Right, whatever, turn everything into 'public utility', so that a generation later everybody would be convinced that the only way to run an economy is through government monopolies. Oh wait, everybody is already convinced of it in the USA anyway. Carry on.
Of-course Reagan and Bush have nothing to do with the actual economics, it doesn't matter what they propose or not. The economy doesn't care about your opinion, it works according to a set of very simple rules, and the fact that increased savings provide more investments, which give more businesses a chance to compete, helping everybody in the economy is a simple enough rule that even a buffoon like you could in principle understand.
That's your call, if you believe that you 'owe something to society', you are free to pay all you want, nobody stops you.
You are a free person and must not be stolen from. Society doesn't actually exist, there are only individuals, some steal from others, that's all it is. You shouldn't be forced under any law to have part of your life taken from you to pay any sort of 'duty'.
As I said, human desires are infinite, no demand can be satisfied without production and production comes first. Before anybody has any idea whether making tables is a worthwhile exercise that will make any profits whatsoever, somebody has to spend their time and money to make the first table.
Before iPhones existed Apple didn't know if there would be any demand for iPhones, but they made them anyway. Many products / services are a flop and the money is lost and that is what investment capital is for: to fund viable but also speculative business ideas and opportunities, where things could just as well go bust and not shoot to the stars.
The idiot is you, you think you can drive creation by demand without somebody doing the work. Capital is work, labour is work, productive assets and management is work. Somebody has to sacrifice their work in order to produce something that may or may not eventually make any revenues/profits.
Wrong, consumption follows production, always, no exceptions.
Before the first table is made, nobody can demand it. Once you make the first table you create market for the table, people want tables and so more tables are made. The first person to make tables sees huge profits from all the demand and others enter the market trying to make better/different/cheaper tables. Eventually profits are reduced to a point where there is no huge difference between trying to enter the table making market and many other markets. By this time plenty of capital was created, assets accrued, the people who made it big in the table business can use their money rather than working with their hands to create more by investing money into other potentially good (often bad) ideas, but that is what billionaires do: they manage their capital and the capital does the work.
Savings is what builds capital and allows capital to be invested, without savings there is no capital. A penny that is saved and not spent on consumption is a penny that now/later can be used as an investment.
People's desire for things/stuff is infinite, demand is infinite, however ability to pay for the demand is limited to the consumption of the people that demand things, all demand is limited to the production that is available. People cannot consume more than what exists and just desire to consume without production doesn't do anything at all.
You can sit there and desire a space ship all you want, without people trying to build cheaper space ships, you will never have your demand met. Will there be an actual demand for space travel? Yes, once the prices are low enough for many to afford space travel.
Before there is enough production in space industry you will never have you demands met. What will be the price for space travel? We don't know, but if you produce nothing and live off of other people's consumption, you are not adding anything at all into the economic system, you are reducing ability to satisfy demand, not increasing it.
You are 100% wrong on every single idea in your head and you don't know it, as I said: massive economic illiteracy.
I believe that government is collective violence by definition and police in the hands of collective violent force is an instrument of oppression. Yes, I do not believe in collective aggression and yes, everything needs to be private.
Corporations are a fiction, there are only people: investors, customers, employees. Taxes are paid from money that otherwise is personal income of one type or another.
Evasion is routing around tax damage, that is what people do and for a good and correct and moral reason. Yes, moral reason. Taxes are immoral theft and violence.
Wrong, involuntary coercion is not teamwork. Violence is evil and what you call a 'team', I call a pack of thieves if they are using the collective to steal from others to subsidize themselves or anybody ag all. So lets start over: violence is evil. Real voluntary exchange is teamwork that does not rely on violence.
Using violence to force people to give up anything in life is evil, cooperating on voluntary basis is helpful.
Taxes are state (mob) violence. Non agression is not even discussed as a subject in state schools, which are used by the state to perpetrate evil stuff with the approval of the mob.
The rising tide lifts all boats, you are completely confused as to what a tide is, just like vast majority of the economically challenged. It is not consumption by a billionaire or anybody for that matter that 'lifts all boats', it is production by the said billionaire, and production in case of a billionaire comes in the form of savings - the capital that does the work. It is savings, investments, production that lifts all boats, because only savings, investments and production create new / better / cheaper products and services that the poor can enjoy, while in the beginning all products and services can only be enjoyed by a very few select wealthy individuals. I am quite certain I just went way over your head though, you will need much more to understand why savings are crucial to investments and production and thus to the lifting of all boats, I will not spend more time on that here.
Variable taxes = discrimination and inequality under law and leads to destruction of individual freedoms by giving the government power that it must never have: the power to discriminate and apply laws judiciously rather than procedurally, in other words with 'progressive taxes' you create society that is ruled by men, not by laws, you push towards socialism/fascism and that is exactly what you get instead of prosperity, which requires equality under law, free market capitalism.
As to police, courts, roads, education, health, energy and whatever else you may think of that has government hands in it, none of it belongs to or in government at all, all of these are normal goods and services that should not be regulated or taxed or licensed (monopolised) in any way by government structures, but again, way over your head.
Wow, insightful. People avoid having their money taken from them because it is profitable not to have your money taken from you. Hmmm. Water is wet, fire burns, people want other people's money.
Taxation is damage and if you are not routing around it you get damaged. Income related taxes are anti-progress, anti-society, anti-economy. "Progressive" income taxes are anti-individual liberty, pro-discrimination. Income related taxes are immoral and bad economics (let government to grow when the other spending is actually cut by people, governments should be cut just like all other expenses when people cut down on spending, by tying government to income taxes, society destroys savings thus destroying and preventing capital investments).
Income taxation is immoral, not only bad politics. It is immoral because it assumes that government owns you, owns your productive output, thus owns your entire existence, your body, your life, your time on this planet.
Income taxes and fiat money and fiat printing are the evil that is destroying the economy and society and everybody needs to start routing around this damage.
Ha ha ha, nice. Somebody actually bothers to impersonate me at the time when my 'karma' is not too shitty to leave normal comments under my account name?
Too funny.
By the way, you idiot, this website IS a government operation, it is owned by the Australian Post Office.
What kind of stupid comment is that? What does it mean to "realize that shift work is a public health issue", what is the purpose of this so called 'realization'?
Are you saying that people shouldn't be allowed to work hours different than whatever you think they should work?
Are you saying that there are no jobs that must be done in hours different than what you think the work hours should be?
Are you saying that people should be paid something different than what they are paid already for different shift work, maybe we should prevent people from being able to do this work by making it prohibitively expensive to pay for it?
What is your comment implying, because it has no meaning and yet it is at '5 Insightful', insightful of what?
I hope that the government gets shut down for real, not show off nonsense, but an actual true shutdown, all checks stop flowing, bonds are no longer issued, no more new money created out of government's ass (and no, the Fed is not independent, Alan Greenspan confirmed it in a public way, as if people didn't know)
I hope no new laws are passed, I hope all existing government systems stop working completely and people have no choice, but to live without government.
As far as I am concerned, the Koch brothers are few of the very last of real Americans, who are standing against the tyranny of the socialist / fascist state and are fighting against the mob and for their individual freedoms, which is what made America and what makes true American heroes. Fighting against the stupid majority that wants to destroy the principles that built what used to be the freest country based on those principles and what is now falling apart due to rejection of those very principles.
From my perspective Rockefeller was a true American hero, you see, a guy who made more money than anybody else, figured out how to profit and how to build his company by engaging in actual free market capitalism instead of government cronyism, which is why the government destroyed his company at the end.
Irrelevant what the reasons to fly rockets (weird different designs of rockets, no less) are. Completely irrelevant. Everything we do 'expands our breath of knowledge'. If the entire purpose of Virgin Galactic is to provide entertainment, that's fine by me, their rocket pilots are heroes regardless.
The guys (and woman) who died in Challenger were heroes. The casualties from this crash were like the people who died building the Empire State Building.
- you know you are an actual asshole, right? What, the difference between people that are flying space ships for private business and for NASA or whatever agency is that in private business they are billionaires? Nope. The owner of the company is, the people flying the fucking rockets are heroes even before they blow up.
By the way, asshole, the only way to achieve real cheap space flight is to have commercial space flight, and just like anything that is done before it becomes the thing that everybody can afford, the first years of it are going to be expensive and only affordable by the wealthiest individuals. Just like cars used to be.
Why? There are no limits to filing lawsuits against businesses, I believe there shouldn't be any limits on lawsuites filed against anybody. Why should there be limits? Also there shouldn't be any limits on contract clauses. People must be free to set up contracts in any way.
Property is exactly what you can protect. Having a rule of law based society, meaning society that does not discriminate, does not have multiple sets of laws for different people (no special case scenarios regardless of your wealth, race, gender, colour, whatever) is what allows us to have an actual working system, where the government is not there to own you but instead it's there only to enforce very specific rules in the same exact way to everybody. This of-course means you can't have income taxes and especially 'progressive' taxes, you can't have special privileges or entitlements based on any set of criteria that define any group to be different (government based discrimination).
I don't want government to steal anything, I want private property to be protected by private individuals on their own. To the extent that we have any government at all, its only function should be protection of private property (which also includes contract law), but taxes cannot come from income, levels of income, but they can only be capitation taxes or certain import duties, excise.
I don't see how the second follows from the first. The right to something isn't about who spend most time on it. If I am dying of thirst, and you are the only source of water, I have every moral right to acquire through any means short of killing you.
- why did you stop short of 'killing you'? How does that follow? You just made a very simple case, if you want or need something, you feel entitled to that item regardless of my wants and needs.
If you are in such a pickle that you are dying from thirst, you can ask me for water first and foremost, most people (including myself), will not deny you water because you are dying from thirst. You are not talking about me making a voluntary decision here, you are talking about using violence on the level of government to steal from me and to use all force needed to prevent me from protecting myself from this theft.
You can ask me for water, you can promise to pay me later, I may voluntarily give you water and not even ask for anything in return or I may put you on tab and hope that maybe you'll pay back, that would be up to me and a voluntary agreement. You are talking about theft and redistribution based on government violence, stop pretending in every comment that you do not understand this extremely simple concept.
How do I produce more land? What do I make it from? Who made it in the first place? How did they make it? Who is the original owner of the land?
- just because you don't understand the concept of trade makes you deficient in a sense, but it doesn't mean that there is no concept of trade.
You can sell a kidney and buy a house, you can work for 10 years, save money and buy a piece of property, land, house, lake, whatever, it doesn't matter, but you worked for it, your productive output was large enough to build savings that allowed you to purchase the property from whoever is owning it currently, the transaction is done, there is no 'lease granted by government', if there is, that's not ownership of property, that's slavery, again, be clear in what you stand for.
Take the people from a state. What do you have?
- there is no state that can own you that also is based on the rule of law. You can be a slave, but there is no equality there.
Neither do I. But it's a useful mechanism for allocating limited shared resources, such as land, and avoiding a tragedy of the commons type affair. If you have a better idea, I'm all ears.
- obviously a system based on rule of law, private contracts, private security and private courts.
The problem here is you considering the government to be your rulers rather than administrators. We are the state. Not them.
- government is the de facto ruler that buys votes of what you think is of as 'people' by destroying the rule of the law.
There is no need for any government administrators at all if the society is based on the rule of law, there is only need for private competing courts and private security companies, not even need for government cops actually.
There are no private property rights once 'society as a whole' can steal property from the owner. 'Society as a whole' doesn't exist. There are only people and some people want to steal from others, that's all there is. Some people will vote as a block to steal from others. Some other people will promise to destroy the rule of law and to steal on behalf of 'society as a whole' to stay in power and while in power they can steal from anybody they personally want to steal from as well.
There is no society once there is no rule of law, only a mob and thugs in power.
Neither. In Europe human rights include a requirement for the government to ensure that everyone has access to certain basic resources.
- not neither, the option 2 that I listed. Governments have no resources but what they steal from private individuals, so you are talking about theft and redistribution of stolen resources, let's name things what they are, don't pretend you don't understand such simple concepts.
Resources are divided up by various means, most obviously what people can afford to pay for them.
- free market based price discovery mechanism is the only way to provide access to resources in a way that maximises economic activity and profitability, which is the most moral way the humans devised how to run an economy. Once you interfere with the free market, you start building your government protected monopolies and oligopolies and start denying individual rights and you have to use violence on the government level to achieve that. There is no other way to put it, once you have a police/military/judicial/prison force that is used to take property away from owners and distribute it in some misguided socialist/fascist manner, you sow the seeds of destruction of your economy and society.
However, certain resources are not freely exploitable, so for example you may own a lake but you can't just drain it for your own benefit because of the impact on others. In other words, in exchange for the right to own a lake you also take on certain responsibilities like not draining or polluting it
- in a free market the owner of a resource finds the most appropriate (read profitable) and thus the most moral (based on the pressures of the economic forces around him, the invisible hand) way to handle the resource. Be it a lake or what have you, people tend not to make decisions that do not maximise profitability, especially with regard to assets (a lake is an asset). One doesn't drain a lake if the water in the lake is a valuable enough resources (there aren't many other lakes) so that the market pressure creates enough demand for the water and this demand and price discovery provides the most profitable way to benefit from that asset.
If, on the other hand, there are many lakes with plenty of water and the owner of the lake finds it more profitable not to use the lake for its water but to drain it (where would the water go exactly?) and put a park in that area, that's what he should do and government shouldn't be in any way at all in a position to prevent that type of operation of private property.
In the same way, if you want to live in a European society and you do certain things there are taxes to be paid.
- income based taxes are slavery. "Progressive" taxes are unequal application of the law and thus absence of the rule of law.
The government is required to spend a tiny fraction of the tax it raises providing people who lack certain basic needs with things. That doesn't mean they can use "violence" and take your stuff.
- that's called violence of the state, since if you try to protect your private property from this theft, your liberty and even life will be violated by the government. The machine guns in the hands of the government thugs are violence and the machine guns will come to play if one decides to protect his property (as he should) from this theft.
It just means that if you pay tax some small fraction of it will go to people who would otherwise be literally dying in the street.
- there is no more immoral act than to engage in this form of 'ends justify the means' type of socialism / fascism.
In a free market capitalist society there will always be poor and rich, but that society will thrive and the poor in it will have more than many of the 'rich' in the socialist/fascist societies. Building policy based on edge case scenarios is the way to destroy the ru
- wrong. Do your kidneys belong to you or not? If they do, then whatever time you spend working on things is time that your kidneys had to support as well, you are spending your life, the productive output of your time on those things, you are transferring your time from leisure to work and the productive output of your work is the reward that you are willing to exchange the time of your life for.
The time that your body and mind had to input into productive activity is the time that you subtracted from the time in your life that you could have otherwise enjoyed doing nothing or doing something that you like more than working (of-course in some cases people actually like doing work, but I am sure that for most people work is not the point, the point is productivity of work that allows them to do other things, at the very minimum support their own existence on the planet).
So there is nothing 'ridiculous' about the claim that your productive output is extension of your own self, you subtracted from the limited time that is available to you on this planet and you exchanged that time for something that you produced. Whatever you produced is yours and yours alone and if some system of government takes it from you by force, it effectively is the owner of your property and of your time on this life, it owns you, it enslaves you, you are not a free individual if you are forced to give up your own property to anybody for any reason other than you wanted to without being coerced at all.
Land is property like any other, it can be bought in exchange for your productive output, whatever it may be. Exchanging one form of productivity for another on voluntary basis is the basis of individual freedom, and the fact that you don't understand it speaks volumes.
The government is just administrators of the state. I am part of the state.
- you are not part of the state, whatever 'state' you are born in, you are not its part, you are not its property either. If a state takes your productivity against your own will (not by voluntary exchange), then it does own you.
The government is not working for me, that is true, which is why I don't chose one particular government either, I prefer not to be owned and choose not to have one particular government, instead choosing a many flag strategy. I don't condone democracy, by the way, the rule of mob is not to my liking, the mob always ends up ruling the individual, stealing from the individual. I don't need to organise revolutions either to live outside of the state system. Eventually the state system will come to an end, but it's not a easy or a short journey.
So let me get this straight, for years employees have been suing employers for dismissal claims and raking in plenty of money in those claims, but the moment the tables turn you cry uncle?
From TFS:
The rural Georgia staffing firm boasts online of providing tech workers to IBM Corp., Bank of America Corp., Verizon Communications Inc. and other companies. Softech agreed to pay Muthuperiasamy $51,000 a year to continue improving Pennsylvaniaâ(TM)s workersâ(TM) compensation database. Instead, he changed his mind, taking a better-paying job in Ohio.
When Softech sued him in 2011 for more than $20,000, saying he had agreed to it when he signed his employment contract, Muthuperiasamy was astonished.
âoeYou should treat people like human beings,â the 32-year-old said, âoenot like animals, creatures that you make money off of.â
- the guy signs a contract and based on the contract he can get sued and he was sued and the problem is?
In your mind the only people that are liable to be sued are employers and never employees, businesses and never clients.
As far as I am concerned, an individual shouldn't lose his rights simply because he starts a business and sells something to somebody.
As to 'solidarity', the last refuge of a failing economy is 'solidarity', where people divide into groups and start fighting over a shrinking economic pie rather than actually fixing the real problem - removing government from business, removing income related taxes, reinstating real money and forbidding government from creating fiat and fiat based inflation.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, whatever, turn everything into 'public utility', so that a generation later everybody would be convinced that the only way to run an economy is through government monopolies. Oh wait, everybody is already convinced of it in the USA anyway. Carry on.
Of-course Reagan and Bush have nothing to do with the actual economics, it doesn't matter what they propose or not. The economy doesn't care about your opinion, it works according to a set of very simple rules, and the fact that increased savings provide more investments, which give more businesses a chance to compete, helping everybody in the economy is a simple enough rule that even a buffoon like you could in principle understand.
That's your call, if you believe that you 'owe something to society', you are free to pay all you want, nobody stops you.
You are a free person and must not be stolen from. Society doesn't actually exist, there are only individuals, some steal from others, that's all it is. You shouldn't be forced under any law to have part of your life taken from you to pay any sort of 'duty'.
As I said, human desires are infinite, no demand can be satisfied without production and production comes first. Before anybody has any idea whether making tables is a worthwhile exercise that will make any profits whatsoever, somebody has to spend their time and money to make the first table.
Before iPhones existed Apple didn't know if there would be any demand for iPhones, but they made them anyway. Many products / services are a flop and the money is lost and that is what investment capital is for: to fund viable but also speculative business ideas and opportunities, where things could just as well go bust and not shoot to the stars.
The idiot is you, you think you can drive creation by demand without somebody doing the work. Capital is work, labour is work, productive assets and management is work. Somebody has to sacrifice their work in order to produce something that may or may not eventually make any revenues/profits.
Wrong, consumption follows production, always, no exceptions.
Before the first table is made, nobody can demand it. Once you make the first table you create market for the table, people want tables and so more tables are made. The first person to make tables sees huge profits from all the demand and others enter the market trying to make better/different/cheaper tables. Eventually profits are reduced to a point where there is no huge difference between trying to enter the table making market and many other markets. By this time plenty of capital was created, assets accrued, the people who made it big in the table business can use their money rather than working with their hands to create more by investing money into other potentially good (often bad) ideas, but that is what billionaires do: they manage their capital and the capital does the work.
Savings is what builds capital and allows capital to be invested, without savings there is no capital. A penny that is saved and not spent on consumption is a penny that now/later can be used as an investment.
People's desire for things/stuff is infinite, demand is infinite, however ability to pay for the demand is limited to the consumption of the people that demand things, all demand is limited to the production that is available. People cannot consume more than what exists and just desire to consume without production doesn't do anything at all.
You can sit there and desire a space ship all you want, without people trying to build cheaper space ships, you will never have your demand met. Will there be an actual demand for space travel? Yes, once the prices are low enough for many to afford space travel.
Before there is enough production in space industry you will never have you demands met. What will be the price for space travel? We don't know, but if you produce nothing and live off of other people's consumption, you are not adding anything at all into the economic system, you are reducing ability to satisfy demand, not increasing it.
You are 100% wrong on every single idea in your head and you don't know it, as I said: massive economic illiteracy.
I believe that government is collective violence by definition and police in the hands of collective violent force is an instrument of oppression. Yes, I do not believe in collective aggression and yes, everything needs to be private.
Corporations are a fiction, there are only people: investors, customers, employees. Taxes are paid from money that otherwise is personal income of one type or another.
Evasion is routing around tax damage, that is what people do and for a good and correct and moral reason. Yes, moral reason. Taxes are immoral theft and violence.
Wrong, involuntary coercion is not teamwork. Violence is evil and what you call a 'team', I call a pack of thieves if they are using the collective to steal from others to subsidize themselves or anybody ag all. So lets start over: violence is evil. Real voluntary exchange is teamwork that does not rely on violence.
Using violence to force people to give up anything in life is evil, cooperating on voluntary basis is helpful.
Taxes are state (mob) violence. Non agression is not even discussed as a subject in state schools, which are used by the state to perpetrate evil stuff with the approval of the mob.
The rising tide lifts all boats, you are completely confused as to what a tide is, just like vast majority of the economically challenged. It is not consumption by a billionaire or anybody for that matter that 'lifts all boats', it is production by the said billionaire, and production in case of a billionaire comes in the form of savings - the capital that does the work. It is savings, investments, production that lifts all boats, because only savings, investments and production create new / better / cheaper products and services that the poor can enjoy, while in the beginning all products and services can only be enjoyed by a very few select wealthy individuals. I am quite certain I just went way over your head though, you will need much more to understand why savings are crucial to investments and production and thus to the lifting of all boats, I will not spend more time on that here.
Variable taxes = discrimination and inequality under law and leads to destruction of individual freedoms by giving the government power that it must never have: the power to discriminate and apply laws judiciously rather than procedurally, in other words with 'progressive taxes' you create society that is ruled by men, not by laws, you push towards socialism/fascism and that is exactly what you get instead of prosperity, which requires equality under law, free market capitalism.
As to police, courts, roads, education, health, energy and whatever else you may think of that has government hands in it, none of it belongs to or in government at all, all of these are normal goods and services that should not be regulated or taxed or licensed (monopolised) in any way by government structures, but again, way over your head.
Wow, insightful. People avoid having their money taken from them because it is profitable not to have your money taken from you. Hmmm. Water is wet, fire burns, people want other people's money.
Taxation is damage and if you are not routing around it you get damaged. Income related taxes are anti-progress, anti-society, anti-economy. "Progressive" income taxes are anti-individual liberty, pro-discrimination. Income related taxes are immoral and bad economics (let government to grow when the other spending is actually cut by people, governments should be cut just like all other expenses when people cut down on spending, by tying government to income taxes, society destroys savings thus destroying and preventing capital investments).
Income taxation is immoral, not only bad politics. It is immoral because it assumes that government owns you, owns your productive output, thus owns your entire existence, your body, your life, your time on this planet.
Income taxes and fiat money and fiat printing are the evil that is destroying the economy and society and everybody needs to start routing around this damage.
Ha ha ha, nice. Somebody actually bothers to impersonate me at the time when my 'karma' is not too shitty to leave normal comments under my account name?
Too funny.
By the way, you idiot, this website IS a government operation, it is owned by the Australian Post Office.
What kind of stupid comment is that? What does it mean to "realize that shift work is a public health issue", what is the purpose of this so called 'realization'?
Are you saying that people shouldn't be allowed to work hours different than whatever you think they should work?
Are you saying that there are no jobs that must be done in hours different than what you think the work hours should be?
Are you saying that people should be paid something different than what they are paid already for different shift work, maybe we should prevent people from being able to do this work by making it prohibitively expensive to pay for it?
What is your comment implying, because it has no meaning and yet it is at '5 Insightful', insightful of what?
I hope that the government gets shut down for real, not show off nonsense, but an actual true shutdown, all checks stop flowing, bonds are no longer issued, no more new money created out of government's ass (and no, the Fed is not independent, Alan Greenspan confirmed it in a public way, as if people didn't know)
I hope no new laws are passed, I hope all existing government systems stop working completely and people have no choice, but to live without government.
As far as I am concerned, the Koch brothers are few of the very last of real Americans, who are standing against the tyranny of the socialist / fascist state and are fighting against the mob and for their individual freedoms, which is what made America and what makes true American heroes. Fighting against the stupid majority that wants to destroy the principles that built what used to be the freest country based on those principles and what is now falling apart due to rejection of those very principles.
From my perspective Rockefeller was a true American hero, you see, a guy who made more money than anybody else, figured out how to profit and how to build his company by engaging in actual free market capitalism instead of government cronyism, which is why the government destroyed his company at the end.
Irrelevant what the reasons to fly rockets (weird different designs of rockets, no less) are. Completely irrelevant. Everything we do 'expands our breath of knowledge'. If the entire purpose of Virgin Galactic is to provide entertainment, that's fine by me, their rocket pilots are heroes regardless.
The guys (and woman) who died in Challenger were heroes. The casualties from this crash were like the people who died building the Empire State Building.
- you know you are an actual asshole, right? What, the difference between people that are flying space ships for private business and for NASA or whatever agency is that in private business they are billionaires? Nope. The owner of the company is, the people flying the fucking rockets are heroes even before they blow up.
By the way, asshole, the only way to achieve real cheap space flight is to have commercial space flight, and just like anything that is done before it becomes the thing that everybody can afford, the first years of it are going to be expensive and only affordable by the wealthiest individuals. Just like cars used to be.
Before one of these hobo-planets comes our way, we should already have a Rotor colony.
Why? There are no limits to filing lawsuits against businesses, I believe there shouldn't be any limits on lawsuites filed against anybody. Why should there be limits? Also there shouldn't be any limits on contract clauses. People must be free to set up contracts in any way.
Property is exactly what you can protect. Having a rule of law based society, meaning society that does not discriminate, does not have multiple sets of laws for different people (no special case scenarios regardless of your wealth, race, gender, colour, whatever) is what allows us to have an actual working system, where the government is not there to own you but instead it's there only to enforce very specific rules in the same exact way to everybody. This of-course means you can't have income taxes and especially 'progressive' taxes, you can't have special privileges or entitlements based on any set of criteria that define any group to be different (government based discrimination).
I don't want government to steal anything, I want private property to be protected by private individuals on their own. To the extent that we have any government at all, its only function should be protection of private property (which also includes contract law), but taxes cannot come from income, levels of income, but they can only be capitation taxes or certain import duties, excise.
I don't see how the second follows from the first. The right to something isn't about who spend most time on it. If I am dying of thirst, and you are the only source of water, I have every moral right to acquire through any means short of killing you.
- why did you stop short of 'killing you'? How does that follow? You just made a very simple case, if you want or need something, you feel entitled to that item regardless of my wants and needs.
If you are in such a pickle that you are dying from thirst, you can ask me for water first and foremost, most people (including myself), will not deny you water because you are dying from thirst. You are not talking about me making a voluntary decision here, you are talking about using violence on the level of government to steal from me and to use all force needed to prevent me from protecting myself from this theft.
You can ask me for water, you can promise to pay me later, I may voluntarily give you water and not even ask for anything in return or I may put you on tab and hope that maybe you'll pay back, that would be up to me and a voluntary agreement. You are talking about theft and redistribution based on government violence, stop pretending in every comment that you do not understand this extremely simple concept.
How do I produce more land? What do I make it from? Who made it in the first place? How did they make it? Who is the original owner of the land?
- just because you don't understand the concept of trade makes you deficient in a sense, but it doesn't mean that there is no concept of trade.
You can sell a kidney and buy a house, you can work for 10 years, save money and buy a piece of property, land, house, lake, whatever, it doesn't matter, but you worked for it, your productive output was large enough to build savings that allowed you to purchase the property from whoever is owning it currently, the transaction is done, there is no 'lease granted by government', if there is, that's not ownership of property, that's slavery, again, be clear in what you stand for.
Take the people from a state. What do you have?
- there is no state that can own you that also is based on the rule of law. You can be a slave, but there is no equality there.
Neither do I. But it's a useful mechanism for allocating limited shared resources, such as land, and avoiding a tragedy of the commons type affair. If you have a better idea, I'm all ears.
- obviously a system based on rule of law, private contracts, private security and private courts.
The problem here is you considering the government to be your rulers rather than administrators. We are the state. Not them.
- government is the de facto ruler that buys votes of what you think is of as 'people' by destroying the rule of the law.
There is no need for any government administrators at all if the society is based on the rule of law, there is only need for private competing courts and private security companies, not even need for government cops actually.
There are no private property rights once 'society as a whole' can steal property from the owner. 'Society as a whole' doesn't exist. There are only people and some people want to steal from others, that's all there is. Some people will vote as a block to steal from others. Some other people will promise to destroy the rule of law and to steal on behalf of 'society as a whole' to stay in power and while in power they can steal from anybody they personally want to steal from as well.
There is no society once there is no rule of law, only a mob and thugs in power.
Neither. In Europe human rights include a requirement for the government to ensure that everyone has access to certain basic resources.
- not neither, the option 2 that I listed. Governments have no resources but what they steal from private individuals, so you are talking about theft and redistribution of stolen resources, let's name things what they are, don't pretend you don't understand such simple concepts.
Resources are divided up by various means, most obviously what people can afford to pay for them.
- free market based price discovery mechanism is the only way to provide access to resources in a way that maximises economic activity and profitability, which is the most moral way the humans devised how to run an economy. Once you interfere with the free market, you start building your government protected monopolies and oligopolies and start denying individual rights and you have to use violence on the government level to achieve that. There is no other way to put it, once you have a police/military/judicial/prison force that is used to take property away from owners and distribute it in some misguided socialist/fascist manner, you sow the seeds of destruction of your economy and society.
However, certain resources are not freely exploitable, so for example you may own a lake but you can't just drain it for your own benefit because of the impact on others. In other words, in exchange for the right to own a lake you also take on certain responsibilities like not draining or polluting it
- in a free market the owner of a resource finds the most appropriate (read profitable) and thus the most moral (based on the pressures of the economic forces around him, the invisible hand) way to handle the resource. Be it a lake or what have you, people tend not to make decisions that do not maximise profitability, especially with regard to assets (a lake is an asset). One doesn't drain a lake if the water in the lake is a valuable enough resources (there aren't many other lakes) so that the market pressure creates enough demand for the water and this demand and price discovery provides the most profitable way to benefit from that asset.
If, on the other hand, there are many lakes with plenty of water and the owner of the lake finds it more profitable not to use the lake for its water but to drain it (where would the water go exactly?) and put a park in that area, that's what he should do and government shouldn't be in any way at all in a position to prevent that type of operation of private property.
In the same way, if you want to live in a European society and you do certain things there are taxes to be paid.
- income based taxes are slavery. "Progressive" taxes are unequal application of the law and thus absence of the rule of law.
The government is required to spend a tiny fraction of the tax it raises providing people who lack certain basic needs with things. That doesn't mean they can use "violence" and take your stuff.
- that's called violence of the state, since if you try to protect your private property from this theft, your liberty and even life will be violated by the government. The machine guns in the hands of the government thugs are violence and the machine guns will come to play if one decides to protect his property (as he should) from this theft.
It just means that if you pay tax some small fraction of it will go to people who would otherwise be literally dying in the street.
- there is no more immoral act than to engage in this form of 'ends justify the means' type of socialism / fascism.
In a free market capitalist society there will always be poor and rich, but that society will thrive and the poor in it will have more than many of the 'rich' in the socialist/fascist societies. Building policy based on edge case scenarios is the way to destroy the ru
No it isn't. That's a ridiculous claim.
- wrong. Do your kidneys belong to you or not? If they do, then whatever time you spend working on things is time that your kidneys had to support as well, you are spending your life, the productive output of your time on those things, you are transferring your time from leisure to work and the productive output of your work is the reward that you are willing to exchange the time of your life for.
The time that your body and mind had to input into productive activity is the time that you subtracted from the time in your life that you could have otherwise enjoyed doing nothing or doing something that you like more than working (of-course in some cases people actually like doing work, but I am sure that for most people work is not the point, the point is productivity of work that allows them to do other things, at the very minimum support their own existence on the planet).
So there is nothing 'ridiculous' about the claim that your productive output is extension of your own self, you subtracted from the limited time that is available to you on this planet and you exchanged that time for something that you produced. Whatever you produced is yours and yours alone and if some system of government takes it from you by force, it effectively is the owner of your property and of your time on this life, it owns you, it enslaves you, you are not a free individual if you are forced to give up your own property to anybody for any reason other than you wanted to without being coerced at all.
Land is property like any other, it can be bought in exchange for your productive output, whatever it may be. Exchanging one form of productivity for another on voluntary basis is the basis of individual freedom, and the fact that you don't understand it speaks volumes.
The government is just administrators of the state. I am part of the state.
- you are not part of the state, whatever 'state' you are born in, you are not its part, you are not its property either. If a state takes your productivity against your own will (not by voluntary exchange), then it does own you.
The government is not working for me, that is true, which is why I don't chose one particular government either, I prefer not to be owned and choose not to have one particular government, instead choosing a many flag strategy. I don't condone democracy, by the way, the rule of mob is not to my liking, the mob always ends up ruling the individual, stealing from the individual. I don't need to organise revolutions either to live outside of the state system. Eventually the state system will come to an end, but it's not a easy or a short journey.
So let me get this straight, for years employees have been suing employers for dismissal claims and raking in plenty of money in those claims, but the moment the tables turn you cry uncle?
From TFS:
The rural Georgia staffing firm boasts online of providing tech workers to IBM Corp., Bank of America Corp., Verizon Communications Inc. and other companies. Softech agreed to pay Muthuperiasamy $51,000 a year to continue improving Pennsylvaniaâ(TM)s workersâ(TM) compensation database. Instead, he changed his mind, taking a better-paying job in Ohio.
When Softech sued him in 2011 for more than $20,000, saying he had agreed to it when he signed his employment contract, Muthuperiasamy was astonished.
âoeYou should treat people like human beings,â the 32-year-old said, âoenot like animals, creatures that you make money off of.â
- the guy signs a contract and based on the contract he can get sued and he was sued and the problem is?
In your mind the only people that are liable to be sued are employers and never employees, businesses and never clients.
As far as I am concerned, an individual shouldn't lose his rights simply because he starts a business and sells something to somebody.
As to 'solidarity', the last refuge of a failing economy is 'solidarity', where people divide into groups and start fighting over a shrinking economic pie rather than actually fixing the real problem - removing government from business, removing income related taxes, reinstating real money and forbidding government from creating fiat and fiat based inflation.