-
No. Just some resources to be determined by society.
-
Food and shelter are the most necessary. But the government can help ensuring those necessities to all the population. Left to the market alone, not everyone will have food and shelter.
Perhaps so, but the Chrysler bailout helped Chrysler when it was sick, it could then recover and complete a successful merger with Daimler-Benz.
Of course they are happy with their benefits. They steal from others using the government as an intermediary. They are cowards, who rely on someone else to wield the stick to threaten and steal. They don’t regard me as an enemy yet, but they will as soon as I stop “paying my fair share” under threat of violence so that they can have my wealth transferred to them.
Most of my family are like you. Looters, murderers and thieves if not by action, then by endorsement.
1A. what came first, society or government?
1B. But what if there is only one resource. 1 Apple. Must they give it to Obama so they can have government and starve, or should they forego government and eat? You seem to believe that government comes before survival, so Obama should eat and the tribe should starve. Sound right?
Wait a second. You said government comes before survival. Now you are saying survival comes before government. Which is it?
Can you name a government that has housed and fed everyone?
And if you can, then can you name one that respected the right to own property?
If you consider your own family as enemies, how can you expect to have friends outside of your kindred?
I really don’t even know what you think I think, because I was not supporting statism, but rather saying that statists still have a rational capacity or faculty,
My rejection is in the belief in the inherent inequality of the faculties of the minds individual human beings. This thought could be used to justify the transgression of liberty and rulership. What I am saying is that we have to distinguish between the idea of corrupt or misguided beings with a rational faculty with the idea that those who are corrupt or misguided are in some sense “natural slaves.”
I don’t need friends. I need partners for voluntary trade. Sex, love, food, shelter. I need trade partners, not biological relations or warm fuzzies. Please, grow up. This is an economics and philosophy forum, not the crying game.
According to you a week ago, Canada guarantees exactly that or is actually quite close to that, but at the expense of less market freedom. However I have not heard any evidence that Canada specifically denies the right to property.
You misread me. I don’t think you are a statist. I haven’t even spent one fraction of a second considering it.
Whatever man. You can figure that out between mealtimes in the gulag, while I hatch an escape plan, ok? [:)]
Personally, I’m inclined to give no quarter to those who threaten to harm me, misguided, uninformed or evil.
Canada does not house and feed everyone.
Canada taxes. Taxes are the confiscation of private property.
Care to dispute that?
What do you think taxation is exactly?
Succesful corporations are run by boards of directors who have friendly relations rather than enemies. Plato wrote about love. Friendship is an important part of economics and philosophy.
\
Friendly relations are voluntary and profitable, not biological or legal.
You can appeal to the masses with skillful rhetoric (something of a lost art even amongst politicians).
While this thread seems to have moved off into a tangent, i think it has touched ever briefly on a very interesting discussion. The question how do we bring these ideas to the ‘masses’ is rather vague and i think can be interpreted in different ways. I would assume most of us are here to learn and talk and perhaps eventually, when and if we feel enlightened enough to, try and help others to do the same. It is easy to explain these thoughts to those whom already agree with the of liberty but it is very difficult to do so to one of the ‘masses’ who do not. Furthermore, it seems to be a rather popular theory that informing ‘masses’ of the truth is irrelevent because of their lack of capacity for it, inherent disbelief in it, or simply because as a individual it’s just not of any concern to you what others do or think. That is entirely within your right to do however you please of course. I think it is quite ridiculous however to asssume that simply because you believe in liberty and natural rights that somehow the rules don’t apply to you. That somehow the constantly growing and encroaching tendrils of the state will not harm you. I for one am fearful of the direction of the world today. Do i wish things were different? Do i believe that rightly we should live in a free market society? Do i wish there was no government? yes of course and but there is and that fact exists regardless of our beliefs and in fact completely independent of them but we are affected every day because of it’s existence. If someone wants to know how to better the world then at least listen. Whether or not you choose to do anything about it is completely your own decision, but at the least give the discussion of such possibilities a chance and if you can’t then stay out of them. It is sad to see every question of this sort dragged down by a “who hates the state more”/“who is more of a hardcore anarchist” pissing contest (excuse the vulgarity). i was under the impression that the Mises Institute was here simply to better the world by informing people and letting their own free will lead them to the correct conclusions… it’s hard enough to get people to act on their own free will but nearly impossible when the only right information they receive is tainted with petty disagreement and elitism.
How nice for Chrysler. It still isn’t a free market principle.
-Jon
Explain how being born in some area bound by arbitary, invisible lines makes one kindred with others who live in the same area.
-Jon
as a couple people have mentioned already: the problem isn’t one of spreading the word. The problem is that people are basically stupid. In every developed nation there is a correlation between average IQ and average income per capita. I think the only long term solution is to start a nation-state with a favorable tax structure to attract business and then limit immigration to intelligent people. Basically like singapore. Easy to immigrate if you are an educated professional.
Are you defending government?
There can’t be an ideal mix… unless of course with Panarchy. Though even then it wouldn’t be ideal for everyone, cause not everyone is smarter enough to know what is best for them. This doesn’t mean that we can decide for them. Though if they want, we can help them make the decision.
You’re in favour of bailout’s?
Hmm… if everyone is like you, I’m going to start a business. Doesn’t matter how well I go, cause If I’m about to fail, the government will reimberse me… because, what, they like the number of businesses they have?
They don’t want to get on the masses badside?
It’s only a matter of time before the market collapses. Why delay it further? When can we move to a standard that’s actually worth something? Like the gold standard?
I don’t know much about the american currency (I’m not american) but in my country, if you mealt the coins they are actually worth more than the ‘value’ of the coin!
So they outlawed melting of coins!!!
(Sorry in advance, we’re on different GMT’s so I am going to be quoting quite a few people, sorry for not quoting you, couldn’t quote the whole topic!!!)
Not only do they want to enslave you.
You’re already enslaved.
Anyone that lives under a goverment that involuntarily taxes it’s people is by definition (for lack of a better word) bad.
Panarchy