Lysander Spooner tried it. And see this.
I’ll refer you again to the Private Express Statutes. 
I agree with you. Of course, governments tend to view information as something that needs to be controlled.
wow 1792. I wonder what the reasoning is behind that.
I read a lot. I buy a lot of books used on Amazon and get this shipped by USPS (U.S. Postal Service). I have only had a problem once (it took about two weeks to get Garrison’s Time and Money). That doesn’t mean that the USPS isn’t in debt.
Epicurus, the problem is not that the USA post office is good or bad in doing what they do, the problem is that
A) they are a forced monopolist, made such through coercion
B) since no one else can do what they do we can not know if someone can be better than them or not
there could exist two arguments for preferring them to be the only one to do what they already do:
-
they somehow have got moral superiority over what they do, which would mean that what they do is always good (i.e. always preferable to the alternative of someone else doing it) no matter whether they are efficient or not
-
they are relatively more efficient then others
this brings two questions: how could they be moral superior? if they really were relatively more efficient why do they need to force everyone else out of such a business using coercion? if you manage to answer yourself these two questions, you will understand what the problem is.
“I, much as the producers of the Postman movie, see information exchange as one of the foundations of a strong society, much like protection of trade routes, and contract enforcement.”
If I steal your money to buy myself the copy-print of mini Human Action would you have something against me? If you do - this destroys your argument.
The whole thing about banning the state postal service is not really because the postal service is always inefficient… we want the postal service to be privatized because a private company can be just as efficient as the postal postal service we have now, in fact, it can even more efficient than the state postal service… in other words, why does part of our taxes go to the state postal service if a private service can be just as, if not even more, efficient? thats just a waste of money and it is an unnecessary public service…
If I steal your money to buy myself the copy-print of mini Human Action would you have something against me? If you do - this destroys your argument.
/facepalm
If I steal your money to invest in the market, would you have something against me? If so, you just destroyed all capitalist arguments.
(Or not, because that’s just assinine)
EDIT: Izzy, I completely agree. (Government) monopoly on (anything) postal service is really just… incoherent…
Well it seems a bit obvious to me that everyone’s understanding as it is on the mises.org board is that socialism = statism(therefore taxes and regulations,etc.). and capitalism = no government or coercive force involved at all
Everyone’s just gonna keep talking past each other whenever you bring something up Epicurus until that’s cleared up.
Believe me, I kno
I.e. a reactive government which only intervenes in coercive disputes and acts as an arbitrator, or an all out anarchy?
well, I understand this writing of yours
“I, much as the producers of the Postman movie, see information exchange as one of the foundations of a strong society, much like protection of trade routes, and contract enforcement.”
as an argument for coercion against someones property if it is done in order to exchange information. that is you make an argument that thou shall steal if what is stolen is used in the exchange in information, or itself is information. you did not specify in this exact writing who is allowed to perform thou shall steal, so this means it includes everybody. that is why I asked you will you have any objections if I steal your money to buy myself Human Action (which I believe we can qualify as information). if you write that thou shall steal should be performed only for the purpose of facilitating information and the sole performer of this action should be the government, I’d say to you that this is not moral, but arbitrary. and I can elaborate on this, if you want me to. so, let’s stick to my original question - will you have anything against me if I steal your money to buy myself Human Action? If you say “I do” this means that you are not coherent with what you have originally proposed as a preferable human behavior. first you say thou shall steal, and then when I do steal you say that what I did is wrong and you want your money back. if you say “I don’t” this means that no conflict will emerge if I steal your money because after all what I did was morally right, according to your ethics. (there is another problem with your proposition which is much more fundamental, but it is not for this theme)
“If I steal your money to invest in the market, would you have something against me? If so, you just destroyed all capitalist arguments.”
Did I write anything that can be read as “thou shall steal if he invests it in the market”? No. Does capitalism mean or propose that stealing is allowed if what you have taken away from somebody else is invested in the market - NO. Why then did you write this - I don’t know. The argument for capitalism is not that stealing is morally right if you invest what you have stolen. I believe that you are in a grave error.
Well the full extent of capitalism is not expressed unless there is anarchy… Rothbard believed this and his quote is my sig…
“capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism…”
A society that has government can take part in some capitalistic ideals but that doesnt mean that they are pure capitalistic because a pure capitalistic society is a society without public service…
It is quite easy to arrive to the conclusion that the full extent of capitalism can be only if no government exists, because government steals away resources, and this act of it distorts prices and relative prices. But this is not what this current theme is about. I suppose that neither you, nor I are allowed to spam. I am sorry if this is what I have just done.
I would also be glad if the author answers the questions I posted in my first post on the theme.
Well I meant that post as an invitation for you to define your own terms of what socialism means to you- since we’re not speaking the same language here. From what I’ve read from you before, you’re not a statist- and you think capitalism and statism can go hand in hand just like socialism and government can go hand in hand. But from the definitions on this board- capitalism and statism are opposites so whenever the state is involved capitalism is “reduced” to a degree..
It is quite easy to arrive to the conclusion that the full extent of capitalism can be only if no government exists, because government steals away resources, and this act of it distorts prices and relative prices. But this is not what this current theme is about. I suppose that neither you, nor I are allowed to spam. I am sorry if this is what I have just done.
It is easy to arrive at this conclusion, if that is the conclusion you were seeking in the first place. The problem is that it is entirely ahistorical. In reality wealth translates to power, and power seeks to protect itself, by any means necessary. It is no coincedence that the rise of capitalism went hand-in-hand with the consolidation of the state. It is in the ownership “class” interest to place laws of control and restriction on the “untamed masses” in order to gaurd their own position in society.
I would also be glad if the author answers the questions I posted in my first post on the theme.
I kind of did, indirectly. But I don’t feel I have to, as I am not the author of this thread, and I do not “love” the USPS.
Well I meant that post as an invitation for you to define your own terms of what socialism means to you- since we’re not speaking the same language here.
You still, perhaps, won’t understand it. What socialism is to me is the full expression of democracy (lower case d; “people power”). It means you can no more tell me what clothes I can wear, or drugs I can do, etc, because you’re the government, than you can because you “own” the place I find myself having to work at. It means worker control (and by worker that doesn’t simply mean laborer, as you think of it. It means the people who actually do the producing, not merely investing [tho some investors are workers, as that is their job they recieve a salary for) over the workplace.
On the show; Undercover Boss (great show btw) the CEO of Johnny Rockets, after his week on the floor, said that NO executive will be hired without going through that same experience he did… that’s socialism.
There was a guy recently in Seattle (I think, I’ll have to find the article) who gave the factory his workers (tho he will remain on as CEO)… that’s socialism.
The USSR, and other such failed experiments, are regarded by me, and much of the libertarian left, as state-capitalism; where the state is owner of all things, and runs itself much as any other capitalist enterprise would.
So when you mention the workplace as an area that you just happen to “find yourself having to work at”- you don’t consider it a voluntary agreement?(thats what is implied so please clarify)
Like if I said to you “Hey man do you wanna do some heavy lifting to move some stuff from my grandmother’s house to my house? I’ll give you $50- but please dress appropriately”
Would you consider it that I had no right in telling you to dress appropriately? but you have every right to take the $50 that I offered?
Or what if I wanted to hire a maid and every time she came to my house she dressed real skimpy, and if I have kids in my house I tell her hey can you NOT dress that way coming into my house. Would an appropriate response from her be “You have no right to tell me what clothes I can wear just because you “own” the place I find myself having to work at. Hell, you should give this house to me since I clean it up 5 days out the week”
If i’m misunderstanding then please go ahead and clarify.
So socialism means that workers must either be hired unconditionally or not at all, and no one can own stock in a company they don’t work for? I’ve never seen it defined that way before.
Epicurus, you do not what you are talking about. First you spam your own thread. Second you do not answer the points I have made. Third what you write has nothing to do with what it actually is. For the moment I do not see why should I waste my time answering you anymore, as there are more of my questions pending unanswered.
Speaking of the USPS, I sent three big boxes of DVDs to my house for winter break and received only two of them. Goodbye to $200-worth of movies.