DavidSSS said:
What a joke, are you seriously arguing there are 2 alternatives: capitalism and socialism? :rofl Lot's of people, not just now but throughout history, would find this very strange.
Just as one example, many societies have had a custodial relationship with the land they live on, not a property relationship. In any case property is coercive, be it private or public.
When it comes to deciding what will be produced and in what quantities and in what manner, for the umpteenth time yes there are 2 alternatives. For all your filibuster and ad hominem, you can only name but one example of the supposed many examples throughout history? Not only that but your example is clearly an example of ownership, otherwise the “custodians” would have no issue with someone else coming in to use the land for something the “custodians” don’t approve of (be they an individual or a collective). They claim the land for whatever use they deem subjectively valuable to themselves.
If you want to define coercion as any form of violence, then it is important to make the distinction between just violence and unjust violence. Trying to chop someone’s leg off for fun is unjust violence and defending yourself from said leg chopper is just violence. It is pointless to just call all property “coercion” and think this means property is wrong. This definition of coercion is actually useful, “the invasive use of physical violence or the threat thereof against someone else's person or (just) property”. From that basis you can start to address the issue of scarcity that private property rights attempt to resolve. Your definition of coercion does nothing to resolve this issue.
DavidSSS said:
Who said anything about public ownership, who said anything at all about ownership? I certainly didn't, you just try and put words in my mouth to justify your own limited imagination.
You did. I referred to public property in reference to syndicalism and you inferred this was in error because syndicalism advocates for no state and “syndicalists would vehemently oppose public ownership”. Hence why I said public property doesn’t presuppose a state.
DavidSSS said:
Property by its very nature must be enforceable, enforcement by its very nature is coercive, it deprives others of the right to use something where ownership is claimed. And where does this ownership claim come from, well Mises states every title comes from either arbitrary appropriation or violent expropriation - not much of a basis for a "natural right" which so called libertarians base their ideas on. The claimed natural right is based on appropriation and expropriation, wonderful stuff this, you claim exclusive use of something by just grabbing it and then claim that your ownership is a natural right. Told you it was lame. Then the libertarians completely ignore the power that property rights give property owners, also ignoring how they need the state or some other coercive apparatus to enforce their property rights. Not very libertarian.
See my previous response to answer your absurd argument. How can anyone defend themselves if they are not allowed to claim ownership of their private property rights to their body? You’re quoting Mises now? Trying to pretend you’ve read some of his writing? If you had, you’d know that Mises never argued from a natural rights perspective and was highly critical of it. Mises was arguing that every property title today can probably be traced back to some form of original appropriation of unowned property and/or some form of expropriation of those original appropriators. Good luck arguing against that. He then said that this doesn’t matter in regards to the functioning of a market economy. “Ownership in the market economy is no longer linked up with the remote origin of private property. Those events in a far-distant past, hidden in the darkness of primitive mankind's history, are no longer of any concern for our day. For in an unhampered market society, the consumers daily decide anew who should own and how much he should own. The consumers allot control of the means of production to those who know how to use them best for the satisfaction of the most urgent wants of the consumers. Only in a legal and formalistic sense can the owners be considered the successors of appropriators and expropriators. In fact, they are mandataries of the consumers, bound by the operation of the market to serve the consumers best. Capitalism is the consummation of the self-determination of the consumers.” Somehow you have meshed this with natural rights and then made the incorrect claim that only a state can protect private property rights, without realising that libertarians worth their salt claim that everything should be privatised, including security and court systems.
What is lame is your understanding of libertarianism. You don’t understand it yet you have the arrogance to proclaim it wrong. You lament property rights yet you in the very act of making an argument are presupposing their existence. By arguing with me, you are recognising my ownership of my body and mind. Without private property rights, the issue of scarcity can not be adequately resolved and arguing against it is contradictory whether the person arguing against it realises it or not.
DavidSSS said:
Now Germany is an export oriented country so a lower exchange rate makes their exports more competitive, if they don't export (priced out by a higher value currency) then they have no funds to purchase imports. It is worth it for Germany and, in any case, since they are in a currency union with low cost countries that can produce a lot of their imports and sell them in the same currency there is barely a disadvantage. Are you seriously (in practice not theory) claiming Germany doesn't benefit from being in the Euro which is valued lower than a Deutschmark would be?
When Germany went to the Euro all that happened was that it imported the inflation from the currencies of the other countries within the monetary union. These countries printed Euro’s, bought German goods with them and the German’s then saw prices rise due to the increase in the money supply. Sure, it helps the exporters for a short time, but eventually the money filters through the economy and prices rise in response. Germans through their exposure to the European central bank are then forced to finance the debt of the spendthrift southern European countries. If Germany remained on the Deutschmark, capital would have flocked to Germany and foreign goods would have become much cheaper for Germans. If the southern European countries tried to buy goods with inflated currency, they would have been forced to devalue their currencies in relation to the Deutschmark in response. With the Euro they don’t have to do that.
The effect of Germans exporting more than they import is that Germans invest more of their capital overseas than non-German people invest their capital in Germany. Whether the balance of payments results in trade surpluses or deficits does not tell you whether it is a good or bad situation. What matters is what how effective the money is allocated. Germans buying Greek government debt that was financed with money created out of thin air that was used to purchase German goods is an example of a bad situation. This is a direct result of the Euro, ergo it is most definitely not a good deal for Germany. They would be far better off going back on the Deutschmark. The only reason why they went to the Euro was because the French elite demanded it in return for allowing West and East Germany to re-unify. The French elite demanded it because they were frustrated by the strength of the Deutschmark which restricted their ability to use inflation to finance their welfare/warfare boondoggles.
DavidSSS said:
You know Gia, you are the only one here telling everyone what society they should live in. You are so prescriptive, you tell everyone they should live in a market society and it has to be a pure free market or it is somehow wrong. Gotta follow the true correct line according to Gia. Brexit is apparently more free market so therefore you must agree with Brexit, otherwise you contradict the correct line according to Gia. Just substitute Mises for Marx and follow the correct line.
I’m the only one here doing that am I? You and the socialist crew are just live and let live types? Again, with the false equivalence. A Marxist with power will respond to someone that disagrees with them by putting a bullet in their head (if they had the resources to produce them). A Misean with power would try through argument to convince others of the correct course of action and will try to demonstrate this through living by example. If people want to live in a socialist society then by all means go ahead and do so. I live in a society where people like you can vote to steal from me every 4 years or so. Hence, I argue pretty hard against this obviously. I would like the choice to secede from people that wish to do so, however our political structure does not allow for this. Brexit was a vote to secede which is why I support it, but it sucks that the people that wanted to stay couldn’t. I think it much more conducive to peace if procedures for secession where developed in modern nation states (like in Lichtenstein) as it would allow for people to just say no if they want to, instead of being stuck with something they can’t stand.