if racism is bad, why hasn't the free market ended it?

[Uncle Ben]

Also, I said PRIVATE property, as in land. A spear would be personal property. For a guy who worships the concept of property as being synonymous with liberty, you sure don't seem to know what it means....

Pot calling the kettle black. Quite clear you are not a land owner, just some ignorant city dweller that doesn't understand what land ownership and the freedoms that go with it mean. As a land owner I can pretty much do what I want when I want with very few exceptions - torch my burn pile during a county enforced Burn Ban brought on by drought.

When I have guests, I expect them to respect my property or they won't be welcome again.

 

[abandonconflict]

Pot calling the kettle black. Quite clear you are not a land owner, just some ignorant city dweller that doesn't understand what land ownership and the freedoms that go with it mean. As a land owner I can pretty much do what I want when I want with very few exceptions - torch my burn pile during a county enforced Burn Ban brought on by drought.

When I have guests, I expect them to respect my property or they won't be welcome again.

You should thank the gov't for that, it was the gov't which established property rights.

 

[Not GOP]

You should thank the gov't for that, it was the gov't which established property rights.

The government was approved by the people, and only exists because the people decided it should. And it was the people who established property as a fundamental inalienable right protected from government. Not government

 

[abandonconflict]

The government was approved by the people, and only exists because the people decided it should. And it was the people who established property as a fundamental inalienable right protected from government. Not government

No. The gov't removed land from its inhabitants who had been there thousands of years by way of brutality and genocide and then handed it over to citizens. The gov't doesn't give a fuck what you think, it just wants you to pay your fucking taxes, and if you can't, it will take your land and give someone else the "right to own" it so they can pay the fucking taxes.

Property rights come from gov't. That is why capitalism CAN NOT EXIST in the absence of gov't.

 

[Not GOP]

No. The gov't removed land from its inhabitants who had been there thousands of years by way of brutality and genocide and then handed it over to citizens. The gov't doesn't give a fuck what you think, it just wants you to pay your fucking taxes, and if you can't, it will take your land and give someone else the "right to own" it so they can pay the fucking taxes.

Property rights come from gov't. That is why capitalism CAN NOT EXIST in the absence of gov't.

I like the post bro, but I still disagree with you about private property rights coming from government.
It was originated and demanded by the people, before the government came into existence. Otherwise, states never would have ratified the constitution.

 

[abandonconflict]

I like the post bro, but I still disagree with you about private property rights coming from government.
It was originated and demanded by the people, before the government came into existence. Otherwise, states never would have ratified the constitution.

You mean people wanted property, so they formed a gov't that would grant them property rights?

 

[Not GOP]

You mean people wanted property, so they formed a gov't that would grant them property rights?

"grant" is the wrong word. I look at the bill of rights more as a list of demands

 

[abandonconflict]

"grant" is the wrong word. I look at the bill of rights more as a list of demands

Which the gov't then grants...

 

[Not GOP]

Which the gov't then grants...

No. In which the government is then required to abide by

 

[abandonconflict]

No. In which the government is then required to abide by

by granting property rights...

 

[Glaucoma]

Sounds like you're on the way to creating a coercion based government and haven't read the book I recommended to you which answers the question implied in your statement. I don't mean to be rude but this is addressed in that reading, I can't do it for you though...

How would you address the problem of collusion in the present paradigm which relies on a single monopolistic entity when seeking, but not receiving "justice" ?

The bullshit answer where it falsely assumes everyone will protect their reputation?

 

[Rob Roy]

The bullshit answer where it falsely assumes everyone will protect their reputation?

Being held accountable is crucial to any kind of free market working. It's what's missing from government. Due to their inaccountability and monopoly they are virtually IMMUNE from feedback and don't have to satisfy customers do they? You can't honestly say government is accountable can you?

This very web site uses a form of free market feedback. We advise each other about the service levels of various seed dealers etc.

Ever heard of Amazon or E-bay ? Service providers that use them are extremely careful to protect their reputations aren't they? Know why? They DON'T have a monopoly (like government) and must provide good service or somebody else will.

 

[Rob Roy]

You should know capitalism and anarchism are mutually exclusive then, pedophile. Funny how your entire rant about property is hypothetical.

Funny how you refuse to answer who owns the crop, the barn and the home in my "hypothetical" scenario which was only how most of the world moved from being hunter gathering to agricultural.

Also you still haven't read any Kevin Carson have you? I'm not a "capitalist" but I'd say my anarchy is more panarchy.

 

[Rob Roy]

You should thank the gov't for that, it was the gov't which established property rights.

Since every person has to BE somewhere, does the land that person occupies, assuming it was unoccupied when the person arrived there, and mixes his labor with become "his" ?

If a person fashions a spear from natural resources isn't the spear "his spear" ?

In a sense I agree with you that SOME property is "protected" by government, for themselves or their cronies, but that is not the entire discussion...

Land that is appropriated via force versus land that was unoccupied and homesteaded or gotten thru mutual exchange is what we should be discussing. They are two different things.

 

[abandonconflict]

Since every person has to BE somewhere, does the land that person occupies, assuming it was unoccupied when the person arrived there, and mixes his labor with become "his" ?

Ask the gov't.

 

[abandonconflict]

I'm not a "capitalist"

So you oppose private ownership of resources and infrastructure then, comrade?

 

[UncleBuck]

Funny how you refuse to answer who owns the crop, the barn and the home in my "hypothetical" scenario which was only how most of the world moved from being hunter gathering to agricultural.

Also you still haven't read any Kevin Carson have you? I'm not a "capitalist" but I'd say my anarchy is more panarchy.

funny how you refuse to say it should be illegal for old racist farts like you to have sex with 11 year old children.

 

[Glaucoma]

Being held accountable is crucial to any kind of free market working. It's what's missing from government. Due to their inaccountability and monopoly they are virtually IMMUNE from feedback and don't have to satisfy customers do they? You can't honestly say government is accountable can you?

This very web site uses a form of free market feedback. We advise each other about the service levels of various seed dealers etc.

Ever heard of Amazon or E-bay ? Service providers that use them are extremely careful to protect their reputations aren't they? Know why? They DON'T have a monopoly (like government) and must provide good service or somebody else will.

Acme Mediation Services
-------------------------------
Positive reviews (32)
- A+ job!
- Very fair. These guys always rule in my favor, and only charge 20% instead of the standard 35.
(more)
Negative reviews (405)
- These people are idiots.
- How can they have ruled against me? Fuck these people.
(more)


Good luck with that.
Not that it makes any difference anyways when the plantiffs are choosing the judges. lol. Cause that has no risk of cronyism at all, right?

 

[Rob Roy]

funny how you refuse to say it should be illegal for old racist farts like you to have sex with 11 year old children.

Acme Mediation Services
-------------------------------
Positive reviews (32)
- A+ job!
- Very fair. These guys always rule in my favor, and only charge 20% instead of the standard 35.
(more)
Negative reviews (405)
- These people are idiots.
- How can they have ruled against me? Fuck these people.
(more)


Good luck with that.
Not that it makes any difference anyways when the plantiffs are choosing the judges. lol. Cause that has no risk of cronyism at all, right?

Your last line in the post above is very telling.
You are right in part (unintentionally) and wrong unequivocally (in application) at the same time.


Here's where you're right, except you didn't know it and have chosen to ignore your own observation...

You are correct, it IS NOT the optimal application of justice to have the same party be the the plaintiff AND also the judge / court / arbitrator. However that's exactly what happens each time a situation that looks like this occurs, "State of XXX vs John Doe" .

The state (the plaintiff) and the judge both are part of the same system there aren't they? Furthermore, in that situation the role of arbitrator isn't one where the accused / defendant has any real opportunity to chose anyone else.

Here's what you have neglected to see as a possibility....
When a contract is entered into, it's possible to avoid the situation we both have agreed isn't optimal, by both parties agreeing to an arbitrator, if one is ever needed,. at the onset of the agreement.

If the ONLY arbitrator available is the state, which happens frequently today, then it can be said there are no possibilities of avoiding what you stated above in your post I quoted. It appears your argument has an element of cognitive dissonance as the main feature.

 

[Rob Roy]

So you oppose private ownership of resources and infrastructure then, comrade?

Sometimes. It depends on your definition of, and how inclusive, the terms "resources" and "infrastructure" are.

It also depends how the "ownership" is achieved or held. I think we both agree that forcible property exchange can be problematic.

There are several ways to justifiably acquire ownership of something.

In a human sense, ownership of self should be a given. (I realize you like to play semantics here and disagree that people own themselves...but humor me) Logically if all people "own" themselves" then nobody can own another person, because they aren't the other person.

For non human property rights to be expressed, you can discover unowned / unoccupied property and mix your labor with it to create something. Being the original occupant(s) of land could be part of that example.

You can also acquire property by trading something of value with another person that already owns the property you desire, of course this should be on a consensual basis.

It's also possible that once owned property is abandoned, and can then be redistributed again as "unoccupied property" etc.