NationStates Jolt Archive

Two points:

1. He is concerned for his own liberty, but in return he offers other's their liberty as well.

Liberty to what? Grinding poverty? No future for an individual and their family except day to day living, if that? Death by easily preventable diseases? Squalor?
No access to education? By not being willing to allow government intervention in these areas, that is what a libertarian essentially promises to millions around the world.

since when did Libertarians become against patents?
Since quite a while ago.


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 can: N. Stephan Kinsella (whom I've met). And myself. And many, many others.

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.
Complete bollocks.


2)Communism has never truely existed.
Complete bollocks.



3)Those who pay taxes do benifit from them.
But they could benefit more from not having to pay that much, and instead receive better quality services at a lower price.



6) Britain did not take until Thatcher to recover from WW2.
But it wasn't until Thatcher that the confiscatory tax-rates came down. There's a reason why the Beatles wrote "There's one for you, nineteen for me" in "Taxman"--at that time, the tax rate was 95%!


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".
Oh, you mean the Dickensian England that never existed apart from Dickensian novels.


8) Completely free market economics in many cases would lead to monopolies.
Complete bollocks. Coercive monopolies ONLY happen via government fiat.


9) Free markets would not lead to improved properity to many.
Complete bollocks. Allowing everyone to make their own choices only improves things.


10)Erm... what gives anyone the right to hold property?
What gives you the right to not have someone take your corneas because others have cataracts?


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.
Then the "society" can take away rights as well. That's been done before, like--to the jews in Nazi Germany (no, this is not an instance of Godwin's Law).

Why not read up on contractarianism?


11) Banks messing about with our money, lending it out etc is not fraud.
It is if they lend out more than they have. Why not have a read of Murray Rothbard.

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.
Yes, it is.


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.
No, in theory, people will be able to own all of the property that they can rightfully acquire.

Looks like you need to do some more thinking.


Socialism, on the other hand, allows the right to personal property, but not private property.
That's self-contradictory.

I reject libertarianism because of it's limitations on freedom

I reject libertarianism because of it's limitations on freedom

And what limitations are you refering to?

And what limitations are you refering to?

Everywhere - someone born into poverty is utterly screwed under this system, severely restricting their practical freedoms as their chances to gain their fair share of power (the $) is limited by education, jobs etc etc

There is a difference between freedom from government and practical freedoms.

Under this system, the rich will get richer and the poor will opressed, albeit by economic considerations rather than political. The problem will expand and multiply, there will be riots and maybe revolution, all very boring and predictable.

Everywhere - someone born into poverty is utterly screwed under this system, severely restricting their practical freedoms as their chances to gain their fair share of power (the $) is limited by education, jobs etc etc
Depends on the form of government your refering too. Some libertarians advocate anchro-capitalism while others go for minarchism. Hell I would hazard to say that there is no one system of government that is prefered among libertarians and that there are numerous ideas abound in that ideology. Now the thing you seem to be confused with the whole limitation idea. Now no libertarian says lets limit the amount of education someone has. Rather some libertarians argue that the public school system is broken and would do better in the hands of private individuals much like the post system. True this would cause some people to be left out depending on the types of schools people would open near them but that is not concious limitation of something.

There is a difference between freedom from government and practical freedoms.
Please do explain further on this idea.

Under this system, the rich will get richer and the poor will opressed, albeit by economic considerations rather than political.
The rich get rich and the poor get poorer in numerous economic systems. The difference between the philosophy of libertarianism and other systems has to deal with how things are handled. Instead of having the government use coercive power to get money for welfare or interfere in the market, that philosophy tends to take the stance that its the public citizen's duty to do that freely instead of through coercion and that competition is the force that should drive the market not government intervention.

The problem will expand and multiply, there will be riots and maybe revolution, all very boring and predictable.
Or the problem could be solved by the programs and everybody could be happy. Quite frankly what happens after the policies would be inacted is contested by both sides and its hard to get a clear view as of what exactly would occur if such programs were to be introduced.

I reject libertarianism because of it's limitations on freedom
Rights are a limitation on freedom.

Reality limits your freedom to flap your arms and fly. Looks like you have to reject reality!

Rights are a limitation on freedom.

Reality limits your freedom to flap your arms and fly. Looks like you have to reject reality!

Hmmmm. That would be rather liberating.

Rights are a limitation on freedom.

Reality limits your freedom to flap your arms and fly. Looks like you have to reject reality!

And.... that is an argument FOR Libertarianism?

I believe this is a logical fallacy.... if I were awake, I could probably tell you which one.

And.... that is an argument FOR Libertarianism?
No.


I believe this is a logical fallacy
You believe incorrectly.

Everywhere - someone born into poverty is utterly screwed under this system, severely restricting their practical freedoms as their chances to gain their fair share of power (the $) is limited by education, jobs etc etc
Why oh why do people keep trying that myth?

Why oh why do people keep trying that myth?
I don't think anyone has ever proven it wrong.

You believe incorrectly.

Really? It's a form of 'reductio ad absurdum, surely?

Why oh why do people keep trying that myth?

Possibly because, like all myths, it is based around observation of something.

Perhaps it is not universally binding... but there must be some support for the idea.

Everywhere - someone born into poverty is utterly screwed under this system, severely restricting their practical freedoms as their chances to gain their fair share of power (the $) is limited by education, jobs etc etc

There is a difference between freedom from government and practical freedoms.

Under this system, the rich will get richer and the poor will opressed, albeit by economic considerations rather than political. The problem will expand and multiply, there will be riots and maybe revolution, all very boring and predictable.

technically now this system isn't libertarian, mainly because we hold protectionist policies which favor big business and stifle small business competition. granted, some people will be born poor, but makign it harder to suceed by limiting free trade is not the answer.

remember, economic growth benefits everyone, socialistic policies are horrible at achieving this end.

I don't think anyone has ever proven it wrong.
There's no need to disprove the unproven.

Really? It's a form of 'reductio ad absurdum, surely?
A form. And, of course, reductio isn't a fallacy. If it is, then mathematics is seriously borked.

Possibly because, like all myths, it is based around observation of something.

Perhaps it is not universally binding... but there must be some support for the idea.
No, there doesn't have to be. Post hoc fallacies are based on observations of things, but have no support.

There's no need to disprove the unproven.

Which is perhaps why I find proofs of God's nonexistence highly amusing.

(You'll have to excuse me this evening. I'm a bit loopy, just so you know.)

There's no need to disprove the unproven.
You've never been poor, have you.

Anyways, you would be aware of the statistics that can clearly tell you that your chances of being rich are very, very closely related to your parents' income. Unless you want to suggest that poor people are genetically inferior (and I would fully expect you to tell me just that), there is a correlation between poverty in your childhood, and poverty in your adulthood.

And even more overwhelming is the evidence for a correlation between personal wealth and personal power and freedom to do whatever you wish at any given point.

In other words, being born poor makes it more difficult to succeed in life.

A form. And, of course, reductio isn't a fallacy. If it is, then mathematics is seriously borked.

I'm thinking that 'reductio ad absurdum' actually serves two masters... it can be used as a logical tool (i.e. when you show that the LOGICAL extension of a point would be absurd... as in the mathematical use as a 'law of non-contradiction, for example)... OR it can be used as a logical fallacy, where it is used in it's 'strawman' form (as in, Libertarianism's perceived limitations of freedom being 'disproved' through a comparison with 'choosing' to 'reject' the laws of physics).

In the first form, it is a logical tool... in the second, a logical fallacy.

You've never been poor, have you.
Yes, I have. AAMOF, when I was younger, we were on food stamps.

Care to tell me again that I've never been poor? Please--I want to laugh at you some more.


Anyways, you would be aware of the statistics that can clearly tell you that your chances of being rich are very, very closely related to your parents' income.
74.3% of all statistics on the internet are made up.

I'm thinking that 'reductio ad absurdum' actually serves two masters... it can be used as a logical tool (i.e. when you show that the LOGICAL extension of a point would be absurd... as in the mathematical use as a 'law of non-contradiction, for example)... OR it can be used as a logical fallacy, where it is used in it's 'strawman' form (as in, Libertarianism's perceived limitations of freedom being 'disproved' through a comparison with 'choosing' to 'reject' the laws of physics).
That wasn't a strawman. If someone rejects something for limiting freedom, then it would be inconsistent of that person to reject anything else which limits freedom as well. I don't want that person to be inconsistent. I'm nice like that.

Please try again.

Which is perhaps why I find proofs of God's nonexistence highly amusing.
Never seen any of those; I've only seen critiques of the claims for the existence of god and of the definitions of god.

Yes, I have. AAMOF, when I was younger, we were on food stamps.
Good thing too. No welfare would've sucked, hey?

74.3% of all statistics on the internet are made up.
:rolleyes:

http://www.nytimes.com/pages/national/class/index.html
http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_id=4148885
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gsolon/workingpapers/trends.pdf
http://ideas.repec.org/a/fip/fedbrr/y2002iq4p2-5nv.12no.4.html

Good thing too. No welfare would've sucked, hey?
No.

And your links are supposed to show me--that your statistics are made up.

That wasn't a strawman. If someone rejects something for limiting freedom, then it would be inconsistent of that person to reject anything else which limits freedom as well. I don't want that person to be inconsistent. I'm nice like that.

Please try again.

You might want to look up 'reductio ad absurdum'.... your argument doesn't carry to a logical absurdity, because one does not get to 'choose' to obey the laws of physics. And, since the original argument was talking about the rights allowed under political systems, the 'rebuttal' through physical systems was most certainly a strawman, AND reductio ad absurdum fallacy.

Never seen any of those; I've only seen critiques of the claims for the existence of god and of the definitions of god.

Then you've missed out on some very funny shit.

You might want to look up 'reductio ad absurdum'....
I have.


your argument doesn't carry to a logical absurdity,
It does.


because one does not get to 'choose' to obey the laws of physics.
Irrelevant. The salient point was about "limiting freedom". And according to that person, if something limits freedom, he doesn't like it. He'll reject it.

I just want that person to be consistent.

So there was no strawman and no other fallacy. Please try again when you know what you're talking about.

No.
Hey, starving is fun.

And your links are supposed to show me--that your statistics are made up.
If you don't have the comprehension to understand what statistics are, how they are compiled and what they show, why are you even here?
Shouldn't you be learning things?

Hey, starving is fun.
Hey, why would we have starved?

I'm waiting for you to show me some valid stats, although it's not like they will mean anything in the first place.

Hey, why would we have starved?
Ask your parents. Afterall, they were the lazy bastards who couldn't go out there and get a job.

I'm waiting for you to show me some valid stats, although it's not like they will mean anything in the first place.
I've given you four links, all containing statistics, references to other statistics and explanations on how the statistics were compiled. If you don't want to look, fine. But don't expect anyone to be convinced by your argument if you do it that way.

Hey, why would we have starved?


One suspects that if your parents were getting food stamps because either they had no income, or a very low one. Now if they had no income, no food stamps would have meant no food. On a very low one, the chances are that no, you wouldnt have starved, but you would have lacked other things instead.

What would have happened if you hadnt had stamps according to your idea? That in some sudden bizarre incident your family would had suddenly gained a comfortable (or maybe just more than basic) income? Why would have getting no food stamps have meant you would have had more money? I dont see how not getting those benifits would have meant you would have been better of.

Where did you get this notion of actual and theoretical freedom? It doesn't make much sense to me.You can't conceive of freedoms that people have that they will have the opportunity to exercise and freedoms that people have that they will never have the opportunity to exercise?

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.I would argue that capitalists would want an unrestricted right to property; if they could get beyond the restrictions that nature places on property, they would.

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).Ah, I see. I wasn't suggesting that property ownership is in and of itself a theoretical freedom, I was suggesting that unrestricted property ownership (by the government) is a theoretical freedom.

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.True. I was waiting for people to reply before talking about that part. I'll do that later.

Yes, it is.No, to pass a law telling people that they can't have something that they will never have anyway isn't a restriction on freedom. To use your bad analogy, the government passing a law saying that it's illegal to flap your arms and fly is not a restriction on freedom since you wouldn't be flapping your arms and flying in the first place.

No, in theory, people will be able to own all of the property that they can rightfully acquire.In theory, there will be no limitations on the ability of people to rightfully acquire property.

That's self-contradictory.Except that there is a very clear and distinct difference between personal and private property, (personal property is property that you own and use, private property is property that you own but do not use) so it's not at all contradictory to say that one form is valid and the other isn't.

Depends on the form of government your refering too. Some libertarians advocate anchro-capitalism while others go for minarchism. Hell I would hazard to say that there is no one system of government that is prefered among libertarians and that there are numerous ideas abound in that ideology. Now the thing you seem to be confused with the whole limitation idea. Now no libertarian says lets limit the amount of education someone has. Rather some libertarians argue that the public school system is broken and would do better in the hands of private individuals much like the post system. True this would cause some people to be left out depending on the types of schools people would open near them but that is not concious limitation of something.


And this brings me nicely to my point, no the government does not consciously limit the education of the poor - let me explain to you the concept of two of the different forms of power:

Government, backed up by force
Money, which is a 'token' for power.

Communism is all or nearly all government
A mixed economy is both
Libertarianism is all or nearly all money.

Now, a hell of a lot of people will find their freedoms restricted by this new operator of power, money. Without money they do not have the power to secure education, safety, warmth or whatever is relevant to the situation. Much like the systems in Europe in the 18th century, those with power will seek to hold onto it at the expense of those beneath them. Only now, instead of high franchises or government only open to the nobility, the power in the form of money will become very insular. The many will end up working for the benefit of the few.

A Libertarian would argue that someone could not sell a child into slavery, as it would violate the child's freedoms as an individual. But a child born into the kind of absoloute poverty that this system looks likely to create, would have so many restrictions place upon on him or her, totally out of his or her control.

Thus, freedom from government intervention means more restriction from other forms of power.

By the way, what idle is looking for is a 'false dilemma' I can reject the concept of a given proposed system but I can't reject something that can't be altered. Other examples of false dilemmas are: either you support legislation x or you side with the terrorists.

It does.


No. It really doesn't.

But, if you have decided to pretend otherwise, I'll save my breath rather than waste my time.

And this brings me nicely to my point, no the government does not consciously limit the education of the poor - let me explain to you the concept of two of the different forms of power:

Government, backed up by force
Money, which is a 'token' for power.

Communism is all or nearly all government
A mixed economy is both
Libertarianism is all or nearly all money.
Once again it depends on the version of libertariansim your refering to. Are we talking about someone with ancro-captialism views or a minarchist? Because with minarchism the government's power is reduced but it isn't completely useless.

Also when we look at the term power defined by a sociologist I'm not sure if your concepts exactly fit.

"By power is meant that opportunity existing within a social [relationship] which permits one to carry out one's own will even against resistance and regardless of the basis on which this opportunity rests."
Max Weber, Basic Concepts in Sociology
Now you've classified money as power or force as power both of which the government or even people can use. However that doesn't necessarily mean that there can be a system where money is highly valued and someone who's poor can't change anything. Look at Ghandi or mother Theressa, both poor but created a great amount of change. In that way they had a large amount of power.

Edit:Allow me to rephrase my former sentence. I don't agree with your saying that in a libertarian system money is the only power used and its not the end all be all of a libertarian system. It emphasises freedom first not endless money making.

Now, a hell of a lot of people will find their freedoms restricted by this new operator of power, money. Without money they do not have the power to secure education, safety, warmth or whatever is relevant to the situation.
Money is not the only operator of power and its not made the only one in a system like libertarianism. Sure money dictates wheter or not people can get a job, find a good home, or even get health care. But under a libertarian system money does not govern these rather the private individual does instead of the government. Instead of welfare charities would fill the roll of helping the poor, homeless shelters run by private individuals would help those without homes, and hospitals that cater to those who can't normally afford regular medical treatment would occur. Sure libertarianism advocates the market being guided by competition and the removal of government from many facets of what we have now. But that does not mean that once implimented its going to be either you have money or your screwed.

Much like the systems in Europe in the 18th century, those with power will seek to hold onto it at the expense of those beneath them. Only now, instead of high franchises or government only open to the nobility, the power in the form of money will become very insular. The many will end up working for the benefit of the few.
Not with competition. As long as we have competition people can choose who they will work for, where they will buy things, and what products they want. No one will become a slave to walmart in a libertarian system.

A Libertarian would argue that someone could not sell a child into slavery, as it would violate the child's freedoms as an individual. But a child born into the kind of absoloute poverty that this system looks likely to create, would have so many restrictions place upon on him or her, totally out of his or her control.
1. This is not unique to the libertarian form of government. Its occured in numerous forms, even in communism.
2. The difference here is how those children get help. Rather then emphasising coercion from the government a libertarian would believe its the private individuals duty to help them. No one is saying once a libertarian government gets in screw the poor, rather we think that we should be the ones doing so not the government.

Thus, freedom from government intervention means more restriction from other forms of power.
I still don't agree with what your putting forth here. You don't give a definition of power and then go in to attempting to say there are two kinds as if I'm supposed to know what definition your operating off of. Thats only going to lead to confusion. Secondly you keep classifiying what a libertarian system would be based off of. Maybe just maybe if your refering to ancro-capitalism you might be right with power lying in the form of money(contracts as well are big in that form) but hardly its the only form present in it. And if we are talking about a minarchist government your just wrong on your classification of money being the only form of power.

Government, backed up by force
Money, which is a 'token' for power.

Communism is all or nearly all government
A mixed economy is both
Libertarianism is all or nearly all money.
Once again it depends on the version of libertariansim your refering to. Are we talking about someone with ancro-captialism views or a minarchist? Because with minarchism the government's power is reduced but it isn't completely useless.

Also when we look at the term power defined by a sociologist I'm not sure if your concepts exactly fit.

"By power is meant that opportunity existing within a social [relationship] which permits one to carry out one's own will even against resistance and regardless of the basis on which this opportunity rests."
Max Weber, Basic Concepts in Sociology
Now you've classified money as power or force as power both of which the government or even people can use. However that doesn't necessarily mean that there can be a system where money is highly valued and someone who's poor can't change anything. Look at Ghandi or mother Theressa, both poor but created a great amount of change. In that way they had a large amount of power. I guess what I'm trying to say is that there really aren't just two forms of power and your distinction seems flawed. What about public opinion or power from media?
[/QUOTE]

"two OF the different forms of power", son if you can't read I'm not sure there's much point in me answering the rest of that post

"two OF the different forms of power", son if you can't read I'm not sure there's much point in me answering the rest of that post

I'm sorry I miss read your post. So sue me. If you can't have a civil debate instead of reverting to insults and taking a condescending tone then I see no point in further having this debate.

Complete bollocks.

Hmm.. very clever response. Not even any argument to back it. At least when I claimed the argument was bollocks I gave a reason.



Complete bollocks.

What do you know about communism? Or are you just basing your decision about what is bollocks from your opinion. If you know what Communism truely stands for, you would know none of the so called "Communist" countries were actually communist.




But they could benefit more from not having to pay that much, and instead receive better quality services at a lower price.

While you may be right in the realm of something like education (but then where do those less well off get money to pay for decent education), but on the issue of a health system and infastructure like roads you are wrong. In the states, where there is a market in health care they in fact spend a higher percentage of GDP on health than in Europe (where ceontralised state controlled or paid systems are the norm) yet in Europe health care is just as good if not better. True, a very rich person could probably get better care in the States, but for the average joe it is easier, cheaper, and just as good if not better, and of course, those who are not well off are not penalised for being so. True no matter poor people get emergency treatment in the States, but what about non-emergency treatment? How the hell are those less well off meant to pay for that. And then roads. Do you expect private companies just to build them off their own bat? But how are they going to make money from it? Are they going to be contracted out by individuals to build them? Or are they going to charge tolls? And then wont you get the problem of competeing roads, leading to just concreting over of land by rival road companies.




But it wasn't until Thatcher that the confiscatory tax-rates came down. There's a reason why the Beatles wrote "There's one for you, nineteen for me" in "Taxman"--at that time, the tax rate was 95%!

Actually, the base rate wasnt that high when Thatcher came to power, but 33% (still more than today of course, and the higher rate was 85%). And yes, by the end of her reign (the bitch) taxes had fallen overall, but she actually raised taxes early in her period in response to the recession in the early 80s.


Oh, you mean the Dickensian England that never existed apart from Dickensian novels.[QUOTE]

So you deny the surveys that said that 30% of Manchester's population was inn primary or secondary poverty? Or the others that say that it was fairly similar throughout the industrial towns of Britain? Or the existance of workhouses? Or the fact they were feared by the poor? And do not you think that, while he may have been exaggerating, Dikens may have been basing his stories on something real? How much history do you actually know?


[QUOTE]
Complete bollocks. Coercive monopolies ONLY happen via government fiat.

Er... what evidence do you have for that. I would say yes, they only occur with government support, but not because they cause them directly, but because they dont take any action to prevent them, but then as you say they shouldnt have these powers, what is going to be done to prevent them?



Complete bollocks. Allowing everyone to make their own choices only improves things.

But many in free market economy dont have real freedom to make their own choices. You still havent contered the fact that in such a system those without money are screwed as there is no system to help them out of their poverty. I ask how can a poor family of industrial workers who are living day to day really expect to get out of that situation without outside help?



What gives you the right to not have someone take your corneas because others have cataracts?

I dont see how that follows on, seeing as property is just an idea we have just created, ratherthan a part of our body. But even then, the reason they dont have the right to take my corneas is because of the legal situation in Britain. I would say in a society existed where people had the right to take people's corneas if they had cateracts I dont have the right to not have my corneas taken away from me. Just no society exists as far as I know, and I most certainly wouldnt want to live there.



Then the "society" can take away rights as well. That's been done before, like--to the jews in Nazi Germany (no, this is not an instance of Godwin's Law).

Didnt say that what a society does regarding the rights within it is always good. Yes, they took away Jews rights to own property, run businesses, and then their right to life. Didnt make it ok. You have misunderstood me. I dont think we have an intrinsic right to life even, rather that has been given to us by society saying people cant kill each randomly. Doesnt mean I condone murder.


Why not read up on contractarianism?

Not sure what that is, so would be hard to do, but I may on a future date when I have less reading for history course to do.



It is if they lend out more than they have. Why not have a read of Murray Rothbard.

Again, I may do sometime in the future.

Oh and I see you have completely avoided my point on how a libertarian government would pay for itself if you dont want taxes, or the implications of those other payment systems.

What do you know about communism? Or are you just basing your decision about what is bollocks from your opinion. If you know what Communism truely stands for, you would know none of the so called "Communist" countries were actually communist.

Isn't that an example of the no true scotsman fallacy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

No, as to be communist, you have to follow or believe in communist ideals. The countries called communist did not follow communist ideals. Therefore they are not true communists.

Unless you believe that the Democratic Republic of Congo is democratic?

Isn't that an example of the no true scotsman fallacy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Only if the behavior engaged in by "so-called communist countries" is not contrary to communist ideology. If Peveski can establish that this behavior is in fact contrary to communist ideology, then no fallacy exists. I would proceed by finding inconsistancies between the ideology, rhetoric, and actual actions and behaviors of the leaders of "so-called communist countries." If behavior/results that is/are contrary to their own ideology and rhetoric can be found, Edit: Peveksi can point out the hypocrisy stating something like "why would those who advocate X instead do Y?"

No, as to be communist, you have to follow or believe in communist ideals. The countries called communist did not follow communist ideals. Therefore they are not true communists.
Well depends on the type of communism really. There isn't just one flavor of it so unless I or you could dig up a specific example of a communist country not following its ideals then I agree it wouldn't be an example of the no true scotsman fallacy.

Unless you believe that the Democratic Republic of Congo is democratic?
I really don't know the history on that one so I couldn't say. But yes there are plenty of countries that say they are democratic but arent and we can show that. Of course you haven't really given any examples of a "communist country" completely following different ideals and still calling itself communist.

Only if the behavior engaged in by "so-called communist countries" is not contrary to communist ideology. If Peveski can establish that this behavior is in fact contrary to communist ideology, then no fallacy exists. I would proceed by finding inconsistancies between the ideology, rhetoric, and actual actions and behaviors of the leaders of "so-called communist countries." If behavior/results that is/are contrary to their own ideology and rhetoric can be found, Edit: Peveksi can point out the hypocrisy stating something like "no one who believes/advocates X would actually do Y."
Yep you do have a point as to how proving something does or does not adhere to the no true scotsman fallacy. Also even if you prove that the leader is inherently not communist, if the country still follows the ideals, programs, anything else communist would it still be communist even though the leader was not?

Only if the behavior engaged in by "so-called communist countries" is not contrary to communist ideology. If Peveski can establish that this behavior is in fact contrary to communist ideology, then no fallacy exists. I would proceed by finding inconsistancies between the ideology, rhetoric, and actual actions and behaviors of the leaders of "so-called communist countries." If behavior/results that is/are contrary to their own ideology and rhetoric can be found, Edit: Peveksi can point out the hypocrisy stating something like "why would those who advocate X instead do Y?"


Taking the very useful way to show it is not a fallacy suggested by Dissonant Cognition (thanks, I was probably going to give some sort of complicated unneccesary explanation) I would say that as "Communism refers to a conjectured future classless, stateless social organization based upon common ownership of the means of production."(broadly. A useful definition from wiki), why would a true communist country have a strong centralsed government (either a dictatorship or oligarchy) and establish political elites, both present in all the so called Communist countries?

Also even if you prove that the leader is inherently not communist, if the country still follows the ideals, programs, anything else communist would it still be communist even though the leader was not?

Give me a specific example of this situation.

Taking the very useful way to show it is not a fallacy suggested by Dissonant Cognition (thanks, I was probably going to give some sort of complicated unneccesary explanation) I would say that as "Communism refers to a conjectured future classless, stateless social organization based upon common ownership of the means of production."(broadly. A useful definition from wiki), why would a true communist country have a strong centralsed government (either a dictatorship or oligarchy) and establish political elites, both present in all the so called Communist countries?

This isn't enough. Failing to reach a goal state does not necessarily mean that these countries were not genuinely aiming for it. My business failing does not make me a hypocritical capitalist, it simply makes me an unsuccessful one.

Additionally, many (non-anarchist) currents of communist thought hold that a strong centralized government and such are necessary to reach the communist end goal. If the leaders of these "so-called communist countries" believe the same, then they are not necessary acting contrary to their professed ideology. (Edit: perhaps one could argue that non-anarchist forms of communism are doomed to failure, even though this does not necessarily demonstrate that they are not communist.)

One needs to demonstrate that the "so-called communist countries" implimented strong centralized governments and political elites contrary to the political ideologies they claimed.

Taking the very useful way to show it is not a fallacy suggested by Dissonant Cognition (thanks, I was probably going to give some sort of complicated unneccesary explanation) I would say that as "Communism refers to a conjectured future classless, stateless social organization based upon common ownership of the means of production."(broadly. A useful definition from wiki)
Here is the line right under that same wiki article.

Communism also refers to a variety of political movements which claim the establishment of such a social organization as their ultimate goal.

why would a true communist country have a strong centralsed government (either a dictatorship or oligarchy) and establish political elites, both present in all the so called Communist countries?
I'll give you another quote from the same wiki article you referenced.

Marx held that society could not be transformed from the capitalist mode of production to the communist mode of production all at once, but required a state transitional period which Marx described as the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.

Give me a specific example of this situation.
Someone saying Stalin wasn't a communist so Russia would not be a communist country. Something to that effect.

You can't conceive of freedoms that people have that they will have the opportunity to exercise and freedoms that people have that they will never have the opportunity to exercise?

It is not freedom if you do not have the opportunity to exercise it. I do see what you are getting at, but I believe you are misinterpreting the capitalist stance to get there. No capitalist believes that someone is entitled to everything they want, only to what their natural ability allows. Borrowing from the communist mantra, the capitalist would say, "From each, according to his ability (and desire); to each, according to his ability (and desire)."


I would argue that capitalists would want an unrestricted right to property; if they could get beyond the restrictions that nature places on property, they would.

I don't think most capitalists even consider the possibility of having more property than nature allows. Considering that it is a natural right, it is thrown out the window when natural law is overcome.

Ah, I see. I wasn't suggesting that property ownership is in and of itself a theoretical freedom, I was suggesting that unrestricted property ownership (by the government) is a theoretical freedom.


Property ownership is an actual freedom, and unlimited property ownership is not a freedom, as it is not allowed by nature. But as I stated earlier, capitalism does not desire unlimited property ownership. They only wish for full property rights up until they are limited by nature, which is certainly not a theoretical freedom. Socialism revokes some of those property rights and freedoms to serve for economic safety.

Someone saying Stalin wasn't a communist so Russia would not be a communist country. Something to that effect.


I don't see how a brutal dictator is going to allow the society as a whole to organize themselves along lines contrary to his own purposes.

I don't see how a brutal dictator is going to allow the society as a whole to organize themselves along lines contrary to his own purposes.

True and I guess one could use that as an arguement but one would also have to look at the structure of the government and see if communism was being used by stalin to suit his own purposes.

...but one would also have to look at the structure of the government and see if communism was being used by stalin to suit his own purposes.

And in such a situation, it is possible that communism did not really exist at all.

And in such a situation, it is possible that communism did not really exist at all.

Yep I whole heartedly agree. Depending on the way Stalin used the government it is possible that it either wasn't communist and Stalin was just a dictator, or he was a dictator following the whole marxist dicatorship of the proletariat line and he was communist.

And in such a situation, it is possible that communism did not really exist at all.

The roots of communism existed, the social mindset did.

Stalin rose to power because of a central fallibility of communist movements, public subjugation to a cause. Any system that sets the person as a servent to a cause generally ends up with tyrant in control.

You would be correct in saying that end-form communism has never existed, but that does not deny communism's hand in creating some of the greatest tyrants to have existed.

You would be correct in saying that end-form communism has never existed, but that does not deny communism's hand in creating some of the greatest tyrants to have existed.

Which is why I suggest to Peveski that it is probably better to try and demonstrate that certain forms of communism will fail while others are perhaps preferable, instead of trying to demonstrate that these forms are not "true" communism.

OK, OK... Let's read this:

http://www.zompist.com/libertos.html

I agree with that essay from the first letter till last point. Liberalism says "live and let live"; libertarianism says "live and let die".

OK, OK... Let's read this:

http://www.zompist.com/libertos.html

I agree with that essay from the first letter till last point. Liberalism says "live and let live"; libertarianism says "live and let die".

If one is to "live and let live," he must also be prepared to "live and let die."

In a greater sense, life is freedom, death is the consequences of freedom.

http://www.zompist.com/libertos.html


Unfortunately, I don't have time to examine the entire article, so I will stop here (perhaps someone else can point out other problems in the article in question):


Libertarianism
...
Worker activism is evil
The poor are pampered good-for-nothings


"The Principle: We support the right of free persons to voluntarily establish, associate in, or not associate in, labor unions. An employer should have the right to recognize, or refuse to recognize, a union as the collective bargaining agent of some, or all, of its employees.

"Solutions: We oppose government interference in bargaining, such as compulsory arbitration or the imposition of an obligation to bargain. Therefore, we urge repeal of the National Labor Relations Act, and all state right-to-work laws which prohibit employers from making voluntary contracts with unions. We oppose all government back-to-work orders as the imposition of a form of forced labor.

"Transitional Action: Government-mandated waiting periods for closure of factories or businesses hurt, rather than help, the wage-earner. We support all efforts to benefit workers, owners and management by keeping government out of this area. Workers and employers should have the right to organize secondary boycotts if they so choose. Nevertheless, boycotts or strikes do not justify the initiation of violence against other workers, employers, strike-breakers and innocent bystanders."
-- http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#uniocoll

One can hardly claim that libertarians think that "worker activism is evil" when it would appear that libertarians support the right of workers to voluntarily organize unions, boycott, strikes, and other activities designed to benifit workers. It may be true that particular policies advocated by libertarians may not benifit workers as they claim, however, their advocacy of these measures can hardly be characterized as thinking that "worker activism is evil." It may also be true that some individual libertarians think that "worker activism is evil;" the wording of the platform shows that many (most?) do not.

Concerning the poor:

"The Issue: Government fiscal and monetary measures that artificially foster business expansion guarantee an eventual increase in unemployment rather than curtailing it. Government programs are inefficient, paternalistic, demeaning and invasive of privacy.

"The Principle: The proper source of help for the poor is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals. No worker should be legally penalized for lack of certification, and no consumer should be legally restrained from hiring unlicensed individuals.

Solutions: We seek the elimination of occupational licensure, which prevents human beings from working in whatever trade they wish. We call for the abolition of all federal, state and local government agencies that restrict entry into any profession, such as education and law, or regulate its practice. We oppose all government welfare, relief projects and "aid to the poor" programs.

Transitional Action: We call for the immediate cessation of such fiscal and monetary policies, as well as any governmental attempts to affect employment levels. We support repeal of all laws that impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws, so-called "protective" labor legislation for women and children, governmental restrictions on the establishment of private day-care centers, and the National Labor Relations Act. We deplore government-fostered forced retirement, which robs the elderly of the right to work. To speed the time when governmental programs are replaced by effective private institutions we advocate dollar-for-dollar tax credits for all charitable contributions."
-- http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#poveunem

Libertarians oppose welfare and employment programs created by government because they believe that such programs actually harm the poor and unemployed. Clearly, the Libertarian Platform encourages support for private charity, and therefore private support for the poor and unemployeed; this is a strange position to take if libertarians believe that "the poor are pampered good-for-nothings." And again, even if libertarians are wrong about their proposed policy preferences, their advocacy of these policies can hardly be chalked up to thinking that "The poor are pampered good-for-nothings." Instead, the advocacy is based on the percieved harm that government causes to the disadvantaged.


Or Ludwig von Mises: "What is today euphemistically called the right to strike is in fact the right of striking workers, by recourse to violence, to prevent people who want to work from working." (Employer violence is apparently acceptable.) The Libertarian Party platform explains that workers have no right to protest drug tests, and supports the return of child labor.


Nothing about the quote attributed to von Mises demonstrates advocacy for or acceptance of "employer violence." Actual evidence of such advocacy or acceptance would be helpful.

Concerning workers right to protest drug tests:

"If a private employer screens prospective or current employees via questionnaires, polygraph tests, urine tests for drugs, blood tests for AIDS, or other means, this is a condition of that employer's labor contracts. Such screening does not violate the rights of employees, who have the right to boycott such employers if they choose."
-- http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#protpriv

The Libertarian Party clearly supports the right of employees to boycott an employer who requires drug tests. Boycotts are a form of protest. Ergo, the Libertarian Party recognizes workers right to protest drug tests. Additionally, if employment is voluntary and potential employees are made aware of these requirements before employment, then drug test requirements are voluntarily chosen when employment is voluntarily chosen. At any rate, the Libertarian Party takes an extremely liberal stance on drugs in general:

"Transitional Action: Repeal all laws establishing criminal or civil penalties for the use of drugs. Repeal laws that infringe upon individual rights to be secure in our persons, homes, and property as protected by the Fourth Amendment. Stop the use of "anti-crime" measures such as profiling or civil asset forfeiture that reduce the standard of proof historically borne by government in prosecutions. Stop prosecuting accused non-violent drug offenders, and pardon those previously convicted."
-- http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#warondru

Concerning child labor:

"The Principle: Families and households are private institutions, which should be free from government intrusion and interference. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs, without interference by government -- unless they are abusing the children. Because parents have these rights, a child may not be able to fully exercise his or her rights in the context of family life. However, children always have the right to establish their maturity by assuming administration and protection of their own rights, ending dependency upon their parents or other guardians, and assuming all responsibilities of adulthood. A child is a human being and, as such, deserves to be treated justly.

Parents have no right to abandon or recklessly endanger their children. Whenever they are unable or unwilling to raise their children, they have the obligation to find other person(s) willing to assume guardianship.

Solutions: We recognize that the determination of child abuse can be very difficult. Only local courts should be empowered to remove a child from his or her home, with the consent of the community. This is not meant to preclude appropriate action when a child is in immediate physical danger."
-- http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#famichil

Yes, the Libertarian Party calls for the repeal of certain child labor laws. However, this advocacy is hardly motovated by a lack of concern for children's welfare and safety. Clearly, the platform establishes the responsibility of parents and guardians to see to the welfare and safety of their children, and to find others who can provide this safety if they cannot. Also, the platform recognizes the right of the community, including government, to rescue a child from danger where their parents or guardians fail to take such responsibility.

At any rate, if these gross mischaracterizations represent the depth of the intellectual effort put into this article, I'm not impressed.

snip

I'm glad I didn't read it. Sometimes it pays off to be lazy.

I'm glad I didn't read it. Sometimes it pays off to be lazy.

There is plenty about the Libertarian Party that I don't like. However, such obvious mischaracterizations, strawman arguments, and purposeful ignorance of issues and ideas are infinitely infuriating. :headbang:

Ask your parents. Afterall, they were the lazy bastards who couldn't go out there and get a job.
I'd like an answer to my question of why we would have starved. Please answer it.


I've given you four links, all containing statistics, references to other statistics and explanations on how the statistics were compiled. If you don't want to look, fine. But don't expect anyone to be convinced by your argument if you do it that way.
Don't expect me to be convinced by your made-up bull.

One suspects that if your parents were getting food stamps because either they had no income, or a very low one. Now if they had no income, no food stamps would have meant no food. On a very low one, the chances are that no, you wouldnt have starved, but you would have lacked other things instead.
And?


What would have happened if you hadnt had stamps according to your idea?
We'd've gone to a private food bank.

Unfortunately, while they do exist, they are quite put-upon to help the hungry--who are hungry due to the ever-more-voracious government taking the property of the citizens.

No, to pass a law telling people that they can't have something that they will never have anyway isn't a restriction on freedom.
That wasn't what I stated. Please set fire to your strawman.


In theory, there will be no limitations on the ability of people to rightfully acquire property.
So how then can property be rightfully acquired, in your view?


Except that there is a very clear and distinct difference between personal and private property,
No, there is not. It's a false dichotomy.

Hmm.. very clever response. Not even any argument to back it. At least when I claimed the argument was bollocks I gave a reason.
Which was merely a rationalization.

You offered nothing substantive.


What do you know about communism?
Quite a lot, AAMOF. I'd wager that I know more than you about it.


Or are you just basing your decision about what is bollocks from your opinion. If you know what Communism truely stands for, you would know none of the so called "Communist" countries were actually communist.
No, they were communist. Stop your No True Scotsman fallacy now.



While you may be right in the realm of something like education (but then where do those less well off get money to pay for decent education),
With the money they have, because education in a system w/o a government costs less than one with.


but on the issue of a health system and infastructure like roads you are wrong.
No, I'm correct.


In the states, where there is a market in health care they in fact spend a higher percentage of GDP on health than in Europe
And you'll find that it's not a pure market system; it's a hybrid.

So try to find a pure market system with which you can compare, and then you'll have a point. Until then--you don't have a point.

As for roads: http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/7_1/7_1_1.pdf



Actually, the base rate wasnt that high when Thatcher came to power,
I never said it was. However, the base rate did rise to 99% before falling.

I'm still waiting for someone to justify that theft.


but 33% (still more than today of course, and the higher rate was 85%). And yes, by the end of her reign (the bitch) taxes had fallen overall, but she actually raised taxes early in her period in response to the recession in the early 80s.
Yes, that she did.


Oh, you mean the Dickensian England that never existed apart from Dickensian novels.[QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Peveski]So you deny the surveys that said that 30% of Manchester's population was inn primary or secondary poverty?
I deny that Dickensian England existed outside of his novels.

How much history do you really know, hmmmmm? Or do you just like to think that the industrial revolution caused all the poverty, and that there was no poverty before that?



Er... what evidence do you have for [coervice monopolies only happening because of government fiat]
Oh, the fact that it's utterly impossible to bar market entry without the force of law behind you. How's that for evidence?


I would say yes, they only occur with government support, but not because they cause them directly,
Then you don't know history, do you?

Let's take a classic example: the railroads in the US. In the 1870s, as I recall, the California State Legislature (and, of course, the governor who signed it) granted the Southern Pacific a 30 YEAR MONOPOLY on rail transport in California.

Legislature. Law. Granted. Monopoly.

Got any more questions?


but because they dont take any action to prevent them, but then as you say they shouldnt have these powers, what is going to be done to prevent them?
The normal market forces tend to prevent monopolies.


But many in free market economy dont have real freedom to make their own choices.
Yes they do, unless you're so willing to pervert the concept of "choice" as to play some re-definition game to suit your needs.

Which is precisely what you're trying to do.


I dont see how that follows on [that our corneas can't be taken just because some people with cataracts need them], seeing as property is just an idea we have just created, ratherthan a part of our body.
Our bodies are our property.


But even then, the reason they dont have the right to take my corneas is because of the legal situation in Britain.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!

Try again.


I would say in a society existed where people had the right to take people's corneas if they had cateracts I dont have the right to not have my corneas taken away from me. Just no society exists as far as I know, and I most certainly wouldnt want to live there.
And why wouldn't you? (Hint: this is called the Socratic Method, and you'll find it quite interesting).


Didnt say that what a society does regarding the rights within it is always good. Yes, they took away Jews rights to own property, run businesses, and then their right to life. Didnt make it ok.
Then you contradict yourself.


You have misunderstood me. I dont think we have an intrinsic right to life even, rather that has been given to us by society saying people cant kill each randomly. Doesnt mean I condone murder.
Then you have no basis for your claim.


Not sure what that is,
"Contractarianism is a theory of morals, but what is morality? By this I mean, which of various possible directives that we might look to for any sort of guidance to our conduct are the ones called "moral"? As I understand this question, it is not intended to be a profoundly difficult philosophical question, but just an effort to be clear what we are talking about. The word 'moral' is no doubt used in more than one way, to be sure, and if so we will need to select among the familiar meanings the one that applies here. But in fact, the meanings aren't so diverse that the choice among them is arbitrary. In the main, there are two notions going here. One is that morality has to do with controlling one's passions; this is perhaps better called 'ethics,' but it doesn't matter. It was the meaning assigned to 'moral' by Aristotle (or rather, by his translators, by whom I am necessarily guided). The other is that morality is, roughly speaking, Rules for the Group. But the two are not unrelated, for a "rule" is something that is intended to override one's passions. Given the right set of rules, morality in the second sense requires morality in the first.

The idea of "rules for the group," as I call it, has an extremely important ambiguity in turn. Are these (1) the actual rules for an actual group? Or are they (2) the "true" or "real" or rationally certified such rules? Contractarianism is a theory about the latter, primarily. It can also be applied to the former question, as in Gilbert Harman's well-known work on Moral Relativism. But a theorist might, in the spirit of anthropology, simply be trying to explain how a given group's moral rules came to be what they are, and argue that some sort of agreement had something to do with it; or he might, in the spirit of the rationally reconstructivist philosopher, be arguing, normatively, that this is how a group's rules ought to look, in the light of reason. It is the latter, not the former, that is the undertaking of philosophical Contractarianism. "
http://againstpolitics.com/contractarianism_faq/index.html



Oh and I see you have completely avoided my point on how a libertarian government would pay for itself if you dont want taxes, or the implications of those other payment systems.
It might interest you to note that I'm an anarchocapitalist. So why would I answer your question, given that I don't want a government?

It might interest you to note that I'm an anarchocapitalist. So why would I answer your question, given that I don't want a government?
I'm really interested in the doctrine of anarchocapitalism (currently reading Democracy, the God that failed). Could you point me to any works on the theory, or perhaps answer some questions of mine on it?

I'm really interested in the doctrine of anarchocapitalism (currently reading Democracy, the God that failed). Could you point me to any works on the theory, or perhaps answer some questions of mine on it?
This (http://www.paulbirch.net/AnarchoCapitalism1.html) should answer the question.

This (http://www.paulbirch.net/AnarchoCapitalism1.html) should answer the question.
I'll give it a look. Funny how you guessed it. I went to the conclusion to see what exactly it is. Seems quite a good read. Ultraminimal Monarchy would be perfect in absence of Anarchocapitalism being able to function.

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.

most any anarchist would agree with him, and anarchist are libertarians... sure, most LP'ers wouldn't agree, but most LP'ers are fucking morons.



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.

I don't know, but I really think that words that are derived from a prefix/suffix-root pair should be defined by there base words. Communism=for the community; communist=one who wants or works towards the betterment of the community. Communism can be very oppressive, but so can "capitalism"/social darwinism.


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.

oh, but lets really get down to it; people do what benifits them the most. This is not an idea for a social or political or economic structure, it's just a fact of life. Either people learn to cooperate and alot of people succeed, or people try fighting for surpremacy and only a few people succeed.


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.

it doesn't matter how free you are, travel or whatever else you might do will require resources regardless of rather or not you are living in a capitalist, communist, fascist dictatorship or an anarchy (readas: extream libertarianism; not lib-left)


I'm sorry you react so passionately to the assertion that Libertarianism has 'no conscience'... but that really is how it seems

absolutely, liberatarianism has no conscience. you know why?... cause thats FOR you to have. Though, I digress; even by libertarian ideals, if say you are dumping toxin's upriver of a town they've everyright to take whatever measures nessicary to pervent you from destroying there water quality.

This (http://www.paulbirch.net/AnarchoCapitalism1.html) should answer the question.

I don't find any immediate problems with this, but I will read it again.

My problem with it is more intuitive, as his discription of the destruction of the anarcho-capitalist system resembles a Rube Goldberg contraption. He assumes a long chain of events, none of which are entirely certain to take place.

The only thing I can say is, I prefer a Republican President but would settle for a Libertarian President over a democrat.

I think Libertarians had a good charismatic candidate in Harry Brown, I liked some of his economic ideas, but was put off by his insane defence of drug use.

I think the campaign ad showing him blowing up the IRS building was a classic to make his point.

I do not know that much about Michael Badnarick to make a comment on him.

I think Libertarians had a good charismatic candidate in Harry Brown, I liked some of his economic ideas, but was put off by his insane defence of drug use.


What are some specific examples of such defense? Libertarians are, of course, very much anti-drug prohibition, but being against prohibition does not necessarly involve defending the actual use of drugs. I think the "war on drugs" is a huge waste of resources as well as a huge threat to human liberty, but I'd never take anything that wasn't recommended and prescribed by a qualified physician.

Only if the behavior engaged in by "so-called communist countries" is not contrary to communist ideology. If Peveski can establish that this behavior is in fact contrary to communist ideology, then no fallacy exists. I would proceed by finding inconsistancies between the ideology, rhetoric, and actual actions and behaviors of the leaders of "so-called communist countries." If behavior/results that is/are contrary to their own ideology and rhetoric can be found, Edit: Peveksi can point out the hypocrisy stating something like "why would those who advocate X instead do Y?"Sounds fun. Okay, I'll start. If the Soviet Union was truly communist, then they would advocate a class free society. Why then, would they set up separate stores for the government to shop in that the people who weren't in the government didn't have access to? This is not only not eliminating class distinctions, but creating another one. Therefore: not communist.

It is not freedom if you do not have the opportunity to exercise it. I do see what you are getting at, but I believe you are misinterpreting the capitalist stance to get there. No capitalist believes that someone is entitled to everything they want, only to what their natural ability allows. Borrowing from the communist mantra, the capitalist would say, "From each, according to his ability (and desire); to each, according to his ability (and desire)."Naturally, they don't agree that theft is a legitimate way to acquire property, however I would disagree that capitalism is about ability. This seems to imply a meritocracy, but there is no objective way to measure merit.

I don't think most capitalists even consider the possibility of having more property than nature allows. Considering that it is a natural right, it is thrown out the window when natural law is overcome.
Well, they seem to think that wealth is infinite, so quite clearly they believe in the possibility of having more property than nature allows, since nature doesn't allow infinite wealth.

Property ownership is an actual freedom, and unlimited property ownership is not a freedom, as it is not allowed by nature. But as I stated earlier, capitalism does not desire unlimited property ownership. They only wish for full property rights up until they are limited by nature, which is certainly not a theoretical freedom. Socialism revokes some of those property rights and freedoms to serve for economic safety.I would disagree that property ownership is freedom, it is only freedom insofar as it provides access to property. Property access is freedom, and it is quite possible to have access to property without owning it.

That wasn't what I stated.If that isn't what you stated, then could you please rephrase what you stated so it is more clear?

So how then can property be rightfully acquired, in your view?Rightful property ownership is through use. If you use property, you have a right to it, if you don't use property, you don't have a right to it. This is why there is a distinction between property that you use and property that you don't use.

This subject has come up in this thread already, but how would you justify the ownership of land? (I'm not yet asking about property, but land specifically)

I'm really interested in the doctrine of anarchocapitalism (currently reading Democracy, the God that failed). Could you point me to any works on the theory, or perhaps answer some questions of mine on it?
That which you are reading is good (btw, I've personally met Professor Hoppe). Also: The Market for Liberty by Morris and Linda Tannehill. Murray Rothbard's works on the subject are fantastic, too.

If that isn't what you stated, then could you please rephrase what you stated so it is more clear?
No--you should go back and read it.


Rightful property ownership is through use. If you use property, you have a right to it, if you don't use property, you don't have a right to it.
So if I buy a car, but keep it in a museum (i.e. not use it), I have no right to it?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

What a load of utter garbage.

And you wonder why communists are looked at rather condenscendingly.


This is why there is a distinction between property that you use and property that you don't use.
It's a false dichotomy.


This subject has come up in this thread already, but how would you justify the ownership of land? (I'm not yet asking about property, but land specifically)
http://againstpolitics.com/jan_narveson/narveson_first_comers.html

Which was merely a rationalization.

You offered nothing substantive.

I dont understand how you can claim that someone taking advatage of someone's destitution to offer them a shit wage is not exploitation? Ok, if they could go elsewhere and get a better wage, they are maybe being stupid, but that is a bit hard to do if everyone is offering shite wages.



Quite a lot, AAMOF. I'd wager that I know more than you about it.

No, they were communist. Stop your No True Scotsman fallacy now.

Wel, Ok, I will stop on this line of argument, but it can be said no country has reached the communist ideal, though there have been communist countries. You of course may think that the methods of communism mean that it will always lead to what happened in Russia etc, rather than that ideal. Personally I am undecided on that issue.



With the money they have, because education in a system w/o a government costs less than one with.

Erm.. well ok, say they would be cheaper, but if you don’t have that money to pay the cheaper rates, how can you afford the education? Just because it would be cheaper (which I personally doubt) doesn’t mean everyone could afford it.



No, I'm correct.



And you'll find that it's not a pure market system; it's a hybrid.

True.


So try to find a pure market system with which you can compare, and then you'll have a point. Until then--you don't have a point.

And you don’t have any evidence that a completely private system would be better either.


As for roads: http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/7_1/7_1_1.pdf

Haven’t got time to read it properly, due to having to leave in about 5 minutes, but it's main point (by p.7, so yes may explain it later on) doesn’t seem to be explaining how the market would provide a sensible road network, but that just because something benefits others than those who pay for the service/product/etc doesn’t mean that it should be paid by the society as a whole, as in fact, all purchases benefit others in some way (which in many of their examples of how, I can agree with) so that is little excuse for funded in a different way.



I never said it was. However, the base rate did rise to 99% before falling.

Sorry, the way you said it just suggested that to me, so that’s just a misunderstanding.


I'm still waiting for someone to justify that theft.

Well, if the normal arguments don’t convince you, it is unlikely you ever will feel it is justified, but in this case the Government needed the money to fight the war (obviously that continued after the war, but that was the initial reason for the high taxes). There is of course the question of whether taxes are theft. Again, something you are never going to be convinced that they are not.

Yes, that she did.

Oh, well, ok then, little disagreement there then


I deny that Dickensian England existed outside of his novels.
So what do you think it was really like? Obviously Dickens' stories were fiction, so you cannot use them as historical documents (apart from maybe for the study of Victorian literature etc), but do you really think that nothing he described existed? And when you first said anything, I hadn’t mentioned Dickens. I was not describing Dickensian England.


How much history do you really know, hmmmmm? Or do you just like to think that the industrial revolution caused all the poverty, and that there was no poverty before that?

Of course not, to think that poverty existed only during and after the industrial revolution would be moronic. Just what you have said so far suggests you think it didn’t exist, or just wasn’t much of a problem in the 19th C, which would also be moronic. Also my point that those disadvantaged people were not "adequately" provided for through charity stands. I didn’t mean just in the industrial period, but throughout history.




Oh, the fact that it's utterly impossible to bar market entry without the force of law behind you. How's that for evidence?

True, anyone could enter the market, but what would prevent larger businesses from driving newer, almost certainly far smaller businesses out of the market and through that having an effective monopoly?



Then you don't know history, do you?

Let's take a classic example: the railroads in the US. In the 1870s, as I recall, the California State Legislature (and, of course, the governor who signed it) granted the Southern Pacific a 30 YEAR MONOPOLY on rail transport in California.

Legislature. Law. Granted. Monopoly.

Got any more questions?

True, I have forgotten about government granted monopolies, which is a bit stupid, as I hate that situation we have in Britain with our government granting monopolies to rail companies here. Of course, the response to that I would advocate is completely different from yours. But that is not the only way a monopoly can be achieved. Large businesses can use their market power to drive others out the market.


The normal market forces tend to prevent monopolies.

I don’t see how.



Yes they do, unless you're so willing to pervert the concept of "choice" as to play some re-definition game to suit your needs.

Which is precisely what you're trying to do.

Ok, if you say choice is any decision between more than one option, then your right. I just don’t see the choice between starvation and borderline poverty as much of a choice. Economic circumstance can seriously limit people's choices, and maybe more importantly, their opportunities, so economic circumstances limits their freedom.



Our bodies are our property.

OK, if that’s how you view them.


BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!

Try again.
Erm.. don’t see how that is wrong. Does the law in Britain allow someone to take my corneas? I guess there is also the fact that society frowns on that thing. There is nothing absolute on the other hand that means someone cant take my corneas against my will.



And why wouldn't you? (Hint: this is called the Socratic Method, and you'll find it quite interesting).

Because I like my corneas? Don’t see where you are going here.



Then you contradict yourself.



Then you have no basis for your claim.

Not sure how, but ok, what I said I typed in at least a very confused manner.



"Contractarianism is a theory of morals, but what is morality? By this I mean, which of various possible directives that we might look to for any sort of guidance to our conduct are the ones called "moral"? As I understand this question, it is not intended to be a profoundly difficult philosophical question, but just an effort to be clear what we are talking about. The word 'moral' is no doubt used in more than one way, to be sure, and if so we will need to select among the familiar meanings the one that applies here. But in fact, the meanings aren't so diverse that the choice among them is arbitrary. In the main, there are two notions going here. One is that morality has to do with controlling one's passions; this is perhaps better called 'ethics,' but it doesn't matter. It was the meaning assigned to 'moral' by Aristotle (or rather, by his translators, by whom I am necessarily guided). The other is that morality is, roughly speaking, Rules for the Group. But the two are not unrelated, for a "rule" is something that is intended to override one's passions. Given the right set of rules, morality in the second sense requires morality in the first.

The idea of "rules for the group," as I call it, has an extremely important ambiguity in turn. Are these (1) the actual rules for an actual group? Or are they (2) the "true" or "real" or rationally certified such rules? Contractarianism is a theory about the latter, primarily. It can also be applied to the former question, as in Gilbert Harman's well-known work on Moral Relativism. But a theorist might, in the spirit of anthropology, simply be trying to explain how a given group's moral rules came to be what they are, and argue that some sort of agreement had something to do with it; or he might, in the spirit of the rationally reconstructivist philosopher, be arguing, normatively, that this is how a group's rules ought to look, in the light of reason. It is the latter, not the former, that is the undertaking of philosophical Contractarianism. "
http://againstpolitics.com/contractarianism_faq/index.html

Unfortunately I didn’t have time to read the whole if that link either.



It might interest you to note that I'm an anarchocapitalist. So why would I answer your question, given that I don't want a government?

Very true. Didn’t realise you were one, thought you were one of those “minichists” (is that the term?). As you’re an anarchist, I guess that point is best asked to other libertarians who do believe in a government of some sort. Have other problems with that lack of government, but funding and what will happen to a government obviously don’t apply there.

The roots of communism existed, the social mindset did.

Stalin rose to power because of a central fallibility of communist movements, public subjugation to a cause. Any system that sets the person as a servent to a cause generally ends up with tyrant in control.

You would be correct in saying that end-form communism has never existed, but that does not deny communism's hand in creating some of the greatest tyrants to have existed.

Just as 'capitalism' has....

oh, but lets really get down to it; people do what benifits them the most.

Some people do. And those people are a curse for those of us who are otherwise.

Maybe that's what government is REALLY for? To stop the selfish elements from ruining it for the rest of us?

Just as 'capitalism' has....

Yes, all these tyrannical western democracies.

When individualism is key, people are able to sustain their liberties. When collectivism is key, people are suppressed.

Can you show any historical evidence that would prove otherwise?

Yes, all these tyrannical western democracies.

When individualism is key, people are able to sustain their liberties. When collectivism is key, people are suppressed.

Can you show any historical evidence that would prove otherwise?

Ferdinand Marcos immediately leaps to mind, since I was listening to the news about the Philippines tragedy earlier...

Naturally, they don't agree that theft is a legitimate way to acquire property, however I would disagree that capitalism is about ability. This seems to imply a meritocracy, but there is no objective way to measure merit.

In a capitalist society, the society determines another's economic merit through its constant input into the free market.

Well, they seem to think that wealth is infinite, so quite clearly they believe in the possibility of having more property than nature allows, since nature doesn't allow infinite wealth.

I have not heard a capitalist say that wealth is infinite.

I would disagree that property ownership is freedom, it is only freedom insofar as it provides access to property. Property access is freedom, and it is quite possible to have access to property without owning it.


Freedom extends to much more than what you or I wish to be the case. The ability to murder and steal are personal freedoms that are revoked in order protect another's personal freedom.

What you wish is to revoke the freedom of property ownership in order to create the positive freedom of access to property.

I personally believe that is impractical and immoral.

Ferdinand Marcos immediately leaps to mind, since I was listening to the news about the Philippines tragedy earlier...

I do not know much about Marcos, but I do believe that he came to power because of nationalistic ferver against Southeast Asian Communists and that he was disposed by a nonviolent revolution. I also believe he strengthened his rule through collectivist propaganda.

No--you should go back and read it.<Goes back.> Nope, what you said is how I interpreted it. If you meant something else, then you need to rephrase.

So if I buy a car, but keep it in a museum (i.e. not use it), I have no right to it?Well, yes. Typically things in museums are donated to the museum, meaning that the original owner gives up all claims of ownership.

And you wonder why communists are looked at rather condenscendingly.Because you have an upside-down worldview.

It's a false dichotomy.No, it's false to say that there isn't a difference between them.

http://againstpolitics.com/jan_narveson/narveson_first_comers.htmlYes, that's very interesting. Except, that it doesn't answer the question. The vast majority of land today isn't possessed by the first comers, it was forcibly taken from them. There is no way of giving them back the land, since they are long dead. What justifies present ownership of the land that isn't owned by the first comers, and wasn't sold to the present owners by the first comers, or by someone who had a legitimate claim to the land?

Furthermore, I'm not quite sure whether or not this guy is deliberately misunderstanding socialism or is simply ignorant of it, but much of what he says about it is flat out wrong. I also find it to be rather amusing that he himself forwards my own argument:

On the other hand, if you want a reason why I should not think that others inherently own all of nature, the answer is exceedingly simple: it's because the claim is made at my expense.This is an argument against ownership of land, not in favor of it.

I do not know much about Marcos, but I do believe that he came to power because of nationalistic ferver against Southeast Asian Communists and that he was disposed by a nonviolent revolution. I also believe he strengthened his rule through collectivist propaganda.

He strengthened his rule by a brutal despotism that definitely killed at least thousands, He furthered his rule by redistributing the properties of his enemies to his friends.

Capitalist, brutal dictator... that was pretty much what you asked for, no?

In a capitalist society, the society determines another's economic merit through its constant input into the free market.The free market isn't an objective measure of merit. For instance, there's this thread:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=467546

I'm hard pressed to find a reason that short people are inherently less deserving than taller people.

I have not heard a capitalist say that wealth is infinite.Sorry to have to link to another thread, but:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=462905

I think we can both agree that B0zzy is a supporter of capitalism.

Freedom extends to much more than what you or I wish to be the case. The ability to murder and steal are personal freedoms that are revoked in order protect another's personal freedom.

What you wish is to revoke the freedom of property ownership in order to create the positive freedom of access to property.

I personally believe that is impractical and immoral.I don't wish to revoke the freedom of property ownership, I wish that to be voluntarily given up as the price one pays for living in a society, or a community if you prefer that term. Do you not believe that groups of people are allowed to ask a price of people who wish to associate themselves with the group? One could argue that this is impractical, but I don't believe that it's immoral.

The free market isn't an objective measure of merit. For instance, there's this thread:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=467546

I'm hard pressed to find a reason that short people are inherently less deserving than taller people.

This is a good point, but problems with the psychologies of individual valuation are not going to be overcome by the elimination of the free market.

I never said the free market was a perfect way of determining merit, only that it is the most accurate.

Sorry to have to link to another thread, but:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=462905

I think we can both agree that B0zzy is a supporter of capitalism.

I remember that thread now, and remember why I didn't post in it. None of the capitalists in that thread would deny that in aggregate, at any particular moment, that there is a finite level of wealth.

But when you add the dimension of time, while still not allowing for infinite wealth, you are allowing for continued creation of wealth. As long as there is time, as long as there is existence, there is still the possibility of added wealth.

So wealth will not run out as long as we still exist, but no, it is not infinite. This is where economics meets quantum physics, and I don't know much about the outer limits of physics.

I don't wish to revoke the freedom of property ownership, I wish that to be voluntarily given up as the price one pays for living in a society, or a community if you prefer that term. Do you not believe that groups of people are allowed to ask a price of people who wish to associate themselves with the group? One could argue that this is impractical, but I don't believe that it's immoral.

You cannot have that through democratic government measures, you can only have that through a lack of government intervention. If government enforces capitalism on a community level, then your wish is not possible. If government enforces that on a community level, then your wish is not possible.

The only way for people to actually voluntarily give up property in return for the benefits of a community, there must a greater protection of a free market and property rights.

He strengthened his rule by a brutal despotism that definitely killed at least thousands, He furthered his rule by redistributing the properties of his enemies to his friends.

Capitalist, brutal dictator... that was pretty much what you asked for, no?

I was asking for a government founded in the interests of individualism, and not collectivism, that has or had a history of oppressing its people.

His despotism arose out of a nationalistic ferver within the Phillipines, not a call for individual rights.

I was asking for a government founded in the interests of individualism, and not collectivism, that has or had a history of oppressing its people.

His despotism arose out of a nationalistic ferver within the Phillipines, not a call for individual rights.

I think you are attempting to shift goalposts.

You implied that there was something about communism that automatically lead to brutal despotisms, and I said the same was true for capitalism.

Ferdinand Marcos is testament to that... no matter how you try to obfuscate.

Also... Marcos was a liberal BEFORE he joined the nationalist movement... I find it hard to prove his government wasn't founded in the interests of individualism.... nationalist fervour, or no. I don't think you have concrete proof, either... and thus, I'm forced to consider that you are just quibbling to avoid having to admit that capitalist societies can spawn tyrants, just like communist societies can.

I think you are attempting to shift goalposts.

You implied that there was something about communism that automatically lead to brutal despotisms, and I said the same was true for capitalism.

Ferdinand Marcos is testament to that... no matter how you try to obfuscate.

Also... Marcos was a liberal BEFORE he joined the nationalist movement... I find it hard to prove his government wasn't founded in the interests of individualism.... nationalist fervour, or no. I don't think you have concrete proof, either... and thus, I'm forced to consider that you are just quibbling to avoid having to admit that capitalist societies can spawn tyrants, just like communist societies can.

Capitalist societies can spawn tyrants, and tyrants can be capitalistic. Augusto Pinochet is another example.

However, I was stating that collectivism results in oppression and because of that communism, when triggered by a collectivist movement, will result in tyranny.

Personally I would argue its the whole revolution thing that makes it lead to dictatorships, but then thats just my opinion.

Personally I would argue its the whole revolution thing that makes it lead to dictatorships, but then thats just my opinion.

I agree. Violence and coercion, whether in the name of the worker or the boss, will only beget violence and coercion.

Plus, I'm inclined to believe that communism and capitalism are equally vulnerable to totalitarianism and dictators, even in the absense of revolution. They both suffer from a common infection or deficiency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens_sapiens), one which is not typically inclined to acquiesce to whatever utopian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism) fantasy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism) that has been invented.

Edit: All I can do is watch my back and try not to get discouraged (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moon_Is_a_Harsh_Mistress).

I dont understand how you can claim that someone taking advatage of someone's destitution to offer them a shit wage is not exploitation?
I don't see how you can objectively call it a "shit wage". What is your objective criteria?

Hint: wages--and indeed, all value--is subjective. What you might think as a
shit wage" the person making doesn't think so.


Wel, Ok, I will stop on this line of argument, but it can be said no country has reached the communist ideal,
...because it's impossible to reach.



Erm.. well ok, say they [schools] would be cheaper, but if you don’t have that money to pay the cheaper rates, how can you afford the education?
Scholarships.

And why wouldn't people be able to afford it without the government stealing their money?



And you don’t have any evidence that a completely private system would be better either.
Yes, actually, I do: the fact that completely private systems always are better. The fact that anything else requires the abridgement of someone else's rights.



Well, if the normal arguments don’t convince you, it is unlikely you ever will feel it is justified, but in this case the Government needed the money to fight the war (obviously that continued after the war, but that was the initial reason for the high taxes). There is of course the question of whether taxes are theft. Again, something you are never going to be convinced that they are not.
1. Wars are almost never justifiable to the point where they should be fought.
2. Taxation is the taking by force of someone else's property without their explicit consent. That is theft by anyone's rational definition.


So what do you think it was really like? Obviously Dickens' stories were fiction, so you cannot use them as historical documents (apart from maybe for the study of Victorian literature etc), but do you really think that nothing he described existed? And when you first said anything, I hadn’t mentioned Dickens. I was not describing Dickensian England.
1. You were describing Dickensian England as qua what Dickens felt England was like a few decades before.
2. I know that while there were people in poverty and whatnot, people were in poverty in England long long long long long long long long long long long long before the industrian revolution. And I know that people's life expectencies began to creep up during that time. That, gradually, a middle class came about.



Of course not, to think that poverty existed only during and after the industrial revolution would be moronic.
Yet that is PRECISELY what blaming capitalism for the problems in England during that time states.


Just what you have said so far suggests you think it didn’t exist, or just wasn’t much of a problem in the 19th C, which would also be moronic. Also my point that those disadvantaged people were not "adequately" provided for through charity stands. I didn’t mean just in the industrial period, but throughout history.
Oh, some were. But it wasn't until the industrial revolution and all that it wrought that there were enough people making enough money to be able to give much to any semblance of a charity!



True, anyone could enter the market, but what would prevent larger businesses from driving newer, almost certainly far smaller businesses out of the market and through that having an effective monopoly?
The fact that they'd either drive themselves into debt doing it, or that new competitors would spring up after others were driven away. With no legal barrier to entry, there's no way to prevent it. It is only when a government grants a monopoly status (btw, a government itself is a coercive territorial monopoly) that problems arise.



True, I have forgotten about government granted monopolies, which is a bit stupid, as I hate that situation we have in Britain with our government granting monopolies to rail companies here. Of course, the response to that I would advocate is completely different from yours. But that is not the only way a monopoly can be achieved. Large businesses can use their market power to drive others out the market.
See above.



I don’t see how [normal market forces prevent monopolies]
Then perhaps you should take a look into economics.

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap10a.asp



Ok, if you say choice is any decision between more than one option, then your right. I just don’t see the choice between starvation and borderline poverty as much of a choice.
That's you. And you'd probably starve.


Economic circumstance can seriously limit people's choices, and maybe more importantly, their opportunities, so economic circumstances limits their freedom.
Impossible.



Erm.. don’t see how that is wrong. Does the law in Britain allow someone to take my corneas?
But *why* is the law that it is that way? There must be a grounding to the law. So why is it?


I guess there is also the fact that society frowns on that thing. There is nothing absolute on the other hand that means someone cant take my corneas against my will.
That's irrelevant, though.


Because I like my corneas? Don’t see where you are going here.
Because you don't understand the direct link between morality and rights. I, OTOH, do.


Unfortunately I didn’t have time to read the whole if that link either.
You really should. Prof. Narveson is one of the leading proponents of contractarianism (and a really cool guy, to boot).

<Goes back.> Nope, what you said is how I interpreted it. If you meant something else, then you need to rephrase.
No, I do not. You need to go back and re-read it.


Well, yes. Typically things in museums are donated to the museum,
Not when it's my own personal museum. Think of Jay Leno and his automobile and motorcycle museum he has at his house. He doesn't do anything with some of the cars and bikes. Are they still his?

You must say no if you are at all consistent.


Because you have an upside-down worldview.
No, my worldview is consistent with the axioms of human action.


No, it's false to say that there isn't a difference between them.
No, it's false to say there is a difference. There is no such distinction between personal and private property. None. I defy to you prove that there is a distinction.


Yes, that's very interesting. Except, that it doesn't answer the question.
Except that it does. You asked "how do you justify land ownership". So I did.


The vast majority of land today isn't possessed by the first comers, it was forcibly taken from them.
So what?


There is no way of giving them back the land, since they are long dead.
So what?


Furthermore, I'm not quite sure whether or not this guy is deliberately misunderstanding socialism or is simply ignorant of it,
Which just shows how well you know Prof. Narveson. And I'll take your ill-informed and ignorant opinion with the infinitesimal grain of salt that it doesn't even that much deserve.


but much of what he says about it is flat out wrong. I also find it to be rather amusing that he himself forwards my own argument:

"On the other hand, if you want a reason why I should not think that others inherently own all of nature,"
No one but you is making the claim that others claim that we inherently own things. So kill your strawman, moron.

I don't see how you can objectively call it a "shit wage". What is your objective criteria?

Hint: wages--and indeed, all value--is subjective. What you might think as a
shit wage" the person making doesn't think so.
Yes, is is subjective, but just because the person took the wage didn't mean they thought it wasn't shit. And I was defining shit as a barely (if even that) living wage. But ok, taking out the term "shit", how is someone taking advatage of the high unemployment and destitution of a person to give them a very low wage that quite possibly might not cover their living costs not expliotation?



...because it's impossible to reach.
Ah... something else we agree on.




Scholarships.
And we know enough of those provided to let everyone get an education because...?


And why wouldn't people be able to afford it without the government stealing their money?
Why would they? Just because taxes are eliminated doesnt mean everyone could afford education. True, probably many could, and might even end up paying less overall for it, but just because some would be paying less for it doesnt mean everyone would be able to afford it.

And even if most (I cannot see how everyone could) could afford it, wouldnt a gap based on your wealth appear in education, ie that the most well off would get the best education?

And then, as most people agree that education is a very good way to help people out of poverty, wouldnt that just disadvatage those that couldnt affod the best education?

Unless you dont think this is a problem? If that is true then, we are probably so far apart in beliefs that we will never understand each other.


Yes, actually, I do: the fact that completely private systems always are better. The fact that anything else requires the abridgement of someone else's rights.
Erm... I would disagree on the first point, but hey if thats the way you think.
And I guess the latter all depends on your opinion of what rights are most important. You stress the importance of property rights as one of the most important. I do not. We can all accept that all systems impose on people's freedoms to one degreeon another, what is different between each system is what freedoms they impose on, and to what extent they do that.


1. Wars are almost never justifiable to the point where they should be fought.
While I would agree none are justified, I do see them as occasionally neccessary though (a difference I find difficult explaining to people).


1. You were describing Dickensian England as qua what Dickens felt England was like a few decades before.
That was not what I was describing. I didnt have Dickens in mind when making that initial point at all. And as far as I can tell, he was writing about how he thought England was like when he was writing (at least the stories which were more of a social commentry).



Yet that is PRECISELY what blaming capitalism for the problems in England during that time states.
Urbanisation was accelerated by the industrial revolution, causing many of the worst problems in those areas. True, capatalism is not the sole cause in itself (or maybe not even any cause of it at all, but I am yet to be convinced), but I cannot see how capatalism hopes to bring people out of poverty.



Oh, some were. But it wasn't until the industrial revolution and all that it wrought that there were enough people making enough money to be able to give much to any semblance of a charity!
Erm... I am fairly certain throughout history there were always enough people who had the money to provide adequate provision through charity. In most cases throughout history there have been enough resources available to provide everyone with a reasonable life (for the time), and someone (obviously not one individual) has "owned" those resources, and so if they had wished, could have provided adequate standards to those that couldn't provide that for themselves. The thing is though, that they didnt. They could have, but didnt, so there is no evidence that charity at any point would provide adequate provision. Almost certainly the same in the industrial revolution and after that, but still charity didnt provide that adequate provision. In fact, it was about then that the whole thing about undeserving poor was at its hight.




The fact that they'd either drive themselves into debt doing it, or that new competitors would spring up after others were driven away. With no legal barrier to entry, there's no way to prevent it. It is only when a government grants a monopoly status (btw, a government itself is a coercive territorial monopoly) that problems arise.
Erm... ok, I can accept that there is no way to prevent a another competitor getting into the market, so technically they wouldnt be able to maintain a complete monopoly, but I cannot understand



That's you. And you'd probably starve.
Ah, starting to see another fundemental difference between us here.
Oh, and I wouldnt be stupid enough to let myself starve.



Impossible.
Erm... What? So you are saying that someone who comes from a deprived background has the same opportunties and choices available to them as someone from a wealthy background? Erm... do you realise how stupid that sounds?



But *why* is the law that it is that way? There must be a grounding to the law. So why is it?
Well, I would say that as generally people like to keep their corneas they have agreed not to take others, so that others will not try to lay claim on theirs.



That's irrelevant, though.
Well, if thats the way you think.



Because you don't understand the direct link between morality and rights. I, OTOH, do.
Maybe, maybe not.



You really should. Prof. Narveson is one of the leading proponents of contractarianism (and a really cool guy, to boot).

Well, of the bit I did read, he said " The question to ask about Hobbes's political theory is whether it is a correct application of the moral theory. I believe that it is not. For that reason, if the perceived problem with Contractarianism is that its political consequences are awful, then we must at least consider the possibility that the fault might lie, not in the contractarian moral theory itself, but in the attempt to extract political blood from contractarian turnips."

While that is true, it also has to be considered that the application that leads to something you dont like could be a correct application as well. He basically just seems to dump Hobbes interpretation of it because he didnt like its conclusions, without (ok, as far as I read, but that just made me think "Hey, is this even worth reading if he just says "I believe it is not"") giving much explanation. Also, the "awful" consequences (the existance of the state being justified) is just awful in his eyes (well, in others eyes as well, but not all).

Oh, and would a minarchist please answer my question about government funding and why libertarian governments would be so special please? My first post in this thread, page 17 I think. Quite a long one, but the point irrelevant to BAAWA as he is an anarcho-capitalist, but I still want to see what the argument behind that was.

This is a good point, but problems with the psychologies of individual valuation are not going to be overcome by the elimination of the free market.

I never said the free market was a perfect way of determining merit, only that it is the most accurate.I don't agree that it is the most accurate, however debates of merit have never been done democratically on a large scale (other than through the market), so I can really only argue this point through conjecture.

I remember that thread now, and remember why I didn't post in it. None of the capitalists in that thread would deny that in aggregate, at any particular moment, that there is a finite level of wealth.

But when you add the dimension of time, while still not allowing for infinite wealth, you are allowing for continued creation of wealth. As long as there is time, as long as there is existence, there is still the possibility of added wealth.

So wealth will not run out as long as we still exist, but no, it is not infinite. This is where economics meets quantum physics, and I don't know much about the outer limits of physics.I agree that with those criteria, that wealth is unlikely to run out as long as we still exist.

You cannot have that through democratic government measures, you can only have that through a lack of government intervention. If government enforces capitalism on a community level, then your wish is not possible. If government enforces that on a community level, then your wish is not possible.

The only way for people to actually voluntarily give up property in return for the benefits of a community, there must a greater protection of a free market and property rights.I disagree. How does a lack of government intervention help with the enforcement of contracts?

No, I do not. You need to go back and re-read it.Uh, I did, and that is what you said. But feel free to continue to prevaricate.

Not when it's my own personal museum. Think of Jay Leno and his automobile and motorcycle museum he has at his house. He doesn't do anything with some of the cars and bikes. Are they still his?

You must say no if you are at all consistent.It's really nice (read: arrogant) of you to claim that you know my ideas and philosophy better than I do.

I never claimed that if you don't drive a car, you're not using it. Strawman, anyone?

No, it's false to say there is a difference. There is no such distinction between personal and private property. None. I defy to you prove that there is a distinction.I already did, the distinction is based upon use. I defy you to prove that that isn't a distinction.

Except that it does. You asked "how do you justify land ownership". So I did.No, you pulled up an article that was only relevant to the concept about 500,000 years ago.

So what?So for the vast majority of land, the first comers claim is invalid. Find a new one.

Which just shows how well you know Prof. Narveson. And I'll take your ill-informed and ignorant opinion with the infinitesimal grain of salt that it doesn't even that much deserve.The man did claim that communism was authoritarian, which is fine, except for the fact that communism isn't inherently authoritarian. Oops.

No one but you is making the claim that others claim that we inherently own things. So kill your strawman, moron.Hm, that's funny, considering that I've been arguing against ownership of things, inherent or otherwise. Open mouth, insert foot.

I don't agree that it is the most accurate, however debates of merit have never been done democratically on a large scale (other than through the market), so I can really only argue this point through conjecture.

The free market is the largest and most direct democracy possible

I agree that with those criteria, that wealth is unlikely to run out as long as we still exist.

There is a distinction, however, between never running out and infinite that those in that thread never made.

I disagree. How does a lack of government intervention help with the enforcement of contracts?

That is not what I am talking about here. You want people to voluntarily give up their rights to private property to create a communal society, and I stated that government installation of communism is not a voluntary giving up of property rights.

Depending on how big of an anarchist you are, government intervention may be required for the enforcement of contracts.

Erm... an anarchist has to believe in no government. You can beleive in only very little government, but an anarchist has to believe in no government at all.

Though you dont have to be an anarchist to be a libertarian (from what I have got from this thread at least).

Yes, is is subjective, but just because the person took the wage didn't mean they thought it wasn't shit.
If they thought it was "shit", why did they take it?


And I was defining shit as a barely (if even that) living wage.
Perhaps the person-in-question should cut back on non-essentials.


But ok, taking out the term "shit", how is someone taking advatage of the high unemployment and destitution of a person to give them a very low wage that quite possibly might not cover their living costs not expliotation?
I want to know how it is. I want to know how it's taking advantage of someone's condition. Please enlighten me, given that I've read a hell of a lot more about economics than you will ever read in your entire life.



Ah... something else we agree on [that the communist idea is impossible to reach]
So if you agree that it is impossible to reach, why do you harp about it?



And we know enough of those [scholarships] provided to let everyone get an education because...?
We don't. But we can't assume there won't be and force others to pay for the education of someone else. That is theft.



Why would they?
Why wouldn't they be able to afford an education.?


Just because taxes are eliminated doesnt mean everyone could afford education. True, probably many could, and might even end up paying less overall for it, but just because some would be paying less for it doesnt mean everyone would be able to afford it.
Again: that's what scholarships and such are for.


And even if most (I cannot see how everyone could) could afford it, wouldnt a gap based on your wealth appear in education, ie that the most well off would get the best education?
Ah....egalitarianism raises its head.

Trying to "revolt against nature", as Rothbard so well put it, won't do.


And then, as most people agree that education is a very good way to help people out of poverty, wouldnt that just disadvatage those that couldnt affod the best education?
No.


Erm... I would disagree on the first point, [that private systems are always better] but hey if thats the way you think.
And I guess the latter all depends on your opinion of what rights are most important. You stress the importance of property rights as one of the most important. I do not.
Then you have no recourse if someone were to beat you and break some of your bones, since you do not believe that property rights are important.

I must hold you to be consistent in your thoughts. If you think that you would have recourse because there is some law, then what is the basis of that law? Without property rights, the law has no grounding.


We can all accept that all systems impose on people's freedoms to one degreeon another, what is different between each system is what freedoms they impose on, and to what extent they do that.
Any system which imposes unchosen obligations is heinous and criminal.



While I would agree none are justified,
Some are, I said. I can think of two: the War for American Independence and the War for Southern Independence.


That was not what I was describing. I didnt have Dickens in mind when making that initial point at all. And as far as I can tell, he was writing about how he thought England was like when he was writing (at least the stories which were more of a social commentry).
He was writing about how he thought England was like a couple decades before. He was, of course, wrong in his beliefs. And too many people consider his fiction to be what the actual case was!



Urbanisation was accelerated by the industrial revolution, causing many of the worst problems in those areas.
No--most of the problems already existed.


True, capatalism is not the sole cause in itself (or maybe not even any cause of it at all, but I am yet to be convinced), but I cannot see how capatalism hopes to bring people out of poverty.
I can't see how you feel that theft will bring people out of poverty.


Erm... I am fairly certain throughout history there were always enough people who had the money to provide adequate provision through charity.
Your "fairly certain" would be ok if it weren't for the fact that most of those people (in Europe) were government officials or clergy (and sometimes were both). And we know that no church or government is going to give the money back.


In most cases throughout history there have been enough resources available to provide everyone with a reasonable life (for the time), and someone (obviously not one individual) has "owned" those resources, and so if they had wished, could have provided adequate standards to those that couldn't provide that for themselves. The thing is though, that they didnt. They could have, but didnt, so there is no evidence that charity at any point would provide adequate provision. Almost certainly the same in the industrial revolution and after that, but still charity didnt provide that adequate provision. In fact, it was about then that the whole thing about undeserving poor was at its hight.
Again: who owned the resources in Europe: government/clergy.



Erm... ok, I can accept that there is no way to prevent a another competitor getting into the market, so technically they wouldnt be able to maintain a complete monopoly, but I cannot understand
Cannot understand what?


Erm... What? So you are saying that someone who comes from a deprived background has the same opportunties and choices available to them as someone from a wealthy background?
I'm saying that their freedom is not deprived.


Well, I would say that as generally people like to keep their corneas they have agreed not to take others, so that others will not try to lay claim on theirs.
But without property rights, upon what basis do you make the claim?



Well, of the bit I did read, he said " The question to ask about Hobbes's political theory is whether it is a correct application of the moral theory. I believe that it is not. For that reason, if the perceived problem with Contractarianism is that its political consequences are awful, then we must at least consider the possibility that the fault might lie, not in the contractarian moral theory itself, but in the attempt to extract political blood from contractarian turnips."

While that is true, it also has to be considered that the application that leads to something you dont like could be a correct application as well. He basically just seems to dump Hobbes interpretation of it because he didnt like its conclusions, without (ok, as far as I read, but that just made me think "Hey, is this even worth reading if he just says "I believe it is not"") giving much explanation.
Read further. And read more of his works.


Also, the "awful" consequences (the existance of the state being justified) is just awful in his eyes (well, in others eyes as well, but not all).
For reasons which he does explain, especially in The Libertarian Idea (of which I have an autographed copy).

Uh, I did, and that is what you said. But feel free to continue to prevaricate.
No, it isn't. Feel free to continue to be illiterate.


It's really nice (read: arrogant) of you to claim that you know my ideas and philosophy better than I do.
It's really nice of you to not answer the question.


I never claimed that if you don't drive a car, you're not using it.
Then what are you doing with it? Please elucidate.


I already did, the distinction is based upon use.
There is no such distinction. I defy you to prove that there is one.


No, you pulled up an article that was only relevant to the concept about 500,000 years ago.
Wrong. It's relevant now and always.


So for the vast majority of land, the first comers claim is invalid. Find a new one.
I don't need to.

Why don't you try reading sometime. It will help.


The man did claim that communism was authoritarian, which is fine, except for the fact that communism isn't inherently authoritarian.
Except that it is. Ooops.


Hm, that's funny, considering that I've been arguing against ownership of things, inherent or otherwise. Open mouth, insert foot.
Hmmmm?

Did you have some sort of point?

Oh, that's right, you didn't.

Now let me have your corneas. Oh, don't fret now; there are people with cataracts who need your corneas. Don't give me that "they are my corneas" crap. You don't own your corneas--you just said you're arguing against ownership of things. So since your corneas aren't yours, let me just take them so that others may see.

No use crying about it. No use trying to scream "strawman". Your words "I've been arguing against ownership of things, inherent or otherwise" prevent you from being able to do that with any efficacy.

Now would you like some help extracting your foot from your mouth--neither of which you own?

Now let me have your corneas. Oh, don't fret now; there are people with cataracts who need your corneas. Don't give me that "they are my corneas" crap. You don't own your corneas--you just said you're arguing against ownership of things. So since your corneas aren't yours, let me just take them so that others may see.

No use crying about it. No use trying to scream "strawman". Your words "I've been arguing against ownership of things, inherent or otherwise" prevent you from being able to do that with any efficacy.

Do you have to reduce everything to ownership? Rather than a property interest, isn't it more reasonable to consider control over your own organs to be a life interest, or even a liberty interest?

Do you have to reduce everything to ownership? Rather than a property interest, isn't it more reasonable to consider control over your own organs to be a life interest, or even a liberty interest?

Perhaps more importantly, he's implying a false dichotomy there: it is possible, indeed necessary, for government to have some claim to control over your property without at the same time claiming absolute control over it. A law that forbids you from dumping nuclear waste on your land exerts control over your absolute right to property, for instance, but it's a far cry from Stalinists seizing your precious, God-given land by might of arms.

To refer back to the cornea example, it's perfectly acceptable for a government to try and stop you from pouring bleach in your eyes or performing experimental surgery to give you cat-like slits for pupils, because it's a case where you are irrational and likely just going to hurt yourself. That's nowhere near the same thing as claiming absolute control over your corneas.

Perhaps more importantly, he's implying a false dichotomy there: it is possible, indeed necessary, for government to have some claim to control over your property without at the same time claiming absolute control over it. A law that forbids you from dumping nuclear waste on your land exerts control over your absolute right to property, for instance, but it's a far cry from Stalinists seizing your precious, God-given land by might of arms.

To refer back to the cornea example, it's perfectly acceptable for a government to try and stop you from pouring bleach in your eyes or performing experimental surgery to give you cat-like slits for pupils, because it's a case where you are irrational and likely just going to hurt yourself. That's nowhere near the same thing as claiming absolute control over your corneas.

That's a very good point, property is best described as a bundle of rights, e.g. exclusion, possession, ownership, so that you can have one or more of these rights limited while still maintaining a meaningful general right to property.

We might even be able to extend this bundle of sticks approach to life and liberty interests as you suggest. The government may stop you from say, selling your organs, but that doesn't totally negate your rights to life and liberty.

Do you have to reduce everything to ownership?
Yes.


Rather than a property interest, isn't it more reasonable to consider control over your own organs to be a life interest, or even a liberty interest?
And how do you instantiate that interest, given that the items you listed are abstractions? PROPERTY!

Perhaps more importantly, he's implying a false dichotomy there: it is possible, indeed necessary, for government to have some claim to control over your property without at the same time claiming absolute control over it.
You clearly don't grasp the notion of ownership.


A law that forbids you from dumping nuclear waste on your land exerts control over your absolute right to property, for instance, but it's a far cry from Stalinists seizing your precious, God-given land by might of arms.
So you have tryanny by dribs and drabs, but it's tyranny nonetheless.


To refer back to the cornea example, it's perfectly acceptable for a government to try and stop you from pouring bleach in your eyes
No it isn't.


or performing experimental surgery to give you cat-like slits for pupils,
No it isn't.


because it's a case where you are irrational and likely just going to hurt yourself.
So what?

BAAWA,

I'm not going to have a conversation where I write a few sentences and you respond with a word. Do me a favor before we can continue with this inquiry, expound on your justification for ownership. Summarize it, that will do, but give me something. Are you a classic liberal? Are you an objectivist? How do you justify ownership of anything?

For my part, I follow the classic liberal approach of life, hence liberty and property. It doesn't mean that liberty or properties are subordinate to life, but that there are valid distinctions to be made between the three. Life isn't an abstraction by any means, it is continued bodily function. Corneas are a part of your body and your body's general health. When someone tries to rip out my corneas it is considered an assault against my body, not some kind of trespass on my property.

I guess you can expand the meaning of these terms. We own our bodies, we own our liberty, hence it is all "property." If that's what you are alluding to then fine we can leave it at that, I'm not going to play word games. I honestly don't see the intellectual use of throwing everything into overbroad categories, but hey whatever floats your boat.

If they thought it was "shit", why did they take it?

As the only other choice was starvation. They thought "If I dont take this job
I might die", not because "I will take this job because the pay is alright".



Perhaps the person-in-question should cut back on non-essentials.

Living costs is what you pay for the essentials (food, water, shelter (ie in our society, rent or a morgage)). If you are barely able to afford, or cant afford the essentials, you cant exactly cut out the non-essentials, as you probably arent paying for any.



I want to know how it is. I want to know how it's taking advantage of someone's condition. Please enlighten me, given that I've read a hell of a lot more about economics than you will ever read in your entire life.

Offering someone a wage you know is hardly sufficient because you know they can't get a better deal elsewhere isnt taking advantage?




So if you agree that it is impossible to reach, why do you harp about it?

Many people have the misunderstanding that the situation in the USSR, China and Cuba is what Communism is about. They seem to think setting up a society like that is the objective, when that is just plain wrong. I defend against misunderstandings of anarchism as well, but I think that it is just as unworkable.




We don't. But we can't assume there won't be and force others to pay for the education of someone else. That is theft.

Ah, so basically, we are never going to convince each other. I believe everyone should have guaranteed access to education. You dont.




Why wouldn't they be able to afford an education.?

If someone just has (or not even) enough money to pay for food, vital utilities (water for example) and rents, how are they going to be able to afford to pay for education on top of that?



Again: that's what scholarships and such are for.

Again, that is not going guarantee education for everyone. And seeing simple things such as housing can seriously effect educatinal performance, how are the poorest people (who usually live in the poorest housing) going to perform well enough to get a scholarship (seeing as that most schlarships are based on achievement)?



Ah....egalitarianism raises its head.

Yes, I am generally for egalitarianism.


Trying to "revolt against nature", as Rothbard so well put it, won't do.[QUOTE]

So, the fact that the wealthy will get the best education, and so almost always get into the best jobs etc (cycle of wealth anyone?), basically shutting those less well off out of the system as they go to the worse schools, and almost always come out of it with a worse job etc (Cycle of poverty) isnt a problem to you. Its bad enough with a system where entrance isn't meant to be based on wealth, but in a purely wealth based system it pretty much screws those less well off people for good.


[QUOTE]
No.

Erm... what? Care to explain your at best rather bizarre position? Those less well of people will not be able to afford best education, and so come out less well prepared. How can that not disadvatage them?



Then you have no recourse if someone were to beat you and break some of your bones, since you do not believe that property rights are important.

I dont regard my body as my own property, but as me. Different thing entirely. I dont own myself, I am myself. An attack on my body is not an attack on my property, but directly on myself.


I must hold you to be consistent in your thoughts. If you think that you would have recourse because there is some law, then what is the basis of that law? Without property rights, the law has no grounding.

Simply, people dont want to be attacked for parts of their bodies randomly (and they generally dont want to do it themselves either), so they generally agree not to attack each other. Eventually it gets formalised in a law. Similar thing with property. Agreements come about to the position that people shouldnt use what "belongs" to someone else 1) so that people wont try to take their stuff and 2) to prevent disagreements which will lead to violence.



Any system which imposes unchosen obligations is heinous and criminal.

In your opinion.




Some are, I said. I can think of two: the War for American Independence and the War for Southern Independence.

Personally I can only currently think of one. The Second World War. It was easily preventable (ie they could have solved the problems easily and quickly any time in the previous decade), but by the time it came about, it was neccessary. And dont see how those above wars were neccessary. Probably inevitable though (it seems a shame that unnecessary wars are the most inevitable. Look at WW1. Totally unnecessary, but a war of that type would have come about sometime, simply because of the international political situation at the time).



He was writing about how he thought England was like a couple decades before. He was, of course, wrong in his beliefs. And too many people consider his fiction to be what the actual case was!

While you can argue about how correct he was, in at least one example, Oliver Twist, at least some of it was based on what he though a particular slum region in London was like. After the book, that same region it was based on was demolished (obviously it can be asked whether that is the best way to deal with that problem).




No--most of the problems already existed.

Erm, so the Industrial Revolution did not make movement to the towns increase, exacerbating problems of overcrowding, and with that housing quality, disease etc? Ok, some places where very overcrowded already (see Edinburgh, my home town, for an example, but thats because they at first essentially just built along one road about a mile long), but it added to the problem, and in some places essentially started the problems.



I can't see how you feel that theft will bring people out of poverty.

Creating ease of access to things such as good education, a steady job etc, social mobility is increased.



Your "fairly certain" would be ok if it weren't for the fact that most of those people (in Europe) were government officials or clergy (and sometimes were both). And we know that no church or government is going to give the money back.

1) What do you mean by government? Do you mean the monarchy? Or the nobility? Or the court officials of the King? "Government" isnt as simple as that in the middle ages. And the thing is, at that time power was based on the holding of property. The nobles held the land, and through that (due to lack of real option to travel around) held a lot of power over the people on their land (and in early systems, which in some places lasted for quite some time, even owned the people on their land).
2) The Church and nobility often gave charity. Among nobles it was seen as something that they were required to do.



Again: who owned the resources in Europe: government/clergy.

See above




Cannot understand what?

Sorry, seem to have cut that off mid sentence. Must have got distracted and then just moced on without realising. What I meant is I cant understand how a company would be driven out of business by trying to drive other far smaller companies out of the market.



I'm saying that their freedom is not deprived.

Something I asked before: Freedom to what? If they dont have the money they dont have any way to exercise that freedom, and so are not really free.



But without property rights, upon what basis do you make the claim?

1) People dont like bits of their bodies being taken from them.
2) People dont usually (though there are some cases of it happening of course) try to take bits of other people's bodies without their permission.
3) See, further above: Your body is not your property, it is you. Different thing.

Oh, and can I ask, what is going to guarantee these property rights of yours without a government? What is going to stop someone taking you property by force if their is no government to stop them?

And where have I heard of a system like that before....? Oh, yeah, thats right. The early middle ages, where might essentially made right.

Though that may not be what you intend to happen,but how do you stop it?

I can't beleive this thread is on the 25th page. The thread starter spouted the biggest crock of shit ever, for a start they did have patents and the poor were not adequatly covere. The industrial revolution was terrible for the working classes especially children and they did have patents!

The free market is the largest and most direct democracy possibleI disagree that it is the most direct democracy possible. With the free market system, as long as a company can make a profit, it can exist and sell products in a particular area. With voting, if the company is voted against by a majority (or consensus, or however the democracy enacts laws), it can't sell its products legally. People should have the right to not only say "I don't want to buy this," but also "I don't want this anywhere near me."

There is a distinction, however, between never running out and infinite that those in that thread never made.Certainly.

That is not what I am talking about here. You want people to voluntarily give up their rights to private property to create a communal society, and I stated that government installation of communism is not a voluntary giving up of property rights.I don't believe that government installation of communism is necessary, however I do believe that if people are entering into a social contract in which they give up property rights, then they need to be held to that contract.

Depending on how big of an anarchist you are, government intervention may be required for the enforcement of contracts.It could be, if one views a society based upon direct democracy as a government.

No, it isn't. Feel free to continue to be illiterate.Hm. Let me run this through my BAAWA translator. The translator says "You didn't give me the answer that I wanted!" Now it all makes sense.

It's really nice of you to not answer the question.Uh, I did, in the very next sentence that you quoted.

Then what are you doing with it? Please elucidate. Since when was driving a car the only possible way of using it? There are other ways, for instance people have been known to take the body of the car or truck and use it as a flower garden.

There is no such distinction. I defy you to prove that there is one.I defy you to prove that there isn't.

Wrong. It's relevant now and always.How so?

I don't need to.

Why don't you try reading sometime. It will help.I'll take this as your lack of ability to make a cohesive argument.

Except that it is. Ooops.Prove it.

Hmmmm?

Did you have some sort of point?

Oh, that's right, you didn't.

Now let me have your corneas. Oh, don't fret now; there are people with cataracts who need your corneas. Don't give me that "they are my corneas" crap. You don't own your corneas--you just said you're arguing against ownership of things. So since your corneas aren't yours, let me just take them so that others may see.

No use crying about it. No use trying to scream "strawman". Your words "I've been arguing against ownership of things, inherent or otherwise" prevent you from being able to do that with any efficacy.Um, I'm kind of using them. It's entirely possible to use something without owning it. Try again, this time using logic.

Hm. Let me run this through my BAAWA translator. The translator says "You didn't give me the answer that I wanted!" Now it all makes sense.
What a wonderful lie. Next time, you might want to be honest.


Uh, I did, in the very next sentence that you quoted.
No, you did not.


Since when was driving a car the only possible way of using it?
Since when is letting it sit in a museum using it?

Please stop avoiding answering the question.


I defy you to prove that there isn't.
You're the one who claims there is. It's up to you to demonstrate that there is one. And just saying "Oh, I defined that there is a difference, therefore there is" isn't evidence at all. That's the Anselmian method. It doesn't work for showing that there is a god, and it doesn't work for you trying to show a difference between personal and private property.

Good luck, bubby: you'll need it.


How so?
Because there is no way that it's not relevant.


I'll take this as your lack of ability to make a cohesive argument.
I'll take that as your lack of ability to comprehend English.


Prove it.
See all the countries that have been communist.


[QUOTE=Jello Biafra]Um, I'm kind of using them.
Irrelevant. You don't own them, remember? They aren't yours. Give them up. Now.

Remember: you don't own anything. You said so yourself. Your corneas are not yours. No use trying your bull of "oh, I'm using them". So what? What does that matter? Answer: it doesn't. You don't own your corneas. Someone else needs them. Give them up.

No, you can't cry about it. Give them up.

No, you can't try to weasel your way out of it. Give them up.

No, you're not consistent. Give them up.

No, you're really not going to win this because you haven't got a damned clue as to what you're talking about and you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. Give them up.

BAAWA,

I'm not going to have a conversation where I write a few sentences and you respond with a word.
Sucks to be you. Maybe you should learn brevity.


Do me a favor before we can continue with this inquiry, expound on your justification for ownership.
I have.


For my part, I follow the classic liberal approach of life, hence liberty and property. It doesn't mean that liberty or properties are subordinate to life, but that there are valid distinctions to be made between the three. Life isn't an abstraction by any means,
Yes, it is. Life is a process--an abstraction.


it is continued bodily function. Corneas are a part of your body
i.e. property.


and your body's general health. When someone tries to rip out my corneas it is considered an assault against my body, not some kind of trespass on my property.
What the hell do you think "assault on your body" means? It means "a trespass on your property".

The free market is the largest and most direct democracy possible


This is about as close as it is possible to get, to something that is, in all ways, untrue.

Large... perhaps... but direct democracy? In a system where your 'vote' depends on how much of a certain resource you have?

Nothing like any form of REAL democracy I could imagine.

Still waiting for a response to my past post (post 358, on the previous page).

As the only other choice was starvation.
But why is the only other choice starvation? It's not like there is only one employer on the planet.


Living costs is what you pay for the essentials (food, water, shelter (ie in our society, rent or a morgage)). If you are barely able to afford, or cant afford the essentials, you cant exactly cut out the non-essentials, as you probably arent paying for any.
You'd be amazed.


Offering someone a wage you know is hardly sufficient because you know they can't get a better deal elsewhere isnt taking advantage?
You're throwing in a lot of emotive crap that has no business being in there. How do you know it's "hardly sufficient"? How do you know that the pay should be more for the job? By what objective standard do you make your claims (because, as you know, the only way to make your claims is for there to be an objective standard. And, of course, there isn't one.)


Many people have the misunderstanding that the situation in the USSR, China and Cuba is what Communism is about.
Tell that to the people who live there or used to live there.


They seem to think setting up a society like that is the objective, when that is just plain wrong.
No, they think that a society like that is simply what you get when you have communism. While one thing may be desired, the implementation inexorably leads to what was seen in the USSR, China, Cuba, North Korea, etc. That is the way of communism: mass misery.

And I know people who lived in the USSR. In fact, one of them lives in the same city I do and teaches economics.
http://www.carthage.edu/faculty/biography.cfm?ID=800002475


I defend against misunderstandings of anarchism as well, but I think that it is just as unworkable.
But it has worked in the past. In fact, Iceland was anarchic for nearly 300 years in the middle ages.


Ah, so basically, we are never going to convince each other. I believe everyone should have guaranteed access to education. You dont.
Guaranteed access comes at a cost to those who don't even have children. That's not right. That's outright theft. And there's no possible justification for it. None.


If someone just has (or not even) enough money to pay for food, vital utilities (water for example) and rents, how are they going to be able to afford to pay for education on top of that?
Because costs go down without government interference in the market. Happens all the time.


Again, that is not going guarantee education for everyone [scholarships]. And seeing simple things such as housing can seriously effect educatinal performance, how are the poorest people (who usually live in the poorest housing) going to perform well enough to get a scholarship (seeing as that most schlarships are based on achievement)?
You're correlating w/o causation.


Yes, I am generally for egalitarianism.
Horrible.


So, the fact that the wealthy will get the best education, and so almost always get into the best jobs etc (cycle of wealth anyone?), basically shutting those less well off out of the system as they go to the worse schools, and almost always come out of it with a worse job etc (Cycle of poverty) isnt a problem to you.
No, because reality isn't like that when you don't have a government screwing things up.



Erm... what? Care to explain your at best rather bizarre position?
What's bizarre about it?


Those less well of people will not be able to afford best education, and so come out less well prepared. How can that not disadvatage them?
People are born with deformities. So should we cripple everyone to make up for that? That IS what you're suggesting.


I dont regard my body as my own property, but as me. Different thing entirely. I dont own myself, I am myself. An attack on my body is not an attack on my property, but directly on myself.
But what is your self if not your property?



Simply, people dont want to be attacked for parts of their bodies randomly (and they generally dont want to do it themselves either), so they generally agree not to attack each other.
Right. And that's because....?


Eventually it gets formalised in a law. Similar thing with property. Agreements come about to the position that people shouldnt use what "belongs" to someone else 1) so that people wont try to take their stuff and 2) to prevent disagreements which will lead to violence.
So how can you not understand that your body is your property?


In your opinion.
How would you like it if I told you that you had to go to Africa, for example, and spend several years toiling at a farm just because workers were needed there and, you being human and all, have to go there because we all must support each other.

Isn't that imposing an unchosen obligation on you? Do you like it?


Personally I can only currently think of one. The Second World War. It was easily preventable (ie they could have solved the problems easily and quickly any time in the previous decade), but by the time it came about, it was neccessary. And dont see how those above wars were neccessary.
Tyranny on the part of the English and the US Federal gov't.


Probably inevitable though (it seems a shame that unnecessary wars are the most inevitable. Look at WW1. Totally unnecessary, but a war of that type would have come about sometime, simply because of the international political situation at the time).
WW1 was really the 3rd War of Austrian Succession. Silly Europeans liked to fight about who's king and all that nonsense.


Erm, so the Industrial Revolution did not make movement to the towns increase, exacerbating problems of overcrowding, and with that housing quality, disease etc?
Never said it didn't. But sometimes a rapid revolution has some problems in various areas to catch up. However, many of the problems were as a result of the governmental requirements for certain things.



Creating ease of access to things such as good education, a steady job etc, social mobility is increased.
How can you be socially mobile when your property is stolen?


1) What do you mean by government? Do you mean the monarchy? Or the nobility? Or the court officials of the King? "Government" isnt as simple as that in the middle ages.
Any/all. It all becomes one big parasite anyway.


And the thing is, at that time power was based on the holding of property.
....granted by the king.


The nobles held the land, and through that (due to lack of real option to travel around) held a lot of power over the people on their land (and in early systems, which in some places lasted for quite some time, even owned the people on their land).
And that's not the fault of property, but of the governmental system.


2) The Church and nobility often gave charity.
Some. But you'd be amazed at what wealth the various individual churches amassed, for example.


Among nobles it was seen as something that they were required to do.
Alms to buy their way into heaven. People do that nowadays, too.



Sorry, seem to have cut that off mid sentence. Must have got distracted and then just moced on without realising. What I meant is I cant understand how a company would be driven out of business by trying to drive other far smaller companies out of the market.
Well, if, for example, they do it by dropping their prices so that they operate at a loss, how long can they continue to do that before going bankrupt?



Something I asked before: Freedom to what? If they dont have the money they dont have any way to exercise that freedom, and so are not really free.
Nonsense. A lack of money doesn't make one not free unless you're trying to redefine "freedom" into what you desire it to mean.



1) People dont like bits of their bodies being taken from
them.
Taken from them. Think it might be their property?


2) People dont usually (though there are some cases of it happening of course) try to take bits of other people's bodies without their permission.
And why is that?


3) See, further above: Your body is not your property, it is you. Different thing.
Nope. Your body is your property. That's why assault and rape are immoral, for example.


Oh, and can I ask, what is going to guarantee these property rights of yours without a government?
Have a read of this for an historical example of how it can work.

http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/9_1/9_1_1.pdf

Also, please note that there can be private police and such to enforce subscribed-to legal codes.


And where have I heard of a system like that before....? Oh, yeah, thats right. The early middle ages, where might essentially made right.
No. There were governments back then. I'm amazed that you think there weren't. You need to go back to school, m'laddio.

Sucks to be you. Maybe you should learn brevity.

Perhaps.

I have.

Where?

Yes, it is. Life is a process--an abstraction.

No.

i.e. property.

Wrong.


Of course, I know better than to just respond in that fashion. Anyway, it looks like you are calling all rights property rights because anything else is supposedly an abstraction. So then would you care to explain how "property" is any less an abstraction than life? What you are invoking as property isn't merely physical goods or land but rather broad ideas that incorporate concepts such as free-will, self-awareness, and ownership. How can property cover so much without it becoming an abstraction itself?

Where?
In previous posts.


No.
Sure is. Life is merely a process.


Wrong.
Then you can demonstrate it.


Of course, I know better than to just respond in that fashion. Anyway, it looks like you are calling all rights property rights because anything else is supposedly an abstraction.
How else do you concretize the abstraction?


So then would you care to explain how "property" is any less an abstraction than life?
Property has a tangibility.


What you are invoking as property isn't merely physical goods or land but rather broad ideas that incorporate concepts such as free-will, self-awareness, and ownership.
And those are tied to a physical substrate, i.e. the brain.


How can property cover so much without it becoming an abstraction itself?
The concept of property is an abstraction.

This is about as close as it is possible to get, to something that is, in all ways, untrue.

Large... perhaps... but direct democracy? In a system where your 'vote' depends on how much of a certain resource you have?

Nothing like any form of REAL democracy I could imagine.

It is direct, as there as decisions are come directly from society's input. I simply don't understand how you can't call it a real democracy.

I disagree that it is the most direct democracy possible. With the free market system, as long as a company can make a profit, it can exist and sell products in a particular area. With voting, if the company is voted against by a majority (or consensus, or however the democracy enacts laws), it can't sell its products legally. People should have the right to not only say "I don't want to buy this," but also "I don't want this anywhere near me."

Non-sequitor, a democracy isn't direct because it appeals to the simple majority. It is direct based on the process by which the society influences and controls the output.

And I like your idea that the majority should be able to forbid the minority from purchasing goods and services. How does abortion fit into that idea?

I don't believe that government installation of communism is necessary, however I do believe that if people are entering into a social contract in which they give up property rights, then they need to be held to that contract.

Agreed, as long as someone is given a free choice as to enter into a social commune, I have absolutely no problem with it. That only means that communism must come about within the free market, motivated by economic necessity.

It could be, if one views a society based upon direct democracy as a government.

Direct democracy does not necessarily constitute government. For it to not be government, people must be free to ignore the the whole process, both input and result.

What a wonderful lie. Next time, you might want to be honest.You might want to take your own advice. "That's not what I said"...indeed.

No, you did not.Uh, yes I did.

Since when is letting it sit in a museum using it? In the same way that letting a painting sit in a museum is using it...or a sculpture, or some other work of art. Museums can be used for entertainment or education...therefore the car in the museum is being used for entertainment or education.

You're the one who claims there is. It's up to you to demonstrate that there is one. No, it's up to you to use factual information to dispute my claim. Then I use factual information against yours, then you counter with factual information...and so on, and so on. This is called debate. Is your lack of a counter argument due to unwillingness, or inability?

But never mind that, here, I'll help you...

...How does a person validate their claim of ownership?

And just saying "Oh, I defined that there is a difference, therefore there is" isn't evidence at all. That's the Anselmian method. It doesn't work for showing that there is a god, and it doesn't work for you trying to show a difference between personal and private property.Sounds eerily similar to someone whose arguments consist primarily of saying "Nuh uh."

Because there is no way that it's not relevant.Since most of the land today isn't owned by the first comers, and it wasn't rightfully acquired from them (unless you view theft as rightful acquisition), then it is my definition not relevant.

See all the countries that have been communist.All none of them?

Irrelevant. You don't own them, remember? They aren't yours. Give them up. Now.

Remember: you don't own anything. You said so yourself. Your corneas are not yours. No use trying your bull of "oh, I'm using them". So what? What does that matter? It's the only thing that matters.

You don't own your corneas. Someone else needs them. Give them up.Someone else would have to prove that they would give them a better use than I would, and I would have to be living in a society/community which holds that their use is more valid than my own.

Non-sequitor, a democracy isn't direct because it appeals to the simple majority. It is direct based on the process by which the society influences and controls the output.True. However, to reiterate Grave n idle's argument...democracy is based upon the principle of "one person, one vote". If one person has more than one vote, and other people don't, then that really isn't democratic. So unless there is equality of income, the free market isn't really democratic.

And I like your idea that the majority should be able to forbid the minority from purchasing goods and services. How does abortion fit into that idea?Presumably someone wanting an abortion would have to either convince people to overturn the ban, or go elsewhere. While I disagree that abortion should be banned, someone continuing to live in the society means that they consent to the ban.

Agreed, as long as someone is given a free choice as to enter into a social commune, I have absolutely no problem with it. That only means that communism must come about within the free market, motivated by economic necessity. Or by ideological fervor.

Direct democracy does not necessarily constitute government. For it to not be government, people must be free to ignore the the whole process, both input and result.Well, I certainly don't promote the concept of political borders, so as long as people don't expect to benefit from the process but ignore the things they don't agree with, I don't have a problem with the idea of people ignoring the process and the result.

It is direct, as there as decisions are come directly from society's input. I simply don't understand how you can't call it a real democracy.

Because, as Jello Biafra has pointed out... a real democracy requires that each person has the SAME capacity to express.

The Free Market is 'direct democracy' in the same way Feudalism is 'direct democracy'.

Democracy = it is you vote that counts.

Feudalism = it is your Count that votes.

But why is the only other choice starvation? It's not like there is only one employer on the planet.

Yeah, but if all employers are offering a similar wage (usually rather low in non-regulated places during a period of high unemployment high unemployment) there is no choice. So, yes you could work for someone else (if they have a job available) but you wont necessarily get a better wage.




You'd be amazed.

Useful response.



You're throwing in a lot of emotive crap that has no business being in there. How do you know it's "hardly sufficient"? How do you know that the pay should be more for the job? By what objective standard do you make your claims (because, as you know, the only way to make your claims is for there to be an objective standard. And, of course, there isn't one.)

1) Didn’t say the pay should be (as, yes how one determines that is totally subjective. I feel it should, but that was not the point) more for the job. Said they were being taken advantage of. There is a difference. Not necessarily an obvious one but it is a difference. You keep saying the person in this situation is not being taken advantage of, which is simply untrue. What you could argue about is whether exploiting someone's disadvantage is wrong or not.

2) Hardly sufficient = barely, if even that, sufficient to cover the necessities such as food, rent essential utilities, etc. Oh and in your completely privatised system also include education, security, health care etc.



Tell that to the people who live there or used to live there.

An irrelevant point as those systems were not the communist ideal, and so not what it is about. The point of Communism is to set up the communist ideal. Whether they can or not is the point. Whether they end up degenerating into an authoritarian system is not the point.



No, they think that a society like that is simply what you get when you have communism. While one thing may be desired, the implementation inexorably leads to what was seen in the USSR, China, Cuba, North Korea, etc. That is the way of communism: mass misery.

Erm… no, they think that the objective is to create a dictatorship by a person or group of people, or to make everyone the same. I have spoken to people with a misconception of communism enough times to know the very simple difference between the two (what it aims to do and what it may unavoidably lead to). There are obviously people who know the difference and make that different point, seemingly like you do, but many people have misconceptions of the aims of communism, and those are the people I have explained that difference to. Personally I blame the whole “Communists are evil” message in the media for the past 50 years (now, saying “Some Communists are evil” would be ok).


And I know people who lived in the USSR. In fact, one of them lives in the same city I do and teaches economics.
http://www.carthage.edu/faculty/biography.cfm?ID=800002475

Relevance of knowing people who have lived in the USSR? To show me what happened there? I know it was authoritarian, repressive, imposed its system on other countries, intrusive, and caused the deaths of millions. I am not denying that. So that’s rather irrelevant.

And after looking at the link, looks even less relevant. Site showing me that this person was from Russia. Erm… why is that any use?



But it has worked in the past. In fact, Iceland was anarchic for nearly 300 years in the middle ages.

Hmm… interesting thing to look up there. Some daft sites claimed it was at civil war for near 200 years (when it was nearer 20-30 years at the end of the period. I presume your referring to the Commonwealth?). What I would argue though is that looking at it (obviously had the time to have a quick look at some websites obviously, but not all anti or pro what happened there) is that 1) it looked like it had a government (or maybe governments would be the best term looking at it), just a very voluntarily based one and 2) it looked like as time went on it kept moving towards an increasingly multi-layered and centralised… wait that’s not the word… maybe wider covering… system.

What scale of anarchist system where you imagining anyway? World-wide? One country? A very local system?



Guaranteed access comes at a cost to those who don't even have children. That's not right. That's outright theft. And there's no possible justification for it. None.

They got guaranteed access when they were children so benefited, and they benefit from the education that others receive then they require those people for whatever skill they possess.



Because costs go down without government interference in the market. Happens all the time.
Hmm… not sure of that at all. What about the water (and gas, electricity etc) privatisation in many third world countries?



You're correlating w/o causation.

OK, what are you suggesting causes that correlation? I would say a few things:
1) General poverty. Those who have less money would be less able to afford educational resources, help and parents having less time (due to having work longer hours) to help the child.
2) Educational expectations. Those from poorer backgrounds generally are less successful in education, and this will put them off trying as hard. Parents might have less ability to help their child. Also, if they have been in long term unemployment, maybe seems little point trying at all, as they think they aren’t going to get a job at all.
3) Environment. The state of the place they are staying could seriously distract someone, or make it difficult to find somewhere suitable to study.
Obviously other factors but those are the ones I can think of the moment. Housing was only really an example (“Seeing as simple things such as housing…).




Horrible.

I think you horrible for thinking such things.


No, because reality isn't like that when you don't have a government screwing things up.

Erm… proof? Why would a system even more based on personal wealth end up no worse, if not better than that?




What's bizarre about it?

So thinking that not being able to afford (in a system where access is based on wealth, i.e. in a system when people pay for education directly) the best education will not disadvantage someone in life is not odd? How can someone with an inferior education compete on equal terms with someone that has a better education?



People are born with deformities. So should we cripple everyone to make up for that? That IS what you're suggesting.

No. I am suggesting we would give extra help to that person with deformity so that they can compete on a more level playing field with completely healthy people. Or, if they are so disabled that they cannot work, or can only do certain things, we would help them look after themselves (or to give them access to the work they can do). What you are suggesting is leaving a person who is deformed to fend for themselves in a system where they cannot compete on any level.



But what is your self if not your property?

It is me. Simple as that. I cannot sell myself and then never have to bother about it ever again. I can never leave my body (ok, maybe with future medical technology we will be able to, but at the mo we cant). It is not something we can just pass on we n we want to. It is fundamentally different from a car, or a piece of land, or a cricket bat, or whatever. The same rules cannot apply to it as to those items.




Right. And that's because....?

I have already explained that. People don’t want to be randomly attacked for bits of their bodies. So to



So how can you not understand that your body is your property?

See pervious points.



How would you like it if I told you that you had to go to Africa, for example, and spend several years toiling at a farm just because workers were needed there and, you being human and all, have to go there because we all must support each other.

Isn't that imposing an unchosen obligation on you? Do you like it?

Oh, I wasn’t saying all unchosen obligations were good. I was saying that not all unchosen obligations are heinous and criminal. Sorry, just can’t see paying a bit if tax and being forced to go somewhere you didn’t want to as on the same level. True, in an ideal system there would be none, but no ideal system works, so… we essentially have to choose from the best of many imperfect systems.



Tyranny on the part of the English and the US Federal gov't.

Well, if that’s the justification, there are many justified wars. Well, I guess depending on your definition of tyranny.



WW1 was really the 3rd War of Austrian Succession. Silly Europeans liked to fight about who's king and all that nonsense.

What? 3rd War of Austrian succession? Erm… how? What did Austrian succession have to do with it? Long term tensions among the nations had nothing to do with Austrian succession, and the war started when Russia moved to defend its sister Slavic nation Serbia from Austrian aggression.



Never said it didn't. But sometimes a rapid revolution has some problems in various areas to catch up. However, many of the problems were as a result of the governmental requirements for certain things.

Like requirements for what?


How can you be socially mobile when your property is stolen?

You can get a high class school education you couldn’t afford if you had to pay for it directly. You could get a university education for similar reasons. Without having to pay for things such as health care you can use more of your income to invest to improve your position of yourself and/or your children. Remember that those that are worst off (and so need to be socially mobile the most are paying the least, if any, taxes)


Any/all. It all becomes one big parasite anyway.



....granted by the king.

In a way. Just as much down to those who could hold that property through whatever means. Don’t actually see your point there anyway.

Oh, and those that could hold that property were those that could afford the pricey items which allowed them to be the sole holders of any real military power at the time.


And that's not the fault of property, but of the governmental system.

Hmm… nah, mixture of the two. If there had been no sense of the land being owned by anyone (ie property), they wouldn’t have held much power over the peasants.



Some. But you'd be amazed at what wealth the various individual churches amassed, for example.

Oh, yes, they collected together massive fortunes. But they still gave charity. What do you think would happen with those that accumulated massive wealth in your system? That they for whatever reason would give a lot more charity than the church? Or do you think that people shouldn’t be allowed to accumulate such massive fortunes?


Alms to buy their way into heaven. People do that nowadays, too.

Not only that. But yes, one reason. They still gave charity. So what’s the difference? Surely comparably modern charity promises even less benefit to your own self interest, which libertarians say is the driving thing behind human actions?


Well, if, for example, they do it by dropping their prices so that they operate at a loss, how long can they continue to do that before going bankrupt?

1) How do you know that they would have to drop costs to operate at a loss? Large scale businesses save on economies of scale, and can use their market share to encourage suppliers to do what they want.
2) Hell of a lot longer than a new start up business


Nonsense. A lack of money doesn't make one not free unless you're trying to redefine "freedom" into what you desire it to mean.

I would say freedom is the ability to do what one wants. Less money means less able to do what one wants. Therefore lack of money means less freedom, at least, in a money based society like ours.


Taken from them. Think it might be their property?

Doesn’t matter what it is. They just don’t like it, so they agree not to do it so others will not do it to them.


And why is that?

Any number of reasons. They don’t want it. They don’t want to set a precedent so that others will not do it to them. They live in a society which has rules saying they should not do that.


Nope. Your body is your property. That's why assault and rape are immoral, for example.

No. Rape and assault are immoral because they cause physical and psychological pain and suffering to others. Not because they violate property rights.


Also, please note that there can be private police and such to enforce subscribed-to legal codes.

Oh, and how do they decide who gets their protection? And what’s to stop people using these private police to pressurise others into doing what they want?


No. There were governments back then. I'm amazed that you think there weren't. You need to go back to school, m'laddio.

I had said that to me it seemed likely that people would be able to force others to do things (or give up their property) they wanted if they had greater power than the others, as there was no system to stop that, creating a system which was based “might makes right”. It was the “might makes right” part that I was comparing it to. Yes there was a government but it was those who had the military power to stomp all over the peasants etc that made up that government. They initially got there through their military prowess and wealth.

True. However, to reiterate Grave n idle's argument...democracy is based upon the principle of "one person, one vote". If one person has more than one vote, and other people don't, then that really isn't democratic. So unless there is equality of income, the free market isn't really democratic.

The only requisite characteristic of a democracy is self-rule by the people. If the result of the system is due to the direct input of society as a whole, it is democracy.

A democracy can still have weighted voting.

Presumably someone wanting an abortion would have to either convince people to overturn the ban, or go elsewhere. While I disagree that abortion should be banned, someone continuing to live in the society means that they consent to the ban.

That is a ridiculous concession. Democracy does not have the legitimacy to take away a minority right like that.

Or by ideological fervor.

Ideological fervor is a plague.

Because, as Jello Biafra has pointed out... a real democracy requires that each person has the SAME capacity to express.

A democracy can include weighted votes. Votes are weighted by the interest one has in an economy. One dollar = one vote, so to speak.

The only requisite characteristic of a democracy is self-rule by the people. If the result of the system is due to the direct input of society as a whole, it is democracy.

A democracy can still have weighted voting.Democracy requires majority rule. While democracy can have weighted voting, it can only be democracy if everybody's vote is weighted equally. It is possible to give everybody 2, or 4 votes, but it is only democratic if everybody has the same amount of votes.

Look at it this way: if 10% of the people have their votes weighted to the point where they get what they want, then it isn't democracy.

That is a ridiculous concession. Democracy does not have the legitimacy to take away a minority right like that.Hm. Let's take a few steps back. A commonly held viewpoint is that "you can do anything you like with your property, as long as you don't harm anyone." Now, let's use an analogy.

Person A wants to use his property to build a pig farm. He does, and is very careful about the pollution that results, he takes good care of his pigs, and is
honest in his business dealings. But his neighbors absolutely hate the smell, and they refuse to be placated by anything other than the end of the pig farm.

Person B starts a pig farm, and runs his farm in the same way that Person A does. He is careful with his pollution, and his pigs, etc., but of course his farm gives off a smell, too. However, his neighbors aren't bothered by the smell, though Person B has done nothing to placate them.

Now, are Person A and Person B both right in the way they use their property? Are neither of them? Is one of them right but not the other? Why or why not?

Ideological fervor is a plague.Eh. Perhaps or perhaps not, but I just wanted to point out that people do things for reasons other than what the dictates of market forces are.

You might want to take your own advice. "That's not what I said"...indeed.
*laughs*

If only you had any clue...


In the same way that letting a painting sit in a museum is using it...or a sculpture, or some other work of art. Museums can be used for entertainment or education...therefore the car in the museum is being used for entertainment or education.
No it isn't. It's in someone's personal museum. In that person's house. And no one else is allowed to view it.

Now please tell me--how is that using the car? Please--I'd love to know.


No, it's up to you to use factual information to dispute my claim.
No, it's up to you to use factual information to SUPPORT your claim. You can't just say "I defined it, therefore it exists". That's Anselmian nonsense!


But never mind that, here, I'll help you...

...How does a person validate their claim of ownership?
That's already been dealt with.


Since most of the land today isn't owned by the first comers,
Irrelevant.


and it wasn't rightfully acquired from them
Prove it.


All none of them?
Mr. No True Scotsman, please kill your fallacy. There have been many communist countries. Please stop your crying about that.


It's the only thing that matters.
No--your use of them does not matter. As such, you are utterly inconsistent. You want your cake and to eat it as well.

You are a hypocrite.


Someone else would have to prove that they would give them a better use than I would,
Wrong. They aren't yours. You have no right to demand anything of anyone.

A democracy can include weighted votes. Votes are weighted by the interest one has in an economy. One dollar = one vote, so to speak.

If you are going to claim this as a 'form' of Democracy, I agree it could be... although I think basing the 'weight' your opinion carries on how much you OWN is a pretty piss-poor way of doing it... and, as I said before, not far removed from Feudalism.

It isn't 'true' democracy, though. Indeed, it wouldn't recognise 'true' democracy if they passed on the street.

Then you can demonstrate it.

Oh that's rich. Very funny. I am the one laying out my arguments, you are the one tossing back responses that barely breach the three syllable barrier and yet I have the burden to offer more exposition?

It's OK for you to shoot off "No" and "Wrong" but I have to "demonstrate."

You can't just repeat arguments and expect that eventually they will ring true. I already explained to you that life isn't merely a generic process. But anyway what does that matter, how does that disprove the claim for a right to life? How does life being a process make it more relevant to talk about our bodies as property? How about you demonstrate that since you initiated that assertion.

Furthermore, you claim that property has tangibility. Do you mean that life is an intangible idea? That life merely exists as a mental construct? You mean to say that you don't notice the blatantly obvious, dare I say, 'process' of life in front of your eyes every day? Interestingly, when I demonstrate that property is an abstraction that involves a number of pure ideas you want to give them a physical center, a tangibility, and cite the brain. Strange that. Life is intangible and abstraction. Property is tangible because it has the brain. It seems that the brain doesn’t grant the same tangibility to life as it does to property. Very interesting.

Finally I want to point out a highly peculiar set of comments.

Initially you posted this:

And how do you instantiate that interest, given that the items you listed are abstractions? PROPERTY!

This clearly indicates two things. One, the "abstractions" of life and liberty are not adequate to assert and defend interests in the "abstractions" themselves (you still haven't offered any reasoning for that). Two, that the concept of property will adequately do so. Considering the only problem you offered on life and liberty are that they are "abstractions" you are clearly trying to imply that property isn't an abstraction.

Well that is strange because look at what you just posted:

The concept of property is an abstraction.

So property is also an "abstraction", no different in that respect from life and liberty. So why are those abstractions inadequate but the abstraction of property isn't?

But wait we aren't done, because you also just posted:

Property has a tangibility.

So what are you saying? Is it that property is an abstraction? That it isn't an abstraction? Or that it is an abstraction with a physical aspect?

If the first then your early argument against life and liberty fails. If the second then you are contradicting yourself. If the third then you haven't demonstrated how property is any different than life and liberty and more effective than them in asserting interests of life and liberty.

We are on this very strange subject of abstraction and tangibility because you put us here. Can you please explain why this is at all relevant?

Again waiting for an answer to my reply on the previous page

*laughs*

If only you had any clue...That's strange, the clue phone is for you.

But either way, if you're unable to effectively communicate what you're trying to say, then it is up to you to rephrase it so that others can understand you. It isn't up to them.

No it isn't. It's in someone's personal museum. In that person's house. And no one else is allowed to view it.

Now please tell me--how is that using the car? Please--I'd love to know.Oh, well in that case they aren't using it, and as such have no right to it.

This, of course, bars some other use, such as using something for its sentimental or entertainment value. Or even if this isn't the case, it's still acceptable that the cars would be used if the community/society that the person lives in believes that it's a valid use.

No, it's up to you to use factual information to SUPPORT your claim. You can't just say "I defined it, therefore it exists". That's Anselmian nonsense!At the very least, your lack of factual information against my claim makes you as guilty of "Anselmian nonsense" as I am.

That's already been dealt with. Presumably some form of private arbitration would do it, right? Of course, this begs the questions: what gives private arbitrators the right to do it? And why do you, as a libertarian, believe that governments don't have the right to do it?

Irrelevant.How so? How is the first comers claim relevant when the current occupiers of the land aren't the first comers?

Prove it.Well, let's see, there's the European powers conquering most of the rest of the world, and then the Vikings, Romans, Huns, Greeks, Macedonians, Franks, Celts, etc. conquering Europe. Or, you could, you know, study history.

Mr. No True Scotsman, please kill your fallacy. There have been many communist countries. Please stop your crying about that.Er, no. If you're going to invoke the No True Scotsman fallacy, then you need to actually learn what it means. It's already been shown that stating that there have been no Communist countries does not involve the No True Scotsman fallacy. Try again.

No--your use of them does not matter. As such, you are utterly inconsistent. You want your cake and to eat it as well.

You are a hypocrite.I am entirely consistent, because the only thing that matters with property is its usage.

Wrong. They aren't yours. You have no right to demand anything of anyone.You do realize that the statement "you have no right to demand anything of everyone" is quite uh, hypocritical of you, given that this line began with you demanding my corneas. Really, you can do better.

Again waiting for an answer to my reply on the previous page
I get to things when I get to them.

Sorry, just you have replied to a couple of posts both since I made mine, and ones that have come after mine. Wanted to make sure you

1) had noticed it

or

2) were not deliberately avoiding responding to it.

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.

I don't know what Linux is, but Wikipedia is truly a marvel :cool:

Democracy requires majority rule. While democracy can have weighted voting, it can only be democracy if everybody's vote is weighted equally. It is possible to give everybody 2, or 4 votes, but it is only democratic if everybody has the same amount of votes.

Look at it this way: if 10% of the people have their votes weighted to the point where they get what they want, then it isn't democracy.

And the free market requires a majority of interests.

I will offer you an analogy:

You have three roommates. The four of you pool money to purchase a TV, your three roommates offer up $50, you offer up $150. When purchasing the TV, each of you get input as to which TV you purchase, you, however, receive a greater input because of your greater interests. It is still democratic, as your roommates can entirely disagree with you, and you would not purchase a TV.

Democracy is not dependent on how votes are weighed or taken, it is only dependent on whether those with vested interest are represented.

This fits with the idea of an egalitarian democratic political structure, where government, by its very nature, has an obligation to all in equal proportion.

Hm. Let's take a few steps back. A commonly held viewpoint is that "you can do anything you like with your property, as long as you don't harm anyone." Now, let's use an analogy.

Person A wants to use his property to build a pig farm. He does, and is very careful about the pollution that results, he takes good care of his pigs, and is
honest in his business dealings. But his neighbors absolutely hate the smell, and they refuse to be placated by anything other than the end of the pig farm.

Person B starts a pig farm, and runs his farm in the same way that Person A does. He is careful with his pollution, and his pigs, etc., but of course his farm gives off a smell, too. However, his neighbors aren't bothered by the smell, though Person B has done nothing to placate them.

Now, are Person A and Person B both right in the way they use their property? Are neither of them? Is one of them right but not the other? Why or why not?

If the pig farmer acts in anyway that abridges the land rights of the surrounding property owners, he can be forced to rectify the situation or compensate the his neighbors for their diminished rights. This is obviously contingent on the neighbors' complaint and whether the smell was an existing condition upon the neighbors' arrival.

Of course this has no correlation to the point I was making. I originally disagreed with you opinion that the democratic process alone was justification for the removal of rights.

This is a situation of an equitable concession of property rights inacted upon by individuals through the moderation of the courts.

If you are going to claim this as a 'form' of Democracy, I agree it could be... although I think basing the 'weight' your opinion carries on how much you OWN is a pretty piss-poor way of doing it... and, as I said before, not far removed from Feudalism.

The free market does not consider what you own per se, it only considers what you contribute and take out.

Feudalism and the free market are vastly separated. In a feudalism, the soveriegn owns all property and despenses it return for servitude. There is no free determination of prices, there is no free distribution of resources, there is no respect for property rights. It shares as much in common with socialism as it does with capitalism.

And the free market requires a majority of interests.

I will offer you an analogy:

You have three roommates. The four of you pool money to purchase a TV, your three roommates offer up $50, you offer up $150. When purchasing the TV, each of you get input as to which TV you purchase, you, however, receive a greater input because of your greater interests. It is still democratic, as your roommates can entirely disagree with you, and you would not purchase a TV.Who says I couldn't get a TV for less than $150 dollars? This would also allow me to disregard the input of my roommates.

Democracy is not dependent on how votes are weighed or taken, it is only dependent on whether those with vested interest are represented.

This fits with the idea of an egalitarian democratic political structure, where government, by its very nature, has an obligation to all in equal proportion.I don't see how 10% always getting their way via a vote and rule by an aristocracy of 10% who listen to the other 90% and disregard what the 90% have to say is any different.

If the pig farmer acts in anyway that abridges the land rights of the surrounding property owners, he can be forced to rectify the situation or compensate the his neighbors for their diminished rights. This is obviously contingent on the neighbors' complaint and whether the smell was an existing condition upon the neighbors' arrival.In both instances, the smell was a result of the pig farm, and the pig farm was started after the arrival of the neighbors.

Of course this has no correlation to the point I was making. I originally disagreed with you opinion that the democratic process alone was justification for the removal of rights.

This is a situation of an equitable concession of property rights inacted upon by individuals through the moderation of the courts.There isn't a direct correlation, but there is an indirect correlation, which I will either get to or be unable to get to, depending on how the rest of the discussion goes.

And the free market requires a majority of interests.

I will offer you an analogy:

You have three roommates. The four of you pool money to purchase a TV, your three roommates offer up $50, you offer up $150. When purchasing the TV, each of you get input as to which TV you purchase, you, however, receive a greater input because of your greater interests. It is still democratic, as your roommates can entirely disagree with you, and you would not purchase a TV.

Democracy is not dependent on how votes are weighed or taken, it is only dependent on whether those with vested interest are represented.

This fits with the idea of an egalitarian democratic political structure, where government, by its very nature, has an obligation to all in equal proportion.

Um, no. In any local school bond issue, I am not a vested interest on either side, because I don't have children in school and I am not a property owner. But nevertheless, I do have a political say in the matter, because I am a voter whose voting rights are reflective of my rationality and personhood, not my ownership of property.

The kind of "egalitarian democratic political structure" you speak of hasn't existed in this country since the Andrew Jackson administration, and with good reason Vittos: it isn't democratic at all, but aristocratic.

Hm. Let's take a few steps back. A commonly held viewpoint is that "you can do anything you like with your property, as long as you don't harm anyone." Now, let's use an analogy.

Person A wants to use his property to build a pig farm. He does, and is very careful about the pollution that results, he takes good care of his pigs, and is
honest in his business dealings. But his neighbors absolutely hate the smell, and they refuse to be placated by anything other than the end of the pig farm.

Person B starts a pig farm, and runs his farm in the same way that Person A does. He is careful with his pollution, and his pigs, etc., but of course his farm gives off a smell, too. However, his neighbors aren't bothered by the smell, though Person B has done nothing to placate them.

Now, are Person A and Person B both right in the way they use their property? Are neither of them? Is one of them right but not the other? Why or why not?

The neighbors have the right, under general trespass and disturbance concepts of common law (assuming your country has common law) to pursue action against their neighbors. That does not mean they do so. They may, for whatever reason, choose not to. Clearly person A has caused damage to his neighbor's property. It is not clear whether Person B has done so. It is clear that if one of the neighbors changes his mind, there is a potential claim.

So, eliminating the analogy (and maybe this isn't what you're talking about) do you have a right to use someone else's property (his own property is irrelevant in this case) if the owners of the property are not bothered by it? The answer to that question is most certainly "Yes."

Fairly simple, really.

Edit: Democracy is based on the individual. If a person has more of a vote than another, that's not democracy. Bad thing or good thing, it's not democracy.

The neighbors have the right, under general trespass and disturbance concepts of common law (assuming your country has common law) to pursue action against their neighbors. That does not mean they do so. They may, for whatever reason, choose not to. Clearly person A has caused damage to his neighbor's property. It is not clear whether Person B has done so. It is clear that if one of the neighbors changes his mind, there is a potential claim.

So, eliminating the analogy (and maybe this isn't what you're talking about) do you have a right to use someone else's property (his own property is irrelevant in this case) if the owners of the property are not bothered by it? The answer to that question is most certainly "Yes."

Fairly simple, really.That's a roundabout way of what I'm trying to get at, yes.

Who says I couldn't get a TV for less than $150 dollars? This would also allow me to disregard the input of my roommates.

Then you are not involved in the democratic process, and your roommates can engage in their own equal democratic process. The democratic process is in no way impugned.

If you thought that a TV of less than $150 would be sufficient, you wouldn't agree to the collective purchase of a TV. If you do purchase a TV on your own is not a democratic agreement to begin with.

This shows that democracy is only in the collective determination, not in the egalitarian determination.

I don't see how 10% always getting their way via a vote and rule by an aristocracy of 10% who listen to the other 90% and disregard what the 90% have to say is any different.

Because the free market insures that no one can have their input disregarded. No one is banned from entering into the free market, and thus everyone is free to register their "vote" so to speak.

In both instances, the smell was a result of the pig farm, and the pig farm was started after the arrival of the neighbors.

Then the neighbors have the right to protect their own rights through the courts. The justification comes from individual liberty, not from democracy.

There isn't a direct correlation, but there is an indirect correlation, which I will either get to or be unable to get to, depending on how the rest of the discussion goes.

That sounds like an attempt to buy yourself time to come up with a correlation.

The correlation between democracy and defense of property rights only exists when we are considering public property in which all individuals have equal, undivided interest. This analogy is not the case.

Um, no. In any local school bond issue, I am not a vested interest on either side, because I don't have children in school and I am not a property owner. But nevertheless, I do have a political say in the matter, because I am a voter whose voting rights are reflective of my rationality and personhood, not my ownership of property.

The kind of "egalitarian democratic political structure" you speak of hasn't existed in this country since the Andrew Jackson administration, and with good reason Vittos: it isn't democratic at all, but aristocratic.

First off, the free market isn't an "egalitarian democratic political structure," it isn't egalitarian, it isn't political, and it is barely a structure. It is only democratic.

I was describing a general style and administration of government. Because government is a public resource and service, all people have an equal and undivided interest in the government. So, when I say that democracy is dependent on "vested interest" and not plurality, it explains why a government should give all individuals equal voting rights.

So, eliminating the analogy (and maybe this isn't what you're talking about) do you have a right to use someone else's property (his own property is irrelevant in this case) if the owners of the property are not bothered by it? The answer to that question is most certainly "Yes."

This still doesn't address whether democracy is justification for removal of rights, but...

I must have misinterpreted the analogy, as it seems you are saying that the pig farmer has the right pollute his neighbor's property as long as they aren't bothered enough to take action. (I thought it was about the neighbor's right to stop the pig farmer)

I personally disagree, but at least you are arguing on the side of individual property rights.

The free market does not consider what you own per se, it only considers what you contribute and take out.


Idealistic obfuscation. The Free Market cares about only one thing, the flow of currency. It cares not about what you contribute, it could care less what you take out. All it cares about is how the resource of 'wealth' is represented.

That is the 'resource' I speak of 'owning'. The Free Market is a form of democracy, where your relative value is determined by your relative wealth... how much you 'own'.


Feudalism and the free market are vastly separated. In a feudalism, the soveriegn owns all property and despenses it return for servitude. There is no free determination of prices, there is no free distribution of resources, there is no respect for property rights. It shares as much in common with socialism as it does with capitalism.

The power in a feudalism, is in the hands of those who 'have'. And that 'having' is not of necessity based on ability, good thinking, or good intentions, but on the relatively arbitrary assignment of power.

Similarly, the Free Market places the power in the hands of those who 'have'. And, again... those that have are not 'qualified' for that situation by philanthropy, common sense, or ability... they are 'qualified' by having money, no matter how they came by it.

I'd say the Free Market was a LOT closer to feudalism than you'd like to admit.

But why is the only other choice starvation? It's not like there is only one employer on the planet.
Yeah, but if all employers are offering a similar wage (usually rather low in non-regulated places during a period of high unemployment high unemployment) there is no choice.
And normally then the cost of things is lower as well.




You'd be amazed.
Useful response.
It is when you know that many of the "poor" have at least 2 TVs, DVD players, etc.



You're throwing in a lot of emotive crap that has no business being in there. How do you know it's "hardly sufficient"? How do you know that the pay should be more for the job? By what objective standard do you make your claims (because, as you know, the only way to make your claims is for there to be an objective standard. And, of course, there isn't one.)
1) Didn’t say the pay should be (as, yes how one determines that is totally subjective. I feel it should, but that was not the point) more for the job.
Then what are you complaining about?


Said they were being taken advantage of.
Then the pay should be more. That's the logical implication of your statement.


There is a difference. Not necessarily an obvious one but it is a difference. You keep saying the person in this situation is not being taken advantage of, which is simply untrue.
No, it's quite true.


2) Hardly sufficient = barely, if even that, sufficient to cover the necessities such as food, rent essential utilities, etc. Oh and in your completely privatised system also include education, security, health care etc.
And the employer is supposed to do what about that?



Tell that to the people who live there or used to live there.
An irrelevant point as those systems were not the communist ideal, and so not what it is about.
No, it's quite relevant. What you're saying, in essence and as an analog, is that christians can't exist because no christian can live up to the christian ideal.



The point of Communism is to set up the communist ideal. Whether they can or not is the point. Whether they end up degenerating into an authoritarian system is not the point.
No, the point is that they always will become a despotic tyranny.


No, they think that a society like that is simply what you get when you have communism. While one thing may be desired, the implementation inexorably leads to what was seen in the USSR, China, Cuba, North Korea, etc. That is the way of communism: mass misery.
Erm… no, they think that the objective is to create a dictatorship by a person or group of people, or to make everyone the same.
*sigh*

What do you think "one thing may be desired" means? Do you not understand English?


I have spoken to people with a misconception of communism enough times to know the very simple difference between the two (what it aims to do and what it may unavoidably lead to). There are obviously people who know the difference and make that different point, seemingly like you do, but many people have misconceptions of the aims of communism, and those are the people I have explained that difference to. Personally I blame the whole “Communists are evil” message in the media for the past 50 years (now, saying “Some Communists are evil” would be ok).
I rather blame the idea of communism itself, as the system leads inexorably to despotism.



And I know people who lived in the USSR. In fact, one of them lives in the same city I do and teaches economics.
http://www.carthage.edu/faculty/biog...m?ID=800002475
Relevance of knowing people who have lived in the USSR?
To let you know that people who lived there will tell you it was communist.


And after looking at the link, looks even less relevant. Site showing me that this person was from Russia. Erm… why is that any use?
He's an economist. Did you notice that?


But it has worked in the past. In fact, Iceland was anarchic for nearly 300 years in the middle ages.
Hmm… interesting thing to look up there. Some daft sites claimed it was at civil war for near 200 years (when it was nearer 20-30 years at the end of the period. I presume your referring to the Commonwealth?).
I'm refering to the time recorded in the Sagas.

http://daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Iceland/Iceland.html


What scale of anarchist system where you imagining anyway? World-wide? One country? A very local system?
Anything.


Guaranteed access comes at a cost to those who don't even have children. That's not right. That's outright theft. And there's no possible justification for it. None.
They got guaranteed access when they were children so benefited,
Irrelevant.


and they benefit from the education that others receive then they require those people for whatever skill they possess.
Irrelevant.



Because costs go down without government interference in the market. Happens all the time.
Hmm… not sure of that at all. What about the water (and gas, electricity etc) privatisation in many third world countries?
It's not really "privatized" in most places. It's under the control of cronies from the World Bank.


You're correlating w/o causation.
OK, what are you suggesting causes that correlation? I would say a few things:
1) General poverty. Those who have less money would be less able to afford educational resources, help and parents having less time (due to having work longer hours) to help the child.
But why are most of the people who are impoverished...impoverished?


2) Educational expectations. Those from poorer backgrounds generally are less successful in education, and this will put them off trying as hard.
Ummm...no. There's no reason to believe that.


3) Environment. The state of the place they are staying could seriously distract someone, or make it difficult to find somewhere suitable to study.
Obviously other factors but those are the ones I can think of the moment. Housing was only really an example (“Seeing as simple things such as housing…).
And you're still thinking in terms of now, with all the government interference.



Horrible.
I think you horrible for thinking such things.
That's because you have no concept of morality.



No, because reality isn't like that when you don't have a government screwing things up.
Erm… proof? Why would a system even more based on personal wealth end up no worse, if not better than that?
How is it a system more based on personal wealth?




What's bizarre about it?
So thinking that not being able to afford (in a system where access is based on wealth, i.e. in a system when people pay for education directly) the best education will not disadvantage someone in life is not odd?
No.


How can someone with an inferior education compete on equal terms with someone that has a better education?
Happens all the time in reality.


People are born with deformities. So should we cripple everyone to make up for that? That IS what you're suggesting.
No. I am suggesting we would give extra help to that person with deformity so that they can compete on a more level playing field with completely healthy people.
i.e. cripple others to make up for it. Note: it doesn't have to be a physical crippling. You can take someone's property and cripple them.


Or, if they are so disabled that they cannot work, or can only do certain things, we would help them look after themselves (or to give them access to the work they can do). What you are suggesting is leaving a person who is deformed to fend for themselves in a system where they cannot compete on any level.
Wrong.


But what is your self if not your property?
It is me.
But what it you?


Simple as that. I cannot sell myself and then never have to bother about it ever again.
So?


I can never leave my body (ok, maybe with future medical technology we will be able to, but at the mo we cant). It is not something we can just pass on we n we want to. It is fundamentally different from a car, or a piece of land, or a cricket bat, or whatever. The same rules cannot apply to it as to those items.
Just because we can't literally sell our bodies as qua entirety doesn't mean we can't sell parts of our bodies. For instance, how many more people would be able to get transplants if a free market was allowed for organs?



Right. And that's because....?
I have already explained that. People don’t want to be randomly attacked for bits of their bodies.
But why is that?



How would you like it if I told you that you had to go to Africa, for example, and spend several years toiling at a farm just because workers were needed there and, you being human and all, have to go there because we all must support each other.

Isn't that imposing an unchosen obligation on you? Do you like it?
Oh, I wasn’t saying all unchosen obligations were good. I was saying that not all unchosen obligations are heinous and criminal.
They all are.


Sorry, just can’t see paying a bit if tax and being forced to go somewhere you didn’t want to as on the same level.
Whether it's a nick or a slash, it's still wrong.



WW1 was really the 3rd War of Austrian Succession. Silly Europeans liked to fight about who's king and all that nonsense.
What? 3rd War of Austrian succession? Erm… how? What did Austrian succession have to do with it?
You'd have to read up about the 1st 2.


Long term tensions among the nations had nothing to do with Austrian succession, and the war started when Russia moved to defend its sister Slavic nation Serbia from Austrian aggression.
That's part of the whole "who's going to be king over what" stuff.



Never said it didn't. But sometimes a rapid revolution has some problems in various areas to catch up. However, many of the problems were as a result of the governmental requirements for certain things.
Like requirements for what?
Taxes. Building codes (yes, building codes existed back then, and even long before. The Code of Hammurabi, for example, is filled with building codes).



How can you be socially mobile when your property is stolen?
You can get a high class school education you couldn’t afford if you had to pay for it directly.
Of course you could afford it....IF THE GOVERNMENT DIDN'T ARTIFICIALLY KEEP THE PRICE HIGH.



In a way. Just as much down to those who could hold that property through whatever means. Don’t actually see your point there anyway.

Oh, and those that could hold that property were those that could afford the pricey items which allowed them to be the sole holders of any real military power at the time.
And that system was set up by.....?



And that's not the fault of property, but of the governmental system.
Hmm… nah, mixture of the two. If there had been no sense of the land being owned by anyone (ie property), they wouldn’t have held much power over the peasants.
Nah, for then you'd have Hobbes' State of Nature.



Some. But you'd be amazed at what wealth the various individual churches amassed, for example.
Oh, yes, they collected together massive fortunes. But they still gave charity.
Not as much as they could, according to your reasoning.

Just giving you some of your reasoning and letting you see where the real issues lie.



Alms to buy their way into heaven. People do that nowadays, too.
Not only that. But yes, one reason. They still gave charity. So what’s the difference? Surely comparably modern charity promises even less benefit to your own self interest, which libertarians say is the driving thing behind human actions?
Humans act on their desires which they feel will benefit them the most. Benefits can be, as Murray Rothbard put it, "psychic profit". Note: this is not "psychic" in the silly new-age usage of being able to see the future and all that nonsense. It is "in terms of the psyche".



Well, if, for example, they do it by dropping their prices so that they operate at a loss, how long can they continue to do that before going bankrupt?
1) How do you know that they would have to drop costs to operate at a loss?
Because that's traditionally part of the argument.


2) Hell of a lot longer than a new start up business
No.



Nonsense. A lack of money doesn't make one not free unless you're trying to redefine "freedom" into what you desire it to mean.
I would say freedom is the ability to do what one wants.
Freedom is the ability to do anything one is able to do. So you're re-defining "freedom"



Taken from them. Think it might be their property?
Doesn’t matter what it is. They just don’t like it, so they agree not to do it so others will not do it to them.
And they call it....?



And why is that?
Any number of reasons. They don’t want it. They don’t want to set a precedent so that others will not do it to them. They live in a society which has rules saying they should not do that.
And what precisely is it that they don't want?



Nope. Your body is your property. That's why assault and rape are immoral, for example.
No. Rape and assault are immoral because they cause physical and psychological pain and suffering to others.
Death can cause physical and psychological pain and suffering to loved ones. Is death immoral?

Hint: this is part of the Socratic method. It's being used to show you that your answer is incomplete.



Also, please note that there can be private police and such to enforce subscribed-to legal codes.
Oh, and how do they decide who gets their protection?
Whomever contracts with them.


And what’s to stop people using these private police to pressurise others into doing what they want?
Reputation.



No. There were governments back then. I'm amazed that you think there weren't. You need to go back to school, m'laddio.
I had said that to me it seemed likely that people would be able to force others to do things (or give up their property) they wanted if they had greater power than the others, as there was no system to stop that, creating a system which was based “might makes right”. It was the “might makes right” part that I was comparing it to. Yes there was a government but it was those who had the military power to stomp all over the peasants etc that made up that government. They initially got there through their military prowess and wealth.
Among other ways.

Sorry, just you have replied to a couple of posts both since I made mine, and ones that have come after mine. Wanted to make sure you

1) had noticed it

or

2) were not deliberately avoiding responding to it.
Yours was longer, which would take more time. Time is something of a luxury for me some days. So I get to things when I get to them.

Then you can demonstrate it.
Oh that's rich. Very funny. I am the one laying out my arguments, you are the one tossing back responses that barely breach the three syllable barrier and yet I have the burden to offer more exposition?
Yes. You're the one making all the silly claims. You get to offer the evidence. Quite simple.


You can't just repeat arguments and expect that eventually they will ring true. I already explained to you that life isn't merely a generic process.
And a christian can explain that there is a god, but that doesn't mean there is one.


But anyway what does that matter, how does that disprove the claim for a right to life? How does life being a process make it more relevant to talk about our bodies as property?
The body is that which allows the processes to happen.


Furthermore, you claim that property has tangibility. Do you mean that life is an intangible idea? That life merely exists as a mental construct? You mean to say that you don't notice the blatantly obvious, dare I say, 'process' of life in front of your eyes every day?
Do you have a point?


Interestingly, when I demonstrate that property is an abstraction that involves a number of pure ideas you want to give them a physical center,
Interesting how you confuse the usage. I can have an idea (concept) about a car, and a car can be a physical entity AT THE SAME TIME.

You really should be more focused.


Initially you posted this:

And how do you instantiate that interest, given that the items you listed are abstractions? PROPERTY!
This clearly indicates two things. One, the "abstractions" of life and liberty are not adequate to assert and defend interests in the "abstractions" themselves (you still haven't offered any reasoning for that).
Yes, I have.


Two, that the concept of property will adequately do so. Considering the only problem you offered on life and liberty are that they are "abstractions" you are clearly trying to imply that property isn't an abstraction.
No, I am not.

[snip the rest, since it relies on a strawman]

The power in a feudalism, is in the hands of those who 'have'. And that 'having' is not of necessity based on ability, good thinking, or good intentions, but on the relatively arbitrary assignment of power.

Similarly, the Free Market places the power in the hands of those who 'have'. And, again... those that have are not 'qualified' for that situation by philanthropy, common sense, or ability... they are 'qualified' by having money, no matter how they came by it.

I'd say the Free Market was a LOT closer to feudalism than you'd like to admit.

Those who own the resources control the economy. That is your grand link between feudalism and the free market. I will ignore the fact that you are comparing a social system of obligations to a theoretical economic model, and still say that your correlation is rather thin.

No it isn't. It's in someone's personal museum. In that person's house. And no one else is allowed to view it.

Now please tell me--how is that using the car? Please--I'd love to know.
Oh, well in that case they aren't using it, and as such have no right to it.
Prove it.



No, it's up to you to use factual information to SUPPORT your claim. You can't just say "I defined it, therefore it exists". That's Anselmian nonsense!
At the very least, your lack of factual information against my claim makes you as guilty of "Anselmian nonsense" as I am.
1. Wrong.
2. Red herring.



That's already been dealt with.
Presumably some form of private arbitration would do it, right? Of course, this begs the questions: what gives private arbitrators the right to do it?
1. It doesn't beg that question at all.
2. It doesn't beg any questions.


And why do you, as a libertarian, believe that governments don't have the right to do it?
Because governments are coercive territorial monopolies, which necessarily infringe upon the rights of others.

Please read this: http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/14_1/14_1_2.pdf



Irrelevant.
How so? How is the first comers claim relevant when the current occupiers of the land aren't the first comers?
How is that relevant?



Prove it..
Well, let's see, there's the European powers conquering most of the rest of the world, and then the Vikings, Romans, Huns, Greeks, Macedonians, Franks, Celts, etc. conquering Europe. Or, you could, you know, study history.
Or you could, you know, have a point. But you don't.



Mr. No True Scotsman, please kill your fallacy. There have been many communist countries. Please stop your crying about that.
Er, no.
Er, yes.


If you're going to invoke the No True Scotsman fallacy, then you need to actually learn what it means.
I do.


It's already been shown that stating that there have been no Communist countries does not involve the No True Scotsman fallacy.
No, it has not. In fact, stating that there have been no communist countries for the reasons you gave (didn't live up to the ideals, blah blah) is the same as stating there have been no christians because no christian can live up to the christian idea. No. True. Scotsman.

Deal.



No--your use of them does not matter. As such, you are utterly inconsistent. You want your cake and to eat it as well.

You are a hypocrite.
I am entirely consistent, because the only thing that matters with property is its usage.
You don't believe that property should exist! You're inconsistent.



Wrong. They aren't yours. You have no right to demand anything of anyone.
You do realize that the statement "you have no right to demand anything of everyone" is quite uh, hypocritical of you, given that this line began with you demanding my corneas.
I didn't demand them. Really, you can do better.

Those who own the resources control the economy. That is your grand link between feudalism and the free market. I will ignore the fact that you are comparing a social system of obligations to a theoretical economic model, and still say that your correlation is rather thin.
What the hell are you on about? You were the one proposing a system where your vote would be weighted according to your wealth. That sounds a lot like feudalism to me.

What the hell are you on about? You were the one proposing a system where your vote would be weighted according to your wealth. That sounds a lot like feudalism to me.

What I am on about is that any resource distribution model you want to propose will be weighted towards those who have more wealth. If you want to compare unique qualities between the two, you will find that similarities are few and far between.

Interesting how you confuse the usage. I can have an idea (concept) about a car, and a car can be a physical entity AT THE SAME TIME.

Alright. So property is an idea that has a physical aspect. How does that make property any different than a right to life in that respect?

This clearly indicates two things. One, the "abstractions" of life and liberty are not adequate to assert and defend interests in the "abstractions" themselves (you still haven't offered any reasoning for that).Yes, I have.

So far you have only offered the following:

And how do you instantiate that interest, given that the items you listed are abstractions? PROPERTY!

Since that initial claim you have been preoccupied by splitting-hairs over abstraction and tangibility. You have not demonstrated why an abstraction fails to assert rights to life and liberty. If you think that you have then quote the post where you have.

[snip the rest, since it relies on a strawman]

I am honestly not trying to reduce your argument to a straw man. I have only pointed out places where you are clearly contradicting yourself. I have been earnestly trying to divine your argument from the single word responses that you are offering.

"Wrong" and "No" are not arguments. Please demonstrate your argument. Answer the question I just posed above. Tell me why abstractions fail.

Do it in more than one sentence.

Don't tell me that you have.

I have gone over your posts several times with a fine-tooth comb. You are not offering any arguments; you are only making bare assertions of what is. Tell me why life should be understood as property.

I am trying to have a civil debate with you, but you may as well be speaking Chinese. Don't bother responding if you are not going to expound on your arguments.

I must have misinterpreted the analogy, as it seems you are saying that the pig farmer has the right pollute his neighbor's property as long as they aren't bothered enough to take action. (I thought it was about the neighbor's right to stop the pig farmer)

Well, that is what an unregulated free-market essentially says. Without regulations saying something like "You have to take care to avoid creating a stink that disturbs your neighbour", unless the neighbours say anything, the free market says that the pig farmer has the right to create that stink.

Those who own the resources control the economy. That is your grand link between feudalism and the free market. I will ignore the fact that you are comparing a social system of obligations to a theoretical economic model, and still say that your correlation is rather thin.

You can say that. Hell, I defend your right to say it.

I would argue you are either missing the big picture, or deliberately avoiding it, however.

I am, of course, aware that feudalism is a 'political' struture, while 'the Free Market' is a market structure.... but then, I was under the impression that you were the poster who started the talk of the Free Market being 'democratic'... no?

The point being, if you want to compare 'free market' thinking to a political structure, feudalism is MUCH closer a parallel than democracy, since they both absolutely place 'power' proportional to 'ownership'.

And normally then the cost of things is lower as well.

Normally. Not all the time. And still doesnt guarantee that the prices of things would be low enough to make them easily available to those with little money.





It is when you know that many of the "poor" have at least 2 TVs, DVD players, etc.

That is in a system with regulation, and welfare sypport for those well of people. Which would be lacking under your system. And again "many of the "poor"". Not all.


Then what are you complaining about?

You refusing to accept that the situation I described is not expliotation.


Then the pay should be more. That's the logical implication of your statement.

That is my opinion, yes, but whether you think they are being taken advantage of can be independant of whether you think they should get more pay. You could think someone is not being taken advantage of and still think they should get more pay.

Definitions of expliotation:

1. The act of employing to the greatest possible advantage.
2. Utilization of another person or group for selfish purposes.

Even if you dont take either of those points as a negative, that is expliotation that is occuring. What you are reacting against is the negative connotations of the word. I do think the individual (in the situation being discussed) should get more, and I think he is being explioted in a very unfair way. But no matter whether you agree with me on that point, he is being exploited.


No, it's quite true.

See above.


And the employer is supposed to do what about that?

Well, personally I would say he shouldnt be able to pay a hardly sufficient wage, but putting that to one side, the point of mentioning that was to give a definition of hardly sufficient. You had asked me what I meant by that. I gave an answer.


No, it's quite relevant. What you're saying, in essence and as an analog, is that christians can't exist because no christian can live up to the christian ideal.

No. We have dealt with countries being communist (at least between us two). I have given you that those countries were communist. What I was saying was that many people think of communism as having the AIM of making despotic tyranny and/or making everyone the same. That is simply not true, yet that is what they make their judgement on. They dont make points about it always leading to tyrannies no matter what it is meant to do. They say that is what communism is meant to make. Which, at least from what I understood from what you said, we have both agreed is not what is MEANT to happen (disregarding what actually happens),


No, the point is that they always will become a despotic tyranny.

See above


*sigh*

What do you think "one thing may be desired" means? Do you not understand English?

Again, see above.


I rather blame the idea of communism itself, as the system leads inexorably to despotism.

Most people I have spoken to on this issue dont have enough of an idea of what communism is to make a judgement like that. They basically take their view from the popular perception of communism formed by propaganda and cultural representations (Just looking at something I have seen recently, see "Red Dawn" for an example.) over the past 50 years (if not in fact longer. Communists were attacked before they even had a chance to try out their system).


To let you know that people who lived there will tell you it was communist.

We have already dealt with this.


He's an economist. Did you notice that?

Yeah, I did. So? doesnt make it any more relevant as we had already dealt with that issue.


I'm refering to the time recorded in the Sagas.

http://daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Iceland/Iceland.html

So, yes, what is sometimes referred to as the Icelandic Commonwealth.

Just something I noticed in there:

"A second objection is that the rich (or powerful) could commit crimes with impunity, since nobody would be able to enforce judgment against them. Where power is sufficiently concentrated this might be true; this was one of the problems which led to the eventual breakdown of the Icelandic legal system in the thirteenth century."

"It is interesting to note that during the Sturlung period, when wealth had become relatively concentrated..."

Power was based on wealth. Though it took a while, it eventually got concentrated enough so that the system destabilised and collapsed.


Anything.

Ok. Personally I think that if it can work (which I am highly doubtful) it would have to be worldwide, as it seems highly vulnerable from outside pressure, but thats just me.


Irrelevant.


Irrelevant.

You said that people without children didnt get anything from others being provided with education. So it is relevant.


It's not really "privatized" in most places. It's under the control of cronies from the World Bank.

Doesnt matter how it gets into private companies' hands. It is no longer publically provided, so is privatised.


But why are most of the people who are impoverished...impoverished?

Any number of reasons. Lack of available work. Low pay. Not being able to work due to age, disability, other commitments.


Ummm...no. There's no reason to believe that.

Erm... yes there is. Those from poorer backgrounds often underperform (I am not trying to claim they are less intelligent, but just that they often dont perform as well) compared to those from middle class wealthier backgrounds. If you dont have people encouraging you, or cant see evidence of education helping others, then you are likely to not see it as worthwhile, especially if it just gets frustrating not meeting the same standards as others around you.


And you're still thinking in terms of now, with all the government interference.

Eh...? Whats that got to do with it? In a poor (in substandard, not in terms of wealth) environment those factors will still apply, no matter the economic system. Or do you think that a complete free-market will magically solve all social and economic ills?


That's because you have no concept of morality.

No, it's because I have a different moral system from yours. Might share many things but will have differences.


How is it a system more based on personal wealth?

Erm... a free market system. In a free market system what you can get is completely based on your wealth. So it is more based on personal wealth, as even in our current system, people get help to afford (or get some things for free) certain items.



No.

Erm... ok, if thats what you think.


Happens all the time in reality.

Erm... eh? Where? Ocasionally, yes. But it is not the norm. People will usually go for the better educated of two applicants for a job etc.


i.e. cripple others to make up for it. Note: it doesn't have to be a physical crippling. You can take someone's property and cripple them.

Erm... eh? OK, when taxes get to the stage of crippling someone, they are are too heavy on that individual, but most people are not "crippled" by taxes.


Wrong.

Explain how?


But what it you?

Me. I have said. Stop trying to find a way to make me say I am my own property. I wont. As I dont believe I am my property. I am me.


So?

So it is significantly different from everything else that is called property.


Just because we can't literally sell our bodies as qua entirety doesn't mean we can't sell parts of our bodies. For instance, how many more people would be able to get transplants if a free market was allowed for organs?

Not sure many more people, as there other reasons people dont give transplanst and other things like that. Religious reasons, political reasons, scared of it etc. Though not completely the same, take blood for instance. I would be very willing to give blood free of charge, but I am too nervous of the whole idea of fluids being taken out of me. Also, there would be the worry of people giving organs when they shouldn't, like say for medical reasons that could affect others(you cannot be paid for blood in Britain for this reason).


But why is that?

It causes physical pain to them. It could damage them. It could even kill them.


They all are.

In your opinion.


Whether it's a nick or a slash, it's still wrong.

I said that in an ideal system, there would be none. Unfortunately no ideal system exists that could really expect to work.


You'd have to read up about the 1st 2.

But the war wasnt about who was to rule Austria.


That's part of the whole "who's going to be king over what" stuff.

Ah, if you mean in that sense, I guess in a way yes, but it was as much about the reputation of the countries involved. Russia couldnt be seen to be unable to help its allies and friends again (as happened in 1905 due to Russo-Japanese war). And the other nations didnt really care about who ruled Serbia much. They got involved due to the system of alliances that were in existance at that point. did France really care if austria had Serbia? No not really, but they had agreed that they would fight on Russia's side if Germany declared war on either of them. And why did Germany get involved? Because it was allied to Austria.


Taxes. Building codes (yes, building codes existed back then, and even long before. The Code of Hammurabi, for example, is filled with building codes).

And they made people build sub-standard and cramped housing how?


Of course you could afford it....IF THE GOVERNMENT DIDN'T ARTIFICIALLY KEEP THE PRICE HIGH.

You can guarantee this how? How can you guaruntee that prices would come down and people's wages would go up? And if you noticed, the government isnt keeping the price high. Its providing it free of charge.


And that system was set up by.....?

Them. They held the power so they constructed and manipulated a system in a way that suited them best.


Nah, for then you'd have Hobbes' State of Nature.

Eh?


Not as much as they could, according to your reasoning.

Just giving you some of your reasoning and letting you see where the real issues lie.

Yes, I dont think they provided as much as they could have. Dont see what thats got to do with it. People dont provide as much as they could now (and in fact, those further down the wage scale seem to generally be the most generous compared to how much they could give. Obviously generally not if they cant afford to look after themselves properly). And I dont see how people would provide as much as they could in your system either. They, just as they do now, would provide as much as they want to. My point was that charity has never, and as far as I can tell, never will, provide enough to adequately provide for those who need help. Dont see how your above point links to that.


Humans act on their desires which they feel will benefit them the most. Benefits can be, as Murray Rothbard put it, "psychic profit". Note: this is not "psychic" in the silly new-age usage of being able to see the future and all that nonsense. It is "in terms of the psyche".

Oh, yeah I know people give to charity to make themselves feel like a better person, asuage guilt etc, but those dont really seem to compare to saving your soul from eternal damnation as motivators that benefit the individual (ok, I dont believe in god, heaven, hell etc, but they did).


Because that's traditionally part of the argument.

Yes, that they would be able to drop prices to try and drive others out, sometimes to operate at a loss. But to achieve a lower price than most small to medium sized new businesses they dont neccessarily need to operate at a loss. Supermarkets (for example) now have lower prices compared to most small shops yet they are still profitable.


No.

Erm... how? New business usually have less to fall back on. So they will generally run out of funds sooner than a well established large business will.


Freedom is the ability to do anything one is able to do. So you're re-defining "freedom"

Ah, so on that definition a prisoner in a jail has freedom. He is more limted on what he is able to do, but he can still able to do those things he is able to do.


And they call it....?

As I said doesnt matter what they call it, but it is currently (in English) called property. I never said property rights didnt exist, but just that we (humans) have constructed them, and decided what we have a right to. In this repects property rights are no more special than say a right to free health care.


And what precisely is it that they don't want?

Explained above.


Death can cause physical and psychological pain and suffering to loved ones. Is death immoral?

Hint: this is part of the Socratic method. It's being used to show you that your answer is incomplete.

Ah the Socratic method again. You mean asking questions as a form of education or debate, in this case debate, in an attempt to make me make some statement that contradicts myself etc? But yes, my answer was incomplete. Wait, in fact it wasn't. I was just explaining why rape was wrong in counter to your claim because it violated property rights. Didnt say that I was explaining why everything that is wrong is wrong.

But going on to maybe explain myself a bit better. Rape is still wrong because it causes pain and suffering, but there is a difference between rape and death (I am presuming through natural causes is what your meaning?). It is causing suffering through deliberate actions, or doing something you know could (not neccessarily certainly will) lead to suffering without taking care to try and avoid it, that is immoral. If someone dies due to a freak accident, a mistake they make, or illness, or old age etc it isnt really the same thing. No one can be blamed for that (unless you believe in a god).

And I have maybe seen where you are going to try and go with this:

Stealing can cause suffering, ie, by depriving someone of money to look after themselves, taking something of personal sentimental value etc. Yes, that is true.

A few of points in reponse to this:

1) With this point I was never attempting to say that property being taken etc is not wrong, only that rape is not wrong because it is a property violation, but because it causes suffering. Ie, they are both wrong because of the same reason, but one is not wrong because it extends from the other.
2) Never said that property shouldnt exist. Only that it is a human construct. again, I said there is no inherent right to life, but doesnt mean I dont think a right to life shouldnt exist. I don't give it in the same importance as you do of course. Doesnt mean that I think no perception of property should exist.
3) At least in certain cases property loss only causes suffering because of the perception of property existing. For example, if people didnt think of a car as belonging to them, they wouldnt care if it went, and would just be able to use another car.


Whomever contracts with them.

What about those that cannot afford their services? Or will we be having certain pacakges depending on what you can afford?

"Well, there is the full package, ie protection from all crimes and investigation of all crimes. Or if you really cant spare much cash we can go right down to the bargain basement option. We just provide our services in the case of murder or threat of murder."


Reputation.

They may try to do it on the sly.

And anyway, reputation can go both ways. Having a reputation as a service which can be used for intimidation, forcefully taking property or even bumping people off could be useful.


Among other ways.

Pretty much the main, if not only, method. They either got and stayed there due to their military capability (which in the period was linked to wealth), or by buying others to provide the same military power for them.

Then you are not involved in the democratic process, and your roommates can engage in their own equal democratic process. The democratic process is in no way impugned.It would mean that I am outside of the democratic process, which would mean that no democratic process exists between my three roommates and me, with regard to this issue.

If you thought that a TV of less than $150 would be sufficient, you wouldn't agree to the collective purchase of a TV. If you do purchase a TV on your own is not a democratic agreement to begin with.

This shows that democracy is only in the collective determination, not in the egalitarian determination. The collective purchase of the TV would only be done if we could all agree on the TV being purchased. If I purchased my own TV, and they purchased theirs, then that would not be a collective purchase, and not be democratic.

Because the free market insures that no one can have their input disregarded. No one is banned from entering into the free market, and thus everyone is free to register their "vote" so to speak. I didn't say that people couldn't register their votes, but rather that there isn't anything which forces anyone to take notice of their votes. (I would say that people with no resources can't vote, but that isn't exactly what we're talking about here.)

Then the neighbors have the right to protect their own rights through the courts. The justification comes from individual liberty, not from democracy.What if the courts don't recognize that the neighbors' rights are being violated?

If one neighbor is bothered (or harmed) by the smell and the other isn't, does this mean that the concept of "harm" is subjective?

That sounds like an attempt to buy yourself time to come up with a correlation.

The correlation between democracy and defense of property rights only exists when we are considering public property in which all individuals have equal, undivided interest. This analogy is not the case.Oh, no, there's a correlation. I would like to point out that the instance we're talking about (abortion) would not be a removal of property rights, but would be a violation of them.

Prove it. Well, we both agree that they aren't using it, now what I have to do is prove that there's no right to it, which I am in the process of doing.

1. Wrong.
2. Red herring.One and two word replies do not arguments make.

1. It doesn't beg that question at all.
2. It doesn't beg any questions.Agan: what gives private arbitrators the right to arbitrate?

Because governments are coercive territorial monopolies, which necessarily infringe upon the rights of others.

Please read this: http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/14_1/14_1_2.pdf[/quote]Well, he's wrong about a lot of things (and not just about his mischaracterization of socialism), but his point that governments have been hat way stands...this doesn't preclude the possibility that all governments will be, though.

How is that relevant?Because the first comers claim is only relevant if the occupiers of a place are the first comers, or acquired the land rightfully from the first comers. Since very little of the land today is occupied by the first comers, and was stolen from them, the first comers claim is irrelevant.

Or you could, you know, have a point. But you don't.Uh, the point is that I was providing evidence that land was stolen from the first comers, which goes back to the point that the first comers claim is invalid.

Er, yes.

I do.

No, it has not. In fact, stating that there have been no communist countries for the reasons you gave (didn't live up to the ideals, blah blah) is the same as stating there have been no christians because no christian can live up to the christian idea. No. True. Scotsman.

Deal.Saying that somebody is not a Christian because he doesn't believe in Christ is a perfectly acceptable thing to say, since the definition of a Christian is someone who believes in Christ. The definition of socialist is someone who wants to eliminate all classes, and so anyone who does not wish to do so does not a socialist. Therefore, your use of that fallacy is wrong. Deal with it.

You don't believe that property should exist! You're inconsistent.I don't believe that the current concept of ownership should exist, but that property rights should be based upon use. Not inconsistent.

I didn't demand them. Really, you can do better.Now let me have your corneas. Oh, don't fret now; there are people with cataracts who need your corneas. Don't give me that "they are my corneas" crap. You don't own your corneas--you just said you're arguing against ownership of things. So since your corneas aren't yours, let me just take them so that others may see.Yes, you did. Try again.

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.

You've got that backwards. It was because of child labor that people weren't able to provide enough for their families. If a grown man has to compete with children for wages then the man isn't going to make enough to support his children, so he has to put the children to work with the other children. Once libertariansism was rolled into a ball and shoved up the bosses' assholes children were taken out of the labor market and suddenly men's jobs could support families.

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.

That's bullshit. Intervention to an economy is like medicine to a body. Just taking it as a way to keep things going is going to be harmful to long-term health, but problems arise all on their own and they need to be corrected. If you take any intervention away you go through a period where there's a lot of economic activity, but it's mostly just some companies buying up others, so it looks like the economy is growing, but it's net zero growth. Eventually, you end up with all industry Walmartized. Money only flows in one direction, and when it's all gotten to the top, things dry up. It's like deforestation causing a drought.

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.

This is evidence of the force of taking children out of the workforce. Women had been mostly out of the workforce too, and when they went back in for cultural reasons, rather than economic ones, the effect was to reduce wages so that women had to work rather than merely having the option. Not that I'm saying that women should be kicked out of the workforce. If adults as a population choose to take depressed wages as a consequence of equality, that's fine. When depressed wages are made the consequence of stratification however, well that's just harmful all around.

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.

I'm not sure where you're getting this from. Child labor was not a result of capitalism; it was something capitalism and the Industrial Revolution inherited from before. Parents couldn't make enough money to feed their entire family, because they lacked the skills and capital. Once the infrastructure of the new market was built up enough, capital accumulated and incomes increased making child labor of that sort a relic of the past. It was just a byproduct of the rocky transition from a poor, low-skills agrarian economy to an industrial capitalistic market.

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.

I disagree here. I think that, like education, anti-trust acts, and a colorblind society, a certain degree of environmental regulation is a necessary part of a free market. A capitalistic laissez-faire market depends upon the predication of an even, stable fundamental playing field; circumstances are not identical, but everyone stands on the same bedrock of opportunities to use what skills they have or can acquire. Education is required to keep the socioeconomic playing field from becoming drastically uneven, and environmental protection is required to make sure that the actions of someone who doesn't think on the right term or scale don't physically and thus economically wreck the "playing field" for everyone.

Without an oversight structure, people won't realize they've caused a problem until it's too late, and the cost of Miami underwater is much greater than an emissions cut.

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.

Where did you get this idea? I'm not sure what you're talking about, but the assertion above has absolutely nothing to do with libertarianism, capitalism, Objectivism, etc.

It would mean that I am outside of the democratic process, which would mean that no democratic process exists between my three roommates and me, with regard to this issue.

The collective purchase of the TV would only be done if we could all agree on the TV being purchased. If I purchased my own TV, and they purchased theirs, then that would not be a collective purchase, and not be democratic.

So when it is weighted it is still democratic, when it is no longer collective, it is no longer democratic.

And the point I am making is that democracy is defined by the collective input, not on how the votes are weighted. Because the free market is determined on collective input, it is democratic. Because there is no representatives, it is direct.

I didn't say that people couldn't register their votes, but rather that there isn't anything which forces anyone to take notice of their votes.

As is the case with all democracy. I have been able to vote in two presidential elections, I have consistently voted against George Bush.

The free market, like all democracies, has no obligation to all individual opinions. It only responds to the collective's decision.

It does, however, break it down to the most localized and direct level it possibly can.

What if the courts don't recognize that the neighbors' rights are being violated?

Then there is a problem within the court system.

If one neighbor is bothered (or harmed) by the smell and the other isn't, does this mean that the concept of "harm" is subjective?

Yes, all valuations are subjective, which is a perfectly good reason why this matter should be settled on an individual level.

Oh, no, there's a correlation. I would like to point out that the instance we're talking about (abortion) would not be a removal of property rights, but would be a violation of them.

To split hairs, any violation of property rights is some removal of rights. There are a bundle of rights that are carried with property.

Nevertheless, I don't think you have addressed my initial question.

Is democracy justified in making abortion illegal?

You stated that it was, but never backed it up, opting to start an analogy about property rights.

So when it is weighted it is still democratic, when it is no longer collective, it is no longer democratic.I didn't agree that when it was weighted it was still democratic, one person being able to carry out their will separate from the other three is not democratic.

And the point I am making is that democracy is defined by the collective input, not on how the votes are weighted. Because the free market is determined on collective input, it is democratic. Because there is no representatives, it is direct.Democracy is defined by both the collective input and how the votes are weighted.

As is the case with all democracy. I have been able to vote in two presidential elections, I have consistently voted against George Bush.Same here, but your vote was counted. The free market does not even require that your vote is counted.

The free market, like all democracies, has no obligation to all individual opinions. It only responds to the collective's decision.No, it responds to the decision of those with money, the collective is irrelevant as far as the free market goes.

Then there is a problem within the court system.

Yes, all valuations are subjective, which is a perfectly good reason why this matter should be settled on an individual level.But your problem with the court system is a subjective opinion. Are human rights subjective or objective?

To split hairs, any violation of property rights is some removal of rights. There are a bundle of rights that are carried with property.

Nevertheless, I don't think you have addressed my initial question.

Is democracy justified in making abortion illegal?

You stated that it was, but never backed it up, opting to start an analogy about property rights.We're getting there.

I didn't agree that when it was weighted it was still democratic, one person being able to carry out their will separate from the other three is not democratic.

Correct, if he acts on his own it is not democratic. But if he does act collectively with the other three, and recieves more input, it is still democratic.

Democracy is defined by both the collective input and how the votes are weighted.

Prove it.

Same here, but your vote was counted. The free market does not even require that your vote is counted.

The free market has no choice, it must count your vote. A free market cannot make conscious decisions to exclude people. If you have one dollar, if you have one day's worth of labor, you are accounted for by the free market.

No, it responds to the decision of those with money, the collective is irrelevant as far as the free market goes.

Economists will refer quite often to the aggregate when talking about economic forces. It is central in determining all aspects of a market.

The aggregate is an economic term for what we are calling the collective.

But your problem with the court system is a subjective opinion. Are human rights subjective or objective?

The valuation of human rights is subjective. We make that valuation objective when we value them through democracy.

Interesting how you confuse the usage. I can have an idea (concept) about a car, and a car can be a physical entity AT THE SAME TIME.
Alright. So property is an idea that has a physical aspect. How does that make property any different than a right to life in that respect?
Because in the context, "life" is an abstraction.

You do know what "context" is, right?



This clearly indicates two things. One, the "abstractions" of life and liberty are not adequate to assert and defend interests in the "abstractions" themselves (you still haven't offered any reasoning for that).
Yes, I have.
So far you have only offered the following:

And how do you instantiate that interest, given that the items you listed are abstractions? PROPERTY!
I've offered much more than that.


Since that initial claim you have been preoccupied by splitting-hairs over abstraction and tangibility.
You're the one who wanted to make it a topic.


You have not demonstrated why an abstraction fails to assert rights to life and liberty.
Because abstractions aren't external.



[snip the rest, since it relies on a strawman]
I am honestly not trying to reduce your argument to a straw man.
But you have.


I have only pointed out places where you are clearly contradicting yourself.
I have never done so.

It might help if you would READ ALL OF MY POSTS IN THIS THREAD SO THAT YOU CAN SEE WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.

Or is that just too much effort for you?

If you don't want to do that then stop responding to me.

Prove it.
Well, we both agree that they aren't using it, now what I have to do is prove that there's no right to it, which I am in the process of doing.
Tall task for you.



1. Wrong.
2. Red herring.
One and two word replies do not arguments make.
Yes they do.



1. It doesn't beg that question at all.
2. It doesn't beg any questions.
Agan: what gives private arbitrators the right to arbitrate?
You really don't grasp things, do you? Did it never occur to you that private arbitrators could be asked to do the arbiting by each side? Or they could offer their services? Wouldn't that give the person the right to do it?

Or is that just way too fucking simple for you to grasp?


Because governments are coercive territorial monopolies, which necessarily infringe upon the rights of others.

Please read this: http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/14_1/14_1_2.pdf
Well, he's wrong about a lot of things (and not just about his mischaracterization of socialism),
No, he characterizes socialism properly.


but his point that governments have been hat way stands...this doesn't preclude the possibility that all governments will be, though.
It's what makes a government a government! It is a government's sine qua non.



How is that relevant?
Because the first comers claim is only relevant if the occupiers of a place are the first comers, or acquired the land rightfully from the first comers.
Wrong.



Or you could, you know, have a point. But you don't.
Uh, the point is that I was providing evidence that land was stolen from the first comers,
...which is irrelevant.



Er, yes.

I do.

No, it has not. In fact, stating that there have been no communist countries for the reasons you gave (didn't live up to the ideals, blah blah) is the same as stating there have been no christians because no christian can live up to the christian idea. No. True. Scotsman.

Deal.
Saying that somebody is not a Christian because he doesn't believe in Christ
...is not what I said, O Creator of Strawmen, as you can see from the bolded text.

Your denial of your usage of the No True Scotsman fallacy is hilarious. Equally as hilarious is your inability to comprehend written English.



You don't believe that property should exist! You're inconsistent.
I don't believe that the current concept of ownership should exist, but that property rights should be based upon use.
Impossible. Therefore, you're inconsistent.


I still didn't demand your corneas.

Tall task for you.Not really.

Yes they do.Nope.

You really don't grasp things, do you? Did it never occur to you that private arbitrators could be asked to do the arbiting by each side? Or they could offer their services? Wouldn't that give the person the right to do it?
You really don't grasp things, do you? Did it never occur to you that governments could be asked to do the arbitrating by each side? Or that each side might not agree on an arbitrator, therefore rendering the whole process irrelevant?

No, he characterizes socialism properly.Nope, again.

It's what makes a government a government! It is a government's sine qua non.No, governments are governments because they govern.

Wrong.Right.

...which is irrelevant.No, the first comers claim is irrelevant.

...is not what I said, O Creator of Strawmen, as you can see from the bolded text.I never said that that was what you said, I stated that that it would be correct to say that the individual wasn't a true Christian if they don't believe in Christ (the definition of a Christian), just as saying that no country is communist if it doesn't fit the definition of Communism.

Your denial of your usage of the No True Scotsman fallacy is hilarious. Equally as hilarious is your inability to comprehend written English.Your (deliberate?) misuse of the No True Scotsman fallacy is hilarious, but not quite as hilarious as your rampant hypocrisy.

Impossible. Therefore, you're inconsistent.Wrong again.

I still didn't demand your corneas.Yes, you did.

Correct, if he acts on his own it is not democratic. But if he does act collectively with the other three, and recieves more input, it is still democratic.If their votes are weighted equally.

Prove it.Would it be democratic for anyone with a vagina to get a billion votes? Would it be democratic for white people to get 10,000 votes? Those are other examples of weighted voting, this time based upon gender and race.

The free market has no choice, it must count your vote. A free market cannot make conscious decisions to exclude people. If you have one dollar, if you have one day's worth of labor, you are accounted for by the free market.Everyone within the free market can make conscious decisions to exclude people by not doing business with them.

Economists will refer quite often to the aggregate when talking about economic forces. It is central in determining all aspects of a market.

The aggregate is an economic term for what we are calling the collective.Good to know.

The valuation of human rights is subjective. We make that valuation objective when we value them through democracy.True. That valuation would be objective due to the subjective opinions of the majority of people. But how do we get from an objective valuation of human rights which doesn't consider abortion to be a human right do one that does consider abortion to be a human right?

Would it be democratic for anyone with a vagina to get a billion votes? Would it be democratic for white people to get 10,000 votes? Those are other examples of weighted voting, this time based upon gender and race.

Yes, it would be democratic. Those are of course ridiculous examples, but that would still be a democratic process.

We could try and eliminate any logical difficulties created by extreme circumstances and stick with my much more common analogy.

If the four roommates all prefer the collective agreement under which they purchase a $300 TV,

and

If the process of decision making was voted on by the four roommates collectively,

and

If the roommate who provided more money than the rest of the roommates receives more input,

There is a social contract, the agreement and decision process takes place between the roommates, so how can it not be democratic?

True. That valuation would be objective due to the subjective opinions of the majority of people. But how do we get from an objective valuation of human rights which doesn't consider abortion to be a human right do one that does consider abortion to be a human right?

By not giving democracy the justification it needs to make objective valuations of rights. Human rights should be objectively valued based on the value of human existence, human liberty, not on the majority whim.

As a communist, you should know that no government, no rule is legitimate in of itself.

Yes, it would be democratic. Those are of course ridiculous examples, but that would still be a democratic process.I agree that they are ridiculous examples, however I don't view them as being anymore ridiculous than any other form of weighted voting.

We could try and eliminate any logical difficulties created by extreme circumstances and stick with my much more common analogy.

If the four roommates all prefer the collective agreement under which they purchase a $300 TV,

and

If the process of decision making was voted on by the four roommates collectively,

and

If the roommate who provided more money than the rest of the roommates receives more input,

There is a social contract, the agreement and decision process takes place between the roommates, so how can it not be democratic?It's possible that the roommates might hold my opinion in more value because I am contributing more money and have it still be a democratic process, as long as my opinion isn't formalized in the process. I could see the justification for weighted voting if we voted to weight the votes based upon how much money was contributed and that vote was done without any weights.
I do also agree that any system of voting, weighted or not is a democratic process, however democracy is more than just a process, it is a set of conditions, only one of which is the process.

By not giving democracy the justification it needs to make objective valuations of rights. Human rights should be objectively valued based on the value of human existence, human liberty, not on the majority whim.

As a communist, you should know that no government, no rule is legitimate in of itself.I agree that human rights should be objectively based upon the value of human existence, however in order for that to happen in a case where people choose to violate human rights, somebody must hold that objective evaluation, and in order to apply that evaluation, force must be used. While I am not a pacifist and view force as sometimes necessary, I think that there are better ideas. This is one of the reasons why I believe that people should be able to secede at will, because it is a way of people getting what they want without using force. If they can't secede at will, then some form of force is necessary.

In short, I don't believe that democracy justifies violations of human rights, however it makes them acceptable because the alternatives are worse, or at the very least democracy is more acceptable than the alternatives are.

Of course, this also poses the problem of what, exactly human rights are. I believe you and I are fairly close in what we believe that are, but also quite far apart.

Property rights must be based upon use rather than ownership for two simple reasons. Ownership requires some sort of deed, or contract, which is validated and stamped by some higher power or private arbitrator. This higher power or arbitrator must either be able to force its view on others, or other people have to agree to submit to the will of the higher power or arbitrator. This is fine, as people should be free to agree to anything that they want, but unless there is a compelling reason to agree to anything, nobody will do it. There is also the possibility that there won't be a higher power or arbitrator to hand out judgments on the rightful ownership of property.
Use, on the other hand, is self evident. You can tell if someone is using something simply by watching them use it (unless you are prone to hallucinations). There needn't be any dispute over tracts of land or quantities of minerals; anyone is entitled to the land they use and the minerals they dig up, and only to the land they use and the minerals they dig up. This does not preclude the possibility of uses that aren't self evident, but in order for those uses to apply, there must be some higher power or arbitrator dictating which uses are and aren't acceptable uses.
This doesn't mean that arbitrators are bad in and of themselves, but the right to property (and the use thereof) must precede the existence of arbitration. Where would the arbitrators live if they didn't have the right to use land, and how would somebody have the right to use land without an arbitrator to decide it?

haha, look what I found on libertarianism.com

"One view that has occasionally expressed is that in a libertarian society *everyone* would be heavily armed, making invasion or usurpation by a domestic tyrant excessively risky. This is what the Founding Fathers clearly intended for the U .S. (the Consitution made no provision for a standing army, entrusting defense primarily to a militia consisting of the entirety of the armed citizenry). And it does work today in Switzerland (also furnishing one of the strongest anti-gun-control arguments). Think about the Afghans, the Viet Cong, the Minutemen --- would *you* want to invade a country full of dedicated, heavily armed libertarians? :-) "

Anyone spot the titchiest of flaws in this reasoning?

haha, look what I found on libertarianism.com

"One view that has occasionally expressed is that in a libertarian society *everyone* would be heavily armed, making invasion or usurpation by a domestic tyrant excessively risky. This is what the Founding Fathers clearly intended for the U .S. (the Consitution made no provision for a standing army, entrusting defense primarily to a militia consisting of the entirety of the armed citizenry). And it does work today in Switzerland (also furnishing one of the strongest anti-gun-control arguments). Think about the Afghans, the Viet Cong, the Minutemen --- would *you* want to invade a country full of dedicated, heavily armed libertarians? :-) "

Anyone spot the titchiest of flaws in this reasoning?Well, there are a lot, but it strikes me as not saying anything very positive about the society if everyone is heavily armed...not to mention that it's irrelevant what the Founding Fathers intended if they didn't mention it in the Constitution.

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.

fine.
please restrain yourself from using any taxpayed facilities then. sholdn't be difficult ehy?

I'm not a big fan of libertarianism. I think if you're going to make a country, fine, but the country should be made in the agreement that the laws that the federal government of that nation passes are to be followed. Countries are meant to be unified. On the other hand, I think nations should be small enough so you avoid a big brother type government, and if the government does indeed become too powerful you can easily modify it.

Sorry to have to link to another thread, but:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=462905

I think we can both agree that B0zzy is a supporter of capitalism.

.

Not sure who it was you were quoting there - but you certainly gave them a butt-kicking with my post. I'd read back for it, but I've ahd a few brewskis and don't feel like it now. I do feel like I missed out on a chance to straightene out an errant capitalist on the correct way of things. Bummer. That's more fun than beating up on socialists!

haha, look what I found on libertarianism.com

"One view that has occasionally expressed is that in a libertarian society *everyone* would be heavily armed, making invasion or usurpation by a domestic tyrant excessively risky. This is what the Founding Fathers clearly intended for the U .S. (the Consitution made no provision for a standing army, entrusting defense primarily to a militia consisting of the entirety of the armed citizenry). And it does work today in Switzerland (also furnishing one of the strongest anti-gun-control arguments). Think about the Afghans, the Viet Cong, the Minutemen --- would *you* want to invade a country full of dedicated, heavily armed libertarians? :-) "

Anyone spot the titchiest of flaws in this reasoning?

Well, there is the fact that it is an enumerated power of Congress to arm and regulate the militia, and an express power of the President to call out and command the militia, but while this is a pretty anti-libertarian sentiment, I'm not sure if that was the flaw you were looking for. Perhaps more damning is the fact that they are comparing themselves to Communists and the Taliban.

Not sure who it was you were quoting there - but you certainly gave them a butt-kicking with my post. I'd read back for it, but I've ahd a few brewskis and don't feel like it now. I do feel like I missed out on a chance to straightene out an errant capitalist on the correct way of things. Bummer. That's more fun than beating up on socialists!I was quoting Vittos Ordination. I stated that some supporters of capitalism believed in the concept of infinite wealth, and he was skeptical, so I linked that thread to him. He agreed with me that the concept of infinite wealth at any particular point in time is silly.

Not sure who it was you were quoting there - but you certainly gave them a butt-kicking with my post. I'd read back for it, but I've ahd a few brewskis and don't feel like it now. I do feel like I missed out on a chance to straightene out an errant capitalist on the correct way of things. Bummer. That's more fun than beating up on socialists!

Using the search function to see what people are saying about you?

I'll make this easy for you.

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.

I would argue that capitalists would want an unrestricted right to property; if they could get beyond the restrictions that nature places on property, they would.

I don't think most capitalists even consider the possibility of having more property than nature allows. Considering that it is a natural right, it is thrown out the window when natural law is overcome.

Well, they seem to think that wealth is infinite, so quite clearly they believe in the possibility of having more property than nature allows, since nature doesn't allow infinite wealth.

I have not heard a capitalist say that wealth is infinite.

Sorry to have to link to another thread, but:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=462905

I think we can both agree that B0zzy is a supporter of capitalism.

I remember that thread now, and remember why I didn't post in it. None of the capitalists in that thread would deny that in aggregate, at any particular moment, that there is a finite level of wealth.

But when you add the dimension of time, while still not allowing for infinite wealth, you are allowing for continued creation of wealth. As long as there is time, as long as there is existence, there is still the possibility of added wealth.

So wealth will not run out as long as we still exist, but no, it is not infinite. This is where economics meets quantum physics, and I don't know much about the outer limits of physics.

Now, the discussion continues from there on page 23.

But please Bozzy, I crave your enlightenment.

Using the search function to see what people are saying about you?

I'll make this easy for you.

Now, the discussion continues from there on page 23.

But please Bozzy, I crave your enlightenment.Lol. Yeah, like B0zzy makes thorough arguments.

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.
Wrong.

The right to property IS the right to life.

Let's say I make $10/hour, and I have a couch that cost me $100. To take that couch from me without my consent is to steal ten hours of my life from me. It is morally equivalent to killing me ten hours before I would otherwise have died.


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.

That IS free will. You hit it right on the head--fundamentally, each individual has to choose whether he wishes to live or die. Since no one else gets to make that decision for him, no one else is obligated to enable him to fulfill his decision.

I was quoting Vittos Ordination. I stated that some supporters of capitalism believed in the concept of infinite wealth, and he was skeptical, so I linked that thread to him. He agreed with me that the concept of infinite wealth at any particular point in time is silly.


(I added the bold)

On that I would also agree.

(I added the bold)

On that I would also agree.Ah. Well, that's good to know, you didn't say that in the other thread.

Now, the discussion continues from there on page 23.

But please Bozzy, I crave your enlightenment.

There you have it - feels warm and fuzzy, no?

Lol. Yeah, like B0zzy makes thorough arguments.

ooooh, ya got me there. Your wit is sharp and pointy - like a bowling ball.

Ah. Well, that's good to know, you didn't say that in the other thread.

nobody asked.. I hope that it's absense didn't mean it was presumed. The potential for wealth is infinite - but at any given moment it is absolute and measureable. (Hell, that is what the DJIA is to estimate) That is why certain people are described as 'a waste of potential'. We all know people like that... Brilliant yet unmotivated... or worse.

I think libertarians have a lot of good theory and principle on their side. But here's the problem with libertarians.

They OVERGENERALIZE the good theory and good principle on their side, and then act like anybody who disagrees just doesn't understand economics like they do.

Here's, in my experience, the libertarian rebuttal whenever you disagree with one of your points.

"I'm going to respond to what you say by making vague generalizations about market forces. Then, re-state my original point as if I'm offering new information. I know what I'm talking about because I took econ 101 in college! Did you?"

So..I sympathize with the points of libertarians a LOT more than, say, neo-cons. But they're really irritating to try to debate with because of their usual smugness.

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.
You really should see the public parks here in socialist Vienna [that's in Austria by the way]. They're the cleanest and the prettiest. The government [at least the city government] here gives people jobs that don't really need to be done, but this is the result. Plus less unemployment. Even communist countries aren't this nice [extremely arguable, just so I don't get flamed].

The potential for wealth is infinite

except for the absolute limitations on resources and energy available in the universe. and the lower, localized limitations that appear rather hard to beat.

There you have it - feels warm and fuzzy, no?

It seems that I was mostly (if not entirely) correct in that instance and needed no enlightenment.

However, judging from this:

The potential for wealth is infinite

You still need some.

ooooh, ya got me there. Your wit is sharp and pointy - like a bowling ball.Well, I suppose there may be an instance of you doing so, but I haven't seen it. The very thread we're talking about in this thread is one example of you not making a thorough argument. I would like to be proven wrong on this, though.

except for the absolute limitations on resources and energy available in the universe. and the lower, localized limitations that appear rather hard to beat.

ROFLMAO! that, my friends, is a classic argumnent called 'grasping at straws'.

It seems that I was mostly (if not entirely) correct in that instance and needed no enlightenment.

However, judging from this:



You still need some.

First - I was not addressing you. Second - proove me wrong. Unless you want to grasp at the whole 'energy in the universe' argument you are going to lose.

Well, I suppose there may be an instance of you doing so, but I haven't seen it. The very thread we're talking about in this thread is one example of you not making a thorough argument. I would like to be proven wrong on this, though.

But the thread we discussed in the thread about thread was very, um, threadening. :)

After a post like the one I quoted you are one to talk about being thorouh.

But the thread we discussed in the thread about thread was very, um, threadening. :)

After a post like the one I quoted you are one to talk about being thorouh.I don't have to be more thorough than to simply state that I've never seen you be thorough. Otherwise, I don't see what you're getting at.

I don't have to be more thorough than to simply state that I've never seen you be thorough. Otherwise, I don't see what you're getting at.

don't worry, if you post a thorough comment that B0zzy can't shrug off with a one-liner, he'll complain that you are fillibustering

don't worry, if you post a thorough comment that B0zzy can't shrug off with a one-liner, he'll complain that you are fillibustering


Keep trying Kat - If you follow me to enough threads I'm sure you'll eventually find a relevant point to make about a topic other than me.

http://imagescommerce.bcentral.com/merchantfiles/4828118/wood_bait_shop_birdhouse31245.jpg

Keep trying Kat - If you follow me to enough threads I'm sure you'll eventually find a relevant point to make about a topic other than me.

http://imagescommerce.bcentral.com/merchantfiles/4828118/wood_bait_shop_birdhouse31245.jpg

LOL. You've dug up several old threads about you or to just to make comments about yourself and then you complain when I reply. If you weren't so busy polishing yourself, you'd know I'm posting in several other threads at the moment.

Don't flatter yourself. I wouldn't bother following you to a thread.

I don't have to be more thorough than to simply state that I've never seen you be thorough. Otherwise, I don't see what you're getting at.

Hey! I can do that too! I've never seen you kiss anyone! VIRGIN!

I've never seen you post anything worthwhile at all!

Hmmm - I guess those statements have no more merit than anything else you just posted. Maybe you should visit Kat's baitshop? You're bound to find something there!

LOL. You've dug up several old threads just to make comments about yourself and then you complain when I reply. If you weren't so busy polishing yourself, you'd know I'm posting in several threads at the moment.

Those were replies? Really? What was it you felt were contributing to the thread? Nobody is complaining about your replies Kat - it is their complete lack of substance or contribution to the topic that is at question. Fishy-fishy.

Hey! I can do that too! I've never seen you kiss anyone! VIRGIN!

I've never seen you post anything worthwhile at all!

Hmmm - I guess those statements have no more merit than anything else you just posted. Maybe you should visit Kat's baitshop?And if I did not wish to be thought of as a virgin by you, I would post a picture of me kissing someone, or link to one.

To answer the "worthwhile" idea, you would need to provide a definition of what you think is a worthwhile post. If your definition of a worthwhile post is a post that agrees with you, then...no, I probably haven't done so.

And if I did not wish to be thought of as a virgin by you, I would post a picture of me kissing someone, or link to one.

To answer the "worthwhile" idea, you would need to provide a definition of what you think is a worthwhile post. If your definition of a worthwhile post is a post that agrees with you, then...no, I probably haven't done so.


Um - you just really mised the whole point of that post. Try again. I didn't really call you a virgin. Come on - it is not so abstract a point that someone of your ability cannot grasp.

Um - you just really mised the whole point of that post. Try again. I didn't really call you a virgin. Come on - it is not so abstract a point that someone of your ability cannot grasp.Um, I'm aware that you did not actually call me a virgin...but that wasn't the point of the post. The point of the post was that if you had said I was something, say quality X, then I would want to post an example of me not being quality X.
To use a specific example, I've stated that you never make thorough arguments. In order to prove me wrong, you would need to find a post of yours which makes a thorough argument. That was the point of my posts, and really the last couple of my posts on this thread.