It's pretty simple. Anything run by the government reduces freedom because the government is intent on increasing its power and control over the public. It does that by reducing choice. That has been going on since the constitution was developed. The private sector provides choice, the government has no competition. Your healthcare comments are pretty silly. Obamacare reduces your choices, forces you into taking actions and even increases the cost of healthcare for everyone as a side benefit. It's OK to support it but not OK to suggest that it increases your freedom because that is false.
So are private institutions .... also not all governments are the same, a loose neighborhood assembally, is a whole lot different than North Korea.
I'd say coca-cola vrs pepsi is a rediculous "choice," I'd much rather have actual democratic say and oversight over what is in my soda.
No one mentioned Obamacare, I'm against obamacare, I'm talking actual public healthcare.
I disagree that property exists only in so far as a state exists. People can agree upon a system of resource ownership without allowing any particular group of individuals to initiate violence against others. In other words, it is possible for people to establish a system of law that precludes a "state".
Yes of course we ARE our own body. However, when I say that a person owns his physical body, I only mean to say that each person is the one who may control his own physical body. Nobody else may do so.
A state (people who may initiate violence) is not necessary. Only a system of establishing ownership over unclaimed resources and a system for recording ownership claims. Deeds can be recorded without the need for a state (people who may initiate violence).
I don't agree it's ad hoc. I think it's a reasonable way to establish ownership of heretofore unclaimed resources.
Okay. But it is still unacceptable for other people to exercise control over one's body. If you don't want to call that ownership, fine, call it whatever you want. But ownership denotes the right of exclusive use, so I find it reasonable to say that each of us owns (has the right of exclusive use) of our physical body. But again, if you can come up with a better way to express that idea, please let me know.
Then people would regard them as having committed a crime or tort and the victim would be legally justified to pursue legal action.
Of course, I don't have the right to other people property. However, I can buy widgets, bolts, and dongles from other people, if that is agreeable to them. Then the title to those items would transfer to me and I would become the legal owner.
I have the widgets, dongles, and bolts because someone else gave them to me (transferred the title to me). The fact that someone then bolts the widget to the dongle does not mean that they are still not my property. I still am unclear exactly what items are being confiscated.
Private enterprise is constrained by customer desires and competition. Government answers to no one.
government answers to the people, i.e. democracy ...
Private enterprise isn't constrained by consumers ... and more than since most people have no choice but to gain their living from private enterprise and only get the means of survival from private enterprise, since they own the land and capital.
I have more say over my healthcare in a public system than I do in a private, in the private sytem I am beholdand to the private insurance company that can deny my at anytime.
I disagree. Government gets put into power by the people. It certainly doesn't answer to them. I think that's a fairy tale.
If private enterprise doesn't deliver what its customers want, what happens? Think it through. All wealth derives from business profits, yours, mine, the government's - all of it.
How do you have more say? I'm on public healthcare - medicare. I've been denied services by the government. I was denied a PET scan after cancer surgery to determine if I was clear of cancer. I paid for it myself. I was never denied services by an insurance company.
If people are estabilishing a system of law that is binding to people that don't agree with it, that IS a state ...
I disagree. A state is an organization that maintains a monopoly on force within a given territory over which it claims ultimate legal jurisdiction. People can agree upon a system of resource ownership without such an organization.
So your ONLY imput was the fact that you own capital ... and because of that you get 100% of the output of labor ... thats my point.
How the hell is what you described NOT private property?
Because private property is not an organization? Not sure what you're getting at here, frankly.
I'm not following you here. You have a bunch of widgets, bolts, and dongles. They belong to you. You pay me to bolt the widgets to the dongles. After I've bolted all the widgets to the dongles, they still belong to you. I don't see what is being confiscated. You owned the parts beforehand, so why would you not own the parts afterwards?
Yes it is ... a company, an estate ... is an organization, what you described as a "state" is EXACTLY, what you would support in the guise of private landed property.
But a state claims ultimate legal jurisdiction. A person owning a plot of land does not do so.
Oh absolutely a person owning a plot of land does as well, does the person owning the plot of land not have the right to dictate what does and what does not happen on his land?
No. Not really. As one example, he may not imprison or torture people just because they are on his land. All he may do is allow or deny access to his property. That doesn't make him the ultimate legal authority.
What makes him not able to imprison a person on his land?
I suppose he COULD do so, but I don't think people would accept it as legitimate.
so is public perception of legitimacy the difference?
Yeah, the big difference is that the state claims ultimate legal jurisdiction, while a person that owns a piece of property does not.
The reason that person doesn't is because the law doesn't allow him to ... before that law property onwers most certainly did, hell thats essencially what monarchies are.
Yes, I agree. The law doesn't allow it. That's what makes a guy owning a house different from a state.
The law .... put in place by the state ... there is nothing intrinsic in property that doesn't allow it however.
The law put in place by the people yes. People don't allow it.
Ok ... so we're getting down to the bottom, we have a democratic government, and that democratic government decides this plot of land is the commons ... doesn't that INCREASE your freedom, than if that plot of land is given in a grant to bob?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?