If you don't like it, then leave.

[ALPHA.]

https://i.imgur.com/Fc6wQ.jpg

[1715306910]

1715306910

[Hawker]

Tragic.  Its almost as if there were essential things that every society needs and that wherever you have people, you have to contribute to these essentials.

Still, at least you can sit at home complaining about it instead of trying something silly like voting for a change.

[ALPHA.]

Tragic.  Its almost as if there were essential things that every society needs and that wherever you have people, you have to contribute to these essentials.

Still, at least you can sit at home complaining about it instead of trying something silly like voting for a change.

No, if you vote, you have no right to complain. The process you participated in put us in this mess in the first place.

Also, you missed the whole point of the comic.

[Hawker]

Tragic.  Its almost as if there were essential things that every society needs and that wherever you have people, you have to contribute to these essentials.

Still, at least you can sit at home complaining about it instead of trying something silly like voting for a change.

No, if you vote, you have no right to complain. The process you participated in put us in this mess in the first place.

Also, you missed the whole point of the comic.

You have the right to complain whether you vote or not.

The process that puts us "in this mess" is called birth.  Once you are born, you are a part of a society and you can't opt out any more than you can opt out of your skin colour.

I get the point but I've never been one of the "if you don't like it leave" crowd.  As I said, there are essentials every society needs and wherever you have people, you will have to pay towards these essentials.  I can see myself saying "if you don't like it leave" to a Syrian or a Nork but not to an American.

[FredericBastiat]

No, if you vote, you have no right to complain. The process you participated in put us in this mess in the first place.

Also, you missed the whole point of the comic.

Not entirely accurate. If you voted to misappropriate or expropriate the property of others (taxation, wealth distribution, welfare programs, debasing legal tender currencies), I still get to complain because you stole from me.

To wit, don't vote to take stuff that isn't yours. That's gangster behavior.

[Hawker]

No, if you vote, you have no right to complain. The process you participated in put us in this mess in the first place.

Also, you missed the whole point of the comic.

Not entirely accurate. If you voted to misappropriate or expropriate the property of others (taxation, wealth distribution, welfare programs, debasing legal tender currencies), I still get to complain because you stole from me.

To wit, don't vote to take stuff that isn't yours. That's gangster behavior.

Exactly! 

[evoorhees]

Desert island. Two men, and one woman. Do the men have the right to vote away the woman's right to her body?  Do the men have the right to vote away the things the woman produces for herself? Do the men have the right to take her food, her shelter, or her privacy merely by simultaneously raising their hands?

Immoral actions are immoral, no matter the vote.

[JeffK]

America: love it or leave it Patriot thread hell yeah

[JeffK]

Why not just pretend you only earn your gross income minus taxes, then it never feels like anyone was taking anything from you because you never really had the money in the first place!

[Hawker]

Desert island. Two men, and one woman. Do the men have the right to vote away the woman's right to her body?  Do the men have the right to vote away the things the woman produces for herself? Do the men have the right to take her food, her shelter, or her privacy merely by simultaneously raising their hands?

Immoral actions are immoral, no matter the vote.

But if decisions need to be made, democracy is a better option than any alternative.  Your moral argument is most valuable in a democracy.

[chickenado]

Tragic.  Its almost as if there were essential things that every society needs and that wherever you have people, you have to contribute to these essentials.

Still, at least you can sit at home complaining about it instead of trying something silly like voting for a change.

Or you can try doing something that makes a fucking difference, like tax avoidance, aka dollar voting. (though if you want to do that legally it will most probably require leaving, at least for certain amount of days every year).

Voting doesn't create any contractual obligations whatsoever, neither for the voter nor for the politician.  That's why a vote is just about as worthless as a Don Juan's marriage proposal.

[Hawker]

Tragic.  Its almost as if there were essential things that every society needs and that wherever you have people, you have to contribute to these essentials.

Still, at least you can sit at home complaining about it instead of trying something silly like voting for a change.

Or you can try doing something that makes a fucking difference, like tax avoidance, aka dollar voting. (though if you want to do that legally it will most probably require leaving, at least for certain amount of days every year).

Voting doesn't create any contractual obligations whatsoever, neither for the voter nor for the politician.  That's why a vote is just about as worthless as a Don Juan's marriage proposal.

You know, the people who voted for Ralph Nadar and the leftie abstainers in 2000 all said the same thing.  No point in voting for Gore and all the pols are the same.

How do you think 8 years of GWB worked out for them?  Do you think lefties regard the war in Iraq and the tax cut for the rich as a price worth paying for their cynicism?

[NghtRppr]

Its almost as if there were essential things that every society needs and that wherever you have people, you have to contribute to these essentials.

If you want something, pay for it. Don't demand other people pay for it. That's just common sense.

[Hawker]

Its almost as if there were essential things that every society needs and that wherever you have people, you have to contribute to these essentials.

If you want something, pay for it. Don't demand other people pay for it. That's just common sense.

If something requires ongoing maintenance, for example the coast guard, and if it is in the national interest, then it needs to be paid for by everyone and in small regular instalments called tax.

That's just common sense.

[NghtRppr]

Its almost as if there were essential things that every society needs and that wherever you have people, you have to contribute to these essentials.

If you want something, pay for it. Don't demand other people pay for it. That's just common sense.

If something requires ongoing maintenance, for example the coast guard, and if it is in the national interest, then it needs to be paid for by everyone and in small regular instalments called tax.

That's just common sense.

No, theft isn't common sense at all.

[Hawker]

Its almost as if there were essential things that every society needs and that wherever you have people, you have to contribute to these essentials.

If you want something, pay for it. Don't demand other people pay for it. That's just common sense.

If something requires ongoing maintenance, for example the coast guard, and if it is in the national interest, then it needs to be paid for by everyone and in small regular instalments called tax.

That's just common sense.

No, theft isn't common sense at all.

Neither is changing the subject.

[NghtRppr]

Its almost as if there were essential things that every society needs and that wherever you have people, you have to contribute to these essentials.

If you want something, pay for it. Don't demand other people pay for it. That's just common sense.

If something requires ongoing maintenance, for example the coast guard, and if it is in the national interest, then it needs to be paid for by everyone and in small regular instalments called tax.

That's just common sense.

No, theft isn't common sense at all.

Neither is changing the subject.

I didn't change the subject. Taxation is theft.

[Hawker]

Its almost as if there were essential things that every society needs and that wherever you have people, you have to contribute to these essentials.

If you want something, pay for it. Don't demand other people pay for it. That's just common sense.

If something requires ongoing maintenance, for example the coast guard, and if it is in the national interest, then it needs to be paid for by everyone and in small regular instalments called tax.

That's just common sense.

No, theft isn't common sense at all.

Neither is changing the subject.

I didn't change the subject. Taxation is theft.

Too lazy to make an intelligent argument?  Want to spout stupid slogans instead?  I can do the same. 

Libertarianism is escapism. 

[chickenado]

Its almost as if there were essential things that every society needs and that wherever you have people, you have to contribute to these essentials.

If you want something, pay for it. Don't demand other people pay for it. That's just common sense.

If something requires ongoing maintenance, for example the coast guard, and if it is in the national interest, then it needs to be paid for by everyone and in small regular instalments called tax.

That's just common sense.

Yes, public goods will be underproduced in the absence of government, BUT:

1.There is no objective way of measuring the "optimal" production of public goods.
2.There is no objective way of measuring to what extent something is a public good, as ALL goods are to some extent public.
3.Government is likely to take advantage of this and start to produce goods that it has no business producing, leading to excessive taxation.

Your coast guard example can be resolved with private insurance. Wanna be saved from your sailboat? Get insurance beforehand.  The advantage of this system is that you can choose a higher quality rescue team if you're willing to pay for it.  Presumably, there will also be a basic rescue package financed by charity.

This is exactly how it works for extreme mountaineers, by the way.  So why can't it work for sailors?

I'd rather have an underproduction of public goods than overtaxation.

But that's just me.

[chickenado]

I didn't change the subject. Taxation is theft.

Too lazy to make an intelligent argument?  Want to spout stupid slogans instead?  I can do the same.  

Libertarianism is escapism.  

Statism is Peter Pan Syndrome.

This is fun.

[Hawker]

Its almost as if there were essential things that every society needs and that wherever you have people, you have to contribute to these essentials.

If you want something, pay for it. Don't demand other people pay for it. That's just common sense.

If something requires ongoing maintenance, for example the coast guard, and if it is in the national interest, then it needs to be paid for by everyone and in small regular instalments called tax.

That's just common sense.

Yes, public goods will be underproduced in the absence of government, BUT:

1.There is no objective way of measuring the "optimal" production of public goods.
2.There is no objective way of measuring to what extent something is a public good, as ALL goods are to some extent public.
3.Government is likely to take advantage of this and start to produce goods that it has no business producing, leading to excessive taxation.

Your coast guard example can be resolved with private insurance. Wanna be saved from your sailboat? Get insurance beforehand.  The advantage of this system is that you can choose a higher quality rescue team if you're willing to pay for it.  Presumably, there will also be a basic rescue package financed by charity.

This is exactly how it works for extreme mountaineers, by the way.  So why can't it work for sailors?

I'd rather have an underproduction of public goods than overtaxation.

But that's just me.

Exactly - its just you and millions like you.  Make the argument and change the system.  Its not so long since the telephone system was treated like the lighthouse system and state run.  Now in most countries there are many competing telecom providers and the reason is that those who believe in the market campaigned for privatisation.

Change is possible - all you have to do is make a good argument.

[NghtRppr]

Libertarianism is escapism.

Escape from thieves.

[Hawker]

Libertarianism is escapism.

Escape from thieves.

Clichés are abuse.

[FredericBastiat]

Libertarianism is escapism.

Escape from thieves.

Clichés are abuse.

And yet so true. I'll accept any cliche that's true. Kinda rolls off the tongue with a certain ring to it.

[NghtRppr]

Libertarianism is escapism.

Escape from thieves.

Clichés are abuse.

So is changing the subject.

[Hawker]

Libertarianism is escapism.

Escape from thieves.

Clichés are abuse.

So is changing the subject.

You started that...

[Rassah]

I didn't change the subject. Taxation is theft.

Too lazy to make an intelligent argument?  Want to spout stupid slogans instead?  I can do the same. 

Libertarianism is escapism. 

Common sense is just "common," not "sensible"

[FredericBastiat]

Libertarianism is escapism.

Escape from thieves.

Libertarianism is escape from thieves, enslavers and murderers.

Just a little more technically accurate.

[BitMagic]

Its almost as if there were essential things that every society needs and that wherever you have people, you have to contribute to these essentials.

If you want something, pay for it. Don't demand other people pay for it. That's just common sense.

If something requires ongoing maintenance, for example the coast guard, and if it is in the national interest, then it needs to be paid for by everyone and in small regular instalments called tax.

That's just common sense.

Yes, public goods will be underproduced in the absence of government, BUT:

1.There is no objective way of measuring the "optimal" production of public goods.
2.There is no objective way of measuring to what extent something is a public good, as ALL goods are to some extent public.
3.Government is likely to take advantage of this and start to produce goods that it has no business producing, leading to excessive taxation.

Your coast guard example can be resolved with private insurance. Wanna be saved from your sailboat? Get insurance beforehand.  The advantage of this system is that you can choose a higher quality rescue team if you're willing to pay for it.  Presumably, there will also be a basic rescue package financed by charity.

This is exactly how it works for extreme mountaineers, by the way.  So why can't it work for sailors?

I'd rather have an underproduction of public goods than overtaxation.

But that's just me.

Yeah, you're just completely wrong. There are many methods of elucidating the value of public goods to people. It's certainly harder than for normal goods, but it's not a blind shot in the dark.

And I'm sure you wouldn't love the underproduction of public goods when you saw how fucking miserable your life would be with out any environmental regulation, public trash and sewer systems, utilities in some cases, fire and police protection, and public health.

Fucking people espouse all these ridiculous ideas from a featherbed.

[ALPHA.]

Its almost as if there were essential things that every society needs and that wherever you have people, you have to contribute to these essentials.

If you want something, pay for it. Don't demand other people pay for it. That's just common sense.

If something requires ongoing maintenance, for example the coast guard, and if it is in the national interest, then it needs to be paid for by everyone and in small regular instalments called tax.

That's just common sense.

Yes, public goods will be underproduced in the absence of government, BUT:

1.There is no objective way of measuring the "optimal" production of public goods.
2.There is no objective way of measuring to what extent something is a public good, as ALL goods are to some extent public.
3.Government is likely to take advantage of this and start to produce goods that it has no business producing, leading to excessive taxation.

Your coast guard example can be resolved with private insurance. Wanna be saved from your sailboat? Get insurance beforehand.  The advantage of this system is that you can choose a higher quality rescue team if you're willing to pay for it.  Presumably, there will also be a basic rescue package financed by charity.

This is exactly how it works for extreme mountaineers, by the way.  So why can't it work for sailors?

I'd rather have an underproduction of public goods than overtaxation.

But that's just me.

Yeah, you're just completely wrong. There are many methods of elucidating the value of public goods to people. It's certainly harder than for normal goods, but it's not a blind shot in the dark.

And I'm sure you wouldn't love the underproduction of public goods when you saw how fucking miserable your life would be with out any environmental regulation, public trash and sewer systems, utilities in some cases, fire and police protection, and public health.

Fucking people espouse all these ridiculous ideas from a featherbed.

Nobody has espoused no environmental regulation nor no utilities. All we want are accountable services not held by a government monopoly.

[FredericBastiat]

Yeah, you're just completely wrong. There are many methods of elucidating the value of public goods to people. It's certainly harder than for normal goods, but it's not a blind shot in the dark.

And I'm sure you wouldn't love the underproduction of public goods when you saw how fucking miserable your life would be with out any environmental regulation, public trash and sewer systems, utilities in some cases, fire and police protection, and public health.

Fucking people espouse all these ridiculous ideas from a featherbed.

You make it sound as if these services wouldn't come about except thru government. Government is just people with special privileges and authority. If there is a market for trash collection, sewer systems, utilities, fire, protection and health related issues, don't you think some enterprising individual(s) would attempt to create a market?

Why does one have to have a monopoly to make it all happen? What do you think is so magical about your government? They don't have any more pixie dust than you. Oh wait, they don't have pixie dust, it was Kool Aid I was thinking of. I wouldn't drink too much of that though. You never can tell what they put in that stuff.

[Hawker]

Yeah, you're just completely wrong. There are many methods of elucidating the value of public goods to people. It's certainly harder than for normal goods, but it's not a blind shot in the dark.

And I'm sure you wouldn't love the underproduction of public goods when you saw how fucking miserable your life would be with out any environmental regulation, public trash and sewer systems, utilities in some cases, fire and police protection, and public health.

Fucking people espouse all these ridiculous ideas from a featherbed.

You make it sound as if these services wouldn't come about except thru government. Government is just people with special privileges and authority. If there is a market for trash collection, sewer systems, utilities, fire, protection and health related issues, don't you think some enterprising individual(s) would attempt to create a market?

Why does one have to have a monopoly to make it all happen? What do you think is so magical about your government? They don't have any more pixie dust than you. Oh wait, they don't have pixie dust, it was Kool Aid I was thinking of. I wouldn't drink too much of that though. You never can tell what they put in that stuff.

Um, all those things were once done by the private sector.  The reason governments do it is that the private sector was not up to standard. 

[ALPHA.]

Yeah, you're just completely wrong. There are many methods of elucidating the value of public goods to people. It's certainly harder than for normal goods, but it's not a blind shot in the dark.

And I'm sure you wouldn't love the underproduction of public goods when you saw how fucking miserable your life would be with out any environmental regulation, public trash and sewer systems, utilities in some cases, fire and police protection, and public health.

Fucking people espouse all these ridiculous ideas from a featherbed.

You make it sound as if these services wouldn't come about except thru government. Government is just people with special privileges and authority. If there is a market for trash collection, sewer systems, utilities, fire, protection and health related issues, don't you think some enterprising individual(s) would attempt to create a market?

Why does one have to have a monopoly to make it all happen? What do you think is so magical about your government? They don't have any more pixie dust than you. Oh wait, they don't have pixie dust, it was Kool Aid I was thinking of. I wouldn't drink too much of that though. You never can tell what they put in that stuff.

Um, all those things were once done by the private sector.  The reason governments do it is that the private sector was not up to standard. 

Yeah, like how the first competing postal company in the United States gave people cheaper mail and faster service. Thankfully the government put them out of business by fining them. Those Bastards. How dare they be profitable and give people better service.

[Hawker]

Yeah, you're just completely wrong. There are many methods of elucidating the value of public goods to people. It's certainly harder than for normal goods, but it's not a blind shot in the dark.

And I'm sure you wouldn't love the underproduction of public goods when you saw how fucking miserable your life would be with out any environmental regulation, public trash and sewer systems, utilities in some cases, fire and police protection, and public health.

Fucking people espouse all these ridiculous ideas from a featherbed.

You make it sound as if these services wouldn't come about except thru government. Government is just people with special privileges and authority. If there is a market for trash collection, sewer systems, utilities, fire, protection and health related issues, don't you think some enterprising individual(s) would attempt to create a market?

Why does one have to have a monopoly to make it all happen? What do you think is so magical about your government? They don't have any more pixie dust than you. Oh wait, they don't have pixie dust, it was Kool Aid I was thinking of. I wouldn't drink too much of that though. You never can tell what they put in that stuff.

Um, all those things were once done by the private sector.  The reason governments do it is that the private sector was not up to standard. 

Yeah, like how the first competing postal company in the United States gave people cheaper mail and faster service. Thankfully the government put them out of business by fining them. Those Bastards. How dare they be profitable and give people better service.

Why do I get the feeling you have left the facts that don't match your theory out?

[BitMagic]

You make it sound as if these services wouldn't come about except thru government. Government is just people with special privileges and authority. If there is a market for trash collection, sewer systems, utilities, fire, protection and health related issues, don't you think some enterprising individual(s) would attempt to create a market?

Why does one have to have a monopoly to make it all happen? What do you think is so magical about your government? They don't have any more pixie dust than you. Oh wait, they don't have pixie dust, it was Kool Aid I was thinking of. I wouldn't drink too much of that though. You never can tell what they put in that stuff.

To get at your question, many of these services would not come about without government. It's a really simple concept surrounding public goods (non-rival, non-excludable goods), has been for a very very long time with nearly every serious economist over the last 100 years, and has been the paradigm for a reason you don't like but should probably accept: it has been shown with convincing experimental evidence that these goods exist and will not be provided by the market in a way that allows the efficient exchange of resources.

There is nothing "magical" about "my" government, it just happens to be a better mechanism for certain kinds of exchange and resource management. No argument that probably most of the things you need in your life, along with nearly all of the things you want can be handled better by private organizations. But you have to stop acting like your mythical extreme is better simply because it hasn't been tried. Enough of that extreme has been tried and summarily rejected by massive worker revolt over the last two centuries.

Spend some time reading about the definition of monopoly before you start swinging it around in the context of government. The fact that there is no competition for those services is not enough to claim monopoly, and its power to siphon consumer surplus right to the owners of the organization.

Besides, it always cracks me up when you argue against "government monopoly" only to support free-market practices that lead to private monopolies, with the silly little BS argument "but that's only because the market wasn't free enough!

Um, all those things were once done by the private sector.  The reason governments do it is that the private sector was not up to standard.  

Just because you say it's true does not make it true. The reason government got into many has nothing to do with standards, it has to do with the over-consumption of scarce resources because of their "public" nature.

Really, don't bother trying until you've read a bit more on the subject. Definitely don't tell me the reasons that government does anything until you know what you're talking about.

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/06/tennessee-firefighters-watch-home-burn/

Tell me it's fair that if you can't quite afford $75 a month, that you deserve this.

[ALPHA.]

Yeah, you're just completely wrong. There are many methods of elucidating the value of public goods to people. It's certainly harder than for normal goods, but it's not a blind shot in the dark.

And I'm sure you wouldn't love the underproduction of public goods when you saw how fucking miserable your life would be with out any environmental regulation, public trash and sewer systems, utilities in some cases, fire and police protection, and public health.

Fucking people espouse all these ridiculous ideas from a featherbed.

You make it sound as if these services wouldn't come about except thru government. Government is just people with special privileges and authority. If there is a market for trash collection, sewer systems, utilities, fire, protection and health related issues, don't you think some enterprising individual(s) would attempt to create a market?

Why does one have to have a monopoly to make it all happen? What do you think is so magical about your government? They don't have any more pixie dust than you. Oh wait, they don't have pixie dust, it was Kool Aid I was thinking of. I wouldn't drink too much of that though. You never can tell what they put in that stuff.

Um, all those things were once done by the private sector.  The reason governments do it is that the private sector was not up to standard. 

Yeah, like how the first competing postal company in the United States gave people cheaper mail and faster service. Thankfully the government put them out of business by fining them. Those Bastards. How dare they be profitable and give people better service.

Why do I get the feeling you have left the facts that don't match your theory out?

I haven't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Letter_Mail_Company

[ALPHA.]

You make it sound as if these services wouldn't come about except thru government. Government is just people with special privileges and authority. If there is a market for trash collection, sewer systems, utilities, fire, protection and health related issues, don't you think some enterprising individual(s) would attempt to create a market?

Why does one have to have a monopoly to make it all happen? What do you think is so magical about your government? They don't have any more pixie dust than you. Oh wait, they don't have pixie dust, it was Kool Aid I was thinking of. I wouldn't drink too much of that though. You never can tell what they put in that stuff.

To get at your question, many of these services would not come about without government. It's a really simple concept surrounding public goods (non-rival, non-excludable goods), has been for a very very long time with nearly every serious economist over the last 100 years, and has been the paradigm for a reason you don't like but should probably accept: it has been shown with convincing experimental evidence that these goods exist and will not be provided by the market in a way that allows the efficient exchange of resources.

There is nothing "magical" about "my" government, it just happens to be a better mechanism for certain kinds of exchange and resource management. No argument that probably most of the things you need in your life, along with nearly all of the things you want can be handled better by private organizations. But you have to stop acting like your mythical extreme is better simply because it hasn't been tried. Enough of that extreme has been tried and summarily rejected by massive worker revolt over the last two centuries.

Spend some time reading about the definition of monopoly before you start swinging it around in the context of government. The fact that there is no competition for those services is not enough to claim monopoly, and its power to siphon consumer surplus right to the owners of the organization.

Besides, it always cracks me up when you argue against "government monopoly" only to support free-market practices that lead to private monopolies, with the silly little BS argument "but that's only because the market wasn't free enough!

Um, all those things were once done by the private sector.  The reason governments do it is that the private sector was not up to standard.  

Just because you say it's true does not make it true. The reason government got into many has nothing to do with standards, it has to do with the over-consumption of scarce resources because of their "public" nature.

Really, don't bother trying until you've read a bit more on the subject. Definitely don't tell me the reasons that government does anything until you know what you're talking about.

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/06/tennessee-firefighters-watch-home-burn/

Tell me it's fair that if you can't quite afford $75 a month, that you deserve this.

What's wrong with a monopoly if people voluntarily accept it and are happy with its service as opposed to a government monopoly that is forced upon its people?

[chickenado]

There are many methods of elucidating the value of public goods to people. It's certainly harder than for normal goods, but it's not a blind shot in the dark.

Yes, you can use "scientific" measures such as child mortality, which even the most hardcore subjective value proponents will agree is something that 99.99% of us value.

Minimizing child mortality by increasing spending on public goods is all well and good, but there comes a point at which each additional tax dollar will buy an increasingly smaller reduction in child mortality.  The problem is that governments don't know where to stop and have a tendency to increase spending forever.  Zero child mortality will never be achieved, but a lot of governments set these kind of aims, regardless of the cost.  The mistake they are making is that they are only measuring what they choose to measure and ignoring unseen effects.  Spending on public goods always comes at the cost of something else.  Perhaps reducing child mortality has the result of increasing road deaths, because there is less money available for traffic lights.

These "scientific" measures only measure isolated sectors; there is no good scientific measure for the utility of the entire economy.

Needless to say, child mortality would also be reduced in a free market.

Btw, the above is the best case.  In practice, governments often consciously enact policies that are scientifically proven to be unfavorable in terms of above measures because they are pandering to the caveman instincts of ignorant voters who have little personal stake in the public good.    

A classic example is the blocking of cheap and highly effective needle exchange programs by right wing politicians, even though needle exchange is scientifically proven to reduce the chance of catching hepatitis and hiv, even for non-drug users.

 

And I'm sure you wouldn't love the underproduction of public goods when you saw how fucking miserable your life would be with out any environmental regulation, public trash and sewer systems, utilities in some cases, fire and police protection, and public health.

Fucking people espouse all these ridiculous ideas from a featherbed.

These ridiculous ideas don't come from a featherbed but from my personal experiences.  

I used to live in a country where I suffered from heavy air pollution, where the trash piled up in the streets, where the sewers were simply emptied into the sea, where I didn't feel safe in the street because the police didn't do their job, and where people died from treatable diseases because public hospitals had 10 years waiting time.

Despite the fact that people are forced to pay 1/3 of their income for those "services", as soon as they can afford to, they get private insurance, send their kids to private school, and move into gated communities that do a much better job of providing security and trash removal.  

A free market doesn't do a perfect job of providing public goods but government does an even worse job.

[BitMagic]

What's wrong with a monopoly if people voluntarily accept it and are happy with its service as opposed to a government monopoly that is forced upon its people?

I don't know where to even start, Atlas. This is the dumbest thing I've seen come out of your mouth. You presume some supreme crap here, that has absolutely no basis in reality. Let me rephrase your question for you: "What's wrong with a monopoly that actively circumvents people so that they have no choice but to accept it's service, as opposed to an organization that can be changed yearly through organization-supported avenues, constitutionally protected collective action, and even violent protest?"

Stop talking and read, dude.

These "scientific" measures only measure isolated sectors; there is no good scientific measure for the utility of the entire economy.

There are plenty. Here's a nice one that's actually used today, and would not be taken into account by a private organization because of it's application to public goods: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life

Btw, the above is the best case.  In practice, governments often consciously enact policies that are scientifically proven to be unfavorable in terms of above measures because they are pandering to the caveman instincts of ignorant voters who have little personal stake in the public good.    

A classic example is the blocking of cheap and highly effective needle exchange programs by right wing politicians, even though needle exchange is scientifically proven to reduce the chance of catching hepatitis and hiv, even for non-drug users.

You do realize that your "caveman voters" are the same people that will be voting with their dollars? The problem with needle exchanges is they butt up against powerful moral objections that exist just as prominently in the private sector. Killing government does not make this go away.
 

These ridiculous ideas don't come from a featherbed but from my personal experiences.  

I used to live in a country where I suffered from heavy air pollution, where the trash piled up in the streets, where the sewers were simply emptied into the sea, where I didn't feel safe in the street because the police didn't do their job, and where people died from treatable diseases because public hospitals had 10 years waiting time.

Despite the fact that people are forced to pay 1/3 of their income for those "services", as soon as they can afford to, they get private insurance, send their kids to private school, and move into gated communities that do a much better job of providing security and trash removal.  

A free market doesn't do a perfect job of providing public goods but government does an even worse job.

Sorry, but only some people paying to avoid sewage in the bay does not provide you protection from cholera the way a publicly run sewer does. This is what I am talking about. Even with individual choice, there are actions taken by the few that can have severe, life-threatening effects on the many. And your privatization does not allow for the protection of the many.

I'm sorry, but this is all I got. Arguing with you folks really is like arguing with a brick wall.

[Rassah]

What's wrong with a monopoly if people voluntarily accept it and are happy with its service as opposed to a government monopoly that is forced upon its people?

I don't know where to even start, Atlas. This is the dumbest thing I've seen come out of your mouth. You presume some supreme crap here, that has absolutely no basis in reality. Let me rephrase your question for you: "What's wrong with a monopoly that actively circumvents people so that they have no choice but to accept it's service, as opposed to an organization that can be changed yearly through organization-supported avenues, constitutionally protected collective action, and even violent protest?"

Organization-supported avenues, collective action, and violent protest sounds exactly like the things that brought down private monopolies of the late 1800s/early 1900s. Why is government the only thing that can be changed by those means? Also, did you forget that modern government is already way more influenced by private enterprise and money than by actual individual voters?

Sorry, but only some people paying to avoid sewage in the bay does not provide you protection from cholera the way a publicly run sewer does. This is what I am talking about. Even with individual choice, there are actions taken by the few that can have severe, life-threatening effects on the many. And your privatization does not allow for the protection of the many.

This is an often made mistake I was making until recently, too. You think through it, but then come to an acceptable conclusion, and stop. You thought through private ownership of sewers, but stopped before thinking the same about the bay. If the bay was privately owned, do you think the owner would allow peoples' sewage to be dumped into it without serious compensation or cleanup?

[Hawker]

...snip...

Why do I get the feeling you have left the facts that don't match your theory out?

I haven't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Letter_Mail_Company

That is a sad story.  However, it doesn't change the fact that most things like waste, health care and crime fighting started off as private and were made government run as the private sector didn't do a good enough job. 

[FredericBastiat]

Sorry, but only some people paying to avoid sewage in the bay does not provide you protection from cholera the way a publicly run sewer does. This is what I am talking about. Even with individual choice, there are actions taken by the few that can have severe, life-threatening effects on the many. And your privatization does not allow for the protection of the many.

I'm sorry, but this is all I got. Arguing with you folks really is like arguing with a brick wall.

The reason why you're arguing with a brick wall is because you're trying to convince us that theft of another person's property is acceptable if it improves a public service. The same logic is employed when taking from the wealthy to give to the impoverished since the poor would have a better life. Wealth distribution is just another colloquialism for theft.

Theft is never justified. The proper construction of law, and the logic and reasoning it exists (prevent theft, injury and enslavement), is the only way to legally deal with others. It is never justified to sacrifice the few for the many, the many for the many, or the many for the few. Never.

Just remind yourself that whenever you try to use law for something other than self defense and restitution, you really are committing a crime. You, your "representative", your "agent", your "government", or your "legislator", makes no difference what you call it, if you use the law for other than the above reason, you are a partner in crime.

Don't conflate lawfulness with whatever can be done with a majority of force, whether you do it personally or with a vote there is no difference (individual vs gang). The ends do not always justify the means.

[Rassah]

...snip...

Why do I get the feeling you have left the facts that don't match your theory out?

I haven't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Letter_Mail_Company

That is a sad story.  However, it doesn't change the fact that most things like waste, health care and crime fighting started off as private and were made government run as the private sector didn't do a good enough job. 

More like an even/equal enough job for the majority. What they say about rising tide raising all boats in economics is true, richer companies making well off people does make things way better for the poorest people too, if only because the new "rich" technology makes the whole world better as a whole. There is plenty of evidence of this, even in things like outsourcing, globalization, and sweatshops. But majority of middle and low income classes out vote the minority whom they are envious of. As a results, our technological and quality of life progress is improving, and more evenly, but at a way slower pace than if that growth had been totally unrestricted. If we had a more libertarian free market society these past two hundred years, you would likely be WAY poorer than the "rich," but would have very likely been living a way more technologically advanced and comfortable lifestyle.
That's my opinion.

[Hawker]

Sorry, but only some people paying to avoid sewage in the bay does not provide you protection from cholera the way a publicly run sewer does. This is what I am talking about. Even with individual choice, there are actions taken by the few that can have severe, life-threatening effects on the many. And your privatization does not allow for the protection of the many.

I'm sorry, but this is all I got. Arguing with you folks really is like arguing with a brick wall.

The reason why you're arguing with a brick wall is because you're trying to convince us that theft of another person's property is acceptable if it improves a public service. The same logic is employed when taking from the wealthy to give to the impoverished since the poor would have a better life. Wealth distribution is just another colloquialism for theft.

Theft is never justified. The proper construction of law, and the logic and reasoning it exists (prevent theft, injury and enslavement), is the only way to legally deal with others. It is never justified to sacrifice the few for the many, the many for the many, or the many for the few. Never.

Just remind yourself that whenever you try to use law for something other than self defense and restitution, you really are committing a crime. You, your "representative", your "agent", your "government", or your "legislator", makes no difference what you call it, if you use the law for other than the above reason, you are a partner in crime.

Don't conflate lawfulness with whatever can be done with a majority of force, whether you do it personally or with a vote there is no difference (individual vs gang). The ends do not always justify the means.

Fred your position is fine if you are happy that the people with money deserve to have it.  What about situations where the people with money only have it because their ancestors conquerored your ancestors, took their lands and your family have lived as sharecroppers since?  Or where the wealth is based on an educated workforce paid for by the taxpayer?

Just because someone owns something doesn't mean they deserve to keep it.  The people who are currently poor may well have a valid claim to that wealth.

[Hawker]

...snip...

Why do I get the feeling you have left the facts that don't match your theory out?

I haven't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Letter_Mail_Company

That is a sad story.  However, it doesn't change the fact that most things like waste, health care and crime fighting started off as private and were made government run as the private sector didn't do a good enough job. 

More like an even/equal enough job for the majority. What they say about rising tide raising all boats in economics is true, richer companies making well off people does make things way better for the poorest people too, if only because the new "rich" technology makes the whole world better as a whole. There is plenty of evidence of this, even in things like outsourcing, globalization, and sweatshops. But majority of middle and low income classes out vote the minority whom they are envious of. As a results, our technological and quality of life progress is improving, and more evenly, but at a way slower pace than if that growth had been totally unrestricted. If we had a more libertarian free market society these past two hundred years, you would likely be WAY poorer than the "rich," but would have very likely been living a way more technologically advanced and comfortable lifestyle.
That's my opinion.

Empirically, that isn't true.  The rich have been getting a bigger percentage for the last 40 years. The poor have seen a real fall in their incomes and in many cases depend on having husband and wife both work in order to pay the bills.

[Rassah]

Empirically, that isn't true.  The rich have been getting a bigger percentage for the last 40 years. The poor have seen a real fall in their incomes and in many cases depend on having husband and wife both work in order to pay the bills.

Incomes have decreased, sure, but compare now to 50 years ago when it comes to things like access to information, movies and music, air conditioning and other house amenities, types of medical treatments, and other varieties of life support and entertainment. Just ten years ago the type of computer and internet speeds I have now would have cost thousands, photographs and music was very expensive and not easily accessible, food was more expensive and limited (Wal Art and H-Mart nearby are nice), and keeping in touch with friends and family was way more difficult and expensive. 60 years ago I likely would have worked at a dirty factory instead of a cushy office. And places like India, Dubai, and Hong Kong, can't even be compared to what they were just 20 years ago.

[RandyFolds]

Libertarianism is escapism.

Escape from thieves.

Libertarianism is escape from thieves, enslavers and murderers.

But the rapists are alright.

Signed,

Ayn Rand

[Rassah]

Libertarianism is escapism.

Escape from thieves.

Libertarianism is escape from thieves, enslavers and murderers.

But the rapists are alright.

Signed,

Ayn Rand

Because an entire philosophy is defined by a single person't actions, right?

All of Christianity is fucked up because:

Raping boys is alright

Signed,

Random Catholic preast

Am I rite? 

[FredericBastiat]

Fred your position is fine if you are happy that the people with money deserve to have it.  What about situations where the people with money only have it because their ancestors conquerored your ancestors, took their lands and your family have lived as sharecroppers since?  Or where the wealth is based on an educated workforce paid for by the taxpayer?

Just because someone owns something doesn't mean they deserve to keep it.  The people who are currently poor may well have a valid claim to that wealth.

You do make an interesting point. The theft/conquering/murder by some of our ancestors does make it difficult for the current property owners. Especially the poorest of them. I'm not sure how you resolve that issue. A good paper trail might be helpful.

[Hawker]

Empirically, that isn't true.  The rich have been getting a bigger percentage for the last 40 years. The poor have seen a real fall in their incomes and in many cases depend on having husband and wife both work in order to pay the bills.

Incomes have decreased, sure, but compare now to 50 years ago when it comes to things like access to information, movies and music, air conditioning and other house amenities, types of medical treatments, and other varieties of life support and entertainment. Just ten years ago the type of computer and internet speeds I have now would have cost thousands, photographs and music was very expensive and not easily accessible, food was more expensive and limited (Wal Art and H-Mart nearby are nice), and keeping in touch with friends and family was way more difficult and expensive. 60 years ago I likely would have worked at a dirty factory instead of a cushy office. And places like India, Dubai, and Hong Kong, can't even be compared to what they were just 20 years ago.

You are linking something that is true (innovation produces a higher standard living for everyone) with something that is false (trickle down economics that the increase in the wealth of the rich actually benefits the poor).

I personally think the poor will continue to get poor because their labour is no longer needed and no amount of political tinkering can change that.  But I don't think it makes sense to argue that helping the rich with bailouts, subsidies and guarantees in some way helps the poor too.  The rich just get richer - there is zero benefit to the poor from that and ironically, the poor help pay the taxes that provide the funds for the bailouts.

[RandyFolds]

Libertarianism is escapism.

Escape from thieves.

Libertarianism is escape from thieves, enslavers and murderers.

But the rapists are alright.

Signed,

Ayn Rand

Because an entire philosophy is defined by a single person't actions, right?

All of Christianity is fucked up because:

Raping boys is alright

Signed,

Random Catholic preast

Am I rite? 

That was just a random surprise-sex/Ayn Rand joke to lighten the mood a bit, but I do agree with your point about Christianity.

[Hawker]

Fred your position is fine if you are happy that the people with money deserve to have it.  What about situations where the people with money only have it because their ancestors conquerored your ancestors, took their lands and your family have lived as sharecroppers since?  Or where the wealth is based on an educated workforce paid for by the taxpayer?

Just because someone owns something doesn't mean they deserve to keep it.  The people who are currently poor may well have a valid claim to that wealth.

You do make an interesting point. The theft/conquering/murder by some of our ancestors does make it difficult for the current property owners. Especially the poorest of them. I'm not sure how you resolve that issue. A good paper trail might be helpful.

Do you not have a newspaper? In the last 40 years, there has been a substantial subsidy of the rich by the rest of society providing an educated workforce, a fine legal system, defended borders and taxpayers picking up the losses if "too big to fail" businesses are run into the ground.  

[FredericBastiat]

Do you not have a newspaper? In the last 40 years, there has been a substantial subsidy of the rich by the rest of society providing an educated workforce, a fine legal system, defended borders and taxpayers picking up the losses if "too big to fail" businesses are run into the ground.  

I fail to see how that relates to my comment. You spoke of conquerors and sharecroppers, not education subsidies, legal system subsidies and business subsidies. I don't exactly see the connection here. Your topic/talking points had to do with how does one deals with the crimes of our ancestors and the accumulation of wealth due to violent expropriation.

Did I miss something?

[chickenado]

You do realize that your "caveman voters" are the same people that will be voting with their dollars? The problem with needle exchanges is they butt up against powerful moral objections that exist just as prominently in the private sector. Killing government does not make this go away.

Dollar voting costs.  Ballot voting is cheap.  This is the key difference.  Even Joe Sixpack is not a fool when it comes to spending his money.  He may not care to research the difference between cholera and hepatitis when he casts his vote on public health policy, but he will probably research the difference between a Sony and an LG when he buys a flat screen TV.

Dollar votes are likely to be more rational and less capricious than ballot votes.

Also, it's amazing how quickly people forget their "moral objections" when a substantial financial gain is involved.

[FredericBastiat]

Dollar voting costs.  Ballot voting is cheap.  This is the key difference.  Even Joe Sixpack is not a fool when it comes to spending his money.  He may not care to research the difference between cholera and hepatitis when he casts his vote on public health policy, but he will probably research the difference between a Sony and an LG when he buys a flat screen TV.

Dollar votes are likely to be more rational and less capricious than ballot votes.

Also, it's amazing how quickly people forget their "moral objections" when a substantial financial gain is involved.

Yeah, that would work a lot better (dollar voting vs. ballot voting). But only with a specific caveat. That the money collected for each candidate, or accumulated to the winning candidate, could only be used on behalf of the voter (no taxation). It couldn't be used to fund plundering activities. To wit, you couldn't fund legislative terrorism. It could only be used for, and on behalf of, those who cast their vote; never to injure or plunder another.

In any case, wouldn't it just be better to just contract for the services in the first place? Then you know exactly what you're getting. I understand the nature of collective forces and organized protection (or other whatnot), so why not start a personal security firm instead? Or an insurance company to spread and diffuse the risk?

[chickenado]

Just because someone owns something doesn't mean they deserve to keep it.  The people who are currently poor may well have a valid claim to that wealth.

Wealth isn't finite.

I presume you are only talking about finite resources, such as land.

In principle, I think that inheritance of finite resources is immoral.

But it's a problem that no political system can resolve.

If you have a system where ownership expires upon death, people will simply transfer ownership to their heirs before they die.  Even if that were prohibited, people would find a roundabout way, like selling the land to an agent who sells it to the heirs for a steeply discounted price.

Another option is a system where land titles are inalienable, ie. where you are assigned a land title at birth and stuck with it for life.  But that creates a whole new set of unfairnesses. How are land titles assigned? Randomly? Alphabetically? Who gets how much land? How is the land valued?  What about people who want to exchange their pieces of land but are prevented from doing so?

[Rassah]

You are linking something that is true (innovation produces a higher standard living for everyone) with something that is false (trickle down economics that the increase in the wealth of the rich actually benefits the poor).

I personally think the poor will continue to get poor because their labour is no longer needed and no amount of political tinkering can change that.  But I don't think it makes sense to argue that helping the rich with bailouts, subsidies and guarantees in some way helps the poor too.  The rich just get richer - there is zero benefit to the poor from that and ironically, the poor help pay the taxes that provide the funds for the bailouts.

You and I are on the same side regarding this part. I am not a fan of the trickle down theory, and I do believe the poor will keep getting poorer relative to the richer. I am also EXTREMELY against things like bailouts, subsidies, and guarantees. Any sort of corporate welfare, really. So you won't see me defend that. But you at least got to admit that those gadgets and luxuries the rich enjoy eventually make their way down to the poor as well (I mean they get cheaper and integrated into everything eventually). For instance, I used to use a GPS system when they were $1,200 and no ones heard of them, but now everyone has them, and google phones have them for free. That's one hell of a luxury right there (yes, I know the government actually pays for the satelites).

[Rassah]

Wealth isn't finite.

I presume you are only talking about finite resources, such as land.

In principle, I think that inheritance of finite resources is immoral.

Bitcoin is a finite resource. Opinion on leaving your heir a USB stick with a few 100k BTC?...

[Hawker]

Do you not have a newspaper? In the last 40 years, there has been a substantial subsidy of the rich by the rest of society providing an educated workforce, a fine legal system, defended borders and taxpayers picking up the losses if "too big to fail" businesses are run into the ground.  

I fail to see how that relates to my comment. You spoke of conquerors and sharecroppers, not education subsidies, legal system subsidies and business subsidies. I don't exactly see the connection here. Your topic/talking points had to do with how does one deals with the crimes of our ancestors and the accumulation of wealth due to violent expropriation.

Did I miss something?

The bank bailout is the modern day equivalent of the Normal Conquest.  A bunch of guys with the right connections got massive amounts of money from the taxpayer.  For example, without the AIG bailout, Warren Buffet would have lost a fortune. 

The point here is that you can't assume just because someone has money they deserve it.  There are situations, for example where a group has been subsidised too much, where taxation is a legitimate response to inequality.  There are others, for example where someone has created a successful business, where it isn't as legitimate.

[Rassah]

But subsidies come from taxation. Are you saying taxation is a self sustaining perpetual need, where new people must be taxed because they were helped by taxation of previous people?

[Hawker]

But subsidies come from taxation. Are you saying taxation is a self sustaining perpetual need, where new people must be taxed because they were helped by taxation of previous people?

No I am saying that there are social needs, for example for defence and health care, and taxation is a valid way to finance them. A progressive taxation system is justified if you can argue that the high earners have benefited from state expenditure.  For example, if the source of wealth is an educated workforce, it makes sense that people relying on that workforce pay a little extra.

Fred says that this is stealing and that there should be no border defence or state education since both are financed by theft.  I'm saying that just because someone has lots of money, that doesn't mean you do them wrong by taxing it.  Without the taxation, they may well be broke as they can't be expected to educate a workforce themselves.

[Rassah]

Regarding education, those that n/ow pay more in taxes to support education will very likely pay for that education directly. Companiez already subsidize education of their employees, and technology companies are giving a lot of money to my university to support the local well educated labor pool. Without taxation their contributions will be higher, and likely more selective.

[Hawker]

Regarding education, those that n/ow pay more in taxes to support education will very likely pay for that education directly. Companiez already subsidize education of their employees, and technology companies are giving a lot of money to my university to support the local well educated labor pool. Without taxation their contributions will be higher, and likely more selective.

You end up with the freeloader problem.  If a company moves into your state and it is profiting from your labourforce, court system, police and roads, there is every reason to require it to pay to maintain these institutions.  Given that the company knows about these costs in advance of setting up, there is no injustice.

[BitMagic]

The reason why you're arguing with a brick wall is because you're trying to convince us that theft of another person's property is acceptable if it improves a public service. The same logic is employed when taking from the wealthy to give to the impoverished since the poor would have a better life. Wealth distribution is just another colloquialism for theft.

Theft is never justified. The proper construction of law, and the logic and reasoning it exists (prevent theft, injury and enslavement), is the only way to legally deal with others. It is never justified to sacrifice the few for the many, the many for the many, or the many for the few. Never.

Just remind yourself that whenever you try to use law for something other than self defense and restitution, you really are committing a crime. You, your "representative", your "agent", your "government", or your "legislator", makes no difference what you call it, if you use the law for other than the above reason, you are a partner in crime.

Don't conflate lawfulness with whatever can be done with a majority of force, whether you do it personally or with a vote there is no difference (individual vs gang). The ends do not always justify the means.

Alright, this discussion is staying civil, and I appreciate that, so I suppose I can set aside my frustration for a bit.

The problem with your "taxes are theft" argument is that you're having trouble with the "tyranny of the majority"-type thinking. You see a limit on choice imposed by the government through threat of violence, which I assume you understand is where taxation legitimacy comes from. And yes, it's absolutely true that this limit on choice exists. It's not smoke and mirrors, and redistribution happens in ways that are sometimes "unfair," in your use of the word.

However, your alternative, to let private organizations operate where once public organizations did, brings a very significant problem: free markets guarantee the opportunity of freedom only in perfectly competitive scenarios where goods can be well-priced, and the degree of competitiveness has an enormous dependency on things like access to wealth. In short, unequal distribution of wealth results in unequal access, and unequal access provides the mechanism for a minority to commit theft. It should be needless to say that the primary incentive of private business is the accumulation of wealth for this very purpose. This is the entire point of anti-trust: monopoly allows the tyranny of the minority to manipulate and steal from the majority through wealth (or resource) control.

It's sad, but you really get two choices: you can have a system that at least purports to operate based on a public, collective mandate, or you can have one that rewards consolidation of decision-making power in to very few hands.

Dollar voting costs.  Ballot voting is cheap.  This is the key difference.  Even Joe Sixpack is not a fool when it comes to spending his money.  He may not care to research the difference between cholera and hepatitis when he casts his vote on public health policy, but he will probably research the difference between a Sony and an LG when he buys a flat screen TV.

Dollar votes are likely to be more rational and less capricious than ballot votes.

Also, it's amazing how quickly people forget their "moral objections" when a substantial financial gain is involved.

No, Joe Sixpack certainly isn't a fool. He'd much rather spend that money on a Sony than cholera research, and I'll be damned if anyone tells me that that Sony does less good than curing cholera.  

I mean seriously, did you even read what you wrote? Your last sentence should tell you why "dollar voting" brings you to the lowest common denominator with difficult-to-price goods (like public health, that are literally necessary for our survival), where everyone buys a coke instead of supporting needle exchanges: replace the word "objections" with "concerns."

[JA37]

Theft is never justified.

Really? Never? You can't think of a single situation where theft could be justified?

[ALPHA.]

Theft is never justified.

Really? Never? You can't think of a single situation where theft could be justified?

Nope. Unless you hate life and believe an organism has no inherent right to sustain.

[BitMagic]

Theft is never justified.

Really? Never? You can't think of a single situation where theft could be justified?

Nope. Unless you hate life and believe an organism has no inherent right to sustain.

You guys are barking up the wrong tree, entirely. The important point is to ask yourself about property rights. Real, economic property rights. Not free market property rights. Not legally defined property rights. The kind of right that specifies ONLY (and I mean only, Atlas) a measurable ability to control a resource, under whatever circumstances.

Thus, in this conception, if you and a friend find a briefcase full of gold in the woods, who owns it? In this example, the one with the bigger machine gun. This is the kind of property right I'm discussing.

When you talk about these issues, the idea of "theft" becomes extremely interesting, and only relatable to modern law; was the appropriation of Native land in the US theft? Was it an efficient (i.e. less wasteful) use of the land by transferring property rights (THROUGH FORCE, ATLAS, NOT LAW) from those who couldn't defend it to those who could? Was it right?

You have to recognize that on some level, people are uncomfortable with this low-level idea of might makes right, because it's violent and power-consolidating, which reduces choice. You have to consider some kind of collective mechanism if you want to move beyond that, and if you do, there's no way to guarantee perfect distribution.

Under many circumstances, private organizations operate under might makes right, through the use of wealth to coerce government monopoly on violence. This is a huge problem, and exactly what successful, effective regulation is supposed to counteract.

Sad that it doesn't work, but without it entirely, it certainly won't work.

[ALPHA.]

Theft is never justified.

Really? Never? You can't think of a single situation where theft could be justified?

Nope. Unless you hate life and believe an organism has no inherent right to sustain.

You guys are barking up the wrong tree, entirely. The important point is to ask yourself about property rights. Real, economic property rights. Not free market property rights. Not legally defined property rights. The kind of right that specifies ONLY (and I mean only, Atlas) a measurable ability to control a resource, under whatever circumstances.

Thus, in this conception, if you and a friend find a briefcase full of gold in the woods, who owns it? In this example, the one with the bigger machine gun. This is the kind of property right I'm discussing.

When you talk about these issues, the idea of "theft" becomes extremely interesting, and only relatable to modern law; was the appropriation of Native land in the US theft? Was it an efficient (i.e. less wasteful) use of the land by transferring property rights (THROUGH FORCE, ATLAS, NOT LAW) from those who couldn't defend it to those who could? Was it right?

You have to recognize that on some level, people are uncomfortable with this low-level idea of might makes right, because it's violent and power-consolidating, which reduces choice. You have to consider some kind of collective mechanism if you want to move beyond that, and if you do, there's no way to guarantee perfect distribution.

Heh, as a nihilist and an admirer of Ragnar Redbeard, I agree with you. So the most powerful whim wins. Gotcha. There is little to argue here. If we bring the argument to nihilism, there is little point. I guess the thread is over.

I mean, fuck, man. Are you just trolling? Wasn't it clear we were trying to justify our moral preferences from the beginning? Of course we know there is no objective meaning or value. We don't need a lesson in that.

[BitMagic]

I mean, fuck man. Are you just trolling?

What? "Since nothing matters, every argument is dead."

Why the hell are you even here? Just cut and paste that quote right there and never type anything else.

We may have gotten off track, but it was an interesting track, and substantive, with the exception of your contributions. Get the hell out of these forums, Atlas. You have nothing to add around here with your crap.

[ALPHA.]

I mean, fuck man. Are you just trolling?

What? "Since nothing matters, every argument is dead."

Why the hell are you even here? Just cut and paste that quote right there and never type anything else.

We may have gotten off track, but it was an interesting track, and substantive, with the exception of your contributions. Get the hell out of these forums, Atlas. You have nothing to add around here with your crap.

http://img.izismile.com/img/img4/20110826/1000/awesome_classic_movie_gifs_02.gif

[JA37]

Theft is never justified.

Really? Never? You can't think of a single situation where theft could be justified?

Nope. Unless you hate life and believe an organism has no inherent right to sustain.

Huh? I'm sure there was a point in there somewhere. Care to elaborate?

[Hawker]

...snip... Of course we know there is no objective meaning or value. We don't need a lesson in that.

Then why do you post?

[ALPHA.]

...snip... Of course we know there is no objective meaning or value. We don't need a lesson in that.

Then why do you post?

For the same reasons I don't commit suicide.

[ALPHA.]

Theft is never justified.

Really? Never? You can't think of a single situation where theft could be justified?

Nope. Unless you hate life and believe an organism has no inherent right to sustain.

Huh? I'm sure there was a point in there somewhere. Care to elaborate?

If an organism has a right to live and sustain, it must be fully entitled to the resources it claims.

[Hawker]

Theft is never justified.

Really? Never? You can't think of a single situation where theft could be justified?

Nope. Unless you hate life and believe an organism has no inherent right to sustain.

Huh? I'm sure there was a point in there somewhere. Care to elaborate?

If an organism has a right to live and sustain, it must be fully entitled to the resources it claims.

I am an organism and I claim Alaska.

Dibs.

[ALPHA.]

Theft is never justified.

Really? Never? You can't think of a single situation where theft could be justified?

Nope. Unless you hate life and believe an organism has no inherent right to sustain.

Huh? I'm sure there was a point in there somewhere. Care to elaborate?

If an organism has a right to live and sustain, it must be fully entitled to the resources it claims.

I am an organism and I claim Alaska.

Dibs.

Tangible and enforceable claims.

[JA37]

Theft is never justified.

Really? Never? You can't think of a single situation where theft could be justified?

Nope. Unless you hate life and believe an organism has no inherent right to sustain.

Huh? I'm sure there was a point in there somewhere. Care to elaborate?

If an organism has a right to live and sustain, it must be fully entitled to the resources it claims.

I'm an organism and I claim everything, known and unknown, seen and unseen. Stop stealing from me.

Hey, if you can be silly then so can I. Most of it is tangible and enforcable, well, since you're all stealing I suppose I should go out and "force" you to stop.

[ALPHA.]

Theft is never justified.

Really? Never? You can't think of a single situation where theft could be justified?

Nope. Unless you hate life and believe an organism has no inherent right to sustain.

Huh? I'm sure there was a point in there somewhere. Care to elaborate?

If an organism has a right to live and sustain, it must be fully entitled to the resources it claims.

I'm an organism and I claim everything, known and unknown, seen and unseen...Most of it is tangible and enforcable.

No, it isn't.

[JA37]

Theft is never justified.

Really? Never? You can't think of a single situation where theft could be justified?

Nope. Unless you hate life and believe an organism has no inherent right to sustain.

Huh? I'm sure there was a point in there somewhere. Care to elaborate?

If an organism has a right to live and sustain, it must be fully entitled to the resources it claims.

I'm an organism and I claim everything, known and unknown, seen and unseen...Most of it is tangible and enforcable.

No, it isn't.

Isn't tangible? Or isn't enforceable?
Well, it's certainly tangible. And enforceable? You're all stealing, and you won't stop. I should just get a BFG and go postal on all of you. Or do you propose that I'm not fully entitled to my claim?

[ALPHA.]

Theft is never justified.

Really? Never? You can't think of a single situation where theft could be justified?

Nope. Unless you hate life and believe an organism has no inherent right to sustain.

Huh? I'm sure there was a point in there somewhere. Care to elaborate?

If an organism has a right to live and sustain, it must be fully entitled to the resources it claims.

I'm an organism and I claim everything, known and unknown, seen and unseen...Most of it is tangible and enforcable.

No, it isn't.

Isn't tangible? Or isn't enforceable?
Well, it's certainly tangible. And enforceable? You're all stealing, and you won't stop. I should just get a BFG and go postal on all of you. Or do you propose that I'm not fully entitled to my claim?

Both.

[JA37]

Theft is never justified.

Really? Never? You can't think of a single situation where theft could be justified?

Nope. Unless you hate life and believe an organism has no inherent right to sustain.

Huh? I'm sure there was a point in there somewhere. Care to elaborate?

If an organism has a right to live and sustain, it must be fully entitled to the resources it claims.

I'm an organism and I claim everything, known and unknown, seen and unseen...Most of it is tangible and enforcable.

No, it isn't.

Isn't tangible? Or isn't enforceable?
Well, it's certainly tangible. And enforceable? You're all stealing, and you won't stop. I should just get a BFG and go postal on all of you. Or do you propose that I'm not fully entitled to my claim?

Both.

Actually there were three questions in there.
I disagree. Explain why "Everything" doesn't include tangible goods. Then the other parts too.

[chickenado]

Wealth isn't finite.

I presume you are only talking about finite resources, such as land.

In principle, I think that inheritance of finite resources is immoral.

Bitcoin is a finite resource. Opinion on leaving your heir a USB stick with a few 100k BTC?...

My opinion:  A true Bitcoiner takes his private keys to his grave.

What I like about Bitcoin is that it already has an archaic type of "social justice" built in:

The only way that you can call your Bitcoins truly yours is to store the password to your encrypted wallet in your head and in your head only.  

Any other storage method is corruptible. Attorneys can be bribed, Bank vaults can be plundered, loved ones can be conned.

So de facto, you can either assume full ownership of your BTC or you can have conditional ownership with the chance of passing them on to your heirs (and various degrees in between).

But you can't get more of one without sacrificing the other.

[BitMagic]

But you can't get more of one without sacrificing the other.

That's amazing! That means that I truly own SO MUCH STUFF BECAUSE I NEVER WRITE DOWN MY PASSWORDS!