@takadi Well put, I agree with you on that. Also Libertarians in my experience understand politics or at least try very hard to understand them much more than Anarchist.
He argues for government enforcement and creation of effective decent environmental protections; can't argue with that. He also argues that government has been subsidizing industry or the wrong industry, and that is also reasonable. I do not think however he has made a point against public ownership. Especially not addressed the advantages of the public maintaining ownership the land the Japanese are leasing as example or measures like Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act in 1994.
He is right about the problems of govt building logging roads & selling trees at below market cost. Ownership does increase short term responsibility. A company will want to ensure its profits are maintained in the near future, but this becomes less certain in terms of decades & completely uncertain in terms of generations. Also, he completely ignores the issue of indigenous ownership of land.
public good = manufacturing = economic progress = greater value than personal proprerty rights = the sin of omission where the government screwed up in the 1800's then was not legally ruling for property rights over manufacturing...and how again does this mess get fixed with free market industries given free riegn?
@FreakishDonQuixote I guess you're dumber than a 3rd grader because you've failed to "rip this 'intellectual argument' apart". I would love to see you try. I need a good laugh.
Well you could have a good government, as well as you can have a good corporation, a good person. The possibility of goodness doesn't equate to competency. The problem is also that the government usually doesn't give a crap about its lands, and unlike a corporation (in theory), when it does a bad job taking care of its land, it can't fail
@takadi why would a corporation give a damn about its property? implying that they MUST consider long-term results? lie. implying that the law is going to be applied, criminally?
In theory, when private property is enforced, property owners have their own personal wealth tied up in the land, goods, etc. Also assuming private property laws are enforced, the wealth used to purchase the property also includes liability costs that include factors from neighboring properties. This in turn increases the cost or potential costs of property, or property damage even more. A person who mistreats his land and property is thus destroying his investment
@takadi in theory, that would work if laws are enforced. tort law is a poor substitute for regulation. Tort law works only ex post, where regulation works ex ante. With torts, the damage must actually occur at least once (and the cause be properly determined; itself a problematic issue) before the disincentive to engage in the tort-causing behavior is effective. Think about this in the context of airplanes or oil spills. Anti-scientific behavior.
@takadi basically, theoretical free market environmentalism and the assumption that all the environmental risks are automatically associated with capital investment and loss are as naive as a total governmental takeover of all environment. nowadays, in Brazil for example (Amazon), private sector invests in preservationist areas surroundings its private owned lands (mines for example), but they do not own these preservationist areas surrounding their property (mines)
True, and that's the problem with tort liability. But you also have to consider that BP had the oil wells leased out to them by the government and was issue a liability cap. If conditions and contracts were negotiated by potential stakeholders (or in this case, victims) in such a land, I don't see how that would be any different than ex post regulations. I don't know much about tort legality, so I'm trying not to assume anything.
I wouldn't say that private property is able to internalize ALL environmental externalities, but investment, especially ownership, is a good deterrent against bad behavior, especially when it comes to things like pollution and resource rationing. You also have to consider that the mindset of people nowadays don't consider "nature" as capital, so these externalized losses won't be realized until people actually have a true desire to protect and preserve them
But good governments don't exist, and if they do, they aren't sustainable. Governments may have the intended purpose of not existing to profit, but human beings do. Every human being on this planet exists to profit
@takadi WHAT?????? Denmark is ranked as one of the least corrupted governments. We're not talking about utopia. We're talking about better places to live. Good government do exist. Perfect governments don't exist.
The problem with America is that they love to consume and waste everything.
Google this: "Fast food from McDonald's is healthiest in Denmark and worst in the United States"
Denmark is also a huge welfare state. Gee...I wonder why Danes live longer than Americans? :-O
I'm pretty sure it needs to be proven that there is a causal relationship between socialism and prosperity/life expectancy. Perhaps my statement about there being no such thing as a good government is a generalization as well, but the existence of government for the sake of the common good's welfare is a conflict of interest
@amazingyou1uber@amazingyou1uber "good government do exist" -- No. Government(or the more accurate term is state) is inherently corrupt and tyrannical. the very fact that is is NOT voluntary should give you that hint. and the very fact that it gives one group of people the legal right to use violence and impose its will against everyone else is why it is and always will be a corrupt institution.
@return135 Humans are inherently corrupt and tyrannical. They seek power. They seek capital. So government is the only institution that can hire violent man power? You never heard of corporations using gun power to stop unions?
A state that promotes capitalism is corrupt. Any country that sees the word "socialism" as a taboo is corrupt state.
Norway's government must be so corrupt that it now ranks #1 on the Human Development Index, right? LOL.
@amazingyou1uber lol you liberals always try to bring up norway as an example of socialism "working" but little do you realize, norway is at the top of the list when it comes to economic freedoms. States always collapse eventually, as they always have throughout history. This is because the state is socialism, and socialism fails because of whats called the "socialist calculation problem". go look that shit up, learn it, and then talk politics with me you nitwit.
Environmentalism is not concerned with human health and wellbeing—neither ours nor that of generations to come. If it were, it would advocate the one social system that ensures that the Earth and its elements are used in the most productive, life-serving manner possible: capitalism.
Walter Block has pretty much given up on Libertarianism, much as I have, and has now made the switch to the Stateless society argument (i.e. Anarchism)
@globbo100 Anarchism is a type of libertarianism. There are many other types as well which is why you should be more specific when addressing libertarianism to prevent confusion. I agree with you though, just wanted to point that out.
@KingLeon1daz Anarchism is a type of Libertarianism? Really? What type would that be? Anarchism merely means the complete absence of government where as Libertarianism has some form of governance albeit a very tiny one. Libertarians enjoy calling themselves Min-archist, and I have no problem with that , as long as it is understood what a min-archist is.
@globbo100There are many types of libertarians just like there are also different types of anarchists. Minarchists are only one type of libertarians. There's anarcho-capitalists, minarchists, marxists, syndicalists and others. I think people forget libertarianism is actually a very broad term. Some libertarians call for a limited government while others are vocal antistatists. Anarchism itself also varies in philosophy, approach & application. I just wanted to point that out to avoid ambiguity.
@KingLeon1daz I go by the book definition of what anarchy and libertarianism is defined as, not by some arcane intellectual argument of what it might be.I do this for the sake of simplicity which is a point you're obviously missing.I stick to my original comment--only because it's factual--Walter Block ,in a radio interview,said he has made the jump from Libertarianism to Anarchy. To which I say: "good for him."
@globbo100 Jacob Heubert in Libertarianism Today "Taken all the way, the libertarian idea means that no government is justified— any government is a criminal enterprise because it is paid for by taxes and people are forced to submit to its authority. Many libertarians (including this author) do go that far. But many others (Ron Paul is one) stop just short of this and are willing to accept a minimal ‘‘night watchman state,’’ as Robert Nozick put it, to provide for defense, police, and courts.
@globbo100 Libertarianism is defined as a philosophical body, where Anarchism is a political perspective. Walter Block is both Libertarian and Anarchist.
@globbo100 Or in other words, Anarchism is a political corollary of Libertarianism. If you accept the general arguments of Libertarian philosophy, then you logically arrive at Anarchism. Walter Block is simply a consistent Libertarian who has followed its implications to the necessary political conclusions. Libertarian minarchists such as Friedman are simply inconsistent.
Every self-described libertarian is a closet anarchist, the only difference is that anarchists live in a dream world isolated by their ivory tower of non-aggression and rational perfection. Libertarians make anarchy a goal but know that it is virtually impossible in modern civilization
@takadi Rational perfection? Are you high? How does rational perfection play into the picture of libertarianism. I'm looking forward to how you explain this (you probably can't).
Sorry I didn't understand your post, it was quite strange and emotionally hysterical. I was simply explaining that anarchism is a goal but not a reality because perfect consistency can't be applied to a world where irrationality rules and pre-emptive appropriation is a dominant strategy and can sometimes even be perceived as pareto efficient (such as taxes where the perceived loss to the individual is considered negligible by the individual)
Also, if you desire a more in depth explanation, just read through the comments and find my past posts. They were from a time where I had way more time on my hands and was much less lazy. Feel free to agree or disagree, but my basic premise is that anarchism resides in the philosophical realm and is espoused by dreamers and idealists
However libertarianism is the political translation of that and is espoused by realists (or at least as close as we can get to realists) who believe it is the best we can get to achieve maximum adherence to the non-aggression principle. It is fallacious to separate libertarianism and anarchy into two conflicting camps, and some extremely ardent anarchists even believe that they are mutually exclusive (can't tell you how many times I've seen libertarianism being called a "statist" ideology)
Are you talking about Walter Block? If you are, he used to be your run of the mill communist (self-professed) in the sixties. I think he had discussions with Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard and that's what made him switch to the "other" side
okey I didn't know that. but what I meant was from when this clip was made till today.. Here he explains that the government has a role to play in environmental issues, but today he favors competing governments? He has become more anarchist or am I mistaken?
yea that's what i meant. Last week there was a speech in my University about global warming and how to regulate the water supply(scary yes). At the end of the speech I went to one of the guys that was a geologist and I asked him to prove global warming is caused by manmade CO2. Guess what, he couldn't.
If you want an absolute proof of something you should ask a priest not a scientist. The manmade hypothesis is merely the most probable, that is why he could not prove it. Science is never certain of anything, unlike priests, lawyers and politicians and this is exactly the reason it can be trusted and they can not.
@signofthehammer Geologists deal with geology (rocks, plate tectonics). If you want to understand how CO2 affects global warming, ask a climatologist or biologist. Its you own fault for not understanding the difference between science branches.
@takadi have you ever even read any scientific literature regarding global warming? Like not newspaper articles but peer reviewed research? Most literature supports antro. greenhouse effect.
@signofthehammer Science is objective and demonstrable meaning your opinion is not needed. If you think your stupid opinion is enough to stand up to 5 decades of research over a half dozen fields of science then you need to publish a book and donate it to peer review since you've obviously figured out what all the worlds smartest people in this field have yet to figure out. Your being kinda selfish keeping such knowledge to yourself oh great one. Evidence or GTFO.
@Stormwern It's not just about global warming. Man-made global warming may be a scam, but even if it's not, an issue like water quality is more important actually. A corporation could be polluting someone's water supply. In this case, the victims should have the right to sue the polluter. That makes perfect sense.
@jmelkis The difference is that polluted water supply is an issue of health and the life of a limited group of people Global warming is an issue of the survival of our species.
This is not about your backyard or your rental property.
When Block made this video, he was working for the Fraser Institute in B. C. Canada. Here, he trying to rationalise the giving of large areas of public land to the logging industry in B. C. If you click on my link to photobucket, you will see the truth;
Non-human entities like logging companies have not taken care of their land. History proves this.
Another free market fundamentalist convinced that all we need to do is privatize everything. He is spending too much time defending his insane theories and not enough time considering what could go wrong.
Consider the difference between a rentor and an owner of a house. Tennants only need to make the next payment and of the place rotts away or is destroyed by their own action/inaction then they suffer no loss.
A home owner will not willingly destroy his own place since they cant simply move on with out facing a huge loss. I used to be very liberal until I became a landlord - I suggest that occupation for all liberals.
Privatizing housing I approve of. Privatizing water I do not. Privatizing some things like air is damned impossible. How do you privatize intangible things like peace? Privatization is intrinsically materialist and I value more than material things.
Air - polution - you have a right to clean air - who put the crap in it is the one culpable. Water - another material thing. Peace, Priceless - and if peoples rights were respected no leader would call for war and if they did no principled person would answer that call - for war is a terrible violation of the right to life liberty and property of many people.
In order to bring such a thing to court you have to prove that it caused you harm. That is a significant burden of proof. If this were so effective, then why is there still pollution?
Love Canal was not only defined but predicted, government still intentionally acted badly.
At the moment it appears that environmental wackos are trying to make me pay Because I breathed/fart/respire...to them I am guilty of creating the toxin Co2.
It is a tax on ones existance.
By the way, who is selling polition credits? For the price of getting re-elected..Hint, It aint their property they are sellin.
What makes CO2 a "toxin" is not the gas in small quantities, but the gas in large quantities. The amount of CO2 you respire is consider part of the natural gas cycle. It is the additional CO2 that was never part of the natural cycle that has the potential to be toxic.
Also study how much carbon evolves into the atmosphere naturally in comparison to man made Co2, and while your at it nail down the nature of 'cause and effect'..and what happens when you have it backwards -- such as the Co2 alarmist.
Do you have any idea what happened at Love canal? I doubt it.
Lol, If its not toxic the amount is irrelivant. Water is not toxic even swimming in it for hours each day for decades did me no ill effect - getting the lungs blocked with water is suffocation and has nothing to do with toxicity.
CO2 is not toxic not matter what sniveling the enviromental wackos say.
CO is toxic and enough will wipe out the red blood cells and kill you.
Try thikning of Blocks arguments as a new tool to protect the evironment - your right to your clean air,land & water,
What I'm trying to say or ask is, if property is theft, and the ideal would for there to be no property and everything belongs to everyone else equally, then do our bodies belong to each other equally? Can liberty exist in that sense?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Territorialism is an animal instinct. Block is using this base instinct to manipulate the lower class voters to vote for a class that will enslave them. What Block proposes is feudalism.
Even if he was arguing that, what is the proof feudalism was worse than modern democracies ? For the lower class, feudalism was somewhat better, but for the leeches in the aristocracy it was bad, since you could only have a bunch of leeches in a monarchy while modern democracies allows for thousands of them! "Great success!"
Territorialism emerged to ensure Tragedy of the commons do not occur. Asserting it is a primal instinct and thus implying it is something to progress away from could be applied to any other instinct like seeking social companionship or love or wanting to care for you children. What exacerbates teh exploitation of the proletariat is the state acting in the interest of the business class. The state is the problem. It shields businesses from the market forces.
rayyf69: You are beginning with a different set of assumptions than I am. In this space I can only begin:The human species is the greatest thing in the known universe.We must have a functioning living system on this earth to supply us with at least food and air.We lived in a tribal way for 150,000years but now must become civilized.The economy is just a mathematical model of the flow of value through our complex societies and is necessary for eficiency.Negativefeedback loops good.
Well if you arbitrarily decide that to become civilized you must eliminate certain behavioral paradigms like territoriality because it subjectively displeases a particular subset of humanity that happens to have leftist leanings, then you create an opportunity for the inverse. For example Ayn Rand esque assualts on egalitarianism.
And didn't we go into what economic efficiency was on the other thread? Economic EF. is immutable, if it does not happen starvation is the outcome. The economy is not a creation of man it's a result of man's action. Seagulls must push hatched eggs 2 M from their nest. Why 2 M ? because anything less attracts predators and helps them find the nest( the inside eggshell is not camoed). Anything more does not enhance fitness(it is an excessive use of resources(calories,time)): Optimality analysis
1The folly of the left is the assumption that to become civilized means to reject the lessons of nature. Nature operated and shaped organisms for immense amount of time. Field tested, and rejected countless systems and strategies. Now we wish to introduce parasitic relationships amongst humans with no exit options? Host parasite relationship becomes far more tipped toward the parasite with no host exit(government), otherwise they move toward mutual ism(market).
2 As an advocate of those in need or those that parasitize (gov) you must realize when non-discretionary power is allotted to them they will exploit their source of resources just like your perceive business to exploit the resource of the earth. Why should the government or the poor not use the rich or hard working like a pristine wilderness or clear air and deplete it? It seems you apply one standard of resource usage to the rich and another to the poor , gov. This does not follow.
In addition, I dont know where you stand on the role of government. But if your operating from the desire to become civilized how is empowering people, via the state, to take other peoples things by force? That my friend is cave-man barbarism. That is force makes right. So your position is inconsistent from my perspective. It seems you wish to cherry pick which primal actions to take. Thus youll pick the ones that suit your political philosophy.
Also i agree that we need clean air , but relying on the state to protect it is removing the pricing of waste disposal from teh market and relying on price fixing which has no fidelity to human action. It is only the whim of politicians or teh businesses that control them that dominates the pricing mechanism. This was Dr. Blocks point, businesses are getting a free pass because of the state's interference. The state creates the incentive to cheat and pollute.
The bottom line in all non-market theories is a hatred of private property, which ultimately means a hatred of individual rights. When you point this out, then the verbal sleight of hand begins, with talk of how individual rights mean nothing when those individuals are starving and exploited or some other nonsense. All of this is a cover to give powers to either the state or to the "people," the latter term meaning any majority-rule mob who could take your shit away.
I love all the freaks and their fringe theories. They hate property rights because they think some evil businessman will buy up all the land just for the hell of it and keep people poor and starving. Nothing close to that has ever happened in a market society. Only about 10 percent of American land is even developed. This theory works only if someone's gain always equals someone else's loss, which it demonstrably does not.
the state is that it protects irrational property rights! For example in Africa large corporations buy over vast swathes of land which they don't even plant merely to ensure that peasants can't work for themselves and must work on whatever terms are given to them, this is grossly immoral and only possible with a state that will enforce these property rights and violate the right to bear arms for self-protection.
Further, it is clear from many examples that companies, corporations and businesses are things and things can't know the difference between right and wrong. The three named things are therefore sociopaths.
Strawmen catch fire quite easily and burnout even faster, which you obviously believe the opposite, and thus I am correct on all counts -- including implied counts.
Now that you guys have finished your polarized discussion of 19th century economic theory I would like to get back onto the topic of the video. Block is talking about the logging industry in B.C. where the logging industry refused to plant a tree until they were forced to by law. If you go to my page and click on the hot link you can see recent logging on private land in B.C. Click on the photos to read captions.
I also gave a submission in a court case dealing with logging on private land.
Haha, propertarians crack me up. They declare it as axiomatic that "the role of government is to protect private property." Well, sure, if that's the kind of government people want (or, rather, that propertarians can manage to install)! Of course, this form of government is not axiomatically "correct" -- it's just the one propertarians want! Sadly for them, there are dissenting views...
One alternative (that I endorse) would be a government limited to enforcing the abolition of propertarianism.
Tell me, where does property go to then? Do you believe people just willingly share their belongings and land? Property either belongs to the government or the individual, and I'm not sure why you would endorse property belonging to a small group in the name of "collectivism"
First, you've apparently bought into the conflation of "personal possessions" with "private property" (one of the right-wing's greatest achievements). They are not the same. See: infoshop [dot] org [slash] faq [slash] secB3 [dot] html (section B.3.1 specifically, though you ought to read it all to get a proper grounding).
Second, ownership of portions of a planet is entirely unjustified and nonsensical on its face.
Third, you presented a false dichotomy then unintentionally corrected yourself.
By small group, I mean the government. Ownership of land is inevitable, it's in human nature to be territorial. Why would you endorse giving those exclusive rights to the government (land always ends up in the hands of the government when "shared" in the name in collectivism"
Human beings are primates. Primates are naturally territorial. It is impossible to have land devoid of ownership. You'd rather have land owned by the government rather than the individual. I don't get what's not to understand without resorting to sarcasm and unexplained fallacy assertions. You do understand communism has never worked right? Unless you support a different system....
I'm aware. I spend half my time here trying to convince creationists of this.
"Primates are naturally territorial."
No, primates, like all life forms, react to circumstance. If circumstances were different, they would behave accordingly.
Anyway that's another one for the creationists. This is about Homo sapiens and their supposed innate hostile territorialism, which you cannot evidence.
"It is impossible to have land devoid of ownership."
All land on Earth was devoid of ownership until a few thousand years ago. All land on all other planets is devoid of ownership even as I type this. Those planets have not yet spun off their axes in protest over their not being owned, to my knowledge.
"You'd rather have land owned by the government rather than the individual."
Land can't be owned. It is nonsensical. I'd rather it be *controlled* by all the unwashed masses that you hate, rather than the handful of economic feudalists you worship.
"I don't get what's not to understand without resorting to sarcasm and unexplained fallacy assertions."
They seem self-explanatory to me, but there's always Google if you don't understand them.
I love how every single one of your arguments works solely on esoteric pedantics . Does the air smell better with your nose sticking up there? I'm sure your many years of locking yourself in your dark ivory tower to add minute adjustments to the definition of communism has been revolutionary to plague of historical revisionism. Damn that right wing conspiracy!
"Why would you endorse giving those exclusive rights to the government"
I haven't. But I might, depending on the nature of the government. Despite the ominous warnings of kooky conspiracists, democratic governments are not autonomous, hostile dragons that must be slain - they are instruments of the people (that's you and me, comrade).
"land always ends up in the hands of the government when "shared" in the name in collectivism"
Another baseless assertion. In fact, land tends to end up in the hands of economic feudalists. This gets confused with "da gubmint" because the US is a corporatocracy.
It seems like you lean towards anarchism. Anarchism ignores the fact that human beings are violent irrational beings and relies on fantasy points. Though I sympathize with your views, anarchism, both capitalist and syndicalist, are impossible. The truth is that land always ends up within in ownership of the group with the biggest and best guns (aka the state), it's up to them to decide what rules to apply on their property
"Though I sympathize with your views, anarchism, both capitalist and syndicalist, are impossible."
I'm sure anarchists will appreciate you saving them the trouble of trying it out for themselves. Perhaps you'd be interested to know that "laissez-faire" is also impossible, and that the Austrian school could be easily mistaken for satire?
I never understood how anarcho communists could postulate that their society could be voluntary. What is one does not want to give up what he is holding in his own hands, are the others going to force him to give it up through force? Direct Democracy? How is that voluntary?
Just to note, I am an anarchist and I do believe that voluntary communes could flourish if they don't force others into their commune. I personally wouldn't join one, but I can see how one could efficiently exist voluntarily.
BDV: You make the mistake of believing that property is not held through force. Have you read Proudhon? Property is theft. It's an attack on my freedom. If you start fencing off my home planet and telling me I can't tread on some portion of it, I'm entirely justified in defending myself against that assault.
As for you condescending to accept communes with the stipulation that they be voluntary: I return the sentiment back to you. I didn't consent to propertarianism - it was imposed from above.
The point you make is an interesting one and isn't as off putting as other justifications for communism that I've heard.
What I would want to know is, do you hold your body through force? If it is not your property, then could I have access to it at my whim? For purely sexual purposes of course.
BDV: You make the mistake of believing that "self-ownership" is something other than dualist claptrap.
I don't own myself -- I am myself.
If you molest me, sexually or otherwise, that's an assault on my entire person, not on some piece of life-support machinery that my brain owns.
As for my approach to communism, it's fairly unique, yes. I begin with the simple premise that I'm an ape on the 3rd stone. When other apes presume to declare themselves demigods with special status, I resist.
My immediate reaction was to refute this claim, but this claim caused me pause. I've never heard a communist take a position of self-interest. I feel as if we differ in opinion, but are very close, or sort sort of like parallel lines right next to each other.
Saying that, I am left to wonder, do I not have sovereignty over my own thoughts and choices? And if I do, are I not a sovereign individual? I feel that I am.
BDV: Sovereignty is one of those words that means whatever the speaker wishes. The 1 constant is that it will mean something dogmatic and absolute. I dislike such words.
You seem worried that I deny your autonomy when I deny self-ownership. Worry not: your autonomy, liberty, & individual expression are what fuel my desire to see you live in a communist society - if you wish to express those things fully, as I do.
Not sure why you take me for an egoist; I'm as concerned for others as for myself
"The truth is that land always ends up within in ownership of the group with the biggest and best guns (aka the state), it's up to them to decide what rules to apply on their property"
You make a lot of claims to "the truth." I wish I had your omniscience.
So in the end, either the state can protect the individual rights of its subjects or protect its own rights. Corporatism which every leftist fears only arises with government collision
"So in the end, either the state can protect the individual rights of its subjects or protect its own rights."
Don't be offended if I don't respond after this. You're clearly not reading my comments, and that makes me sad. Here, I'll quote myself, just this once: "Despite the ominous warnings of kooky conspiracists, democratic governments are not autonomous, hostile dragons that must be slain - they are instruments of the people (that's you and me, comrade)."
Clearly you have a poor lack of understanding of human beings, which is understandable considering that communists and anarchists alike (Same goal, different means, strangely you think they are a different animal because of that) love to theorize about their fantasy land in a social vaccum. Perhaps you should take a course in primate behavior, biology, psychology...the person who mocks creationism and free will is unfortunately the pot that calls the kettle black!
This is just ad hom, so I'll only correct you by saying that my favorite flavor of anarchism is communism (it's on my profile, which you still haven't bothered to read as suggested).
So yes, I'm aware of the similarities. In fact it is you who don't understand that communism is, in the end, anachism. You think it is Stalinism, because you've been thoroughly propagandized by the machine.
Under "anarchism," could an individual start his own business? Let's say he is a good pizza maker. Can he make the pizza and hire people to be servers/cashiers/ etc.?
If no, then it isn't really "anarchism" but some form of controlling mob rule. If yes, then it isn't really "anarchism" but a market.
Also, under anarchism, would an individual be permitted to publish and circulate a book about the virtues of capitalism?
"Also, under anarchism, would an individual be permitted to publish and circulate a book about the virtues of capitalism"
The state is the absence of market. The free market is not a result of the state. Remember the state does not create any wealth of its own it only takes it from others and gives back the leftovers. Taking this into account it is absurd to postulate that the market is an effect of the state.
"Despite the ominous warnings of kooky conspiracists, democratic governments are not autonomous, hostile dragons that must be slain - they are instruments of the people (that's you and me, comrade)."
LOL you keep repeating this to me as if I am incapable of understanding English, and yet you don't realize that you want to use this "instrument of the people" to put property in the hands of the elite in washington instead of the individuals it is trying to serve. HA!
"Corporatism which every leftist fears only arises with government collision"
Indeed, and the "free market" (scare quotes necessary when using propaganda terms) likewise depends on the force of the state (or some other institution) to maintain propertarianism. Despite your fringe beliefs, the "free market" is not the default state of humanity. In fact it was more akin to what Marx called "primitive communism."
Agreed, the "free market" isn't the default state. Unfortunately for you and me, the default state of humanity without a conscious effort towards the opposite is either authoritarianism or hunter-gatherer anarchy (the latter of which you fantasize about but unfortunately will not ever happen in this century).
Strangely enough though, we aren't that different. I do sit on the front porch some days and look out to the sunset, dreaming of the day where land was shared by humanity and there was no more poor, hungry, or tired masses. Sometimes I do drift back to the sleepy innocent days of my leftist, communism-sympathizing past. Then I wake up to the real world and realize it's all fantasy
This guy is in the province of B.C. Canada and he is talking about the logging industry in this province. You can theorise for ever but if you want to see the reality just click on the hot link below the avatar on my u-tube page. Please read the captions.
If we accept that people should be able to sue polluters (a position espoused by Ron Paul during his campaign) - polluters are aggressors against their neighbors, by harming those who use shared resources such as air, land, water, and so forth - then according to the non-aggression axiom, of which Doc Block is a public exponent (as is Ron Paul), one should be able to have a prior injunction against anyone from manufacturing and operating automobiles, to say nothing of lighting a simple fire.
I can say that hunting for ivory may be the commons, but it is motivated by capitalism. Poachers only make their living because the market demands ivory now and there are few ways of making money in the Savanna.
Jackriter: No hunting for ivory is not "capitalism" -- it is a regulated industry and people covet what they are not "supposed" to have. Privatize all the elephants, do not subsidize them, and you will never run out of elephants -- I can't say that some wont be used for Ivory, but I can say that the elephants will never come even close to extinction.
You ever heard of an extinct cow? Walter Block breaks this down quite smoothly.
The cow has also not had any positive evolution because of farming because it hasn't needed to. Elephants are better in the wild endangered than in a cage.
Jackriter: Factory Farming is entirely inefficient if you study it from an energy-input standpoint and from a subsidy standpoint. #1 nearly 100% of everything used on that farm is subsidized (fully or partially) directly or indirectly. #2 the factory farmer is protected from pollution-tort -- this changed in American after the 1840's -- prior to that time the indiividual always won property damages. What changed? Lobbying and Regulatory-Power. Large Agri-Farm-Unions. How? Tenured Politicians
Animal farming is always a misuse of resources (you're talking to a vegan) Primary consumers only metabolize 10% of what is eaten, so for every 10lbs of food given to animals only 1lb is produced, this is not because of subsidies and would still happen without them.
Jack: No it is because of subsidies -- they set the prices of meat below market levels -- below the very costs you just named. And the animals are fed grains (mostly) a nearly 100% subsidized industry. The cost of grain to farmers with zero subsidies might be 10 times the amount they get now.
Enormous water rights must be stolen from one group of people and give to the farmer.
I was trained as an economist -- you'll have to trust me on the Factory Farm Subsidy issue.
Jack: You are kidding here right. Factory Farms are the most heavily subsidized (that's welfare - free money) and the most heavily given regulatory advantages (anti-tort from neighbors); Loan Guarantees (loan forgiveness) --- Large Agri-Farmers are still one of if not the biggest lobby in America.
So, yeah -- it costs the individual less because of the welfare -- but the cost to neighbors, water ways, and American Taxpayers is diplorable.
Jackriter: Umm -- You lack an understanding of what would happen if all public lands were made private. If all public lands are made private then there would be a surplus of land far beyond what could be developed by large construction firms (no subsidies in a truly free-market) the surplus makes for low margins and locks up assets in true income generators. In a free-market the latter is entrepreneurialism. Scarcity drives margins.
Supposedly "public" lands are owned by the state and much is unpermitted for use other than roads and designated parks, even those are subject to the state's laws.
Jack -- I would argue 99% of all pollution happens on subsidized land, gov't leased lands, or public land: Large Agri-Farms, Chemical Waste Dumping (legal or otherwise), Chemical Factorys - etc etc.
There's no way to fix this in the commons -- the "greed" slides towards a small sector represented by "senior" polliticians. The only way to fix it is to get gov't out of all markets.
Central Gov't Only job should be Naval Oversight.
Remember you're talking to an anarchist, no senior politicians here. I don't know about al the subsidies businesses receive from the government that stil pollute. I can vouch for the universal commons however, such as air. Air pollution is something ignored by privitisation and usually ends up worsened.
Jackriter: If you want communal land then you need "management" -- with management comes "lobbying" (groupists are "advantage" seekers - income distribution) and thus "senior" politicians; the latter are whom barter the demands of the worker, wealthy, and consumer -- the consumer being the most ignored and the most taxed.
The only individual is the Consumer - Self-Interest "free choice" - "free-responsibility" is Self-Rule, Self-Rule is Individual-Anarchism.
Jack: Allpeople are "consumers" - regardless. But not all consumers are workers, unionists, welfarists, politicians, or the wealthy: nor is a consumer moral; yet if there is no coercion in him then he is. A consumer in an involuntary society abdicates his free-choice to toward a collectivist frame-work.
A consumer transforms purchases into energy (food, fuel, amusement, knowledge etc) not for resale.
A worker transforms labor-fuel (derived from consumption) into "product-service"
Jackriter: Welfare is a lot more than $14 (try $50) -- there are opportunity costs to society when one person refuses to be productive (plz lets not argue regarding the true un-fortunates); but I've worked in welfare and can tell you 98% (or more) could but refuse to work or even look for work.
The other costs is the mental framework it sets up in the children. The least cost is the direct dollar amount.
We pay out 93% of wages in taxes to cover all gov't waste (zero competitive measures).
Well if you really want my opinion, welfare should be mandatory so that everyone can pay for food at least.
In Connecticut (where I live) welfare is $300 a month (if they don't have children) they do get subsidiesed housing though. $300 is absolute shit to live on and most don't get jobs because they don't want to work *for someone else*. The boredom associated with no money usually leads them to drugs and crime.
Jack: Welfarism and Reservationism have not helped the American Indian -- because there are more costs then just the low-lifestyle. Not just the tax-burden on working America. It is the dispiriting of entire sectors of society.
All societies - poor and middle class are the innovators/entrepreneurs. In a free-society this is the only way to make high profits - to give it to the poor and middle class innovators.
I say that all workers (middle/poor ect) should have a right to what they need, and if they need X amount of things to invent something then they can have it.
I'm German/Irish/Cherokee (by way of rape and pillage)
Jackriter: "rape and pillage" - that sounds horrible. Was it your mother or grandmother who was raped. What nation was she from -- the Tsalagi never call themselves "Cherokee" except to white people. Never to another Nation Person.
If the possibility for regulatory advantages exist for one group of people then all people will form groups -- Who's going to pay for it?
Answer: The people who duck the slowest (the middle class) - they have too many assets to evade and not enough to avoid
You are a little Anarcho-Commuist (pinches cheeks) -- adorable.
Jack: I am not arguing against any form of Anarchism, I'm arguing Involuntary vs Voluntary societies and more specificially I'm arguing for a transitionary 93% Anarchy as a base - from there we can transition toward 100% Anarchy of one form or another.
We live in a 7% Anarchy - Let's transition to a 93% Anarchy. Property theft from the upper 46million (upper 28%) will not work.
Well unless you can get the majority of the populace to beleive in anarcho 93 that isn't exactly going to happen. Anarcho Communists just need influece and a militant faction (though not nessacarily violent)
Jack: I'm learning to hone my arguments -- I'm getting faster at making my points; people do not like complexity.
Also, I'm building a vehicle that will carry this Anarcho-93 Model -- a Society that's truly free will have many benefits beyond just philosophy and socializing.
This is wonderful!
hortulanus94 2 months ago
@takadi Well put, I agree with you on that. Also Libertarians in my experience understand politics or at least try very hard to understand them much more than Anarchist.
BrettDiercks 6 months ago
He argues for government enforcement and creation of effective decent environmental protections; can't argue with that. He also argues that government has been subsidizing industry or the wrong industry, and that is also reasonable. I do not think however he has made a point against public ownership. Especially not addressed the advantages of the public maintaining ownership the land the Japanese are leasing as example or measures like Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act in 1994.
natechomnicorp 8 months ago
He is right about the problems of govt building logging roads & selling trees at below market cost. Ownership does increase short term responsibility. A company will want to ensure its profits are maintained in the near future, but this becomes less certain in terms of decades & completely uncertain in terms of generations. Also, he completely ignores the issue of indigenous ownership of land.
benjamindavidsteele.wordpress. com/2010/09/07/does-poverty-rise-as-biodiversity-falls-pavan-sukhdev/
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
public good = manufacturing = economic progress = greater value than personal proprerty rights = the sin of omission where the government screwed up in the 1800's then was not legally ruling for property rights over manufacturing...and how again does this mess get fixed with free market industries given free riegn?
kittiehart 1 year ago
Rusty cows.
Anon1696 1 year ago
LOL who is dumb enough to believe this crap?
FreakishDonQuixote 1 year ago
FreakishDonQuixote ..you're right... just keep reading your falsified textbooks of econ... and praise how great Paul Krugman is....
cobracarg 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cobracarg hi. You're not very smart.
FreakishDonQuixote 1 year ago
@FreakishDonQuixote People that can actually make an intellectual argument, that's who.
ErikLiberty 1 year ago
@ErikLiberty :) The average 3rd grader could rip this "intellectual argument" apart.
FreakishDonQuixote 1 year ago
@FreakishDonQuixote Ah, I see. A troll.
ErikLiberty 1 year ago
@FreakishDonQuixote If you are so confident, then rip this argument to shreds. It should be a piece of cake since "the average 3rd grader" can do it.
xoy71 1 year ago
@FreakishDonQuixote I guess you're dumber than a 3rd grader because you've failed to "rip this 'intellectual argument' apart". I would love to see you try. I need a good laugh.
PoetsLight 8 months ago
Comment removed
HugNow 1 year ago
@HugNow
Well you could have a good government, as well as you can have a good corporation, a good person. The possibility of goodness doesn't equate to competency. The problem is also that the government usually doesn't give a crap about its lands, and unlike a corporation (in theory), when it does a bad job taking care of its land, it can't fail
takadi 1 year ago
@takadi why would a corporation give a damn about its property? implying that they MUST consider long-term results? lie. implying that the law is going to be applied, criminally?
includao 1 year ago
@includao
In theory, when private property is enforced, property owners have their own personal wealth tied up in the land, goods, etc. Also assuming private property laws are enforced, the wealth used to purchase the property also includes liability costs that include factors from neighboring properties. This in turn increases the cost or potential costs of property, or property damage even more. A person who mistreats his land and property is thus destroying his investment
takadi 1 year ago
@takadi in theory, that would work if laws are enforced. tort law is a poor substitute for regulation. Tort law works only ex post, where regulation works ex ante. With torts, the damage must actually occur at least once (and the cause be properly determined; itself a problematic issue) before the disincentive to engage in the tort-causing behavior is effective. Think about this in the context of airplanes or oil spills. Anti-scientific behavior.
includao 1 year ago
@takadi basically, theoretical free market environmentalism and the assumption that all the environmental risks are automatically associated with capital investment and loss are as naive as a total governmental takeover of all environment. nowadays, in Brazil for example (Amazon), private sector invests in preservationist areas surroundings its private owned lands (mines for example), but they do not own these preservationist areas surrounding their property (mines)
includao 1 year ago
@includao
True, and that's the problem with tort liability. But you also have to consider that BP had the oil wells leased out to them by the government and was issue a liability cap. If conditions and contracts were negotiated by potential stakeholders (or in this case, victims) in such a land, I don't see how that would be any different than ex post regulations. I don't know much about tort legality, so I'm trying not to assume anything.
takadi 1 year ago
I wouldn't say that private property is able to internalize ALL environmental externalities, but investment, especially ownership, is a good deterrent against bad behavior, especially when it comes to things like pollution and resource rationing. You also have to consider that the mindset of people nowadays don't consider "nature" as capital, so these externalized losses won't be realized until people actually have a true desire to protect and preserve them
takadi 1 year ago
@HugNow A good government is nothing like a corporation. It does not exist to profit.
amazingyou1uber 1 year ago
@amazingyou1uber
But good governments don't exist, and if they do, they aren't sustainable. Governments may have the intended purpose of not existing to profit, but human beings do. Every human being on this planet exists to profit
takadi 1 year ago
@takadi WHAT?????? Denmark is ranked as one of the least corrupted governments. We're not talking about utopia. We're talking about better places to live. Good government do exist. Perfect governments don't exist.
The problem with America is that they love to consume and waste everything.
Google this: "Fast food from McDonald's is healthiest in Denmark and worst in the United States"
Denmark is also a huge welfare state. Gee...I wonder why Danes live longer than Americans? :-O
amazingyou1uber 1 year ago
@amazingyou1uber
I'm pretty sure it needs to be proven that there is a causal relationship between socialism and prosperity/life expectancy. Perhaps my statement about there being no such thing as a good government is a generalization as well, but the existence of government for the sake of the common good's welfare is a conflict of interest
takadi 1 year ago
@amazingyou1uber @amazingyou1uber "good government do exist" -- No. Government(or the more accurate term is state) is inherently corrupt and tyrannical. the very fact that is is NOT voluntary should give you that hint. and the very fact that it gives one group of people the legal right to use violence and impose its will against everyone else is why it is and always will be a corrupt institution.
return135 1 year ago
@return135 Humans are inherently corrupt and tyrannical. They seek power. They seek capital. So government is the only institution that can hire violent man power? You never heard of corporations using gun power to stop unions?
A state that promotes capitalism is corrupt. Any country that sees the word "socialism" as a taboo is corrupt state.
Norway's government must be so corrupt that it now ranks #1 on the Human Development Index, right? LOL.
amazingyou1uber 1 year ago
@amazingyou1uber lol you liberals always try to bring up norway as an example of socialism "working" but little do you realize, norway is at the top of the list when it comes to economic freedoms. States always collapse eventually, as they always have throughout history. This is because the state is socialism, and socialism fails because of whats called the "socialist calculation problem". go look that shit up, learn it, and then talk politics with me you nitwit.
return135 1 year ago
Environmentalism is not concerned with human health and wellbeing—neither ours nor that of generations to come. If it were, it would advocate the one social system that ensures that the Earth and its elements are used in the most productive, life-serving manner possible: capitalism.
stater68 1 year ago
Walter Block has pretty much given up on Libertarianism, much as I have, and has now made the switch to the Stateless society argument (i.e. Anarchism)
globbo100 2 years ago 10
@globbo100 Anarchism is a type of libertarianism. There are many other types as well which is why you should be more specific when addressing libertarianism to prevent confusion. I agree with you though, just wanted to point that out.
KingLeon1daz 1 year ago
@KingLeon1daz Anarchism is a type of Libertarianism? Really? What type would that be? Anarchism merely means the complete absence of government where as Libertarianism has some form of governance albeit a very tiny one. Libertarians enjoy calling themselves Min-archist, and I have no problem with that , as long as it is understood what a min-archist is.
globbo100 1 year ago
@globbo100There are many types of libertarians just like there are also different types of anarchists. Minarchists are only one type of libertarians. There's anarcho-capitalists, minarchists, marxists, syndicalists and others. I think people forget libertarianism is actually a very broad term. Some libertarians call for a limited government while others are vocal antistatists. Anarchism itself also varies in philosophy, approach & application. I just wanted to point that out to avoid ambiguity.
KingLeon1daz 1 year ago
@KingLeon1daz I go by the book definition of what anarchy and libertarianism is defined as, not by some arcane intellectual argument of what it might be.I do this for the sake of simplicity which is a point you're obviously missing.I stick to my original comment--only because it's factual--Walter Block ,in a radio interview,said he has made the jump from Libertarianism to Anarchy. To which I say: "good for him."
globbo100 1 year ago
@globbo100 Jacob Heubert in Libertarianism Today "Taken all the way, the libertarian idea means that no government is justified— any government is a criminal enterprise because it is paid for by taxes and people are forced to submit to its authority. Many libertarians (including this author) do go that far. But many others (Ron Paul is one) stop just short of this and are willing to accept a minimal ‘‘night watchman state,’’ as Robert Nozick put it, to provide for defense, police, and courts.
ErikLiberty 1 year ago
@globbo100 Substitution: Libertarianism-->Minarchism
He's a libertarian anarchist.
erwinthehamsandwich 11 months ago
@erwinthehamsandwich
Anarco-Capitalist
AdurianJ 10 months ago
@AdurianJ That's what I meant. He's an anarchist but he's still a libertarian. He didn't stop being a libertarian.
erwinthehamsandwich 10 months ago
@globbo100 Libertarianism is defined as a philosophical body, where Anarchism is a political perspective. Walter Block is both Libertarian and Anarchist.
PoetsLight 8 months ago
@PoetsLight True story.
VforVoluntaryism 8 months ago
@globbo100 Or in other words, Anarchism is a political corollary of Libertarianism. If you accept the general arguments of Libertarian philosophy, then you logically arrive at Anarchism. Walter Block is simply a consistent Libertarian who has followed its implications to the necessary political conclusions. Libertarian minarchists such as Friedman are simply inconsistent.
PoetsLight 8 months ago
@PoetsLight
Every self-described libertarian is a closet anarchist, the only difference is that anarchists live in a dream world isolated by their ivory tower of non-aggression and rational perfection. Libertarians make anarchy a goal but know that it is virtually impossible in modern civilization
takadi 8 months ago
@takadi Rational perfection? Are you high? How does rational perfection play into the picture of libertarianism. I'm looking forward to how you explain this (you probably can't).
PoetsLight 8 months ago
@PoetsLight
Sorry I didn't understand your post, it was quite strange and emotionally hysterical. I was simply explaining that anarchism is a goal but not a reality because perfect consistency can't be applied to a world where irrationality rules and pre-emptive appropriation is a dominant strategy and can sometimes even be perceived as pareto efficient (such as taxes where the perceived loss to the individual is considered negligible by the individual)
takadi 8 months ago
Also, if you desire a more in depth explanation, just read through the comments and find my past posts. They were from a time where I had way more time on my hands and was much less lazy. Feel free to agree or disagree, but my basic premise is that anarchism resides in the philosophical realm and is espoused by dreamers and idealists
takadi 8 months ago
However libertarianism is the political translation of that and is espoused by realists (or at least as close as we can get to realists) who believe it is the best we can get to achieve maximum adherence to the non-aggression principle. It is fallacious to separate libertarianism and anarchy into two conflicting camps, and some extremely ardent anarchists even believe that they are mutually exclusive (can't tell you how many times I've seen libertarianism being called a "statist" ideology)
takadi 8 months ago
@globbo100 You mean after this video? Because this is more of a minarchist argument.
Trimbler00 7 months ago
Comment removed
mattamiller 4 months ago
@globbo100 Anarchism is a form of libertarianism.
breakingthe4thwall 1 month ago
and he must have changed his views dramatically on what the role of government ought to be??
gunnarsom 2 years ago
Are you talking about Walter Block? If you are, he used to be your run of the mill communist (self-professed) in the sixties. I think he had discussions with Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard and that's what made him switch to the "other" side
takadi 2 years ago
okey I didn't know that. but what I meant was from when this clip was made till today.. Here he explains that the government has a role to play in environmental issues, but today he favors competing governments? He has become more anarchist or am I mistaken?
gunnarsom 2 years ago
@takadi That's interesting.
jmelkis 1 year ago
when was this? why can't those who post videos give that information..
gunnarsom 2 years ago
global warming is one of the biggest scams of our century
signofthehammer 2 years ago
I believe global warming exists...I just think anthropogenic global warming is overblown hype and indeed a scam.
takadi 2 years ago
yea that's what i meant. Last week there was a speech in my University about global warming and how to regulate the water supply(scary yes). At the end of the speech I went to one of the guys that was a geologist and I asked him to prove global warming is caused by manmade CO2. Guess what, he couldn't.
signofthehammer 2 years ago
I'm sure you've already heard of the leaked emails...pretty scary
takadi 2 years ago
If you want an absolute proof of something you should ask a priest not a scientist. The manmade hypothesis is merely the most probable, that is why he could not prove it. Science is never certain of anything, unlike priests, lawyers and politicians and this is exactly the reason it can be trusted and they can not.
madscirat 2 years ago
@signofthehammer Geologists deal with geology (rocks, plate tectonics). If you want to understand how CO2 affects global warming, ask a climatologist or biologist. Its you own fault for not understanding the difference between science branches.
spartan2600 1 year ago
@spartan2600 he was talking about global warming and there were climatologists there aswell :), so yea, global warming is a scam.
signofthehammer 1 year ago
@takadi have you ever even read any scientific literature regarding global warming? Like not newspaper articles but peer reviewed research? Most literature supports antro. greenhouse effect.
unhipcrayon1011 1 year ago
@unhipcrayon1011
I never said anthro global warming didn't exist. I said it was overblown hype and a scam
takadi 1 year ago
@signofthehammer Science is objective and demonstrable meaning your opinion is not needed. If you think your stupid opinion is enough to stand up to 5 decades of research over a half dozen fields of science then you need to publish a book and donate it to peer review since you've obviously figured out what all the worlds smartest people in this field have yet to figure out. Your being kinda selfish keeping such knowledge to yourself oh great one. Evidence or GTFO.
CelticAlphabet 2 years ago 4
Private individual suing corporations for global warming, yea, that sounds resonable. /s
Stormwern 2 years ago
@Stormwern It's not just about global warming. Man-made global warming may be a scam, but even if it's not, an issue like water quality is more important actually. A corporation could be polluting someone's water supply. In this case, the victims should have the right to sue the polluter. That makes perfect sense.
jmelkis 1 year ago
@jmelkis The difference is that polluted water supply is an issue of health and the life of a limited group of people Global warming is an issue of the survival of our species.
spartan2600 1 year ago
@spartan2600 Believe it or not, but I don't care....
jmelkis 1 year ago
This is not about your backyard or your rental property.
When Block made this video, he was working for the Fraser Institute in B. C. Canada. Here, he trying to rationalise the giving of large areas of public land to the logging industry in B. C. If you click on my link to photobucket, you will see the truth;
Non-human entities like logging companies have not taken care of their land. History proves this.
bimmjim 2 years ago
Another free market fundamentalist convinced that all we need to do is privatize everything. He is spending too much time defending his insane theories and not enough time considering what could go wrong.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
Consider the difference between a rentor and an owner of a house. Tennants only need to make the next payment and of the place rotts away or is destroyed by their own action/inaction then they suffer no loss.
A home owner will not willingly destroy his own place since they cant simply move on with out facing a huge loss. I used to be very liberal until I became a landlord - I suggest that occupation for all liberals.
Martintfre 2 years ago
Privatizing housing I approve of. Privatizing water I do not. Privatizing some things like air is damned impossible. How do you privatize intangible things like peace? Privatization is intrinsically materialist and I value more than material things.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
Air - polution - you have a right to clean air - who put the crap in it is the one culpable. Water - another material thing. Peace, Priceless - and if peoples rights were respected no leader would call for war and if they did no principled person would answer that call - for war is a terrible violation of the right to life liberty and property of many people.
Martintfre 2 years ago 2
In order to bring such a thing to court you have to prove that it caused you harm. That is a significant burden of proof. If this were so effective, then why is there still pollution?
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
Indeed; why is there still polution?
Define it first.
Love Canal was not only defined but predicted, government still intentionally acted badly.
At the moment it appears that environmental wackos are trying to make me pay Because I breathed/fart/respire...to them I am guilty of creating the toxin Co2.
It is a tax on ones existance.
By the way, who is selling polition credits? For the price of getting re-elected..Hint, It aint their property they are sellin.
Martintfre 2 years ago
What makes CO2 a "toxin" is not the gas in small quantities, but the gas in large quantities. The amount of CO2 you respire is consider part of the natural gas cycle. It is the additional CO2 that was never part of the natural cycle that has the potential to be toxic.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
Co2 a Toxin - Ha. Its plant food. I am far more concerened by the dangers of DiHydrogen Monoxide.
Martintfre 2 years ago
You completely ignored what I wrote and then tried quiz me on high school chemistry. Nice fucking try.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
J0..: You should study high school biology.
Also study how much carbon evolves into the atmosphere naturally in comparison to man made Co2, and while your at it nail down the nature of 'cause and effect'..and what happens when you have it backwards -- such as the Co2 alarmist.
Do you have any idea what happened at Love canal? I doubt it.
Martintfre 2 years ago
It is not the compound but the AMOUNT of the compound that determines it's toxicity. Remember that next time you go swimming.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
Lol, If its not toxic the amount is irrelivant. Water is not toxic even swimming in it for hours each day for decades did me no ill effect - getting the lungs blocked with water is suffocation and has nothing to do with toxicity.
CO2 is not toxic not matter what sniveling the enviromental wackos say.
CO is toxic and enough will wipe out the red blood cells and kill you.
Try thikning of Blocks arguments as a new tool to protect the evironment - your right to your clean air,land & water,
Martintfre 2 years ago
Try google and "carbon dioxide poisoning" and "water poisoning". Both are toxic at high concentrations.
pohjalo 1 year ago
Or when you speak of property, are you only speaking in terms of land?
bulldogvillan 2 years ago
What I'm trying to say or ask is, if property is theft, and the ideal would for there to be no property and everything belongs to everyone else equally, then do our bodies belong to each other equally? Can liberty exist in that sense?
bulldogvillan 2 years ago
what a hottie
goldentomcat 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Territorialism is an animal instinct. Block is using this base instinct to manipulate the lower class voters to vote for a class that will enslave them. What Block proposes is feudalism.
bimmjim 2 years ago
Even if he was arguing that, what is the proof feudalism was worse than modern democracies ? For the lower class, feudalism was somewhat better, but for the leeches in the aristocracy it was bad, since you could only have a bunch of leeches in a monarchy while modern democracies allows for thousands of them! "Great success!"
StrafingMoose 2 years ago 3
Territorialism emerged to ensure Tragedy of the commons do not occur. Asserting it is a primal instinct and thus implying it is something to progress away from could be applied to any other instinct like seeking social companionship or love or wanting to care for you children. What exacerbates teh exploitation of the proletariat is the state acting in the interest of the business class. The state is the problem. It shields businesses from the market forces.
rayyf69 2 years ago 2
rayyf69: You are beginning with a different set of assumptions than I am. In this space I can only begin:The human species is the greatest thing in the known universe.We must have a functioning living system on this earth to supply us with at least food and air.We lived in a tribal way for 150,000years but now must become civilized.The economy is just a mathematical model of the flow of value through our complex societies and is necessary for eficiency.Negativefeedback loops good.
bimmjim 2 years ago
Well if you arbitrarily decide that to become civilized you must eliminate certain behavioral paradigms like territoriality because it subjectively displeases a particular subset of humanity that happens to have leftist leanings, then you create an opportunity for the inverse. For example Ayn Rand esque assualts on egalitarianism.
rayyf69 2 years ago
And didn't we go into what economic efficiency was on the other thread? Economic EF. is immutable, if it does not happen starvation is the outcome. The economy is not a creation of man it's a result of man's action. Seagulls must push hatched eggs 2 M from their nest. Why 2 M ? because anything less attracts predators and helps them find the nest( the inside eggshell is not camoed). Anything more does not enhance fitness(it is an excessive use of resources(calories,time)): Optimality analysis
rayyf69 2 years ago
1The folly of the left is the assumption that to become civilized means to reject the lessons of nature. Nature operated and shaped organisms for immense amount of time. Field tested, and rejected countless systems and strategies. Now we wish to introduce parasitic relationships amongst humans with no exit options? Host parasite relationship becomes far more tipped toward the parasite with no host exit(government), otherwise they move toward mutual ism(market).
rayyf69 2 years ago
2 As an advocate of those in need or those that parasitize (gov) you must realize when non-discretionary power is allotted to them they will exploit their source of resources just like your perceive business to exploit the resource of the earth. Why should the government or the poor not use the rich or hard working like a pristine wilderness or clear air and deplete it? It seems you apply one standard of resource usage to the rich and another to the poor , gov. This does not follow.
rayyf69 2 years ago
In addition, I dont know where you stand on the role of government. But if your operating from the desire to become civilized how is empowering people, via the state, to take other peoples things by force? That my friend is cave-man barbarism. That is force makes right. So your position is inconsistent from my perspective. It seems you wish to cherry pick which primal actions to take. Thus youll pick the ones that suit your political philosophy.
rayyf69 2 years ago
Also i agree that we need clean air , but relying on the state to protect it is removing the pricing of waste disposal from teh market and relying on price fixing which has no fidelity to human action. It is only the whim of politicians or teh businesses that control them that dominates the pricing mechanism. This was Dr. Blocks point, businesses are getting a free pass because of the state's interference. The state creates the incentive to cheat and pollute.
rayyf69 2 years ago 2
where can you get this book? I couldn't find it on Amazon.
milfrie 2 years ago
The bottom line in all non-market theories is a hatred of private property, which ultimately means a hatred of individual rights. When you point this out, then the verbal sleight of hand begins, with talk of how individual rights mean nothing when those individuals are starving and exploited or some other nonsense. All of this is a cover to give powers to either the state or to the "people," the latter term meaning any majority-rule mob who could take your shit away.
bob12285 2 years ago 4
I love all the freaks and their fringe theories. They hate property rights because they think some evil businessman will buy up all the land just for the hell of it and keep people poor and starving. Nothing close to that has ever happened in a market society. Only about 10 percent of American land is even developed. This theory works only if someone's gain always equals someone else's loss, which it demonstrably does not.
bob12285 2 years ago 3
the state is that it protects irrational property rights! For example in Africa large corporations buy over vast swathes of land which they don't even plant merely to ensure that peasants can't work for themselves and must work on whatever terms are given to them, this is grossly immoral and only possible with a state that will enforce these property rights and violate the right to bear arms for self-protection.
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
Search "Love Canal" Study it and learn.
Industries do not take care of it's land.
Further, it is clear from many examples that companies, corporations and businesses are things and things can't know the difference between right and wrong. The three named things are therefore sociopaths.
bimmjim 3 years ago
Strawmen catch fire quite easily and burnout even faster, which you obviously believe the opposite, and thus I am correct on all counts -- including implied counts.
OctoBox 3 years ago
Now that you guys have finished your polarized discussion of 19th century economic theory I would like to get back onto the topic of the video. Block is talking about the logging industry in B.C. where the logging industry refused to plant a tree until they were forced to by law. If you go to my page and click on the hot link you can see recent logging on private land in B.C. Click on the photos to read captions.
I also gave a submission in a court case dealing with logging on private land.
bimmjim 3 years ago
Haha, propertarians crack me up. They declare it as axiomatic that "the role of government is to protect private property." Well, sure, if that's the kind of government people want (or, rather, that propertarians can manage to install)! Of course, this form of government is not axiomatically "correct" -- it's just the one propertarians want! Sadly for them, there are dissenting views...
One alternative (that I endorse) would be a government limited to enforcing the abolition of propertarianism.
vktrsx 3 years ago
Tell me, where does property go to then? Do you believe people just willingly share their belongings and land? Property either belongs to the government or the individual, and I'm not sure why you would endorse property belonging to a small group in the name of "collectivism"
takadi 3 years ago
First, you've apparently bought into the conflation of "personal possessions" with "private property" (one of the right-wing's greatest achievements). They are not the same. See: infoshop [dot] org [slash] faq [slash] secB3 [dot] html (section B.3.1 specifically, though you ought to read it all to get a proper grounding).
Second, ownership of portions of a planet is entirely unjustified and nonsensical on its face.
Third, you presented a false dichotomy then unintentionally corrected yourself.
vktrsx 3 years ago
By small group, I mean the government. Ownership of land is inevitable, it's in human nature to be territorial. Why would you endorse giving those exclusive rights to the government (land always ends up in the hands of the government when "shared" in the name in collectivism"
takadi 3 years ago
"By small group, I mean the government."
Then we're back to the dichotomy, which I reject. I liked your unintentional resolution just fine.
"Ownership of land is inevitable, it's in human nature to be territorial."
I don't know what "human nature" means (and neither do you). There's human behavior, but that is shaped by circumstance.
Regardless, your assertion is still a non sequitur.
vktrsx 3 years ago
Human beings are primates. Primates are naturally territorial. It is impossible to have land devoid of ownership. You'd rather have land owned by the government rather than the individual. I don't get what's not to understand without resorting to sarcasm and unexplained fallacy assertions. You do understand communism has never worked right? Unless you support a different system....
takadi 3 years ago
"Human beings are primates."
I'm aware. I spend half my time here trying to convince creationists of this.
"Primates are naturally territorial."
No, primates, like all life forms, react to circumstance. If circumstances were different, they would behave accordingly.
Anyway that's another one for the creationists. This is about Homo sapiens and their supposed innate hostile territorialism, which you cannot evidence.
vktrsx 3 years ago
"It is impossible to have land devoid of ownership."
All land on Earth was devoid of ownership until a few thousand years ago. All land on all other planets is devoid of ownership even as I type this. Those planets have not yet spun off their axes in protest over their not being owned, to my knowledge.
vktrsx 3 years ago
"You'd rather have land owned by the government rather than the individual."
Land can't be owned. It is nonsensical. I'd rather it be *controlled* by all the unwashed masses that you hate, rather than the handful of economic feudalists you worship.
"I don't get what's not to understand without resorting to sarcasm and unexplained fallacy assertions."
They seem self-explanatory to me, but there's always Google if you don't understand them.
vktrsx 3 years ago
"... without resorting to sarcasm and unexplained fallacy assertions."
Example
"I now understand that you haven't got a clue what the word means."
"Perhaps you'd be interested to know that laissez-faire" is also impossible, and that the Austrian school could be easily mistaken for satire"
"I'd rather it be *controlled* by all the unwashed masses that you hate, rather than the handful of economic feudalists you worship."
Oh man, you should look up what "strawman" means also, it's great!
takadi 3 years ago
"You do understand communism has never worked right?"
I understand it's never been tried, and I now understand that you haven't got a clue what the word means.
"Unless you support a different system...."
I support communism, but not what you think that means.
vktrsx 3 years ago
I love how every single one of your arguments works solely on esoteric pedantics . Does the air smell better with your nose sticking up there? I'm sure your many years of locking yourself in your dark ivory tower to add minute adjustments to the definition of communism has been revolutionary to plague of historical revisionism. Damn that right wing conspiracy!
takadi 3 years ago
"Why would you endorse giving those exclusive rights to the government"
I haven't. But I might, depending on the nature of the government. Despite the ominous warnings of kooky conspiracists, democratic governments are not autonomous, hostile dragons that must be slain - they are instruments of the people (that's you and me, comrade).
vktrsx 3 years ago
"land always ends up in the hands of the government when "shared" in the name in collectivism"
Another baseless assertion. In fact, land tends to end up in the hands of economic feudalists. This gets confused with "da gubmint" because the US is a corporatocracy.
Did you read the link yet?
vktrsx 3 years ago
It seems like you lean towards anarchism. Anarchism ignores the fact that human beings are violent irrational beings and relies on fantasy points. Though I sympathize with your views, anarchism, both capitalist and syndicalist, are impossible. The truth is that land always ends up within in ownership of the group with the biggest and best guns (aka the state), it's up to them to decide what rules to apply on their property
takadi 3 years ago
"It seems like you lean towards anarchism."
I lean towards it, but I don't go all the way. There's a blurb about this on my profile.
"Anarchism ignores the fact that human beings are violent irrational beings and relies on fantasy points."
This goes back to the "human nature" myth. And assertions do not rise to fact.
vktrsx 3 years ago
"Though I sympathize with your views, anarchism, both capitalist and syndicalist, are impossible."
I'm sure anarchists will appreciate you saving them the trouble of trying it out for themselves. Perhaps you'd be interested to know that "laissez-faire" is also impossible, and that the Austrian school could be easily mistaken for satire?
vktrsx 3 years ago
I never understood how anarcho communists could postulate that their society could be voluntary. What is one does not want to give up what he is holding in his own hands, are the others going to force him to give it up through force? Direct Democracy? How is that voluntary?
Just to note, I am an anarchist and I do believe that voluntary communes could flourish if they don't force others into their commune. I personally wouldn't join one, but I can see how one could efficiently exist voluntarily.
bulldogvillan 2 years ago
BDV: You make the mistake of believing that property is not held through force. Have you read Proudhon? Property is theft. It's an attack on my freedom. If you start fencing off my home planet and telling me I can't tread on some portion of it, I'm entirely justified in defending myself against that assault.
As for you condescending to accept communes with the stipulation that they be voluntary: I return the sentiment back to you. I didn't consent to propertarianism - it was imposed from above.
vktrsx 2 years ago
The point you make is an interesting one and isn't as off putting as other justifications for communism that I've heard.
What I would want to know is, do you hold your body through force? If it is not your property, then could I have access to it at my whim? For purely sexual purposes of course.
bulldogvillan 2 years ago
BDV: You make the mistake of believing that "self-ownership" is something other than dualist claptrap.
I don't own myself -- I am myself.
If you molest me, sexually or otherwise, that's an assault on my entire person, not on some piece of life-support machinery that my brain owns.
As for my approach to communism, it's fairly unique, yes. I begin with the simple premise that I'm an ape on the 3rd stone. When other apes presume to declare themselves demigods with special status, I resist.
vktrsx 2 years ago
My immediate reaction was to refute this claim, but this claim caused me pause. I've never heard a communist take a position of self-interest. I feel as if we differ in opinion, but are very close, or sort sort of like parallel lines right next to each other.
Saying that, I am left to wonder, do I not have sovereignty over my own thoughts and choices? And if I do, are I not a sovereign individual? I feel that I am.
bulldogvillan 2 years ago
BDV: Sovereignty is one of those words that means whatever the speaker wishes. The 1 constant is that it will mean something dogmatic and absolute. I dislike such words.
You seem worried that I deny your autonomy when I deny self-ownership. Worry not: your autonomy, liberty, & individual expression are what fuel my desire to see you live in a communist society - if you wish to express those things fully, as I do.
Not sure why you take me for an egoist; I'm as concerned for others as for myself
vktrsx 2 years ago
"The truth is that land always ends up within in ownership of the group with the biggest and best guns (aka the state), it's up to them to decide what rules to apply on their property"
You make a lot of claims to "the truth." I wish I had your omniscience.
vktrsx 3 years ago
"I wish I had your omniscience. "
Unfortunately you have much work to do!
takadi 3 years ago
So in the end, either the state can protect the individual rights of its subjects or protect its own rights. Corporatism which every leftist fears only arises with government collision
takadi 3 years ago
"So in the end, either the state can protect the individual rights of its subjects or protect its own rights."
Don't be offended if I don't respond after this. You're clearly not reading my comments, and that makes me sad. Here, I'll quote myself, just this once: "Despite the ominous warnings of kooky conspiracists, democratic governments are not autonomous, hostile dragons that must be slain - they are instruments of the people (that's you and me, comrade)."
vktrsx 3 years ago
Clearly you have a poor lack of understanding of human beings, which is understandable considering that communists and anarchists alike (Same goal, different means, strangely you think they are a different animal because of that) love to theorize about their fantasy land in a social vaccum. Perhaps you should take a course in primate behavior, biology, psychology...the person who mocks creationism and free will is unfortunately the pot that calls the kettle black!
takadi 3 years ago
This is just ad hom, so I'll only correct you by saying that my favorite flavor of anarchism is communism (it's on my profile, which you still haven't bothered to read as suggested).
So yes, I'm aware of the similarities. In fact it is you who don't understand that communism is, in the end, anachism. You think it is Stalinism, because you've been thoroughly propagandized by the machine.
vktrsx 3 years ago
Under "anarchism," could an individual start his own business? Let's say he is a good pizza maker. Can he make the pizza and hire people to be servers/cashiers/ etc.?
If no, then it isn't really "anarchism" but some form of controlling mob rule. If yes, then it isn't really "anarchism" but a market.
Also, under anarchism, would an individual be permitted to publish and circulate a book about the virtues of capitalism?
bob12285 2 years ago
Bob: Under anarchism, by definition, there would be no state to "permit" (or forbid) anything -- nor to protect capital.
vktrsx 2 years ago 9
"Also, under anarchism, would an individual be permitted to publish and circulate a book about the virtues of capitalism"
The state is the absence of market. The free market is not a result of the state. Remember the state does not create any wealth of its own it only takes it from others and gives back the leftovers. Taking this into account it is absurd to postulate that the market is an effect of the state.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
"Despite the ominous warnings of kooky conspiracists, democratic governments are not autonomous, hostile dragons that must be slain - they are instruments of the people (that's you and me, comrade)."
LOL you keep repeating this to me as if I am incapable of understanding English, and yet you don't realize that you want to use this "instrument of the people" to put property in the hands of the elite in washington instead of the individuals it is trying to serve. HA!
takadi 3 years ago
Nonsense. I want the exact opposite: I want to prevent the elites from denying it to the common people.
I believe I've been over this with you (may have been some other idiot): this is a matter of who we percieve as the elite.
The elites are those propertarian feudalists on the right who you idolize.
vktrsx 3 years ago
"Corporatism which every leftist fears only arises with government collision"
Indeed, and the "free market" (scare quotes necessary when using propaganda terms) likewise depends on the force of the state (or some other institution) to maintain propertarianism. Despite your fringe beliefs, the "free market" is not the default state of humanity. In fact it was more akin to what Marx called "primitive communism."
vktrsx 3 years ago
Agreed, the "free market" isn't the default state. Unfortunately for you and me, the default state of humanity without a conscious effort towards the opposite is either authoritarianism or hunter-gatherer anarchy (the latter of which you fantasize about but unfortunately will not ever happen in this century).
takadi 3 years ago
Strangely enough though, we aren't that different. I do sit on the front porch some days and look out to the sunset, dreaming of the day where land was shared by humanity and there was no more poor, hungry, or tired masses. Sometimes I do drift back to the sleepy innocent days of my leftist, communism-sympathizing past. Then I wake up to the real world and realize it's all fantasy
takadi 3 years ago
No, you wake up and realize that if you can't beat the economic feudalists, you may as well join them.
The difference is, I still believe they can be beaten.
vktrsx 3 years ago
This guy is in the province of B.C. Canada and he is talking about the logging industry in this province. You can theorise for ever but if you want to see the reality just click on the hot link below the avatar on my u-tube page. Please read the captions.
bimmjim 3 years ago
If we accept that people should be able to sue polluters (a position espoused by Ron Paul during his campaign) - polluters are aggressors against their neighbors, by harming those who use shared resources such as air, land, water, and so forth - then according to the non-aggression axiom, of which Doc Block is a public exponent (as is Ron Paul), one should be able to have a prior injunction against anyone from manufacturing and operating automobiles, to say nothing of lighting a simple fire.
shaktazuki 3 years ago
I can say that hunting for ivory may be the commons, but it is motivated by capitalism. Poachers only make their living because the market demands ivory now and there are few ways of making money in the Savanna.
jackriter 3 years ago
Jackriter: No hunting for ivory is not "capitalism" -- it is a regulated industry and people covet what they are not "supposed" to have. Privatize all the elephants, do not subsidize them, and you will never run out of elephants -- I can't say that some wont be used for Ivory, but I can say that the elephants will never come even close to extinction.
You ever heard of an extinct cow? Walter Block breaks this down quite smoothly.
GoGoOcto 3 years ago
The cow has also not had any positive evolution because of farming because it hasn't needed to. Elephants are better in the wild endangered than in a cage.
jackriter 3 years ago
Jack: Cows are subsidized (conventionally). Caged Animal Farming -- Factory farming is exeedingly subsidized by comparison. Tranquilizers - Antibiotics - Growth Hormones.
Elephants are not better off endangered than they would be privatized and free-range on privately protected lands.
Just look what Ducks Unlimited did for Ducks and wetlands -- Privatized Land Management.
When people pay 100% (zero subsidies) they take 100% care of their possessions.
GoGoOcto 3 years ago
So you think that if subsidies were removed than factory farming would stop?
jackriter 3 years ago
Jackriter: Factory Farming is entirely inefficient if you study it from an energy-input standpoint and from a subsidy standpoint. #1 nearly 100% of everything used on that farm is subsidized (fully or partially) directly or indirectly. #2 the factory farmer is protected from pollution-tort -- this changed in American after the 1840's -- prior to that time the indiividual always won property damages. What changed? Lobbying and Regulatory-Power. Large Agri-Farm-Unions. How? Tenured Politicians
GoGoOcto 3 years ago
Animal farming is always a misuse of resources (you're talking to a vegan) Primary consumers only metabolize 10% of what is eaten, so for every 10lbs of food given to animals only 1lb is produced, this is not because of subsidies and would still happen without them.
jackriter 3 years ago
Jack: No it is because of subsidies -- they set the prices of meat below market levels -- below the very costs you just named. And the animals are fed grains (mostly) a nearly 100% subsidized industry. The cost of grain to farmers with zero subsidies might be 10 times the amount they get now.
Enormous water rights must be stolen from one group of people and give to the farmer.
I was trained as an economist -- you'll have to trust me on the Factory Farm Subsidy issue.
GoGoOcto 3 years ago
Factory farms are less expensive than normal animal farms because they take less land and the animals take less care.
jackriter 3 years ago
Jack: You are kidding here right. Factory Farms are the most heavily subsidized (that's welfare - free money) and the most heavily given regulatory advantages (anti-tort from neighbors); Loan Guarantees (loan forgiveness) --- Large Agri-Farmers are still one of if not the biggest lobby in America.
So, yeah -- it costs the individual less because of the welfare -- but the cost to neighbors, water ways, and American Taxpayers is diplorable.
OctoBox 3 years ago
Jackriter: Umm -- You lack an understanding of what would happen if all public lands were made private. If all public lands are made private then there would be a surplus of land far beyond what could be developed by large construction firms (no subsidies in a truly free-market) the surplus makes for low margins and locks up assets in true income generators. In a free-market the latter is entrepreneurialism. Scarcity drives margins.
GoGoOcto 3 years ago
Supposedly "public" lands are owned by the state and much is unpermitted for use other than roads and designated parks, even those are subject to the state's laws.
jackriter 3 years ago
Jackriter (wrote): "supposedly 'public' lands..."
Jack -- I would argue 99% of all pollution happens on subsidized land, gov't leased lands, or public land: Large Agri-Farms, Chemical Waste Dumping (legal or otherwise), Chemical Factorys - etc etc.
There's no way to fix this in the commons -- the "greed" slides towards a small sector represented by "senior" polliticians. The only way to fix it is to get gov't out of all markets.
Central Gov't Only job should be Naval Oversight.
GoGoOcto 3 years ago
Remember you're talking to an anarchist, no senior politicians here. I don't know about al the subsidies businesses receive from the government that stil pollute. I can vouch for the universal commons however, such as air. Air pollution is something ignored by privitisation and usually ends up worsened.
jackriter 3 years ago
Jackriter: If you want communal land then you need "management" -- with management comes "lobbying" (groupists are "advantage" seekers - income distribution) and thus "senior" politicians; the latter are whom barter the demands of the worker, wealthy, and consumer -- the consumer being the most ignored and the most taxed.
The only individual is the Consumer - Self-Interest "free choice" - "free-responsibility" is Self-Rule, Self-Rule is Individual-Anarchism.
GoGoOcto 3 years ago
You do not, and stop using "groupists".
Workers are consumers.
Ignore the whole sales thing too, I'm an anarcho communist, pointing out the way the market workds doesn't convince me.
jackriter 3 years ago
Jack: Allpeople are "consumers" - regardless. But not all consumers are workers, unionists, welfarists, politicians, or the wealthy: nor is a consumer moral; yet if there is no coercion in him then he is. A consumer in an involuntary society abdicates his free-choice to toward a collectivist frame-work.
A consumer transforms purchases into energy (food, fuel, amusement, knowledge etc) not for resale.
A worker transforms labor-fuel (derived from consumption) into "product-service"
GoGoOcto 3 years ago
What makes unionists bad(unless you're talking about union buerocrats)? Welfare is $14 a day, don't complain unless you can live on it.
jackriter 3 years ago
Jackriter: Welfare is a lot more than $14 (try $50) -- there are opportunity costs to society when one person refuses to be productive (plz lets not argue regarding the true un-fortunates); but I've worked in welfare and can tell you 98% (or more) could but refuse to work or even look for work.
The other costs is the mental framework it sets up in the children. The least cost is the direct dollar amount.
We pay out 93% of wages in taxes to cover all gov't waste (zero competitive measures).
GoGoOcto 3 years ago
Well if you really want my opinion, welfare should be mandatory so that everyone can pay for food at least.
In Connecticut (where I live) welfare is $300 a month (if they don't have children) they do get subsidiesed housing though. $300 is absolute shit to live on and most don't get jobs because they don't want to work *for someone else*. The boredom associated with no money usually leads them to drugs and crime.
jackriter 3 years ago
Jack: Welfarism and Reservationism have not helped the American Indian -- because there are more costs then just the low-lifestyle. Not just the tax-burden on working America. It is the dispiriting of entire sectors of society.
All societies - poor and middle class are the innovators/entrepreneurs. In a free-society this is the only way to make high profits - to give it to the poor and middle class innovators.
Welfare strips creative faculty bare.
I'm black-indian-irish (by way of cuba)
OctoBox 3 years ago
I say that all workers (middle/poor ect) should have a right to what they need, and if they need X amount of things to invent something then they can have it.
I'm German/Irish/Cherokee (by way of rape and pillage)
jackriter 3 years ago
Jackriter: "rape and pillage" - that sounds horrible. Was it your mother or grandmother who was raped. What nation was she from -- the Tsalagi never call themselves "Cherokee" except to white people. Never to another Nation Person.
If the possibility for regulatory advantages exist for one group of people then all people will form groups -- Who's going to pay for it?
Answer: The people who duck the slowest (the middle class) - they have too many assets to evade and not enough to avoid
OctoBox 3 years ago
Remember I'm an anarcho communist, so take out classes and regulations.
It was a joke, My great grandmother ws Cherokee but I was refering to the whole manifest destiny era.
jackriter 3 years ago
Jack: "manifest destiny era" gotcha *wink*
You are a little Anarcho-Commuist (pinches cheeks) -- adorable.
Jack: I am not arguing against any form of Anarchism, I'm arguing Involuntary vs Voluntary societies and more specificially I'm arguing for a transitionary 93% Anarchy as a base - from there we can transition toward 100% Anarchy of one form or another.
We live in a 7% Anarchy - Let's transition to a 93% Anarchy. Property theft from the upper 46million (upper 28%) will not work.
GoGoOcto 3 years ago
Well unless you can get the majority of the populace to beleive in anarcho 93 that isn't exactly going to happen. Anarcho Communists just need influece and a militant faction (though not nessacarily violent)
jackriter 3 years ago
Jack: I'm learning to hone my arguments -- I'm getting faster at making my points; people do not like complexity.
Also, I'm building a vehicle that will carry this Anarcho-93 Model -- a Society that's truly free will have many benefits beyond just philosophy and socializing.
Octo
GoGoOcto 3 years ago