Views of Libertarians (salary, violent crime, violent, how much)
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.
What happens if I peacefully disagree? Gulag? Water torture?
How?
If you can’t own private property where would the profit motive be to accumulate capital (as you wouldn’t be able to accumulate capital in the first place).
If you can’t own private property where would the profit motive be to accumulate capital (as you wouldn’t be able to accumulate capital in the first place).
If there is no ownership of property, no profit, and accumulation of capital of any kind is forbidden, why would anyone do anything more than subsistence labor? It has no benefit whatsoever for the individual. It would literally be a "man on deserted island" society, where each person begins every single day with today's quest for basic survival.
You know how I can predict that so easily It's what happens when under whatever ideological banner, a government outlaws private property, profit and the accumulation of capital. USSR in the past, Venezuela in the present...both fine examples of what happens when people are told they can no longer profit from their labor. Nobody does anything basic survival, until a gun is put in their face and they are forced to.
If there is no ownership of property, no profit, and accumulation of capital of any kind is forbidden, why would anyone do anything more than subsistence labor? It has no benefit whatsoever for the individual. It would literally be a "man on deserted island" society, where each person begins every single day with today's quest for basic survival.
You know how I can predict that so easily It's what happens when under whatever ideological banner, a government outlaws private property, profit and the accumulation of capital. USSR in the past, Venezuela in the present...both fine examples of what happens when people are told they can no longer profit from their labor. Nobody does anything basic survival, until a gun is put in their face and they are forced to.
I've already been down that road with that poster. Be prepared for unicorns, bunnies, and butterflies.
If there is no ownership of property, no profit, and accumulation of capital of any kind is forbidden, why would anyone do anything more than subsistence labor? It has no benefit whatsoever for the individual. It would literally be a "man on deserted island" society, where each person begins every single day with today's quest for basic survival.
You know how I can predict that so easily It's what happens when under whatever ideological banner, a government outlaws private property, profit and the accumulation of capital. USSR in the past, Venezuela in the present...both fine examples of what happens when people are told they can no longer profit from their labor. Nobody does anything basic survival, until a gun is put in their face and they are forced to.
1. Accumulation of wealth regulated by ones capacity to store and consume, so there is no authority to stop one from collecting more. But when it comes to questions of ownership of production, land, and labor no one has the power or authority to control and regulate the economic activity of others.
For larger necessary production, people will have to work cooperatively eliminating the nature of labor as a commodity and profit determining access to freedom.
Capitalism could still be practiced, but the owners of the production will be shared by all those who operate that production, and requires their constant consent.
2. It's the other-way around, you need the state to defend private property, without it people are only left with personal property.
1. Accumulation of wealth regulated by ones capacity to store and consume, so there is no authority to stop one from collecting more. But when it comes to questions of ownership of production, land, and labor no one has the power or authority to control and regulate the economic activity of others.
For larger necessary production, people will have to work cooperatively eliminating the nature of labor as a commodity and profit determining access to freedom.
Capitalism could still be practiced, but the owners of the production will be shared by all those who operate that production, and requires their constant consent.
2. It's the other-way around, you need the state to defend private property, without it people are only left with personal property.
On 1 suppose I own a lathe, can I rent it out? If not isn't that regulating my economic activity? If so, then am I not holding power and authority over those who could use that lathe, but either a) can't afford the rent, or b) I refuse to rent it to them?
On 2, could you explain to me, in a simple cogent sentence, how ownership of property real, tangible and intangible personal property functioned prior to the establishment of a formalized state? Further can you explain to me why a state is necessary, and why a formal arbitration panel could not function in this capacity?
On 1 suppose I own a lathe, can I rent it out? If not isn't that regulating my economic activity? If so, then am I not holding power and authority over those who could use that lathe, but either a) can't afford the rent, or b) I refuse to rent it to them?
On 2, could you explain to me, in a simple cogent sentence, how ownership of property real, tangible and intangible personal property functioned prior to the establishment of a formalized state? Further can you explain to me why a state is necessary, and why a formal arbitration panel could not function in this capacity?
1. Rent is a question of ownership beyond operation, and valued as capital is valued. Without stored numerical value in housing, there would be no point in renting out a house.
But say you wanted to allow someone to live in your house with you, that's fine; but once they are living there you have no authority to charge them as they have equal ownership of the house by nature of them living there.
But if you can get someone to pay you for living with yourself, that is fine. In the case of renting out vacant homes, that is impossible because vacant housing can't be 'owned'. But hypothetically someone could live there and pay you, but there would be no reason to do that.
2. Neanderthals and tribal societies owned what they used (food, fruit, some housing they lived in, a cave they stayed in, or some tools they used), and when it came for larger production needs of the community, they would pool there resources together and shared the output.
Without legal acknowledgment, there is little way to prove or protect your claim. In a market system (that requires state authority) to purchase property on the other side of the country (for example) that you never visit the only proof of ownership is contractual. Force therefore is required to retain that state of vacancy to stop anyone else from settling there.
The same thing can be applied to the means of production like factories, the owners are the people who operate it, not the ones with a piece of paper.
1. Rent is a question of ownership beyond operation, and valued as capital is valued. Without stored numerical value in housing, there would be no point in renting out a house.
But say you wanted to allow someone to live in your house with you, that's fine; but once they are living there you have no authority to charge them as they have equal ownership of the house by nature of them living there.
But if you can get someone to pay you for living with yourself, that is fine. In the case of renting out vacant homes, that is impossible because vacant housing can't be 'owned'. But hypothetically someone could live there and pay you, but there would be no reason to do that.
2. Neanderthals and tribal societies owned what they used (food, fruit, some housing they lived in, a cave they stayed in, or some tools they used), and when it came for larger production needs of the community, they would pool there resources together and shared the output.
Without legal acknowledgment, there is little way to prove or protect your claim. In a market system (that requires state authority) to purchase property on the other side of the country (for example) that you never visit the only proof of ownership is contractual. Force therefore is required to retain that state of vacancy to stop anyone else from settling there.
The same thing can be applied to the means of production like factories, the owners are the people who operate it, not the ones with a piece of paper.
Forget housing, the question isn't about housing, thats called deflecting.it's about an expensive piece of precision machinery. One that normally cannot be bought without significant investment, thus the need to recoup initial investment cost. Hence why I used it as an example. You've failed to answer the question.
I'm not discussing Homo Neanderthalis, but Homo Sapiens. Who not only owned stuff, but bought and sold it, either with trade or currency (currency predates the formal state by hundreds of years), with currency you can easily retain wealth, thus capital. So no you can't explain in one sentence how ownership of property real tangible and intangible worked without resorting to an entirely different species and even then ignoring early human property ownership.
You say a market needs state authority, do you have evidence of the claim? Markets of one sort or another have existed from family clans and tribal days of humans, which state authority provided that need? None. So how does a market need state authority? Please explain the existence and success of black markets trading in prohibited goods and services entirely in opposition to state authority.
What is legal authority, other than an agreement that a group of people may decide the outcome of a dispute? Even now people will state they do not recognize the authority of the court, with a state, the state just tells them to shut up and deal.
Forget housing, the question isn't about housing, thats called deflecting.it's about an expensive piece of precision machinery. One that normally cannot be bought without significant investment, thus the need to recoup initial investment cost. Hence why I used it as an example. You've failed to answer the question.
I'm not discussing Homo Neanderthalis, but Homo Sapiens. Who not only owned stuff, but bought and sold it, either with trade or currency (currency predates the formal state by hundreds of years), with currency you can easily retain wealth, thus capital. So no you can't explain in one sentence how ownership of property real tangible and intangible worked without resorting to an entirely different species and even then ignoring early human property ownership.
You say a market needs state authority, do you have evidence of the claim? Markets of one sort or another have existed from family clans and tribal days of humans, which state authority provided that need? None. So how does a market need state authority? Please explain the existence and success of black markets trading in prohibited goods and services entirely in opposition to state authority.
What is legal authority, other than an agreement that a group of people may decide the outcome of a dispute? Even now people will state they do not recognize the authority of the court, with a state, the state just tells them to shut up and deal.
Yes, homo-sapiens owned personal property that they traded and bartered with, that has no reflection on the modern day industrial capitalism we are talking about.
Housing was an example, ownership of private capital has allowed the markets to be controlled by those who relegate production centers with ownership claims.
Markets have existed, but those are separate to the 'free' markets you are discussing. Capital value is controlled by who owns them in your system, and who owns the tools of investment.
Money no longer is just used as a means of trade, but a mean to ascertain value onto capital which is used to store wealth. The state is needed to protect claims on these private capitals that exist beyond personal property and offer a pricing currency that can ascertain value onto capital.
The rest is in my post and it uses housing as an example, not the exception.
Libertarians just want chaos they want people to do wahtever they want. They believe in anarchy, no thank you!
libertarianism or anarcho capitalism doesn't mean chaos,people doing whatever they want or a lack of rules. It is the respect of private property and not aggressing against others. Why would that be a problem for you?
Yes, homo-sapiens owned personal property that they traded and bartered with, that has no reflection on the modern day industrial capitalism we are talking about.
What's the difference? How is me owning say 50,000 shares of Apple different from 500,000 bushels or corn?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
Housing was an example, ownership of private capital has allowed the markets to be controlled by those who relegate production centers with ownership claims.
You keep saying this, but here's a question, not being a neo-Luddite. How will your society develop a $5B equivalent technology center, when there is no ownership? Why should I provide you with my meager capital, when I get at best only what I give back? Where is the profit? If I keep my capital, I have it, if I give it to you, you have it, with a nebulous promise that I may someday regain it, and only it, or maybe not even that. So what is my motivation? A warm feeling? How does doing this improve my existence?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
Markets have existed, but those are separate to the 'free' markets you are discussing. Capital value is controlled by who owns them in your system, and who owns the tools of investment.
And as I discussed above, in your system there is no investment because there is no incentive to invest. Further you completely sidestepped black markets, and the role of the state. It's a tricky one that one isn't it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
Money no longer is just used as a means of trade, but a mean to ascertain value onto capital which is used to store wealth. The state is needed to protect claims on these private capitals that exist beyond personal property and offer a pricing currency that can ascertain value onto capital.
Money was never used as just a means if trade, but also a means of valuation, which is why it works how it does. If a TV costs $400 that's how much value the seller measures it as, if you think it's worth $200 you're not going to pay for it, you have two options, steal it, or go without. Conversely a $5 puncture repair kit when you're stuck on the side of the road 100 miles from anywhere is worth a lot more to you than just $5, at least its worth the price of a tow ($100+ at that distance) and at most it's pretty much priceless, but you still only paid $5 for the repair kit, because that's the price the seller valued it at.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
The rest is in my post and it uses housing as an example, not the exception.
But housing isn't what I'm discussing, because housing is not also notionally a means of production (unless you consider children a product), which is fundamentally different to a tooling rig that can manufacture finished goods. Hence my selection of it.
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.
