Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Okay, obviously a few right wingers were completely confused by what I was trying to ask so I'm going to reframe the question:
Why can't the options of Capitalism and obtaining the resources we need directly from our environment without a middleman, exist side by side?
Some in this thread have claimed I am free to pursue this life style but that is not entirely true.
Capitalism and industrialization puts obstacles up against supporting oneself.
1. Laws that favor and require participation in and compliance to a monetary system.
and
2. Destruction and control of the natural environment upon which a non monetary .
If you want to engage in Capitalism, the exchange of labor and industrialization, fine.
But you should do so only in a manner that preserves the integrity of the natural environment so others have the clean option to engage in a alternate survival model.
Otherwise, you are admitting that capitalism and preservation of the natural environment do not go hand in hand.
Why can't the requirements of both options be respected?
Why does capitalism have to impose, in its sloppy way of wrecking the environment and eco-systems, on other non monetary living models?
Let's not engage in an argument over which living model promoted wars and which promoted life.
We still fight wars today even though land rights are supposed to be respected. We fight wars over oil and access to resources and even access to markets. So let's not go back and forth over which system produces more violence. Native Americans could and were just as likely to not engage in war as we are today.
The point is why can't both options coexist without one imposing on the other?
If you want to sell your labor to someone else and have all the implements of industrialized society, fine. Just don't destroy my option to live a life more rooted to the earth as long as neither of us are wrecking the environment.
I thought I answered that and BTW, I am not even close to a right winger. Why does everything have to fit in a neat little box for everyone?
Okay, obviously a few right wingers were completely confused by what I was trying to ask so I'm going to reframe the question:
Why can't the options of Capitalism and obtaining the resources we need directly from our environment without a middleman, exist side by side?
Some in this thread have claimed I am free to pursue this life style but that is not entirely true.
Capitalism and industrialization puts obstacles up against supporting oneself.
1. Laws that favor and require participation in and compliance to a monetary system.
and
2. Destruction and control of the natural environment upon which a non monetary .
If you want to engage in Capitalism, the exchange of labor and industrialization, fine.
But you should do so only in a manner that preserves the integrity of the natural environment so others have the clean option to engage in a alternate survival model.
Otherwise, you are admitting that capitalism and preservation of the natural environment do not go hand in hand.
Why can't the requirements of both options be respected?
Why does capitalism have to impose, in its sloppy way of wrecking the environment and eco-systems, on other non monetary living models?
Let's not engage in an argument over which living model promoted wars and which promoted life.
We still fight wars today even though land rights are supposed to be respected. We fight wars over oil and access to resources and even access to markets. So let's not go back and forth over which system produces more violence. Native Americans could and were just as likely to not engage in war as we are today.
The point is why can't both options coexist without one imposing on the other?
It just doesn't work that way. How would you obtain your land that is for sale? Steal it? Squat on it? Someone owns it already. Wherever there is land that isn't owned yet in a civilized area is most likely because it is protected land and you couldn't even live there like you want to according to the law. The only way to do what you want to do is to do what Grizzly Adams did and move deep into the mountains and build yourself a log cabin.
It just doesn't work that way. How would you obtain your land that is for sale? Steal it? Squat on it? Someone owns it already. Wherever there is land that isn't owned yet in a civilized area is most likely because it is protected land and you couldn't even live there like you want to according to the law. The only way to do what you want to do is to do what Grizzly Adams did and move deep into the mountains and build yourself a log cabin.
If we had a land tax we would see land hording end and more land available for squatters.
It just doesn't work that way. How would you obtain your land that is for sale? Steal it? Squat on it? Someone owns it already. Wherever there is land that isn't owned yet in a civilized area is most likely because it is protected land and you couldn't even live there like you want to according to the law. The only way to do what you want to do is to do what Grizzly Adams did and move deep into the mountains and build yourself a log cabin.
okay then so you admit capitalism does not go hand in hand with preserving the natural environment and it will not peacefully coexist, all things being equal, with any non-violent living models?
okay then so you admit capitalism does not go hand in hand with preserving the natural environment and it will not peacefully coexist, all things being equal, with any non-violent living models?
Why are you hiding your anarcho-communist views behind the preserving the natural environment facade?
I thought I answered that and BTW, I am not even close to a right winger. Why does everything have to fit in a neat little box for everyone?
and btw, how is industrialization, not wrecking the environment, on the one hand, and, simultaneously, imposing laws that require participation in the monetary system to "protect the environment" from lower tech living models?
Some say I'm free to pursue this living model but it seems the modern world is imposing restrictions from two directions at once.
Capitalism and industrialization puts obstacles up against supporting oneself.
1. Laws that favor and require participation in and compliance to a monetary system.
I actually agree with the first one. Legal tender laws are nothing new; they've been around since.... the Romans? I think that things like metal coins are a far more desirable currency, as they have inherent value (i.e. they can be melted down and made into stuff). If someone were to offer you a piece of gold vs a piece of paper, you'd take the gold any day. Suddenly, when the government puts its seal on the paper it's somehow worth more? Wouldn't it make more sense to allow the market to choose the best currency?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shankapotomus
2. Destruction and control of the natural environment upon which a non monetary.
Who says that the government is a better steward of the environment than individuals? The most environmentally devastated countries in the world have socialist governments. For example, the USSR and China. If something it owned by everyone, it's also owned by no-one. Individual owners have a bigger incentive to defend their property from pollution than governments do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shankapotomus
We still fight wars today even though land rights are supposed to be respected. We fight wars over oil and access to resources and even access to markets. So let's not go back and forth over which system produces more violence. Native Americans could and were just as likely to not engage in war as we are today.
The point is why can't both options coexist without one imposing on the other?
Yes, people still fight wars. However, my perspective upon reading a bit of history is that every war that I've come across has been fought for nationalistic reasons. Free individuals don't go to war (except maybe the Clantons & Earps). Governments looking to expand nationalized industries or their area of influence, however, do.
Per your original post, no government will allow you to purchase sovereign rights to property anywhere in the world. It's all been claimed and is defended with big guns - the ultimate government monopoly. So, you can't live outside of society because society won't let you. This has been true for quite some time.
It is true, however, that you could live as a hermit outside of the law off in some mountain somewhere and not participate in society. But, who really wants to do that? Who wants to be an outlaw squatting on land that's already been claimed by some government far away from the rest of society?
The reality of the situation is the establishment of private property draws a line between the things on earth that I may do with as I wish and the things that I may not. I may not chop down the trees or build a farm on someone else's land. In order to do those things, I need to acquire the property first. Land is a scarce resource and the most fair distribution of this resource is through an exchange between a willing buyer and a willing seller.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
