Post your comments on the debate here. Please do not post in the formal debate thread.
The formal debate can be found here.
Non-existent debate is non-existent.
Perhaps lord stratton drank too much beer. Drug users can’t be trusted.
I’m getting there, I’m typing it up in between learning about regression and correlation.
I think it will be like all of the other threads about the same topic. Giles loses.
Just as I thought. Instead of briefly summarizing his arguments (he has none) Giles has posted a long tirade mostly based on copy and paste. I would have thought that a debate entails some sort of dialog. I fail to see how a 3 pages manifesto can be part of a ‘debate’.
It was an introductory statement. Giles needed to clarify his position, a longer essay is perfectly apt for this purpose.
Personally, I’m quite pleased with this first post. Looking forward to the response.
it’s 11 paragraphs, barely a page and a half. What illiterate backwater do you come from where a brief outline of the points to be debated is a “3 page manifesto”? If anything I thought that the introductory remark was a bit brief.
Haha. Well, the joke just keeps on getting better.
Quite a good post by Giles in my opinion. Am anxiously awaiting the reply.
Having read the response, I think Giles has lost. It doesn’t make sense to say that in a free society people will prefer less freedom over more and will prefer to rent over ownership, the entire human history argues otherwise.
Spencer
Why don’t you stop trolling and respond to the post you quoted?
I think Marko is overestimating how much people desire freedom. Many many people prefer the paternalism of a planned community.
OTOH it’s true that the alternative to manorialism is simply that people with similar interests would tend to clump together and thus overcome many of the problems of random distribution. (Amish and Mormons for example)
So far, so good, lets see what this amount to in the next exchanges.
It basically comes down to the reality that people prefer to own rather than rent. This reality is true everywhere and historically true as well. To argue that most people in a free society will choose to rent over ownership is contrary to the entire human history.
Although history can show us how human action has occured in the past, it can’t make a definite statement about how it will occur.
History just illustrates the point that liberty minded people won’t be as stupid as to put themselves at the mercy of ‘contractual’ feudal overlords. On the other hand, if you assume people are naturally collectvistic and sheep-like, then a free society is not a workable option. Either way things won’t lead to contractual feudalism.
Looking at the historical record does no good. We can roughly estimate that because people won’t want to pay rent if they can instead pay once for their own land UNLESS the land entrepreneur is able to provide special services that would make this kind of arrangement desirable.
Who here is talking about feudalism? The debate is over whether or not entrepreneurs who homestead large areas of land will be able to provide superior services to those who come on to those lands and pay rent.
The fact of the matter is, renting is generally preferable for the short term, and buying is generally preferrable for the long term. To think that a majority of the population would want to rent for the long term is laughable. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that such is the case, not for any property one can buy, whether it is land, a home, a car, or even furniture.