04 Feb 08
Originally posted by WajomaPretty much all fraud takes place within a voluntary transaction, so you're not free of that, for a start.
Yes precisely to do with "free from force threats of force and fraud" because the transaction is "free from force threats of force and fraud.
The transaction is voluntary.
Edit: actually
Also, while a particular transaction may be free of threats of force, there is nothing there to prevent threats of force. So nothing in capitalism guarantees it. And the lack of prevention pretty much guarantees it will happen, people being what they are.
On the other hand, state mechanisms can (in some cases) defend against such threats.
04 Feb 08
Originally posted by RedmikeThere is no inconsistency, I have never said there should be no state. Just that the role of the state be limited to protecting ones life, liberty and property.
But surely, by your logic, people are having their freedom to drive on whatever side of the road they choose by threats?
People driving drunk or on the wrong side of the road are clearly an objective threat to at least your life and property.
So there is no paralell between assigning what side of the road to drive on, whether democratically or having it dictated - and - making someone else pay for your retirement, or making you invest in your retirement when you may have other priorites.
Missoleum: Although not ideal probably the fairest way to pay for roads in the short term is with a petrol tax, making it as close as possible to a user pays system. The move should be towards private roads, in NZ there have been some private/public partnerships in building roads. The Millau Viaduct is a good example in France.
04 Feb 08
Originally posted by WajomaBut surely, if a group of people collectively agree that they want the state to have powers beyond "protecting ones life, liberty and property", then they should be able to do so.
There is no inconsistency, I have never said there should be no state. Just that the role of the state be limited to protecting ones life, liberty and property.
People driving drunk or on the wrong side of the road are clearly an objective threat to at least your life and property.
So there is no paralell between assigning what side of the road to d ...[text shortened]... private/public partnerships in building roads. The Millau Viaduct is a good example in France.
05 Feb 08
Originally posted by RedmikeThe stateless communism in which you say you believe is a figment of your imagination. No such phenomenon has ever existed nor ever will.
You don't have to have experienced something to have an understanding of how it will work.
Nobody, as yet, has experienced a communist system.
In real life communism has proved over and over again to lead to the most repressive and tyranical forms of government possible even by comparison with Nazi Germany. Thus Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao, to mention only three such communist leaders, were responsible for mass slaughter of their citizens on a scale even greater than that perpetrated by Hitler.
Fortunately you are pretty harmless since few still believe as you do, but such irrational fantasies on a large scale produce fanatics with diseased minds, as witness the Christianty of old and Islam today.
05 Feb 08
Originally posted by RedmikeNo, not the state but they can bring it upon themselves, they can get together and form organisations and agree to abide by the popular vote but they have no right to force that on non-members. There are many examples of this now, the practice of tithing in some churches, club fees, membership fees, some of these organisations have strict dress codes and codes of conduct. Does that mean they should force such regulation on others?
But surely, if a group of people collectively agree that they want the state to have powers beyond "protecting ones life, liberty and property", then they should be able to do so.
If you feel the need for a cuddly rug then I don't doubt there are all sorts of people willing to make decisions for you, just write up a contract and sign your life away or however much of it you can't handle.
05 Feb 08
Originally posted by WajomaBut surely the same can be said about protecting one's life, liberty and property.
No, not the state but they can bring it upon themselves, they can get together and form organisations and agree to abide by the popular vote but they have no right to force that on non-members. There are many examples of this now, the practice of tithing in some churches, club fees, membership fees, some of these organisations have strict dress codes and cod ...[text shortened]... you, just write up a contract and sign your life away or however much of it you can't handle.
Surely only people who sign up to that should receive it. And what's with the Randian property stuck in there? How can one have the right to have property?
When all land is divided amongst people and then there are more people... how do they get land? If they have a right to it, then surely nobody else can have a right to it?
This is why we have democracies. So that if the people want a health service, they get one. Why should I pay taxes to police to defend someone's right to property, but not be able to pay taxes to insure good health for everyone?
05 Feb 08
Originally posted by BogleI refer you to my previous reply:
The stateless communism in which you say you believe is a figment of your imagination. No such phenomenon has ever existed nor ever will.
In real life communism has proved over and over again to lead to the most repressive and tyranical forms of government possible even by comparison with Nazi Germany. Thus Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao, to mention only three su ...[text shortened]... e scale produce fanatics with diseased minds, as witness the Christianty of old and Islam today.
"Blah Blah Stalin Blah Blah Pol Pot Blah Blah"
05 Feb 08
Originally posted by WajomaDoesn't really matter what it is called - if a group of people collectively decide they want a body to control certain elements of the society, that's up to them.
No, not the state but they can bring it upon themselves, they can get together and form organisations and agree to abide by the popular vote but they have no right to force that on non-members. There are many examples of this now, the practice of tithing in some churches, club fees, membership fees, some of these organisations have strict dress codes and cod ...[text shortened]... you, just write up a contract and sign your life away or however much of it you can't handle.
If they all agree to accept the wishes of the majority, then that's fair enough.
06 Feb 08
Originally posted by RedmikeYes, that's what I've been saying, if you believe in free health care join the free health care collective, just leave those that don't believe in free health care alone. If you believe in rolling one leg of your trousers up and doing a funny hand shake, so be it, just leave everyone else alone. Those that join clubs, churches and other organisations do so voluntarily, which is exactly as it should be.
Doesn't really matter what it is called - if a group of people collectively decide they want a body to control certain elements of the society, that's up to them.
If they all agree to accept the wishes of the majority, then that's fair enough.
Shav: The concept of property rights precedes Rand by many thousands of years although very rarely applied consistently. As per the example given already, right back in caveman days when Og recognised that the rock Gog had shaped into an axe actually belonged to Gog, and vice versa, Gog recognised that the stick Og had sharpened into a spear actually belonged to Og, and that instead of using these tools on each others heads they voluntarily traded them, so capitalism was born. And ever since then there have been those only too ready to resort to force and threats of force to get their hands on other peoples property, currently it's under the guise of democracy and such feel good names as social welfare, but when you get right to the root of it, it's just theft. Your Randophobia is becoming almost rabid, instead of just repeating stuff you've heard on the internet you could try actually reading some to get that back under control, maybe even cured.
Property refers not only to so many sq metres of dirt but to anything from nature that has been turned to some value, do you own any clothes? They are your property. How about intellectual property, this idea might be difficult for you to grasp, it requires original thought.
You have a right to acquire property, you do not have a right to property. Do you see the difference? A right is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others.
I agree you should not have to pay taxes for the police to defend your property, there are always going to be free loaders, you display all the symptoms. You are quite welcome to pay taxes, or rather donate to any health scheme you like, the only type of charity possible is voluntary, good for you, maybe not such a free loader after all and you wont mind if I opt out of your free health care scam, I mean scheme, do you.
06 Feb 08
Originally posted by WajomaIt's constantly amusing how you project communism as being the will of the majority forced upon people and that this is bad.
"If they all agree to accept the wishes of the majority, then that's fair enough."
Aw Red, you're giving me the warm fuzzies, have you just experienced an insight.
Yet capitalism is the will of a minority doing exactly the same, yet this is freedom, liberty and property.
Don't you see the slight glitch in your tirade?
06 Feb 08
Originally posted by shavixmirAhhh, so you don't own any clothes.
It's constantly amusing how you project communism as being the will of the majority forced upon people and that this is bad.
Yet capitalism is the will of a minority doing exactly the same, yet this is freedom, liberty and property.
Don't you see the slight glitch in your tirade?