patrick.net

Dan8267 says

That's your fault, no one else's. The evidence is there. You just are willfully ignorant. And that is why you deserve no respect.

No your conjecture dumb ass

indigenous says

conjecture

www.youtube.com/embed/G2y8Sx4B2Sk

Yea you should look it up.

So, according to indigenous, an hour and a half documentary detailing all the intricacies of the rise of De Beers is "conjecture". Multiple sources stating the same exact history of the company becoming a monopoly are "conjecture".

Yes people, this is how stupid conservatives are. Do you really want to join their club?

No I'm not going to sit through an 1.5 hours of your crap. Give me the readers digest FACTS.

indigenous says

No I'm not going to sit through an 1.5 hours of your crap. Give me the readers digest FACTS.

That's what the three articles from reputable magazines that you didn't read were for.

By the way, if you're too god-damn lazy to watch a documentary and learn something, nothing you say on this subject matter counts for shit.

A democratic society places an extraordinary intellectual responsibility on ordinary men and women because we are govern by what we think. Our laws and policies are govern by public opinion. So the content and quality of our opinions and the thought processes that are responsible for the formation of our opinions determines the character of our society. As such it is critically important that the opinions of every citizen are based on facts and the truth and a deep understanding of the world rather than misinformation and foolishness.

A thoughtless citizen in a democracy or a republic is a delinquent citizen. He causes more harm than any criminal or terrorist could, and he spreads his ignorance and stupidity like a virus. Such a person is not only unpatriotic, he is the very embodiment of treason. Stupidity and ignorance undermine democracy.

And that is why I have no respect for you or your opinions. You revel in your ignorance, laziness, and unwillingness to learn. The Internet is a village, and you are its fool.

Fuck off, I don't have time or interest to sit though 1.5 hr of your "related material"

Link the articles

indigenous says

There are no examples of a monopoly without government:

indigenous says

That was one company on the list,

The proper phrase to be uttered at this point is "I was wrong".

bob2356 says

The proper phrase to be uttered at this point is "I was wrong".

Not hardly, you come up with one dubious example...

Property rights are a government thang?

BTW Rand has NOTHING to do with Austrian Economics you mutt

indigenous says

Property rights are a government thang?

You bet your ass.

Dan8267 says

Just look at land. How the fuck can any person make a legitimate claim to own land except that the government says he does?

Locke argued that an original owner is one who mixes his or her
labor with a thing and, by commingling that labor with the thing,
establishes ownership of it.'

http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2829&context=fss_papers

Dan8267 says

In actuality, oligopolies are preferred by capitalists. They act like monopolies but with the illusion of choice that keeps the commoners quiet.

More conjecture... Without government they change in and out of the upper quintile, so to speak, with more regularity than anyone at the lowest quintile.

indigenous says

Locke argued that an original owner is one who mixes his or her

labor with a thing and, by commingling that labor with the thing,

establishes ownership of it.'

Locke was wrong. The original labor does not appreciate as the land does when people settle around it and build roads, infrastructure, and jobs.

indigenous says

More conjecture... Without government they change in and out of the upper quintile, so to speak, with more regularity than anyone at the lowest quintile.

Yes, your statement is more conjecture.

Dan8267 says

Locke was wrong. The original labor does not appreciate as the land does when people settle around it and build roads, infrastructure, and jobs.

So you are smarter than Locke? Did you read through the link? It is from Yale University, surely they have some respect?

Dan8267 says

Yes, your statement is more conjecture.

You nor the Wogster have refuted anything, you just like to chase your tails I guess.

indigenous says

So you are smarter than Locke?

Yes. I'm a 21st century engineer with knowledge of how the universe began, operates, and will end. I know quantum mechanics, fractal geometry, practical computing, atomic theory, and many other subjects that a 17th century philosopher and physician could not even imagine. If you want to know what kinds of leeches to use on someone suffering from consumption, ask Locke.

By the way, Locke sucks. The only philosopher from 500 c.e. to 1800 c.e. you should be reading is Immanuel Kant. He and I independently wrote on many subjects and we agree 99% of the time. Kant beats Locke hands down.

And quite frankly, anyone living in the 21st century who isn't more knowledgeable and doesn't have a better understanding of economics, science, and math than Locke, is an embarrassing idiot. Four centuries of progress means a lot. Hell, there was more advancement in the 20th century alone than in all centuries that preceded it back to the Stone Age. Before the 20th century, people couldn't even fly.

And yet you still do not understand who owns the property, go figure, an engineer, not hardly.

indigenous says

And yet you still do not understand who owns the property, go figure, an engineer, not hardly.

Like I said, your opinion carries no weight. And since you are willfully ignorant and unwilling to learn, there is no way to improve your thought processes so that your opinion is based on anything but ignorance.

Dan8267 says

Like I said, your opinion carries no weight. And since you are willfully ignorant and unwilling to learn, there is no way to improve your thought processes so that your opinion is based on anything but ignorance.

My thoughts exactly...

indigenous says

Locke argued that an original owner is one who mixes his or her

labor with a thing and, by commingling that labor with the thing,

establishes ownership of it.'

Good for Locke, although he simply guessed at what happened long ago, before Archeology provided us with a lot of information about pre-history, and we know that all land everywhere was owned in common, then it was divided up by group consensus, then privatization happened, in that order. Lock and Hobbes and Rousseau guessed wrong about the origins of private property, using a model of somebody setting up a cabin by themselves in the woods - which is itself possible only under government since raiders and bandits would quickly kill you, and why the only people who lived by themselves were either social outcasts ("Witches" or lepers) or religious hermits with nothing worth stealing.

Somebody contests your ownership of the land. What now?

That's funny Dan, Hillary just said that Obamacare is failing because of not ENOUGH Capitalism..

9:57: Clinton is asked what is broken in Obamacare and how she would fix it. She uncomfortably claims that Obamacare is succeeding. But she says out-of-pocket costs/deductibles have gone up and prescription drug prices have gone through the roof as well (hmm… not what Americans were promised when Obama and Hillary pushed Obamacare). She says “we don’t have enough competition” and “we don’t have enough oversight” re” insurance companies. Clinton insists these are just “glitches.” And she wants to build on Obamacare’s success and fix the “glitches.” Clinton blames the increase in prescription drug prices on governors in some states that did not extend Medicaid.

I've got Trump on speed dial, should I make the call now, or wait until next November?

thunderlips11 says

Good for Locke, although he simply guessed at what happened long ago, before Archeology provided us with a lot of information about pre-history, and we know that all land everywhere was owned in common, then it was divided up by group consensus, then privatization happened, in that order. Lock and Hobbes and Rousseau guessed wrong about the origins of private property, using a model of somebody setting up a cabin by themselves in the woods - which is itself possible only under government since raiders and bandits would quickly kill you, and why the only people who lived by themselves were either social outcasts ("Witches" or lepers) or religious hermits with nothing worth stealing.

Somebody contests your ownership of the land. What now?

Keep in mind that property rights are the cornerstone of an economy. So you may fuss about this or that but at the end of the day without property rights you have N Korea.

Again, you are in evolutionary denial....I see...

Dan8267 says

people couldn't even fly.

www.youtube.com/embed/SESI19h4wDo?start=9&end=34

indigenous says

Keep in mind that property rights are the cornerstone of an economy. So you may fuss about this or that but at the end of the day without property rights you have N Korea.

Doesn't address my point about private property not being at the beginning of humanity. This is beyond debate; from Egypt to the Aztecs to the Iroquois to the Dani to the Babylonians, people settled down and farmed in common. Much of what survives from Babylon and Egypt is shit dealing with the distribution of property. Property rights gradually emerged as more privileges were given to those who were assigned slices of common land until eventually the right to transfer it to others was created.

If the 100-200k years modern man has walked the earth was a full day, private property came around just before Midnight.

The pertinent point is that, wherever private property came from, without private property the modern economy, a division of labor, and comparative advantage would not exist. So your point is a whole herd of irrelevance.

indigenous says

The pertinent point is that, wherever private property came from, without private property the modern economy, a division of labor, and comparative advantage would not exist. So your point is a whole herd of irrelevance.

You brought it up:

indigenous says

Locke argued that an original owner is one who mixes his or her

labor with a thing and, by commingling that labor with the thing,

establishes ownership of it.'

http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2829&context=fss_papers

That's not how the original owner obtained land.

thunderlips11 says

That's not how the original owner obtained land.

You would prefer Marx's ideas on this? How did that turn out?

indigenous says

Keep in mind that property rights are the cornerstone of an economy. So you may fuss about this or that but at the end of the day without property rights you have N Korea.

No one is arguing that property rights shouldn't exist. Like always, you demonstrate that you cannot distinguish between capitalism and everything else. Property rights and commerce and markets all can and do exist in other economic models that don't base distribution of wealth solely on bargaining power and then concentrate that power in the hands of the few.

Only idiots make false dichotomies like you have to choose between the system we have and North Korea as if there are zero other possibilities. Stupid, unimaginative people.

thunderlips11 says

indigenous says

Locke argued that an original owner is one who mixes his or her


labor with a thing and, by commingling that labor with the thing,


establishes ownership of it.'

http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2829&context=fss_papers

That's not how the original owner obtained land.

Correct. This is how the first land property rights were conferred.

Private property is the canary in the coal mine, that indicates the health of the economy. The more private property that is taken by the government the more poorly that economy will perform. BTW land is not the only form of private property. A person's time that gets coerced into paying taxes is also an infringement on private property.
Regulations that are now up to 22,000 pages also infringes on a persons time or private property.

indigenous says

You would prefer Marx's ideas on this? How did that turn out?

1. Neither China nor Russia implemented Marx's ideas.
2. Communism is not the only other possible economic system.
3. American's implementation of capitalism isn't the only possible implementation of it.

Keep up those false dichotomies.

Which brings up the non aggression principle. So anything taken by force is by definition government.

indigenous says

Which brings up the non aggression principle. So anything taken by force is by definition government.

So you are going on the record saying that ISIS is a government.

A thief takes things by force but is not a government. Anything that is not willing exchanged enters into either government or theft.

So what about property rights to clean air and water? The ocean and atmosphere are owned by all. So polluters are thieves.

And if the free exchange of goods and services is sanctified, then it should be legal to engage in prostitution, sell crack, and buy weapons of mass destruction, even if your name is Saddam.

indigenous says

Which brings up the non aggression principle. So anything taken by force is by definition government.

indigenous says

A thief takes things by force but is not a government. Anything that is not willing exchanged enters into either government or theft.

I love how you can continually post two or more contradictory statements and honestly believe they are all correct.

Wrong.
This is where libbies miss the boat completely.
In this existence, everything is owned by the strong.
Obama has made us weak.
We own nothing.

Dan8267 says

The ocean and atmosphere are owned by all.

Dan8267 says

So what about property rights to clean air and water? The ocean and atmosphere are owned by all. So polluters are thieves.

That is the tragedy of the commons. The oceans would be better protected if it were under private ownership.

Dan8267 says

And if the free exchange of goods and services is sanctified, then it should be legal to engage in prostitution, sell crack, and buy weapons of mass destruction, even if your name is Saddam.

Somehow you think I'm saying that all regulations should be done away with, not so.

OTOH you discount that the free market is self organizing and naturally rectifies the situation. E.G. pencils get made through international cooperation without any excess or shortage.

www.youtube.com/embed/IYO3tOqDISE

bob2356 says

I love how you can continually post two or more contradictory statements and honestly believe they are all correct.

It is always nice to hear from an admirer.

I too admire how you skip over the main points to focus on the trivial, in order to hide your ad hominem.

The main points are that government governs through force, not market forces. This definitely applies to monopolies.

indigenous says

The oceans would be better protected if it were under private ownership.

Like the cuyahoga river? That's actually the river on fire, not a fire on the bank.

bob2356 says

Like the cuyahoga river? That's actually the river on fire, not a fire on the bank.

That is an excellent example of the tragedy of the commons, i.e. no private ownership.