Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
Public schools at it again
- Thread starter MattTheSkywalker
- Start date
gotmilk
New member
MattTheSkywalker said:
You have cities whose population is larger than the entire state of Maine. Some towns would be in deep crap especially with the State budget being $1 Billion in the hole.
We can't make it....some towns could do ok.....but the little ones would be wiped out..
Robert Jan
New member
MattTheSkywalker said:
You merely restate the laws of property rights, rather than really defend them. You say I can hog my piece of land because you can get another. What if there is no other piece of land?
The Utilitarian - Kantian debate is never won and few are fully at one side of the spectrum but I'm a lot towards utilitarian, because it's a lot easier to measure success in, therefor easier to work on
I also think Kantianism is unrealistic and goes more against human nature.
Could be though that it's just MY nature, but I doubt it.
Testosterone boy
New member
Testosterone boy said:
I meant to say..................some doctors. Many will not touch these insurance type cases which are essentially political battles of connections.
Robert Jan said:
While you are right, I did merely restate the laws, you are attacking property rights as if they exist in a vacuum. For example, if I own a piece of property, you may use it, if we can agree on terms and conditions of your use. Furthermore, you may own it, if we agree on terms and conditions of the transfer of ownership.
As a property owner, I need the presence of users to make my property worth something. This is why a mountainside in Alaska is virtually worthless, whereas a building in downtown New York may cost a billion dollars. It is the presence and density of users that renders property valuable. Thus ownership of property does not exclude you from its use. Furthermore, it does not even preclude you from determining the terms of its use - as you as a user and I as an owner must agree on terms.
So while my ownership prevents you from owning property, it does not preclude you from using it to your benefit. In fact, the mutually agreed upon terms prevent the property owner from controlling the users as a feudal lord may have done.
Robert Jan
New member
the question is whether you hold human need higher than property rights or not... are these laws unalienable under all circumstances? Either choice is a slippery slope and we are right back to the beginning of this old ass debate
Robert Jan said:
A worthwhile answer might be "Must they be mutually exclusive?"
The value of property is, as we saw, determined by presence (and density) of users. If there is a massive human need, property only increases in value when that need is met.
The enforcement of property rights is the only way to truly meet "human needs." I disagree that we are back to the beginning.
Robert Jan
New member
could you explain that some further? When the need is met, the need decreases, so value decreases
how does enforcing property rights meet human needs.
that *might* work if it would indeed boost production as much as right wingers like to think it would. but even then it would not last...
I wonder if the growth we have now is even sustainable
how does enforcing property rights meet human needs.
that *might* work if it would indeed boost production as much as right wingers like to think it would. but even then it would not last...
I wonder if the growth we have now is even sustainable
Last edited:
Tiervexx
New member
“If almost everyone is in favor of feeding the hungry, the politician may find it in his interest to do so. But, under those circumstances, the politician is unnecessary: some kind soul will give the hungry man a meal anyway. If the great majority is against the hungry man, some kind soul among the minority still may feed him-the politician will not.” –Dr. David D Friedman
In other words, there is no such thing as a system of government where the “needy” are not dependent on the altruism of the successful.
Many socialists want to talk about capitalism as if it will some how make the people greedier than they otherwise will be.
Yes, the current distribution of wealth is unnatural and a problem, but expanding government power will in reality take the wealth out of the hands of the few and put it in the hands of the fewer, in the hands of the government officials and those fortunate enough to be connected to them.
This happens because it is inevitable that government power will always attract power freaks, just like it always has in the past.
The idea held by many statists, that our economic condition is bad despite the government “help” would only make sense if this “help” predated the problem, but a careful study of the way our industry was changing between the mid 1800s and the great depression shows the opposite.
It was actually the middle class that was the fastest growing, and even though “the rich” where always worth more individually, the middle class as a whole still could claim most of the prosperity, it was also during this time that child labor, the long work days, and other such examples of capitalist “oppression” described by socialist where actually decreasing naturally.
It was not until the Great depression that people began to really doubt capitalism.
But the Great Depression was caused by the Federal Reserve (created, and operated by government). That means that by the wonders of statist logic, government actions where seen as justification for more government!
In other words, there is no such thing as a system of government where the “needy” are not dependent on the altruism of the successful.
Many socialists want to talk about capitalism as if it will some how make the people greedier than they otherwise will be.
Yes, the current distribution of wealth is unnatural and a problem, but expanding government power will in reality take the wealth out of the hands of the few and put it in the hands of the fewer, in the hands of the government officials and those fortunate enough to be connected to them.
This happens because it is inevitable that government power will always attract power freaks, just like it always has in the past.
The idea held by many statists, that our economic condition is bad despite the government “help” would only make sense if this “help” predated the problem, but a careful study of the way our industry was changing between the mid 1800s and the great depression shows the opposite.
It was actually the middle class that was the fastest growing, and even though “the rich” where always worth more individually, the middle class as a whole still could claim most of the prosperity, it was also during this time that child labor, the long work days, and other such examples of capitalist “oppression” described by socialist where actually decreasing naturally.
It was not until the Great depression that people began to really doubt capitalism.
But the Great Depression was caused by the Federal Reserve (created, and operated by government). That means that by the wonders of statist logic, government actions where seen as justification for more government!
Tiervexx
New member
Before Test boy has a chance to say something like “anyone who thinks they know anything knows nothing” I would like to say that I know economic theory, is theory.
And I know that that makes it seem as if people like me and Matt might be building our ideal societies on shaky foundations, but by comparison socialists seem to expect their societies to float through the air with no foundation at all!
So even if we can’t know everything, we can at least try to use what science we know rather than sticking our heads up our butts.
And I know that that makes it seem as if people like me and Matt might be building our ideal societies on shaky foundations, but by comparison socialists seem to expect their societies to float through the air with no foundation at all!
So even if we can’t know everything, we can at least try to use what science we know rather than sticking our heads up our butts.
Similar threads
