NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
I dont own a lawnmower...
It is really amusing watching you not live up to the standards you demand of everyone else... Typical liberal.
How can Anarchocapitalism break monopolies?
- Thread starter abandonconflict
- Start date
It is really amusing watching you not live up to the standards you demand of everyone else... Typical liberal.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
a fallacy you created.
how courageous of you.
why dont you explain how "Libertarian Socialism" is supposed to work?
or arent there any image macros and other people's quotes to do that job for you?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
deprave
New Member
As I wrote a billion times:
Free Market is not the capitalist system we all know, its never existed, Therefore all your memes, all social anarchist philosophies, all left wing philosophies, are based on a false premise in their criticism of free market libertarians, anarchist libertarians, anarcho capatilist, slash market anarchist. The free market can not have the presence of a state or even a border state or its not a free market, it can never exist in fact unless there was some kind of significant world wide evolutionary change in human psychology, It is only philosophy, its not some kind of cure or medicine, not an immediete solution or the way it must be, its simply nutrition, its the preventive, the moral fiber that keep us healthy and strong.
Free Market is not the capitalist system we all know, its never existed, Therefore all your memes, all social anarchist philosophies, all left wing philosophies, are based on a false premise in their criticism of free market libertarians, anarchist libertarians, anarcho capatilist, slash market anarchist. The free market can not have the presence of a state or even a border state or its not a free market, it can never exist in fact unless there was some kind of significant world wide evolutionary change in human psychology, It is only philosophy, its not some kind of cure or medicine, not an immediete solution or the way it must be, its simply nutrition, its the preventive, the moral fiber that keep us healthy and strong.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Once again you demonstrate that you know less about your philosophy than I do.
Anarchocapitalism is an oxymoron. Don't ever call yourself an anarchist. Anarchism is not the result of criticisms of your bullshit, sorry to break it to you.
Laissez Faire (free market ideology) CAN NOT EXIST with out a state to protect private property. If the state is privatized (voluntaryism) a small land owning elite will command private police forces and armies to protect private property. Voluntaryism is just a fancy word for feudalism.
Voluntaryism = Anarchocapitalism = Feudalism
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Here come the attacks on (true) Anarchist philosophy.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
I am not bothered, I am exposing you for what you are.... A hypocrite that has no clue about business.
C'mon, show us all how it is done. Invest your time and money starting a business for your employees. Take no profit and a wage equal to the lowest paid among them. I mean, they all work hard right? You shouldnt get any more income than the bottom guy because it is only fair. Distribute any profits as bonuses and live as a shining beacon and example of how it is done.
It would give you a shred more credibility than you posting crap from your parents basement.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I would rather just grow pot and share it with my friends.
deprave
New Member
As I tried to explain earlier, anarchocapitilist essentially acknowledge that only property created by your labor is yours. Both Naturual Rights and Non-Agression principle counter use of coersive force and support property rights simultaneously.Once again you demonstrate that you know less about your philosophy than I do.
Anarchocapitalism is an oxymoron. Don't ever call yourself an anarchist. Anarchism is not the result of criticisms of your bullshit, sorry to break it to you.
Laissez Faire (free market ideology) CAN NOT EXIST with out a state to protect private property. If the state is privatized (voluntaryism) a small land owning elite will command private police forces and armies to protect private property. Voluntaryism is just a fancy word for feudalism.
Voluntaryism = Anarchocapitalism = Feudalism
from god damn wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_and_anarcho-capitalism#Property
Murray Rothbard argued that the state "arrogates to itself a monopoly of force . . . over a given area territorial area.", yet he also argued: "Obviously, in a free society, Smith has the ultimate decision-making power over his own just property, Jones over his, etc."[SUP][53][/SUP] However, the key word is "arrogates," as anarcho-capitalists only support property created by homesteading which they do not see as arrogation but as earning through one's labor. To arrogate a monopoly of force would be to exercise control over an area that one has not homesteaded, or to exercise control over an area by one who has not received the homesteaded property through voluntary means.[SUP][52][/SUP]
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
This quote from Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature by Rothbard is completely out of context. Clearly you have not read Rothbard nor did the fool who edited Wikipedia when this was done. Rothbard did not argue against the private ownership of non-homesteaded land but sharply rebuked egalitarianism. He only argued against state control.
deprave
New Member
Not true, example of Rothbard writing about it http://mises.org/daily/2120#8
It explained with both Naturual Rights and Non-Agression principle regardles, the excerpt:
A Theory of Just Property: Homesteading
There are two fundamental principles upon which the libertarian theory of just property rests:
The "first ownership to first use" principle for natural resources is also popularly called the "homesteading principle." If each man owns the land that he "mixes his labor with," then he owns the product of that mixture, and he has the right to exchange property titles with other, similar producers. This establishes the right of free contract in the sense of transfer of property titles. It also establishes the right to give away such titles, either as a gift or bequest.
- Everyone has absolute property right over his or her own body; and
- everyone has an absolute property right over previously unowned natural resources (land) which he first occupies and brings into use (in the Lockean phrase, "Mixing his labor with the land").
Most of us think of homesteading unused resources in the old-fashioned sense of clearing a piece of unowned land and farming the soil. There are, however, more sophisticated and modern forms of homesteading, which should establish a property right. Suppose, for example, that an airport is established with a great deal of empty land around it. The airport exudes a noise level of, say, X decibels, with the sound waves traveling over the empty land. A housing development then buys land near the airport. Some time later, the homeowners sue the airport for excessive noise interfering with the use and quiet enjoyment of the houses.
Excessive noise can be considered a form of aggression but in this case the airport has already homesteaded X decibels worth of noise. By its prior claim, the airport now "owns the right" to emit X decibels of noise in the surrounding area. In legal terms, we can then say that the airport, through homesteading, has earned an easement right to creating X decibels of noise. This homesteaded easement is an example of the ancient legal concept of "prescription," in which a certain activity earns a prescriptive property right to the person engaging in the action.
On the other hand, if the airport starts to increase noise levels, then the homeowners could sue or enjoin the airport from its noise aggression for the extra decibels, which had not been homesteaded. Of course if a new airport is built and begins to send out noise of X decibels onto the existing surrounding homes, the airport becomes fully liable for the noise invasion.
It should be clear that the same theory should apply to air pollution. If A is causing pollution of B's air, and this can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then this is aggression and it should be enjoined and damages paid in accordance with strict liability, unless A had been there first and had already been polluting the air before B's property was developed. For example, if a factory owned by A polluted originally unused property, up to a certain amount of pollutant X, then A can be said to have homesteaded a pollution easement of a certain degree and type.
Given a prescriptive easement, the courts have generally done well in deciding its limits. In Kerlin v. Southern Telephone and Telegraph Co. (1941), a public utility had maintained an easement by prescription of telephone poles and wires over someone else's land (called the "servient estate" in law). The utility wished to string up two additional wires, and the servient estate challenged its right to do so. The court decided correctly that the utility had the right because there was no proposed change in the "outer limits of space utilized by the owner of the easement." On the other hand, an early English case decided that an easement for moving carts could not later be used for the purpose of driving cattle.[50]
Unfortunately, the courts have not honored the concept of homestead in a noise or pollution easement. The classic case is Sturgis v. Bridgman (1879) in England. The plaintiff, a physician, had purchased land in 1865; on the property next to him the defendant, a pharmacist, used a mortar and pestle, which caused vibrations on the physician's property. There was no problem, however, until the physician built a consultation room 10 years later. He then sued to enjoin the pharmacist, claiming that his work constituted a nuisance. The defendant properly argued that the vibrations were going on before the construction of the consultation room, that they then did not constitute a nuisance, and that therefore he had a prescriptive right to keep operating his business. Nevertheless, defendant's claim was denied.
Consequently, we have such injustice as compulsory changes of character in a business and a failure to provide prescription through first use. Thus, Prosser notes that "the character of a district may change with the passage of time, and the industry set up in the open country may become a nuisance, or be required to modify its activities, when residences spring up around it. It will acquire no prescriptive right."[51] A just law would tell the later arriving residents that they knew what they were getting into, and that they must adapt to the industrial ambience rather than vice-versa.
In some cases, however, the courts have held or at least considered that by the plaintiff's "coming to the nuisance," he has voluntarily entered a pre-existing situation, and that therefore the defendant is not guilty. Prosser states that "in the absence of a prescriptive right the defendant cannot condemn the surrounding premises to endure the nuisance," but our whole point here is that the homesteader of a noise or a pollution easement has indeed earned that right in cases of "coming to the nuisance."[52]
Dominant court opinion, as in the case of Ensign v. Walls (194, discards or minimizes "coming to the nuisance" and dismisses the idea of a homesteaded easement. But minority opinion has strongly supported it, as in the New York case of Bove v. Donner-Hanna Coke Co. (1932). Plaintiff had moved into an industrial region, where defendant was operating a coke oven on the opposite side of the street. When plaintiff tried to enjoin the coke oven out of existence, the court rejected the plea with these exemplary words:
With all the dirt, smoke and gas which necessarily come from factory chimneys, trains and boats, and with full knowledge that this region was especially adapted for industrial rather than residential purposes, and that factories would increase in the future, plaintiff selected this locality as the site of her future home. She voluntarily moved into this district, fully aware of the fact that the atmosphere would constantly be contaminated by dirt, gas and foul odors; and that she could not hope to find in this locality the pure air of a strictly residential zone. She evidently saw certain advantages in living in this congested center. This is not the case of an industry, with its attendant noise and dirt, invading a quiet, residential district. This is just the opposite. Here a residence is built in an area naturally adapted for industrial purposes and already dedicated to that use. Plaintiff can hardly be heard to complain at this late date that her peace and comfort have been disturbed by a situation which existed, to some extent at least, at the very time she bought her property.[53]
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Cool Mises copy paste.
Please go on about how inheriting natural resources is just.
Please go on about how it is just to acquire and consolidate ever growing capital.
Please go on about how it is just for the owners (inheritors) of said capital to have the right to employ armies to protect this "justly acquired" property and employ SERFS who weren't so lucky to inherit power over others.
Please go on about how inheriting natural resources is just.
Please go on about how it is just to acquire and consolidate ever growing capital.
Please go on about how it is just for the owners (inheritors) of said capital to have the right to employ armies to protect this "justly acquired" property and employ SERFS who weren't so lucky to inherit power over others.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
If you agree with Locke or Adam Smith, you believe that the right to own the land is god given. So which is it? Locke/Smith or Rothbard? Is egalitarianism a revolt against nature or is it against God's will?
Maybe we should pray to the invisible hand of the market.
Maybe we should pray to the invisible hand of the market.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard31.html
In Rothbard's own words. If you're going to parrot Rothbard, at least read what he wrote.
Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature was what you started with to argue that homesteaded property which is acquired as capital by "voluntary means" is justly acquired. You didn't even know that the wikipedia article you shared used this as a source in the particular excerpt you pasted.
In Rothbard's own words. If you're going to parrot Rothbard, at least read what he wrote.
Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature was what you started with to argue that homesteaded property which is acquired as capital by "voluntary means" is justly acquired. You didn't even know that the wikipedia article you shared used this as a source in the particular excerpt you pasted.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
While you rethink your dystopian ideas and decide to either reject Rothbard (since you have described yourself as left leaning) or embrace your right wing ideology fully, I'll be kayaking.
When I come back, I expect you to know shit from Shinola.
When I come back, I expect you to know shit from Shinola.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Just for you Deprave. Since you haven't even read the crap you claim to believe in.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
That'd probably be a good insult if it wasn't in beaner talk.
DMTER
Well-Known Member
There are way to many things to respond to on this thread but GGGEEEEEEZZZZ
I inherited nothing and have busted my ass and now run my own shop...but I guess that really doesn't matter, right?
He would not starve...someone would buy his labour, whether it is a livable "wage" can be debated but since when do people deserve a livable wage for every line or work imaginable?
You may have read books...but come back when you enter the real world and see how things operate...the real world is a lot more then what fits between the bindings of those big books you read.
Libertarian socialist.....
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
You're a ginger beaner.