12 Nov 12
2 edits
Let's say I wanted to be a farmer. Under communism I need permission from a government bureau and without this I will be prevented from farming by government men with guns. Laissez faire capitalism makes me pay the landlord if I want to farm or again the government gunmen will stop me.
Under anarchism you just farm the land without permission. No permission from people far away necessary to avoid government force.
I mostly agree with this:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_is_Property%3F_Or,_an_Inquiry_into_the_Principle_of_Right_and_of_Government_by_Pierre_Joseph_Proudhon#section_1
Proudhon believed that the common conception of property conflated two distinct components which, once identified, demonstrated the difference between property used to further tyranny and property used to protect liberty. He argued that the result of an individual's labor which is currently occupied or used is a legitimate form of property. Thus, he opposed unused land being regarded as property, believing that land can only be rightfully possessed by use or occupation (which he called "possession"😉. As an extension of his belief that legitimate property (possession) was the result of labor and occupation, he argued against such institutions as interest on loans and rent.
12 Nov 12
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI see. So what happens when someone else decides they want to farm the same land?
Let's say I wanted to be a farmer. Under communism I need permission from a government bureau and without this I will be prevented from farming by government men with guns. Laissez faire capitalism makes me pay the landlord if I want to farm or again the government gunmen will stop me.
Under anarchism you just farm the land without permission. No ...[text shortened]... r and occupation, he argued against such institutions as interest on loans and rent.[/quote]
12 Nov 12
Originally posted by sasquatch672We have seen that a lack of regulation in the financial sector cause one of the deepest recessions in 60 years.
No, state-owned industry freaks capitalists out because the state is terrible at business. It's kind of like, those who can, do; those who can't, regulate.
We've seen totalitarianism socialism in the recent past. It crumbled. Why would Americans want it?
Millions of Americans and Europeans lost their homes and jobs because the financial sector failure to act responsibility, because government and regulators got out of the way.
12 Nov 12
Originally posted by invigorateWell, really what happened is that Barney Frank pushed banks to lower their lending standards so that home ownership could be expanded. The banks complied and then hairdressers making $22,000 a year were buying $750,000 homes with liar loans. That's the housing crisis. The financial crisis - yes. Major lending institutions were trading on their own accounts, and they were taking on too much risk. No question.
We have seen that a lack of regulation in the financial sector cause one of the deepest recessions in 60 years.
Millions of Americans and Europeans lost their homes and jobs because the financial sector failure to act responsibility, because government and regulators got out of the way.
But I don't know how you justify totalitarianism because Goldman Sachs behaved badly.
12 Nov 12
Originally posted by sasquatch672That's largely a fairy tale. The banks pushed mortgage brokers to increase the number of loans after the repeal of Glass-Stegall allowed them to enter the mortgage security market in a huge way. $64 trillion of mortgage securities weren't sold to hairdressers.
Well, really what happened is that Barney Frank pushed banks to lower their lending standards so that home ownership could be expanded. The banks complied and then hairdressers making $22,000 a year were buying $750,000 homes with liar loans. That's the housing crisis. The financial crisis - yes. Major lending institutions were trading on their own ...[text shortened]... on.
But I don't know how you justify totalitarianism because Goldman Sachs behaved badly.
12 Nov 12
Originally posted by AThousandYoungSounds like a great idea to me. At least it eliminates all the red tape, paperwork and lawyers when obtaining a piece of land.
I point a gun at them and say this land is mine b*
In the scenario I can do that because I am actually present on the land. It involves force but not government force.
GRANNY.
12 Nov 12
Originally posted by no1marauderhttp://www.openmarket.org/2011/05/26/barney-frank-used-influence-with-fannie-mae-the-failed-mortgage-giant-bailed-out-by-taxpayers/
That's largely a fairy tale. The banks pushed mortgage brokers to increase the number of loans after the repeal of Glass-Stegall allowed them to enter the mortgage security market in a huge way. $64 trillion of mortgage securities weren't sold to hairdressers.
12 Nov 12
Originally posted by sasquatch672Please. Fannie's share of the mortgage market plummeted in the 2000's. All the right wing propaganda trying to blame the financial crisis on government interference with the free market is complete BS for the ignorant and uninformed.
http://www.openmarket.org/2011/05/26/barney-frank-used-influence-with-fannie-mae-the-failed-mortgage-giant-bailed-out-by-taxpayers/
12 Nov 12
Originally posted by no1marauderAnybody who says anything you disagree with is a moron, idiot, ignorant, uninformed, disgusting...and about a baker's dozen other adjectives.
Please. Fannie's share of the mortgage market plummeted in the 2000's. All the right wing propaganda trying to blame the financial crisis on government interference with the free market is complete BS for the ignorant and uninformed.
14 Nov 12
Originally posted by sasquatch672The fact that his invective targets those who substitute common sense and reasoned thinking for the half baked talking points gullibly gleaned from the scurrillous right wing ramblings of a spam infested inbox is purely by coincidence I'm sure. 😛
Anybody who says anything you disagree with is a moron, idiot, ignorant, uninformed, disgusting...and about a baker's dozen other adjectives.