How is it that you will address the threat of ignorance with a monopoly on education?
A post ago you said “I don’t think we can ever avoid taking and giving”. Now you’re telling me there’s no such thing as valid possessions. Explain how you “take” something from someone when they don’t possess it.
A voucher program allows for taxation and combats monopolies.
I start with the opinion that all property is our common wealth - even for those who have not yet been born.
So…basically in your view there would be nothing wrong with me taking the shirt off your back right now.
Are you actively trying to avoid questions?
I start with the opinion that all property is our common wealth - even for those who have not yet been born.
I’ve considered that idea and rejected it - why the hell would everyone own all unowned things? There’s just no point in that. No logic. No one owns things until he homesteads them. That’s that.
Why do you think everyone should own everything? And then, how can anyone make an eclusive claim to anything else? If we all own some newly discovered continent, then how do we go on to carve out homes for ourselves? Wouldn’t we need the agreement of all of humanity (including those not yet born) to do anything with the property?
It’s a deceivingly pleasant thing to say (“we all own the property”) which simply has no logical backing.
I think there would be something wrong with you taking the shirt off my back. My reasoning has nothing to do with concepts of ownership - but more about concepts of compassion and healthy behavior.
So your personal concepts of “compassion” and “healthy behavior” are what would necessitate my taking the shirt you’re wearing being “wrong.” That’s nice. Too bad "there is no way to have mutual consent regarding your claim of property “compassion” and “healthy behavior”… it is impossible.
So I guess I’m getting that shirt then.
@John James
You can try to take the shirt if you like. And I will try to kill you if I like. This seems very irrational to me. It is not a good survival strategy. Mutual and unenforced cooperation would be the better strategy. It would be nice if we engage in a mutaully benefiical relationship.
I disagree with the idea that there can be no mutual consent to ideas of healthiness. We have shared necessities. And cooperation is often a good strategy in many real-world scenarios including this “t-shirt delimma”.
Many of your questions are based in your own concepts of reality that have little relation to my own concepts of reality.
I explained that I think exclusive ownership inherently infringes upon other parties who no longer have access to the property you think you own. I get the idea of homestead - and investing your labor with property. And it is definitely important in determining valuations of a person’s contributions in this life.
I think you can have an economic system where information concerning an individuals contributions can be used to determine access to products and services… recognizing that accessing property is different than owning property.
Having the “agreement of all humanity” is an impossibility. All that can be done is to promote liberty… this is why I support Ron Paul although.
It would be very nice if we had MORE opportunity to create our own rules instead of playing by the rules that have been created before our time. This is why I support State’s rights - and increased representation in general… I support “less force”.
So you don’t think that there ought to be any property…
As in exclusive use rights.
The closest thing to exclusive use - is an individual’s own body. But a person’s body isn’t really exclusive because it is inherently part of an ecosystem.
I don’t like the idea of one individual using another individual’s body without consent. But there is even an exception to this. There are children who lack awareness. And there are even adults that lack awareness.
I really don’t believe in absolute “laws” and “rules”… not even the golden rule is absolutely correct. If there was one thing I uphold - it is that we should always be learning.
Pardon my French, but no shit.
Maybe for you. The best strategy for you would be to just give me the shirt. That way you won’t get hurt. I mean, you just said I have just as much of a claim to that shirt just as you do. Why is it not wrong for you to attack me for moving to use something I own?
So, “there is no way to have mutual consent regarding a claim of property”…that is “impossible”…but a mutual consent to what is “healthy”…that’s perfectly attainable. Got it.
You mean like your attempt to prevent me from having access to that shirt you’re wearing? Yeah. Why are you infringing upon me that way?
Oh this outta be good. Please explain how this “limit access to property based on individuals contributions” would be different from owning property.
Bingo.
You didn’t even ask for the shirt John James. You said you were going to take it. Maybe if you had asked - I would have offered it. Or I could have made other suggestions. But you were the irrational one who did not wish to engage in any form of healthy relationship… I am trying to be the nice guy… using the better strategy than you who will not even enter into conversation about the shirt you want.
If we discuss the issue - we might begin to determine who needs this shirt more - and discuss what is most fair. As we become more aware of relevant information - a better decision can be made.
There are forms of mass in this reality. That is natural. There are healthy and unhealthy conditions. That is natural. But when you create a claim - you have created something that is not natural… it might discuss things that are natural - but it is a creation of the human mind.
==========================
As for the comparison of access versus ownership - you have to realize that an access-based system would be built around sustainability. This means that all products would have to be the result of agriculture… in summary: the products would essentially be like fruit grown from a tree.
So the fruit tree is the means of producing fruit. And access to the fruit COULD be based upon people’s contributions in the economy. This is an example of access versus ownership.
Huh? Why should I have to ask for something I already have a claim to?
Ah yes. Simple discussion will make all the difference. We will come to a concensus on “who needs the shirt more” and what is “fair”. And you want to lecture Wheylous about utopia? You’re getting less amusing by the minute.
Define those terms please.
You mean like when state that everyone has an equal claim on everything…that “all property is our common wealth - even for those who have not yet been born”?
That does absolutely nothing to define the difference. Please explain how this “limit access to property based on individuals contributions” would be different from owning property.
@John James
I am certain that I could design an economic system that outperforms your free market capitalism. I am sure you would disagree. The funny thing is that we have no opportunity to actually research, develop, and experiment with our different designs. This is why I support Ron Paul. We need more liberty to experiment with alternatives. This is a bigger issue than who’s THEORETICAL economic design is better than the others’. And when I make suggestions about changes to our current system - I most certainly have liberty in mind.
I am all for your liberty to research, develop, and experiment with your own economic design. I will learn from your inevitable failures. We can learn from each others’ inevitable failures.
I adovcate the movement of economics into the sphere of “applied science”.
So you’re using vouchers to provide for market services with the money from taxation? Why not just let the taxed keep their money and spend it on education how they please? How do vouchers combat monopolies? Markets combat monopolies. Vouchers ‘enable’ the taxed’s access to their own money, which has probably diminished by the time it comes back around to them. How do you combat monopolies with a monopoly, isn’t that paradoxical? Your answer relies on the existence of market-provided services and jams the mediator of the tax-man between the customer and the service.
@GavinPalmer
Failures are not inevitable, but probable.
The value of ideas are not relative. Some ideas are better than others. Agriculture is better than pastoral-nomadism, as it produces a better quality of life for all involved. Free-markets are the best idea currently. That is not opinion. That can be logically deduced and is historically supported.
The difference between the current tax system and vouchers is vast. The current tax system collects all of the taxes from a large amount of people and allows a small amount of people the power to determine how that money is spent. A voucher system increases the number of people who determine how that money is spent. This is the simple comparison. I hope you can see how vouchers allow for a market system while our current tax system does not allow for a market system at all - and is subject to outrageous corruption.
I honestly don’t know why libertarians would not support vouchers… it is most certainly the lesser of two evils.
When your goal is perfection - you will inevitably fail… but that doesn’t mean you can’t learn and progress - moving closer to your goal.
I like the idea of free markets. But my concept of free markets is obviously different than yours. My concept of a free market is an economy without limitation. And I recognize my concept to be form of perfection which we can only move toward.
Most people use the term “free market” to describe something that has already existed. I don’t.
I do recognize that vouchers would be better than what we have now, BUT in your original argument you claimed that the purpose of government was to combat ignorance, by PROVIDING VOUCHERS. So can you not see that absence of taxation is better than taxation and vouchers?
Also, no one ever claimed Free-Markets were perfection. They aren’t. Perfection would be if we all had infinite wealth. I agree that this is impossible. I also never claimed that free-markets have existed, but history validates the position that they are desirable by showing the problems with everything that strays from free markets. How is your concept of free markets different than mine? I haven’t explained my view of them so how can you know?