Political Crossfire Forums

[LostSoul3412]

Nathyn wrote: How much would it cost to buy enough land, become trained, and the other basic materials to be a farmer? A few acres of land, alone, would be a couple hundred grand, at least, depending upon where you buy it. You'd also probably need farm equipment, unless you expect to farm the old fashioned way, which would set you back several thousand dollars. And assuming you aren't just a vegetarian, you'd need livestock, and I know cows cost several hundred dollars a piece, if not more.

I never said "farm", or "grow", or "sow", or "harvest" your own food, I said gather your own food. No equipment necessary to pick a berry off a tree. And if you need help with that... well...

Nathyn wrote: We are born into slavery. If we all have equal ownership of the Earth, why should I have to live like, say, a farmer in Hong Kong and risk getting avian flu from handling chicken-s**t just because I don't want to be an indentured servant to the wealthy?

Let me ask you this, why don't you want to be an indentured servant to the wealthy?

Nathyn wrote: No, the starvation is from their actions. They assert ownership over what is not theirs, through government force. If I try to use their land to grow food, they would put me in prison. Some, such as Bill O'Reilly, propose that prisons should even be labor camps.

But they're not labor camps, so that's mere speculation. Also, why should you be entitled to something that you didn't work for?

Nathyn wrote: Precisely because of the wealthy's monopoly over land. Within 50 to 100 years, private property could be eliminated and we'd still all live like the American middle-class.

Why should we punish success? Why should we all live like the American middle-class?

Nathyn wrote: What difference does it make? Either way, it's in the hands of a wealth elite class with no regard for the people.

What constitutes a "wealthy elite"?

Nathyn wrote: If the government uses such land for the public benefit, it's good. You would privatize roads and then, the wealthy certainly would have us by the neck, because they could buy all of the land around someone's house and hold them hostage, financially, charging them whatever fee they wanted in order to let them leave to go to work or go buy groceries.

So no matter what we do, we're screwed?

[Nathyn]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Nathyn wrote: How much would it cost to buy enough land, become trained, and the other basic materials to be a farmer? A few acres of land, alone, would be a couple hundred grand, at least, depending upon where you buy it. You'd also probably need farm equipment, unless you expect to farm the old fashioned way, which would set you back several thousand dollars. And assuming you aren't just a vegetarian, you'd need livestock, and I know cows cost several hundred dollars a piece, if not more.

I never said "farm", or "grow", or "sow", or "harvest" your own food, I said gather your own food. No equipment necessary to pick a berry off a tree. And if you need help with that... well...
Like Robin Hood?

LostSoul3412 wrote: Nathyn wrote: We are born into slavery. If we all have equal ownership of the Earth, why should I have to live like, say, a farmer in Hong Kong and risk getting avian flu from handling chicken-s**t just because I don't want to be an indentured servant to the wealthy?

Let me ask you this, why don't you want to be an indentured servant to the wealthy?
The same reason you don't want to be an indentured servant to the government.

LostSoul3412 wrote: Nathyn wrote: No, the starvation is from their actions. They assert ownership over what is not theirs, through government force. If I try to use their land to grow food, they would put me in prison. Some, such as Bill O'Reilly, propose that prisons should even be labor camps.

But they're not labor camps, so that's mere speculation. Also, why should you be entitled to something that you didn't work for?
Rape still goes on, however, which is just as bad. And the fact that people are jailed, period, just for trying to survive is wrong.

LostSoul3412 wrote: Nathyn wrote: Precisely because of the wealthy's monopoly over land. Within 50 to 100 years, private property could be eliminated and we'd still all live like the American middle-class.
Why should we punish success? Why should we all live like the American middle-class?
I support meritocracy. We shouldn't all necessarily live like the American middleclass, but we're entitled to if we have equal ownership of resources.

LostSoul3412 wrote: Nathyn wrote: What difference does it make? Either way, it's in the hands of a wealth elite class with no regard for the people.

What constitutes a "wealthy elite"?
Wealthy people who exist in a class of low social mobility, with high amounts of political control.

LostSoul3412 wrote: Nathyn wrote: If the government uses such land for the public benefit, it's good. You would privatize roads and then, the wealthy certainly would have us by the neck, because they could buy all of the land around someone's house and hold them hostage, financially, charging them whatever fee they wanted in order to let them leave to go to work or go buy groceries.
So no matter what we do, we're screwed?
Until Communism, pretty much. Capitalism is ethically unjustifiable, but I agree that a mixed market is the only currently stable system, even though the government tends to engage in unjust regulation.

[RueTheDay]

Contracts, in and of themselves, are not coercive. The coercion happens when one of the parties to a contract changes their mind about the contract and the other party then seeks the aid of a third party (either the government or, in the case of the anarchists, the "mutual protection agency") to ENFORCE the contract. It is the enforcement of the contract that is coercive, not the contract itself. Libertarians, whose entire philosophy is built upon a foundation of quicksand (essentially the belief in the absolute power of property and contracts), have yet to demonstrate why a contract SHOULD always be enforced.

[RueTheDay]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Nathyn wrote: How much would it cost to buy enough land, become trained, and the other basic materials to be a farmer? A few acres of land, alone, would be a couple hundred grand, at least, depending upon where you buy it. You'd also probably need farm equipment, unless you expect to farm the old fashioned way, which would set you back several thousand dollars. And assuming you aren't just a vegetarian, you'd need livestock, and I know cows cost several hundred dollars a piece, if not more.

I never said "farm", or "grow", or "sow", or "harvest" your own food, I said gather your own food. No equipment necessary to pick a berry off a tree. And if you need help with that... well...

The problem with your logic is that you are assuming that there are berry plants whose berries are simply available for the picking. Since all land in the modern world is already owned, one cannot simply go and "gather some berries" without violating someone's claimed property right.

[perdidochas]

Gus wrote: When defined as mere pressure by one human against another, coercion can't be resolved so long as two or more humans exist.

Stalin brought us closest to ending such coercion.

By replacing it with central government coercion.

[Free Thinkr]

Nathyn wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Nathyn wrote: If your subsistence depends upon a contract, it doesn't matter whether you can seek a better deal, the contract is still coercive. The threat of starvation is just as real as the threat of being killed if somebody holds a gun to your head. It does not matter whether that threat comes from a person holding a gun or a large group of elites asserting unjust ownership over natural resources. In either case, it isn't voluntary because you must agree to the contract or die.
Your argument requires the monopoly of natural resources, which isn't inherent in, or unique to, capitalism.
A lack of monopoly of resources implies a lack of individual property.
No it doesn't.

Quote: If you don't own the resources, then you can't own anything derived from them.
Yes you can.

Quote: Land-value taxes do not redistribute the vast amounts of wealth that has been generated because of historical monopoly over resources. Bill Gates is not wealthy because of ownership over natural resources. He's wealthy because of wealthy investors whom have historically profited from monopoly over natural resources. It only gives back but a small portion of what was stolen.
What is with you and "historical" wrongs? Do you understand that wealth is a very temporary thing?

Quote: I supported mixed markets on pragmatic grounds, but a Communist gift economy where poverty is eliminated, all resources are equally shared, and everybody owns what they use is the only ethically justifiable economic system.
There's nothing ethically justifiable about others using my creation as their own. There's nothing pragmatic about a mixed market.

Quote: Statist Socialism and Capitalism are both coercive and contrary to liberty for the same reason: both involve powerful, wealthy elites asserting ownership and exercising arbitrary authority over what is not theirs, in the name of a distorted sense of justice, so that they can exploit the weak for their own benefit.
And what else? A mixed market. You intend to take coercive power from the wealthy, and hand it over to politicians; who, then, will control the politicians? The wealthy, of course.

[LeopardPM]

Nathyn wrote: How much would it cost to buy enough land, become trained, and the other basic materials to be a farmer? A few acres of land, alone, would be a couple hundred grand, at least, depending upon where you buy it. You'd also probably need farm equipment, unless you expect to farm the old fashioned way, which would set you back several thousand dollars. And assuming you aren't just a vegetarian, you'd need livestock, and I know cows cost several hundred dollars a piece, if not more.
farm equipment require the labor of others to create, same with livestock, and the farming training(education) - are you suggesting you have some 'right' to have these things provided to you without compensation from you?

Quote: We are born into slavery. If we all have equal ownership of the Earth, why should I have to live like, say, a farmer in Hong Kong and risk getting avian flu from handling chicken-s**t just because I don't want to be an indentured servant to the wealthy?
we are all born into this dangerous universe where nothing is guaranteed, where we must provide labor to survive, where we must provide labor to protect ourselves from the constant attempt of natural forces to kill us. We are owed NOTHING by the fact of our mere existence, and if by some lucky star or the fruits of your own labors you are able to eek out some sort of life and save up a stock of capital, isn't it 'just' and right that you should be able to pass this inheritance down to your own children as you see fit? We are not born into slavery except government, the fact that nature requires us to work to survive is NOT slavery, it is a natural state of our lives within the universe - this is what you are railing against, and you see others successfully doing so and expect to be benefited from their efforts.

Quote: LeopardPM wrote: Zoot wrote: Mastea wrote: If it's a contract, it's not coercive by definition, otherwise it's not a contract.

So if I provide you with 100 contracts to choose from, and tell you that if you don't sign at least one of them, I'll starve your family to death, that's not coersion?

The problem here is that you are assigning a positive action to what is actually a 'non' action on the part of the one starved: it is not YOU that is 'making' someone else starve, but rather, it is THEIR inaction which is doing so. Your situation proposed might be true if the person starving was being denied liberty, restrained in a cell perhaps where he is forcibly dependent upon others to provide him with food - but it does not apply in the outside world.
No, the starvation is from their actions. They assert ownership over what is not theirs, through government force. If I try to use their land to grow food, they would put me in prison. Some, such as Bill O'Reilly, propose that prisons should even be labor camps.
They assert ownership over what IS theirs - and they use the threat of force to maintain that ownership, it is their natural right to self-defense in which they enlist others (government) for protection. Government just does a very poor job and puts itself in a monopoly position at providing this protection.

You are free to put forth the effort required to own your own land and live as you can, but use of other people's land and property is a violation of their rights. You want something for nothing.

Quote: Quote: If we all tried to live like the Amish, we would be in poverty.
EXACTLY! Each and every person is perfectly capable (unless physically impaired) of striking out into the wilderness and subsisting upon their own labors - but we all already know the result: extreme hardship and poverty.
Precisely because of the wealthy's monopoly over land. Within 50 to 100 years, private property could be eliminated and we'd still all live like the American middle-class.[/quote]
if private property were eliminated then the marketplace would disappear and we would all take a drastic dip in our standard of living.

Quote: LeopardPM wrote: You might say that there is no unowned land, and I would reply that is solely because of government ownership which artificially restricts the land market - look at the percentage of government owned land in just the USA (supposed 'land of the free'). If this land were all to be on the market, there would be a general devaluation of current private land market prices and plenty of land available (at very low and affordable prices) for people for centuries to come. Already there are plenty of areas across the US which sell acreage for less than $300/acre which is well within the reach of even 12 year olds with a paper route.... Having unowned land available is not necessary given the total quantity of land available.
What difference does it make? Either way, it's in the hands of a wealth elite class with no regard for the people.
not true. If all land were private property then there would be a very rich and vibrant market in which everyone would be able to participate at whatever level they desired - if there is a total of 1000 acres available and 100 people in the market, sure, a few of the people (say 5%) might own a majority (like 60%) with the rest distributing out along some sort of Bell curve - but what is wrong with that? As long as anyone is free to buy or sell property without restriction then everyone has the same equal right. Some folks may choose to not put forth the effort/labor required to purchase land (or any other property) and thus become dependent upon the charity of others (is this really a form of slavery?) to offer them places 'to be' either in the form of gift or rent. First come, first served really is the only logical position to take as far as appropriation of unowned property, and then a free market after that for equal observance of rights.

Quote: If the government uses such land for the public benefit, it's good.
government uses such land for its own purposes - the purposes of those in power. Just as I would not rely on others to provide me with my own happiness, I would never expect 'government' to know what is 'good' for me, especially with it's 'one-size-fits-all' strategy of inflicting policy.

Quote: You would privatize roads and then, the wealthy certainly would have us by the neck, because they could buy all of the land around someone's house and hold them hostage, financially, charging them whatever fee they wanted in order to let them leave to go to work or go buy groceries.
whats the incentive? to kill people through starvation? Wouldn't each individual prospective home buyer have an interest in making sure such a thing couldn't happen through pre-negotiated access contracts (easements)? Freeing up our transportation sector through the privatization of roads would provide great benefits to everyone in the economy as transportation affects the costs of almost all goods and services. I suggest that whatever problems people are experiencing regarding automobile pollution, 'road' pollution (the paving of the majority of urban centers, and transportation prices, all responsibility rests at the feet of government intervention into the transportation market through the highway system, various train and trucking subsidies, and fuel taxation (not to mention the cost of protection of American oil companies on foreign soil...).

[LostSoul3412]

Nathyn wrote: Like Robin Hood?

I fail to see the analogy. I would relate it to hunter-gatherer societies that formed during the prehistoric era of human civilization.

Nathyn wrote: The same reason you don't want to be an indentured servant to the government.

...?

One of the things that many people have to understand about the American political and legal system is that people are not slaves to the government, the government is a slave to the Constitution. Personally, I love the way America is established as a government. Of course, I would change things to allow the states dominance over the national government, but as is, it is tolerable.

Having said that, I do not mind being an "indentured servant" to the government, so the question stands.

Why don't you want to be an indentured servant to the wealthy?

Nathyn wrote: Rape still goes on, however, which is just as bad. And the fact that people are jailed, period, just for trying to survive is wrong.

Pardon my bluntness, but what the hell are you talking about? It is not rape to legally own something and prevent others from using it without your permission. It is not rape that the merchant protects his bread from thieves. It is not rape for you to get a job.

Please explain how people are jailed for "just trying to survive".

Nathyn wrote: I support meritocracy. We shouldn't all necessarily live like the American middleclass, but we're entitled to if we have equal ownership of resources.

Why are you entitled to the same resources as me?

Nathyn wrote: Wealthy people who exist in a class of low social mobility, with high amounts of political control.

Define "social mobility".

Nathyn wrote: Until Communism, pretty much. Capitalism is ethically unjustifiable, but I agree that a mixed market is the only currently stable system, even though the government tends to engage in unjust regulation.

Communism protects you from "bring screwed" because it eliminates your individuality. So, instead of you in particular "being screwed", the entire society is screwed. As is, New Keynesian Economics is the most fundamentally based system we have available, so I will agree on the mixed market point.

However, I am not preaching capitalism as a perfect system. In fact, money is the root of all evil, so it is impossible to create a virtuous system for it. I am, however, arguing that capitalism is the lesser of the evils available to us. I would rather rise or fall based on my own abilities and actions, than to have my worth rationed.

[LostSoul3412]

RueTheDay wrote: The problem with your logic is that you are assuming that there are berry plants whose berries are simply available for the picking. Since all land in the modern world is already owned, one cannot simply go and "gather some berries" without violating someone's claimed property right.

I never claimed that there would be enough berries to pick, just as I never said that gathering would be a legal/desirable option. I simply stated that if you really wanted to avoid a job, you can venture into the wilderness and gather food at your own risk. If you're hungry enough, you'll find something to eat. And if you don't... well, then it doesn't matter anymore.

[LeopardPM]

LostSoul3412 wrote: However, I am not preaching capitalism as a perfect system. In fact, money is the root of all evil, so it is impossible to create a virtuous system for it. I am, however, arguing that capitalism is the lesser of the evils available to us. I would rather rise or fall based on my own abilities and actions, than to have my worth rationed.

are you insane? "Money is the root of all evil"? Geezus! You drank the kool-aid, didn't ya? You can probably thank your very existence to the fact that money (indirect exchange) was discovered! Without money we would all ('all' being a hundredth of the current population) be scratching in the earth for our survival on a daily basis!

[LeopardPM]

RueTheDay wrote: The problem with your logic is that you are assuming that there are berry plants whose berries are simply available for the picking. Since all land in the modern world is already owned, one cannot simply go and "gather some berries" without violating someone's claimed property right.

most land is 'owned' by government, is it not? Are not these land the same as your precious 'public' or 'owned in common' property? The artificial restriction to land ownership by government is most of the reason one cannot simply 'go out and pick berries' (though I have done this very thing many times without being shot by private property owners.

[LostSoul3412]

LeopardPM wrote: are you insane? "Money is the root of all evil"? Geezus! You drank the kool-aid, didn't ya? You can probably thank your very existence to the fact that money (indirect exchange) was discovered! Without money we would all ('all' being a hundredth of the current population) be scratching in the earth for our survival on a daily basis!

:roll:

You're grossly overreacting to an under-explained phrase.

What I meant by "money is the root of all evil", is that human greed is an indominatable element of human nature. I do not dislike money, nor do I wish to do away with it. It is a part of our society, and a necessary one at that. Economics has evolved dramatically to the point were we are now with a fiat currency, and I have no desire to do away with it, nor evolve beyond those standards.

All that I meant in that statement, is that the factor of human greed cannot be denied.

[LeopardPM]

LostSoul3412 wrote: LeopardPM wrote: are you insane? "Money is the root of all evil"? Geezus! You drank the kool-aid, didn't ya? You can probably thank your very existence to the fact that money (indirect exchange) was discovered! Without money we would all ('all' being a hundredth of the current population) be scratching in the earth for our survival on a daily basis!

:roll:

You're grossly overreacting to an under-explained phrase.

What I meant by "money is the root of all evil", is that human greed is an indominatable element of human nature. I do not dislike money, nor do I wish to do away with it. It is a part of our society, and a necessary one at that. Economics has evolved dramatically to the point were we are now with a fiat currency, and I have no desire to do away with it, nor evolve beyond those standards.

All that I meant in that statement, is that the factor of human greed cannot be denied.

whew?! sorry about that, but I have come across folks who do, in fact, see money as some evil force and do not understand that it is merely a tool, a VERY efficient one, for effecting trade.

I do not know what you mean by 'greed' - as its definition is not concrete and vague... apparently any act can be defined as both 'greedy' and 'not greedy' at the same time depending upon who is doing the defining.

I understand basically what you are saying, but I will attempt to restate it and see if it makes sense to you:
The scarcity of resources and the infinite desires of humans is a constant source of strife and stress in life.

also... a fiat currency is a 'greedy' one - the silent theft of citizens money and unproductive impacts in the general economy which leave us all poorer are not indications of any sort of positive 'evolution' in currency!

[Katsumoto]

RueTheDay wrote: Contracts, in and of themselves, are not coercive. The coercion happens when one of the parties to a contract changes their mind about the contract and the other party then seeks the aid of a third party (either the government or, in the case of the anarchists, the "mutual protection agency") to ENFORCE the contract. It is the enforcement of the contract that is coercive, not the contract itself.

This depends upon the nature of the enforcement. An MPA would not be able to arrest and detain a person for violating a contract, nor FORCE the violator to do anything against his will. On the contrary the role of the MPA would be to make sure that it is in everyone’s best interests to uphold the contracts they enter into. Thus punitive action would consist of notifying all MPA’s and members of MPA’s that the violation occurred and that person then has a reputation for not upholding contracts. This automatically provides a disincentive to others to enter future contracts with the individual, making it harder and/or more costly for the individual to enter into future contractual relationships from employment, to getting a loan, to getting a bank account.

Quote: Libertarians, whose entire philosophy is built upon a foundation of quicksand (essentially the belief in the absolute power of property and contracts), have yet to demonstrate why a contract SHOULD always be enforced.

A contract is willingly entered into by all parties acting in their own interests. Once a contractual relationship is established an exchange has occurred. To violate the contract represents a theft.

Take a cell phone contract as an example: I sign the contract agreeing to pay a monthly rate for my cell phone and the use of the cell phone companies infrastructure to make calls. The phone immediately becomes my property, on the condition that I maintain my contract for a minimum of two years. I have exchanged my promise of continued subscription for a two year period for a new phone and the right to use it. If I were to cancel my subscription prior to the end of the two year period without paying the fines stipulated in my contract, that action would be a theft against the sell phone company.

[RueTheDay]

LostSoul3412 wrote: RueTheDay wrote: The problem with your logic is that you are assuming that there are berry plants whose berries are simply available for the picking. Since all land in the modern world is already owned, one cannot simply go and "gather some berries" without violating someone's claimed property right.

I never claimed that there would be enough berries to pick, just as I never said that gathering would be a legal/desirable option. I simply stated that if you really wanted to avoid a job, you can venture into the wilderness and gather food at your own risk.

That's no different from saying that if I'm hungry enough I can just break into your house and help myself to whatever you have.

Quote: If you're hungry enough, you'll find something to eat. And if you don't... well, then it doesn't matter anymore.

Wow, what a way to try to justify a moral system.....and fail.

[RueTheDay]

LeopardPM wrote: RueTheDay wrote: The problem with your logic is that you are assuming that there are berry plants whose berries are simply available for the picking. Since all land in the modern world is already owned, one cannot simply go and "gather some berries" without violating someone's claimed property right.

most land is 'owned' by government, is it not? Are not these land the same as your precious 'public' or 'owned in common' property?

They're not the same at all. I have no more right as an individual to use government land than I do land privately owned by someone else. Therefore, government-owned land most certainly is not the commons. How could you even think that?

Quote: The artificial restriction to land ownership by government is most of the reason one cannot simply 'go out and pick berries'

Yes, it is one of the reasons. The other main reason being the land that is privately owned. Neither is available for me to just use.

Quote:
(though I have done this very thing many times without being shot by private property owners.

And?

[LostSoul3412]

LeopardPM wrote: whew?! sorry about that, but I have come across folks who do, in fact, see money as some evil force and do not understand that it is merely a tool, a VERY efficient one, for effecting trade.

Currency was the most important invention since the wheel. :wink:

LeopardPM wrote: I understand basically what you are saying, but I will attempt to restate it and see if it makes sense to you:
The scarcity of resources and the infinite desires of humans is a constant source of strife and stress in life.

:-|

Really the point was that since humanity in greedy, it is impossible to create a morally righteous economic system.

LeopardPM wrote: also... a fiat currency is a 'greedy' one - the silent theft of citizens money and unproductive impacts in the general economy which leave us all poorer are not indications of any sort of positive 'evolution' in currency!

Different thread for a different day, but the point is that money has evolved from hard currency to an intangible medium of exchange.

[LostSoul3412]

RueTheDay wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: I never claimed that there would be enough berries to pick, just as I never said that gathering would be a legal/desirable option. I simply stated that if you really wanted to avoid a job, you can venture into the wilderness and gather food at your own risk.

That's no different from saying that if I'm hungry enough I can just break into your house and help myself to whatever you have.

Please reread the bolded sections, and realize that in doing so I have the right to shoot you/incarcerate you for tresspassing/stealing, meaning that you cannot, in fact, break into my house and "help yourself".

RueTheDay wrote: Wow, what a way to try to justify a moral system.....and fail.

Who said anything about morals?

[cap'n queasy]

RueTheDay wrote: Contracts, in and of themselves, are not coercive. The coercion happens when one of the parties to a contract changes their mind about the contract and the other party then seeks the aid of a third party (either the government or, in the case of the anarchists, the "mutual protection agency") to ENFORCE the contract. It is the enforcement of the contract that is coercive, not the contract itself. Libertarians, whose entire philosophy is built upon a foundation of quicksand (essentially the belief in the absolute power of property and contracts), have yet to demonstrate why a contract SHOULD always be enforced.

You don't see why people should stick by the deals they make?

:lol:

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: And the fact that people are jailed, period, just for trying to survive is wrong.


Perhaps these people should review the methods they use to survive.