ancap

17 ms·

91.
by ancap 10y ago
>Leaving it up to lawsuits to enforce public safety doesn't square very well with the limited-liability corporation. Imagine ten companies engaging in dangerous shipping practices, and one of them actually having an incident. If we
92.
by ancap 10y ago
You're appealing to a need for safety, but where you draw the line is arbitrary. I am only demonstrating that, following the same logic you are using, I draw the line somewhere else which results in a completely different, though absur
93.
by ancap 10y ago
>I don't want to live in a country where unsafely shipping materials in a shared plane is legal and handled by civil suits. Putting others in extreme danger should always be illegal when it's as black-and-white as this. We coul
94.
by ancap 10y ago
It could be handled as a civil suit. The nine employees would likely get a lot more than $350k.
95.
by ancap 10y ago
Interesting, but does that not highlight even more so the backwardness of the FDA? If they are willing to take some anecdotal case where someone died who happened to be taking a drug--blaming it on the drug company, despite the clinical res
96.
by ancap 10y ago
Which is? (For those who don't want to sift through a nine page article)
97.
by ancap 10y ago
The FDA has a lot of blood on its hands. Everyone, especially a chronically ill person on their deathbed, should be free to choose whatever experimental medical procedure they want. Not only is this a recognition of self-ownership, but it w
98.
by ancap 10y ago
One point of correction is that neocons are in both major US political parties and are know chiefly by their [chicken-]hawk-ish foreign policy.
99.
by ancap 10y ago
This is called the Washington Monument Syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Monument_Syndrome It is a common tactic governments employ to spur the people to accepting higher taxes.
100.
by ancap 10y ago
>U.S. manufacturing jobs, I argued a few weeks ago, are never coming back. Horse and buggy jobs aren't coming back either. That's not a bad thing. U.S. manufacturing is outputting almost 50% more than it did 20 years ago(1). US
101.
by ancap 10y ago
>What you said, up there, is basically that some owner in the distant past could make a contract with an HOA that, despite the property changing hands, grants the HOA some power over that property forever. >What on earth kind of freed
102.
by ancap 10y ago
>the HOA doesn't own my house. The HOA doesn't need ownership. They have a valid contractual claim to limit the use of the property based on the person who originally owned the property and elected to make it a part of the HOA.
103.
by ancap 10y ago
>That's disingenuous to pretend its not compulsory, just don't buy the house! We all understand it to mean, to live in a certain area its compulsory to belong to the HOA. What you are saying is the equivalent of "I don&#x2
104.
by ancap 10y ago
Your entire argument is that there exists a subset of the world which has been forcefully maintained as "owned by everyone", ie. a commons; the commons exists by compulsion and operates in a matter which is entirely contradictory
105.
by ancap 10y ago
>Yeah, no. Having an unelected, compulsory board governing the area is not freedom. Whether the officers are elected or not (or whether there are officers at all) would be determined by the founding documents of the HOA. But it is defini
106.
by ancap 10y ago
Since air molecules have fluid boundaries, and since it is a non-scarce and fungible resource, the concept of ownership of air around your property does not mean ownership of specific molecules.
107.
by ancap 10y ago
>The fact that each company would have to redundantly set up their own. I don't see the redundancy. Just because you have locks on your doors doesn't make my door locks redundant. >The fact that the concept of private jurisd
108.
by ancap 10y ago
Seeing as someone would have to be physically present on your property to breath your air, I'm not sure what would make kicking a trespasser off your land so exciting. There's probably videos on YouTube showing how people have han
109.
by ancap 10y ago
>so I'll step away here That's the first intelligent thing you've said.
110.
by ancap 10y ago
>A public police force is needed to deter thefts on a fair basis. I won't go into the silliness of the assumption that our current public police force is "fair", but what makes you think a private police force/securit
111.
by ancap 10y ago
Only by the ignorant who couldn't define freedom to begin with. If you have freedom than you also have the right to limit your freedom by engaging in contracts with others. HOAs are nothing more than this, and everyone who lives in an
112.
by ancap 10y ago
Customers covering operating costs does not constitute market failure. You should re-read that wikipedia article you keep linking. Also continuing to claim that in general "thieves win" is as absurd as claiming they "win&quot
113.
by ancap 10y ago
You are correct that the ownership of the air above and around your property is severely limited when compared to the ownership of say land, water or minerals. 19th century courts abandoned the concept that factory smoke was a trespass on s
114.
by ancap 10y ago
Regarding the meat packing plant, I'm not really sure what the objection is so I'll have to let you explain why someone might object to it. Do they put off some smell? Make a lot of noise? In both of those cases the smell or the n
115.
by ancap 10y ago
Neither. Even by today's property rights, the owner of a piece of land is granted x hundred feet of sky above their property, making the air breathed there privately owned.
116.
by ancap 10y ago
You keep linking to that wikipedia article but I don't think you've read it or understand it. >The store AND the consumers will be better off if a police force stopped the thefts. >This is the very definition of a market fai
117.
by ancap 10y ago
The term you're looking for is actually negative externality. I am very familiar with the subject. I know it well enough, in fact, to know that if you're going to refer to a "market failure" you have to actually be discu
118.
by ancap 10y ago
>I mean, if it's such a good idea, surely you could get some people to try it, and then they'd see what a lovely new feeling of freedom they enjoyed, and the idea would spread from there? No need. There's already communiti
119.
by ancap 10y ago
You have shown not even the slightest intellectual curiosity on how things might work in a system without a commons, and instead have mocked it. Pretending to be offended by my comment on the "lack of imagination" is disingenuous
120.
by ancap 10y ago
>air, though ancap says air would remain common I said no such thing. I said it is too abundant to commercialize. It can still be owned. >just adds a whole new layer of mental burden to engaging with the world. If everything was made

More ›