In a real free market economy, the only way to acquire money (and thus to accumulate a "hoard") is to produce things of value and exchange them. The person who hoards money is producing, but refraining from consuming. He's making his widgets or whatever, which means more widgets for consumers. Meanwhile, he's not using the money he receives to claim any other goods, which means more of those goods left on the market for everyone else too. How does that destabilize anything?
In a real free market economy, the only way to acquire money (and thus to accumulate a "hoard") is to produce things of value and exchange them.
That needs a qualifier because there's also voluntary gift-giving and sharing.
The "hoarding money destabilizes the economy" fallacy originated in 1933, when the default on the dollar occurred. Anticipating a default on the dollar, people rushed to convert their paper dollars to gold and started hoarding gold.
There was a mass media propaganda campaign, saying "Gold hoarders are evil!"
The reality is that the Federal Reserve was responsible for the problem. The Federal Reserve printed a lot more paper dollars than there was physical gold. Realizing the scam was about to collapse, people rushed to redeem their dollars for gold.
The gold hoarders were acting in their rational self-interest. President Roosevelt thwarted their efforts to protect their savings. He defaulted on the dollar and declared gold ownership illegal.
The blame was placed on the greedy gold hoarders for detabilizing the monetary system. The reality is that the Federal Reserve destabilized the monetary system by printing too much unbacked paper.
In the present, hoarding Federal Reserve Notes is pointless. You'll be ripped off by inflation.
If you anticipate a SHTF scenario, then gold hoarding is a rational stategy for preserving your savings.
I have my own blog at FSK's Guide to Reality. Let me know if you like it.
Brainpolice: In a real free market economy, the only way to acquire money (and thus to accumulate a "hoard") is to produce things of value and exchange them. That needs a qualifier because there's also voluntary gift-giving and sharing.
Good catch. I should have said "the primary way" rather than "the only way."
Even in the case of a huge inheritance or gift, though, if the beneficiary hoards the money, it means little consumption is occurring, so the second half of my analysis stands as written, I think.
anonomous coward:
Anonymous Coward: martinglake:stealing is something most of us do when we get our music. if there is anyone left in the world that doesnt do this and loves music then I think they should be in charge.
martinglake:stealing is something most of us do when we get our music. if there is anyone left in the world that doesnt do this and loves music then I think they should be in charge.
I was mearly showing how stealing is a natural thing to do when there are no incentives not to steal and plenty of incentives for stealing. very few people steal from the shops because they might get caught. almost everyone steals from the net. if people are alloud to steal they will.
this is a relevant point because I am trying to establish human nature and therefor the need for restraint of this nature.
but some power must be pooled. and I'm wondering where do economist fit in at all in a free market? who is to remind everyone that the market is free?
what is to stop to it becoming like the market that we have...one which was once free and via a process of social evolution became what it is...you could say what we have it the natural result of a free market.
wouldn't you say?
Anonomous coward
Anonymous Coward:Oh, because the people aren't smart enough to know what is beneficial to them and must be told by some external entity. Yeah, almost forgot that one.
yes people are stupid, this is quite correct. this is no doubt why any system is probably also stupid, because it was made by non other than people. politicians are not aliens but people. they have been corrupted by an industry of people. they have played up the the whims of people in elections. people vote for them when they lie and vote for the other guy when they accept their mistakes.
you are one of the few fortunate people to be enlightened and educated. try watching tv for six month and eating potatoe chips while undergoing a bit of sleep deprevation...then see how clever you are.
most people can't even feed themselves correctly or know they need regular exercise. People will behave like animals given the chance.
and don't get me wrong I like people...but they are what they are made to be by those that went first.
waywardwayfarer:
there must be an element of cover for the consumer even if they make repeat mistakes. the cover should be minimal and just enough so they can survive.
I admit that the current soft attitute is totally innaffective and the right balance has yet be reached. they should suffer for there mistakes in a way that means somthing to then and then they can learn a lesson from it, like we all have to do. yes I'm totaly with you on the whole nanny state thing. I'm arguing for balance and function, not ideology for ideologies sake.
this hording word has got out of context i think. I think I used the word saving initially and I ment it as the accumilation of wealth rather than gaining and not giving back. so in effect hording was taking place without it being intentional. the inflation was ment to devalue this accumilation of wealth so that the hording could not take place. sadly it was pointed out that the people likely to hord are unlikely to have a high exposure to the currency that was being devalued and therefore the only people that would be affected where those more exposed to the currency. i.e the lower classes. thereby increasing the power divide.
LEE
I don't read the guardian:)
with the spades I was saying there were only 100 spades I think.
SPADES
well yes the latter is true....because we have had inflation ...the spade theory is a world without inflation where the wealth pools. (the analogie was ratehr simple to be far)
this is actually in support of my original statement that inflation is good. a society with reasonable inflation such as the UK and america has seen a working calss that is relatively powerful in comparison to a few hundred years ago. human rights, education...you could say that thre was a lot more real wealth at base level now.
MATING RIGHTS
I have them on my mind...what can I say.:)
martinglake:Ok yes....`done nothing to earn the money` was a bit emotive but really I'm trying to be cold and calculating. I'm not conserned with there deserving it or not. I'm conserned with its destabalising effects on society. Rather than fair I'm talking about function.
I'm talking about cold, calculating function too. Are you denying that a service is being rendered by the children to their parents? If so, please explain the parents' actions (giving them money). If not, then I ask, are other services are illegitimate? Why is this service singled out?
but when someone inherits something they know they don't really deserve it
Why wouldn't they deserve it? I thought we already agreed that they deserve it, or at least you gave up the point. Remember this?
martinglake:I'm not conserned with there deserving it or not.
if people are alloud to steal they will.
Doesn't justify it.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Inflation is most definitely not one of the reasons people are more prosperous today. Any growth generated by it is like a house of concrete built on wooden stilts.
martinglake:LESS MONEY = :):):)
lulz, best quote evar?
Silly me for thinking poor people were relatively unhappy.
martinglake:Less to spend can be good because this is a society. Not about me and you. Society involves compromise. Taxes may not aid the individual but they’re necessary for society. As I’m explaining more below I believe inflation/devaluation prevents money pooling which can (I believe) increase the natural values of people artificially and de-stabilize society.
Less to spend = less consumption = less production = less economic growth. Taxes are unnessesary redistributions of wealth from the working/producing class to the parasitic/power class. They don't in any way benefit "society".
martinglake:I did not assume saving was bad. Saving is keeping something that may be of use later. This can be a bad thing and a good thing. Saving a spade for next time you need to dig up potatoes may be a good thing. Saving 100 spades may be a bad thing. If I have 100 spades that’s 99 people that don’t have spades. If there is a limited amount of spades and they wear out ever ten years then it is more likely the spades will be evenly distributed and everyone will have potato wedges for tea.
Wiw this is just flawed economics.
You're comparing saving up consumption goods to saving up monetary capital. It doesn't work that way, sorry. The value of saving money comes in your ability to purchase more with it. If you could make purchases with spades, saving them would be valuable and nessesary.
martinglake:Whatever the scenario is within that society person A gets 10% more than person B in general terms averaged out that is: money, items, popularity, women.
LOLWUT
The rest of your post is just incoherant babbling.
martinglake:historically there was lots of poverty, desease...I think things are better now.
Things got better because of technological advancements, made possible through economic calculation ... which is hindered by government intervention.
martinglake:I fully believe everyone, myself included to be ignorant and lible to make the `wrong` choices.
NO! Speak for yourself. I think I'm more capible of making decisions for myself than some *** in a suit sipping a $5 cup of coffee watching C-SPAN in his posh office at the Capitol Building. Sorry you have such a lack of faith in yourself, and believe yourself to be ignorant and untrustworthy (though from your oh so elegant verbiage and use of logic, I wouldn't say you're too far off target).
martinglake:people can not do this by themselves. both you and I have been educated and socialised into `positive behaviour. I did not chose to be me, I simply followed the path of least resistance that was set out in front of me by society.
Oh, so now we should embrace "brainwashedness"?
martinglake:...and get the prementioned mating rights etc.
wat
martinglake: there must be an element of cover for the consumer even if they make repeat mistakes. the cover should be minimal and just enough so they can survive.
Why "must" there be? What you advocate is nothing short of the government serving as an enabler, and responsible taxpayers footing the bill. To quote Herbert Spencer, "The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools." And why "must" it be administered by force? Who is to be the arbiter of who is worthy of your and my "assistance" and who is not?
In truth, you've expressed no coherent ideology at all. There is no objective standard by which the "right" degree of robbery can somehow be achieved. Robbery is to be abhorred categorically.
Apparently you overlooked the part about inflation encouraging the hoarding of goods. If I know my money is going to be worth less tomorrow, I have a much stronger incentive to spend it today, in other words, to exchange it for goods now and hang onto the goods instead of the money. I don't get why you think it's such a wonderful thing to steal from people who, in your subjective opinion, have "too much," nor how you would even propose to set any standard for how much is "too much."
I think we have estabilished that we have a divergence in oppinion as to what human nature is.
I believe man acting in a totally free way will not create a society as good as the one we have today.
but as soon as one man exists he inprisons the next man and takes anyway his freedom anyway so the argument it silly. freedom can not exist.
the only way you could have a free society is the destroy every phenomenon a man makes and somehow blank everyones memory.
anyway its rediculous, the only way to be free is to be alone.
government and law and interferance is inevitable because if it does not exist it will exist anyway, so its better to have a system that fills the power void and prevents anyone else from superseeding it. the prime responsibility of a system I might say would be its self defence.
so thats another example of competition and survival of the fitest in a non human form.
if a system can not defend itself/or has pacifistic tendancies then it ends up loosing its power to do good or bad. so to make a dramatic example, the first thing a pacifist must do is be able to fight at the level of the competitor. as a competitor could hold any aspect of human nature then this allows a pritty wide scope.
In this way the competitor sets the agenda for how everyone else behaves. In a historic setting of competition and long term competitors that have fought previous battles it would seem reasonable to have preemtive moves and become the compeititor itself.
in this environemnt of competition a country and a system can not be free, never mind the individuals within it. its not just about chosing right and wrong from a moral standbpoint.
so in this way a government can not be ideologic but must be functional.
ideology is part of that function and one ideology is freedom. therefor freedom must be maximised within a context of competition on all levels. sometimes this means that people must be imprisioned to be free.
all I would say a philanthropic system could do is insure as much balance and stability as possible.
waywardwayfarer:In truth, you've expressed no coherent ideology at all. There is no objective standard by which the "right" degree of robbery can somehow be achieved. Robbery is to be abhorred categorically.
yes well as described above my ideology is one of non specific specificity:)
waywardwayfarer:Why "must" there be? What you advocate is nothing short of the government serving as an enabler, and responsible taxpayers footing the bill. To quote Herbert Spencer, "The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools." And why "must" it be administered by force? Who is to be the arbiter of who is worthy of your and my "assistance" and who is not?
there are no fools on a sliding scale of foolery.
robbery is an emotive term and doesn't involve giving (however grudgingly)
martinglake:I think we have estabilished that we have a divergence in oppinion as to what human nature is.
Nope. I doubt you'll hear many on this board claim anything positive about human nature.
martinglake:I believe man acting in a totally free way will not create a society as good as the one we have today.
So? Proove it.
martinglake:but as soon as one man exists he inprisons the next man and takes anyway his freedom anyway so the argument it silly. freedom can not exist.
Non sequitur. Prove it.
martinglake:anyway its rediculous, the only way to be free is to be alone.
No. Even history proves you wrong.
martinglake:government and law and interferance is inevitable because if it does not exist it will exist anyway
Bzzzt. Hasn't been proven, and history would refute that.
martinglake:therefor freedom must be maximised within a context of competition on all levels. sometimes this means that people must be imprisioned to be free.
Your reasoning eludes me. 1984 much?
martinglake:yes well as described above my ideology is one of non specific specificity:)
Oh good, so you propose everyone be forced into a self contradictory ideology while you jump up and down and cry "freedom!"?
martinglake:there are no fools on a sliding scale of foolery.
Good, you have a scale for yourself.
martinglake:robbery is an emotive term and doesn't involve giving (however grudgingly)
Not many on this board are "giving to the state". They're having their money stolen.
banned:
do you undersand the universe? do you undersatnd how the human brain works? do you undersatnd what a piece of dust is?
do you understand women?
you only might seem intellegent in relation to the level of foolery around you.
and you're taking things to extremes and using dramatic words.
socialisation is a more subtle form of brainwashing yes.
and it should exist to a degree. It will exist to a degree as regardless if I want it or not, so better to be aware of it.
well the proof is that man made a society without total freedom. look around. any attempt to make total freedom would be an infringment on mans freedom to imprioson himself.
well if I say hi to you, most people would feel obliged to say hi back. Hi in this way carries an element of a request and a possible punishment. that would be an immediate restriction (if tiny) of freedom. fill the world with people saying hi and there you go.
the confusion that seems to always be happening here is that when I say one thing I mean it on a scale but its been taken as the most extreme end of that scale. Everything exists in proportion. its about balancing these proportions.
:)
martinglake:do you undersand the universe? do you undersatnd how the human brain works? do you undersatnd what a piece of dust is?
No. No. No, not exhaustively.
martinglake:do you understand women?
Let me get this straight:
Universe --> Human Brain --> Dust --> Women
Is your structure by accident?
martinglake:you only might seem intellegent in relation to the level of foolery around you.
No, I don't think I'm of a superior intelligence to those around me. I just think that I'm more capable of making my own decisions than someone else making them. If you don't happen to feel that secure with yourself, go ahead and give your free choice away. Why do you insist on forcing me into your society of "stupid people"?
martinglake:and you're taking things to extremes and using dramatic words.
I don't think I am. You want me to buy into some scheme where I confess I'm less capable of conducting myself in a way that would benefit me than some guy an arbitrary majority likes.
martinglake: socialisation is a more subtle form of brainwashing yes. and it should exist to a degree.
and it should exist to a degree.
So people should be lied to to endorse immoral, hurtful things?
martinglake:It will exist to a degree as regardless if I want it or not, so better to be aware of it.
No, it "does", not "it will". You're making a warentless future prediction.
martinglake:well the proof is that man made a society without total freedom.
You were/are making a claim upon all social arrangements. This has not been the case, historically. Even though I don't believe History can produce truths this is more than enough to prove you wrong.
martinglake:look around. any attempt to make total freedom would be an infringment on mans freedom to imprioson himself.
Oh, I hadn't thought about that what a breakthrough!... No wait, yes I had, that's why I'm a Voluntaryist. I couldn't give a rat's *** about what you want to do with your body. Go ahead and sell your organs, kill yourself, whatever. I refuse to infringe upon self ownership, do you?
martinglake:well if I say hi to you, most people would feel obliged to say hi back. Hi in this way carries an element of a request and a possible punishment.
Thanks for the tip. Next time Someone doesn't return my wave I'll beat them senseless.
Your analogy is flawed, and what you're proposing as "punishment" is ostracism. That doesn't violate freedom, I have no idea where you came up with the idea it did.
You haven't even begun to make an argument to this effect. So far, you've asserted a lot of things, mixed in with bad economics.
Nonsense.
Again, nonsense.
How does that even follow?
government and law and interferance is
Unjustified.
inevitable because if it does not exist it will exist anyway
Unproven assertion.
Jason:
working through my views on your last big post
I think that although humans will act in a way that they think will lead to there well being they will not necessarily be right, and most often wrong, one reason would be that they don't understand the game that is being played out because it is too chaotic.
if you are punished and rewarded for respecting property then a person will respect it. however if you can get away with it then I don't think there is an inherent respect for property. society must therefore insure people can not get away with it in order for people to respect property.
I see what your saying there with the real wealth. although I belive all this can only occure with the formation of a governing body to set rules and prevent abuse of the system. An intelegent person can not (i believe) do this by themselves. an intellegent person will want to work with other people but they will also want to compete and be better than the people they trade with.
want we have today is the trade held within a braket of behaviour which prevents the extremes that individual human beings tend to have.
so My main divernce here is again one of human nature and government intervention...the economics side of things I think I agree but the lower stuff is getting in the way.
MY VIEW OF AN IDEAL SYSTEM
I was thinking on this earlier and to me government intervention is needed becasue it is not human. a human being may seek selfishly to appear intellegent and create aspects of system. but once this system is out of his mouth it becomes a phenomenon and has no emotion at all and has no lifespan. government ideally should be a group of people that follow these phenomenon in the shape of a system. it should be hard to change and grow/shrink organically as it is needed. in this way we are governed by something that in a way isn't human...but an output of humanity. individuals will still seek to manipulate the system and society but there route will be slowed far more than if there were no system in place at all.
you could say that the more complex a system is the more possibilities exist for greater abuse and perhaps the chaose an individual man can create is nothing compared to the chaose an individual man can create with a great machine he alone controles...but thats getting too complex.
and i just don't see taxes as stealing. and I do see that you get a product for your taxes. you are forced to do it this is true.
martinglake:I was thinking on this earlier and to me government intervention is needed becasue it is not human. a human being may seek selfishly to appear intellegent and create aspects of system.
So: You hate humans and think that government isn't human?
Honestly, why not have your ideal system be like the matrix?
martinglake:and i just don't see taxes as stealing. and I do see that you get a product for your taxes. you are forced to do it this is true.
Hey man, I'm selling lemonade at a lemonade stand down the street. You're going to come and purchase 5 glasses, and if you don't I'm going to have a group of bandits come kidnap you and we're going to seize everything you own.
I'm not stealing, not at all.
govenerment and knowledge in a sense is not human because it is passed on from generation to generation. if anything evolves from man it will probably be a product of his production because mans ability to evolve phenomenon vastly outspeed biological evolution. thats what I mean by a system not being human.
I think what you say about stealing is partially correct on moral grounds. so I would call it a necessary evil for now. unless you provide an explanation for how a system without taxes would work. but I think our different views on human nature would mean I wouldn't agree.
I think this thred needs dividing into about 50 different ones ...but I suppose it serves me and my `nebulous` arguments right:)
martinglake: I think what you say about stealing is partially correct on moral grounds. so I would call it a necessary evil for now. unless you provide an explanation for how a system without taxes would work. but I think our different views on human nature would mean I wouldn't agree.
When you say "civilization is built on taxes", you are saying "civilization is built on theft". Agorism is a reasonable way to achieve a true free market. Multiple competing police agencies are superior to an unaccountable monopolistic cartel.
You say "I have the right to steal from FSK via taxes." I disagree. Now, it just becomes a question of tactics. You'll look for cleverer and cleverer ways to steal, and I'll look for cleverer and cleverer ways to protect myself. Offense/stealing is usually more expensive than defense, so eventually the free market activists should win.
OK, so we disagree on human nature. I say "Government/taxes is not an intrinsic part of my nature" and you disagree. Does that mean we're different species? How did I wind up alone surrounded by hostile aliens?
fsk:Agorism is a reasonable way to achieve a true free market.
Based upon? Is this just something we repeat, or something we know?
ok ok I like the agorism thing, but how do you prevent the power vacume that I would believe would emerge as the government was destabalised?
how would the agorist revolution be funded and organised?
how would people work together?
how would the agorist system be prevented from becoming the system that we have today? this woulf take some sort of rules from an authoratative body right?
I don't see how the free market would provide monopolies from forming? it was `free` they formed, so I think they would form again.
how long would this revolution take place? would people die during it? would there be strikes and food shortages? would there be civil war? would a foreign power seek to gain advantage during the period of instability (you have to admit there would be some instability)
I feel that the best that would happen is that the current system would be repeated and the worst that would happen would be that another group would seize an opportunity in the instability to seize power, or have undue influence in the decission making process.
I feel the best course of action for an agorist would be to become influential and alter policy in a modest way in whatever way you see fit and become one of the many voices arging for compromise in a modern democracy. in that way no damage can be done and a group wil be represented in relation to their popularity.
I didn't understand the hostile aliens bit:)
jon
yup, its all just creativity.
So we must initiate force against others?
Could you perhaps phrase that in such a way that your conclusion logically follows?
martinglake:government and law and interferance is inevitable because if it does not exist it will exist anyway, so its better to have a system that fills the power void and prevents anyone else from superseeding it. the prime responsibility of a system I might say would be its self defence.
Utopian scheme. Political power breeds political power. Leviathan ALWAYS takes more power if it can.
Further, it's inevitable that rape will happen, so it's best that it be legal. Right? After all, there's no different between that and government being inevitable and all that rot.
martinglake:ok ok I like the agorism thing, but how do you prevent the power vacume that I would believe would emerge as the government was destabalised? how would the agorist revolution be funded and organised? how would people work together?
Let me ask you this: how do people work together NOW? Hint: it's not because some government forces them to.
martinglake: I don't see how the free market would provide monopolies from forming? it was `free` they formed, so I think they would form again.
Give me an example of a free market degenerating into a State. All the States I know about were imposed by violence/conquest/trickery.
For example, the americans won their freedom from Great Britain after the revolutionary war. A handful of people got together and formed a new strong central government. They funded George Washinton's army to go around the country putting down tax revolts (Shay's rebellion, whiskey rebellion).
The vast majority of people didn't realize they had just been conned out of their hard-won freedom. They were accustomed to paying taxes to the local colony government, so they went along with the Federal government.
The american revolution abolished control by the British government, but it did not also eliminate the individual state governments.
The US government was imposed by violence/conquest/trickery.
Can you name a government that was created as part of a free market process?
martinglake:taxes are paying for a product.
In the same way as paying the mafia to not burn your business down is paying for a product.
martinglake:govenerment and knowledge in a sense is not human because it is passed on from generation to generation. if anything evolves from man it will probably be a product of his production because mans ability to evolve phenomenon vastly outspeed biological evolution. thats what I mean by a system not being human.
That didn't really make much sense, can you rephrase it?
martinglake:I think what you say about stealing is partially correct on moral grounds. so I would call it a necessary evil for now. unless you provide an explanation for how a system without taxes would work. but I think our different views on human nature would mean I wouldn't agree.
It is totally correct. And I don't need to give into statist, consequentialist claims. You're making the assertion, prove it.
Also, I have no views on human nature.
martinglake:I think this thred needs dividing into about 50 different ones ...but I suppose it serves me and my `nebulous` arguments right:)
There are about 3 topics on the general, unproved assertions of statists like you, and why the "necessary evil" analysis is unjustified.
ok I'd rather pay the government than the mafia even if they share some of the same characteristics.
i think I'm going to have to pay someone regardless.
martinglake: ok I'd rather pay the government than the mafia even if they share some of the same characteristics. i think I'm going to have to pay someone regardless.
and you'd want to force everyone to pay the same people as you instead of letting people have individual choice in the matter?
martinglake, thanks for arguing and debating. I think you're doing so in good faith. Unfortunately, this forum isn't always the friendliest when someone with statist perspectives or opinions comes around looking for answers rooted in the philosophy of liberty.
The difference between the mafia and the government, is that the mafia doesn't interpret the law. The government does, which gives it a virtual monopoly on violence. You can fight back against the mafia, it's called self-defense. If you fight back against the government, you're a traitor engaging in insurrection.
martinglake:ok ok I like the agorism thing, but how do you prevent the power vacume that I would believe would emerge as the government was destabalised?
How do you eliminate something that hasn't been proven?
martinglake:how would the agorist revolution be funded and organised?
Freely of course.
martinglake:how would people work together?
How do markets work?
martinglake:how would the agorist system be prevented from becoming the system that we have today?
It cannot be proven that it wouldn't. So what?
martinglake:this woulf take some sort of rules from an authoratative body right?
Nope.
martinglake:I don't see how the free market would provide monopolies from forming?
Then you don't really understand economics. And if there was a free market monopoly, I don't see why anyone should mind it. It would mean that the monopoly business is excessively more efficient than its competition.
martinglake:it was `free` they formed, so I think they would form again.
Nope. Government intervention caused them to form. I assume you're talking about the monopolies that started popping up in the Guilded Age?
martinglake:how long would this revolution take place?
As long as it takes for the government to stop killing and robbing.
martinglake:would people die during it?
Yeah. Isn't the statistic, like, 1 person dies every 2 seconds in the world? I'm sure a lot of people would die during it.
martinglake:would there be strikes and food shortages?
No, that's only something that happens in an interventionist market.
martinglake:would there be civil war?
Civil War is a factioning of a state into two seperate parties attempting to gain power, so no. The government might decide to attack innocent people though.
martinglake:would a foreign power seek to gain advantage during the period of instability (you have to admit there would be some instability)
I don't have a crystal ball. Also, there would be relatively little instability if a free economy exists when the state topples.
martinglake:I feel that the best that would happen is that the current system would be repeated and the worst that would happen would be that another group would seize an opportunity in the instability to seize power, or have undue influence in the decission making process.
Not really relevant, but okay, feel that.
martinglake:I feel the best course of action for an agorist would be to become influential and alter policy in a modest way in whatever way you see fit and become one of the many voices arging for compromise in a modern democracy.
You and liberty student both. :)
martinglake:ok I'd rather pay the government than the mafia even if they share some of the same characteristics. i think I'm going to have to pay someone regardless.
1. You don't have to pay somone regardless
2. Why would you want to pay someone who forces something you don't want upon you?
banned:You and liberty student both. :)
I think you meant to use the wink icon, not the smile icon. Although it wouldn't hurt for you to smile a little more.
if I write go jogging at 6am tommorow. to write it is a human act. but now it exists as a phenomenon on a piece of paper and it holds a power over me, namely the promt to jog at 6am in the moring.
society is a vast network of phenomenon or one single phenomenon depending on how you see it.
technology is also a phenomenon speedily evolving and having a emense effect on society.
if we have any kind of revolution it will no doubt be heavily influenced by technological evolution.
I might argue that the system was more reliable because it wasn't human. and follows abstract/ideal laws that are not based on human nature.
I don't think my/your views on tax can be proven. they are subjective points of view based on the literal definition of tax and theft. We simply disagree and must defeat each other by clever talking and persuasion. or more acurately persuading the nation should either of us ever be in charge:)
no views on human nature? thats the foundation of ecconomics. you can't have a ecconomic model without out being to presume how people will act. surely?