Solution to poverty - Socialism or Capitalism? - page 15.

gts476

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

Quote from: twiifm on September 05, 2014, 09:01:35 PM

Quote from: Nicolas Dorier on September 05, 2014, 04:40:39 PM

Quote

to be some control; toxic waste disposals, protected species, etc.

I know what you mean but the problem of such way of thinking is that the "etc." part always expand and never shrink, except with a revolution.
So my response is : If you care about protected species, pay for their protection with your pocket and not mine by force.

That introduces the concept of "tragedy of the commons". If there were no regulations on the fish stock then laissez faire economics will lead to overfishing. Then nobody can eat tuna sushi anymore

You don't solve a tragedy of the commons by creating a government which is an even larger tragedy of the commons.

Fish stocks survived for years without quotas. Government gets involved, fishing stocks are raped to death. (see Canadian fish stocks).

BCEmporium

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Nicolas Dorier on September 05, 2014, 04:40:39 PM

So my response is : If you care about protected species, pay for their protection with your pocket and not mine by force.

That would be ransoming, and since there are 7 billion humans in the planet and just a couple of specimens of a protected species, my response would be "let it live and we let you do it too", as your life worth way less in the planet context.
See?

twiifm

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 500

Quote from: Nicolas Dorier on September 05, 2014, 04:40:39 PM

Quote

to be some control; toxic waste disposals, protected species, etc.

I know what you mean but the problem of such way of thinking is that the "etc." part always expand and never shrink, except with a revolution.
So my response is : If you care about protected species, pay for their protection with your pocket and not mine by force.

That introduces the concept of "tragedy of the commons". If there were no regulations on the fish stock then laissez faire economics will lead to overfishing. Then nobody can eat tuna sushi anymore

Nicolas Dorier

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 662

Quote

to be some control; toxic waste disposals, protected species, etc.

I know what you mean but the problem of such way of thinking is that the "etc." part always expand and never shrink, except with a revolution.
So my response is : If you care about protected species, pay for their protection with your pocket and not mine by force.

BCEmporium

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Nicolas Dorier on September 05, 2014, 08:58:24 AM

"Damage to the planet" is very subjective to the scientific expert of the day endorsed and financed by subsidies. I have no way to verify the veracity of the fact, only having a pure belief in "experts", so I decide to not believe for the same reason I don't believe in god.
Tell me to not do a thing "because it damages the planet" it sounds the same that telling me not to do because "god will be angry".

The road does not belong to me, so I must obey the rule, because I will always respect the rule of the landlord.
But if road were private, and I owned one, then I would not accept the right of the state to impose their rule on my road. (Except if I decide they are right on my standards)

"Damage the planet" isn't that subjective, what can be is how much of damage it is.
And yes, there's plenty of bad science around, UNICEF just sent one today, WHO keeps "pooping" forged studies out and so on, but the truth is that human interference causes damage to the planet, the only thing to do is some damage control.
I won't advocate that the state or whoever should come after you telling what you can or can't do at anytime, but over some subjects it needs to be some control; toxic waste disposals, protected species, etc.

flyingcatt

member

Activity: 70

Merit: 10

Quote from: LitecoinBoss on September 05, 2014, 08:37:59 AM

The solution of poverty? ALIENS

Exactly, we need something like that, or an steroid, then we will learn to collaborate worldwide.

Nicolas Dorier

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 662

Quote from: BCEmporium on September 05, 2014, 08:03:04 AM

We have to split things here, some kind of property is your and your heirs business alone. Like gold, bitcoin, fiat currencies and so on.
Now, about things which can damage the planet that makes you interacting with everybody else, therefore some moderation is needed. A bit like a car, you can run 100 mph+, but you endanger all bystanders around therefore the cops will try to stop you.

"Damage to the planet" is very subjective to the scientific expert of the day endorsed and financed by subsidies. I have no way to verify the veracity of the fact, only having a pure belief in "experts", so I decide to not believe for the same reason I don't believe in god.
Tell me to not do a thing "because it damages the planet" it sounds the same that telling me not to do because "god will be angry".

The road does not belong to me, so I must obey the rule, because I will always respect the rule of the landlord.
But if road were private, and I owned one, then I would not accept the right of the state to impose their rule on my road. (Except if I decide they are right on my standards)

LitecoinBoss

full member

Activity: 140

Merit: 100

✘ΑΦΩ✘

The solution of poverty? ALIENS

BCEmporium

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1000

We have to split things here, some kind of property is your and your heirs business alone. Like gold, bitcoin, fiat currencies and so on.
Now, about things which can damage the planet that makes you interacting with everybody else, therefore some moderation is needed. A bit like a car, you can run 100 mph+, but you endanger all bystanders around therefore the cops will try to stop you.

Nicolas Dorier

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 662

Quote from: BCEmporium on September 05, 2014, 07:10:09 AM

Sorry if the planet doesn't suit your needs... but it's all we know and have.

Some damage can't be paid of, have to be prevented and enforced before come to be at all.

On the contrary, the planet suit my need, I don't need the majority to approve my definition of property to benefit from it.
If the government does not suit my need, then I'll not buy into the scheme they plan, and believe that I own something when I don't.

Nobody force me to buy forest. So I won't.
Nobody force me to buy fiat, and I won't.
Nobody force me to keep money in a bank, and I won't.
If everybody does that, then the one in danger is government, I don't need its approval when I don't buy the things it subsidies.
If nobody does, I don't care, because I know exactly what I own, and know that no whim will take it away.

BCEmporium

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1000

Sorry if the planet doesn't suit your needs... but it's all we know and have.

Some damage can't be paid of, have to be prevented and enforced before come to be at all.

Nicolas Dorier

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 662

Quote from: BCEmporium on September 05, 2014, 05:24:28 AM

Let's see, "property" doesn't quite means "to own", means to "have the right of usage" to a certain degree.

Depends on what cutting trees in your land may result in. It could be just "your problem" or not, chains have to be looked up or the erosion on your land may cause your neighbor to lost all his land utility, get flooded and so on, or could simply means his trees will worth more. But this has to be checked on a per case basis, and to do that a public administration is needed with not bureaucrats but engineers.

So for you "property" means paying for the privilege of the government to allow me to have "special right" on something.

For the libertarian "property" means that no one, even government, has any right to violate it.

The obligation of approval by a third party to do anything on my own territory is clearly a violation for the libertarian.
If what I do have bad consequences on neighborhood let me pay for the violation, settled by judge, not by favors of any dumbass that will extort money against the right to build on my property.

I understand that your definition of "property" is sadly becoming the norm.
This is why I won't buy such fake properties, that will just fall apart without maintenance, until the price drop because of that.
Better to buy some bitcoin, which I know, is a real property. And I will not spend it on any property that can be partially confiscated by the whim of any third party.

BCEmporium

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1000

Quote from: gts476 on September 05, 2014, 06:32:57 AM

No private ownership? COMMUNIST!

The view that you can't own land, to a strict meaning of "owning", comes from the American Natives, not Communists. Communists have an economy based upon a State Monopoly.

gts476

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

Quote from: BCEmporium on September 05, 2014, 05:24:28 AM

Let's see, "property" doesn't quite means "to own", means to "have the right of usage" to a certain degree.

Depends on what cutting trees in your land may result in. It could be just "your problem" or not, chains have to be looked up or the erosion on your land may cause your neighbor to lost all his land utility, get flooded and so on, or could simply means his trees will worth more. But this has to be checked on a per case basis, and to do that a public administration is needed with not bureaucrats but engineers.

No private ownership? COMMUNIST!

Timetwister

legendary

Activity: 1199

Merit: 1047

Quote from: gts476 on September 05, 2014, 12:50:27 AM

how can you lose a 'cold' war? to many solders died? lol

Governments always blame anyone else for their mistakes. They love to blame speculators, for example. Or non-patriotic people, conspirators, "imperialists", etc.

BCEmporium

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1000

Let's see, "property" doesn't quite means "to own", means to "have the right of usage" to a certain degree.

Depends on what cutting trees in your land may result in. It could be just "your problem" or not, chains have to be looked up or the erosion on your land may cause your neighbor to lost all his land utility, get flooded and so on, or could simply means his trees will worth more. But this has to be checked on a per case basis, and to do that a public administration is needed with not bureaucrats but engineers.

Nicolas Dorier

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 662

Quote from: BCEmporium on September 05, 2014, 05:06:52 AM

Quote from: Nicolas Dorier on September 05, 2014, 04:48:12 AM

What if I want to damage the land, I own ? this is the definition on private property either I own it either I don't. There is no such thing as "you own it but you MUST to do that".
"some restrain is needed" and who knows better than me "the need of restrain" on my property ? If you don't want me to damage my land, you can, just give me voluntary money for it.
Good of "society" or "planet" ? no different than the mystic asking to do it for god. (Actually, I prefer a mystic doing it, at least he does not pretend to act for the good of other)

What a statement of ignorance! That's why anarchy is just absurd!
You can't own anything without limits, the fact that you "own" (or believe to own, as you will certainly die and the land will remain there) something doesn't mean you can do whatever you please. You may decide to contaminate your land with mercury "just for fun" (Hey! In your mind that's "yours"), causing the land to be poisoned, eventually leaking to water and killing people in a miles radius...
Anarchy combined with ignorance is way too deadly to can ever even been thinking of!

For the notice, and for the absurdity about "good for planet" or "gods" statement of yours: You depend on the planet, the planet doesn't depend on you!

It has nothing do to with anarchy, since anarchy does not protect individual right by central authority with monopoly of coercion (the definition of government for the libertarian, which I am)
And as libertarian, I believe that any violation of property should be sanctioned by government, and contamination of mercury that leak on other's property is definitively a violation, even in the libertarian thought.

But cutting the trees on my land does not violate the land of the neighbor. On the contrary, their tree will worth more.
So if I decide to cut all trees, put a building or scrap on it instead, it is my right, and I am the only one to judge if it is a good decision. Certainly not a bureaucrate.

BCEmporium

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Nicolas Dorier on September 05, 2014, 04:48:12 AM

What if I want to damage the land, I own ? this is the definition on private property either I own it either I don't. There is no such thing as "you own it but you MUST to do that".
"some restrain is needed" and who knows better than me "the need of restrain" on my property ? If you don't want me to damage my land, you can, just give me voluntary money for it.
Good of "society" or "planet" ? no different than the mystic asking to do it for god. (Actually, I prefer a mystic doing it, at least he does not pretend to act for the good of other)

What a statement of ignorance! That's why anarchy is just absurd!
You can't own anything without limits, the fact that you "own" (or believe to own, as you will certainly die and the land will remain there) something doesn't mean you can do whatever you please. You may decide to contaminate your land with mercury "just for fun" (Hey! In your mind that's "yours"), causing the land to be poisoned, eventually leaking to water and killing people in a miles radius...
Anarchy combined with ignorance is way too deadly to can ever even been thinking of!

For the notice, and for the absurdity about "good for planet" or "gods" statement of yours: You depend on the planet, the planet doesn't depend on you!

Nicolas Dorier

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 662

Quote from: BCEmporium on September 05, 2014, 02:24:23 AM

Quote from: gts476 on September 05, 2014, 12:52:58 AM

Quote from: BCEmporium on September 04, 2014, 08:33:42 PM

"Free markets" will always need some sort of regulation, unless you want to destroy the planet for greed... because there will always be an idiot who thinks nobody will miss one tree less.

can't chop down trees you don't own on land you don't own, so nope! invalid.

But you can do a LOT of damage on the land you "own"... including damage that may affect lands you don't own.
The planet is a huge set of chain events with limited resources, some restrain is needed and "free marketeers" are way more known for their greed then for their temperance.

What if I want to damage the land, I own ? this is the definition on private property either I own it either I don't. There is no such thing as "you own it but you MUST to do that".
"some restrain is needed" and who knows better than me "the need of restrain" on my property ? If you don't want me to damage my land, you can, just give me voluntary money for it.
Good of "society" or "planet" ? no different than the mystic asking to do it for god. (Actually, I prefer a mystic doing it, at least he does not pretend to act for the good of other)

BCEmporium

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1000

Quote from: gts476 on September 05, 2014, 12:52:58 AM

Quote from: BCEmporium on September 04, 2014, 08:33:42 PM

"Free markets" will always need some sort of regulation, unless you want to destroy the planet for greed... because there will always be an idiot who thinks nobody will miss one tree less.

can't chop down trees you don't own on land you don't own, so nope! invalid.

But you can do a LOT of damage on the land you "own"... including damage that may affect lands you don't own.
The planet is a huge set of chain events with limited resources, some restrain is needed and "free marketeers" are way more known for their greed then for their temperance.

Topic: Solution to poverty - Socialism or Capitalism? - page 15. (Read 30794 times)