NationStates Jolt Archive

Are corporations with a separate group identity and responsibility morally aceptable?

you mean should a corporation be considered a person,
as is now the case and has been for about the last 125 years (only)?

no, it should not be.



or
do you mean no corporation should be allowed to own another corporation or have a subsidiarty because that hides the true ownership of the legal entity?

yeah,
i believe we should make it law, once again, that no corporation can own another corporation.
as it once was in us history. only over the last century have corporate lawyers managed to change this.


more on corporate history
http://www.poclad.org

you mean should a corporation be considered a person,
as is now the case and has been for about the last 125 years (only)?

no, it should not be


Primarily dealing with corporate personhood and limited financial and criminal liability.

you mean should a corporation be considered a person,
as is now the case and has been for about the last 125 years (only)?

no, it should not be.


A corporation has a right to vote? Really? You sure about that?


or
do you mean no corporation should be allowed to own another corporation or have a subsidiarty because that hides the true ownership of the legal entity?

yeah,
i believe we should make it law, once again, that no corporation can own another corporation.
as it once was in us history. only over the last century have corporate lawyers managed to change this.


more on corporate history
http://www.poclad.org
Please quit spamming that site.

A corporation should not be treated any different than any other association of individuals.

A corporation has a right to vote? Really? You sure about that?A corporation is a legal person. Voting rights are granted to citizens, not persons. That, and corporations have limited rights as legal persons.

A corporation should not be treated any different than any other association of individuals.Then it wouldn't be a corporation, it would be a company.

Do a little background research.

wait...If a corporation is a legal person, doesn't one corporation buying another equal slavery? :confused::confused::confused::confused:

FUN FACT:

ExxonMobil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil) is the 21st largest economic entity in the world, placing between the countries Turkey and Sweden.

wait...If a corporation is a legal person, doesn't one corporation buying another equal slavery? :confused::confused::confused::confused:Like I said, limited rights (and obligations) - mainly confined to the ability to own property, sign binding contracts, limited liability (for shareholders), and perpetual lifetime.

If a corporation is a legal person, what does that mean in practice?

FUN FACT:

ExxonMobil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil) is the 21st largest economic entity in the world, placing between the countries Turkey and Sweden.

That's damn impressive. I hope I can land a job with them when I graduate, although working for another oil company would be fine too. As long as it's in the energy industry, I'll be pretty happy, but Exxon's the biggest and most successful of the bunch so they're my first choice.

Here's a little timeline of corporate personhood in the US for you to have a little read of.

http://www.votelocalcontrol.org/personhood_timeline.pdf

you mean should a corporation be considered a person,
as is now the case and has been for about the last 125 years (only)?I think incorporation was a Roman invention, so it's a bit older than 125 years.. It solves a lot of problems, in any case (even if it presents others in turn).

I think incorporation was a Roman invention, so it's a bit older than 125 years.. It solves a lot of problems, in any case (even if it presents others in turn).What problems does incorporation solve?

And I have never heard anyone claim that incorporation is a Roman concept before. You got anything to back up that claim?

If a corporation is a legal person, what does that mean in practice?That contractual relation with it are as if with a person. If you have a contract with the corporation and it breaks it, you sue the company instead of the owners. If you break a contract with a corporation it, rather than its owners, can sue you.
It makes accountability simpler (because you don't have to find out which owner to hold responsible), and it also protects the owners (if the company goes bankrupt, it doesn't necessarily mean they are). I'm not economist though, so I'm probably missing a lot of important details.

I have never heard anyone claim that incorporation is a Roman concept before. You got anything to back up that claim?I think I saw it on discovery channel.
Something along these lines is mentioned at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation#Pre-modern_corporations

What problems does incorporation solve?From the same page: it gives businesses a perpetual lifetime, since they don't depend on the owner. And it limits liability for the owners.
The latter of which, I suppose, stimulates people starting businesses. And it also makes joint stock company a real possibility, which means businesses that can undertake much larger projects.

I think I saw it on discovery channel.
Something along these lines is mentioned at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation#Pre-modern_corporationsThat's a rather loose definition of incorporation. They only really seem to allow collective ownership. Modern corporations are much more specific than that.

From the same page: it gives businesses a perpetual lifetime, since they don't depend on the owner. And it limits liability for the owners.
The latter of which, I suppose, stimulates people starting businesses. And it also makes joint stock company a real possibility, which means businesses that can undertake much larger projects.Ok, perpetual lifetime is one advantage. Keeps a business going when the owner has died. However, most companies continue to operate when their owner dies anyway.

Limited liability is a major advantage for owners, but it disadvantages everyone else. Imagine I establish a corporation. I sell my car to the corporation, rent the car out to myself and pay 100% dividends. Now imagine if I crash that car. I'm no longer liable for any insurance claims as I don't own the car, the corporation does. And the corporation doesn't have any assets apart from the car.

I see very little difference between that and fraud.

And it's bullshit to claim that it's the only form of business entity that allows for investment and large projects. Carnegie operated his business as a partnership and Rockefeller operated his as a trust. Both businesses were huge.

This thread makes no sense.

And it's bullshit to claim that it's the only form of business entity that allows for investment and large projects.That is NOT what I claimed, thank you very much.

Limited liability is a major advantage for owners, but it disadvantages everyone else.I disagree. One small advantages is that suing a single company is a lot more likely to get you a result (if your claim is valid), then suing hundreds or thousands of it's owners.
Accountability is a lot clearer.

Imagine I establish a corporation. I sell my car to the corporation, rent the car out to myself and pay 100% dividends. Now imagine if I crash that car. I'm no longer liable for any insurance claims as I don't own the car, the corporation does. And the corporation doesn't have any assets apart from the car.If that were allowed, why don't we see it around?
Besides which, you're still responsible for the horrible driving, and liable on that ground. Nevermind that limited liability is non-liability.

Carnegie operated his business as a partnership and Rockefeller operated his as a trust. Both businesses were huge.It's also just two examples. While not impossible, very few companies that large have been, and could have been, started by a partnership of a few people. Typically a lot of money from many different people, or other companies, needs to be pooled together, and it just isn't practical to do that in a partnership where every owner can be held personally accountable for the whole company.

Meh.. why do I even bother; I'm no economist, and you clearly don't want to discuss it, but just rant against the perceived evils of corporations.

A corporation should not be treated any different than any other association of individuals.

then there should be no such thing as limited liability for its members, i.e. its shareholders.

from the beginning of the US shareholders were held responsible for any losses or criminal behavior that occurred during operation of the corporation.


we could make this again.
i believe we should.
it's only fair.

A corporation has a right to vote? Really? You sure about that?


Please quit spamming that site.



No, but a corporation can act as a "person" and sue in court.
A corporation is also granted other rights that natural persons have such
as freedom of speech.
Tell me, how can a tractor have freedom of speech?
A corporation is a tool, designed and created by real natural persons for a purpose.

ok, i will stop putting that site in my posts.
i added it to my signature.

wait...If a corporation is a legal person, doesn't one corporation buying another equal slavery? :confused::confused::confused::confused:

It used to be illegal for a corporation to own another corporation,

but then we had the robber baron era and they hired politicians to merely regulate corporations in the hopes that the people in the various states wouldn't revoke their corporate charters.

And, we can make that so again, in our democracy or republic, if you will.

I think incorporation was a Roman invention, so it's a bit older than 125 years.. It solves a lot of problems, in any case (even if it presents others in turn).



No, I'm saying corporations were only considered "persons" in law in the US for about the past 125 years.

I'd like to thank
"The Infinite Dunes" for providing that timeline.


In it is the infamous 1886 US Supreme Court case Santa Clara Co vs Southern Pacific Railroad which started to consider a corporation a person under the law, using the 14th Amendment to the us constitution.



There is another interesting case
I think it might be the Dartmouth College one.
In which citizens attempted to revoke the corporate charter of a particular corporation. That corporation happened to be charted by - I think the king of England. (before the US corporations had primarily been a tool for wealth extraction in the name of the king) The court ruled that because the corporation was not chartered in the state, it could not be revoked. So the court basically overturned the US revolution way back then even.

FUN FACT:

ExxonMobil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil) is the 21st largest economic entity in the world, placing between the countries Turkey and Sweden.

And?

Successful business is good.

Oh and, Exxon does not own Mobil, they bought out Mobil, or merged, so they are one entity now.

There is another interesting case
I think it might be the Dartmouth College one.
In which citizens attempted to revoke the corporate charter of a particular corporation. That corporation happened to be charted by - I think the king of England. (before the US corporations had primarily been a tool for wealth extraction in the name of the king) The court ruled that because the corporation was not chartered in the state, it could not be revoked. So the court basically overturned the US revolution way back then even.

Totally incorrect. It had nothing to do with where the charter came from. It said that the State legislature (or any legislature, for that matter), can't just toss out a contract on a whim. This is similar to the Yazoo River case.

I'll put it this way, coporations are more acceptable then government.

Coporations exsists to exploit me for their bennefit.
Government exsists to control me for thier bennefit.


Evidently the coporation can only control me in the sense of offering me something I want, and making me work to get it.

Government's entire exsistance revolves around putting a gun to my head and saying "do this" and "do that".


Government doesn't point the gun to coporation's head for our sake, they would've done it anyway.



in a way, corporations are an extension of the state.
it is a set of laws that grant privileges such as limited liability.
today it is mostly pro-corporate people who run the government
and want to have even less constraints on our creations.

corporations are different from a regular business.

Totally incorrect. It had nothing to do with where the charter came from. It said that the State legislature (or any legislature, for that matter), can't just toss out a contract on a whim. This is similar to the Yazoo River case.


Maybe it is a different case I am thinking about.

There definitely one in which the court ruled a corporate charter could not be revoked by the people of x state because it was not chartered there, but in England by the king. Which was kind of ridiculous due to the revolution and all.

FUN FACT:

ExxonMobil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil) is the 21st largest economic entity in the world, placing between the countries Turkey and Sweden.
Fun Fact: You're wrong.

You're comparing Sales and GDP. That's wrong, because GDP measures value added - the closest thing to compare it with would be the profit a company makes (before taxes). And though Exxon is impressively profitable, it is dwarved by Turkey (almost 18x Exxon's profits) and Sweden (7.36x Exxon's profits). Granted, I was too lazy to look for Exxon's pre-tax profits on that one, but the point stands.

As for incorporation: I don't actually see what's wrong with it. Limited Liability seems to me to be quite necessary to stimulate investment. If you take it away, you're gonna need to do something else to replace it (may I suggest zero capital gains taxes of any way, shape or form?).

Limited liability is a major advantage for owners, but it disadvantages everyone else. Imagine I establish a corporation. I sell my car to the corporation, rent the car out to myself and pay 100% dividends. Now imagine if I crash that car. I'm no longer liable for any insurance claims as I don't own the car, the corporation does. And the corporation doesn't have any assets apart from the car.

Umm... ever heard of something called 'piercing the corporate veil'? Corporations that are run entirely as liability shields don't hold up well in lawsuits.

You're also forgetting the fact that the corporation must legally get insurance to operate a motor vehicle. So, claims will be covered by the corporation's insurance but not the owner's insurance.

Or the fact that the driver of the car can be personally liable for his own acts while acting as an agent of the corporation? You should have used the following scenario:
A owns 100% stock in a corporation. A hires B to drive a car for the corporation. B crashes. The corporation and B are both liable, but not A.


The other subject people complained about, corporations owning corporations... why not? Every state that I've ever read corporate laws makes damn certain that it is possible to find out who to sue. Once again, the theory of piercing the corporate veil works here. Plus there's all kinds of pesky federal anti-trust laws, Sarbanes Oxley, SEC Regulation, etc.

FUN FACT:

ExxonMobil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil) is the 21st largest economic entity in the world, placing between the countries Turkey and Sweden.

All the more reason that it must be compulsorily expropriated without compensation and it's profit redistributed to the people.

All the more reason that it must be compulsorily expropriated without compensation and it's profit redistributed to the people.

There's nothing better or smarter than punishing success.

There's nothing better or smarter than punishing exploitation.

Indeed, Chavez showed Exxon how it's done.

Indeed, Chavez showed Exxon how it's done.

Yes, it's called theft. Many governments have done it in the past.

Yes, it's called theft. Many governments have done it in the past.
News flash: Modern civilization is built upon expropriating private wealth into a common trust for the good of the people, without that we are all individuals wanting more wealth, we have no social contract for mutual collaboration. This collaboration is of course forced expropriation, forced social cohesion, this is the way it must be gone for society will collapse. We are a society, not an economy, the economy serves the social cause, and the less powerful government is the less cohesive the community will become. Remember that if you don't pay taxes you will have to pay it back or go to jail, not participating in society is illegal, remember that, and it's illegal for a reason - to protect society and human survival through interdependence. In short, men in black or a mob with sticks can come and take your wealth - take your pick. Also, don't make me get out and quote Hegel, Plato, More, Hobbes and Rousseau to refute you silly 'libertarians'.

I do not agree with a corporation having the same legal rights as a person. Corporations do not act independently, they do whatever their board tells them, or stockholders or what have you. Also, people die. Corporations don't.

Also, don't make me get out and quote Hegel, Plato, More, Hobbes and Rousseau to refute you silly 'libertarians'.
You may be interested in reading this: http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/m/mill/john_stuart/m645o/chapter4.html

I like Mill. He makes so much more sense to me than all these other types.

Corporations are protections of the rich. Most laws favor them.

News flash: Modern civilization is built upon expropriating private wealth into a common trust for the good of the people, without that we are all individuals wanting more wealth, we have no social contract for mutual collaboration. This collaboration is of course forced expropriation, forced social cohesion, this is the way it must be gone for society will collapse. We are a society, not an economy, the economy serves the social cause, and the less powerful government is the less cohesive the community will become. Remember that if you don't pay taxes you will have to pay it back or go to jail, not participating in society is illegal, remember that, and it's illegal for a reason - to protect society and human survival through interdependence. In short, men in black or a mob with sticks can come and take your wealth - take your pick. Also, don't make me get out and quote Hegel, Plato, More, Hobbes and Rousseau to refute you silly 'libertarians'.

What? Modern society is built on private wealth supporting a government through taxation that provides necessary services for the society to function. Taxation does not equal expropriation; people will tolerate paying taxes because they get things out of it, but they won't tolerate the government stealing everything they own for its own use (which conveniently always enriches the people in power thanks to their own theft from the system). Like it or not, capitalism has built everything we see in the developed world. Without it, governments would not have the resources they currently possess to provide the services we expect as part of a developed society.

And I think we can all see the utter failure of totalitarian regimes in all aspects as a pretty clear sign that the more powerful a government is, the worse off the society is. No totalitarian society has ever rivaled a free one in terms of happiness, personal development cultural development, scientific progress or economic well-being.

You do need a government to prevent anarchy, but that government is pretty limited...people know what they are doing and can make decisions on their own. In fact, those people make decisions better than the government most of the time.

What? Modern society is built on private wealth supporting a government through taxation that provides necessary services for the society to function. Taxation does not equal expropriation; people will tolerate paying taxes because they get things out of it, but they won't tolerate the government stealing everything they own for its own use (which conveniently always enriches the people in power thanks to their own theft from the system). Like it or not, capitalism has built everything we see in the developed world. Without it, governments would not have the resources they currently possess to provide the services we expect as part of a developed society.

And I think we can all see the utter failure of totalitarian regimes in all aspects as a pretty clear sign that the more powerful a government is, the worse off the society is. No totalitarian society has ever rivaled a free one in terms of happiness, personal development cultural development, scientific progress or economic well-being.

You do need a government to prevent anarchy, but that government is pretty limited...people know what they are doing and can make decisions on their own. In fact, those people make decisions better than the government most of the time.

Sorry to tell you, but private wealth does not exist. You have certain property in your possession but ultimately it all belongs to the community like a lease, and they can rescind this and expropriation back from their indirect control in your care to they're own direct national control. Individuals can never be allowed to define themselves as a inviolable unit, only as a constituent unit, a part of the great whole. As Aristotle put it, wealth can be put into the care of private hands, but ultimately it rightly belongs to the society that economy must rightly serve. Governments must stamp out all ant-social and greedy elements to ensure coherency.

Presumably then, Andaras would hand over all his possessions to the state without compensation if they felt that they could make better use of them than he can, right?

Sorry to tell you, but private wealth does not exist. You have certain property in your possession but ultimately it all belongs to the community like a lease, and they can rescind this and expropriation back from their indirect control in your care to they're own direct national control.

Thuggish governments, like the ones you support and fantasize about, certainly can and do engage in legalized theft.

But the right to personal property is an inherent human right. And the right to shoot tyrants and their lackeys who would try to infringe on such right is also an inherent human right.

Individuals can never be allowed to define themselves as a inviolable unit, only as a constituent unit, a part of the great whole.

As usual, you have it ass backwards. Human beings are an ends in of themselves, not a means to achieve your grotesque personal ends.

As Aristotle put it, wealth can be put into the care of private hands, but ultimately it rightly belongs to the society that economy must rightly serve. Governments must stamp out all ant-social and greedy elements to ensure coherency.

Government is nothing more than a service industry- individual people get together and pay taxes to get back services from the government that they cannot efficiently obtain on their own. Defense, road building, police, these are all proper roles for government. Your ideology of government and wealth has been proven by history to be a failure.

Presumably then, Andaras would hand over all his possessions to the state without compensation if they felt that they could make better use of them than he can, right?

Of course not, don't be silly. Andaras fantasizes that he would be at the top of the food chain after his revolution comes to pass. He may be incapable, in real life, of obtaining the house, car and possessions of his dreams. But once he's in charge, he can have you shot and take your property.

That's really what it comes down to with that type of person- they aren't smart enough, hardworking enough or ambitious enough to get what they want through their own efforts, so they want to steal property from everyone else.

Pathetic.

Sorry to tell you, but private wealth does not exist. You have certain property in your possession but ultimately it all belongs to the community like a lease, and they can rescind this and expropriation back from their indirect control in your care to they're own direct national control. Individuals can never be allowed to define themselves as a inviolable unit, only as a constituent unit, a part of the great whole. As Aristotle put it, wealth can be put into the care of private hands, but ultimately it rightly belongs to the society that economy must rightly serve. Governments must stamp out all ant-social and greedy elements to ensure coherency.

Umm, no. If I make something, it belongs to me, and if I sell it to you in exchange for something you own or some store of value, that wealth belongs to me. Trade and barter existed long before governments, and probably lasted long before organized society. Individuals are individuals, and the whole is comprised of the actions of each individual working as part of that greater society. Community is emergent from the actions of individuals, not the other way around.

And "stamping out all anti-social and greedy elements" is just shorthand for institutionalized theft and repression. Nothing different from all the corrupt, failed "Communist" states in history, from the USSR to the PRC to the DPRK or DDR...they were all organized theft on a massively incompetent and repressive scale. The funniest thing about the Soviet Union was that it not only had income inequality worse than Western nations, but the equality it ultimately created was equality in poverty.

Yes, it's called theft.

Only if we pretend that capitalist property is some kind of natural, intrinsic right, instead of a contingent privilege justified only insofar as it serves the public good... and that the conditions for the application of that "right" actually hold here (or virtually ever.)

Neither claim stands up under scrutiny.

If I make something, it belongs to me

Make something from what?

Make something from what?

From resources I gather, or pay someone else to gather, on land that I or someone else owns.

From resources I gather,

Yours, how?

on land that I or someone else owns.

By what right?

All property in land is theft... indeed, perhaps the greatest theft of all.

By what right?

All property in land is theft... indeed, perhaps the greatest theft of all.

So if I sow salt into a farmer's fields after he has harvested his crop, he has no legal right to do anything to stop me or seek remedy afterwards because according to you, the land isn't his property?

So if I sow salt into a farmer's fields after he has harvested his crop, he has no legal right to do anything to stop me or seek remedy afterwards because according to you, the land isn't his property?

The real important question about property is this: how did the farm become the farmer's property? Usually the answer is that way back when someone developed it and claimed it, who passed it on to their children, who passed it on to their children, who sold it to pay off gambling debts to a guy who passed it on to his children, and so on. Now, lets entertain the theory that we're colonizing another planet. How should we go about dividing up the land? Should the old "develop it and it's yours" idea still apply? The same applies to virtually all resources.

Also, don't make me get out and quote Hegel, Plato, More, Hobbes and Rousseau to refute you silly 'libertarians'.
Using Hegel and Hobbes to support the same point? I can't imagine how you'd do that without reading a lot of value-judgements into Hobbes.

Yours, how?



By what right?

All property in land is theft... indeed, perhaps the greatest theft of all.
There are two ways to argue this. One, property exists only as defined by law (just like rights).

Two, private ownership of property leads to superior economic outcomes overall. I recommed Hernando de Soto on this subject.

After watching The Corporation and Zeitgeist, I am totally against corporations now.

They have a legal obligation to fuck you over, if ya didn't now.

The real important question about property is this: how did the farm become the farmer's property? Usually the answer is that way back when someone developed it and claimed it, who passed it on to their children, who passed it on to their children, who sold it to pay off gambling debts to a guy who passed it on to his children, and so on. Now, lets entertain the theory that we're colonizing another planet. How should we go about dividing up the land? Should the old "develop it and it's yours" idea still apply? The same applies to virtually all resources.

With regards to a new planet, two possible land allocation schemes:

1) An existing nation sponsors a colonization effort and exerts its sovereignty over part or all of the new planet. The nation then proceeds to sell or give away all or part of the land to its citizens. This is analagous to the American drive to settle the West in the 19th century.

2) A private group of colonists sets out to the planet and establishes a colony, with each colonist taking a parcel of land (which parcel might be huge, assuming no other group of colonists exists on the planet). This is analagous to the founding of Jamestown or the Massachusetts Bay Colony- though chartered and approved by the English Crown, there was little or no direct government involvement in the allocation of land to the individual colonists. They basically came to the new world and settled whatever land they wanted. Eventually, the colonies grew and set up their own local system of government and land allocation scheme, which eventually evolved into a system like 1 above.

So if I sow salt into a farmer's fields after he has harvested his crop, he has no legal right to do anything to stop me or seek remedy afterwards because according to you, the land isn't his property?

Wait, who said anything about "legal right"? Obviously he has a legal right; his legal rights are whatever the government says they are.

Does he have a moral right? Maybe. But not because it is his property by some natural, necessary right.

There are two ways to argue this. One, property exists only as defined by law (just like rights).

Then I haven't the slightest moral reason to respect property rights; they are just the creations of the people with the guns.

Two, private ownership of property leads to superior economic outcomes overall.

You could argue that they maximize social welfare. But the consequence of this is twofold: first, you must actually attain social approval for your action (if your justification is the public good, to not consult the public is problematic--especially since your conception of the public good may not be the same as everyone else's) and second, if your private property rights ever interfere with social welfare, society has a right to restrict them, or abolish them.

Expropriation, under that framework, is not "theft." At worst it is merely incompetence.

Excuse me, but what do you mean by this?
All property in land is theft... indeed, perhaps the greatest theft of all.
I'd like to see the reasoning behind this. Interesting.

I'd like to see the reasoning behind this.

Nobody creates land. It is just there.

Putting it under one's exclusive, perpetual control, therefore, is not something to which anyone is entitled, and amounts to theft from everybody else.

Society could conceivably collectively decide to forgo the public character of land for broad social benefit, but then it is not a "right" independent of the public good: it can be regulated as society sees fit in accordance with the objective of maximizing social benefit.

Nobody creates land. It is just there.
theft from everybody else

Nobody creates land, true, but then that does not entitle it to humanity as a whole. That's assuming that every person who was ever born owns the entire earth. That is, I'm sorry to say, not true. Denial of land from other people is not theft, as they never owned it in the first place. Ownership of land evolved from simply living on the land to the concept it is now, with binding legal force. People do not as a general rule work for your benefit, they work for theirs. You can't possibly expect people to work on a piece of land, and somehow give up whatever they worked for in exchange for 'social benefit'. People are entitled to whatever they work for.

This is also assuming humanity works for both the entire benefit of everyone else and that if nobody owned land that everyone would extract resources and benefits for everyone else.

exclusive, perpetual control

Exclusive if you want it to be; and the land passes from your 'perpetual' control once you either sell it, give it away, or die.

public good

Public good... define 'public good.'

Nobody creates land, true, but then that does not entitle it to humanity as a whole.

It means that no one's right supercedes anyone else's.

That's assuming that every person who was ever born owns the entire earth.

No... it argues that no one owns the Earth, because no one can justify a claim.

Denial of land from other people is not theft, as they never owned it in the first place.

They did not own it, no. But they had an equal claim to the person who claims it for himself/herself.

Ownership of land evolved from simply living on the land to the concept it is now, with binding legal force.

Maybe. That does not make it any less theft.

People do not as a general rule work for your benefit, they work for theirs. You can't possibly expect people to work on a piece of land, and somehow give up whatever they worked for in exchange for 'social benefit'.

Did I say I expected anything of the sort?

People are entitled to whatever they work for.

Why? And since no one works to create land....

This is also assuming humanity works for both the entire benefit of everyone else and that if nobody owned land that everyone would extract resources and benefits for everyone else.

It assumes nothing of the sort.

Exclusive if you want it to be;

Private ownership implies exclusive control.

Exclusive use is a different matter.

and the land passes from your 'perpetual' control once you either sell it, give it away, or die.

That is to say, it passes from your perpetual control according to your own will.

There is no expiration date except your own choice.

Public good... define 'public good.'

The welfare of everyone.

"Outlawing" corporations seems a bit of a strange idea. Both corporations and the government (who decide the law) could be considered part of the "establishment". So you wouldn't necessarily gain that much by siding with one over the other.

"Outlawing" corporations seems a bit of a strange idea. Both corporations and the government (who decide the law) could be considered part of the "establishment". So you wouldn't necessarily gain that much by siding with one over the other.

In a communist society, the government owns every aspect of the economy. In a capitalist society, the top people of the economy own every aspect of the government. They are in a way, one in the same.

At the very least, abolish corporation's legal status as a person and end all of their 14th ammendment rights.

So you wouldn't necessarily gain that much by siding with one over the other.

No. But you might gain a whole lot by siding against both.

Are corporations with a separate group identity and responsibility morally aceptable?

No, it is not acceptible. Corporate identity masks individuals involved in a business from taking responsibility for their actions.

I want to point out that corporate identity is a result of government favortism in business and not an element of a true laissez-faire capitalist economy.

Are corporations with a separate group identity and responsibility morally aceptable?

In a communist society, the government owns every aspect of the economy. In a capitalist society, the top people of the economy own every aspect of the government. They are in a way, one in the same.

At the very least, abolish corporation's legal status as a person and end all of their 14th ammendment rights.

Your description of capitalismism actually fits the mixed economy the United States has right now. In a true laissez faire economy, the government is not allowed to interfere in matters of trade and property one way or another. So business control of government cannot happen. No matter what campaign contribution or other privilege a business provides for a politician, he couldn't return the favor.

Here's a better question:
If corporations can be taxed, should they be granted the right to vote? Think about it, the American Revolution was fought to end taxation without representation. If something can be taxed then it should be granted the right to vote or its interests aren't being represented in the American political process. Corporations, for the sake of equality, must be granted the rigt to vote or corporate taxes must be ended. Otherwise it's not equal treatment before the law.

Another question:
If something can be denied voting rights of other rights based on the nature of its existance, where doth the line be drawn? Should only humans get the right to vote? What about AI on par with the average human? What about a disembodied but still functioning brain linked to a computer? Or an android body whose "brain" has been encoded with the mind of a now dead human? Does someone's right to vote extend beyond the death of their physical body?

What about aliens (non-terrans)? Should they ever be discovered (highly unlikely) and travel between there and here be made practical (highly unlikely), should they be permitted to become citizens and vote? What about animals that display a similar level of cognitive development?

Where do you draw the line? Is it right for something to be taxed but not represented in the government that takes from it? Is it right to deny certain entities certain rights? For what reason(s)?

Wait, who said anything about "legal right"? Obviously he has a legal right; his legal rights are whatever the government says they are.

Does he have a moral right? Maybe. But not because it is his property by some natural, necessary right.

Because if no one holds property rights over an area of land then no one can legally prevent me from doing whatever the hell I want on that land, unless it violates another law. I can't be accused of stealing, trespassing or criminally damaging something unless someone owns it.

How can the government possibly give someone the right to prevent damage to the land he is using without either that person or the government claiming to have a greater degree of ownership of the land than the person doing the damage?

In a communist society, the government owns every aspect of the economy.

True.

In a capitalist society, the top people of the economy own every aspect of the government. They are in a way, one in the same.

Not true.

At the very least, abolish corporation's legal status as a person and end all of their 14th ammendment rights.

That would mean that corporations would not have any right to own property, enter into contracts, sue to enforce their legal rights etc. In effect, corporations would become a legally useless concept.

What is everyone's opposition to corporations, anyway? Corporations are subject to civil penalties if they dump toxic waste or create defective products. Individual decision makers within the corporation can be held criminally and civily responsible for their decisions.

The only people corporations shield from criminal and civil liability are shareholders acting as shareholders only (and not as decisionmakers).

And?
Hm? And what? Just a fun fact.

Successful business is good.

Oh and, Exxon does not own Mobil, they bought out Mobil, or merged, so they are one entity now.
...yes? And?
Fun Fact: You're wrong.
*Shrugs* Perhaps. Though it wouldn't be me, it would be the people who made the 2006 list presented to me (that you can find for 2000 here (http://www.corporations.org/system/top100.html) and for 2007 here (http://news.mongabay.com/2005/0718-worlds_largest.html)), which I was amused by, and restated here. ExxonMobil is no. 24 on the 2007 list, below (not dwarved by, though) Turkey, Austria, WallMart and BP.

You're comparing Sales and GDP. That's wrong, because GDP measures value added - the closest thing to compare it with would be the profit a company makes (before taxes). And though Exxon is impressively profitable, it is dwarved by Turkey (almost 18x Exxon's profits) and Sweden (7.36x Exxon's profits). Granted, I was too lazy to look for Exxon's pre-tax profits on that one, but the point stands.
I'll take your word for it, as I've done no research on it. All I can add to economic threads are fun facts and tidbits, and I don't mind being corrected :)
All the more reason that it must be compulsorily expropriated without compensation and it's profit redistributed to the people.
You're funny. You should consider stand-up :)

Here's a better question:
If corporations can be taxed, should they be granted the right to vote?

a corporation is not a person.
it is more akin to a chair.
something created by humans for a purpose.

there is where the similarities with androids and AI ends.
the corporation is a legal entity only.
stating else is, as someone once said,
"confusing metaphor with reality"

*Shrugs* Perhaps. Though it wouldn't be me, it would be the people who made the 2006 list presented to me (that you can find for 2000 here (http://www.corporations.org/system/top100.html) and for 2007 here (http://news.mongabay.com/2005/0718-worlds_largest.html)), which I was amused by, and restated here. ExxonMobil is no. 24 on the 2007 list, below (not dwarved by, though) Turkey, Austria, WallMart and BP.
That's okay. That particular piece of polemics just happens to be a pet peeve of mine.

That and the insinuation that
a) it actually matters - it doesn't. I have yet to see a corporation that can legally take taxes from me or otherwise use force to compel me to do its bidding. Even ExxonMobil ultimately has no choice if the state of Tuvalu says it has to bugger off. Economic power is one thing, coercive power is another. Too often people don't seem to realise the difference.
b) there is something morally wrong with it - the government of Tuvalu is a bunch of people who got together to achieve some goal, and the founders and owners of ExxonMobil are a bunch of people who got together to achieve some goal. Firstly the goals of the two groups are of course quite different, and secondly there is nothing wrong with one group being better at achieving its goals than another.

As for incorporation: I don't actually see what's wrong with it. Limited Liability seems to me to be quite necessary to stimulate investment. If you take it away, you're gonna need to do something else to replace it (may I suggest zero capital gains taxes of any way, shape or form?).

That's true. A lot of people forget that the assets of a company will rapidly outstrip the finances of its individual founders in fairly short order; as a result, they need to incorporate to ensure a failure of the business doesn't completely ruin them or the other owners that will gain a share of the company through stock sales.

I mean, I'd be hard pressed to invest in a billion-dollar company if it were possible for creditors to come after me to pay off its debts if it ever goes under.

That's true. A lot of people forget that the assets of a company will rapidly outstrip the finances of its individual founders in fairly short order; as a result, they need to incorporate to ensure a failure of the business doesn't completely ruin them or the other owners that will gain a share of the company through stock sales.

I mean, I'd be hard pressed to invest in a billion-dollar company if it were possible for creditors to come after me to pay off its debts if it ever goes under.


thing is,
the corporation was not formed originally (in the US anyway) as a money making scheme. it was to do projects that were too big for one or a few people to do AND to operate in the interests of the community.

more and more people, most notably the robber barrons at the beginning of their continuing-to-this-day era, began to use it as a way to scheme money rather than its original purpose (US)

(I say in the US, because before there was a US, corporations were chartered from kings to do wealth extraction in the name of the crown)

the corporation was not formed originally (in the US anyway) as a money making scheme. it was to do projects that were too big for one or a few people to do AND to operate in the interests of the community.
And that matters?

And where do you get the idea that people making money is not in the interest of the community? Hell, what are the interests of the community?

And that matters?

And where do you get the idea that people making money is not in the interest of the community? Hell, what are the interests of the community?


that is how "in the interests of the community" became more to be defined.
of course, we know now, especially those who lived through the 80s,
that trickle down the leg voodoo theory is just that.
sounds good on paper, but the reality of it is that it never worked at anytime in history - ever.


but these corporation things.

if a corporation was deemed to be not acting in the interests of the community (or for various other reasons, in some states for no reason) its corporate charter could be revoked. we can still do this today. the revolution against the king was not in vain. the founders of the us hated corporations as much as kings. so you know you're in good company and not some "mere" radical when you oppose corporate power.

that is how "in the interests of the community" became more to be defined.
I'm not sure I understand, you may have to repeat yourself and phrase it differently.

You're the one talking about community interests. Obviously you must have a clear understanding of what you mean. Obviously you wouldn't just be using empty phrases to hide from yourself and others something else entirely.

So tell me: what are the interests of the community?

of course, we know now, especially those who lived through the 80s,
that trickle down the leg voodoo theory is just that.
sounds good on paper, but the reality of it is that it never worked at anytime in history - ever.
Except in the long run, of course. Without people with money to invest, the capital stock in the economy cannot increase and economic growth will stagnate.

Anyways, that was not my question. My question was: how is some people making money not in society's interests? What is society, and how can some of its members benefitting greatly as a result of voluntary trade be against its interests?

if a corporation was deemed to be not acting in the interests of the community (or for various other reasons, in some states for no reason) its corporate charter could be revoked.
And who judges what's in the interest of the community? Politicians? Or the customers of the company? Or just those who aren't customers of the company?

And what decision would you trust? The decision made by someone in a voting booth or the decision made by someone at the cash register - when there is actually something real and feasible on the line, namely that person's money?

I'm not sure I understand, you may have to repeat yourself and phrase it differently.

You're the one talking about community interests. Obviously you must have a clear understanding of what you mean. Obviously you wouldn't just be using empty phrases to hide from yourself and others something else entirely.

So tell me: what are the interests of the community?


Except in the long run, of course. Without people with money to invest, the capital stock in the economy cannot increase and economic growth will stagnate.

Anyways, that was not my question. My question was: how is some people making money not in society's interests? What is society, and how can some of its members benefitting greatly as a result of voluntary trade be against its interests?


And who judges what's in the interest of the community? Politicians? Or the customers of the company? Or just those who aren't customers of the company?

And what decision would you trust? The decision made by someone in a voting booth or the decision made by someone at the cash register - when there is actually something real and feasible on the line, namely that person's money?



ha, um sorry about that.
I must have had something else on my mind.

"people making money as being in the interest of the community?"
This definition of being in the interests of the community began to be more
and more prevalent. Until today that is not even thought about at all when one thinks of the corporation. Today one only thinks of making money. And we often think of just plain old "business" as the definition of a corporation. Well..., today some people are thinking a lot of other not so good things about these things too...

Sorry about being so negative in my last post.
I need to get over that.

A corporation used to be formed for large projects, such as building a canal or a toll road, that one person could not afford to do alone.
And what they were formed to do was written into its charter and that is all it was allowed to do. If it exceeded its limits, the charter could be and many were revoked.
Also written into a corporation's charter was its term of existence. Today they are immortal creatures of the law. But they used to be chartered for 10, 20, 30, or 40 years. After this time, or after the project was complete, the corporation would be dissolved. At this time, any debts incurred were owed by the shareholders. And profits if any, were distributed to the shareholders. Shareholders, the corporation's owners, could be criminally liable for things done in the name of the corporation.



it still depends on which state.
in some states the state legislature can revoke charters, in many states it is the attorney general. some an individual can sue to revoke a charter.
corporations come from the people, via our state governments. it is the people, or state governments that can revoke charters. they are no where in the us constitution.

My question was: how is some people making money not in society's interests? What is society, and how can some of its members benefitting greatly as a result of voluntary trade be against its interests?


this is an interesting question.

one problem with the "voluntary trade" is this obvious one.
if one needs to eat, it is hardly voluntary trade.



Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world.
Henry Kissinger

one problem with the "voluntary trade" is this obvious one.
if one needs to eat, it is hardly voluntary trade.


You can grow and hunt for your own food, and chop your own wood for fuel...our decision to trade is entirely voluntary. However, people want more than a hunter-gatherer or subsistence lifestyle, and they pay money to companies to research and develop those services.

You can grow and hunt for your own food, and chop your own wood for fuel...our decision to trade is entirely voluntary. However, people want more than a hunter-gatherer or subsistence lifestyle, and they pay money to companies to research and develop those services.

i'm only pointing out a logic flaw in the "voluntary trade" theory.

as for growing one's own food, one usually needs access to land in order to do this. the word "trespasser" was invented to help ensure non-voluntary trade.

Voluntary trade is a slippery concept. For example, no libertarian would allow someone to hire another to kill a third person. So basically "voluntary" means voluntary when in accord with one's rights and entitlements. Now we have the problem of figuring out what various individual rights and entiltlements there should be. What should they be? How did you come up with that list?

Freedom is similiar. A libertarian would say that as long as someone else isn't coerced by another person then one is free. Of course there are some problems with that. Two people down a hill and break their right leg. One is pushed and the other just trips. The one who is pushed is "unfree" while the one who tripped is "free" this even though most people would say that both are equally "unfree".

one problem with the "voluntary trade" is this obvious one.
if one needs to eat, it is hardly voluntary trade.
Why not?

If you are faced with the choice of trading your produce (let's say you make wigs) for food to eat, or not to trade your wigs for food, then obviously you're going to choose the former. Chances are that if you're in the wig business you're better at doing that than at growing food anyways.

So this is a voluntary trade, even though in this case the demands of physical existence are such that there is one obviously superior choice to the other.

You could choose not to trade for food, but it would obviously be an inferior choice. Much like I could theoretically go and buy an SUV rather than a sportscar, it would just be an inferior choice (though in this case this is less universally obvious and depends on individual preferences).

But now go and say that this form of trade is "involuntary" and therefore bad. Outlaw it and say that you can't trade your wigs for food anymore. How can you say that the guy with his wigs is now better off? He could make more wigs, but he's not allowed to buy more food with them. And the guy who grows food could grow more than he needs, but he can't get any wigs for his bald head in return.

Both parties are worse off than they were before. How is that good for society? And why should we be doing things to benefit a society whose interests are so obviously opposed to our own?

Freedom is similiar. A libertarian would say that as long as someone else isn't coerced by another person then one is free. Of course there are some problems with that. Two people down a hill and break their right leg. One is pushed and the other just trips. The one who is pushed is "unfree" while the one who tripped is "free" this even though most people would say that both are equally "unfree".
There's a great line in Atlas Shrugged: "He who sees no difference between the power of the dollar and the power of the whip ought to feel the difference on his own hide."

It does make a difference. You can't tell me that it doesn't matter to you whether you're compelled to do something by force or whether you're doing it in return for money, respect, affection or some other thing you're being traded for it.

In practice, you're doing the job either way. The material world is being changed in the same way.

But don't tell me the two are equivalent. There's got to be enough humanity in you to see that they're not.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=539446

There's a great line in Atlas Shrugged: "He who sees no difference between the power of the dollar and the power of the whip ought to feel the difference on his own hide."

He who doesn't see the similiarity between various broken legs ought to have their heads examined. Preferably though some sort of anal probe. :D

It does make a difference. You can't tell me that it doesn't matter to you whether you're compelled to do something by force or whether you're doing it in return for money, respect, affection or some other thing you're being traded for it.

Whether someone starves to death because their food is taken away from them or because no one will hire them they are still dead.

In practice, you're doing the job either way. The material world is being changed in the same way.

In practice is what matters the most, I would argue.

But don't tell me the two are equivalent. There's got to be enough humanity in you to see that they're not.

There's got to be enough humanity in you to see that whether a child dies because she is shot in the face or because no one will "freely" take care of them an injustice is still done. If no you're a monster.

There's got to be enough humanity in you to see that whether a child dies because she is shot in the face or because no one will "freely" take care of them an injustice is still done. If no you're a monster.
Then I'm a monster.

I'm sorry, but I cannot accept the equivalence between doing something because I get paid for it and doing something because otherwise someone will beat me, regardless what sort of language you put it in. The fact that there are people out there who apparently do is the really monstrous thing about this.

Then I'm a monster.

I'm sorry, but I cannot accept the equivalence between doing something because I get paid for it and doing something because otherwise someone will beat me, regardless what sort of language you put it in. The fact that there are people out there who apparently do is the really monstrous thing about this.

For one thing you are putting words in my mouth. I said that having one's legs broken, when one doesn't want them to be, leads to the same unfreedom whatever the cause. Ditto with dying involuntarily. Read some of Amartya Sen's work. During most famines there is enough food to feed everyone but because of unemploymen, lowered wages, and rising food prices many people starve to death. Often countries experiencing famine continue to export food. Also, ask people whether leaving children to die from material deprivation when its preventable is a moral thing to do and see who's idea of monstrosity is the more universal.

I said that having one's legs broken, when one doesn't want them to be, leads to the same unfreedom whatever the cause.
And the same is true when one has them voluntarily broken. Would you consider that equivalent as well?

Read some of Amartya Sen's work. During most famines there is enough food to feed everyone but because of unemploymen, lowered wages, and rising food prices many people starve to death.
I actually have a lot of respect for Sen and what he does. I simply don't think positive freedom is a worthwhile thing to consider for policy action. The only way to have equality in such a case is total equality of outcome, including everyone having to have identical DNA.

How are you going to base policies on that? To give negative freedom to everyone, no one has to be hurt, you don't have to make value judgements on the worth of a person - that person creates his or her own value through his or her life achievements. To increase positive freedom usually involves hurting some in favour of others, and thus necessarily carries with it value judgements about people based on nothing but the lawmaker's opinion.

And since I have self-esteem and I do consider myself someone who will be materially successful, I will necessarily end up being the one who gets exploited.

So of course you can try to measure positive freedom. Of course it is an important concept. It's just that the idea of taking political or any other form of coercive action to achieve it is a revolting idea.

Also, ask people whether leaving children to die from material deprivation when its preventable is a moral thing to do and see who's idea of monstrosity is the more universal.
Well, most people in the Western world seem to find the injustice of it tolerable and are able and willing to ignore what's going on in Darfur and beyond.

On the other hand, ask those same people whether they'd be indifferent between getting paid to go to work and getting whipped if they don't.

Of course that doesn't prove or disprove any moral law, but I'm not the one to do such things anyways. But in as much as we consider the happiness of people to be important, it matters.

Then I'm a monster.



You Monster!

I love it when people think that meeting tragedies with caring and teddy-bears is actually superior than meeting them with logic and calculation.

And the same is true when one has them voluntarily broken. Would you consider that equivalent as well?

In that a broken leg is a boken leg then yes. As a source of unfreedom, nope.

I actually have a lot of respect for Sen and what he does. I simply don't think positive freedom is a worthwhile thing to consider for policy action. The only way to have equality in such a case is total equality of outcome, including everyone having to have identical DNA.

Why do you have respect for someone who claims that negative freedom is an inadequate concept and adocates the use of government policy to create positive freedom?

How are you going to base policies on that? To give negative freedom to everyone, no one has to be hurt, you don't have to make value judgements on the worth of a person - that person creates his or her own value through his or her life achievements. To increase positive freedom usually involves hurting some in favour of others, and thus necessarily carries with it value judgements about people based on nothing but the lawmaker's opinion.

I would first claim that negative freedoms are value judgements based on nothing but lawmakers' opinions. What should be a property right and what shouldn't be? Second, enforcing negative freedom costs money. Some people will subsidize others in a purely negative rights regime. Why are you hurting some in favor of others?

And since I have self-esteem and I do consider myself someone who will be materially successful, I will necessarily end up being the one who gets exploited.

Please, this goes back to what I said about earlier. There is no agreement for what kinds property rights there should be. You will only be exploited if your property rights are violate, bu what you're property rights consist of is determined by the gonvernment and social convention.

So of course you can try to measure positive freedom. Of course it is an important concept. It's just that the idea of taking political or any other form of coercive action to achieve it is a revolting idea.

I have to call bullshit on you. You are for education vouchers paid for out of general taxation, ie coercive taxation. You are willing to undertake something you find revolting. Why is eductation different?

Well, most people in the Western world seem to find the injustice of it tolerable and are able and willing to ignore what's going on in Darfur and beyond..

Given that most people in the Western world find it tolerable have various coercive social programs and are not too miffed when negative rights are violated in other countries....

On the other hand, ask those same people whether they'd be indifferent between getting paid to go to work and getting whipped if they don't..

I never said that the two are equivalent. Also, I'd argue that if people were teleported to a world where all the property was owned by one man and for one to live at a subsistence level one has to agree to act out all his sadistic desires. , either that or A. left to starve or B. shot for tresspassing, they'd find that an unjust situation. This is so even though all the guy is doing is enforcing his property rights. If they take some food to survive without the guy's consent then they are committing theft..

Of course that doesn't prove or disprove any moral law, but I'm not the one to do such things anyways. But in as much as we consider the happiness of people to be important, it matters.

Government programs that provide employment during food shortages so that no one starves don't increase happiness?

Let's throw in the golden rule to people think is moral. Ask them that if in the future they become a quadripelgic, neither through their own negligence nor another's, would it be moral for others to let them die due to material deprivation. Also ask, if in a hypothetical situation where they have kids and they die would it be moral for others to let their children die from starvation?

Why not?

i think the Henry Kissinger quote is sufficient enough answer.





what happened to my signature?
it was there for a little while a couple days ago

In that a broken leg is a boken leg then yes. As a source of unfreedom, nope.
Why not? In both cases you can't move around freely, that's the source of unfreedom, isn't it?

Why do you have respect for someone who claims that negative freedom is an inadequate concept and adocates the use of government policy to create positive freedom?
Because I like it when people challenge established thinking. And in the third world, where there actually are people who can't be expected to be able to achieve what they might be capable of, thinking about positive freedom makes sense.

In developed economies less so. People can create their positive freedom themselves, through their actions. By going to school and studying hard, by not wasting your money on shiny rims and platinum teeth, by planning and sticking to a plan. Nobody can create their own negative freedom - there is a defense against being poor, there is no defense against being robbed. I think that's where the big difference is.

In some kral at the edge of the jungle in Congo people can actually lack the opportunity to go to school and make something of themselves. They can work and plan, be smart with their money and do all sorts of stuff and still never even have a decent shot at material success, simply because there's no good school nearby. And if there is a school, there is no decent university nearby. And if there is, the only job available to them is to join the looters that form virtually every third world government.

And somewhere in there is a glimpse why I think school vouchers are different to all the other income transfers. Equality of opportunity comes first and foremost, and some system of making education affordable is ultimately required for that - I think vouchers will do the trick, but we've yet to see an actually undisturbed market for education, so who knows whether they'll even be needed.

I would first claim that negative freedoms are value judgements based on nothing but lawmakers' opinions. What should be a property right and what shouldn't be?
It's pretty obvious, isn't it? You pay for it with your money, it's yours. That could be either because you bought it from someone, or because it's a return on some investment you made.

Add a smidgeon of contract law and you've got a pretty good system.

Second, enforcing negative freedom costs money. Some people will subsidize others in a purely negative rights regime. Why are you hurting some in favor of others?
I think we had that one before. A system of law and order has huge externalities, vastly greater than any healthcare or education system. One simply cannot exist within a community without profitting from its system of law and order. Making payment for it voluntary immediately leads to a freerider problem of epic proportions.

And privatised security services cannot, in my view, prevent crime. The only way they could was to create geographical monopolies...ie mini-states.

Please, this goes back to what I said about earlier. There is no agreement for what kinds property rights there should be. You will only be exploited if your property rights are violate, bu what you're property rights consist of is determined by the gonvernment and social convention.
I know what I expect my own property rights to be. Just because the government decides that my house will now not be my property because of eminent domain doesn't convince me or any other number of people of that fact.

Similarly, when I spend 70 hours a week as an investment banker and take home half a million dollars a year, then that money is my time, my sweat and my return on an investment I'm making right now.

To you or the government that might not translate into a property right. When you were a kid and you built a sandcastle you probably would've been fine if, once you were finished, some other kid pushed you away and played with it.

I know that I would be, will be and am already unhappy about this nonetheless. In a developed economy there seem to me to be very few excuses for being poor that justify me being unhappy. The people who end up having a claim on me are the people I sat next to in school, who rather than paying attention were busy bullying people.

So where is the justice in me giving away half my time, sweat and investment so that my 3rd grade bully can have the life he didn't have the nerve working for?

I have to call bullshit on you. You are for education vouchers paid for out of general taxation, ie coercive taxation. You are willing to undertake something you find revolting. Why is eductation different?
I sorta answered that above. Equality of opportunity is the basis on which my society exists. You do something, you get the rewards.

Whether or not school vouchers are the best way to achieve this, I don't know. I think they might only be necessary for a generation or so, to make sure that the kids of poor, disfunctional families now can have a go. Those who fail then are so worthless that it might be a waste to continue spending tax money on them. The voucher program could then be transferred to the voluntary tax system.

And maybe they could be on there straight away. Maybe I should credit my fellow humans with more sense and principles.

And maybe a functioning education market would provide reasonably-priced quality education without vouchers. Wal-Mart schools...we've already got Wal-Mart medical centres, the jump isn't that great.

My nod towards school vouchers is not a nod towards the principle or the policy, but a nod towards making sure that everyone gets the positive freedom he or she deserves as a result of his or her work.

Given that most people in the Western world find it tolerable have various coercive social programs and are not too miffed when negative rights are violated in other countries....
I know. That's the big flaw in my plan so far - that there seems to be no democracy at this point that seriously tends towards that position.

I never said that the two are equivalent. Also, I'd argue that if people were teleported to a world where all the property was owned by one man and for one to live at a subsistence level one has to agree to act out all his sadistic desires. , either that or A. left to starve or B. shot for tresspassing, they'd find that an unjust situation.
That's because it is. It's also purely theoretical and as a resource allocation not "in the core", meaning a market could not produce it.

One thing about a market allocation is that it is "in the core", meaning there is no subgroup of any size that would be better off by leaving the society and just consuming their initital allocation themselves.

The only way your theoretical (though it should probably be noted that the market allocation I'm speaking of is theoretical as well...) allocation could come about is if at t=0 the guy somehow gets all the resources, perhaps through force or because he's Moses and God feels like it or some other reason that doesn't involve the consent of the others. It could not be arrived at in a market situation (remember that money represents resources he would have had to have in the first place, and that the economy is not a zero sum game).

Government programs that provide employment during food shortages so that no one starves don't increase happiness?
Who says I mind government programs that provide employment? I'd just want them to create a good return on investment, otherwise I have no demands of it. In fact, I'd rather have my tax money go to that than to some war or welfare payments.

If government action is based on the voluntary participation of everyone involved, it may or may not be an oxymoron, but at least it's not bad (and in fact that's the basis for that voluntary part of my ideal government).

i think the Henry Kissinger quote is sufficient enough answer.
I don't think it is. Henry Kissinger is not exactly an authority in the field of economics or philosophy, and even if he were the quote doesn't answer my concerns.

what happened to my signature?
it was there for a little while a couple days ago
Try clicking on "User CP" on the grey bar above, and going through the menus there. Somewhere it will have a box "Show signatures". You may have to tick that.

There's a great line in Atlas Shrugged: "He who sees no difference between the power of the dollar and the power of the whip ought to feel the difference on his own hide."

clearly, the one who spoke those words wishes to diktate to us using fear

Henry Kissinger is not exactly an authority in the field of economics or philosophy, and even if he were the quote doesn't answer my concerns.


to be sure, the quote is more showing what Kissinger thinks about,
and what kind of person he is.

but the thing about controlling the food supply,
it doesn't take any great philosopher to realize that.
and you've got to have a pretty good education to be able
to ignore it.

clearly, the one who spoke those words wishes to diktate to us using fear
I don't think she says she wants to whip you, I think she says that you have no idea what it's like to be whipped.

She grew up in the Soviet Union, so I have a feeling she's writing from some level of personal experience.

I don't think she says she wants to whip you, I think she says that you have no idea what it's like to be whipped.

She grew up in the Soviet Union, so I have a feeling she's writing from some level of personal experience.

well of course the soviet union sucked.

any large centrally controlled economy enforced by the power of the state is going to cause lots of great sorrow

I think incorporation was a Roman invention, so it's a bit older than 125 years.. It solves a lot of problems, in any case (even if it presents others in turn).

Umm... no. Incorporation was first started in England back in colonial days. It was begun to minimize risk of investment. 10 people would get together and commission a ship, hire a crew, buy provisions, and send their ship to the west indies loaded with guns and trinkets in hopes that they would come back laden with spices and gold. If that ship sank, the owner of the ship and families of the crew could sue those 10 people for their loss, thus losing their life savings and homes and everything to pay out all these people. The Corporation was the solution for risky endeavours. 10 people now would get together start a corporation and own a stake in the corporation's profits while minimizing their risk to only that amount that they invested. The corporation was then liable for the ship and crew etc. while the individuals' personal assets were not susceptible to any loss or suit. If the ship sank, the corporation liquidated what it had left and paid out families for their losses, then went bankrupt while the same 10 people would then go back into business together with another round of investment capital and try again as a different corporate entity.

Why not? In both cases you can't move around freely, that's the source of unfreedom, isn't it?

Because it was self imposed. I'm not going to say that the freedom to end one's life destroys the freedom to do anything else.


Because I like it when people challenge established thinking. And in the third world, where there actually are people who can't be expected to be able to achieve what they might be capable of, thinking about positive freedom makes sense.

In developed economies less so. People can create their positive freedom themselves, through their actions. By going to school and studying hard, by not wasting your money on shiny rims and platinum teeth, by planning and sticking to a plan. Nobody can create their own negative freedom - there is a defense against being poor, there is no defense against being robbed. I think that's where the big difference is.

In some kral at the edge of the jungle in Congo people can actually lack the opportunity to go to school and make something of themselves. They can work and plan, be smart with their money and do all sorts of stuff and still never even have a decent shot at material success, simply because there's no good school nearby. And if there is a school, there is no decent university nearby. And if there is, the only job available to them is to join the looters that form virtually every third world government.

Why are you arguing that positive freedom makes sense in 3rd world countries that lack negative freedoms? How do developed countries make luck, timing, and the importance of who you know irrelevent? Are you saying that in developed countries one's income is in direct proportion to one's work ethic, talents, intelligence and skills with no disparities?


And somewhere in there is a glimpse why I think school vouchers are different to all the other income transfers. Equality of opportunity comes first and foremost, and some system of making education affordable is ultimately required for that - I think vouchers will do the trick, but we've yet to see an actually undisturbed market for education, so who knows whether they'll even be needed.


Vouchers are payed for by coercive taxation. The type of equality of opportunity you advocate is a type of positive freedom.

It's pretty obvious, isn't it? You pay for it with your money, it's yours. That could be either because you bought it from someone, or because it's a return on some investment you made.

Nope, its not obvious at all. Should there be intellectual property rights at all? Why? If its so obvious why do people argue what should and shouldn't be a property right? How do you handle things that were stolen generations ago? Does time negate theft? It used to be obvious to people in ancient times that humans could be a form of property, now we don't. What we consider obvious property rights weren't considered so by everyone everywhere in all points in time.

I think we had that one before. A system of law and order has huge externalities, vastly greater than any healthcare or education system. One simply cannot exist within a community without profitting from its system of law and order. Making payment for it voluntary immediately leads to a freerider problem of epic proportions.

And privatised security services cannot, in m yy view, prevent crime. The only way they could was to create geographical monopolies...ie mini-states.

So basically a ststem that screws negative freedom is one way, but preserves the most negative freedom overall is ok?

I know what I expect my own property rights to be. Just because the government decides that my house will now not be my property because of eminent domain doesn't convince me or any other number of people of that fact.

Similarly, when I spend 70 hours a week as an investment banker and take home half a million dollars a year, then that money is my time, my sweat and my return on an investment I'm making right now.

To you or the government that might not translate into a property right. When you were a kid and you built a sandcastle you probably would've been fine if, once you were finished, some other kid pushed you away and played with it.

People have property rights in a combination of government laws and social conventions. If no one thought the house was rightfully yours and the only way to keep it was to be able to be able to hold off the government and most of society . Your intuitionism doesn't prove anything. Any anarchos in your semi-ideal country would say the same thing about any form of taxation, however light, and any form of intellectual property as you did about eminent domain.

I know that I would be, will be and am already unhappy about this nonetheless. In a developed economy there seem to me to be very few excuses for being poor that justify me being unhappy. The people who end up having a claim on me are the people I sat next to in school, who rather than paying attention were busy bullying people.

So where is the justice in me giving away half my time, sweat and investment so that my 3rd grade bully can have the life he didn't have the nerve working for?

I hope if you ever become so disabled that the only way you could survive would be for the government to provide for you that you have the good graces to die. For philosophical consistency of course.

I sorta answered that above. Equality of opportunity is the basis on which my society exists. You do something, you get the rewards.

Whether or not school vouchers are the best way to achieve this, I don't know. I think they might only be necessary for a generation or so, to make sure that the kids of poor, disfunctional families now can have a go. Those who fail then are so worthless that it might be a waste to continue spending tax money on them. The voucher program could then be transferred to the voluntary tax system.

And maybe they could be on there straight away. Maybe I should credit my fellow humans with more sense and principles.

And maybe a functioning education market would provide reasonably-priced quality education without vouchers. Wal-Mart schools...we've already got Wal-Mart medical centres, the jump isn't that great.

My nod towards school vouchers is not a nod towards the principle or the policy, but a nod towards making sure that everyone gets the positive freedom he or she deserves as a result of his or her work.

Your equality of opportunity doesn't square with negative freedom. People are taxed to pay for the education of others. You are stealing money and giving it to another, in a form that can only be spent on education. I don't see why you'd only need it for a generation. Dysfunctional families have a disturbing tendency to spring up every generation. They're like cockroaches. Alsi, what'll you do with the poor parent who can't afford even the Wal-Mart schools?


I know. That's the big flaw in my plan so far - that there seems to be no democracy at this point that seriously tends towards that position.

Humans are a funky bunch.

That's because it is. It's also purely theoretical and as a resource allocation not "in the core", meaning a market could not produce it.

One thing about a market allocation is that it is "in the core", meaning there is no subgroup of any size that would be better off by leaving the society and just consuming their initital allocation themselves.

The only way your theoretical (though it should probably be noted that the market allocation I'm speaking of is theoretical as well...) allocation could come about is if at t=0 the guy somehow gets all the resources, perhaps through force or because he's Moses and God feels like it or some other reason that doesn't involve the consent of the others. It could not be arrived at in a market situation (remember that money represents resources he would have had to have in the first place, and that the economy is not a zero sum game).

Why is it unjust? Its all his property. Using it without his permission would be theft.

Why would it need to have come about through force? A guy from a technologically advanced sepcies traveled far from home at sublight or faster than light speeds. When he gets to a place he likes, far from any others, he has his self replicating nanobots turn th place into his own personal paradise.

Who says I mind government programs that provide employment? I'd just want them to create a good return on investment, otherwise I have no demands of it. In fact, I'd rather have my tax money go to that than to some war or welfare payments.

You aren't against using coercive taxation to fund employment? How does that square with negative freedom?

If government action is based on the voluntary participation of everyone involved, it may or may not be an oxymoron, but at least it's not bad (and in fact that's the basis for that voluntary part of my ideal government).


Your government is about as voluntary as any other, ie not.

Because it was self imposed. I'm not going to say that the freedom to end one's life destroys the freedom to do anything else.
And what if you do it accidentally, but because you were drunk when you walked down the hill?

Why are you arguing that positive freedom makes sense in 3rd world countries that lack negative freedoms?
Because there is some minimum level of positive freedom that, in order to achieve it, it may be valid to violate negative freedom.

Where does that limit sit? Well, in my view it is at a point when no reasonable person can be expected to fail, in which doing the best one can pays proportionate rewards, as judged by the fellow participants in the market place.

Some basic level of education, some basic level of healthcare and the ability to move around and interact with others freely should just about cover it.

How do developed countries make luck, timing, and the importance of who you know irrelevent?
"Luck" is superstition, and you know it. If there is some random probability that event X will occur, there is no reason to assume that some people's probability is higher than anyone else's. The expected probability is equal for every person. It's basic probability theory, and the only way to deviate from it is by introducing things like "fate".

Timing is a matter of personal action.

And the importance of who you know...there are some incapable people who have succeeded only based on who they know. But we can't waste our time thinking about them or the people who would hire someone who they know above someone more capable. I can't believe that someone who can achieve, who gets the certifications showing that he or she can, would ever actually miss out, without some fault of his or her own.

Are you saying that in developed countries one's income is in direct proportion to one's work ethic, talents, intelligence and skills with no disparities?
Sure some disparities may exist, but they're random and we can't plan for or counteract them.

Otherwise, within a given labour market, yes, that's what I'm saying.

Nope, its not obvious at all. Should there be intellectual property rights at all? Why?
It makes it easier for some if there are, so pragmatically the answer might be "yes". But given that things can just be kept as industrial secrets, and some inventors choose to do so, the world wouldn't exactly end if there weren't. It's a bonus option added by the legislator, but not a right.

If its so obvious why do people argue what should and shouldn't be a property right?
Envy.

How do you handle things that were stolen generations ago? Does time negate theft?
Obviously not.

It used to be obvious to people in ancient times that humans could be a form of property, now we don't.
I don't see how someone can come to own another person through a money investment. There's always a theft at the beginning.

What we consider obvious property rights weren't considered so by everyone everywhere in all points in time.
My rule is pretty obvious. The only way around is to go into the realm of the spiritual, ala middle age feudalism.

Some people have in the past (and today) chosen to make the application wider than my rule. I can't think of any society in which a commonly accepted definition was smaller. Even on some south pacific island, you'd still be looked at funny if you just took the boat someone else just made without asking or acknowledging the fact that, yes, this boat was made by you and thank you for making it available to others in the community.

So basically a ststem that screws negative freedom is one way, but preserves the most negative freedom overall is ok?
Well, you're never going to get utopia. In order to prevent the place turning into Mogadishu, there may be some negative freedom violated in order to prevent worse abuses.

People have property rights in a combination of government laws and social conventions. If no one thought the house was rightfully yours and the only way to keep it was to be able to be able to hold off the government and most of society .
And if everyone thought the sky was green...of course, people don't think the sky is green. It would be ridiculous.

Running the risk of a Godwin here, you could make any right at all disappear by saying "if no one else thought so" and then make it okay to gas the Jews or commit any number of "bad" actions. Is that really what you would base your own judgements of right and wrong government action on?

Your intuitionism doesn't prove anything. Any anarchos in your semi-ideal country would say the same thing about any form of taxation, however light, and any form of intellectual property as you did about eminent domain.
And if there was some practical way of not having to impose it on them, I'd be more than happy to do that. The fact that my ideal government takes some compulsory taxes is not due to me agreeing with the concept of compulsory taxation, it is due to the practical impossibility of doing anything else. The best I can offer them is the chance to go somewhere else, and the explanation that their taxes don't go to anyone else, but simply to the preservation of the basic order within which they can create their lives.

The only inconsistency, which you rightly point out, is the education voucher thing. By now I'd actually be quite happy to move them to the "voluntary" bracket and hope that people are nice enough to pay for them, but I think that would just be pulling out of the debate.

I hope if you ever become so disabled that the only way you could survive would be for the government to provide for you that you have the good graces to die. For philosophical consistency of course.
Believe me, I'd seriously consider it. Not because of the government money, but because I wouldn't want to live my life that way.

But if you want to tell me that the only people who receive my tax money right now is me and those who through no fault of their own have become physically or mentally disabled to the point of no longer being able to function as human beings, we can talk about the righteousness of such payments.

You and I know that's not what's going on.

I don't see why you'd only need it for a generation. Dysfunctional families have a disturbing tendency to spring up every generation. They're like cockroaches.
Well, after one generation you'd think the market for education and private education financing would have developed to the point where it can handle things on its own. And because the only dysfunctional people are those who didn't take advantage of the vouchers, there is no more hiding behind "I never had a chance".

Which also asks an interesting question (somewhat) on the side: If the only way to "save" a kid and give it positive freedom, would it be right to take it away from its family and thus violate negative freedoms quite strongly? Perhaps a question for another thread...

Also, what'll you do with the poor parent who can't afford even the Wal-Mart schools?
I won't do anything. Aldi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldi) will see a market and jump on it.

Humans are a funky bunch.
Lazy and scared seems more like it. It's amazing how few people are confident in their own ability and will to achieve for themselves.

Why is it unjust? Its all his property. Using it without his permission would be theft.
Not all property is just. Just property has to be earned, without making up seriously sci-fi scenarios, you can't conceive of a way of how he could have earned all resources within society.

You aren't against using coercive taxation to fund employment? How does that square with negative freedom?
If the money is taken anyways, it might as well be spent on something that returns an investment. Of course it would be superior to stimulate investment in some other way, there are plenty of methods out there. But, in principle, I am not opposed to that way of spending tax money, no.

Your government is about as voluntary as any other, ie not.
Remember, my government has two parts.

And what if you do it accidentally, but because you were drunk when you walked down the hill?

Well if someone hangs out in the bad side of town after dark and gets assaulted should we prosecute the offenders or not?

Because there is some minimum level of positive freedom that, in order to achieve it, it may be valid to violate negative freedom.

Where does that limit sit? Well, in my view it is at a point when no reasonable person can be expected to fail, in which doing the best one can pays proportionate rewards, as judged by the fellow participants in the market place.

Some basic level of education, some basic level of healthcare and the ability to move around and interact with others freely should just about cover it.

There are problems with ambiguities above. What does a reasonable act like? Would reasonable people try to reduce the risk of various negative events? Would this justify social insurance? What is the basic level of eductation and healthcare? Would primary school and some vaccinations cover it? What does moving around freely entail? Would subsidies to public transportation be necessary?

"Luck" is superstition, and you know it. If there is some random probability that event X will occur, there is no reason to assume that some people's probability is higher than anyone else's. The expected probability is equal for every person. It's basic probability theory, and the only way to deviate from it is by introducing things like "fate".

Luck is probablity with emotional residues. I don't see how desert can measure in to people's incomes. Microsoft could have done the same things it did gone bankrupt. Three entrepeneurs with similiar skills, work ethics, intelligences, and business ideas that are just as probable, or improbable to suceed start up three companies. One goes bankrupt, another eventually becomes a billionaire, the last gets a comfortable upper-middle class lifestyle. There was no way to know what would happen before hand. How can different outcomes be deserved?

And the importance of who you know...there are some incapable people who have succeeded only based on who they know. But we can't waste our time thinking about them or the people who would hire someone who they know above someone more capable. I can't believe that someone who can achieve, who gets the certifications showing that he or she can, would ever actually miss out, without some fault of his or her own.

The failure rate for small businesses is 80-90%, usually in the first year. I can't believe that all of those failure is because of personal incompetency. It just doesn't seem reasonable to me.

Sure some disparities may exist, but they're random and we can't plan for or counteract them.

Otherwise, within a given labour market, yes, that's what I'm saying.

Why can't we plan for them? Proove your assertion that there are only random disparities.

It makes it easier for some if there are, so pragmatically the answer might be "yes". But given that things can just be kept as industrial secrets, and some inventors choose to do so, the world wouldn't exactly end if there weren't. It's a bonus option added by the legislator, but not a right.

Would the world collapse if negative externalities weren't dealt with? Probably not, for most of them. If I can't get my neighbor to turn down their music the world won't implode. So are negative externality regulations just bonus options?

Envy.

Bullshit.

Obviously not.

So how much property should be returned to the native inhabitants of Noth America, South America, and Australia?

I don't see how someone can come to own another person through a money investment. There's always a theft at the beginning.

My point was that is was "obvious" at the time that the ownership of humans by other humans was legitimate.

My rule is pretty obvious. The only way around is to go into the realm of the spiritual, ala middle age feudalism.

Some people have in the past (and today) chosen to make the application wider than my rule. I can't think of any society in which a commonly accepted definition was smaller. Even on some south pacific island, you'd still be looked at funny if you just took the boat someone else just made without asking or acknowledging the fact that, yes, this boat was made by you and thank you for making it available to others in the community.

In many societies outsiders, at least ones not dealt with on a regular basis, would have few to no rights. Should we base rights on how those societies do?

Well, you're never going to get utopia. In order to prevent the place turning into Mogadishu, there may be some negative freedom violated in order to prevent worse abuses.

I just can't see being able to square that mentally. It sounds like your saying that is raping someone prevents them from being gang raped its ok.

And if everyone thought the sky was green...of course, people don't think the sky is green. It would be ridiculous.

Running the risk of a Godwin here, you could make any right at all disappear by saying "if no one else thought so" and then make it okay to gas the Jews or commit any number of "bad" actions. Is that really what you would base your own judgements of right and wrong government action on?

If everyone thought the sky was green then I'd say the green either replaced blue or it means blue when talking about the sky.

And I wasn't basing my political judgements on the fact that rights are defined socially. Its just how things are. If I told people that I won the air and that they owe me money because they brathe air to live they'd ignore me. If you said that you owned some land and everyone ignored you then how do you, for all practical purpose, own the land?

And if there was some practical way of not having to impose it on them, I'd be more than happy to do that. The fact that my ideal government takes some compulsory taxes is not due to me agreeing with the concept of compulsory taxation, it is due to the practical impossibility of doing anything else. The best I can offer them is the chance to go somewhere else, and the explanation that their taxes don't go to anyone else, but simply to the preservation of the basic order within which they can create their lives.

The only inconsistency, which you rightly point out, is the education voucher thing. By now I'd actually be quite happy to move them to the "voluntary" bracket and hope that people are nice enough to pay for them, but I think that would just be pulling out of the debate.

Why would people pay voluntarily for vouchers? People would either have to feel morally obligated to do so, of which you are philosophically opposed to, or they think that its a good invesment. The last is unlikely because the pay off is in the far future and most of it goes to the child who is educated.

Believe me, I'd seriously consider it. Not because of the government money, but because I wouldn't want to live my life that way.

But if you want to tell me that the only people who receive my tax money right now is me and those who through no fault of their own have become physically or mentally disabled to the point of no longer being able to function as human beings, we can talk about the righteousness of such payments.

You and I know that's not what's going on.

Do you believe that the welfare state is currently run matches anyone's ideal of how it should be run? You and I both know that's not what is going on.

Well, after one generation you'd think the market for education and private education financing would have developed to the point where it can handle things on its own. And because the only dysfunctional people are those who didn't take advantage of the vouchers, there is no more hiding behind "I never had a chance".

Which also asks an interesting question (somewhat) on the side: If the only way to "save" a kid and give it positive freedom, would it be right to take it away from its family and thus violate negative freedoms quite strongly? Perhaps a question for another thread...

I won't do anything. Aldi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldi) will see a market and jump on it.

I don't see why vouchers would no longer be necessary. Are all those who have children the ones who have the money to send them to school? How would Aldi help those families where any expenditure over basic needs is an expensive luxury?

Lazy and scared seems more like it. It's amazing how few people are confident in their own ability and will to achieve for themselves.

To-mae-toe to-mah-toe

Not all property is just. Just property has to be earned, without making up seriously sci-fi scenarios, you can't conceive of a way of how he could have earned all resources within society..

Earned how? If I get 30 million dollars from winning the lottery is that earned. On further thought it seems that a just distribution of property, for you, must include a wide dispersal of wealth(something akin to what we have now), the means for people to earn a living, and a sufficiently competive markets for good and services.

If the money is taken anyways, it might as well be spent on something that returns an investment. Of course it would be superior to stimulate investment in some other way, there are plenty of methods out there. But, in principle, I am not opposed to that way of spending tax money, no.

So any tax money spent on investment is, in principle, ok?

Remember, my government has two parts.

I do, but at least one part of it is coercive. The other part seems to act as a non-profit service provider, without any of the advantages that government bring to the table.

well they are created by a legal fiction and amount to self serving doomsday machines. it's not so much a mater of outlawing them as not creating the foundation that enables them.

infrastructure, physical infrastructure of the kind that makes the comfort zones most people in the advantaged parts of the world take for granted their emotional attatchment to, do require a certain degree of massive social organization, and are just about the only things and kinds of things that do.

people need more to be able to decide for themselves the tradeoff between their commitment to this kind of collective effort and the amount of comfort zone they would be willing to live without in order to not have to.

nor is corporatocracy the only, nor neccessarily best way of achieving this.
after all, governments have little or no other legitimate reasons to exist, reguardless of form, economics, nor idiology.

=^^=
.../\...

Well if someone hangs out in the bad side of town after dark and gets assaulted should we prosecute the offenders or not?
Obviously.

But the question still stands: if someone is drunk off his face and falls, is that the same (as a source of unfreedom) as someone who falls purely due to some random accident, which is the same as someone being pushed, but not the same as someone jumping voluntarily?

What does a reasonable act like? Would reasonable people try to reduce the risk of various negative events? Would this justify social insurance?
Well, the reasonable person test is used by courts all over the world, I believe. Don't ask me how they figure it out, but they somehow do.
Personally, I would say that a reasonable person could not fail to achieve his or her goals through no fault of his or her own.

And yes, obviously a reasonable person would want to reduce risks and prepare for them by buying insurance.

What is the basic level of eductation and healthcare? Would primary school and some vaccinations cover it?
I would say high school should form part of it as well, at least until the 9th or 10th grade. As for vaccinations, I think that should just about cover it. The rest can be purchased on the market, and if the person chooses not to, it doesn't hurt anyone but him or her.

What does moving around freely entail? Would subsidies to public transportation be necessary?
The first is related to open borders and a provision that makes sure that I can't buy all the land around your house and not allow you to trespass.

The latter, I don't think so. Subsidies are very rarely actually required for economic reasons.

Three entrepeneurs with similiar skills, work ethics, intelligences, and business ideas that are just as probable, or improbable to suceed start up three companies.
See, that's where our real disagreement lies. You don't seem to think that what we do and how we live our lives matters, we are somehow predisposed to some outcome. It's some sort of fatalistic determinism. Of course in that case you can't follow me when I speak of "earned" wealth and people who deserve all the good things in life that come to them, and of course you can't understand my outrage at earned wealth being treated as though it belonged to those who did nothing to deserve it. We speak a completely different language.

But I think if you made that sort of belief the moral principle of your world, the result would be horrible.

The failure rate for small businesses is 80-90%, usually in the first year. I can't believe that all of those failure is because of personal incompetency. It just doesn't seem reasonable to me.
It does to me. People don't plan things out, they don't work hard enough, they have the wrong idea and don't realise it's no good.

I mean, I saw it myself. When we came to Australia and my father couldn't convince anyone to buy his labour, he had the idea to stop trying and instead we used our savings to buy a Fish & Chips place. We know today that it was the worst decision we ever made in our lives, I am more willing than he is to accept that the failure was due in some part to wrong decisions made while he ran the business and even those bad things that weren't his fault would have been avoided if he hadn't tried to go ahead with the stupid idea in the first place.

Why can't we plan for them? Proove your assertion that there are only random disparities.
We can't plan for them because we don't know what they are. And the only non-random disparities I can think of might be gender, race and "attractiveness". As I said, we can't waste our time thinking about scum that would hire and pay according to such principles, and neither can those who sell their labour. Ultimately hiring inferior people will mean the business will be outclassed by competition that operates properly.

Would the world collapse if negative externalities weren't dealt with? Probably not, for most of them. If I can't get my neighbor to turn down their music the world won't implode. So are negative externality regulations just bonus options?
You know what I mean. If there were no IP protections, people wouldn't get patents and instead keep industrial secrets. The whole idea of a patent system is simply that the government gets access to all the things people think of and it is incapable of designing itself, and as a return payment they offer their arsenal of weapons.

Bullshit.
Is there any other reason why it shouldn't be clear that the things you worked for are yours and no one else's?

So how much property should be returned to the native inhabitants of Noth America, South America, and Australia?
Quite a lot. On the other hand, if the native inhabitants didn't actually transform the land in any significant way or otherwise invested time and effort into its material state, so I'm not sure that they can really claim an exclusive property right on it in many cases.

Obviously lots of other stuff of theirs (not least their negative freedoms) was stolen, destroyed or damaged, and the ones who lived through that should probably get something back.

My point was that is was "obvious" at the time that the ownership of humans by other humans was legitimate.
But the only "moral" consistency in such a system is that the one with the bigger sword has all the rights, and the other guy...well, vae victus.

In many societies outsiders, at least ones not dealt with on a regular basis, would have few to no rights. Should we base rights on how those societies do?
No. Why?

I just can't see being able to square that mentally. It sounds like your saying that is raping someone prevents them from being gang raped its ok.
Without going into too much detail...if you were put into such a situation, wouldn't you think so too? You don't have to like it, but given the material fact that someone is going to get raped, I think it would be insane to choose any other option.

If everyone thought the sky was green then I'd say the green either replaced blue or it means blue when talking about the sky.
And if everyone thought 1+1=4?

The material world doesn't change regardless of what people think about it. The only way to change it is to deal with the facts of reality, and use one's ability to reason to do so. Everyone in society can wish or feel they should be rich, but that wouldn't make it happen.

And I wasn't basing my political judgements on the fact that rights are defined socially. Its just how things are. If I told people that I won the air and that they owe me money because they brathe air to live they'd ignore me.
That's because the notion that someone could win the air is ridiculous, while the notion that someone could see a bit of empty grassland and turn it into a farm is not.

If you said that you owned some land and everyone ignored you then how do you, for all practical purpose, own the land?
That sentence made me grin. This is so much like an argument taken straight out of an Ayn Rand novel. You're the evil looter talking about "it's practical", I'm the shining hero talking abour principle. :p

I mean, if you're some farmer in the USSR and the red guard takes your farm away, do you for all practical purpose, own the land? Probably not. Was a wrong done to you nonetheless? Of course.

Why would people pay voluntarily for vouchers? People would either have to feel morally obligated to do so, of which you are philosophically opposed to, or they think that its a good invesment. The last is unlikely because the pay off is in the far future and most of it goes to the child who is educated.
I don't think I'm opposed to the act of charity. I'm opposed to the moral obligation part.

Can't people give to charity just because it makes them feel better, and not because anyone else has a moral claim on their wealth?

Do you believe that the welfare state is currently run matches anyone's ideal of how it should be run? You and I both know that's not what is going on.
So am I to take that your ideal welfare state would only hand out money to such disabled people, and not to people who are poor as a result of their own actions and decisions?

I don't see why vouchers would no longer be necessary. Are all those who have children the ones who have the money to send them to school?
Well, the first 30 years or so the vouchers would be paid with compulsory taxes, and every child would go to a reasonable school and have the chance to succeed.

Some will fail to do so, which in my view means they're entitled to nothing. The sad thing about that is that their kids, who are innocent victims, can't simply be abandoned either.

It may be the case though that within those 30 years competition has driven education prices down significantly, and the institution of school vouchers is entrenched enough and seen as useful enough for people to still pay for them even when they move to the next bracket on the tax bill.

How would Aldi help those families where any expenditure over basic needs is an expensive luxury?
I would like to think that the kid's education is a basic need for the parents. Otherwise you end up in my "stealing children" thread.

Earned how? If I get 30 million dollars from winning the lottery is that earned.
It's not earned in the traditional sense, but it's a return on an investment you made with money you presumably earned. Much like the interest you get on your bank account isn't really earned through labour, but nonetheless yours.

On further thought it seems that a just distribution of property, for you, must include a wide dispersal of wealth(something akin to what we have now), the means for people to earn a living, and a sufficiently competive markets for good and services.
A just distribution, in my view, is one that allows everyone a shot at greatness, within the wider framework of a pareto-optimal market economy.

So any tax money spent on investment is, in principle, ok?
Take out the word "tax", and the statement is quite uncontroversial. So, given that there is some tax money to be spent I would think it would be rather questionable if it wasn't spend on an investment of some kind.

But to answer the question: I'm not in principle against the concept of fiscal macroeconomic policy. I think monetary policy is more effective, easier to implement and cheaper, but I have no problem in principle with fiscal policy.

The funding for it is the area that can be questioned, but that's not specifically related to the principle itself.

Obviously.

But the question still stands: if someone is drunk off his face and falls, is that the same (as a source of unfreedom) as someone who falls purely due to some random accident, which is the same as someone being pushed, but not the same as someone jumping voluntarily?

Yes.

Well, the reasonable person test is used by courts all over the world, I believe. Don't ask me how they figure it out, but they somehow do.
Personally, I would say that a reasonable person could not fail to achieve his or her goals through no fault of his or her own.

And yes, obviously a reasonable person would want to reduce risks and prepare for them by buying insurance.

The courts seem to come to what a reasonable person woulf think or do in a way that is hard to gauge whether a reasonable person would act or think like that.

If reasonable people would buy insurance why not agree with HayeK?

There is no reason why in a free society government should not assure to all protection against severe deprivation in the form of an assured minimum income, or a floor below which nobody need to descend. To enter into such an insurance against extreme misfortune may well be in the interest of all.


I would say high school should form part of it as well, at least until the 9th or 10th grade. As for vaccinations, I think that should just about cover it. The rest can be purchased on the market, and if the person chooses not to, it doesn't hurt anyone but him or her.

Can you explain why you chose 9th or 10th grade and not 12 or 8th grade?


The first is related to open borders and a provision that makes sure that I can't buy all the land around your house and not allow you to trespass.

The latter, I don't think so. Subsidies are very rarely actually required for economic reasons.

The trepass provision would seem to violate the property rights.

Whether or not subsidies are warranted seems to depend on the opinions of the person/economist.

See, that's where our real disagreement lies. You don't seem to think that what we do and how we live our lives matters, we are somehow predisposed to some outcome. It's some sort of fatalistic determinism. Of course in that case you can't follow me when I speak of "earned" wealth and people who deserve all the good things in life that come to them, and of course you can't understand my outrage at earned wealth being treated as though it belonged to those who did nothing to deserve it. We speak a completely different language.

But I think if you made that sort of belief the moral principle of your world, the result would be horrible.

For one thing you didn't know we spoke different languages? We have different political philosophies. Of course we have different axioms.

I think what we do matters. I just don't think we can know what the outcomes of our actions will be with 100% certainty. A person can be intelligent skilled and hardworking and still get short changed. I find that they'd probably suceed , but the market doesn't automatically reward virtue, hard work and good intentions. It may tend to reward them, at least in regard to business endeavors, but not always.

Here are some Hayek quotes supporting me that markets outcome aren't based on desert.

It is probably a misfortune that, especially in the USA, popular writers like Samuel Smiles and Horatio Alger, and later the sociologist W.G.Sumner, have defended free enterprise on the ground that it regularly rewards the deserving. - Law, Legislation, and Liberty

namely a game partly of skill and partly of chance. . . . It proceeds, like all games, according to rules guiding the actions of individual participants whose aims, skills, and knowledge are different, with the consequence that the outcome will be unpredictable and that there will regularly be winners and losers. And while, as in a game, we are right in insisting that it be fair and that nobody cheat, it would be nonsensical to demand that the results for the different players be just. They will of necessity be determined partly by skill and partly by luck. Some of the circumstances which make the services of a person more or less valuable to his fellows, or which may make it desirable that he change the direction of his efforts, are not of human design or foreseeable by men. -Law, Legislation and Liberty

My moral principles in action, at least in regards to politics, would have a high social floor. To have your moral principles put into action disturb me.

It does to me. People don't plan things out, they don't work hard enough, they have the wrong idea and don't realise it's no good.

I mean, I saw it myself. When we came to Australia and my father couldn't convince anyone to buy his labour, he had the idea to stop trying and instead we used our savings to buy a Fish & Chips place. We know today that it was the worst decision we ever made in our lives, I am more willing than he is to accept that the failure was due in some part to wrong decisions made while he ran the business and even those bad things that weren't his fault would have been avoided if he hadn't tried to go ahead with the stupid idea in the first place.

You know now it was a bad decision, nnnoooowww. Can you honestly say at the time you and your parents knew it was a bad idea to buy a Fish & Chips? In hindsight you do, but at the time was it obvious? What was the right decision that your parents should have made given the information they had at the time?

We can't plan for them because we don't know what they are. And the only non-random disparities I can think of might be gender, race and "attractiveness". As I said, we can't waste our time thinking about scum that would hire and pay according to such principles, and neither can those who sell their labour. Ultimately hiring inferior people will mean the business will be outclassed by competition that operates properly.

By plan for them I meant in some kind of insurance scheme. I could see random disparitites arising due to that fact that imperfectly rational people have access to imperfect information.

You know what I mean. If there were no IP protections, people wouldn't get patents and instead keep industrial secrets. The whole idea of a patent system is simply that the government gets access to all the things people think of and it is incapable of designing itself, and as a return payment they offer their arsenal of weapons.

The patent system allows society to become richer because information is not hoarded. Of course the government taxes society... you get the implications I think.


Is there any other reason why it shouldn't be clear that the things you worked for are yours and no one else's?

As we saw earlier we disagree on the desert of market outcome. Also, I wasn't even talking about some kind of redistribution here. I was saying that people disagree on what constitutes negative externalities and what one can do with one's property. Above you force people who own all the land around somebody to let that somebody trespass on their property. Now I find this reasonable, but some nutjob may say that you're violating that guy's property rights.


Quite a lot. On the other hand, if the native inhabitants didn't actually transform the land in any significant way or otherwise invested time and effort into its material state, so I'm not sure that they can really claim an exclusive property right on it in many cases.

Obviously lots of other stuff of theirs (not least their negative freedoms) was stolen, destroyed or damaged, and the ones who lived through that should probably get something back.

Most libertarians I've seen seem to think once the original thieve and the original victim die that property is the legitmate property of the current 'owner'.


But the only "moral" consistency in such a system is that the one with the bigger sword has all the rights, and the other guy...well, vae victus.

The general idea was that outsiders had few to no rights and even insiders had unequal rights. You, and I, don't see it as consistent because we believe in equal rights for people regardless of there sex/age/ethnicity/whatever. People didn't always think that way.

No. Why?

Why did I ask? Because what is obvious to us isn't obvious to others. Why shouldn't we base our rights on what they thought was obvious? The answer to that should be obvious.

Without going into too much detail...if you were put into such a situation, wouldn't you think so too? You don't have to like it, but given the material fact that someone is going to get raped, I think it would be insane to choose any other option.

I guess so, but it seems icky to think that we need to be raped regularly to avoid being raped even more.

And if everyone thought 1+1=4?

The material world doesn't change regardless of what people think about it. The only way to change itis to deal with the facts of reality, and use one's ability to reason to do so. Everyone in society can wish or feel they should be rich, but that wouldn't make it happen.

Property rights aren't exactly material. They're like the color red. There are plenty of red things but no platonic form that exists.

That's because the notion that someone could win the air is ridiculous, while the notion that someone could see a bit of empty grassland and turn it into a farm is not.

A bunch of nomads may think that the concept of land ownership to be ridiculous. You seem to think that there is a fixed universal criteria is and isn't an acceptable that is easily accessible through reason.

That sentence made me grin. This is so much like an argument taken straight out of an Ayn Rand novel. You're the evil looter talking about "it's practical", I'm the shining hero talking abour principle. :p

I mean, if you're some farmer in the USSR and the red guard takes your farm away, do you for all practical purpose, own the land? Probably not. Was a wrong done to you nonetheless? Of course.

I think the the USSR was wrong in taking them, but neither of us prooved that land ownership is legitimate. Anarcho-communist followers of Prouhoun would say that one can own things if one uses them, probably an over-simplistic view but not necessarily incorrect. So if in your ideal nation somebody has the police evict some people living in their summer home then your government is being the evil agressors.

Oh, and I like to see myself as the shining hero looking out for others with you as the evil greedy capitalist pig who kicks puppies and eats babies. :D

I don't think I'm opposed to the act of charity. I'm opposed to the moral obligation part.

Can't people give to charity just because it makes them feel better, and not because anyone else has a moral claim on their wealth?

So you're saying that people would donate because they have a taste or preference for helping others? This may be so, but why should they have such tastes? Melkor Unchained seemed to indicate in a past thread that Rand found such "tastes" to be mildly(?) perverted.

So am I to take that your ideal welfare state would only hand out money to such disabled people, and not to people who are poor as a result of their own actions and decisions?

It would make sure they didn't involuntarily starve to death, die from lack of shelter, ect. Am I to believe that all objectivists would commit suicide if crippled and not independently wealthy rather than have others 'live for them"?

Well, the first 30 years or so the vouchers would be paid with compulsory taxes, and every child would go to a reasonable school and have the chance to succeed.

Some will fail to do so, which in my view means they're entitled to nothing. The sad thing about that is that their kids, who are innocent victims, can't simply be abandoned either.

It may be the case though that within those 30 years competition has driven education prices down significantly, and the institution of school vouchers is entrenched enough and seen as useful enough for people to still pay for them even when they move to the next bracket on the tax bill.

I don't see why competition would lower prices significantly. Eductation prices tend to rise faster than the price level, even with competition. Why will voluntary contributions result in an "optimal" amount of education. I'd see a lot of people liking the fact of vouchers, but not paying in. Free riding's a bitch at times.

I would like to think that thekid's education is a basic need for the parents. Otherwise you end up in my "stealing children" thread.

Education is a more important basic need than, say, eating enough to not be starving? That's the level of poverty I meant. Also "stealing kids" from crappy, but nonabusive, parents may not result in increased positive freedom. It'd probably lead to them being bounced around the foster care system which could lead to crappier results in tern of freedom. Compulsory publically financed education may be the best practical way to deal


It's not earned in the traditional sense, but it's a return on an investment you made with money you presumably earned. Much like the interest you get on your bank account isn't really earned through labour, but nonetheless yours.

Meh.


A just distribution, in my view, is one that allows everyone a shot at greatness, within the wider framework of a pareto-optimal market economy.

Why would free markets necessarily lead to this ditribution? If it doesn't should governments fix it?


Take out the word "tax", and the statement is quite uncontroversial. So, given that there is some tax money to be spent I would think it would be rather questionable if it wasn't spend on an investment of some kind.

But to answer the question: I'm not in principle against the concept of fiscal macroeconomic policy. I think monetary policy is more effective, easier to implement and cheaper, but I have no problem in principle with fiscal policy.

The funding for it is the area that can be questioned, but that's not specifically related to the principle itself.

What source of funding do governments have that doesn't come from taxation, eminent domain of natural resources, or selling property like land or the EM spectrum that I don't think you believe they had legitimate claims to?

What monetary policy philosophy would you advocate? How isn't monetary policy government intervention? If it is why is it legitimate?