-
[quote user="liberty student"]What I think is irrelevant. My values are not facts. The questions to ask are, if someone "disturbs the peace" is that a crime, and if so what is the crime, and what sort of restitutive measures are reasonable given we have established a tort of some sort?[/quote] The fact my (and your) values are subjective
-
[quote user="nirgrahamUK"] also I hope ou've considered the fact that you do not see objects by shooting rays out of your eyes quite like the greeks thought... [/quote] That explains, now, why I went through all that confusion reading about how Socrates thought colour was perceived!
-
[quote user="liberty student"]Rothbard is not equal to most libertarians, Want to revise your claim, or are you just appealing to Rothbard as an authority?[/quote] Would you think it is ok then for my neighbour to play incredibly loud music and constantly have parties night afternight and keep everyone awake? What I mean is, would I not be
-
[quote user="Eugene"]First of all I am not saying that surveillance should be illegal in all cases, only in cases where it is done for fun, and not in order to discover illegal activities. Second of all, whether United States has a just claim on your house or not is not the point. The point is that if Texas for example was privately owned
-
[quote user="Eugene"]First of all I don't have this sacred assumption that the only illegal things should be harm to property. There are some things, though not many, which are so humiliating to a person that he is harmed a lot more than he would be harmed if some physical property of his was stolen. For example I would be a lot more upset
-
[quote user="Phaedros"]I think basically it is difficult to understand how society might function without someone guiding it. That is, it's difficult to understand spontaneous order and cooperation. There's an interesting dualism in Chinese philosophy that arose during the Warring States period between Fa (Law or Legalism) and Li
-
I know this sounds like a confusion question but my question is essentially 'but why did government arise in the first place?' And if it arose in the first place, surely it is a natural phenomenon and would arise again? What is so different about the circumstances today than those during the days of the origins of the state itself?
-
[quote user="z1235"]I'm sure you know this already, but wanted to point it out anyway. Physical activity, in and of itself, is not what produces wealth. Every laborer is free to move a random pile of bricks from location A to location B and back to location A, as many times he wants. No one would be wealthier for it.[/quote] RE: Ok, so
-
[quote user="EmperorNero"]To which I would respond that profits are not shared between capitalists and workers at all, labor is a commodity whose price is determined on the market. The workers are paid according to supply and demand, not a share of the profits. In this model the capitalist produces the entire output of the factory, is paid
-
A typical position of the early individualist anarchists (which was basically derived from the labour theory of value as formulated by the early classical economists) was the theme of 'Cost is the Limit of Price' (from Wendy McElroy http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/mcelroy1.html ): 'The second mainstay of 19th century individualist