Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Free Market

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Cryptocode View Post
    Mr.Perfidy,

    Do you really think it's even theoretically possible to peddle backwards in history, in this case the history of land titles, find out or determine somehow who should have owned that piece of land each time it changed ownership, and finally, back to 1776 correct the ownership title. How would you do that? If you could back peddle that far, how would you decide who should own it. And if you theoretically could, it would take a Gov't agency so large it would eat up a great lot of money.

    Some countries, such as Mexico, have tried to achieve equality by breaking up all the large tracts of land (farms and ranches) into small family farms and giving them to the people who actually did the work of farming. How well do you think that worked out?
    it's more like that people should assume ownership of the areas where they live, and workers should assume ownership of places where they work. Cut out the capital-eating owner class completely.
    "Ah, those endless forests, and their horror-haunted gloom! For what eternities have I wandered through them, a timid, hunted creature, starting at the least sound, frightened of my own shadow, keyed-up, ever alert and vigilant, ready on the instant to dash away in mad flight for my life. For I was the prey of all manner of fierce life that dwelt in the forest, and it was in ecstasies of fear that I fled before the hunting monsters."

    Jack london, "Before Adam"

    Comment


    • #32
      So you believe in communal ownership. By any name Communism, as defined by either Marx or Lenin. However both Marx and Lenin have been proven wrong, both in theory and in practice. In other words, it doesn't work. It won't work.

      OK, suppose a community, any size you want, with no capital. How now do they get or build this business or place of work?
      "When the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power." - Alston Chase

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Cryptocode View Post
        So you believe in communal ownership. By any name Communism, as defined by either Marx or Lenin. However both Marx and Lenin have been proven wrong, both in theory and in practice. In other words, it doesn't work. It won't work.

        OK, suppose a community, any size you want, with no capital. How now do they get or build this business or place of work?
        Communism works beautifully... in small communes, or in other words, tribes.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by wiltondeportes View Post
          Communism works beautifully... in small communes, or in other words, tribes.
          I agree, in places where the tribal traditions are strong and serve to also prevent change or innovation. If they are agricultural they can build up enough capital (food) to carry them through the winter, and they have already build up the fixed assets (capital as storage bins or areas) to preserve it through that period of time.

          I suppose a lot of tribes exist (or existed) in areas where there was little change of season temperatures, but changes in rain and dry spells.

          It also worked well in the swiss alpine valley community that Weston Price visited. There was considerable division of labor, strong maintained traditions, and very cold winters requiring communal capital (food). Were they really tribal there? Maybe not tribal, but probably related to each other in many ways. And they were very separated from outsiders.
          "When the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power." - Alston Chase

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Cryptocode View Post
            I agree, in places where the tribal traditions are strong and serve to also prevent change or innovation. If they are agricultural they can build up enough capital (food) to carry them through the winter, and they have already build up the fixed assets (capital as storage bins or areas) to preserve it through that period of time.

            I suppose a lot of tribes exist (or existed) in areas where there was little change of season temperatures, but changes in rain and dry spells.

            It also worked well in the swiss alpine valley community that Weston Price visited. There was considerable division of labor, strong maintained traditions, and very cold winters requiring communal capital (food). Were they really tribal there? Maybe not tribal, but probably related to each other in many ways. And they were very separated from outsiders.
            Right. I would consider those close knit societies to be pretty tribal.

            More detailed rules/laws and direct rule/law-making are best for small groups and communities. More indirect laws and indirect law-making is what's best for the largest government shell, the federal level or world level. Due to the indirectness, there must be a minimalist attitude wherever possible *but* not anywhere impossible. You need checks and balances to make the small-to-big relationship work, and you need them to make highest government shell (federal or world) somewhat decentralized to prevent monopoly within it.

            That's my idealist perspective on the situation. The parts where minimalism is impossible and elected officials coerce or just act stupidly are the uglier parts. I take the bad with the good philosophically, and when I have some solutions to do more good or less bad, I'll let you know.

            By definition, not by modern vernacular, I would be a republican federally and a democrat locally. Most people are, but they don't realize it. It's ironic because many Republicans now-a-days most strongly and proudly support fundamentally democratic things, and many Democrats most strongly and proudly support republican things.
            Last edited by wiltondeportes; 09-18-2013, 11:40 PM.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Cryptocode View Post
              Is a 'bomb' good or bad? Why so?
              In a good way.... The education that you can get from reading the articles they write, seminars they host, classes thay teach are vastly different than what you get from "mainstream" economists. I have a strong libertarian streak, and I find their approach to economics refreshing.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by ssn679doc View Post
                In a good way.... The education that you can get from reading the articles they write, seminars they host, classes thay teach are vastly different than what you get from "mainstream" economists. I have a strong libertarian streak, and I find their approach to economics refreshing.
                Anyone who has all of the answers, has none of the answers.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by wiltondeportes View Post
                  Anyone who has all of the answers, has none of the answers.
                  Thanks for that vapid response.......

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by ssn679doc View Post
                    Thanks for that vapid response.......
                    As if saying "let's just not be aggressive with each other" or "let's just not have a government at all" weren't vapid in my other thread? I don't recall if you were in that or not... just responding to the board in general.

                    It's also a pretty good rule of thumb. I've never found any source, which claims to up-end all of the establishment's thinking, to be very valid. Those kinds of people/websites have often good intentions but bad logic. Very rarely, you'll find websites that correctly up-end some of the mainstream ideas, but then you eventually find out that their best ideas are actually pretty mainstream also. Perfect example: MarksDailyApple.

                    PS- I could even go for "let's be less aggressive" for some things and "let's have less government" for some things. Keyword: "some things". But the libertarians and anarchists here are such idealists that they have no ideas. Ironic considering the word origin...
                    Last edited by wiltondeportes; 09-19-2013, 12:46 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by wiltondeportes View Post
                      As if saying "let's just not be aggressive with each other" or "let's just not have a government at all" weren't vapid in my other thread? I don't recall if you were in that or not... just responding to the board in general.

                      It's also a pretty good rule of thumb. I've never found any source, which claims to up-end all of the establishment's thinking, to be very valid. Those kinds of people/websites have often good intentions but bad logic. Very rarely, you'll find websites that correctly up-end some of the mainstream ideas, but then you eventually find out that their best ideas are actually pretty mainstream also. Perfect example: MarksDailyApple.

                      PS- I could even go for "let's be less aggressive" for some things and "let's have less government" for some things. Keyword: "some things". But the libertarians and anarchists here are such idealists that they have no ideas. Ironic considering the word origin...
                      I wonder, after reading this, if you have ever read anything of substance by any of the Austrian School economists, in particular von Mises or Murray Rothbard. If you haven't read their writing, how can you claim they have no ideas?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Cryptocode View Post
                        Today property rights are enforced by private Title Companies. Each (at least most) person who owns real property also buys Title Insurance from a private title insurance company which has contracted with you to guareentee your ownership rights to that property. That title insurance company has promised you to represent you, for free, in all legal proceedings, if anyone else tries to take or invade your property (unless it's the Gov't.).

                        Without a Gov't, they could be enforced the same way.

                        Title is a legal term for a bundle of rights in a piece of property in which a party may own either a legal interest or equitable interest.

                        Today in the U.S. the most complete ownership title is 'fee simple'. Even though fee simple is the most complete ownership title it still gives the Gov't certain rights to that property. The Gov't can exercise their rights in many ways, such as taking it through eminent domain, for streets, schools, and recently to make more money for the jurisdiction.

                        There used to be a type of title that did not give the Gov't or anyone else any rights at all, but I have forgotten the name.
                        How do you enforce title without government and without force?

                        Originally posted by Mr.Perfidy View Post
                        that isn't really what I am talking about..

                        what makes it your land?
                        In almost any case I can think of around here, people own things and have resources because they are coercion profiteers to one degree or another- if we are talking about the immorality of the State and of collective property, what about all of the private property owned by people who made money by serving the coercion immersion?

                        It is a less relevant discussion in rural areas, where someone's grandparents started farming a hundred years ago and engaged in peaceable commerce until they increased their wealth.

                        But in a lot of places, banks and corporations own everything, and foreign governments, old royal families and american gentry (as guilty as european royalty) hold all of the deeds.

                        Basically I'm saying that the Liberty movement needs to be thinking about guillotines and redistribution tribunals.
                        Coercion is a fact of life.

                        Originally posted by j3nn View Post
                        Not necessarily. There's not really a need to describe every plan in great detail. There can be varying degrees of development. I think too many people underestimate the rate of technology. In the near future we will be able to print out entire houses. No, not the blueprints. The actual house. Statists live in yester-millenia. There's so much more coming that it's obviously unimaginable to those who can only progress up to the primitiveness of state-sponsored infrastructure.
                        We are light years from printing houses being a practical business. 3D printing is great hypothetically but quite impractical for many purposes right now.

                        Originally posted by Derpamix View Post
                        Inhabit the land you're on.

                        Per Bylund outlined a concept that sort of dealt with the logistics of "use rights" which is sort of like property by string of easements; that is, you only "own" natural resources within the context of your use for them. It's not territorial control, it's the right to continue your usage unobstructed. This allows for a good deal of overlap in the utilization of resources, but is really quite consistent with anarchist ideals; the idea that one could have the right to the harvest of the apple orchard they planted but not to restrict others from taking a walk through it, so long as they didn't interfere with the orchard usage.

                        As for the home, it's obviously yours. This should prevent more state like monopolies of claiming tons of land by takeover.
                        How would you ever prevent thievery? It seems ironic to me that you support such independence from the state, yet you don't support private property. This is non-aggression to the utmost, and it is wrong to the utmost.

                        Originally posted by j3nn View Post
                        I think if you already own land or other property, you should be able to keep it so long as you're not a hoarder and it sits there idle and dilapidated. You have to be able to maintain it. The government owns the most land in the country and that is what is up for grabs. I'm not concerned with land grabs. I think there's a limit to how much can be used and protected. Even the state struggles to maintain what it has with virtually all the money in the world and a printing press.

                        The game changes when there isn't fiat currency in the equation. How many banks would there be? Not nearly as many large ones. They would be smaller and local, like the 1800s. Monopolies would be rare. Telecommunication companies have the government enabling their reign now, that luxury goes away.

                        I wouldn't be sad if there wasn't a state tomorrow, but I think there's a transition period that we're slowly implementing now. it's not overnight unless there is a financial collapse or natural disaster. Be prepared either way.
                        What's wrong with fiat money? If the rest of the world uses it, we'll be left behind while using gold. The other main problem is the growing population. If there is x amount of gold, and the population goes, everyone gets a little poorer. Backed currencies work best in stable environments where everyone agrees to them. I have to read more on this topic too.

                        Originally posted by Mr.Perfidy View Post
                        So many an-caps and libertarians here! (and whatever rojo is?)

                        So, I try and have this argument on ron paul forums, and it usually ends with me being banned.

                        Philosophically, ethically whatever- I am a free market enthusiast. Voluntary exchange is the only real good social force that leads to innovation, inclusion, understanding, cultural fusion, etc etc. It breaks down barriers of ignorance and ethnic hostility. It frees people from subordinated drudgery.

                        Buuuuut

                        the present "free market people" (the ron paul people, the libertarians, to a much lesser and more bastardized extent, the right-wing conservatives) are always talking about how regulations negatively affect free economic development.

                        True.

                        On a conceptual level and shit. Then they go and actually advocate deregulation, like once the State is out of the way, the market forces will just work toward human freedom.

                        Buuuut- all of the land is already owned by the coercion profiteers. All of the means-of-production are in the hands of the powers behind the state.
                        You make a decent point because you admit that the government currently protects the average man from being squashed like a bug by the ultra rich. I said in the other thread this same thing... the 99% protected from the 1%.

                        The only wrong assumption you make is that coercion would just end if we gave everyone some land, a prize cow, and a box of chocolates. It doesn't work that way because coercion will always rise, just like the sun. That's one reason government will always be needed to be there.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by ssn679doc View Post
                          I wonder, after reading this, if you have ever read anything of substance by any of the Austrian School economists, in particular von Mises or Murray Rothbard. If you haven't read their writing, how can you claim they have no ideas?
                          I didn't say that. People that claim to be totally counter-culture are either wrong or not all that counter-culture. That's the general rule of thumb that is hardly ever broken.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by wiltondeportes View Post
                            But the libertarians and anarchists here are such idealists that they have no ideas.
                            So, again I ask my question, if you have not read their material, how can you say they have no ideas?

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by ssn679doc View Post
                              So, again I ask my question, if you have not read their material, how can you say they have no ideas?
                              Not again, sir, you asked about well-known academia in your previous post.

                              I have asked again and again for ideas from people on here. They're either really bad or non-existent. Same thing...

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by wiltondeportes View Post
                                Not again, sir, you asked about well-known academia in your previous post.

                                I have asked again and again for ideas from people on here. They're either really bad or non-existent. Same thing...
                                I asked if you had read their work, and surmised you had not from your reply to me. Apparently you don't wish to discuss different schools of thought.

                                Thoughts non-existenet? Not really.... many people have ideas about economics and haven't the foggiest idea as to the foundation of their belief.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X