Right. If someone wants to deprive others of it, let them make just compensation to the community of those thus deprived.
Of course they are. Government has taken my -- actually everyone's -- rights to liberty and given them to the privileged as their private property.
By giving them legal authority to deprive me of the liberty I would otherwise have. Really, this isn't rocket science.
Nope. The institutions would still deprive them of their rights. It's not close to level. Garbage. YOUR response is equivalent to slave owners telling abolitionists to just buy slaves and free them.
Nope. They own it. They don't owe anyone anything. They're not depriving anyone of anything to which they have a right.
No they haven't taken your rights to liberty. Perhaps you don't really know what liberty means. It doesn't mean you can have anything you want, no matter who it belongs to.
On another issue related to the problem of Capitalism . As a functioning model for economic growth and development in is posited on a more or less continuous increase in the size of 'the market' which in turn is linked to finding and engaging with ever increasing numbers of consumers (or selling more to the same consumers - which is not sustainable long term. This works one of two ways by (a) expanding into regions or countries where a good or service has not previously been sold or (b) natural population growth in existing markets. Problem is both these methods are running out of steam. Today we live in a globally connected economy and there are few if any services which have not penetrated every corner of the globe. There is still room for growth over the next few generations growth by selling more goods and services in the developing world but as global wealth levels increase a point has to be reached where every country in the world is (more or less) on able to afford the consumer goods and services it can absorb. On top of that you have declining global birth rates. The vast majority of regions in the world now have declining or stable birth rates. Where population growth is occurring in the Western World it is almost exclusively based on immigration. Even the US the Worlds largest capitalists market only has increasing numbers of consumers thanks to immigration. World population levels are increasing but the continuous growth beyond 21000 or so is bot unlikely given current figures and ultimately unsustainable even it it was to occur. So what happens when every country in the world is like say Japan - wealthy but 'greying' with a declining population and the ability of the capitalist model (selling more stuff to more people) is no longer possible.
Your stating that bit in red above does not necessarily make it true. There is nothing unsustainable about capitalism - IF YOU UNDERSTAND THE MEANING OF THAT WORD. And you don't. You are misguided to allege it is unfair and illicit and wrong (and whatever else) because it pleases you. Capitalism is neither fair nor unfair per se. IT IS SIMPLY A MECHANISM. (And like a car, how you drive it makes it safe or unsafe!) It is the practice of capitalism that makes it unfair. And by that is meant principally the unfairness in which some countries (namely Uncle Sam) reduce ridiculously upper-income taxation that allows a select breed to accumulate tremendous amounts of ... uh, capital! Fix the taxation system, and we fix the problem of capitalism in the US. Raise upper-income taxation to 100% for all earnings above $1.5M a year and watch how two consequence occur: *There is a drastic reduction of Net After-tax Income of a large section of the American people called infamously the "0.01 percenters" of the population, *The new tax-revenues could be spent - NOT ENLARGING THE ANNUAL D.O.D ENDOWMENT - by (1) developing a National Healthcare System that extends lifespan and (2) getting the children (of our poverty-stricken population of 14 million individuals) a proper education by which they can live decently ... !
Firstly I never used the word 'continuous'. Secondly when any counties economic output and consumption shrinks or fails you get a recession or depression depending on how bad the decline in economic output is.
1) that 'bit in red' refers to the law of diminishing marginal utility. Please look it up if you are unfamiliar with the concept. Alternately you you can choose to ignore it if you are someone who is in the habit of going out and purchasing 500 hershey bars a week simply because you can? 2) Secondly I 'alleged' nothing. Please read my post again and then criticize what I actually wrote as opposed to whatever it is you seem to think was written. What I did was ask a question i.e. how does capitalism work in a ZPG or NPG world where all geographical markets are more or less equally (fully) developed?
An easier way of defining an economic concept (considered a "law"): What's important are the two words "satisfaction and/or happiness". Which depends upon what? The intuition of a customer as regards a product/service being marketed and their appreciation of its relative necessity. "Relative to whom"? Themselves! That is their need AND their ability to acquire it. Not just NEED but FUNDS!. Thus the quantity and/or the value of purchase depends upon the buyer's ability to purchase, which in turn depends upon their income (and unique set of desires or needs). And so? And so this: You are amalgamating ALL BUYERS and saying 'they all behave alike". Which some may think when considering human behaviour as regards expenditure. But people DO NOT BUY IN BULK. Bulk is an appreciation of resellers who participate in a market selling directly to consumers. What does that mean? It means that buyers promote their goods by exaggerating. That promotional advertising consists of "Everyone wants this and if you don't then you are really quite stoopid". (Or something of that kind but less pronounced.) Like, well you neighbors bought this so why not you? MY POINT: Economics is NOT the science of marketing. It is more globalized and refers to the Bulk Demand for goods/services, which is the only really measurable variable. (Aside from personal income and the ability to purchase.) All of which FINALLY means what? That looking at your quote above, you are considering "diminishing marginal utility of the individual", because the masses are constituted of individuals in each country. And my point is to contradict your statement above.Total Demand worldwide for a product or service depends upon National Income of the country in which they are proposed. And yet, those on the higher economic-scale (of income) will purchase more and better in Germany than in Portugal. And Frankly, whilst I believe this diversity is true and applicable, I do not think that Germans are a happier people than the Portuguese. Whyzzat? At present, the economic-theory as regards "happiness" is not yet defined. Whyzzat? Because Demand is also a societal-variable and not only an economic-quantity. That is, for instance in Europe: *Germans will be purchasing (goods/services) neither at the same price nor at the same individual volume any given service-or-product as, ay, Portugal. And why is that a serious contention? Because such a difference depends almost always upon the evolution of an economy depending upon educational level and thus ability-to-pay. Educated people have different Demands from uneducated people. That is, the markets (of Demand and therefore Supply) are essentially very, very different in both countries sited. *But neither are the Portuguese that less well-off because of the fact that not that many go skiing in Gstat, Switzerland (for instance) or shopping in New York. *And thus, economic-contentment (or happiness?) is a value that is often incomparable amongst countries of different economic but also educational development. And there is nothing much economic-theory can do about that outcome differential (as long as an economy is advancing). People in Europe have no lack of educational attainment and so professional income attainment is dependent solely upon the individual (meaning the choices s/he may make in life). MY POINT: When economic advancement stagnates or, worse, is negative, then social discontentment takes the fore and societal upheaval becomes radically inevitable ...
Who is stealing land, please? And how are they doing it. Spell the process exactly .. else it all just sounds like 'feelings'.
if so then workers would not have gotten rich from stone age to here to point where planet can support 8 billion of them.. See how quickly your nutty liberal BS defeated.
they are given. everyone is given the right to buy property on 5th Avenue. If everyone had the right to occupy 5th Avenue you'd have civil war. 1+1=2
So you don't actually want the 'liberty and justice' that goes with lawlessness. Have you lived in a Third World nation? I have. You can pretty much set up home anywhere you like, outside of a few tightly held city centres. Exactly as you profess to desire. So again .. what's stopping you? Lemme guess .. you don't care for all that goes along with such 'liberty and justice', right? You do - in fact - prefer a highly regulated First World existence?
he imagines a buyer is stealing land and a seller is insane for selling it and thinking he is better off having sold it. Obviously he's not playing with a full deck
So find ways around tax like everyone else, if you're opposed to taxes. Either earn less, or get yourself a creative accountant. There are a thousand ways of doing it, it's up to you to find one that suits. Work with what is, not what you dream of. I dream of castles and time travel .. but those aren't available currently, so I do the best I can with materials to hand.
There's some spectacular contradictions going on, for sure. I suspect our pal hasn't thought much of it through. It seems to be not much more than 'I hate paying rent/taxes etc and don't want to work for property, so society had better change'.
1) every one one of those thousand would be subjected to the same external pressures, yet SOME would make it work, and SOME would not. if every one of them has to pay the same 'taxes' (or whatever bugbear you regard as theft), the playing field is absolutely level. you refuse to account for human nature in all of your arguments. and in a capitalist democracy, human nature is the key. 2) see above. if every one of those thousand was given the same advantages AND challenges (the same one acre, the same taxes, etc) then the massive differences in outcome will be down entirely to HUMAN NATURE. these theories are absurdist, when premised on the idea that people are infallible, and the only thing stopping them is 'govt'. 3) YOU are the one complaining about not having 'property' (because somehow, the govt stole it from you before you even owned it). So clearly, the answer is to provide that property, no? You're rejecting every suggestion because you know that provision of property will change nothing. You KNOW that human nature is the culprit, not govt. However, maybe it isn't property you're seeking .. maybe it's something else. Like money? Same applies. Give a thousand people $10,000k (which will buy them property in America, easily). In 10 years time, let's see how many of them have torqued that HUGE advantage into real personal power/liberty.
None of which answers the question I asked. BTW 'buying in bulk' has nothing to do with the law of diminishing marginal utility and economists of all ilk (not me) are the ones who amalgamate all buyers (consumers) together and insist 'they all behave alike' . In other words they all take the LDMU into account when modelling Capitalist /Free Enterprise economies. So I fail to see what it is you are really trying to say.
yes better to ignore him since he far far from any topic that is important today. He's off in his own insane little world.
