Current Events

Re: How would you join the 1%?

Wheylous — Sat, 05 Nov 2011 04:31:52 GMT

Since all land (except bir tawil) has been claimed

And I can claim to own the moon, but that doesn't make me the legitimate owner, does it?

"Without property rights, there really is no such thing as exploitation."

I think that's a beautiful statement. Thank you.

Haha, you totally took it the wrong way (while I took it as he had meant it). It's funny how the same statement can mean such different things. Clayton meant, as I'm sure you are aware, that if there is no property then you indeed cannot exploit anyone, because it's not their stuff. You're still gonna have people not being paid their wages, just that it's no longer illegal, because it's not "their property."

Re: How would you join the 1%?

occupy_octopi — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 22:13:46 GMT

"Without property rights, there really is no such thing as exploitation."

I think that's a beautiful statement. Thank you.

Re: How would you join the 1%?

Jackson LaRose — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 22:11:15 GMT

Yay Clayton! The state is a tool, like a gun. It helps you to rob other people.

Re: How would you join the 1%?

Laotzu del Zinn — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 22:11:02 GMT

Well, what it looks like to me is that the Occupiers are just a bunch of whiners who played the game and lost. They got English lit degrees while their peers studied banking and finance

Dude.. come on... these sweeping baseless generalizations are doing nobody any good.

Re: How would you join the 1%?

Clayton — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 22:06:48 GMT

What about, say, a boss who refuses to pay his workers, ie. wage theft? It's more common than you think. What about a landlord who refuses to return a deposit based on false claims? Exploitation happens all the time.

I'm looking for something about how capitalists are the true free-loaders...

Theft is theft. If the boss refuses to pay his workers, they need to sue him. If it is common, then a free market in law is the best way to deal with the problem since entrepreneurs will be able to profitably investigate and locate workers who are having their wages stolen, sue the employer for breach of contract and keep a portion of the damages as profit, while reimbursing the workers their lost wages.

It is precisely because exploitation happens all the time that we need a system of honest money and strong property rights. Without property rights, there really is no such thing as exploitation. Think about it.

Clayton -

Re: How would you join the 1%?

Clayton — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 22:04:03 GMT

As a further clarification, a lot of leftists get confused when we explain that the government (the territorial monopolist of legitimate force) is what makes the difference between honest industry (including banking, venture capitalism, speculation, day trading and arbitrage, peddling, high-interest loans, etc.) and dishonest industry. They think that we're saying that the government is the root problem when, clearly, the government is not the root problem. The President answers to his sponsors. The bureaucracies answer to industry players through the lobbies and political parties through appointments. The judges answer to the bar that promoted them. And on and on.

But this is to miss the forest for the trees. The fact is that the government is the apparatus of control. If you say "ah, see, the bankers, capitalists, etc. control the government so we need to abolish banking and capitalism", you have misdiagnosed the problem. The bankers, capitalists and the old money (including Old World royalty and nobility) do indeed control the government and the solution is to remove the instrument of coercion from their hands.

Take the Occupy Wall Streeters, for example. They're protesting the greedy, blood-sucking capitalists who have milked the government and stolen from the US taxpayer. But they Occupiers really have no different aim in mind, themselves. They have every intention of milking the government and stealing from the US taxpayer on the basis that 'they really need it' where the Wall Streeters do not. Well, what it looks like to me is that the Occupiers are just a bunch of whiners who played the game and lost. They got English lit degrees while their peers studied banking and finance. What they're really protesting is that the Wall Streeters are just a lot better at milking the public treasury and stiffing the US taxpayer with the costs of their bad decisions.

But the obvious answer staring everyone in the face is to end the system of milking and stealing altogether. You keep what you earn. You keep whatever property you have legitimate title to. You don't get to take even a penny of anyone else's property under any pretext. That's the obviously fair, moral and practical system, see my sigline below.

Clayton -

Re: How would you join the 1%?

occupy_octopi — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 21:59:59 GMT

"The only form of "unearned income"..."

What about, say, a boss who refuses to pay his workers, ie. wage theft? It's more common than you think. What about a landlord who refuses to return a deposit based on false claims? Exploitation happens all the time.

I'm looking for something about how capitalists are the true free-loaders...

Re: How would you join the 1%?

Clayton — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 21:50:29 GMT

So most of the folks on here really see no material difference between the class of investment bankers, central bankers, industrialists, etc and the majority of the population in this country?

Of course there's a difference but that difference does not lie in the occupation qua occupation but, rather, in the statutes, regulations and administrative bureaucracies. These create a dual law, a legal system of privilege based not on your family name per se but, rather, on what you own, what you do for a living, where you went to university, where you live, how many lawyers you can afford to retain, and so on.

The old Dark Ages idea that "usury" is criminal is economic dogshit and has been debunked from here to Timbuktu. The only form of "unearned income" is income that is derived without the voluntary consent of the consumer. Taxation, inflation, public debt... these are the modern tools of unearned income. The old tools were slavery, pillaging, invasion and imperial tribute, though these seem to be having a bit of a Renaissance under the auspices of the US government over the last several decades.

Clayton -

Re: How would you join the 1%?

occupy_octopi — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 21:44:52 GMT

"Where's the merry-go-round?"

See above

Re: How would you join the 1%?

Jackson LaRose — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 21:44:03 GMT

Between manipulation of the money supply and taxes, one becomes locked in a system of monetary slavery. Since all land (except bir tawil) has been claimed, it follows that you are always in someone else's jurisdiction.

Working from this premise, I cannot choose to stop trading my time for income, scott-free. To do so would also have to entail some sort of violation of the law, assuming we just don't live off of the time trading of others.

Re: How would you join the 1%?

Clayton — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 21:43:38 GMT

For most people, a car is both a consumer good and a producer good. They use it go to on trips and vacations and take Sunday drives, on the one hand, and they use it to get to work and the grocery store, on the other hand. Where's the merry-go-round?

Clayton -

Re: How would you join the 1%?

occupy_octopi — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 21:43:15 GMT

So most of the folks on here really see no material difference between the class of investment bankers, central bankers, industrialists, etc and the majority of the population in this country?

Re: How would you join the 1%?

Autolykos — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 21:36:16 GMT

Can you please clarify how property tax makes my argument more nuanced?

Re: How would you join the 1%?

Jackson LaRose — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 21:31:21 GMT

Autolykos,

The existence of property tax makes your argument a little more nuanced than all that. Existance in this world either requires money, or criminality.

Re: How would you join the 1%?

Porco Rosso — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 21:27:34 GMT

"our car does not allow you to extract a profit"

In a narrowly defined version of the word "profit" maybe not. In the sense of allowing you to get more than you had previously, yes it does.