An Era of Bipartisanship?

Let's say I wanted to be a farmer. Under communism I need permission from a government bureau and without this I will be prevented from farming by government men with guns. Laissez faire capitalism makes me pay the landlord if I want to farm or again the government gunmen will stop me.

Under anarchism you just farm the land without permission. No permission from people far away necessary to avoid government force.

I mostly agree with this:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_is_Property%3F_Or,_an_Inquiry_into_the_Principle_of_Right_and_of_Government_by_Pierre_Joseph_Proudhon#section_1

Proudhon believed that the common conception of property conflated two distinct components which, once identified, demonstrated the difference between property used to further tyranny and property used to protect liberty. He argued that the result of an individual's labor which is currently occupied or used is a legitimate form of property. Thus, he opposed unused land being regarded as property, believing that land can only be rightfully possessed by use or occupation (which he called "possession"😉. As an extension of his belief that legitimate property (possession) was the result of labor and occupation, he argued against such institutions as interest on loans and rent.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Let's say I wanted to be a farmer. Under communism I need permission from a government bureau and without this I will be prevented from farming by government men with guns. Laissez faire capitalism makes me pay the landlord if I want to farm or again the government gunmen will stop me.

Under anarchism you just farm the land without permission. No ...[text shortened]... r and occupation, he argued against such institutions as interest on loans and rent.[/quote]

Originally posted by sasquatch672
I see. So what happens when someone else decides they want to farm the same land?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I point a gun at them and say this land is mine b*

In the scenario I can do that because I am actually present on the land. It involves force but not government force.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
No, state-owned industry freaks capitalists out because the state is terrible at business. It's kind of like, those who can, do; those who can't, regulate.

We've seen totalitarianism socialism in the recent past. It crumbled. Why would Americans want it?

Originally posted by invigorate
We have seen that a lack of regulation in the financial sector cause one of the deepest recessions in 60 years.

Millions of Americans and Europeans lost their homes and jobs because the financial sector failure to act responsibility, because government and regulators got out of the way.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
Well, really what happened is that Barney Frank pushed banks to lower their lending standards so that home ownership could be expanded. The banks complied and then hairdressers making $22,000 a year were buying $750,000 homes with liar loans. That's the housing crisis. The financial crisis - yes. Major lending institutions were trading on their own ...[text shortened]... on.

But I don't know how you justify totalitarianism because Goldman Sachs behaved badly.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I point a gun at them and say this land is mine b*

In the scenario I can do that because I am actually present on the land. It involves force but not government force.

Originally posted by no1marauder
That's largely a fairy tale. The banks pushed mortgage brokers to increase the number of loans after the repeal of Glass-Stegall allowed them to enter the mortgage security market in a huge way. $64 trillion of mortgage securities weren't sold to hairdressers.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
http://www.openmarket.org/2011/05/26/barney-frank-used-influence-with-fannie-mae-the-failed-mortgage-giant-bailed-out-by-taxpayers/

Originally posted by no1marauder
Please. Fannie's share of the mortgage market plummeted in the 2000's. All the right wing propaganda trying to blame the financial crisis on government interference with the free market is complete BS for the ignorant and uninformed.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
Anybody who says anything you disagree with is a moron, idiot, ignorant, uninformed, disgusting...and about a baker's dozen other adjectives.