Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Search

  • Re: Inalienability of land

    Eugene, you're still talking about how an individual is "taking away" unowned lands from others, or that society "gives it to the individual to use". I mentioned this position in my last post: Again, begs the question: if individuals can't own it, then how did all individuals, when amassed into a nebulous society, come to
    Posted to Political Theory (Forum) by LogisticEarth on Fri, Nov 2 2012
  • Re: Inalienability of labor and employment

    stoc, you're leaping to positions that I'm not arguing for here. In no way does someone working for a wage make them "property" or make them involuntarily "commanded" by thier employer. People act as agents of an employer because they have agreed to for compensation. Currently in our society, a cow is treated as property
    Posted to Political Theory (Forum) by LogisticEarth on Thu, Nov 1 2012
  • Re: Inalienability of land

    I believe you can't own land, you can only "lease it". Its not yours to own. This begs the question though, if YOU can't own it, then who are you leasing it from ? Not to put words in your mouth, but the standard answer to this is "society collectively". Again, begs the question: if individuals can't own it, then how
    Posted to Political Theory (Forum) by LogisticEarth on Thu, Nov 1 2012
  • Re: Inalienability of land

    Land is not a product of one's labor and its limited. Therefore I believe you cannot forbid others to use land which you do not use yourself. So if you abandoned a field you previously owned, you can't claim ownership over the piece of land beneath that field. Originally you gained ownership of the land because you used it for the field, but
    Posted to Political Theory (Forum) by LogisticEarth on Thu, Nov 1 2012
  • Re: Obama has presided over the biggest expansion of...Corporate Profit?

    Nominal corporate profits can skyrocket all they want, but the fact that wealth is locked up in an increasingly elite setting, while the standards of living of everyone else stagnate or decline should be enough to condemn his whole policy.
    Posted to Economics Questions (Forum) by LogisticEarth on Thu, Nov 1 2012
  • Re: Inalienability of labor and employment

    (regarding splitting wages while only using one party's capital) After the initial difference to make up Joe's joining in the business without contributing capital, yes. And what is the value of this difference? I posited an answer to that question and you seemed to have ignored it. What about ongoing costs and replacement of equipment? Simply
    Posted to Political Theory (Forum) by LogisticEarth on Thu, Nov 1 2012
  • Re: Inalienability of labor and employment

    The plumber that has an employer comes and fixes your plumbing. He, the employee, provides the service. He provides it to you, and not to the employer. You, the customer, pay for the service. You don't pay it to the service provider, but his employer, becase the service provider has alienated his labor to the employer, who is not the service provider
    Posted to Political Theory (Forum) by LogisticEarth on Thu, Nov 1 2012
  • Re: *** September 2012 low content thread ***

    RE: Diamond deposit Eh, interesting but I'm skeptical. Regardless, the diamonds produced from a meteor impact are going to be microscopic and will not really affect the world gem market. Plus, they're making claims like "these diamonds are twice as hard!" which is pretty much just bullshit.
    Posted to Current Events (Forum) by LogisticEarth on Tue, Sep 18 2012
  • Re: *** September 2012 low content thread ***

    They are fairly commonplace though, in places like NYC. They're just not as simple as a parking garage, which have become much more common since the 20's for obvious reasons. Here's an example of a modern one:
    Posted to Current Events (Forum) by LogisticEarth on Sat, Sep 8 2012
  • Re: Geolibertarianism?

    Because everyone who has the right to liberty, has an equal right to go trough or use unowned land. You've got it backwards. You do not have the "right" to go through unowned land, rather, it is other individuals who do NOT have the right to use force to stop you. When someone else begins to use an unused area of land for some other purpose
    Posted to Political Theory (Forum) by LogisticEarth on Fri, Sep 7 2012
Page 3 of 51 (506 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next > ... Last ยป | More Search Options