He has broken no rules on this forum.
Voluntary exchange isn’t inherently wrong. The problem is that perfect libertarian conditions have never existed. If say, you were trading your mined gold for mined rubber in the Congo in which two people who did the mining are doing the contract and aren’t intefering with anybody else in the process then this is not really a bad deal. Even if the rubber miner in the Congo could’ve gotten more and the Gold miner in America could’ve received less; it still really isn’t a poor condition because it generally assumes responsibility on both partners. In a libertarian utopia there would be an internal “market” fixing miracle which would even alleviate the poor contract by the miner of the rubber to exchange for something higher due to the accumulation of experience.
The problem is that these axioms and ideals exist in the perfect condition - something that has never existed in the world.
As for the lockean homesteading theory - This refutes the ideas of nations and it forces everything to a property contract which is developed and enforced as an idea through a nation. Lockean homesteading theory can be applied to the English in Ireland which lead to a generally accepted misery and a significant famine (which I call a libertarian famine). God gives you the rule to delineate property, or you give yourself the rule to delineate property, or God gives you the ability to give yourself the rule to delineate property. Whatever the case, an artificial border is being made and an artificial assumption of your “right” to something is being made. Locke’s sordid history with slavery and displacement of Natives is proof positive of his true “us vs. them” mentality, in my opinion.
Thomas Jefferson said it best, “While it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from Nature at all … it is considered by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no one has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land … Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society.”
In any case; I’m neither an expert libertarian nor communist. I just pointed out that Marxist fundamentalism requires capitalism and requires socialism as a transitional goal to communism. That is, Marxist fundamentalism. Thus calling communal experiments failures before the development of widespread capitalism is wrong.
How is that a problem, given that there’s no such thing as perfection, and there is such a thing as the Nirvana Fallacy. And that blubbering about how communism really hasn’t existed is just crocodile tears.
That’s not quite true. Two people in the Congo can agree on property definitions, boundaries and a system of conflict resolution. They can live for centuries under such a regime of peace. They don’t require people in Alaska or Norway to be simultaneously exercising the same libertarian conception of property in order to establish a libertarian conception of society.
And no libertarian would ever propose or expect such a universal standard (except Juan j/k) because it is impossible to achieve.
When you and I voluntarily trade, that is libertarianism in action. And it happens every single day, in millions of exchanges.
Yeah, Tom was a slave owner. It’s hard to take him very seriously on property.
Why can’t such a transaction take place?
You need to explain this further because it doesn’t make sense.
So axioms are non-existent in terms of reality? Can you perhaps point out which ones aren’t real and why?
Contract can be enforced by things other than nations. [ I’m guessing that by nations you mean governments ]
Are you talking about the Enclosure movement? You have to be more specific.
Well property rights are a necessity for living. Now we can talk about whether it is best to communalize property or privatize it but there has to be some distinction over who has what you call ‘artificial right’ to something because if no one had this ‘artificial right’ then no one would be able to use anything and we would all whither and die.
I think you should state the entire quote.
It is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all… It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common is the property for the moment of him who occupies it; but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society
That is a Stalinist interpretation to Marx. Marx himself stated that from Capitalism comes ‘Crude Communism’ in his work ‘Private Property and Communism’ in the 1844 Manuscripts.
“Stalinist interpretation”
“Crude communism” is the mandated takeover of formerly capitalist enterprises. “Socialism” was formerly the most acceptable answer to entering into communism when States were at their highest authority because they wielded such authority.
“the entire quote” provides against Lockean homesteading because occupation is a general survival term which I do not disagree with. I do not disagree that a man should be able to find food and use it for himself when he is starving; even if this man considers himself a capitalist.
“Well property rights are a necessity for living. Now we can talk about whether it is best to communalize property or privatize it but there has to be some distinction over who has what you call ‘artificial right’ to something because if no one had this ‘artificial right’ then no one would be able to use anything and we would all whither and die.”
Property rights are not necessary for survival. Food, Water, and Oxygen are necessary for survival. Medicine, Shelter, and tools are required for continued survival. Education and recreation are required for happiness and advancement. I do not argue that a starving man should not have his right to bread.
“Are you talking about the Enclosure movement? You have to be more specific.”
I’m specifically talking about the Irish famine in which non tariffs and propertarian/racist agendas accelerated the decline of the Irish people.
“Contract can be enforced by things other than nations. [ I’m guessing that by nations you mean governments ]”
Whatever the case, everything has to be enforced by something. That’s essentially my point.
“You need to explain this further because it doesn’t make sense.”
That voluntary exchange weeds out inequalities by providing material feedback in the real world. For example, the rubber farmer sold his stuff low but makes a comparison to the value of gold he received in secondary transactions. Libertarian utopians call this something like “price competition” which drives everything lower.
“Why can’t such a transaction take place?”
The specific example was used because it doesn’t. Warlords (funded and supported by paramilitaries) enslave their populations to extract minerals for consumption by the first world. Corporations take no responsibility because they deal with agencies that deal with agencies of agencies which help drive the price down and provide the basis for a lot of consumer electronics. People in the Congo usually don’t get to choose between property rights and communism when they need to walk hundreds of miles a week carrying raw materials just to eat.
“So axioms are non-existent in terms of reality? Can you perhaps point out which ones aren’t real and why?”
Axioms are word-play, like property rights and relativism. An axiom in a certain circumstance could prove to be absolutely correct; and could prove to be absolutely correct every single time, but it doesn’t change the fact that an axiom is not a scientific realization but rather an intuitive statement.
Sounds like he’s babbling shit to elicit histrionic reactions out of people to me.
Yeah. Pretty much what I said.
And the fact that the industrial revolution skipped Ireland for quite some time:
After 1815 there was intense population growth that caused increased pressure on land and peasants holdings being divided into smaller and smaller lots (Costigan, 1969). With increased population there came increased competition for land. With a population of eight million land was scarce. Many families had to survive on half and acre of land and the only way to do this was to grow potatoes to feed themselves through the winter months. Only one-third of these families lived on farms of over fifteen acres in which a surplus could be produced. Half the rural population was landless laborers and their families. The Irish famine from 1845 to 1849 was the most severe famine in the history of European agriculture. Dependence of huge sections of the population on subsistence agriculture led to collapse when the blight appeared.
The Industrial Revolution never reached most of Ireland. There was little opportunity for employment outside of agriculture and agriculture did not pay well. The Irish diet before the introduction of the potato was based on cattle that were produced in vast numbers. Beef, milk, butter, and buttermilk were the staples of their diet. The potato was introduced in the late 1500’s and the new crop thrived in the damp Irish climate.
Incomprehensible.
Truth is unscientific!
yeap… irrational doublethink[:|]
The ‘Socialism’ transition period was just a falsehood established by Russian cadre in order to retain power. Crude Communism is what comes after the supposed death of Capitalism.
To have property implies the ability to utilize it. Obviously property rights are deemed as a necessity in dictating who can eat what food. You seem to be conflating that communalization means no property rights which is false. There is a right to property and under communalization it dictates that all individuals own all things equally.
So you are talking about the Potato famine? Why do you think that was caused by free-market capitalism?
Well prices are subjectively set. During a transaction a positive sum is produced from a mutually beneficial trade. I do think that prices fall when business entities are engaged in competition over consumer desires. This can be proven both apriori and empirically.
So you think that corporations are responsible for the enslave done by warlords?
What would you define as a ‘scientific realization’? Empiricism?
Someone with the name Maoist Corporation can’t really be taken seriously.