Giardiasis said:
Are we?
Was the debate about pepper spray? Which 1 study found had a death rate of 1 out of every 600 uses by police. (happy to be corrected if i am comparing apples with oranges.
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Talking Politics
- Thread starter Legends of 2017
- Start date
Are we?
Was the debate about pepper spray? Which 1 study found had a death rate of 1 out of every 600 uses by police. (happy to be corrected if i am comparing apples with oranges.
You love to claim you hit nerves as if that proves something? In any case I didn’t use the word socialist as a prejorative but as a descriptive way to describe the opponents of capitalism. It’s not controversial.DavidSSS said:
If free speech trumps private property rights as you put it, then there is no limit to how far you take it. If someone valued your broken arm ahead of your valuing a healthy arm, we’ll thats just a difference of opinion now is it? If you value social cooperation then you can’t value free speech ahead of private property rights. No you don’t need government to enforce private property rights, you keep boring me with this repeated error.
Giardiasis said:
so if someone points a spoon at me i can kill them before they infringe on my private property rights?
So, how do you enforce private property rights without a government, with spoons?
All opponents of capitalism are socialists? What a small world of limited imagination you live in.
As for the analogy . . . I'm speechless, inane. I value social cooperation, private propoerty makes a big contribution to social disharmony.
DS
All opponents of capitalism are socialists? What a small world of limited imagination you live in.
As for the analogy . . . I'm speechless, inane. I value social cooperation, private propoerty makes a big contribution to social disharmony.
DS
Pointing a spoon at someone isn’t a clear and present danger. Pepper spray isn’t a lethal weapon, so you couldn’t justify killing someone pointing pepper spray at you.Brodders17 said:
Private law, courts and police.DavidSSS said:
Please enlighten me with an example of an opponent of capitialism that isn’t a socialist?
Again please enlighten us with how private property leads to social disharmony and provide an example of an alternative that either doesn’t or lessens the problem.
Capitalist ideas originated in the 1600s and were best applied in the 1800s.DavidSSS said:
Noam Chomsky? Anarcho-syndicalism: collective ownership by workers. Socialism.
Yeah didn’t expect you to, for someone so confident they are right you don’t provide much in he way of elaboration of your ideas, just like easy tiger.
Social disharmony under capitalism, no, never, geez, world wars have always been common, starvation in a world with plenty of food, etc etc.
Lovely world we live in.
Who knows what comes next but capitalism, like any socio-economic system, will not be the last.
You equate anarcho-synicalism with socialism? Wow, ignorant or stupid.
You like the 1800s capitalism, a mercantalist are you? Or maybe you just liked the way European countries got rich exploiting their colonies. Personally I find colonialism and exploitation abhorrent. Still, each to their own, I suppose the Europeans did have private property rights over the colonies, let's just ignore how they got that private property.
DS
Lovely world we live in.
Who knows what comes next but capitalism, like any socio-economic system, will not be the last.
You equate anarcho-synicalism with socialism? Wow, ignorant or stupid.
You like the 1800s capitalism, a mercantalist are you? Or maybe you just liked the way European countries got rich exploiting their colonies. Personally I find colonialism and exploitation abhorrent. Still, each to their own, I suppose the Europeans did have private property rights over the colonies, let's just ignore how they got that private property.
DS
I have asked Gia exactly that question many times. Where did land owners get the land. Who confered ownership? By what authority? I usually get a link to an obscure Austrian School website and hundreds of hours of reading rather than an answer.
World wars the fault of capitialism? Huge government war machines are to be blamed on private ownership of the means of production? The same private ownership that had to be overtaken by the governments to direct resources away from where the market was directing them so that they could go towards the war effort. Eh, wrong. Starvation the fault of capitialism? You mean in the countries that don’t have capitialism? Eh, wrong again.DavidSSS said:
Collective ownership by workers isn’t socialism? Wow ignorant and stupid.
The 1800s saw the greatest increase in material wealth on the history of mankind, and it wasn’t because of imperialism as you incorrectly put it.
And I’ve answered many times, in goes in one ear and out the other with you. If I’ve given you a link it is because a lot of these ideas need more than a PRE post to elaborate.KnightersRevenge said:
So what are you saying, imperialism was bringing civilisation to the savages? They weren't exploiting the colonies? Makes you wonder why they bothered.
Aah yes, I forgot about all those world wars which happened before capitalism. Of course these wars had nothing to do with gaining economic advantage, or grabbing property.
You keep telling us that any government involvement in the economy is somehow socialism, then you claim anarcho-syndicalism is also socialism. I know you are capable of double think but this is a bit ridiculous even for you.
Come on Giardiasis, explain how white fellas got to own all the land in Australia, just as an example since we mostly live here, how did this not violate the property rights of the indigenous population who were already here?
DS
Aah yes, I forgot about all those world wars which happened before capitalism. Of course these wars had nothing to do with gaining economic advantage, or grabbing property.
You keep telling us that any government involvement in the economy is somehow socialism, then you claim anarcho-syndicalism is also socialism. I know you are capable of double think but this is a bit ridiculous even for you.
Come on Giardiasis, explain how white fellas got to own all the land in Australia, just as an example since we mostly live here, how did this not violate the property rights of the indigenous population who were already here?
DS
Giardiasis said:
Mostly it never gets in the 1st ear to be honest.
I have no intention of reading all the crap you link to. If you can't explain it yourself in a way that others understand then you likely don't understand it yourself. This is a discussion forum. Discuss your ideas here.
In other words you’re too lazy. I’ve already laid out the ideas around Locke’s homesteading principle, go back and find it.KnightersRevenge said:Mostly it never gets in the 1st ear to be honest.
You sound like Cathy Newman, “so what you’re saying is...” and then stating a position I don’t hold. Imperialism is not capitalism, it is anti-capitalism as it does not respect the private property rights of the “savages” as you put it.DavidSSS said:
Capitalism certainly increased productive capacity to the extent that world wars were possible but it certainly didn’t cause them. It was anti-capitalist ideas such as trade barriers, colonisation, imperialism and foreign intervention that led the leaders (and indeed the majority of the citizenry) of the major powers to favour war over peace. Total war and total victory came with the decline of monarchical rule in Europe which previously had much stricter rules of war conduct.
I think Jesus Huerta de Soto’s definition of socialism is the best: “Socialism is any system of institutional aggression against the free exercise of human action and entrepreneurial activity.” It always attempts to justify politically and scientifically the use of institutional coercion in order to improve society both in terms of increased efficiency and fairness. Anarcho-syndicalism on any significant scale is not possible without some form of institutional aggression for it to be realised. Without it, people simply wouldn’t coordinate with each other by it’s prescribed rules of social organisation. It is actually not a viable system and would be laughed at for its complete absurdity by any self respecting economist.
The original British settlers certainly stole land from the original owners, so I’m someone that actually recognises that there might be people alive today with valid claims for property rights violations. The problem is that this has to be proven and given the lack of records from that period you would be hard pressed as an indigenous person to find the evidence that proves you to be the just owner of the land. The knowledge has been lost to antiquity.
Giardiasis said:
I have stated many times that I have not studied economics and so come from a very simplistic standpoint. I still want to discuss these issues to the best of my ability and I think I should be able to without having to read your source material first. The way I do this is by asking you to flesh out your statements. Your tendency is to burrow down into ever more incomprehensible (to me at least) esoteric economic theory. You see it as my failure to "do the research" I see it as your failure to clearly elucidate your ideas.
Yes but you need to get down to some pretty deep philosophical fundamentals in order to understand the arguments that I’m putting forth. Like what are the episomological foundations of economics? If you don’t have an appreciation of this then we have no chance of getting anywhere. I’m making arguments that accept that economic knowledge comes from a priori reasoning, but you flat out reject that and claim only empirical knowledge is valid. Hence in order to make statements such as private property leads to greater prosperity than socialism this idea needs to be flushed out before any progress can be made. It is not an argument that can made in bite sized paragraphs for people that deny the validity of a priori knowledge.KnightersRevenge said:
Having said all that, I actually have addressed your questions regarding how to determine property ownership. It comes from first use and mixing one’s labour with land - I.e Locke’s homesteading principle.
Locke's hoesteading principle conveniently left out the fact people already owned the land, and the only idea of labour, particularly agriculture, was the one he was familiar with and understood. Which goes to knighters point re 'who conferred ownership?'. not that G-man can incorporate this info. As I've said before, these kooky ideas are kind of interesting to think about conducting an experiment in a unrealistic vaccuum, a reality TV show maybe, where everyone started from scratch and did their damndest, but G-man doesn't like that idea for some reason, funny that. 8-