Why Libertarians Should Be Socialists

[orange]

there can only be so many David Floyds in the world.

Even one is too many!

Just kidding Floyd

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Berzerker
yavoon -

Oh come on, yavoon. That's a trust effectively run by the Hawaiian government! The scandals involved were a result of politicians and cronyism, don't try to pass that off as "libertarian" much less "private". The land was part of the estate of a KING and his lineage and the trust was made long before Hawaii ever became a state. Oh, it was 500,000 acres btw. Please cite a LAW that requires us landowners to sell our land at market value, not some lawsuit involving a government corrupted trust in Hawaii.



Next time provide a link so I don't have to do your homework.

Here:

http://dir.salon.com/business/feature/2000/07/11/bishop/index.html?pn=4

There was no legislation, the land was sold off as a result of a lawsuit. I asked for legislation... We have no law requiring Kansans to sell their land at market value, so why hasn't your scheme been done here?



The only systems your "scheme" has worked in were autocratic systems ala feudal lords where rich people hired armies to force people off their land.



1) is your unsupported assumption, and 2) includes self-interest with altruistic results. You haven't proven 1) and you keep ignoring our arguments explaining why it isn't in every landowner's self-interest to join your scheme. And you keep ignoring all the good deeds people do as a result of their self-interest. All you've been doing is repeating
"it's in the interest of all landowners to accept my
scheme" as if it is the gospel.

I'd think after repeated requests from both David and I for you to prove that your "cornerstone" is valid you'd
actually try to tackle that one.

its not run by the government. it is a trust. there was corruption. but the corruption didn't cause the selling off of land. the fact that they owned too much and were refusing to sell it caused the legislation.

ur arguments are dumb. it is in everyone's self interest because instead of undercutting and competing we can monopolize and rule. its not very complicated u just refuse to see it. just step back and think. instead of competing w/ ur fellow landowner over who can sell land the cheapest, realize that together u can force ppl to buy it at any price u like. its called monopoly. infact this is so effective THAT THERE ARE ANTI TRUST LAWS in the united states against trying to do things like this.

and there is STILL ROOM FOR ALTRUISM in my scheme
just cause I have figured out how to own the cow doesn't preclude me from giving away some milk.

ur fighting a hopeless battle to convince anyone but urself that conspiring in an industry to form a pseudo monopoly is not in the owners best interests. and u might even be fighting an uphill battle against urself unless self delusion is a prime part of ur nature.

[NeOmega]

I didn't read your entire post, you should try to keep it short and sweet aye?

Anyways, I have stated before, if I lived in a communist or socialist country, I would join those parties and do what I could to advance in the party for the greater good of my country, (and myself).

But this is America, a capitalist society. I just cannot stand the redistribution of wealth in this so-called capitalist system. Why do I have to pay taxes so other people can have an easier, equally high supply labor pool job, but get paid twice or thrice what I do? That's not capitalism, that's an aristocracy.

AND PLEASE, NO F***IN LECTURES ABOUT HOW THERE ARE ONLY TWO DIFFERENT FORMS OF ECONOMIC SYSTEMS! I KNOW!

[Imran Siddiqui]

AND PLEASE, NO F***IN LECTURES ABOUT HOW THERE ARE ONLY TWO DIFFERENT FORMS OF ECONOMIC SYSTEMS! I KNOW!

You do know that there aren't only two different forms of economic systems, do you?

[Ramo]

Good to see you're still fighting the good fight, Boshko. I'd join you, but arguing with this many libertarians is too time consuming.

[Berzerker]

yavoon -

its not run by the government. it is a trust. there was corruption. but the corruption didn't cause the selling off of land. the fact that they owned too much and were refusing to sell it caused the legislation.

Yavoon, there was no legislation, it was a lawsuit brought by parties to a contract. Did you research the Bishop Trust before trying to pass it off in support of your argument? Please learn the difference between lawsuits and legislation. And yes, the trust was run by the government. The Hawaiian Supreme Court appoints the board's trustees and not surprisingly, politicians and their cronies ended up being trustees. One trustee was even the speaker of the House at the same time... If the trust was truly private, the board members would not have been appointed by the government. The trust was not required to sell land because the trust had too much property (stop making stuff up), the SCOTUS ruled in favor of the plaintiffs - homeowners leasing the land who wanted ownership of the land under their homes. You have not shown any legislation was passed nor have you shown this was anything other than a contractual dispute.

ur arguments are dumb.

I'm not the one confusing a contractual lawsuit with a law nor am I the one claiming millions of landowners will agree to your scheme.

it is in everyone's self interest because instead of undercutting and competing we can monopolize and rule.

Where's your proof? Cite the law that requires all us landowners to sell our land at market prices.

its not very complicated u just refuse to see it.

I see reality, you see non-existent schemes.

just step back and think. instead of competing w/ ur fellow landowner over who can sell land the cheapest, realize that together u can force ppl to buy it at any price u like.

And when we ask for too much money, some of us landowners will figure out your scheme is ridiculous and sell land at market values. If I'm a cash strapped landowner in need of cash for other endeavors, your scheme does me no good. I need money, not land. Your hypothetical was that people couldn't afford to buy your land because you were asking too much, so what happens when you need money more than land? You drop the price so people can afford your land. Welcome to the real world...

its called monopoly. infact this is so effective THAT THERE ARE ANTI TRUST LAWS in the united states against trying to do things like this.

There is no law requiring us landowners to sell at market prices.
So why hasn't your scheme been put into practice? You keep dodging that question. Anti-trust laws had nothing to do with the sale of land, you're trying to change the issue.

and there is STILL ROOM FOR ALTRUISM in my scheme
just cause I have figured out how to own the cow doesn't preclude me from giving away some milk.

Umm...you said people act out of self-interest, are you now admitting my point that acts of self-interest can have altruistic results? So what if an altruistic landowner decides selling his land at market values thereby undercutting your scheme is in his self interest? You need to spend a few seconds thinking about what the words "self-interest" means, it doesn't mean what you think is in everyone else's best interest, it means we each decide for ourselves what is in our own best interest. Basing your argument on the proposition you can read everyone's minds is...to use your word...delusional...

ur fighting a hopeless battle to convince anyone but urself that conspiring in an industry to form a pseudo monopoly is not in the owners best interests. and u might even be fighting an uphill battle against urself unless self delusion is a prime part of ur nature.

You're the one proposing that millions of landowners would agree to your scheme inspite of the fact it has never happened.
Even monopolies in industry are at best short-lived, they get broken up even in a free market when conspirators see an opportunity to grab marketshare by dropping their prices or by new entries into that specific market who see the opportunity to make money by undercutting the monopolists. The only "permanent" monopolies are created by government and protected by laws.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Berzerker
yavoon -

Yavoon, there was no legislation, it was a lawsuit brought by parties to a contract. Did you research the Bishop Trust before trying to pass it off in support of your argument? Please learn the difference between lawsuits and legislation. And yes, the trust was run by the government. The Hawaiian Supreme Court appoints the board's trustees and not surprisingly, politicians and their cronies ended up being trustees. One trustee was even the speaker of the House at the same time... If the trust was truly private, the board members would not have been appointed by the government. The trust was not required to sell land because the trust had too much property (stop making stuff up), the SCOTUS ruled in favor of the plaintiffs - homeowners leasing the land who wanted ownership of the land under their homes. You have not shown any legislation was passed nor have you shown this was anything other than a contractual dispute.



I'm not the one confusing a contractual lawsuit with a law nor am I the one claiming millions of landowners will agree to your scheme.



Where's your proof? Cite the law that requires all us landowners to sell our land at market prices.



I see reality, you see non-existent schemes.



And when we ask for too much money, some of us landowners will figure out your scheme is ridiculous and sell land at market values. If I'm a cash strapped landowner in need of cash for other endeavors, your scheme does me no good. I need money, not land. Your hypothetical was that people couldn't afford to buy your land because you were asking too much, so what happens when you need money more than land? You drop the price so people can afford your land. Welcome to the real world...



There is no law requiring us landowners to sell at market prices.
So why hasn't your scheme been put into practice? You keep dodging that question. Anti-trust laws had nothing to do with the sale of land, you're trying to change the issue.



Umm...you said people act out of self-interest, are you now admitting my point that acts of self-interest can have altruistic results? So what if an altruistic landowner decides selling his land at market values thereby undercutting your scheme is in his self interest? You need to spend a few seconds thinking about what the words "self-interest" means, it doesn't mean what you think is in everyone else's best interest, it means we each decide for ourselves what is in our own best interest. Basing your argument on the proposition you can read everyone's minds is...to use your word...delusional...



You're the one proposing that millions of landowners would agree to your scheme inspite of the fact it has never happened.
Even monopolies in industry are at best short-lived, they get broken up even in a free market when conspirators see an opportunity to grab marketshare by dropping their prices or by new entries into that specific market who see the opportunity to make money by undercutting the monopolists. The only "permanent" monopolies are created by government and protected by laws.

not millions. the reasons millions of ppl own land is we have a system that attempts to make that possible. we have a gov't that enforces rules that let millions of ppl own land.

as for one cash strapped landowner selling. its perfectly possible that for whatever reason some person became bankrupt. in which case he would sell his land, but who would buy it? someone who owns land. all that'd do is consolidate the # of ppl who own land.

ur still pathetically trying to use examples from a system that in no way resembles the one u want to prove that ur system works. its utterly laughable.

as for undercutting my scheme. if he wanted to sell his land at "market value" or at "what ppl can afford." or what have you, I'D BUY IT. or other ppl w/ land would buy it. again it would just consolidate the # of ppl who own land.

because land is the only security, because it is the commodity u can not circumvent, u can not deal w/o. it holds all power when u let the reigns go. lets say u have a brilliant new manufacturing plant but me and my scheming buddies own the land u need. we can basically extract all ur profit from u.

somoene could just continually undercut me, but thats not in their self interest.

someone could sell land, but I'd buy it. and that wouldn't help "society" out of my scheme anyway.

ur stuck. just give in. w/ no restraints on rent contracts or business collusion landlords are slavemasters.

as for "welcome to the real world" the real world has thousands of restrictions in it. if u want to talk about the real world we can. but if u want to talk about the world that is proposed then welcome to the show.

[Berzerker]

yavoon -

not millions. the reasons millions of ppl own land is we have a system that attempts to make that possible. we have a gov't that enforces rules that let millions of ppl own land.

I keep asking you to cite past laws restricting libertarianism to allow for millions of people to own land and all you came up with was a very recent lawsuit in Hawaii which you confused with legislation. If you want to argue millions of people would not own land in a libertarian system, you have to support your argument. Simply repeating it over and over is not proof...

as for one cash strapped landowner selling. its perfectly possible that for whatever reason some person became bankrupt. in which case he would sell his land, but who would buy it?

Gee, people wanting to buy land?

someone who owns land. all that'd do is consolidate the # of ppl who own land.

Why would only landowners want to buy land? You equated land with security implying what we all want is security, i.e., land, so why wouldn't people without land want to buy it even more than people who are already "secure"?

ur still pathetically trying to use examples from a system that in no way resembles the one u want to prove that ur system works. its utterly laughable.

You think the history of the US wrt land purchases in no way resembles libertarianism? If that was true, you could easily prove it by pointing to all these laws instead of offering up a lawsuit in Hawaii. The fact is it was libertarianism that helped create millions of landowners - the state divesting itself of land owned by the state, i.e., the transfer of government land into private hands. There would be even more landowners if the state sold off the millions of acres still owned by the state. You still haven't explained how the US had laws that violate libertarian principles wrt to land purchases. Liberals have succeeded in screwing landowners in some parts of the country and in more recent times, but most of the country and throughout all or most of US history, people have been free (libertarianism) to buy, sell and rent land without price controls.

as for undercutting my scheme. if he wanted to sell his land at "market value" or at "what ppl can afford." or what have you, I'D BUY IT. or other ppl w/ land would buy it. again it would just consolidate the # of ppl who own land.

Or people without land would buy it.

because land is the only security, because it is the commodity u can not circumvent, u can not deal w/o.

Security is not land, security is a sense of being, a feeling. Land may make you feel secure, but once again you're assuming to know what others believe.

lets say u have a brilliant new manufacturing plant but me and my scheming buddies own the land u need. we can basically extract all ur profit from u.

What if I offer one of your "friends" the opportunity to invest in my endeavor - a chunk of land for a cut of the profits?
Oh, they still won't sell? Then I'll find someone with brains.

somoene could just continually undercut me, but thats not in their self interest.

How do you know? If your friend sees an opportunity to make money thru my manufacturing plant, there goes your little scheme. Your argument is built on fictions - one being this ability to read our minds. You don't know what is in my "self"-interest, only I know that.

someone could sell land, but I'd buy it.

How? All your "security" is tied up in land you won't sell. I'm a landowner and I need money, so I will sell.

ur stuck. just give in. w/ no restraints on rent contracts or business collusion landlords are slavemasters.

ur stuck in a fantasy world.

as for "welcome to the real world" the real world has thousands of restrictions in it.

And one of those restrictions requires us landowners to sell at market prices? I know you're adept at avoiding questions but this one is rather important regarding your argument.

if u want to talk about the real world we can. but if u want to talk about the world that is proposed then welcome to the show.

I see you've dropped that Bishop trust nonsense, so we're back to square 1 - where's this law requiring landowners to sell at market prices? Your repeated failure to cite this law shoots down your entire proposition, the real world is beginning to sink in.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Berzerker
yavoon -

I keep asking you to cite past laws restricting libertarianism to allow for millions of people to own land and all you came up with was a very recent lawsuit in Hawaii which you confused with legislation. If you want to argue millions of people would not own land in a libertarian system, you have to support your argument. Simply repeating it over and over is not proof...



Gee, people wanting to buy land?



Why would only landowners want to buy land? You equated land with security implying what we all want is security, i.e., land, so why wouldn't people without land want to buy it even more than people who are already "secure"?



You think the history of the US wrt land purchases in no way resembles libertarianism? If that was true, you could easily prove it by pointing to all these laws instead of offering up a lawsuit in Hawaii. The fact is it was libertarianism that helped create millions of landowners - the state divesting itself of land owned by the state, i.e., the transfer of government land into private hands. There would be even more landowners if the state sold off the millions of acres still owned by the state. You still haven't explained how the US had laws that violate libertarian principles wrt to land purchases. Liberals have succeeded in screwing landowners in some parts of the country and in more recent times, but most of the country and throughout all or most of US history, people have been free (libertarianism) to buy, sell and rent land without price controls.



Or people without land would buy it.



Security is not land, security is a sense of being, a feeling. Land may make you feel secure, but once again you're assuming to know what others believe.



What if I offer one of your "friends" the opportunity to invest in my endeavor - a chunk of land for a cut of the profits?
Oh, they still won't sell? Then I'll find someone with brains.



How do you know? If your friend sees an opportunity to make money thru my manufacturing plant, there goes your little scheme. Your argument is built on fictions - one being this ability to read our minds. You don't know what is in my "self"-interest, only I know that.



How? All your "security" is tied up in land you won't sell. I'm a landowner and I need money, so I will sell.



ur stuck in a fantasy world.



And one of those restrictions requires us landowners to sell at market prices? I know you're adept at avoiding questions but this one is rather important regarding your argument.



I see you've dropped that Bishop trust nonsense, so we're back to square 1 - where's this law requiring landowners to sell at market prices? Your repeated failure to cite this law shoots down your entire proposition, the real world is beginning to sink in.

fine.

can u put any clause u want into a rental agreement? no.

can u build anything u want on ur land? no

can u do nething u want on ur land? no.

can u put nething u want into a sales agreement? no

do landlords have rights/responsibliities that are non-negotiable? yes.

can the state take ur land if it wants? yes.

basically the libertarian part is u can ask any price u want for ur land, AND ALMOST NOTHING ELSE IS.

then agani sometimes when u sell land for a dollar u get in trouble. so that might not even work.

were u unaware of this? are u that stupid?

we can take a chunk of ur profits through ur rental agreement. there's no need for u to give them to us.

I'll give u an easy scenario. 5 gas stations in a town. they all sell 1.80$. berz moves in and buys one of them. looks to himself and sez OMG SO MUCH PROFIT in 1.80. that he could sell for 1.60 and get all the businesses and make MORE MONEY then at 1.80.

w/in a week berz moves his price to 1.60. what happens? everyone's price goes to 1.60. all the owners grumble. so yav goes to berz after a month and sez look. I know ur new to this "business" thing. but ur not making more money by dropping ur price. I talked to the fellas and they agree if u go back up to 1.80 they'll go back up. we'll all be making good money again. u rail against the idea for a weeks then realize after the third straight week of diminished profits that its not that bad.

so we all get to the price fixing.

note:the other scenario is berz has deep pockets and undercuts ppl in the hpoes of monopolizing at which point he jacks the price back up. but since neither situation helps the consumer...