Spideynw: So, if someone throws away a chair, no one can ever own it again?
So, if someone throws away a chair, no one can ever own it again?
No, but you also cannot require that someone pay for it once you have thrown it away, and as extension, if the community were to pick it up and place it for public use, after voluntary release from you, the community does not have the requirement to acquiesce to the demand of another individual to purchase said chair.
liberty student: I don't see how that negates the fact that they are both just monopolies.
I don't see how that negates the fact that they are both just monopolies.
If the monopoly it created by the free market, i.e. all competitors fail or there is no competition, is that wrong? How are laws that create monopolies any better than those that destroy them?
liberty student: So you think monopolies are a good thing? You think politicians should just arbitrarily decide who gets a monopoly?
So you think monopolies are a good thing? You think politicians should just arbitrarily decide who gets a monopoly?
If I create art for my personal enjoyment, do I have a monopoly on said art? Where is the right to choose what I do with the product of my mind?
liberty student: Of course copying should not be illegal!
Of course copying should not be illegal!
Even if said copy is an overall reduction of net gain?
It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student
Harry Felker: Spideynw: So, if someone throws away a chair, no one can ever own it again? No, but you also cannot require that someone pay for it once you have thrown it away,
No, but you also cannot require that someone pay for it once you have thrown it away,
I never made an argument that you could.
Harry Felker:and as extension, if the community were to pick it up and place it for public use,
And then it could be sold to an individual.
To clarify, only individuals can own things. Otherwise, you have a conflict of interest. Now, individuals can agree to co-ownership. You could even have a whole neighborhood agree to build a park and pay for the upkeep of the park. This could be "public" property. But it is still owned by the individuals in the neighborhood. So, let's say someone threw away a chair, put it out for the garbage company to pick up. And let's say that someone got to it before the garbage company did and puts it in the park. Now anyone can use it. But, someone could come to the park association and ask to buy the chair. The association could sell the chair, and now an individual owns it again.
So, if there really is such a thing as "IP", then one should be able to buy and sell it forever. And again, "intellectual property" is just the idea of owning ideas. Anything else is just arbitrary. The letter A is an idea, and as such, I should be able to own the letter A, and sue anyone that uses it without my permission, if IP really exists.
Harry Felker: Spideynw: I don't see how that negates the fact that they are both just monopolies. If the monopoly it created by the free market, i.e. all competitors fail or there is no competition, is that wrong? How are laws that create monopolies any better than those that destroy them?
Spideynw: I don't see how that negates the fact that they are both just monopolies.
All monopolies are government created monopolies. There is no such thing as a free market monopoly. At least none that we have ever seen come into existence.
When I say a power company has a monopoly, I am saying that the government gave it a monopoly. That it was told by the government, "you can provide power to such and such an area, and we will not let anyone else provide power to that area." A patent or copyright is the government telling someone, "you and only you can produce such and such an item, and we will not let anyone else produce it."
Harry Felker: Spideynw: So you think monopolies are a good thing? You think politicians should just arbitrarily decide who gets a monopoly? If I create art for my personal enjoyment, do I have a monopoly on said art?
Spideynw: So you think monopolies are a good thing? You think politicians should just arbitrarily decide who gets a monopoly?
If I create art for my personal enjoyment, do I have a monopoly on said art?
If you paint a picture, and someone comes into your home and sees it, then they should be able to go home and recreate it. Again, copying is not a synonym of stealing. If you do not want it to become public, then by all means, create a private room with all your paintings, and do not show them to anyone.
Harry Felker:Where is the right to choose what I do with the product of my mind?
I am not sure what you are getting at here. As I said, you can paint stuff, and stick it in your own little private room where only you can go to admire your works of art!
Harry Felker: Spideynw: Of course copying should not be illegal! Even if said copy is an overall reduction of net gain?
Spideynw: Of course copying should not be illegal!
Do you think the government should grant monopolies to power companies, simply because they were the first one to build a power company in a region? Do you think it is fair for them to lose revenue if someone else builds a power plant to compete with them?
You are just talking about illegal copying. That is it.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Harry Felker:So implementation of a system of taxation that compels your children, without their consent to abide by is not coercion if I do not need to bera physical force onto them?
I don't understand this. If someone cannot back up their words with force, then it is just speech. Aggression is physical force.
Harry Felker:So are you postulating that the world actively revolts against reason?
No. Not everyone in the world is violent towards others. Are you implying that man cannot choose to interact peacefully?
Harry Felker:Well then what is it when you wish to exchange your apples for steak?
Market exchange.
Harry Felker:Why is capitalism rational, price assignation is how socialism solves this issue, but that violates the natural right to private property ownership, making it immoral.
I didn't understand this. Put simply, socialism cannot calculate. It cannot determine price, because there is no exchange process.
Harry Felker:I just propose the most logical formula to achieve a life of freedom while interacting with others
The most logical formula is non-aggression (voluntarism).
Harry Felker:I use reason to assign these values
Value is subjective. It differs from person to person. Free willed people will value things differently, so constructing a social paradigm based on your values, only means it satisifies you, it does not mean it will or should satisfy anyone else.
Harry Felker:How does the NAP stand against those that disregard it? I think you are falling into the Utopian Trap, where everyone would abide by it
The NAP is very simple. Force should only be used in self-defense, in other words, defensive force is not prohibited, only aggressive force. Simpler yet, consent is required when people interact.
There is no utopian trap. No one is proposing that everyone will agree. No one is proposing no one will aggress. That is completely irrelevant. The principle of non-aggression is fundamental to a peaceful society.
Harry Felker:If you believe you are not equal to others, let us say you are above... then how does NAP apply to you against those you believe are not your equals?
I don't understand this. What is "equal"?
Harry Felker:This is your opinion, but it is only based on the brief of a much larger work, I have found that brevity keeps readers, and the remainder of the series is the in depth logical argument of these "pillars", I had thrown this into the gauntlet to really give you a compass to see where I am coming from, not for you to think that this is the extent of my work on the project.
It's not my opinion, it is a logical deduction. It is impossible for you to account for every circumstance. So when you begin to account for precise circumstances in your construction of a definition of liberty, you will necessarily be excluding the unknown unknowns. It is a knowledge problem.
The NAP is quite simple, and because it is simple, it can be applied broadly. If someone interacts with you without consent, that is aggression.
Harry Felker:I am not questioning free will, I am questioning the automatic connection, that if you have free will you live free, this is just not the case, you live in a world with other people and at some point interact with them, at this crossroads you can live free or you can not.
Ok, I get that. But you confuse liberty with living free as defined by you. You don't allow for free will, where someone can choose to live unfree by your own definitions. You might think it is unfree to be punched in the face each day. But if you consent, then it is an act of free will, and a state of freedom.
The issue of freedom is always consent. And yes, we live in a world where people do not consent. The Constitution is based on implicit consent, not explicit consent, that is to say, you are assumed to be susceptible to it, you are never asked to voluntarily choose it. This is why it has no authority. To have authority, it must be accepted freely and universally.
I don't know where you are quoting me from on this, but I don't recall writing this within this discussion. One of my pet peeves is being quoted out of context.
Harry Felker: liberty student: I don't see how that negates the fact that they are both just monopolies. If the monopoly it created by the free market, i.e. all competitors fail or there is no competition, is that wrong? How are laws that create monopolies any better than those that destroy them?
No. Don't understand.
Harry Felker: liberty student: So you think monopolies are a good thing? You think politicians should just arbitrarily decide who gets a monopoly? If I create art for my personal enjoyment, do I have a monopoly on said art? Where is the right to choose what I do with the product of my mind?
Again, out of context. I have no idea where you are quoting this from.
Harry Felker: liberty student: Of course copying should not be illegal! Even if said copy is an overall reduction of net gain?
There is no way to reduce net gain because it is not a zero sum game.
That should say Spideynw - not liberty student ^^^^^^^^^^^^ (That's why it's out of context. It's a whole other discussion with a whole other person).
liberty student: The Constitution is based on implicit consent, not explicit consent, that is to say, you are assumed to be susceptible to it, you are never asked to voluntarily choose it. This is why it has no authority. To have authority, it must be accepted freely and universally.
The Constitution is based on implicit consent, not explicit consent, that is to say, you are assumed to be susceptible to it, you are never asked to voluntarily choose it. This is why it has no authority. To have authority, it must be accepted freely and universally.
Ah the flaws of the Constitution. Perhaps most importantly it should be pointed out, the powers of the Constitution extend nowhere beyond the state apparatus. It is interpreted by the state and yet it is suppose to 'limit' the state. One can obviously see the absurdity in the premise that a document is suppose to restrain government yet vest all of its power within the halls of government.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
liberty student:I don't know where you are quoting me from on this, but I don't recall writing this within this discussion. One of my pet peeves is being quoted out of context.
They were actually my quotes. I am not sure how your name got stuck in them. I assume he is just trying to get used to the quoting system. I fixed them when I responded to them.
Laughing Man:Ah the flaws of the Constitution. Perhaps most importantly it should be pointed out, the powers of the Constitution extend nowhere beyond the state apparatus. It is interpreted by the state and yet it is suppose to 'limit' the state. One can obviously see the absurdity in the premise that a document is suppose to restrain government yet vest all of its power within the halls of government.
Actually, I think it does a surpisingly good job. Unfortunately, the founding fathers obviously believed the government needed to "get things done". If they would have just restricted the power of the government even more (not giving it the right to coin money for example) and if they would have given legislators full veto power, and if they would have increased the number of legislators, I think things would be a lot better.
For clarification, I am an anarchist, but I believe the masses need some kind of government, so the best thing is to give them an ineffective one.
Spideynw:Actually, I think it does a surpisingly good job. Unfortunately, the founding fathers obviously believed the government needed to "get things done". If they would have just restricted the power of the government even more (not giving it the right to coin money for example) and if they would have given legislators full veto power, and if they would have increased the number of legislators, I think things would be a lot better.
Well first we have to establish which 'Founding Fathers' you are talking about. Then please do establish by what right these 'Founding Fathers' had to establishing this Constitution or even the Articles of Confederation. It is not that the 'plan' of the 'Founding Fathers' had failed, but they established a revolutionary premise on a faulty paradaigm. No government in the history of humanity has ever retarded its own growth nor has it sustained low, unobtrusive measures.
Spideynw:For clarification, I am an anarchist, but I believe the masses need some kind of government, so the best thing is to give them an ineffective one.
I do not classify someone who believes in the necesscity of government as an Anarchist.
Laughing Man:Well first we have to establish which 'Founding Fathers' you are talking about.
The ones that signed the Constitution.
Laughing Man:Then please do establish by what right these 'Founding Fathers' had to establishing this Constitution or even the Articles of Confederation.
The right of force.
Laughing Man:It is not that the 'plan' of the 'Founding Fathers' had failed, but they established a revolutionary premise on a faulty paradaigm.
No, it is just the premise that they believed in a need for government to have too much power.
Laughing Man:No government in the history of humanity has ever retarded its own growth nor has it sustained low, unobtrusive measures.
And no society in the history of mankind has continued for long without establishing a government.
Laughing Man:I do not classify someone who believes in the necesscity of government as an Anarchist.
And I do not classify someone who believes that it is possible for government to not be established as living in reality.
Laughing Man: I do not classify someone who believes in the necesscity of government as an Anarchist.
Spideynw: And I do not classify someone who believes that it is possible for government to not be established as living in reality.
Spideynw... um, there's a difference between:
A. what you think is best for everybody else (a government)
B. and the possibility of government
Spideynw:The ones that signed the Constitution.
Several 'Founding Fathers' actually didn't sign the Constitution.
Spideynw:The right of force.
So you are a professor of 'might equals right'?
Spideynw: No, it is just the premise that they believed in a need for government to have too much power.
The growth of power in government didn't suddenly present itself right after the ratification of the Constitution, it is a cumulative ordeal.
Spideynw:And no society in the history of mankind has continued for long without establishing a government.
As a follower of Austrian economics, you cannot claim ignorance in at least knowing Gaelic Ireland which lasted for 1,000 years and was only stopped because the imperialism of a nation that would conquer 1/4 of the world
Spideynw:And I do not classify someone who believes that it is possible for government to not be established as living in reality.
Call me a utopian/idealist for I honestly care not what title you give me but if pragatism means inconsistency and contradiction then a utopian/idealist I will happily remain.
Laughing Man:Call me a utopian/idealist for I honestly care not what title you give me but if pragatism means inconsistency and contradiction then a utopian/idealist I will happily remain.
Hear, hear!
wilderness: That should say Spideynw - not liberty student ^^^^^^^^^^^^ (That's why it's out of context. It's a whole other discussion with a whole other person).
Haha. I am so burnt out. I need to turn the computer off.
Laughing Man: Spideynw:The ones that signed the Constitution. Several 'Founding Fathers' actually didn't sign the Constitution.
OK
Laughing Man: Spideynw:The right of force. So you are a professor of 'might equals right'?
Nope. I am just talking about reality vs. ideology. The reality was, and is, that they were not challenged. The only "rights' that exist are those that you can defend. You only have a "right" to live, insomuch as you can defend yourself. Otherwise you get dead if someone is attacking you with the intent to kill and you are unable to defend yourself.
Laughing Man: Spideynw: No, it is just the premise that they believed in a need for government to have too much power. The growth of power in government didn't suddenly present itself right after the ratification of the Constitution, it is a cumulative ordeal.
The main fallacy in the Constitution, IMO, as I pointed out, is the fact that they gave too much power to Congress. If each legislator had full veto power, and we had ten times as many legislators, nothing would ever be accomplished in government.
Laughing Man: Spideynw:And no society in the history of mankind has continued for long without establishing a government. As a follower of Austrian economics, you cannot claim ignorance in at least knowing Gaelic Ireland which lasted for 1,000 years and was only stopped because the imperialism of a nation that would conquer 1/4 of the world
I sure can. But, doing a little research, "It was often ruled as an elective monarchy, with a High King (Ard Rí) nominated from among the rulers of the patchwork of Irish kingdoms. However, those who became High Kings often did so by force or other means." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaelic_Ireland). Maybe wikipedia is wrong?
Laughing Man: Spideynw:And I do not classify someone who believes that it is possible for government to not be established as living in reality. Call me a utopian/idealist for I honestly care not what title you give me but if pragatism means inconsistency and contradiction then a utopian/idealist I will happily remain.
How is an ineffective government inconsistent? What does it matter if 10,000 people get together and vote on stuff and everything is shot down because one person vetoes it? And what if the only "power" this government has is to vote? My dream of an ineffective government is probably just as much a pipe dream as yours of no government. But I am still an anarchist.
Spideynw: The only "rights' that exist are those that you can defend. You only have a "right" to live, insomuch as you can defend yourself. Otherwise you get dead if someone is attacking you with the intent to kill and you are unable to defend yourself.
So you have no right to live if you are murdered? Then pray tell what is the point of criminal punishment?
Spideynw:The main fallacy in the Constitution, IMO, as I pointed out, is the fact that they gave too much power to Congress. If each legislator had full veto power, and we had ten times as many legislators, nothing would ever be accomplished in government.
So your plan in stopping the growth of government is to INCREASE the size of the governmental body?
Spideynw:I sure can. But, doing a little research, "It was often ruled as an elective monarchy, with a High King (Ard Rí) nominated from among the rulers of the patchwork of Irish kingdoms. However, those who became High Kings often did so by force or other means." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaelic_Ireland). Maybe wikipedia is wrong?
I speak of course of the tuath which from my understanding elected a leader as a religious figure and a head of battles. A voluntary community which one can leave and enter at one's will.
Spideynw:How is an ineffective government inconsistent? What does it matter if 10,000 people get together and vote on stuff and everything is shot down because one person vetoes it?
Who is this one person? And pray tell how you establish legislation in which one person has the power to completely destroy the legislation?
Spideynw:And what if the only "power" this government has is to vote?
If the only power of this fictional government is just to vote then no one need listen to them and their existence is beign and will soon pass out of existence.
Laughing Man: Spideynw: The only "rights' that exist are those that you can defend. You only have a "right" to live, insomuch as you can defend yourself. Otherwise you get dead if someone is attacking you with the intent to kill and you are unable to defend yourself. So you have no right to live if you are murdered?
So you have no right to live if you are murdered?
Nope, you are dead.
Laughing Man:Then pray tell what is the point of criminal punishment?
To punish someone for harming another without his or her consent.
Laughing Man: Spideynw:The main fallacy in the Constitution, IMO, as I pointed out, is the fact that they gave too much power to Congress. If each legislator had full veto power, and we had ten times as many legislators, nothing would ever be accomplished in government. So your plan in stopping the growth of government is to INCREASE the size of the governmental body?
And giving the legislators full veto power. That means that any one of them could veto any legislation brought to a vote.
Laughing Man:I speak of course of the tuath which from my understanding elected a leader as a religious figure and a head of battles. A voluntary community which one can leave and enter at one's will.
Sorry, I could not find any information on these people or their society.
Laughing Man: Spideynw:How is an ineffective government inconsistent? What does it matter if 10,000 people get together and vote on stuff and everything is shot down because one person vetoes it? Who is this one person? And pray tell how you establish legislation in which one person has the power to completely destroy the legislation?
Like I have said, each and every legislator would have full veto power. That means that in order for a vote to pass, you would need 100% of the legislators saying yes, in essence giving each of them full veto power, because even if one says no, then the legislation would not pass.
Laughing Man: Spideynw:And what if the only "power" this government has is to vote? If the only power of this fictional government is just to vote then no one need listen to them and their existence is beign and will soon pass out of existence.
Maybe. Maybe not. But given that it seems people want a government (67% of the people approve of Obama), I think we need one that is as ineffective as possible while at the same time satisfying the masses need to have one.
Laughing Man:Several 'Founding Fathers' actually didn't sign the Constitution.
And their roles, and their opinions on many related topics.
liberty student: Laughing Man:Several 'Founding Fathers' actually didn't sign the Constitution. Not only that, but a great many Constitutionalists fail to recognize the division of Federalists and Anti-Federalists. And their roles, and their opinions on many related topics.
First of all, I am not a Constitutionalist. They usually like the Constitution as it now stands just fine.
Second of all, I did not feel it appropriate to go into all the details of each "Founding Father". I think it is enough to say they signed the damn thing, regardless of their beliefs.
Spideynw:Nope, you are dead.
Fantastic, we can just degrade into a Sadien world. Murders can run free, rapists unpunished and thieves the new wealth holders. For if one has no right if they cannot defend themself then all is possible, legal and moral. Applying this concept to the State apparatus, why are you an Anarchist? For if one has no right unless it can be defended and the State is constantly stealing, murdering and psychologically raping its citizenry then the state has a 'right' to it.
Spideynw:To punish someone for harming another without his or her consent.
Harming them in what manner? They had a right to it since citizen A cannot defend themself from citizen B.
Spideynw:And giving the legislators full veto power. That means that any one of them could veto any legislation brought to a vote.
Why would you need to increase the size of the legislative branch in order to do that?
Spideynw:Sorry, I could not find any information on these people or their society.
Rothbard makes mention of it. I forget whither it is Ethics of Liberty or For New Liberty
Spideynw:Like I have said, each and every legislator would have full veto power. That means that in order for a vote to pass, you would need 100% of the legislators saying yes, in essence giving each of them full veto power, because even if one says no, then the legislation would not pass.
And society will pay the salary of these individuals? I think not.
Spideynw:Maybe. Maybe not. But given that it seems people want a government (67% of the people approve of Obama), I think we need one that is as ineffective as possible while at the same time satisfying the masses need to have one.
Its not ACTUALLY 67% of the country...they are survey's based on 1000 takers. How would this government sustain itself? And what will force people to listen to it?
Laughing Man: Spideynw:Nope, you are dead. Fantastic, we can just degrade into a Sadien world. Murders can run free, rapists unpunished and thieves the new wealth holders. For if one has no right if they cannot defend themself then all is possible, legal and moral. Applying this concept to the State apparatus, why are you an Anarchist? For if one has no right unless it can be defended and the State is constantly stealing, murdering and psychologically raping its citizenry then the state has a 'right' to it.
I think we are just talking past each other here. I do believe people should be punished for harming another without getting consent first. If you want to call that a "right to life", so be it.
Laughing Man: Spideynw:To punish someone for harming another without his or her consent. Harming them in what manner?
Harming them in what manner?
He or she killed the other person.
Laughing Man:They had a right to it since citizen A cannot defend themself from citizen B.
No, I never said someone has a right to harm another that cannot defend themselves. This is the problem with forums.
I will have to answer the rest later.
Spideynw:No, I never said someone has a right to harm another that cannot defend themselves. This is the problem with forums.
You stated that they do not have the right to life since they could not defend themselves. If that is true what is the basis for punishment SINCE an individual was not worthy of life since they could not defend it? And you can take this premise to ANY right an individual may have.
Spideynw:First of all, I am not a Constitutionalist. They usually like the Constitution as it now stands just fine.
The statement was made for the benefit of the OP, who is indeed a Constitutionalist.
Spideynw:Second of all, I did not feel it appropriate to go into all the details of each "Founding Father". I think it is enough to say they signed the damn thing, regardless of their beliefs.
I agree. Accuracy is one of those intellectual inconveniences that really gets in the way of accomplishing the greater good.
liberty student:But the Constitution isn't an ideal either. It tries to establish limited government, but that is impossible, because all government, fundamentally all politics, is based upon the manipulation of private property rights.
Based upon manipulating the currency, I agree. Then how would you regulate it without the government's control?
Harry Felker: I wholly disagree We are not living the Constitution today, we are living a government interpretation of the Constitution, which is like asking a child molester to interpret what constitutes molestation, and then hiring him as a babysitter... Where is the government given the authority to judge what is a first amendment violation? The fact is that it does not have this authority...
I wholly disagree
We are not living the Constitution today, we are living a government interpretation of the Constitution, which is like asking a child molester to interpret what constitutes molestation, and then hiring him as a babysitter...
Where is the government given the authority to judge what is a first amendment violation? The fact is that it does not have this authority...
Who is in a monopoly position to interpret the constitution? The federal government.
What is the consequence for a congress that passes a law infringing on freedom of speech? Absolutely nothing.
Was it merely an oversight that the Constitution never mentions nullification, secession, or tax resistance? Judging by who wrote it, I'd have to say it was deliberate. The Bill of Rights, the only commendable part of the document, wasn't even included by the drafters, it was imposed later.
If nullification is the "correct" interpretation why is it never mentioned?
You've yet to address how the Constitution improved upon the Articles of Confederation in any way. Its single purpose was to greatly empower and expand the federal government.
Constitutional government failed because it is socialism
Peace
Harry Felker: JonBostwick: You are misusing the language. Not your fault, you've learned to do it from others. Copying something is not the same thing as taking it. OK... Let us say Tom creates a car that runs on sunshine and farts, stinky but completely free energy, and said theoretical product performs comparably to the current fossil fuel car. Dick who lives or works next to Tom's lab sees this car and at some engagement in Tom's home, Dick slips away from a crowd and sees Tom's Schematics for his car, or sees them on Tom's Computer ... Dick copies these schematics (does not steal them) or e mails himself the files... Then Dick sells these schematics to Ford Now Tom has not lost anything but the ability to decide how his intellectual creation is to be used, if he wishes it to be used at all, and subsequently the potential for financial gain...
JonBostwick: You are misusing the language. Not your fault, you've learned to do it from others. Copying something is not the same thing as taking it.
You are misusing the language. Not your fault, you've learned to do it from others. Copying something is not the same thing as taking it.
OK...
Let us say Tom creates a car that runs on sunshine and farts, stinky but completely free energy, and said theoretical product performs comparably to the current fossil fuel car.
Dick who lives or works next to Tom's lab sees this car and at some engagement in Tom's home, Dick slips away from a crowd and sees Tom's Schematics for his car, or sees them on Tom's Computer ...
Dick copies these schematics (does not steal them) or e mails himself the files...
Then Dick sells these schematics to Ford
Now Tom has not lost anything but the ability to decide how his intellectual creation is to be used, if he wishes it to be used at all, and subsequently the potential for financial gain...
You've changed the scenario by adding trespassing, an actual crime, to it.
Stealing trade secrets is not a copyright issue.
marquise:Based upon manipulating the currency, I agree. Then how would you regulate it without the government's control?
The market. Always the market. Free, voluntary exchange.
liberty student:The market. Always the market. Free, voluntary exchange.
I agree with that. As market is ultimately based on currency....who is going to be in charge of it?
You are advocating a society without governments....this is perfect for me....what I would like to know is how this society is going to come into existence? I mean practically...
marquise: liberty student:The market. Always the market. Free, voluntary exchange. I agree with that. As market is ultimately based on currency....who is going to be in charge of it?
No one. Everyone. When people trade, they will decide what to use as the medium of exchange. Maybe they will direct barter if they have a coincidence of wants. Maybe they will use a fiduciary instrument like cash receipts or metal coins. That will be up to the people making the trade. If someone abuses gold, or silver, if they counterfeit money, people will just switch to trade in something different. In this way, the market works around problems, because there is no center of control.
marquise:You are advocating a society without governments....this is perfect for me....what I would like to know is how this society is going to come into existence? I mean practically...
Education, decentralization, independent non-political action. Working towards the day where we can begin withdrawing our consent without the need for violence.
liberty student:No one. Everyone. When people trade, they will decide what to use as the medium of exchange
Ok....I have thought about this too....I doubt that humanity will last long enough to see the free trade day arise...
liberty student:Education, decentralization, independent non-political action. Working towards the day where we can begin withdrawing our consent without the need for violence.
I wish it could not be utopian, LS....
marquise:Ok....I have thought about this too....I doubt that humanity will last long enough to see the free trade day arise...
It's already happening. You just have to know what to look for, or how to recognize the signs.
marquise:I wish it could not be utopian, LS....
It's not utopian. I don't understand why people keep saying that.
liberty student:It's not utopian. I don't understand why people keep saying that.
Some are just faint of heart.
liberty student:It's already happening. You just have to know what to look for, or how to recognize the signs.
It always happened, but on a small scale....
Lol! Because we are not as optimistic as you are!
marquise:Lol! Because we are not as optimistic as you are!
Utopian is thinking you can appoint of a gang of thieves over yourselves and not have them act like a gang of thieves.
I am entirely pessimistic about the idea that changing the form of government will change the nature of government
JonBostwick:I am entirely pessimistic about the idea that changing the form of government will change the nature of government
I agree.
To achieve what LS is saying requires a complete rebirth of the society...
What LS is discussing has been discussed for ages. It does not take rebirth of society, only a realization.
Laughing Man:What LS is discussing has been discussed for ages
If it has been discussed for ages then why am I not seeing any realisation of it?
There have been realizations of it.
marquise:To achieve what LS is saying requires a complete rebirth of the society...
No it doesn't. Government is not a part of society, it preys upon it.
Volunteerism is the norm, coercion is the exception. Political libertarianism is simply the belief that government must follow the same laws as everyone else. The state is a contradiction. Libertarianism is consistent.
If slavery is beneficial, why can only governments own people? If slavery is bad, why do governments get to own people?
Laughing Man:There have been realizations of it.
Please share examples with me.