Page 5 of 24 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 238

Thread: The Free Market page 5

  1. #41
    wiltondeportes's Avatar
    wiltondeportes Guest
    Shop Now
    Quote 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?

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.

  2. #42
    wiltondeportes's Avatar
    wiltondeportes Guest
    Quote 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.

  3. #43
    ssn679doc's Avatar
    ssn679doc is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    5,211
    Quote 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?

  4. #44
    wiltondeportes's Avatar
    wiltondeportes Guest
    Quote 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...

  5. #45
    ssn679doc's Avatar
    ssn679doc is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    5,211
    Quote 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.

  6. #46
    Derpamix's Avatar
    Derpamix is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    5,370
    Quote Originally Posted by wiltondeportes View Post
    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.
    The same way you'd prevent a thief from mugging you? It's only now that the current election is trying to push for "tools of murder" to be off civilian streets, yet routinely occupy civilian streets with tanks in foreign countries. Like the war on drugs, their policies on firearms literally only empowers criminals. Which is exactly what they are.

    I should note, without hierarchy, the need and drive to steal greatly diminishes.
    Last edited by Derpamix; 09-19-2013 at 08:36 AM.
    nihil

  7. #47
    j3nn's Avatar
    j3nn is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Hudson Valley, NY
    Posts
    4,011
    Quote Originally Posted by wiltondeportes View Post
    We are light years from printing houses being a practical business. 3D printing is great hypothetically but quite impractical for many purposes right now.
    LOL, you probably would have tried to save the horse and buggy industry because you would have thought affordable automobiles for everyone is unrealistic and "light years" away.

    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.
    Gold isn't the only thing with intrinsic value, it's just popular because it's rare and people like shiny shit. It can be virtually anything. Fiat currency is backed by nothing and causes booms and busts and is susceptible to manipulation by the few that control it. I think at the very least there should be competing currencies. Let the people decide which currency they want to use, or if they don't want to use any at all.
    | My (food) Blog | Follow me on Facebook | Pinterest | Twitter |

    “It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” - Samuel Adams

  8. #48
    Mr.Perfidy's Avatar
    Mr.Perfidy is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    1,523
    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.
    Why should the "inevitability" of coercion (untrue anyway- it is a predictable outcome of trauma- anything that can be understood can be altered)
    necessarily mean that there should be one class of people that we pretend is sanctioned to derive its income from it? Yes- there will always be an impulse toward knocking someone to the ground and taking what you want from them...No- that impulse is not the only means of organizing human society.

    you are getting really ridiculous dude. You sound more bitter and disassociative every day.
    "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"

  9. #49
    Derpamix's Avatar
    Derpamix is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    5,370
    It's like he ignores the fact that coercion goes on in his every day life, and says one ideology is stupid because coercion "is going to", or "probably" would happen, and the largest source of coercion is necessary to prevent coercion? I honestly haven't been able to follow his circular logic for a long time now.
    nihil

  10. #50
    j3nn's Avatar
    j3nn is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Hudson Valley, NY
    Posts
    4,011
    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification
    Humans should be encouraged to protect their property (their body). Coercion would then become extremely unpopular and used much less if people were not presumed to be desperate and gullible fish in a barrel. The problem now is that people have been molded into being naive and vulnerable to manipulation. This is where the spoils of civilization come in. So long as people are pacified with what they perceive to be security, they have no reason to resist tyranny because they don't even recognize it.
    | My (food) Blog | Follow me on Facebook | Pinterest | Twitter |

    “It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” - Samuel Adams

Page 5 of 24 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •