Not? Read what you said on the quote by Charles Trevelyan: “I see nothing wrong with that statement”.
No, you are misinterpreting my position.
Inclosure Acts never existed!
Priceless
Pinochet was what?
Pinochet was a dictator but he was NOT a liberal though his regime did include free market elements that why its economic foudations remain until today, 20 years after he left power and Chile became a free republic.
Ahd the censitary suffrage? Very democratic was the “golden age of liberalism”, that gave right vote only to richs!
I dont believe in using the idea of “democracy” to usurp the rights of others.
Sure, give right vote to not-owners means cnfiscate the owners.
Men have the right over themselves and nothing more.
Sure that you not understand, because never read a book of Mises!
If you are going to start acting like a child then Im not going to waste more of my time with you.
I’m not misinterpreting yours position. You said this on the quote by Trevelyan. If you not understand on what you says, problem is yours. Does not me blames for yours problems.
Pinochet was a dictator very supported by yours “brilliant man”. You cannot deny. He said plainly that preffers a liberal dictator to a democracy lacking liberalism.
Sure, give right vote to poor implies usurp the exclusive right vote to rich.
“Men have the right over themselves” - But advocates a system whereupon only lives without working and others works or lives in huts, as happens in United States, all to ensure right property of the bankers.
I’m not misinterpreting yours position. You said this on the quote by Trevelyan. If you not understand on what you says, problem is yours. Does not me blames for yours problems.
On the contrary you are the one that doesnt understand basic english.
I clearly said I didnt see nothing wrong about Trevelyan statement since a people dependent on the state is a people on bondage, if you interpret that as “you dont want to help hungry people” its your fault.
Pinochet was a dictator very supported by yours “brilliant man”. You cannot deny. He said plainly that preffers a liberal dictator to a democracy lacking liberalism.
Hayek supported the economic freedom, though not complete, that existed in Chile compared to the disaster that was the previous ilegal socialist regime.
Even more a democracy without liberalism is not a democracy at all.
Sure, give right vote to poor implies usurp the exclusive right vote to rich.
Strawman
advocates a system whereupon only lives without working and others works or lives in huts, as happens in United States, all to ensure right property of the bankers.
I belive my fellow austrians already answer this but if you want to keep repeating your idiotic mantra be my guest.
You that doesnt understand basic english. Which context Trevelyan said this quote? Great Famine in Ireland. He writing to Colonel Routh on the famine, on the measures of help to poors.
The yours “brilliant man” supported the regime of Pinochet. He SAID. You canot deny. On “previous socialist regime”, what there ilegal was the coup d’état by Pinochet.
*“*democracy without liberalism is not a democracy at all” - In 19th century, “golden age of liberalism” was democracy at all…all the wealthy.
None of yours fellow austrians gived a convincing answer. Just what I saw, was arguments the coud justify the slavery (that wast misinterpreted).
“Work, like the direction of capital, is for the sake of consumption. Workers are consumers too. Were consumers, in general, better of from that expropriation? Economic science says no, because it directed resources differently from what entrepreneurs, acting as mandatories of the consumer, would have done. Would even the workers who did the expropriating be better off if such expropriation were conducted across society as a whole? Economic science says hell no.”
The PRATICAL LIFE refuted the yours “economic science”. The case brick manufacture proves that the works CAN manage a mean of production more efficiently that the entrepreneurs/capitalist__. The workers that would be dismissed, expropriated the factory, and paid the debts and re-employ the dismissed previously. So, the workers not need submit at “shift the structure of production” by “entrepreneurs/capitalists”__ that were leading the factory to bankruptcy.
In Argentina, after neoliberal crisis, many companies was recovered by WORKERS’ SELF-MANAGEMENT.
Therefore, the PRATICAL LIFE refuted yours “economic science”.
I don’t understand why it is so important to argue with socialist about what system is better. Let them have it their way on condition that they will stay away from coercing us into their system and vice versa.
So you mean, the workers stole the factory from the factory owner, right? Because they didn’t build it, nor did they pay for it to be built.
Don’t you think that’s a bit of a moral hazard, promoting theft? Who would build any more factories knowing that it would just get taken over again? How can anyone invest in anything that way, if their investments are always under the threat of expropriation?
That the workers may or may have not conducted a more profitable business afterwards is irrelevant since they didn’t build it from the start. If they’re really that good, then they should start their own factory, not stealing capital from others and justify it with some retarded after-the-fact rationalization.
Yuberries. imagine the ownerslave arguing: “The lord purchase a slave, feed the slave. If the slaves escapes or rebels, who would purchase slave knowing that the slaves rebels or escapes?” or that “the emancipation is theft to property right, because the owner purchase the slave and has property right upon slave”.
In case cited, if depended for decisions by owner, the factory exist not today, the workers have been dismissed, and would be not producing bricks to consumers.
The slaveowner didn’t create the slave so your analogy fails IMO.
Edit: And your case again is irrelevant. Is a thief justified in stealing whatever he wants just because he can better monetize it? No, that’s not how it works. If you think you can take some capital and manage it better, the right way to transfer that capital is by you buying it. Thats how every peaceful society does it. It isn’t hard, and it avoids a lot of problems.
If the guy is going bankrupt he’d probably sell it for cents on the dollar anyway. Would the factory disappear? If it went abandoned for a few years even, I’d concede a take over; but simply taking it over while the man is still managing it, that man who put everything to have it built, I maintain is a very costly moral hazard.
The slaveowner purchase and feed the slave. According to you, the one only right way to slave, was purchase the manumission, because was the peaceful solution.
Irrelevant? The case Argentine was irrelevant? Many companies was expropriated by workers and recovered and today to be operating, in that country.
Probably sell to another Lord that could dismiss workers to “shift the struture of production”, and the workers unemployed would be living in huts in strees, as happened with others american citizens during this recent crisis.
“<—>” Means they traded, “—>” means they got expropriated (which should be bad but you think it’s fine). Your comparizon with slavery is retarded because the theft happened at the very start:
Slave —> Slave trader <—> Slave owner
The Slave trader robbed the slave of his life, all his property, all his future, however you want to put it. So of course I don’t approve of that, it would be like me buying your computer, through a theft who robbed your house
Store <—> You —> Thief <—> Me
Regardless of whether I’m aware of where the computer came from, or if I use it more, or even if I can make more money out of it better than you, it is wrong and you deserve your computer back, okay? And so does the entrepreneur.
In regards to whatever empirical evidence you may have, yes, it is irrelevant, because the justification is wrong before the fact, and there’s enough a-priori reasons that explain why theft does more harm than good, almost always, if not always, to deny any type of long term prosperity that may come out of expropriations. There’s more bad side effects than I can mention.
Again, if the workers think they’re so good, so much better than the stupid bourgueoise ordering them around, and claim they could turn a shitty factory into the GM headquarters in a day, then buy it from the entrepreneur, give him what he deserves, or start your own factory, and get rich then. There isn’t just one factory in the world, and there’s enough space plus resources for more.
Imagine the situation: a old-aged now fallen ill with a dread disease. Fortunately, there is a cure. Unfortunately, it will cost one hundred thousand dollars, and the family is very poor. He has a junior that accepts to be sold by their father in exchange for hundred thousand dollars to save the life of their father. Cases as this, there many in Antiquity and Middle Age. Be justify? Was voluntary.
According to yours arguments, so the one only way to slave, was purchase the manumission, because the owner has right upon slave, because purchase and saved the life of their father.
The GM received money of state (taxpayers). You prefers this that workers self management.
Anarcho-capitalists will argue that voluntary slavery is and is not reasonable (no consensus), but the argument is whether one can contract to lose the ability to contract. Because it is voluntary, it is absolutely moral. That is without doubt. If one cannot act voluntarily, then one is oppressed.
Note: this is a libertarian argument, not an Austrian economics argument. AE does not deal with morality.
We always prefer self-management, because only the individual can give voluntary consent. Taxes are theft, and taxpayers are victims of the state. The state redistributing taxes is an oppressive agency, facilitating the transfer of wealth from producers (workers and capitalists) to special interests, like monopolists, oligarchs, welfare parasites, etc.