« First « Previous Comments 105 - 144 of 151 Next » Last » Search these comments
That's not how the original owner obtained land.
You would prefer Marx's ideas on this? How did that turn out?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Which brings up the non aggression principle. So anything taken by force is by definition government.
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.
The ocean and atmosphere are owned by all.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.The ocean and atmosphere are owned by all.
If you want to live in the Mad Max world.
www.youtube.com/embed/lkAYkfIqivc
Granted, there would be a boom in assless chaps.
That is the tragedy of the commons. The oceans would be better protected if it were under private ownership.
Bullshit. The tragedy of the commons isn't caused by government managing a resource by rather by the government letting selfish individuals manage the resource.
If the oceans were privatized, some asshole would deplete them for personal wealth in order to live like a king and then the rest of the world would die off, but not until the exploiter has lived a long, opulent life. Human greed is not wisdom.
"The oceans would be better protected if it were under private ownership." has got to go down as one of the stupidest things ever said on this planet.
Bullshit. The tragedy of the commons isn't caused by government managing a resource by rather by the government letting selfish individuals manage the resource.
DEFINITION of 'Tragedy Of The Commons'
An economic problem in which every individual tries to reap the greatest benefit from a given resource. As the demand for the resource overwhelms the supply, every individual who consumes an additional unit directly harms others who can no longer enjoy the benefits. Generally, the resource of interest is easily available to all individuals.Here is a video for you Dan:
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tragedy-of-the-commons.asp?header_alt=a
If the oceans were privatized, some asshole would deplete them for personal wealth in order to live like a king and then the rest of the world would die off, but not until the exploiter has lived a long, opulent life. Human greed is not wisdom.
conjecture
"The oceans would be better protected if it were under private ownership." has got to go down as one of the stupidest things ever said on this planet.
conjecture again and again
This is Dan's ideal world.
Only an impotent fool with no defense of his ideological bullshit resorts to Straw Man arguments.
Here is a video for you Dan:
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tragedy-of-the-commons.asp?header_alt=a
A video that does not support what you say, and in fact, directly contradicts your mistake just like I did.
The tragedy of the commons occurs when individuals neglect the well-being of society (or the group) in the pursuit of personal gain.
You're going to die anyway from Global Warming flooding your apartment.
You're a mental midget with the IQ of a butter dish whose mind is a black hole that sucks all surrounding thought into it in an infinite singularity of pure stupidity. I'm surprise you can even dress yourself. I bet you have to rub peanut butter inside your lips to remember to open your mouth to breath. I have never met, and I hope to never meet, again an idiot so pervasively, astoundingly, unyieldingly ignorant. The only purpose you serve is to be the poster boy for conservatism, the stupidest and most ignorant philosophy ever devised. Conservatives are the ISIS of America.
Gee Dan, I'm starting to sense that you are angry?
That is why I linked a video in the hopes that you would understand.
What part of the definition of the "tragedy of the commons" did you not understand?
Gee Dan, I'm starting to sense that you are angry?
And as usual, you have no sense of understanding.
What part of the definition of the "tragedy of the commons" did you not understand?
The part where you are too stupid to understand it like the rest of us.
As usual, CIC demonstrates his inability to think at a level higher than a monkey throwing poo.
You would prefer Marx's ideas on this? How did that turn out?
Nothing to do with Marx. It has to do with 18th Century Philosophers guessing about how the world they lived in came about. Their guesses were wrong, unequivably.
Nothing to do with Marx. It has to do with 18th Century Philosophers guessing about how the world they lived in came about. Their guesses were wrong, unequivably.
Irrelevant, without it the world would be N Korea
Irrelevant, without it the world would be N Korea
Jesus Christ, it's not irrelevant, it's the basis for their statements about the origin of private property - and YOU brought it up.
You're like the Journey song, man. "Don't stop, believin'. Despite evidence, hold on to your Austrian feelin's"
It is IRRELEVANT , the only reason anyone's standard of living is ever raised is because of private property.
The only reason the hospitals have a monopoly is because of government.
You're like the Journey song, man. "Don't stop, believin'. Despite evidence, hold on to your Austrian feelin's"
That's good. Better than the austrian mantra of "it's true because I believe it should be true".
It is IRRELEVANT , the only reason anyone's standard of living is ever raised is because of private property.
That's the most idiotic thing you've said yet and that's a really really high bar. Many of the poorest countries in the world have private property. It's the ability to own private property within a system of laws that protect private property and enforce contract law along with a stable banking system for capital that raises the standard of living. Even then there are no guarantees.
Projecting...
Nope no need to project anything, you've proven this point time and time again.
That's the most idiotic thing you've said yet and that's a really really high bar. Many of the poorest countries in the world have private property. It's the ability to own private property within a system of laws that protect private property and enforce contract law along with a stable banking system for capital that raises the standard of living. Even then there are no guarantees.
N Korea has a wonderful rule of law. Yes it is a number of things but private property is indispensable. E.G. China has only had private property for a couple of decades, which coincides with their expansion.
Nope no need to project anything, you've proven this point time and time again.
You mutts are not nearly as erudite as you think you are.
E.G. China has only had private property for a couple of decades, which coincides with their expansion.
China doesn't have private property. Sorry to burst your bubble. All property in china is owned by the state and people get land usage rights. Look it up.
China doesn't have private property. Sorry to burst your bubble. All property in china is owned by the state and people get land usage rights. Look it up.
Back at ya, they have for about 2 decades.
And if not that just furthers my point.
Buildings should be private property, not land.
And one's body should be private property not subject to search or intrusion by the government regarding what you can put in it.
Buildings should be private property, not land.
Many things should be private property including land. The main factor is whether the individual commingled his labor with the property.
Many things should be private property including land. The main factor is whether the individual commingled his labor with the property.
So if I commingled my labor with copyrighted music and movies, by transcoding them into a new codec, then it becomes my private property. Commingling sounds like a great euphemism for theft.
Hell, if building a house on public land makes the land yours, then if I paint that house it becomes mine.
Hmmm, can I plant weed on the White House lawn and make that land mine? After all, it's just as undeveloped as any land has ever been.
So if I commingled my labor with copyrighted music and movies, by transcoding them into a new codec, then it becomes my private property. Commingling sounds like a great euphemism for theft.
You will notice that you tube videos of musicians in concert but have something added to them by the creator of the you tube video don't get yanked, while the ones who don't have any changes get yanked.
Hell, if building a house on public land makes the land yours, then if I paint that house it becomes mine.
Trouble is someone commingled before you.
Hmmm, can I plant weed on the White House lawn and make that land mine? After all, it's just as undeveloped as any land has ever been.
I don't know try it and video tape how it goes, but make sure you upload it and post it on Pat.net before they give you a wedding dress.
« First « Previous Comments 105 - 144 of 151 Next » Last » Search these comments
http://wlrn.org/topic/radio
Market Place
Turns out that the cost of health care is around five times as much in Oregon where hospitals have monopoly than in regions they don't. And it's not due to cost of living or better care. It is entirely due to bargaining power. The actual numbers in negotiations have been published and they indisputably prove that without regulation, big health care screws over the people and milk them for everything they can get. Wow, this is such a surprise. Capitalism without regulation serves the owner class, not the other 99% of society.