loweleif: wilderness:Luckily I fee must better than this awful feeling and I am not willing to be a criminal, a slave, and then if not before all those, then after - die. The sun will shine tomorrow I tripped once and wrote down my thoughts. It came out something like this. I'm not saying your tripping, but I can make just as much sense of my trips thoughts as the above.
wilderness:Luckily I fee must better than this awful feeling and I am not willing to be a criminal, a slave, and then if not before all those, then after - die. The sun will shine tomorrow
I tripped once and wrote down my thoughts. It came out something like this. I'm not saying your tripping, but I can make just as much sense of my trips thoughts as the above.
Yeah, I know. I tried to edit it cause I left out some letters, but that operation wouldn't work. So I thought I'd let it go to see if others could figure it out instead of reposting it. It should read like this:
Luckily I feel much better than this awful feeling trying to overcome me, and I am not willing to be a criminal, a slave, and then if not before all those, then after - die. After reading that, somebody weaker in strength might revert to such a state. But the sun will shine tomorrow.
Better?
wilderness: DASawyer: Simply put, in a world in which ten percent own ninety percent , the electorate is constantly in danger of being divided by demagogues on both sides... between those in favor of a redistributionist state on one side, and a police state on the other. If you have a supposedly "free market" system that results in a situation where ten percent of the people are in posesssion of ninety percent of all assets, particularly if there is a significant part of the population working very hard for basic food and shelter, there's probably something wrong with this "free market", some aspect of the property regime, that is denying some portion of the population their earnings. The government could be taking a portion of their earnings directly and transferring it to wealthier people through debt service, subsidies, and/or kickback-motivated contracting. Monetary policy could be blocking the link between a worker's savings and the earnings of capital. Maybe early land policy created a situation in which the vast majority of people are net (economic) rent payers to a minority. Perhaps the national currency is constantly inflating, drawing wealth from workers through the finance industry to the government. The point is that there's nothing wrong with regarding systemic inequity as a symptom pointing to potential systematic injustice... so long as one studies the problem honestly and earnestly, rather than regarding the symptom itself as the problem, and then trying to treat through brute force. Worse than daring to operate under the assumption that systematic poverty indicates a potential problem, I think, is to operate under the assumption that all poverty is always the result of ignorance and vice on the part of the poor... without even investigating whether this is, in fact, the case. Knee-jerk "ZOMG teh evil Socialism!!!" is just as bad as "ZOMG teh evil capitalism!!!" Slow down with something specific. I still have no clue what this says other than after reading this a dreadful feeling is trying to overcome me. Luckily I fee must better than this awful feeling and I am not willing to be a criminal, a slave, and then if not before all those, then after - die. The sun will shine tomorrow. Pick something real. I don't do 'what if's', unless I voluntarily pick up a good dystopia novel, and this fiction isn't shiny enough for me to bite. Thanks.
DASawyer: Simply put, in a world in which ten percent own ninety percent , the electorate is constantly in danger of being divided by demagogues on both sides... between those in favor of a redistributionist state on one side, and a police state on the other. If you have a supposedly "free market" system that results in a situation where ten percent of the people are in posesssion of ninety percent of all assets, particularly if there is a significant part of the population working very hard for basic food and shelter, there's probably something wrong with this "free market", some aspect of the property regime, that is denying some portion of the population their earnings. The government could be taking a portion of their earnings directly and transferring it to wealthier people through debt service, subsidies, and/or kickback-motivated contracting. Monetary policy could be blocking the link between a worker's savings and the earnings of capital. Maybe early land policy created a situation in which the vast majority of people are net (economic) rent payers to a minority. Perhaps the national currency is constantly inflating, drawing wealth from workers through the finance industry to the government. The point is that there's nothing wrong with regarding systemic inequity as a symptom pointing to potential systematic injustice... so long as one studies the problem honestly and earnestly, rather than regarding the symptom itself as the problem, and then trying to treat through brute force. Worse than daring to operate under the assumption that systematic poverty indicates a potential problem, I think, is to operate under the assumption that all poverty is always the result of ignorance and vice on the part of the poor... without even investigating whether this is, in fact, the case. Knee-jerk "ZOMG teh evil Socialism!!!" is just as bad as "ZOMG teh evil capitalism!!!"
Simply put, in a world in which ten percent own ninety percent , the electorate is constantly in danger of being divided by demagogues on both sides... between those in favor of a redistributionist state on one side, and a police state on the other.
If you have a supposedly "free market" system that results in a situation where ten percent of the people are in posesssion of ninety percent of all assets, particularly if there is a significant part of the population working very hard for basic food and shelter, there's probably something wrong with this "free market", some aspect of the property regime, that is denying some portion of the population their earnings. The government could be taking a portion of their earnings directly and transferring it to wealthier people through debt service, subsidies, and/or kickback-motivated contracting. Monetary policy could be blocking the link between a worker's savings and the earnings of capital. Maybe early land policy created a situation in which the vast majority of people are net (economic) rent payers to a minority. Perhaps the national currency is constantly inflating, drawing wealth from workers through the finance industry to the government.
The point is that there's nothing wrong with regarding systemic inequity as a symptom pointing to potential systematic injustice... so long as one studies the problem honestly and earnestly, rather than regarding the symptom itself as the problem, and then trying to treat through brute force. Worse than daring to operate under the assumption that systematic poverty indicates a potential problem, I think, is to operate under the assumption that all poverty is always the result of ignorance and vice on the part of the poor... without even investigating whether this is, in fact, the case. Knee-jerk "ZOMG teh evil Socialism!!!" is just as bad as "ZOMG teh evil capitalism!!!"
Slow down with something specific. I still have no clue what this says other than after reading this a dreadful feeling is trying to overcome me. Luckily I fee must better than this awful feeling and I am not willing to be a criminal, a slave, and then if not before all those, then after - die. The sun will shine tomorrow.
Pick something real. I don't do 'what if's', unless I voluntarily pick up a good dystopia novel, and this fiction isn't shiny enough for me to bite. Thanks.
That's a funny reply, because the things I facetiously listed as "what ifs" are inherent features of the US Government's regulatory structure, a thing I learned studying Austrian economics (except the economic rent part, which I just threw in to see if anyone bit). An inflationary currency that draws wealth from the productive to a parasitic financial sector on behalf of the Federal Government? Check. A running debt specifically designed to transfer wealth from producers to financiers (see Alexander Hamilton for intent)? Check. Taxes moving wealth from the productive to a parasitic group of government contractors (such as Halliburton) and bureaucrat unions? Check. The Federal Reserve diluting the value of our savings and driving the interest rates down? Check. Not only that, but the US Dollar being the de facto world currency (although not for much longer), the value drain doesn't end at our borders (Federal Reserve policy contributes to the relative cheapness of foreign products).
It looks to me like someone needs to work on their basic reading comprehension.
DASawyer: That's a funny reply, because the things I facetiously listed as "what ifs" are inherent features of the US Government's regulatory structure, a thing I learned studying Austrian economics (except the economic rent part, which I just threw in to see if anyone bit).
That's a funny reply, because the things I facetiously listed as "what ifs" are inherent features of the US Government's regulatory structure, a thing I learned studying Austrian economics (except the economic rent part, which I just threw in to see if anyone bit).
See, you threw that in and you cloud the whole perspective of what you're trying to say. I'm really trying to find out what you mean, but if you are going to be deceiving, then it's not going to help provide clarity to your message.
DASawyer: An inflationary currency that draws wealth from the productive to a parasitic financial sector on behalf of the Federal Government? Check.
An inflationary currency that draws wealth from the productive to a parasitic financial sector on behalf of the Federal Government? Check.
I agree that's happening.
DASawyer: A running debt specifically designed to transfer wealth from producers to financiers (see Alexander Hamilton for intent)? Check.
A running debt specifically designed to transfer wealth from producers to financiers (see Alexander Hamilton for intent)? Check.
I agree somewhat, but I would add they HAVE to have a "running debt" as long as they use their fiat (which probably is what you mean by "inflationary currency"). For if all debts were paid there would be no U.S. dollars in circulation, and even more money would be due to the Federal Reserve due to interest. So it is a system problem which I think your trying to say.
DASawyer: Taxes moving wealth from the productive to a parasitic group of government contractors (such as Halliburton) and bureaucrat unions? Check. The Federal Reserve diluting the value of our savings and driving the interest rates down? Check. Not only that, but the US Dollar being the de facto world currency (although not for much longer), the value drain doesn't end at our borders (Federal Reserve policy contributes to the relative cheapness of foreign products).
Taxes moving wealth from the productive to a parasitic group of government contractors (such as Halliburton) and bureaucrat unions? Check. The Federal Reserve diluting the value of our savings and driving the interest rates down? Check. Not only that, but the US Dollar being the de facto world currency (although not for much longer), the value drain doesn't end at our borders (Federal Reserve policy contributes to the relative cheapness of foreign products).
Also the Federal Reserve is the biggest contributor to the IMF and the IMF's loans that go towards what is called Structural Developments in other States around the world (and the Federal Reserve does provide loans to other States directly starting in the 80's or 90's, can't remember exact decade, but it was with Mexico). These Structural Developments are guidelines the State's must follow to get their loans, and also these structures developed in the States become collateral if the loans are not paid back, which happens often Argentina twice (maybe even three times now) and many African States. Those Structural Developments are public schools, public factories, public farms, everything becomes State owned, actually IMF owned when the loans are not paid back. So many countries owned the IMF at one point in the time after the year 2000 the IMF actually let them off on, I believe it was, 80% of all their loans to be paid back, but they never could pay them back again so the countries are back in the hole, again. Due to what you refer to as "moving wealth from the productive to a parasitic group" on each of these occasions.
DASawyer: It looks to me like someone needs to work on their basic reading comprehension.
Maybe I do. You clarified what you meant tremendously, or maybe I woke up and I can read better today. Thank you for your patience.
wilderness:Yeah, I know. I tried to edit it cause I left out some letters, but that operation wouldn't work. So I thought I'd let it go to see if others could figure it out instead of reposting it.
You know I've been having the exact same problem! I wonder what's going on.
wilderness: Luckily I feel much better than this awful feeling trying to overcome me, and I am not willing to be a criminal, a slave, and then if not before all those, then after - die. After reading that, somebody weaker in strength might revert to such a state. But the sun will shine tomorrow. Better?
Ahhh now after reading through carefully I understand what your saying.
Gentleman,
I think were getting a little bit off topic here. Can we get this thread back on topic? More Myth Europe Socialism orientated.
First, let me say I'm sorry for the fact, that I didn't read all the way through the tread. I just got so upset halfway through that I had to answer.
Now, those of living in the mess really can't recoqnize the comprising picture that some are trying to portray. Capitalism only works limitied, though it does works, I admit that. But why this should be the single issue is hard to understand. Take my country, Denmark:
We have progressive tax rates ending at 63%. We have leave a schemes to get people out of the workforce when they turn 62. Every child is worth about 150 dollars, which is a monthly check the parents get from the government. I as a student get 1.000 dollars a month and 'housing-support'. Education is free. Schools are forced to offer food to their student at 'fair' prices. Not everyone is allowed to go on strike. VAT is 25%. Cars are taxed 180%. Any form of medical treatment is free. The list goes on...
On top of that, we have negative parliamentarism, which basically dosn't give us any change of hope to change this - simple public choice. And since the government sector is less effective than the private - something Mises theoretically proved already back in 1924 and which is emperically true - we will end up paying more than 100% in taxes if not something is radically changed.
Got upset by what?
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Jon Irenicus: Got upset by what?
Jacob Hedegaard: (...)the comprising picture that some are trying to portray
(...)the comprising picture that some are trying to portray
The Index of Economic Freedom ranks Denmark 8th which makes it the second-best European country in the list. Maybe you can enlighten us a little bit more on that, Jacob, but aside from monstrous taxation and welfare statism, it seems like your country has embraced capitalism to quite an enormous extent. One might guess that an astonishingly staunch free market system does outweigh some of the damage done by massive redistribution schemes. 180% taxation on cars is a no-go nevertheless. How many cars do you have per family household? Can you give an estimate?
Sphairon: The Index of Economic Freedom ranks Denmark 8th which makes it the second-best European country in the list. Maybe you can enlighten us a little bit more on that, Jacob, but aside from monstrous taxation and welfare statism, it seems like your country has embraced capitalism to quite an enormous extent. One might guess that an astonishingly staunch free market system does outweigh some of the damage done by massive redistribution schemes.
The Index of Economic Freedom ranks Denmark 8th which makes it the second-best European country in the list. Maybe you can enlighten us a little bit more on that, Jacob, but aside from monstrous taxation and welfare statism, it seems like your country has embraced capitalism to quite an enormous extent. One might guess that an astonishingly staunch free market system does outweigh some of the damage done by massive redistribution schemes.
It does, no doubt. But in all honesty, being better than bad isn't good enough. The tremendous redistribution of wealth is an increasing problem as generations with good language skills gets into the workforce, because a so-called 'brain drain' is becoming more an more apparent - I myself won't stick around after my education with a tax burden over 50%. The redistribution creates incentives to 'exploit' the system. Take for example the allowance I mentioned earlier, which every student gets. These 1.000 dollars a month you lose if you earn a little more than 2.500 dollars a month yourself. This means, that no one has incentives to work very much and instead spend their time debating on Mises.org or drinking beer - we got a record there too.
And all this is made possible by a total taxation of 48.8% of GDP. So we might have a free market, but it's limited indirectly in so many other ways.
Sphairon: 180% taxation on cars is a no-go nevertheless. How many cars do you have per family household? Can you give an estimate?
Official statistiscs shows, that 82% of danish households with kids have one or more cars. Of all households the number is 56% who has one or more cars and 11% who has more than one car.
wilderness: DASawyer: (except the economic rent part, which I just threw in to see if anyone bit). See, you threw that in and you cloud the whole perspective of what you're trying to say.
DASawyer: (except the economic rent part, which I just threw in to see if anyone bit).
(except the economic rent part, which I just threw in to see if anyone bit).
See, you threw that in and you cloud the whole perspective of what you're trying to say.
Actually, it doesn't really cloud it at all, except to the extent that the idea it rests upon an idea alien to most libertarians (actually, people in general) and even threatening to absolute believers in property rights... when misunderstood, that is. But when it comes to the concerns of more lefty-types (who are more concerned with ends than means), it is another area in which the failure to adopt the princples of liberty results in the very situation egalitarian statists decry.
So far as I can see, Libertarians accept the "homestead" model of property in land. If someone is already using it, and another's activities negatively impacts that use, that is a violation. However, if another's use does not impact that homesteaded prior use, it is not a violation. Thus, in a rural setting, the fact that a farmer has corn in the field does not preclude a hunter from shooting deer in it (so long as he doesn't damage the stalks). The fact that a vinter has grapes in the vineyard does not preclude a man walking through the rows to get to the other side. The fact that a man has a little ribbon of land he paved over and calls a "private road" does not preclude the chicken from crossing it... assuming the chicken does not disrupt the flow of traffic on his way to the other side.
However, property in land in this country does NOT operate under this model. Our land "property" is establishhed not by homesteading, but rather from the extension of the State's claim to absolute dominion. This is the case whether you have a king parceling it out to his most trusted vassals in exchange for service, or a republican executive parceling it out to the highest bidder, regardless of whether that highest bidder actually intends to occupy it... or even to land which is parceled out on the basis on a "homestead act"; even if it is an attempt to most closely approximate a natural right to land, it stil rests upon the principle that the source of claims is not the right of the individual, but rather the dominion of the State. The State's claim rests not on homesteading, but on conquest.
The result is that you have a society that has those who, by virtue of their service to the state (or more likely their compensation of others who served at some point in the distant past), collect economic rent from those who have not. It is difficult to see, since the distribution of land "titles" in our society is a wide continuum, defing anything like "class analysis". Additionally the common use of the word "rent" refers not to a division of wealth tied to land, but rather to any payment for temporary use of any kind of property... confusing the issue in the mind of the layman. But is is real, and a means by which those more favored by the state collect wealth they did not produce from those who did... another fashion in which the State messes with the distribution of wealth for its own benefit, contributing to precisely the conditions that the statist "liberal" seeks to solve via the power of the state.
DASawyer: wilderness: DASawyer: (except the economic rent part, which I just threw in to see if anyone bit). See, you threw that in and you cloud the whole perspective of what you're trying to say. Actually, it doesn't really cloud it at all, except to the extent that the idea it rests upon an idea alien to most libertarians (actually, people in general) and even threatening to absolute believers in property rights... when misunderstood, that is. But when it comes to the concerns of more lefty-types (who are more concerned with ends than means), it is another area in which the failure to adopt the princples of liberty results in the very situation egalitarian statists decry. So far as I can see, Libertarians accept the "homestead" model of property in land. If someone is already using it, and another's activities negatively impacts that use, that is a violation. However, if another's use does not impact that homesteaded prior use, it is not a violation. Thus, in a rural setting, the fact that a farmer has corn in the field does not preclude a hunter from shooting deer in it (so long as he doesn't damage the stalks). The fact that a vinter has grapes in the vineyard does not preclude a man walking through the rows to get to the other side. The fact that a man has a little ribbon of land he paved over and calls a "private road" does not preclude the chicken from crossing it... assuming the chicken does not disrupt the flow of traffic on his way to the other side. However, property in land in this country does NOT operate under this model. Our land "property" is establishhed not by homesteading, but rather from the extension of the State's claim to absolute dominion. This is the case whether you have a king parceling it out to his most trusted vassals in exchange for service, or a republican executive parceling it out to the highest bidder, regardless of whether that highest bidder actually intends to occupy it... or even to land which is parceled out on the basis on a "homestead act"; even if it is an attempt to most closely approximate a natural right to land, it stil rests upon the principle that the source of claims is not the right of the individual, but rather the dominion of the State. The State's claim rests not on homesteading, but on conquest.
I'm not an expert on specifics of well established ways of description. For instance the State's claim rests on conquest, do you mean the individual in a State ownership, such as the U.S., need not homestead but rather have title to land even if not used? This is something I've been thinking about. It goes back to somebody on one of the threads brought up the question: Who owns the beautiful view if the original viewer settled or bought that view based on having that beautiful view? This lead me into thinking about woods. I know of people that ride four-wheelers in woods. Those woods are owned by somebody else, but after a period of time would the four-wheeler drivers making trails in those woods own those woods via homesteading? Or here's a more subtle issue. Somebody owns 4 acres. 3 of those acres are woods. They enjoy the beautiful woods plain and simple. Now somebody comes along and wants to grow wheat in those woods and thus cuts down all the trees because of their labor they homestead those woods. Or even if somebody started to walk into those woods to gather walnuts. Would they own those woods cause they labored in those woods gathering nuts and thereby have the right to even build a small cabin in those woods now due their labor in those woods make those woods their property? Questions I have not answers for.
DASawyer: The result is that you have a society that has those who, by virtue of their service to the state (or more likely their compensation of others who served at some point in the distant past), collect economic rent from those who have not. It is difficult to see, since the distribution of land "titles" in our society is a wide continuum, defing anything like "class analysis". Additionally the common use of the word "rent" refers not to a division of wealth tied to land, but rather to any payment for temporary use of any kind of property... confusing the issue in the mind of the layman. But is is real, and a means by which those more favored by the state collect wealth they did not produce from those who did... another fashion in which the State messes with the distribution of wealth for its own benefit, contributing to precisely the conditions that the statist "liberal" seeks to solve via the power of the state.
I couldn't quite follow you here. Maybe you could say this another way?
wilderness: I'm not an expert on specifics of well established ways of description. For instance the State's claim rests on conquest, do you mean the individual in a State ownership, such as the U.S., need not homestead but rather have title to land even if not used? This is something I've been thinking about. It goes back to somebody on one of the threads brought up the question: Who owns the beautiful view if the original viewer settled or bought that view based on having that beautiful view? This lead me into thinking about woods. I know of people that ride four-wheelers in woods. Those woods are owned by somebody else, but after a period of time would the four-wheeler drivers making trails in those woods own those woods via homesteading? Or here's a more subtle issue. Somebody owns 4 acres. 3 of those acres are woods. They enjoy the beautiful woods plain and simple. Now somebody comes along and wants to grow wheat in those woods and thus cuts down all the trees because of their labor they homestead those woods. Or even if somebody started to walk into those woods to gather walnuts. Would they own those woods cause they labored in those woods gathering nuts and thereby have the right to even build a small cabin in those woods now due their labor in those woods make those woods their property? Questions I have not answers for.
Yeah, they're difficult questions, the answers to which can only be found, I think, "on the ground." The "four-wheeler" question is a good one, that pops up not only in forests, but in deserts and on beaches. There is one faction that says "the four-wheelers are damaging the vegetation on the dunes on the beach, which is freeing up the sand, causing it to be blown into streets and yards". The other one says "we've been doing this for years, and nobody complained before." The matter is fought out in courts, legislatures, and the lobbies of the bureaucracy. Is this the best way for the matter to be decided? Is there a better way? These are the hard questions. But the guiding principle should be that claims originate not with The State, but with the individual.
wilderness: DASawyer: The result is that you have a society that has those who, by virtue of their service to the state (or more likely their compensation of others who served at some point in the distant past), collect economic rent from those who have not. It is difficult to see, since the distribution of land "titles" in our society is a wide continuum, defing anything like "class analysis". Additionally the common use of the word "rent" refers not to a division of wealth tied to land, but rather to any payment for temporary use of any kind of property... confusing the issue in the mind of the layman. But is is real, and a means by which those more favored by the state collect wealth they did not produce from those who did... another fashion in which the State messes with the distribution of wealth for its own benefit, contributing to precisely the conditions that the statist "liberal" seeks to solve via the power of the state. I couldn't quite follow you here. Maybe you could say this another way?
Hmm... let me try this.
In any productive activity, three things need to be brought together: land, labor, and capital: space to do the work, people to do the work, and the materials to work with. In the real world, these three are not generally supplied seperately (though sometimes they are), but after the work is done, the value of the output is divided among the providers of these things according to whatever agreement they came to at the beginning.
Now, obviously, the laborer earns his wages. That the one providing the capital (or, more likely, the money used to buy the capital) receives interest rightfully requires some analysis, and assumes the money was acquired honestly in the first place (and our current monetary system muddles that question beyond analysis), but it can be safely assumed for my purpose. The provider of land also receives money for allowing the use of his land... but is it really "his" land? Was it acquired honestly? It all depends on how closely the distribution of property in land matches the homesteading ideal, and I argue that there is a very good possibility that it does not match... and that this contributes, along with taxes and inflation, to the inequitable distribution of income decried by liberals, socialists, etc.
Now, why bother with this analysis? I originally started this in response to the outright rejection of Agnapostate's claim that Scandinavian "social democracy" isn't a rejection of capitalism, but rather an equally capitalist approach according to a non-Anglo tradition. Now, I don't know enough about what he's talking about to judge whether it is right or wrong... and I strongly suspect that neither do his critics. Knee-jerk antisocialism causes some, I think, to reject anything that "sounds like" socialism, regardless of whether it actually is or not. I am simply trying to demonstrate that the problems a sincere egalitarian feels the need to deal with may have some actual validity. The question is how one goes about finding a solution to the problem. To the socialist, the solution is simply to redistribute: it is the distribution itself that is the problem, the cause being unimportant. Because of my faith in the market, that doesn't do it for me. If there is a problem, it is in the institutions underlying that distribution, not the distribution itself, and the only way to fix it is to fix the institutions, or rather the underlying assumptions.
I believe that the claim that the distribution of income in this country (or rather, this world) is wrong is a serious charge, and deserves serious consideration. It isn't enough to just say "no it isn't"; you cede political ground to the statist in that case. Far better, I think, to meet their "treat the symptom" approach head on with a "seek the cause" approach. Because the fact of the matter is, the status quo is NOT just. On this, both the Marxist and the Misesian agree. However, because the Marxist commiserates and takes his message to the streets, he wins the battle of ideas. Meanwhile, we swallow both the message that taxes and inflation are bad, while continuing to assume there's nothing wrong with the status quo? How does that work?
DASawyer: Yeah, they're difficult questions, the answers to which can only be found, I think, "on the ground." The "four-wheeler" question is a good one, that pops up not only in forests, but in deserts and on beaches. There is one faction that says "the four-wheelers are damaging the vegetation on the dunes on the beach, which is freeing up the sand, causing it to be blown into streets and yards". The other one says "we've been doing this for years, and nobody complained before." The matter is fought out in courts, legislatures, and the lobbies of the bureaucracy. Is this the best way for the matter to be decided? Is there a better way? These are the hard questions. But the guiding principle should be that claims originate not with The State, but with the individual.
Yes with the individual, agreed. I would say in such cases that somebody has already bought the land, then nobody can homestead the land even if the land is not used. Somebody could have a cabin in the forest living on property he or she bought that is 50 acres large, and maybe not even visit some acres for decades. That owner who bought the land original I think still owns the land. Now if somebody had homestead the land without asking around to neighbors if anybody owned the land, well, the homesteader no matter how much they labored and put money into the homestead needs to leave. The costs to rid what structures the homesteaders placed are to be something the homesteaders are responsible for. I would add the original owner would need to have surveyed the land he or she owns. The survey need not even be notarized, but that would help. But markers on the land could be established on day one to show the owners surveyed area. Now virgin area is different, meaning, no owners. For instance the one that still comes to mind is somebody owns land on a cliff overlooking the ocean with a long beach. The beauty was an attraction to homesteading this cliff top. Somebody wants to move in below and disrupt the beauty, the pristine view. If the owner on the cliff top never walked the land to survey and lay markers, then that's one against the original owner on the cliff top to lay claim. Now what about the view. If the view was notarized as part of the original land establishment of the cliff top owner, then that shows originality in the claim. Yet one clause could be the cliff top owner would need to survey the area now before the planned date of the new homesteaders actions to build within the view of the cliff top owner. The cliff top owner doesn't need to do this him or her self for they could hire somebody to do the survey. If the homesteaders want to start right away, then the cliff top owner would be able to start right away and survey the area due to original intent. If no notarizing of the original intent of the pristine view by the cliff top owner, then it becomes increasing difficult to lay claim to the view in the face of new homesteaders. Of course I don't know if there are good arguments out there that either support or refute the argument I just made. But this is how I would go about it currently.
DASawyer: Hmm... let me try this. In any productive activity, three things need to be brought together: land, labor, and capital: space to do the work, people to do the work, and the materials to work with. In the real world, these three are not generally supplied seperately (though sometimes they are), but after the work is done, the value of the output is divided among the providers of these things according to whatever agreement they came to at the beginning. Now, obviously, the laborer earns his wages. That the one providing the capital (or, more likely, the money used to buy the capital) receives interest rightfully requires some analysis, and assumes the money was acquired honestly in the first place (and our current monetary system muddles that question beyond analysis), but it can be safely assumed for my purpose. The provider of land also receives money for allowing the use of his land... but is it really "his" land? Was it acquired honestly? It all depends on how closely the distribution of property in land matches the homesteading ideal, and I argue that there is a very good possibility that it does not match... and that this contributes, along with taxes and inflation, to the inequitable distribution of income decried by liberals, socialists, etc. Now, why bother with this analysis? I originally started this in response to the outright rejection of Agnapostate's claim that Scandinavian "social democracy" isn't a rejection of capitalism, but rather an equally capitalist approach according to a non-Anglo tradition. Now, I don't know enough about what he's talking about to judge whether it is right or wrong... and I strongly suspect that neither do his critics. Knee-jerk antisocialism causes some, I think, to reject anything that "sounds like" socialism, regardless of whether it actually is or not. I am simply trying to demonstrate that the problems a sincere egalitarian feels the need to deal with may have some actual validity. The question is how one goes about finding a solution to the problem. To the socialist, the solution is simply to redistribute: it is the distribution itself that is the problem, the cause being unimportant. Because of my faith in the market, that doesn't do it for me. If there is a problem, it is in the institutions underlying that distribution, not the distribution itself, and the only way to fix it is to fix the institutions, or rather the underlying assumptions.
I think what you are trying to convey is this (good summary?): "It all depends on how closely the distribution of property in land matches the homesteading ideal, and I argue that there is a very good possibility that it does not match... and that this contributes, along with taxes and inflation, to the inequitable distribution of income decried by liberals, socialists, etc."
So your pointing out that due to these irregularities along the way of laying claim, notably tax and inflation changes, then as homesteads are established the costs during the homesteading and the consumer feedback in buying the products emerging from the homesteaded productions vary (adding in taxes and monetary changes). This therefore is why socialist argue for a redistribution to make corrections due to the variations that fluxed during the homesteading action. Yet, once the homesteading has already occurred redistributions can not change what already had happened unless actual building structures are evened out and all other capital results are evened out if socialism is taken to the extreme. And the goal of socialism to redistribute to make all "even or equal" will have to continue on such a goal unless it is not called socialism anymore. To the equaling process will continue until something different is enacted to change the mission of socialism. I don't know. Were you talking about this or was I on another subject? If I did go somewhere else in the discussion, then I bow out for it seems I may have entered an aspect of a discussion that I am not prepared to continue with.
DASawyer: I believe that the claim that the distribution of income in this country (or rather, this world) is wrong is a serious charge, and deserves serious consideration. It isn't enough to just say "no it isn't"; you cede political ground to the statist in that case. Far better, I think, to meet their "treat the symptom" approach head on with a "seek the cause" approach. Because the fact of the matter is, the status quo is NOT just. On this, both the Marxist and the Misesian agree. However, because the Marxist commiserates and takes his message to the streets, he wins the battle of ideas. Meanwhile, we swallow both the message that taxes and inflation are bad, while continuing to assume there's nothing wrong with the status quo? How does that work?
There are maple trees and oak trees. The status quo changes in time, but I think people tend to think the status quo has to change within a decade or less or even a lifetime so the man or woman pushes for status quo change can enjoy the fruits of their labor. In a culture that will have a diversification of enjoyments and motivations to expand in certain areas that a social concensus has been cultivated to place a large enough amount of attention in terms of quantity of men and women involved in the area of change (a new technological breakthrough in some area of study is promising numerous breakthroughs and a new generation of workers are willing to put their effort into risking to come up with such technological breakthroughs, then they will be involved in something different). These areas of change or difference in the kind of labor is also determined by the consumer. The consumer will place a value on the fruits of the new productions (ex. in the new technological sphere that offered promise and is now fulfilling its promise). The market is too dynamic to level the playing field. People are involved in doing so many labors that it is impossible to measure the total value processes. The value patterns will shift around in accord with the dynamics of the market place. To try to jump in and tame the wildness or dynamics of value is impossible. To make an effort to control the value of the total market place would be the same as controlling a man or woman which is impossible. Force can be used on a man or woman to force a decision, but that choice is still made by the man or woman being forced. And the man or woman can decide to accept the force instead of away from the force (which is thereby pushes the decision in accord with the controller). If the man or woman decides to go into the force prison or death. So the controller still doesn't get the outcome. And also the controller if pushing certain outcomes will still not only demoralize the worker and/or consumer making production and a willingness to enjoy the products less (which then what would be the point in the first place to even or equal out the status quo if the consumer doesn't even enjoy the forced goods they have to consume); but secondly, forcing an outcome is predetermining the kind of product. Meaning, the creativity in the product is predetermined. So the same old products are mundanely made or you have people that are creative coming up with the ideas. And if you have a different group of creative people they might get paid the same as the other workers but they are doing the different work. So now the playing field is still diverse. Now the society could switch roles of production throughout their lives to make sure everybody equally was able to work all the diverse fields of labor. Yet again this cuts into education. So if the playing field is leveled again to make the education so simple for all labors of production so everybody can work these fields, then the society has been dumbed down again. Yet what about the diversity of children labor, female labor, and male labor. Socialism quite basically becomes absurd. So much is given up for what? Equal prices and equal jobs and equal goods? I say there is so much more to life than to focus society only on production and prices.
I'll be a little clearer - are you upset by the fact that the picture is accurate or by it being inaccurate? But from your response to Sphairon I think it's the former.
(PS: Your comment on students on subsidies debating on Mises.org was funny btw. )
Jon Irenicus: I'll be a little clearer - are you upset by the fact that the picture is accurate or by it being inaccurate? But from your response to Sphairon I think it's the former.
My point is... It is easy to make an accurate picture, which basically states whatever you wish, if you narrow down the variables. Yes Denmark ranks high on an index of free markets but there are so many other things to take into consideration is evaluating whether it's a free society.
I'm not sure if you're speaking about my OP or not, but I never claimed that any Scandinavian nation was not a huge welfare state with high taxes. What I did claim was that many Scandinavian nations actually have a more favorable regulatory structure - something that the average citizen of such a country might not notice. For example, you might not notice that it's easier to start a business in Denmark or that there are less barriers to invest your money in Sweden. Less red tape means greater economic growth, despite higher taxes.
Political Atheists Blog
dont worry
when enough creative people leave your country (a tipping point) government will start reducing taxes due to fear of loss of revenue. No one can stop deserving people from being rewarded for their work.
krazy kaju: I'm not sure if you're speaking about my OP or not, but I never claimed that any Scandinavian nation was not a huge welfare state with high taxes. What I did claim was that many Scandinavian nations actually have a more favorable regulatory structure - something that the average citizen of such a country might not notice. For example, you might not notice that it's easier to start a business in Denmark or that there are less barriers to invest your money in Sweden. Less red tape means greater economic growth, despite higher taxes.
Guys the KEY KEY thing to remember when dealing with scandinavia and countries such as Germany and the Netherlands is that they have an extremely (compared to NA) homogeneous society, and have a much more favorable cultural system (less corruption etc, value leisure more highly). I grew up in the Netherlands so my natural inclination was to prefer that system over the brutality of the American capitalist system. However I really realized that as Friedman said, in those countries government programs just do less damage than in the US. There are so many other factors involved in that area explaining the wealth and success of the welfare system. If you transferred that into the American "check out my 40 milion dollar crib" mentality it would collapse very soon.
When the prime minister of the Netherlands get in power (altho I'm not claiming they are all angles) he will use his powers at the end of the day for the good of his nation. When Bush/Harper get into power, they wil use it for w.e their friends want.
This might sound confusing let me know I can think of more examples.
I'm sorry, but that is not true at all. It is impossible to change the culture or the social values of a nation sufficiently enough to ingrain altruism so deeply into them that absurd levels of government control work. The fact of the matter is that many high tax and high spend nations in Europe are successful not because social engineering has worked but because they have a relatively deregulated economy. The Netherlands, for example, has higher monetary, financial, and investment freedom than the United States. It also has a more transparent government than the United States. The Netherlands also has a lower corporate income than the US and no payroll tax.
If you were to impose the US taxing and regulatory structure with a welfare state, the economy would do no better only because certain northern European nations are more homogenous than other nations.
krazy kaju: I'm sorry, but that is not true at all. It is impossible to change the culture or the social values of a nation sufficiently enough to ingrain altruism so deeply into them that absurd levels of government control work.
I'm sorry, but that is not true at all. It is impossible to change the culture or the social values of a nation sufficiently enough to ingrain altruism so deeply into them that absurd levels of government control work.
Kaju,
I can't comment completley right now but I disagree (not with the fact that those country are less socialist than it appears that is very true, Netherlands has something like 6 political parties with seats for 15 million people, while the US has well 2 for 300 million - seems like they have much more political power).
Let me just give 1 example. If you watched the daily show a couple days ago, you saw that apparantly the biggest pop star in Sweden, lives in an appartment that an average family can afford with a smaller TV than I have. Could you EVER imagine that happening in the united states. Could you imagine 50 cent going yeah like I don't mind people taxing me to death, its for the national good???
Also I am not saying that the culture or social values were changed. I am saying that from the beginning they were much more egalitarian. In fact the only recent complaints I have heard about the welfare states from my dutch friends, have always had atleast a slightly racists undertone. "most of those immigrants are just on welfware while we work" (and these are not nationalistic people at all)
How about this from a theoretical point of view. If everyone in a nation has the exact same goals, a govermenmt can operate much more easily since they are simply combining the efforts of all people for those same goals. They will waste much less money than when each groups tries to take a little bit for themselves (as in affirmative action or w.e)
They're still wasting money. Man Europe sucks.
Jon Irenicus: They're still wasting money. Man Europe sucks.
Only the UK, the rest of it is great.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
GilesStratton: Only the UK, the rest of it is great.
What's the striking difference between the UK and the rest of Europe, except that pot is legal in the Netherlands?
This has been doing the rounds...
Irish Liberty Forum
lol
That's a good documentary. I mean the guy was there with a camera and filmed it...lol
Oh, and it was on TV...lol
Sphairon: GilesStratton: Only the UK, the rest of it is great. What's the striking difference between the UK and the rest of Europe, except that pot is legal in the Netherlands?
The rest of Europe is populated by general civilized people who couldn't care less about the government, the UK in this regard however is much worse.
GilesStratton:The rest of Europe is populated by general civilized people who couldn't care less about the government, the UK in this regard however is much worse.
I don't buy this.
neither do i
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
liberty student: GilesStratton:The rest of Europe is populated by general civilized people who couldn't care less about the government, the UK in this regard however is much worse. I don't buy this.
I'm going to have to ask both of you how many countries in Europe you've lived in? Let alone visited. I'm guessing I win.
What don't you buy exactly, the fact that the English are brutish? The British are a thuggish, uncivilized, state worshipping, high time preference, politically correct people. I say this full well understanding that England was at one time the height of civilization, moreover, I say this as a person who currently has a British passport, I also study there and happen to have been born there.
Now, from other places I've live(d) I can tell you the US is better in all those regards, Europeans tend not to give a damn about the state whenever they don't have to, using it for their own advantage occasionally, but besides that doing their best to ignore it . Most people from Western Europe would far rather live their lives around their family and God than the state, appreciating good food, drink and the company of their friends and family. Rather than going out getting drunk off their faces as the English tend to do. Look at the general clothing of an adult anywhere in Europe and you'll see they dress smarter, use less bad language and are generally far more civil, polite and friendly than the English.
well done for living in lots of places, i suppose wisdom is just another thing that gets stamped into your passport when you cross borders.
The English won't hold their government to account for reducing civil liberties and expanding the State apparatus.
The French however strike whenever they feel like it, only to try and achieve more socialism.
Sad, really.
I agree with Giles about culture completely.
MatthewWilliam:I agree with Giles about culture completely.
lol, easy now.......
MatthewWilliam: I agree with Giles about culture completely.
Damn you despise a lot of minority groups...
The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.
GilesStratton: What don't you buy exactly, the fact that the English are brutish? The British are a thuggish, uncivilized, state worshipping, high time preference, politically correct people. I say this full well understanding that England was at one time the height of civilization, moreover, I say this as a person who currently has a British passport, I also study there and happen to have been born there. Now, from other places I've live(d) I can tell you the US is better in all those regards, Europeans tend not to give a damn about the state whenever they don't have to, using it for their own advantage occasionally, but besides that doing their best to ignore it . Most people from Western Europe would far rather live their lives around their family and God than the state, appreciating good food, drink and the company of their friends and family. Rather than going out getting drunk off their faces as the English tend to do. Look at the general clothing of an adult anywhere in Europe and you'll see they dress smarter, use less bad language and are generally far more civil, polite and friendly than the English.
You're right
But the rest of Europe (barring one or two) happen also to be (even) more socialist than the UK and in worse ways, with worse attitudes. Britain's economy may be attacked at every turn by big government - but compare it to France's, or Italy's!
GilesStratton:Europeans tend not to give a damn about the state whenever they don't have to, using it for their own advantage occasionally, but besides that doing their best to ignore it . Most people from Western Europe would far rather live their lives around their family and God than the state, appreciating good food, drink and the company of their friends and family.
You're sort of right, in the sense that what may appear like severe state intrusions to Americans (public schooling, welfare programs, insane taxation on everything that's remotely fun) has become part of the natural course of things to many Europeans.So while American and, I guess, British liberals are constantly crying for more state rape, average Europreans have just accommodated to the feeling. Not much better at all.
GilesStratton:I'm going to have to ask both of you how many countries in Europe you've lived in? Let alone visited. I'm guessing I win.
You would win. I would also say that you experience bias because you lack the perspective of someone who has lived and traveled throughout the Americas.
Europeans seem to care a lot about their government, because they are constantly protesting it, and Europe is the leading edge of state tyranny vis-a-vis the surveillance/police state. Not China. Not Africa, not even America. Europe.
This is not to condemn Euros, I like you guys. You're funny with your fish and chips, dark beers and boulangeries. But Niccolo would make these silly arguments about how Italians were libertarian and they resisted the state as open agorists, and the whole thing was ridiculous on it's face.
Very few Europeans that I have met have the expectations of liberty that Americans (and to a lesser degree Canadians) have. And it's similar in other commonwealth colonies like New Zealand where I lived for a couple years.
Thedesolateone: MatthewWilliam: I agree with Giles about culture completely. Damn you despise a lot of minority groups...
I'm guessing by his signature he's Irish, do you really expect him to cheer the English?
liberty student:You would win. I would also say that you experience bias because you lack the perspective of someone who has lived and traveled throughout the Americas.
That's quite an assumption there, also an incorrect one.
liberty student:Europeans seem to care a lot about their government, because they are constantly protesting it, and Europe is the leading edge of state tyranny vis-a-vis the surveillance/police state. Not China. Not Africa, not even America. Europe.
where in Europe are you talking about? In England you'd be absolutely correct, for the rest of Europe you're very, very wrong.
liberty student:This is not to condemn Euros, I like you guys. You're funny with your fish and chips, dark beers and boulangeries. But Niccolo would make these silly arguments about how Italians were libertarian and they resisted the state as open agorists, and the whole thing was ridiculous on it's face.
Niccolo was correct to some extent, I'm not saying the Italians are agorists but it's got a far better chance of being successful in Italy than in the states, and especially the UK. (As for dark beer, European beer is a million times better than American or UK beer).
liberty student:Very few Europeans that I have met have the expectations of liberty that Americans (and to a lesser degree Canadians) have. And it's similar in other commonwealth colonies like New Zealand where I lived for a couple years
They also care far less about the state, they're more concerned with being with family and friends or going to church.