Feudal Land Arrangements Under Anarcho Capitalism.

GilesStratton:

It's about reaching a social order that we've yet to see, a social order that resembles one that has previously existed. Amusingly, these social orders also existed when the state was considerably smaller.

I wonder which church, according to you, is going to 'voluntary' rule the whole world...? Maybe the so-called church of (imperial) rome ?

wombatron:

But, LS, are the conservative ideas of family and church the only forms that are possible?

Of course not.  Who said that?  Giles?  If at this point people do not realize he is playing to the crowd, I can't help them.

Btw, I'm a 30 something male with no desire to start or have a family.  I'm also an atheist.

wombatron:

However, those will no longer be the only accepted forms of organization, simply because there is no state to punish non-conformers.

Accepted by whom?  My issue with left libertarians is that they are trapped (mentally) in the 19th century.  The internet and technology are tearing social organizations away from the state and conventional forms, completely through a natural process.

liberty student:

Who said that? Giles? If at this point people do not realize he is playing to the crowd, I can't help them.

And how do you know that ? If a person says he believes in X I assume he believes in X. Or are you saying that Giles is a troll ?

Brainpolice:

Well that's part of my whole problem with this traditionalist approach to libertarianism - it's about bringing back an idealized vision of past social orders.

I find it very amusing that you are always an expert on what other people think.  Your ability to define other people's beliefs, goals and positions, as well as putting words into their mouths is unprecedented.

You would make a kickass press agent.

Btw, you still have not explained the differences between libertarianism and feminism, and why it would be necessary (and compatible) for one to declare themselves as being both.

Brainpolice:

I see this as irrational because this romanticized vision of the past is utter nonsense

That is subjective.

Brainpolice:

and the idea of going back to how things were before makes no sense when the entire purpose of the political philosophy is to tear down the already established power structures.

I thought the idea was to return free choice to sovereign individuals.  I'm not interested in tearing down institutions.  I think a lot of other libertarians may feel as I do.  Liberty is our end, not revolution.  Revolution is only a means.

Brainpolice:

The idea of opposing the state only for the purpose of bringing it back in an older form bothers me.

But no one is advocating bringing back either monopoly or coercion.  So I don't understand what your problem is.

Still looking for that answer on feminism please.

Juan:

Or are you saying that Giles is a troll ?

No, I don't think Giles is a troll.  I think Giles has a better sense of humour than most of the people he debates with.  After all, if he didn't throw you and BP so much red meat, what would you guys have to talk about on this forum?

 

liberty student:

Of course not.  Who said that?  Giles?  If at this point people do not realize he is playing to the crowd, I can't help them.

Giles is taking cues almost directly from Hoppe.  I realize that he is exaggerating sometimes (for whatever reason), but I am almost certain that he would feel that the traditional forms of family and church would be the only sustainable ones without the state.

liberty student:

Btw, I'm a 30 something male with no desire to start or have a family.  I'm also an atheist.

Ok?  My question was meant to be rhetorical.

liberty student:

Accepted by whom?  My issue with left libertarians is that they are trapped (mentally) in the 19th century.  The internet and technology are tearing social organizations away from the state and conventional forms, completely through a natural process.

I don't see where we disagree here.

wombatron:

I don't see where we disagree here.

Good.  Now untrap yourself from the 19th century. 

wombatron:

Giles is taking cues almost directly from Hoppe.

Well he is a Hoppean.

liberty student:

Juan:

Or are you saying that Giles is a troll ?

No, I don't think Giles is a troll.  I think Giles has a better sense of humour than most of the people he debates with.  After all, if he didn't throw you and BP so much red meat, what would you guys have to talk about on this forum?

But I thought troll was an appropriate term to throw at towards anyone that consistently disagrees with you in an intelligent manner?  Am the only one who got that memo?

This & other recent threads are ripe for parody in this regard, almost to the point of hypocrisy.  User X disagrees with User Y consistently, & vice-versa, with largely intelligent arguments & rebuttals, yet the term troll get's thrown around, and the conversation & thread it occurs in goes....where, exactly?  The event horizon? 

It is, we must realize, impossible to blueprint the exact institutional conditions of any market [free-market  / stateless society included?], just as it would have been impossible fifty years ago to predict the exact structure of the television industry today.
~ Rothbard, P & M; Ch.1. "Defense Services on the Free Market" (pg. 5)

 


Why are so many so pre-occupied with the crystal ball?  Who cares if so & so's preferences are correct or not.  The free-market (which requires a Stateless Society) & the agents within the free-market will sort this out on it's own, it doesn't need nor require any of this proto-vanguardist nonsense from it's supposed supporters.  It seems in-fighting is becoming an elephant in the room in favor of circular arguments regarding personal preferences that ultimately lead to nowhere, while time outside the argumentative bubble ticks on by. 

Nitroadict:

Why are so many so pre-occupied with the crystal ball?  Who cares if so & so's preferences are correct or not.  The free-market (which requires a Stateless Society) & the agents within the free-market will sort this out on it's own, it doesn't need nor require any of this proto-vanguardist nonsense from it's supposed supporters.

Indeed, this is the most egregious mistake I think Carson, Hoppe, Long (amongst others) make.

Some of them are fairly to very solid on theory and historical analysis.  But when they start trying to project the future, which is doomed to be imprinted with their own personal biases, they tend to get away from the consistency and neutrality of their "hard" analysis.

Nitroadict:

But I thought troll was an appropriate term to throw at towards anyone that consistently disagrees with you in an intelligent manner?

Well...I was roughly using this definition :

urban dictionary:

Troll : One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.

Either Giles believes what he's saying (my assumption) or doesn't believe what he's saying (that's what LS seems to think). If Giles doesn't believe in so called cultural conservatism but defends the position 'for fun' then he is a troll of sorts ?

User X disagrees with User Y consistently, & vice-versa, with largely intelligent arguments & rebuttals, yet the term troll get's thrown around,

I guess I missed the largely intelligent arguments for conservatism...

Who cares if so & so's preferences are correct or not. The free-market (which requires a Stateless Society) & the agents within the free-market will sort this out on it's own, it doesn't need nor require any of this proto-vanguardist nonsense from it's supposed supporters

What's a proto-vanguardist/proto-vanguardism ?

It seems in-fighting is becoming an elephant in the room in favor of circular arguments regarding personal preferences that ultimately lead to nowhere, while time outside the argumentative bubble ticks on by.

Are you being forced to read this thread...?

It's about reaching a social order that we've yet to see, a social order that resembles one that has previously existed.

This sentence contradicts itself. We've yet to see it yet it has previously existed. Hmm.

Amusingly, these social orders also existed when the state was considerably smaller.

Correlation /= causation. You have a major problem with this fallacy. Chattel slavery also existed in the West when the state was considerably smaller than it is today. Should I therefore conclude that chattel slavery is "the natural order" minus a state or that the lesser power of the state during the period was the cause for the prevailance of chattel slavery? No.

No you're wrong, the entire purpose of political philosophy has nothing to do with tearing down anything. How very revealing however.

I wasn't talking about political philosophy in general. I said "the political philosophy", in referance to libertarianism. Which IS in opposition to currently existing power structures.

If you feel these social orders are oppresive, you'd best content yourself with the state.

This statement is dumb. It doesn't follow from what I said that one should be content with the state.

I find it very amusing that you are always an expert on what other people think.  Your ability to define other people's beliefs, goals and positions, as well as putting words into their mouths is unprecedented.

You are being disingenous once again, given that I'm responding to people's open statements. So your attempt to accuse me of just arbitrarily proclaiming what other people think is misleading and trollish, given that what I'm refering to is openly stated.

Btw, you still have not explained the differences between libertarianism and feminism, and why it would be necessary (and compatible) for one to declare themselves as being both.

Actually I already did explain that to you over multiple posts, and you're just being trollish again now. In either case, I never claimed it would be NECESSARY for one to declare themselves as being both, I merely defended the possibility of someone being both.

That is subjective.

No, historical fact is not subjective. The past was not some libertarian utopia.

I thought the idea was to return free choice to sovereign individuals.

The idea is indeed to give free choice to sovereign individuals. But it is simply dumb to assume that individuals ever had this or act like the past was a libertopia.

I'm not interested in tearing down institutions.

To borrow a comment from your buddy Giles then, you should be content with the state.

Liberty is our end, not revolution.  Revolution is only a means.

I never implied otherwise. You're probably the most misrepresentative person here.

But no one is advocating bringing back either monopoly or coercion.  So I don't understand what your problem is.

People who advocate neo-fuedalism are advocating both monopoly and coercion.

Still looking for that answer on feminism please.

It was already given multiple posts back. You ignored it.

Juan:

Physiocrat:

Hey BP, are you up for my proposed debate with Giles? He's expressed his willingness to so if you refuse to debate him formally I believe it will be taken as an admission that your beliefs are false.

Actually Giles' position is patently false. Not to mention that BP must have already written hundreds of posts refuting Giles. What's the point of proposing a debate which already exists...?

Precisely. It's a dead horse at best.

Juan:

Well...I was roughly using this definition :

urban dictionary:

Troll : One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.

Either Giles believes what he's saying (my assumption) or doesn't believe what he's saying (that's what LS seems to think). If Giles doesn't believe in so called cultural conservatism but defends the position 'for fun' then he is a troll of sorts ?

An excellent definition, which could easily apply to everyone participating on the Internet, if one stretches it far enough.  I'm not idealist enough to say the term shouldn't be used at all, just that maybe not as lightly as it is currently is used against those who seem to be unable to let go of arguments or are able to continually challenge them. 

I remember trolling applying to empty forum posts for the purpose of bumping said threads, posting obvious spam, utilizing vulgar language, consistently bypassing forum bans in order to further spam, etc., not posting counter-arguments or disagreeing with an unseen majority opinion on topics.  I have no control over the use of the term, I realize, but it seems obvious to me that is does detract from the arguments & debates to some extent. 


As for GS, regardless of whatever he actually believes in (of which I'm indifferent towards), perhaps he simply sees problems in BP's (or anyone else's) positions, & is playing devil's advocate in challenging them.  Who are any of us to tell him this is 'wrong' ?  Is being a "true believer" (a scary enough label in of itself) a pre-requesite for participating in debate?  If that's so, then why bother communication with those that don't agree with anti-statist, pro-free market views? 

Why bother going beyond the echo chamber when it's so much fun hearing our own voices?

Juan:

I guess I missed the largely intelligent arguments for conservatism...

Let's see... fiscal conservatism is considered a good thing in libertarianism, should we automatically discount that?  I thought GS was a cultural conservative, but I really could care less what GS (or anyone else) is as long as if at some point, we do indeed have a stateless society (not that currently not having one rationalizes anything), he doesn't utilize coercion & force against me or others in his affairs. 

I do disagree with many of what GS says, but I'm not going to pretend disagreeing with him gives me the 'right' to mis-represent him & dis-credit him at every chance he challenges arguments, which seems to happen quite often as of late (to be fair, this is not only with GS, but with others as well).   

Juan:

What's a proto-vanguardist/proto-vanguardism ?

Me making a terrible attempt at making up labels, lol. 

But seriously, I meant in the idea that preferences are being argued in similar fashion to that of an organization's attempt's at "...placing itself at the center of the movement, and steer it in a direction consistent with its ideology." (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanguardism).  It seems preferences of what a stateless society would look like are being grafted upon the concept itself (in order to justify personal preferences as being more correct than others), so I suppose you could say I meant "preferential vangaurdism". 

The arguments for cultural conservatism as a dominant personal preference over cultural liberalism (& vice versa), is idotic, as both cultural conservatism & cultural liberalism (or what I view more accuratley, social conservatism & social liberalism) are perfectly valid preferences under a stateless society for the individual. 

I may decide being fiscally consverative will have less importance in ways under a stateless society due to the lack of overhead charges by a no longer existing State, just as I may decide being socially conservative may have less importance due to a possibly increased mobility of my occupation (which may change more often if I am busy keeping up with competition in the markets regarding being able to earn money for a standard of living).  Just as easily, being socially liberal may have less importance in some ways as I may not like to associate with certain people, or being fiscally liberal may less importance since I no longer have State institutions as a "saftey net", etc. 

It's different for every person, and to think that certain preferences would be more domnanint de-facto, under a stateless society, would be absurd, & ignores the various psychologies of indivudals.  Certain perferences may yeild more favorable outcomes, but that does not instantly mean they will be embraced. 
  

Juan:

Are you being forced to read this thread...?

Are you being forced to respond to so-called "trolls" ?   I am merley expressing a personal observation that may or may not help the dialouge (i.e. particpating in the debate, albiet in a more meta sense). 

Does this post also make me a troll?

Nitro, let's pretend I didn't use the term troll. Chalk it down to my less-than-optimal usage of English.

As for GS, regardless of whatever he actually believes in (of which I'm indifferent towards), perhaps he simply sees problems in BP's (or anyone else's) positions, & is playing devil's advocate in challenging them.

Maybe. Still I fail to see his challenges as backed by reason. I see his challenges as backed by love for 'inequality, conservatism, feudalism, elitism' and revealed religion. And the same is true for other advocates of social conservatism.

Who are any of us to tell him this is 'wrong' ? Is being a "true believer" (a scary enough label in of itself) a pre-requesite for participating in debate ?

Well, one can of course defend a position one doesn't believe in, as an intellectual exercise. Making clear this is the case beforehand sounds like a good idea in order to avoid misunderstandings ? But is that what Giles is doing ? Again, I don't think so. He means what he says.

I do disagree with many of what GS says, but I'm not going to pretend disagreeing with him gives me the 'right' to mis-represent him...

Are you suggesting I'm misrepresenting him ?

...& dis-credit him at every chance he challenges arguments,

Is there any reason why I should not discredit him considering I regard his arguments as badly flawed ? Besides, I see no reason for being polite towards somebody who addresses me as "leftist scum".

MacFall:

You are the very first person I have EVER met who would prefer to rent over own their home.

Juan:

I'd bet 5 cents that Giles would prefer to "own a community"...

GilesStratton:

Only so I could refuse entry to leftist scum like you.

----------------------------

Nitroadict:

Let's see... fiscal conservatism is considered a good thing in libertarianism, should we automatically discount that?

Well, in a stateless society fiscal conservatism is meaningless as there's no 'public' money to spend...so fiscal conservatism is not an issue. Blind obedience to religious authority, for instance, is.

The arguments for cultural conservatism as a dominant personal preference over cultural liberalism (& vice versa), is idotic, as both cultural conservatism & cultural liberalism (or what I view more accuratley, social conservatism & social liberalism) are perfectly valid preferences under a stateless society for the individual.

And I don't think that a society in which the majority are cultural conservatives can be a libertarian society. Furthermore I think that conservatives complain about the state only if it's not a conservative state. They've no problem with conservative states such as the catholic church. Furthermore, they claim that such states "built western civilization"...

Nitroadict:

Juan:

Are you being forced to read this thread...?

Are you being forced to respond to so-called "trolls" ?

No, I'm interested in stating that conservatism and libertarianism are not 'compatible'. You on the other hand seemed to regard the discussion as a discussion concerned with mere preference and so irrelevant. My point was that if the discussion bothers you because you consider it irrelevant, then you can simply unsubscribe =]

Brainpolice:

Still looking for that answer on feminism please.

It was already given multiple posts back. You ignored it.

Followups were asked.  I am still waiting for your answer to those.

Also more than a few of us want to know if you will debate Giles.  Are you up for the challenge?

 

Juan:

Actually Giles' position is patently false. Not to mention that BP must have already written hundreds of posts refuting Giles. What's the point of proposing a debate which already exists...?

Juan, I understand English isn't your first language, so go look up refutation in the English dictionary and stop using it as synonomous with response.

Juan:

I wonder which church, according to you, is going to 'voluntary' rule the whole world...? Maybe the so-called church of (imperial) rome ?

Well, as for the specifics, we'll have to find out.

Juan:

Giles, do you speak spanish ? Have you been to argentina ? The thing is, you don't know what you're talking about. Characterizing argentina as 'religious' is a joke.

Once Byzantine said that 97% of the population here was 'white'. I later realized that he just copied and pasted a line from the CIA website. Maybe that's how you got your information too ?

In fact, I've spoken to a very good (conservative) friend of mine from Argentina.

Juan:

You know that saying 'time preference' answers nothing. So, please explain the mechanism that will make rent cheap while land is so expensive that only the 'natural elites' will be able to afford it.

I've asked this many times now: what incentives do people have to own land (you've provided none).  Your point was that whilst land prices will go up, land rents would too. Which is correct, but time preference means that people would rather rent the land then buy it.

And no, it won't only be the natural elites only land, in fact, it would be entrepreneurs. So, stop the strawmen.

Juan:

Here's a hint : according to you a stateless society would be characterized by lower time preference. But renting is what people with high time preference usually do...so...you'd better drop 'time preference' as a bogus explanation and come up with another mistaken 'theory'...

Yes, people would have a lower time preference, Hoppe lists how the state impacts time preference in his wonderful book if you're interested (you're not). But that still doesn't mean people have any incentive to own their land, which is where the problem with your refuation lies, I, on the other hand have managed to come up with incentives for feudal like land arrangements (perhaps you've ignored them?).

Juan:

edit: also, low time preference means lower interest rates, which in turn means credit is more affordable (despite not being subsidized by the state)

People will also be more responsible.

wombatron:

Giles is taking cues almost directly from Hoppe.  I realize that he is exaggerating sometimes (for whatever reason), but I am almost certain that he would feel that the traditional forms of family and church would be the only sustainable ones without the state.

This is almost correct. Yes, I am almost directly "taking cues" from Hoppe, by which I mean I agree with him on almost everything. However, I do not think that family and church orientated lifestyles would be sustainable, just that they'd dominate and that "alternative" lifestyles would be exactly that.

Juan:

Either Giles believes what he's saying (my assumption) or doesn't believe what he's saying (that's what LS seems to think). If Giles doesn't believe in so called cultural conservatism but defends the position 'for fun' then he is a troll of sorts ?

I do believe what I'm saying, and yet LS clearly grasps something that you don't.

Juan:

I guess I missed the largely intelligent arguments for conservatism...

You're too witty Juan.

Juan:

Are you being forced to read this thread...?

Now, now, no need to be so aggressive Juan.

Brainpolice:

This sentence contradicts itself. We've yet to see it yet it has previously existed. Hmm.

Resembles, try reading what I'm saying BP, it makes things easier.

Brainpolice:

Correlation /= causation. You have a major problem with this fallacy.

Yes, and yet in this case, the smaller state was the cause, read Hoppe on this.

Brainpolice:

Chattel slavery also existed in the West when the state was considerably smaller than it is today. Should I therefore conclude that chattel slavery is "the natural order" minus a state or that the lesser power of the state during the period was the cause for the prevailance of chattel slavery? No.

And chattel slavery would have ceased to exist anyway.

Brainpolice:

I wasn't talking about political philosophy in general. I said "the political philosophy", in referance to libertarianism. Which IS in opposition to currently existing power structures.

There's only one power structure libertarianism is opposed to: the state.

Brainpolice:

This statement is dumb. It doesn't follow from what I said that one should be content with the state.

Yes it does, like your Marxist buddies you seem to have a problem with the family and the church, they had the correct means for their ends however, you don't.

 

Juan:

Maybe. Still I fail to see his challenges as backed by reason.

Look harder, it's there.

Juan:

? Besides, I see no reason for being polite towards somebody who addresses me as "leftist scum".

You seem to be quite confused in regards to who was rude first Juan.

Juan:

And I don't think that a society in which the majority are cultural conservatives can be a libertarian society.

Yes, because respect for private property and libertarianism are horrible incompatible.

Juan:

Furthermore I think that conservatives complain about the state only if it's not a conservative state.

In the sense that I use the term, there is no conservative state.

Juan:

They've no problem with conservative states such as the catholic church. Furthermore, they claim that such states "built western civilization"...

Quite amusing, since, I'm not a catholic. Now, please do tell me where I said that they "built western  civilzation".

 

BP seems to be keeping very quiet about this debate.

Surely you are merely arguing on opinion here [both sides] rather than on any objective fact.

liberty student:

Well he is a Hoppean.

Ha.  True enough.

GilesStratton:

Juan:

Characterizing argentina as 'religious' is a joke.

In fact, I've spoken to a very good (conservative) friend of mine from Argentina.

So all your information comes from one biased source. That shows the quality of your arguments.

I've asked this many times now: what incentives do people have to own land (you've provided none).

Really ? Let me refresh your memory : http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/5540/77024.aspx

Juan:

GilesStratton:

And yet you haven't met the objection that there is no incentive for people to own their own land.

Such objection exists only in your mind. Not paying rent and not being bound to terms set by a landlord sound like incentives to NOT rent...

-------------------------

GilesStratton:

Your point was that whilst land prices will go up, land rents would too. Which is correct...

Of course it is. You claimed that high land prices are an incentive for people to rent, but that is NONSENSE. Let's follow your 'logic'. Land would be expensive, so people won't buy it. Rent would be expensive too...so people won't rent either. Conclusion : the majority of people will be homeless.

...but time preference means that people would rather rent the land then buy it.

Again, that shows you don't know what you're talking about.

Yes, people would have a lower time preference,

So they would save and buy land instead of renting. So you either admit that your conservative society won't have a low time preference, or you admit that a low time preference implies that the majority of people WON'T live as tenants. You CAN'T have it both ways.

But that still doesn't mean people have any incentive to own their land,

Unfounded assertion.

I, on the other hand have managed to come up with incentives for feudal like land arrangements (perhaps you've ignored them?).

Those incentives exist only in your mind. I've 'ignored' them since they are just wishful thinking AND backed by your glaringly wrong ecnomics.

GilesStratton:

Juan:

Either Giles believes what he's saying (my assumption) or doesn't believe what he's saying (that's what LS seems to think). If Giles doesn't believe in so called cultural conservatism but defends the position 'for fun' then he is a troll of sorts ?

I do believe what I'm saying, and yet LS clearly grasps something that you don't.

And what would that something be ?

GilesStratton:

Juan:

Besides, I see no reason for being polite towards somebody who addresses me as "leftist scum".

You seem to be quite confused in regards to who was rude first Juan.

Did I call you scum ? Besides I thought you believed in "turning the other cheeck"...? Oh wait. Do as I say don't do as I do...

GilesStratton:

Juan:

[Conservatives]have no problem with conservative states such as the catholic church. Furthermore, they claim that such states "built western civilization"...

Quite amusing, since, I'm not a catholic. Now, please do tell me where I said that they "built western civilzation".

Well, I didn't say you said that. The reference should be clear though, and if it's not, try google.

Juan:

So all your information comes from one biased source. That shows the quality of your arguments.

Seeing as we're not disussing Argentina I couldn't really care about how biased my source is. It must bother you to come from a Catholic country, no?

Juan:

Really ? Let me refresh your memory : http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/5540/77024.aspx

Not paying rent? Well instead people pay large amounts of money up front according to you, no, time preference dictates that they'd rather pay rent.. As for not listening to rules, I'm sure if these rules just so happen to be the same ones that preserve the value of property, enhance it, give them access to public goods and keeps down their insurance costs? I'm sure people will be all too willing to abide by them.

How amusing though, that you lash out against the rules.

Juan:

Of course it is. You claimed that high land prices are an incentive for people to rent, but that is NONSENSE. Let's follow your 'logic'. Land would be expensive, so people won't buy it. Rent would be expensive too...so people won't rent either. Conclusion : the majority of people will be homeless.

Only, that doesn't follow. People will still need land on which to build their house, or to live in, they'd just rather rent it than buy it. According to you, however, everybody who wants to eat has to own their own tomato and cabbage patch.

Juan:

So they would save and buy land instead of renting. So you either admit that your conservative society won't have a low time preference, or you admit that a low time preference implies that the majority of people WON'T live as tenants. You CAN'T have it both ways.

Or, there's no incentive for them to own. Yes, I can.

Juan:

Those incentives exist only in your mind. I've 'ignored' them since they are just wishful thinking AND backed by your glaringly wrong ecnomics

You've ignored them because nowhere do they fit in to your libertine utopia.

Juan:

Did I call you scum ?

No, because it wouldn't be very accurate.

Juan:

Well, I didn't say you said that. The reference should be clear though, and if it's not, try google.

Then let's stay on topic.

 

 

GilesStratton:

Well instead people pay large amounts of money up front according to you, no, time preference dictates that they'd rather pay rent.

Time preference can be high or low. So your assertion is meaningless.

What you're really saying is that they will pay rent because they prefer to use the good (home) now instead of saving in order to buy it later. That's known as high time preference. At the same time you claim that a conservative society is characterized by low time preference. Oops. Glaring contradiction. Face it, you fail miserably.

GilesStratton:

Juan:

You claimed that high land prices are an incentive for people to rent, but that is NONSENSE. Let's follow your 'logic'. Land would be expensive, so people won't buy it. Rent would be expensive too...so people won't rent either. Conclusion : the majority of people will be homeless.

Only, that doesn't follow.

Of course it doesn't. It was a reductio-ad-absurdum of your already absurd position.

Juan:

Time preference can be high or low. So your assertion is meaningless.

And  yet, it always exists. So, no, it isn't.

Juan:

Of course it doesn't. It was a reductio-ad-absurdum of your already absurd position.

Yes and reductio - ad -absurdum is meant to follow.

GilesStratton:

Juan:

Time preference can be high or low. So your assertion is meaningless.

And yet, it always exists. So, no, it isn't.

Stop playing dumb -- you're pathetic. What I meant is that invoking time preference without further clarifying whether it's high time preference or low time preference makes no sense.

You're unable to address my post so you just (wrongly) nitpicked one line. You fail.

Juan:

Stop playing dumb -- you're pathetic

Wonderful, if only the rest of the left were as enlightening as you are Pablo.

'Juan:

What I meant is that invoking time preference without further clarifying whether it's high time preference or low time preference makes no sense.

Yes, it does. Since it always exists and people will always prefer present goods to future goods. So yes, my point stands. And whilst people will have lower time preferences without the state they still won't want to buy a tomato patch in order to eat, likewise, they won't need to own land to live on it.

The best you've come up with is that people will want to own land so they can make their own rules. So yes Diego, you can own your own land if you wish to inject heroin into your eyeballs, just, be prepared to pay the consequences for once.

Juan:

You're unable to address my post so you just (wrongly) nitpicked one line. You fail.

Ok Pedro, if you wish to think so.

Here's a shot I took over the weekend hanging with Giles and Byzantine.

GilesStratton:

Juan:

...invoking time preference without further clarifying whether it's high time preference or low time preference makes no sense.

Yest it does. Since it always exists...

I never disputed it exists.

...and people will always prefer present goods to future goods.

Really ? Always ? So, you've just proved that such a thing as savings is not possible ?

Also, are you saying that in your conservative, low-time-preference society people will always prefer present goods to future goods, i.e. have high-time-preference ? What I wonder is : are you so dumb as to not notice that your position is contradictory ? Or do you lack basic intellectual honesty to admit that you're wrong ?

The best you've come up with is that people will want to own land so they can make their own rules.

Yes, it's called freedom and it's beyond your comprehension. Although putting it in terms of 'rule-making' is misleading. Of course, authoritarians like you can only see things in terms of 'rules', not in terms of laissez-faire.

John Ess:

Here's a shot I took over the weekend hanging with Giles and Byzantine.

Side splitting, by the way, if you notice there's a black man sitting far closer to "me" than would actually happen.

Juan:

I never disputed it exists.

In that case, Alejandro, you just missed the point entirely.

Juan:

Really ? Always ? So, you've just proved that such a thing as savings is not possible ?

Yes, always, only the extent differs. Some economics would do you well, Antonio.

Juan:

Also, are you saying that in your conservative, low-time-preference society people will always prefer present goods to future goods, i.e. have high-time-preference ? What I wonder is : are you so dumb as to not notice that your position is contradictory ? Or do you lack basic intellectual honesty to admit that you're wrong ?

Now, get this: time preference always exists, it's extent just differs. Leftists like you who like injected heroin into their eyeballs and drinking themselves silly every day to "express themselves" have higher than normal people, but that's besides the point (I'll give you a clue: it's one aspect of the postulate of AE that people differ.)

Got that Carlos?

Juan:

Yes, it's called freedom and it's behind your comprehension.

No, Flavio, what you like it libertinism, it has nothing to do with freedom. Freedom does not entail doing what you like.

 

GilesStratton:

Now, get this: time preference always exists, it's extent just differs.

Yes, that was my point, and the reason why I bothered to remark, many times, that there's high time preference and low time preference.

Now, according to you, conservatism entails overall low-time-preference. At the same time you claim that a conservative society will be populated mostly by tenants, that is, people who have high time preference. But that is a con - tra - dic - tion. You get that ?

Admit it Giles, you suck at economics and suck at logic too.

Juan:

Now, according to you, conservatism entails overall low-time-preference. At the same time you claim that a conservative society will be populated mostly by tenants, that is, people who have high time preference. But that is a con - tra - dic - tion. You get that ?

And I've stated that there are no incentives to own land to live on just as there's no incentive to own a cabbage patch to eat. It's called the division of labour Hector.

Here kid, I'll quote myself.

What you're really saying is that they will pay rent because they prefer to use the good (home) now instead of saving in order to buy it later. That's known as high time preference. At the same time you claim that a conservative society is characterized by low time preference. Oops. Glaring contradiction. You fail miserably.

And I've stated that there are no incentives to own land to live on just as there's no incentive to own a cabbage patch to eat. It's called the division of labour Hector.

So, you thought that your pathetic (mis)understanding of time preference was the key to all economic theory. Now you realize that babbling about time preference proves nothing so you change your tune to 'division of labor'...

To recap :

You wrongly claim that land in a free society will be way more expensive than it is now.

Using that false premise you claimed that people will prefer to rent, not realizing that rent will be more expensive as well canceling your alleged incentive.

Then you brought time preference into the picture : You claim that a conservative society is characterized by low time preference but at the same time, you say, the majority of people prefer to rent...because they want a house NOW....that is, they have high time preference...Which contradicts the initial claim that a conservative society has...you get it no ? Of course not.

Now, grasping at straws, you say that renting instead of buying is an instance of division of labor ? What ? Buying/building a house is a so complex endeavor that only Intel engineers can do it ? The unwashed masses are so stupid that they can't 'build a community'...