Conservatism And Libertarianism Both Have No Dogma

[orogenicman]

Property can be bought and sold. The human body cannot legally or ethically be bought and sold, and thus is not property. You 19th centurions really should get up to speed; Clue - this is the 21st century.

Of course it is. Do you not work for a living? Are you not then selling your labor, an extension of the property right in your own body?

I don't know on what planet you live, but on this one, that isn't how it works.

That in your world your body belongs to government neither means that's right or we need to accept it

Since that is not what I said, non-sequitur.

So if your body does not belong to you, who do you think it belongs to?

The problem is that equating human being with the term property is ridiculous and fraught with all sorts of negative connotations and dangerous concepts, such as slavery. A living, breathing human being is NOT property.

 

[orogenicman]

That you consider a human body to be property doesn't change the fact that it is not.

The fact is your body is your property. If it isn't, then the concept of property is nonsensical.

Property can be bought and sold. The human body cannot legally or ethically be bought and sold, and thus is not property. You 19th centurions really should get up to speed; Clue - this is the 21st century.

Of course it is. Do you not work for a living? Are you not then selling your labor, an extension of the property right in your own body?

I don't know on what planet you live, but on this one, that isn't how it works.

wrong. That's exactly how it works on this planet.

Only for those few who still accept the concept that a living breathing human being is property to be bought and sold. The rest of us have risen above that outrageous notion.

 

[Youch]

Conservatism and Libertarianism both have no Dogma. It's true because both a founding father of modern conservatim and a leading Libertarian intellectual (oxymoron?) have claimed this to be true.

What do you thnk?

I think you are ignorant, and just proved it. You obviously know naught of conservative principles, and instead just regurgitate Comedy Channel or internet/email mule fritters, and thought you'd be cute or smart? Well, no.

What kind of a person must one be to assume that one side of political debate has no philosophy, while the other one does? I will refrain from answering my own question.

Perhaps you have no idea what a Dogma is, and you just posted this because you wanted to write the word 'dogma'?

I would LOVE to discuss any of this with you. Especially the fancy word "oxymoron" as you apply it to people who defend liberty.

Libs are so dangerous.

 

[bripat9643]

The fact is your body is your property. If it isn't, then the concept of property is nonsensical.

Property can be bought and sold. The human body cannot legally or ethically be bought and sold, and thus is not property. You 19th centurions really should get up to speed; Clue - this is the 21st century.

Of course it is. Do you not work for a living? Are you not then selling your labor, an extension of the property right in your own body?

I don't know on what planet you live, but on this one, that isn't how it works.

wrong. That's exactly how it works on this planet.

Only for those few who still accept the concept that a living breathing human being is property to be bought and sold. The rest of us have risen above that outrageous notion.

Your body is your property. Nothing could be more obvious. That means you have the right to make all decisions of it's use. If your body doesn't belong to you, then who does it belong to? You keep avoiding answering that question.

 

[Bfgrn]

No, I quoted David Korten, and you merely quoted reactionary crap from the Austrian school of mass destruction.

So you admit to having said nothing, and merely copy and pasting something completely irrelevant.

I see that when confronted with facts, you are unable to do anything but punt. Ironic that your reply is to a post that is 100% my writing.

I will REPEAT it for you...

Thank you Kevin. Your reply has exposed who and what you really are. You are not for liberty or freedom, you are for creating the ultimate tyranny of robber barons. Here is where your true far right wing corporatism reveals itself. And your idea of freedom is to create a iron fisted hierarchy to rule over the masses. With stated SEVERE punishment for any lowly worker who doesn't submit to total submission. Pining for and embracing of the LEAST free eras in American history, the Gilded Age. Worker freedom to strike is criminalized, yet monopolies would be welcomed.

You are beyond ignorant. You have ZERO understanding of human nature, power and how it manifests. You support the exact same tyranny that these far right wing pea brains support...

Kevin Kennedy and cohorts...

When you actually post something of substance I'll respond to it. "You're evil and want to turn people into serfs" doesn't make the cut. Perhaps you should stick to copying and pasting what others have to say.

In the context of the thread title, you have proven beyond doubt that your ideas are pure dogma.

Tell me Kevin, how does your corporate run, no government utopia deal with crime? Are there laws? Are there police?? Are there courts???

How does your utopia address pollution? Are there any standards? Are there any rules?

I could go on for years confronting you with questions that you haven't even spent a second ACTUALLY contemplating.

The framework of any civilized society has to have basic human rights protections, rules and consequences for breaking those rules.

Let's hear it Kevin?

I haven't spent a second contemplating any of these ideas, huh? Proof? No. It's unwise to state what other people have or have not done, when you have no idea.

The truth is that I've discussed these ideas on this very board, probably many times over now. For starters, nobody is claiming any kind of utopia, merely a private property society where there is no centralized agency given a monopoly on the use of violence, aka the state. That doesn't mean all problems suddenly disappear, but you knew that. Buzzwords like utopia aren't meant to be logical, are they?

Secondly, it's not "corporate run," whatever that means. What you have now is collusion between the state and corporations, and it's naive to think that you can ever change that without abolishing the state. So long as there is an organization with a monopoly on the use of violence there will be corruption and corporatism to go along with it. In the free market, however, the consumer is king. If their wants aren't satisfied then they take their money elsewhere.

As for pollution, private property rights would be far more stringent in regulating pollution than the licenses to pollute and exceptions and so on and so forth that exist under the state. Simply put, if you're pollution affects my property you no longer have the right to continue producing pollution. That means air, land, water, etc...

LOL... you CLAIM to have thought out these questions...HOW do you enforce them Kevin. HOW do you stop your neighbor from polluting?

 

[bripat9643]

So you admit to having said nothing, and merely copy and pasting something completely irrelevant.

I see that when confronted with facts, you are unable to do anything but punt. Ironic that your reply is to a post that is 100% my writing.

I will REPEAT it for you...

Thank you Kevin. Your reply has exposed who and what you really are. You are not for liberty or freedom, you are for creating the ultimate tyranny of robber barons. Here is where your true far right wing corporatism reveals itself. And your idea of freedom is to create a iron fisted hierarchy to rule over the masses. With stated SEVERE punishment for any lowly worker who doesn't submit to total submission. Pining for and embracing of the LEAST free eras in American history, the Gilded Age. Worker freedom to strike is criminalized, yet monopolies would be welcomed.

You are beyond ignorant. You have ZERO understanding of human nature, power and how it manifests. You support the exact same tyranny that these far right wing pea brains support...

Kevin Kennedy and cohorts...

When you actually post something of substance I'll respond to it. "You're evil and want to turn people into serfs" doesn't make the cut. Perhaps you should stick to copying and pasting what others have to say.

In the context of the thread title, you have proven beyond doubt that your ideas are pure dogma.

Tell me Kevin, how does your corporate run, no government utopia deal with crime? Are there laws? Are there police?? Are there courts???

How does your utopia address pollution? Are there any standards? Are there any rules?

I could go on for years confronting you with questions that you haven't even spent a second ACTUALLY contemplating.

The framework of any civilized society has to have basic human rights protections, rules and consequences for breaking those rules.

Let's hear it Kevin?

I haven't spent a second contemplating any of these ideas, huh? Proof? No. It's unwise to state what other people have or have not done, when you have no idea.

The truth is that I've discussed these ideas on this very board, probably many times over now. For starters, nobody is claiming any kind of utopia, merely a private property society where there is no centralized agency given a monopoly on the use of violence, aka the state. That doesn't mean all problems suddenly disappear, but you knew that. Buzzwords like utopia aren't meant to be logical, are they?

Secondly, it's not "corporate run," whatever that means. What you have now is collusion between the state and corporations, and it's naive to think that you can ever change that without abolishing the state. So long as there is an organization with a monopoly on the use of violence there will be corruption and corporatism to go along with it. In the free market, however, the consumer is king. If their wants aren't satisfied then they take their money elsewhere.

As for pollution, private property rights would be far more stringent in regulating pollution than the licenses to pollute and exceptions and so on and so forth that exist under the state. Simply put, if you're pollution affects my property you no longer have the right to continue producing pollution. That means air, land, water, etc...

LOL... you CLAIM to have thought out these questions...HOW do you enforce them Kevin. HOW do you stop your neighbor from polluting?

You stop him from polluting your property the same way you stop him from building a fence 3 feet on your side of the property line: with lawsuits.

 

[Bfgrn]

No, I quoted David Korten, and you merely quoted reactionary crap from the Austrian school of mass destruction.

So you admit to having said nothing, and merely copy and pasting something completely irrelevant.

I see that when confronted with facts, you are unable to do anything but punt. Ironic that your reply is to a post that is 100% my writing.

I will REPEAT it for you...

Thank you Kevin. Your reply has exposed who and what you really are. You are not for liberty or freedom, you are for creating the ultimate tyranny of robber barons. Here is where your true far right wing corporatism reveals itself. And your idea of freedom is to create a iron fisted hierarchy to rule over the masses. With stated SEVERE punishment for any lowly worker who doesn't submit to total submission. Pining for and embracing of the LEAST free eras in American history, the Gilded Age. Worker freedom to strike is criminalized, yet monopolies would be welcomed.

You are beyond ignorant. You have ZERO understanding of human nature, power and how it manifests. You support the exact same tyranny that these far right wing pea brains support...

Kevin Kennedy and cohorts...

When you actually post something of substance I'll respond to it. "You're evil and want to turn people into serfs" doesn't make the cut. Perhaps you should stick to copying and pasting what others have to say.

In the context of the thread title, you have proven beyond doubt that your ideas are pure dogma.

Tell me Kevin, how does your corporate run, no government utopia deal with crime? Are there laws? Are there police?? Are there courts???

How does your utopia address pollution? Are there any standards? Are there any rules?

I could go on for years confronting you with questions that you haven't even spent a second ACTUALLY contemplating.

The framework of any civilized society has to have basic human rights protections, rules and consequences for breaking those rules.

Let's hear it Kevin?

You'll find the answers to all your questions here:

The Idea of a Private Law Society - Hans-Hermann Hoppe - Mises Daily

You'll discover that people have thought out theses issues quite thoroughly.

OMG, Kevin rails against my use of the term 'utopia', then turd brain provides an article about how to create a 'garden of Eden'.

 

[Bfgrn]

I see that when confronted with facts, you are unable to do anything but punt. Ironic that your reply is to a post that is 100% my writing.

I will REPEAT it for you...

Thank you Kevin. Your reply has exposed who and what you really are. You are not for liberty or freedom, you are for creating the ultimate tyranny of robber barons. Here is where your true far right wing corporatism reveals itself. And your idea of freedom is to create a iron fisted hierarchy to rule over the masses. With stated SEVERE punishment for any lowly worker who doesn't submit to total submission. Pining for and embracing of the LEAST free eras in American history, the Gilded Age. Worker freedom to strike is criminalized, yet monopolies would be welcomed.

You are beyond ignorant. You have ZERO understanding of human nature, power and how it manifests. You support the exact same tyranny that these far right wing pea brains support...

Kevin Kennedy and cohorts...

When you actually post something of substance I'll respond to it. "You're evil and want to turn people into serfs" doesn't make the cut. Perhaps you should stick to copying and pasting what others have to say.

In the context of the thread title, you have proven beyond doubt that your ideas are pure dogma.

Tell me Kevin, how does your corporate run, no government utopia deal with crime? Are there laws? Are there police?? Are there courts???

How does your utopia address pollution? Are there any standards? Are there any rules?

I could go on for years confronting you with questions that you haven't even spent a second ACTUALLY contemplating.

The framework of any civilized society has to have basic human rights protections, rules and consequences for breaking those rules.

Let's hear it Kevin?

I haven't spent a second contemplating any of these ideas, huh? Proof? No. It's unwise to state what other people have or have not done, when you have no idea.

The truth is that I've discussed these ideas on this very board, probably many times over now. For starters, nobody is claiming any kind of utopia, merely a private property society where there is no centralized agency given a monopoly on the use of violence, aka the state. That doesn't mean all problems suddenly disappear, but you knew that. Buzzwords like utopia aren't meant to be logical, are they?

Secondly, it's not "corporate run," whatever that means. What you have now is collusion between the state and corporations, and it's naive to think that you can ever change that without abolishing the state. So long as there is an organization with a monopoly on the use of violence there will be corruption and corporatism to go along with it. In the free market, however, the consumer is king. If their wants aren't satisfied then they take their money elsewhere.

As for pollution, private property rights would be far more stringent in regulating pollution than the licenses to pollute and exceptions and so on and so forth that exist under the state. Simply put, if you're pollution affects my property you no longer have the right to continue producing pollution. That means air, land, water, etc...

LOL... you CLAIM to have thought out these questions...HOW do you enforce them Kevin. HOW do you stop your neighbor from polluting?

You stop him from polluting your property the same way you stop him from building a fence 3 feet on your side of the property line: with lawsuits.

WHO do you submit the 'lawsuit' TO in Kevin's NO GOVERNMENT anarco utopia?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

When you actually post something of substance I'll respond to it. "You're evil and want to turn people into serfs" doesn't make the cut. Perhaps you should stick to copying and pasting what others have to say.

In the context of the thread title, you have proven beyond doubt that your ideas are pure dogma.

Tell me Kevin, how does your corporate run, no government utopia deal with crime? Are there laws? Are there police?? Are there courts???

How does your utopia address pollution? Are there any standards? Are there any rules?

I could go on for years confronting you with questions that you haven't even spent a second ACTUALLY contemplating.

The framework of any civilized society has to have basic human rights protections, rules and consequences for breaking those rules.

Let's hear it Kevin?

I haven't spent a second contemplating any of these ideas, huh? Proof? No. It's unwise to state what other people have or have not done, when you have no idea.

The truth is that I've discussed these ideas on this very board, probably many times over now. For starters, nobody is claiming any kind of utopia, merely a private property society where there is no centralized agency given a monopoly on the use of violence, aka the state. That doesn't mean all problems suddenly disappear, but you knew that. Buzzwords like utopia aren't meant to be logical, are they?

Secondly, it's not "corporate run," whatever that means. What you have now is collusion between the state and corporations, and it's naive to think that you can ever change that without abolishing the state. So long as there is an organization with a monopoly on the use of violence there will be corruption and corporatism to go along with it. In the free market, however, the consumer is king. If their wants aren't satisfied then they take their money elsewhere.

As for pollution, private property rights would be far more stringent in regulating pollution than the licenses to pollute and exceptions and so on and so forth that exist under the state. Simply put, if you're pollution affects my property you no longer have the right to continue producing pollution. That means air, land, water, etc...

LOL... you CLAIM to have thought out these questions...HOW do you enforce them Kevin. HOW do you stop your neighbor from polluting?

You stop him from polluting your property the same way you stop him from building a fence 3 feet on your side of the property line: with lawsuits.

WHO do you submit the 'lawsuit' TO in Kevin's NO GOVERNMENT anarco utopia?

The courts, or a mediator, obviously.

 

[Bfgrn]

No, I quoted David Korten, and you merely quoted reactionary crap from the Austrian school of mass destruction.

So you admit to having said nothing, and merely copy and pasting something completely irrelevant.

I see that when confronted with facts, you are unable to do anything but punt. Ironic that your reply is to a post that is 100% my writing.

I will REPEAT it for you...

Thank you Kevin. Your reply has exposed who and what you really are. You are not for liberty or freedom, you are for creating the ultimate tyranny of robber barons. Here is where your true far right wing corporatism reveals itself. And your idea of freedom is to create a iron fisted hierarchy to rule over the masses. With stated SEVERE punishment for any lowly worker who doesn't submit to total submission. Pining for and embracing of the LEAST free eras in American history, the Gilded Age. Worker freedom to strike is criminalized, yet monopolies would be welcomed.

You are beyond ignorant. You have ZERO understanding of human nature, power and how it manifests. You support the exact same tyranny that these far right wing pea brains support...

Kevin Kennedy and cohorts...

When you actually post something of substance I'll respond to it. "You're evil and want to turn people into serfs" doesn't make the cut. Perhaps you should stick to copying and pasting what others have to say.

In the context of the thread title, you have proven beyond doubt that your ideas are pure dogma.

Tell me Kevin, how does your corporate run, no government utopia deal with crime? Are there laws? Are there police?? Are there courts???

How does your utopia address pollution? Are there any standards? Are there any rules?

I could go on for years confronting you with questions that you haven't even spent a second ACTUALLY contemplating.

The framework of any civilized society has to have basic human rights protections, rules and consequences for breaking those rules.

Let's hear it Kevin?

I haven't spent a second contemplating any of these ideas, huh? Proof? No. It's unwise to state what other people have or have not done, when you have no idea.

The truth is that I've discussed these ideas on this very board, probably many times over now. For starters, nobody is claiming any kind of utopia, merely a private property society where there is no centralized agency given a monopoly on the use of violence, aka the state. That doesn't mean all problems suddenly disappear, but you knew that. Buzzwords like utopia aren't meant to be logical, are they?

Secondly, it's not "corporate run," whatever that means. What you have now is collusion between the state and corporations, and it's naive to think that you can ever change that without abolishing the state. So long as there is an organization with a monopoly on the use of violence there will be corruption and corporatism to go along with it. In the free market, however, the consumer is king. If their wants aren't satisfied then they take their money elsewhere.

As for pollution, private property rights would be far more stringent in regulating pollution than the licenses to pollute and exceptions and so on and so forth that exist under the state. Simply put, if you're pollution affects my property you no longer have the right to continue producing pollution. That means air, land, water, etc...

So you finally admit that your philosophy is one of mass destruction. I guess our founding fathers were morons, who had no clue how to run a country.

Your previous non sequitur tirade about Herbert Hoover totally missed the point. Regardless of what the man believed, he FOLLOWED the advise of others. And it is crystal clear that your philosophy of mass destruction is in perfect sympathy with the liquidationists from the Austrian school the Hoover administration followed. And guess what Keven...it led DIRECTLY to mass destruction...the great depression.

Contemplating in retrospect the wreck of his country’s economy and his own presidency, Herbert Hoover wrote bitterly in his memoirs about those who had advised inaction during the downslide:

The ‘leave-it-alone liquidationists’ headed by Secretary of the Treasury Mellon …felt that government must keep its hands off and let the slump liquidate itself. Mr. Mellon had only one formula: ‘Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate’.… He held that even panic was not altogether a bad thing. He said: ‘It will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less competent people’.


The Federal Reserve took almost no steps to halt the slide into the Great Depression over 1929–-33. Instead, the Federal Reserve acted as if appropriate policy was not to try to avoid the oncoming Great Depression, but to allow it to run its course and “liquidate” the unprofitable portions of the private economy.

In adopting such “liquidationist” policies, the Federal Reserve was merely following the recommendations provided by an economic theory of depressions that was in fact common before the Keynesian Revolution and was held by economists like Friedrich Hayek, Lionel Robbins, and Joseph Schumpeter.

 

[Bfgrn]

In the context of the thread title, you have proven beyond doubt that your ideas are pure dogma.

Tell me Kevin, how does your corporate run, no government utopia deal with crime? Are there laws? Are there police?? Are there courts???

How does your utopia address pollution? Are there any standards? Are there any rules?

I could go on for years confronting you with questions that you haven't even spent a second ACTUALLY contemplating.

The framework of any civilized society has to have basic human rights protections, rules and consequences for breaking those rules.

Let's hear it Kevin?

I haven't spent a second contemplating any of these ideas, huh? Proof? No. It's unwise to state what other people have or have not done, when you have no idea.

The truth is that I've discussed these ideas on this very board, probably many times over now. For starters, nobody is claiming any kind of utopia, merely a private property society where there is no centralized agency given a monopoly on the use of violence, aka the state. That doesn't mean all problems suddenly disappear, but you knew that. Buzzwords like utopia aren't meant to be logical, are they?

Secondly, it's not "corporate run," whatever that means. What you have now is collusion between the state and corporations, and it's naive to think that you can ever change that without abolishing the state. So long as there is an organization with a monopoly on the use of violence there will be corruption and corporatism to go along with it. In the free market, however, the consumer is king. If their wants aren't satisfied then they take their money elsewhere.

As for pollution, private property rights would be far more stringent in regulating pollution than the licenses to pollute and exceptions and so on and so forth that exist under the state. Simply put, if you're pollution affects my property you no longer have the right to continue producing pollution. That means air, land, water, etc...

LOL... you CLAIM to have thought out these questions...HOW do you enforce them Kevin. HOW do you stop your neighbor from polluting?

You stop him from polluting your property the same way you stop him from building a fence 3 feet on your side of the property line: with lawsuits.

WHO do you submit the 'lawsuit' TO in Kevin's NO GOVERNMENT anarco utopia?

The courts, or a mediator, obviously.

COURT? HOW do you have a court without some form of authority, or what mankind has always called:
G
O
V
E
R
N
M
E
N
T

 

[kaz]

Of course it is. Do you not work for a living? Are you not then selling your labor, an extension of the property right in your own body?

I don't know on what planet you live, but on this one, that isn't how it works.

That in your world your body belongs to government neither means that's right or we need to accept it

Since that is not what I said, non-sequitur.

So if your body does not belong to you, who do you think it belongs to?

The problem is that equating human being with the term property is ridiculous and fraught with all sorts of negative connotations and dangerous concepts, such as slavery. A living, breathing human being is NOT property.

Why is that a problem? My body, my stuff, keep your hands off it. What's particularly twisted is you are assigning less value to my ownership of my body than my stuff. You're saying government has to OK my use of my own body. That's sick.

 

[percysunshine]

.

The IRS owns everybody's ass. Just ask Lerner.

.

 

[kaz]

In the context of the thread title, you have proven beyond doubt that your ideas are pure dogma.

Tell me Kevin, how does your corporate run, no government utopia deal with crime? Are there laws? Are there police?? Are there courts???

How does your utopia address pollution? Are there any standards? Are there any rules?

I could go on for years confronting you with questions that you haven't even spent a second ACTUALLY contemplating.

The framework of any civilized society has to have basic human rights protections, rules and consequences for breaking those rules.

Let's hear it Kevin?

I haven't spent a second contemplating any of these ideas, huh? Proof? No. It's unwise to state what other people have or have not done, when you have no idea.

The truth is that I've discussed these ideas on this very board, probably many times over now. For starters, nobody is claiming any kind of utopia, merely a private property society where there is no centralized agency given a monopoly on the use of violence, aka the state. That doesn't mean all problems suddenly disappear, but you knew that. Buzzwords like utopia aren't meant to be logical, are they?

Secondly, it's not "corporate run," whatever that means. What you have now is collusion between the state and corporations, and it's naive to think that you can ever change that without abolishing the state. So long as there is an organization with a monopoly on the use of violence there will be corruption and corporatism to go along with it. In the free market, however, the consumer is king. If their wants aren't satisfied then they take their money elsewhere.

As for pollution, private property rights would be far more stringent in regulating pollution than the licenses to pollute and exceptions and so on and so forth that exist under the state. Simply put, if you're pollution affects my property you no longer have the right to continue producing pollution. That means air, land, water, etc...

LOL... you CLAIM to have thought out these questions...HOW do you enforce them Kevin. HOW do you stop your neighbor from polluting?

You stop him from polluting your property the same way you stop him from building a fence 3 feet on your side of the property line: with lawsuits.

WHO do you submit the 'lawsuit' TO in Kevin's NO GOVERNMENT anarco utopia?

The courts, or a mediator, obviously.

So if someone robs you and you want your stuff back, why are they going to agree to a mediator? Why would Madoff agree to a mediator? Why would internet scammers agree to a mediator?

Sure, in the general store of the town you live in they might agree to that as they know their other customers are looking at them and they don't want to lose them. But there are a lot of bad guys out there, they aren't going to agree to mediation. That is a legitimate role of government, mediating results.

Then the next problem you have is even if you win, suppose they don't pay? I operate my business with integrity, but I have hundreds of vendors all over the country. Most of them have integrity too. Some don't. Sure, I can not do business with anyone I don't know, but without any repercussions to fraud, I would have to do that and my business would be far smaller if it survived at all.

 

[kaz]

.

The IRS owns everybody's ass. Just ask Lerner.

.

Ask any business owner.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So you admit to having said nothing, and merely copy and pasting something completely irrelevant.

I see that when confronted with facts, you are unable to do anything but punt. Ironic that your reply is to a post that is 100% my writing.

I will REPEAT it for you...

Thank you Kevin. Your reply has exposed who and what you really are. You are not for liberty or freedom, you are for creating the ultimate tyranny of robber barons. Here is where your true far right wing corporatism reveals itself. And your idea of freedom is to create a iron fisted hierarchy to rule over the masses. With stated SEVERE punishment for any lowly worker who doesn't submit to total submission. Pining for and embracing of the LEAST free eras in American history, the Gilded Age. Worker freedom to strike is criminalized, yet monopolies would be welcomed.

You are beyond ignorant. You have ZERO understanding of human nature, power and how it manifests. You support the exact same tyranny that these far right wing pea brains support...

Kevin Kennedy and cohorts...

When you actually post something of substance I'll respond to it. "You're evil and want to turn people into serfs" doesn't make the cut. Perhaps you should stick to copying and pasting what others have to say.

In the context of the thread title, you have proven beyond doubt that your ideas are pure dogma.

Tell me Kevin, how does your corporate run, no government utopia deal with crime? Are there laws? Are there police?? Are there courts???

How does your utopia address pollution? Are there any standards? Are there any rules?

I could go on for years confronting you with questions that you haven't even spent a second ACTUALLY contemplating.

The framework of any civilized society has to have basic human rights protections, rules and consequences for breaking those rules.

Let's hear it Kevin?

I haven't spent a second contemplating any of these ideas, huh? Proof? No. It's unwise to state what other people have or have not done, when you have no idea.

The truth is that I've discussed these ideas on this very board, probably many times over now. For starters, nobody is claiming any kind of utopia, merely a private property society where there is no centralized agency given a monopoly on the use of violence, aka the state. That doesn't mean all problems suddenly disappear, but you knew that. Buzzwords like utopia aren't meant to be logical, are they?

Secondly, it's not "corporate run," whatever that means. What you have now is collusion between the state and corporations, and it's naive to think that you can ever change that without abolishing the state. So long as there is an organization with a monopoly on the use of violence there will be corruption and corporatism to go along with it. In the free market, however, the consumer is king. If their wants aren't satisfied then they take their money elsewhere.

As for pollution, private property rights would be far more stringent in regulating pollution than the licenses to pollute and exceptions and so on and so forth that exist under the state. Simply put, if you're pollution affects my property you no longer have the right to continue producing pollution. That means air, land, water, etc...

So you finally admit that your philosophy is one of mass destruction. I guess our founding fathers were morons, who had no clue how to run a country.

Your previous non sequitur tirade about Herbert Hoover totally missed the point. Regardless of what the man believed, he FOLLOWED the advise of others. And it is crystal clear that your philosophy of mass destruction is in perfect sympathy with the liquidationists from the Austrian school the Hoover administration followed. And guess what Keven...it led DIRECTLY to mass destruction...the great depression.

Contemplating in retrospect the wreck of his country’s economy and his own presidency, Herbert Hoover wrote bitterly in his memoirs about those who had advised inaction during the downslide:

The ‘leave-it-alone liquidationists’ headed by Secretary of the Treasury Mellon …felt that government must keep its hands off and let the slump liquidate itself. Mr. Mellon had only one formula: ‘Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate’.… He held that even panic was not altogether a bad thing. He said: ‘It will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less competent people’.


The Federal Reserve took almost no steps to halt the slide into the Great Depression over 1929–-33. Instead, the Federal Reserve acted as if appropriate policy was not to try to avoid the oncoming Great Depression, but to allow it to run its course and “liquidate” the unprofitable portions of the private economy.

In adopting such “liquidationist” policies, the Federal Reserve was merely following the recommendations provided by an economic theory of depressions that was in fact common before the Keynesian Revolution and was held by economists like Friedrich Hayek, Lionel Robbins, and Joseph Schumpeter.

Except of course that I demonstrate in that post how Hoover completely spurned the advice of Mellon, and set about with the most aggressive economic-intervention program the country had seen up to that point in an attempt to end the depression. I pointed out that Rexford Tugwell, one of FDR's economic advisers, stated that they took many of Hoover's programs and used them in the New Deal, and I pointed out Hoover's interventionist record from even before the Depression. As for the Fed, they're the ones who created the inflation throughout the 20's that led to the malinvestment that created a bubble that inevitably popped. You clearly have no understanding of economic history or Austrian economics.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I haven't spent a second contemplating any of these ideas, huh? Proof? No. It's unwise to state what other people have or have not done, when you have no idea.

The truth is that I've discussed these ideas on this very board, probably many times over now. For starters, nobody is claiming any kind of utopia, merely a private property society where there is no centralized agency given a monopoly on the use of violence, aka the state. That doesn't mean all problems suddenly disappear, but you knew that. Buzzwords like utopia aren't meant to be logical, are they?

Secondly, it's not "corporate run," whatever that means. What you have now is collusion between the state and corporations, and it's naive to think that you can ever change that without abolishing the state. So long as there is an organization with a monopoly on the use of violence there will be corruption and corporatism to go along with it. In the free market, however, the consumer is king. If their wants aren't satisfied then they take their money elsewhere.

As for pollution, private property rights would be far more stringent in regulating pollution than the licenses to pollute and exceptions and so on and so forth that exist under the state. Simply put, if you're pollution affects my property you no longer have the right to continue producing pollution. That means air, land, water, etc...

LOL... you CLAIM to have thought out these questions...HOW do you enforce them Kevin. HOW do you stop your neighbor from polluting?

You stop him from polluting your property the same way you stop him from building a fence 3 feet on your side of the property line: with lawsuits.

WHO do you submit the 'lawsuit' TO in Kevin's NO GOVERNMENT anarco utopia?

The courts, or a mediator, obviously.

COURT? HOW do you have a court without some form of authority, or what mankind has always called:
G
O
V
E
R
N
M
E
N
T

Well, that's a good question. How do they do private arbitration now without the government?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I haven't spent a second contemplating any of these ideas, huh? Proof? No. It's unwise to state what other people have or have not done, when you have no idea.

The truth is that I've discussed these ideas on this very board, probably many times over now. For starters, nobody is claiming any kind of utopia, merely a private property society where there is no centralized agency given a monopoly on the use of violence, aka the state. That doesn't mean all problems suddenly disappear, but you knew that. Buzzwords like utopia aren't meant to be logical, are they?

Secondly, it's not "corporate run," whatever that means. What you have now is collusion between the state and corporations, and it's naive to think that you can ever change that without abolishing the state. So long as there is an organization with a monopoly on the use of violence there will be corruption and corporatism to go along with it. In the free market, however, the consumer is king. If their wants aren't satisfied then they take their money elsewhere.

As for pollution, private property rights would be far more stringent in regulating pollution than the licenses to pollute and exceptions and so on and so forth that exist under the state. Simply put, if you're pollution affects my property you no longer have the right to continue producing pollution. That means air, land, water, etc...

LOL... you CLAIM to have thought out these questions...HOW do you enforce them Kevin. HOW do you stop your neighbor from polluting?

You stop him from polluting your property the same way you stop him from building a fence 3 feet on your side of the property line: with lawsuits.

WHO do you submit the 'lawsuit' TO in Kevin's NO GOVERNMENT anarco utopia?

The courts, or a mediator, obviously.

So if someone robs you and you want your stuff back, why are they going to agree to a mediator? Why would Madoff agree to a mediator? Why would internet scammers agree to a mediator?

Sure, in the general store of the town you live in they might agree to that as they know their other customers are looking at them and they don't want to lose them. But there are a lot of bad guys out there, they aren't going to agree to mediation. That is a legitimate role of government, mediating results.

Then the next problem you have is even if you win, suppose they don't pay? I operate my business with integrity, but I have hundreds of vendors all over the country. Most of them have integrity too. Some don't. Sure, I can not do business with anyone I don't know, but without any repercussions to fraud, I would have to do that and my business would be far smaller if it survived at all.

I like Bob Murphy's answer from his book Chaos Theory. Essentially, if somebody robs you, but then doesn't agree to arbitration over the matter to decide who has the property right in the object stolen, then essentially we have a case where the rest of society will shun that individual. If you know that somebody is accused of theft, and that they refused arbitration, would you be willing to do business with them? Of course not. Their best option in that case is to seek arbitration. Now, naturally each party would seek a private court that they think would favor their argument, so it would naturally balance itself out to a more moderate court. This also ties into Murphy's argument for "prisons" for serial criminals. He doesn't believe that the prison system as it exists today would work without government force, so he puts forth the idea that there would be facilities, prisons for lack of a better term I suppose, where the worst offenders could go and pay, or provide their labor to the facility, to live in an attempt to rehabilitate themselves on the basis that they've destroyed their reputations in the real world and nobody will associate with them at all. They would also work for the facility so that the facility could then start paying off their debts to their victims on their behalf.

 

[kaz]

LOL... you CLAIM to have thought out these questions...HOW do you enforce them Kevin. HOW do you stop your neighbor from polluting?

You stop him from polluting your property the same way you stop him from building a fence 3 feet on your side of the property line: with lawsuits.

WHO do you submit the 'lawsuit' TO in Kevin's NO GOVERNMENT anarco utopia?

The courts, or a mediator, obviously.

So if someone robs you and you want your stuff back, why are they going to agree to a mediator? Why would Madoff agree to a mediator? Why would internet scammers agree to a mediator?

Sure, in the general store of the town you live in they might agree to that as they know their other customers are looking at them and they don't want to lose them. But there are a lot of bad guys out there, they aren't going to agree to mediation. That is a legitimate role of government, mediating results.

Then the next problem you have is even if you win, suppose they don't pay? I operate my business with integrity, but I have hundreds of vendors all over the country. Most of them have integrity too. Some don't. Sure, I can not do business with anyone I don't know, but without any repercussions to fraud, I would have to do that and my business would be far smaller if it survived at all.

I like Bob Murphy's answer from his book Chaos Theory. Essentially, if somebody robs you, but then doesn't agree to arbitration over the matter to decide who has the property right in the object stolen, then essentially we have a case where the rest of society will shun that individual. If you know that somebody is accused of theft, and that they refused arbitration, would you be willing to do business with them? Of course not. Their best option in that case is to seek arbitration. Now, naturally each party would seek a private court that they think would favor their argument, so it would naturally balance itself out to a more moderate court. This also ties into Murphy's argument for "prisons" for serial criminals. He doesn't believe that the prison system as it exists today would work without government force, so he puts forth the idea that there would be facilities, prisons for lack of a better term I suppose, where the worst offenders could go and pay, or provide their labor to the facility, to live in an attempt to rehabilitate themselves on the basis that they've destroyed their reputations in the real world and nobody will associate with them at all. They would also work for the facility so that the facility could then start paying off their debts to their victims on their behalf.

What a ridiculous answer. So why doesn't it work now? Why do vendors try to screw me, then stay in business? You still think we live in towns of hundreds of people where everyone knows everyone. Actually, we live in a country of 350 million and a world of billions. You're still living in the old west.

 

[bripat9643]

I haven't spent a second contemplating any of these ideas, huh? Proof? No. It's unwise to state what other people have or have not done, when you have no idea.

The truth is that I've discussed these ideas on this very board, probably many times over now. For starters, nobody is claiming any kind of utopia, merely a private property society where there is no centralized agency given a monopoly on the use of violence, aka the state. That doesn't mean all problems suddenly disappear, but you knew that. Buzzwords like utopia aren't meant to be logical, are they?

Secondly, it's not "corporate run," whatever that means. What you have now is collusion between the state and corporations, and it's naive to think that you can ever change that without abolishing the state. So long as there is an organization with a monopoly on the use of violence there will be corruption and corporatism to go along with it. In the free market, however, the consumer is king. If their wants aren't satisfied then they take their money elsewhere.

As for pollution, private property rights would be far more stringent in regulating pollution than the licenses to pollute and exceptions and so on and so forth that exist under the state. Simply put, if you're pollution affects my property you no longer have the right to continue producing pollution. That means air, land, water, etc...

LOL... you CLAIM to have thought out these questions...HOW do you enforce them Kevin. HOW do you stop your neighbor from polluting?

You stop him from polluting your property the same way you stop him from building a fence 3 feet on your side of the property line: with lawsuits.

WHO do you submit the 'lawsuit' TO in Kevin's NO GOVERNMENT anarco utopia?

The courts, or a mediator, obviously.

COURT? HOW do you have a court without some form of authority, or what mankind has always called:
G
O
V
E
R
N
M
E
N
T

Courts existed prior to the courts established by the King. They weren't backed by an formal government. That's where common law was developed. Our Constitution is based on common law. It's the law of the common people as opposed to law enforced by the King.