Or at least that's what I was informed by a libertarian minded individual;
I'd like to point out that the "State's theft of money" is what was used to fund the development of the Internet. I'd guess the measley dozen or so millions that DARPA spent on that has returned wealth in vast abundance? Sure, there are plenty of "money pits" in govt, but it's just silly to assume that govt is all (or even primarily) parasitic in nature. What most Libertarians miss (and I say this as someone with definite Libertarian bent) is that the economy is itself a creation of the state. Without a state to create a stable system of laws, provide at least modest physical security, property rights, (which are just as fictional as "intellectual property" rights) commonly usable infrastructure (roads, telecommunications, water, garbage, etc) and a stable currency, there is no economy to speak of. There has been study after study to demonstrate this. So the idea of an economy without a state is fundamentally unworkable. I'm not saying that we need the "Federal Reserve", I'm not saying that any particular form of govt is best here, I'm only saying that the state serves a very necessary purpose in creating the conditions under which an economy can flourish. A little history is in order: When people gathered to combat the oppression of tyrannical monopolies, whether of commerce or of the nobility, the answer they came up with was.... Representative government! Oh, it's too much... | Post Points: 125
I'd like to point out that the "State's theft of money" is what was used to fund the development of the Internet. I'd guess the measley dozen or so millions that DARPA spent on that has returned wealth in vast abundance?
Sure, there are plenty of "money pits" in govt, but it's just silly to assume that govt is all (or even primarily) parasitic in nature. What most Libertarians miss (and I say this as someone with definite Libertarian bent) is that the economy is itself a creation of the state.
Without a state to create a stable system of laws, provide at least modest physical security, property rights, (which are just as fictional as "intellectual property" rights) commonly usable infrastructure (roads, telecommunications, water, garbage, etc) and a stable currency, there is no economy to speak of. There has been study after study to demonstrate this.
So the idea of an economy without a state is fundamentally unworkable. I'm not saying that we need the "Federal Reserve", I'm not saying that any particular form of govt is best here, I'm only saying that the state serves a very necessary purpose in creating the conditions under which an economy can flourish.
A little history is in order: When people gathered to combat the oppression of tyrannical monopolies, whether of commerce or of the nobility, the answer they came up with was.... Representative government!
Oh, it's too much...
Anonymous Coward: Or at least that's what I was informed by a libertarian minded individual; I'd like to point out that the "State's theft of money" is what was used to fund the development of the Internet. I'd guess the measley dozen or so millions that DARPA spent on that has returned wealth in vast abundance? Sure, there are plenty of "money pits" in govt, but it's just silly to assume that govt is all (or even primarily) parasitic in nature. What most Libertarians miss (and I say this as someone with definite Libertarian bent) is that the economy is itself a creation of the state. Without a state to create a stable system of laws, provide at least modest physical security, property rights, (which are just as fictional as "intellectual property" rights) commonly usable infrastructure (roads, telecommunications, water, garbage, etc) and a stable currency, there is no economy to speak of. There has been study after study to demonstrate this. So the idea of an economy without a state is fundamentally unworkable. I'm not saying that we need the "Federal Reserve", I'm not saying that any particular form of govt is best here, I'm only saying that the state serves a very necessary purpose in creating the conditions under which an economy can flourish. A little history is in order: When people gathered to combat the oppression of tyrannical monopolies, whether of commerce or of the nobility, the answer they came up with was.... Representative government! Oh, it's too much...
I'd like to point out that the "State's theft of money" is what was used to fund the development of the Internet. I'd guess the measley dozen or so millions that DARPA spent on that has returned wealth in vast abundance? Sure, there are plenty of "money pits" in govt, but it's just silly to assume that govt is all (or even primarily) parasitic in nature. What most Libertarians miss (and I say this as someone with definite Libertarian bent) is that the economy is itself a creation of the state. Without a state to create a stable system of laws, provide at least modest physical security, property rights, (which are just as fictional as "intellectual property" rights) commonly usable infrastructure (roads, telecommunications, water, garbage, etc) and a stable currency, there is no economy to speak of. There has been study after study to demonstrate this. So the idea of an economy without a state is fundamentally unworkable. I'm not saying that we need the "Federal Reserve", I'm not saying that any particular form of govt is best here, I'm only saying that the state serves a very necessary purpose in creating the conditions under which an economy can flourish. A little history is in order: When people gathered to combat the oppression of tyrannical monopolies, whether of commerce or of the nobility, the answer they came up with was.... Representative government! Oh, it's too much...
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
What most Libertarians miss (and I say this as someone with definite Libertarian bent) is that the economy is itself a creation of the state.
Your friend is totally right. The "economy" is a fabrication of the state to keep us believing that we need to push for higher GDP at the expense of everything else.
He ought to explain why property rights are fictitious, rather than just asserting it. Anyway, another stato-"libertarian". Nothing new to see here folks.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Of course taxation isn't theft.
If you take something from someone by threat of harm or inprisonment, that's extortion - related, but different.
I'm not yet convinced that there is no need for government, but I'm pretty sure that government involvement in the economy is a bad idea.
You may ask your "libertarian" friend what studies they're citing - I'd like a look at them myself.
Danno
The avatar graphic text:
"Are you coming to bed?"
"No, this is important"
"What?"
"Someone is wrong on the internet."
Taxation isn't theft unless it hurts people. The fact that no one cares about the poor robber's reason to steal is a prime example of this!!!!
Democracy is nothing more than replacing bullets with ballots
If Pro is the opposite of Con. What is the opposite of Progress?
taxes are extortion,but if you must tax, tax corporations and not the people and never allow government the right to take your property without due compensation
we must resist the borg
anonnymous: taxes are extortion,but if you must tax, tax corporations and not the people and never allow government the right to take your property without due compensation
You are right, for a second I thought corporations were made up of people, then I realized they are just a bunch of mindless robots with no rights to property.
"The plans differ; the planners are all alike"
-Bastiat
Corporations as they exist today are purely creations of the state. They are artificial persons with legal statuses of their own, and rights superior to those of any of the individuals within them. They are collectivist artifices which exist apart from the individuals who work "for" them.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
Roads? Ah shoot! I never thought of that.
That's what I was forgetting all along.
correct, they are creations of the state and therefore can be taxed by the state,
anonnymous: correct, they are creations of the state and therefore can be taxed by the state,
No they aren't. They are recognized by the state, but they are not created by the state. The state recognize certain rights, like property, but that does not mean property is a creation of the state.(Contrary to whatever Marxist think)
This anti-corporatism is just Marxist infiltration.
Peace
"But, without the state, who will build the roads!?"
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
JonBostwick: anonnymous: correct, they are creations of the state and therefore can be taxed by the state, No they aren't. They are recognized by the state, but they are not created by the state. The state recognize certain rights, like property, but that does not mean property is a creation of the state.(Contrary to whatever Marxist think) This anti-corporatism is just Marxist infiltration.
Their legal status as a "person" is a state granted privilege. That's the point.
This pro-corporatism is just conservative infiltration. Nothing about libertarianism or laissez-faire to my knowledge implies corporatism. There is nothing "marxist" about opposing corporatism.
wombatron: "But, without the state, who will build the roads!?"
"Where we're going... we don't need 'roads'."(BTTF, not RR)
Brainpolice: Their legal status as a "person" is a state granted privilege. That's the point. This pro-corporatism is just conservative infiltration. Nothing about libertarianism or laissez-faire to my knowledge implies corporatism. There is nothing "marxist" about opposing corporatism.
Oh. A semantics fight. Obviously I dont endorse corporatism as defined as state capitalism.
Everything about libertarianism implies defense of the corporation. NAP anyone?
That's pretty muttled thinking by a person who claims to be 'liberatarian'. Hasn't s/he forgotten the non-aggression basis for liberartianism? And what are taxes if not aggression? They certainly aren't voluntary that's for sure!
I remain -
I'm AtaxistNext time I'm asked what "Party" I support, I will reply "Ataxist". Ataxist is not a philosophy, its a mandate. Its not vague, it has a specific agenda and purpose - to eliminate participation in tax systems.Of course the initial reaction will be negative, all changes are resisted by TTWIAHB (that's the way its always has been). But as the following reasons become HEARD, I believe that such a movement may have a chance of catching on.Reason #1 - Taxes are involuntary. This is theft backed by coercion. Reason #2 - Taxing always ends up a corrupt system because it breaks the linkage of cause and effect, effectively eliminating any self regulating mechanism for discipling costs in relation to results.Reason #3 - Direct means of payment are possible. Large organizations do exist that support themselves and provide a product/service, all on a choice to participate basis. (Telecommunications, consumer products, security services etc....)If such a thing catches on, I believe that it may become possible that more people will start to see and think of the government as the entity that it really is - a service organization. Also this (non-)"party" can be accepted by, and possibly incorporated into other existing parties that want to achieve a freer life (Libertarian especially). Plus this is all legal. As an Ataxist I am NOT advocating non payment of taxes, I am declaring that I prefer an alternate system for payment. To that end I will do whatever I can to 1) pay as direct as possible for all products and services, and 2) not pay for those things that I do not want to receive or support. Simple, direct and effective.
Jain
Brainpolice:Their legal status as a "person" is a state granted privilege. That's the point.
Agreed.
Brainpolice:This pro-corporatism is just conservative infiltration. Nothing about libertarianism or laissez-faire to my knowledge implies corporatism. There is nothing "marxist" about opposing corporatism.
Do you actually know any conservatives?
liberty student:Do you actually know any conservatives?
Yes. Why?
The corporation did not come about in an atmosphere consistant with the NAP. Defending institutions that are granted their status as a consequence of violations of the NAP does not follow. A corporation qua corporation is not necessarily an 100% voluntary institution, let alone completely independant from the state. To the extent that the corporation is in patronage with the state, is privileged and protected by the state and came about as a result of intervention by the state, there is absolutely nothing libertarian about it. Stop conflating non-free market entities with a non-existant free market.
There is nothing wrong with contractually-specified limited liability joint stock companies (as far as the NAP goes). However, most (all?) modern corporations are in cahoots with the state, and use things like IP, eminent domain, etc., to gain more power for themselves.
JonBostwick:Everything about libertarianism implies defense of the corporation. NAP anyone?
Limited liability anyone?
Anonymous Coward: Or at least that's what I was informed by a libertarian minded individual; I'd like to point out that the "State's theft of money" is what was used to fund the development of the Internet. I'd guess the measley dozen or so millions that DARPA spent on that has returned wealth in vast abundance?
Whenever somebody tells you that the Internet would not exist without government, pull out this handy quote:
"As soon as completed, it will be possible for a business man in New York to dictate instructions, and have them instantly appear in type at his office in London or elsewhere. He will be able to call up, from his desk, and talk to any telephone subscriber on the globe, without any change whatever in the existing equipment. An inexpensive instrument, not bigger than a watch, will enable its bearer to hear anywhere, on sea or land, music or song, the speech of a political leader, the address of an eminent man of science, or the sermon of an eloquent clergyman, delivered in some other place, however distant. In the same manner any picture, character, drawing, or print can be transferred from one to another place. Millions of such instruments can be operated from but one plant of this kind. More important than all of this, however, will be the transmission of power, without wires, which will be shown on a scale large enough to carry conviction." Nikola Tesla, 1908
"As soon as completed, it will be possible for a business man in New York to dictate instructions, and have them instantly appear in type at his office in London or elsewhere. He will be able to call up, from his desk, and talk to any telephone subscriber on the globe, without any change whatever in the existing equipment. An inexpensive instrument, not bigger than a watch, will enable its bearer to hear anywhere, on sea or land, music or song, the speech of a political leader, the address of an eminent man of science, or the sermon of an eloquent clergyman, delivered in some other place, however distant. In the same manner any picture, character, drawing, or print can be transferred from one to another place. Millions of such instruments can be operated from but one plant of this kind. More important than all of this, however, will be the transmission of power, without wires, which will be shown on a scale large enough to carry conviction."
Nikola Tesla, 1908
The idea behind the Internet is actually one hundred years old.
"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."
Tesla was actually talking about Zero Point Energy.
I have my own blog at FSK's Guide to Reality. Let me know if you like it.
xahrx: JonBostwick:Everything about libertarianism implies defense of the corporation. NAP anyone? Limited liability anyone?
Yep.
If I lend you $100 to start a business, should you go bankrupt, I can't be held liable for more than my $100. Joint stock companies are just this same principle en mass.
wombatron: Everything about libertarianism implies defense of the corporation. NAP anyone? There is nothing wrong with contractually-specified limited liability joint stock companies (as far as the NAP goes). However, most (all?) modern corporations are in cahoots with the state, and use things like IP, eminent domain, etc., to gain more power for themselves.
Individuals do the same.
I assume you advocate applying these same rules to welfare recipients, right?
No, that's debt financing, not equity financing.
If I *LOAN* you $100, and my only claim is $100 plus interest, then my liability should be limited to $100 plus interest.
If I *BUY* a 5% share of all the business' profits for $100, then why should my liability be limited? As owner, I should be responsible for the business.
Limite liability corporation encourages dishonest behavior. If a business is very nearly bankrupt, the incentive is for a business to hide its financial status from its creditors, since it doesn't matter if you go bankrupt with a net worth of -$1 or -$1B.
Limited liability incorporation is an artificial creation of government. It does not exist in a free market.
Oh yes, the old corporate personhood is unnatural argument. All of man's institutions, including law, are unnatural, they are all contrived.
But what privileges of corporate personhood would that be?
Of course, corporations aren't the only institutions to recieve this "privilege". The Catholic Church receives this same "privilege" when it owns property or gets sued in court.
fsk:If I *LOAN* you $100, and my only claim is $100 plus interest, then my liability should be limited to $100 plus interest.
You can't be liable for the interest. You stand a chance to not be paid your interest. Once you lend out your $100 there is a chance you won't get repaid for it, but no one can come knock on your door and hand you a bill.
fsk: If I *BUY* a 5% share of all the business' profits for $100, then why should my liability be limited? As owner, I should be responsible for the business.
Because you are not a controlling owner. You are a provider of capital.
fsk:Limite liability corporation encourages dishonest behavior. If a business is very nearly bankrupt, the incentive is for a business to hide its financial status from its creditors, since it doesn't matter if you go bankrupt with a net worth of -$1 or -$1B.
That is a moral hazard for management, not the shareholders. Limited liability doesn't shelter management from misconduct, so the point is moot.
JonBostwick:Oh. A semantics fight. Obviously I dont endorse corporatism as defined as state capitalism. Everything about libertarianism implies defense of the corporation. NAP anyone?
Nonsense. Corporations are fictions, possible only by state enforcement. Only people can own things, sue and be sued, etc. Fictions cannot. They're made up. They're convenient fantasies. Rightfully, all corporate property is open to homesteading, because its status as being owned by a fiction means that they aren't owned at all.
Blah Blah Blah.
All humans institutions are contrived, they exist only in the human mind. Good luck invading my mind to erase from it such "fictions" as law and property.
JonBostwick: Blah Blah Blah. All humans institutions are contrived, they exist only in the human mind. Good luck invading my mind to erase from it such "fictions" as law and property.
If I ask you, "do you own this tractor", and you say, "no, my unicorn does", you have just disavowed ownership. You have assigned ownership to a nonexistent entity, and therefore, no one owns it. Guess it's mine now! It is the same for a corporation.
Law is not an entity, nor is property. They are principles. Are you so thick that you can't see the difference?
JCFolsom:If I ask you, "do you own this tractor", and you say, "no, my unicorn church does", you have just disavowed ownership.
How can a church own something? Its just a building!
Of course, corporations don't actually own property, they manage it. The property belongs to shareholders.
I think the only way for our non-free free market to exist, still have all the prosperity we have today, and come closest to a free society, is to have the state only tax corporations, nothing else.
Too reformist?
Corporate taxes are passed on. A tax on corporations is just a sales tax by a different name.
JonBostwick:How can a church own something? Its just a building!
Indeed, a church can own nothing. The pope can own it, or the priest, or the parishoners. That non-profit religious corporations are said to exist does not have any bearing on whether corporations exist. This isn't the first time you brought this up, and I have no idea where you're going with it.
JonBostwick:Of course, corporations don't actually own property, they manage it. The property belongs to shareholders.
Not according to how things are run today. It is legally treated as an entity in itself, responsible for "its" own decisions, capable of ownership, everything. Why, corporations can even own each other! Today, if one were to buy a "share" (the fictional division of a fictional entity), you would own just, well, that made up nothing. That made up nothing goes on to a market where people pass money back and forth and pretend they're getting something. Of course, this really works out to a loan, or... something. With most stocks, you aren't actually entitled to get anything from the company itself, the value of the stock just fluctuates, based in part on the company's perfomance. Corporate stock is kinda like fiat money, little pieces of paper, signifying nothing, given value only by people who are willing to play this great game of pretend with an "entity" that exists only because the government makes you acknowledge it.
The only way for me to actually buy, say, 10% of a company is to buy 10% of the assets associated with that business. Then, it would be me owning it, not the company. I don't even think you could buy 10% of its profits in perpetuity, because the business is inseperable and identical to the people doing business, and that would therefore be a loan in exchange for partial slavery. Block thinks that's okay, but I don't.
JonBostwick: Brainpolice:Their legal status as a "person" is a state granted privilege. That's the point. Oh yes, the old corporate personhood is unnatural argument. All of man's institutions, including law, are unnatural, they are all contrived. But what privileges of corporate personhood would that be? Of course, corporations aren't the only institutions to recieve this "privilege". The Catholic Church receives this same "privilege" when it owns property or gets sued in court.
And I would likewise advocate abolishing that remnant of the union of church and state as well. I'd prefer separation of church and state.
Oh yeah.... the "union" where the American Government acknowledges the existence of an organization a thousand years older than itself...wow...