The Republicans and other Right Wingers talk about Trickle Down Economics ? [Archive]

View Full Version : The Republicans and other Right Wingers talk about Trickle Down Economics ?

tradeunionsupporter

2nd October 2011, 11:19

The Republicans and other Right Wingers talk about Trickle Down Economics but Trickle Down Economics does not work because the Rich/Wealthy could choose not to use the extra money to create Jobs they may choose to use the money to buy a new Home or a new Car or a new Yacht or they may choose to save the money and put the money in Banks does anyone agree with me on this subject thanks ?

Thom Hartmann: How can cutting taxes on rich people, on high income people, do anything other than encourage them to take the money out of their companies, out of their businesses, and buy fancy paintings or yachts or put it in Swiss bank accounts? How conceivably could that help the economy?

http://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/2010/10/transcript-thom-hartmann-asks-curtis-dubay-keeping-bush-tax-cuts-will-create-jobsreally

The issue with trickle down economics is that it relies on actions by individuals which will benefit a whole, and most individuals are not that altruistic. In fact, many wealthy individuals and corporations are understandably interested in protecting their wealth, and when their taxes are cut, they may choose not to reinvest that money, meaning that no funds “trickle down” to people in lower socioeconomic classes. The tax burden on the middle class may also increase as the government struggles to keep tax revenues high enough to fund itself.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-trickle-down-economics.htm

By the end of the 80s, it had become clear that the rich were not investing their liberated tax dollars on "good" forms of investment, like jobs and productive tools and technology. Instead, the money went towards consumption, the good life, and economically meaningless investments like antiques and sport cars.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-capgainsspur.htm

RGacky3

2nd October 2011, 12:13

a rebel

2nd October 2011, 12:32

Its Ironic that one of the criticisms of Socialism is that people are not altruistic, even though this is the EXACT argument we use against capitalism and is one of the reasons you need democratic control over the economy.

Very true, but the difference between us and them is that we have revolution to make people altruistic. When will people realize that free market capitalism and especially trickle down economics is a load of horse shit?

Judicator

2nd October 2011, 21:47

The issue with trickle down economics is that it relies on actions by individuals which will benefit a whole, and most individuals are not that altruistic. In fact, many wealthy individuals and corporations are understandably interested in protecting their wealth, and when their taxes are cut, they may choose not to reinvest that money, meaning that no funds “trickle down” to people in lower socioeconomic classes. The tax burden on the middle class may also increase as the government struggles to keep tax revenues high enough to fund itself.

Trickle down economics requires that lower taxes will induce "greedy" capitalists to "greedily" expand their factories. Lower taxes mean producing stuff in factories will be more profitable.

If they don't spend their money, they will put it in the bank. This increases the money supply and lowers interest rates. This will induce others to expand their businesses, since projects whose ROI was previously too low is now sufficient.

Robert

3rd October 2011, 02:07

If they don't spend their money, they will put it in the bank.

Will the bankers lend at no interest to each according to his needs?

Comrade Hill

3rd October 2011, 02:11

Thom Hartmann is the man. I watch his show everyday.

Even though he's sympathetic to the Obama administration, I enjoy what he has to say about capitalism.

kapitalyst

3rd October 2011, 02:23

I don't support "Trickle-down economics"... a pejorative term which fails to understand market economics. :rolleyes:

But if "Trickle down", "Piss Down" or "Golden Shower" economics, or whatever you want to call it, is going to happen then I much prefer it to forms "Bukakke Economics" and/or "Dirty Sanchez Economics" or, the more proper term, "Scatophilian Economics" (socialism). It just seems that being pissed on from above is preferable than rolling in shit en masse... :lol:

tradeunionsupporter:
"[...] the Rich/Wealthy could choose not to use the extra money to create Jobs they may choose to use the money to buy a new Home or a new Car or a new Yacht or they may choose to save the money and put the money in Banks does anyone agree with me on this subject thanks?"
All of the things you mentioned actually are economic positives that create wealth. Buying a new home, car or even a yacht allows industry to create more wealth -- the person exchanges monetary wealth for material wealth, and the monetary wealth cycles through the economy. Even putting the money in the bank and saving it is good. It increases systemic liquidity, gives banks money to lend and help families and allows institutional investment which is a net positive for the economy.

This idea that all the wealth goes to the top and is greedily hoarded and kept there forever is BS. The only purpose to making money is so that you can spend it on things... and satisfying that demand can only be achieved through more production. That makes the economy wealthier as a whole. And who gets the money is just a matter of who satisfies the demand, whether it's for staple goods and services or a luxury yacht. Go out and do something for other people that they will be happy with and pay for, and create wealth.

Revolution starts with U

3rd October 2011, 03:27

Assuming that extra profits will go back into the company, or that all banks lend all the money they can... that's the basics of trickle down economics. It is based wholly on assumptions, and time and again those assumptions are proven wrong.
It's not G-D damned coincedence that the companies that outsourced did so in times of their highest productivity.

Judicator

3rd October 2011, 05:05

Revolution starts with U

3rd October 2011, 05:27

kapitalyst

3rd October 2011, 11:35

The theory is not false.. because it's not a theory. It's an assumption. The assumption is false.
Giving the people who have more money than they can spend more money is not nearly as effective as just giving money to the people who need to spend and cannot. (Wait.. correct me if I'm wrong but is that not axiomatic?)

That's not axiomatic. It might sound good, but doesn't work.

How do we get this money to the people who need to spend? Do we taxe them? No. Not necessarily.
I have a better idea. Let them keep the full value of their labor. Stop letting their boss tax their productivity. Your government keeps .30c of every dollar, they say. No. Your government takes .30c of every dollar you are allowed keep after your boss takes $4 of every $5 you create.

You don't have to work for your boss. Tell him "fuck you!" and leave, as I once did. Then find a new way to make money, as there are plenty and limited only by your imagination.

If more people did this, the demand for labor would grow and the amount workers had to be paid would increase. Furthermore, this would put more furious competition in the tech industry, and cause advances in robotics, software, AI, assembly lines, everything. But it's no one's fault if you go work at a poo job in a factory because you're afraid to take financial risk and try something else. I have a dear friend who has a lame job, and he refuses to leave it or even consider investing his money. No, he feels content with the "security" (or the false sense of it) of no financial risk and crap pay.

molotovcocktail

3rd October 2011, 12:10

You don't have to work for your boss. Tell him "fuck you!" and leave, as I once did. Then find a new way to make money, as there are plenty and limited only by your imagination.

Im sorry kapitalyst, but things dont work that way. with the high unemployment today, the chances of finding a new job at all is almost none, and those who have the shitty jobs are mostly working class people with low education. Low educated people are not having any chance in the job market today to find a new and good job with a boss that respects you. they are lucky if they even have a job.

RGacky3

3rd October 2011, 12:29

I don't support "Trickle-down economics"... a pejorative term which fails to understand market economics

It was coined by a market economist.

All of the things you mentioned actually are economic positives that create wealth. Buying a new home, car or even a yacht allows industry to create more wealth -- the person exchanges monetary wealth for material wealth, and the monetary wealth cycles through the economy.

The rich spend a much smaller percentage of their wealth on consumer products, and generally it stimulates much less hiring, (building 1 yact for 1 guy takes a lot less labor than creating, 100,000 coffee machines for working class people.)

Even putting the money in the bank and saving it is good. It increases systemic liquidity, gives banks money to lend and help families and allows institutional investment which is a net positive for the economy.

Banks HAVE money, they don't need more, they arn't lending because it is'nt profitable. Lending is only profitable with high demand and a strong working class.

This idea that all the wealth goes to the top and is greedily hoarded and kept there forever is BS.

http://citizenship.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341cb34753ef014e60fbeae8970c-500wi (http://citizenship.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341cb34753ef014e60fbeae8970c-popup)

http://www.epi.org/files//snapshot-Share_total_wealth_gain.png (http://www.epi.org/files//snapshot-Share_total_wealth_gain.png)

Except your wrong.

I know you live in libertarian fairy land where efficiency of markets is real, but we are talking about how Capitalism ACTUALLY works.

You don't have to work for your boss. Tell him "fuck you!" and leave, as I once did. Then find a new way to make money, as there are plenty and limited only by your imagination.

This should tell everyone what they need to know about your relationship with reality.

kapitalyst

3rd October 2011, 18:15

The rich spend a much smaller percentage of their wealth on consumer products, and generally it stimulates much less hiring, (building 1 yact for 1 guy takes a lot less labor than creating, 100,000 coffee machines for working class people.)

The rich spend a fucking shit load of money, and carry the vast majority of national tax burden. They also invest in businesses, and provide systemic liquidity for everyone. Your idea that wealth is fixed is just totally wrong. Wealth is not fixed. It's an ever-rising pie, so long as there's any production -- and there is, bad as our economy may be.

Banks HAVE money, they don't need more, they arn't lending because it is'nt profitable. Lending is only profitable with high demand and a strong working class.

And you can thank your local central bank for that...

http://citizenship.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341cb34753ef014e60fbeae8970c-500wi (http://citizenship.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341cb34753ef014e60fbeae8970c-popup)

http://www.epi.org/files//snapshot-Share_total_wealth_gain.png (http://www.epi.org/files//snapshot-Share_total_wealth_gain.png)

Oooh, so by the standards of your top-most chart, I'm now "super rich"? That is fucking news to me. I'd have built the world's first uber-skyscraper castle had I known this a year ago! :lol:

That chart, like many of your others, is designed to mislead. It attempts to make it appear that there are only two income-brackets of people, represented by those two lines -- which is a total falsehood. And it doesn't even support your 1% claim...

See, the blue line is a bit above $50k... The red line is about $400k. Let's do math:

99 * $50,000 = $4,950,000
1 * $500,000 = $500,000

It appears the "super rich" only have about 10% of the wealth...

Except I'm wrong.

Indeed. ;)

I know you live in libertarian fairy land where efficiency of markets is real, but we are talking about how Capitalism ACTUALLY works.

I'm not a proponent of EMH (Efficient Market Hypothesis). Do you even know what that is? :rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient-market_hypothesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_market_efficiency

This should tell everyone what they need to know about your relationship with reality.

I know, because I did that very thing and it fucking worked. I'm not alone. Join the party. :)

Fopeos

3rd October 2011, 18:16

One of the biggest problems with "trickle-down" economics is that capitalists haven't been reinvesting in productive capacity (i.e. bigger or more efficient MoP). Most capitalists want the highest return in the shortest amount of time so they turn to money-markets. One of the root causes of our most recent economic crisis was the rush to invest in mortgage debt-bundles and related securities. Investing in "fictitious capital" enabled an awful lot of people to make an awful lot of money without actually producing anything.
If you want to stimulate the economy, you've got to put more money in the hands of people who will spend it on real commodities. Every dollar that goes to an unemployed individual goes right back into the economy, creating, or at the very least, maintaining other jobs.
Personally, I have no real desire to keep capitalism afloat. It has overstayed it's welcome.

kapitalyst

3rd October 2011, 18:22

RGacky3

3rd October 2011, 18:57

The rich spend a fucking shit load of money, and carry the vast majority of national tax burden. They also invest in businesses, and provide systemic liquidity for everyone. Your idea that wealth is fixed is just totally wrong. Wealth is not fixed. It's an ever-rising pie, so long as there's any production -- and there is, bad as our economy may be.

You did'nt contradict ANYthing I said in the quote, re-read it again, CAREFULLY, and respond accordingly, or if you can't just ignore it, this is what I said, I'll highlight the important words because obviously your not getting it.

"The rich spend a much smaller percentage of their wealth on consumer products, and generally it stimulates much less hiring, (building 1 yact for 1 guy takes a lot less labor than creating, 100,000 coffee machines for working class people.) "

And you can thank your local central bank for that...

Yeah, your right Capitalism was so great before central banks, and central banks power rised immediately after central banks .... You can thank Capitalism.

That chart, like many of your others, is designed to mislead. It attempts to make it appear that there are only two income-brackets of people, represented by those two lines -- which is a total falsehood. And it doesn't even support your 1% claim...

See, the blue line is a bit above $50k... The red line is about $400k. Let's do math:

99 * $50,000 = $4,950,000
1 * $500,000 = $500,000

It appears the "super rich" only have about 10% of the wealth...

first of all its 5% not 1% second of all, its income not wealth.

Again, your not reading correctly.

I put in the second chart specifically to talk about wealth, obviously I'm wasting my time finding facts and making arguments as your not even reading them, much less able to forumate a proper argument against them.

I'm not a proponent of EMH (Efficient Market Hypothesis). Do you even know what that is? :rolleyes:

I was refering to the broad sense of it, that markets are inherently efficient and that markets inherently work.

I know, because I did that very thing and it fucking worked. I'm not alone. Join the party. :)

yeah becuase if it happened to you it must be the way of the world, facts and statistics be damned.

But listen, if your going to respond to my posts, read what I say, and look at the facts, if you want to be taken seriously you'll have to do that, if you don't, then just leave.

Catma

3rd October 2011, 19:43

You don't have to work for your boss. Tell him "fuck you!" and leave, as I once did. Then find a new way to make money, as there are plenty and limited only by your imagination.

If more people did this, the demand for labor would grow and the amount workers had to be paid would increase. Furthermore, this would put more furious competition in the tech industry, and cause advances in robotics, software, AI, assembly lines, everything. But it's no one's fault if you go work at a poo job in a factory because you're afraid to take financial risk and try something else. I have a dear friend who has a lame job, and he refuses to leave it or even consider investing his money. No, he feels content with the "security" (or the false sense of it) of no financial risk and crap pay.

And they call US utopian.

Sweyn78

3rd October 2011, 20:45

Trickle-down economics is plausible only when there is little or no hoarding. Unfortunately, our interest-currency encourages hoarding of currency, but under a demurrage-tax, hoarding would be discouraged (at the cost of the government losing some direct control over currency, and at the cost of banks becoming mostly unnecessary). Take, for example, the Woergl stamp-scrip experiment in the great depression, which had 14 times the velocity of the Austrian shilling by which it was backed. I'd go-into more detail, but I've other things to do. If someone wishes that I do so, I will, of course, expound.

RGacky3

3rd October 2011, 21:09

Unfortunately, our interest-currency encourages hoarding of currency

Actually a non-growing (deflating) currency would encourage hoarding, becuase your dollar will buy you more tommorow than today.

What encourages hourding is the lack of demand, the fact that there is no one to buy the products.

Revolution starts with U

4th October 2011, 20:13

That's not axiomatic. It might sound good, but doesn't work.

Being axiomatic doesn't mean something works :rolleyes: I mean, look at praxeology... what a load of crap that is.
But the sentence "giving people who have more money than they can spend more money is not as effective as giving money to the people who need to spend but can't" is self-explanatory.

You don't have to work for your boss. Tell him "fuck you!" and leave, as I once did. Then find a new way to make money, as there are plenty and limited only by your imagination.

What if I don't have the imagination? Does that make economic exploitation any better? Slavery cannot be justified merely because the slave can buy his freedom.
2) What am I going to do, go work for another slave driver? Oh, ya, that makes slavery more justifiable.
3) What if I have the imagination, but cannot get the start-up capital because I have bad credit?
4)What if I have the imagination, and the start-up capital, but not the desire to axe my principles and become an economic exploiter?

There's a reason Stephen Colbert titled his book "I Am America and So Can You." Becaues he's a satirist, and he knows full well that message is bullshit.

If more people did this, the demand for labor would grow and the amount workers had to be paid would increase. Furthermore, this would put more furious competition in the tech industry, and cause advances in robotics, software, AI, assembly lines, everything.
Oh no no no. You are correct in one thing. This would encourage more roboticization of industry. And those increases would allow the ruling class to continue thier lifestyle while everyone starves.
Theoretically increased roboticization should lead to more employment, as labor capital can now be spent elsewhere. But in reality, it rarely leads to that, as opposed to just increased unemployment, as the ruling class doesn't care about labor.

But it's no one's fault if you go work at a poo job in a factory because you're afraid to take financial risk and try something else. I have a dear friend who has a lame job, and he refuses to leave it or even consider investing his money. No, he feels content with the "security" (or the false sense of it) of no financial risk and crap pay.
Sure, it is no ones fault but the laborers. And that makes the capitalist system anymore justifiable because....?

Judicator

8th October 2011, 00:21

I'm not a proponent of EMH (Efficient Market Hypothesis). Do you even know what that is? :rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient-market_hypothesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_market_efficiency

The failure of professional money management to earn excess returns provides sufficient real world evidence to at least make the EMH plausible.

CommunityBeliever

8th October 2011, 15:40

You don't have to work for your boss. Tell him "fuck you!" and leave, as I once did. Then find a new way to make money, as there are plenty and limited only by your imagination.

Only someone totally disconnected from reality, like you, would say something like you are "only limited by your imagination." When you come back to time you will realise there are serious limits to what you can do, like your supply of time, energy, and capital.

If more people did this, the demand for labor would grow and the amount workers had to be paid would increase. Furthermore, this would put more furious competition in the tech industry, and cause advances in robotics, software, AI, assembly lines, everything.

Right now we are in a technological dark age which goes back at least to the AI winter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_winter) which happened in large part because of the loss of state funding for AI projects, for example the DARPA (defence advanced research projects agency) funding for the Lisp machine projects disappeared.

If you look at history, pstate organisations like DARPA and non-profit foundations like FSF, have been the true source of technological progress not for profit organisations like corporations or individual entrepreneurs.

kapitalyst

8th October 2011, 19:36

Being axiomatic doesn't mean something works :rolleyes:

What I said was the same as the compound sentence "That's not axiomatic, and it might sound good but it doesn't work." The word "because" was not implied. But I can see where that may have been confusing.

However... Consider axioms in the field of mathematics. If A and B are true, then A is obviously true... and x + y = y + x. Could you think of an axiom which doesn't actually work?

I mean, look at praxeology... what a load of crap that is.
But the sentence "giving people who have more money than they can spend more money is not as effective as giving money to the people who need to spend but can't" is self-explanatory.

Nice try. I notice you, like many other leftists, cannot seem to level any sound criticisms of Austrian reasoning/theories. You can offer some sound criticisms of capitalism, but seem to meet your wits end on this front. Also, being self-explanatory does not make an axiom... :p

What if I don't have the imagination? Does that make economic exploitation any better? Slavery cannot be justified merely because the slave can buy his freedom.
2) What am I going to do, go work for another slave driver? Oh, ya, that makes slavery more justifiable.
3) What if I have the imagination, but cannot get the start-up capital because I have bad credit?
4)What if I have the imagination, and the start-up capital, but not the desire to axe my principles and become an economic exploiter?

Sigh... it's not slavery... and you don't have to buy your freedom. :rolleyes:

IIRC, with actual slavery, you could never buy your freedom. You're never paid or compensated for your labor. You're merely fed, clothed and housed by the master. Only in indentured servitude could one buy freedom. Correct me if I'm wrong...

2) If you're able to find a better job which puts you closer to realizing your goals and living better then you should take it. Leaving a shoe factory to work at a glue factory would serve little purpose, however (and probably just be an inconvenience with no benefit).

3) Who said you have to borrow anything? I have virtually no credit to this day. And who said you had to enter into a capital-intensive endeavor?

4) Let's not be silly... Being successful does not require exploitation of anyone. How about you become a freelance journalist? a computer programmer? an author? an artist? musician? or even a trader? Just a few ideas.

If you want to take a "vow of poverty" for your ideals, then great. But then don't complain about being poor, as you've chosen it.

There's a reason Stephen Colbert titled his book "I Am America and So Can You." Becaues he's a satirist, and he knows full well that message is bullshit.

:rolleyes:

Oh no no no. You are correct in one thing. This would encourage more roboticization of industry. And those increases would allow the ruling class to continue thier lifestyle while everyone starves.
Theoretically increased roboticization should lead to more employment, as labor capital can now be spent elsewhere. But in reality, it rarely leads to that, as opposed to just increased unemployment, as the ruling class doesn't care about labor.

This argument makes no sense whatsoever... If everyone started becoming rich and labor was replaced by robotics, I don't think any rich people would be starving... Not that this will actually happen anytime soon, but the conclusions you draw from a theoretical scenario must line up with the actual scenario...

Sure, it is no ones fault but the laborers. And that makes the capitalist system anymore justifiable because....?

And that makes communism justified because...? Those who take risks reap rewards. And most people want to work for money and take their own risks rather than do so because there's a gun aimed at their heads.

The failure of professional money management to earn excess returns provides sufficient real world evidence to at least make the EMH plausible.

This is because the majority of mutual funds, pension funds and other large investment vehicles simply index or heavily weight themselves to market indices... no surprise here. They also aren't always managed so well.

The ability of so many people and money managers (including me) to out-perform by wide margins, year after year after year, demonstrates the fact that EMH isn't true at all. The very premise the theory is built upon is false too.

Only someone totally disconnected from reality, like you, would say something like you are "only limited by your imagination." When you come back to time you will realise there are serious limits to what you can do, like your supply of time, energy, and capital.

All temporary obstacles which can be overcome... again, leaving you only limited by your imagination -- your capacity to think and act in a way that allows you to change your situation.

I'm not "disconnected" from reality. Reality is my *****. :)

Revolution starts with U

8th October 2011, 19:53

What I said was the same as the compound sentence "That's not axiomatic, and it might sound good but it doesn't work." The word "because" was not implied. But I can see where that may have been confusing.

However... Consider axioms in the field of mathematics. If A and B are true, then A is obviously true... and x + y = y + x. Could you think of an axiom which doesn't actually work?

Praxeology :lol: The so-called action axiom

Nice try. I notice you, like many other leftists, cannot seem to level any sound criticisms of Austrian reasoning/theories. You can offer some sound criticisms of capitalism, but seem to meet your wits end on this front. Also, being self-explanatory does not make an axiom... :p

That's because it doesn't say anything. You might as well be saying blogablooga economics.

I have a hard time refuting intelligent designe too. "God did it" is not a scientific position :lol:

Sigh... it's not slavery... and you don't have to buy your freedom. :rolleyes:

I wasn't saying it WAS slavery. I was comparing your statement to a person saying it to justify slavery. And again, in that sense, merely because a slave can buy his freedom, makes the slave system no more justifiable.

IIRC, with actual slavery, you could never buy your freedom. You're never paid or compensated for your labor. You're merely fed, clothed and housed by the master. Only in indentured servitude could one buy freedom. Correct me if I'm wrong...
Most slave systems throughout history, prior to capitalism, could buy their freedom. Consider some readings on Roman slavery, specifically with gladiators.
It's a fine line between indentured servitude and slavery. As such, people like myself, just simply see no real distinction other than degree.

2) If you're able to find a better job which puts you closer to realizing your goals and living better then you should take it. Leaving a shoe factory to work at a glue factory would serve little purpose, however (and probably just be an inconvenience with no benefit).

What if I want to stay at the shoe factory? What if I like it there? Why does that justify the owner/s of the shoe factory being able to oligarchally express their will over me? Because it's "theirs?" Forgive me for thinking that is rather childish.

3) Who said you have to borrow anything? I have virtually no credit to this day. And who said you had to enter into a capital-intensive endeavor?

Nobody.

4) Let's not be silly... Being successful does not require exploitation of anyone. How about you become a freelance journalist? a computer programmer? an author? an artist? musician? or even a trader? Just a few ideas.

Being sucessful doesn't. Being a capitalist does.
But what if I want to stay in my shoe factory because to me "sucess" is having a good time with my friends and family, and I am far more interested in that than material gain? Why does that justify the oligarchic position of the capitalist?

If you want to take a "vow of poverty" for your ideals, then great. But then don't complain about being poor, as you've chosen it.

You don't have to take a vow of poverty to not be interested in aggressive material gain.

You still have given no reason as to why the so-called "failures" of the laborer to become a capitalist justifies the power of the capitalist. I await your response with open arms :thumbup:

This argument makes no sense whatsoever... If everyone started becoming rich and labor was replaced by robotics, I don't think any rich people would be starving... Not that this will actually happen anytime soon, but the conclusions you draw from a theoretical scenario must line up with the actual scenario...
Well that WAS my point :rolleyes: You should probably read that comment again. The wealthy will not starve. And if they don't have to, they won't hire human labor either... so human labor WILL starve. Increased roboticization rarely leads to increased employment under the capitalist mode of production. Theoretically it should. It just doesn't work out that way as the bourgiousie are interested in labor regardless of whether it is human or not.

And that makes communism justified because...?
That's not an answer.

Those who take risks reap rewards. And most people want to work for money and take their own risks rather than do so because there's a gun aimed at their heads.

Idk... are you making money building these scarecrows, or is it just hobby? ;)

kapitalyst

9th October 2011, 15:35

Praxeology :lol: The so-called action axiom

I see we really have no argument to formulate here... :)

That's because it doesn't say anything. You might as well be saying blogablooga economics.

I have a hard time refuting intelligent designe too. "God did it" is not a scientific position :lol:

Comparing this to intelligent design is comparing apples to, erm... roofing nails. Religion isn't the study of any natural or observable phenomena, even if fundamentalists might try to pass it off as such. Religion concerns itself with the meaning of life and morality. Science and religion also are not mutually-exclusive.

If I say your science experiment, in which you tried to make flies spontaneously generate from meat, was invalid because you (an intelligent, sentient agent) simply put flies into the enclosure to fake the results then "you did it" is certainly a scientific position. ;)

I still think you don't actually have real criticisms of AET, but have simply rejected it out of hand because it's concerned with markets and you've been influenced to do so as a "default response".

I wasn't saying it WAS slavery. I was comparing your statement to a person saying it to justify slavery. And again, in that sense, merely because a slave can buy his freedom, makes the slave system no more justifiable.

I still don't see where we're going with this? :confused:

Most slave systems throughout history, prior to capitalism, could buy their freedom. Consider some readings on Roman slavery, specifically with gladiators.

Gladiators often had to serve a specific amount of time (x-amount of years) under their master as fighters. Some would be freed simply for being valiant and brave. Others were actually volunteers. Some gladiators were slaves, but not all gladiators were actually slaves.

Doing a quick bit of research, the only thing I could find about "buying freedom" was Lucian's story of Sisinnes who was a paid gladiator that bought his freedom. My history textbook also does not say that this was part of the system. Not defending the Roman Empire, but just commenting on it from a historical perspective.

Obviously, since slaves could be bought and a master could free a slave then a slave could be freed by buying him/her and freeing them. But slaves were rarely ever paid, and could not free themselves.

It's a fine line between indentured servitude and slavery. As such, people like myself, just simply see no real distinction other than degree.

They're quite similar.

What if I want to stay at the shoe factory? What if I like it there? Why does that justify the owner/s of the shoe factory being able to oligarchally express their will over me? Because it's "theirs?" Forgive me for thinking that is rather childish.

If you like it at the shoe factory and want to stay, then what is the problem? You've chosen to stay there and contract your labor to the owner. :)

Even if you don't like it, you're totally free to leave at any time. The factory owner cannot "oligarchically express his will over you". If you want his money, then you have to fulfill his request to be paid. There's nothing childish about this, it seems childish to think that you're entitled to anything other than what is offered by the terms of the agreement... one that you've accepted.

But what if I want to stay in my shoe factory because to me "sucess" is having a good time with my friends and family, and I am far more interested in that than material gain? Why does that justify the oligarchic position of the capitalist?

Your views of the so-called capitalist are more fantasy than anything. If you want to stay at the shoe factory then you have indeed chosen to give the owner his/her position. You've justified it for yourself.

Let's say I start a shoe-making business. I've acquired all the tools needed to do it, the building and have a several stores that want the shoes. I've created my own means of production. Now I need labor. So I offer you $X/day to come and make shoes in my building with my tools. You accept my offer. Now you think you're entitled to my factory? That everything is yours now? That I had no right to set up this factory and pay you to work in it? That it's ok for me to have a toothbrush, but now what I've created can be confiscated because it's a factory? That's absolutely silly...

You don't have to take a vow of poverty to not be interested in aggressive material gain.

Didn't say you did.

You still have given no reason as to why the so-called "failures" of the laborer to become a capitalist justifies the power of the capitalist. I await your response with open arms :thumbup:

The question itself is absurd. How is it that I can own a toothbrush and I could pay you to help me cook dinner, but I can't own some tools and pay you to use them in a productive effort? :rolleyes:

I can own a shoe factory if I want to because I'm at liberty to do so. There's no justification in not allowing me to... in fact, that is unjust. The prohibition of something must be justified... the freedom to do something does not.

Idk... are you making money building these scarecrows, or is it just hobby? ;)

It's a hobby, of course. But they keep pesky gun-wielding crows out of my fields! :lol:

CommunityBeliever

9th October 2011, 15:42

Your views of the so-called capitalist are more fantasy than anything.

You are criticising someone else for basing their ideas on fantasy :lol:

Revolution starts with U

9th October 2011, 21:14

I see we really have no argument to formulate here... :)

I have about as much of an argument as praxeology does.

Comparing this to intelligent design is comparing apples to, erm... roofing nails. Religion isn't the study of any natural or observable phenomena, even if fundamentalists might try to pass it off as such. Religion concerns itself with the meaning of life and morality. Science and religion also are not mutually-exclusive.

But intelligent design DOES NOT stick to that area of knowledge. ID intends to promote the idea that, yes there has been evolution, but that God did it, rather than it being natural and random. Comparing praxeology to ID is like comparing apples to oranges; they're both fruit. They both try to say something about the objective world.

I still think you don't actually have real criticisms of AET, but have simply rejected it out of hand because it's concerned with markets and you've been influenced to do so as a "default response".

I haven't rejected it outright. If anyone can get it to make sense to me, I would like to see it. You can check in the other thread for my criticisms of it. Mostly they involve it
1) Not saying anything of any substance
2) Just making up definitions on the fly to reach the conclusion they wanted to in the first place (Human action is purposeful)
3) Their prediction being non-sequiters. They may have predicted what happened, but not how; right conclusion, wrong premises.

I don't fundamentally reject the market, and neither did Marx. As I have said, I predict there will be a certain amount of market socialism during the transitionary phase to world industrial communism.

I still don't see where we're going with this? :confused:

Why does the fact that a laborer can save money and become a capitalist justify the oligarchical position of the capitalist?

Gladiators often had to serve a specific amount of time (x-amount of years) under their master as fighters. Some would be freed simply for being valiant and brave. Others were actually volunteers. Some gladiators were slaves, but not all gladiators were actually slaves.

Doing a quick bit of research, the only thing I could find about "buying freedom" was Lucian's story of Sisinnes who was a paid gladiator that bought his freedom. My history textbook also does not say that this was part of the system. Not defending the Roman Empire, but just commenting on it from a historical perspective.

Obviously, since slaves could be bought and a master could free a slave then a slave could be freed by buying him/her and freeing them. But slaves were rarely ever paid, and could not free themselves.

I know this sounds like a cop-out, but I really don't have time to research right now. So let's just say the historicity of slavery is irrelevant. I still see not why people being able to buy themselves into the positon of capitalist justifies that position. I will get to your argument for why in a sec.

If you like it at the shoe factory and want to stay, then what is the problem? You've chosen to stay there and contract your labor to the owner. :)

Even if you don't like it, you're totally free to leave at any time. The factory owner cannot "oligarchically express his will over you". If you want his money, then you have to fulfill his request to be paid. There's nothing childish about this, it seems childish to think that you're entitled to anything other than what is offered by the terms of the agreement... one that you've accepted.

If you don't like your government you can leave anytime as well. So what makes government oligarchical? Oh sure, you have to buy a passport. But you can still face a certain amount of punishment for leaving your job before the contract is up.

Your views of the so-called capitalist are more fantasy than anything. If you want to stay at the shoe factory then you have indeed chosen to give the owner his/her position. You've justified it for yourself.
Your views of the so-called slave master are more fantasy than anything. If you want to stay at the plantation than you have indeed chosen to give the owner his/her position. You've justified it for yourself.

In a certain way, I agree with you. If slaves didn't want to be slaves they would leave, and not worry about being killed for it. And yet I still find every reason to fight against slavery.

Let's say I start a shoe-making business. I've acquired all the tools needed to do it, the building and have a several stores that want the shoes. I've created my own means of production.
No, you've bought your own means of production. This is what I mean about capitalists making up definitions on the fly.

Now I need labor. So I offer you $X/day to come and make shoes in my building with my tools. You accept my offer. Now you think you're entitled to my factory? That everything is yours now? That I had no right to set up this factory and pay you to work in it? That it's ok for me to have a toothbrush, but now what I've created can be confiscated because it's a factory? That's absolutely silly...

No, I don't want your factory. I want to be treated with dignity and respect. You are using the fact that without working for you, or people in your same situation, I will starve to death because it is illegal to roam the world and forrage... why is that illegal? Because people in your position have made it so to protect their position. Because without weapons, there is no property.
Thanks for putting all this together. But guess what? You're not doing this without me, or someone in my position. You need labor. So, again, thanks for coming up with a great idea, and you should be rewarded for that. But we demand to be treated as people, not just another tool in your arsenal.

Again. Your only defense is "because it's mine."

Didn't say you did.

You kinda did...

The question itself is absurd. How is it that I can own a toothbrush and I could pay you to help me cook dinner, but I can't own some tools and pay you to use them in a productive effort? :rolleyes:

You can.

I can own a shoe factory if I want to because I'm at liberty to do so. There's no justification in not allowing me to... in fact, that is unjust. The prohibition of something must be justified... the freedom to do something does not.

And so why do you prohibit me from coming onto your property? Why is stealing wrong? That's a prohibition, especially if the thing being stolen is something that wasn't being used. Why does the property system prohibit me from being a nomadic forrager?
You have to put up a fence to have any property. You have to prohibit other people from using it. Property is, again, incompatible with liberty according to your own definition of liberty.

kapitalyst

10th October 2011, 01:50

I have about as much of an argument as praxeology does.

:confused:

Seriously, we can do better than this, right?

But intelligent design DOES NOT stick to that area of knowledge. ID intends to promote the idea that, yes there has been evolution, but that God did it, rather than it being natural and random. Comparing praxeology to ID is like comparing apples to oranges; they're both fruit. They both try to say something about the objective world.

It does stick to that, even if some of its proponents do not. "The universe was made by God" says nothing about the universe... it only says that something didn't come from nothing. It says nothing about the laws of the universe, how it works, how it was made, etc -- the questions science is concerned with. Even if it were somehow possible to find objective proof that God exists, it would not be within the realm of science to study God. And it's not within the realm of religion to make claims about the mechanics of the universe and nature.

I haven't rejected it outright. If anyone can get it to make sense to me, I would like to see it. You can check in the other thread for my criticisms of it. Mostly they involve it
1) Not saying anything of any substance
2) Just making up definitions on the fly to reach the conclusion they wanted to in the first place (Human action is purposeful)
3) Their prediction being non-sequiters. They may have predicted what happened, but not how; right conclusion, wrong premises.

1) C'mon... you're making me chase a ghost

2) Let's think... Do you not imagine better conditions for yourself and others, and pursue your vision by being a supporter of revolutionary communism (or at least leftism)? Do you not ever wake up in the morning thirsty, and go and get a glass of water (or a beer, lol)?

3) What? How? Why? Again... another ghost argument.

Why does the fact that a laborer can save money and become a capitalist justify the oligarchical position of the capitalist?

If you want to prohibit something, as I've already said, the "burden of proof" in showing that the prohibition is justified and the liberty to be lost is unjustified is entirely your affair.

Anyway, being a "capitalist" is an individual position, not an "oligarchical" position. There's no uber-capitalist conspiracy-cartel. This sort of talk is rather reminiscent of Nazis talking about the "Jewish conspiracy" to dominate the world and control the "Aryan" people (just replace "Jews" with "capitalists" and "Aryans" with "workers"... hell, they hardly made the distinction anyway). Not calling you a Nazi -- by no means -- just saying the rhetoric and logic is eerily familiar. :lol:

We live in a "monied society". Long ago we abandoned the pure barter system and opted for a medium of exchange to eliminate the need for a coincidence of wants. People have the liberty to acquire money through payment by willing or contractually-obliged parties, and the liberty to spend it as they so choose. That's where a "capitalist's" position comes from. Making money is not wrong. Using your money to pay people for labor or to buy/set up a factory is not wrong either. There's nothing unjustified about it.

I know this sounds like a cop-out, but I really don't have time to research right now. So let's just say the historicity of slavery is irrelevant. I still see not why people being able to buy themselves into the positon of capitalist justifies that position. I will get to your argument for why in a sec.

How do you justify eating? having a beer? Shouldn't I, by your logic, have the liberty to stop you from eating? ;)

If you don't like your government you can leave anytime as well. So what makes government oligarchical? Oh sure, you have to buy a passport. But you can still face a certain amount of punishment for leaving your job before the contract is up.

Nice try... :rolleyes:

A business only has authority over its own assets, just like a private citizen. Businesses are owned, in fact, by private citizens... no state authority. The state (potentially) has limitless authority and autonomy over every aspect of your life. Comparing an abusive state to your job is being melodramatic... We're comparing mammoths to bugs.

In a certain way, I agree with you. If slaves didn't want to be slaves they would leave, and not worry about being killed for it. And yet I still find every reason to fight against slavery.

...and comparing slavery to your job is being silly and melodramatic.

Slavery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery) is when people are treated as property and held in captivity against their will without any rights. A slave cannot refuse to work, decide to leave or demand payment.

No, you've bought your own means of production. This is what I mean about capitalists making up definitions on the fly.

So? What if I did make all the tools and build the building? I'm not "making up definitions"... I wasn't even using definitions. What difference does it make if I create my own tools and build the building myself instead of paying the local blacksmith and carpenter whatever they charge?

No, I don't want your factory. I want to be treated with dignity and respect. You are using the fact that without working for you, or people in your same situation, I will starve to death because it is illegal to roam the world and forrage... why is that illegal? Because people in your position have made it so to protect their position. Because without weapons, there is no property.

Ah, but you didn't even inquire as to my employment offer! I'm going to pay you nicely for working in my shoe factory as long as the company can stay afloat -- and if it doesn't, we're both out of work. :lol:

It's not illegal to roam the world and forrage, lol, and who actually wants to do that? If you want to roam around my property and eat berries and kill birds, then have at it! I also have a pond full of delicious fish. Or... you could come knock on my door and ask to come in for dinner, a shower, clothes, whatever you need.

How is there "no property without weapons"?

Thanks for putting all this together. But guess what? You're not doing this without me, or someone in my position. You need labor. So, again, thanks for coming up with a great idea, and you should be rewarded for that. But we demand to be treated as people, not just another tool in your arsenal.

And you will be treated humanely, my friend. ;)

You can.

This seems contradictory to your own views and everything you've said thus far... Now it's suddenly ok for me to have both a toothbrush and my shoe factory? :confused:

And so why do you prohibit me from coming onto your property? Why is stealing wrong? That's a prohibition, especially if the thing being stolen is something that wasn't being used. Why does the property system prohibit me from being a nomadic forrager?

1) Stealing is prohibiting me from having something I want or need that I've rightfully acquired. Raping a woman is prohibiting her from having the liberty to choose who she does/doesn't have sex with. Cutting out a man's tongue is prohibiting him from saying what he wants to say. Killing someone is prohibiting them from living. You have a bass-ackward view of this. Liberty doesn't mean free-for-all kill-steal-rape-fest. Part of liberty is people having the freedom, the absolute right, to protect themselves and their property.

2) The "system" isn't prohibiting you from being a "nomadic forager". I seriously doubt you'd survive that way anyway. There are lots of places you could try though. You'll only run into a problem with trespassing laws, on certain bits of land, which is an extension of the property system. We learned a long time ago that someone creeping around on your property without permission is probably up to no good, and set on doing harm (or sometimes lost)... not a nomadic forager, lol. If you want to come forage on my land, have at it. But why not settle down in my spare apartment next to my house and live like a civilized human being until you get on your feet again? :lol:

You have to put up a fence to have any property. You have to prohibit other people from using it. Property is, again, incompatible with liberty according to your own definition of liberty.

Really? I don't have a fence and yet I have property. See #1 above again in response to your idea that property is prohibitive and stealing, killing and raping is liberty.

Your definition of liberty, "ability to express will", is just a re-wording of mine.

MattShizzle

10th October 2011, 03:28

http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh315/THEDecepticon/2k36Th.jpg

RichardAWilson

10th October 2011, 05:44

http://theefaction.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/labour_poster_1966.jpg

Revolution starts with U

10th October 2011, 06:26

It does stick to that, even if some of its proponents do not. "The society was made by human action" says nothing about the society... it only says that something didn't come from nothing. It says nothing about the laws of the society, how it works, how it was made, etc -- the questions science is concerned with. Even if it were somehow possible to find objective proof that human action exists, it would not be within the realm of science to study human action (because those are just words with no substance). And it's not within the realm of Austrian Economics to make claims about the mechanics of the society and nature.

You said it better than I ever could :cool: Thx

1) C'mon... you're making me chase a ghost

I know... right?

2) Let's think... Do you not imagine better conditions for yourself and others, and pursue your vision by being a supporter of revolutionary communism (or at least leftism)? Do you not ever wake up in the morning thirsty, and go and get a glass of water (or a beer, lol)?

Yes (those are the same thing). I do (the gods messed up on that recipe :lol:).
And so the best way for me to pursue those is to get everyone I don't want out of the way of my desire? I'm sorry if when someone runs up on me in the morning at the sink and says "don't drink that it's poisonous" I stop, put the glass down, and investigate his information :lol:

3) What? How? Why? Again... another ghost argument.

Logic is a ghost argument? I mean, it is if not based on evidence. And that is the whole problem in the first place. The ancient Greeks, much thanks for the scholasticism of that culture, ultimately made their biggest mistake in not pursuing empiricism. They thought we could just logically think up the laws of the universe.
Originally it worked! it worked marvelously. But it got mired in the muck of its own terminology. Logic, when not based on observable evidence, is so arbitrary and subjective as to be useless.
This is the problem with praxeology. Axioms might as well be speaking another language for the use of scientific inquiry. As Mises said; no amount of evidence can overturn economic law (I dont remember the exact quote).
The austrians like Schiff who "predicted" the crisis should only be regarded as a step above sooth-sayers and psychics. They came to the right conclusion, and were wrong about what happened.

If you want to prohibit something, as I've already said, the "burden of proof" in showing that the prohibition is justified and the liberty to be lost is unjustified is entirely your affair.

And I attempt to do that. To show that private property is incompatible with liberty, unnecessary for individual rights, and a uneven weight (for lack of a better term) on democracy.

Anyway, being a "capitalist" is an individual position, not an "oligarchical" position. There's no uber-capitalist conspiracy-cartel.
Who said there was? Again, you don't need a formal conspiracy when economic interests collide.
Perhaps I am using the wrong term? Regardless, I hope you know what I mean. It is dictatorial, consilidatory, monopolized. Private property ultimately says "I am the supreme master of my domain." But you're not, you never were, and it is dangerous for you to think so. You are a renter your time will be up. And we all have to rent this space with you, and as such you have certain obligations to make life better both you and us.
Giving you the power to control everything you "own" requires everyone to forsake the possiblity of that it will be used against us. So we create law. When we were all too civilly poor to create an abundance there was no sense of law. Why are you not a complete anarchist? Because you require courts and police/military to protect your property against someone who thinks they can use it more than you.
Private property has had its day in the sun. My proposal to you is to give up support of it, as it is
1) unnecessary for the defense of individual rights
2) incompatible with voluntary social relations (to take a play on words; nothing is free in a market :lol:)

This sort of talk is rather reminiscent of Nazis talking about the "Jewish conspiracy" to dominate the world and control the "Aryan" people (just replace "Jews" with "capitalists" and "Aryans" with "workers"... hell, they hardly made the distinction anyway). Not calling you a Nazi -- by no means -- just saying the rhetoric and logic is eerily familiar. :lol:

Understandable. The problem with conspiracy theorists is not what they see, but who they see doing it and why. The ruling class tends to, despite any minor competitions, share the same interests. They are, as individuals, pursuing their self-interest.
There is a reason we put an embargo against Cuba, and that generally no major american politicians left or right says anything about ending it.
When Enron traders plan how to get power plants to shut down, causing blackouts and driving up prices... is that a conspiracy?
When the Carlyle Group meets to formulate business relations and discuss national policy... is that a conspiracy?
When the Governator (R) meets with Uncle Teddy (D) in a dim den to smoke cigars... is that a conspiracy?
Again, it's not like individual capitalists and their protectors are evil people. Some slave owners opposed slavery, and some treated their slaves well. Hitler probably thought he was doing good things. Bill Gates donates like $7b/year to his Foundation.
The personal character of individual capitalists is irrelevant. We only oppose capitalists as their position in capitalists. They are perfectly free to help us get rid of the class distinction (Engels, anyone?).

We live in a "monied society". Long ago we abandoned the pure barter system and opted for a medium of exchange to eliminate the need for a coincidence of wants.
Anthropolgy is seeming to say that is historically incorrect. First there comes credit. Then there comes money. Then barter emerges in collapses.
Forragers are generally currency-less. We catch a mammoth and take it home to our family. We gather some fruits and tubers and take them home to our family.
Then you move into prehistory societies; Big Man societies. Agriculture has taken hold. The head of family is generally regarded as the land-holder. Property starts to take shape. The Big Man credits some corn, or goats, etc to another property holder. He is expected to at some time, repay that debt with interest, putting the first guy into debt with him. There are stories of potlachs (thats the big gatherings they have) where a Big Man gave another Big Man a gift so large he knew he could never repay it and killed himself.
Then as society moves into a more consolidated statism money develops, to codify all economic transactions. This, interestingly enough (hint) happens right in line with codification of law. After all, the Big Man, who is now a King needs to protect his interests.
Sometimes this all collapses. (Early history generally begins with people crawling out of these collapses to establish a new dominance, so that is why early historians thought barter came first, then money, then credit.) At these times, because the property concept still remains, people barter goods.

People have the liberty to acquire money through payment by willing or contractually-obliged parties, and the liberty to spend it as they so choose. That's where a "capitalist's" position comes from. Making money is not wrong. Using your money to pay people for labor or to buy/set up a factory is not wrong either. There's nothing unjustified about it.
The capitalists position comes from 10000 years of slavery and oppression in defense of the property concept. We could have visionaries, industry, and abundance without the property concept. In all likelihood we could do it better, because sans a ruling class, people generally know what they want. And the only way to have a ruling class is for them to hold all the property against us (right? Isn't that what the Bolshevicks did? Isn't that what the feudal lords did?).

How do you justify eating? having a beer? Shouldn't I, by your logic, have the liberty to stop you from eating? ;)

If you come up and slap an apple out of my hand becuase you knew it was poisonous, I would thank you. If you slap the apple out of my hand and take it (and I am hungry) I will put you to sleep and take it back.

Nice try... :rolleyes:

Well, if you don't try, you never win :lol:

A state only has authority over its own assets, like a private citizen. Businesses are owned, in fact, by private citizens. The state (potentially) has limitless authority and autonomy over every aspect of your life. Comparing an abusive state to your job is not always true... but sometimes is, consider the situation of sweatshop workers.

You say this stuff way better than I :thumbup1:

...and comparing slavery to your job is only different because a slave can't leave legally... even tho sometimes neither can the laborer.
Lovin it bro :lol:

Capitalism is when people are treated as tools and taxed on their productivity without any represesntation. A wage-laborer cannot refuse to work, decide to leave or demand payment, lest he face firing, or financial punishment for doing so.
You're really only a few words away from being a socialist, comrade. Embrace the light side.

So? What if I did make all the tools and build the building? I'm not "making up definitions"... I wasn't even using definitions. What difference does it make if I create my own tools and build the building myself instead of paying the local blacksmith and carpenter whatever they charge?

Every word is a definition.
Why say create, if you mean buy? They are not the same thing.
The difference is that you created your own tools and built the building yourself instead of paying the local blacksmith and carpenter :lol:

Ah, but you didn't even inquire as to my employment offer! I'm going to pay you nicely for working in my shoe factory as long as the company can stay afloat -- and if it doesn't, we're both out of work. :lol:

I would rather have a say in the direction of the company and protection against arbitrary firings. Thank you for the offer sir, but I have to refuse.

It's not illegal to roam the world and forrage,
Yes, vagrancy is often illegal, and trespassing always is. Where will I forage... the desert? Thanks but no thanks :lol:

lol, and who actually wants to do that?
I think, in order to create a synthesis between the primitive commune and industrial society, we should promote the sabbatical (the 40 days in the wilderness, the spirit journey, coming of age ceremony). I am doing mine this summer. A temporary stint in the wilderness (and by temporary I mean months to years) is, in my opinion, greate for creating a sense of appreciation.

If you want to roam around my property and eat berries and kill birds, then have at it! I also have a pond full of delicious fish. Or... you could come knock on my door and ask to come in for dinner, a shower, clothes, whatever you need.
Thank you much. And I respect your respect for the communal property concept ;)
But other people are not so generous nor kind as you. Some would have me killed for even thinking about it.

How is there "no property without weapons"?

Ya, that was just kind of dumb :lol: It came out wrong, as if to suggest weapons create property, or that there is no property, even communal, without weapons.
What I meant to say is that property requires its defense violently. Even communal property shares this. Until abundance makes theft obsolete we must take up arms to defend our right to live. The more that property gets under the hands of a minority, the closer we get to them using it against us.

And you will be treated humanely, my friend. ;)

There is no humane treatment devoid of adequate representation ;)

This seems contradictory to your own views and everything you've said thus far... Now it's suddenly ok for me to have both a toothbrush and my shoe factory? :confused:

Your shoe factory? What about all the other people that helped make it mean anything more than a large building? ;)

1) Stealing is prohibiting me from having something I want or need that I've rankaranka acquired. (That's actually not a very good definition of stealing either. Gravity is prohibiting me from having something I want or need and have rightfully acquired :lol:) Raping a woman is prohibiting her from having the liberty to choose who she does/doesn't have sex with. Cutting out a man's tongue is prohibiting him from having a tongue (whether or not he can or cannot speak because of it is irrelevant :lol:). Killing someone is prohibiting them from living. You have a bass-ackward view of this. Liberty doesn't mean free-for-all kill-steal-rape-fest. Part of liberty is people having the freedom, the absolute right, to protect themselves and their property.

I would agree with it in these terms. But stealing, rape, violence have nothing to do with liberty. Liberty is me being able to pursue my desire... that's what I want. I don't want a lack of restrictions. I like restrictions like "don't rape."
Nothing prohibits me accept the rules I choose to follow. Had I lived in the USSR and thought USSR style politics was the way to go, I would feel at full iberty within that system.

2) The "system" isn't prohibiting you from being a "nomadic forager".
Yes, it is.

I seriously doubt you'd survive that way anyway.
I'm ressilient (even if I don't know how to spell it :lol:). I know how to make a lean-to, a critter trap, and have a good general knowledge of local flaura and fauna for most of the US.
... I mean... I've watched a lot of Man vs Wild and Survivorman :lol:

There are lots of places you could try though. You'll only run into a problem with trespassing laws, on certain bits of land, which is an extension of the property system.
Yup.

We learned a long time ago that someone creeping around on your property without permission is probably up to no good, and set on doing harm (or sometimes lost)... not a nomadic forager, lol. If you want to come forage on my land, have at it. But why not settle down in my spare apartment next to my house and live like a civilized human being until you get on your feet again? :lol:

What if it's not about getting on my feet? What if I am just harnessing my primal willpower?

Really? I don't have a fence and yet I have property.
Your deed is a fence. No borders, no masters, the anarchist manifesto :cool:

See #1 above again in response to your idea that property is prohibitive and stealing, killing and raping is liberty.

Well... I know it's supposed to look all bad to say rape is liberty. But that's only because is a dumb concept, unless looked at as "freely pursuing my desires." Looked at it in this defintion, rape is still not liberty, because the victim is not freely pursuing their desire. This avoids all the silly contradictions of defining liberty as a lack of restrictions. We need restrictions on rape.
Embrace a more positive definition of liberty :thumbup1: