Altas Shrugged

Originally posted by rwingett
And how does socialism relieve one from being responsible for one's own decisions?

An eg

Socialised health care. People who lead sedantry lives, eating too much unhealthy food, indulging in dangerous drugs, other risky behaviours like dangerous sports.

Those that have taken care of themselves will pay a disproportionate amount for something they had no part in.

Being responsible = Not making others pick up your hospital tab for your own stupid choices.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Those that do not advocate a free market are not capitalists....because.....THAT IS WHAT CAPITALISM IS.

Private ownership of property.
A complete separation of the state from economics just as there is a separation of state from religion.
Free trade in a free marketplace.
The absence of force from human relations – with government confined to keeping things that way.

If everyone has the right to own property. Then one has the right to own land. What if all land is already owned? What happens to one's right then?

Originally posted by shavixmir
If everyone has the right to own property. Then one has the right to own land. What if all land is already owned? What happens to one's right then?

Do you think one day that property will no longer be bought and sold the way it is now, the way my parents bought and sold, and their parents. Have you not seen the newspapers full of proeperties for sale?

Do you think that's going to just stop?

Why?

Originally posted by Wajoma
Do you think one day that property will no longer be bought and sold the way it is now, the way my parents bought and sold, and their parents. Have you not seen the newspapers full of proeperties for sale?

Do you think that's going to just stop?

Why?

We're on about rights.
And property is getting ever more expensive.

And can someone own the moon? Or the sun?

And why is your garden more important and better protected than my health?

And how come Peter can work 16 hours a day in a factory and own nothing, yet William doesn't have to work at all, but can own the factory, just because his grandparents used to trade slaves?

Property is nothing. It's what people claim. Like people can claim they're Jesus Christ, one can claim that one owns a tree.
And yes, you can get it printed on paper (a system devised by those who already owned property, obviously), but in the end, if I shoot you, you'll own nothing.

And taxes are wrong (according to Rand)... except... when used to protect William's property!!! How convenient. A complete loop-hole, of Orwellian proportions, just to protect property.

No Wajoma. Rationalism is fake argumentation designed to give a certain status-quo the benefit of the doubt. And it fails at its first hurdle (as I explained in a previous post).

Amazingly, the only people who don't think Rand a mad old bat are the Americans (oh... and I know one Canadian as well). Go figure...

Originally posted by shavixmir
We're on about rights.
And property is getting ever more expensive.

And can someone own the moon? Or the sun?

And why is your garden more important and better protected than my health?

And how come Peter can work 16 hours a day in a factory and own nothing, yet William doesn't have to work at all, but can own the factory, just because his grand and a mad old bat are the Americans (oh... and I know one Canadian as well). Go figure...

Your Randophobia is showing again, why don't you drop it, you're embarassing yourself. The concept of property predates Rand by thousands of years. This has been been made vary clear to you before.

Your health is your business, the health of my garden is my business. If it comes to someone threatening your life and another threatening my garden I expect the police would prioritise your life over my garden. You see how your analogy falls apart.

A right is the sovereignty to act with out the permission of others, the grand daddy is the right to life. This dosen't mean others must provide you with the means just that they can't take your life away. From this right flow the other rights, while it is sometimes said to be "You have a right to property" the correct term is "You have a right to acquire property." Do you see how the first can be misread and the second makes it clear that it is not 'the' property, but 'the act' of acquiring.

Do you really own nothing at all? No clothes, no books, no shoes?

I think you'll find Rand sells internationally and in a number of languages.

Originally posted by shavixmir
If everyone has the right to own property. Then one has the right to own land. What if all land is already owned? What happens to one's right then?

You have the right to not have land taken away should you buy some. You do not have a right to be given land.

Originally posted by shavixmir
We're on about rights.
And property is getting ever more expensive.

And can someone own the moon? Or the sun?

And why is your garden more important and better protected than my health?

And how come Peter can work 16 hours a day in a factory and own nothing, yet William doesn't have to work at all, but can own the factory, just because his grand ...[text shortened]... and a mad old bat are the Americans (oh... and I know one Canadian as well). Go figure...

It's not more important than your health. She's not asking for your money to support her garden while denying you tax money for health care.

Originally posted by shavixmir
We're on about rights.
And property is getting ever more expensive.

And can someone own the moon? Or the sun?

And why is your garden more important and better protected than my health?

And how come Peter can work 16 hours a day in a factory and own nothing, yet William doesn't have to work at all, but can own the factory, just because his grand ...[text shortened]... and a mad old bat are the Americans (oh... and I know one Canadian as well). Go figure...

The issue with Peter is not property ownership, it's inheritence.

You can try to shoot any of us. Saddam tried to blow up Bush Sr. You can see what happened. We back each other up. Even I, at the near bottom of the economic ladder, who is above the bottom because I worked hard and took out loans to pay for my education, am in favor of defending rich folks from robbery.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
You have the right to not have land taken away should you buy some. You do not have a right to be given land.

As a matter of interest, what made Locke right about that? People accept it as an article of faith, but I don't see it as any more reasonable than the view that land is common to all. Ultimately the owners won out through the use of force, not because they were more correct. So the right to property is always maintained by force.

Another incidental--does owning land give you the right to expel tenants who have been living on it in favour of, say, sheep, because sheep are more profitable to you, the owner, than said tenants?

Here is an historical example of what I'm talking about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highland_Clearances

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
As a matter of interest, what made Locke right about that? People accept it as an article of faith, but I don't see it as any more reasonable than the view that land is common to all. Ultimately the owners won out through the use of force, not because they were more correct. So the right to property is always maintained by force.

Another incidental ...[text shortened]... historical example of what I'm talking about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highland_Clearances

Nobody's "right" about morality. It's a human invention and varies from person to person. There is no absolute scale to measure it against.

The problem with the land being common to all is that it keeps driven individuals from creating infrastructure and saving up resources. Why should they? It'll just get taken away by the guvamint or anyone who feels like wandering in.

Besides...

If the land belongs to all, what's to stop me from fencing in part of it and keeping others out? Commonality of land needs to be enforced with violence too.

The fact is, violence exists, and will rear it's ugly head no matter what system you advocate. How should we deal with it?

If the land belongs to all, how do I keep my mother from getting raped? Anyone can walk into her apartment right? It belongs to them too...and why should anyone bother to maintain the building? Everyone knows it's someone else's problem.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Nobody's "right" about morality. It's a human invention and varies from person to person. There is no absolute scale to measure it against.///

If the land belongs to all, how do I keep my mother from getting raped? Anyone can walk into her apartment right?

Agreed.

Common ownership requires an entirely different political structure, yes.

Your last point is hilarious. I imagine mothers were raped constantly in societies that exercised communal ownership.

Anyway. Communal ownership entails various other rights, which are probably not worth getting into. For example, a chief would have certain rights, but he wouldn't have the right to sell off his lands, boot his people off them, and raise sheep instead.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Agreed.

Common ownership requires an entirely different political structure, yes.

Your last point is hilarious. I imagine mothers were raped constantly in societies that exercised communal ownership.

Anyway. Communal ownership entails various other rights, which are probably not worth getting into. For example, a chief would have certain righ ...[text shortened]... uldn't have the right to sell off his lands, boot his people off them, and raise sheep instead.

Women have been raped constantly all throughout history.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Women have been raped constantly all throughout history.

A regular 24/7 rape scenario. And you were there with your camera; hence your words' majestic authority. Coming from anyone else, it would have been shrill rhetorical hyperbole.

I know quite a lot of women who deny having been 'constantly raped'; conspiracy of silence?

Originally posted by Wajoma
Your Randophobia is showing again, why don't you drop it, you're embarassing yourself. The concept of property predates Rand by thousands of years.

I think you'll find Rand sells internationally and in a number of languages.

This has nothing to do with what I was saying.
Rand rationalised the status quo. That was what I was saying.

I'm sure Rand sells internationally in a number of languages... 10 books in Germany, 3 in Italy, etc, etc. ad finitum.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
A regular 24/7 rape scenario. And you were there with your camera; hence your words' majestic authority. Coming from anyone else, it would have been shrill rhetorical hyperbole.

I know quite a lot of women who deny having been 'constantly raped'; conspiracy of silence?

Your reading comprehension needs work. I did not say "all women have been constantly raped". I said "women".

250,000 cases of rape a year according to the UN. That's many hundreds a day. Can you figure out how to fit in many hundreds of rapes in a 24 hour period and have there be any rape-free time? Unlikely.

In the UK alone there were 230 a day, according to the BBC. So I could probably say "women are being constantly raped in the UK these days". 8 or 9 rapes would take up an hour, right? I'm not too familiar with rape.