-
The market is a place where innovation, creativity and motivation are encouraged to find solutions to problems. They are not stifled by the one-size-fits all policies of government. If there is a problem then the market can provide a solution which does not require the use of aggressive force against an individual’s property. Let’s see if
-
What if the poor doesn't accept the offer to sell but the title company accepts the bribe to change the property title?
-
What happens to the poor who have no insurance, not because they don't want coverage but, because they cannot afford it? Wouldn't it make them susceptible to exploitation by those who do have insurance? I am assuming here that the insured could make a property claim to the poors property and without the poor having recourse to security forces
-
RonPaulLol: I was on the Board of Directors for a Computer Mfg company. We were bought by a Memory Mfg company because the memory market was too competitive to make significant profits. The Memory Mfg bought us to diversify for the future AND to increase their short term profits. So companies DO diversify their investments and look to the future. They
-
Hydrocarbon producing companies will naturally diversify into other fuel sources as hydrocarbons deplete in order to stay in business. That is where the allocation of resources and research will come from. Business who want to stay in business when their gravy train is coming to an end, invest in other venues to keep the gravy train going.
-
Clayton: I don't think Hoppe is trying to create a "central planning of law" as much as he is trying to create a "standardization of law" through the process of argumentation. Standardization can happen, and frequently does so, in a free market. Central Planning is not necessary.
-
I haven't read much into the Argumentation Ethics of Hoppe, but from Kinsella's article it sounds like Hoppe is trying to give Lockean private property theory, upon which Rothbard bases his natural rights theory, an absolute, rather than relativist, foundation. I think, therefore I am, so to speak. I argue, therefore I am the owner of myself
-
A friend of mine asked me why capitalists shouldn't have to share their profits with their laborers. I told him because it is the capitalist that fronts all the capital and takes all the risk. The laborer gets paid up front, even when no profits have yet, if ever, been made. He didn't follow. So I asked him a simple question: Should laborers
-
Praetyre: But I thought capitalism represented the constrained vision, not the unconstrained vision. And I thought socialism represented the unconstrained vision, not the constrained vision. (According to Thomas Sowell's exposition of the two camps in "A Conflict of Visions.") Is there something wrong with the logic here? I guess the question
-
Why is capitalism considered greedy and selfish? Let me rephrase the question: Why are mutually beneficient transactions considered greedy and selfish?