Yes, because government has been oh so effective at stopping it. Now if people had the proper means to defend themselves instead of relying on the same government that took away the right to self defense....
Governments = Useless? Always?
- Thread starter charlie.simm
- Start date
Yes, because government has been oh so effective at stopping it. Now if people had the proper means to defend themselves instead of relying on the same government that took away the right to self defense....
How would you know ahead of time what "certain purposes" the community might object to? It'd have to be me more open-ended than that... like, a majority of the community must approve it.
Furthermore, what if someone sells their property and writes up a new contract that doesn't include the provision? Perhaps the buyer is willing to pay more for that? Or perhaps a clause in the original contract could stipulate that the provision must be included in a new contract at the time of sale? Or, I suppose, the neighborhood could offer to pay the seller to include the provision. But again, most people are probably going to prefer a community government to enforce the rules, rather than opening their wallet every time it comes up.
who/wat's gonna protect you from the govt if you believe you need protection?
think ancient Rome for example, and you are a slave in those times.
to cut the crap ask the question in the thread title as if you are back then XXX B.C. for example and compare you answers
think ancient Rome for example, and you are a slave in those times.
to cut the crap ask the question in the thread title as if you are back then XXX B.C. for example and compare you answers
Why do I have to go out to sea?
Not what I am claiming.
So you're claiming the state owns everything and individuals own nothing? If so, you're making my case.
Can you define legitimate, and can you define state?
Based on your previous posts endorsing aggression endorsed by majority, I don't think we have the same definitions of either.
And yet you're the one tagging these threads with Guerilla is a troll.
I am doing it. You don't know me personally bro. Best not to personalize the discussion.
A handful of you guys decided to take up for the state, there are plenty of hardcore libertarians and anarchists on this forum, and we've been talking about this stuff for years. I'm not bitching about the state, just pointing out how irrational and immoral it is. Arguments which you and PseudoNym have avoided repeatedly.
How so? You're a Canadian. Anywhere you go in the world, the Canadian government claims the right to tax your income. How do you do it?
How do you smoke pot when it is illegal? How do you buy land without a lien against it?
Please, explain this. Millions of libertarians are waiting decades for these answers.
Why should I have to leave? Why can I not own property?
If the government represents me, why would I have to leave where I am? That doesn't make any sense, unless the relationship is that the government is greater than me, not my representative.
Why do you think there would be? I have already explained how incorporation is necessary, and incorporation is created by the government.
This is a strawman. Laws come from the market, not the government. No one is promoting a society without laws.
I could easily say you do not understand history, politics or economics. But then that wouldn't be very constructive to the discussion, would it?
Are you a capitalist? Because what you just described is a bad caricature of the economy, with the element of capitalism being the part you don't like.
Can you name two and explain how?
Again, are you a capitalist? Why is Walmart a cunt? They don't hurt anyone, they trade with millions of people a day, peacefully and voluntarily, their global reach helps develop poorer economies, and they produce lots of tax revenue and profit for their shareholders? What exactly has Walmart done that is so bad? Who have they hurt?
You're supposedly in business, but from my experience, no one who makes money talks the way you do about successful firms. There is a reason why WF and most successful people are overwhelming libertarian instead of anti-capitalist. The anti-capitalist mentality keeps people from being successful because it is a self-defeating pathology.
Minimum wage increases unemployment. Any price floor raises prices and higher prices reduces demand. That's economics 101.
Higher wages can only come from having higher productivity. A guy digging a ditch with a shovel is a lot less productive than a guy who operates a backhoe. Capital goods like backhoes help increase the productivity of workers, which as mentioned, raises their wages, because they can do more work in less time. There is a reason why the countries with the most capital have the highest wages. It's not because they have protectionist laws that help out special interest labor groups. Throughout history, capital has been the difference. Capital is profit, maintained as savings for investment. When you tax, you destroy capital.
You would do well if you intend to be successful at business to spend some time learning economics. It is hard to make money if you don't understand capital, profit, exchange, and prices.
You haven't responded to my substantive points, and now you're talking about me personally. Yet, you don't know me, how much money I make, what my plans are, or what I have done.
This is not the first time you have done this. It's really the refuge of a scoundrel, considering how many times you have avoided challenges on facts and claims.
I've already addressed the walking out the door (love it or leave it) argument above and earlier. It's an emotional appeal and anyone promoting it is implicitly admitting the state rules us, and doesn't represent us.
As far as sympathy, if I wanted it, which I do not, I would look for it from successful people.
And with that, I am out for the day to work on launching something very exciting. Looks like Hammi and Jared, among others, have you guys on the run anyhow. Plenty of capable thinkers on this forum.
The same reason that I would have to leave your property if I didn't agree with your rules and wanted to live by own.
I don't understand what you're claiming then. You've said:
Everyone already has their state-based societies. If you want to be left alone completely and be able to do what you want, not subject to any laws, you'll have to go someplace that isn't the territory of a state. The only place that is currently possible is the ocean beyond territorial waters.
The state has ultimate ownership of all land within its territory, yes. Individuals effectively purchase a limited right to use a piece of land within the state's territory. The state retains the authority to limit the use of the land, and the land and everyone in the jurisdiction of the state is subject to the state's authority. As long as you have the option of leaving at any time, you cannot claim equivalence to slavery.
You never gave a satisfactory (to me) solution to the problem of collective behaviors that result in damage to property (e.g., pollution). Your answer of simply "property rights" isn't adequate to address the problem. Pollution has real effects on people and property, and in many cases it can't be traced to a single source.
Take acid rain, for example. It has very real, measurable effects that damages property. It makes lakes too acidic to sustain life, kills trees, peels paint, ruins limestone and marble. But the pollution that causes acid rain can travel hundreds of miles from the source. It's obvious that if you pollute, you're contributing to the damage.
Can you show that this type of damage can be prevented without regulation?
Here's a Rothbard quote:
Polluting is an act of aggression against people and property. If you pollute, you are contributing to the aggression. Therefore, it is justifiable to use force against the polluters to prevent aggression. The fact that a direct causal link between the polluting act of a single person, and the damage caused by that same type of pollution cannot be proven, is irrelevant. If you contribute to a problem, you are guilty.
What is the source of their ownership of the property? Is it "just how things are done" or did they actually come to possess that claim in some legitimate way? I actually don't know the answer to this offhand and would be interested in seeing what you could dig up on the subject.
These days you can't leave the US at anytime. They charge a fee to renounce citizenship. They used to try and tax people for 10 years after the date they gave up their citizenship.
Nobody is arguing you cant use some form of force to stop polluters. The argument is that the state is not required, and actually makes the problem worse by blocking attempts to use force to compel polluters to pay for their misdeeds. A huge amount of legislation these days is written by people with ties to the industries that are supposed to be regulated. The polluters are using your desire for social justice to protect themselves from being regulated by the market, and to protect themselves from competitors.
Why isn't working to change the state from within an option? Why should I have to leave?
If that is the case then we do not live in a representative government as is claimed by most. And if we don't have a representative government, what do we have? What are you in the eyes of the state if you don't have the right to own property? Will the phrase indentured servitude work for you?
You deal with pollution like you would with any form of aggression. In a truly free market, how long do you think a business would last if it was polluting the lands of the very people it depends on for business, and in effect, it's survival? Would you patronize a business that disrespected your property rights?
This. The government's solution is to simply fine a polluter, which for most companies is often cheaper than the alternative. The very government you support is most often the perpetrator of the offenses you seem to so despise.
Read up on eminent domain.
A $450 fee instituted last year, apparently. Yes, this doesn't make it "free," so you could argue that you have to "buy" your freedom, I suppose. On the other hand, practically speaking, if you're seriously considering renouncing your citizenship, $450 isn't a big deal. In principle, I don't agree with it though.
Seems to me the argument being made is that some causal link must be shown between the act of a polluter and the harm to a person's property.
Debating whether the state or a private agency is better suited to stopping pollution is a different issue. One thing that stands in the way of a private agency enforcing pollution control is that they lack any authority to enter private property where it's possible to directly measure pollution output before it's dispersed into the environment. The state has that authority.
I agree that lobbyists and private interests have too much influence over the law making process. A lot of people would like to see that influence greatly reduced. It's up to the voters to demand it.
It's not as if government is completely in the pockets of big corporations, however. There are plenty of regulations that do make a difference and do save lives. Sometimes corporations may be willing to change to less harmful processes/products that increase their costs, but only if their competitors are forced to go along with it as well. Companies typically aren't going to do things on their own that give them a competitive disadvantage.
You can do that if you want. But if your goal is to actually live free of government, you know, sometime in your lifetime, that's probably not going to achieve what you want. But sure, do what you want.
How are eminent domain and representative government mutually exclusive?
You have the right to own property, but the state reserves the right to take it away under certain conditions.
Would I patronize a business that made its products in a factory in a different region where I would not feel the effects of the pollution created? Would I even be aware that it was polluting? Often, the polluted aren't the customer of the polluter. What then?
The government makes an awful lot of regulations that require monitoring and limiting output, installation of safety devices, proper handling and disposal, etc. If it's cheaper for the offender to pay fines for not complying, then the government needs to raise the fines or disallow their operating permit.
What is the source of legitimacy of eminent domain? The fact that the state has claimed it for generations, but that does not make them right.
The people whose property was destroyed in that region have a right to damages. A state is not needed to enforce this.
In time these safety features will come from the market. Instead we have laws that sometimes have a beneficial result, but always erode your right as an individual to control your own destiny, and always have many other side effects that hurt people and businesses.
So who owns the state as property then?
Who is the state? How did they come to own the territory?
Also, are you claiming that it is not possible for an individual to own any land and we are all basically renters?
Again, who then is the landlord?
You still haven't established how the state owns everything and I own nothing, and the state is able to own something, without us knowing who the state is.
There is no such thing as collective behavior. There is only individual behavior that can be grouped similarly. Groups as it is, don't exist except as abstractions.
Assertion without proof.
I've already knocked down the latter portion twice. Why keep repeating something fallacious?
If you can't find the source of pollution, then how do you intend to regulate? Where will you put regulations if you don't know where the sources are?
If we're going to keep debating, please stop assuming the answer to your questions. It's super unproductive.
Sure, property rights. Already covered that mate.
It is sort of a bad joke for you to source Rothbard, while denying individual liberty, human rights, and property.
This is a non sequitur. You started off so well.
If you can't prove explicit harm, and you use force, you are the aggressor. There is a reason why we have a burden of proof in our justice systems. The presumption of innocence is necessary to protect people from being wrongfully accused (and apparently violently punished by you) and to avoid having to prove a negative.
Here is an illustration.
Claim: PseudoNym is molesting small children.
Now prove you didn't.
You can't in a system where people are presumed guilty.
You're quite the interesting case study in intellectual thought my friend. I'm not sure there is even a term for the sort of [sic] argumentation you're pursuing.
I know what eminent domain is. Are you claiming that the state has the right to take our property because they claim they have the right of eminent domain?
I'm not tagging anything.
Nope, that's just you Americans who get fucked on that one. I'm Canadian, so I simply have to prove to the government that I don't own a residence in Canada, and was outside of the country over 65% of the year.
Not sure how it is in the US, but in Canada at least, the cops don't generally care unless you're selling. Back in my younger days when I actually smoked pot, we never gave a single thought to the cops. I was caught several times with pot, and the cops never once did anything.
Because it's a small world, and all the land is already spoken for, basically. You can easily own land though. Granted, you'll have to pay property tax, but on the flip side, I'm assuming you don't want to put a raging forest fire out yourself.
Incorporation is by no means necessary to establish a wealthy, lucrative, and world-wide organization. Take the various mafias around the world, for example.
I believe everyone deserves a fair shake in life. 30 or 40 years ago, anyone willing to work hard could start a good farm, local hardware store, or whatever, and be able to provide a good life for their family. Doesn't work like that anymore.
Sorry, I meant Nigeria, not Somalia. Oil companies are robbing the people blind of their oil, for one example.
I'm no econimist, but decreasing the purchasing power of the middle class also increases unemployment. Which hurts the economy more in the long-run?
College Conspiracy, but at the end, it talks about how it all links up to the economy. Really interesting and true that not many really realise.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpZtX32sKVE]College Conspiracy - YouTube[/ame]
There's so many videos I can post up on conspiracy. Most of which make lots of sense. Those who don't believe it are probably brainwashed beyond belief.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpZtX32sKVE]College Conspiracy - YouTube[/ame]
There's so many videos I can post up on conspiracy. Most of which make lots of sense. Those who don't believe it are probably brainwashed beyond belief.
Moving out to sea certainly won't achieve these goals either.
How is this in any way shape or form considered ownership? Essentially you're just renting it until the government deems it useful to their own ends.
How is this any different from insurance? How is it any difference from putting a private firefighting business on retainer? Who would have more of an interest in protecting your property from a fire; The government, who essentially answers to no one, or the private enterprise who's very livelihood depends on providing a quality service? Most ambulance services in major metropolitan areas are private companies.
Who gets to decide what is considered fair? Anyone can still own a business. In the time I've been on these boards I've seen many members up and start their own. Ranging from networks to SEO services. The only change is the medium.
Who is allowing this to happen? The government of Nigeria.
I would actually argue the government has more of an incentive to get that fire out for a whole host of reasons I don't feel like writing down. That's their natural resources burning, and their constituents losing their homes.
That, and the government is simply far better equipped to handle things like a forest fire. What happens if you're in a rural part of the country, and your private firefighting company only has 1 helicopter and 20 employees? You're fucked.
I see what you mean, and definitely agree. I just released my software a few months ago, and am quite happy with how things are going. Nothing to be overly excited about, but decent coin, constant growth, etc. These are all small businesses though, and the internet is an excellent medium for allowing this.
What I meant though, is talk to any of the thousands of livelihoods who have been destroyed because a Walmart moved into their town. Thing is, there's nothing wrong with what Walmart is doing. They're simply expanding their business, even though it does come at the cost of many, many livelihoods. The real problem comes in when companies like this get so large, they have more power in the world than many governments, hence end up overriding the will of the voters in that country.
What??? You're blaming the government for the actions of big business? There's no logic there. So you're saying if Nigeria didn't have a government, ExxonMobil wouldn't currently be operating within the country, paying a mere pittance for an abundance of oil?
...and so on. Legitimate just means lawful. That law has been around since the founding of the country. It's lawful because the laws of a country apply to the territory of a country.
You can't prove a direct causal link. I can't prove that a particle of pollution that came from you damaged me, but I can prove pollution in general damaged me.
Every citizen is a shareholder in the state.
It's not a who. You want a definition, help yourself.
Lots of ways. Conquest, original claim, purchase.
You own it as long as the state doesn't see a need to remove it from you. That might not fit your definition of ownership though.
The state.
A collection of things (individuals) behaving similarly. A collective behavior.
"Individual behavior that can be grouped similarly" is the definition of collective behavior.
You can find the sources of pollution. It's at every tailpipe, every smokestack, every drainage pipe. But you can't necessarily find the source if you have no authority to enter property to look for it. You also can't always prove direct causality.
So if my paint peels due to acid rain, who do I go after pay for my damages? Really, who? The polluter? It's everyone.
I don't deny any of that. I just disagree with your viewpoint on it. I think private property denies people access to and travel through the land, which I feel is wrong. Not that anyone should be able to enter anyone's property at any time, but that "ownership" by individuals of land by individuals be subject to some consideration for humans, as creatures of nature, be allowed some access to our natural environment. This is an intuitive sense for me, and something I feel pretty strongly about. When I go into the woods and see 'private property - no trespassing' signs, or I'm walking on the beach and come to a private section of beach, it upsets me. No one would stop an animal from going where it pleases, why should I be stopped? Make whatever 'tragedy of the commons' argument you want, it's a position that I intuitively feel is right. IMO, as long as you treat the land, and the current "owners" or designated users of the land with respect, you should be able to go and do as you please.
And therein lies the problem. In the case of pollution, harm can be proven. But you cannot prove who exactly did it. You know A causes B, you know X is doing A, but you cannot prove X is directly responsible for B. It is however, highly likely, that X contributes to B to some degree. Therefore I contend that X shares responsibility for B, and that regulation is then justifiable.
I won't make a claim here one way or another.
Better tell that to the Paypal guy before he wastes a lot of his money.
It's like a contractually limited ownership. It's yours, but not yours to do whatever you want with for all time. It's mandatory and implicit though, so feel free to complain about that. That's just a trade off of living within the territory of a state. What you do is governed by its laws.
What happens when a hurricane destroys your city and the very institutions that you were relying on, put in place by the government, completely fail? In a time of emergency, who would you want to come to your aid; FEMA or the Red Cross?
First, one can easily argue that Wally World has done just as much good as harm, if not more. 2,000,000 people on payroll.
Second, these are the demands of the market. Wal-mart shows up and says what it has to offer. The people of that market area can easily say "no, we don't want you here" and some have. But if Wal-mart does manage to successfully take up roots in a new location, whose to say that is a bad thing? Obviously the people of that area wanted a Wal-Mart or else it wouldn't succeed.
Capitalism is a Darwinian exercise. You adapt or die. It would be foolish to think that you can open up a business and expect all aspects of it to stay the same. You will have competition, some of which will be better than you. What are your options? You can innovate, becoming better at what you do. You can give up. You can also move to a new industry. You're not the only Blog management company out there. If someone started poaching your customers are you just going to give up or are you going to adapt and overcome?
If anything this is a testament to why government has failed. There are many instances where the people of a town did not want a Wal-Mart to be built and yet the government granted permission any way. If the government had not gotten involved would the store still have been built? You keep thinking of government as this nessecary middle man between the consumer and producer. Government doesn't need to be there. I hate to do this...but:
No. There is a common theme in this thread that if government were not in place, big business would just ride roughshod over all of us. Well your Nigeria example shows how big business is riding roughshod over a people with the government being complacent.
I was thinking you meant just me, myself, and I heading out to sea. I'm very interested to see if his experiment pans out.
And that's the problem I have. My property should be my property. I should be able to do what I want with it so long as it doesn't infringe on another persons rights.