The Capitalist System Is Decaying Because Of Its Own Contradictions

It wasn't nonsensical. You just can't address the facts it identifies.

I don't know any way to make it clearer or simpler.

Why are you trying to change the subject to Georgism and communism? I'm neither a Georgist nor a communist. You?

You can't dispute the facts, so you have to ignore them.

 

if someone had a monopoly on water value would be as much money as customer had. And?????????

 

life creates duress naturally. economic decisions made between 2 free people have the least duress. One cant imagine what no duress is: God making everything we need and imagine and giving it away in any quantity requested?? Totally worthless libcommie nonsense.

 

obviously the law does not enable stealing!! but rather discourages it.what on earth could be your point??
why not cut the BS if you think buying and selling land or breakfast sausage freely is stealing tell us why or admit you have no clue on earth what you are talking about.

 

what force?? private property is purchased for just compensation or transaction would not occur. What on earth are is this crazy but typical libcommie talking about??

 

so even though everyone is paying full market price in voluntary transactions for whatever they buy every one is getting ripped off? perfect liberal insanity. No basis in reality whatsoever. See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance. Is any other conclusion possible?

 

If the liberal has evidence I believe that I will pay him $10,000. Bet? See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

 

and its hardly common!! but it is very Consitutional because in certain instances the public needs a particular property, for example, for a bridge.

 

You are evading. It's not a monopoly on water, but on people's rights to drink.

 

The force used by government to remove the liberty rights of all who would otherwise be at liberty to use the land landowners claim to own.

Not when that private property actually consists of the liberty rights of all who would otherwise be at liberty to use the "property," rights taken from them by force without just -- or, usually, any -- compensation. You don't seem able to conceive of the fact that when A buys B's right to liberty from C, not all the parties to the transaction are consenting, and it is therefore not a just or consensual transaction.

The indisputable facts and their inescapable logical implications, which prove your beliefs are false and evil.

 

Look at your own post, champ. You said stealing isn't stealing if it's legal.

 

No. Duress is by definition only exerted by other people.

But not when the "consensual" transaction between those two "free" people is to transfer ownership of the liberty rights of third persons.

No duress is no one using force to deprive others of what they would otherwise have, as landowners -- i.e., governments acting on their behalf -- do.

You are trying to change the subject. You know that natural phenomena do not constitute duress.

 

You seem to be conflating "right to liberty" with "right to use something".

If you own something, you have the right to prevent other from use the thing you own. That's how ownership works. That's what ownership means.

If there were no concept of ownership, then we'd all be fighting over resources, like in the Walking Dead. Is that the world you want to live in?

 

Obviously it does.

Garbage. It entitles the privileged -- landowners, banksters, IP monopolists, etc. -- to steal from everyone else.

A selling B's liberty rights to C is not a consensual transaction just because A and C consent to it.

You already know why when someone sells land, they are selling others' liberty rights to use that land, while when they sell breakfast sausage, they are not: the land was already available to use, with no help from the owner or any previous owner, but the sausage had to be provided by someone, so no one had any pre-existing right to use it. You just have to find some way to avoid knowing that fact.

I have proved it to you many times. You just choose not to know the relevant self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality, because you have already realized that they prove your beliefs are false and evil.

 

A transaction in which A buys B's right to liberty from C is not a voluntary transaction.

"Whatever" they buy?? Like slaves, land titles, etc., where what is being bought is in fact others' rights to liberty? You know that is an evasion, because you have tried to sneak in the premise that all property is equally rightful. But chattel slavery proves that false, with no further argumentation needed.

They are indeed. But a few are net rippers, while the great majority are net ripped.

What stops you from exercising your liberty to use all the land you would otherwise have been at liberty to use?

Because you have to evade the facts that prove your beliefs are false and evil.

 

<yawn> You've already made, and lost, that bet with me several times.

As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"

 

The alternative to individual ownership of land (or anything else) is state ownership of land. And then the state would stop you from exercising our liberty to use all the land you would otherwise have been at liberty to use.

Either way you're screwed. But would you rather be able to purchase a parcel of land from one of 30,000,000 individual owners or purchase a parcel of land from a monopolist owner of 100% of all the land in the jurisdiction?

 

Liberty is certainly liberty to use what one would otherwise be at liberty to use. What would liberty consist of if one had no right to use anything?

Only if you own it rightfully, as chattel slavery proved. Government saying you have a right to own something like a slave, or land, or an idea, or the sun, or the number 6, does not actually give you any right -- other than a legal one, like the rights held by slave owners -- to stop others from using them.

Do you think that if government issued me a title of ownership to the ocean, or the sun, or the letter "B," I would have a right to stop you from using them?

They aren't fighting over natural resources. They are mainly fighting over products of labor (especially each other's flesh). Why do you think it is impossible that people would agree to a just division of natural resources, in which everyone has free, secure access to enough to live on, and those who exclude others from more than their share make just compensation to the community of those thus excluded?

Strawman. Like all socialists and capitalists, you are just pretending there is no essential difference between owning what you produce and owning others' liberty rights to use what no one ever produced.

 

Liberty is the use of one's body and property in so far as it doesn't violate the body or property of another.

Liberty is the use of one's body and property in so far as it doesn't violate the body or property of another. This means that slavery is a violation of liberty.

See, that's why the state is evil. It could make legislation that violated the property of many people. The state is awesome, isn't it?? <sarcasm>

No, because I think the government is an immoral institution so I don't agree with anything they might do.

They are fighting over things that exist in the natural world. If there were no concept of ownership of things (which I believe is your desire) then we would have constant conflict over who owns any particular thing.

What's the difference? Isn't ownership all about owning things?

 

I agree with every bit of what you say.

But health-care and education should not be "for sale". Therefore not "owned". They are Universal Services (which makes all the difference) in any advanced nation and for the common benefit of all citizens.

We do that for defense, but not for healthcare or education (beyond secondary-school).

People think that the US is one of the most advanced nations on earth. Because, after all, we went to the moon, didn't we?

Yes, we did. But was it as important as some other "goodies" that would have improved their lot-in-life for so many others?

Methinks not - we still have close to 40 million men, women and children living below the poverty-threshold. Most of them with no way out ...

 

They're services just like any other service.

 

Asking for content isn't changing the subject. It is obvious sense. Perhaps try for content now? Let's start with you fleshing out this huff: "capitalists and socialists embrace the same error of conflating natural resources with products of labor, though for opposite reasons". Make sure you refer to economic sense mind you!

 

No. That claim is just as false this time as on all the previous occasions when you have made it and I have proved it false. Individuals do not own the units of measurement, and neither does the state. Individuals do not own the atmosphere, and neither does the state. Individuals do not own the oceans, and neither does the state. Individuals do not own the standards of medical practice, and neither does the state. But the state does administer the people's use of all of those things in the interest, and to secure the equal individual rights, of all the people. That is not the current situation with land, but it could be.

It does so anyway. In any society above the nomadic-herding and hunter-gatherer stages of production, government -- the state -- administers possession and use of land because that is what government IS: the sovereign authority over a specific area of land. The only question is whether it will discharge that function in the interest and to secure the equal individual rights of all the people, or only in the narrow financial interests of a greedy, privileged, parasitic minority of landowners.

Not if government does its job of securing the equal individual rights of all.

There is no way rightly to purchase land because there is no way rightly to own it. As it is impossible rightly to purchase land, I would be looking for an opportunity to obtain temporary exclusive tenure by making just compensation to all those whom I would exclude. I can't do that by dealing with private individuals, only by dealing the the community's representative agent: its democratically elected government.

 

You assert that the community owns the commons, but you haven't proven that.

 

But what is property? What about when A's property right conflicts with B's liberty right to use his body?

Why would the slave's right to liberty take priority over his owner's property right, but the landless's rights to liberty not take priority over landowners' property rights??

Non sequitur. Just because the state is capable of doing evil doesn't make it evil, any more than a man's capacity to do evil makes him evil.

Which it does, through taxes on everything but land. Government only issues and enforces land titles in the first place on condition the taxes are kept current, so taxes on land are voluntary.

See Washington on government.

There is no ownership of land without government, and never has been. It is impossible. You just want a government that empowers you to rob your victims of their liberty, and then forcibly prevents them from fighting back by enforcing your "property rights" for you.

You are just trying to avoid knowing the fact that unlike products, natural resources are not produced by labor. You have done this by conflating their manner of origin with where they exist.

No. I've already refuted that claim many times. Ownership is the right of the producer to own what he has produced.

Only if some people want to own others' rights to liberty, as you do.

The difference is that owning what no one ever produced deprives others of their liberty to use it, but owning what you produce does not, because they would never have been at liberty to use it if you had not produced it.

So why do you say people's liberty to use what nature provided for all can be owned by landowners? What kind of liberty rights can anyone have if others own their liberty to exist on the earth and use its resources to survive?