually not.

Rape victims are the victims of a criminal act.

Taxpayers are usually not.

I tend to liken taxation more to theft instead. Because it's not about vaginas being penetrated, it's about what's mine - what I earned - being taken away with the threat of force. Sure, the government supposedly does good things with the money - invading foreign countries, for example - but a mugger might too.

Both cases still involve taking what isn't yours.
One argument I've heard (I'm not saying that I agree with it, btw, I'd better make that clear given the way this conversation has been going thus far) is that taxation can be seen as a form of rent required to live in a country.
I take your point about the government pissing tax money away on nonsense: I'd be a lot happier if reassured that all the money I pay goes into the NHS paying people's dole rather than tax breaks for American companies whose UK base is in Dublin or sending troops to get killed in support of the last American intervention into the middle east, but if any of it finds its way to where its needed then it can't be wasted.
There's an old saw about what one man does as a crime becoming Government when enough people do it, biut you'll have heard that one. As I've said to Melkor elsewhere, I honestly believe that these sorts are our only protection from vested corporate interests, and as such our only defense against a reversion to feudalism. You probably don't buy that, but I doubt even the most zealous optimist on earth could dismiss it entirely as a possibility. I'll take a corrupt government over that any day: at least you get to vote for the bastards.
(I'm not sure, btw, but I don't believe muggers pay tax. The whole thing is cash in hand.)

But not enough people would donate in order to solve the problem - your claim that the community adequately provided for its poor is erroneous, and welfare was necessary to adequately provide for the poor.

No evidence, and the other theory is more logical, that it was politicians themselves driving this, it makes them look good, and it panders to interest groups.

The Depression was a result of stock speculation, which the government really didn't have much of a role in.

You can't talk about the Depression without talking about the Fed, and the US Government. Cheap money drove a false boom, no one really cared about prudence in investment, so much malinvestments were made. When it became clear that there was so much malinvestment, the stock market crashed, as people realised how worthless this stuff really was. What made things worse was government, raising taxes and wages, and stopping the liquidation of malinvestmenrs kept the US in depression until the war.

Prohibition failed for a number of reasons; namely that they insisted that people stop drinking without providing them with any additional means to do so. However, I'm not going to talk about this issue too much as it is relatively unimportant to me.

What? That made no sense. Are you perhaps saying that Prohibition should have come with free-LSD for people who wanted to be zonked?

The lack of ability for a single person in a household to be able to work and still pay the bills has more to do with a lack of government intervention (at least in the U.S.) as opposed to being a result of government intervention.

Higher taxes, reduced incentives, massive regulation, and other government induced wealth destroying mechanisms are a lack of government intervention.

You're very skimpy on the economic theory, and evidence that would explain any of this.

In a free society, you're perfectly able to put your funds or life to use solving such a problem--with the power of your own mind, rather than the forceful appropriation of someone else's. America is the most generous society on the face of the planet: observe that we donate more money to charity than any other nation on the planet, due in part to the fact that we happen to have more of it than anyone else.
I'm unaware of US charity spending (besides the fact that it funded the IRA through most of the '80s), so I can't answer that one. You've won that.


And most don't take advantage of them. Indeed, many resign themselves to having "no skills" and convince themselves that the system has failed them rather than the other way around: they don't bother to extricate themselves from the situation on the power of their own volition, rather they fall into the all too common philosophical trap of assuming that someone else is obligated to provide for their existence.
As I've said before, shifting manufacturing industry often means that there isn't enough employment to go around. While I respect your admiration for the human mind, if nobody's going to employ you, somebody else is going to have to provide for your existence, unfortunately.

I don't remember ever advocating anarchy, which would have to be the case if I were advocating an utter lack of government involvement. Rather, I suggest, that the government should be concerned primarily with force and the people who use it to achieve their ends. Offering someone a job [which they're free to decline] is not force even if the wages are shitty, but on the other side of the coin Trade Unions (!) regularly force their employees to join in oder to gain employment in that particular profession
I rather thought that you were suggesting a complete lack of government, in fact. (Maybe I've taken all this Ayn Rand talk the wrong way.) I'd be quite intrigued to know how you feel any government is going to fund itself without tax money, though. As for unions, I honestly can't comment on that: the situation in the 'States seems to be radically different to the one over here.

Also, if the embargos aren't going to work because society will still buy the products, hasn't society expressed its values accordingly? How, in light of this admission, can you make the case that the business ought to operate in your desired fashion in the "best interests" of the public, whom you've already admitted don't hold these values?
This is precisely why moral sanctions from the public on child labour or poisoning a city in Pakistan isn't going to work: nobody gives a flying fuck. In my view, this is another argument for Government intervention, in yours it's an explanation of why they should be allowed to get on with it. This is why our views are irreconcilable.

*snip*

You are possibly right to one degree on the response buy it might be an attempt to see things from a different perspective as somebody who lived the life you say is evil and wrong and serves no greator good.

I don't have any questions to your worldview as I can't live it as I am not single with little or no responsibilities. We are of two different mindsets.

As to how we would/should have lived. That was not the intent. I was mainly curious to what your answer would be. Nothing more then a fishing expidedition.


Maybe you couldn't have survived without a handout, but at the risk of sounding callous [which I don't particularly care about anymore] that in and of itself has never been a compelling justification for the appropriation of my work.

That we will never know as each situtation is differnt. Don't worry about offending me by being callous. As I understand it (correct me if I am wrong) but compassion is not of the objectivist mindset. Again we are of two different mindsets.


Oh, and if it's an "investment," I'd like my money back, if you'd be so kind. If the "benefit" is that you're not sticking a gun in my face for the money [since we all know Welfare activists love to point out that Welfare "reduces crime"], I direct you to the fact that a zero cannot hold mortage over a value: a con man does not earn virtue by not shooting someone in exchange for a fistful of cash: likewise the welfare program doesn't earn any virtue on merit of the fact that by paying it, the citizenry stays out of jail, or that bums aren't sticking guns in our faces at every street corner.


:D Ok life is easier when you are 20. I am not attacking or judging you in particular. I also know you wouldn't care if I did. ;) But there is more to it when you have to live it rather then having philosophy books to guide you. Or at the very least have been on your own longer(I don't know how long you have been so I am guessing 2-3 years?).

If you can maintain your worldview if you have a family to provide for then we can chat again.

Other then that; we are of two differnet mind sets and I don't think we are going to convince the other is wrong. ;)

As always it is a pleasure! I have to re-cable a lab.....

Have a good one.

Man.

I'm glad you people live in another country.

Over here, we (the general voting majority) think societies are first and foremost for providing for their people. Everyone contributes by shooting a portion of their earnings into the money pool and then electing the people who they perceive will spend it in the best way. If sufficient people find that none of the people they can vote for have an acceptable way of allocating the shared funds, fine. Just form a new party; they'll have no greater trouble than the first parties getting their members elected.

Anyway, good luck with the charity stuff. I'm sure people are much more grateful for help when they know they are at the mercy of their helpers's whims.

Man.

I'm glad you people live in another country.

Over here, we (the general voting majority) think societies are first and foremost for providing for their people. Everyone contributes by shooting a portion of their earnings into the money pool and then electing the people who they perceive will spend it in the best way. If sufficient people find that none of the people they can vote for have an acceptable way of allocating the shared funds, fine. Just form a new party; they'll have no greater trouble than the first parties getting their members elected.

Anyway, good luck with the charity stuff. I'm sure people are much more grateful for help when they know they are at the mercy of their helpers's whims.
Who was that aimed at? That is more or less why I've spent the whole bloody thread banging my head off a wall arguing that welfare and taxation are a good idea.

Firstly, outlawing a practice doesn't end it. It merely makes it illegal, and drives it underground, or overseas.

Haven't read much de Toqueville, have you? I don't have Democracy in America with me, but the quotation that comes to mind stated that America is unique in its unipolarity of power and the absolute devastation that the public will can wreak on an individual. Offend the king in an aristocracy, and the church will probably help you. Offend the church, and the masses might help you. Offend the nobility, and the king might help you. Essentially, an aristocratic system allows for a multiplicity of possible helpers when you offend one part of the system. In a democratic system, however, you are allowed much more leeway in what you can say so long as the public has not made up its mind on a topic. Once the public has made up its mind, however, and you directly attempt to contradict the general consensus, you will be social pariah of the highest order.

In this case, the general consensus by the time the federal law banning it was upheld by the Supreme Court (more on this later) was that this was very, very wrong. The idea of people still speaking out in favor of child labor was absurd: no one in their right mind, having seen the horrors inflicted on children in the name of profit, would voice that opinion. Anyone who actually tried to employ children in such conditions again probably would have been lynched. In short, yes, in the United States and Britain, the abolition of child labor did end it, because in nation's with such respect for the rule of law and democratic traditions such as ours, continuing the practice however underground would have been literal suicide, not to mention business suicide. No one would have bought your products, and as soon as people found out, even Italian gangsters and Irish machine politicos would want you swimming in the nearest river with a pair of cement shoes.


Secondly, the legislation came into force when child labour was already in decline, and of course the rationale behind them was that children competed with unions, and union-backed politicians' purpose is to criminalise competition with unionised labour.

I said earlier that I would return to this. The main point is that the law was upheld and enforced when the practice was on the decline, since people saw which way the political and public will was blowing. But state laws had been passed and quashed much earlier, as had federal laws which were struck down by the Supreme Court. Your second point essentially commits a lie of omission: you are suggesting that the reason it succeeded was not because it was necessary or popular, but purely because of union backing. This is, essentially, a post hoc fallacy, because the same trends that were driving unionization were also driving child labor laws. The fact that one came close on the heels of another does not mean that unionization caused child labor laws.


Thirdly, there is no logical basis for what you've said. If child labour was banned, and capitalists didn't want to spend more money on new equipment, they have the incentive to move their production underground.

Of course there is a rational basis for what I said: capitalists were more focused on the short-term impacts banning child labor would have on their bottom line, and not focused on the long-term costs which greatly outweighed the continued use of the practice. Based on their short-term outlook, maintaining child labor was preferable. Once they realized, however, that such a short-term outlook would get them destroyed economically and in reality, however, producers decided that the extra worth was worth it, and as a consequence of unanticipated long-term consequences, people did better because of it.

They didn't go underground because as noted above, there is not really such a thing as "underground" in America when it comes to child labor, and also because it is difficult if not impossible for a gigantic business or large factory to go underground: how exactly do you keep a factory that employs hundreds of children a secret, especially in an era when the dominant scares was white slavery, pray tell?


If the laws get the children out of the on the books factory work, that doesn't solve the parent's underlying problem, which is that they can't bring in enough to support the family. There is an off the books alternative, prostitution.

What you talk about simply doesn't happen:





http://www.aworldconnected.org/article.php/525.html


1) What you are describing is fine for countries that have no concept of democracy or respect for the rule of law. The US is neither.

2) What you are describing is further the result of global capitalism in general, not intervention. It wasn't intervention that made those area's sole product export-driven luxury goods to the US. It wasn't intervention that drove out and under domestic industries. It wasn't intervention that forced those plants to close, rather than agreeing to pay their workers a living wage. Rather, it was the very same market forces that you so cherish.


Specialisation is always good for capitalism, it is a key element of it. If countries other than the US can produce better manufactured goods at a better price than US firms, then it is a good thing. America, like everywhere else, should do what it is best at, what it does best at the best price. Specialisation increases overall wealth.

As for labourers not being able to pay for the goods they produce, should workers at Lockheed Martin be paid enough so that each man with less than 1 years wages can buy a demilitarised F-16E (unit cost about $26-9mil)? Should Boeing workers be paid enough to buy 777's (unit cost $250mil for a B777-300ER)?

1) Specialization is fine, yes, but production of so many goods that they overwhelm the ability of consumer's ability to buy them without accruing massive debt isn't fine. It's a recipe for worldwide economic collapse.

2) That is a retarded use of counterexample, because the product being produced has no use value on the open market: there is no private market for combat jets (and rightly so), and only major corporations are in the market for jetliners. To use my wording that literally is simply asinine, as you know exactly what I meant. A person making Nike's in Bangledesh ought to be able to afford the Nike's he produced. A person making food in Kansas ought to be able to buy the food he produces at the store. A doctor in New York who performs heart surgery ought to be able to afford quality medical care. They produce goods that average people can use, and they ought to be able to afford goods that they produce in turn. To do otherwise is to simply set yourself up for a deflationary crisis as too many goods are produced for the people to consume.

Haven't read much de Toqueville, have you? I don't have Democracy in America with me, but the quotation that comes to mind stated that America is unique in its unipolarity of power and the absolute devastation that the public will can wreak on an individual. Offend the king in an aristocracy, and the church will probably help you. Offend the church, and the masses might help you. Offend the nobility, and the king might help you. Essentially, an aristocratic system allows for a multiplicity of possible helpers when you offend one part of the system. In a democratic system, however, you are allowed much more leeway in what you can say so long as the public has not made up its mind on a topic. Once the public has made up its mind, however, and you directly attempt to contradict the general consensus, you will be social pariah of the highest order.
Try telling that to Michael Moore or Marilyn Manson.

Try telling that to Michael Moore or Marilyn Manson.

You don't seem to understand what I mean, so I'll be more clear. There is no general consensus on whether Satan exists, for instance, or whether or not liberals are traitors: plenty of people feel strongly either way. There is, however, a consensus on the view that pedophilia is a horrible crime. If you were to advocate pedophilia, for instance, like NAMBLA, you would be a pariah of the highest order. If you actually carried through with what you said was right, you'd be lucky if you made it to trial. That is what de Toqueville is referring to.

Who was that aimed at? That is more or less why I've spent the whole bloody thread banging my head off a wall arguing that welfare and taxation are a good idea.

Well, then you shouldn't think it an attack on you. I'm just glad you're not a minority here.

You don't seem to understand what I mean, so I'll be more clear. There is no general consensus on whether Satan exists, for instance, or whether or not liberals are traitors: plenty of people feel strongly either way. There is, however, a consensus on the view that pedophilia is a horrible crime. If you were to advocate pedophilia, for instance, like NAMBLA, you would be a pariah of the highest order. If you actually carried through with what you said was right, you'd be lucky if you made it to trial. That is what de Toqueville is referring to.
I wasn't arguing with that.
The neocons (and the more reactionary elements of this very board) argue that Bush is greatly admired and dead right, and that anybody who disagrees with him is an evil subversive who needs shooting. America stands behind Bush, yet Moore is still at large and has neither been tarred and feathered, lynched nor hounded out of the country. (There's a couple of years yet, mind.)
Manson has made a lucrative career out of acting as a scapegoat for the religious right who (and if you say otherwise you're a satanist and probably a pedophile or even worse an evolutionist) are America. he tried to fag out of it after the business at Columbine, but wasn't allowed to do so. yet despite being an evil sort, pledged to overcome mom, applepie and baseball (among other things) he's still at large.
There are probably better examples, some of whom may have been driven from the country through ostracism, but I can't think of anybody who has offhand.

I wasn't arguing with that.
The neocons (and the more reactionary elements of this very board) argue that Bush is greatly admired and dead right, and that anybody who disagrees with him is an evil subversive who needs shooting. America stands behind Bush, yet Moore is still at large and has neither been tarred and feathered, lynched nor hounded out of the country. (There's a couple of years yet, mind.)
Manson has made a lucrative career out of acting as a scapegoat for the religious right who (and if you say otherwise you're a satanist and probably a pedophile or even worse an evolutionist) are America. he tried to fag out of it after the business at Columbine, but wasn't allowed to do so. yet despite being an evil sort, pledged to overcome mom, applepie and baseball (among other things) he's still at large.
There are probably better examples, some of whom may have been driven from the country through ostracism, but I can't think of anybody who has offhand.

All of that is true, but the focus of my post you cite is point out that really, those aren't pariahs because they talk about issues that have not been decided by the American public. NAMBLA or the American Communist Party, however, tend to be pariahs simply because America has made up its mind that homosexual pedophilia is not tolerated, and Communism is not an acceptable form of economic organization. Other such questions might be whether the US should be a monarchy or return to colonial status under Great Britain, whether cute little furry animals should be boiled alive for fun and profit, or whether six-year olds should have unlimited access to heroin. Those are not the kind of questions that Marilyn Manson or Moore ask, because those questions simply by being posed are the kind that make people look at you as if you were a demented freak.

All of that is true, but the focus of my post you cite is point out that really, those aren't pariahs because they talk about issues that have not been decided by the American public. NAMBLA or the American Communist Party, however, tend to be pariahs simply because America has made up its mind that homosexual pedophilia is not tolerated, and Communism is not an acceptable form of economic organization. Other such questions might be whether the US should be a monarchy or return to colonial status under Great Britain, whether cute little furry animals should be boiled alive for fun and profit, or whether six-year olds should have unlimited access to heroin. Those are not the kind of questions that Marilyn Manson or Moore ask, because those questions simply by being posed are the kind that make people look at you as if you were a demented freak.
isn't that what Manson's based his career around?

In this case, the general consensus by the time the federal law banning it was upheld by the Supreme Court (more on this later) was that this was very, very wrong. The idea of people still speaking out in favor of child labor was absurd: no one in their right mind, having seen the horrors inflicted on children in the name of profit, would voice that opinion. Anyone who actually tried to employ children in such conditions again probably would have been lynched. In short, yes, in the United States and Britain, the abolition of child labor did end it, because in nation's with such respect for the rule of law and democratic traditions such as ours, continuing the practice however underground would have been literal suicide, not to mention business suicide. No one would have bought your products, and as soon as people found out, even Italian gangsters and Irish machine politicos would want you swimming in the nearest river with a pair of cement shoes.

Under abolition, if people knew about it, it obviously couldn't escape the notice of the state. The idea that the market knowing something that the state's agents don't get wind of is simply impossible. If it is being done underground, it is being done in secret.

What makes you think I am speaking out in favour of child labour? Such appeals to emotion are not worthy of you. I am speaking out against laws banning child labour. There is a difference. The first difference is moral, namely that I am of the opinion that being against something doesn't justify using force to stop it. Secondly, such laws are never effective.

I don't like the idea of child labour, but it is better than crime, prostitution, and starvation.

What those who say "ban child labour" must show is that they have a better alternative. They clearly don't.

If child labour laws were meant to get children out of the factories, it failed, because the practice simply moved offshore.

The main point is that the law was upheld and enforced when the practice was on the decline, since people saw which way the political and public will was blowing.

That argument is entirely without foundation. Why should they listen to the public? The only people they have to listen to are their customers, and the shareholders.

Once they realized, however, that such a short-term outlook would get them destroyed economically and in reality, however, producers decided that the extra worth was worth it, and as a consequence of unanticipated long-term consequences, people did better because of it.

You're just making stuff up. You cannot reasonable claim a non-obvious motive without any foundation, when an obvious motive with considerable foundation exists. Businesses are out to make profit, they will therefore seek the best and most efficicent use of capital to maximise profit.

They didn't go underground because as noted above, there is not really such a thing as "underground" in America when it comes to child labor, and also because it is difficult if not impossible for a gigantic business or large factory to go underground: how exactly do you keep a factory that employs hundreds of children a secret, especially in an era when the dominant scares was white slavery, pray tell?

Build it in Africa, or Asia.

1) What you are describing is fine for countries that have no concept of democracy or respect for the rule of law. The US is neither.

You cannot legislate more productivity. It doesn't make a difference.

2) What you are describing is further the result of global capitalism in general, not intervention. It wasn't intervention that made those area's sole product export-driven luxury goods to the US. It wasn't intervention that drove out and under domestic industries. It wasn't intervention that forced those plants to close, rather than agreeing to pay their workers a living wage. Rather, it was the very same market forces that you so cherish.

Market forces didn't close those factories, government intervention, or the threat of it forced them to close. Didn't you read the examples I posted?

In the Bangladeshi case, the US Congress was debating a law (called the Child Labor Deterrence Act) which would introduce punitive action against firms that practiced child labour in the third world. Are you trying to tell me that "punitive action", proscribed by government is an example of "market forces"?

Now, are you also trying to say, realising the alternatives, that they are better off without work?

1) Specialization is fine, yes, but production of so many goods that they overwhelm the ability of consumer's ability to buy them without accruing massive debt isn't fine. It's a recipe for worldwide economic collapse.

Frankly, only someone who doesn't understand capitalism could come up with this objection. You do know about supply and demand, and the price system? You see, if too much is produced (too much is of course never a fixed amount, making too much means more goods are produced than people want to buy), then the price must come down. This operates to reduce/stop production because the profitability of such production is reduced.

You should not evaluate capitalism through a socialist lens, because socialism has no way to make such a calculation. The information simply isn't there.

2) That is a retarded use of counterexample, because the product being produced has no use value on the open market: there is no private market for combat jets (and rightly so), and only major corporations are in the market for jetliners. To use my wording that literally is simply asinine, as you know exactly what I meant. A person making Nike's in Bangledesh ought to be able to afford the Nike's he produced. A person making food in Kansas ought to be able to buy the food he produces at the store. A doctor in New York who performs heart surgery ought to be able to afford quality medical care. They produce goods that average people can use, and they ought to be able to afford goods that they produce in turn. To do otherwise is to simply set yourself up for a deflationary crisis as too many goods are produced for the people to consume.

Rolls Royce, then. There's an open market for Rolls Royce cars, so the Rolls Royce workers should be able to buy them.

There is no real difference between saying a Nike worker should be able to buy Nike shoes, and a Boeing worker should be able to buy a 777.

As to your "criticisms" of my examples, neither are valid.

In the case of the F-16, I said "demilitarised F-16", it is not a combat aircraft, being demilitarised, it would have no weapons, no capacity to mount them. It would probably have a weather radar in the place of a fire control rader, its computers would be used for navigation, flight-control, and diagnostics. No tactical functions. F-16's may one day be privately-owned, just as F-86's, F-4's, or MiG-21's are today. You might say "an F-16 is totally different", and I'm sure people would have said the same about F-86's when they were in frontline service, and P-51 Mustangs had only recently moved into private ownership.

In the case of a 777, there is an open market for them. If you can get the dough to buy one, there's nothing to stop you.

Now, obviously, you don't mean to say that the food worker should only be able to afford some unstated quantity of an unknown type of food. There is no reason that she would necessarily want to, and one cannot assume that he would. For the heart surgeon, there is even reason to assume that he would not want to avail himself of similar services, since he would have the medical knowledge to live a very healthy life.

You've made no effort to answer the deeper questions, such as how much time should there be to reach that level? How do we determine the exact level (you see, the final asking price for an item must include paying the costs of the labour), or how much is the item he produces. You surely cannot mean to say that while Mr. Boeing gets at least $250 million, while Mr. Nike gets less than $100 for the year to match one pair of shoes? A firm will probably produce a range of products and services, so which do we choose. Should Mr. Boeing get enough to buy a 777-300ER, or a Harpoon anti-ship missile, or an AH-64D, or an F-15K (based on F-15E, for Korea). Should it be on a heirarchy, with the lowest workers getting enough for the cheapest products, and the Chairman of the Board getting enough for the most expensive?

In an exchange economy, everyone's income is everyone's cost. Unless a wage increase is matched by an increase in productivity, it simply raises prices. This alone makes your idea totally unworkable.

Let us say that Mr. Boeing made $30,000 before you raised his wages by $250mil.

If Boeing wanted to maintain the same margin as before, it still has to pay its labour costs. This means that the price of a Boeing 777 must be raised to astronomical levels to cover the hundreds, perhaps thousands who make them. We shall say 1000 workers are necessary to make them, so the 777 must jump in price from $250mil to $250.25bil.

Of course then, being paid $250mil, he couldn't afford $250.25bil, so you're back to square one. This applies as much to biscuits as to bombers.

This sounds slightly like an inflationary crisis. Another problem is that an airline willing to pay $250mil may not be willing, or even able to pay a quarter of a trillion dollars. If money were so inelastic that a price increase would be impossible, then Boeing would merely lay people off.

Man.

I'm glad you people live in another country.

Over here, we (the general voting majority) think societies are first and foremost for providing for their people. Everyone contributes by shooting a portion of their earnings into the money pool and then electing the people who they perceive will spend it in the best way. If sufficient people find that none of the people they can vote for have an acceptable way of allocating the shared funds, fine. Just form a new party; they'll have no greater trouble than the first parties getting their members elected.

Anyway, good luck with the charity stuff. I'm sure people are much more grateful for help when they know they are at the mercy of their helpers's whims.

Let me get this straight. You, and the majority in your country think this way?

Fair enough.

What has this to do with tax.

If you're willing to hand some of your money over to an organisation which will spend those funds on "good works", then your country clearly has no need for tax and welfare. Charity can do it because you're all willing to throw some money into the hat. Does it really matter that the hat has "St Vincent de Paul" on it, rather than a Crown or Eagle?

In fact, since you're all willing to make voluntary contributions, then getting rid of the government structure will make things better. Charities tend to be less bureaucratuc, you won't need a huge treasury department, or a Tax Office, prisons could be reduced, as can police.

If you are going to make an argument for taxation and welfare you must justify the following:

1) That I am not an individual who exists for his own ends.

2) That others have a greater moral claim to my life, liberty, and property than I.

Let me get this straight. You, and the majority in your country think this way?

Fair enough.

What has this to do with tax.

If you're willing to hand some of your money over to an organisation which will spend those funds on "good works", then your country clearly has no need for tax and welfare. Charity can do it because you're all willing to throw some money into the hat. Does it really matter that the hat has "St Vincent de Paul" on it, rather than a Crown or Eagle?

In fact, since you're all willing to make voluntary contributions, then getting rid of the government structure will make things better. Charities tend to be less bureaucratuc, you won't need a huge treasury department, or a Tax Office, prisons could be reduced, as can police.

If you are going to make an argument for taxation and welfare you must justify the following:

1) That I am not an individual who exists for his own ends.

2) That others have a greater moral claim to my life, liberty, and property than I.
Prisons would be abolished, actually, given that these are run by the (evil looting) government.

Prisons would be abolished, actually, given that these are run by the (evil looting) government.

What has anarchy to do with this thread.

Let me explain something to you. It has been explained to you before, but you clearly couldn't understand a single sentence.

Anarchists want the state abolished.

Libertarians think a state is necessary, but that its functions should be limited to protecting the rights of the individual by banning the initiation of force, making relations between men peaceful (free from force and fraud)

What do I mean by the initiation of force?
In a political context, freedom has only one specific meaning -- freedom from the initiation of force by other men. By initiation I mean those who start the use of force to achieve their ends, i.e., a bank robber. Only the initiation of force against a man can stop his mind, thus rendering it useless as a means of survival. Only by the initiation of force can a man be: prevented from speaking, or robbed of his possessions, or murdered. Only through the initiation of force can a man's rights be violated.

What do individuals delegate to government?
In order to place the retaliatory use of force under objective legal control -- that is, under clearly defined laws that are logically deduced from the principle of rights -- those who make up society delegate their right to retaliate against those who initiate force, to government.

What would a society be without government, i.e., without the delegation of the use of force?
Man's state in nature, where every man is allowed complete discretion in the retaliatory use of force, according to the laws of the jungle, is nothing more than a state of anarchy -- perpetual civil war and gang warfare. If there were no legal agency to carry out such a task, each man would be forced to carry out retaliation at his own discretion, i.e., anarchy. A modern day example of such a situation is Bosnia, where two gangs, or "competing governments" -- the Croats and the Serbs -- are competing with each other in the same geographical area. So much for the anarchist version of a "free" society -- a society where everyone is free to murder.

Does government's monopoly on the use of force give it the right to initiate (start) force against others?
Under no conditions may government violate anyone's rights, by initiating force against others. A proper government is permitted to use force to retaliate against a thief who has initiated force against someone (in the act of robbing them). However, a proper government is not permitted to copy the means of private criminals by initiating force against its citizens. The government is not even permitted to rob them of their wealth--even, or rather especially, if the stolen loot is to be used for so called "noble" purposes, such as for the sick and poor. No end (even for the "poor") ever justifies an illegitimate means (the initiation of force). Any man who initiates force against others is a dictator, and should be treated as such, to the extent he initiates force.

Can citizens delegate the right to initiate force to government?
Citizens may not delegate the "right to initiate force" to government, as no one possess such a "right" to begin with. As Ayn Rand has commented "there is no such thing as the right to enslave." What individuals do possess is the right to defend against force (in some cases this may include pre-emptive action). As no individual in his private capacity, as a citizen, may initiate force against others, neither may he in his public capacity as a state official initiate force either.

Doesn't the cause of the "public good" justify the initiation of force?
No one may initiate force for any reason whatsoever, even if that alleged purpose is for the "public good". For is not the individual whose rights are being violated for the "public good", a member of the "public" also? How can such a violation be in the public's good? For is not his good also the good of the public, of which he is a member? The truth is, such violations are only in the irrational interests of a division of the public, but are not in the interests of the entire public.

How does government carry out its' duties in practice?
To protect rights, government require essentially three things: an army [N.B. Navies, Air Forces, and Marine Corps included] -- to protect against foreign invaders, a police force -- to protect against domestic criminals, and a court system -- to settle honest disputes that arise, and to punish criminals according to objectively predefined laws

http://capitalism.org/faq/government.htm

Is this simple enough for you, because I can get the crayons if you'd like?

So? It's their money.

Okay, I'm stuck at this bit of the arguement.

Would it not be fair to consider USA stolen from its rightful owner? All the income made in America is essentially the proceeds of a theft. Would this mean that anyone who earns money in the United States are implicit in profiting from crime and hence have absolutely no claim to their wealth?

[I only refer to the theft of America specifically, because it is probably the most prominent theft ever. Most nations are the result of some theft.]

What has anarchy to do with this thread.

Let me explain something to you. It has been explained to you before, but you clearly couldn't understand a single sentence.

Anarchists want the state abolished.

Libertarians think a state is necessary, but that its functions should be limited to protecting the rights of the individual by banning the initiation of force, making relations between men peaceful (free from force and fraud)



http://capitalism.org/faq/government.htm

Is this simple enough for you, because I can get the crayons if you'd like?

Au contrair. Libertarians believe that a very minimal government is needed, however it *should* use force. Most libertarians believe that there should be very few laws, but that those that are in place should be well-enforced to prevent anarchy. Libertarianism has nothing to do with peace. It's about freedom. Hippies want peace. You seem to be describing hippies, not libertarians.

Would it not be fair to consider USA stolen from its rightful owner? All the income made in America is essentially the proceeds of a theft. Would this mean that anyone who earns money in the United States are implicit in profiting from crime and hence have absolutely no claim to their wealth?

That argument, like many here, has some superficial appeal. Upon closer examination, it falls apart.

Firstly, the governments that carried out the "thefts" were quite tyrannical, and I see no reason for people living today to pay for it.

Secondly, the Native Americans didn't use/control all of North America.

Thirdly, the actions of these governments were the results of thefts from the people who are (so you're telling me) doing the stealing!

What you're essentially arguing is that the victims of a theft (the people who's tax money financed government actions in America) should be slugged because a theft was committed using property that was stolen from them!

Put more simply, if you steal a knife from me, and stab someone who names me as a beneficiary in his will, you would propose that I be punished.

Au contrair. Libertarians believe that a very minimal government is needed, however it *should* use force. Most libertarians believe that there should be very few laws, but that those that are in place should be well-enforced to prevent anarchy. Libertarianism has nothing to do with peace. It's about freedom. Hippies want peace. You seem to be describing hippies, not libertarians.

[Bangs head on desk]

Mate, if you're going to dispute my posts, you should bloody well read them.

If you had read my post, you would have seen that I did indeed say that a libertarian government can, and must make legitimate use of force in the defence of the rights of individuals.

I would argue that peace and freedom, in a libertarian society, are the same thing. Freedom means freedom from the initiation of force. Which means libertarians want peace, but, like all sane people who want peace, they are prepared to make a bloody, distended, charred mess of anyone who wants a fight.

since when did Libertarians become against patents?

Well, these large corporate interests started passing legislation like the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, started destroying my right to use my tangible property with "Digital Rights Management" schemes, and have implemented anti-free trade practices like DVD region coding. Some of us libertarians came to the conclusion that "intellectual property" was nothing more than another form of big business welfare and subsidy, and as such is highly destructive to the process of free trade and capitalist economics.

Edit: Patents are especially odious as their only and entire purpose is to prevent competition and establish monopoly over a non-scarce resource. Unless, of course, I wish to pay rent to those who conspire with the government.

Let me get this straight. You, and the majority in your country think this way?

Fair enough.

What has this to do with tax.

If you're willing to hand some of your money over to an organisation which will spend those funds on "good works", then your country clearly has no need for tax and welfare. Charity can do it because you're all willing to throw some money into the hat. Does it really matter that the hat has "St Vincent de Paul" on it, rather than a Crown or Eagle?

No. Which is why I think the state may as well do it. It is, after all, an organization by, and for the people.

In fact, since you're all willing to make voluntary contributions, then getting rid of the government structure will make things better. Charities tend to be less bureaucratuc, you won't need a huge treasury department, or a Tax Office, prisons could be reduced, as can police.

Our prisons aren't overflowing with people who refuse to pay taxes, and the police are not overworked trying to get people to pay up. And the people who do cheat on their taxes very rarely donate much to charity. It's great that you have such faith in humans, but there's no way you could raise the same kinds of funds through just charity, bureaucracy or no. Yeah, cry oppression all you want, but there are people who need help, and if society as a whole is able to help them, why not?

If you are going to make an argument for taxation and welfare you must justify the following:

1) That I am not an individual who exists for his own ends.

2) That others have a greater moral claim to my life, liberty, and property than I.

1)You are a human, a social being. It is self-evident that the human race would not exist if it wasn't for the fact that we cooperate, ergo it must be a vital part of our nature. Cooperation requires a certain amount of give and take. You may perceive yourself as an individual who exists for his own ends, and I won't deny this. However, your existance, for whatever ends, would not be possible if you were truly alone. Anyway, I don't see how you could consider this an argument for or against welfare. You could, after all, choose only to cooperate with those who are most able and fit for the job. The Nazis consider people with handicaps that make them a burden for society unfit for survival. Feudalism worked because those on top through cooperation could exploit those on the bottom of the social ladder. It is obvious that you aknowledge that people should help people in need, even when it isn't necessarily directly beneficial to them. Otherwise, you would not have talked about charity either.

2)You have a right to life, liberty and property. So does everyone else. If you have enough material wealth that you can live comfortably and still give away some of it to help those in need, then that sounds fair. I think you agree with me on this. You claim that it would be best if you yourself decided if, and if so, how much you could give. This sounds great, and maybe it would work perfectly for you. If you live in the US, I can see how you might object to your tax money being spent on the world's largest military budget and one of the highest numbers of prisoners per capita. I know I would. Fortunately, the political climate in my country is (as of yet) such that I can support and be part of deciding what the money is being used on, and so I have no problems with the organized state taking care of its citizens. To me it's a matter of a right to a decent life and a duty to help make this possible.

No. Which is why I think the state may as well do it. It is, after all, an organization by, and for the people.

Firstly, you've produced no refutation at all. Second, since you are talking about how people will want to voluntarily contribute, why is a compulsory institution necessary? If people will do it voluntarily, then no compulsory means are necessary, and in terms of making those contributions count in terms of good works, compulsory means are counter-productive.

Our prisons aren't overflowing with people who refuse to pay taxes, and the police are not overworked trying to get people to pay up.

Nevertheless, there are elements of law enforcement that are put to the task of making people pay their taxes. If they'd do this voluntarily, these resources can be put to the more normal law and order functions of protecting rights.

And the people who do cheat on their taxes very rarely donate much to charity. It's great that you have such faith in humans, but there's no way you could raise the same kinds of funds through just charity, bureaucracy or no. Yeah, cry oppression all you want, but there are people who need help, and if society as a whole is able to help them, why not?

Talking about "society" and "the state" as though they were synonomous is utterly fallacious.

If people will contribute voluntarily, why is a compulsory institution needed? This is the question you must answer. You posited the idea that people pay their taxes because they want to, so you must justify usage of compulsory means to achieve an end that can, according to you, be achieved voluntarily.

1)You are a human, a social being. It is self-evident that the human race would not exist if it wasn't for the fact that we cooperate, ergo it must be a vital part of our nature

Only two humans need to "cooperate" at any time for the human race to survive.

Cooperation requires a certain amount of give and take.

People who talk about how everyone wants to pay their taxes to contribute to helping the needy, and then talk about the need for compulsory means to do it, should not be making patronising comments.

You may perceive yourself as an individual who exists for his own ends, and I won't deny this. However, your existance, for whatever ends, would not be possible if you were truly alone. Anyway, I don't see how you could consider this an argument for or against welfare.

I wouldn't expect someone who worships the state, like some latter-day Fascist to understand.

The point is this: I live for me. I advance those interests that interest me. I am the master of my life. I live in society, but I am not a member of the collective, at the collective's command, whose interests must be subordinated to the collective.

All I need to live in society, all anyone needs is to be free from the initiation of force.

This is an argument against welfare for several reasons: Firstly, taxation is an initiation of force against me. Taxation is theft, because it is a permanent seizure of my property without my consent. Welfare is therefore conspiracy to deal in stolen goods.

It is obvious that you aknowledge that people should help people in need, even when it isn't necessarily directly beneficial to them. Otherwise, you would not have talked about charity either.

Right on both counts, however, I come from an individualist standpoint, you from a collectivist standpoint. I do contribute to charity, both time and money. However this is an independent decision, I still live for me, and advance those interests that interest me. I initiate force against no one to do it. My contribution is virtuous, government contributions are not. Man can only be good to his fellows if he is free from the initiation of force.

If you have enough material wealth that you can live comfortably and still give away some of it to help those in need, then that sounds fair. I think you agree with me on this. You claim that it would be best if you yourself decided if, and if so, how much you could give. This sounds great, and maybe it would work perfectly for you.

Absolutely right.

If you live in the US, I can see how you might object to your tax money being spent on the world's largest military budget and one of the highest numbers of prisoners per capita. I know I would. Fortunately, the political climate in my country is (as of yet) such that I can support and be part of deciding what the money is being used on, and so I have no problems with the organized state taking care of its citizens. To me it's a matter of a right to a decent life and a duty to help make this possible.

You have no problem with others initiating force against you? You have no problem with being forcibly prevented from persuing your own interests fully?

You are a slave ... and you're so happy about it, that you'll shout it from the roof tops.

Revel in your chains.

What you're missing is that you started in the thread by saying that the majority are glad to pay their taxes.

What is a tax? It is not simply any income to government. Not even governments define it that way.

Taxation refers to that revenue which is extorted from the people.

Now, if people are willing to pay by themselves, why would a tax be necessary? It wouldn't, government could operate under voluntary contributions entirely.

Taxation is a form of tyranny, you justify it by saying it does some good, however, every tyranny in history is justified in this way, from taxation, to apartheid.

You feel a duty to contribute, that's fine and good. It is your money.

The gap in your argument is this: Does the fact that you think it is a good thing justify forcing people to do it your way? Are you allowed to put a gun in someone's face, take their money for the sole reason that you intend to distribute this to the needy?

My answer is "NO!"

Your answer appears to be "Yes!" What you need to do is not talk of good works, because they can be done without the initiation of force, what you need to do is justify the claim that the individual is a means to the ends of a collective. It is upon this claim that all tyranny rests.

Firstly, you've produced no refutation at all. Second, since you are talking about how people will want to voluntarily contribute, why is a compulsory institution necessary? If people will do it voluntarily, then no compulsory means are necessary, and in terms of making those contributions count in terms of good works, compulsory means are counter-productive.

What is there to refute? It is agreed through a democratic process that a society should grant its members certain rights, in exchange for certain duties that have to be fulfilled for the rights to be enforceable. In this case, social services are among the rights agreed on, and taxes financing them are among the duties agreed on. Since the rights and duties decided on are a result of what the majority of voters consider approperiate, the majority will de facto be voluntarily contributing. Those who wish to live in this society and who respect the will of the majority, even if they disagree with what has been decided, will also voluntarily be contributing. They may of course try to change sway the majority's opinion and change the system this way, but as long as they accept the will of the majority as the highest authority, they will be contributing voluntarily. Alternatively, they can choose to leave for a more agreeable place to live.

If the system was to be based on voluntary donations, then it would be fully possible to take advantage of the system by receiving the rights without giving anything back.

If the system is based on taxes as a duty owed to society, then anyone who wishes to be part of the society, and thereby accept the rules which are communely agreed upon by its members, will have to contribute.

Nevertheless, there are elements of law enforcement that are put to the task of making people pay their taxes. If they'd do this voluntarily, these resources can be put to the more normal law and order functions of protecting rights.

There must of course be elements of law and order to ensure that people actually fulfill the duties that are required for it to be possible to protect the rights.

Talking about "society" and "the state" as though they were synonomous is utterly fallacious.

If people will contribute voluntarily, why is a compulsory institution needed? This is the question you must answer. You posited the idea that people pay their taxes because they want to, so you must justify usage of compulsory means to achieve an end that can, according to you, be achieved voluntarily.

While it is correct that a society is not always synonymous with a state, in this case the society I was referring to was the state of which I am a member. I'm sorry if this was not clear.

The people pay their taxes because they want to belong to this society and agree to abide by its rules, even if they wish the rules were different and actively seek to change these rules. In other words, they agree to taxes because they feel that the perceived benefits of being part of this society are greater than the perceived downsides. Should the contribution taxes represent be voluntary, it would be possible to take advantage of the services the society provides without giving anything back.


Only two humans need to "cooperate" at any time for the human race to survive.

I said cooperate, not copulate. Humans are soft, fleshy things that depend on one another for survival. Not only for hunting in packs, but for ideas, knowledge of what can and can't be eaten, how to make tools, etc...

People who talk about how everyone wants to pay their taxes to contribute to helping the needy, and then talk about the need for compulsory means to do it, should not be making patronising comments.

My intention was never to be patronizing. I apologize if it appeared that way.

I wouldn't expect someone who worships the state, like some latter-day Fascist to understand.

The point is this: I live for me. I advance those interests that interest me. I am the master of my life. I live in society, but I am not a member of the collective, at the collective's command, whose interests must be subordinated to the collective.

All I need to live in society, all anyone needs is to be free from the initiation of force.

This is an argument against welfare for several reasons: Firstly, taxation is an initiation of force against me. Taxation is theft, because it is a permanent seizure of my property without my consent. Welfare is therefore conspiracy to deal in stolen goods.

First of all, I take offence that you would call me a fascist. As I've said before, I abide by the rule of the majority. I still would, if people like you were the majority, though I would not like it, and I'd try to argue for the system I find to be best.

You are welcome to have your opinion. Personally, I deny noone the right to become rich, successful, etc. I do feel, however, that if you can contribute something to society, to help those less fortunate than you, and still live a comfortable life, then you should. I support a society that can guarantee people certain rights, and among those rights I consider the right to a decent life without hunger and where one cannot be placed at the mercy of those who are kind enough to donate to charity by conditions outside of one's control.



Right on both counts, however, I come from an individualist standpoint, you from a collectivist standpoint. I do contribute to charity, both time and money. However this is an independent decision, I still live for me, and advance those interests that interest me. I initiate force against no one to do it. My contribution is virtuous, government contributions are not. Man can only be good to his fellows if he is free from the initiation of force.

While being good to one's fellows sounds very nice, I think it is more important to ensure that those in need of help actually get it. The system we have now is alas not perfect, but it certainly is several notches up from what conditions were like only a hundred years ago, when no such system existed and people in need of help were dependant on charity. I realize you think the whole 'voluntary obligation' oxymoron sounds like circular logic, but the truth of the matter is that for our part, tax-financed social services have actually turned out to work better than voluntary charity. I suppose it's easier to give when the money is already subtracted from your paycheck when you receive it.

[quite=Disraeli 3]You have no problem with others initiating force against you? You have no problem with being forcibly prevented from persuing your own interests fully?

You are a slave ... and you're so happy about it, that you'll shout it from the roof tops.

Revel in your chains.[/QUOTE]

I have no problem with spending part of my income on the society I share with my fellow countrymen. I consider it only fair that I am to help contributing to the system that protects my rights. It is as a membership in any organization: There are special benefits and certain obligations.

If, for some reason, I found this completely unreasonable, I guess I'd move to the Cayman Islands, or something.

It is agreed through a democratic process that a society should grant its members certain rights, in exchange for certain duties that have to be fulfilled for the rights to be enforceable

Rights are not something granted. Privileges are granted. What you dignify as "democracy" is nothing more than mob rule. I'll put it this way, lets say I gather a licentious mob, and come to your house, with sticks, and flaming torches, and guns, and signs bearing nasty mottos like "Kevlanakia is really not a very nice chap", and steal from you, burn your house down, and gaol you. You certainly wouldn't like that, and I fancy you would consider it criminal.

Scenario 2, I form the Kevlanakia Is Really Not A Very Nice Chap Party, and get myself elected (our licentious mob, with a bloodlust that would make Vikings look like girlscouts has just become a soverign electorate, without changing a bit). In my new role, achieved through democratic process, I get passed the Kevlanakia Is Really Not A Very Nice Chap Act (2006), and act which authorises the police forces of the country to seize your belongings, burn down your house, and imprison you.

Can you tell me is there's a real difference between these?

In both, a demagogue (me) gets a group together, and we all decide that you are really not a very nice chap, and decide to do some rather nasty things to you.

You can't talk about democracy and rights in the same passage, one must give way. Regarding us libertarians, we are not universally decided about the exact form government should take, all that we are sure about is that the best government is a government that confines its activities to the protection of rights, and lets individuals decide what is the best path for them individually.

Once you get beyond that and choose democracy, then you can't really argue against any tyranny, from taxation, through apartheid, all the way to genocide, because once you accept the primacy of democracy, you must accept anything the mob wants.

Secondly, in terms of welfare, you are not talking about rights, you are talking about entitlements. The difference is that rights incur no expense on anyone else, entitlements must be extracted.

The only right that is in fact a right is freedom from the initiation of force.

If the system was to be based on voluntary donations, then it would be fully possible to take advantage of the system by receiving the rights without giving anything back.

If the system is based on taxes as a duty owed to society, then anyone who wishes to be part of the society, and thereby accept the rules which are communely agreed upon by its members, will have to contribute.

You have not invalidated the concept of individual rights. Groups have no rights, only individuals.

The people pay their taxes because they want to belong to this society and agree to abide by its rules, even if they wish the rules were different and actively seek to change these rules. In other words, they agree to taxes because they feel that the perceived benefits of being part of this society are greater than the perceived downsides. Should the contribution taxes represent be voluntary, it would be possible to take advantage of the services the society provides without giving anything back.

That's a contradiction in terms. Taxes are extracted by force, or by the threat of force. Taxes can never be voluntary, and any assertion that they are is plain balderdash.

Your past sentence is incomprehensible. Those who benefit from taxation do not pay taxation, tax systems are organised to prevent the taxation of welfare recipients. The only people who pay taxes, and give back to the state are government employees (of course, for a government employee, taxes are an accounting fiction since the employer that withholds the tax also receives it)

First of all, I take offence that you would call me a fascist.

I used the term because of the many ideologies that advocate submission to the state, fascism is probably the most identifiable.

I said cooperate, not copulate. Humans are soft, fleshy things that depend on one another for survival. Not only for hunting in packs, but for ideas, knowledge of what can and can't be eaten, how to make tools, etc...

Well and good, however human cooperation is entirely about self interest. To go to the primitive angle you seem to be taking here, you might be good at throwing spears accurately, I am good at making spears from the animals you kill. You may talk about cooperation, but nothing is going on here except self-interest. It is in the self-interests of each of us to have as much food as possible, through cooperation this becomes easier. However, we are in this as individuals entirely, each serving our own ends. This is a good thing.

Personally, I deny noone the right to become rich, successful, etc. I do feel, however, that if you can contribute something to society, to help those less fortunate than you, and still live a comfortable life, then you should. I support a society that can guarantee people certain rights, and among those rights I consider the right to a decent life without hunger and where one cannot be placed at the mercy of those who are kind enough to donate to charity by conditions outside of one's control.

There is a logical inconsistancy here, and you have not justified the primary claim you, and everyone who poses something similar has posed, namely that my rights should be subordinated to the interests of others; that you, and these others have a higher claim to my life than I.

While being good to one's fellows sounds very nice, I think it is more important to ensure that those in need of help actually get it. The system we have now is alas not perfect, but it certainly is several notches up from what conditions were like only a hundred years ago, when no such system existed and people in need of help were dependant on charity. I realize you think the whole 'voluntary obligation' oxymoron sounds like circular logic, but the truth of the matter is that for our part, tax-financed social services have actually turned out to work better than voluntary charity. I suppose it's easier to give when the money is already subtracted from your paycheck when you receive it.

First problem: government welfare programs have failed virtually everywhere. They have created cycles of poverty, they have created multi-generational unemployment, they have led to the rises in crime, teenage pregnancy, drug use, and generally anti-social behavior.

Second problem: Voluntary charity has fallen by the wayside only because people think "I pay my taxes, they fund welfare, so I won't bother donating". The fact is that people in modern Western countries are incredibly generous with donations, my own country (Australia) stands particularly well (Boxing Day Tsunamis for example). Take a post earlier in the thread, in which the poster showed that Americans donate more of their income than Canadians, Americans aren't extorted by their own government to the extent that the Crown extorts Canadians.

As to "convenience", a transfer isn't a huge inconvenience, and one might even be able to ask one's boss to transfer x% of your pay to a certain charity.

I have no problem with spending part of my income on the society I share with my fellow countrymen. I consider it only fair that I am to help contributing to the system that protects my rights. It is as a membership in any organization: There are special benefits and certain obligations.

If, for some reason, I found this completely unreasonable, I guess I'd move to the Cayman Islands, or something.

The only obligation you have to "society", and all its members is to respect their rights. Everything else, when involuntary, is illigitimate.

I wish you would stop dissembling, and revel in your chains. Rejoyce in your slavery! You get safety, comfort, and security from slavery! You don't have to deal with the world, or make decisions, others do it for you.

While you're holding the "I'm happy to be a slave" champagne party, consider this: while you certainly can have yourself enslaved, what right have you to enslave others?

That argument, like many here, has some superficial appeal. Upon closer examination, it falls apart.

Firstly, the governments that carried out the "thefts" were quite tyrannical, and I see no reason for people living today to pay for it.
Because America still doesn't belong to them. The gift of a stolen good should be returned according to libertarianism.

Secondly, the Native Americans didn't use/control all of North America.
Granted; people who live in areas the Native Americans never touched shouldn't be taxed.

Thirdly, the actions of these governments were the results of thefts from the people who are (so you're telling me) doing the stealing!

What you're essentially arguing is that the victims of a theft (the people who's tax money financed government actions in America) should be slugged because a theft was committed using property that was stolen from them!
I'm arguing that something can't be stolen from you, if you never owned it.

Put more simply, if you steal a knife from me, and stab someone who names me as a beneficiary in his will, you would propose that I be punished.
That doesn't sound anything like what I argue. I argue that if someone takes my money and gives it to you, no matter how many generations into the future, my money still doesn't belong to you.

If I may, for a [hopefully brief] moment chime in:

You are welcome to have your opinion. Personally, I deny noone the right to become rich, successful, etc. I do feel, however, that if you can contribute something to society, to help those less fortunate than you, and still live a comfortable life, then you should.
Saying someone should contribute to the less fortunate is all well and good, but the primary objection people like myself and Disraeliland are levelling against this viewpoint is that the presence of Welfare as a tax-derived policy should not be taken as an embodiment of your above moral proposition. Instead, it states: "I deny noone the right to become rich, successful, etc. I do mandate, however, that if you can contribute something to society, to help those less fortunate than you, and still live a comfortable life, then you must."

The bolded changes are rather important, as they're integral to whether or not the exchange [and, therefore, the society in question] is actually a free one.

Because America still doesn't belong to them. The gift of a stolen good should be returned according to libertarianism.

"America" didn't belong to the various groups of Native Americans. The tiny parts upon which they lived belonged to them. Like another poster to this thread, you're making extremely vague claims, and in the area of liability, that is something you certainly should want to avoid.

Secondly, I'd argue that most of the resources you may be speaking of were of no use to Native Americans. The amount of wealth you are speaking of would probably amount to no more than a few hundred thousand dollars, if that much.

Thirdly, since the theives are long dead, and their legal descendants have not been in government in the USA for centuries, from whom should compensation be extracted. You see, you could realistically push this argument in Canada, as it is in the main governed by its orignial coloniser, or a coloniser who immediately followed the one directly liable (Britain in both cases), on the other hand, those actions in Canada were taken by people acting at the time at which the House of Commons (in London) had final say in Canadian affairs, and that is no longer the case with the Statute of Westminster (which placed the Canadian Pariliament in sole charge of Canadian affairs), so really, you shouldn't be looking at Washington DC, but London.

That doesn't sound anything like what I argue. I argue that if someone takes my money and gives it to you, no matter how many generations into the future, my money still doesn't belong to you.

Punishment should be visited only on those directly responsible, and they are long dead.

The suggestion that other people should be forced to share your values, however, is a despicable one.

AGREED

No evidence, and the other theory is more logical, that it was politicians themselves driving this, it makes them look good, and it panders to interest groups.The closer that a nation has gotten to libertarianism, the more poverty there was. It is true that this doesn't mean that libertarianism would by definition equal an increase in poverty, but it is evidence that this would be the case.

You can't talk about the Depression without talking about the Fed, and the US Government. Cheap money drove a false boom, no one really cared about prudence in investment, so much malinvestments were made. When it became clear that there was so much malinvestment, the stock market crashed, as people realised how worthless this stuff really was. What made things worse was government, raising taxes and wages, and stopping the liquidation of malinvestmenrs kept the US in depression until the war.And if there were no Fed or anything like it, then people would be speculating in money, as well. Malinvestments are made due to the nature of speculation.

What? That made no sense. Are you perhaps saying that Prohibition should have come with free-LSD for people who wanted to be zonked?No, I'm saying that Prohibition should have come with rehab, so that people wouldn't have to either quit cold turkey or go to jail.

Higher taxes, reduced incentives, massive regulation, and other government induced wealth destroying mechanisms are a lack of government intervention.No. If the government redistributes wealth, that is an example of government intervention. If the government does not redistribute wealth, then that is a lack of government intervention. Granted, government intervention could be a bad thing, if it redistributes wealth from the poor to the rich, however the rate of that has stayed the same. What has decreased is government intervening and distributing wealth from the rich to the poor. This is evidenced by the fact that, since 1970, tax rates as a whole have gone down, and inflation has risen higher than wages. This means that a person working 40 hours a week in 1970 probably could have supported themselves and their family, but this isn't the case today. Government intervention in the form of raising the minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.15 help to alleviate this, but it did not make up for it.
This is an example of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.
Furthermore, wealth destroying mechanisms are not bad things by definition.

Furthermore, wealth destroying mechanisms are not bad things by definition.
Ah... when are they good?

And even if they were... from where do you derive the power to impose?

The closer that a nation has gotten to libertarianism, the more poverty there was. It is true that this doesn't mean that libertarianism would by definition equal an increase in poverty, but it is evidence that this would be the case.

That is simply not the case. The time when propserity in the US grew at the greatest rate came between the Civil War, and the "Progressive Era", when government started to get involved in the economy to a large extent.

What started this government intervention? I shall tell you! In that era, productivity, and wealth grew at massive rates, prices fell across the board because the US had sound money. Some firms decided that they could profit more by reducing production, operating to increase prices. Some merged, others formed cartels. The cuts were done, and prices and profits went up. This attracted new firms, and in the cartels, some firms decided that by operating outside the cartel's rules, they could make profits. In the case of new firms, the old merged firms were back to square one, in fact, some were worse off because the new firms had newer and better equipment. In the cartels, these secret dealings didn't stay secret, and they caused the cartels to break down.

Cartels can only survive where the government enforces them.

And if there were no Fed or anything like it, then people would be speculating in money, as well. Malinvestments are made due to the nature of speculation.

You don't seem to understand money. Firstly, speculation in money had nothing to do with the Depression, credit expansion by the Fed was the root cause. If you are trying to say that central banks act to keep money stable, then you've said the single stupidist thing anyone has ever said. The US dollar, like all government paper currencies, has lost huge amounts of value. Since the Fed was introduced (in a blatantly undemocratic act, it was passed two days before Christmas when virtually all the Representatives and Senators were away for their Christmas holidays), the US dollar has lost over 98% of its value.

With regard to money, we have two choices, the one you advocate is an imposed money in the hands of the state and its clients, to be used and manipulated for their benefit, or a free market.

If you think that having a free market would cause speculation, then you don't understand money.

What do people want from money? I'd say that people want two things: acceptability (that means when you offer it, the dude behind the counter will take it because he knows that when he offers it in exchange for goods and services, people will accept it), and retention of its value over time (that means that $50 can buy "x" goods/services now, if you put it into the bank, and get it out in a year, that $50 should still be able to buy "x" goods/services)

A free market in money will end up with the money that does these two things.

Malinvestments are made when cheap money is around because when money is made artificially cheap, people don't really care because they believe they won't lose much if it doesn't work out.

Now, what is the role of the Federal Reserve? Some people come up with all sorts and manner of conspiracy theories in which I'm not terribly interested. The role of the Federal Reserve System is to protect people who commit fraud from the consequences of fraud.

The fraud of which I speak is fractional reserve banking.

Here's how it started:

I am a "goldsmith" (like a blacksmith, only what he does with iron, I do with gold, specifically I mint your gold into coins of a certified weight so they become a convenient form of exchange).

Gold can be terribly inconvenient, and it is a good idea to store it in a safe place until you need it.

You leave you gold with me, and I issue with receipts for the gold. When you want to shop, you come to me, give me the recepits, and I give you the gold which you spend.

I realise that you don't come to get all your gold, you'd only ever want less than 10% at any given time. I realise that if I print recepits for gold and loan them out at interest, I can turn a nice profit, and you need be none the wiser.

If I do this wisely, and all the loans are made good, and I only make a few loans, then it might be alright, but the nice profits are damned tempting.

After a time, you, or someone else notice that there are an awful lot of receipts floating around. You decide to be on the safe side, and get your gold out. The problem is that while you have perfectly valid receipts, many others think they have valid recepits too. What happens is called a "bank run", and the first in get the gold.

This practice is fraudulent because you and I have agreed that I will store gold for you, available for redemption upon presentation of your receipts. If I create more recepits than gold, than I cannot fulfill my end of the agreement.

How does a banker solve this problem? He obviously needs a bank, which can lend him funds to deal with a bank run. This way when everyone stampedes into my bank, I can give them all the money they ask for.

As I pointed out, a cartel cannot work without government force, so what we get is central banking. The state creates a bank that can get me through the bank run by producing money from nothing. Central banks of course need wealth to back their loans, and that wealth is government securities. These in turn need backing. When a government needs money, the normal method is taxation.

It is no coincidence that 1913 say both the Federal Reserve System, and Income Taxation introduced in the US. This income taxation in turn allows politicians, who are always keen to stay in office to spend, spend, spend, on things likely to purchase a good amount of votes.

Who wanted the Federal Reserve System, and who drafted the Federal Reserve Act? Powerful bankers, Chase, Rothschild, Rockefeller etc. Look up a meeting held at Jeckyll Island, Georgia. The Jeckyll Island tourist people even even use the meeting to attract tourists! The Jeckyll Island Club Hotel actually has a room called the Federal Reserve Room (and it is quite nice, as befits the people who met there in 1910 to protect a fraudulent system with government force http://www.jekyllclub.com/federalreserve.html )


Of course, the easiest way around this is to allow bank runs, and bank bankrupticies to happen, and actually punish fraudulent practices.

Now, let us say that I couldn't defraud you. What would happen. Firstly, I'd store your gold for you available at any time, and charge a fee for it (which is only fair). I know that credit is needed, so I would say to you "listen, you only get out a little at a time, why don't you lend me some of the rest for six months at 5%".

No, I'm saying that Prohibition should have come with rehab, so that people wouldn't have to either quit cold turkey or go to jail.

Which totally neglects the fundamental issue behind prohibition. I can't believe that you would accept tyranny and slavery provided that some compensatory mechanism is provided.

No. If the government redistributes wealth, that is an example of government intervention.

And not the only one. There are numerous types of government intervention.

If the government does not redistribute wealth, then that is a lack of government intervention.

No, it isn't, it is a lack of a particular type of government intervention.

inflation has risen higher than wages.

In a country with central banking, inflation is an example of government intervention.

Government intervention in the form of raising the minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.15 help to alleviate this, but it did not make up for it.

It can do neither. It is a superficial step. An increase in wages without a corresponding increase in productivity is merely a price increase at the shelf, or a reduction in profitability which will squeeze marginal firms out of the industry. To avoid these effects, a firm must cut costs, and since the increase in their costs was labour-related, labour costs are the ones cut, generally by sacking the least productive workers.

Increasing the "minimum wage" from $4.25 to $5.15 simply means that employing a worker who can only produce $4.50 of value becomes a criminal offence. Raising his wage over the value he can produce is simply nonsensical, it is the equivilent of burning money.

Mr. $4.50 will then get the real minimum wage: $0.00, unemployment. How merciful you are to the workers, you'd turn them into beggars for their own good!

This is an example of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.

Can you actually prove that free markets lead to this condition. Some logical arguments, and evidence would be nice (for once)

Furthermore, wealth destroying mechanisms are not bad things by definition.

Do you mean to tell me that destroying the only thing that can in the long run relieve and perhaps eliminate poverty, wealth creation, can be a good thing?

You've admitted the basic fallacy of socialism, you claim to be for the workers, yet you oppose anything that can help them help themselves. Socialists want dependency, and tyranny.

What do we take from this? Socialism is not an economic, or social idea. It is simply about power, for power's sake. Mr. Orwell was right.

Ah... when are they good?

Perhaps he means that during wartime, wealth-destroying mechanisms are good when used against the enemy country? That is the only circumstance in which I can find any sort of good in destroying wealth.

Now, if people are willing to pay by themselves, why would a tax be necessary? It wouldn't, government could operate under voluntary contributions entirely.
In the case of a government being funded purely by voluntary contributions, it seems likely that the minority of voluntary contributors are going to have far more influence over that government than the rest of the population. This might be acceptable in Libertarian terms, but the establishment of power elites is rarely very good for a democracy: you only have to look at the elitist castes that quickly developed in the Soviet Union to see that.

I'd also argue that taxation is generally done by consent: people like yourself may complain about it, but you don't as a rule abscond to a country with no social infrastructure where you wouldn't be required to pay any taxes.

Ah... when are they good?


Perhaps he means that during wartime, wealth-destroying mechanisms are good when used against the enemy country? That is the only circumstance in which I can find any sort of good in destroying wealth.

My dear Dizzy... I'm sure he COULD.. but why do his work for him?

It can do neither. It is a superficial step. An increase in wages without a corresponding increase in productivity is merely a price increase at the shelf, or a reduction in profitability which will squeeze marginal firms out of the industry. To avoid these effects, a firm must cut costs, and since the increase in their costs was labour-related, labour costs are the ones cut, generally by sacking the least productive workers.

Increasing the "minimum wage" from $4.25 to $5.15 simply means that employing a worker who can only produce $4.50 of value becomes a criminal offence. Raising his wage over the value he can produce is simply nonsensical, it is the equivilent of burning money.

Mr. $4.50 will then get the real minimum wage: $0.00, unemployment. How merciful you are to the workers, you'd turn them into beggars for their own good!
Truer words have seldom been spoken on these forums, at least by people other than myself.

Another important thing to remember about the minimum wage is that when it increases, so does the government's income [and, ostensibly, its size]. Frequently, people get irritated when politicians vote themselves massive pay raises, but no one bats an eye when the Federal Goverment engages in this rather blatant equivalent. Politically, it's probably the safest move they can make, since it both increases their revenue and [typically] popular support at the same time.

A common tactic used by people in support of raising the minimum wage is this near-constant invocation of people who, despite earning the lowest wage possible, deem it necessary to try to raise a family or some other equivalent form of financial stupidity. The "left" in this country actually expects me to feel [i]pity for a woman that decides to have eight children on a McDonald's salary in the middle of L.A.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm not generally keen on rewarding stupidity or irresponsibility, whichever you should choose to call it.

A common tactic used by people in support of raising the minimum wage is this near-constant invocation of people who, despite earning the lowest wage possible, deem it necessary to try to raise a family or some other equivalent form of financial stupidity. The "left" in this country actually expects me to feel [i]pity for a woman that decides to have eight children on a McDonald's salary in the middle of L.A.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm not generally keen on rewarding stupidity or irresponsibility, whichever you should choose to call it.

For once... I must take the side opposite to true and pure libertarianism.

As I see it, there IS a rational choice to be made.
A] You can breed your own slackers.
B] You can outsource it.

If you choose B] I hope you are very fluent in foreign languages.

Truer words have seldom been spoken on these forums, at least by people other than myself.

Another important thing to remember about the minimum wage is that when it increases, so does the government's income [and, ostensibly, its size]. Frequently, people get irritated when politicians vote themselves massive pay raises, but no one bats an eye when the Federal Goverment engages in this rather blatant equivalent. Politically, it's probably the safest move they can make, since it both increases their revenue and [typically] popular support at the same time.

A common tactic used by people in support of raising the minimum wage is this near-constant invocation of people who, despite earning the lowest wage possible, deem it necessary to try to raise a family or some other equivalent form of financial stupidity. The "left" in this country actually expects me to feel [i]pity for a woman that decides to have eight children on a McDonald's salary in the middle of L.A.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm not generally keen on rewarding stupidity or irresponsibility, whichever you should choose to call it.
I'd prefer it if you didn't call it "the left", in fact. You seem to expect other posters to make precise delineations about your own political stance rather than using a blanket term, after all.

I'd prefer it if you didn't call it "the left", in fact. You seem to expect other posters to make precise delineations about your own political stance rather than using a blanket term, after all.
I used the quotation marks because the parties are so near indistinguishable anymore that any attempt at such a deliniation is often a spurious one. The parties have little or no functional difference: for proof of this one need only observe any presidential debate that's been held in the last fifty years. Politicians don't discuss real issues anymore, they discuss nuances, degrees, and meaningless minutiae.

As a general rule, our basic policies never change from president to president, regardless of his politics. I'm not saying we ought to overhaul our system every four years, but certain norms have been accepted by both parties, and these norms are pretty numerous, moreso in fact than in most countries.

Ever watched a Q&A session in British Parliament? The ideas exchanged there, in the manner in which they are exchanged, is unheard of in this country. Politicians rarely bother to challenge each other on anything other than a personal level anymore, and its fairly ridiculous. The chances of getting reasonably different answers out of GOP and Democratic politicians, respectively, is nowadays a fairly slim one.

My dear Dizzy... I'm sure he COULD.. but why do his work for him?

I'm not. All wealth-destroying meachanisms boil down to one of two things: mistakes on the part of some players on the free market, and force/fraud.

To the first, there is no way around that, the best we can do is allow a more free market which can enable those resources malinvested to be liquidated, and "redeployed" to more productive work.

As to the second, Jello Biafra is arguing that the initiation of force, the violation of individual rights is a legitimate activity.

Of course, the only time the use of force is legitimate is in the defence of individual rights against aggression. Therefore, the only legitimate use of wealth destroying mechanisms is during a war, when they are used to destroy the enemy's economic means of making war.

In the case of a government being funded purely by voluntary contributions, it seems likely that the minority of voluntary contributors are going to have far more influence over that government than the rest of the population. This might be acceptable in Libertarian terms, but the establishment of power elites is rarely very good for a democracy: you only have to look at the elitist castes that quickly developed in the Soviet Union to see that.

In Libertarian terms what you suggest is impossible. You are looking at government through the lens of modern Western mixed economy interventionism, in which it is legitimate for a group to subordinate the rights of individuals to the groups' sectional interests.

A Libertarian state would do only one thing: protect the rights of individuals. This means operating military forces to defend against foreign attack, police forces to provide civil order, and courts to try those who violate the individual rights of others.

Since government is confined to those functions, the question of "influence" is irrelevant. It would be like trying to push Gibraltar into the sea.

The question of people with money purchasing political favours is of course a particularly vexing one these days. Libertarians are the only people proposing solutions that protect the integrity of government, while respecting individual rights. Those who propose doing nothing compromise government, those who suggest things like "campaign finance reform" are treating the symptom, not the problem, and merely cause the money to be channeled into other political things (like 527's in the US), or are threatening the right of people to dispose of their property in a manner they see fit.

The Libertarian solution to this is to go straight to the source, namely the ability of the government to grant these favours. This preserves the integrity of government because it won't be possible to buy favours from politicians because they can't grant them, and increases liberty because of the removal of the functions of government in which the granting of favours becomes possible.

I'd also argue that taxation is generally done by consent: people like yourself may complain about it, but you don't as a rule abscond to a country with no social infrastructure where you wouldn't be required to pay any taxes.

That's like saying "slavery is fine, as long as the slaves want to be slaves".

The whole point of a tax is that it is non-consensual, it is the taking of funds by government through extortion. That you are happy with extortion doesn't make it any less extortion.

Of course, in arguing that the paying of taxes is in fact voluntary, that people are willing to do it, you are in fact supporting my argument that taxes are unnecessary. If people will contribute the money voluntarily, then they don't need to be taxed.

If what you were saying were true, then abolishing every tax on the books, shredding every tax law on the books (which would probably take several thousand years) would have precisely no effect on the revenue stream, and would in fact make it more efficient, because you would only need people to account for the money and its disbursement. You wouldn't need tax inspectors, or investigating agents.

The closer that a nation has gotten to libertarianism, the more poverty there was. It is true that this doesn't mean that libertarianism would by definition equal an increase in poverty, but it is evidence that this would be the case.

Have you ever examined Hong Kong? Hong Kong has the most free economy in the world, and it is one of the most propserous places on Earth. Zimbabwe on the other hand is a socialist dictatorship, about as far from libertarianism as you can get without gas chambers. It is also one of the poorest nations on Earth, and getting poorer. Socialism turned Russia from a food exporter, to an importer. West Berlin was a glowing light of prosperity in the 1950's and 1960's, while East Berlin still has old National Socialist slogans on some walls, no cleaning in 60 years! Japan liberalised its economy after the war, and managed to make a huge economic recovery, in spite of most of their cities being firebombed, and two atomic bombings. Britain kept wartime socialistic policies, and didn't fully recover its prosperity until the Thatcher years. Increasing government intervention in Australia under the Whitlam regime forced the country to the wall, economic liberalisation under Hawke, Keating, and now Howard has made Australia highly prosperous. Estonia became prosperous after the end of Soviet occupation in 1991 by liberalising its economy. Ireland's liberalisation has made it a little powerhouse.

Cambodia introduced a totally non-liberal economy when the KR took over in 1975, and millions starved. North Korea still has a fully state owned "economy", and millions starve. South Korea has a liberal economy. Venezuela has substantially reduced economic freedom, and has a growth rate of minus 9.4%.

Everywhere you look, the more liberty there is, the more prosperity. I can't see why you'd push the argument that more liberty equals less prosperity.

Touched a nerve, have I? Telling a Moderator to "shut his fucking mouth" is hardly an advisable practice.


Then again... a Mod shouldn't really be flamebaiting....

Then again... a Mod shouldn't really be flamebaiting....
You're right, we shouldn't. And I haven't. Telling people that they ought to feed the poor if they feel that's what ought to be done with their money is not flamebaiting by any conceivable definition of the term.

I used the quotation marks because the parties are so near indistinguishable anymore that any attempt at such a deliniation is often a spurious one. The parties have little or no functional difference: for proof of this one need only observe any presidential debate that's been held in the last fifty years. Politicians don't discuss real issues anymore, they discuss nuances, degrees, and meaningless minutiae.
Fair enough. I missed what you were getting at.

As a general rule, our basic policies never change from president to president, regardless of his politics. I'm not saying we ought to overhaul our system every four years, but certain norms have been accepted by both parties, and these norms are pretty numerous, moreso in fact than in most countries.

Ever watched a Q&A session in British Parliament? The ideas exchanged there, in the manner in which they are exchanged, is unheard of in this country. Politicians rarely bother to challenge each other on anything other than a personal level anymore, and its fairly ridiculous. The chances of getting reasonably different answers out of GOP and Democratic politicians, respectively, is nowadays a fairly slim one.
I have watched Parliament debates (often gritting my teeth or gnawing on my forearm and whimpering) and I fear you may be giving our system too much credit. Under Blair the Labour party has abandoned most of what it's long been assumed to stand for and gone gallumphing off in pursuit of an unpleasantly Thatcherite strain of monetarism, to an extent that has left the Tories moaning about having their policies stolen. It's a rather depressing situation.

That's like saying "slavery is fine, as long as the slaves want to be slaves".

The whole point of a tax is that it is non-consensual, it is the taking of funds by government through extortion. That you are happy with extortion doesn't make it any less extortion.

Of course, in arguing that the paying of taxes is in fact voluntary, that people are willing to do it, you are in fact supporting my argument that taxes are unnecessary. If people will contribute the money voluntarily, then they don't need to be taxed.

If what you were saying were true, then abolishing every tax on the books, shredding every tax law on the books (which would probably take several thousand years) would have precisely no effect on the revenue stream, and would in fact make it more efficient, because you would only need people to account for the money and its disbursement. You wouldn't need tax inspectors, or investigating agents.

Your continual use of slavery as a metaphor for taxation is a trifle misleading: there's a slight difference between forcing somebody to provide unpaid labour and parting them from a small percentage of their income.

You're right, we shouldn't. And I haven't. Telling people that they ought to feed the poor if they feel that's what ought to be done with their money is not flamebaiting by any conceivable definition of the term.
Make up your mind. You were arguing that this wasn't specifically aimed at me last night.

You're right, we shouldn't. And I haven't. Telling people that they ought to feed the poor if they feel that's what ought to be done with their money is not flamebaiting by any conceivable definition of the term.

Prevarication? Let me point you at your own words:


"since you obviously would rather have bought a computer than $1000 worth of food for the bum on the corner of High and 17th"

Either: a) A direct attack on the poster who dared to post whatever it was this was the reply to... about whom, by the way, you would have no way of KNOWING about the charitable donations they had made.... (indeed, for two years, I only posted on NS through library computers... so the assumption people MUST be posting on their own computers is a little ridiculous)....

or, b) an attack on ANYONE who dares to own a computer, and still feels that more needs to be done to feed the hungry.

I'd say ask another Mod if your comment was flamebait... I'm pretty sure it would be considered flamebait if I had typed it...

Your continual use of slavery as a metaphor for taxation is a trifle misleading: there's a slight difference between forcing somebody to provide unpaid labour and parting them from a small percentage of their income.

When income taxation was introduced, the percentages were small. Now they are very large. The top rate in Australia is 47%! Furthermore, in a "progressive" system, they get relatively larger over time, and always fall behind in terms of indexation.

Secondly, slavery and taxation are fruit from the same tree. They both come from the notion that an individual exists to serve the ends of others.

Speaking in terms of different degrees of tyranny is what is misleading.

I have watched Parliament debates (often gritting my teeth or gnawing on my forearm and whimpering) and I fear you may be giving our system too much credit. Under Blair the Labour party has abandoned most of what it's long been assumed to stand for and gone gallumphing off in pursuit of an unpleasantly Thatcherite strain of monetarism, to an extent that has left the Tories moaning about having their policies stolen. It's a rather depressing situation.

Question time in Australia can get interesting, though not for policy reasons, its more like a car crash, you know you shouldn't, but you can't help watching.

When income taxation was introduced, the percentages were small. Now they are very large. The top rate in Australia is 47%! Furthermore, in a "progressive" system, they get relatively larger over time, and always fall behind in terms of indexation.


That's because money has no intrinsic value... any system that is based on it starts flawed.

When income taxation was introduced, the percentages were small. Now they are very large. The top rate in Australia is 47%! Furthermore, in a "progressive" system, they get relatively larger over time, and always fall behind in terms of indexation.
That is a pretty stiff tax rate, it's true. How much do you have to be earning to pay that?

Secondly, slavery and taxation are fruit from the same tree. They both come from the notion that an individual exists to serve the ends of others.

Speaking in terms of different degrees of tyranny is what is misleading.
That's purely a matter of opinion, I'm afraid. We're obviously not going to come to an accord on this.

Rights are not something granted. Privileges are granted. What you dignify as "democracy" is nothing more than mob rule. I'll put it this way, lets say I gather a licentious mob, and come to your house, with sticks, and flaming torches, and guns, and signs bearing nasty mottos like "Kevlanakia is really not a very nice chap", and steal from you, burn your house down, and gaol you. You certainly wouldn't like that, and I fancy you would consider it criminal.

Scenario 2, I form the Kevlanakia Is Really Not A Very Nice Chap Party, and get myself elected (our licentious mob, with a bloodlust that would make Vikings look like girlscouts has just become a soverign electorate, without changing a bit). In my new role, achieved through democratic process, I get passed the Kevlanakia Is Really Not A Very Nice Chap Act (2006), and act which authorises the police forces of the country to seize your belongings, burn down your house, and imprison you.

Can you tell me is there's a real difference between these?

In both, a demagogue (me) gets a group together, and we all decide that you are really not a very nice chap, and decide to do some rather nasty things to you.

You can't talk about democracy and rights in the same passage, one must give way. Regarding us libertarians, we are not universally decided about the exact form government should take, all that we are sure about is that the best government is a government that confines its activities to the protection of rights, and lets individuals decide what is the best path for them individually.

That is a very good point. How is one supposed to react when someone comitted to doing atrocities wins a democratic election? Many might argue that that's exactly what just happened in Palestine, where Hamas, who themselves claim responsibility for a number of suicide bombings on civillian targets, won a democratic election. Though in that case you could argue that the victims did not have any say in their election. I don't see you proposing any better alternative, though. Even your limited government would have to be democratically elected, and so what activities it took would still be decided by mob rule. And I don't think the majority should be able to elect away basic human rights from an individual or a group. Unfortunately, there would be no invisible force preventing them from doing so if they had put their mind to it.

Once you get beyond that and choose democracy, then you can't really argue against any tyranny, from taxation, through apartheid, all the way to genocide, because once you accept the primacy of democracy, you must accept anything the mob wants.

Yes. That is the problem in a democracy. It is not enough for you to point out that it is not a perfect system, though. The only real alternative I can see is that a few were to decide what was best on behalf of the many. Anarchy is simply out of the question, because there would be no way for it to uphold itself by itself. But by all means, if you can come up with a better way to organize the government, come with it.

Secondly, in terms of welfare, you are not talking about rights, you are talking about entitlements. The difference is that rights incur no expense on anyone else, entitlements must be extracted.

The only right that is in fact a right is freedom from the initiation of force.

Very well. Call them entitlements, then.

You have not invalidated the concept of individual rights. Groups have no rights, only individuals.

I do not attempt to invalidate the concept of individual rights. But if you on your own volition choose to be part of a particular society, I don't think you have a right to refuse to abide by its laws. No, that does not mean that I would consider it okay if the majority declared you to be property of the state and that you had no rights. I just think a middle way between no obligations and slavery is possible.

That's a contradiction in terms. Taxes are extracted by force, or by the threat of force. Taxes can never be voluntary, and any assertion that they are is plain balderdash.

This definition of taxes is yours, but don't assume that your definition is the the universally agreed upon definition. I'm talking about a contribution to society that people voluntarily pay because they aknowledge that this is what is agreed upon by the majority of people in that society, and they aknowledge the will of the majority as the most reasonable source of authority. If the contribution is unacceptable to them, they may leave this particular society. I call this contribution, given voluntarily, tax. You may call it something else if you wish to.

Your past sentence is incomprehensible. Those who benefit from taxation do not pay taxation, tax systems are organised to prevent the taxation of welfare recipients. The only people who pay taxes, and give back to the state are government employees (of course, for a government employee, taxes are an accounting fiction since the employer that withholds the tax also receives it)

Those who receive social services do not pay taxes. Those who do not receive social services may choose to find benefit in that their money helps people if they feel altruistic. Those who don't care much for the fate of others, will still benefit from the knowledge that they too will be taken care of if misfortune strikes them and leaves them in need of the same kind of help.

I used the term because of the many ideologies that advocate submission to the state, fascism is probably the most identifiable.

In fascism, the individual is nothing and the state is everything. What I am giving my support for is the idea that a state can exist to aid the individual if the individual needs it. I dare say the two are diametrically opposed.

Well and good, however human cooperation is entirely about self interest. To go to the primitive angle you seem to be taking here, you might be good at throwing spears accurately, I am good at making spears from the animals you kill. You may talk about cooperation, but nothing is going on here except self-interest. It is in the self-interests of each of us to have as much food as possible, through cooperation this becomes easier. However, we are in this as individuals entirely, each serving our own ends. This is a good thing.

I consider it to be in my interest to support a society that helps its weaker members, because I might find myself in that situation one day.

There is a logical inconsistancy here, and you have not justified the primary claim you, and everyone who poses something similar has posed, namely that my rights should be subordinated to the interests of others; that you, and these others have a higher claim to my life than I.

You make it sound as if it is a matter of sacrificing you to save someone else. This is of course ridiculous. It is an attempt to twist my words into a parody which you can easily dismiss. If you wish to be part of a society, and bear in mind that you have the option of leaving to live in a society which appeals more to you, and this society requires you to make what is generally considered a reasonable contribution to a fund to help those in need of help, then I do not think that your rights are violated if you choose to stay.

First problem: government welfare programs have failed virtually everywhere. They have created cycles of poverty, they have created multi-generational unemployment, they have led to the rises in crime, teenage pregnancy, drug use, and generally anti-social behavior.

You forgot that government welfare programs also cause cancer, rising sea levels and terrorism.

Needless to say, I don't agree with you when you pin these problems (apparently without requiring to show any connection,) on government welfare. Note that I say "welfare" and not "countries that share many similarities, including welfare".

Second problem: Voluntary charity has fallen by the wayside only because people think "I pay my taxes, they fund welfare, so I won't bother donating". The fact is that people in modern Western countries are incredibly generous with donations, my own country (Australia) stands particularly well (Boxing Day Tsunamis for example). Take a post earlier in the thread, in which the poster showed that Americans donate more of their income than Canadians, Americans aren't extorted by their own government to the extent that the Crown extorts Canadians.

I do not know much about poverty in either Canada or the US. I do know that it is a greater problem there than here in the Scandinavian countries, however (I live in Norway.)

As to "convenience", a transfer isn't a huge inconvenience, and one might even be able to ask one's boss to transfer x% of your pay to a certain charity.

Fair enough. I won't claim that it is a huge inconveniance to many people, because I don't know.

The only obligation you have to "society", and all its members is to respect their rights. Everything else, when involuntary, is illigitimate.

I wish you would stop dissembling, and revel in your chains. Rejoyce in your slavery! You get safety, comfort, and security from slavery! You don't have to deal with the world, or make decisions, others do it for you.

While you're holding the "I'm happy to be a slave" champagne party, consider this: while you certainly can have yourself enslaved, what right have you to enslave others?

Stop calling it enslavement. I already told you that I can leave if I wish, but as long as I choose to stay here, I choose to devote a portion of my work to helping in building a society for all of us. If you have a problem with that happening through a government, you can relax in the knowledge that we won't force you to come and live here.

It's been a pleasure discussing this with you, and despite the fact that I still remain unconverted, you brought up some interesting points which forced me to reflect on my stance. I'm sure many more interesting points are to come, but I will, unfortunately, not be able to devote much time to this discussion in the days to come, so this may be the end of the discussion for me. Though I will probably read whatever reply you might make.

That's because money has no intrinsic value... any system that is based on it starts flawed.

Nothing has intrinsic value. It has value because individuals assign value to it. Money is typically assigned value because it can be exchanged for goods and services.

The reason that we get "bracket creep" is that our money system ensures that our money will constantly lose value in terms of the amount of goods and services that a particular amount can purchase.

That is a very good point. How is one supposed to react when someone comitted to doing atrocities wins a democratic election? Many might argue that that's exactly what just happened in Palestine, where Hamas, who themselves claim responsibility for a number of suicide bombings on civillian targets, won a democratic election.

That's certainly a frustrating problem.

I don't see you proposing any better alternative, though. Even your limited government would have to be democratically elected, and so what activities it took would still be decided by mob rule. And I don't think the majority should be able to elect away basic human rights from an individual or a group. Unfortunately, there would be no invisible force preventing them from doing so if they had put their mind to it.

That's because you're not actually looking at what I propose. I propose a government who's actions are totally confined to the protection of individual rights. Its activities are confined to that field. The issues in elections would revolve around who proposed to do it most effectively, perhaps one candidate might emphasise domestic law enforcement, while another emphasises military defence.

The existance of crime does not invalidate my model, nor does it invalidate yours.

But if you on your own volition choose to be part of a particular society, I don't think you have a right to refuse to abide by its laws. No, that does not mean that I would consider it okay if the majority declared you to be property of the state and that you had no rights. I just think a middle way between no obligations and slavery is possible.

There is only one obligation that is in line with full respect for individual rights, and that obligation is to respect the rights of others. Once you get into the realm of taxation, you must accept the premise that an individual is a member of a collective, who's life, liberty, and property are at the disposal of the collective.

This definition of taxes is yours, but don't assume that your definition is the the universally agreed upon definition.

There's no reason for me not to assume that. Taxes are set out in laws that the state has the physical power to enforce. People who don't pay their taxes have force used upon them, or are threatened with force. The act of not paying your taxes is treated as a crime.

Therefore, the only correct definition of a tax is money extracted from the public by the threat of, or use of force.

I'm talking about a contribution to society that people voluntarily pay because they aknowledge that this is what is agreed upon by the majority of people in that society, and they aknowledge the will of the majority as the most reasonable source of authority. If the contribution is unacceptable to them, they may leave this particular society. I call this contribution, given voluntarily, tax. You may call it something else if you wish to.

Firstly, society is not the state. One makes a financial contribution to society by putting money into an investment fund, in fact, this is a greater contribution to society than taxation.

Secondly, you've gone from saying that you respect individual rights, to saying that an act which violates them is not only OK, but the only option for people who don't like it is exile.

Those who receive social services do not pay taxes. Those who do not receive social services may choose to find benefit in that their money helps people if they feel altruistic. Those who don't care much for the fate of others, will still benefit from the knowledge that they too will be taken care of if misfortune strikes them and leaves them in need of the same kind of help.

I agree. If you are talking about a government funded entirely by voluntary contributions, then you and I are on the same page, except that your definition of taxes is off the planet. You must make a clear distinction between taxation (which is not, and can never be in accordance with one's individual rights), and voluntary contributions (which are always in accordance with individual rights)

In fascism, the individual is nothing and the state is everything. What I am giving my support for is the idea that a state can exist to aid the individual if the individual needs it. I dare say the two are diametrically opposed.

Actually, what you're proposing is no different to fascism in this sense because the rights of one, or more individuals must be sacrificed to help those individuals deemed deserving of help. It positively requires that you treat the individual as a mere number, who's rights can and should be undermined if one thinks there is any good in it.

I consider it to be in my interest to support a society that helps its weaker members, because I might find myself in that situation one day.

That's all well and good. However, once you bring government into the picture, you simply cannot exclude the fact that all government is about compulsion, or prohibition. With a government able to do more than simple protect individual rights, what an individual thinks is good or bad, or what he thinks in terms of his interests is irrelevant. He is prevented in acting in accordance with these thoughts because the government has decided for him.

To have volunteerism, you must have a government who's sole role is protection of individual rights. There is no legitimate reason to ask government to do anything more, regardless of your beliefs. As soon as you ask government to do what you believe should be done, you are forcing your beliefs on others.

Needless to say, I don't agree with you when you pin these problems (apparently without requiring to show any connection,) on government welfare. Note that I say "welfare" and not "countries that share many similarities, including welfare".

Firstly, the facts are readily available. Secondly, in the US alone, several trillion dollars have been given in government welfare, and the situation of the people who were supposedly to be helped has actually gotten worse. Welfare dependent communities tend to be the worst places. Take Sydney, Australia: Redfern is utterly dependent on welfare, yet the place is overrun with drugs and crime. It doesn't matter whether or not state welfare created the conditions, the point is that it isn't helping. The money can be better spent elsewhere.

Stop calling it enslavement. I already told you that I can leave if I wish, but as long as I choose to stay here, I choose to devote a portion of my work to helping in building a society for all of us. If you have a problem with that happening through a government, you can relax in the knowledge that we won't force you to come and live here.

It maybe only a few small steps in terms of degree, it is however, philosophically the same.

The main problems with your arguments are that you firstly use terms like "Government", "State", and "Society" as though they were the same. They are not. Secondly, you don't actually consider the nature of government. Government isn't like a private firm, or a charity. Government is a compulsory territorial monopolist of jurisdiction. You simply cannot divorce a discussion of government from the nature of government. If you wish to speak of voluntary means, then you cannot speak of government because it is in the nature of government to compel what is deemed "good", and prohibit what is deemed "bad". Nothing truely voluntary can happen through a government.

That is a pretty stiff tax rate, it's true. How much do you have to be earning to pay that?

Tax rates 2005-06

$0 – $6,000
Nil

$6,001 – $21,600
15c for each $1 over $6,000

$21,601 – $63,000
$2,340 plus 30c for each $1 over $21,600

$63,001 – $95,000
$14,760 plus 42c for each $1 over $63,000

Over $95,000
$28,200 plus 47c for each $1 over $95,000

(N.B. All amounts in $A. Currency calculator: http://www.xe.com/ucc/ )

Nothing has intrinsic value. It has value because individuals assign value to it. Money is typically assigned value because it can be exchanged for goods and services.

The reason that we get "bracket creep" is that our money system ensures that our money will constantly lose value in terms of the amount of goods and services that a particular amount can purchase.


An apple has intrinsic value. If you are hungry, it is food. That is it's value.

The flaw of 'money' is that it attempts to make everything numerical.

Also - you have a fatal misunderstanding of what 'money' is... but you are not alone. Anyone who can rationalise and objectify 'inflation' suffers the same blind-spot.

Tax rates 2005-06

$0 – $6,000
Nil

$6,001 – $21,600
15c for each $1 over $6,000

$21,601 – $63,000
$2,340 plus 30c for each $1 over $21,600

$63,001 – $95,000
$14,760 plus 42c for each $1 over $63,000

Over $95,000
$28,200 plus 47c for each $1 over $95,000

(N.B. All amounts in $A. Currency calculator: http://www.xe.com/ucc/ )
If the top tax rate starts at £45,000, I can see why you're a bit peeved about this.

An apple has intrinsic value. If you are hungry, it is food. That is it's value.

No, an apple has value because you believe that it can satisfy a want or need. If you aren't hungry, an apple has no value.

The flaw of 'money' is that it attempts to make everything numerical.

Why is that a flaw? It sounds like an advantage because it enables one to make comparisons more easily. It means more information with which economic decisions can be made.

Money arose out of natural market processes. Barter is not efficient as a form of trade, because one must find "double coincidence". I must have what you want, and you must have what I want. What people do is look to trade their produce for things they know or believe lots of people, if not everyone wants. Eventually the market finds a good that everyone wants, and that good becomes money.

Also - you have a fatal misunderstanding of what 'money' is... but you are not alone. Anyone who can rationalise and objectify 'inflation' suffers the same blind-spot.

What are you on about?

No, an apple has value because you believe that it can satisfy a want or need. If you aren't hungry, an apple has no value.


To you. Typical 'capitalist' mindset...


Why is that a flaw.

Money arose out of natural market processes. Barter is not efficient as a form of trade, because one must find "double coincidence". I must have what you want, and you must have what I want. What people do is look to trade their produce for things they know or believe lots of people, if not everyone wants. Eventually the market finds a good that everyone wants, and that good becomes money.


Your fundamental assumption is just plain wrong, I'm afraid... which is why your house of cards is worthless. It has no solid foundation.

'Exchange of goods' need not be barter, or even 'trade', as such.

You also seem to not understand what 'money' is. Money is the symbol we use, for a thing of value, against which other 'things of value' were balanced.

Money has no value... it is just a 'reminder'.


What are you on about?

And THAT, is why you do not understand.

I'd like to think you'd think it over... mull it over in your mind for the next few years, perhaps... and be struck with sudden enlightenment... but so many people seem to get old, maintaining that particular blindspot, that my hopes aren't high.

What is money? What is inflation?

You'll understand, once you realise the dichotomy.

The flaw of 'money' is that it attempts to make everything numerical.

That is the benefit of money. When dealing with goods that have an intrinsic value, personal estimates of that value fluctuate greatly for all of those goods and resources. This causes a situation where bartering is nearly impossible.

Money creates a system where there is a fiat value which is universal. It creates a benchmark which people can relate their value of particular goods. By creating a numerical system for goods to be valued, trading is made infinitely more convenient.

For example, imagine a small town shop in a society without money. How does the shop keeper list prices? He would be forced to list a value for the product translated into every good or resource he desired.

Chair:
2 Chickens
1/10 of a Cow
4 bushels of corn
1/2000th of a car
1/500 of a new roof for my house

or

50 dollars

This is what sucks about the communist/capitalist debate, you can't get anywhere on any side topic without first establishing the legitimacy of property.

Money is not necessary in GnI view, as exchange isn't necessary. In my example, there wouldn't even be a price listed, am I right?

To you. Typical 'capitalist' mindset...

Ad-hominem. Can you make an argument that can even dispute the idea that things have value because an individual believes that it has the capacity to satisfy a want, or need?

This is not 'capitalist' mindset. It is simple economics.

Your fundamental assumption is just plain wrong, I'm afraid... which is why your house of cards is worthless. It has no solid foundation.

That was a whole load of nothing.

'Exchange of goods' need not be barter, or even 'trade', as such.

If you can prove that a gift economy is workable in the real world, in which there is self-interest, and real scarcity, start posting.

Now, barter is a direct exchange of goods. You have a phone, and you need a moose. I have a moose, and I need a phone.

I give you the moose, you give me the phone. This is called a "direct exchange of goods", or barter. It is a form of trade. The only thing a third-party can conclude about us making this exchange is that you wanted a moose more than a phone, and I wanted a phone more than a moose.

Money is the symbol we use, for a thing of value, against which other 'things of value' were balanced.

Then money does have the capacity to satisfy wants and needs. We must make decisions, and monetary values are a form of information which informs the decision making process.

Money has no value... it is just a 'reminder'.

Money has the capacity to satisfy wants and needs because it can be exchanged for the goods and services that I want.

I shall explain this process in detail: I have some money. I want milk. I go to a shop, and I say to the nice lady "Madam, if you give me that bottle of milk yonder, I will give you two dollars." She would say "What a good idea, young man" We would then make the exchange, and I would go home with my milk.

We both benefitted from this exchange because after it we had things we value more than what we had before the exchange. Were this not the case, we would never have made the exchange.

And THAT, is why you do not understand.

I'd like to think you'd think it over... mull it over in your mind for the next few years, perhaps... and be struck with sudden enlightenment... but so many people seem to get old, maintaining that particular blindspot, that my hopes aren't high.

Tremendous steaming pile of ad-hominem rubbish.

What is money?

1. A medium that can be exchanged for goods and services and is used as a measure of their values on the market, including among its forms a commodity such as gold, an officially issued coin or note, or a deposit in a checking account or other readily liquifiable account.

2. The official currency, coins, and negotiable paper notes issued by a government.

3. Assets and property considered in terms of monetary value; wealth.

4a. Pecuniary profit or loss: He made money on the sale of his properties.

4b. One's salary; pay: It was a terrible job, but the money was good.

5. An amount of cash or credit: raised the money for the new playground.

6. Sums of money, especially of a specified nature. Often used in the plural: state tax moneys; monies set aside for research and development.

7. A wealthy person, family, or group: to come from old money; to marry into money.

What is inflation?

1. The act of inflating or the state of being inflated.

2. A persistent increase in the level of consumer prices or a persistent decline in the purchasing power of money, caused by an increase in available currency and credit beyond the proportion of available goods and services.

Chair:
2 Chickens
1/10 of a Cow
4 bushels of corn
1/2000th of a car
1/500 of a new roof for my house

or

50 dollars

Making change becomes a problem too, presumably one would need a meat cleaver, a measuring cup, and an oxy torch.

Make up your mind. You were arguing that this wasn't specifically aimed at me last night.
"Telling people" != "Telling you."

Again, When I say "Telling people that they ought to feed the poor if they feel that's what ought to be done with their money," the phrase people in this context shouldn't be taken to refer to a specific person. Once again, I'm commenting on our spending priorities as a whole.

Making change becomes a problem too, presumably one would need a meat cleaver, a measuring cup, and an oxy torch.

But that doesn't even matter, like I said in my previous post, under G_n_I's system, there wouldn't even be a price listed, and there definitely wouldn't be any change.

G_n_I proposes a ridiculously impractical system, I suppose, but so do I. I personally cannot discuss the merits of currency any more until I understand his viewpoints on resource distribution.

That is the benefit of money. When dealing with goods that have an intrinsic value, personal estimates of that value fluctuate greatly for all of those goods and resources. This causes a situation where bartering is nearly impossible.

Money creates a system where there is a fiat value which is universal. It creates a benchmark which people can relate their value of particular goods. By creating a numerical system for goods to be valued, trading is made infinitely more convenient.

For example, imagine a small town shop in a society without money. How does the shop keeper list prices? He would be forced to list a value for the product translated into every good or resource he desired.

Chair:
2 Chickens
1/10 of a Cow
4 bushels of corn
1/2000th of a car
1/500 of a new roof for my house

or

50 dollars

Money isn't universal though... even your example shows that money only holds one consistent 'value' within the scope of one transaction.

Tomorrow, your 'shop' may want $55 dollars for the chair... and the shop next door may only want $45.

Also - the other thing I was saying.... currency is nothing more than promisary notes. In the UK and US, the currency is actually based on promising the exchange of gold. Indeed... English (paper) money still CLEARLY says on it (at least, last time I looked) exactly that... Look for the words "...promise to pay the bearer on demand...", I believe....

This is what sucks about the communist/capitalist debate, you can't get anywhere on any side topic without first establishing the legitimacy of property.

Money is not necessary in GnI view, as exchange isn't necessary. In my example, there wouldn't even be a price listed, am I right?

This is true. A 'price' would be an irrelevence.

Under the model I would advocate, you wouldn't buy or sell or exchange, as such. You would hold what you needed, while you needed it. And - if you didn't need it any more, you'd pass it on. (We do this in capitalist society too, although we usually 'charge' a fraction of the original 'price'... and we call it a 'yard sale' or 'carboot sale').

I'm looking at the classic mechanism of "from each, according to ability... to each, according to need". It isn't that impractical... it's basically the system most families operate on.

Ad-hominem. Can you make an argument that can even dispute the idea that things have value because an individual believes that it has the capacity to satisfy a want, or need?

This is not 'capitalist' mindset. It is simple economics.


By dismissing it as 'ad honinem'... does that mean you took it as an insult?

Did you mean it was a fallacy? (That would only be relevent if I said your argument was proved or disproved, by it).

Perhaps if you understood what I typed, you might see why I considered it a typical 'capitalist' mindset.

Did you understand the significane of the words "To you"...?


If you can prove that a gift economy is workable in the real world, in which there is self-interest, and real scarcity, start posting.

Now, barter is a direct exchange of goods. You have a phone, and you need a moose. I have a moose, and I need a phone.

I give you the moose, you give me the phone. This is called a "direct exchange of goods", or barter. It is a form of trade. The only thing a third-party can conclude about us making this exchange is that you wanted a moose more than a phone, and I wanted a phone more than a moose.


Nobody mentioned a 'gift economy', that I am aware of.

Most of your responses seem to be strawmen.... you keep basing your arguments on things that haven't been said.


Then money does have the capacity to satisfy wants and needs. We must make decisions, and monetary values are a form of information which informs the decision making process.


Money has no capacity to do "satisfy wants and needs", it can just be exchanged for things that can.


Money has the capacity to satisfy wants and needs because it can be exchanged for the goods and services that I want.


As you just admitted, yourself.


I shall explain this process in detail: I have some money. I want milk. I go to a shop, and I say to the nice lady "Madam, if you give me that bottle of milk yonder, I will give you two dollars." She would say "What a good idea, young man" We would then make the exchange, and I would go home with my milk.

We both benefitted from this exchange because after it we had things we value more than what we had before the exchange. Were this not the case, we would never have made the exchange.


Have you really been lucky enough that you have never been hungry?


1. A medium that can be exchanged for goods and services and is used as a measure of their values on the market, including among its forms a commodity such as gold, an officially issued coin or note, or a deposit in a checking account or other readily liquifiable account.

2. The official currency, coins, and negotiable paper notes issued by a government.

3. Assets and property considered in terms of monetary value; wealth.

4a. Pecuniary profit or loss: He made money on the sale of his properties.

4b. One's salary; pay: It was a terrible job, but the money was good.

5. An amount of cash or credit: raised the money for the new playground.

6. Sums of money, especially of a specified nature. Often used in the plural: state tax moneys; monies set aside for research and development.

7. A wealthy person, family, or group: to come from old money; to marry into money.



1. The act of inflating or the state of being inflated.

2. A persistent increase in the level of consumer prices or a persistent decline in the purchasing power of money, caused by an increase in available currency and credit beyond the proportion of available goods and services.

So... you can access dictionaries. Good.

Of course, I didn't ask for a definition of the word 'money'. I asked you what it IS.

But that doesn't even matter, like I said in my previous post, under G_n_I's system, there wouldn't even be a price listed, and there definitely wouldn't be any change.

G_n_I proposes a ridiculously impractical system, I suppose, but so do I. I personally cannot discuss the merits of currency any more until I understand his viewpoints on resource distribution.

Your insight proves more ready than most.

In my family, only one of us has a car. Two of us can drive. I have to go to work, 12 miles away.

In my local town, the police department has a couple of chainsaws. Recently, some trees fell down in the roads, and needed to be 'dealt with'.

I live within a capitalist society... and yet, even within that society... you can see the seeds of something different.

If you can prove that a gift economy is workable in the real world, in which there is self-interest, and real scarcity, start posting.

they have existed

q.e.d.

Your insight proves more ready than most.

In my family, only one of us has a car. Two of us can drive. I have to go to work, 12 miles away.

In my local town, the police department has a couple of chainsaws. Recently, some trees fell down in the roads, and needed to be 'dealt with'.

I live within a capitalist society... and yet, even within that society... you can see the seeds of something different.

I am not new to communism, I have been through much of this before. There are so many variations in opinions and knowledge of communism/socialism on this forum, that I often misjudge what my counterpart is trying to point out.

Now, sharing of property does takes place in capitalist societies, it is often a necessity. It also has practical values, as there is a value called good will, which doesn't have monetary worth, but often pays dividends.

However, a property system based solely on shared usage is very unpractical. While on a neighborhood level dealing with consumer goods, it is entirely possible (although still problematic) for a community to get by without private property. However, when you start dealing with capital and large distribution chains you get into trouble.

Capital can only be used once and then it is gone; it is converted into end goods. Now while that in of itself isn't a problem (you can't share capital, but you can share its results), the distribution and allocation of capital is a huge problem.

Money has no capacity to do "satisfy wants and needs", it can just be exchanged for things that can.

Contradiction. You admit that it can satisfy a want/need.

I'm looking at the classic mechanism of "from each, according to ability... to each, according to need". It isn't that impractical... it's basically the system most families operate on.

Quite true. You do seem to forget, however, that blood is thicker than water. Families can work that way because of the emotional bonds.

Capitalism doesn't need this type of good will to work.

It also seems to me that many people in your model would see it as in their interests to hoard items against perceived future needs. How would your system deal with this. How would it deal with changing needs and wants over time, in terms of producing the goods and services required to meet them?

Libertarian Party Policy (http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml)

Libertarian Party Policy (http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml)

Thank you, we're talking about libertarianism and not the platform of the Libertarian party.

Thank you, we're talking about libertarianism and not the platform of the Libertarian party.

The first thing I can say to that is that libertarianism is not a single ideology, but more in the lines of a tradition. While all libertarians (N.B. I do not count so-called "libertarian-socialists" like Noam Chumpsky) share essentially the same philosophical grounds (individualism), they are divided on many questions.

Immigration springs to mind. Some, like the Libertarian Party favour open borders, other libertarians think that a community should be able to decide who it allows to join it. Military policy is another area of division.

I think it is interesting to look at the various opinions over all the libertarian tradition.

Thank you, we're talking about libertarianism and not the platform of the Libertarian party.

Discussing something shouldn't include discussing a particular interpretation of it?

That will hardly add to the quality of the discourse, considering that every rendering of the idea is somebody's interpretation...

What do other libertarians here think about immigration?

I'm not sure about an exact policy line, on the other hand, I can list some of the influences on people trying to come in that the introduction of a libertarian state would have.

1. The removal of all welfare would tend to reduce immigration. In Europe, it is frequently the case that people go there because of the overly generous welfare programs.

2. The removal of all laws relating to wages would also tend to reduce immigration, specifically illegal immigration. This is because the introduction of minimum wage laws doesn't raise wages, it merely makes it illegal to employ someone below a certain amount. Illegal immigrants can be employed below the minimum wage because they are "off-the books", and they can't really complain to the relevant labour authorities because this would bring them to the attention of the government that made it illegal for them to be there in the first place.

3. The removal of taxes, and regulation would bring a flourishing of private enterprise, this would tend to increase immigration because of the opportunities that would exist.

4. As to assylum seekers, on the one hand they couldn't get government "support", except security, on the other hand, its not like they have a huge array of choices. I don't think there would be any effect. I do think they will be able to find people who will help them.

So? It's their money. If you want to feed people with your pocketbook, then do it: don't go out and buy computers or cars and then tell that guy to feed the poor. The idea that the rich should be forced to provide for the poor is an evasion of responsibility not only on a personal level [since you obviously would rather have bought a computer than $1000 worth of food for the bum on the corner of High and 17th] but on a cultural one too [since, most people argue no one would donate to the poor in a free society: the implication being that society doesn't value the poor and ought to be forced to].

Well, I think a nicer way is this - look at the Salvation Army in New Zealand; if you look at their success rate in regards to turn around of an individual from poverty to a job, education and on their feet again, it puts the social welfare department to shame.

I would rather donate MY money, and lets put it this way, on $340 per week, I'm hardly rich, to the Salvation Army which gets results, than to some government department who see their job as merely to expeand their already bloated department whilst becoming less and less efficient.

I do believe that EVERYONE is of value to the country, regardless of their skill level or education, but at the same time, I see it as cruel and unusual punishment keeping them under the thumb of welfare whilst never providing them with the ladder of opportunity to get then out of the situation that they're in.

*snip*
No argument here: private charity rocks. Mandatory chairty, on the other hand, most certainly does not.

No argument here: private charity rocks. Mandatory chairty, on the other hand, most certainly does not.

And the best thing; if they don't perform, we can take out donations elsewhere, to a chariety that does a good job - competition can be a great thing, especially when people are given options.

I know it's somewhat odd, but if it wasn't that I was Fascist it's very likely that I'd be a Libertarian. I'd probably be one of the Syndicalism branches.

After long discussions with Libertarians at my school [Teachers, not fellow students] we have noticed that True Fascism and Libertarianism are quite similar and have similar goals [Though these goals sometimes have different reasons behind them]. Even one of the quotes often associated with Libertarianism could be held true with Fascist ideals.

"Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights."

I’m sure no Libertarian wants to consider how similar Fascism and Libertarians can be, but it’s there.

I know it's somewhat odd, but if it wasn't that I was Fascist it's very likely that I'd be a Libertarian. I'd probably be one of the Syndicalism branches.

After long discussions with Libertarians at my school [Teachers, not fellow students] we have noticed that True Fascism and Libertarianism are quite similar and have similar goals [Though these goals sometimes have different reasons behind them]. Even one of the quotes often associated with Libertarianism could be held true with Fascist ideals.

"Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights."

I’m sure no Libertarian wants to consider how similar Fascism and Libertarians can be, but it’s there.

Well, I wouldn't agree - Facism is basically the social engineering element of communism married with the hard core focus of economics.

Libertarianism is this; Freedom.

The freedom to live your life the way you choose without government interference as so long as your activities do not interfer with the private property or rights of another citizen.

Where as in a facist state, peoples rights and responsibilities are explicitly outlined in a law, and generally speaking some 'morality code' is thrown in there for good luck with the claim of 'for the good of the people', in a libertarian situation, the only thing the government is interested in, is ensuring that one persons activities don't interfer with anothers - morality don't come into play; if you want to smoke dope, the you're entitled, were as in a facist state, they'll say that because it isn't for the greater good, they'll ban it.

So actually the two are at polar opposits.

In economic terms, fascism is "de-facto socialism". It does not involve actual government ownership, as had existed in the Soviet Union. What it involves is the government exercising all the powers associated with ownership. The private owners were in this case purely nominal. Under fascism, and indeed, National Socialism, the government decided who produced what by what methods, the prices charged, the wages paid, and the dividends allowed. The state would control the allocation of of the various factors of production. The only real disputes in terms of control were between various parts of the government, in the Third Reich for example, the Gauleiters wanted to keep some civilian production to make themselves more popular, while Albert Speer wanted all industry to be under his control, producing war related goods.

There is no real difference between fascism and communism in economic terms. The reason for the outward difference was that fascism was a critique of communism. The threats of communists to expropriate all property obviously created resistance. Fascists, with their forceful ideas could pose as the only viable force opposing the communists. They offered big business protection from not only communists, but from competition too (one must understand that big business is no lover of the free market). Socialism could be introduced, and the tycoons would be thrilled to death about it.

I doubt it needs to be said that in terms of their philosophical roots, libertarianism and fascism are opposites, fascism being rooted in collectivism, and and libertarianism in individualism.

Vocio, I would like to know what your quote has to do with fascism. So far as I can see, it has nothing to do with fascism.

Well, I wouldn't agree - Facism is basically the social engineering element of communism married with the hard core focus of economics.

Libertarianism is this; Freedom.

The freedom to live your life the way you choose without government interference as so long as your activities do not interfer with the private property or rights of another citizen.

Where as in a facist state, peoples rights and responsibilities are explicitly outlined in a law, and generally speaking some 'morality code' is thrown in there for good luck with the claim of 'for the good of the people', in a libertarian situation, the only thing the government is interested in, is ensuring that one persons activities don't interfer with anothers - morality don't come into play; if you want to smoke dope, the you're entitled, were as in a facist state, they'll say that because it isn't for the greater good, they'll ban it.

So actually the two are at polar opposits.
Let me start by pointing out that you are looking at the, unfortunately, corrupt form of Fascism that was produced from revolutions. I am talking about a Form of Fascism that can only be attained through a secular democratic system. Or as I prefere, True Fascism or Ideal Fascism.

In such a system we'd prefere to allow long periods of very weak Government with periods of strong Government when it is necessary. Wars and major economic problems fall into a catagory where Government must intervene. Generally a person's rights would be to do what you want as long as it doesn't harm another citizen.

Though I was refering more to indevidual polocies involved in Fascism and Libertarianism rather than the central Government. The only difference I have seen between Ideal Fascism and Ideal Libertarianism is the amount of power given to the central Government. Comparing just those two things does bring a polar opposite, but looking at things such as marriage, patents, drugs and welfare [to name a few] will show the similarities.

Disraeliland 3, I will get to your post as soon as I finish this game of Tetris.

That is simply not the case. The time when propserity in the US grew at the greatest rate came between the Civil War, and the "Progressive Era", when government started to get involved in the economy to a large extent.I said poverty, not prosperity. Naturally, many people were prosperous, but that prosperity did not extend to the poorer members of society.

You don't seem to understand money. Firstly, speculation in money had nothing to do with the Depression, I'm aware that speculation in money did not cause the Depression, however speculation in stocks did. The point about speculation in money was that if money didn't have a set value, then people would speculate in it, also. This leads to problems, due to the nature of speculation.

If you are trying to say that central banks act to keep money stableNo, I'm trying to say that they're supposed to do so. Of course, they aren't always successful, but they're more successful in doing so than a free market would be.

With regard to money, we have two choices, the one you advocate is an imposed money in the hands of the state and its clients, to be used and manipulated for their benefit, or a free market.Or a third choice, abolishing money entirely.

If you think that having a free market would cause speculation, then you don't understand money.

What do people want from money? I'd say that people want two things: acceptability (that means when you offer it, the dude behind the counter will take it because he knows that when he offers it in exchange for goods and services, people will accept it), and retention of its value over time (that means that $50 can buy "x" goods/services now, if you put it into the bank, and get it out in a year, that $50 should still be able to buy "x" goods/services)

A free market in money will end up with the money that does these two things.The free market in money would make money a commodity. If money is a commodity, then it will be subject to the laws of supply and demand, the same as other commodities. Since there is no way for everyone to accurately determine the supply of money vs. the demand, there will be a lack of information avaiable. If there is a lack of information available, this can lead to speculation.

Malinvestments are made when cheap money is around because when money is made artificially cheap, people don't really care because they believe they won't lose much if it doesn't work out.Unless the definition of malinvestment is something different than a "bad investment", your statement is only partially true. As with any investment, if people believe they won't lose much if it doesn't work out, they are probably willing to make it. But this is only half of the issue. The other half of an investment is what the gain would be if it does work out. Any investment involves a risk benefit analysis, whether or not there is cheap money around.

Of course, the easiest way around this is to allow bank runs, and bank bankrupticies to happen, and actually punish fraudulent practices.So what you're essentially saying is that bank runs are a good thing, because even if the banker runs out of money, they will at some later point in time be prosecuted for fraud?

Which totally neglects the fundamental issue behind prohibition. I can't believe that you would accept tyranny and slavery provided that some compensatory mechanism is provided.I don't accept tyranny and slavery, and I don't view the illegality of doing something to be either. (This does not mean I accept prohibition or "the drug war", either. But I wouldn't say that illegalizing a drug in and of itself is doomed to fail.)

In a country with central banking, inflation is an example of government intervention.Not exactly. Inflation often comes as a result of government intervention, but there isn't by definition a cause-effect relationship there.

It can do neither. It is a superficial step. An increase in wages without a corresponding increase in productivity is merely a price increase at the shelf, or a reduction in profitability which will squeeze marginal firms out of the industry. To avoid these effects, a firm must cut costs, and since the increase in their costs was labour-related, labour costs are the ones cut, generally by sacking the least productive workers.

Increasing the "minimum wage" from $4.25 to $5.15 simply means that employing a worker who can only produce $4.50 of value becomes a criminal offence. Raising his wage over the value he can produce is simply nonsensical, it is the equivilent of burning money.

Mr. $4.50 will then get the real minimum wage: $0.00, unemployment. How merciful you are to the workers, you'd turn them into beggars for their own good!No, Mr. $4.50's wage would be changed from $4.50 to whatever his unemployment compensation or welfare program would be giving him.

Can you actually prove that free markets lead to this condition.In a free market system, money is power. In a free market system, people will use their power in order to obtain more money/power for themselves. The easiest way of doing so is to petition the government to enact laws in your behalf. I realize that at this point it would no longer be a free market system, but that is the nature of free market systems, that they eventually end. Can you prove that this wouldn't happen in a free market system?

Do you mean to tell me that destroying the only thing that can in the long run relieve and perhaps eliminate poverty, wealth creation, can be a good thing?Lol. Wealth creation in and of itself is not the only thing that can in the long run relieve and perhaps eliminate poverty. There are plenty of things, most importantly access to education for everyone.

You've admitted the basic fallacy of socialism, you claim to be for the workers, yet you oppose anything that can help them help themselves.No, I support things that maximize the workers' ability to help themselves.

Perhaps he means that during wartime, wealth-destroying mechanisms are good when used against the enemy country? That is the only circumstance in which I can find any sort of good in destroying wealth.An example of wealth destruction being a good thing:

For simplicity's sake, we'll envision a country with 10 people.
Person 1 has $100,000. People 2-10 each have $1,000. This means that the country has $109,000. Now, let's suppose that a tax or program is set up which costs money, and afterward, each person, 1-10 has $10,000 each. There is a net loss of $9,000 (wealth destruction), however people 2-10 are better off.

In economic terms, fascism is "de-facto socialism". It does not involve actual government ownership, as had existed in the Soviet Union. What it involves is the government exercising all the powers associated with ownership. The private owners were in this case purely nominal. Under fascism, and indeed, National Socialism, the government decided who produced what by what methods, the prices charged, the wages paid, and the dividends allowed. The state would control the allocation of of the various factors of production. The only real disputes in terms of control were between various parts of the government, in the Third Reich for example, the Gauleiters wanted to keep some civilian production to make themselves more popular, while Albert Speer wanted all industry to be under his control, producing war related goods.

There is no real difference between fascism and communism in economic terms. The reason for the outward difference was that fascism was a critique of communism. The threats of communists to expropriate all property obviously created resistance. Fascists, with their forceful ideas could pose as the only viable force opposing the communists. They offered big business protection from not only communists, but from competition too (one must understand that big business is no lover of the free market). Socialism could be introduced, and the tycoons would be thrilled to death about it.

I doubt it needs to be said that in terms of their philosophical roots, libertarianism and fascism are opposites, fascism being rooted in collectivism, and and libertarianism in individualism.

Vocio, I would like to know what your quote has to do with fascism. So far as I can see, it has nothing to do with fascism.
Let me first note that I am not talking about Nazism in this post. We don't consider it Fascism and I don't know exactly how Nazism worked on the inside.

Yes, that was the case in Italy and was caused by their lack of modern idustrialization and the corruption that was on both sides of the revolution leading to the Dictatorship as well as the actual Dictatorship. This is not the form of Fascism advocated by myself or those in the Fascist party I am a part of. Since we are living in a modern power, America, we feel there is no need to regulate how and what is produced or what business there is. While historically Stalinism and Fascism were more or less the same economically, modern Fascism and Stalinism are quite different.

Ultimately the problem lies in the fact that most people look at the half-finished, third world corrupt Fascism of Italy instead of the basic ideals of modern Fascism.

And the quote? Fascism's goal is to create a society where people can do what they want as long as they are respecting the rights of others.

And I'm going to point out once again that the similarities I am talking about are based around the issues rather than the shape of the central government and the ammount of power we give it.

p.s. I hope this post is written clearly. I am very close to falling asleep and my ability to explain put my thoughts into words isn’t at its best. [Probably why you misunderstood what I meant in my first post. Probably my error and I’m sorry to have made it.]

btw, I got over 25,000 points on Tetris, my best score yet.

I said poverty, not prosperity. Naturally, many people were prosperous, but that prosperity did not extend to the poorer members of society.

Not true at all. More over, there were far more opportunities to prosper in that time, than now.

I'm aware that speculation in money did not cause the Depression, however speculation in stocks did. The point about speculation in money was that if money didn't have a set value, then people would speculate in it, also. This leads to problems, due to the nature of speculation.

Speculation in stocks was only possible to the extent that it happened at that time because of credit expansion by the Fed. Cheap money means people being loose with money. If a price is made artificially low, people will go nuts buying as much as they possible can, with very little thought applied. Now, were that applied to Potatoes, the result would be a shortage of potatoes, but paper money does not have the natural scarcity of potatoes, it can simply be printed as demanded, and during that time, it indeed was. (By the way, when I refer to "cheap money", I refer to artificially low interest rates. Interests rates are a price that should be set by supply and demand, i.e. supply being the amount of money people by their own free will offer for lending, and demand being the amount of money wanted by potential borrowers for various purposes. Interest rates in our world are not controlled by supply and demand, they are controlled by the state, which means surplus, and shortages.

The free market in money would make money a commodity. If money is a commodity, then it will be subject to the laws of supply and demand, the same as other commodities. Since there is no way for everyone to accurately determine the supply of money vs. the demand, there will be a lack of information avaiable. If there is a lack of information available, this can lead to speculation.

There certainly is information available, it is called a price index.

Unless the definition of malinvestment is something different than a "bad investment", your statement is only partially true. As with any investment, if people believe they won't lose much if it doesn't work out, they are probably willing to make it. But this is only half of the issue. The other half of an investment is what the gain would be if it does work out. Any investment involves a risk benefit analysis, whether or not there is cheap money around.

Artificially cheap money distorts the analysis because losses are artificially reduced.

Or a third choice, abolishing money entirely

If you abolished money (by which I presume you mean Federal Reserve Notes, or some non-US equivilant) on Monday, people would find a different money by Tuesday morning.

You have no idea what money is, and how it came into existance, and why it is important.

So what you're essentially saying is that bank runs are a good thing, because even if the banker runs out of money, they will at some later point in time be prosecuted for fraud?

The risk of bank runs is a good thing, because it will force bankers to be wise with money. As to prosecution, the banker has in fact committed fraud, he has deprived you of your rightful property as much as if he had put a gun in your face and demanded "your money, or your life!". He has committed a crime, and must be prosecuted.

I don't accept tyranny and slavery, and I don't view the illegality of doing something to be either. (This does not mean I accept prohibition or "the drug war", either. But I wouldn't say that illegalizing a drug in and of itself is doomed to fail.)

Yes you do accept them. You own your body, and have the right to do with it as you please provided you do not violate the rights of others. You have the right to put drugs, or booze into it as you please. You have the right to take good care of it as well. You of course must bear the consequences yourself, but you have the right to harm yourself because your body is yours.

Now, as soon as you accept the idea that the state has the right to ban activities that harm no one but the person partaking in the activity, you yield your ownership of yourself to the state. You accept slavery, or tyranny (depending on the degree of the act)

As to thinking that prohibition can succeed. You have a burden of proof to show that prohibition can succeed. No historical example bears out your case.

Not exactly. Inflation often comes as a result of government intervention, but there isn't by definition a cause-effect relationship there.

Inflation is always a result of government intervention when the government controls banking, which is in every country in the world.

No, Mr. $4.50's wage would be changed from $4.50 to whatever his unemployment compensation or welfare program would be giving him.

And this welfare money is stolen property, and it does not contribute to the creation of wealth.

In a free market system, money is power. In a free market system, people will use their power in order to obtain more money/power for themselves. The easiest way of doing so is to petition the government to enact laws in your behalf. I realize that at this point it would no longer be a free market system, but that is the nature of free market systems, that they eventually end. Can you prove that this wouldn't happen in a free market system?

You've made a superficially logical argument (and totally ignored your burden of proof, and all the examples of more economic liberty leading to more prosperity). Once one looks below the surface, your argument is as hollow, and wrong as most of the arguments you make. A libertarian government is highly restricted in what they can do. A libertarian government can only act to protect individuals from coercion.

In such a system, the idea of people buying favours from a politician in a libertarian state is totally inconceivable. The politician simply cannot grant the favour.

As a government move away from liberalism, or libertarianism, the opportunities for corruption increase, because the ability of the government to act in ways beyond the simple protection of individual rights increases as a state moves away from libertarianism.

A government of a libertarian state simply couldn't enact such a law.

Were this not the case, your argument would still be wrong. You talk about a free market system, then you talk about someone getting the government to use its coercive powers on his behalf in that market. Of course, once a government does that, we no longer have a free market, we have a mixed economy.

Lol. Wealth creation in and of itself is not the only thing that can in the long run relieve and perhaps eliminate poverty. There are plenty of things, most importantly access to education for everyone.

Public education can only exist by the destruction of wealth through taxation. Back to the drawing board.

No, I support things that maximize the workers' ability to help themselves.

No, you don't. The free market maximises the workers' ability to help themselves, and you don't support it, and you produce a plethora of fallacious arguments against it.

An example of wealth destruction being a good thing:

For simplicity's sake, we'll envision a country with 10 people.
Person 1 has $100,000. People 2-10 each have $1,000. This means that the country has $109,000. Now, let's suppose that a tax or program is set up which costs money, and afterward, each person, 1-10 has $10,000 each. There is a net loss of $9,000 (wealth destruction), however people 2-10 are better off.

That is not an example of wealth destruction being a good thing, it is only good for some people. Furthermore, the example rests of assumptions are fallacious, firstly, that there is a fixed pile of wealth that must be distributed, and secondly, that such a division of wealth is legitimate.

Now, there is no difference in what you're saying, and putting a gun to Person 1's head, and demanding $9000, or you will shoot him.

Let me first note that I am not talking about Nazism in this post. We don't consider it Fascism and I don't know exactly how Nazism worked on the inside.

The only real difference between fascism, and national socialism is that the nationalistic chauvenism of fascism is supplemented by the racial and religious chauvenism of national socialism.

Yes, that was the case in Italy and was caused by their lack of modern idustrialization and the corruption that was on both sides of the revolution leading to the Dictatorship as well as the actual Dictatorship.

That is not a historically sustainable argument. Italy was industrialised at that time.

This is not the form of Fascism advocated by myself or those in the Fascist party I am a part of. Since we are living in a modern power, America, we feel there is no need to regulate how and what is produced or what business there is. While historically Stalinism and Fascism were more or less the same economically, modern Fascism and Stalinism are quite different.

Then you're playing word games, because what you call "fascism" has nothing at all in common with what has been the experience of fascism in the real world. You can't rationalise it away, it was fascism.

And the quote? Fascism's goal is to create a society where people can do what they want as long as they are respecting the rights of others.

That is a non-sequitor. It is like saying "National Socialism's goal is to create a society where people can do what they want as long as they are respecting the rights of others"

p.s. I hope this post is written clearly. I am very close to falling asleep and my ability to explain put my thoughts into words isn’t at its best.

It is utterly incomprehensible, it reaches the point of Dadaism.

From the wiki:

The word "fascism" comes from fascio (plural: fasci), which may mean "bundle," as in a political or militant group or a nation, but also from the fasces (rods bundled around an axe), which were an ancient Roman symbol of the authority of magistrates. The Italian Fascisti were also known as Black Shirts for their style of uniform incorporating a black shirt (See Also: political colour).

Merriam-Webster defines fascism as "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition"[1]. The American Heritage Dictionary instead describes it as "A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."[2].

What do other libertarians here think about immigration?

I personally think that all immigration should be legal and free. Immigration is a party of the labor market, so to be free market, you need free immigration.

I personally think that all immigration should be legal and free. Immigration is a party of the labor market, so to be free market, you need free immigration.

What if the government had evidence that a particular man was a roving explosives expert for al Qaeda, probably coming to provide technical support for a terrorist cell, and that he had been in Madrid only a day before the bombings, and London only a day before the bombings?

Of course, I didn't ask for a definition of the word 'money'. I asked you what it IS.

Could you define for us in your own words what "is" means? :p

Not true at all. More over, there were far more opportunities to prosper in that time, than now.Completely true, and there were far fewer opportunities to prosper then than there are now, given that there was a lack of public education, among other things.


Speculation in stocks was only possible to the extent that it happened at that time because of credit expansion by the Fed. Cheap money means people being loose with money. If a price is made artificially low, people will go nuts buying as much as they possible can, with very little thought applied. Now, were that applied to Potatoes, the result would be a shortage of potatoes, but paper money does not have the natural scarcity of potatoes, it can simply be printed as demanded, and during that time, it indeed was. (By the way, when I refer to "cheap money", I refer to artificially low interest rates. Interests rates are a price that should be set by supply and demand, i.e. supply being the amount of money people by their own free will offer for lending, and demand being the amount of money wanted by potential borrowers for various purposes. Interest rates in our world are not controlled by supply and demand, they are controlled by the state, which means surplus, and shortages.It may be true that cheap money contributed to the speculation, but it was hardly the sole cause.


There certainly is information available, it is called a price index.While the price index tells how much a stock is worth, and will increase or decrease when someone buys or sells the stock, the price index does not tell why the stock is being sold.

Artificially cheap money distorts the analysis because losses are artificially reduced.Wouldn't gains also be artificially reduced to the same degree?


If you abolished money (by which I presume you mean Federal Reserve Notes, or some non-US equivilant) on Monday, people would find a different money by Tuesday morning.No, I was referring to money in and of itself.

You have no idea what money is, and how it came into existance, and why it is important.Sure I do, and I know the reasons why it needs to be abolished, and why it is important to do so.


The risk of bank runs is a good thing, because it will force bankers to be wise with money.There were bank runs before the Fed was created, as a whole there were more then than there were now.

As to prosecution, the banker has in fact committed fraud, he has deprived you of your rightful property as much as if he had put a gun in your face and demanded "your money, or your life!". He has committed a crime, and must be prosecuted.I didn't say that he didn't need to be prosecuted, but that prosecution isn't going to do me any good if I needed that money to buy food.


Yes you do accept them. You own your body, and have the right to do with it as you please provided you do not violate the rights of others. You have the right to put drugs, or booze into it as you please. You have the right to take good care of it as well. You of course must bear the consequences yourself, but you have the right to harm yourself because your body is yours.

Now, as soon as you accept the idea that the state has the right to ban activities that harm no one but the person partaking in the activity, you yield your ownership of yourself to the state. You accept slavery, or tyranny (depending on the degree of the act)Conversely, I have a right to not be around the people who choose to engage in such activities.

As to thinking that prohibition can succeed. You have a burden of proof to show that prohibition can succeed. No historical example bears out your case.Smoking rates are decreasing for a number of factors, one of which is the illegality of smoking in certain areas.


Inflation is always a result of government intervention when the government controls banking, which is in every country in the world.Inflation is the result of across the board price increases by sellers of commodities, whatever they may be.


And this welfare money is stolen property, and it does not contribute to the creation of wealth.It is not stolen property, and it doesn't need to contribute to the creation of wealth.


You've made a superficially logical argument (and totally ignored your burden of proof, and all the examples of more economic liberty leading to more prosperity). There are more examples of economic liberty leading to less prosperity than there are of economic liberty leading to prosperity, so the burden of proof is on you.

A libertarian government is highly restricted in what they can do. A libertarian government can only act to protect individuals from coercion.This is what the definition of what a libertarian government is, yes, but there's nothing within the concept of a libertarian government which prevents this from happening and no longer being a libertarian government.

In such a system, the idea of people buying favours from a politician in a libertarian state is totally inconceivable. The politician simply cannot grant the favour.What's going to stop the politician from passing laws saying that this is impossible? The threat of not being reelected? Oh horror of horrors! You'd simply be electing a series of politicians who use their office as nothing more than a place of business.

As a government move away from liberalism, or libertarianism, the opportunities for corruption increase, because the ability of the government to act in ways beyond the simple protection of individual rights increases as a state moves away from libertarianism.

A government of a libertarian state simply couldn't enact such a law.Certainly, and libertarianism provides prime opportunity for the government to move away from it.

Were this not the case, your argument would still be wrong. You talk about a free market system, then you talk about someone getting the government to use its coercive powers on his behalf in that market. Of course, once a government does that, we no longer have a free market, we have a mixed economy.I stated that there would no longer be a free market at that point, but again, there's nothing within the concept of a free market that prevents this from happening.
Libertarians are usually against the idea of law enforcement accessing the bank records of people, so how would it be proven that a politician is accepting bribes?


Public education can only exist by the destruction of wealth through taxation. Back to the drawing board.This is another example of the destruction of wealth being a good thing.


No, you don't. The free market maximises the workers' ability to help themselves, and you don't support it.No, the free market does not do so, which is one of the reasons I am against it.


That is not an example of wealth destruction being a good thing, it is only good for some people. Furthermore, the example rests of assumptions are fallacious, firstly, that there is a fixed pile of wealth that must be distributed, and secondly, that such a division of wealth is legitimate.It is good for the majority of people. While there isn't a fixed pile of wealth that must be redistributed, wealth is finite.

Now, there is no difference in what you're saying, and putting a gun to Person 1's head, and demanding $9000, or you will shoot him.No, what I'm saying is that if a person wishes to receive the benefits of the nation in which they live, then they must pay a fee, or a "tax" if you will. The threat of jail for not paying up is no different than your landlord threatening to evict you if you don't pay your rent.

I am not new to communism, I have been through much of this before. There are so many variations in opinions and knowledge of communism/socialism on this forum, that I often misjudge what my counterpart is trying to point out.

Now, sharing of property does takes place in capitalist societies, it is often a necessity. It also has practical values, as there is a value called good will, which doesn't have monetary worth, but often pays dividends.

However, a property system based solely on shared usage is very unpractical. While on a neighborhood level dealing with consumer goods, it is entirely possible (although still problematic) for a community to get by without private property. However, when you start dealing with capital and large distribution chains you get into trouble.

Capital can only be used once and then it is gone; it is converted into end goods. Now while that in of itself isn't a problem (you can't share capital, but you can share its results), the distribution and allocation of capital is a huge problem.

I'm going to have to ask you what you mean by 'capital', I think...

Commonly held arguments against libertarian view-points:

Child-labor:

Sorry to say, but during the time of child labor, our technological and economic advancement was so great that despite the fact we had children working they were living in even better conditions than before. Note, in a lib. society it would still be illegal to force children to work.

Welfare:

Before the creation of welfare, the community had adequately provided for its poor. Many pro-welfare peeps today point to low donation rates -- first of all, if taxes were cut more people would donate. Second of all, the government is providing welfare for beggars so why should you donate at all?

Environment:

Quite simply, people are more inclined to protect the environment when they own the land. Proof? Look at any public property (public housing, bathrooms, etc.) and compare them to their private counterparts. Also, stronger private property rights and tort laws would allow peeps to more easily file lawsuits against corporations. You may cite the Pinto incident; the small cost to Ford was due to the fact that the weak tort laws made it hard for people to bring as many lawsuits as there should have been against the company.

Depression:

It is, of course, natural for the market to have periods of expansion and recession and many peeps cite the Great Depression as proof that laissez-faire doesn't work. Unfortunately, they fail to realize that the depression was brought about by government regulation of the economy -- namely the money supply. The work of FDR did nothing but expand the government's powers -- it was only WWII that brought us out of the slump. Had private business been left alone in the first place, there would have been no depression.

Patents:

You cannot claim the right to an idea, first of all. Second of all, the Industrial Revolution did fine without patents. Regardless, even without patents to protect work there are people willing to create something great. Wikipedia and Linux come to mind.

Drug Legalization:

All of the arguments used against alcohol legalization are used against drug legalization and look at how that turned out.
Child-labor: Now that child labour is illegal it's easier for adults to get work, and children are better off than they were before.

Welfare: Actually in the past society usually did not adequately care for the poor and many more people died on the streets or turned to crime to survive.

Environment: Sometimes a landowner will protect it, sometimes he won't. It depends on what's in his interest at the time. The problem with the libertarian position on this is that it is presumed that protecting the environment will be in the landowner's best interests.

Only rich peope love libertarianism, simply because it is a system wich allows rich people to stay rich and prevents poor people from becoming rich.
It is an extreme form of capitalism and the biggest perversion of anarchism I have ever seen.
Libertarianism is basically like returning to the 18th- 19th century. It is in that periad that new iedeologies like anarchism and communism came to life: as a reaction to the oppressive bourgoisie.
Really, libertarians are just selfish fatcats.EDIT: (I don't mean this as an insult, it is just the way it is)

Contradiction. You admit that it can satisfy a want/need.


No. I don't. Read it again, if you have to.


Quite true. You do seem to forget, however, that blood is thicker than water. Families can work that way because of the emotional bonds.

Capitalism doesn't need this type of good will to work.

It also seems to me that many people in your model would see it as in their interests to hoard items against perceived future needs. How would your system deal with this. How would it deal with changing needs and wants over time, in terms of producing the goods and services required to meet them?

How many chainsaws can one person need?

And - when the neighbours need chainsaws... will they not know where to look?

The system would work because, once it is implemented... there is no advantage to hoarding. It just means you are transferring stored materials to your OWN storage space.... time-consuming, innefficient, unproductive.

My argument against welfare is a lot simpler [and funnier]:

"Welfare is to charity what rape is to sex."
Well, government isn't there to give us choices in everything!

So? It's their money. If you want to feed people with your pocketbook, then do it: don't go out and buy computers or cars and then tell that guy to feed the poor. The idea that the rich should be forced to provide for the poor is an evasion of responsibility not only on a personal level [since you obviously would rather have bought a computer than $1000 worth of food for the bum on the corner of High and 17th] but on a cultural one too [since, most people argue no one would donate to the poor in a free society: the implication being that society doesn't value the poor and ought to be forced to].
Important as the right to property may be, the rights to life and to be fed are more important. The right to property can be violated to pay for the latter if need be.

You don't have a right to have my money, so taxes are not ever justified.
Does this only apply to welfare, or all government programmes?

Is someone agreeing of his own free will to work at $2/hr exploitation?

Or is it simply a purchase of a commodity?

In such cases, all the employers are paying just $2 an hour, so there is not that much free will involved. Do you think that all sweatshop workers are there out of free will? No, they're there because there is no alternative. It's either work there or starve.

(I'm assuming that the stated $2 is relative to the current value of the US dollar, in which case $2 is not a lot for an hour's work.)

No. I don't. Read it again, if you have to.



How many chainsaws can one person need?

And - when the neighbours need chainsaws... will they not know where to look?

The system would work because, once it is implemented... there is no advantage to hoarding. It just means you are transferring stored materials to your OWN storage space.... time-consuming, innefficient, unproductive.


*Ahem
When you store grain, and I mean a LOT of grain, you can increase the price, that is why people would do it, to gain even more money (while starving others)
as to "when the neighbours need chainsaws... will they not know where to look?"

Of course they would, but you would have money, and you would be able to hire people to protect you in your fortress.
(of course, killing people would not be the most efficient thing to do: the grain prices would drop, and you can't have that, can you?)

You've walked right into it. I find that hard to believe.

I shall quote Walter Williams, a Doctor in Economics at UCLA.


I certainly disagree with the price of Gulfstream jets. They should be $15 each, then one hour of work would have up, up, and away!

Can you answer him (and me), how does a simple price disagreement constitute exploitation?

Because you need food to live but you don't need a Gulfstream jet to live.


$2/hr is a better offer than starving. Why is offering someone somthing better than he has exploitation, or even any sort of bad thing at all?
It's a bad thing when he is still not earning enough to afford more than one meal a day, shelter or other basic necessities. People shouldn't have to live like that when others are able to fly around in their Gulfstream jets.

The only real difference between fascism, and national socialism is that the nationalistic chauvenism of fascism is supplemented by the racial and religious chauvenism of national socialism.

Then you're playing word games, because what you call "fascism" has nothing at all in common with what has been the experience of fascism in the real world. You can't rationalise it away, it was fascism.


Fascism, as an ideal, is 'unity'. That would be the core precept... and the only element actually required to allow a regime to count as 'fascistic'.

You let yourself be led too easily by modern 'versions' of what words might mean, my friend.... and you are too easily convinced that a real-world example of a corrupted ideal, is EQUAL TO the 'sum of' that ideal...

Could you define for us in your own words what "is" means? :p

Agree with the policies or not, that was great 'politics'. :)

Think about 'god' for a moment.... what is god?

You can give textbook definitions for the word 'god'... you can quote the etymology... but does any of that equate to what god IS?

Commonly held arguments against libertarian view-points:

Child-labor:

Sorry to say, but during the time of child labor, our technological and economic advancement was so great that despite the fact we had children working they were living in even better conditions than before. Note, in a lib. society it would still be illegal to force children to work.
Ja. Working in coalmines to fuel the factories realy was an improvement to working in say the field.

Welfare:

Before the creation of welfare, the community had adequately provided for its poor. Many pro-welfare peeps today point to low donation rates -- first of all, if taxes were cut more people would donate. Second of all, the government is providing welfare for beggars so why should you donate at all?
Well, it's your word against the historic facts.

Environment:

Quite simply, people are more inclined to protect the environment when they own the land. Proof? Look at any public property (public housing, bathrooms, etc.) and compare them to their private counterparts. Also, stronger private property rights and tort laws would allow peeps to more easily file lawsuits against corporations. You may cite the Pinto incident; the small cost to Ford was due to the fact that the weak tort laws made it hard for people to bring as many lawsuits as there should have been against the company.
Neatly cut lawns and weed free rosegardens do not equal a healthier enviroment.

Depression:

It is, of course, natural for the market to have periods of expansion and recession and many peeps cite the Great Depression as proof that laissez-faire doesn't work. Unfortunately, they fail to realize that the depression was brought about by government regulation of the economy -- namely the money supply. The work of FDR did nothing but expand the government's powers -- it was only WWII that brought us out of the slump. Had private business been left alone in the first place, there would have been no depression.
From what I remember it was an overproduction of goods without any demand for them.

Patents:

You cannot claim the right to an idea, first of all. Second of all, the Industrial Revolution did fine without patents. Regardless, even without patents to protect work there are people willing to create something great. Wikipedia and Linux come to mind.
Patents have a history stretching back over 500 years.

Only rich peope love libertarianism, simply because it is a system wich allows rich people to stay rich and prevents poor people from becoming rich.
It is an extreme form of capitalism and the biggest perversion of anarchism I have ever seen.
Libertarianism is basically like returning to the 18th- 19th century. It is in that periad that new iedeologies like anarchism and communism came to life: as a reaction to the oppressive bourgoisie.
Really, libertarians are just selfish fatcats.EDIT: (I don't mean this as an insult, it is just the way it is)

That's close to how I see it.

Capitalism is legitimised selfishness, and Libertarianism is Capitalism ,without the conscience...

*Ahem
When you store grain, and I mean a LOT of grain, you can increase the price, that is why people would do it, to gain even more money (while starving others)
as to "when the neighbours need chainsaws... will they not know where to look?"

Of course they would, but you would have money, and you would be able to hire people to protect you in your fortress.
(of course, killing people would not be the most efficient thing to do: the grain prices would drop, and you can't have that, can you?)

Okay... now do that again.... and this time, imagine there is no currency...

That's close to how I see it.

Capitalism is legitimised selfishness, and Libertarianism is Capitalism ,without the conscience...

See I always have a problem with people saying capitalism is about selfishness. I tend to see it as beeing about freedom rather then being opressed by other systems such as communism/socialism. And I hate it when people say libertarianism lacks a conscience. Since when is an economy supposed to have a conscience? And who's conscience will it have since everyone does not share the same morals and there will be plenty of people wanting to impose their "conscience" on the system.

Well, government isn't there to give us choices in everything!
Agreed. That's why we have to be doubly careful about the areas in which we allow it to excersize its force. Feeding other people at my expense is not one of these areas.

Important as the right to property may be, the rights to life and to be fed are more important. The right to property can be violated to pay for the latter if need be.
The "right to life" shouldn't be taken to mean the right to the tools of life, which is the implication if you suggest that hot meals, shelter, or a welfare check is subsumed under the concept of one's right to life. Rights do not come about as the result of expense to others; we shouldn't assume that other people should operate at a loss or give things up to us so that we may enjoy them.

People do not have a right to be fed; they have the opportunity to feed themselves, either through their own volition or the exchange of the product of said volition with the product of someone else's.

Commonly held arguments against libertarian view-points:

Child-labor:

Sorry to say, but during the time of child labor, our technological and economic advancement was so great that despite the fact we had children working they were living in even better conditions than before. Note, in a lib. society it would still be illegal to force children to work.

Welfare:

Before the creation of welfare, the community had adequately provided for its poor. Many pro-welfare peeps today point to low donation rates -- first of all, if taxes were cut more people would donate. Second of all, the government is providing welfare for beggars so why should you donate at all?

Environment:

Quite simply, people are more inclined to protect the environment when they own the land. Proof? Look at any public property (public housing, bathrooms, etc.) and compare them to their private counterparts. Also, stronger private property rights and tort laws would allow peeps to more easily file lawsuits against corporations. You may cite the Pinto incident; the small cost to Ford was due to the fact that the weak tort laws made it hard for people to bring as many lawsuits as there should have been against the company.

Depression:

It is, of course, natural for the market to have periods of expansion and recession and many peeps cite the Great Depression as proof that laissez-faire doesn't work. Unfortunately, they fail to realize that the depression was brought about by government regulation of the economy -- namely the money supply. The work of FDR did nothing but expand the government's powers -- it was only WWII that brought us out of the slump. Had private business been left alone in the first place, there would have been no depression.

Patents:

You cannot claim the right to an idea, first of all. Second of all, the Industrial Revolution did fine without patents. Regardless, even without patents to protect work there are people willing to create something great. Wikipedia and Linux come to mind.

Drug Legalization:

All of the arguments used against alcohol legalization are used against drug legalization and look at how that turned out.

Although this is the least of the problems with your points, Patents are guaranteed by the US Constitution. They were part of the industrial revolution.

Linux is the subject of many patents.

Wikipedia is not a money-making exercise, is it?

See I always have a problem with people saying capitalism is about selfishness. I tend to see it as beeing about freedom rather then being opressed by other systems such as communism/socialism. And I hate it when people say libertarianism lacks a conscience. Since when is an economy supposed to have a conscience? And who's conscience will it have since everyone does not share the same morals and there will be plenty of people wanting to impose their "conscience" on the system.

You are building fences where there are none...

Capitalism IS about selfishness.... almost by definition. It is about ME accruing enough of these little disks and bits of paper, to be able to get some product or service that was someone else's, and make it mine.

That is selfishness... but it doesn't mean that selfishness is automatically a BAD thing.

Also - you construct a barrier between 'freedom' and 'selfishness'... where I see the two as often intimately connected. I want freedom... I want to be able to do whatever I want.

How is it you see capitalism as exemplary of 'freedom'? I want to go to Angkor Wat.... but I can't..... not because it's too far... not because it's too hard.... but, because I can't afford it. I can't afford the journey. I probably couldn't afford to stay there. I definitely can't afford the time off work.

Capitalism is a sliding scale of freedom. If you have no capital, you have no freedom. If you have all the capital, you have all the freedom.

And - I don't see why you view communism/socialism as "oppressive". Unless, you mistake Stalinism for communism?


I'm sorry you react so passionately to the assertion that Libertarianism has 'no conscience'... but that really is how it seems:

Should logging be regulated? What is the 'libertarian' answer?

Should fishing quotas be maintained? What is the 'libertarian' answer?

Should an industry be allowed to pump effluent into the water-table of a local community? What is the 'libertarian' answer?

Should an employer be allowed to sack striking workers, even when the strike is over legitimate cause? What is the 'libertarian' answer?

In every case, a 'conscience' is the ecologically or people-friendly approach... and the definitively 'libertarian' answer fails to come close.

You are building fences where there are none...

Capitalism IS about selfishness.... almost by definition. It is about ME accruing enough of these little disks and bits of paper, to be able to get some product or service that was someone else's, and make it mine.

Selfishness (Self"ish*ness) n.

1. Meanly close and covetous; one who spends grudgingly; a stingy, parsimonous fellow; a miser.
2. The quality or state of being selfish; meanness in giving or spending; parsimony; stinginess.
3. The quality or state of being selfish; exclusive regard to one's own interest or happiness; that supreme self-love or self-preference which leads a person to direct his purposes to the advancement of his own interest, power, or happiness, without regarding those of others. "Selfishness,- a vice utterly at variance with the happiness of him who harbors it, and, as such, condemned by self-love." Sir J. Mackintosh.

cap·i·tal·ism Audio pronunciation of "capitalism" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kp-tl-zm)
n.

An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

Hmm I don't see anything that refers to regarding ones self over others in the definition of capitalism. You say that is legitimised selfishness. I disagree because there is no inherent statement of regarding ones own interest above others. Plenty of capitalist buisnessmen take into account the interest of their workers, the effects of their ventures and the like. Now just because some people don't and use the system for themselves only does not make the system itself inherently selfish. It just makes those individuals selfish.

That is selfishness... but it doesn't mean that selfishness is automatically a BAD thing.
I agree

Also - you construct a barrier between 'freedom' and 'selfishness'... where I see the two as often intimately connected. I want freedom... I want to be able to do whatever I want.
I draw no such distinction about freedom and selfishness. I should have made clear that the freedom I was refering to was economic freedom.

How is it you see capitalism as exemplary of 'freedom'? I want to go to Angkor Wat.... but I can't..... not because it's too far... not because it's too hard.... but, because I can't afford it. I can't afford the journey. I probably couldn't afford to stay there. I definitely can't afford the time off work.
see above

Capitalism is a sliding scale of freedom. If you have no capital, you have no freedom. If you have all the capital, you have all the freedom.
See above

And - I don't see why you view communism/socialism as "oppressive". Unless, you mistake Stalinism for communism?
1. Once again in reference to economic freedom I view those two as oppressive.
2. I could argue as F.A. Hayek has that socialism inherently leads to totalitariansm but that would be for another thread.


I'm sorry you react so passionately to the assertion that Libertarianism has 'no conscience'... but that really is how it seems:
Its not that I believe that it has a conscience, I already know that libertarianism has no conscience. I reacted so bitterly because you make that out as an attack on libertarianism when I see it as a strength. As I said before who's conscience are we going to use? Are we going to use the christians' conscience when it comes to economic policy, the capitalists, or the communists? How do we decide who's conscience is more valid?

Should logging be regulated? What is the 'libertarian' answer?

Should fishing quotas be maintained? What is the 'libertarian' answer?

Should an industry be allowed to pump effluent into the water-table of a local community? What is the 'libertarian' answer?

Should an employer be allowed to sack striking workers, even when the strike is over legitimate cause? What is the 'libertarian' answer?

In every case, a 'conscience' is the ecologically or people-friendly approach... and the definitively 'libertarian' answer fails to come close.
According to you. By a capitalist's conscience there may be different answers which many people agree with instead of yours. You assume that your conscience is right and accepted by everyone when its far from that.

Selfishness (Self"ish*ness) n.

1. Meanly close and covetous; one who spends grudgingly; a stingy, parsimonous fellow; a miser.
2. The quality or state of being selfish; meanness in giving or spending; parsimony; stinginess.
3. The quality or state of being selfish; exclusive regard to one's own interest or happiness; that supreme self-love or self-preference which leads a person to direct his purposes to the advancement of his own interest, power, or happiness, without regarding those of others. "Selfishness,- a vice utterly at variance with the happiness of him who harbors it, and, as such, condemned by self-love." Sir J. Mackintosh.

cap·i·tal·ism Audio pronunciation of "capitalism" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kp-tl-zm)
n.

An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

Hmm I don't see anything that refers to regarding ones self over others in the definition of capitalism. You say that is legitimised selfishness. I disagree because there is no inherent statement of regarding ones own interest above others. Plenty of capitalist buisnessmen take into account the interest of their workers, the effects of their ventures and the like. Now just because some people don't and use the system for themselves only does not make the system itself inherently selfish. It just makes those individuals selfish.


Is it something about a libertarian mindset that believes any question can be answered by defining terms?

It is just that - debating libertarian principles, those defending seem to keep posting dictionary definitions... like that has anything to do with the matter.

Ignore your dictionary for a moment.... what is the 'mechanism' that drives capitalism.... what IS capitalism?


I draw no such distinction about freedom and selfishness. I should have made clear that the freedom I was refering to was economic freedom.


In which case, the whole comment is redundant.


2. I could argue as F.A. Hayek has that socialism inherently leads to totalitariansm but that would be for another thread.


You could argue as F. A. Hayek has... but you would be just as wrong.


Its not that I believe that it has a conscience, I already know that libertarianism has no conscience. I reacted so bitterly because you make that out as an attack on libertarianism when I see it as a strength. As I said before who's conscience are we going to use? Are we going to use the christians' conscience when it comes to economic policy, the capitalists, or the communists? How do we decide who's conscience is more valid?


According to you. By a capitalist's conscience there may be different answers which many people agree with instead of yours. You assume that your conscience is right and accepted by everyone when its far from that.

The conscience in question I already alluded to. It is the 'conscience' of having a world left tomorrow... of placing people above profits.

Libertarianism says anything goes, if the market will stand it.

That is short-sighted, destructive and self-serving... and market-forces are not sufficient to rein in that kind of economic recklessness.

Is it something about a libertarian mindset that believes any question can be answered by defining terms?

It is just that - debating libertarian principles, those defending seem to keep posting dictionary definitions... like that has anything to do with the matter.

Ignore your dictionary for a moment.... what is the 'mechanism' that drives capitalism.... what IS capitalism?

Because when your arguing about something its important to make sure that you are both refering to the same thing and not opperating on a different mindset otherwise the arguement really has no point. You made the point that capitalism is about selfishness. Well if we look at what selfishness is and put the definition of capitalism by it we can see that it is not about ones self rather it is just an economic system where people can or can not be selfish in. And to answer your question capitalism is an economic system. I gave you a definition last post so I really don't see why you needed to ask that.



In which case, the whole comment is redundant.
Yea that was my bad. I'll be more specific from now on.



You could argue as F. A. Hayek has... but you would be just as wrong.
Well thats according to you. I liked "Road to Serfdom" and thought it was a really good book with some great ideas and explanations. If you want to sit there and say he's wrong thats fine and I won't hijack the thread in an attempt to argue with you.



The conscience in question I already alluded to. It is the 'conscience' of having a world left tomorrow... of placing people above profits.
Thats a conscience that not everyone espouses. Some people say that the world was made by god and that the resources are ours to use as we see fit. You keep assuming that there is 1 correct conscience that everyone will agree on which is not true.

Libertarianism says anything goes, if the market will stand it. That is short-sighted, destructive and self-serving... and market-forces are not sufficient to rein in that kind of economic recklessness.

"It is important not to confuse opposition against this kind of planning with dogmatic laissez ffaire attitude. The liberal argument is in favor of making the best possible use of the forces of competition as a means of co-ordinating human efforts, not an arguement for leaving things just as they are. It is based on the conviction that, where effective competition can be created, it is a better way of guiding individual efforts than any other. It does not deny, but even emphasizes, that in order that competition should work beneficially, a carefully thought-out legal framework is required and that neither the existing nor the past legal rules are free from grave defects. Nor does it deny that, where it is impossible to create the conditions necessary to make the competition effective, we must resort to other methods of guiding economic activity. Economic liberalism is opposed, however, to competition's being supplanted by inferior methods of co-ordinating individual efforts. And it regards competition as superior not only because it is in most circumstances the most efficient method known but even more because it is the only method by which our activities can be adjusted to eachother without coercive or arbitrary intervention of authority. Indeed, on of the main arguements in favor of competition is that it dispenses with the nede for 'concsious social control' and that it gives the individuals a chance to decide wheter the prospects of a particular occupation are sufficient to compensate for the disadvantages and risks connected with it"-F.A. Hayek "The Road to Serfdom"

I'm going to have to ask you what you mean by 'capital', I think...

The means to production.

So? It's their money. If you want to feed people with your pocketbook, then do it: don't go out and buy computers or cars and then tell that guy to feed the poor. The idea that the rich should be forced to provide for the poor is an evasion of responsibility not only on a personal level [since you obviously would rather have bought a computer than $1000 worth of food for the bum on the corner of High and 17th] but on a cultural one too [since, most people argue no one would donate to the poor in a free society: the implication being that society doesn't value the poor and ought to be forced to].

I could not have said it better myself, excellenty put!

Agree with the policies or not, that was great 'politics'. :)

Think about 'god' for a moment.... what is god?

You can give textbook definitions for the word 'god'... you can quote the etymology... but does any of that equate to what god IS?

True, but if you could "equate" to God just by answering a question, you would have the power to demonstrate God. Or you'd BE God.

Same with money. If you don't know what money is by handling it, or knowing it's definitions, functions, uses, history... then obviously this whole language thing is insufficient to merely tell you it's complete essence.

Interesting that depending on who's asking the meaning, God and money are equally meaningless. :)

I dont think Libertarianism can work. Society and the economy needs regulations.

Only rich peope love libertarianism, simply because it is a system wich allows rich people to stay rich and prevents poor people from becoming rich.

Just like all socialists are whiney little runts who cannot actually succeed in society without stealing from those who do produce. Next time you want to make insulting generalizations based on nothing but your limited view of the world, keep it to yourself.

As for me, I get by on an income of about $400 a week right now, I have no assets besides my 96 S-10, and I have about $20k in school loans. I stand by capitalism, (I am not necessarily a libertarian) because of my moral stance.

Just like I don't think people should be forced into social relationships, I don't think they should be forced into economic relationships.

Just like I don't think people who are charismatic should be gagged in order to allow socially awkward to be heard, I don't think that talented people should be handcuffed to allow untalented people management responsibilities.

Life is full of inequalities, they are inherent with existance. It is immoral for government to handicap people based on these inherent inequalities.

It is an extreme form of capitalism and the biggest perversion of anarchism I have ever seen.

It is not anarchism, it is minarchism. They do not believe in an elimination of government, only a limit on its spectrum.

Libertarianism is basically like returning to the 18th- 19th century. It is in that periad that new iedeologies like anarchism and communism came to life: as a reaction to the oppressive bourgoisie.

Libertarianism would not be capable to return society to the 18th-19th (I think you mean 19th and early 20th) century, that would require the elimination of a century of the greatest technological advancement in history.

People advance when given the liberty to. It is up to government to allow society to advance, while not providing unfair advantages.

Really, libertarians are just selfish fatcats.EDIT: (I don't mean this as an insult, it is just the way it is)

Try to be a little less ignorant next time you post.

That's close to how I see it.

Capitalism is legitimised selfishness, and Libertarianism is Capitalism ,without the conscience...

The conscience in capitalism is freedom. Any attempts at defining an acceptable conscience and morality always fail, because people will refuse to comply.

Completely true, and there were far fewer opportunities to prosper then than there are now, given that there was a lack of public education, among other things.

Contradiction in terms.

It may be true that cheap money contributed to the speculation, but it was hardly the sole cause.

Cheap money allowed to happen.

No, I was referring to money in and of itself.

Not possible. As I said, a new form of money will come up. If you think money was an institution that was entirely imposed, you want your head checked. Money is what some call "spontaneous order", the tendency of people who live together to form types of order without external direction. A queue is a simple form of spontaneous order. In shops, etc, you don't see people directing a queue, they just seem to do it.

Money is similar. It was born of the inefficiencies of barter. I have explained its origin to you already, so it should be apparant to you that a new form of money would appear in its place. To actually abolish money, you would need a totalitarian state that would make North Korea look like a liberal democratic paradise. One might even find a serious contender to Oceania from "1984".

People often divert from official forms of money when the situation suits, Iraqis continued using Dinars with pictures of Saddam Hussein on them, after their central bank printed new ones reflecting his fall from power. Why? Because they knew the Saddam dinars would not inflate because they weren't being printed.

Early in the Allied occupation of Germany, the occupation government kept using old Reichmarks, but everyone knew they were worthless, and there was almost nothing to buy in official stores. You had to use the black market, and they used cigarettes and chocolate as money.

There were bank runs before the Fed was created, as a whole there were more then than there were now.

Fraudulent banking practices tend to lead to bank runs. The solution is to punish fraudulent behavior with the full force of the law. What central banking means is allowing people to get away with fraud.

The equivilant would be the government operating a "clone bank" to deal with murders, so that when someone was murdered, a clone could be "activated" to take his place.

I didn't say that he didn't need to be prosecuted, but that prosecution isn't going to do me any good if I needed that money to buy food.

It depends on how he is punished. I would argue that in such cases, assets should be seized, and distributed to those defrauded, and the criminal be made to work until his work had paid off the defrauded (if his assets didn't match). You may say that now he is the one starving, I would firstly say, not exactly true, he is in prison getting fed prison food, and secondly, it is his fault that he is deprived. If he deprived you, he should be deprived, and you compensated.

Conversely, I have a right to not be around the people who choose to engage in such activities.

It is not a "converse" point, both your point and mine follow the same idea, individual freedom, and soverignty. I don't quite know what you think you've achieved by saying this, except a basic understanding of libertarianism, which is good.

Smoking rates are decreasing for a number of factors, one of which is the illegality of smoking in certain areas.

It is not a general prohibition, and banning smoking in certain areas has merely driven it outside. Rather than smoking in offices, people smoke outside during their breaks.

Inflation is the result of across the board price increases by sellers of commodities, whatever they may be.

Nonsense. That is simply a price increase. Inflation is an increase in the money supply. If it is done by a central bank, it is government intervention.

It is not stolen property, and it doesn't need to contribute to the creation of wealth.

It is. It is extracted from its owners by use, or threat of force without their consent. How is that not stealing? Just because the thief has a crown on his peaked cap?

There are more examples of economic liberty leading to less prosperity than there are of economic liberty leading to prosperity, so the burden of proof is on you.

Rubbish. That point makes no sense, it has no grounding in fact, while the nations most free in economic terms are the most propserous, Hong Kong for example.

This is what the definition of what a libertarian government is, yes, but there's nothing within the concept of a libertarian government which prevents this from happening and no longer being a libertarian government.

Yes, there is. We believe in strictly limited government, and we know that if a government has a way to go outside its limits, it will find and use it. We think in terms of closing all the loopholes on governments (like the interstate commerce clause in the US Constitution)

What's going to stop the politician from passing laws saying that this is impossible? The threat of not being reelected? Oh horror of horrors! You'd simply be electing a series of politicians who use their office as nothing more than a place of business.

Under a libertarian state, a government can do nothing other than keep security, and protect rights. Do you understand the idea of placing limitations on government through such things as constitutions, judiciaries, voting, etc?

Libertarians are usually against the idea of law enforcement accessing the bank records of people, so how would it be proven that a politician is accepting bribes?

What libertarians are against are warantless searches.

This is another example of the destruction of wealth being a good thing.

No, it isn't. Public education has produced generation, upon generation of zombies, and the jurisdictions that spend the most, Washington DC, for example, have the worst performance.

No, the free market does not do so, which is one of the reasons I am against it.

Yet we have Hong Kong, the freest market on Earth, and it has attracted workers from nations with much less free markets. Clearly, they must prefer the free market economy, and its consequences. If they didn't, they'd stay at home.

It is good for the majority of people. While there isn't a fixed pile of wealth that must be redistributed, wealth is finite.

That is a contradiction in terms. Either there is, or isn't a fixed pile of wealth. There is no basis for the finite wealthy argument. The only things that could possibly limit wealth is the limitations of the human imagination, and the destruction advocated by people like you.

No, what I'm saying is that if a person wishes to receive the benefits of the nation in which they live, then they must pay a fee, or a "tax" if you will. The threat of jail for not paying up is no different than your landlord threatening to evict you if you don't pay your rent.

There is no equivilance between tax, and rent. For one thing, rent is the result of a voluntary contract, tax is done by force. Can you scan, and email me a copy of the contract I signed with the Commonwealth of Australia stating that I will pay a certain amount of tax, in return for which, I get nothing much?

In such cases, all the employers are paying just $2 an hour, so there is not that much free will involved. Do you think that all sweatshop workers are there out of free will? No, they're there because there is no alternative. It's either work there or starve.

You have contradicted yourself. Either people are directly forcing them to work, or they made a choice, with work being in their view a better choice than starving. You're complaint boils down to "they don't have a large number of really nice alternatives", to which I can only say that during the 18th and 19th centuries, neither did we in the developed world. We progressed through stages of market capitalism which got us here now, with in relative terms what can only be considered huge prosperity.

You are saying that they should not be allowed to go through those stages.

Because you need food to live but you don't need a Gulfstream jet to live.

I can scavenge food from the wild.

Fascism, as an ideal, is 'unity'. That would be the core precept... and the only element actually required to allow a regime to count as 'fascistic'.

You let yourself be led too easily by modern 'versions' of what words might mean, my friend.... and you are too easily convinced that a real-world example of a corrupted ideal, is EQUAL TO the 'sum of' that ideal...

That can be said for many ideologies.

Capitalism is legitimised selfishness, and Libertarianism is Capitalism ,without the conscience...

Selfishness exists. Deal with it.

Individuals have conscience, political systems, and groups don't.

Okay... now do that again.... and this time, imagine there is no currency...

Currency is a spontaneous order. No one has given a realistic scenario in which it will simply go away. If the US pulped every single Federal Reserve Note in existance, and melted down to ingots every coin it had ever printed, people would still find and use a form of money.

Contradiction in terms.Public education is one of the things that enables people to prosper, as it is quite difficult to do so without an education.

Cheap money allowed to happen.It contributed to it, but the nature of speculation is what allowed it to happen.

Not possible. As I said, a new form of money will come up. If you think money was an institution that was entirely imposed, you want your head checked. Money is what some call "spontaneous order", the tendency of people who live together to form types of order without external direction. A queue is a simple form of spontaneous order. In shops, etc, you don't see people directing a queue, they just seem to do it.

Money is similar. It was born of the inefficiencies of barter. I have explained its origin to you already, so it should be apparant to you that a new form of money would appear in its place. To actually abolish money, you would need a totalitarian state that would make North Korea look like a liberal democratic paradise. One might even find a serious contender to Oceania from "1984".

People often divert from official forms of money when the situation suits, Iraqis continued using Dinars with pictures of Saddam Hussein on them, after their central bank printed new ones reflecting his fall from power. Why? Because they knew the Saddam dinars would not inflate because they weren't being printed.

Early in the Allied occupation of Germany, the occupation government kept using old Reichmarks, but everyone knew they were worthless, and there was almost nothing to buy in official stores. You had to use the black market, and they used cigarettes and chocolate as money.I am aware that money evolved from the inefficiencies of barter, but the question of course is whether or not there need to be a barter or similar exchange system at all.

I also find it amusing that you are using the work of a socialist (Orwell) in an argument against me.

Fraudulent banking practices tend to lead to bank runs. The solution is to punish fraudulent behavior with the full force of the law. What central banking means is allowing people to get away with fraud.

The equivilant would be the government operating a "clone bank" to deal with murders, so that when someone was murdered, a clone could be "activated" to take his place.While allowing people to get away with fraud is a bad thing, it is not as bad as the effects of a bank run on the people who don't get their money.

It depends on how he is punished. I would argue that in such cases, assets should be seized, and distributed to those defrauded, and the criminal be made to work until his work had paid off the defrauded (if his assets didn't match). You may say that now he is the one starving, I would firstly say, not exactly true, he is in prison getting fed prison food, and secondly, it is his fault that he is deprived. If he deprived you, he should be deprived, and you compensated.Who does he work for? If he works for the prison system, that hardly benefits me. How much is he paid an hour?

It is not a "converse" point, both your point and mine follow the same idea, individual freedom, and soverignty. I don't quite know what you think you've achieved by saying this, except a basic understanding of libertarianism, which is good.I understand the concept of libertarianism, one of the definitions I would give myself is "libertarian socialist".

It is not a general prohibition, and banning smoking in certain areas has merely driven it outside. Rather than smoking in offices, people smoke outside during their breaks.It's entirely possible that it is the first step towards a general prohibition. But I find it an acceptable compromise to keep drugs legal, but limit the areas in which people can use drugs.

Nonsense. That is simply a price increase. Inflation is an increase in the money supply. If it is done by a central bank, it is government intervention.All price increases are weighed against the amount of money a person has.

Rubbish. That point makes no sense, it has no grounding in fact, while the nations most free in economic terms are the most propserous, Hong Kong for example.I'll give two historic examples:

The Gilded Age
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gilded_Age

Victorian England
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victorian_England

It is irrelevent whether or not the nations in question are prosperous or not if the majority of people in those nations don't benefit from that prosperity. Trickle down economics is bogus.

Yes, there is. We believe in strictly limited government, and we know that if a government has a way to go outside its limits, it will find and use it. We think in terms of closing all the loopholes on governments (like the interstate commerce clause in the US Constitution)

Under a libertarian state, a government can do nothing other than keep security, and protect rights. This is true technically, because once the government does something other than keep security and protect rights (and it will), it will no longer be libertarian by definition.

Do you understand the idea of placing limitations on government through such things as constitutions, judiciaries, voting, etc?I understand the theory of doing so...the reality is quite different.

What libertarians are against are warantless searches.What would a libertarian consider sufficient grounds on which to get a warrant?

No, it isn't. Public education has produced generation, upon generation of zombies, and the jurisdictions that spend the most, Washington DC, for example, have the worst performance.And it has also produced generation upon generation of geniuses. While it is true that private schools have better students as a whole, it is wrong to discount the ability of public schools to produce geniuses.

Yet we have Hong Kong, the freest market on Earth, and it has attracted workers from nations with much less free markets. Clearly, they must prefer the free market economy, and its consequences. If they didn't, they'd stay at home.And likewise, clearly you must prefer being taxed and its consequences, otherwise you'd move to Hong Kong.

That is a contradiction in terms. Either there is, or isn't a fixed pile of wealth. There is no basis for the finite wealthy argument. The only things that could possibly limit wealth is the limitations of the human imagination, and the destruction advocated by people like you.There is a fixed pile of wealth, but that doesn't mean that we have reached the maximum amount of wealth yet. Wealth is finite, for one of the reasons that you mentioned, that there are a finite amount of possible ideas.

There is no equivilance between tax, and rent. For one thing, rent is the result of a voluntary contract, tax is done by force. Can you scan, and email me a copy of the contract I signed with the Commonwealth of Australia stating that I will pay a certain amount of tax, in return for which, I get nothing much?Rent usually involves a contract signed. Furthermore, taxes could just as easily be equated with a utility fee - you are threatened with your utilities being shut off if you can't pay the fee.

Public education is one of the things that enables people to prosper, as it is quite difficult to do so without an education.

Good education is what helps people prosper. However, public education isn't effective, and it can only help people prosper at the unwilling expense of others.

It contributed to it, but the nature of speculation is what allowed it to happen.

Nonsense. Speculation isn't a viable practice in sound money conditions.

I am aware that money evolved from the inefficiencies of barter, but the question of course is whether or not there need to be a barter or similar exchange system at all.

That is a very simple question. The voluntary trading of private property has given the world more prosperity, and a better standard of living than any other system.

No other system has shown an ability to better capitalism, or even keep up with it.

While allowing people to get away with fraud is a bad thing, it is not as bad as the effects of a bank run on the people who don't get their money.

You're attacking the symptom (which seems to be the normal behavior of socialists), not the problem. The problem is that a banker can commit fraud, without paying the cost of doing so.

As to the people who don't get their money, firstly, their money is gone. What you are suggesting is that if your car is stolen, the government should conjure another car out of thin air, and give it to you. I doubt you'd expect them to do that for good reason, namely the inability of anyone to conjure cars from thin air.

Why should you be entitled to expect the government to do the same for money?

By allowing the bale-out by government of banks that defraud their depositors, what you are doing is encouraging more fraud.

Also, the money the depositors receive is created out of thin air, which means that everyone but the fraudster pays for the fraud in higher prices.

Who does he work for? If he works for the prison system, that hardly benefits me. How much is he paid an hour?

You have this expectation of being spoonfed every single detail. It is obvious from my post. that the revenue his labour generates must go to the defrauded parties. Otherwise there is no point to it.

I understand the concept of libertarianism, one of the definitions I would give myself is "libertarian socialist".

You don't really, and there is no compatibility between libertarianism and socialism. Socialism cannot co-exist with libertarianism because socialism denies individual liberty, and individual soverignty. Socialism holds that other people have a higher claim to someone's life than that someone.

It's entirely possible that it is the first step towards a general prohibition.

In which case the general pattern of prohibition will take hold.

But I find it an acceptable compromise to keep drugs legal, but limit the areas in which people can use drugs.

So, you are content with the state telling you what to do with your body?

All price increases are weighed against the amount of money a person has.

That is why we call it a price increase.

I'll give two historic examples:

GA

Your GA article doesn't show a free market. It includes such institutions as tariffs, and subsidies, and immigration restrictions which means a removal of a free market in labour. Secondly, there are factual errors, including the assertion that urbanisation caused child labour, rather than inherited it. Child labour was a pre-Industrial practice.

Your Victorian era article includes nothing that would support your argument.

It is irrelevent whether or not the nations in question are prosperous or not if the majority of people in those nations don't benefit from that prosperity. Trickle down economics is bogus.

Rubbish.

I understand the theory of doing so...the reality is quite different.

And is not a topic that is in itself libertarian. It is part of more general discourses about government.

What would a libertarian consider sufficient grounds on which to get a warrant?

For the most part, politicial ideologies, or intellectual traditions don't spend their time on the minutiae of criminal law. There is no libertarian answer to that question.

And it has also produced generation upon generation of geniuses. While it is true that private schools have better students as a whole, it is wrong to discount the ability of public schools to produce geniuses.

No, it hasn't, and public education is getting worse, inspite of the pouring in of even more money.

And likewise, clearly you must prefer being taxed and its consequences, otherwise you'd move to Hong Kong.

So, if my rights are violated, I should give way. That sounds rather like telling a rape victim "spread you legs a little wider"

There is a fixed pile of wealth, but that doesn't mean that we have reached the maximum amount of wealth yet. Wealth is finite, for one of the reasons that you mentioned, that there are a finite amount of possible ideas.

You cannot know that there is a finite amount of ideas, nor should you twist my arguments to that position. In terms of natural resources, wealth is still not finite, because firstly, we don't know what resources we have. If you think we do, ask yourself this: would a man who lived in the 15th century know of uranium as a resource?

Rent usually involves a contract signed. Furthermore, taxes could just as easily be equated with a utility fee - you are threatened with your utilities being shut off if you can't pay the fee.

Rent always involves a contract, and voluntary trade involves a contract. It need not necessarily be written, but it is always there. When I buy a bottle of milk from Woolworth's, I enter into a contract with them to exchange titles to my $2, and their bottle of milk. We don't sign anything because the contract is so immediate, and so simple that nothing needs to be signed. For renting a building, the issues are more complex (and are irrelevant to this discussion)

Taxes cannot be equated to a fee because I'm being forced to pay for stuff I never contracted for. In the case of a utility fee, I have choice, I can choose different providers, each provider may have different structures of services and payments. I can choose not to use it.

Taxes are theft. I have proven this fact, theft is the nonconsensual deprivation of property, and taxation is a nonconsensual deprivation of property. If it were consensual, people who don't pay their taxes wouldn't be sent to prison.

According to you. By a capitalist's conscience there may be different answers which many people agree with instead of yours. You assume that your conscience is right and accepted by everyone when its far from that.
And none of the libertarians who've posted in this thread are arguing from that standpoint? There's at least a couple who appear to believe that their own prejudices form the moral bedrock of the universe and are unquestionable facts, rather than opinions.

And none of the libertarians who've posted in this thread are arguing from that standpoint? There's at least a couple who appear to believe that their own prejudices form the moral bedrock of the universe and are unquestionable facts, rather than opinions.

And they would be correct, the underlying libertarian tenets of social, civil, and economic freedom should be the moral bedrock of all society. However, the spectrum of what can be considered property is debatable.

So, while I have sympathies for those who consider natural resources, ideas, and land to not be property, I have no respect for the viewpoint that government should use their power to economically handicap people based on their financial standing or ability.

And they would be correct, the underlying libertarian tenets of social, civil, and economic freedom should be the moral bedrock of all society.
No, this is an opinion that you believe to be correct. It doesn't have any objective truth that can be tested or demonstrated.

No, this is an opinion that you believe to be correct. It doesn't have any objective truth that can be tested or demonstrated.

Governments use of people as a mean to another's end is immoral, would you not agree?

Governments use of people as a mean to another's end is immoral, would you not agree?
Not inherently, no: it would depend on how people are being used and to what ends said usage is being put. This is why it's a matter of opinion: not everybody is obliged to agree that your own beliefs are as inarguable and irroprachable as you do.
It's also notable that the formation of a standing army and a police force come under that (incredibly generalised) description, and these seem to be the only two functions of Government that most libertarians seem willing to tolerate.

Not inherently, no

You mean "Inherently, yes", but.....

it would depend on how people are being used and to what ends said usage is being put.

Care to explain how it can ever be moral?

This is why it's a matter of opinion: not everybody is obliged to agree that your own beliefs are as inarguable and irroprachable as you do.[/QUOTE]

The thing about my beliefs, though, is that they have nothing to say about your morality, my morality does not care whether you deem to allow all to use the goods that you own. In that sense you have no reason to reproach my morality.

It's also notable that the formation of a standing army and a police force come under that (incredibly generalised) description, and these seem to be the only two functions of Government that most libertarians seem willing to tolerate.

The army and police force are necessary to prevent undue harm. We do not have a system where people can legitimately protect themselves.

Furthermore, I don't know what that has to do with my comment on using people as a means.

The thing about my beliefs, though, is that they have nothing to say about your morality, my morality does not care whether you deem to allow all to use the goods that you own. In that sense you have no reason to reproach my morality.
I'm noty, I am merely pointing out that trying to pass off subjective interpretations as objective facts is a somewhat dubious rhetorical device (admittedly you're hardly the worst offender on this account in this thread).

The army and police force are necessary to prevent undue harm. We do not have a system where people can legitimately protect themselves.

Furthermore, I don't know what that has to do with my comment on using people as a means.
They are government employees, therefore they are people who the Government are using as means. And I suspect that you've just admitted they constitute an example of the Government using people that you can tolerate, if not quite find morally acceptable.

I'm noty, I am merely pointing out that trying to pass off subjective interpretations as objective facts is a somewhat dubious rhetorical device (admittedly you're hardly the worst offender on this account in this thread).

I am not saying that you are, I am just saying that, since my morality has universal applicability, there is no need for it to be reproached. No one is disallowed from socialistic activities.

They are government employees, therefore they are people who the Government are using as means. And I suspect that you've just admitted they constitute an example of the Government using people that you can tolerate, if not quite find morally acceptable.

They are freely employed. Being a capitalist, I do not believe that those who are freely employed are being used as a means. There is a mutual benefit in this situation, the soldiers provide a means to the people's ends, and in compensation, the people provide a means to the soldier's ends.

The means to production.

See... that's kind of what I thought you meant to start with... but then I couldn't reconcile that with "Capital can only be used once and then it is gone; it is converted into end goods".

?

See... that's kind of what I thought you meant to start with... but then I couldn't reconcile that with "Capital can only be used once and then it is gone; it is converted into end goods".

?

Means to production cannot be shared. They are used are consumed upon first use. If I make cars and you make appliances, we cannot share a pound of aluminum, it either goes into the car or the appliances, and once it does it ceases to be a means to production and becomes a consumer good.

Because when your arguing about something its important to make sure that you are both refering to the same thing and not opperating on a different mindset otherwise the arguement really has no point. You made the point that capitalism is about selfishness. Well if we look at what selfishness is and put the definition of capitalism by it we can see that it is not about ones self rather it is just an economic system where people can or can not be selfish in. And to answer your question capitalism is an economic system. I gave you a definition last post so I really don't see why you needed to ask that.


See, I disagree... and I think your 'definitions' are obfuscation... clouding the real meaning. Sure, capitalism is.... sure, selfishness is... and you can list all the definitions you like for each. But, selfishness is, at heart - making (or trying to make) something that is 'not yours', to be 'yours'... or trying to build fences round something that was already 'yours'.

Capitalism, at heart, is claiming that something is 'yours', and/or the mechanisms to make things that aren't 'yours', to be 'yours'.


Thats a conscience that not everyone espouses. Some people say that the world was made by god and that the resources are ours to use as we see fit. You keep assuming that there is 1 correct conscience that everyone will agree on which is not true.


It is not a matter of 'correct' conscience... it is a matter of what is sensible... and, dare I say it, 'fair'.

If we cut down all the trees today, we will have no wood tomorrow... and soon after, no air. That is not a matter of 'conscience' tied to any ONE faith or political ideal.


"It is important not to confuse opposition against this kind of planning with dogmatic laissez ffaire attitude. The liberal argument is in favor of making the best possible use of the forces of competition as a means of co-ordinating human efforts, not an arguement for leaving things just as they are. It is based on the conviction that, where effective competition can be created, it is a better way of guiding individual efforts than any other. It does not deny, but even emphasizes, that in order that competition should work beneficially, a carefully thought-out legal framework is required and that neither the existing nor the past legal rules are free from grave defects. Nor does it deny that, where it is impossible to create the conditions necessary to make the competition effective, we must resort to other methods of guiding economic activity. Economic liberalism is opposed, however, to competition's being supplanted by inferior methods of co-ordinating individual efforts. And it regards competition as superior not only because it is in most circumstances the most efficient method known but even more because it is the only method by which our activities can be adjusted to eachother without coercive or arbitrary intervention of authority. Indeed, on of the main arguements in favor of competition is that it dispenses with the nede for 'concsious social control' and that it gives the individuals a chance to decide wheter the prospects of a particular occupation are sufficient to compensate for the disadvantages and risks connected with it"-F.A. Hayek "The Road to Serfdom"

To me, Hayek reads like someone too fond of his own verbosity... but that is the least of his failings. He ignores the fact that some things need to be done, regardless of whether there are disadvantage or risk. He sweeps such issues under the carpet, with the flick of 'competition'... like it is okay to kill people, if there is a pay-packet forced high enough by the market.

And what of competition? The strongest body in a competition, given free libertarian rein, will become a monopoly... and thus, the enemy of competition.

The conscience in capitalism is freedom. Any attempts at defining an acceptable conscience and morality always fail, because people will refuse to comply.

You say that like it is a defense...

If there is a law that says murder is illegal, and some people refuse to comply with that law, their actions are against that law... and, one might argue, a bad thing.

The 'conscience' of business should be no different to the 'conscience' of all our existence... There is no way in which hoarding all the resources and salting the earth can be considered a good thing for all mankind.

You're attacking the symptom (which seems to be the normal behavior of socialists), not the problem.

Well, at least a few socialists have the guts to go after the root: capitalism.;)

Good education is what helps people prosper. However, public education isn't effective, and it can only help people prosper at the unwilling expense of others.


Public education isn't effective? I beg to differ. It depends entirely on the school, of course... and where it is... and how many pupils it has, and the quality of the teaching staff... and hundreds of other factors.

I went to a public school... and you would be right, there... it was not effective. But, it was also in the suburbs of a new-town, and had something like 3000 pupils. A close friend went to 'the other' public school, and got a very effective education.

Governments use of people as a mean to another's end is immoral, would you not agree?

Governments don't use people... people use people.

You say that like it is a defense...

If there is a law that says murder is illegal, and some people refuse to comply with that law, their actions are against that law... and, one might argue, a bad thing.

The 'conscience' of business should be no different to the 'conscience' of all our existence... There is no way in which hoarding all the resources and salting the earth can be considered a good thing for all mankind.

No one bound by the limits of the human mind can definitively tell another how to properly conduct their behavior. There is no other person qualified to judge individual morality besides the individual himself.

For that reason, people will always seek to skirt the rules on behavior, sometimes justly, sometimes unjustly. Also for that reason, any attempt to assign behavioral limits upon someone is immoral. Freedom must be allowed.

Means to production cannot be shared. They are used are consumed upon first use. If I make cars and you make appliances, we cannot share a pound of aluminum, it either goes into the car or the appliances, and once it does it ceases to be a means to production and becomes a consumer good.

So - you aren't talking about the 'means to production', at all... you are talking about the resources?

Surely, the 'means to production' would be the assembly line? The workers? The machinery?

None of which are 'used up' in the production. (Or, shouldn't be, in most cases...)

I don't see how the resource thing is that big a problem. If everything is attributed upon a 'need' basis, then the results of production must be things that are 'needed'.

Thus - you allocate the resource, according to the need.... no?

They are freely employed.
Not in every case they're not. Look up "draft" on an online dictionary. Also, hasn't there been a tendency in the 'States at various times to allow people to join up rather than being imprisoned? Both of these are examples of people being coerced into doing a job they would not otherwise have wished to perform.

No one bound by the limits of the human mind can definitively tell another how to properly conduct their behavior. There is no other person qualified to judge individual morality besides the individual himself.

For that reason, people will always seek to skirt the rules on behavior, sometimes justly, sometimes unjustly. Also for that reason, any attempt to assign behavioral limits upon someone is immoral. Freedom must be allowed.

This is all entirely true... if one lives in a society of one.

However, I do not believe we are talking about solo-societies...thus one becomes party to the prviliges and responsibilities of whichever society one accepts/is accepted by.

Governments don't use people... people use people.

Ok, well then people using government to use other people.

Not in every case they're not. Look up "draft" on an online dictionary. Also, hasn't there been a tendency in the 'States at various times to allow people to join up rather than being imprisoned? Both of these are examples of people being coerced into doing a job they would not otherwise have wished to perform.

The draft is not a government policy I, or very many libertarians, support.

See, I disagree... and I think your 'definitions' are obfuscation... clouding the real meaning. Sure, capitalism is.... sure, selfishness is... and you can list all the definitions you like for each. But, selfishness is, at heart - making (or trying to make) something that is 'not yours', to be 'yours'... or trying to build fences round something that was already 'yours'.

How does defining something cloud its meaning? I would expect the exact opposite to happen instead of more confusion occuring. Yet you seem to go by a definition which is not accepted and when challenged on this you say I'm clouding the real meaning.

Capitalism, at heart, is claiming that something is 'yours', and/or the mechanisms to make things that aren't 'yours', to be 'yours'.
No capitalism is at heart an economic system where the means of production are privately owned. Now selfishness is not simply claiming something is yours, rather its concern with ones own interest above others. Now as I've pointed out before the people who use the system can be selfish or not but that does not make the system itself "selfish".



It is not a matter of 'correct' conscience... it is a matter of what is sensible... and, dare I say it, 'fair'. If we cut down all the trees today, we will have no wood tomorrow... and soon after, no air. That is not a matter of 'conscience' tied to any ONE faith or political ideal.

"The 'social goal' or 'common purpose,' for which society is to be organized is usually vaguely described as the 'common good,' the 'general welfar' or the 'general interest.' It does not need much reflection to see that these terms have no sufficiently definite meaning to determine a particular course of action. The welfare and the happiness of millions cannot be measured on a single scale of less and more. The welfare of a people, like the happiness of a man, depends on a great many things that can be provided in an infinte variety of combinations. It cannot be adequately expressed as a single end, but only as a hierarchy of ends, a comprehensive scale of calues in which every need of every person is given its place. To direct all our activities according to a single plan presupposes that every one of our needs is given its rank in an order of values which must be complete enough to make it possible to decide among all the different courses which the planner has to choose. It presupposes, in short, the existence of a complete ethical code in which all the different human values are allotted their due place.

The conception of a complete ethical code is unfamiliar, and it requires some effort of imagination to see what it involves. We are not in the habit of thinking of moral codes as more or less complete. The fact that we are constantly choosing between different values without a social code prescribing how we ought to choose does not suprise us and does not suggest to us that our moral code is incomplete. In our society there is neither occasion nor reason why people should develop common ciews about what should be done in such situations. But where all the means to be used are the property of society and are to be used in the name of society according to a unitary plan, a 'social' view about what ought to be done must guide all decisions. In such a world we should soon find that our moral code is full of gaps.

We are not concerned here with the question wheter it would be desireable to have such a complete ethical code. It may mnerely be pointed out that up to the present the growth of civilizatio nhas been accompanied by a steady diminution of the sphere in which individual actions are bound by fixed rules. These rules of which our common moral code consists have become fewer and more general in character. From the primitive man, who was bound by elaborate ritual in almost every one of his daily activities, who was limited by innumerable taboos, and who could scarcely conceive of doing things in a way different from his fellows, morals have more and more tended to become merely limits circumscribing the sphere within which the individual could behave as he liked. The adoption of a common ethical code comprehensive enough to determine a unitary economic plan would mean a complete reversal of this tendency.

The essential point for us is that no such complete ethical code exists. The attempt to direct all economic activity according to a single plan would raise innumerable questions to which the answer could be provided only by a moral rule, but to which existing morals have no answer and where there eixists no agreed view on what ought to be done. People will have either no definite views or conflicting views on such questions, because in the free society in which we have lived there has been no occasion to think about them and still less to form common opinions about them.

Not only do we n ot possess such an all inclusive scale of values: it would be impossible for any mind to comprehend the infinite variety of different needs of different people which compete for the available resources and to attach a definite weight to each. For our problem it is of minor importance wheter the ends for which any person cares comprehend only his individual needs, or wheter they include the needs of his closer or even more distant fellows-- that is, wheter he is egoistic or altruistic in the ordinary sense of these words. The point which is so important is the basic fact that it is impossible for any man to survey more then a limited field, to be aware of the urgency of more then a limited number of needs. Whether his interests center round his own physical needs, or whether he takes a warm interest in the welfare of every human being he knows, the ends about which he can be concerned will always be only an infinitesimal fraction of the needs of all men."- F.A. Hayek "The Road to Serfdom"

You say that loging restrictions would be fair to all in order to make sure that we all have air? Well what about the logger who suddenly can't make enough money to support his family because of those restrictions? What about the families that could have moved in to that land once it has been deforrested and made into a residential area? Is it fair that your removing the chance for them to move to a nice area and get a fresh start?

To me, Hayek reads like someone too fond of his own verbosity... but that is the least of his failings. He ignores the fact that some things need to be done, regardless of whether there are disadvantage or risk. He sweeps such issues under the carpet, with the flick of 'competition'... like it is okay to kill people, if there is a pay-packet forced high enough by the market.
Strawman. No where does Hayek say its okay to kill people and no where does he sweep that under the carpet.

And what of competition? The strongest body in a competition, given free libertarian rein, will become a monopoly... and thus, the enemy of competition.
Well your statement assumes that the strongest body will become a monopoly. There are plenty of industries where there are numerous strong organizations that are in no ways monopolies that have total control of the market. That and there is a quote by someone who I can't remeber their name that goes along the lines "the only true monopoly is that of the state" or something to that effect.

Ok, well then people using government to use other people.

But, unless you don't vote, don't contribute to any politcal (and, even religious) organisation, and maintain neutrality, we ALL use people... indeed, we all use the government to use people.

What is it about my 'anti-murder' stance that impacts my neighbour's murderous tendencies? The fact that the representatives I support, are 'against' that position.

And, because there are more people with my stance, than there are with my neighbour's stance, my will is done... executed through the government, applying pressure to the people, so that the 'end' I desire is satisfied by the 'means' they use.

So - you aren't talking about the 'means to production', at all... you are talking about the resources?

All means to production are rooted in natural resources.

I don't see how the resource thing is that big a problem. If everything is attributed upon a 'need' basis, then the results of production must be things that are 'needed'.

Thus - you allocate the resource, according to the need.... no?

How is this need identified? How are future needs identified?

If production is retroactively based on past needs, would advances in production come to a halt?

This is all entirely true... if one lives in a society of one.

However, I do not believe we are talking about solo-societies...thus one becomes party to the prviliges and responsibilities of whichever society one accepts/is accepted by.

Society will exist whether or not there is government or laws. Laws are necessary, however, to provide an orderly society. I am not promoting a "society of one", I am promoting a society of individuals.

Individuals are allowed complete personal behavior, but are given laws for when they choose to interact. Socialism forces interaction.

But, unless you don't vote, don't contribute to any politcal (and, even religious) organisation, and maintain neutrality, we ALL use people... indeed, we all use the government to use people.

You don't seem to realize that I am using my vote to get rid of government's ability to use people. I oppose any policy that seeks to give advantage to one portion of society over another.

No man should be a means unless he chooses to be.

What is it about my 'anti-murder' stance that impacts my neighbour's murderous tendencies? The fact that the representatives I support, are 'against' that position.

And, because there are more people with my stance, than there are with my neighbour's stance, my will is done... executed through the government, applying pressure to the people, so that the 'end' I desire is satisfied by the 'means' they use.

Your "anti-murder stance" is morally backed as a defence of your liberty. Your neighbor seeks to use your death as a means to whatever end he has.

A simple vote does not justify law.

How does defining something cloud its meaning? I would expect the exact opposite to happen instead of more confusion occuring. Yet you seem to go by a definition which is not accepted and when challenged on this you say I'm clouding the real meaning.


I'm not looking for a 'definition'... I'm looking for what the thing IS... what is at the heart of it.

You say Capitalism is 'an economic system'... like that explains it... well, in that case, capitalism = communism... because that's an economic model, also.

I'm looking for the fundamental transaction that makes capitalism, 'capitalism'.


No capitalism is at heart an economic system where the means of production are privately owned. Now selfishness is not simply claiming something is yours, rather its concern with ones own interest above others. Now as I've pointed out before the people who use the system can be selfish or not but that does not make the system itself "selfish".


Isn't the argument that capitalism is private ownership...? And, corporate ownership, is a FORM of private ownership?

And yet, you balk at the idea of the state (the biggest corporation IN the state) having 'private ownership'?

I'd argue with your interpretation of selfishness, also... it is non-functional.. since one can be selfish at remove. I am selfish for my daughter, for example.


You say that loging restrictions would be fair to all in order to make sure that we all have air? Well what about the logger who suddenly can't make enough money to support his family because of those restrictions? What about the families that could have moved in to that land once it has been deforrested and made into a residential area? Is it fair that your removing the chance for them to move to a nice area and get a fresh start?


Yes, of course it is fair!

If we take into account the sob story of every logger, because we want to introduce REASONABLE restriction... and we decide that the desires of the FEW outweigh the desires of the many.... and we ALLOW total deforestation, then our logger has condemned himself to an oxygen-free death, along with everyone else.

That's exactly what I mean about short-sightedness.


Strawman. No where does Hayek say its okay to kill people and no where does he sweep that under the carpet.


Jobs with high enough risk, are going to cost lives, no? But, let the fact that no bugger wants to do that job, build the pressure a little... and, hey presto... if it pays enough, it's fine...


Well your statement assumes that the strongest body will become a monopoly. There are plenty of industries where there are numerous strong organizations that are in no ways monopolies that have total control of the market. That and there is a quote by someone who I can't remeber their name that goes along the lines "the only true monopoly is that of the state" or something to that effect.

What strongest body would NOT try to create a monopoly?

Especially once limiting restrictions were removed?

And.. there is the crux. It's okay to be a monopoly... unless you are the state. The hypocritical core of libertarianism.

All means to production are rooted in natural resources.


More prevarication, I suspect....

Yes, the worker is originally constructed from resources... as is the 'machinery', no doubt.. and one could argue that the location is a 'resource'... but, why are we identifying the lion from it's claw?

The question wasn't resources, was it? It was capital?


How is this need identified? How are future needs identified?

If production is retroactively based on past needs, would advances in production come to a halt?

A unified approach is called for... just as it is within the capitalist model. Why do pro-capitalists throw 'wrenches' into the workings, that are not specific to the situation?

This one is 'need'... the last one was 'information'... before that, 'corruption'... like any of these things is need/problem ONLY in non-capitalist models...

More prevarication, I suspect....

Yes, the worker is originally constructed from resources... as is the 'machinery', no doubt.. and one could argue that the location is a 'resource'... but, why are we identifying the lion from it's claw?

The question wasn't resources, was it? It was capital?

Labor is a natural resource, so to speak, but it cannot be shared. Land is a natural resources, and it cannot be shared.

Capital can be shared, if we both need to go to work, we can take the bus.

However, capital's use is allocated at the resource stage.

A unified approach is called for... just as it is within the capitalist model. Why do pro-capitalists throw 'wrenches' into the workings, that are not specific to the situation?

This one is 'need'... the last one was 'information'... before that, 'corruption'... like any of these things is need/problem ONLY in non-capitalist models...

There is a huge difference between a unified approach based on individual input, and a unified approach based on collectivist input.

And how can you not say this is specific to the situation. Communism and capitalism differ only on the point of property rights, and property rights is a system of resource distribution. So the major difference between communism and capitalism is based on resource distribution.

So I ask you again, how is need determined, and how is a plan for satisfying these needs drawn up?

In capitalism an extremely complex and uncertain economic based on inventory and marginal utility drives this path, but it would not be the case under communism.

I'm not looking for a 'definition'... I'm looking for what the thing IS... what is at the heart of it.
And that is the very definition of a thing. There is no hidden smokescreen here. You want to know what something is you define it.

You say Capitalism is 'an economic system'... like that explains it... well, in that case, capitalism = communism... because that's an economic model, also.
If by capitalism = communism you mean that they are both economic systems then yes.

Isn't the argument that capitalism is private ownership...? And, corporate ownership, is a FORM of private ownership?

And yet, you balk at the idea of the state (the biggest corporation IN the state) having 'private ownership'?

Its not private ownership when the state owns it because the state is made up of everyone who is a citizen there, making such ownership public rather then private. I don't see a public park existing only for the state now do I?

I'd argue with your interpretation of selfishness, also... it is non-functional.. since one can be selfish at remove. I am selfish for my daughter, for example.
1. My definition of selfishness is in line with Merriam Webster's dictonary. Which is

Main Entry: self·ish
Pronunciation: 'sel-fish
Function: adjective
1 : concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others
2 : arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others <a selfish act>

2. Now I may just be reading this wrong but the sentence you just gave as an example sounds wierd to me. I'm not even sure if thats the correct useage for the adjective selfish. It seems your using it as a verb which I don't think is possible. Unless I'm just terribly confused at the example you've given.


Yes, of course it is fair!

If we take into account the sob story of every logger, because we want to introduce REASONABLE restriction... and we decide that the desires of the FEW outweigh the desires of the many.... and we ALLOW total deforestation, then our logger has condemned himself to an oxygen-free death, along with everyone else.

That's exactly what I mean about short-sightedness.
Its fair according to YOU. But according to me its not fair and its certainly not fair to the logger. You are taking the needs of everyone else above the needs of the logger so in that sense you are excluding someone's needs for other people's needs. Your prioritizing what you believe to be more important which may or may not be agreed upon by everyone else. You are doing what someone looking out for the gerneral welfare of all should not be doing which is putting the needs of some above the needs of others.



Jobs with high enough risk, are going to cost lives, no? But, let the fact that no bugger wants to do that job, build the pressure a little... and, hey presto... if it pays enough, it's fine...

Indeed, on of the main arguements in favor of competition is that it dispenses with the need for 'concsious social control' and that it gives the individuals a chance to decide wheter the prospects of a particular occupation are sufficient to compensate for the disadvantages and risks connected with it"-F.A. Hayek "The Road to Serfdom"

Its up to the individual to take a job or not. No one puts a gun to someone's head and says take this job or else. People will look at a job weight the cost and effects and then take the job or find another.



What strongest body would NOT try to create a monopoly?

Especially once limiting restrictions were removed?

And.. there is the crux. It's okay to be a monopoly... unless you are the state. The hypocritical core of libertarianism.
Man your horrible at reading things aren't you? I'll post hayek's arguement again because you seem to be confusing my attitude here with as Hayek puts it "dogmatic laissez faire attitude".

"It is important not to confuse opposition against this kind of planning with dogmatic laissez faire attitude. The liberal argument is in favor of making the best possible use of the forces of competition as a means of co-ordinating human efforts, not an arguement for leaving things just as they are. It is based on the conviction that, where effective competition can be created, it is a better way of guiding individual efforts than any other. It does not deny, but even emphasizes, that in order that competition should work beneficially, a carefully thought-out legal framework is required and that neither the existing nor the past legal rules are free from grave defects. Nor does it deny that, where it is impossible to create the conditions necessary to make the competition effective, we must resort to other methods of guiding economic activity. Economic liberalism is opposed, however, to competition's being supplanted by inferior methods of co-ordinating individual efforts. And it regards competition as superior not only because it is in most circumstances the most efficient method known but even more because it is the only method by which our activities can be adjusted to eachother without coercive or arbitrary intervention of authority. Indeed, on of the main arguements in favor of competition is that it dispenses with the need for 'concsious social control' and that it gives the individuals a chance to decide wheter the prospects of a particular occupation are sufficient to compensate for the disadvantages and risks connected with it"-F.A. Hayek "The Road to Serfdom"

Originally Posted by Melkor Unchained
My argument against welfare is a lot simpler [and funnier]:

"Welfare is to charity what rape is to sex."

Sadly this is precisely why welfare is necessary: the cunts with all the money refuse to open their legs without coercion.

Hmmm... How far can we extend this metaphor.... Hmmmmmm...

Welfare is "necessary" because you can't get something you don't deserve,
which you can't "woo" and "seduce" from the supplier, and have to resort
to "justified" violence?

Hmmmmm.. do you REALLY mean that..?

(( I thought not. ))


-Iakeo

The whole purpose of property is to distribute scarce resources, ideas, data, etc... are practically immaterial and if I give you an idea, or data, I lose nothing. All copyrights and patents do is restrict me from using my property in a way that I desire. Patents provide an enforced monopoly on the production of a certain kind of good or service.

Hmmm... How far can we extend this metaphor.... Hmmmmmm...

Welfare is "necessary" because you can't get something you don't deserve,
which you can't "woo" and "seduce" from the supplier, and have to resort
to "justified" violence?

Hmmmmm.. do you REALLY mean that..?

(( I thought not. ))


-Iakeo
I've already been over this: it was a facile metaphor in the first place.

Good education is what helps people prosper. However, public education isn't effective, and it can only help people prosper at the unwilling expense of others.Public education isn't as effective as private education can be, but that doesn't make it ineffective. Either way, someone who receives a public education is still going to be more likely to prosper than someone who receives no education at all.

Nonsense. Speculation isn't a viable practice in sound money conditions.Speculation is viable in any type of conditions, unless you're going to suggest that money conditions will always be unsound if money is issued by a government.

That is a very simple question. The voluntary trading of private property has given the world more prosperity, and a better standard of living than any other system.

No other system has shown an ability to better capitalism, or even keep up with it.This is true, but that's mostly because most possible systems haven't been tried on a large scale yet, such as communism.

You're attacking the symptom (which seems to be the normal behavior of socialists), not the problem. The problem is that a banker can commit fraud, without paying the cost of doing so.No, the problem is that I haven't gotten my money, whether or not the banker pays the cost of defrauding me is immaterial to this.

By allowing the bale-out by government of banks that defraud their depositors, what you are doing is encouraging more fraud.It isn't the best system, but it's better than not doing so. What the best system would be is abolishing the banking system, but that would naturally come with abolishing money.

You have this expectation of being spoonfed every single detail. It is obvious from my post. that the revenue his labour generates must go to the defrauded parties. Otherwise there is no point to it.I have the expectation of you making your own arguments, I'm not going to do it for you.

The fraudster, in the course of doing his labor, exists outside of the market. Since market forces don't determine how much he is getting paid, how is it determined what he gets paid?

You don't really, and there is no compatibility between libertarianism and socialism. Socialism cannot co-exist with libertarianism because socialism denies individual liberty, and individual soverignty. Socialism maximizes individual liberty and individual soverignty.

Socialism holds that other people have a higher claim to someone's life than that someone.Socialism accept the fact that if people are going to live together, they are going to have to make sacrifices. Even if that sacrifice only takes the form of "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins", it is still a sacrifice.

So, you are content with the state telling you what to do with your body?Since I have no desire to use drugs, in this case it's fine; however I did say that an acceptable compromise would be to allow people to do what they wish with their own bodies provided it was only in a few designated areas.

That is why we call it a price increase.And an across the board price increase is generally defined as inflation.

Your GA article doesn't show a free market. It includes such institutions as tariffs, and subsidies, and immigration restrictions which means a removal of a free market in labour. Secondly, there are factual errors, including the assertion that urbanisation caused child labour, rather than inherited it. Child labour was a pre-Industrial practice.The GA was the same era that you pointed to when you raved about how prosperous capitalism could be.

Your Victorian era article includes nothing that would support your argument.It wasn't as supportive as I'd have liked it to be, however the segment of prostitution supports my argument, as prostitution isn't prevalent in countries with low rates of poverty.

Rubbish.The prosperity of a country must be measured with regard to how everyone in the country is affected by it, otherwise the statistic is meaningless.

And is not a topic that is in itself libertarian. It is part of more general discourses about government.That's true, every system with a government will find these problems, all the more reason to eliminate government. The problem with libertarianism is that due to the imbalance of money, there is in imbalance of power, and therefore certain individuals will have an undue influence on the practices of government.

For the most part, politicial ideologies, or intellectual traditions don't spend their time on the minutiae of criminal law. There is no libertarian answer to that question.How would you answer the question?

No, it hasn't, and public education is getting worse, inspite of the pouring in of even more money. Public education in the U.S is pretty bad, but public education in Europe is fairly decent, so clearly the problem isn't the existence of public education itself.

So, if my rights are violated, I should give way. That sounds rather like telling a rape victim "spread you legs a little wider"Except that your rights aren't being violated.

You cannot know that there is a finite amount of ideas, nor should you twist my arguments to that position. What else could you havce meant by "except possibly the limits of the human imagination" other than "except possibly the limited amount of ideas"?
Secondly, there is a finite amount of ideas. An idea, by definition, has to be conceived. It takes an amount of time to conceive an idea, even if it's a fraction of a second. Since there is a finite amount of time, (even if you count the lifetimes of all the humans who have ever existed, it's still a finite amount of time), there is a finite amount of ideas.

In terms of natural resources, wealth is still not finite, because firstly, we don't know what resources we have. If you think we do, ask yourself this: would a man who lived in the 15th century know of uranium as a resource?Unless you believe in the concept of an infinite universe, resources must be finite.

More on wealth being finite can be found in this thread: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=462905

Rent always involves a contract, and voluntary trade involves a contract. It need not necessarily be written, but it is always there. When I buy a bottle of milk from Woolworth's, I enter into a contract with them to exchange titles to my $2, and their bottle of milk. We don't sign anything because the contract is so immediate, and so simple that nothing needs to be signed. For renting a building, the issues are more complex (and are irrelevant to this discussion)Exactly my point. If the only way of getting a bottle of milk is to pay $2, and you take the bottle of milk, you agree to the contract. If you took the bottle of milk without paying, you would be punished for it, and rightly so.

Taxes cannot be equated to a fee because I'm being forced to pay for stuff I never contracted for. By choosing to live in a country, you contract to pay taxes, as taxes are what the state (who are theoretically the people chosen by a society to run things for them) requires to live in the society, just as $2 is what Woolworth's requires for the bottle of milk.

In the case of a utility fee, I have choice, I can choose different providers, each provider may have different structures of services and payments. I can choose not to use it.And likewise, you can choose to move to a different country (a different provider with a different structure of services and payments), or you can choose to move to a deserted island (choosing not to use the utility).

Taxes are theft. I have proven this fact, theft is the nonconsensual deprivation of property, and taxation is a nonconsensual deprivation of property. You consent by the very fact of continuing to live in the country, just as you would consent to being billed by a utility company by continuing to use their services.

If it were consensual, people who don't pay their taxes wouldn't be sent to prison.People who don't pay their taxes are sent outside of society, since taxes are what society requires to live in it. (Just as someone who doesn't pay their utility fee is cut off, as the fee is what the utility company requires to use the utility). Prison is one way of sending someone outside of a society, deportation is another. Personally, I'd prefer deportation.

Furthermore, please be aware that when I say society, and the benefits thereof, this doesn't necessarily mean a tangible benefit, there are plenty of intangible benefits of living in a society.

Its fair according to YOU. But according to me its not fair and its certainly not fair to the logger. You are taking the needs of everyone else above the needs of the logger so in that sense you are excluding someone's needs for other people's needs. Your prioritizing what you believe to be more important which may or may not be agreed upon by everyone else. You are doing what someone looking out for the gerneral welfare of all should not be doing which is putting the needs of some above the needs of others.


If you honestly cannot see the point in this simplistic version of the situation, then I have no way to communicate with you.

I figured I'd go back a little bit and answer posts that I didn't answer or forgot to before.

Is working for $40,000/hr exploitation?
How appropriate is it to say that you're exploiting me when you've given me my best offer?
Presumably, $40,000/hr would not be exploitation. I say presumably because other information is needed. What makes something exploitation is not that it is the best offer made, but rather what the consequences would be of not taking the offer made. If the consequences of not taking the $40,000/hr job is taking a job that pays $39,000/hr, then offering the $40,000/hr job would not be exploitation, as the consequences of not taking the job are minimal.
It would be exploitation if the $40,000/hr job was the only job a person could get, as the consequences of not taking the job would be to starve to death.

Firstly, the governments that carried out the "thefts" were quite tyrannical, and I see no reason for people living today to pay for it.If you don't take action to rectify a wrong, it ceases to be a wrong. For instance, if it can be proven that Person A murdered Person B, and you don't punish Person A, then you are saying that Person B's murder is acceptable. The same applies to this example. If you don't justify this wrong, it becomes acceptable. You could argue that it happened over 100 years ago, and while it would be true it wouldn't make much of a difference. If you don't take action to right wrongs, then any atrocity committed now will become acceptable 100 years (or whatever timespan) from now.


And even if they were... from where do you derive the power to impose?
Since society is indirectly involved in the creation of pretty much all wealth, society should have a say in what happens to that wealth, even if that means destroying it.
Look at it this way...how much, in terms of wealth, would a random person have if they were living alone on a deserted island?
How much wealth does a random person living in a society have? Presumably, this would be more than if they were living alone on a deserted island (or if it isn't, something's horribly wrong with the society), therefore it must be the case that society assists in the creation of wealth.

You say Society should have a say over my chattels.


Basically, you're making a normative statement.
That being so, it is beyond proof ( a categoric propensity of normative statement ) and therefore irrelevant.


Meanwhile: my chattels, not yours.

You say Society should have a say over my chattels.


Basically, you're making a normative statement.
That being so, it is beyond proof ( a categoric propensity of normative statement ) and therefore irrelevant.


Meanwhile: my chattels, not yours.
It has a say by definition, as your chattels wouldn't be to the extent that they are without society.

It has a say by definition, as your chattels wouldn't be to the extent that they are without society.
By what definition? Not by any I subscribe to.
I accept the existence of other individuals. Some 6 billion or there abouts.
But I refuse to acknowledge the existence of 'society' in the first place.

By what definition? By any quantitative definition. If society said that you were no longer allowed to participate in it, your chattels would be affected, especially if you couldn't find another society to join.

I accept the existence of other individuals. Some 6 billion or there abouts.
But I refuse to acknowledge the existence of 'society' in the first place.Well, let's use a dictionary definition of society, for starters:
(From dictionary.com)

so·ci·e·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (s-s-t)
n. pl. so·ci·e·ties

The totality of social relationships among humans.

A group of humans broadly distinguished from other groups by mutual interests, participation in characteristic relationships, shared institutions, and a common culture.

The institutions and culture of a distinct self-perpetuating group.

Are you saying that you don't believe in the existence of these things?

By any quantitative definition. If society said that you were no longer allowed to participate in it, your chattels would be affected, especially if you couldn't find another society to join.

Well, let's use a dictionary definition of society, for starters:
(From dictionary.com)

so·ci·e·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (s-s-t)
n. pl. so·ci·e·ties

1. The totality of social relationships among humans.

2. A group of humans broadly distinguished from other groups by mutual interests, participation in characteristic relationships, shared institutions, and a common culture.

The institutions and culture of a distinct self-perpetuating group.

Are you saying that you don't believe in the existence of these things?

You may quote a dictionary definition of God.
Do you prove, by quoting, that God therefore exists?

And while I'm at it... clauses 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive.

You may quote a dictionary definition of God.
Do you prove, by quoting, that God therefore exists?No, which is why I asked you if you were saying that those things don't exist.

And while I'm at it... clauses 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive.
They are two different definitions of the same word. A society could mean all humans, or a subsect of humans, simply due to the meaning of the word. I would agree that all humans can't be a subsect of humans, but the definition wasn't meant to imply that they were the same thing.

No, which is why I asked you if you were saying that those things don't exist.


They are two different definitions of the same word. A society could mean all humans, or a subsect of humans, simply due to the meaning of the word. I would agree that all humans can't be a subsect of humans, but the definition wasn't meant to imply that they were the same thing.

I'm saying that you have shown me accumulations of individuals.
Large numbers, but still individuals, regardless of shared attributes.
I'm categorically denying the existence of a category Society.
You assign a tag. Very well. But, so what?

I'm saying that you have shown me accumulations of individuals.
Large numbers, but still individuals, regardless of shared attributes.
I'm categorically denying the existence of a category Society.
You assign a tag. Very well. But, so what?Well, while it wasn't the exact definition I was using, there are groups in the U.S. such as the Humane Society, and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA). Are you saying that these don't exist, as well?
Furthermore, you concede the existence of individuals with shared attributes. If you have all of these people within the same area - voila! you have a society.

Well, while it wasn't the exact definition I was using, there are groups in the U.S. such as the Humane Society, and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA). Are you saying that these don't exist, as well?
Furthermore, you concede the existence of individuals with shared attributes. If you have all of these people within the same area - voila! you have a society.

I'm afraid that your position is more eloquent when it comes to micromanaging your definition of a concept you perceive as ´society´than it is when it comes to declaring the principles guiding the existence per se of a concept you perceive as ´society´...

Are you then saying that it is the agglomerate of individuals known as the ASPCA that has a claim on my chattels?

My chattels, not yours.

I'm afraid that your position is more eloquent when it comes to micromanaging your definition of a concept you perceive as ´society´than it is when it comes to declaring the principles guiding the existence per se of a concept you perceive as ´society´...I was simply using the example of the ASPCA to prove the existence of societies, which you said you didn't believe in the existence of.
As far as the principles of what makes a society - a group of individuals with shared attributes or interests living together is what makes a society. If the interests weren't shared, or it wasn't in the best interests of the individuals to be a part of a particular society, then the individual would not be a part of that particular society.

Are you then saying that it is the agglomerate of individuals known as the ASPCA that has a claim on my chattels?If you're a member of the ASPCA, then yes, they do have a claim.

And I still don't.
You have shown me an agglomerate of individuals.
You say you've shown me another thing with another name.
You call an iceberg a desert - and then actually think I should think of it as a desert.
At best, an attempt at nomen ipse res est.

Dearly beloved forum: according to Biafra, if you are a member of the ASPCA, the ASPCA has title to your chattels!

Furthermore, according to Biafra, your membership of ASPCA has increased the total of your chattels...

And I still don't.
You have shown me an agglomerate of individuals.Are you think of a conglomerate of individuals? Why would I want to show an agglomerate?

You say you've shown me another thing with another name.
You call an iceberg a desert - and then actually think I should think of it as a desert.
At best, an attempt at nomen ipse res est.I've shown you all examples of societies. The definition I typically use is the first one: "The totality of social relationships among humans."

Dearly beloved forum: according to Biafra, if you are a member of the ASPCA, the ASPCA has title to your chattels!The ASPCA, as far as I know, does charge a membership fee.

Furthermore, according to Biafra, your membership of ASPCA has increased the total of your chattels...It could have, for instance, if you are in the pet supply business, you're more likely to get people to buy your supplies if you're a member of the ASPCA.

I see!

You take a definition of a thing you perceive... and somehow perceive me to see the same... and accept the definition you typically use as correct.

Are you think of a conglomerate of individuals? Why would I want to show an agglomerate?
For the same reason as a conjuror shows something - to hide another thing.

The ASPCA, as far as I know, does charge a membership fee.
which I attribute to a voluntary association with said agglomerate.
and you attribute to the divine right of societies...

It could have, for instance, if you are in the pet supply business, you're more likely to get people to buy your supplies if you're a member of the ASPCA.
Your previous version stated this as a categoric truism.
Now it appears to be conditional...

In conclusion: flipflop and waffle.

I see!

You take a definition of a thing you perceive... and somehow perceive me to see the same... and accept the definition you typically use as correct.I've asked you repeatedly if you believed in what a society is, to try to ascertain what it is that you would consider a society to be.

For the same reason as a conjuror shows something - to hide another thing.I wouldn't need to show an agglomerate, an agglomerate doesn't help my argument at all.

which I attribute to a voluntary association with said agglomerate.
and you attribute to the divine right of societies...And likewise, you voluntarily choose to have social relationships with other humans.

1. I've asked you repeatedly if you believed in what a society is, to try to ascertain what it is that you would consider a society to be.

2. I wouldn't need to show an agglomerate, an agglomerate doesn't help my argument at all.

3. And likewise, you voluntarily choose to have social relationships with other humans.

1. And I've categorically denied its existence. I've relegated it to an invention of the imagination of the silyminded. Same as I would have done if you had tried to ascertain what I would consider an axis of evil to be. A fighment of imagination of the perenially wooly-minded.

2. You have no argument - therefore it can't be helped at all. Conjecture and conjurority.

3. On my terms - not yours. With other humans. And not with a flight of your fancy.

1. And I've categorically denied its existence. I've relegated it to an invention of the imagination of the silyminded. Same as I would have done if you had tried to ascertain what I would consider an axis of evil to be. A fighment of imagination of the perenially wooly-minded.So then, to clarify one last time, what you're saying is that there's no such thing as the totality of the social relationships among humans?

2. You have no argument - therefore it can't be helped at all. Conjecture and conjurority.Actually, it seems as though you're using the word agglomerate wrong.

3. On my terms - not yours. With other humans. And not with a flight of your fancy.It's really not relevant what the terms are, the fact remains that you associate voluntarily with other humans, and that it's acceptable to charge a fee to do so.

Your previous version stated this as a categoric truism.
Now it appears to be conditional...

In conclusion: flipflop and waffle.In the case of society meaning the totality of social relationships with other humans, your chattels have increases. In the case of society meaning a subgroup of humans, your chattels could have increased.

So then, to clarify one last time, what you're saying is that there's no such thing as the totality of the social relationships among humans?



Yup. Ain't no such animal - if you A] postulate an entity to be named as Society, and further postulate B] that you are a member, or have a relation with that entity. A totality of all human relations that includes having a relationship with that totality runs afoul of Gödel's Theorem. What you have constructed is a self-containing set.

Yup. Ain't no such animal - if you A] postulate an entity to be named as Society, and further postulate B] that you are a member, or have a relation with that entity. A totality of all human relations that includes having a relationship with that totality runs afoul of Gödel's Theorem. What you have constructed is a self-containing set.Ah, I see where you're coming from. But that isn't what I meant. You don't have a relationship with society, you are a part of society, and when you're not a part of society you don't have a relationship with society.

Ah, I see where you're coming from. But that isn't what I meant. You don't have a relationship with society, you are a part of society, and when you're not a part of society you don't have a relationship with society.

A nice try.
But there still can be no such animal as a totatility of human relations.. social or otherwise.

Therefore, your definition of society is a logical absurdum.
And I'm no part of a thing that can be proven to be logically impossible - unless I happen to be a figment of someone else's imagination.

A possibility I cannot discount - see the question for people who are religious but don't buy Genesis thread.

A nice try.
But there still can be no such animal as a totatility of human relations.. social or otherwise.Why couldn't there be such a thing as a totality of human relations?

Why couldn't there be such a thing as a totality of human relations?

Because it would be a self-containing set! Such a set is a logical absurdity.
Read Godel, Esche,r Bach if you can find it.
Good read, very entertaining, and quite to the point for this discussion.

Because it would be a self-containing set! Such a set is a logical absurdity.
Read Godel, Esche,r Bach if you can find it.
Good read, very entertaining, and quite to the point for this discussion.I disagree. You could compile a list of human social relationships, including your own (Though it would take a long time) and that list would represent the totality of human relationships.

Speculation is viable in any type of conditions, unless you're going to suggest that money conditions will always be unsound if money is issued by a government.

Free markets tend towards equilibrium (I won't say that they achieve it), speculation tends away from it.

Government money always loses value.

This is true, but that's mostly because most possible systems haven't been tried on a large scale yet, such as communism.

They have, and they failed miserably.

No, the problem is that I haven't gotten my money, whether or not the banker pays the cost of defrauding me is immaterial to this.

It is certainly material to this. Since it is he who has wronged you, it is he who must restore you. If someone else is forced to do it, the theft is merely passed on, instead of rectified.

It isn't the best system, but it's better than not doing so. What the best system would be is abolishing the banking system, but that would naturally come with abolishing money.

But, you only get your money at the expense of someone who hasn't wronged you. The theft is merely passed on. Abolishing money is not possible.

The fraudster, in the course of doing his labor, exists outside of the market. Since market forces don't determine how much he is getting paid, how is it determined what he gets paid?

If employed by the gaol to break rocks for the sake of breaking rocks, then you'd be right. If he's employed to do productive work then he exists in the market.

Socialism maximizes individual liberty and individual soverignty.

By removing everyone's right to property? Sounds perverse to me.

Socialism accept the fact that if people are going to live together, they are going to have to make sacrifices. Even if that sacrifice only takes the form of "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins", it is still a sacrifice.

That is not a sacrifice. For you to sacrifice something, you must own it. Since you have never owned the right to hit anyone, it isn't a sacrifice.

Since I have no desire to use drugs, in this case it's fine; however I did say that an acceptable compromise would be to allow people to do what they wish with their own bodies provided it was only in a few designated areas.

No, it is a principle. Either you accept the seizure of control of your body, or you assert your own control. You can't be slightly in control.

And an across the board price increase is generally defined as inflation.

No, that is the symptom of inflation. Inflation is an increase in the money supply.

The prosperity of a country must be measured with regard to how everyone in the country is affected by it, otherwise the statistic is meaningless.

Since everyone has different wants, there is no real way to measure that.

That's true, every system with a government will find these problems, all the more reason to eliminate government. The problem with libertarianism is that due to the imbalance of money, there is in imbalance of power, and therefore certain individuals will have an undue influence on the practices of government.

That is not a problem with libertarianism, since the government will be utterly powerless to grant favours.

I'll put it this way. You want someone to do something for you, if you find someone who simply isn't capable of doing it, it is not likely that you'd ask him.

How would you answer the question?

English Common Law is probably the best standard. Not bieng a lawyer, I can't give you a definite answer.

Except that your rights aren't being violated.

Yes, they are. Property is a right. If I am deprived of it without consent, the right is being violated.

What else could you havce meant by "except possibly the limits of the human imagination" other than "except possibly the limited amount of ideas"?

Does human imagination have limits?

Secondly, there is a finite amount of ideas. An idea, by definition, has to be conceived. It takes an amount of time to conceive an idea, even if it's a fraction of a second. Since there is a finite amount of time, (even if you count the lifetimes of all the humans who have ever existed, it's still a finite amount of time), there is a finite amount of ideas.

Non sequitor.

Exactly my point. If the only way of getting a bottle of milk is to pay $2, and you take the bottle of milk, you agree to the contract. If you took the bottle of milk without paying, you would be punished for it, and rightly so.

That cannot possibly be your point. The owner of the milk bottle has the right not to be deprived of it without consent. The contract is simply an agreement which, by mutual consent, he relinquishes his title to the milk, and I to the $2.

By choosing to live in a country, you contract to pay taxes, as taxes are what the state (who are theoretically the people chosen by a society to run things for them) requires to live in the society, just as $2 is what Woolworth's requires for the bottle of milk.

That is not a contract, I cannot set the terms of taxation, nor can I opt out of it while opting out of whatever it is a government offers. Since the government doesn't own a country (and if it claims to, the claim is illigitimate, groups cannot have rights, only individuals), it has no right to charge me for living in it.

since taxes are what society requires to live in it.

Society does not equal the state.

Furthermore, please be aware that when I say society, and the benefits thereof, this doesn't necessarily mean a tangible benefit, there are plenty of intangible benefits of living in a society.

Intangibles cannot be contracted for because they cannot be traded. An intangible exists only in the mind of a particular person. Happiness, for example, cannot be traded, you can't bottle it, it exists solely in the mind of the happy person. He can't rip it out, and try to sell it for $9.95.

Since society is indirectly involved in the creation of pretty much all wealth, society should have a say in what happens to that wealth, even if that means destroying it.

Rubbish. Individuals create wealth.

Free markets tend towards equilibrium (I won't say that they achieve it), speculation tends away from it.

Government money always loses value.There's nothing about the free market that says that speculation can't happen in it.

They have, and they failed miserably.Nope, communism hasn't been tried on a large scale.

It is certainly material to this. Since it is he who has wronged you, it is he who must restore you. If someone else is forced to do it, the theft is merely passed on, instead of rectified.While ideally the theft would be restored, it isn't always possible. It is more important that the theft be restored than the thief be the one to restore it.

But, you only get your money at the expense of someone who hasn't wronged you. The theft is merely passed on. Abolishing money is not possible.Abolishing money isn't possible within the current system, I would agree, but it could be done within the framework of another system.

If employed by the gaol to break rocks for the sake of breaking rocks, then you'd be right. If he's employed to do productive work then he exists in the market.If he must work in order to pay off a debt, and the government is forcing him to do so, then he can't refuse to work. Ability to refuse employment is necessary for the market to work.

By removing everyone's right to property? Sounds perverse to me.Communism doesn't remove everyone's right to property, it maintains the right to property that people actually have. It removes the "rights" to property that capitalism inserted for its own convenience.

That is not a sacrifice. For you to sacrifice something, you must own it. Since you have never owned the right to hit anyone, it isn't a sacrifice.By living alone and outside of society, I can swing my first freely, without restriction. When living in society, there are restrictions on where I can swing my fist.

No, it is a principle. Either you accept the seizure of control of your body, or you assert your own control. You can't be slightly in control.From a legal standpoint you can be. However, with that said, I don't exactly support the existence of states, so while I would be okay with the state making such a law, I am less okay with the state existing at all. So my ideal situation is a commune where the people living there voluntarily agree not to use drugs, a social contract in other words.

No, that is the symptom of inflation. Inflation is an increase in the money supply.Not always. That is one definition of inflation.

Since everyone has different wants, there is no real way to measure that.You can ask them.

That is not a problem with libertarianism, since the government will be utterly powerless to grant favours.

I'll put it this way. You want someone to do something for you, if you find someone who simply isn't capable of doing it, it is not likely that you'd ask him.What about libertarianism removes all capability to do this?

Yes, they are. Property is a right. If I am deprived of it without consent, the right is being violated.Prove it.

Does human imagination have limits?It may or may not, given a limitless amount of time, but there isn't a limitless amount of time.

That cannot possibly be your point. The owner of the milk bottle has the right not to be deprived of it without consent. The contract is simply an agreement which, by mutual consent, he relinquishes his title to the milk, and I to the $2.And likewise, society has the right to not be deprived of its resources without consent.

That is not a contract, I cannot set the terms of taxation, nor can I opt out of it while opting out of whatever it is a government offers.
You don't always get to set the terms in a contract, for instance with the bottle of milk it's either pay for the milk or don't have it. There isn't any bartering involved.
If you opt out of any contract, you opt out of whatever it is that the other party is offering.

Since the government doesn't own a country (and if it claims to, the claim is illigitimate, groups cannot have rights, only individuals), it has no right to charge me for living in it.

Society does not equal the state.I realize that the state isn't society, however the state is (meant to be) the body that governs the affairs of society. Therefore, while the government is taxing you, it is (supposed to be) doing the will of society, so in effect, society is the one taxing you.

Intangibles cannot be contracted for because they cannot be traded. An intangible exists only in the mind of a particular person. Happiness, for example, cannot be traded, you can't bottle it, it exists solely in the mind of the happy person. He can't rip it out, and try to sell it for $9.95.That's true, but for instance, while a ticket to the movie theater is a tangible and can be contracted for, access to the movies is an intangible that can be contracted for. When I say access to the movies, I mean the ability to go to the movies if you so choose. You can't go to the movies if there's no movie theater. It's different than saying that the contract provides a person with the movie theater; while that's true, it also provides the person with the option to go to the movies. The option of going is the intangible that I mentioned.

Rubbish. Individuals create wealth.And society is a group of individuals. Individuals create wealth with the aid of society, or in other words, individuals create wealth with the aid of other individuals.

There's nothing about the free market that says that speculation can't happen in it.

It can't be kept up, and can be dealt with by markets. Speculation is only really a viable option if there is some mechanism which will insulate speculators from negative consequences, and central banking is such a mechanism.

While ideally the theft would be restored, it isn't always possible. It is more important that the theft be restored than the thief be the one to restore it.

You are saying that if someone robs you, you are entitled to rob some innocent to get your stuff back? And you think libertarians are selfish.

The thief can be the only one to provide restitution. If anyone else were to be forced to do it, it would merely pass the theft on.

I shall put it more simply. Let us say that Mr. A robs you. You are rightfully a little upset. You demand that your property be restored, so you employ a bunch of theives in peaked caps (a tax department) to rob Mr. B, and hand you the proceeds. All that has actually happened is that Mr. A has indirectly robbed Mr. B, and you've gone from victim to accomplice. Can Mr. B in turn avail himself of the same service?

The only way for you to be restored is for the one who wronged you to do the restoring. That balances everything. He takes X from you, he is as a result forced to give you X as restoration. Balance is reached.

Abolishing money isn't possible within the current system, I would agree, but it could be done within the framework of another system.

Abolishing money is impossible, full stop. Money will always be used because it was an element of spontaneous order. People developed money as a result of voluntary exchanges. If you abolished it tomorrow, people would simply find another form of money.

If he must work in order to pay off a debt, and the government is forcing him to do so, then he can't refuse to work. Ability to refuse employment is necessary for the market to work.

Where did you pull that rubbish from?

He is in fact working by his own choice, he chose to rob you, so he must accept all the consequences of that act, including an obligation to restore you from his own assets, or to be forced to work to generate the revenue to restore you.

Communism doesn't remove everyone's right to property, it maintains the right to property that people actually have. It removes the "rights" to property that capitalism inserted for its own convenience.

Abolishing private property is the elimination of property rights, no matter what fancy rhetoric you dress it in.

Not always. That is one definition of inflation.

I think we can leave tyres and balloons out of this thread. Inflation is an increase in the supply of money.

And likewise, society has the right to not be deprived of its resources without consent.

Society doesn't have any rights. Only individuals can have rights. Society is not a single entity with a Post Office Box, and an office. It is merely a group of individuals.

You don't always get to set the terms in a contract, for instance with the bottle of milk it's either pay for the milk or don't have it. There isn't any bartering involved.

I do always get to set the terms of a contract, and I cna always choose different contracts. I can choose to buy milk from a variety of shops, or use some substitute for it.

If you opt out of any contract, you opt out of whatever it is that the other party is offering.

Yet, one can't do that. I can't live in a country, let everyone know that I will not use, or ask for any government service, even military defence, and have my tax liability removed completely.

And society is a group of individuals. Individuals create wealth with the aid of society, or in other words, individuals create wealth with the aid of other individuals.

"Society" doesn't come into it. It is not a single entity with a definable form and divine rights to enslave anyone. Individuals create wealth, sometimes they act alone, sometimes they associate voluntarily. It is no one's concern but the actual individuals concerned. For someone who blathers about "democracy" you seem awfully attached to ideas identical to the Divine Right of Kings.

It can't be kept up, and can be dealt with by markets. Speculation is only really a viable option if there is some mechanism which will insulate speculators from negative consequences, and central banking is such a mechanism.Not really, people will make risky investments (or in other words, speculation) with or without a mechanism insulating them from negative consequences.

You are saying that if someone robs you, you are entitled to rob some innocent to get your stuff back? And you think libertarians are selfish.

The thief can be the only one to provide restitution. If anyone else were to be forced to do it, it would merely pass the theft on.

I shall put it more simply. Let us say that Mr. A robs you. You are rightfully a little upset. You demand that your property be restored, so you employ a bunch of theives in peaked caps (a tax department) to rob Mr. B, and hand you the proceeds. All that has actually happened is that Mr. A has indirectly robbed Mr. B, and you've gone from victim to accomplice. Can Mr. B in turn avail himself of the same service?

The only way for you to be restored is for the one who wronged you to do the restoring. That balances everything. He takes X from you, he is as a result forced to give you X as restoration. Balance is reached.I don't have the right to do so, but the government does. Just as I don't have the right to vigilante justice, the government does have the right to deal out justice.

Abolishing money is impossible, full stop. Money will always be used because it was an element of spontaneous order. People developed money as a result of voluntary exchanges. If you abolished it tomorrow, people would simply find another form of money.You haven't shown that an element of spontaneous order is necessary.

Where did you pull that rubbish from?

He is in fact working by his own choice, he chose to rob you, so he must accept all the consequences of that act, including an obligation to restore you from his own assets, or to be forced to work to generate the revenue to restore you.What's going to force him to accept the consequences of the act other than force employed by the government to do so?

Abolishing private property is the elimination of property rights, no matter what fancy rhetoric you dress it in.Nope, there's always personal property.

I think we can leave tyres and balloons out of this thread. Inflation is an increase in the supply of money.Inflation in an economic sense does not always mean an increase in the supply of money.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=inflation

Some of the definitions involve an increase in the supply of money, others simply mean a general increase in the price of goods.

Society doesn't have any rights. Only individuals can have rights. Society is not a single entity with a Post Office Box, and an office. It is merely a group of individuals.Something doesn't have to be a single entity with a post office box in order to have rights. If society is a group of individuals, and all of those individuals have rights, then society has rights also, if only as an entity that reflects the will and the rights of the individuals therein.

I do always get to set the terms of a contract, and I cna always choose different contracts. I can choose to buy milk from a variety of shops, or use some substitute for it.And likewise you can always live in a variety of countries.

Yet, one can't do that. I can't live in a country, let everyone know that I will not use, or ask for any government service, even military defence, and have my tax liability removed completely.Of course not, because you can't live in a country without receiving military defense. If an opposing nation's military invades your house, that provides them with a base from which they can launch attacks on the country that you're living in. Therefore, the country must provide you with military defense, you can't opt out of it.
Furthermore, you're excluding all of the things that you get from living in a country that the government doesn't provide you with, such as any form of social relation.

"Society" doesn't come into it. It is not a single entity with a definable form and divine rights to enslave anyone. Individuals create wealth, sometimes they act alone, sometimes they associate voluntarily. It is no one's concern but the actual individuals concerned. For someone who blathers about "democracy" you seem awfully attached to ideas identical to the Divine Right of Kings. I'm not sure where this is coming from. There isn't any element of slavery involved here. It is the concern of all of the individuals living in the society because the society is indirectly involved with the creation of the wealth. Groups are allowed to charge you a fee for your voluntary association with that group, and if you say that you shouldn't have to pay the fee but still be able to associate with the group, then it is you who is the thief.

I stated this earlier in the thread, but did not justify it. I will do so now.

When people talk about freedoms, they talk about them as positive and negative freedoms: the freedom to and the freedom from. However, each of those freedoms can be divided into two classifications: actual freedom and theoretical freedom.

Supporters of capitalism talk about freedom and the right to property. They bring up how socialism restricts private property, and while that is a valid argument, it isn't actually a restriction on freedom. The unrestricted right to own private property is a theoretical freedom. In theory, people will be able to own all of the property that they want. In actuality, this isn't the case. In actuality people can only own the property that they can afford to own.

Socialism, on the other hand, allows the right to personal property, but not private property. Socialists realize that the right to private property is essentially an unrealizable theoretical freedom, and not actual freedom. Socialism maximizes actual freedom by giving everyone access to everything that is the product of the socialist society.

So, while capitalism maximizes theoretical freedom, socialism maximizes actual freedom. This is important because freedoms are meaningless without the ability to exercise them.

So, while capitalism maximizes theoretical freedom, socialism maximizes actual freedom. This is important because freedoms are meaningless without the ability to exercise them.
Agreed. A libertarian may gush piously about freedom, but the child born without property in a world which sanctifies property is born a slave, or worse. If one answers the hunger of hundreds of millions of such children with "your hunger is a claim to an entitlement, which you have no right to make, much less demand with force," he reveals that he's tepid to anybody's liberty but his own, and utterly confused regarding the natural rights of human beings.
[P]roperty, regarded as a right, and not being a right, must of right perish; because the force of events, the laws of conscience, and physical and mathematical necessity must, in the end, destroy this illusion of our minds.

A number of things, though I suspect some of these things may have been covered before (bit difficult to remember over 17 pages).

1) Someone claimed that someone working for £2 is not exploitation as they have the freedom to choose not to work for that. Complete bollocks. Exploitation happens when someone takes advantage of someone else's disadvatage, be that ignorance, disability, age, or the fact they dont have a job to get the money they need (in our economic system at this time) to get food etc. In this case the employer is taking advantage of the poverty (and probably the high level of unemployment and so the poor person knows that his particular labour is not required) of the employee and offer him a shit wage for the work this person will provide. Also the fact it isnt really a choice anyway. Like being asked to choose between being shot in the stomach and left to die or having your arm chopped off and allowed to live. Ok, that might be going a bit far, but gives the idea, basically that it is a choice between two shit options, one just being worse than the other.

2)Communism has never truely existed. The USSR was not Communist. Neither is Cuba or China, and they have not been Communist any time in their history. They just claim to be communist, much like the Democratic Republic oF congo claims to be democratic, when it aint either.

3)Those who pay taxes do benifit from them. The publically paid for education they are likely to have recieved (and I had a very good education at my local Comprehensive. I am not a the zombie that someone claimed all state schools create), in the case of many developed countries the health system they have available, the provision of a police force and army for their protection, infastructure like roads, railways etc and more. All provided by state funds gained through taxation. You dont have to be on welfare to benefit from taxes.

4) Libertarian government has nothing special that will prevent it from moving away from being a 'libertarian' government. All governments have the potential power to impose their will from above, be it legal or not, violent or not. Just because it would only be tasked with protection of rights doesnt stop it from moving out that sector if it wanted, and no constitution, legal system will stop it if it wants to. That is why anarchists reject the idea of governments, beause they hold too much potential power.

5) Even if it did limit itself to just protecting rights, how is this paid for? You need a police force for internal protection, armed forces to protect from outside sources, and the whole legal system etc. These things cost money (unlike, as someone has suggested, you get rid of money). How does the government get this money? Only sensible way is taxation. Ok, it would be lower but it is still taxation. If you propose voluntary contributions, then what happens if people decide they dont want to contribute? And what about if the need for money increases, such as in the event of war? A govornment no matter how small needs a predictable revenue stream. And voluntary contributions, no matter what you say about laws etc, will lead to those paying or paying the most having the most influence over power. Or are you suggesting people pay for it like a service? But then what about those who dont pay? Are they not protected? Isnt that instead like a protection racket?

6) Britain did not take until Thatcher to recover from WW2. Some of Britain's most prosperous times were from the late 50s to the mid 70s. Of course there were slumps in that period, but that applied in the Thatcher period still, if not particularly so. And even with that, the period from the late 50s to the 70s saw some of the greatest growth in general living conditions in this century. The 80s on the other hand were (and in some cases it is still) really bad for many. Many of the places that particularly suffer from social and economic deprevation can be tracked back to Thatcher's policies. Now, what could be said is that in the era previous to Thatcher Britain suffered from poor productivity. That on the other hand is a different thing entirely.

7) To the person that said before welfare systems, communities looked adequately after the disavataged and poor, I wish you are teleported back to the poverty struck regions of the British industrial cities of the 19th C, or even better, a workhouse. See if you think that is "adequate".

8) Completely free market economics in many cases would lead to monopolies. Those companies who are most successful will likely eliminate the competetion given enough time and freedom. NO individual can prevent this. The only way to prevent this is through regulation by Government.

9) Free markets would not lead to improved properity to many. Those that hold the power, through holding the most money and property have too big an advatage to allow the less well of to have any real chance of success. How the fuck can a family of industrial workers hope to imprve their position while they are just trying to earn enough to feed clothe and provide shelter for themselves? How are they meant to provide an education for their children, which many agree is one of the best ways out of poverty, if they dont have the money and no state organisation provides it for them? And in the very unlikely event that economic factors tip in the favour of the workers, ie labour sudenly becomes drastically short, whats to stop the wealthy property owners, who have power through that property and money, influencing the government into changing the law so that they still have that advantage (see the incidents following the black death to see an example.)

10)Erm... what gives anyone the right to hold property? There is no universal right to hold property. All the rights we hold are due to the fact the society allows us to have them. Rights are a human construct, and are not anything solid. Anything can be a right if the society you are in decides it is a right. There is no universal law somewhere where it says "People have a right to hold property"? The only reason you argue it is such an important right is because YOU think it is so important (somehow linking it to freedom), not because it is an undeniable right. Of course if you look to some people on the left, the "right" to own property is not a freedom, as all it is is the right to be ruled by this "property" and the quest to obtain and keep it.

11) Banks messing about with our money, lending it out etc is not fraud. Anyone that gives their money to a bank should know that is what they are going to do with it. There is no deliberate misrepresentation about what they are going to do. They did not say they would keep it in a vault for us. A bank takes our money to store it for us, with the understanding that while we are not using it they can use it to invest in other projects, making a profit for itself, and in the process passing a small part of that profit to us in the form of interest. Though some people may not realise this, it is in no way hidden, and the bank never promises just to keep the money stored. There is no fraud in the transaction at all.

Erm... I think there may have been more, but I have currently forgotton it. If it comes back to me I will post it.

I like the form of communism that seems to be imployed in the Star Treck series.

Sort of that I like libertarainism.

Though the fact that their economy is based on a fictional technology (the replicator) means it is basically flawed from the outset.

Oh and the fact it is far too utopian.

Doesnt stop me likeing Star Trek though.

Supporters of capitalism talk about freedom and the right to property. They bring up how socialism restricts private property, and while that is a valid argument, it isn't actually a restriction on freedom. The unrestricted right to own private property is a theoretical freedom. In theory, people will be able to own all of the property that they want. In actuality, this isn't the case. In actuality people can only own the property that they can afford to own.

Socialism, on the other hand, allows the right to personal property, but not private property. Socialists realize that the right to private property is essentially an unrealizable theoretical freedom, and not actual freedom. Socialism maximizes actual freedom by giving everyone access to everything that is the product of the socialist society.

So, while capitalism maximizes theoretical freedom, socialism maximizes actual freedom. This is important because freedoms are meaningless without the ability to exercise them.

Where did you get this notion of actual and theoretical freedom? It doesn't make much sense to me.

Anyway, you certainly don't have enough to dismiss property as a "theoretical freedom". Firstly, capitalists do not look for an unrestricted right to property, only unrestricted by government. The right to property is a natural right, contingent on the limitations of nature, that capitalists wish to be guarded during interaction with others.

This right is not a theoretical freedom, as you would certainly be able to use and dispose of private property in nature, given you could protect your claim (the right is naturally violable).

As for the bolded part, it is a non-sequitor. Showing that private property is a "theoretical freedom" (even if you were correct) does not prove that public ownership of property maximizes actual freedom. You have not even shown what actual freedom is.

Personally, I don't think that you can distinguish between the two because you have a faulty dichotomy there.

Agreed. A libertarian may gush piously about freedom, but the child born without property in a world which sanctifies property is born a slave, or worse. If one answers the hunger of hundreds of millions of such children with "your hunger is a claim to an entitlement, which you have no right to make, much less demand with force," he reveals that he's tepid to anybody's liberty but his own, and utterly confused regarding the natural rights of human beings.

Two points:

1. He is concerned for his own liberty, but in return he offers other's their liberty as well.

2. I do believe you are confused as to natural rights.