Is America heading towards fascism?

Post Reply New Topic

but they are limited and some people take far in excess of what they will ever need,

those people do need to compensate the people they are preventing from getting what they need, especially if they are doing so from around the world.

A true free-market paradise has never existed just like a true communist paradise has never existed. How convenient.

Am I the only one who see's this parallel going on?

A clue to Marxists. A non-coercive communist paradise will never exist because of the existence of people who believe they should have the right to do whatever the hell they please even if it means stepping all over others and using their property rights to exploit others.

A clue to Libertarians. A non-coercive "free market" paradise will never exist for the exact same reason. Regulations are always needed to protect people and make people play fair. The problem is too many people are assholes who believe it is their right to exploit others and treat others like s**t and they don't need physical violence to do it. The people who push for having no rules are the equivalent of bullies who think they are entitled to do whatever the hell they want, even if it includes pushing dangerous products, destroying the environment, and coming up with ways to unfairly game the system and screw everyone else.

And who are YOU to judge the needs of others. Have you died, gone to heaven and become Our Lord?

ruveyn

Please explain how property is theft and coercion. I really can't get my head around that concept.


How are you defining "using"? If I'm farming the land, that's pretty obvious. What if I'm employing other people to farm land? What if I'm providing a housing service such as an apartment complex? What if I'm using land to hold a factory where I'm manufacturing shoes?

Also, does that apply to other property, such as a vehicle? What if I have two vehicles, and one pretty much just sits in the driveway?


That didn't answer my question. Unused land is restricted by government, not by capitalism. And capitalism gives you the opportunity to become bosses and landlords -- how would it force you to live at the mercy of them?


How am I stealing their time? If they ask for service and I say no, they should leave.

But owning his underpants is a violent cultural construct forced upon him. What else are you going to do about it?

Both my underpants and my factory are MY personal property. I own both and I acquired them honestly.

ruveyn

You are your body. Ownership implys two separate objects.


Great, I should be able to take from anywhere I want to survive than.

You do not physically use machinery at the factory, you do not own it.

The right to homestead was considered to also be a property right but the Libertarians will never recognize this.

Why would libertarians not recognize it? It's a use of land for productive purposes, even if it's just for yourself.

Everything belongs to the universe. Property is an act of force, land owners force people to follow their orders.

If employing other people to farm the land, the land is not yours and you have no right to decide what to do with all the fruits of their labor. You can not own an apartment complex, you can only own the room you occupy. You do not physically use the machinery at the shoe factory you do not own it. I don't believe someone can own a car they don't use.

The opportunity is wage slavery until you can afford to buy land. Social mobility does not justify slavery. I don't believe freedom is something to be earned and bought from others in small chunks.

Yes you are by leaving an open door and rejecting.

Last edited by RushKing on 13 Nov 2012, 1:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Am I the only one who thinks both sides in this thread are being silly in their moral absolutism?

Homesteading would require the rich to give up their land tracts. So libertarians would feel that their property rights are being violated.

Clearly you are a better person than either of us.