The Mises Community

Take a look at this democrats.com forum

rixross — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 19:03:15 GMT

I tried posting a few things on democrats.com and I kept getting some insane responses from some Jim guy. Take a look, its pretty amusing.

http://www.democrats.com/2-economy-questions-are-too-many-for-the-mba-president

http://www.democrats.com/node/17213

http://www.democrats.com/node/15425

private military: a question

fakename — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 21:30:52 GMT

If in a free market a subisidized firm outcompetes a free one, then why is'nt it that in a free market for military services, the subsidized militaries of the rest of the world won't overthrow the private one?

Understanding Mal-Investment

Bo Zimmerman — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 20:11:22 GMT

Hello all,

So, I've been listening to a lot of the lectures in the media section here, and several of the folks have discussed a phenomenon called "Mal Investment" which is said to occur whenever the fed expands credit, especially beyond the natural savings rate. They say that this distorts the market by providing bad information to the market regarding the time-preferences of consumers. Most of this I understand, but the nature of Mal Investment still has me scratching my head.

Since I've worked for several failed startups, my first impression of the term "Mal Investment" was that it referred to the stupid decisions of Venture Capitalists and Mortgage companies to fund bad things, e.g. the dot-coms I worked for, housing loans to those who couldn't afford them, etc.

But then another lecturer actually attempted to explain the phenomenon of Mal Investment (finally!) by comparing it to a Brick Maker mis-informing a House Builder about his availability of bricks. The house builder begins too many house projects for the actual available bricks, and as a result, none get completed.

So, my first impression was that Mal Investment is "Poor Choice in the Quality of Investment", whereas the later lecturer seemed to be saying it was really "Wrong Amount of Investment in Good Things".

Can someone set me straight?

Thanks,

Bo Zimmerman

I wish I was a Socialists sometimes

ktibuk — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 10:23:16 GMT

I get bitter sometimes.

I look around, follow mostly politics and economic consequenses. Since the politics I follow is democratic, I see millions denying reality, trying to eat their pie and still have it, support states that murder and steal and when there are bad consequences blame anybody (mostly productive entrepeneurs) but themselves and I loathe these people.

I dont want to be any good to them but that is simply impossible.

I am an entrepeneur, and after a few failed attempts I had a very productive 5 years and made around 10 million dollars.

Since I loathe the state and the people who support the state, I dont want to be productive anymore.

Why would I try to make more money? There is a limit to the amount of money that one can spent. If I made a billion dollars, I am not going to be able to spend it but I will create wealth for the state to directly steal and help the majority of the people that support the state by creating jobs and products.

That 10 million is enough for me for a life time and it is even enough for my kids. At least for education expenses, since I dont believe they have right to inherit anything. Let them do what they want.

So I kinda stopped, retired at the age of 35. I am trying to hold back my ambitous instincts.

But I cant help, helping out the parasites and their criminal organisation called the state because I have that 10 mil.

I wont use it as capital for myself but if I keep it in a bank, someone else will use it and fall victim to these parasites.

If I buy stocks, I will still be financing companies that give most of the profits to the state essentially work for it.

Buying government bonds is of course out of the question.

If I buy commodities, that will serve as speculation helping markets adjust prices and production.

If I hoard the money, if even I burn the money, it will help the others holding the money since it will be a deflation of the money supply and it will raise the purchasing power of the remaining money even if it is by a small amount.

At this point I have no option but indirectly help the system and the parasites that live off it.

I wish I was a socialist.

Then I either wouldnt loathe these millions, or even if I loathed them I would be dellusional enough to believe I was exploiting my workers and reap the benefits only for myself at the expense of the other, when I produce.

Life would be much easier.

Aristotelian-Thomism, anthropology, etc.

pazlenchantinrocks — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:04:48 GMT

I haven't the background to be able to elaborate on such topics at any length without making a fool of myself. However, I would like to change all that. I have gained an interest in the study of anthropology and have come to find that its current state is in utter shambles as far as I can tell. Postmodernism reeks of utter confusion and chaos, yet it is the standard by which many anthropologists apply themselves. I would someday like to change that.

I have this idea that would need much further study on my part. If life permits, I would like to one day see something written from an aritotelian-thomist position on anthropology with the intent to dispell the current and utterly ridiculous notions held by many anthropologists today. I am not going to attest to the accuracy of my claims here, because as I said before, I lack the background to elaborate without making a fool of myself. However, I am willing to toss a few ideas out there to see if they take root in the minds of others. With any luck at all, someone much wiser than myself could help me in my endeavor.

I'm absolutely certain that I will be oversimplifying just about everything I am about to say, but I need to vent this and see what happens.

I find that the anthropologists are readily able to toss the idea of a natrual law aside quite easily. I'm sure there are various reasons for this, but one that would tend to stick out in my mind is notion that the natural law has its foundation in god/dogma/religion. Without a basis for natural law grounded in reason (as Rothbard so eloquently provided in the Ethics of Liberty), the credibility of natural law would seem to me in the eyes of anthropologists as being tainted forever.

This brings me to my next problem. This has more to do with economic laws. Many anthropologists fall into the category of "substantivists," wherein they do not see economic laws as something universal. Instead they tend to resort to an apparent relativism with a complete diregard for and (from an Austrian's perspective) a sheer ignorance of the topic of economics as such. Rectifying this situation among the mainstream, at the very least, would require laying out the proofs for economic laws empirically. This, in turn, creates more roadblocks. As we are all well aware, empiricism (generally speaking) in economic science is absurd. However, providing a detailed defense of praxeology and therefore economics emperically from the aristotelian-thomistic standpoint could very well provide the missing link whilst killing multiple birds with one stone.

As far as my knowledge extends (which isn't very far in comparison to others), postmodern anthropologists have absolutely no way to say anything "true" about essentially anything that has been facets of their fields of research for centuries. Again, I lack the knowledge to say anything here that would be a statement that wouldn't be considered foolish, but if it is the case that postmodern anthropologists lack the ability to come to any logical conclusions that could be considered "true" with regard to human beings, then why are they still employed? (We can save the discussion of the state's intellectuals for another time.) This vacuous environment seems far too ripe to pass up filling it with an epistemology that is actually worth its weight. Yet, even here I'm at a loss as I also come up short on finding any elaboration on the aristotelian-thomistic approach to validating praxeology and therefore the foundation of epistemology.

Why aren't there more individuals working on this? And if there are, who are they and what are their works? I am aware of the article written by Geoffrey Plauche. It is an excellent read indeed. However, much work remains. If an individual were to start reading up on the topic of aristotelian-thomism and its methodology, where should he begin? Is there anything else on your mind you would like to share? Are there any more questions that need to be asked? The thread is wide open! I'll be looking forward to this one.

"High taxes keep a wealthy community wealthy"?

Freiheit — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 19:31:33 GMT

At my place of employment, my boss and I work side by side, and we often pass the day by talking politics and economics. He is a pretty conservative guy (primarily on social issues), but he also has a generally anti-tax/anti-government philosophy (though more subdued). He supported Huckabee during the presidential primaries if that's any indication. He got a letter from the local City Hall with a monthly update on what they've been doing and other random facts. In the letter was a chart that showed our community and several surrounding communities, and the local income tax rates that each of these communities had. The two economically healthiest communities in our area had vastly different tax rates. One (Beavercreek, OH) has no local income tax, while the other (Oakwood, OH) has the second highest tax rate in the area (second only to Dayton, OH, which is an economic disaster area).

We got to talking about how some communities do so much better than others, and he mentioned that it's nice that Oakwood has such high taxes, because it keeps poorer people out of the neighborhood. Immediately, that statement struck a sour chord in my mind, but I wasn't exactly sure how to respond, because, to an extent, he was right--Oakwood is a very wealthy area and is very cost prohibitive to families that don't have a lot of income, and they're well known for having a very safe, clean, and prosperous environment.

I made the argument that there are other ways to "discriminate" against the poor (just using this phraseology for the sake of the argument, leaving aside the moral considerations), and that one was to maintain a higher cost of living than the surrounding area. I went on that maintaining a higher cost of living would have to be done by having higher prices, and that the only way that businesses in the area could have higher prices and not go out of business is if they offered superior products and services. I told him about Bastiat's "That Which Is Seen And That Which Is Not Seen," and talked about how Oakwood could be even more prosperous if they lowered their taxes, because if all the money that was taken from Oakwood residents (in order to fund the lavish public facilities, the immaculate public parks and flora, and all the extravagant little bells and whistles that makes Oakwood Oakwood) was left in the hands of the residents, those residents would have the money to keep their neighborhoods just as clean and immaculate AND they would be able to invest in the local economy, making the area even more prosperous, and creating wealth instead of stealing it. He seemed to understand and eventually agree, but the point is a good one:

Can high taxes keep a wealthy community wealthy?

How far on- or off-target was I with this response, and what are your thoughts?

Rockwell a Minarchist?

ViennaSausage — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:58:21 GMT

From this article, it seems as though Lew Rockwell is Anti-State with regards to the Federal Government, but not necessarily state or local governments (although I would conjecture he carries similar positions throughout the various levels of government. It appears he supports extremely limited government.

http://mises.org/about/3225

Anyone know if he claims minarchy, ancap?

Is being anti-state the same as being anti-government? anti-state government? anti-local government?

Why I Reject the "Libertarian" And "Anarchist" Labels In Favor of the term "Voluntaryism" (And why the case may be you should too).

ThePostmaster — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 05:21:05 GMT

IF any of you guys listen to Free Talk Live you know Ian is fond of saying that "words have meaning." Well I agree, in fact I insist that taken to its logical conclusion the non-aggression axiom excludes libertarian labels. I also argue that we need more schism and differentiation of labels between "liberty lovers" since we could spend less time fighting over who is a "true libertarian" by paradoxically caring more about the terms we use. I have post here at my blog that I encourage you to read.

http://nocoercionzone.blogspot.com/2008/07/why-i-reject-terms-libertarian-and.html

I'm not going to copy the whole dang link, you can just read it. Reply here on the forum or just comment in my blog.

Effects of housing allowance

Libertas est Veritas — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 08:32:14 GMT

I'm curious what folks here think are the effects of the following.

Finland has a considerable housing allowance. It's quite complex and I won't pretend to know it exactly. But as an example, an apartment in a building built in 1972 will be approx. 50% compensated. And in an apartment building built in 2001 the compensation will be around 2/3. There are several variables which affect the allowance, like whether the building has central heating. Whether or not the allowance is granted depends on income levels of the individual and other members of the family. I'm not sure what the amount cap is, but in the most extreme cases there probably is none.

Housing allowance is widespread (students, low-income, unemployed, etc) and there are some rather annoying "abuses", like 16-year old children moving to an apartment of their own just because they can due to the allowance.

My initial reaction was that this raises rent prices. But does it raise housing prices by upping the returns on housing investments? What other consequences would you see from this?

What is the best critique of libertarianism?

Solid_Choke — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 21:59:32 GMT

What is the best book that attempts to refute or critique libertarianism? By "best", I mean most thoughful. I am looking specifically for a critique that actually understands libertarianism instead of simply confusing it with straw men and conservatism. In other words, which books would you recommend to someone to convince them that libertarianism is false?

Fear and Losing Control

jmw — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 20:42:03 GMT

I read this article that inspired me to write this post.

In a nutshell: The less control we think we have over ourselves, the more we abritrarily cede control to authority. If we cannot do it ourselves we hope, even expect something else to do it for us.

Is this why we sit in cubicles doing mindless work we hate? Or is it necessity that causes us to cede control? Does a belief in a benevolent god and strong state have the same root?

Why does my economics professor say deflation is a bad thing?

eliotn — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 03:37:33 GMT

As far as I can tell, his argument centered around that if prices did not rise (due to inflation), but instead fell (due to deflation), than employers would need to cut wages. This would cause mass unemployment, as workers would be fired. Another argument he had was that there was mass deflation during The Great Depression, which caused the economic problems. He argued that if there was the right level of inflation, that would be good for the economy. Wait... wait... wait..., doesn't inflation of the currency cause economic problems?

If prices face a general decrease, what are the possible reasons? Conversely, what are the possible reasons for increasing prices? I think it is supply and demand of the money, but I could be wrong. And, what is the most accurate measure of inflation and deflation? (I need this for clarification.)

Other than that, I am having a great experience with my economics professor, who seems to lean towards a free market.

Intro. to Microeconomics Reading

DW89 — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 03:53:40 GMT

In preparation for the onslaught of Keynesian/neo-classical theory that I'll surely be confronted with during my Intro. to Microeconomics course this fall, I'm interested in arming myself with a solid foundation of Austrian and free market theory. I've already read Economics in One Lesson and I plan on ordering the Economics 101 CD as well as Man, Economy, and State. However, I'd greatly appreciate any and all reading recommendations that specifically deal with Micro. Given the sheer size of MES, there's no way I'm going to get through it this summer. I was hoping to devour several shorter publications over the summer, and then refer back to MES during the fall semester. Once again, some advice on basic Microeconomics readings would be great.

Animal Rights

JCFolsom — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 22:02:24 GMT

Some of you will be guffawing to your Objectivist selves saying, "Self, how ridiculous this JCFolsom is! Everyone knows animals have no rights! They think not, they communicate not, they can enter into no agreements. They work by pure instinct, not rationality; they are no different than the robotic toys that imitate them, purely property." Please correct me or add justifications if I'm wrong or understating the case.

Yet, methinks we can demonstrate quite clearly that at least some animals can indeed think, communicate, and even enter into agreements. We shall take as our example that oldest of human allies, the dog. What other animal so clearly feels as a dog? Evident in them is anger, fear, joy, and affection. Those who deny it are committing the opposite error to anthropomorphizing, discounting all human-like features as mere deceptions because that fits more neatly with their pre-conceived worldview. Taking this position, you may as well count all other humans as philosophical zombies, too, and thus justify slavery.

Animals also enter into agreements. Dogs on a show room floor expect and receive treats, above and beyond the food needed to keep them healthy, for performance. That this agreement was not spelled out in words makes it no less real. Humans can and do come to such agreements. If the trainer consistently failed to produce treats for performance, the dog would cease performing in a nearly perfect example of inter-species trade.

Dogs can also solve problems, figuring out how to unlatch gates and the like with the rather dissimilar tools at their disposal. Their ancestors in the wild, wolves, learn via experience the best strategies to capture their prey, and coordinate with other members of their packs to do so as well. I have seen stories of certain types of birds and primates grieved unto death at the loss of a mate or mother, too depressed to eat or otherwise care for themselves. Elephants have been observed blocking the roads of poachers with logs, and caressing the bones of their dead.

Is this complicating for our activities towards animals? You're damned right it is. Nonetheless, I believe the case can be made that any being that acts primarily from its own motivations cannot be truly owned, in that ownership implies primary control. Indeed, methinks this is the only real argument against slavery, including that slavery which a person enters into voluntarily. The one who sells himself into slavery does so fraudulently, whether he realizes it or not.

I'll leave it there, for now. Fire away!

What do you like the most/least of the market?

Fephisto — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:09:22 GMT

What aspect/product/concept/thing do you like (or hate) the most about the free market?

I'm going to have to say I rather like the pencils.

Time to unite (an open letter to libertarians)

Mattes — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:56:57 GMT

In this current political, social, and financial environment, people are looking for answers. The current two party system gives them the illusion of choice. Each side promises change, a new course, but brings nothing but the failed policies of the previous century. The issues are narrowed down to arbitrary differences in policy, like how things should be tweaked, instead of questioning the fundamental principles of policy. While all the while our federal government continues to becomes bigger and more intrusive. Then here we are sitting on the side lines debating theories of liberty, while the state continues to grow. We get obsessed with personalities and form cult like followings. WHEN will we put these petty differences to the side and face the real enemy... the statist? How long with the CATO institute argue with the MIses institute on monetary policy while inflation wrecks our economy? How long will the Rand and Mises institutes call each other cults as an entire nation is enslaved? The world is looking for new answers, then they look at us slandering each other. They just see more of the same, people arguing not over principle, but people trying to one up each other, trying to be the more intellectual thinkers, or just defending the credibility of their dead heroes.

At the risk of sacrificing the credibility of this letter I must quote from Braveheart. After William Wallace's major victory at Stirling he is knighted. As a symbol of Scottish freedom Wallaced is asked which Scottish Noble and Clan he agreed with. Wallace just rolls his eyes and walks out of the room. When they ask where he is going he says "You're so concerned with squabbling over the scraps from Longshanks table that you've missed you're God given right to something better". It is very relevant to our current situation. It is time we unite and put our creative and financial resources together. Lets start now.... What is our current options? The only way we can advance the cause of liberty at this time is through the Libertarian Party. The two party system is restraining us and any attempts to work in it are proving futile. If the LP became a major contender in the political machine we could put a dent in the current two party system. We must unite behind Barr.... Please put behind the insignificant (at this time) differences on abortion and immigration. If it is such a hurdle for you then try to find your convection in the other two candidates. He is the only choice we have. Also to the market anarchist I sympathize with your convection but could you ever forsee state abolishment if it continues to expand? Please join with us so we can at least stop the expansion of government... maybe even reduce its size. Its time we get real with each other and make a difference. Lets show this nation and the world there is hope... and that hope comes with human liberty.

Anyone with simmilar convictions and with better grammar please correct this and please everyone who agrees with the letter post it on every libertarian forum you know of.

The Dark Knight

Stolz2525 — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 00:59:10 GMT

Saw this movie today, and it was super creepy. That wasn't the reason for my post though. I saw something in it that made me cringe. When the Joker was talking to Two-Face trying to convince him to go bad, he gave a speech about how everyone was trying to make them play by their rules. Then he said something like "Time for a little anarchy". Apparently to most people anarchy is synonomis with mass killing and lunatics. It reminded me how uphill the battle really is.

Introducing Libertarianism/Free Market Capitalism to a Socialist

ViennaSausage — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:44:10 GMT

I am going to be commencing an online debate against a Socialist from ISO. What would be the best approach to introduce Libertarianism and the Free Market Economy? I plan to give a brief overview on the individual rights, private property, limited government, decentralization, and free markets in my opening. Anything I am missing? I am hoping to give a positive theory, as opposed to just a straight out assault on Socialism, though those assaults may work its way in during the course of the conversation.

An observation on books

contitego — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 01:43:35 GMT

I ran into the local Borders and also Barnes and Noble recently.

Two Observations:

Barnes and Noble had a table on current political events. I saw both of Obama's book, and at the end I was another book: by Ron Paul.

I already own the book, but I was happy to see at least someone is allowing for ALL views of the political spectrum at B and N. When I picked up my copy of "the revolution" at Borders in May, I got the only copy. At least B and N had a few copies.

Neither store carried, nor could find "the case against the fed." A search for Rothbard didn't turn up much of anything.

I tried Michigan's largest used bookstore, but they didnt have anything. I was told by the grumbling employee "oh that's that far out there theory...". His opinion was like asking a mechanic on what one should do to live healthy. Sure, he has an opinion, but a doctor will provide a better idea.

I am glad I happened to find Mises.org, at least i can PURCHASE the book.

Agorism activity

Maxliberty — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 20:24:20 GMT

There has been considerable discussion about how much agorist activity is really going on in the world and the overall effectiveness of agorism. So I started this thread to both allow the agorists to clarify exactly what they think agorist activity is and for those wanting to debate the various aspects of agorism and evaluate it's likely chances of achieving its goal of replacing the state.

As I understand agorism it is using the counter-economy to create insitutions that do the same essential functions as the state thus causing the state to wither away.

Agorism as an individuals way to have greater economic autonomy is I think a given. That is to say nothing more than if I do less things that are controlled by the state I will have more freedom. I don't know that we need to call that agorism but that is fine. Agorism as a way to undermine the state seems so remote as to be not taken seriously. There is plenty of counter-economic activity in the world and this doesn't seem to be creating the types of instituions that would create an anarchist society.

Agorism seems nothing more than an intellectual tap dance and to give solace to those not willing to take more direct action.

welcome to our company www.b2ctradecn.com wholesale sprots shoes,clothes,bags,electronics...

oknike — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 01:00:06 GMT

We are a regular company that just happens to sell sports shoes and other brand name goods.
,air jordan SHOES
AIR FORCE ONE,MONSTER/TL1/2/3/4/5/,AIR JORDAN1-23,AF1+JORDAN SHOES,
Shox OZ NZ/R4/R5/Tubor/TN1/2/3/5/,
Air Max90/95/97/03/04/05/06/NIKE TN,TIMBERLAND BOOTS,KID,BOY/GIRL/MEN/WOMAN
SPORTS SHOES,PRADA,
GUCCI,ADIDAS,PUMA SHOES,LV BAD,GUCCI BAG, RED MONKEY JEAMS all from WWW.b2ctradecn.COM.
(1)All products are top quality with original packing.And we can offer all COLORS and all SIZE.
Our prices are for wholesale. So our price is very reasonable.
(2)We are always here for you - 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.
We thank you for taking the time to write in to us and look forward to helping you with your
inquiry.Any question please feel free to contact us at E-mail;b2ctradecnok@yahoo.com.cn MSN:b2ctradecnok@hotmail.COM

"I haven't violated your property rights until my bullet hits you in the chest" or "The ludicrous notion that owning property entitles you to do anything you want with it"

jason4liberty — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:37:24 GMT

Ok, I chose the title to draw attention, but my message is this:

Owning property does not allow you to make any use of it you desire. You can not use your property to destroy, attack, or damage someone else's property, or even credibly threaten their property.

I started this thread to examine the apparently widely held idea that ownership implies complete freedom of usage. Up to a point, I agree. That point is when one individual uses their rightfully owned property to directly damage, or credibly threaten to damage, someone else's property. For example, if I shoot you, I have violated your property rights. If I threaten to shoot you, at what point are you "allowed" by private property law, or individualism, or whatever, to respond? The precedent, and widely held notion, is when you feel an immediate, credible threat to your life. Then you can shoot me, preemptively. Private property "law" doesn't mean you have to wait for the actual violation - you can strike first to protect yourself.

The thread that started me down this post was one asking about anthrax and terrorism, and the discussion of whether it violated personal property rights to take the anthrax away from the terrorist preemptively. Applying the same logic as the gun scenario above, private property law would allow me to infringe on your right to own property when I feel credibly threatened by your deadly disease. If I am allowed to submit a case to an arbiter of law, whoever they may be, they could weigh the case and perhaps create a peaceful injunction against the threatening use of property. If this was ineffective, then I am only left with the alternative of defensive violence to stop the credible threat. Peaceful arbitration may allow a peaceful resolution of the conflict of property rights. Otherwise, I believe that the logic for my invasion and destruction of the terrorist's (or hobbyist’s) deadly disease is the same as the logic that allows me to shoot you if you threaten me with a gun.

What about personal property, rather than life? I believe that the level of response warranted by a real threat against my property, rather than life, may be different, but that the logic of response is inescapably the same. If my neighbor begins to allow the dumping of toxic waste on his property, even before it reaches my property I should have the right to injunction against his threatening use of his property. A decision would have to be made regarding the likelihood of real damage to my property and the severity of that damage. At some point between "no dumping" and "a massive river of ultra-toxins" I am entitled to stop my neighbor from threatening my property.

If my neighbor happens to run a livestock feedlot, and collects his sewage into a lagoon, I do not have to wait for the lagoon to overflow or burst on to my land before taking action against the threatening use of his land. I am not talking about smell, or flies (I will address this in a moment). I am talking about a real risk that my land or water will be polluted by his sewage. Containing and processing his waste are costs of his business. He does not have the right to pollute my land with his sewage, and I should not have to wait for a catastrophic and irreparable impairment of my land before I can get him to stop.

About the smell - I do not think that the principle that air is a commons is acceptable or supported by private property law. If his stink existed prior to my purchase of title to my land, then perhaps I am subject to some sort of grandfathering of his stink. But if a new operation is put in, then their stink molecules are perceptibly and measureablely impairing my land. The stink is a different degree of, but wrong by the same principle, as releasing anthrax spores into the air or directing a bullet at someone.

I would argue that a mini-mart does not have the right to fill my bedroom with photons, either (through ultra bright security lights). I respect their right to protect their business, but they should not be able to impair my usage of my property. Their security system and lighting must respect my ownership of my property.

If the neighbor has a tree that appears to be ready to fall on my property and cause substantial damage, I have the right to make him brace or remove it. One might say, "No you don't. You should take action on your own property to prevent the damage." This statement is like telling the shootee to get some Kevlar.

So how far does it go? Does the carbon dioxide I exhale infringe on my neighbors property rights? What if I fart in his general direction? I believe that these are infringements or impairments below the level that are actionable by ideal private property law. But storing 30 tons of TNT in a residential neighborhood is far above the actionable limit. Having Captain Tripps in your basement is above the actionable limit. Certainly there is a grey area somewhere, where arbitration must happen and everyone won't agree, but a fart or an H-bomb aren't in it.

Sustainable private property rights require responsible ownership, where responsibility is recognition and preservation of the property rights of others. Thanks for your time and attention.

Possible exception to self ownership axiom

MatthewWilliam — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:59:09 GMT

A soon-to-be lawyer friend of mine tells me that self-ownership is a misconception. We only have what the law calls 'self-autonomy'. I proved to him that this is self-ownership in all but name, as the same laws that protect property are the same that protect people. What we call 'malicious damage to property' is called 'assault' when applied to people. 'Kidnapping' is analogous to 'theft'. 'Trespassing' applies to both people and objects. He conceded there was a 'fine line' between self-ownership and self-autonomy.

We then agreed on the definition of 'ownership' as full control of the object in question. However he claimed that there are persons who can't exercise 'full control' of themselves, like the mentally ill, dementia patients and the incontinent, therefore they don't own themselves.

Lawyers.

Car tax in Romania

xSFx — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 06:25:32 GMT

A statist friend of mine made the following argument:

Romania needs a tax for import cars (based on age and pollution level because):
- With no tax Romania becomes Europe's dumpster
- With no tax Romania becomes extremely polluted
- All "our" money will go away to Germany or some other state and the GDP will fall by as much as 2% (this was calculated).

What are the usual Free Market objections to these?

LTV and Causality

gal — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 08:24:14 GMT

I think that I came up with a very simple refutation of the labour theory of value and I need your comments.

To say "punches always cause broken noses" is to say whenever there is a punch, a broken appears. but not the opposite (all broken noses caused by punches)

This is the major flaw of LTV. Marx wrote that all things that have value was created by labour, let's ignore the fact that this observation is simply wrong and agree with it for the argument.

The conclusion from this observation is not Labour causes value, it is value causes labour! Marx simply did not understand simple causality.

Is my argument is correct?

Is my argument is new or there were others that claimed that before?

BTW, sorry for my english, I'm not a native speaker.