Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

The Debt Based Economic System


Recommended Posts

Sure, shift them off your stuff.

Fair enough.

The intruder might not have been aware of your claim, but ignorance makes no difference, you have a right to shift them otherwise it would, or might, be a mess.

Property rights, it seems to me, is one of those things where we must pay attention to our actions more closely than other forms of crime. It's not like you can just have a rule to not hit people, with property rights that changes depending on the location.

I don't see a way around it, perhaps regretfully, I don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 114
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Fair enough.

The intruder might not have been aware of your claim, but ignorance makes no difference, you have a right to shift them otherwise it would, or might, be a mess.

Property rights, it seems to me, is one of those things where we must pay attention to our actions more closely than other forms of crime. It's not like you can just have a rule to not hit people, with property rights that changes depending on the location.

I don't see a way around it, perhaps regretfully, I don't know.

Sure, the principles are easy - it's implementation that's hard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter what I think. The fact is that some people will, you don't know who they are, where they are or what weapons they have, which reduces your "sneaking about" capabilty a fair bit.

Course it's not right to start blasting away at people just for wandering around.

I do like the concept of owning an item, but not the land it is sitting on. It is pretty easy to define what is yours and what isn't in most cases.

How do you decide who builds what were though? I imagine you are going to say that they can build anywhere, which is fair enough, but could you see it sitting alongside traditional planning laws too?

Also, does it not retain the current problem over someone building a house somewhere central, then trying to exhibit rent from it? The fact that you were there first, surely isn't very fair for those coming along later?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do like the concept of owning an item, but not the land it is sitting on. It is pretty easy to define what is yours and what isn't in most cases.

Yep.

How do you decide who builds what were though? I imagine you are going to say that they can build anywhere, which is fair enough, but could you see it sitting alongside traditional planning laws too?

Well our legal system is pre scienctific. In the long dark days before we had any objective methodology for solving problems, we needed authority to decide on an issue, and they had to be backed up by lots of violence as there wasn't any other way to find a right answer.

Perhaps the law ain't needed all that much if you have enough facts?

Also, does it not retain the current problem over someone building a house somewhere central, then trying to exhibit rent from it? The fact that you were there first, surely isn't very fair for those coming along later?

They've got to get there first.

Think about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well our legal system is pre scienctific. In the long dark days before we had any objective methodology for solving problems, we needed authority to decide on an issue, and they had to be backed up by lots of violence as there wasn't any other way to find a right answer.

Perhaps the law ain't needed all that much if you have enough facts?

Interesting - over what sort of lines were you thinking? A number of guidelines or some such?

They've got to get there first.

Think about it.

I was more thinking about existing properties, rather than building in the centre of somewhere new. If, say, Lord Lotsofmoney owns a good number of buildings in central London, because his ancestors got there first, can't he then, err, Lord it over (i.e. extract rent) the people who may want to live there?

Under a LVT, Lord Lotsofmoney would then have to pay a lot of tax or sell on the properties to others. How would this work if only the properties, rather than the land, was owned (especially if the properties were densely packed on the land)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting - over what sort of lines were you thinking? A number of guidelines or some such?

Why not some experiments?

I was more thinking about existing properties, rather than building in the centre of somewhere new. If, say, Lord Lotsofmoney owns a good number of buildings in central London, because his ancestors got there first, can't he then, err, Lord it over (i.e. extract rent) the people who may want to live there?

Sure, but why would they stay?

Under a LVT, Lord Lotsofmoney would then have to pay a lot of tax or sell on the properties to others. How would this work if only the properties, rather than the land, was owned (especially if the properties were densely packed on the land)?

lord lotsamoney would do an under the table deal with the taxman/regulator, and the pair of them would ****** everyone else over.

That's what always happens. It's why he's lord lotsamoney, in fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you ask Is the law needed if you have enough things you can define. :huh:

There will always be laws.Whether there are things to define or not, is irrelevent.

No, I said the law exists because of a lack of facts.

When you don't know the actual right way to proceed, but something still must be done, law, that is forcing someone to act, or something close to it has to be tried.

There is no great argument about the answer to 2+2

No need for any law to solve disputes. When you want to know which object falls fastest, you do an experiment, you don't ask a judge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I said the law exists because of a lack of facts.

When you don't know the actual right way to proceed, but something still must be done, law, that is forcing someone to act, or something close to it has to be tried.

There is no great argument about the answer to 2+2

No need for any law to solve disputes. When you want to know which object falls fastest, you do an experiment, you don't ask a judge.

Yes we know about objects falling but they have little if any relevance to disputes that arise in life.

When they arise we often have to use laws to resolve them.Thats a fact

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes we know about objects falling but they have little if any relevance to disputes that arise in life.

When they arise we often have to use laws to resolve them.Thats a fact

Erm I think you've completely misunderstood.

We don't know what to do because we haven't performed any experiments.

Do experiments, find out working answer - do that in future. No need for laws of the authoritarian kind at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Erm I think you've completely misunderstood.

We don't know what to do because we haven't performed any experiments.

Do experiments, find out working answer - do that in future. No need for laws of the authoritarian kind at all.

I understood what was placed in front of me.If your words are intentionally vague it is for you to clarify.

So we now need a definition of authoritarian. ;)

Anyway laws will always exist. Thats a fact. History teaches as much, if not more, than experiments do. History teaches us how to place the results of experiments into a clear perspective and then move forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understood what was placed in front of me.If your words are intentionally vague it is for you to clarify.

So we now need a definition of authoritarian. ;)

An authoritarian is someone who uses force on others in an attempt to make their opinion manifest in the world. When you don't have any facts, authority is all you can rely on. When you have facts, authority is unneeded.

Anyway laws will always exist. Thats a fact. History teaches as much, if not more, than experiments do. History teaches us how to place the results of experiments into a clear perspective and then move forward.

Yes, history teaches us that laws don't work. Never have, never will.

Time we learned the lesson, no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An authoritarian is someone who uses force on others in an attempt to make their opinion manifest in the world. When you don't have any facts, authority is all you can rely on. When you have facts, authority is unneeded.

Yes, history teaches us that laws don't work. Never have, never will.

Time we learned the lesson, no?

There never is just one lesson.Life is not like that. It evolves, changes and new laws are made to keep the majority under control...Laws do work, they are needed to resolve disputes, always have done and always will do. Force is inevitable. Human nature being what it is.

Injins world is not a working model.Its a model that is based on one persons idealistic thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There never is just one lesson.Life is not like that. It evolves, changes and new laws are made to keep the majority under control...Laws do work, they are needed to resolve disputes, always have done and always will do. Force is inevitable. Human nature being what it is.

Injins world is not a working model.Its a model that is based on one persons idealistic thoughts.

No, it's an observation of how 95%+ successful human interaction actually is, including these posts back and forth.

It's so prevalent you can't see it in fact.

The pipe dream is that you can use force and it end well or work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it's an observation of how 95%+ successful human interaction actually is, including these posts back and forth.

It's so prevalent you can't see it in fact.

The pipe dream is that you can use force and it end well or work.

Its the 5% that causes so much trouble. I agree most human interaction is relatively peaceful and normal, but then its not the 95% we have to contend with. Its not a pipe dream its what history has taught us.

Force, sooner or later is used, either to counteract evil or to subdue the 5% ...you think that a thousand football supporters fueled up with carling will interact peaceably after a match, when no force is at hand, to stop them smashing up businesses.

Im not talking about your B&Q business either, it would be your utopian smallholding, they go for...

Edited by tiggerthetiger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its the 5% that causes so much trouble. I agree most human interaction is relatively peaceful and normal, but then its not the 95% we have to contend with. Its not a pipe dream its what history has taught us.

Force, sooner or later is used, either to counteract evil or to subdue the 5% ...you think that a thousand football supporters fueled up with carling will interact peaceably after a match, when no force is at hand, to stop them smashing up businesses.

Im not talking about your B&Q business either, it would be your utopian smallholding, they go for...

A pissed up mob don't tell you that its moral when they smash your shop up. They don't expect you to pay them to do it either, or buy their lager.

In any event. To counteract a mob with a bigger, better armed mob is insanity as a solution to the problem of mobs using force!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i am not. i think this view, which i have heard time and again, is extremely mislead.

please read human action by von mises. it will sort your head out and teach you all about money and credit.

ps

Perhaps there is some serious flaw in the rationale of the money reformers that I'm missing

yes there is! it proposes to replace the current fiat money regime with an identical one, only put in the hands of people for whom we can trust more to safeguard our interests. please!

allowing competiting currencies and ending the government monopoly on what we are forced to call money is the only (and obvious, you would think) solution.

Well I can't comment on what Von Mises argues - I'll add it to my read list.

What would these competing currencies be based upon if they are not fiat in nature? Who would define what is legal tender and what isn't?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • 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.