Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

pootle

Members
  • Posts

    2,040
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by pootle

  1. I'm amazed that I remembered my password.... don't think I've logged in here since Northern Rock went base over apex....
  2. Slightly OT, but ... Population of London at a guess ~10M, population of NI ~1.7M ... I don'k think I need to do the maths for you.
  3. It will possibly say that that we will see that house prices will rise by double digits next year ... it's unlikely that it will say that and impossible that it would be true ... but having read the shite that they came out with for the past few year I would say that it is still possible that they might say it
  4. That graph shows nicely that prices have been falling in Northern Ireland since the middle of 2007.
  5. Ah, the good old Northern Ireland Thread ... how times have changed. Your edgy, tempestuous thrashing has lulled to a restful dream of a better future ... a future where we live in a world without EAs.
  6. I think I'm going to have to poke my flumping eyes out with knitting needles!
  7. That my toothy friend is a very excellent question. I have much experience of their twerpery. This poor flump has weekly councilling for the mental scars.
  8. Anyone know if things are progressing as normal (i.e. all aboard the delusion choo choo!!!) in BSE?
  9. Clegg just quoted on the radio saying that the Conservatives have the clearest mandate and that they should approach him with proposals for electoral reform.
  10. That's probably the most sensible statement posted on this thread
  11. OK, let me be clear for you: If I have something I wish to exchange for something else and the other party wishes to reciprocate the exchange then it is voluntary. If I wish to park in a carpark and to pay for it and the carpark owner is happy for me to park there then it is voluntary. If you read over my posts you will find that I am consistent in this and also in the alternative - that if I do not wish to pay then I park elsewhere. You tried to force fit the analogy until it showed that I had a implicit contract with the government. I refuted this by saying that the equivalent of the parking example would be a random security company coming along and starting to charge. Your analogy is still wrong. I am still incapable of forming an enforecable implicit contract under coercion ... in other words no implicit contract exists. You then change your tack moving from implicit contract to standing and asking how I know if the parking company own the land? Well clearly the government is going to be spending some of it's hard earned cash by creating a DNA database of everyone, then biochipping property with it's owners details and mandating that everyone buys a hand-held reader and all transactions are verified for legitimate ownership before authorisation at which point the STAT (safe transaction added tax) is added. You know my mind? Why bother posting here then? I could as easily have asked if your moral principle was might-is-right. Why shouldn't I ask what moral principles you are starting with? So let me ask you again - what are your moral principles? Or, if you prefer we can skip that and agree that your reply to my clarification question does indeed suggest that your moral system is based on "what the majority says" (and I believe the defence you mounted does indeed suggest this). Your choice! (No coercion here )
  12. STOP MISCONSTRUING THINGS! At no point have I said that I should not pay for entering the carpark. I have said that if I enter the carpark and choose to pay that I do so voluntarily or I leave. All I did in the previous post was point out that the carpark owners have the right to sub-licence the security. My choice remains the same. Your analogy was wrong as I pointed out So your moral framework is "what the majority says"?
  13. So what!?! It is perfectly possible for the two companies to have legitimate claim over the carpark, either because the land is own by the same single entity that operates as two separate companies. Or because one company has subcontracted the security to a second company. Both companies have the right to charge for their services. In this case I would either accept the legitimate conditions or park elsewhere. To keep your analogy to a house purchase correct, the second company (providing the security) would have to be operating on the carpark without having sought or obtained permission from the first company - by merely saying "we provide security around here, now carry on and let us collect our levies." No, I won't accept it because it is not true, however much you assert it. Nope, addressed above. Can you see the difference between choosing to enter a carpark and already being in geographical region? Very good. Top riposte. Sadly, all you have demonstrated is that you are ignoring the body of work that already exists on this topic. My only shame is that you are so dismissive of those people who I quoted. That you call them "some yahoo's [sic]". That you really think the only opinion worth listening to is, of all things, legal opinion. Law does not provide our morality/ethics, it should reflect it, but so often falls far short of the mark. Need I list any of the deeply immoral laws that have been enacted to enslave Africans, African Americans, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, women and the list goes on. If you bothered to find out more you would find that they refer back to Grotius, Locke, Rousseau and so on whose theories your premise relies on. I've addressed the flaw at the top of this post. As before, the flaw has been addressed. Now after me answering all your questions, how about you answering the question I asked you back in post 174
  14. "It is instructive to inquire why it is that the State, in contrast to the highwayman, invariably surrounds itself with an ideology of legitimacy, why it must indulge in all the hypocrisies that Spooner outlines. The reason is that the highwayman is not a visible, permanent, legal, or legitimate member of society, let alone a member with exalted status. He is always on the run from his victims or from the State itself. But the State, in contrast to a band of highwaymen, is not considered a criminal organization; on the contrary, its minions have generally held the positions of highest status in society. It is a status that allows the State to feed off its victims while making at least most of them support, or at least be resigned to, this exploitative process. In fact, it is precisely the function of the State's ideological minions and allies to explain to the public that the Emperor does indeed have a fine set of clothes. In brief, the ideologists must explain that, while theft by one or more persons or groups is bad and criminal, that when the State engages in such acts, it is not theft but the legitimate and even sanctified act called "taxation." The ideologists must explain that murder by one or more persons or groups is bad and must be punished, but that when the State kills it is not murder but an exalted act known as "war" or "repression of internal subversion." They must explain that while kidnapping or slavery is bad and must be outlawed when done by private individuals or groups, that when the State commits such acts it is not kidnapping or slavery but "conscription"-an act necessary to the public weal and even to the requirements of morality itself. The function of the statist ideologists is to weave the false set of Emperor's clothes, to convince the public of a massive double standard: that when the State commits the gravest of high crimes it is really not doing so, but doing something else that is necessary, proper, vital, and even-in former ages-by divine command. The age-old success of the ideologists of the State is perhaps the most gigantic hoax in the history of mankind." Rothbard - The Ethics of Liberty
  15. Again, the parking analogy is wrong because it is a contracting between two parties while the government stepping in as a third party relies on "by the way, we want some money or we'll stop this contract from proceeding" Because I'm voluntarily contracting with the parking company! They say "this is what we offer" I choose to accept it or find parking elsewhere! The mafia don't give me that choice, they say "ah, you've opened a business, we will send you the invoice for our services" Again, no. I saw what was on offer from the parking company and accepted voluntarily or declined and parked elsewhere. And neither does claiming the existence of a supposed implicit contract make it so. Several times above. As above - the situations are not equivalent. Exactly! The exchange of property is valid without government sanction. The "service" they provide is not needed. A properly conducted exchange would be valid regardless of the government. (Edit to add: just to head you off at the pass, I'm not saying that your scenario as you describe it is a properly conducted exchange!)
  16. You are trying to confuse us with illogical thoughts and non-equivalents! This is all very silly as the situations are not equivalent. In one I am contracting with another party. They say "this is what we offer - you take all three services or none". I accept the terms of the contract, pay up and avail of those services. In the second, I and contracting with one party who says "this is the price", I agree and we exchange. A third party with whom I am not contracting decides that it is going to oversee the contract and charges a levy for services that are not needed and not wanted, but if refused will mean that they prevent me from freely contracting with the first party as is my natural right. Do you see the difference? One-on-one contract, versus one-on-one contract piggy backed by a coercive third party. I.e. Coercion. By what right should I be forced to leave? Nope, it is not the basis by which all laws are created: "The laws shall be merely declaratory of natural rights and natural wrongs, and . . . whatever is indifferent to the laws of nature shall be left unnoticed by human legislation. . . and legal tyranny arises whenever there is a departure from this simple principle." Elisha P. Hurlbut "The right to enjoy liberty is inalienable. . . . Every man has a right to his own body-to the products of his own labor-to the protetion of law. . . . That all these laws which are now in force, admitting the right of slavery, are, therefore, before God, utterly null and void . . . and therefore they ought instantly to be abrogated." William Lloyd Garrison And as for "the vote" "In truth, in the case of individuals their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent. . . . On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having even been asked a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other menpractice this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further, that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he uses the ballot, he may become a master, if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defense, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man attempts to take the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot-which is a mere substitute for a bullet-because, as his only chance of self-preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. . . . Doubtless the most miserable of men, under the most oppressive government in the world, if allowed the ballot would use it, if they could see any chance of meliorating their condition. But it would not, therefore, be a legitimate inference that the government itself, that crushes them, was one which they had voluntarily set up, or even consented to" Lysander Spooner No these are not equivalent as I pointed out above. I do not wish to contract with a third party who is interfering in a free exchange between me and the second party.
  17. Except the choice was made to park there, but no choice was made to contract with the government. That's right, I'm saying no choice was made to contract with the government. But the government make the laws and so they say "we have the authority to jail you if you don't pay tax". It's a circular argument. The government want to do something and they enact a law to make it legitimate. It's still coercion. No I didn't, I did not agree to this. I need to buy a house to live in and so I find one and buy one. I know the government will charge me a levy for this in the same way I know the mafia will break my legs. I don't care whether it is the government or the mafia doing the mugging, but the only reason I pay up is to stop the mugging. I'm paying the stamp duty because I'm being coerced. There is no implicit contract because I haven't voluntarily agreed to it, I have been coerced. Therefore we don't even get to a) in your list let alone e) It doesn't matter how many times you try to tell me that I have entered into an implicit contract, if I only do something because I have been coerced then no contract exists.
  18. Why do you continually confuse the initiation of force with the response with force? If I take something that has a price label attached and do not pay the price then I am the initiator of force. Going to jail is the response If I do not pay a levy to the mafia knowing that they will break my legs (the implicit contract), then the mafia are still the initiator of force. Having my legs broken is the continuation of the force they initiated when they began to coerce me. If I buy a house and do not pay stamp duty, the government do not recognise a perfectly valid contract between me and the seller. Not recognising that contract is a continuation of the force they initiated when they began to coerce me. For a contract to be valid it has to be voluntary and you have still not demonstrated the voluntary nature of your alleged implicit contract. A voluntary contract is one which is agreed to without coercion. Part of the contract will deal with what happens if and when one or other party breaks that contract - for example, one party fails to deliver goods of the pre-agreed standard. The exercising of that penalty clause forces the party-at-fault to make reparations, but the term itself was agreed to without coercion in advance What you are claiming is that by performing an action people are accepting an implicit contract when in reality they are performing that action because they need to and have no choice to do otherwise. Show me the choice!
  19. Which would be definition of involuntary I believe. You still have not addressed the problem of the implicit contract being involuntary. I could apply your reasoning to the mafia and say that it is common knowledge that to operate a business in a certain town requires a "levy" to be paid to the local organisation. I want to open a business and in doing so accept the implicit contract with the mafia to pay them the levy. In that same town the mafia apply a "levy" on anyone purchasing a house and everyone knows this. I want to buy a house with the profits I have left over after paying the buiness "levy". I buy a house and proceed with the purchase even though I know the mafia will require their "levy" to be paid. I purchase the house voluntarily, but I pay the levy involuntarily because I know that I will not be able to continue living and working in the town if I do not. In other words I have be coerced into paying. Coercion is a form of force. Being forced to do something is not doing it voluntarily.
  20. Yes, I parked and I paid. Both voluntary acts. Buying the house was a voluntary exchange between me and the seller of the house. The payment of the stamp duty was involuntary. The government would have refused to acknowledge the validity of the the voluntary contract between me and the seller.
  21. The key flaw is that agreement to a contract has to be voluntary. An involuntary contract is not a contract.
  22. Letting agents vary in their degree of professionalism and integrity. The last rented place I was in a few years back the agents told me they would give me 24 hours notice and I replied saying that would be fine, but I insisted on being there and only if it suited me. One morning after a very long journey the night before I was having an extra (much needed!) hour in bed, only to be woken by the sound of someone trying to get in the front door (which was deadbolted on the inside). Half an hour later I had a phone call from the agent saying they couldn't get in and had I changed the locks? No, I hadn't changed the locks thank you and what happened to the 24 hour notice? The moral of the story is that it doesn't matter what they say, they'll do it anyway.
  23. THERE IS NO IMPLICIT CONTACT To paraphrase your own words, you can claim there is til you are blue in the face but that doens't make it true. My actions are directed by my own moral system. Some are forced upon me buy the threat of violence. I choose to drive slowly through built up areas, not because of the speed limit, but because I know there is a risk of an accident and I wish to minimise this risk. I do not murder people, steal from them, rape them or otherwise initiate force against them because my own moral system tells me this is wrong. I engage in voluntary and community work because I think this has positive benefits for those around me. I pay tax because the government will jail me if I don't even though I know that they will use that tax inefficiently and it could achieve greater benefits to those around me if I did not hand it over. I do not do this because of an implicit contract that I cannot see, cannot question and cannot know the details of. Even if such a contract did exist, any contact that is only agreed to under the threat of violence is an invalid contract.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.