aminok

25 ms·

181.
by aminok 10y ago
First of all, without the principle, human economic activity would simply be impossible. In fact, it is the most central principle of all human rights. Without homesteading, we cannot own our own bodies. Appropriation of natural resources i
182.
by aminok 10y ago
>What makes your claim to own the things you own correct and someone else's invalid? The fact that I made it, or acquired it from someone else through trade. >Or more generally, how do you go from a world with no property rights,
183.
by aminok 10y ago
>How do you determine it's my laptop? How do you determine I didn't give consent? How do we determine that you assaulted me? It's your word against mine. We're not talking about the complexity of determining the true
184.
by aminok 10y ago
Housing costs are actually not unaffordable in Vancouver: https://homefreesociology.wordpress.com/2016/06/08/quickest-... Notice how Vancouver is in the bottom of the middle of the pack in rent to income rati
185.
by aminok 10y ago
You can provide your personal information voluntarily, and all the benefits you mention would be conferred from this, without any privacy rights being violated.
186.
by aminok 10y ago
>your claim was that welfare programs were "growing". And I showed that they are. >The pool of beneficiaries and benefits hasn't grown probably since LBJ was in the white house, I have no idea if your claim is correct (
187.
by aminok 10y ago
Laws against stealing are one of the basic laws of society. Property is not extremely complicated. If I take your laptop without your consent, that's a violation of your rights. If you have 20 laptops, that doesn't change that fac
188.
by aminok 10y ago
The negative consequence of compulsory income redistribution is the perversion of incentives leading to less individual responsibility over time. This saps the will to achieve, and leads to less economic development. These programs are also
189.
by aminok 10y ago
The advocacy of violating human rights, in denying people a right to engage in voluntary economic interactions, and to the property they earn in said interactions, is also evil.
190.
by aminok 10y ago
It looks logical and coherent to me..
191.
by aminok 10y ago
I never said he would have hated compulsory income redistribution. I was just showing that even Orwell recognized that socialist movements are dominated by people like the "youthful snob-Bolshevik" (looking at you). Orwell was wro
192.
by aminok 10y ago
>Love the calls for civility from the person proposing that anti-discrimination laws were bad. You say that as if saying anti-discrimination laws are wrong is uncivil. That is just whole different level of close-mindedness and intoleranc
193.
by aminok 10y ago
I'm not talking about unmowed laws that are bad for the economy though. That's a negative externality for which there are many more justifications for government intervention (though not for an income tax). It you want to nitpick
194.
by aminok 10y ago
If I mow your lawn without your asking, and you set up a lemonade stand on your lawn, and as a result, benefit financially from the lawn mowing service I provided, because it led to more people visiting your lemonade stand, that does not gi
195.
by aminok 10y ago
Typical passive aggressive leftist bully talks to the crowd, over the head of the libertarian, instead of addressing the libertarian directly. Way to go with the straw man arguments too. Orwell on socialists: >The first thing that must s
196.
by aminok 10y ago
How about you act like a decent human being instead of making ridiculous strawman arguments against me? Regarding welfare, I was being vague, so let me clarify: social welfare spending has increased substantially over the last 40 years in t
197.
by aminok 10y ago
>Whose property is Israel/Palestine again? Yes, but we recognize that as a disagreement over who has legitimate claim to the property. With taxes, we take property that practically everyone, except the most snobbish socialist intell
198.
by aminok 10y ago
>So, you work on the assumption that me and most of the people you argue against are just misinformed and if you preach to them enough, this self evident universal morals is revealed to them? Yes, though I don't consider it preachin
199.
by aminok 10y ago
>Do you have any references? http://taxfoundation.org/article/what-would-piketty-s-80-per... >As far as Law and Violence is concerned, I agree voilence to some degree may be involved. So what is your alternative?
200.
by aminok 10y ago
>Others don't have the obligation to protect what you think is your right. True, but they also don't have a moral right to violate my rights. If the government merely stopped protecting private property from aggressive seizure,
201.
by aminok 10y ago
>2) Anything past that is service That is just an arbitrary distinction to justify your greed for the property of others. We either have a moral right to make exclusive use of natural resources or we do not. Whatever argument you make fo
202.
by aminok 10y ago
"financial intervention" I would laugh if the ridiculous lengths you're going to in order to euphemize violence and imprisonment wasn't so fucking terrifying.
203.
by aminok 10y ago
This is a low value comment. A substantive comment would identify parts of my argument that you believe are disconnected from reality, and would substantiate the claim with logical arguments.
204.
by aminok 10y ago
He supports heavy taxes on private property. Tax laws are based on violence. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/enforcin... >Enforcing the Law Is Inherently Violent >A Yale law pro
205.
by aminok 10y ago
Force in defense of property is self-defense. Force in pursuit of other people's property is aggression. Aggression is the problem, not force in general.
206.
by aminok 10y ago
You have no moral right to use violent force against someone to force them to give up their private property for the crime of having more than another person. The goal of eliminating resource inequality absolutely does not justify this viol
207.
by aminok 10y ago
Communism is evil on a nightmarish scale because it advocates for violating an entire population's right to 1. their property, and to 2. engage in economic activity with other consenting adults.
208.
by aminok 10y ago
The government doesn't own what we receive in private trade. Taxing what we earn is government intervention. This is the conventional understanding. What you're doing is what Orwell describes as doublespeak.
209.
by aminok 10y ago
You're assuming I didn't read it. Maybe you're psychologically projecting.
210.
by aminok 10y ago
I think anti-free-market ideologies like Piketty's are deeply authoritarian and violent. What does it mean to reject the free market? It means rejecting a right of a person to 1. keep what they receive in private trade, and to 2. engag

More ›