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.
Which is bad news for Joe. But good news for Electrical Renal failure guy.
Are you making this up on the fly?
I went to Mises to try to figure it out and still couldn't get to the bottom of it.
And Mises knows all!
Can you read the following and make heads or tails out of it? From what I gather this is sort of a "simulated reality" that the "philosophy" (which has no tenets by the way unlike anarcho-captitalism with a whopping 2) is then set down in and the pieces then move around the board.
That's why I compared it to a chess game in progress. There's already rules in places (the different pieces with different abilities) and strategy has already been realized via moves.
In fact, everyone read this. I command you. I'm taking over as head Statist for a bit until we figure things out.
But, to a renal transplant surgeon, one of his materials (thus resources) are kidneys.
A transplant surgeon offers a service, not a good. Moving a kidney from one person to the other via consent by both participants is not a tool of production but the purpose of the service.
If no one else needs a transplant the surgeon has no rights to force it out of them.
I went to Mises to try to figure it out and still couldn't get to the bottom of it.
And Mises knows all!
Can you read the following and make heads or tails out of it? From what I gather this is sort of a "simulated reality" that the "philosophy" (which has no tenets by the way unlike anarcho-captitalism with a whopping 2) is then set down in and the pieces then move around the board.
That's why I compared it to a chess game in progress. There's already rules in places (the different pieces with different abilities) and strategy has already been realized via moves.
In fact, everyone read this. I command you. I'm taking over as head Statist for a bit until we figure things out.
Mises, a neo-liberal site that advocates from private authoritarianism has the bias of trying to show anarcho-syndicalism in bad light despite the fact that it actually works and has worked in the past.
A transplant surgeon offers a service, not a good. Moving a kidney from one person to the other via consent by both participants is not a tool of production but the purpose of the service.
If no one else needs a transplant the surgeon has no rights to force it out of them.
During the procedure what exactly is the kidney? Does it have a title?
Well lucky for us, you can't deny self-ownership without contradicting yourself while doing it. You're exercising ownership over your body just by typing that out or speaking those words.
During the procedure what exactly is the kidney? Does it have a title?
It's your body part. Once you give it to someone else (the transaction served by the surgeon) you no longer own possession of it but until the transplant is complete it is yours.
I think you are trying to make this more complicated than it really is. I've retread the same water at several points by now.
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.
