Topic: Is it true that the Fed is privately owned - page 4. (Read 9405 times)

Oh, but you do. You want all land held in common. Georgeism is just eco-communism.

Well, first: Sea plots would likely be much larger, entire "fishing grounds," for just that reason. It's much harder, and much more disruptive, to fence off the seas.
Second: The rainforests are being cut down now because politicians are cheaper to buy than private landowners.
Third: Global climate change deserves it's own conversation because it is a much more complex subject.

And anyone born after 2140 will have to earn their bitcoins by providing a service to the community. In fact, that's the only way to get them now.

Let me explain. If land is owned by nobody, anyone can come and take it at any time. I could justifiably force you off your land. I'd say that's "strife." If land is owned by "everybody" and some organization is going to come around and collect rent, they'll have to force me to pay, because I won't want to. That also qualifies as "strife." On the other hand, if someone wants to buy my land, they need only offer me enough money to convince me to sell it. Voluntarily. Peacefully.

Well, any other result means that the majority has enforced their will on the minority. That's just might makes right. So when you say "WE THE PEOPLE," what you actually mean is "WE THE STRONGEST."

I'm not imposing my views on anyone. Merely resisting their attempts to impose theirs on me.

I don't hold communist views, thank you. Neither do I hold a social view of the world really. I do, however, think that almost all people have a social aspect to them. Likewise, I think almost all people have an individualistic side. Therefore, I think socialists and liberals are both right, and both wrong.


If we're gonna privatize the seas, are we gonna stop the fish from swimming to each others parts of it? If not, you might as well catch all the fish in your area, your 'neighbours' fish will come swim to you, and you'll just catch that the next day. And why do you think the rainforrests are being cut down right now? Its because that's the profitable thing to do. It will make you more money to tear it down and grow or build something else. And why does global change deserve a whole other conversation? The whole point of the tragedy of the commons is that it's supposed to be bigger than any individual.

Sorry, but all of this seems to me like the tragedy of the commons 101.


Well, all land seems to be taken by now. I was only born a couple decades ago, and it was all taken by then. How is that fair? It is not, so yeah, I'll take a war of all against all over one sides suppression. Even better would be to agree that 'land' can not be privately owned at all of course.


I honestly don't see how privately owning land would bring peace. This sounds like something somebody who owns land would say. Like telling your slaves that freedom would only lead to war, it's best they just keep working peacefully and adhere to the rules that benefit the owner.


Is this your counterargument against democracy? If it's EXACTLY 50/50 we'll vote again. This seems like such a rare occurrence it doesn't even matter at all though... What happens if a presidential campaign ends EXACTLY 50/50? I don't even know. Doesn't even matter, since it realisticly impossible.

Where are we going to put it? Wherever we (the people) want to...

There are absolutely arguments to be held against democracy, but I don't think these are it.


Ah, I think we thought that you said that Libertarianism was able to prevent conflict. But what I think you meant to say is that Libertarianism would prevent conflict if EVERYBODY would be a Libertarian, including those that don't benefit from it.

See that's the same with every ideology. If EVERYBODY was a communist, communism would work just swell. If EVERYBODY was a fascist, fascism would be jolly good. I could go on, but you probably get my drift. If you ask me, every ideology has a one-sided worldview - including Libertarianism. There are different types of people, different worldviews, and different conceptions of freedom that are all perfectly coherent. I don't think imposing yours on others provides any more freedom or peace than them imposing theirs on yours.

As is common with people who espouse communist views, you have a social view of the world, and act socially. I have a sad (from your point of view) fact to relate: You're a rarity. Any system which relies on your view being in the majority will fail, and fail horribly. This is not theory. This is established, historical fact. But there is a ray of home in all this: In a system of private ownership, people who wish to act socially, can, and may aid others as they see fit. You just can't force others to do so.

The answer to that is the same in all cases: Overfishing? Private ownership of the seas will allow (and encourage) the owners to prevent overfishing, as that will cut into the future profitability. Rainforests? Private ownership of the land will allow people who wish to, to conserve that land in it's natural state. Global warming is a much larger issue, and deserves it's own conversation. Suffice it to say that if we're going to change anything about the global climate, it needs the full cooperation of the entire planet, not just a few governments.

As I said, there are two legitimate ways of acquiring land: Original appropriation (Declaring, by occupying first, that land to be his), or voluntary sale. Allowing people to come along and take land by force equates to no property rights at all, and war of all against all.

Well, you're entitled to that opinion, but land belonging to nobody causes strife, and land belong to "everybody" causes strife. Only when land belongs to "somebody," can there be peace.

Sounds nice on paper. What happens if 50% of the people want to spend the money on a hospital, and 50% on a school? Which half is right? And, to make matters worse, where are you going to put it?

Tsk... Just because I don't consider violence a legitimate means to gain property doesn't mean it won't happen. Just that it is legitimate to resist violence with violence. Vim Vi Repellere Licet.

This approach to interactions can be seen as a parallel to the eye for an eye approach from Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition, where the penalty for taking someone's eye is to lose one's own (cit from tit for tat wikipedia).

one thing is the self-defense, but...
what you say is an illusion for yourself but IS NOT TRUE,
because if someone hit you on the head, probably you are dead and you can't do anything.
So, is better to avoid all violent situations because you have not any control on when, where and what bad can happen to you.
Pro-Violence or not, it's the same.
I want to live without any paranoia.
And when i will die, i will die without having lived in paranoia or without doing any violence on nobody.
I know that this is only my opinion... an opinion from my very limited point of view.
regards