Sure, schizophrenics may have a more accurate view. And most schizophrenics aren't high functioning. But that doesn't apply to LRH, who was, in techincal terms, crazy as a shithouse rat. And on LOTS of drugs, meth mostly.
Psychiatry does not only deal with what is normal. Read up Abraham Maslow and Humanistic psychology. Sounds like you're stuck back in the bad old days of Freud and Skinner. Psychology has come a long way since then, and is no longer all about getting people to fit in, but to reach their full potential. And it has scientific backing. Studies show whether or not techniques work, and therapists change techniques based on what works.
There's some nice looking Brits, contrary to popular opinion. The more important point is that they would be giving up British sex. From what I hear, it's not nearly as good as regular sex.:-P
It comes from the fact that LRH was a high functioning paranoid schizophrenic. His first wife tried to have him committed. Plus, psychology actually, you know, has scientific experiments backing up its efficacy. This obviates the need for LRH's psycho-babble snake-oil.
It will deter people from trading oil in Euros. If necessary, it will be supplemented by other deterrents in the future. Think of it as a stop-gap measure while other plans are being put in place, and a warning that those other plans will be carried out.
Bullshit. You are using libertarianism as a synonym for anarchism. Anarchism is the opposite of authoritarianism. Libertarianism is a branch of individualist anarchism. Libertarianism is a governance ideology only if the free market is a form of governance. You can not have socialist libertarianism. Show me references supporting the ignorant crap you spout or shut the fuck up.
Idiot. You project your own ignorance onto others. I know very well the difference between anarchism and libertarianism, because I'm an anarcho-syndicalist. That's why I know libertarianism is a right wing ideology. Let me school you. Libertarianism is a branch of individualist anarchism: it's a descendant of the Rothbard/Mises school of anarcho-capitalism, which is itself a descendant of the philosophy of the Boston anarchists. Any of this ringing any bells?
Unless you are a true fascist, you understand that you have to give up some rights in order to be free. For instance, as much as I would love to punch you in the face, I've given up that right because I don't want to be punched in the face myself. That's how rights work in the real world outside of libertarian fantasy-land. You get some by giving some up.
Rights derive from society. Without society, there is no concept of rights. There is only, 'What do I have the power to do?" Individuals define rights through contract with other individuals when they join together to form a society. That is the only place rights derive from, not from some idiotic idea of self ownership (You're your own slave? How's that work? Can you sell yourself to me and be my slave? Morons.) not from some humanized ideal of Nature, and certainly not from some invisible sky-daddy. Rights come from individuals agreeing what it means to form a society and they are not absolute, they are conditional upon fulfilling the agreed on contract. You may not like that, and you may make up fantasy stories in your head to hide from that fact, but that is the cold hard truth. Rights come from societies willingness to back them up, which comes from individual agreements.
The free market does not create freedom. It creates oppression. Because of the runaway feedback loops, the positive feedback cycle of wealth creating more wealth, the rich will always get richer and the poor will always get poorer. The poor will then be forced into servitude by the rich. Economically forced, as in: you do what we say or you don't eat. This is the hell you are working towards. This is what you support. This is the final outcome of your twisted little philosophy, and it is why no one with a heart is a libertarian.
I can't assume it is ignorance of this outcome that drives most libertarians. I can only assume that they desire this, that they want to be the new feudal lords, the new slave owners. I have to assume this, or assume that all libertarians are idiots, too dumb to see the obvious outcome of their philosophy.
What argument from authority? I don't think you understand that fallacy. Argument from authority is when you say, "X, an expert says Y. Therefore, Y is true," I was saying these guys are experts, therefore, they are more likely to have invented something non obvious. The fact that they presented their inventions to Intel means that Intel had the opportunity to use their discoveries. Neither I, nor the post I was responding to makes any definite claims. That post was making inferences about the likelihood of this case having any merit, and I agreed that his points support the possibility of wrongdoing on Intel's part. Are you honestly disagreeing with that assessment?
I hope you get modded up, this is a very important point to note. Established researchers in the field, presented their work at Intel, definitely sounds like there is some merit to the claim.
Disruption of the planned opening of the Iranian Oil Bourse this week. Suspicious, the Iranians were about to start trading oil in Euros on the 11th. That would send the dollar into a tailspin and all but destroy the US's already shaky credit rating in the rest of the world.
It wouldn't take much to disrupt trading. This also explains why the cuts were reported so widely. It's a message to would be Euro oil traders: the US is simply not going to allow this to happen. We will do anything it takes to disrupt non-dollar trade in oil. The dollar must remain the world's reserve currency if our economic house of cards is to remain standing. The Iranian Oil Bourse is potentially more damaging to the US than an Iranian nuke.
Libertarians are the real authoritarians. They want the freedom to financially oppress others. You all claim that a free market will lead to everyone being wealthier, but I know in your black little hearts you think you're better than everyone else, and that you will be able to rise above the peons and lord over them. Libertarians want a new feudal system where the strong are free to oppress the weak at leisure.
Honestly, if you can't come up with material yourself, you shouldn't call yourself an artist. If you can't be bothered to ask the originator if she minds if you reuse her work, you can't call yourself respectful. If you can't honor the wishes of the originator when he says he doesn't want you reusing his work, you shouldn't call yourself honest.
All in all, the only way in which I'd miss the recyclers is in the lack of easy targets for mockery. Everything in art is recycled. If you can't see that, you have not studied art, literature, or history. Go ahead, find me one original piece of art, something that has never, ever been done before, and which is not influenced by anything which went before. Or try a thought experiment: if you raised a kid in a box with no contact with the outside world, would they be capable of producing anything approaching art?
Is this going to be a real commercial jet, or just another cock tease? Yes, this airplane is going to make flirty eyes at you, rub up against your crotch, and then run away giggling with her friends. Seriously, do you have a sexual attraction to airliners? Is there even a name for that fetish?
Iran's Oil Bourse is the target. Can't have the world trading oil in non-dollar currency. Nowadays, you cut the Internet and there won't be much trading. Props to Jeremiah Cornelius for the link.
You know, when you first showed up here, I thought, "Great. Another arrogant libertarian twit." Obviously, that was my first mistake. Next I allowed myself to be a bit of a dick to you at times, thinking, "This guy just needs to have some sense knocked into him, shake up his world view a little." Completely arrogant, and it turns out, wrong as well. With this post, I've finally realized what a well educated and nuanced thinker you are. We may not always agree on things, but I will give your opinions the respect they deserve. I say that because I don't have anything more to add to the ideas you've expressed here, except to nod in agreement.
Ah pfhorrest, always a pleasure engaging with you. I strive to be as dispassionate and logical as you are in my discourse, but fail miserably most of the time.;-)
As for property, I've thought about this quite a bit. First, you don't own yourself. No one does, ownership is a moot concept when applied to people. Well, not moot, per se, but a nebulous concept, used as a shorthand to refer to whatever bundle of rights the person using the phrase wants to justify. Why should the same concept of ownership apply to you, when you are so unlike any other form of property? Why not just enumerate the list of rights that you mean? Because self-ownership is a semantic trick used to justify private property.
Next, there is a huge difference between personal property and private property. In property theory, personal property refers to things, while private property refers to land and natural resources. I feel that everyone is entitled to the personal property they've worked to attain. I don't feel that anyone has the right to own private property. I feel that people who personally use a resource should have stewardship rights to it, but not permanent and absolute property rights.
I agree with the Lockean notion of rights. But I must add a caveat: what use is a personal right, if you do not have the thing that right applies to? I can envision a world where one person owns everything. The right to own property applies equally, but in actuality it applies only to that one person.
What is under discussion here is the right of a group to ensure that all members of the group pay taxes. I assert that people do have the right to demand dues or taxes as a condition of membership, and that all privileges of membership may be revoked if those dues aren't paid. I find it hard to believe that libertarians can argue against this point, but as I've said, most libertarians do not even understand the arguments they are parroting back. They have no logical consistency, except for, "You're not the boss of me and I'll do whatever I want."
The thing is, I also agree with libertarians on a lot of issues. The main thing I find lacking is any discussion of, "How do we get to true anarchist, non coercive society from where we are now?" We can't just do away with government, for the reasons you point out. You provide a cogent analysis, but there are a few things I'd like to point out.
One, I don't think everyone will have equality of outcome even given equal opportunity. Some people are smarter, or more driven than others, and it is just and fair that those people should achieve more. I believe that if there were not such a large disparity, and everyone had their basic needs met, that few would have a problem with this. In fact, I think most people would gain comfort from a sense of justice and fairness, even if they weren't the excellent ones. Maybe I'm weird, but I derive real happiness when I see someone succeed on genuine merit.
Second, you ignore the network effect that pretty much guarantees a power-law distribution of outcomes even based on equal opportunity and merit. You hint at this when you describe the positive feedback loop of wealth accumulation, but it is more than just wealth accumulation. People don't actually like to make decisions, not hard or confusing ones, anyway. They'd like to just do what works for their friends and relatives.
That means that slight deviations in distribution of a good become magnified, as more people recommend that good. Look at the popularity of blogs. The most popular is about twice as popular as the next, and so on. Blogs are free, people could choose to look at any of them, but they concentrate attention on a few. Not due to merit, many of the least popular are easily as good as the most popular, but simply based on chance, feedback loops, and non linear systems. I believe it benefits the largest number of people for society to provide some negative feedback loops to offset all the positive feedback loops of wealth accumulation.
You aren't defending basic human rights. You are defending your idea of basic human rights. Not everyone agrees with you on what basic human rights are. For instance, I believe every person should have the right to access the means of their own support and livelihood. This conflicts with absolute property ownership. I believe that the right of anyone to have the means to support themselves trumps any idea of real property. People who believe in absolute property rights believe people have no right to use property that is not theirs, and thus can go starve if it comes to that.
The thing is, there are very few places in the US that aren't being used at all. So, for argument, lets just consider owned property. Do I have the right to place conditions on the sale of my property? For instance, if you want to buy it, you have to pay this group of people called 'government' on a yearly basis. Is that a valid condition to a contract? How about a stipulation that you must accept certain decisions made by an elected official? How about a stipulation that only said elected official can change the stipulations, and that anyone you sell to must abide by them as well? Is it within my moral rights to make those stipulations? Those stipulations have been made on all property within the US. If you don't like it, you are free to purchase property elsewhere in the hopes that it won't come encumbered by such stipulations.
What you think of as us forcing or coercing you, we think of as protecting our rights and upholding agreements we all bought into. If you don't want to abide by those agreements, you are free to look elsewhere. You seem to think that you can just unilaterally change the rules and agreements that come with the property you'd like to own. Maybe I'd like a free hooker with every whopper I purchase, but that is not going to happen, and I have no more right to force people to provide me with hookers than you do to force people to provide you with property unencumbered by previous agreements. Sorry.
This is why I say, libertarians aren't about liberty at all. They are about their own personal freedom to do as they please, and everyone else can go to hell. Its a philosophy founded on selfishness, not freedom. You all want the rights and freedoms that go along with living in a civilized society, with none of the responsibility. You're nothing but a bunch of pirates and thieves.
Only an idiot can't see that you are proposing to force your views on us. This country is the property of US citizens. You libertarians want to tell us what rules to play by on our own property. You are the ones forcing your views on others, and disrespecting our property, our autonomy, our freedom, and our decision making abilities to boot. Libertarians aren't about liberty at all. They are all about their own freedom to do whatever they please and everyone else can just go to hell.
Tell you what, you want to live in a country where you pay no taxes and everything is free market, how about you go make your own country instead of trying to steal ours? No one is forcing their views on anyone. We are saying, "This is our country. If you want to live here, you play by our rules. If you don't want to play by our rules, no one is forcing you to stay here."
I'm convinced the average libertarian can not think for themselves, and is only capable of parroting back arguments they've heard, but don't understand.
I'll say it again, If you don't like it, get the hell off of our property. Go try out your insane ideas of governance with other people who agree with you. You don't have the right to force US Citizens to go along with you. This is our country, we make the rules collectively, and if you don't like it, no one is forcing you to stay. Go somewhere else to try your libertarian ideals. Maybe if the rest of us see how well they work, we'll agree to go along with you. So far, you libertarian types have not stepped up to the plate. You can't seem to make a go of it on your own, so you want to steal our country and our infrastructure for your little experiment.
But this is our country. If you don't like the rules, you are free to enact changes, as long as the majority agree with you. If you don't like the rules and don't want to work through the proper channels to change them, your only other option is to leave. Let's say you go to someone's house, and they demand you give them money. You don't want to give them money to stay there, and insist that they do not have the right to demand money from you, as you didn't agree to it. You are asserting that you have the right to trespass on another person's property. The US is the property of the US citizens, and we have collectively agreed that there will be certain rules that everyone who lives here follows. You do not have the right to claim the moral high ground and to say that we have no right to make you follow our rules on our property. You are free to leave our property if you don't like our rules, but you can't just demand that we change them because you don't like them.
No one is arguing that you have the right to do whatever you want on your own property if that property is unencumbered by other agreements. All property in the US is encumbered by other agreements. If you don't like the agreements that encumber property here, you are free to buy property elsewhere. You don't have the right to unilaterally decide that property in the US will not be encumbered by those agreements. Sure, you can attempt to get others to agree with your selfish and self centered ideas, but fortunately, only a small minority of crazy libertarians agree with you, and as we've seen, libertarians don't and can't control any nation or state in the world because too few people agree with their insane and selfish ideals.
Good luck with your childish "You're not the boss of me!" political "philosophy." Just leave the rest of us out of it. If you want to live like that, go find somewhere else to do it. Don't try to steal our country, make one of your own.
Private property is only useful to those who own property. Private property amounts to a contract between property owners to defend each other's property from the have-nots. As a concept, it is of no use to those who don't own property. Why should any non-property owner respect your claim of ownership?
Now, assuming you do respect private ownership, do you respect collective ownership? If my wife and I own property together, may we not set the rules for that property together? May we not choose to elect someone to manage our collective property? If we do, is it fair for someone else to come in and tell us how to use that property? Now, substitute "US citizens" for "my wife and I." We have elected someone to manage our collective property, known as the United States. Now you want to come in and tell us what to do, because somehow, us deciding what to do with our collective property means we are coercing you into going along with our decisions. If you don't like how we, the US citizens, are managing our property, you can get the hell off of it or go through channels to change things. You can't claim any kind of moral high ground though.
Quit pretending you value freedom for all humans. Your words and actions show you value freedom only for property owners, not for the majority of the world's citizens.
Well said. Anyone who advocates for the middle ground is okay in my book. What remains is a debate on the specifics. Corporations have no motive other than maximizing profit for their shareholders. Unfortunately, in practice this boils down to short term, short sighted profit for the shareholders. Corporations are always looking for the biggest tax break, the lowest wages, the least regulation, and the best ways to externalize costs and monetize positive externalities. If you let them, they will take everything and give nothing.
One way to pressure corporations into giving a more fair and balanced deal is to publicize exactly what they are doing. Maybe it does make sense to let them take the tax break. But it also makes sense to make an extremely big stink about it, to give them something in the costs column to weigh against the benefits. If a corporation knows it will lose public trust and goodwill by acting selfishly, it may actually bargain in good faith. Put pressure on the decision makers as well. Let people know, it was these particular corporate officers who made the decision not to pay any taxes. Let the decision makers feel the public outrage over their actions directly. There is no reason limited liability should protect them from that.
Slashdot Mirror
I stand corrected. Here in the US, libertarian means anarcho-capitalist only. What you call "Libertarian socialism" we just call anarchism.
Sure, schizophrenics may have a more accurate view. And most schizophrenics aren't high functioning. But that doesn't apply to LRH, who was, in techincal terms, crazy as a shithouse rat. And on LOTS of drugs, meth mostly.
Psychiatry does not only deal with what is normal. Read up Abraham Maslow and Humanistic psychology. Sounds like you're stuck back in the bad old days of Freud and Skinner. Psychology has come a long way since then, and is no longer all about getting people to fit in, but to reach their full potential. And it has scientific backing. Studies show whether or not techniques work, and therapists change techniques based on what works.
There's some nice looking Brits, contrary to popular opinion. The more important point is that they would be giving up British sex. From what I hear, it's not nearly as good as regular sex. :-P
It comes from the fact that LRH was a high functioning paranoid schizophrenic. His first wife tried to have him committed. Plus, psychology actually, you know, has scientific experiments backing up its efficacy. This obviates the need for LRH's psycho-babble snake-oil.
It will deter people from trading oil in Euros. If necessary, it will be supplemented by other deterrents in the future. Think of it as a stop-gap measure while other plans are being put in place, and a warning that those other plans will be carried out.
Bullshit. You are using libertarianism as a synonym for anarchism. Anarchism is the opposite of authoritarianism. Libertarianism is a branch of individualist anarchism. Libertarianism is a governance ideology only if the free market is a form of governance. You can not have socialist libertarianism. Show me references supporting the ignorant crap you spout or shut the fuck up.
Idiot. You project your own ignorance onto others. I know very well the difference between anarchism and libertarianism, because I'm an anarcho-syndicalist. That's why I know libertarianism is a right wing ideology. Let me school you. Libertarianism is a branch of individualist anarchism: it's a descendant of the Rothbard/Mises school of anarcho-capitalism, which is itself a descendant of the philosophy of the Boston anarchists. Any of this ringing any bells?
Unless you are a true fascist, you understand that you have to give up some rights in order to be free. For instance, as much as I would love to punch you in the face, I've given up that right because I don't want to be punched in the face myself. That's how rights work in the real world outside of libertarian fantasy-land. You get some by giving some up.
Rights derive from society. Without society, there is no concept of rights. There is only, 'What do I have the power to do?" Individuals define rights through contract with other individuals when they join together to form a society. That is the only place rights derive from, not from some idiotic idea of self ownership (You're your own slave? How's that work? Can you sell yourself to me and be my slave? Morons.) not from some humanized ideal of Nature, and certainly not from some invisible sky-daddy. Rights come from individuals agreeing what it means to form a society and they are not absolute, they are conditional upon fulfilling the agreed on contract. You may not like that, and you may make up fantasy stories in your head to hide from that fact, but that is the cold hard truth. Rights come from societies willingness to back them up, which comes from individual agreements.
The free market does not create freedom. It creates oppression. Because of the runaway feedback loops, the positive feedback cycle of wealth creating more wealth, the rich will always get richer and the poor will always get poorer. The poor will then be forced into servitude by the rich. Economically forced, as in: you do what we say or you don't eat. This is the hell you are working towards. This is what you support. This is the final outcome of your twisted little philosophy, and it is why no one with a heart is a libertarian.
I can't assume it is ignorance of this outcome that drives most libertarians. I can only assume that they desire this, that they want to be the new feudal lords, the new slave owners. I have to assume this, or assume that all libertarians are idiots, too dumb to see the obvious outcome of their philosophy.
What argument from authority? I don't think you understand that fallacy. Argument from authority is when you say, "X, an expert says Y. Therefore, Y is true," I was saying these guys are experts, therefore, they are more likely to have invented something non obvious. The fact that they presented their inventions to Intel means that Intel had the opportunity to use their discoveries. Neither I, nor the post I was responding to makes any definite claims. That post was making inferences about the likelihood of this case having any merit, and I agreed that his points support the possibility of wrongdoing on Intel's part. Are you honestly disagreeing with that assessment?
Three, three, our three weapons are surprise, chocolate, sprouts, and our fanatical battle cry of "Vlaenderen die Leu!"
Ahh, can we go out and come back in?
Among our many weapons...
I hope you get modded up, this is a very important point to note. Established researchers in the field, presented their work at Intel, definitely sounds like there is some merit to the claim.
Disruption of the planned opening of the Iranian Oil Bourse this week. Suspicious, the Iranians were about to start trading oil in Euros on the 11th. That would send the dollar into a tailspin and all but destroy the US's already shaky credit rating in the rest of the world.
It wouldn't take much to disrupt trading. This also explains why the cuts were reported so widely. It's a message to would be Euro oil traders: the US is simply not going to allow this to happen. We will do anything it takes to disrupt non-dollar trade in oil. The dollar must remain the world's reserve currency if our economic house of cards is to remain standing. The Iranian Oil Bourse is potentially more damaging to the US than an Iranian nuke.
Libertarians are the real authoritarians. They want the freedom to financially oppress others. You all claim that a free market will lead to everyone being wealthier, but I know in your black little hearts you think you're better than everyone else, and that you will be able to rise above the peons and lord over them. Libertarians want a new feudal system where the strong are free to oppress the weak at leisure.
It wouldn't take much to be holier than me. Can holiness go into negative numbers?
Sigh. The next five years won't be much fun.
If you can't be bothered to ask the originator if she minds if you reuse her work, you can't call yourself respectful.
If you can't honor the wishes of the originator when he says he doesn't want you reusing his work, you shouldn't call yourself honest.
All in all, the only way in which I'd miss the recyclers is in the lack of easy targets for mockery. Everything in art is recycled. If you can't see that, you have not studied art, literature, or history. Go ahead, find me one original piece of art, something that has never, ever been done before, and which is not influenced by anything which went before. Or try a thought experiment: if you raised a kid in a box with no contact with the outside world, would they be capable of producing anything approaching art?
Iran's Oil Bourse is the target. Can't have the world trading oil in non-dollar currency. Nowadays, you cut the Internet and there won't be much trading. Props to Jeremiah Cornelius for the link.
You know, when you first showed up here, I thought, "Great. Another arrogant libertarian twit." Obviously, that was my first mistake. Next I allowed myself to be a bit of a dick to you at times, thinking, "This guy just needs to have some sense knocked into him, shake up his world view a little." Completely arrogant, and it turns out, wrong as well. With this post, I've finally realized what a well educated and nuanced thinker you are. We may not always agree on things, but I will give your opinions the respect they deserve. I say that because I don't have anything more to add to the ideas you've expressed here, except to nod in agreement.
Ah pfhorrest, always a pleasure engaging with you. I strive to be as dispassionate and logical as you are in my discourse, but fail miserably most of the time. ;-)
As for property, I've thought about this quite a bit. First, you don't own yourself. No one does, ownership is a moot concept when applied to people. Well, not moot, per se, but a nebulous concept, used as a shorthand to refer to whatever bundle of rights the person using the phrase wants to justify. Why should the same concept of ownership apply to you, when you are so unlike any other form of property? Why not just enumerate the list of rights that you mean? Because self-ownership is a semantic trick used to justify private property.
Next, there is a huge difference between personal property and private property. In property theory, personal property refers to things, while private property refers to land and natural resources. I feel that everyone is entitled to the personal property they've worked to attain. I don't feel that anyone has the right to own private property. I feel that people who personally use a resource should have stewardship rights to it, but not permanent and absolute property rights.
I agree with the Lockean notion of rights. But I must add a caveat: what use is a personal right, if you do not have the thing that right applies to? I can envision a world where one person owns everything. The right to own property applies equally, but in actuality it applies only to that one person.
What is under discussion here is the right of a group to ensure that all members of the group pay taxes. I assert that people do have the right to demand dues or taxes as a condition of membership, and that all privileges of membership may be revoked if those dues aren't paid. I find it hard to believe that libertarians can argue against this point, but as I've said, most libertarians do not even understand the arguments they are parroting back. They have no logical consistency, except for, "You're not the boss of me and I'll do whatever I want."
The thing is, I also agree with libertarians on a lot of issues. The main thing I find lacking is any discussion of, "How do we get to true anarchist, non coercive society from where we are now?" We can't just do away with government, for the reasons you point out. You provide a cogent analysis, but there are a few things I'd like to point out.
One, I don't think everyone will have equality of outcome even given equal opportunity. Some people are smarter, or more driven than others, and it is just and fair that those people should achieve more. I believe that if there were not such a large disparity, and everyone had their basic needs met, that few would have a problem with this. In fact, I think most people would gain comfort from a sense of justice and fairness, even if they weren't the excellent ones. Maybe I'm weird, but I derive real happiness when I see someone succeed on genuine merit.
Second, you ignore the network effect that pretty much guarantees a power-law distribution of outcomes even based on equal opportunity and merit. You hint at this when you describe the positive feedback loop of wealth accumulation, but it is more than just wealth accumulation. People don't actually like to make decisions, not hard or confusing ones, anyway. They'd like to just do what works for their friends and relatives.
That means that slight deviations in distribution of a good become magnified, as more people recommend that good. Look at the popularity of blogs. The most popular is about twice as popular as the next, and so on. Blogs are free, people could choose to look at any of them, but they concentrate attention on a few. Not due to merit, many of the least popular are easily as good as the most popular, but simply based on chance, feedback loops, and non linear systems. I believe it benefits the largest number of people for society to provide some negative feedback loops to offset all the positive feedback loops of wealth accumulation.
You aren't defending basic human rights. You are defending your idea of basic human rights. Not everyone agrees with you on what basic human rights are. For instance, I believe every person should have the right to access the means of their own support and livelihood. This conflicts with absolute property ownership. I believe that the right of anyone to have the means to support themselves trumps any idea of real property. People who believe in absolute property rights believe people have no right to use property that is not theirs, and thus can go starve if it comes to that.
The thing is, there are very few places in the US that aren't being used at all. So, for argument, lets just consider owned property. Do I have the right to place conditions on the sale of my property? For instance, if you want to buy it, you have to pay this group of people called 'government' on a yearly basis. Is that a valid condition to a contract? How about a stipulation that you must accept certain decisions made by an elected official? How about a stipulation that only said elected official can change the stipulations, and that anyone you sell to must abide by them as well? Is it within my moral rights to make those stipulations? Those stipulations have been made on all property within the US. If you don't like it, you are free to purchase property elsewhere in the hopes that it won't come encumbered by such stipulations.
What you think of as us forcing or coercing you, we think of as protecting our rights and upholding agreements we all bought into. If you don't want to abide by those agreements, you are free to look elsewhere. You seem to think that you can just unilaterally change the rules and agreements that come with the property you'd like to own. Maybe I'd like a free hooker with every whopper I purchase, but that is not going to happen, and I have no more right to force people to provide me with hookers than you do to force people to provide you with property unencumbered by previous agreements. Sorry.
This is why I say, libertarians aren't about liberty at all. They are about their own personal freedom to do as they please, and everyone else can go to hell. Its a philosophy founded on selfishness, not freedom. You all want the rights and freedoms that go along with living in a civilized society, with none of the responsibility. You're nothing but a bunch of pirates and thieves.
Only an idiot can't see that you are proposing to force your views on us. This country is the property of US citizens. You libertarians want to tell us what rules to play by on our own property. You are the ones forcing your views on others, and disrespecting our property, our autonomy, our freedom, and our decision making abilities to boot. Libertarians aren't about liberty at all. They are all about their own freedom to do whatever they please and everyone else can just go to hell.
Tell you what, you want to live in a country where you pay no taxes and everything is free market, how about you go make your own country instead of trying to steal ours? No one is forcing their views on anyone. We are saying, "This is our country. If you want to live here, you play by our rules. If you don't want to play by our rules, no one is forcing you to stay here."
I'm convinced the average libertarian can not think for themselves, and is only capable of parroting back arguments they've heard, but don't understand.
I'll say it again, If you don't like it, get the hell off of our property. Go try out your insane ideas of governance with other people who agree with you. You don't have the right to force US Citizens to go along with you. This is our country, we make the rules collectively, and if you don't like it, no one is forcing you to stay. Go somewhere else to try your libertarian ideals. Maybe if the rest of us see how well they work, we'll agree to go along with you. So far, you libertarian types have not stepped up to the plate. You can't seem to make a go of it on your own, so you want to steal our country and our infrastructure for your little experiment.
But this is our country. If you don't like the rules, you are free to enact changes, as long as the majority agree with you. If you don't like the rules and don't want to work through the proper channels to change them, your only other option is to leave. Let's say you go to someone's house, and they demand you give them money. You don't want to give them money to stay there, and insist that they do not have the right to demand money from you, as you didn't agree to it. You are asserting that you have the right to trespass on another person's property. The US is the property of the US citizens, and we have collectively agreed that there will be certain rules that everyone who lives here follows. You do not have the right to claim the moral high ground and to say that we have no right to make you follow our rules on our property. You are free to leave our property if you don't like our rules, but you can't just demand that we change them because you don't like them.
No one is arguing that you have the right to do whatever you want on your own property if that property is unencumbered by other agreements. All property in the US is encumbered by other agreements. If you don't like the agreements that encumber property here, you are free to buy property elsewhere. You don't have the right to unilaterally decide that property in the US will not be encumbered by those agreements. Sure, you can attempt to get others to agree with your selfish and self centered ideas, but fortunately, only a small minority of crazy libertarians agree with you, and as we've seen, libertarians don't and can't control any nation or state in the world because too few people agree with their insane and selfish ideals.
Good luck with your childish "You're not the boss of me!" political "philosophy." Just leave the rest of us out of it. If you want to live like that, go find somewhere else to do it. Don't try to steal our country, make one of your own.
Private property is only useful to those who own property. Private property amounts to a contract between property owners to defend each other's property from the have-nots. As a concept, it is of no use to those who don't own property. Why should any non-property owner respect your claim of ownership?
Now, assuming you do respect private ownership, do you respect collective ownership? If my wife and I own property together, may we not set the rules for that property together? May we not choose to elect someone to manage our collective property? If we do, is it fair for someone else to come in and tell us how to use that property? Now, substitute "US citizens" for "my wife and I." We have elected someone to manage our collective property, known as the United States. Now you want to come in and tell us what to do, because somehow, us deciding what to do with our collective property means we are coercing you into going along with our decisions. If you don't like how we, the US citizens, are managing our property, you can get the hell off of it or go through channels to change things. You can't claim any kind of moral high ground though.
Quit pretending you value freedom for all humans. Your words and actions show you value freedom only for property owners, not for the majority of the world's citizens.
Well said. Anyone who advocates for the middle ground is okay in my book. What remains is a debate on the specifics. Corporations have no motive other than maximizing profit for their shareholders. Unfortunately, in practice this boils down to short term, short sighted profit for the shareholders. Corporations are always looking for the biggest tax break, the lowest wages, the least regulation, and the best ways to externalize costs and monetize positive externalities. If you let them, they will take everything and give nothing.
One way to pressure corporations into giving a more fair and balanced deal is to publicize exactly what they are doing. Maybe it does make sense to let them take the tax break. But it also makes sense to make an extremely big stink about it, to give them something in the costs column to weigh against the benefits. If a corporation knows it will lose public trust and goodwill by acting selfishly, it may actually bargain in good faith. Put pressure on the decision makers as well. Let people know, it was these particular corporate officers who made the decision not to pay any taxes. Let the decision makers feel the public outrage over their actions directly. There is no reason limited liability should protect them from that.