what's wrong with economics

[littlebabyjesus]

You either don't understand my points or are trying to rile me up. You are not forced in any shape or form to work. You are simply given options and working for a wage is one of them. You have a choice.

This is true. I could just nick stuff from you instead.

 

[phildwyer]

You either don't understand my points or are trying to rile me up. You are not forced in any shape or form to work. You are simply given options and working for a wage is one of them. You have a choice.

For the vast majority of people in a capitalist system, the only choice is to work for a wage or starve. That isn't a choice.

 

[7000Miles]

It's neither a universal nor a natural right. On what basis do you claim it as such?

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

 

[Louis MacNeice]

You either don't understand my points or are trying to rile me up. You are not forced in any shape or form to work. You are simply given options and working for a wage is one of them. You have a choice.

Please just go and read the 'money trick' and stop being such an ignorant misanthrope.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[littlebabyjesus]

We do not need money.

How do I know?

Because we do not have money. Money does not exist. If you think it does, show me some.

Not got the energy for that one. But briefly:

Money is a representation of an obligation between parties - a quantification of a debt (and yes, of course, that involves quantifying the value of goods, work, etc). But this representation has its utility - it is in many ways a good trick, allowing the transfer of obligation across society: the simple 'A mends B's roof today, then B fixes C's teeth next week, then C fixes A's plumbing the week after'. The whole process is one of debt taking out and debt repayment as obligations shift. Money allows the transfer of obligation across time and space.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

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

Quoting Wikipedia to prove the existence of a natural/universal right...wow!

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[ViolentPanda]

If I take a header off a bridge, would you do it too?

I'd tell you that I would, to encourage your own header, then renege after you'd turned your head into human hamburger.

 

[7000Miles]

This is true. I could just nick stuff from you instead.

Good luck with that.

For the vast majority of people in a capitalist system, the only choice is to work for a wage or starve. That isn't a choice.

Trying to rile me up? ok

Please just go and read the 'money trick' and stop being such an ignorant misanthrope.

I have. It seems more like an argument against central banks and organisations like the federal reserve if anything.

 

[7000Miles]

Quoting Wikipedia to prove the existence of a natural/universal right...wow!

"I can't think of an argument so I'll just attack the source instead. Perfect"

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Good luck with that.

Oh, I'm quite sneaky. And determined when I'm hungry.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

"I can't think of an argument so I'll just attack the source instead. Perfect"

It's not the source I'm attacking...it's your silly belief (and I pick that word quite deliberately) in it's ability to prove your point that I'm finding risible.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[littlebabyjesus]

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

Ah the myth of the Terra Nullus.

One more and I've got a Full House.

 

[phildwyer]

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

That is legalized theft. No more, no less.

 

[phildwyer]

Trying to rile me up? ok

Not at all. What I say is obviously true, and acknowledged as such even by Hayek, Rand and your other sources. In fact I'll say it again:

For the vast majority of people in a capitalist system, the only choice is to work for a wage or starve. That isn't a choice.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

I have [read the money trick]. It seems more like an argument against central banks and organisations like the federal reserve if anything.

Wrong 'money trick'...try again.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[8ball]

That is legalized theft. No more, no less.

Calling it theft implies pre-existing ownership.

 

[7000Miles]

That is legalized theft. No more, no less.

So building or creating something on the land using your own labor, and therefore owning it, is theft?

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

This is true. I could just nick stuff from you instead.

I'm sure those private guards he's employed will be quite happy to risk their lives for him, all for minimum wage.....

 

[Jeff Robinson]

How is private property in itself involuntary? The term "involuntary relationship" means that a relationship where both parties do not consent is not valid. A person entering private land is committing trespass. One person is not consenting to a persons right of property, so a crime is committed. Thats it.

You're just begging the question here. Trespass and property rights are mere legal constructs, just like tax. Saying that trespassing on somebody's property is a crime (its actually usually only a civil offence btw) tells us no more than me pointing out that tax evasion is also a criminal offence - so what? Tax is by definition involuntary - there are penalties for not paying it. Private property is also by definition involuntary - there are penalties for the non-property owner appropriating it. You need a non-question begging reason for defending private property but not taxation that doesn't rest upon involuntarism.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I'd tell you that I would, to encourage your own header, then renege after you'd turned your head into human hamburger.

Now we have a better understanding of your character.

 

[phildwyer]

So building or creating something on the land using your own labor, and therefore owning it, is theft?

Since there were people on the land before you, yes. Obviously.

Homesteading doesn't claim to prove an absolute right to private property anyway.

 

[8ball]

I know what you are trying to say, but no. Private property is a right, and a person attempting to destroy or trespass is committing a crime.

I think you need to think in more depth about what property is and what rights are.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

I think you need to think in more depth about what property is and what rights are.

He's certainly lacking an education in politics and economics. Or, read too much Ayn Rand.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Calling it theft implies pre-existing ownership.

Or pre-existing common ownership/usage...unsurprisingly claiming/stealing land from it's long term inhabitants would be ok for homesteaders (and wold fit with the misanthropic worldview).

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Since there were people on the land before you, yes. Obviously.

There appears to be a collective amnesia in some quarters over this point.

 

[8ball]

You're just begging the question here. Trespass and property rights are mere legal constructs, just like tax. Saying that trespassing on somebody's property is a crime (its actually usually only a civil offence btw) tells us no more than me pointing out that tax evasion is also a criminal offence - so what? Tax is by definition involuntary - there are penalties for not paying it. Private property is also by definition involuntary - there are penalties for the non-property owner appropriating it. You need a non-question begging reason for defending private property but not taxation that doesn't rest upon involuntarism.

If you start from an axiom of unquestionable rights that exist free of any social context then it sort of works up to a point. It gets absurd quite quickly, though.

 

[phildwyer]

Not got the energy for that one. But briefly:

Money is a representation of an obligation between parties - a quantification of a debt (and yes, of course, that involves quantifying the value of goods, work, etc). But this representation has its utility - it is in many ways a good trick, allowing the transfer of obligation across society: the simple 'A mends B's roof today, then B fixes C's teeth next week, then C fixes A's plumbing the week after'. The whole process is one of debt taking out and debt repayment as obligations shift. Money allows the transfer of obligation across time and space.

Nothing you say here proves either money's necessity or its existence. Try again?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

If you start from an axiom of unquestionable rights that exist free of any social context then it sort of works up to a point. It gets absurd quite quickly, though.

Nah, it starts absurd.

 

[8ball]

Or pre-existing common ownership/usage...unsurprisingly claiming/stealing land from it's long term inhabitants would be ok for homesteaders (and wold fit with the misanthropic worldview).

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

Indeed. Though in the case of this model I think the pre-existing populace doesn't really count as human, and so such complicating factors are neatly avoided.

 

[phildwyer]

Calling it theft implies pre-existing ownership.

No flies on you eh?