Why do Americans fear privatization so much? (enemies, revolution, fence)
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.
If nothing else, the gov't "owns" the access to your land which is why China can't just come in and steal your house. You have no power to stop another country from stealing your house and possessions.
No, I can defend it myself or outsource if I choose to do so. I actually can't right now since the state will punish any competing organization who tries to do that, but in a true free market/privatized world I could do it.
Quote:
The gov't is absolutely a real entity, which is why we don't pay taxes to Barack Obama or Paul Ryan.
Can you point out specifically who it is? It's not an actual thing, it's an idea. It's a person or group of people that are imagined to have the right to initiate force within a geographic area. The IRS is a group of agents that enforce taxation for politicians. They do the dirty work for the lawmakers, who make up the government...sort of.
Side note - watch "what is government?" on YouTube. I believe that's the title, but it's an animated thing where an alien comes to earth and asks a guy to describe what government is, but he really can't.
Quote:
You can't claim land b/c you have no force to back your claim to it. The gov't does, and that is what stops other gov't from rolling over your "property rights." Your "property rights" only exist under the security and stability that your gov't provides. And for that, your payment for those services is taxes.
So if a girl gets raped, her body wasn't really her property because she couldn't defend it herself? Or apply that logic to any material thing you own. Just because someone can successfully violate your property rights doesn't mean you're not the rightful owner.
Quote:
No, what that means is that you owe rent for claiming a slice of the property they already have. Does a landlord own his tenants furniture b/c he gets paid rent? No. But they own the property that their tenant's property is based in. If the tenant suddenly decide they're going to stop paying rent, the landlord has means of reclaiming the property that the tenant has been paying him for.
Your consent is that you live in this country. If you don't like the lease terms the gov't provides, move. You are free to go to a country that has terms you'd rather rent from. Just don't complain when the rent-free property you move to is dilapidated s#!thole.
That's the social contract theory and it's false. I never entered any agreement. If I own my property, I shouldn't be the one forced to leave if they try to impose their opinions on me. Even moving requires paying the state an expat fee, and I have to be accepted into another state that I don't consent to. If you say "go live in the woods" or something, running isn't freedom. Hiding from the state doesn't mean you're free from them.
See my other response about the state not being a legitimate owner of anything within its borders...
See me reject it every time.
Quote:
It isn't an Achilles heel at all.
'Tis
Quote:
Most have a skewed view of property because they're beginning with the assumption that the state has a legitimate claim over it. Individual people own things, and if you are the true owner, nobody else can rightfully overrule your claim to it.
OK. I own Waikiki beach. Its mine. Ever been there? You owe me.
Quote:
Your car is yours.
I can't overrule your decision if you don't want me to drive it to work or take it for a joyride. You have the final say because it's yours. Same goes for your body, or anything else.
Yes, because that is a product of human labour and the original owner of it agreed to alienate their rights over it.
If the state cannot own land then how can you?
The basic dilemma is there is no natural right of property of land based upon the creation of it. Its is always an act of claim. However there is also the problem of fixtures that create dependencies so we have to protect those rights. Property taxes are the best known way to fix this dilemma.
No, I can defend it myself or outsource if I choose to do so. I actually can't right now since the state will punish any competing organization who tries to do that, but in a true free market/privatized world I could do it.
Can you point out specifically who it is? It's not an actual thing, it's an idea. It's a person or group of people that are imagined to have the right to initiate force within a geographic area. The IRS is a group of agents that enforce taxation for politicians. They do the dirty work for the lawmakers, who make up the government...sort of.
Side note - watch "what is government?" on YouTube. I believe that's the title, but it's an animated thing where an alien comes to earth and asks a guy to describe what government is, but he really can't.
So if a girl gets raped, her body wasn't really her property because she couldn't defend it herself? Or apply that logic to any material thing you own. Just because someone can successfully violate your property rights doesn't mean you're not the rightful owner.
That's the social contract theory and it's false. I never entered any agreement. If I own my property, I shouldn't be the one forced to leave if they try to impose their opinions on me. Even moving requires paying the state an expat fee, and I have to be accepted into another state that I don't consent to. If you say "go live in the woods" or something, running isn't freedom. Hiding from the state doesn't mean you're free from them.
You own your property, or anything else really, only because the legal agreements, enforcement and protections created by the government allow you to do so without someone else coming along to forcefully take it. Your ability to own a house should not be limited to your ability to hire a private army to maintain that ownership. But if you think that's so then you are free to live-out your libertarian/sovereign citizen fantasies in one of the lovely places where that occurs.
OK. I own Waikiki beach. Its mine. Ever been there? You owe me.
Yes, because that is a product of human labour and the original owner of it agreed to alienate their rights over it.
If the state cannot own land then how can you?
The basic dilemma is there is no natural right of property of land based upon the creation of it. Its is always an act of claim. However there is also the problem of fixtures that create dependencies so we have to protect those rights. Property taxes are the best known way to fix this dilemma.
It's called homesteading...and your Waikiki beach example doesn't make sense. I specifically said you can't just arbitrarily claim something as your own. That's my whole argument against the state owning everything within its borders.
privatization is a simple means for a business owner to cost tax payers 20-100% more so they can make a profit. If we had single payer in Obama care it would reduce the costs 22-27%. The for profit model is not good for the state operations.
You own your property, or anything else really, only because the legal agreements, enforcement and protections created by the government allow you to do so without someone else coming along to forcefully take it. Your ability to own a house should not be limited to your ability to hire a private army to maintain that ownership. But if you think that's so then you are free to live-out your libertarian/sovereign citizen fantasies in one of the lovely places where that occurs.
I can't do this much longer...so many fallacies and Stockholm syndrome to deal with. Where are you No_Recess!? I need to tap out for now.
I'm forced into being "protected" by the state, and then told its only because of them that I have property rights...as they violate everyone's property rights. As if I had any choice...
It's called homesteading...and your Waikiki beach example doesn't make sense. I specifically said you can't just arbitrarily claim something as your own. That's my whole argument against the state owning everything within its borders.
Homesteading is typically done where raw land has no value. So its inapplicable to the reality of a progressive state. However again if you expect any assistance in defending it, don't ask the state.
No, I can defend it myself or outsource if I choose to do so. I actually can't right now since the state will punish any competing organization who tries to do that, but in a true free market/privatized world I could do it.
No you couldn't. You couldn't protect yourself from a group of neighbors, let alone another country. Thinking otherwise is either a delusion, or just a thought exercise
Quote:
Can you point out specifically who it is? It's not an actual thing, it's an idea. It's a person or group of people that are imagined to have the right to initiate force within a geographic area. The IRS is a group of agents that enforce taxation for politicians. They do the dirty work for the lawmakers, who make up the government...sort of.
Side note - watch "what is government?" on YouTube. I believe that's the title, but it's an animated thing where an alien comes to earth and asks a guy to describe what government is, but he really can't.
Then using your logic, a business isn't a real entity. The bank you have a mortgage with isn't a real entity, which would mean any claims you have to property that came from that mortgage is illegitimate.
Quote:
So if a girl gets raped, her body wasn't really her property because she couldn't defend it herself? Or apply that logic to any material thing you own. Just because someone can successfully violate your property rights doesn't mean you're not the rightful owner.
Under what rules are your claims to property more legitimate than the gov't?
Quote:
That's the social contract theory and it's false. I never entered any agreement. If I own my property, I shouldn't be the one forced to leave if they try to impose their opinions on me. Even moving requires paying the state an expat fee, and I have to be accepted into another state that I don't consent to. If you say "go live in the woods" or something, running isn't freedom. Hiding from the state doesn't mean you're free from them.
You entered into the agreement by the mere fact that you live here. If you break your lease, you have to pay a fee. If you want to move into another apartment, you have to pay the rent according to their terms. The gov't has the right to say that you owe them money to live in their territory. You have the right to refuse and leave the country. There are some unclaimed territories left in the world that are not under any gov't control. If you don't like the terms that gov't dictates, you're free to live there.
privatization is a simple means for a business owner to cost tax payers 20-100% more so they can make a profit. If we had single payer in Obama care it would reduce the costs 22-27%. The for profit model is not good for the state operations.
Do not lose sight of the fact that also makes it a private asset. It makes one more thing available to secure credit. Fiance is behind privatization with everything they have. Its not going to be run like a family business.
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.
