As a young person do you feel disenfranchised by the two major parties? (6 Viewers)

[Rothbard]

The claim that the free market will solve environmental problems is the ultimate Libertarian extremist irony.

The claim is more property rights can solve environmental problems by enabling issues like leaching or poisoning of air to be dealt with as torts and to actually internalise the costs of those externalities.

 

[Kim Il-Sung]

The claim is more property rights can solve environmental problems by enabling issues like leaching or poisoning of air to be dealt with as torts

how so?

 

[Rothbard]

how so?

Hand waving, yo!

 

[Kim Il-Sung]

cool

 

[PH011]

this uncertainty stems from something called economic illiteracy

Yes, I don't know everything :jaw:
But I'm sure you don't know everything as well.

NOBODY owns them until they do something with them.

So they're extracting minerals which belonged to nobody until they decided to dig it out of the ground...
So why can't they be taxed on the profits made from digging stuff out of the ground which belonged to nobody?

I know, but who the fuck are the government to decide how much profit a company can make?
they don't own the country, the land or the businesses in it.

Yeah man, who are the government to decide how much of my income I get to keep? They don't own me, why do I have to pay tax to support bogan dole bludgers?

In practical terms the difference is meaningless because there is still a long term loss i.e. we'll be worse off than what we could have been

You do realise that there is a very severe skills/labour shortage going on right now in the mining industry right?

Yes, the mining industry will be worse off than they could have been, that is obvious, but that has to be balanced against the benefits. ie. butthurt investors/companies vs. an improvement in the lives of alot more people

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

"I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs."

"I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking."

"Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding out both puppets!"

"Shut up! Go back to bed, America. Your government is in control."

- Bill Hicks


That pretty much sums up the two party system here as well.

 

[SylviaB]

Yes, I don't know everything
But I'm sure you don't know everything as well.

never claimed I did, im just saying you have a poor understanding of economics

So why can't they be taxed on the profits made from digging stuff out of the ground which belonged to nobody?

because its their property, not the government's or "the people's".

Yeah man, who are the government to decide how much of my income I get to keep? They don't own me, why do I have to pay tax to support bogan dole bludgers?

Exactly...?

You do realise that there is a very severe skills/labour shortage going on right now in the mining industry right?

And as a result more people are getting into a productive line of work. As in, people see huge salaries, and so they're obtaining skills to meet demand. Which results in a warm fuzzy feeling for the economy.

Yes, the mining industry will be worse off than they could have been, that is obvious, but that has to be balanced against the benefits. ie. butthurt investors/companies vs. an improvement in the lives of alot more people

Government spending ultimately leads to a lower standard of living because it moves us further and further away from a free market.

 

[PH011]

never claimed I did, im just saying you have a poor understanding of economics

I have a poor understanding of economics because..... what I think is not what you think...?
And you have a good understanding of economics because.......?

Exactly...?

That was sarcasm

Government spending ultimately leads to a lower standard of living because it moves us further and further away from a free market.

Care to elaborate?

The free market does not always produce the most desirable outcome.

 

[peikoff]

sigh...if you're not going to take the time to understand something, don't criticise it

The two most common arguments made against private defence agencies is that they would be corrupt and ineffective.

...which is exactly what government is, except the private firms wouldn't be a monopoly like government

I understand the theory very well. You believe in private providers of security services in the belief that this will provide greater liberty. A belief which has its roots in economics where competition of companies produce better products at a lower price, a 100% true statement.

However, the idea that competing security firms would be a successful adventure is based on numerous flawed notions, first and foremost being the belief that putting force on the marketplace will produce positive results. Since markets only produce positive results when the use of force is banned, it is a non-sequitor to say that competition will produce better domestic or international security. Also, the results of the market are good by the standard of the value-judgments of individuals. It is impossible to say that liberty is what they value

Secondly, it requires that they do no bar competition through the use of force. But this is absurd. Today we have governments that do not allow competition. Why do ancaps think businesses, in the absent of government restraint would hold back from using force on its competitors? You make the mistake of seeing how businesses operate without using force on each other, then you assume that you can market force itself as a distinct service, but as I said, markets only work in the absense of force so it is a non-sequitor to conclude this.

Another basic assumption is that if people don't like a particular agency, they can give their money to another instead. Well, if this were true, why don't they do it today? (in regards to the existing government) The fact is, an agency, since it deals in force, can force people to be its "customers". Ancaps evade this fact.

EDIT: in terms of international defence - economies of scale is another reason you'd want a single provider of a service of such importance

 

[SylviaB]

However, the idea that competing security firms would be a successful adventure is based on numerous flawed notions, first and foremost being the belief that putting force on the marketplace will produce positive results. Since markets only produce positive results when the use of force is banned, it is a non-sequitor to say that competition will produce better domestic or international security. Also, the results of the market are good by the standard of the value-judgments of individuals. It is impossible to say that liberty is what they value

Why a stateless society is more free

Secondly, it requires that they do no bar competition through the use of force. But this is absurd. Today we have governments that do not allow competition. Why do ancaps think businesses, in the absent of government restraint would hold back from using force on its competitors?

1. I, like most people, would NOT want to purchase the services of a personal defence agency that uses force for anything other than defence i.e. it would be too damaging to their reputation

2. If one agency uses force against another agency, then obviously the attacked agency will attack back. war on a free market is extremely expensive and so it is simply not in their best interests to initiate force.

Another basic assumption is that if people don't like a particular agency, they can give their money to another instead. Well, if this were true, why don't they do it today? (in regards to the existing government)

Because there is one government who has a monopoly on violence.

The fact is, an agency, since it deals in force, can force people to be its "customers". Ancaps evade this fact.

If there are other agencies: Then I can simply get someone to protect me, and the cost of fighting my protection and then me would be greater than the mopney they could get from me.

If there magically happens to be only one agency: A state cannot be maintained through force alone.

A state is maintained through belief from the majority, and force on the margins. people believe that the government is legitimate/necessary, and so don't even feel the need to resist government.

If an agency who nobody liked tried to force a "tax" on an entire population, then the force cost of suppression would be greater than the money that could be extorted because no one would view them as legitimate and would resist.

EDIT: in terms of international defence - economies of scale is another reason you'd want a single provider of a service of such importance

Militias are better than standing armies for providing defence.

stateless ireland was invaded by england, the strongest military force in the world at that time, and it was only after centuries worth of sieges that they were finally defeated

america, the strongest military in the world, was defeated by a bunch of comparatively ill-equipped, crazy Vietnamese jungle people

the iraq war, fought against a bunch of poor crazy muslims has been going on for 7 years and has resulted in over 5000 coalition deaths