RE: Property rights = freedom? Libertarianism?
July 13, 2012 at 12:11 pm
(This post was last modified: July 13, 2012 at 12:39 pm by Darth.)
So you walked onto this land, and then of a sudden all surrounding land was declared private property (so it must have been public before)(or you've trespassed to get into this predicament in the first place, or you have been airdropped there against your will). right...
I have thought about landlocked property, seems to me to only be an issue if the government sells roads, thus making property that wasn't landlocked, all of a sudden, landlocked. My understanding is that landlocked land that already exists is cheaper because of the risks and hassles associated with it (having to come to an agreement with one of the surrounding owners, informal agreements all of a sudden not being honoured, property changing hands), if you don't want to deal with that, don't buy landlocked property. So not all roads that currently exist should be sold to private individuals (when it would effectively landlock somebody), right.
The thing about a nuke is that it's a weapon that kills indiscriminately (can't be used in defence against all it WILL kill unless every single person in the blast radius and possible fallout zones is after your blood). It's also essentially pointed at everybody in the area it's in at all times. So no.
From what I've read on economics I wouldn't be an austrian (I would strongly disagree with their methodology), I hear the chicago school comes to many of the same conclusions, but takes a saner route.
Read the interview and some of the paper (and the one on teen employment) in question, interesting stuff, does challenge some of my thinking on the effects of minimum wage increases/decreases (at the level they are talking about).
I have thought about landlocked property, seems to me to only be an issue if the government sells roads, thus making property that wasn't landlocked, all of a sudden, landlocked. My understanding is that landlocked land that already exists is cheaper because of the risks and hassles associated with it (having to come to an agreement with one of the surrounding owners, informal agreements all of a sudden not being honoured, property changing hands), if you don't want to deal with that, don't buy landlocked property. So not all roads that currently exist should be sold to private individuals (when it would effectively landlock somebody), right.
The thing about a nuke is that it's a weapon that kills indiscriminately (can't be used in defence against all it WILL kill unless every single person in the blast radius and possible fallout zones is after your blood). It's also essentially pointed at everybody in the area it's in at all times. So no.
From what I've read on economics I wouldn't be an austrian (I would strongly disagree with their methodology), I hear the chicago school comes to many of the same conclusions, but takes a saner route.
Read the interview and some of the paper (and the one on teen employment) in question, interesting stuff, does challenge some of my thinking on the effects of minimum wage increases/decreases (at the level they are talking about).
