Topic: This is the thread where you discuss free market, americans and libertarianism - page 4. (Read 33901 times)

That does not define "unfounded."
Plus, some are very poor examples of waste.
The castle is like saying "an empty home waiting for it's owner to come home from work," and fields sometimes need to be left unplowed to recover nutrients.

unowned land they own

Many problems with Wall St. arise from the fact that they use the medium of exchange as a commodity, as if it had inherent value in and of itself.  I think I see what you're getting at, though:
I find a copper deposit on un-owned land in Africa, and I hire locals to exploit it, but what effect on the agrarian or hunter gatherers nearby?
Is this the gist of your assertion?

all this will be irrelevant if we remove the right to own stuff, the very foundation of any capitalistic society.

I'll give some examples. Grain rotting in a silo. A field left unplowed. A castle waiting for a soon-to-return-noble in the crusades. A locked dumpster. These are examples of wasted property needlessly accumulated and consolidated for the supposed purpose of private wealth to the detriment of public good. Proudhon is pretty cool.
We could also go into the idea of stocks in things that involved anything from fraud to genogide to obtain, like the entire US. We can also think of unfounded as unfair or unjust.
Now the real crazy part comes in during a consideration of wage slavery, human beings and other animals as property, and labor as a commodity.

I'll give some examples. Grain rotting in a silo. A field left unplowed. A castle waiting for a soon-to-return-noble in the crusades. A locked dumpster. These are examples of wasted property needlessly accumulated and consolidated for the supposed purpose of private wealth to the detriment of public good. Proudhon is pretty cool.
We could also go into the idea of stocks in things that involved anything from fraud to genogide to obtain, like the entire US. We can also think of unfounded as unfair or unjust.
Now the real crazy part comes in during a consideration of wage slavery, human beings and other animals as property, and labor as a commodity.

I'll give some examples. Grain rotting in a silo. A field left unplowed. A castle waiting for a soon-to-return-noble in the crusades. A locked dumpster. These are examples of wasted property needlessly accumulated and consolidated for the supposed purpose of private wealth to the detriment of public good. Proudhon is pretty cool.

Define "unfounded."

I might hesitate to brand someone an idiot for seeing fractals. 10thdim on youtube http://m.youtube.com/#/user/10thdim?&desktop_uri=%2Fuser%2F10thdim has a lot of really solid ideas that put a limit on that ad infinitum. For example, a state facilitated market, containing markets and submarkets, requires a market to run, itself- a coerced taxbase, and a market to support that- third world slave labor.. and so on.
I am not an anarchocapitalist. I am an anarchist. Capitalism requires unfounded remote ownership a la Property is Theft.
A market is what the macrocosm and the microcosm do. When a force presuming to micromanage and manipulate it uses coersion to delete agency and circumvents consent with violence, you get... well.. you get it. Right? Wall st.

Capitalism requires unfounded remote ownership a la Property is Theft.

It's not the policeman's/soldier's/civil servant's fault for , it's their imaginary friend's fault???
OK.

You think markets can be bought and sold, and markets of markets, ad infinatum?  Idiot.

It's not the policeman's/soldier's/civil servant's fault for , it's their imaginary friend's fault???
OK.

BECAUSE...
In order for people to trade, first they need to be able to communicate with each other.
In order to be able to communicate, they need to learn to communicate.
Somebody needs to supply those skills. For example, parents teach their children basic skills.
However, is that a market? No, it is not. Call it evolutionary programming or whatever -- it's NOT A MARKET.
Even if you claim that markets only require 'supply' and 'demand', and participants, those participants still need to be able to follow the established rules. What rules, you ask? Whatever rules are created as a result of the participants communicating with each other prior to the market being able to function.

Sure, I'll play your game...
BECAUSE...
In order for people to trade, first they need to be able to communicate with each other.
In order to be able to communicate, they need to learn to communicate.
Somebody needs to supply those skills. For example, parents teach their children basic skills.
However, is that a market? No, it is not. Call it evolutionary programming or whatever -- it's NOT A MARKET.
Even if you claim that markets only require 'supply' and 'demand', and participants, those participants still need to be able to follow the established rules. What rules, you ask? Whatever rules are created as a result of the participants communicating with each other prior to the market being able to function. Example of rules: "no stealing" or "follow the N.A.P. or die".
You may find this line of reasoning somewhat troubling, even disturbing. That would be because it suggests that markets rely on certain things (for example: 'communication', as I just explained) that they themselves are unable to provide in isolation from the outside world.
As such, the outside world therefore has to somehow "support" markets in a non-market fashion. For example: a leader might make a set of rules and force people to follow them. Eventually, lots of other people start forcing or 'indoctrinating' their own families and community into following the same rules, and these rules become known as a "language".

However, the act of blaming governments for various atrocities also casts doubt on the theoretical viability of Anarchic alternatives. If soldiers, policemen, judges and other state workers are not individually responsible for their actions, then why should a change of system make any difference? If the population isn't already bound by the NAP, then clearly it's not all-encompassing or 'natural' like some people suggest. Besides, people need governments in order to blame them when things go horribly wrong.

WHYYY??!?

You missed this bit as well:

WHYYY??!?

You missed this bit as well:

I already gave you the answer earlier.

Not at all. What supports markets? What creates the conditions suitable for their existence?