This is the thread where you discuss free market, americans and libertarianism

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

Capitalism requires unfounded remote ownership a la Property is Theft.

Define "unfounded."

I'll give some examples. Grain rotting in a silo. A field left unplowed. A castle waiting for a soon-to-return-noble in the crusades. A locked dumpster. These are examples of wasted property needlessly accumulated and consolidated for the supposed purpose of private wealth to the detriment of public good. Proudhon is pretty cool.
We could also go into the idea of stocks in things that involved anything from fraud to genogide to obtain, like the entire US. We can also think of unfounded as unfair or unjust.
Now the real crazy part comes in during a consideration of wage slavery, human beings and other animals as property, and labor as a commodity.

all this will be irrelevant if we remove the right to own stuff, the very foundation of any capitalistic society.

See, these folks be confusing private property with private posessions.

So, can I take your land, your lawnmower, or your wife, or that nice statue on your lawn?  Sheesh!

Priceless.
I liek how you slipped "wife," in there.

Call it a tribute to Islam.

[ktttn]

Ever heard of the creative commons? Number of users isnt important, utility is.

Tell me, how do you cc license a plot of land? Or did you forget that was what we're talking about?

You should tip me for all this edjakayshun imma layin on you. A full btc to keep playing.

If I don't, will you stop spreading your Proudhonite idiocy? 'Cuz that sounds like win/win, to me.

I traded a pretty rock for this phone, which was given to me secondhand.

Capitalism at work, baby.

Google "commons" and tell me if you see land or not.
Tip me or read moar. Also the correct term is Proudhonian idiocy. Personally I prefer Kropotkinite idiocy, but Proudhon, who influenced every single theorist after him wrote a really neat book pertaining to property and early capitalism.
As to the other post, scientific developments that benefeit the public happen in spite of capitalist profit obsession, even though public school teaches otherwise. Hitting ignore unless I get paid for this particular brand of foolishness.

[myrkul]

Google "commons" and tell me if you see land or not.

Funny... this came up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

Google "commons" and tell me if you see land or not.

Funny... this came up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

Yep.  Land owned by all is owned by none. 
There is either freedom, and free markets, or there are storm-troopers, and mass murder.
It's down to us and them, again.

[ktttn]

Google "commons" and tell me if you see land or not.

Funny... this came up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

Self interest over total gain- precisely my criticism of the trappings of what amounts to a purely capitalist impulse.
I'm still waiting for my troll toll tip. You had fun, admit it. Pay me!

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

Google "commons" and tell me if you see land or not.

Funny... this came up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

Self interest over total gain- precisely my criticism of the trappings of what amounts to a purely capitalist impulse.
I'm still waiting for my troll toll tip. You had fun, admit it. Pay me!

Actually, you owe me.

[myrkul]

Google "commons" and tell me if you see land or not.

Funny... this came up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

Self interest over total gain- precisely my criticism of the trappings of what amounts to a purely capitalist impulse.

So, you want to change human nature, then? Then you're doomed to fail.
We figured that out as early as Plymouth Colony:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard130.html

The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's … that the taking away of property and bringing community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing…. For this community … was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense. The strong … had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice…. Upon … all being to have alike, and all to do alike, they thought … one as good as another, and so … did … work diminish … the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst men…. Let none object this is men's corruption … all men have this corruption in them…. (William Bradford, Of Plymouth Plantation, New York: Knopf, 1952, pp. 120–21.)

I'm still waiting for my troll toll tip. You had fun, admit it. Pay me!

I don't pay trolls to keep trolling me.

[ktttn]

Google "commons" and tell me if you see land or not.

Funny... this came up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

Self interest over total gain- precisely my criticism of the trappings of what amounts to a purely capitalist impulse.
I'm still waiting for my troll toll tip. You had fun, admit it. Pay me!

Actually, you owe me.

Should we be using ripple for this?
Lawl.

[ktttn]

Google "commons" and tell me if you see land or not.

Funny... this came up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

Self interest over total gain- precisely my criticism of the trappings of what amounts to a purely capitalist impulse.

So, you want to change human nature, then? Then you're doomed to fail.
We figured that out as early as Plymouth Colony:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard130.html

The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's … that the taking away of property and bringing community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing…. For this community … was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense. The strong … had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice…. Upon … all being to have alike, and all to do alike, they thought … one as good as another, and so … did … work diminish … the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst men…. Let none object this is men's corruption … all men have this corruption in them…. (William Bradford, Of Plymouth Plantation, New York: Knopf, 1952, pp. 120–21.)

I'm still waiting for my troll toll tip. You had fun, admit it. Pay me!

I don't pay trolls to keep trolling me.

From the top and for the win, to close out today's troll market, the troll index hit a new high with trolls reqursting payment from trolls trollng trolls about trolling in a troll thread.
So the pilgrimz werent eeevil imperialist proto capitalists?!?!?!?!?
Human nature was perverted by the state enforcing remote property claims.Mutual Aid is human nature.
I bet you have a bank account, or pay taxes. Way to pay troll tolls.

[myrkul]

So the pilgrimz werent eeevil imperialist proto capitalists?!?!?!?!?

Nope, they intentionally set up a communist society. Which promptly started to starve to death. Until:

All this while no supply was heard of…. So they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length … the Governor (with the advice of the chiefest among them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves…. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land … for that end, only for present use…. This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.

Private property FTW!

I bet you have a bank account, or pay taxes. Way to pay troll tolls.

You know what they say about assuming....

[myrkul]

Human nature was perverted by the state enforcing remote property claims. Mutual Aid is human nature.

And by this logic, after nearly a century of Communist rule, Russians should all have been "fixed," and mutual aid have been the rule, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Bloc_economies#Black_markets

Black markets were created that were often supplied by goods stolen from the public sector. A saying in Czechoslovakia was "if you do not steal from the state, you are robbing your own family." This second "parallel economy" flourished throughout the Bloc because of rising unmet state consumer needs. Black and gray markets for foodstuffs, goods, and cash arose. Goods included household goods, medical supplies, clothes, furniture, cosmetics, and toiletries in chronically short supply through official outlets.

Oh, maybe not.

So, what "perverted human nature" there? The state enforcing common property?

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

Human nature was perverted by the state enforcing remote property claims. Mutual Aid is human nature.

And by this logic, after nearly a century of Communist rule, Russians should all have been "fixed," and mutual aid have been the rule, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Bloc_economies#Black_markets

Black markets were created that were often supplied by goods stolen from the public sector. A saying in Czechoslovakia was "if you do not steal from the state, you are robbing your own family." This second "parallel economy" flourished throughout the Bloc because of rising unmet state consumer needs. Black and gray markets for foodstuffs, goods, and cash arose. Goods included household goods, medical supplies, clothes, furniture, cosmetics, and toiletries in chronically short supply through official outlets.

Oh, maybe not.

So, what "perverted human nature" there? The state enforcing common property?

It seems to me that most who worry about "perverted human nature" are themselves pretty messed up.  I am beginning to think AnCap may have long-term eugenic effects, as those who cannot adhere to NAP are slowly weeded out of the gene pool via self-defense.  As to whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, well, don't ask me, I'm just a clever talking monkey.

[Mike Christ]

It seems to me that most who worry about "perverted human nature" are themselves pretty messed up.  I am beginning to think AnCap may have long-term eugenic effects, as those who cannot adhere to NAP are slowly weeded out of the gene pool via self-defense.  As to whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, well, don't ask me, I'm just a clever talking monkey.

It's a good thing.  It makes the sociopaths among us extremely obvious.

[myrkul]

I am beginning to think AnCap may have long-term eugenic effects, as those who cannot adhere to NAP are slowly weeded out of the gene pool via self-defense.  As to whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, well, don't ask me, I'm just a clever talking monkey.

A descendant of a long line of increasingly clever talking monkeys (well, you wanna get all technical about it, apes), in fact. It's telling that so many critics of AnCap say that it would be Darwinism as though that were a bad thing.

[myrkul]

Profit is an accounting delusion.

Oookaaay...

But anyway, you're not off the hook on this yet:

some non-voluntary monopoly (e.g.: a government) might be necessary in order to create suitable conditions for markets

BECAUSE...
In order for people to trade, first they need to be able to communicate with each other.
In order to be able to communicate, they need to learn to communicate.
Somebody needs to supply those skills. For example, parents teach their children basic skills.
However, is that a market? No, it is not. Call it evolutionary programming or whatever -- it's NOT A MARKET.
Even if you claim that markets only require 'supply' and 'demand', and participants, those participants still need to be able to follow the established rules. What rules, you ask? Whatever rules are created as a result of the participants communicating with each other prior to the market being able to function.

OK, so, because parents need to teach their children how to communicate in order for those children - once grown - to establish a market, therefore we need a monopoly government. Suuuuure....

Certainly communication is required, but not a State. For instance, take two traders who do not share a language. They can (and have in the past) create a shared language, in order to facilitate trade. No State (or even parents) required.

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

It's unfounded because it exists without someone owning it, it can be utilized without someone owning it, and a capitalist owning it always results in waste.

The irony that you're posting this on a smartphone is not lost on me.

First:
Yes, it exists without something owning it. Thus "unowned property." Not a good justification for calling property unfounded.
While something can be utilized without someone owning it, that likewise a poor justification for calling property unfounded, because it cannot be utilized by two people at the same time.
And finally, Capitalism does not "always result in waste." Waste is loss. Capitalists don't like loss. They like profit. Capitalists avoid waste like the plague.

Profit is an accounting delusion.

In accounting terms 'profit' most likely should be counted as extra costs: it gets tacked onto the reward system (bonus, extra holiday etc.), or added to the safety buffer (to cover seasonal variation etc.), used for company growth, etc.
 
People like profit because of the quick reward. However, profit really means the budgeting was wrong. Somewhere along the line, the costs and gains were miscalculated. Proponents of Capitalism try to entice people by claiming that it's more efficient and profitable compared to other systems, but they always gloss over the social costs -- even total denial of "tragedy of the commons" effects that often enable 'profit' in the first place!

E.g.: Chimneys. They're everywhere. All over the world.
Do all those private enterprises try to calculate the 'costs' of lung cancer rates in their workplace and community from all the toxic materials that get spewed into the air? No. Instead, some Capitalists complain that their taxes are too high, and that they feel oppressed by brutal legislation that forces them to install costly particulate filters that reduce their profit margins. Even though I've never been to China, I heard that their air quality can be quite bad in some places. Maybe their government doesn't care if some of their citizens get slowly poisoned. But what about all the Capitalist companies actually responsible? They don't care either. We were promised that "private security" would fix this sort of thing!

WOW!
There was more lung disease before chimneys were invented.  There were more respiratory illnesses before the auto took over from the horse.  You are deluded.

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

Profit is an accounting delusion.

Oookaaay...

Glad you agree.

For the record, I followed it up with a lengthy explanation and additional observations:

In accounting terms 'profit' most likely should be counted as extra costs: it gets tacked onto the reward system (bonus, extra holiday etc.), or added to the safety buffer (to cover seasonal variation etc.), used for company growth, etc.
 
People like profit because of the quick reward. However, profit really means the budgeting was wrong. Somewhere along the line, the costs and gains were miscalculated. Proponents of Capitalism try to entice people by claiming that it's more efficient and profitable compared to other systems, but they always gloss over the social costs -- even total denial of "tragedy of the commons" effects that often enable 'profit' in the first place!

E.g.: Chimneys. They're everywhere. All over the world.
Do all those private enterprises try to calculate the 'costs' of lung cancer rates in their workplace and community from all the toxic materials that get spewed into the air? No. Instead, some Capitalists complain that their taxes are too high, and that they feel oppressed by brutal legislation that forces them to install costly particulate filters that reduce their profit margins. Even though I've never been to China, I heard that their air quality can be quite bad in some places. Maybe their government doesn't care if some of their citizens get slowly poisoned. But what about all the Capitalist companies actually responsible? They don't care either. We were promised that "private security" would fix this sort of thing!

Since you didn't argue against any of it the first time, thanks for the endorsement!

But anyway, you're not off the hook on this yet:

some non-voluntary monopoly (e.g.: a government) might be necessary in order to create suitable conditions for markets

BECAUSE...
In order for people to trade, first they need to be able to communicate with each other.
In order to be able to communicate, they need to learn to communicate.
Somebody needs to supply those skills. For example, parents teach their children basic skills.
However, is that a market? No, it is not. Call it evolutionary programming or whatever -- it's NOT A MARKET.
Even if you claim that markets only require 'supply' and 'demand', and participants, those participants still need to be able to follow the established rules. What rules, you ask? Whatever rules are created as a result of the participants communicating with each other prior to the market being able to function.

OK, so, because parents need to teach their children how to communicate in order for those children - once grown - to establish a market, therefore we need a monopoly government. Suuuuure....

Certainly communication is required, but not a State. For instance, take two traders who do not share a language. They can (and have in the past) create a shared language, in order to facilitate trade. No State (or even parents) required.

Authority is scalable. Markets still require foundations on which they can be built. You didn't provide any argument to dispute my point. And you haven't even begun discussing how An-Cap could provide a superior framework for markets.

For the third time:
Markets existed in Ireland when it had no state, and in Iceland, when it had free-market law.  So your premise that "some non-voluntary monopoly (e.g.: a government) might be necessary in order to create suitable conditions for markets." has already been dis-proven by history.

[myrkul]

Profit is an accounting delusion.

Oookaaay...

Glad you agree.

I don't. I use the same tone with the man on the bus who tells me how microchips in my blender are controlling my brain through subliminal messages on my microwave. However, you're not here to try to eat my face, so I feel comfortable laughing, first ( ).

Markets still require foundations on which they can be built.

So they do. We've established communication is one, and that a State is not needed for communication. What other foundations are required for Markets, and how do they require a State?

You didn't provide any argument to dispute my point.

You must have missed it. I'll repeat it:

Certainly communication is required, but not a State. For instance, take two traders who do not share a language. They can (and have in the past) create a shared language, in order to facilitate trade. No State (or even parents) required.

And you haven't even begun discussing how An-Cap could provide a superior framework for markets.

No, I haven't. We're still letting you make your case.

[myrkul]

For the third time:
Markets existed in Ireland when it had no state, and in Iceland, when it had free-market law.  So your premise that "some non-voluntary monopoly (e.g.: a government) might be necessary in order to create suitable conditions for markets." has already been dis-proven by history.

And then they invented alcohol.
Don't their tribal mini-kingdoms count as governments? Seems like you're arguing semantics.

Voluntary, non-contiguous tribal mini-kingdoms. ie, not a non-voluntary monopoly. 

[Rassah]

E.g.: Chimneys. They're everywhere. All over the world.
Do all those private enterprises try to calculate the 'costs' of lung cancer rates in their workplace and community from all the toxic materials that get spewed into the air? No. Instead, some Capitalists complain that their taxes are too high, and that they feel oppressed by brutal legislation that forces them to install costly particulate filters that reduce their profit margins. Even though I've never been to China, I heard that their air quality can be quite bad in some places. Maybe their government doesn't care if some of their citizens get slowly poisoned. But what about all the Capitalist companies actually responsible? They don't care either. We were promised that "private security" would fix this sort of thing!

Thank you for bringing up China's air pollution, because that is a perfect example of government doing the opposite of what you hoped.
If we were living in an AnCap world, and a factory nearby was polluting your air, you'd be pretty pissed, right? You might even go out and ask them to stop, if they ignored you, go and protest them, and if they continued to ignore you, maybe even turn to sabotage and violence. I mean, they are killing you with cancer causing chemicals! More-so, they are doing it to everyone in the area, so it wouldn't be just you doing this, it'd be a whole mob. So either they will be taken out, or else they would have to hire their own private security, which would make business much more expensive for them. And the more they pollute and piss people of, the more security they will need, meaning $$$ out of their own pockets.
But we are living with a government that has laws and regulations. Sadly, this company that's polluting your air is not breaking laws, and is complying with regulations, likely because they bought a politician, and wrote the regulations themselves. And if you go and protest them or try to fight them with sabotage our violence, they will be defended by government police. Police which, by the way, you paid for with your taxes. So, they write the laws, and get you to pay for that law enforcement yourself. Sweet deal for them, but sucks for you.