The Free Market

[nickcoons]

7. Go fuck yourself if you don't understand that land wealth redistribution is justified to give everyone the right to put their feet on the ground and is much better than our current dysfunctional welfare state.

If this is your way of saying that we should agree to disagree, then I'm on-board.

 

[jeepndesert]

(Mindless name-calling snipped for brevity and civility).

Sorry, you are mindless, and thus, you can go fuck yourself. I refuse to engage in a dialog with someone as retarded as yourself.

 

[nickcoons]

I refuse to engage in a dialog with someone as retarded as yourself.

Likewise.

 

[jeepndesert]

It is not a utilitarian convenience, it is an extension of natural rights. When I mix my labor with some natural resource, I own the end product.

So mixing your labor with the Earth allows you to suddenly claim ownership of the Earth. Who says that some human born after you doesn't have rightful claim to the land you built something upon and to the natural resources you consumed.

You are promoting LAND SLAVERY. You are claiming ownership of the land out of your retarded ass just because you happen to find it first or because you worked as a slave to buy it from someone who ultimately STOLE it from God and mankind himself.

I'm not sure how you can accuse others of merely claiming to be libertarian while at the same time proposing a whole slew of taxes.

I just checked dictionary.com. Libertarian is not defined as without taxation.

The point is that you don't understand libertarian concepts which justify the use of taxation to redistribute land wealth in order to honor private ownership of labor while honoring the rights of all humans to stand upon the Earth and use it to survive.

Please explain this. Liability-deflecting entities are a creation of the state. In a libertarian free market, a corporation can not commit crimes without anyone being held liable. Every individual is responsible for their actions.

I shouldn't have brought up advanced topics of reality when you can't even understand the basics.

Google Henry George and learn some of the basics. This stuff is common sense, pun intended, to me and to Thomas Paine. I don't understand why it isn't clear to other humans.

I give up trying to teach it to someone who doesn't understand the difference between anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism.

Name-calling probably didn't help, but your attitude deserved it.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

So mixing your labor with the Earth allows you to suddenly claim ownership of the Earth. Who says that some human born after you doesn't have rightful claim to the land you built something upon and to the natural resources you consumed.

You are promoting THEFT. You are claiming ownership of the land out of your retarded ass just because you happen to find it first or because you worked as a slave to buy it from someone who ultimately stole it from God and mankind himself.



I just checked dictionary.com. Libertarian is not defined as without taxation.

The point is that you don't understand libertarian concepts which justify the use of taxation of redistribution of land wealth in order to honor the merits of private ownership of labor.

You should try reading some books by libertarians before jumping to such conclusions. Start with "The Market For Liberty".

 

[jeepndesert]

you can go fuck yourself and your anarcho-capitalism propaganda.

this stuff is very basic and common sense. i don't need books which spread anarcho-capitalism propaganda to learn and understand.

you don't understand private property rights.

perhaps i should write a 800-page text explaining the topic so that people like yourself can learn something simple the hard way rather than listening and accepting a very valid point the easy way.

close your mind. ignore valid points. continue to believe in your narrow and false paradigm that you try to validate by consuming countless hours of propaganda that support your paradigm rather than challenge it.

how many texts by clueless anarcho-capitalists have you read? how many hours do you spend at lewrockwell.com? how many hours do you spend slobbering over rothbard's endless debates with himself as he tries to convince himself that anarcho capitalism is the cure all?

how many hours do you spend to even give thought to other views?

and go fuck yourself.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

you can go fuck yourself and your anarcho-capitalism propaganda.

this stuff is very basic and common sense. i don't need books which spread anarcho-capitalism propaganda to learn and understand.

you don't understand private property rights.

perhaps i should write a 800-page text explaining the topic so that people like yourself can learn something simple the hard way rather than listening and accepting a very valid point the easy way.

close your mind. ignore valid points. continue to believe in your narrow and false paradigm that you try to validate by consuming countless hours of propaganda that support your paradigm rather than challenge it.

and go fuck yourself.

Apparently I understand it better than you do.

 

[ronpaul4pres]

Probably not, because it would potentially have a drastic and negative effect on my life. I might have a much more subjective reaction, but that doesn't really change anything.

My point was that it very well might change something. Let's say I refuse to sell a life saving drug to you because you're a political opponent, and I similarly promise to blacklist anyone who tries to re-sell my drug to you. There comes a point when strict adherence to property rights is more destructive than it is helpful.

You would only be rich if people continued to believe that gold was a good store of wealth after realizing what you had done. For them to not realize it, you'd have to introduce your new gold slowly into the economy so that no one noticed. This cautious approach of yours would very much lessen the impact that your gold would have on my wealth. If you decided to keep it completely secret and simply hoard it, then it would have no impact on my at all.

Of course, you present a much smarter way to spend the gold in my example assuming I didn't want to upset the natural order, but maybe I would have had reason to cause inflation? Maybe those who were smart and saved were political opponents, and I wanted to undermine their ability to fight me.

I don't understand how it would be anyone's choice but my own, unless the government played favorites toward gold like they do now with the dollar.

I asked that question because you wouldn't have chosen to store your wealth in gold if nobody else traded it. It was society's perception of the value of gold that influenced your decision. Perhaps you would have had no other "choice" but gold.

What if you had a business making some gizmo that everyone loved and you were selling so many of these that your income was substantial. You forecasted for your retirement and put together your plans based your revenue and the continued need for your gizmos int he market. Then I come along and invent and sell something that is so much better than your gizmo and makes it obsolete (like a computer to a typewriter) so that you're sales decrease to almost nothing. This puts a damper on your retirement plans as your income stream dries up.

Would you argue that I've used force against you? Would you argue that force should be used against me so that your income can be sustained? Have I "stolen" from you? I would answer "no" to all of these questions, and I don't see this as being fundamentally different than your gold example.

Well, my example was about a storage of wealth from work already done and your example is about future earnings. I see those as two very different things:

1. In your example, society advances due to the better gizmo you produced (as an aside, our inventiveness is why I believe we have natural deflation not the constant inflation we see by the Fed). It also forces me to not get lazy and continue to invent. I see it as benefit.
2. In my example, society does not advance. People may see rising wages and an appearance of success, but as Ron Paul supporters, we know this to be false. I see it as one person taking advantage of everyone else.

I would answer "no" to your questions for your example, but I'm not so sure about my example. Especially in the case where inflation is done on purpose, I would see my example as a use of force.

I don't see this as being very realistic, because it assumes the following must also be true:

- That no other arable land exists that the people of the town could use.
- That you're the only farmer providing food to the townspeople, such that they have no one else to go to.
- That you have the ability to be completely self-sustaining (don't think for a minute that the townspeople won't reciprocate).

While the second and third are possibilities, I don't think the first has ever happened in the history of the world.

Oh, I don't know about that. Even without such an example, though, here's an article on possible future food production problems:

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSL0223173420080702

As we've seen with the credit markets, the screw-ups of a handful of people could have major consequences.

From that perspective, I suppose it could be said that governments exist in a free market amongst themselves.

Great! I think that concludes my proof that free markets gave us our current government. Thankfully, though, those same free market forces will continue to act to improve government over the long term.

 

[jeepndesert]

Apparently I understand it better than you do.

well, i hate to inform you but the earth is flat because I made it flat.

because i put my labor into making it flat by saying it is flat, i own it. you are now evicted from the earth.

consider this your final notice. you have 90 days to get off my planet.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

well, i hate to inform you but the earth is flat because I made it flat.

because i put my labor into making it flat by saying it is flat, i own it. you are now evicted from the earth.

consider this your final notice. you have 90 days to get off my planet.

You own the small portion of the earth that you flattened. Stay on your land and we'll all be better (and saner) for it.

 

[nickcoons]

My point was that it very well might change something.

What I mean is that my reaction to it doesn't change the reality of what it is.

Let's say I refuse to sell a life saving drug to you because you're a political opponent, and I similarly promise to blacklist anyone who tries to re-sell my drug to you. There comes a point when strict adherence to property rights is more destructive than it is helpful.

That is, if you believe in the concept of intellectual property. I don't.

Of course, you present a much smarter way to spend the gold in my example assuming I didn't want to upset the natural order, but maybe I would have had reason to cause inflation? Maybe those who were smart and saved were political opponents, and I wanted to undermine their ability to fight me.

I think you're missing my point. If you flooded the market with gold and began causing inflation, I think people would begin to see it as dwindling in value and begin using other stores of wealth. If you wanted to perpetuate the continued value of gold, and therefore the store of your own wealth, you would have to be smart about it and not intentionally cause inflation.

I asked that question because you wouldn't have chosen to store your wealth in gold if nobody else traded it. It was society's perception of the value of gold that influenced your decision. Perhaps you would have had no other "choice" but gold.

Society assigns value to gold because of its rarity and usefulness. It's a malleable metal. It's an excellent conductor of electricity. It doesn't tarnish. Many people that wear jewelry can wear only gold jewelry because they have physical reactions to other metals.. and on and on. It's not arbitrary that civilization for thousands of years as deemed gold to be valuable. It's not just a perception of value.

Of course, as even a not-so-bright financial advisor would tell you, don't put all your eggs in one basket. Keep your wealth scattered among different types of assets so that no single upset can claim your savings.

Well, my example was about a storage of wealth from work already done and your example is about future earnings. I see those as two very different things:

1. In your example, society advances due to the better gizmo you produced (as an aside, our inventiveness is why I believe we have natural deflation not the constant inflation we see by the Fed). It also forces me to not get lazy and continue to invent. I see it as benefit.
2. In my example, society does not advance. People may see rising wages and an appearance of success, but as Ron Paul supporters, we know this to be false. I see it as one person taking advantage of everyone else.

I would answer "no" to your questions for your example, but I'm not so sure about my example. Especially in the case where inflation is done on purpose, I would see my example as a use of force.

Point taken. But we must look at what wealth is. It's not something so simple as gold. While several bricks of gold might make for a large sum of purchasing power in much of society, that same asset is virtually worthless in the middle of the desert. I may trade tens of thousands of dollars worth of gold for a glass of water.

If I own something that decreases drastically in value, even if the decrease can be attributable to some action that someone else took, it does not necessarily mean that they have initiated force against me. You may own some land a build a house on it, and perhaps your house is very valuable because it's the only one in the vicinity. I may purchase land neighboring yours and build 20 more houses, which would decrease the demand and therefore value of your house. But I have not used force against you even though my actions caused you to suffer a loss. Wealth is not an entitlement.

Oh, I don't know about that. Even without such an example, though, here's an article on possible future food production problems:

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSL0223173420080702

I don't think the article provides enough information on which to create a theory. It indicates that land degradation is driven mainly by poor management. Those that manage land poorly are usually those that don't own it and therefor have no stake in its quality, such as governments.

As we've seen with the credit markets, the screw-ups of a handful of people could have major consequences.

The "handful of people" are politicians who use force via central economic planning. This is a good argument for why government should not have the legal ability to initiate force.

 

[ronpaul4pres]

That is, if you believe in the concept of intellectual property. I don't.

Not necessarily: secrecy can sometimes be used in place of IP. Regardless, I could come up with any number of examples to show where the decision of one negatively affects others. There is nothing inherent to property rights that suggest property would always be used most efficiently.

I'm not suggesting there should be no property rights, but there should be allowances in society to deal with clear abuses.

I think you're missing my point. If you flooded the market with gold and began causing inflation, I think people would begin to see it as dwindling in value and begin using other stores of wealth. If you wanted to perpetuate the continued value of gold, and therefore the store of your own wealth, you would have to be smart about it and not intentionally cause inflation.

I understand your point - I'm just making the point that property rights don't necessarily protect you. In the simplest form of my example I could be irrational and decide to spend every ounce of gold I find on my property (not unlike lottery winners who soon go back to being broke). Whether I do it maliciously or not does not negate the fact that I seriously hurt the futures of those who saved their wealth in gold.

Society assigns value to gold because of its rarity and usefulness. It's a malleable metal. It's an excellent conductor of electricity. It doesn't tarnish. Many people that wear jewelry can wear only gold jewelry because they have physical reactions to other metals.. and on and on. It's not arbitrary that civilization for thousands of years as deemed gold to be valuable. It's not just a perception of value.

Granted gold has useful physical properties, but you later give an excellent example of it being purely a perception (trading "large" amounts of gold for a glass of water in the desert).

Point taken. But we must look at what wealth is. It's not something so simple as gold. While several bricks of gold might make for a large sum of purchasing power in much of society, that same asset is virtually worthless in the middle of the desert. I may trade tens of thousands of dollars worth of gold for a glass of water.

If I own something that decreases drastically in value, even if the decrease can be attributable to some action that someone else took, it does not necessarily mean that they have initiated force against me. You may own some land a build a house on it, and perhaps your house is very valuable because it's the only one in the vicinity. I may purchase land neighboring yours and build 20 more houses, which would decrease the demand and therefore value of your house. But I have not used force against you even though my actions caused you to suffer a loss.

Let's say we live in a small town and I'm the only medical doctor. You don't own me or my productive effort, so I could theoretically refuse to treat you and let you die. Inaction can be just as bad as action.

Or, to your example, let me modify the parameters a little: let's say you could have made more profit by building elsewhere but decided to build around me to purposely decrease the value of my house. Is that a use of force?

Wealth is not an entitlement.

Well - be careful. I think we both agree that money is useful as well as its stability.

I don't think the article provides enough information on which to create a theory. It indicates that land degradation is driven mainly by poor management. Those that manage land poorly are usually those that don't own it and therefor have no stake in its quality, such as governments.

You assume all land owners are bright and act rationally.

The "handful of people" are politicians who use force via central economic planning. This is a good argument for why government should not have the legal ability to initiate force.

That's an example, but I meant it much more broadly. Politicians are governments don't have a monopoly on evil - nor are they inherently evil.

For example, credit ratings agencies are a "handful" of people and royally helped screw things up for us. They aren't part of government.

 

[jeepndesert]

i think gold is most useful as a metal you store in a warehouse so that you can trade goods and services. that statement was loaded with sarcasm since i really think gold has limited utility as a conductor and as tacky jewelry.

it is a waste of a warehouse, but the world isn't perfect.

we freak out when the value of paper inflates less than 3% in a year and inflates more than 6% in a year.

nothing like a 20% swing in the price of gold to send all the financial analysts to a mental institution.

when did a dollar earned today ideally become $0.94-0.97 earned next year? something about money being a commodity and not a means of exchange. something about debt issuance. something about inflation and deflation, price indexes, demand side economics, etc.

can't we manage a means of exchange to where a dollar earned today is the same as a dollar earned next year?

while gold is fairly stable in price. it isn't that stable. and eventually you'll need a huge warehouse and implement fractional gold reserves and use some equivalent creature from jekyll island to manage the value. private wealthy interests can still manipulate the value of gold with limited oversight like how the commodity called the privately owned and managed debt-based fiat dollar is managed today.

perhaps my questions are too loaded because i really don't fully understand monetary policy to give the complete solution while still addressing the desire to provide credit without an equal amount in deposits. i'm just addressing the surface and asking why.

commodity-based currencies scare me as much as debt-based fiat currencies.

i'll try really hard to just shut up and leave my opinions at that.....

 

[nickcoons]

Not necessarily: secrecy can sometimes be used in place of IP. Regardless, I could come up with any number of examples to show where the decision of one negatively affects others. There is nothing inherent to property rights that suggest property would always be used most efficiently.

I'm not suggesting there should be no property rights, but there should be allowances in society to deal with clear abuses.

I think this is an instance where a Thomas Jefferson quote comes in handy:

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."

At no point do I claim that a full respect of property rights is utopia or perfection, because there's not such thing. Just that it's the system that allows for the most good.

Let's say we live in a small town and I'm the only medical doctor. You don't own me or my productive effort, so I could theoretically refuse to treat you and let you die. Inaction can be just as bad as action.

Requiring that you treat me would be making a slave out of you.

Or, to your example, let me modify the parameters a little: let's say you could have made more profit by building elsewhere but decided to build around me to purposely decrease the value of my house. Is that a use of force?

No. How could it be?

You assume all land owners are bright and act rationally.

Not all, but enough.

That's an example, but I meant it much more broadly. Politicians are governments don't have a monopoly on evil - nor are they inherently evil.

There are things inherent in government that almost necessarily leads it to evil. For instance, government can initiate force without having to accept the negative consequences of its actions. Individuals outside of government cannot.

For example, credit ratings agencies are a "handful" of people and royally helped screw things up for us. They aren't part of government.

How did credit reporting agencies screw things up for people?

 

[jeepndesert]

how can you not believe in intellectual property rights?

if someone writes a book, can someone else just copy the book and sell that book?

if someone writes software, can someone else just copy the file and sell the software?

this is an example of a complicated issue, among other issues, where you just seem to curl up and resort to a black/white simple answer because it is the "better" answer of the black and white answers without even considering the complications and gray answers. in this case, you aren't even close.

maybe i'm missing something here and misunderstand the context of where one can say, "i don't believe in intellectual property rights."

i agree with most if not all on some level of ronpaul4pres.

 

[ronpaul4pres]

I think this is an instance where a Thomas Jefferson quote comes in handy:

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."

At no point do I claim that a full respect of property rights is utopia or perfection, because there's not such thing. Just that it's the system that allows for the most good.

That's a great Jefferson quote. He talks about degrees of freedom - not absolutes. I was attempting to point out that exceptions might be needed to property rights. Surely, you could point to abuses wherever there are exceptions; however, I hope I pointed to abuses without such exceptions.

Requiring that you treat me would be making a slave out of you.

What if I refused to treat you but public opinion of me dropped such that I could no longer purchase my daily needs. Am I not a slave to society?

Or, to your example, let me modify the parameters a little: let's say you could have made more profit by building elsewhere but decided to build around me to purposely decrease the value of my house. Is that a use of force?

No. How could it be?

OK - let's say you weren't doing something willingly for me, so I exacted revenge. For example, let's say you bought on credit and I lowered the value of your property just enough such that you no longer met the minimum requirements for equity and you lose the property.

There are things inherent in government that almost necessarily leads it to evil. For instance, government can initiate force without having to accept the negative consequences of its actions. Individuals outside of government cannot.

Well, theoretically, the individuals in government are held to accountability. Senator Stevens of Alaska comes to mind.

How did credit reporting agencies screw things up for people?

Sub-prime mortgages were bundled with prime mortgages and sold to investors as Mortgage Backed Securities. They were bundled such that the rating agencies rated the combined MBS as AAA, but we found out what they were really worth when everything blew up. I don't fault the agencies as sole actors in this mess, but that was certainly a contribution in the financial meltdown in which we find ourselves.

 

[nickcoons]

That's a great Jefferson quote. He talks about degrees of freedom - not absolutes. I was attempting to point out that exceptions might be needed to property rights.

And I was using Jefferson's quote to illustrate that exceptions to property rights are not needed. It is what I would call an inconvenience of "too much liberty."

What if I refused to treat you but public opinion of me dropped such that I could no longer purchase my daily needs. Am I not a slave to society?

Why? Because your intentionally malicious actions (by your admission) caused the general public to have a negative view of you and decide to not interact with you?

OK - let's say you weren't doing something willingly for me, so I exacted revenge. For example, let's say you bought on credit and I lowered the value of your property just enough such that you no longer met the minimum requirements for equity and you lose the property.

I don't borrow money (anymore). However, I've purchased (and sold) a lot of real-estate, as well as other items on credit in the past. I have never heard of a lender having such thing as a minimum equity requirement. People are upside down in loans all the time, and they don't lose their property because of that fact, they lose their property because they stop making their payments. Additionally, it wouldn't make sense for a bank to repossess something because the value of it fell.. what would they do with it? If it's less than what's owed, they can't sell it for what they're owed.

Well, theoretically, the individuals in government are held to accountability. Senator Stevens of Alaska comes to mind.

He's more the exception than the rule. The hundreds of Congressmen and Senators that empowered government agencies with further abilities to initiate force when they voted for the Patriot Act comes to mind.

Sub-prime mortgages were bundled with prime mortgages and sold to investors as Mortgage Backed Securities. They were bundled such that the rating agencies rated the combined MBS as AAA, but we found out what they were really worth when everything blew up. I don't fault the agencies as sole actors in this mess, but that was certainly a contribution in the financial meltdown in which we find ourselves.

Their actions were a result of the Federal Reserve's monetary policies.

If the government's policy is to provide food for people who can't afford it, they may do this by issuing food stamps to someone who makes below a certain annual wage/salary. If restrictions are put on how food stamps can be used, such that they can be used to purchase only food items that the government deems "necessary".. for instance, they may say you can purchase strawberries but not raspberries. Just because someone makes below a certain amount doesn't mean they can't afford food, but government wants to "make sure" by issuing food stamps to them. Now that they can have strawberries for free, they're less likely to buy raspberries even if they were purchasing them before.

Do you blame the decline of raspberry sales (and the decrease in revenue to raspberry farmers) on the success of strawberry farmers, or on the government?

 

[ronpaul4pres]

And I was using Jefferson's quote to illustrate that exceptions to property rights are not needed. It is what I would call an inconvenience of "too much liberty."

I understood your intent, but Jefferson used words such as "rather" and "too much" and "too little." He leaves open the possibility of choosing a different course of action when the cost outweighs the benefit.

Why? Because your intentionally malicious actions (by your admission) caused the general public to have a negative view of you and decide to not interact with you?

It doesn't matter whether maliciousness was intended or not - it depends how the public perceived my (in)action. In any case, you didn't answer my question: are we not slaves to society?

I believe I already successfully argued that there is a cost associated with living in a society, but here's another argument: let's take the simplest form of society: two people. Let's examine a two person society: a married couple. To live together, they must be willing to make concessions to the other. When single, they each had more personal freedom (agreed?), but they chose to form a union, which brought more security and pleasure than the personal freedoms they left behind.

I don't borrow money (anymore). However, I've purchased (and sold) a lot of real-estate, as well as other items on credit in the past. I have never heard of a lender having such thing as a minimum equity requirement. People are upside down in loans all the time, and they don't lose their property because of that fact, they lose their property because they stop making their payments. Additionally, it wouldn't make sense for a bank to repossess something because the value of it fell.. what would they do with it? If it's less than what's owed, they can't sell it for what they're owed.

I was thinking of this happening indirectly. I assume you're familiar with PMI and its requirement to be paid when the owner has less than 20% equity. Let's say someone had 25% equity and the value of their property dropped such that the owner only had 19% equity after the drop. It is conceivable that someone could be spending everything he makes just to get by and an additional monthly charge in the form of PMI could be the straw that broke the camel's back.

Back to the question: let's say I know that dropping the value of your property will hurt you (financially or otherwise), and I act in ways to drop the value of your property. Am I using force against you?

I say "yes" because you have been forced to do something you would not otherwise have. It may be more difficult, but it is surely possible for one to operate within the rules of the game to get another to bend to your will. A simplified example of this is a game of chess.

He's more the exception than the rule. The hundreds of Congressmen and Senators that empowered government agencies with further abilities to initiate force when they voted for the Patriot Act comes to mind.

OK, but the fact that they haven't been held accountable doesn't mean that they cannot be.

Their actions were a result of the Federal Reserve's monetary policies.

If the government's policy is to provide food for people who can't afford it, they may do this by issuing food stamps to someone who makes below a certain annual wage/salary. If restrictions are put on how food stamps can be used, such that they can be used to purchase only food items that the government deems "necessary".. for instance, they may say you can purchase strawberries but not raspberries. Just because someone makes below a certain amount doesn't mean they can't afford food, but government wants to "make sure" by issuing food stamps to them. Now that they can have strawberries for free, they're less likely to buy raspberries even if they were purchasing them before.

Do you blame the decline of raspberry sales (and the decrease in revenue to raspberry farmers) on the success of strawberry farmers, or on the government?

To answer your question, I'd strongly tend to believe the government is to blame. But, if you replace "raspberry" with "alcohol" and ask the same question, I'd tend to say that alcohol producers are to blame (because I'd agree alcohol isn't a necessity).

However, I do not see how this relates to the ratings agencies.

Regardless, let's get back to the original question: is it possible for a small group to affect a larger group without government? Yes. Let's go back to my married couple example, and let's say they have children. It is entirely possible for one parent to, say, gamble away a paycheck and screw things up for the whole family. Or, let's say a CEO makes a bad bet on future directions in the market and is forced to lay off employees when the market moves in an opposite direction. It surely doesn't take government to screw things up for a larger population (even if they usually do! ).

 

[AntiTroll]

The contradiction of statism

This debate will not end unless you read Market Anarchism as Constitutionalism.

Roderick Long has wrote this excellent piece about the contradictions of the state, and refutes the common misconceptions of anarchism. This is an excellent refutation and this is a must read for all non-anarchists!

So read Market Anarchism as Constitutionalism instead of arguing this counterproductive debate with ronpaul4pres.

 

[ronpaul4pres]

This debate will not end unless you read Market Anarchism as Constitutionalism.

Roderick Long has wrote this excellent piece about the contradictions of the state, and refutes the common misconceptions of anarchism. This is an excellent refutation and this is a must read for all non-anarchists!

So read Market Anarchism as Constitutionalism instead of arguing this counterproductive debate with ronpaul4pres.

Actually, the debate "ended" yesterday (I proved my point), and we're simply discussing other items related to it.

I'm curious, now: what do you feel anarchy "fixes" compared to government?