(July 29, 2013 at 7:05 pm)MikeTheInfidel Wrote: Koolay displays a fervent, devout faith in the goodness of the invisible hand of the market. One might even say he seems to think it is a god with our best interests at heart.

Well okay, if you think I made a logical error I would like to hear it.

If you think private property is wrong, make the case. But don't just make statements without showing your working out. I don't think that is beneficial to any party.

---

(July 29, 2013 at 6:53 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:We've advanced more under capitalism in the last few decades than in the entirety of human history.

The United States made its greatest advances when capitalism was controlled by government regulation on one hand and labor unions on the other.

Then...the pigs got greedy. What we have now is hardly an "advance." Unless you think going down the shitter is "advancement."

I'm trying to figure out if you are rational or anti-rational.

If you can make the case against private property I would be glad to hear it. But don't pollute an otherwise productive conversation with bickering.

(July 29, 2013 at 8:00 pm)Koolay Wrote:

(July 29, 2013 at 7:05 pm)MikeTheInfidel Wrote: Koolay displays a fervent, devout faith in the goodness of the invisible hand of the market. One might even say he seems to think it is a god with our best interests at heart.

Well okay, if you think I made a logical error I would like to hear it.

If you think private property is wrong, make the case. But don't just make statements without showing your working out. I don't think that is beneficial to any party.

That bolded part? This is literally all you've done. In fact, you tend to do this on every thread you start.

Let's try it this way. Maybe it will sink in.

Rand Paul - a US senator (showing how far that title has gone down the shitter) thinks "private property" means that white store owners should be able to only serve whites if they want to. I do not.

Does that help you at all.

(July 29, 2013 at 8:40 pm)MikeTheInfidel Wrote:

(July 29, 2013 at 8:00 pm)Koolay Wrote: Well okay, if you think I made a logical error I would like to hear it.

If you think private property is wrong, make the case. But don't just make statements without showing your working out. I don't think that is beneficial to any party.

That bolded part? This is literally all you've done. In fact, you tend to do this on every thread you start.

Well you still haven't made the case.

But I will go anyway. Private property is valid because we all own our bodies by definition, as private property, nobody else can own our bodies, physically, morally, mathematically. So when people say "private property is wrong" or immoral, or exploitative or whatever, they are literally contradicting their own principle infinitely, and rejecting their very being.

(July 26, 2013 at 6:47 pm)Koolay Wrote: It's no secret the most violent, corrupt and repugnant of people are against free trade. These people are your predators, these people are those who will take your resources and put you in a cage if you disagree with what they think, and they will say you are a bad person if you do not like it. To support governments is to spit on yourself and wipe the boots of your oppressor. Free market capitalism is freedom, and inevitably, it will prevail.

free market does not mean no government, a slave owner in the 1800's with thousands of slaves was a member of the free market, his slaves were ruled by him just like a government and they sure as fuck didn't like him alot fucking more than you hate your local comptroller

.........your screwing your nazi beliefs up ........and i don't like it

(July 29, 2013 at 8:41 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Rand Paul - a US senator (showing how far that title has gone down the shitter) thinks "private property" means that white store owners should be able to only serve whites if they want to.

Well, why shouldn't they? they are not harming anyone by having that rule on their own privately owned property.

Also if you don't like racial prejudice, why do you need the state to enforce that? when the market would ostracise racists anyway in a much more efficient way.

If I own a store, and will only serve white customers- and 50% of my customers are non white. That means I have lost approximately 50% of my sales due to my prejudice. That's not even including the white people that won't shop at my store because they dislike my policy (Which would happen). I could, and almost definitely would face boycotts, harassment. And other negative repercussion because of my prejudice.

At that point, most prejudiced business owners would probably change their minds real quick. If not they will have a slow death of their business. Either way, it gets sorted out.

And all this happens with zero overhead, taxation, forced spending, loss of liberties etc.

(July 26, 2013 at 10:23 pm)cato123 Wrote: Courts? I thought you said there was no government. Who will enforce the court's decision?

"Sup dawg, did someone call for a DRO court?"

(July 29, 2013 at 8:54 pm)cratehorus Wrote:

(July 26, 2013 at 6:47 pm)Koolay Wrote: It's no secret the most violent, corrupt and repugnant of people are against free trade. These people are your predators, these people are those who will take your resources and put you in a cage if you disagree with what they think, and they will say you are a bad person if you do not like it. To support governments is to spit on yourself and wipe the boots of your oppressor. Free market capitalism is freedom, and inevitably, it will prevail.

free market does not mean no government, a slave owner in the 1800's with thousands of slaves was a member of the free market, his slaves were ruled by him just like a government and they sure as fuck didn't like him alot fucking more than you hate your local comptroller

Right but who is enforcing the social 'contract' of slavery? and providing incentives to return escaped slaves back?

---

(July 29, 2013 at 8:58 pm)Tonus Wrote:

(July 26, 2013 at 10:23 pm)cato123 Wrote: Courts? I thought you said there was no government. Who will enforce the court's decision?

"Sup dawg, did someone call for a DRO court?"

Made me giggle : )

eBay is an example of a DRO service in the private sector. They solve millions of disputes between people across different parts of the world, without government involvement.

(July 29, 2013 at 9:00 pm)Koolay Wrote:

(July 29, 2013 at 8:54 pm)cratehorus Wrote: free market does not mean no government, a slave owner in the 1800's with thousands of slaves was a member of the free market, his slaves were ruled by him just like a government and they sure as fuck didn't like him alot fucking more than you hate your local comptroller

Right but who is enforcing the social 'contract' of slavery? and providing incentives to return escaped slaves back?

nobody............... i want slaves i pay someone to kidnap a bunch of black people and i make them work on my farm, or mine, or feild or whatever i sell the shit they make buy more slaves or guns or torture devices too make sure my current laves don't leave etc etc ..............no voting system needed............. government did free the slaves if that's what you mean

(July 29, 2013 at 9:07 pm)cratehorus Wrote:

(July 29, 2013 at 9:00 pm)Koolay Wrote: Right but who is enforcing the social 'contract' of slavery? and providing incentives to return escaped slaves back?

nobody............... i want slaves i pay someone to kidnap a bunch of black people and i make them work on my farm, or mine, or feild or whatever i sell the shit they make buy more slaves or guns or torture devices too make sure my current laves don't leave etc etc ..............no voting system needed............. government did free the slaves if that's what you mean

You understand historically, the government set up the legal apparatus to trade and own slaves, and also offer incentive to those to own or return slaves back to their master. The less than scrupulous private land owners that traded in flesh, was all made possible by the state's enforcement.

In a free society that would violate the the non aggression principle, you are aggressing against someone and are subject to the consequences that comes with that.

Not to mention, owning slaves is incredibly under productive. A) All the slaves resent you and your employees. B) They will only do what is necessary to not be whipped, half assed job. C) They require constant supervision and management, since they have zero incentive other than avoiding the whip. D) You need to pay for their shelter and food, and water. This came at a huge bill for slave owners,

it is much more profitable if you do the morally correct thing and employ someone voluntary, since they will self manage, pay for their own food and shelter, don't resent you, have a vested incentive to a good job and make sure your company does not fail.

Only a mad man would want a team of slaves rather than voluntary workers.