-
[quote user="z1235"] [quote user="vaduka"]If people choose X, which stands for cooperation, whatever the outcome - it is legitimate. ... If people choose Y, which stands for violence (i.e., they abandon rationalization, but rather act in a beastly manner), whatever the outcome - it is illegitimate. [/quote] Then private property
-
[quote user="z1235"] [quote user="vaduka"]...but you are still the only one human in the world that has got legitimate claim for control over this property.[/quote] Not if you're the only human thinking so. There's no legitimacy outside the realm of intersubjective human valuations. I could homestead the known universe by
-
No one can theoretically outlaw your property rights. It is like to say: "From now on there is law which says Jack Roberts is not the ultimate decision-maker of the body he occupies". This makes no sense. It is trying to control something that is out of the power reach of humans. It is like trying to legislate the operation of the Sun. In
-
[quote user="aervew"] [quote]Established by whom? The State?[/quote] Exactly. Property can only be established by entities that have supremacy of violence, which tends to be the state. [/quote] This is exactly not true. When you go buy yourself shoes, for example, do you not think that the act you are engaging in, that is, handing out the
-
This thread could have very well ended just here, let me quote Clayton: "Taxation" is a euphemism
-
I do not know how come I have till today missed the fact that the name of his blog is "The Conscience of a Liberal". He is a joke. Do his blog postings represent his opinion as an economist, as a political philosopher or as a "citizen who in his free time writes about politics"? I am sure that it is not the first one...
-
Eugene, by reading my comments on this forum you are stalking my Internet activity. If you dare to quote me this is going to be considered property rights violation.
-
The argument that society (whatever this means) will be better off if all of the rich people's wealth is taken away from them is one that indicates a complete lack of understanding of: 1) the fundamental condition species live in, i.e., relative scarcity 2) capital and capital structure If Michael Moore or Anjelina Jolie are given the exclusive
-
"indicating that the right" What is this so-called right? Yeah, I know the answer. But I wonder how this differentiation between left and right people helps him build his argument. From here then, he, of course, takes into account some not-so-much relevant data as a premise. He is so boring, so elementary and so wrong. An economist who starts
-
Would you mind providing me with some links to those journal articles? I would highly appreciate it if you do.