-
What we have against private property is that it uses PUBLIC historical knowledge and ressources to create PRIVATE profit and economic influence. (I actually hold a patent on copyrighting. So take that for what you will.) For example, Bill Gates, to invent Windows, he needed the work of MANY MANY humans and centuries of human knowledge. (And he'd
-
This is your problem. It does not follow at all. You can NOT prove that peaceful exchange is a preference. --valjack of course peaceful exchange is preferable since both parties agree to it. In contrast, when coercion is utilized only one party considers it a favorable course of action. (Just saying "of course" isn't proof. I even offered
-
If coercion is present in ancap society AND if security is needed --- then do you agree/disagree with the following tenets: other factors being constant -- as the level of security for a given resource decreases does the likelihood of predation of that resource increase ? And, other factors constant -- if the value of a given resource increases, the
-
IN sum, I do not ignore voluntary exchange. It is fundamental to my argument at it implies that peaceful exchange is preferred to coercion when possible. (This is your problem. It does not follow at all. You can NOT prove that peaceful exchange is a preference. How do you know? Perhaps I prefer to beat the hell out of people and take their stuff. It's
-
is security needed in ancap society ? -- Rettoper You would have to show me such a society before we could prove anything one way or another. My opinion, yes. What do you think that proves about your own argument? --valjact will coercion be present in ancap society ? -- Rettoper Well, unlike some folks, I don't pretend to know if the cat is dead
-
(You'll end this quickly with a challenge to me? Nobody cares about you and I, genius. They're going to put in their two cents, same as us. What am I, some kind of god that they are all measuring themselves against? I doubt they think so, even if both of us do.) Question for valjact: is security needed in ancap society ? You would have to show
-
Baseless assertion. Also, who is making the calculation as to what is "maximum"? -- valject The market. Owners who are negligent in managing their valued resources (and they are many in capitalist systems since 99.99% ultimately fail) will not have a level of security that matches the economic value of the resource . however I have explained
-
And again, I say, "Behold! The Venus Project!": Hello everyone everybody! I am a five-year-old economics major and scientist. I would like to start by saying that there is a basic flaw in reason. All reason. Now that I have made my case, let's take a look at things that have happened, ever. There is an economy and large corporations. Now
-
the utility of coercion to achieve positive societal change is based on the following: valued resources that are not being utlized to maximum economic benefit to society will have to change hands by violent means when peaceful exchange is not possible. (Baseless assertion. Also, who is making the calculation as to what is "maximum"? It sounds
-
Sure, I'll bite. I'm reading Agatha Christie's "And Then There Were None".