patrick.net

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.

SoftShell says

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.

If you want to live in the Mad Max world.

www.youtube.com/embed/lkAYkfIqivc

Granted, there would be a boom in assless chaps.

indigenous says

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.

This is Dan's ideal world.

www.youtube.com/embed/h1BQPV-iCkU

Dan8267 says

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

Dan8267 says

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

Dan8267 says

"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

indigenous says

This is Dan's ideal world.

Only an impotent fool with no defense of his ideological bullshit resorts to Straw Man arguments.

indigenous says

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.

Ironman says

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?

indigenous says

Gee Dan, I'm starting to sense that you are angry?

And as usual, you have no sense of understanding.

indigenous says

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.

Ok then what is the definition of the tragedy of the commons?

As usual, CIC demonstrates his inability to think at a level higher than a monkey throwing poo.

indigenous says

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.

thunderlips11 says

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

indigenous says

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.

thunderlips11 says

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".

Projecting...

indigenous says

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.

indigenous says

Projecting...

Nope no need to project anything, you've proven this point time and time again.

bob2356 says

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.

bob2356 says

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.

indigenous says

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.

bob2356 says

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.

indigenous says

N Korea has a wonderful rule of law.

Rule of Law != Government Authority.

Regardless, the missing element is private property.

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.

Dan8267 says

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.

indigenous says

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.

Dan8267 says

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.

Dan8267 says

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.

Dan8267 says

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.

indigenous says

Trouble is someone commingled before you.

You mean like the Native Americas who commingled all the land in our country before white man set foot on it?

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

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

Then you are conceding that the idea that "commingling" is a bullshit way of claiming to forever own land.

Dan8267 says

You mean like the Native Americas who commingled all the land in our country before white man set foot on it?

Government = force

What percentage of the time has the US not been practicing empire?

Dan8267 says

Then you are conceding that the idea that "commingling" is a bullshit way of claiming to forever own land.

No sarcasm, once again someone commingled before you got there.

indigenous says

Government = force

military = force

Fixed that for ya. So, how much should we slash the defense budget? 90%?

Fine by me

indigenous says

Fine by me

Then never vote Republican, because they always increase military spending.

Ironman says

Then never vote Democrat, because they always increase spending on everything else, including entitlements.

You mean Social Security?

It doesn't matter who gets in it will be the same. The ONLY thing a politician cares about is getting elected.

BTW if you really want to get pissed, I checked about 6 bookie sites, everyone of them predict Hillary Clinton to win by a landslide. These guys are really good at predicting the outcomes.

I'm a thinking that the constituents have changed to where mutts like Dan are the norm, how fucked up is that?