I do believe what I’m saying, and yet LS clearly grasps something that you don’t.
You’re too witty Juan.
Now, now, no need to be so aggressive Juan.
Resembles, try reading what I’m saying BP, it makes things easier.
Yes, and yet in this case, the smaller state was the cause, read Hoppe on this.
And chattel slavery would have ceased to exist anyway.
There’s only one power structure libertarianism is opposed to: the state.
Yes it does, like your Marxist buddies you seem to have a problem with the family and the church, they had the correct means for their ends however, you don’t.
Look harder, it’s there.
You seem to be quite confused in regards to who was rude first Juan.
Yes, because respect for private property and libertarianism are horrible incompatible.
In the sense that I use the term, there is no conservative state.
Quite amusing, since, I’m not a catholic. Now, please do tell me where I said that they “built western civilzation”.
BP seems to be keeping very quiet about this debate.
Surely you are merely arguing on opinion here [both sides] rather than on any objective fact.
Ha. True enough. [:)]
So all your information comes from one biased source. That shows the quality of your arguments.
Really ? Let me refresh your memory :
[url]Should a free society allow for the viewing of child pornography? - #306 by Brainpolice]
Of course it is. You claimed that high land prices are an incentive for people to rent, but that is NONSENSE. Let’s follow your ‘logic’. Land would be expensive, so people won’t buy it. Rent would be expensive too…so people won’t rent either. Conclusion : the majority of people will be homeless.
Again, that shows you don’t know what you’re talking about.
So they would save and buy land instead of renting. So you either admit that your conservative society won’t have a low time preference, or you admit that a low time preference implies that the majority of people WON’T live as tenants. You CAN’T have it both ways.
Unfounded assertion.
Those incentives exist only in your mind. I’ve ‘ignored’ them since they are just wishful thinking AND backed by your glaringly wrong ecnomics.
And what would that something be ?
Did I call you scum ? Besides I thought you believed in “turning the other cheeck”…? Oh wait. Do as I say don’t do as I do…
Well, I didn’t say you said that. The reference should be clear though, and if it’s not, try google.
Seeing as we’re not disussing Argentina I couldn’t really care about how biased my source is. It must bother you to come from a Catholic country, no?
Not paying rent? Well instead people pay large amounts of money up front according to you, no, time preference dictates that they’d rather pay rent.. As for not listening to rules, I’m sure if these rules just so happen to be the same ones that preserve the value of property, enhance it, give them access to public goods and keeps down their insurance costs? I’m sure people will be all too willing to abide by them.
How amusing though, that you lash out against the rules.
Only, that doesn’t follow. People will still need land on which to build their house, or to live in, they’d just rather rent it than buy it. According to you, however, everybody who wants to eat has to own their own tomato and cabbage patch.
Or, there’s no incentive for them to own. Yes, I can.
You’ve ignored them because nowhere do they fit in to your libertine utopia.
No, because it wouldn’t be very accurate.
Then let’s stay on topic.
Time preference can be high or low. So your assertion is meaningless.
What you’re really saying is that they will pay rent because they prefer to use the good (home) now instead of saving in order to buy it later. That’s known as high time preference. At the same time you claim that a conservative society is characterized by low time preference. Oops. Glaring contradiction. Face it, you fail miserably.
Of course it doesn’t. It was a reductio-ad-absurdum of your already absurd position.
And yet, it always exists. So, no, it isn’t.
Yes and reductio - ad -absurdum is meant to follow.
Stop playing dumb – you’re pathetic. What I meant is that invoking time preference without further clarifying whether it’s high time preference or low time preference makes no sense.
You’re unable to address my post so you just (wrongly) nitpicked one line. You fail.
Wonderful, if only the rest of the left were as enlightening as you are Pablo.
Yes, it does. Since it always exists and people will always prefer present goods to future goods. So yes, my point stands. And whilst people will have lower time preferences without the state they still won’t want to buy a tomato patch in order to eat, likewise, they won’t need to own land to live on it.
The best you’ve come up with is that people will want to own land so they can make their own rules. So yes Diego, you can own your own land if you wish to inject heroin into your eyeballs, just, be prepared to pay the consequences for once.
Ok Pedro, if you wish to think so.
I never disputed it exists.
Really ? Always ? So, you’ve just proved that such a thing as savings is not possible ?
Also, are you saying that in your conservative, low-time-preference society people will always prefer present goods to future goods, i.e. have high-time-preference ? What I wonder is : are you so dumb as to not notice that your position is contradictory ? Or do you lack basic intellectual honesty to admit that you’re wrong ?
Yes, it’s called freedom and it’s beyond your comprehension. Although putting it in terms of ‘rule-making’ is misleading. Of course, authoritarians like you can only see things in terms of ‘rules’, not in terms of laissez-faire.
Side splitting, by the way, if you notice there’s a black man sitting far closer to “me” than would actually happen.
In that case, Alejandro, you just missed the point entirely.
Yes, always, only the extent differs. Some economics would do you well, Antonio.
Now, get this: time preference always exists, it’s extent just differs. Leftists like you who like injected heroin into their eyeballs and drinking themselves silly every day to “express themselves” have higher than normal people, but that’s besides the point (I’ll give you a clue: it’s one aspect of the postulate of AE that people differ.)
Got that Carlos?
No, Flavio, what you like it libertinism, it has nothing to do with freedom. Freedom does not entail doing what you like.
Yes, that was my point, and the reason why I bothered to remark, many times, that there’s high time preference and low time preference.
Now, according to you, conservatism entails overall low-time-preference. At the same time you claim that a conservative society will be populated mostly by tenants, that is, people who have high time preference. But that is a con - tra - dic - tion. You get that ?
Admit it Giles, you suck at economics and suck at logic too.
And I’ve stated that there are no incentives to own land to live on just as there’s no incentive to own a cabbage patch to eat. It’s called the division of labour Hector.
Here kid, I’ll quote myself.
So, you thought that your pathetic (mis)understanding of time preference was the key to all economic theory. Now you realize that babbling about time preference proves nothing so you change your tune to ‘division of labor’…
To recap :
You wrongly claim that land in a free society will be way more expensive than it is now.
Using that false premise you claimed that people will prefer to rent, not realizing that rent will be more expensive as well canceling your alleged incentive.
Then you brought time preference into the picture : You claim that a conservative society is characterized by low time preference but at the same time, you say, the majority of people prefer to rent…because they want a house NOW…that is, they have high time preference…Which contradicts the initial claim that a conservative society has…you get it no ? Of course not.
Now, grasping at straws, you say that renting instead of buying is an instance of division of labor ? What ? Buying/building a house is a so complex endeavor that only Intel engineers can do it ? The unwashed masses are so stupid that they can’t ‘build a community’…