Democracy by it's very nature is majority rule, however this does not make it a moral system of governance, especially if an individual's life is subject to force by the whim of society
@DavidsIllustrations hi I don't know anyone who voluntarily pays their rent, they do it because if they don't they will have nowhere to live. Arguably someone who owns a house another pays to upkeep is a state charging taxation.
Force is the coercive intervention upon your life, faculties and earnings.
It is theft, pillaging and tyranny. It is force because it is the obstruction of your life by taking away what is an extension of your human nature.
You pay your rent because the house your renting is more appealing than living on the street- this IS a voluntary choice.The house is way valuable than the money used to pay for it. just think of all the facilities & the security.
@DavidsIllustrations you pay rent because if you don't you will be violently thrown out of your place of residence, in a market-only economy the street would be privately owned so chance are you would not be allowed to sleep on the street, so you would be kicked off of that too, infact, unless someone was kind enough to let you camp out on some land they "own" you would have no choices that didn't involve violently coercing you to pay or beat it.
If you DO NOT pay your rent - YOU are acquiring BY FORCE a good provided by another individual. you will be ejected from the property by force IN RETALIATION your initiation of force - the theft.
and as for charity for homeless - i have personal experience of working with homelessness charities WHICH ARE PRIVATELY RUN AND FUNDED - where on earth do you think charity comes from - it has to be earned before it can be donated.
@RevolutionaryJam I cant quite make sense of the second part of your post - but I will state that the trade between private individuals is not taxation. you pay value for value. there is no theft or force involved. The item may be of such a great value that you consider it a vital 'need', but that doesn't mean its suddenly okay for you to force others to give it to you on pleas of tears. you have to exchange value for value as that is a recognition to whom brought this value into existence
There is no moral monopoly attributed to the group, society , collective, heard, gang... Morality applies to the individual only as all of these terms
@nero8289 thanks for taking the time to comment! I look forwards to your feedback then! It's good to consider something carefully before leaping to a conclusion so I respect that!
1) no one is PAYING for that "stupid shit" but (2) they STILL want that "stupid shit" that you're talking about it, it's part of the area that they live in... so what is going to happen is it's going to be wasted because some developers bought some land and are going to build high rise flats DESPITE the wishes of the people who live there and what the majority want
and thats acceptable in what you're calling a "free socitey"
In a "completely free market" the zen garden and nice little bootshops would be there because they were owned by the people that wanted them. having no control over whether something you wanted was there or not worked out fine for you when it was there, and you're only griping about it when it's about to be gone. nice tactic.
What you can do is put a huge canopy over the park and charge people an entrance fee. While they're at it they can put the canopy over the entire city and charge for sunlight as well.
All sarcasm aside, I think it would be best if people got together collectively to purchase these lands in a spirit of cooperation.
It's true that it would be the ideal, but considering how few hands the wealth in concentrated compared to the number of people it wouldn't always be possible when the corporate interest is richer than the community...
What is more it seems a shame for people to have to pay to buy what should already be theirs to share.
I think you may be confusing the terms capitalism and free market. Capitalism is solely about making money any way possible. The free market is a concept of volunteerism and free association. I can contribute to the elderly being taken care of without the government stealing my money. I do it now thru and organization called Angel's Depot. All less fortunate can be taken care of this way there are more than enough resources to do so but theft, extortion, and violence is the wrong way (cont.)
to go about it. Capitalism is inherently statist because the forced monopoly of the state is needed to maintain their wealth. The free market Is about more than just money. It's about the free association of people. One thing you seem to allude to is the idea that the rich in a free society have more "rights" than the poor. This isn't true. In order for the rich to stay rich in a free society you have to give them your money usually in exchange of goods or services. That means the poor (cont.)
As far as the apartment buildings are concerned you can influence someone not to build without aggression and forcing at gun point not to build. That is anti-social just the opposite of what I believe you are trying to accomplish. You could petition the land owner not to build. If he insists on building you can threaten with boycotts and picketing. An apartment building is not profitable at all if noone will live there. So there are ways to influence people without government violence.
Zen gardens and parks absolutely have a place within a free market. If a community wishes to have a park they can voluntarily contribute to a fund that could be used to maintain that park. Because it's being maintained by the community no one person would have ownership over it and thus couldn't start charging for it's use or decide to build factories instead. At the same time it would not be maintained by violent theft of property as the current statist program does.
Here's my solution. The people are using the park more than that local developer guy so the people should own it first. If things get ineffcient, the public can either privatize or socialize the park (give the upkeepers themselves ownership of the park) under the condition that they do not attempt to commercialize the park. I do not believe the mere privatization of government owned property is genuinely free market.
Hey Jam, your very right about this, public places as we know them would be practically nonexistent. The libertarians response is very Ayn Randian, in that the rich will only provide this service if it amuses them, since every act is a selfish one for them. But its more likely that the rich will make parks for their own pleasure and not allow anyone else to access them (just like we see in The Fountainhead with Gail Wynand).
Question: what is your fascination with democracy? What is it about this (how to put this in words) way of deciding how to organize resources that makes absense of democracy such a worrying scencario? In my mind, democracy is either the good old boys bribing the local politicians into passing regulation that prevents/hampers competition/further enslaves the population or two wolfs and a sheep deciding what's for dinner with neither definition being desirable to me.
Even in you example, where it's clear the monster wants to commit the unforgivable act of using his own property to make a profit, what do you want to happen? Do you want your group to have the power to forbid the owner to peacefully use his own property as he sees fit without contract or other forms of argeement? In which case, do you also want your city to be able put people into cages for such unneighborly things as coloring their house in an unfashionable color?
Personally I find the current possible scenario of greedy capitalist pig using his property in a way that his peers don't like to be a far better option than what you're seem to be in favor of.
OWN property? says who is it his OWN property? I have nothing against someone using their own property in any way they desire as long as they are considerate of others. I don't blow smoke in a child's face even if I am at a public bus stop, nor would I do it in my flat.
I would say putting people in a cage is unneighbourly so I wouldn't advocate it. In some areas abroad all the houses are white or another color, and they do pass public policy to ensure the aesthetic of the area is kept.
(local) democracy can sometimes the way in which the majority organises to ensure that the society they live in is ran according to their general will rather than that of the economic elite.
What is your fascination of a lack of it where the more money you have the more democracy you can buy since the more demand that you can buy, is that not merely another way of engineering society to your will?
To answer your question, I don't have a problem with deciding things by vote in all cases, thus my clarification in my last post. I do believe that are cases were deciding by majority vote is vaild. For a video game example, I find no problem with a "tier list" being created by the general opinion of several top players as suppose to just one.
My problem with majority rule comes in when it is used to justify actions that would be immoral for one person to do, such as killing not white people on other arbitrary plots of land, throwing people into cages for volating arbitrary demands set up by random people in funny custumes, and etc.
That said, I believe that if you buy something it is your property. If the capitalist pig used the gov't to obtain the property, then that is a different matter entirely. in your example, you seem to equate harassing someone (blowing smoke in one's face) with arranging one's property in ways that the majority don't like. The former is a violation of one's property (the child's face) thus I do not support, while the latter is well within one's rights provided they are not violating contracts.
Sounds like you, and some of the people in your community have a demand for things like zen gardens, so I'm not sure why you wouldn't see how zen gardens wouldn't be profitable, clearly it's bringing business to your lane there. The zen garden doesn't make money in a strict sense, but neither does the ketchup packets at the hamburger stand, hopefully you can see the parallel here, and why it's overall a benefit to provide people with what they wish.
Trees and similar are profitable and it's because of people who think like you do. If you want social change, towards more "green" type businesses [or whatever your preference is] then there are ways to be involved with social change to increase demand for these things [and of course money is made by satisfying demand.] Some of us just want things that the other people don't, and we just can't impose it on other people, you can call that undemocratic if you wish.
of course if being green is expensive it's far more profitable for a business to maintain the appearance of looking green than to actually make the encessary cahnges.
the point it people don't think they should have to PAY for things like gardens and parks, they want them to be open and free to anyone to use. Just because putting a hamburger stand in the zen garden might make some money doesn't mean people want their little garden commercialised. It seems to me that pure market turns everything into a dollar sign.
"people don't think they should have to PAY for things like gardens and parks"
I think this comes from the statist mentality. One lifts burden off of their own shoulders, and places it on the state. I argue this has devastating consequences, and that the state can not handle things as well as the people could in the first place.
But I think you really missed the point of my comment, I wasn't talking about direct payment for any use of parks or gardens, but that's obviously a possibility.
The fact that most people spend their lives working for profit [in the monetary sense] is not changed in a democratic or republic system of governance. The only difference is now, is that people are able to peruse those dollar signs with violent or coercive means, limiting the freedom of others. Everything is already a dollar sign.
"more profitable for a business to maintain the appearance"
This is only the case if people are demanding a change in appearances, rather then actual change. Currently, consumers can be so apathetic due to the fact that they believe [I would argue, falsely] that there is a government working invisibly in the background making sure everything is on the up and up, with all the 'i's dotted and the 't's crossed.
I'd much rather be accountable to a single health inspector [or any kind of inspector] then be scrutinized by my entire consumer base. Hell, it's actually possible to bribe an inspector, not so much for your customers.
Also, in a free society, some communities may have many of the same concerns as you, and formulate small democracies of sorts. This is not incompatible with statelessness or minimal government libertarianism as long as it's based on actual consent and voluntarism.
I don't see anything wrong with people not wanting to pay for them, at one point you could go for a walk in the forest any time you wanted without having to pay, most people feel the idea is abhorrent and it's not as a consequence of the state, it's quite a natural inclination, remember most of the first anarchists were socialists who didn't believe in a state being the authority that intervenes in the emergence of property rights.
Nice, a society where the rich charge the poor to see nature.
Parks and gardens require money. You can pay thru something with taxation, or you can pay thru direct payment, where you vote with your dollars, and you actually make the decisions where your own money goes. Currently parks are not "free." So to say that they're free now but not free in a stateless/libertarian society is just not true. Point is, if people actually control where their money goes, their money will go to what they enjoy the most.
"Nice, a society where the rich charge the poor to see nature."
Honestly, I have no clue where you're getting this from. Most of what I've been talking about hasn't even been direct payment for parks/gardens. It's been indirect payment [EX: the tea shop that has a beautiful garden to drink tea in and the tea costs another 5c per cup to pay for it and people get to choose (!!) if they care more about nice gardens or saving 5c.]
no, it will go where the people with more of it enjoy most.
Parks do NOT cost money, it may cost money to get a gardener but if it was owned in the local community people would organise something to pay those kind of things or take turns at keeping it, that would not make a turnover so would not be preferable by market forces
"it will go where the people with more of it enjoy most."
Disney land exists mostly because of 50k per year and lower income families. While it's true that people with a lot of money have a lot of sway, that does not discount others. Also, if the accumulation of wealth in hands of few people is something that bothers you, I would argue that the state's existence and involvement in the market is the single biggest enabler of accumulated and consolidated wealth.
Aye, a group of people make a park. Obviously they don't have to pay for it with money, but rather labor and resources. But that's all money is suppose to represent in the first place. As long as it's consensual, I think you'll find most of the people you're talking to are all for it.
"that would not make a turnover so would not be preferable by market forces "
I'm not sure what you mean by this. I'd donate money to a local park. As long as someone owns it, and its upkeep, and they make it open to the public then it's a "free" park. I could see you working a lot with these kind of things in a free society. Maybe you could even make speeches about how it increases mental health of the local community to encourage people to create and support "free" parks. :3
Democracy is 2 wolves & a sheep voting on breakfast. It's tyranny of the majority. You can do whatever you want in a truly free society. You don't even have to respect property. The catch is that your behavior would have consequences. Treat people & their stuff badly & your reputation will follow you around like a bad credit score. No one will want to do business with you. The free market doesn't oblige one to make money. It is merely a matrix wherein free exchanges can occur. No more, no less.
perhaps perhaps not but quite patronising dude. You need to provide a philosophical justification for having a state first, I've not found one yet thats why I can't support a state, i can't think of anything that we couldn't do better running things in the local community than by a centralised authority with the monopoly of force. Also show me a benign state please, I haven't seen one yet.
without socialism they die without dignity. no dignity for them means no dignity for you!
fighting against corporatism is a form of socialism. to be a socialist is to accept the fact that you are part of a society and to committ yourself to doing everything you can to impove upon that society. the easiest way being by way of democratic ballot votes on policy not politicians. voting. protesting. signing petitions..socialism
I want to live in a world where everyone who is unable to support themselves is taken care of as well, but I still feel it would be taken care of much more effecatiously on the local level where people could sign on to a local "National Insurance" tax (thats what we call our welfare tax in the UK, National Insurance)
if one agency was doing a bad job you could switch to one that was doing it right. We also need people who are willing to volunteer a few hours a week to help!
you do that by fighting for a democratic process that gives you the power to vote your conscience.
until we start voting and passing our own laws as citizens there will never be any amount of change within the states of the world that amounts to anything.
Hey Ant, I didn't know you live in Glasgow; it's gorgeous there. My mom traveled there a couple of years ago and brought back some great pics, but I haven't been yet.
Anyway, I have to agree with the free marketeers on this one. If you want a Zen garden without neighbors, you're going to have to buy 1,000 acres.
Yes I bought it and loved it very much it was compelling for a former leftist to hear such a positive message coming from the right
I worry about art in a free market, and I mostly mean music, most conservatories and orchestras are in the receipt of public funding most people are not interested in learning about this music so somtimes I think it's ok to steal from everybody to pay for it although I haven't learned to enjoy all of it yet some is truly wonderful to experience
Hey thats realy cool man. I love Glasgow, sometimes I want to get out and try other places but I really enjoy living here most of the time I like the environment I think I'd be scared to leave in a way x and maybe you're right maybe if people really want parks they should be prepared to pay for them
we worry that so few people have most of the wealth
As for the park; its too bad that the city didn't have the foresight to buy the adjacent land and turn it into a park, before the real estate developer invested his money into his apartment project. I'm sorry the serenity of your zen garden will be ruined, but if nothing else, it will be a good learning experience for you on how local government, and the so-called free market, works (and I dont mean to seem condescending, I truly believe things like this help prepare us for future challenges
"Ireland's economic freedom score is 82.2, making its economy the 4th freest in the 2009 Index. Its score decreased by 0.3 point from last year, reflecting modest declines in fiscal freedom and labor freedom. Ireland is ranked 1st out of 43 countries in the Europe region, and its overall score is well above the world average."
Ireland rejected the Lisbon Treaty because they want autonomy, so would have the UK and many other countries if they had had a referendum on it. See, Democracy doesn't always get it wrong ;-)
if all anarcho-capitalists can be labeled hedonist, is the laissez-faireist regulating individuals personal habits? - sounds like a simple statist to me.
I will post a video comment on this later against my better judgment, but for now let me make clear I am NOT a conservative dirt bag, nor am i a hedonist juvenile "Market Anarchist" or "Anarcho-Capitalist". These latter two are the most disgusting trash who are simply looking for a philosophy to justify their depraved value structure. I to make it clear am a Liassez-fair Capitalist (redundant). My question to our Socialist friend here is where do you want the apt. to be built?
Without a doubt the modularization of America has made things really boring. We have boring houses in a row, boring malls, shopping centers and boring places to eat, with of course boring food. I believe the Bigness of big business wreaks free markets, so there should be limits on who big a company can get and Tariffs on out of state companies. Local businesses should have the advantage over out of state business. I believe in Localism to the point of being almost tribal.
that describes my ideal world as well, all local businesses and everything produced as locally as possible, it's just hard to see how you could create such a society without imposing some sort of authoritarian controls such as "the bigger the business the bigger the tax" and "the further the product travels the bigger the tax" that would work to localise all business and production and be good for the ecology... the key question is: what gives the state the right?
"Local businesses should have the advantage over out of state business." In a true free market this is the case. In America we have an interstate system that is subsidized by the gvmt this subsidizes larger, "out of state" companies by making it cheaper to transport their goods. gvmt also subsidizes larger companies because they have to money to lobby the legislators. This also couldn't happen in a free market. So small business would be on more equal footing with large and local would be (cont)
at an advantage over "out of state" companies because of less transportation costs. I used "out of state" for a lack of better term since in a truly free market there would be no state to be out of. The bottom line: A free market is not a perfect system it is no system at all. Naturally there are pluses and minuses to that but for me it comes down to freedom and mutual respect. Government is naturally and inherently anti-freedom and disrespectful (read as slavery)
When you were still trying to make sure we knew you weren't trying to offend us at 1:10 it kinda started to grate on me. No offense of course. =P That said I am going to apologize for the length of this and for restating any points already made.
Some people do worship the market. I'm not one of them. So I really don't know how to respond to that other than my over all point, no system is perfect. Any time I hear a person use the word Utopia in conjunction with the way they think things (cont.)
oughta be my eyes just kind of glaze over, even if I support the same views. Capitalism is particularly destructive to the arts I find. Just look at some of the garbage in cinema that is intensely popular. The market LOVED the Transformers films. I am not fond of them, obviously. Though on that same page, what would prevent these atrocities from becoming popular in a non-capitalist system? And are good movies not popular? District 9 was very good, and while not making as much as the previously
mentioned piles of dog shit is still making money. My problem here is less with the capitalist system and more with the fact that people are uncultured retards, which can happen to any society.
Sadly I've never understood the 'these eye sores shouldn't be around' idea people have, so the apartments next to your zen garden is really... just tough. There is nothing in a non-free market system that could prevent them from being constructed either. In a communist system if the state wants to (cont
construct apartments next to your garden there still would be little you can do about it. If they wanted to put them ONTOP of your garden they could. But if you have property rights that can be prevented. The most recent example I can think of is a man whose house was run down. Pretty shoddy. Possibley a danger to him, but he still lived in it. It was an 'eye sore' with broken windows, rotted wood, so on and so forth. His neighbors complained to the city about it devaluing their property values,
so the city demolished it against his wishes. Now he's homeless. But hey, so long as your house is worth a few thousand more dollars who cares about his property rights, right? No offense, but isn't that the system you are advocating? Instead of saying which system is perfect lets way which is more destructive to people's lives? Which is worse? Some apartments blocking your view or some one's home being demolished? You are saying it is your view... again, no offense. But that's assholish to me
"What's the point in having a Zen Garden anyway?" - What's the point in having a basket ball court? You don't make money from it either (though both might increase the value of the property they are on). But its nice to have. Property rights and free market principals are not necessarily hand in hand. I feel I should point out something here. There are two kinds of people that pray at the alter of capitalism. Those who follow it because they believe this Ayn Rand style life philosophy of (cont)
survival of the fittest and those who do so because they appreciate the freedom inherent to it and dislike or distrust government to handle it. I am of the later. So my views usually aren't dependent on how something might profit or benefit me. If I want to give something to some one, or even the public, free of charge that is my right in a capitalistic society. The Rand-tards can call me an idiot for doing so but by their own guide lines it is my property- I'll do with it as I please.
So. Privately owned park. Fuck the factory. Though on the note of the factory, if the state thought that it would benefit the common wealth they could, again, take my property to build it.
Also I am sure some one here brought up environmental issues. How does individual and property rights NOT help the environment? I never understood this. If some one builds a factory near a residential neighborhood and the air pollutants seep over onto their -property- and make them ill how do they not have
a case against them? And yes, actually doing harm to property is different from devaluing it with things that don't directly effect its physical properties.
lol I do always think that if someone gets offended it's their fault, the point was I wanted it to be a good humoured debate rather than a slagging match where everyone called everyone else retarded, and if you look at the comments you'll find I succeeded in that. Everyone has been very respectful of everyone else and I appreciate that.
Last but not least, I don't agree with putting the philosophical concept of Libertarianism on the right. Left and Right agree that there should be government control; they only differ on what that control should be for. Libertarians are opposed to both.
And just to further add, I do like the UK and hope to visit again next year.
to answer your question, the fact that they don't support ANY public ownership or social security puts them further on the right than conservatives in my book.
do you understand, or want to reject, the idea that THE MARKET is just a term used to describe all human action. it does not exist without people. considering the fact that the world changes and people are diverse and there is scarcity, necessarily markets exists. if people and things did not change there would be no market. can't you understand that it is people working (the market) that actually produces social security? the market is a social manifestation. the state is anti-social.
dude. this guy has completely got your number, you sound exactly like this satire:
watch?v=lu0cQbnO8M4
Disclaimer note: I DO NOT approve of the tone of this video, I believe in sharing opinions openly and philosophically wherever possible to increas mutual understanding, not slagging off people with different opinions that you, however, his points are consistent with my observations so far.
to answer your question, THE MARKET ,..... IS NOT a term used to describe all human action, in that case it would include the formation of government wouldn't it?? We can't have a debate if you redifine the term Market to suit your own argument friend it doesn't work that way
the market is the aggregate exchange between buyers and sellers is it not?
How does the market create social security? Market only caters to demand (of those who can afford to pay for it)
no, because gov't is a monopoly. and it does not arise through mutual exchange, but by mere declaration and force. that is completely anti-market. why not just have gov't rule everything. by your definition we can call that a free market can't we?
perhaps we would create private social security companies in a free market but I don't know if the unemployed would be able to pay for them and as they are the ones who would NEED the social security it's kinda like asking foxes to look after hens, is it not?
I think what thisisbunk is trying to say is the market is a term describing all human action. The FREE market is a term describing that human action devoid of aggression (also known as voluntary association and free exchange). So government is apart of markets in this world but not of a free market since government is a monopoly backed by violent aggression (or forced association). BTW private social security does exist even in this world of governments. Its called retirement funds.
I don't blindly worship the Market, either. To paraphrase Winston Churchil, captialist democracy is the worst system....except for all those other systems that habe been tried.
I'm a Yank, as you no doubt guessed. Here in this country, despite having less government control over the economy than you guys do (so far!), we still have plenty of the private parks etc that you mention. I wonder if the problem you describe has less to do with economics than with population density.
It's not clear, from your post, wether these developers are building their big clunky complexes around the lane, thus hurting it's aesthetics and driving the local clientelle away; or actually *own* thsi land are going to destroy the buisnesses and zen garden on the lane and replace them with said developments. In the former case, they should continue the protests they already have; in the latter case, who fell asleep at the wheel and let the developers buy the land from them?
Well, I dunno what attracted your attention to me, I grew tired of political debates some time ago. But since you asked...I don't see how "market prinicples" as you call them equate to wanting to tear down private enterprise (the shops) or aesthetic beauty (the zen garden). Last I checked, even the rich (of which I am not one) enjoyed having some beauty around them.
(Continuued in another post where I actually talk about the Lane)
Oh Ant, your gift has truely grown and is shining more than ever. Objective Property? Hummm. Did you say private park or private part?
And is there a "zero tolerance flu" going around.
This remarkable and thought provoking invitatation to open our minds has me once again spell bound and in a reflective mood. I will be back to comment when I gather my thoughts. As always Dear, thanks for making me think! Love it Luna
Look at this from the other side: if you have a right to tell them they cannot build apartments because you want to keep the restaurants and shops, and ambiance you're grown attached to, do they have the right to tell you that you *must* continue eating and shopping there so that your free market choices don't affect their ability to stay in business?
em I don't think so really you're comparing stopping someone from undergoing a particular action to compelling someone to take particular actions (whether they have the means to do it or not)
interesting thoughts but I don't think it's a very sound analogy
There's a huge gap between what most people is the free market and what it actually is. Even the most revered proponents of free markets advocated some decidedly anti-free-market ideas (Milton Friedman, for example). My advice to you is to try and find out what it is, I mean, if you are serious about getting an answer to your question. I would start with the writings of Murray Rothbard, and maybe Frederic Bastiat.
And no, countries with heavily statist economies don't all fail 'cause the less statist countries are mean and won't trade with them. Hell, half the time they're propped up by aid coming from these less statist countries. The most successful countries tend to have received relatively little foreign aid (which tends toward government-to-government grants or loans), while interfering relatively little in their economies. There aren't any true free markets, of course, but these countries are freer.
lol no not 'cause the less statist countries are mean and won't trade with them.' cause they fund terrorist groups to take them out of commission and hire the thugs (World Bank, IMF, etc.) to extort fuck out of them
Cuba, Angola, Mozambiq, Ethiopia, Iraq, Portugal, South Yemen, Nicaragua, Cambodia, East Hymore and Western Sahara to state some examples of socialist revolutionary regemes destabalised by the west. What for if they didn't pose the threat of a good example to other countries?
Well, you bring up a number of issues, but for now I am going to stick with your main subject. I am looking at the Facebook for "Save our Lane" and, not to be insulting but, I am a bit at a loss. If the project was one that would damage the health of the people of Glasgow you would have a case, but the objection is that it would "change the look and feel of the area" this is vague and lacks any objective standards.
yeah but just because the people who put the facebook up might be some beatnik hippies and not professional philosophers who can form strong arguments doesn't mean they don't have a valid case.
But what is their case? That the project is an eye sore? I think that abstract expressionist paintings are an eye sore, but how does that give me legal ground to have them removed from the public view?
I like your philosophising but I don't think it's a sound analogy. If they put one up in a public place and the majority found it horrible there would be complaints and it wouldn't stay there for long, but that aside those expressionist paintings aren't being imposed on you.
First of all you don't know me & you don't live where I live, you have no idea whether or not those paintings are imposed on me. Still, your statement on public sentiment are correct, but this would apply to market principals as well. If a large enough portion of the population did not what the project it would not survive.
I was looking at the new URL & noted an aspect of this I had not seen before, Otago Lane is a conservation area. If the area is traditionally classified as such then there may already be an organic restrictive covenant.
Also, advanced health care is, admittedly, largely a luxury of wealthy and advanced nations. The best way to promote healthcare in the third world is to increase their overall wealth. History has shown that over the long-term, the best for poor countries to become countries is by freeing their markets and having the government stay largely out of the way, with Hong Kong, Singapore, and a number of other formerly impoverished areas being pretty good examples.
Oh COME ON nonantianarchist, the west has IMPOSED "free markets" on 3rd world countries at the barrel of a gun whenever they threatened to break the western system of exploitation by putting up tarriffs and subsidies to control their imports/exports and it's been a disaster
aren't you aware of this history????
youtube michael parenti the myth of underdevelopment please
What gets called free markets and what actually are free markets differ. I've never been in favor of US interventionism. However, the most successful nations are those that have followed a more or less free-market course. It's true that the US propped up faux-free market regimes-and the Soviets propped of communist regimes. It's just that one of the props collapsed before the other one, because its own system was even less sustainable.
Part of the reason there has been less money allocated to such drugs is that the costs of R&D and drug development in general have been artificially raised by various government restrictions. And it's funny that you should mention malaria. Part of the reason it's no longer prevalent in the west is the extensive use of DDT. This approach was working in the third world until an international ban on the chemical was imposed.
Well for one, you're assuming it would be impossible for the poor to buy. However, as long as the treatment itself was not overly expensive (just the R&D process), there's no reason to think it couldn't come about on a free market. And there are many charities and private foundations that will fund such research and the distribution of these treatments if the poor can't pay. If somebody values the use enough, it will translate into exchange value.
I'm saying that everything in life, or any dynamic system, is change. This area was a transient confluence of circumstances that you were blessed to have, even for a while. But it was itself most likely the result of people adapting to some previous change in something they valued, and was certainly an imposition of human workings on whatever environment pre-existed the quaint restaurants and shops. Stasis is never a good thing, and seeking it can only lead to pain. It is anti-life.
Here's another thought I just had. If you leave a place alone long enough, let it become a permanent fixture come hell or hight water, and you know what it attracts? Tourists! Wearing their fake plaids and hotel gift-shop kilts with Hawaiian shirts and Ray-Bans, trying to figure the conversion from Euros to Pounds every time they buy a haggis-shaped hot dog, or whatever the locals use to reel 'em in. Dude, you don't want that. Better to burn it to the ground than let it become a tourist stop.
In times gone by you had patronage for art and culture, there are two problems with this in todays society:
1) only rich people get to decide what culture is made available
2) rich people are NO LONGER the academic class who are time rich and can therefore tell good culture from bad nor do they have the enthusiasm for eg. J. S. Bach, or wonderful architecture. The academic/time-rich class has migrated to the university lecture theatre and these academics do not have the wealth to be patrons.
Part of the problem with modern economics is that it is too focused on measuring everything in dollars or pounds or francs or euro or yen or whatever. But how you add leisure time into GDP? Well you can't, but just because something isn't run for a profit measured in dollars doesn't mean people don't benefit from it in some other way.
OK, fine, how do you add things like vacation homes, motorboats, and Dom Perignon into the GDP? All value is subjective, and the price of an item just shows how much people overall value it versus other items in the economy.
My point is that things like GDP provide an extremely narrow view of an economy. Just because someone doesn't make money doing something doesn't mean there is no profit. Yes all value is subjective, and the idea that a "democratic" majority vote can determine some kind of objective value is ridiculous on its face.
How can you have a FREE MARKET if the society is based on Television Brainwashed Neurotic Consumerism?
When have you heard these Free Market people saying that accounting should be mandatory in the schools? The "Smart People" on the supply side want the "Dumb People" on the demand side to stay dumb.
If EVERYBODY was good at playing the economic power games that would thoroughly mess with the system. Double-entry accounting is 700 YEARS OLD. How hard can it be with today's computers?
Schools are education camps. And making anything "mandatory" is slavery.
The media is brainwash because The State selects broadcasting networks that will keep people dumbed down, and makes it very hard or outright forbids others from broadcasting.
Just like it selects teachers that will not make students think, and an education system backed by a murder threat, just like taxes, that makes kids dislike learning.
And "accounting" is knowing how to get around the legal hoops of The State.
Economically speaking, this is an externality problem. The owner of the garden provides a benefit in the form of improved scenery and a recreational area but the benefit is not monetized, so they switch to a use with monetized benefits. One thing that might work is for the owners of businesses near the garden who enjoy these external benefits in the form of increased consumer traffic to work out an arrangement where they pay the owner not to develop so they can keep these benefits.
1) not all wants are reprisented in "demand" - only wants that can be paid for are demand!
2) again you are asking the owners of the business who might be a small business like a tea shop to pay off a company with much larger revenue such as a construction company/leasing agency
It's a false dichotomy. All value is subjective. The "price" of this "social value" is the monetary value of the most valuable alternate use. I pointed out that these small business get spillover benefits from the nice scenery, and if that benefit is great enough to outweigh the value of housing, then they should be able to cough up enough to either buy the land outright or to get the developers to agree not to develop.
the point I'm making is I don't think they should HAVE to cough up anything, besides they could be poorer than the developer and not afford to buy the land, plus they all have mortgages, kids to feed, bills etc etc
I say the land is in the local community and what is good for it is decided by the local community, at the least they should be able to force a compromise with the developer to develop buildings which are scenic/eco-friendly/culturally significant.
People will pay for things to the extent that they value them and are able to pay. You're not looking at it from both sides. People can make money by developing land because there are other people who value what is developed and are willing to pay for it. You're arguing for the "right" to have a scenic neighborhood "unblemished" by development, but not recognizing the rights of those who might be willing to pay for the apartments built through development.
you're right, I don't acknowledge the right to develop without the approval of the people in the neighbourhood!
The people who profit from the development probably live somewhere else and they will only receive dividends from the development, whereas the people who live in the community will have to see the new builds every day.
Actually, I was pointing out that since it's profitable, presumably there are people who want to live in these developments. When you say "No development here!" you are also indirectly saying to people who would have lived there "NO, you can't live here 'cause we don't like the aesthetics". But while you've done everything to complain about private property, you haven't explained any moral basis for your collective property. How are your actions different from a landlord's?
also you should see all the beautiful buildings in Glasgow. They have one thing in common: They are all old!
Because of the beloved market developers put up the cheapest appartments to save money, they look unsightly but they save the people who builld it money.
According to which "market principles?" What kind of market? What does making money have to do with whether one can or should hold a given resource, and from whom did you receive that argument? You've opened a giant umbrella here, and I think you're trying to herd people under it who wouldn't be there otherwise.
I'd say more, but I'd just be repeating what NoCryingNow has already posted.
ok cheers for the contribution anyway but at the same time some of the libertarians here seem to be abandoning market purism left right and centre over this example so i think it has spawned a pretty worthwhile debate
funny/perculiar how recyling doesnt seem to apply to used buildings so much.
-will people get the use of the land ..
..instead of so much of it being used for mass farming?
sometimes Iwonder what it ws like when local peole just worked the lands around their area and led a simple life- on free land
treemarble 1 year ago
Democracy by it's very nature is majority rule, however this does not make it a moral system of governance, especially if an individual's life is subject to force by the whim of society
DavidsIllustrations 1 year ago
The Market works because it is the only system of exchange currently in existence that opporates by the valuntary exchange of value for value
DavidsIllustrations 1 year ago
@DavidsIllustrations hi I don't know anyone who voluntarily pays their rent, they do it because if they don't they will have nowhere to live. Arguably someone who owns a house another pays to upkeep is a state charging taxation.
RevolutionaryJam 1 year ago
@RevolutionaryJam
Force is the coercive intervention upon your life, faculties and earnings.
It is theft, pillaging and tyranny. It is force because it is the obstruction of your life by taking away what is an extension of your human nature.
You pay your rent because the house your renting is more appealing than living on the street- this IS a voluntary choice.The house is way valuable than the money used to pay for it. just think of all the facilities & the security.
its simple logic.
DavidsIllustrations 1 year ago
@DavidsIllustrations you pay rent because if you don't you will be violently thrown out of your place of residence, in a market-only economy the street would be privately owned so chance are you would not be allowed to sleep on the street, so you would be kicked off of that too, infact, unless someone was kind enough to let you camp out on some land they "own" you would have no choices that didn't involve violently coercing you to pay or beat it.
RevolutionaryJam 1 year ago
@RevolutionaryJam
This is where you lack conceptual understanding.
If you DO NOT pay your rent - YOU are acquiring BY FORCE a good provided by another individual. you will be ejected from the property by force IN RETALIATION your initiation of force - the theft.
and as for charity for homeless - i have personal experience of working with homelessness charities WHICH ARE PRIVATELY RUN AND FUNDED - where on earth do you think charity comes from - it has to be earned before it can be donated.
DavidsIllustrations 1 year ago
@RevolutionaryJam I cant quite make sense of the second part of your post - but I will state that the trade between private individuals is not taxation. you pay value for value. there is no theft or force involved. The item may be of such a great value that you consider it a vital 'need', but that doesn't mean its suddenly okay for you to force others to give it to you on pleas of tears. you have to exchange value for value as that is a recognition to whom brought this value into existence
DavidsIllustrations 1 year ago
Are merely large numbers of individuals
DavidsIllustrations 1 year ago
There is no moral monopoly attributed to the group, society , collective, heard, gang... Morality applies to the individual only as all of these terms
DavidsIllustrations 1 year ago
save the river kelvin,planners-listen to the people
fruitybrew 1 year ago
I like the video,love the hair. I my self am a Objectvist. I have to take time,and think about the video,then i will come back with my feedback.
nero8289 2 years ago
@nero8289 thanks for taking the time to comment! I look forwards to your feedback then! It's good to consider something carefully before leaping to a conclusion so I respect that!
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
Otago Lane Development Proposal - What do YOU think of it?
please leave you comments.
copy link after You Tube home URL
/watch?v=Q_fOxZEfL2M
InternetAndDigital 2 years ago
great post by the way
InternetAndDigital 2 years ago
Rephrase the title to "how will people pay for shit they don't want when they aren't violently forced to?"
Great point. In a free society, people wouldn't be forced to pay for your stupid shit.
fringeelements 2 years ago
thats a really fallacious argument dude
1) no one is PAYING for that "stupid shit" but (2) they STILL want that "stupid shit" that you're talking about it, it's part of the area that they live in... so what is going to happen is it's going to be wasted because some developers bought some land and are going to build high rise flats DESPITE the wishes of the people who live there and what the majority want
and thats acceptable in what you're calling a "free socitey"
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
In a "completely free market" the zen garden and nice little bootshops would be there because they were owned by the people that wanted them. having no control over whether something you wanted was there or not worked out fine for you when it was there, and you're only griping about it when it's about to be gone. nice tactic.
FiremanHurley 1 year ago
What you can do is put a huge canopy over the park and charge people an entrance fee. While they're at it they can put the canopy over the entire city and charge for sunlight as well.
All sarcasm aside, I think it would be best if people got together collectively to purchase these lands in a spirit of cooperation.
thekassandracomplex 2 years ago
It's true that it would be the ideal, but considering how few hands the wealth in concentrated compared to the number of people it wouldn't always be possible when the corporate interest is richer than the community...
What is more it seems a shame for people to have to pay to buy what should already be theirs to share.
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
you know whats a bigger problem? the tragedy of the commons. As with this case, you can buy the land for non-profit. market =/= profit.
sexdrugsRnR 2 years ago
and middle class can have a huge influence even without the money.
ThePsychoticnut 2 years ago
I think you may be confusing the terms capitalism and free market. Capitalism is solely about making money any way possible. The free market is a concept of volunteerism and free association. I can contribute to the elderly being taken care of without the government stealing my money. I do it now thru and organization called Angel's Depot. All less fortunate can be taken care of this way there are more than enough resources to do so but theft, extortion, and violence is the wrong way (cont.)
ThePsychoticnut 2 years ago
to go about it. Capitalism is inherently statist because the forced monopoly of the state is needed to maintain their wealth. The free market Is about more than just money. It's about the free association of people. One thing you seem to allude to is the idea that the rich in a free society have more "rights" than the poor. This isn't true. In order for the rich to stay rich in a free society you have to give them your money usually in exchange of goods or services. That means the poor (cont.)
ThePsychoticnut 2 years ago
As far as the apartment buildings are concerned you can influence someone not to build without aggression and forcing at gun point not to build. That is anti-social just the opposite of what I believe you are trying to accomplish. You could petition the land owner not to build. If he insists on building you can threaten with boycotts and picketing. An apartment building is not profitable at all if noone will live there. So there are ways to influence people without government violence.
ThePsychoticnut 2 years ago
Zen gardens and parks absolutely have a place within a free market. If a community wishes to have a park they can voluntarily contribute to a fund that could be used to maintain that park. Because it's being maintained by the community no one person would have ownership over it and thus couldn't start charging for it's use or decide to build factories instead. At the same time it would not be maintained by violent theft of property as the current statist program does.
ThePsychoticnut 2 years ago 2
Here's my solution. The people are using the park more than that local developer guy so the people should own it first. If things get ineffcient, the public can either privatize or socialize the park (give the upkeepers themselves ownership of the park) under the condition that they do not attempt to commercialize the park. I do not believe the mere privatization of government owned property is genuinely free market.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
Hey Jam, your very right about this, public places as we know them would be practically nonexistent. The libertarians response is very Ayn Randian, in that the rich will only provide this service if it amuses them, since every act is a selfish one for them. But its more likely that the rich will make parks for their own pleasure and not allow anyone else to access them (just like we see in The Fountainhead with Gail Wynand).
InfectedDaemon 2 years ago
not to mention the art which goes to private buyers.
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
I cringe with horror at the notion... what would be of the world without the Louvre or the MOMA (Museum of Modern Arts).
InfectedDaemon 2 years ago
Question: what is your fascination with democracy? What is it about this (how to put this in words) way of deciding how to organize resources that makes absense of democracy such a worrying scencario? In my mind, democracy is either the good old boys bribing the local politicians into passing regulation that prevents/hampers competition/further enslaves the population or two wolfs and a sheep deciding what's for dinner with neither definition being desirable to me.
Shezmu 2 years ago
Even in you example, where it's clear the monster wants to commit the unforgivable act of using his own property to make a profit, what do you want to happen? Do you want your group to have the power to forbid the owner to peacefully use his own property as he sees fit without contract or other forms of argeement? In which case, do you also want your city to be able put people into cages for such unneighborly things as coloring their house in an unfashionable color?
Shezmu 2 years ago
Personally I find the current possible scenario of greedy capitalist pig using his property in a way that his peers don't like to be a far better option than what you're seem to be in favor of.
Shezmu 2 years ago
OWN property? says who is it his OWN property? I have nothing against someone using their own property in any way they desire as long as they are considerate of others. I don't blow smoke in a child's face even if I am at a public bus stop, nor would I do it in my flat.
I would say putting people in a cage is unneighbourly so I wouldn't advocate it. In some areas abroad all the houses are white or another color, and they do pass public policy to ensure the aesthetic of the area is kept.
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
(local) democracy can sometimes the way in which the majority organises to ensure that the society they live in is ran according to their general will rather than that of the economic elite.
What is your fascination of a lack of it where the more money you have the more democracy you can buy since the more demand that you can buy, is that not merely another way of engineering society to your will?
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
To answer your question, I don't have a problem with deciding things by vote in all cases, thus my clarification in my last post. I do believe that are cases were deciding by majority vote is vaild. For a video game example, I find no problem with a "tier list" being created by the general opinion of several top players as suppose to just one.
Shezmu 2 years ago
My problem with majority rule comes in when it is used to justify actions that would be immoral for one person to do, such as killing not white people on other arbitrary plots of land, throwing people into cages for volating arbitrary demands set up by random people in funny custumes, and etc.
Shezmu 2 years ago
That said, I believe that if you buy something it is your property. If the capitalist pig used the gov't to obtain the property, then that is a different matter entirely. in your example, you seem to equate harassing someone (blowing smoke in one's face) with arranging one's property in ways that the majority don't like. The former is a violation of one's property (the child's face) thus I do not support, while the latter is well within one's rights provided they are not violating contracts.
Shezmu 2 years ago
Sounds like you, and some of the people in your community have a demand for things like zen gardens, so I'm not sure why you wouldn't see how zen gardens wouldn't be profitable, clearly it's bringing business to your lane there. The zen garden doesn't make money in a strict sense, but neither does the ketchup packets at the hamburger stand, hopefully you can see the parallel here, and why it's overall a benefit to provide people with what they wish.
MotionFur 2 years ago
Trees and similar are profitable and it's because of people who think like you do. If you want social change, towards more "green" type businesses [or whatever your preference is] then there are ways to be involved with social change to increase demand for these things [and of course money is made by satisfying demand.] Some of us just want things that the other people don't, and we just can't impose it on other people, you can call that undemocratic if you wish.
MotionFur 2 years ago
Almost all good social change or social 'progress' come from the bottom up. It's not mandated by a king, queen or elected official from the top down.
MotionFur 2 years ago
ps. thanks for the feedback.
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
of course if being green is expensive it's far more profitable for a business to maintain the appearance of looking green than to actually make the encessary cahnges.
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
the point it people don't think they should have to PAY for things like gardens and parks, they want them to be open and free to anyone to use. Just because putting a hamburger stand in the zen garden might make some money doesn't mean people want their little garden commercialised. It seems to me that pure market turns everything into a dollar sign.
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
"people don't think they should have to PAY for things like gardens and parks"
I think this comes from the statist mentality. One lifts burden off of their own shoulders, and places it on the state. I argue this has devastating consequences, and that the state can not handle things as well as the people could in the first place.
But I think you really missed the point of my comment, I wasn't talking about direct payment for any use of parks or gardens, but that's obviously a possibility.
MotionFur 2 years ago
The fact that most people spend their lives working for profit [in the monetary sense] is not changed in a democratic or republic system of governance. The only difference is now, is that people are able to peruse those dollar signs with violent or coercive means, limiting the freedom of others. Everything is already a dollar sign.
MotionFur 2 years ago
"more profitable for a business to maintain the appearance"
This is only the case if people are demanding a change in appearances, rather then actual change. Currently, consumers can be so apathetic due to the fact that they believe [I would argue, falsely] that there is a government working invisibly in the background making sure everything is on the up and up, with all the 'i's dotted and the 't's crossed.
MotionFur 2 years ago
I'd much rather be accountable to a single health inspector [or any kind of inspector] then be scrutinized by my entire consumer base. Hell, it's actually possible to bribe an inspector, not so much for your customers.
MotionFur 2 years ago
Also, in a free society, some communities may have many of the same concerns as you, and formulate small democracies of sorts. This is not incompatible with statelessness or minimal government libertarianism as long as it's based on actual consent and voluntarism.
MotionFur 2 years ago
I don't see anything wrong with people not wanting to pay for them, at one point you could go for a walk in the forest any time you wanted without having to pay, most people feel the idea is abhorrent and it's not as a consequence of the state, it's quite a natural inclination, remember most of the first anarchists were socialists who didn't believe in a state being the authority that intervenes in the emergence of property rights.
Nice, a society where the rich charge the poor to see nature.
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
Parks and gardens require money. You can pay thru something with taxation, or you can pay thru direct payment, where you vote with your dollars, and you actually make the decisions where your own money goes. Currently parks are not "free." So to say that they're free now but not free in a stateless/libertarian society is just not true. Point is, if people actually control where their money goes, their money will go to what they enjoy the most.
MotionFur 2 years ago
"Nice, a society where the rich charge the poor to see nature."
Honestly, I have no clue where you're getting this from. Most of what I've been talking about hasn't even been direct payment for parks/gardens. It's been indirect payment [EX: the tea shop that has a beautiful garden to drink tea in and the tea costs another 5c per cup to pay for it and people get to choose (!!) if they care more about nice gardens or saving 5c.]
MotionFur 2 years ago
no, it will go where the people with more of it enjoy most.
Parks do NOT cost money, it may cost money to get a gardener but if it was owned in the local community people would organise something to pay those kind of things or take turns at keeping it, that would not make a turnover so would not be preferable by market forces
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
"it will go where the people with more of it enjoy most."
Disney land exists mostly because of 50k per year and lower income families. While it's true that people with a lot of money have a lot of sway, that does not discount others. Also, if the accumulation of wealth in hands of few people is something that bothers you, I would argue that the state's existence and involvement in the market is the single biggest enabler of accumulated and consolidated wealth.
MotionFur 2 years ago
Aye, a group of people make a park. Obviously they don't have to pay for it with money, but rather labor and resources. But that's all money is suppose to represent in the first place. As long as it's consensual, I think you'll find most of the people you're talking to are all for it.
MotionFur 2 years ago
"that would not make a turnover so would not be preferable by market forces "
I'm not sure what you mean by this. I'd donate money to a local park. As long as someone owns it, and its upkeep, and they make it open to the public then it's a "free" park. I could see you working a lot with these kind of things in a free society. Maybe you could even make speeches about how it increases mental health of the local community to encourage people to create and support "free" parks. :3
MotionFur 2 years ago
Democracy is 2 wolves & a sheep voting on breakfast. It's tyranny of the majority. You can do whatever you want in a truly free society. You don't even have to respect property. The catch is that your behavior would have consequences. Treat people & their stuff badly & your reputation will follow you around like a bad credit score. No one will want to do business with you. The free market doesn't oblige one to make money. It is merely a matrix wherein free exchanges can occur. No more, no less.
NoLegalPlunder 2 years ago
anarchists are socialist who haven't quite fully developed yet.
oldhacks 2 years ago
I see it in the vice cersa as I was a liberal/socialist and became an anarchist ;-)
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
thats because you haven't come full circle yet
oldhacks 2 years ago
perhaps perhaps not but quite patronising dude. You need to provide a philosophical justification for having a state first, I've not found one yet thats why I can't support a state, i can't think of anything that we couldn't do better running things in the local community than by a centralised authority with the monopoly of force. Also show me a benign state please, I haven't seen one yet.
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
old people, the physical and metally ill..
they are no profit margins.
without socialism they die without dignity. no dignity for them means no dignity for you!
fighting against corporatism is a form of socialism. to be a socialist is to accept the fact that you are part of a society and to committ yourself to doing everything you can to impove upon that society. the easiest way being by way of democratic ballot votes on policy not politicians. voting. protesting. signing petitions..socialism
oldhacks 2 years ago
I want to live in a world where everyone who is unable to support themselves is taken care of as well, but I still feel it would be taken care of much more effecatiously on the local level where people could sign on to a local "National Insurance" tax (thats what we call our welfare tax in the UK, National Insurance)
if one agency was doing a bad job you could switch to one that was doing it right. We also need people who are willing to volunteer a few hours a week to help!
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
"you want to live in a world that - etc."
you do that by fighting for a democratic process that gives you the power to vote your conscience.
until we start voting and passing our own laws as citizens there will never be any amount of change within the states of the world that amounts to anything.
oldhacks 2 years ago
Hey Ant, I didn't know you live in Glasgow; it's gorgeous there. My mom traveled there a couple of years ago and brought back some great pics, but I haven't been yet.
Anyway, I have to agree with the free marketeers on this one. If you want a Zen garden without neighbors, you're going to have to buy 1,000 acres.
CounterRevolutionary 2 years ago
Have you ever read Revolution: A Manifesto by Ron Paul? It explains his platform so very well, and is a very entertaining read too.
The audio book can be downloaded at Conspiracy Central for free.
I'd love for you to read it, then make a video (or a video series) with your reflections on it.
Peace!
CounterRevolutionary 2 years ago
Yes I bought it and loved it very much it was compelling for a former leftist to hear such a positive message coming from the right
I worry about art in a free market, and I mostly mean music, most conservatories and orchestras are in the receipt of public funding most people are not interested in learning about this music so somtimes I think it's ok to steal from everybody to pay for it although I haven't learned to enjoy all of it yet some is truly wonderful to experience
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
Hey thats realy cool man. I love Glasgow, sometimes I want to get out and try other places but I really enjoy living here most of the time I like the environment I think I'd be scared to leave in a way x and maybe you're right maybe if people really want parks they should be prepared to pay for them
we worry that so few people have most of the wealth
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
As for the park; its too bad that the city didn't have the foresight to buy the adjacent land and turn it into a park, before the real estate developer invested his money into his apartment project. I'm sorry the serenity of your zen garden will be ruined, but if nothing else, it will be a good learning experience for you on how local government, and the so-called free market, works (and I dont mean to seem condescending, I truly believe things like this help prepare us for future challenges
CounterRevolutionary 2 years ago
Ant, have you ever been to Ireland? If so, what do you think of it? Theres so much economic freedom there that I often consider emigrating there.
CounterRevolutionary 2 years ago
yeah I was in Eire recently, lovely to visit. That strikes me as strange what you say as the Irish people as a whole tend to be very left wing.
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
"Ireland's economic freedom score is 82.2, making its economy the 4th freest in the 2009 Index. Its score decreased by 0.3 point from last year, reflecting modest declines in fiscal freedom and labor freedom. Ireland is ranked 1st out of 43 countries in the Europe region, and its overall score is well above the world average."
heritage(DOT)org/Index/country/Ireland
CounterRevolutionary 2 years ago
oldhacks would hate it there, lol.
I wonder if Ireland's high rate of economic freedom has anything with them rejecting the Lisbon Treaty?
Ireland is looking better and better all the time!
CounterRevolutionary 2 years ago
Ireland rejected the Lisbon Treaty because they want autonomy, so would have the UK and many other countries if they had had a referendum on it. See, Democracy doesn't always get it wrong ;-)
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
if all anarcho-capitalists can be labeled hedonist, is the laissez-faireist regulating individuals personal habits? - sounds like a simple statist to me.
thisisbunk 2 years ago
no man I wouldn't say that some have very much impressed me
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
I will post a video comment on this later against my better judgment, but for now let me make clear I am NOT a conservative dirt bag, nor am i a hedonist juvenile "Market Anarchist" or "Anarcho-Capitalist". These latter two are the most disgusting trash who are simply looking for a philosophy to justify their depraved value structure. I to make it clear am a Liassez-fair Capitalist (redundant). My question to our Socialist friend here is where do you want the apt. to be built?
freemarketmind 2 years ago
do we need government to offer corporations limited liability?
I'm not a socialist any more I'm trying to figure what category I fit into I'm learning all the time.
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
ehm. not sure i understand. is someone doing something that is against the law? or you just don't want things to change?
so... you are asking for ideas - based upon free market principles - that could be used to preserve the society you currently live in/near?
(off the top of my head, the simplest way would be to buy the property that is for sale, but i'm guessing that's not an option)
aren't all rights property rights btw?
thisisbunk 2 years ago
attention! I have been informed they have a new website, check sidebar!
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
Without a doubt the modularization of America has made things really boring. We have boring houses in a row, boring malls, shopping centers and boring places to eat, with of course boring food. I believe the Bigness of big business wreaks free markets, so there should be limits on who big a company can get and Tariffs on out of state companies. Local businesses should have the advantage over out of state business. I believe in Localism to the point of being almost tribal.
btigtime2 2 years ago
that describes my ideal world as well, all local businesses and everything produced as locally as possible, it's just hard to see how you could create such a society without imposing some sort of authoritarian controls such as "the bigger the business the bigger the tax" and "the further the product travels the bigger the tax" that would work to localise all business and production and be good for the ecology... the key question is: what gives the state the right?
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
Many small communities do this with zoning laws.
Several won't let people build wal-marts with in city limits for example. Right here in the united states.
Though that doesn't answer the question. What gives these towns the right to tell them they can't open up shop?
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago
"Local businesses should have the advantage over out of state business." In a true free market this is the case. In America we have an interstate system that is subsidized by the gvmt this subsidizes larger, "out of state" companies by making it cheaper to transport their goods. gvmt also subsidizes larger companies because they have to money to lobby the legislators. This also couldn't happen in a free market. So small business would be on more equal footing with large and local would be (cont)
ThePsychoticnut 2 years ago
at an advantage over "out of state" companies because of less transportation costs. I used "out of state" for a lack of better term since in a truly free market there would be no state to be out of. The bottom line: A free market is not a perfect system it is no system at all. Naturally there are pluses and minuses to that but for me it comes down to freedom and mutual respect. Government is naturally and inherently anti-freedom and disrespectful (read as slavery)
ThePsychoticnut 2 years ago
When you were still trying to make sure we knew you weren't trying to offend us at 1:10 it kinda started to grate on me. No offense of course. =P That said I am going to apologize for the length of this and for restating any points already made.
Some people do worship the market. I'm not one of them. So I really don't know how to respond to that other than my over all point, no system is perfect. Any time I hear a person use the word Utopia in conjunction with the way they think things (cont.)
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago
oughta be my eyes just kind of glaze over, even if I support the same views. Capitalism is particularly destructive to the arts I find. Just look at some of the garbage in cinema that is intensely popular. The market LOVED the Transformers films. I am not fond of them, obviously. Though on that same page, what would prevent these atrocities from becoming popular in a non-capitalist system? And are good movies not popular? District 9 was very good, and while not making as much as the previously
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago
mentioned piles of dog shit is still making money. My problem here is less with the capitalist system and more with the fact that people are uncultured retards, which can happen to any society.
Sadly I've never understood the 'these eye sores shouldn't be around' idea people have, so the apartments next to your zen garden is really... just tough. There is nothing in a non-free market system that could prevent them from being constructed either. In a communist system if the state wants to (cont
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago
construct apartments next to your garden there still would be little you can do about it. If they wanted to put them ONTOP of your garden they could. But if you have property rights that can be prevented. The most recent example I can think of is a man whose house was run down. Pretty shoddy. Possibley a danger to him, but he still lived in it. It was an 'eye sore' with broken windows, rotted wood, so on and so forth. His neighbors complained to the city about it devaluing their property values,
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago
so the city demolished it against his wishes. Now he's homeless. But hey, so long as your house is worth a few thousand more dollars who cares about his property rights, right? No offense, but isn't that the system you are advocating? Instead of saying which system is perfect lets way which is more destructive to people's lives? Which is worse? Some apartments blocking your view or some one's home being demolished? You are saying it is your view... again, no offense. But that's assholish to me
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago
"What's the point in having a Zen Garden anyway?" - What's the point in having a basket ball court? You don't make money from it either (though both might increase the value of the property they are on). But its nice to have. Property rights and free market principals are not necessarily hand in hand. I feel I should point out something here. There are two kinds of people that pray at the alter of capitalism. Those who follow it because they believe this Ayn Rand style life philosophy of (cont)
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago
survival of the fittest and those who do so because they appreciate the freedom inherent to it and dislike or distrust government to handle it. I am of the later. So my views usually aren't dependent on how something might profit or benefit me. If I want to give something to some one, or even the public, free of charge that is my right in a capitalistic society. The Rand-tards can call me an idiot for doing so but by their own guide lines it is my property- I'll do with it as I please.
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago
So. Privately owned park. Fuck the factory. Though on the note of the factory, if the state thought that it would benefit the common wealth they could, again, take my property to build it.
Also I am sure some one here brought up environmental issues. How does individual and property rights NOT help the environment? I never understood this. If some one builds a factory near a residential neighborhood and the air pollutants seep over onto their -property- and make them ill how do they not have
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago
a case against them? And yes, actually doing harm to property is different from devaluing it with things that don't directly effect its physical properties.
So anyway, that's my two cents.
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago
thankyou for the very etensive 2 cents! it was very entertaing to read!
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
i was being ironic lol thanks for making so many comments
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
yeah in a locally run democracy the council would ban it. The protestors are lobbying their local council, fingers crossed they will win.
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
lol I do always think that if someone gets offended it's their fault, the point was I wanted it to be a good humoured debate rather than a slagging match where everyone called everyone else retarded, and if you look at the comments you'll find I succeeded in that. Everyone has been very respectful of everyone else and I appreciate that.
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
"I do always think that if someone gets offended it's their fault"
That depends. But if some one got offended over this video? They are being a cry baby. =)
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago
I'm sorry but I had a really had a hard time distinguishing what you were saying with the background buzz and your soft spoken voice.
Perhaps you can redo this and just stick to your main points and questions. I'll be happy to listen again.
Best wishes from the states.
kmg501 2 years ago
Last but not least, I don't agree with putting the philosophical concept of Libertarianism on the right. Left and Right agree that there should be government control; they only differ on what that control should be for. Libertarians are opposed to both.
And just to further add, I do like the UK and hope to visit again next year.
RealArcalian 2 years ago
sorry dude I definately put libertarianism on the right as it pro-capitalism.
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
blech. that's too bad. you're missing out.
i can't imagine what your left-right spectrum looks like.
thisisbunk 2 years ago
to answer your question, the fact that they don't support ANY public ownership or social security puts them further on the right than conservatives in my book.
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
do you understand, or want to reject, the idea that THE MARKET is just a term used to describe all human action. it does not exist without people. considering the fact that the world changes and people are diverse and there is scarcity, necessarily markets exists. if people and things did not change there would be no market. can't you understand that it is people working (the market) that actually produces social security? the market is a social manifestation. the state is anti-social.
thisisbunk 2 years ago
dude. this guy has completely got your number, you sound exactly like this satire:
watch?v=lu0cQbnO8M4
Disclaimer note: I DO NOT approve of the tone of this video, I believe in sharing opinions openly and philosophically wherever possible to increas mutual understanding, not slagging off people with different opinions that you, however, his points are consistent with my observations so far.
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
to answer your question, THE MARKET ,..... IS NOT a term used to describe all human action, in that case it would include the formation of government wouldn't it?? We can't have a debate if you redifine the term Market to suit your own argument friend it doesn't work that way
the market is the aggregate exchange between buyers and sellers is it not?
How does the market create social security? Market only caters to demand (of those who can afford to pay for it)
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
no, because gov't is a monopoly. and it does not arise through mutual exchange, but by mere declaration and force. that is completely anti-market. why not just have gov't rule everything. by your definition we can call that a free market can't we?
thisisbunk 2 years ago
perhaps we would create private social security companies in a free market but I don't know if the unemployed would be able to pay for them and as they are the ones who would NEED the social security it's kinda like asking foxes to look after hens, is it not?
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
I think what thisisbunk is trying to say is the market is a term describing all human action. The FREE market is a term describing that human action devoid of aggression (also known as voluntary association and free exchange). So government is apart of markets in this world but not of a free market since government is a monopoly backed by violent aggression (or forced association). BTW private social security does exist even in this world of governments. Its called retirement funds.
ThePsychoticnut 2 years ago
This comment rules.
theneedledrop 2 years ago
I don't blindly worship the Market, either. To paraphrase Winston Churchil, captialist democracy is the worst system....except for all those other systems that habe been tried.
I'm a Yank, as you no doubt guessed. Here in this country, despite having less government control over the economy than you guys do (so far!), we still have plenty of the private parks etc that you mention. I wonder if the problem you describe has less to do with economics than with population density.
RealArcalian 2 years ago
Now, the Lane.
It's not clear, from your post, wether these developers are building their big clunky complexes around the lane, thus hurting it's aesthetics and driving the local clientelle away; or actually *own* thsi land are going to destroy the buisnesses and zen garden on the lane and replace them with said developments. In the former case, they should continue the protests they already have; in the latter case, who fell asleep at the wheel and let the developers buy the land from them?
RealArcalian 2 years ago
Well, I dunno what attracted your attention to me, I grew tired of political debates some time ago. But since you asked...I don't see how "market prinicples" as you call them equate to wanting to tear down private enterprise (the shops) or aesthetic beauty (the zen garden). Last I checked, even the rich (of which I am not one) enjoyed having some beauty around them.
(Continuued in another post where I actually talk about the Lane)
RealArcalian 2 years ago
Oh Ant, your gift has truely grown and is shining more than ever. Objective Property? Hummm. Did you say private park or private part?
And is there a "zero tolerance flu" going around.
This remarkable and thought provoking invitatation to open our minds has me once again spell bound and in a reflective mood. I will be back to comment when I gather my thoughts. As always Dear, thanks for making me think! Love it Luna
lunigal 2 years ago
Look at this from the other side: if you have a right to tell them they cannot build apartments because you want to keep the restaurants and shops, and ambiance you're grown attached to, do they have the right to tell you that you *must* continue eating and shopping there so that your free market choices don't affect their ability to stay in business?
kylben 2 years ago
em I don't think so really you're comparing stopping someone from undergoing a particular action to compelling someone to take particular actions (whether they have the means to do it or not)
interesting thoughts but I don't think it's a very sound analogy
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
There's a huge gap between what most people is the free market and what it actually is. Even the most revered proponents of free markets advocated some decidedly anti-free-market ideas (Milton Friedman, for example). My advice to you is to try and find out what it is, I mean, if you are serious about getting an answer to your question. I would start with the writings of Murray Rothbard, and maybe Frederic Bastiat.
scott715 2 years ago
I am trying to find what it is lol thats one of the reasons why I spend so much time on youtube! haha and made this video
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
And no, countries with heavily statist economies don't all fail 'cause the less statist countries are mean and won't trade with them. Hell, half the time they're propped up by aid coming from these less statist countries. The most successful countries tend to have received relatively little foreign aid (which tends toward government-to-government grants or loans), while interfering relatively little in their economies. There aren't any true free markets, of course, but these countries are freer.
nonantianarchist 2 years ago
lol no not 'cause the less statist countries are mean and won't trade with them.' cause they fund terrorist groups to take them out of commission and hire the thugs (World Bank, IMF, etc.) to extort fuck out of them
Cuba, Angola, Mozambiq, Ethiopia, Iraq, Portugal, South Yemen, Nicaragua, Cambodia, East Hymore and Western Sahara to state some examples of socialist revolutionary regemes destabalised by the west. What for if they didn't pose the threat of a good example to other countries?
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
Of course, the American mixed economy is also proving unsustainable and is also headed towards collapse.
nonantianarchist 2 years ago
Well, you bring up a number of issues, but for now I am going to stick with your main subject. I am looking at the Facebook for "Save our Lane" and, not to be insulting but, I am a bit at a loss. If the project was one that would damage the health of the people of Glasgow you would have a case, but the objection is that it would "change the look and feel of the area" this is vague and lacks any objective standards.
Harpakhrad11 2 years ago
So, unless a restrictive covenant was attached to the property there would not be any legal action to take.
Harpakhrad11 2 years ago
yeah but just because the people who put the facebook up might be some beatnik hippies and not professional philosophers who can form strong arguments doesn't mean they don't have a valid case.
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
But what is their case? That the project is an eye sore? I think that abstract expressionist paintings are an eye sore, but how does that give me legal ground to have them removed from the public view?
Harpakhrad11 2 years ago
I like your philosophising but I don't think it's a sound analogy. If they put one up in a public place and the majority found it horrible there would be complaints and it wouldn't stay there for long, but that aside those expressionist paintings aren't being imposed on you.
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
First of all you don't know me & you don't live where I live, you have no idea whether or not those paintings are imposed on me. Still, your statement on public sentiment are correct, but this would apply to market principals as well. If a large enough portion of the population did not what the project it would not survive.
Harpakhrad11 2 years ago
I was looking at the new URL & noted an aspect of this I had not seen before, Otago Lane is a conservation area. If the area is traditionally classified as such then there may already be an organic restrictive covenant.
Harpakhrad11 2 years ago
Also, advanced health care is, admittedly, largely a luxury of wealthy and advanced nations. The best way to promote healthcare in the third world is to increase their overall wealth. History has shown that over the long-term, the best for poor countries to become countries is by freeing their markets and having the government stay largely out of the way, with Hong Kong, Singapore, and a number of other formerly impoverished areas being pretty good examples.
nonantianarchist 2 years ago
Oh COME ON nonantianarchist, the west has IMPOSED "free markets" on 3rd world countries at the barrel of a gun whenever they threatened to break the western system of exploitation by putting up tarriffs and subsidies to control their imports/exports and it's been a disaster
aren't you aware of this history????
youtube michael parenti the myth of underdevelopment please
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
What gets called free markets and what actually are free markets differ. I've never been in favor of US interventionism. However, the most successful nations are those that have followed a more or less free-market course. It's true that the US propped up faux-free market regimes-and the Soviets propped of communist regimes. It's just that one of the props collapsed before the other one, because its own system was even less sustainable.
nonantianarchist 2 years ago
will you watch the video? it's very good if a bit lefty
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
Part of the reason there has been less money allocated to such drugs is that the costs of R&D and drug development in general have been artificially raised by various government restrictions. And it's funny that you should mention malaria. Part of the reason it's no longer prevalent in the west is the extensive use of DDT. This approach was working in the third world until an international ban on the chemical was imposed.
nonantianarchist 2 years ago
Well for one, you're assuming it would be impossible for the poor to buy. However, as long as the treatment itself was not overly expensive (just the R&D process), there's no reason to think it couldn't come about on a free market. And there are many charities and private foundations that will fund such research and the distribution of these treatments if the poor can't pay. If somebody values the use enough, it will translate into exchange value.
nonantianarchist 2 years ago
The whole question is so whacked. It's like asking "How would market anarchy keep beautiful women from growing old?"
kylben 2 years ago
so you're saying the scenic areas are bound towards entropy one way or another?
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
I'm saying that everything in life, or any dynamic system, is change. This area was a transient confluence of circumstances that you were blessed to have, even for a while. But it was itself most likely the result of people adapting to some previous change in something they valued, and was certainly an imposition of human workings on whatever environment pre-existed the quaint restaurants and shops. Stasis is never a good thing, and seeking it can only lead to pain. It is anti-life.
kylben 2 years ago
Here's another thought I just had. If you leave a place alone long enough, let it become a permanent fixture come hell or hight water, and you know what it attracts? Tourists! Wearing their fake plaids and hotel gift-shop kilts with Hawaiian shirts and Ray-Bans, trying to figure the conversion from Euros to Pounds every time they buy a haggis-shaped hot dog, or whatever the locals use to reel 'em in. Dude, you don't want that. Better to burn it to the ground than let it become a tourist stop.
kylben 2 years ago
ahahaha
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
"I started thinking about what an unfettered market does to our culture"
Is there an unfettered market somewhere? Where?
scott715 2 years ago 4
well if you look towards the beginnings of the US you had a more unfettered market and it was a third world country
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
In times gone by you had patronage for art and culture, there are two problems with this in todays society:
1) only rich people get to decide what culture is made available
2) rich people are NO LONGER the academic class who are time rich and can therefore tell good culture from bad nor do they have the enthusiasm for eg. J. S. Bach, or wonderful architecture. The academic/time-rich class has migrated to the university lecture theatre and these academics do not have the wealth to be patrons.
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
Part of the problem with modern economics is that it is too focused on measuring everything in dollars or pounds or francs or euro or yen or whatever. But how you add leisure time into GDP? Well you can't, but just because something isn't run for a profit measured in dollars doesn't mean people don't benefit from it in some other way.
scott715 2 years ago 3
OK, fine, how do you add things like vacation homes, motorboats, and Dom Perignon into the GDP? All value is subjective, and the price of an item just shows how much people overall value it versus other items in the economy.
nonantianarchist 2 years ago
@nonantianarchist
My point is that things like GDP provide an extremely narrow view of an economy. Just because someone doesn't make money doing something doesn't mean there is no profit. Yes all value is subjective, and the idea that a "democratic" majority vote can determine some kind of objective value is ridiculous on its face.
scott715 2 years ago
Sorry, scott, didn't mean to misread your argument.
nonantianarchist 2 years ago
spot on.
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
How can you have a FREE MARKET if the society is based on Television Brainwashed Neurotic Consumerism?
When have you heard these Free Market people saying that accounting should be mandatory in the schools? The "Smart People" on the supply side want the "Dumb People" on the demand side to stay dumb.
If EVERYBODY was good at playing the economic power games that would thoroughly mess with the system. Double-entry accounting is 700 YEARS OLD. How hard can it be with today's computers?
psikeyhackr 2 years ago
not to mention having "Dumb People" on the labour side and the "Smart People" on the capital side.
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
Schools are education camps. And making anything "mandatory" is slavery.
The media is brainwash because The State selects broadcasting networks that will keep people dumbed down, and makes it very hard or outright forbids others from broadcasting.
Just like it selects teachers that will not make students think, and an education system backed by a murder threat, just like taxes, that makes kids dislike learning.
And "accounting" is knowing how to get around the legal hoops of The State.
NoCryingNowYes 2 years ago
ahaha education camps so true
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
Economically speaking, this is an externality problem. The owner of the garden provides a benefit in the form of improved scenery and a recreational area but the benefit is not monetized, so they switch to a use with monetized benefits. One thing that might work is for the owners of businesses near the garden who enjoy these external benefits in the form of increased consumer traffic to work out an arrangement where they pay the owner not to develop so they can keep these benefits.
nonantianarchist 2 years ago
yes as blue montains says
1) not all wants are reprisented in "demand" - only wants that can be paid for are demand!
2) again you are asking the owners of the business who might be a small business like a tea shop to pay off a company with much larger revenue such as a construction company/leasing agency
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
It's a false dichotomy. All value is subjective. The "price" of this "social value" is the monetary value of the most valuable alternate use. I pointed out that these small business get spillover benefits from the nice scenery, and if that benefit is great enough to outweigh the value of housing, then they should be able to cough up enough to either buy the land outright or to get the developers to agree not to develop.
nonantianarchist 2 years ago
You keep on reducing everything to cost/benefits to businesses ARGH can you please stop turning everything into a dollar sign! what the fuck?
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
the point I'm making is I don't think they should HAVE to cough up anything, besides they could be poorer than the developer and not afford to buy the land, plus they all have mortgages, kids to feed, bills etc etc
I say the land is in the local community and what is good for it is decided by the local community, at the least they should be able to force a compromise with the developer to develop buildings which are scenic/eco-friendly/culturally significant.
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
People will pay for things to the extent that they value them and are able to pay. You're not looking at it from both sides. People can make money by developing land because there are other people who value what is developed and are willing to pay for it. You're arguing for the "right" to have a scenic neighborhood "unblemished" by development, but not recognizing the rights of those who might be willing to pay for the apartments built through development.
nonantianarchist 2 years ago
you're right, I don't acknowledge the right to develop without the approval of the people in the neighbourhood!
The people who profit from the development probably live somewhere else and they will only receive dividends from the development, whereas the people who live in the community will have to see the new builds every day.
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
Actually, I was pointing out that since it's profitable, presumably there are people who want to live in these developments. When you say "No development here!" you are also indirectly saying to people who would have lived there "NO, you can't live here 'cause we don't like the aesthetics". But while you've done everything to complain about private property, you haven't explained any moral basis for your collective property. How are your actions different from a landlord's?
nonantianarchist 2 years ago
also you should see all the beautiful buildings in Glasgow. They have one thing in common: They are all old!
Because of the beloved market developers put up the cheapest appartments to save money, they look unsightly but they save the people who builld it money.
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
According to which "market principles?" What kind of market? What does making money have to do with whether one can or should hold a given resource, and from whom did you receive that argument? You've opened a giant umbrella here, and I think you're trying to herd people under it who wouldn't be there otherwise.
I'd say more, but I'd just be repeating what NoCryingNow has already posted.
LibertyIsNotGiven 2 years ago
ok cheers for the contribution anyway but at the same time some of the libertarians here seem to be abandoning market purism left right and centre over this example so i think it has spawned a pretty worthwhile debate
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago