30% across the board pay raise (in the form of dropping the income tax--something we lived without in this country outside of wartime until 1913) allows more people to save more money for retirement, and to donate more to charity. Absent government regulation, there are many more medical practitioners, which drives prices down. With no "free money" in the form of SSI/SSDI, people know to save, and they are less likely to feign injury or disability to avoid work, meaning only those who are truly needy will be on the private dole.
Further, increased capital investment yields falling prices, effecting continuous pay raises for everyone. Rather than having huge numbers of people working for the government, they are producing things, which again drives down prices, etc. Falling prices are very good for pensioners (yes, pensions started in the private sphere).
Gold and silver are not wealth. They are a claim on wealth. Wealth is land, food, clothing, houses, capital goods, etc. You don't need more money on your island, you just need a market for goods and services such that gold, silver, land, and goods flow freely according to what people want and what they produce. Come back in five generations and your island looks like Hong Kong. Wealth has been created, and the same area can support far more people. Freedom wins.
Of course, if you implement socialism and give the baby a certificate with "one gold coin" written on it, five or fifty generations latter you will come back and find the population unchanged, or at war, or all dead because no-one bothered to save any wealth in terms of stored food (due to restrictions on "price gauging", "hoarding", and taxation/regulation). When there was a bad harvest, or a natural disaster, or what-have-you, no-one had anything stored, and everyone starved to death. The ultimate gift of socialism is extinction. The penultimate gift is poverty.
You do know that Pinkertons often spent hard time in prison for their crimes, right?
And I notice you make no mention of the use or military forces to bust unions. I thought government was a panacea for all ills? Surely they can't be guilty of the same things that private companies are guilty of sometimes, only they do it all the time and to much greater and more damaging extent!
No. That is absolutely incorrect. There is a difference between paying someone to do something and pointing a gun at them and telling them to do something. Sure economic power can TRANSITION to political power via raising of an army and imposition of new laws to be enforced by that army, but in an anarchic society that is very difficult as A. pretty much everyone is armed and B. mercenaries with training and equipment from rifles to nuclear submarines complete with nuclear deterrent are available for hire.
Anarchy does not mean you get to do whatever you want. It means you get to do whatever you want without initiating force upon others. GIGANTIC difference.
As opposed to the times before that, when no-one starved and the entire planet was a happy happy joy joy paradise.
No-one seems to understand that the Industrial Revolution was a TRANSITION from feudalism to freedom which brought the world out of poverty and CREATED wealth for everyone.
Also, note the end date of the libertarian policy. Quite a while before the invention of the social safety net. What happened in between, hmm? Now, what is happening now, with social safety nets in Europe? What is to stop it from happening here in the US?
Prior to Reconstruction there was no middle class. After 1913, there was a middle class. Your attempt at obfuscation has failed.
Further, your notions of the industrialists of that era are tainted by the writings of feel-good fools like Dickens and Sinclair. The truth of the matter is that the price of kerosene fell by 90% between the time Standard Oil was formed and when it was broken up. It was a free market "monopoly", and like all free market monopolies, it was forced to provide the best goods at the lowest prices lest other companies (which even at SO's greatest extent controlled 10% of the US market) emerge or horn in on their market share.
Sorry if you can't comprehend the concept of before and after:(
Not "no protections", but rather, "no protections enforced by initiation of force". This is a major difference. Security companies and police-like forces would exist under anarchism, they just wouldn't be "official" and as thus would be liable both as individual agents and as an organization for any damages they cause. Liability is something that would be determined by arbitration as agreed upon by the offending and insulted party, or their representatives (whether they be family members, social insurers who specialize in this sort of thing, or someone else).
Anarchism does not mean "no social institutions". Only the animalistic anarcho-communists (who don't recognize property rights) and the truly base animals who sometimes call themselves anarchists (who don't recognize property rights or one's right to self-ownership ie they can kill you if they feel like it) either want or think that.
Think about it. If you didn't have a government around to tell you not to do certain things, would you really run out and start doing them? Yeah, most other people wouldn't either. And those that do will find that actions have consequences, and they are a lot swifter absent a social contract granting revenge authority to the slow and incompetent government.
Somalia is war torn area and under constant invasion from outside, with UN agencies and other governments all funding their own strongman governments, resulting in nothing but war in the cities, and breaking down trade in the countryside. This is after 30 years of COMMUNIST rule which totally destroyed the nation's infrastructure. Prior to takeover by Communists, Somalia had a system of "government" which resembled anarcho-capitalism, though societal structure still centered around clan affiliation rather than voluntary association. Society lasted that way for some 1300 years, longer than any government in the world.
Citing modern day Somalia as an example of what happens under libertarian philosophy is like citing early 90's Bosnia as what happens under Democracy. Or Nazi Germany as an example of what happens when governments follow their own laws. The fact is that MOST of the time, outside of extreme circumstances, Democracy is good, governments obeying the law is good, and libertarianism is good.
Where do you live that there is only one employer, and you are forbidden from opening your own business because of government restraint and non-intervention?
The US maintained a libertarian economic policy from the end of Reconstruction through 1913. A time period that coincided with the greatest period of economic growth ever seen in history, creating the first universal middle class in history.
Perhaps having the freedom to pay what you want to pay for a job to be done does not mean that you get to set non-market prices for labor? If "bosses" got to arbitrarily set labor costs, then every job would pay the minimum wage. But it doesn't. The fact that it doesn't proves that there is either a problem with your assumptions or your logic.
What do you think "commit to" means in this context? Here's a hint, it doesn't mean writing your name in a book that says "List of Anarcho-communists", or going to a meeting of anarcho-communists, or fucking a hot anarcho-communist. It means participating in theivery and murder and smugly stating that the people you hurt had no rights to any of the things you took from them, which is exactly what an animal would say if he could talk. If a person wants to be an animal, then they should be treated as such. If they want to be a human, then they can act like one.
Thanks for telling me what I believe after I clarified my words when you misunderstood what I was saying. Schmuk.
You do realize that by denying the rights of ownership of property and one's own body, that means that they think they can take your possessions and your life, right?
I will certainly shoot someone on sight if they are attempting to take someone's life.
If the study had shown that it AGW believers were smarter and more scientifically literate, I doubt you would be singing the same "smarter people are better at justifying their ignorance" tune.
Did you ever ask the "smart" people you know WHY they don't like to fly? Maybe they don't like being teabagged by arrogant TSA agents, or they are concerned about doing something wrong and being labelled a terrorist, or being detained for some stupid reason, or maybe they get bad motion sickness. There are plenty of reasons for smart people to refrain from flying. I myself only fly if my destination is more than 12 hours by car, or if required for business reasons.
Christ, has Fox News really been around since 1993?
I'm getting old. I remember my Uncle watching that garbage (I thought it was garbage even as a boy), claiming he liked it because it wasn't as biased as CNN. lol
Of course, since then, I have grown to understand that the entire media complex is extremely biased to the point of irrelevancy.
Think about the echo chamber on the "evils" of interracial marriage. That was almost totally expunged in some 30-50 years. A small stigma remains, but those who speak out against it find that society is NOT on their side. The same thing will happen here. Eventually, anti-evolutionists will be confined to the Westboro Baptist churches of the world.
I'm sorry you have lowered yourself to the level of a dumb beast.
The position you espouse is so laughable even Marx realized it was self-refuting.
You really think that some jackass who never worked a day in his life has a legitimate claim on time in a factory to waste on some half-baked idea? Ludicrous.
Without ownership, all capital will be immediately destroyed, ie you get Easter Island. With no property rights there, strongmen emerged and laid claim to all of the lumber in the land so that they could build great monuments to themselves. When the lumber ran out, the population died off, and they were never again capable of the great voyages of their ancestors, until the white man came.
Incorrect. We have a right to property, which is widely recognized among ourselves. You are correct in that an ape's lack of language is the primary barrier to their recognition of property rights. But that is the line between animal and human. Those animals that are most integrated into our lives recognize property rights to some extent. That is to say that a dog won't jump up on the table and eat all your food, because he recognizes that that food does not belong to him (or something else that amounts to a distinction without a difference), whereas a genetically compatible wolf will do it right in front of you, and will only refrain from doing it if you beat the crap out of it, and will still do it the second you turn your back.
Boy oh boy are you butthurt. Tell me, bro, where is the line between "micro-evolution" and "evolution"? Sounds pretty arbitrary to me, considering the basic cellular processes are the same.
Satan also shrunk the skulls of Australian snakes so they couldn't eat poisonous cane toads any more. That wily bastard sure loves snakes!
Slashdot Mirror
30% across the board pay raise (in the form of dropping the income tax--something we lived without in this country outside of wartime until 1913) allows more people to save more money for retirement, and to donate more to charity. Absent government regulation, there are many more medical practitioners, which drives prices down. With no "free money" in the form of SSI/SSDI, people know to save, and they are less likely to feign injury or disability to avoid work, meaning only those who are truly needy will be on the private dole.
Further, increased capital investment yields falling prices, effecting continuous pay raises for everyone. Rather than having huge numbers of people working for the government, they are producing things, which again drives down prices, etc. Falling prices are very good for pensioners (yes, pensions started in the private sphere).
Uhh, yes, he was. He was for limited, constitutional government, something that today we call libertarian.
You do realize that the reason for this is the barriers that they have raised to entry of new market participants in the form of regulation, right?
Gold and silver are not wealth. They are a claim on wealth. Wealth is land, food, clothing, houses, capital goods, etc. You don't need more money on your island, you just need a market for goods and services such that gold, silver, land, and goods flow freely according to what people want and what they produce. Come back in five generations and your island looks like Hong Kong. Wealth has been created, and the same area can support far more people. Freedom wins.
Of course, if you implement socialism and give the baby a certificate with "one gold coin" written on it, five or fifty generations latter you will come back and find the population unchanged, or at war, or all dead because no-one bothered to save any wealth in terms of stored food (due to restrictions on "price gauging", "hoarding", and taxation/regulation). When there was a bad harvest, or a natural disaster, or what-have-you, no-one had anything stored, and everyone starved to death. The ultimate gift of socialism is extinction. The penultimate gift is poverty.
You do know that Pinkertons often spent hard time in prison for their crimes, right?
And I notice you make no mention of the use or military forces to bust unions. I thought government was a panacea for all ills? Surely they can't be guilty of the same things that private companies are guilty of sometimes, only they do it all the time and to much greater and more damaging extent!
No. That is absolutely incorrect. There is a difference between paying someone to do something and pointing a gun at them and telling them to do something. Sure economic power can TRANSITION to political power via raising of an army and imposition of new laws to be enforced by that army, but in an anarchic society that is very difficult as A. pretty much everyone is armed and B. mercenaries with training and equipment from rifles to nuclear submarines complete with nuclear deterrent are available for hire.
Anarchy does not mean you get to do whatever you want. It means you get to do whatever you want without initiating force upon others. GIGANTIC difference.
As opposed to the times before that, when no-one starved and the entire planet was a happy happy joy joy paradise.
No-one seems to understand that the Industrial Revolution was a TRANSITION from feudalism to freedom which brought the world out of poverty and CREATED wealth for everyone.
Also, note the end date of the libertarian policy. Quite a while before the invention of the social safety net. What happened in between, hmm? Now, what is happening now, with social safety nets in Europe? What is to stop it from happening here in the US?
Prior to Reconstruction there was no middle class. After 1913, there was a middle class. Your attempt at obfuscation has failed.
:(
Further, your notions of the industrialists of that era are tainted by the writings of feel-good fools like Dickens and Sinclair. The truth of the matter is that the price of kerosene fell by 90% between the time Standard Oil was formed and when it was broken up. It was a free market "monopoly", and like all free market monopolies, it was forced to provide the best goods at the lowest prices lest other companies (which even at SO's greatest extent controlled 10% of the US market) emerge or horn in on their market share.
Sorry if you can't comprehend the concept of before and after
Not "no protections", but rather, "no protections enforced by initiation of force". This is a major difference. Security companies and police-like forces would exist under anarchism, they just wouldn't be "official" and as thus would be liable both as individual agents and as an organization for any damages they cause. Liability is something that would be determined by arbitration as agreed upon by the offending and insulted party, or their representatives (whether they be family members, social insurers who specialize in this sort of thing, or someone else).
Anarchism does not mean "no social institutions". Only the animalistic anarcho-communists (who don't recognize property rights) and the truly base animals who sometimes call themselves anarchists (who don't recognize property rights or one's right to self-ownership ie they can kill you if they feel like it) either want or think that.
Think about it. If you didn't have a government around to tell you not to do certain things, would you really run out and start doing them? Yeah, most other people wouldn't either. And those that do will find that actions have consequences, and they are a lot swifter absent a social contract granting revenge authority to the slow and incompetent government.
Somalia is war torn area and under constant invasion from outside, with UN agencies and other governments all funding their own strongman governments, resulting in nothing but war in the cities, and breaking down trade in the countryside. This is after 30 years of COMMUNIST rule which totally destroyed the nation's infrastructure. Prior to takeover by Communists, Somalia had a system of "government" which resembled anarcho-capitalism, though societal structure still centered around clan affiliation rather than voluntary association. Society lasted that way for some 1300 years, longer than any government in the world.
Citing modern day Somalia as an example of what happens under libertarian philosophy is like citing early 90's Bosnia as what happens under Democracy. Or Nazi Germany as an example of what happens when governments follow their own laws. The fact is that MOST of the time, outside of extreme circumstances, Democracy is good, governments obeying the law is good, and libertarianism is good.
Where do you live that there is only one employer, and you are forbidden from opening your own business because of government restraint and non-intervention?
The US maintained a libertarian economic policy from the end of Reconstruction through 1913. A time period that coincided with the greatest period of economic growth ever seen in history, creating the first universal middle class in history.
Perhaps having the freedom to pay what you want to pay for a job to be done does not mean that you get to set non-market prices for labor? If "bosses" got to arbitrarily set labor costs, then every job would pay the minimum wage. But it doesn't. The fact that it doesn't proves that there is either a problem with your assumptions or your logic.
Anarchism is as related to socialism as it is to any other totally unrelated political ideology.
What do you think "commit to" means in this context? Here's a hint, it doesn't mean writing your name in a book that says "List of Anarcho-communists", or going to a meeting of anarcho-communists, or fucking a hot anarcho-communist. It means participating in theivery and murder and smugly stating that the people you hurt had no rights to any of the things you took from them, which is exactly what an animal would say if he could talk. If a person wants to be an animal, then they should be treated as such. If they want to be a human, then they can act like one.
Thanks for telling me what I believe after I clarified my words when you misunderstood what I was saying. Schmuk.
You do realize that by denying the rights of ownership of property and one's own body, that means that they think they can take your possessions and your life, right?
I will certainly shoot someone on sight if they are attempting to take someone's life.
Yeah, you're not biased at all.
If the study had shown that it AGW believers were smarter and more scientifically literate, I doubt you would be singing the same "smarter people are better at justifying their ignorance" tune.
Did you ever ask the "smart" people you know WHY they don't like to fly? Maybe they don't like being teabagged by arrogant TSA agents, or they are concerned about doing something wrong and being labelled a terrorist, or being detained for some stupid reason, or maybe they get bad motion sickness. There are plenty of reasons for smart people to refrain from flying. I myself only fly if my destination is more than 12 hours by car, or if required for business reasons.
Christ, has Fox News really been around since 1993?
I'm getting old. I remember my Uncle watching that garbage (I thought it was garbage even as a boy), claiming he liked it because it wasn't as biased as CNN. lol
Of course, since then, I have grown to understand that the entire media complex is extremely biased to the point of irrelevancy.
An Anonymous Coward, making shit up, in a climate change article!?
On MY Slashdot!?
Think about the echo chamber on the "evils" of interracial marriage. That was almost totally expunged in some 30-50 years. A small stigma remains, but those who speak out against it find that society is NOT on their side. The same thing will happen here. Eventually, anti-evolutionists will be confined to the Westboro Baptist churches of the world.
But then, I'm an optimist.
And hence they are animals, and should be shot on sight should they ever commit to such monstrous ideology.
I'm sorry you have lowered yourself to the level of a dumb beast.
The position you espouse is so laughable even Marx realized it was self-refuting.
You really think that some jackass who never worked a day in his life has a legitimate claim on time in a factory to waste on some half-baked idea? Ludicrous.
Without ownership, all capital will be immediately destroyed, ie you get Easter Island. With no property rights there, strongmen emerged and laid claim to all of the lumber in the land so that they could build great monuments to themselves. When the lumber ran out, the population died off, and they were never again capable of the great voyages of their ancestors, until the white man came.
Oh hi Mr. "I'll Define Your Already Rigidly Defined Ideology Any Way I want Thank You Very Much"...
Incorrect. We have a right to property, which is widely recognized among ourselves. You are correct in that an ape's lack of language is the primary barrier to their recognition of property rights. But that is the line between animal and human. Those animals that are most integrated into our lives recognize property rights to some extent. That is to say that a dog won't jump up on the table and eat all your food, because he recognizes that that food does not belong to him (or something else that amounts to a distinction without a difference), whereas a genetically compatible wolf will do it right in front of you, and will only refrain from doing it if you beat the crap out of it, and will still do it the second you turn your back.
Boy oh boy are you butthurt. Tell me, bro, where is the line between "micro-evolution" and "evolution"? Sounds pretty arbitrary to me, considering the basic cellular processes are the same.
Satan also shrunk the skulls of Australian snakes so they couldn't eat poisonous cane toads any more. That wily bastard sure loves snakes!