Not exactly, bullying is a stronger person/group picking on or assaulting a weaker one. It could be one strong guy going after a bunch of weaker ones, or a gang of people going after one or two people.
" In fact, you DON'T have the right to your own property." That sort of logic would reduce us all to slaves or serfs. It would also reduce the concept of privately owned property to the point of meaninglessness. The right to have our own property is important because without it we could not survive as individuals. If the food we have isn't our own... could we even justify eating it? If the crops a farmer farms aren't his, how can he justify selling them?
Imagine the referendum: "Should everyone immediately receive $100,000? Yes/no." The majority of people vote "Yes". Next day, the government defaults, and the economy collapses.
@lɐɯɹou ɐ Spider What about savings? If one dollar worth less, your savings will worth less then before. Inflation is an "effective tax" on savings. Let's say every price doubled. Your expenses are doubled. Your salary is doubled. But your savings are still same. Savings lost half of their value.
For anyone passively watching/reading this, this is a bad premise that has been shown to be wrong time and time again in case study after case study. Turns out the average citizen in a democracy isn't going to vote for something that is clearly detrimental to their own interests. For example, worker owned cooperatives--organizations where the workers have equal vote and thus say in what decisions the business makes--do not vote to constantly raise their own wages, because it would be a detriment to their business. Similarly, citizens in a democracy don't petition new statutes every election to raise the local minimum wage. The reason for this is the same reason you people all seem to call out this strawman as stupid--the average person is not stupid, and is no dumber than you seem to think you aren't.
+Rom Rom No, it would be best for each individual to be able to choose for themselves (anarcho-capitalism). If one argues that is not possible (libertarianism), then again not the majority, but people that are most competent in that area. Let's take something different as another example. Even fascism is better than democracy, at least for society as a whole. I agree that some people won't be happy with it, but the same is true for democracy, so this can't be considered an argument in favor of democracy as opposed to fascism either. In summary, in the long run, democracy is not sustainable and the worst possible way to organise a society. This argument stems from as far back as Ancient Greece.
But does it depend what type of poll for you to vote individually? and doesn't the majority also have enough responsibility and matureness to vote and be part of the majority?. By the way thank for the reply really appreciate. The thing is that i got a school project in which i have to debate about democracy and if democracy is a fair system because it benefits the majorities, Im debating in favor.
This video isn't saying that 1% of the population should rule over the other 99%. It's saying that the majority should not be allowed to take away rights from the minority.
Direct democracy is when the people vote for everything (ancient Athens) There are too many people now to do this under the conditions we have at the moment. Representative democracy is when people elect others to vote for them (Roman Republic, USA). Majority rule is when people can decide everything, even if it is illegal. An innocent man can be hung without trial if a majority of the people decides on it, even if it is illegal. A woman can lose her house because a majority of the people making decisions decides on it, even if it is illegal. Since we are a republic, or a constitutional democracy, we cannot vote for things that violate the Constitution. For example, we can't vote to ban guns or freedom of speech even if a majority thinks it is a good idea at the time.
No, in this modern age everyone CAN speak for themself without representation. Every registered voter could vote for laws through electronic means. But, this hands power to the majority which this video is against.
The US is not a democracy. It is a republic. A republic is rule by law. It is the law or constitution which protects rights. A democratic system or rule by the people does not protect you from tyranny of the majority a republic, rule by law, does.
+Larry Keen I wouldn't define a republic as "rule by law," because that could apply to other governments too, including true democracies. A republic is a government where power is invested in people who elect representatives, and where there is no King. A democracy is direct rule from the people. Like, in the States, how laws are sometimes put directly on the ballot for everyone to vote for or against. As such the U.S. is a bit of a mix of the two. Although much more of a republic than a democracy.
a democracy is a government that is ultimately controlled by the citizens…………….……………………………………….that's America…………….……………………………………………….that's why we are a democracy
@@norton4692 The president is not elected by the people. The president is elected by the electoral college. Several past elections are examples of this when the loser won the popular vote, but lost the presidency.
Apparently democratic rule, as defined here being limited by a constitution which outlines particular protections for individuals, is justified by the existence of the constitution which limits its powers in given ways. But I'm seeing a much deeper problem than this... isn't the constitution itself decided on by a simple majority rule? What protections are there for individuals who don't agree to it? How will their property and livelihoods (and that of their children, who aren't even around to be consulted) be respected and protected when they refuse to consent to the ratification or rule of this constitution? What or who is protecting individual interests against the majority when the majority decides they *want* the constitution in the first place? The entire constitution and thus the entire democratic nation can be rendered invalid and unjust from the start if the means to start it were an unjust majority ruling.
the protection for extremists is called the first and second amendments. If it were up to majority rule, political dissenters would be beaten up, raped, and killed, not in that particular order.
@@_epic730 you are absolutely correct but they know they can’t totally violate it until they repeal the 2nd amendment. Even then you think people will just give up a right protected since the inception and is really the only thing that has stopped the American government from going full on Cuban government.
The right only cares about rules when they benefit from them and they get to look down on other people being punished. As soon as a law gets in their way it's just some freedom crushing tyranny and out come the guns and Confederate flags.
"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself." John Adams "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" Benjamin Franklin “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” Thomas Jefferson Federalist Papers no. 10, Madison dedicates completely to express the differences between Republic and Democracy.
Fabulous presentation and I sincerely appreciated everything...right up to Prof Munger's pronouncement of "essential part of the US Constitution and our democracy" at 4:17 in the video. Democracy is exactly what we don't want AND don't have. We want a democratic process within constitutional republic (that rule of law thing, not majority rule). Beside that...agree with everything and the presentation was very digestible!
I love how he used a example of a single old lady in a small house, fighting against a greedy developer. To explain why private ownership and private property is sacred.
I, too, love how he used a fringe example of commodification of land, and the conflation of a city council vote with a raw, popular vote as a reason we shouldn't have majority votes.
Back in the 50's the State of Wisconsin with the local Airport decided they wanted my Grandfather's 142 acres of farm. They gave him $0.13 on the dollar for what it was worth and told him to move out, thanks to Eminent Domain. You can still visit that farm property today in Kenosha, Wisconsin, and it's nothing but weeds. The Airport has been sold several times, and no one can buy that land, as the State own's it now. I was born and raised a Libertarian as a result.
I agree with your statement in as far as the 51% measure and lack of moral principals. However I would contend that there are substantial differences between a republic and a democracy but perhaps even more important than those differences is that people understand how and when the transition from sovereign republic to queens democracy took place and what constitutional protections they lost in the process.
Another problem is that the average voter can't be trusted to vote on certain issues that are above his head. Voters should only be allowed to vote on issues with which they are adequately acquainted. For example, we can't have religious fundamentalists voting on whether to teach Creationism or Evolution in public schools, because they don't know any better.
Rustedblade I just used that word since you mentioned tyranny. I obviously don't believe that such enlightened panels of 'wisemen' would be tyrants. Dictators, arguably, but emphasis on the plural.
Rustedblade Looks like someone got a 'Jump to Conclusions Mat' for Christmas. My comment about tyrants was made in jest, but that's beside the point. How to keep a panel from acting corrupt, you ponder? Take away all financial incentive. People tend to be corrupted by money more than anything.
In the same way the materialistic atheists shouldn't be allowed to vote whether to teach Creationism or Evolution in public schools, because they don't know any better.
"Democracy and Majority rule are not synonyms" As a Greek, let me correct you: Democracy, or Δημοκρατία, as we say, comes from two words. Δήμος (Demos) (the many) and Κράτος (Kratos) (to rule). The fist time the world Demorcracy is documented is as follows: We are not an Oligarchy (ruled by the "Ολίγοι" or the few) but a Democracy, for we dont allow the few to speak for the many, and the many to act on the wishes of the few. Majority rule, is the ESSENSE OF DEMOCRACY. No constitution, no written law, guarantees the rights of man. It is the people who must realize their importance and once they do, only then, and only under a rulling majority, the rights are respected, and the laws enforced. Anything else, is NOT a democracy, its an Oligarchy. When it is possible to elect a president with 27% of the votes, and this president can basically act as he wishes without the trust of gongress, and when your leaders are sold out because they have to seek funding from companies, and not the state, I am afraid you dont have the right to use the word democracy anymore... You're an Oligarchy.
Άλλο να κυβερνούν άλλο να καταπιέζουν. Το σύνταγμα ορίζει πάνω σε ποια θέματα μπορεί μία πλειοψηφία να αποφασίσει προστατεύοντας έτσι τα ατομικά δικαιώματα όσο και τα δικαιώματα των μειονοτήτων.
Και ποιος αποφασίζει το σύνταγμα τότε? Μια αυξημένη πλειοψηφία! Άρα για να ενταχθεί, και πάνω από όλα για να εκτελείται ένα συνταγματικό άρθρο, πρέπει μια πλειοψηφία να το υποστηρίζει. Σε μια πραγματική δημοκρατία, κανενας νομος, και καμια πραξη του κρατους δεν μπορει να υποστηριζεται η να προστατευει μια μειοψηφια, γιατι οι θεσμοι αυτοι καθε αυτοι ειναι πλειοψηφικοι. Ας πουμε για παραδειγμα οτι το 70% των Ελληνων υποστηριζουν τις εκτρωσεις. Αυτο σημαινει οτι και το 70% των αντιπροσωπων τις υποστηριζουν, επομενως ενα συνταγματικο αρθρο που της απαγορευει, δεν μπορει να σταθει, αφου η πλειοψηφια μπορει να το αλλαξει. Ομοιως θα μπορουσε να γινει και για ολα τα συνταγματικα δικαιωματα, ακομα και τα βασικα, μεσα απο δημοψηφισματα. Δικαιωματα εχουμε επειδη εχουε αποφασισει να εχουμε, γιατι καθε ανθωπος ξεχωριστα επιθυμει να εχει βασικες ελευθεριες, και η πλειοψηφια των ανθρωπων τις υποστηριζει.
TheThOdOr1s μα η απαγόρευση των εκτρώσεων δεν προστατεύει κανέναν. Κι αν πλειοψηφία επιθυμεί οι μαύροι να μην έχουν πολιτικά δικαιώματα, ή οι Εβραίοι πρέπει να φοράν το άστρο του Δαβίδ? Θα έπρεπε να μπορεί να επιβάλλει μια τέτοια άποψη. Όχι, τα συντάγματα δεν δημιουργούνται από τις πλειοψηφίες. Συντάσσονται από έμπειρους νομικούς και ανθρώπους που χαίρουν ευρείας αναγνώρισης όχι τόσο σε ιδεολογική αλλά επιστημονική βάση. Αν τα δικαιώματα μπορεί να στα πάρει μια πλειοψηφία τη στιγμή της μεγαλύτερης ανάγκης σου τότε δεν είναι δικαιώματα είναι προνόμια...προσωρινά προνόμια
The biggest problem with all of these is a lack of information. Government pass laws with out explanation, old out dated laws are kept on the books with no review. Corruption is a problem. How do we fix this I do not know.
The government imposes their set of restrictions upon you. Your parents impose their set of restrictions upon you. Both existed before you did. You didn't agree before they had authority over you. Yet somehow, it's logical to question the authority of one, and not the other. This is why the house analogy fits so well. You don't get the right to have your sofa inside our house if you aren't willing to follow the rules which were set up before you started living there.
Actually, you're both wrong. What he's talking about IS a Democracy. However, what We have here in America is a Democratic Republic, not a Democracy. Now it's not quite what Super Eric describes. It's close, but not quite. See you vote for someone to represent you and your community. That Representitive is supposed to vote based upon the people that he represents. (Yes, they can vote differently than what the people he represents wants, but out of thosands of elections, that's only really happened a few times. Once by complete accident as the representive actually got the name mixed up.) Now are you always going to get what you want? Of course not. No form of Democracy (or anything else in life for that matter) can do that. However, it is the best system that we have. The Electoral College is extremely important to prevent big cities making decissions for small towns. Trust me, you don't want Californian Housing Laws where you live. (Unless you live in Seatle, of which case almost any Housing Laws would be better. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-36a_ndkmXbE.html ) Point is that Republics are actualy MUCH beter than pure Democracies as pure Democracies are much easier to manipulate than Republics are. ( ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-sBJmogy9d6U.html )
republic is Democracy but just with some extra steps you vote people to make rules for you and now its the rich rule over every one with a republic not much better how about we try a better system
@@_epic730 got to get rid of the lobbyists in Washington DC the bribe the politicians and they overrule us and take care of the lobbyist so that's not looking out for our best interest
A republic is a form of democracy, it is the most common form of democracy. When people just say "democracy", 99% of the time they mean a republic. The first democracies in Greece, which is where we get the term democracy, were republics. When people mean "direct democracy", they will say direct democracy. But when they mean a republic, they just say democracy, since that's the most common form of democracy.
I'm a law student, having just taken property last semester and we had the Kelo case as a discussion for an entire class. This video is a oversimplification of the facts. The town was in a downward spiral on it's way to becoming a blight. The plan was devised to revitalize the town not to benefit the private owner. Does it suck that she lost her home? Yes. Was letting the town rot for the sake of 7 people the better solution? No. I'm a Libertarian and I agree with the outcome of Kelo
"that protection has been eroded" That's what happens when you think pieces of paper are going to limit government. Christ, why is libertarianism so smart yet so dumb.
Re: Laws Who said "take away all laws?" Law is violence. The only justified use of violence is to prevent, mitigate, repair and defend from an initiation of violence. So laws against murder, assault, theft, ...laws against these acts of violence are "just" - that is justified uses of violence (defense) against initiation of violence (attack). "Laws" that initiate violence - attacking non-violent people so to enforce some edict are acts of evil regardless of legality.
... Eminent domain only applies when the government wants a property for a purpose of the public (ie roads, sewer lines, etc). NOT a private party, as in the example. The problem was not the building of a road but of a private investment property (condominium). The city council ruled to enforce eminent domain unjustly to gain more taxes from the condos owned by a private investor. Majority rule is also called "Mob Rule" and is highly dangerous as Erik pointed out.
idk the particulars of the deal that was worked out but in my experience, eminent domain pay the "fair market value" which is based on recently sold properties in the area. You don't get a choice in the matter. You can sue to keep the property but if you lose the case, you just get a check for whatever the state decides is fair. They look at similar properties and average the sale prices to find the "market value" of the property then cut you a check.
Any use of government requires violence upon the non-violent people - whether by theft of taxes, monopolization of money, forced surrender of rights, etc. Small-gov advocates argue for a little bit of evil - pretending a piece of paper will prevent its growth. There is no such thing as a "little" evil - evil has no adjectives that minimize it. Whether you agree with "weed" or not is not your place to judge upon anyone else. Your choice does not make the compliance for others.
Even if they offered her twice the average market value, if she didn't accept the sale voluntarily then she did not consider the price to be "just compensation." It's not like there is an objective value hidden in the atomic structure of the house that only the state can ascertain. "Just compensation" in other words a "fair" deal can only be determined by the seller and the buyer working together...
for the fault of the politicians who ignore it. The Constitution can serve as a check on government power as long as the American people still believe in it. It's a creed. If no one believes that the constitution should limit government anymore, we are lost, but if people still believe in it, we can work to elect officials who pledge to uphold it, and justices who interpret it according to the original intent of its framers, not their personal biases. Furthermore, we can ammend our constitution
I told you what my position on that is. The rational consequences of not having government at all, justifies taxation for me. Now whether or not you consider me evil because I want a centralized government taking care of certain duties for the population as a whole, I don't really care. Everyone is equal before the law, but if there is no government, there is no lawgiver, and no one enforces the law, which means anything goes, and I can't agree to that.
The short answer is "the obvious and simple system of natural liberty" (--Smith), but for a better explanation, check out the video called "State or Private Law Society | Hans-Hermann Hoppe."
Absolutely not: the idea that private property should be abolished means that nobody has the right to put anyone else to work in literal or wage slavery. Nobody has ever survived as an individual; all production, all material activity, all work and all creativity is practiced socially - without others we do not exist. All food should be everybody's, all farms, all factories. There should be no exchange; exchange presupposes an unjustifiable appropriation of resources which belong to everyone.
Leonard - not all "property" originates from the same process. In the US, almost all land "titles" were created and defined solely by the government, using land stolen from others - the only "right" one has to that land is that the government said it was OK to appropriate it from others and then pass it to others. That particular type of "property right" derives entirely from government edict, period. In which case the government has some ability to specify what rights it creates from nothing
I think you will find that many people left and right oppose using eminent domain to transfer properties from one private entity to another. This is more about the influence of big economic entities on the interpretation of the constitution, and their ability to change the game without needing super-majorities as spelled out in the Constitution. The Supreme Court sometimes upsets liberals, sometimes upsets conservatives, but rarely upsets big business. Left vs Right keeps big money in charge.
Thumbs up for Monarchy Democracy is all about "my group endlessly tries to vote the property ownership of your group to us, and my group interprets the constitution as agreeing with us"
There is a cost greater than zero, it is not necessary to quantify it more than that. You are right - except such a store has lost all your future purchases - and if such a business is ignorant of that cost, they will suffer the ultimate lesson of that ignorance - bankruptcy. Never required "good will" nor anything else you posit. I said "mutual and voluntary" - if either is not there.... oh well... live with it, or "do something else"
Now that we agree that there is a buyer and a seller in a transaction, the transaction occurs when the buyer and seller agree to an exchange of value. If either party does not see such value, the trade is not exercised and there is no transaction. If a transaction occurs, it is an absolute demonstration that both parties find the trade satisfactory and valuable. Both parties complete the transaction and the trade ends with each party holding superior value in hand before the transaction.
Obama passed a bill in which we can not protest funerals. It's a response towards the Westboro Baptist Church. People think I'm nuts for not supporting such law, after all, they're the only known family to protest funerals, the law doesn't effect us. However, this is just a slippery slope, and we'll lose more rights in our future now that the foot is in the door. More importantly, it shows that freedom of speech isn't protected if enough people disagree, which is scary.
It was founded as a Republic, but that really doesn't mean much of a difference. The problems wrecking America are due to tyranny of democracy - where right and wrong is measure by 51%, and not by moral principles.
College of William and Mary: Privately founded in 1693 - it is the second-oldest institution of higher education in the United States after Harvard. Harvard was founded in 1636 - it was named after John Harvard who bequeathed the College his library of four hundred books and £779 pounds sterling, which was half of his estate. So much for your "public school" can't be funded without government.
"lost all future purchases" doesn't matter if you bought a lemon car, or house. As to "mutual and voluntary" you can have one or the other, but rarely both. You ignore what really happens in conflict. Apparently you never spent any time in civil courts.
In the example with Mrs Kelo, we ALL know that one private individual will most definitely have his way over another, provided he has greater money, power, influence and resources..We are not all equal under the constitution....
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship." - Alexander Fraser Tytler.
Another problem of government. You don't 'own' the land you live on; the government owns it, and you rent it. The rent is deceptively called 'property tax'. Capitalism is just the build up of capital to improve production. This can be done by government or privately. Colloquially, capitalism is the free exchange between individuals. There is nothing unjust about that. The injustice comes when government uses force to intervene on the behalf of one of those individuals.
The same thing that happens in the real world that you love - someone loses. In your court system - you use an arbitrary third party of violence to chose which one loses. In a non-violent free society - you use non-violent methods, such as public embarrassment, shunning, and ostracization. It is NOT strawman. You are trying to pry into your world of pervasive violence a method that you cannot understand - non-violence. A society based on freedom works differently then "yours" of violence.
It is not a matter of monetization - money is merely a conduit of transaction. I earn so to able me to trade for things I value. I value food. I value shelter. I value protecting my family. So I earn to trade my production for food, shelter and guards (etc.) Economics is about human action - we need to do "something" to provide the necessary goods and services for our own well-being and survival. Security is absolutely embedded and a serious error to assume it is not such an economic good.
All of this happened because the anti-Federalists couldn't state cohesive enough to stand against the Federalists. The Articles of Confederation were far better than the Constitution. It's telling that the Federalists could stay centrally organized the direction they wanted to take the new nation. The anti-Federalists didn't have a chance, because they lived directly within Liberty, and as such were the minority. True Liberty hasn't existed since before the Constitution.
How can a piece of paper - whose specific terms destroys freedom - be so "designed" to "protect" freedom? The provisions have not been ignored. They have been exercised, and the loss of your freedom is the consequence. To believe that an institution made to make law and enforce those laws will make and enforce laws against itself is naive. You are asking the devil to bind himself with his own rope, and believe that the knots he ties on himself will hold him.
No. I said a document designed to limit their power, meaning the Constitution. If we did not have a constitution, we'd have to trust that government officials would just keep their promises and never abuse their power, which is unrealistic. That's why the framers argued about how structurally to limit the powers of the federal government. The 9th and 10th amendment is largely ignored today by big government, and they need to be held accountable for ignoring their constitutional limits.
Theft is "the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it." and theft is not dissipated by merely changing the identity of the thief. When a violent man seizes goods and services and then demands you to dance for them to be returned - it is not your dancing that is evil - is the act of the violent man. You are easily fooled by largess of stolen loot and the gang's glorious lifestyle - shortsighted indeed.
"from an objective point, everybody won" Just to throw out some numbers here: imagine she was offered the "fair" market value of the home $150K. She values the home at $500K the rock bottom price she will sell at, due to sentimental reasons. After going to court, she gets $300K. She was overcompensated, right? WRONG! ;) She actually got ripped off by $200K. Besides, the motivation for stealing her home was to be able to steal even more money through taxation. How exactly did everyone win?
"Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government [democracy], have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions." James Madison
U.S Constitution, Article 4, Section 4: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government..." The word "democracy" is never mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, or Bill of Rights. This is because the Founders were vehemently opposed to democracy. On the contrary, democracy IS synonymous with majority rule, and the tyranny of the majority. Democracies grant revocable privileges, Republics protect and defend Inherent Rights.
I would generally agree. The issue I see, however, is systemic. No matter the organization, the premise under operation is that the institution charged with making law and enforcing law is expected to make law against itself and enforce those laws upon itself. Early in such an institution's life, it may indeed do such things for its own purpose - garner legitimacy - however, the older it gets, the less it needs legitimacy (age provides this) and thus, the less it enforces self-inflicted law.
(cont) to put in place more barriers for those who seek power. You could have a balanced budged amendment to limit Congress' power to spend your money, or amendments with term limits for Justices and Congress. If you do not believe the constitution, as written, should serve as a model for government, what is your proposed alternative? Benjamin Franklin said the flaw of the Constitution was that it would only work as long as Americans believed in it. But that is the fault of those who abandon it.
"If the trustworthy turns dishonest, then his future becomes rather harsh." Not if he just took your lifesavings and left you to starve, then he moves on.. Happens all the time - you ignore real-world.
The developer's capacity to provide revenue would never have become a problem for the Kelo family had the government not succumbed to the temptation of higher tax revenues and respected the property rights of the Kelo family. Big corporations only get away with this sort of crap when Governments enable them to.
The current interpretation of free speech came about through democratic struggle in the 20th century, and wasn't constituted by the founding fathers. In the earliest interpretation of the constitution, government was allowed to penalize for speech. It merely wasn't allowed to forcefully prevent speech from happening. Anyone but a libertarian would have mentioned the organizations which have enabled these rights, and work to protect them to this day.
They are not mutually exclusive: Republicanism (re-public, "thing"-"public") -- sovereignty rests with the public (many people) rather than with a monarch/emperor (a few elites) Democracy (demo-cracy, "common people"-"strength") -- rule by the majority rather than by a minority The US is a republic in that the head of state comes from the public, not a monarch. It is democratic in that the head of state is chosen by the majority, not a minority.
Property rights are secured by the government by law in the first place. If a system of coercive power geared towards the protection of property rights is what you wish to live under, you can't complain when that same coercive system of power elects to rob you of those same rights. In fact, you DON'T have the right to your own property. Forced removal or relocation clauses are included in legislature. The solution a system NOT based on the unnatural protection of private property by force.
My point is that there is no such thing as objective value. One can average subjective value based on sales records, but there is no value embodied in an item. One cannot find a price tag embedded in an items atomic structure. As far as her getting ripped off: If she thought the deal was a good one then why did she fight against it so hard? Opportunity cost requires choice. She wasn't given a choice to forgo selling. The only choice she had was stay and be arrested or take the check and leave.
It matters not that you may change your value later in time. At the time of transaction -which is all we are considering for "free rider"- you only complete if you gain more value. The value exists SPECIFICALLY at that time, or you would not trade. Whatever the expectation later may be is irrelevant.
I bought a set of eye glasses from a company in China, cheap - about 1/3 the cost local. They arrived and were great - except, one of the arms got slightly damaged in shipping. I contacted the firm in China, and they -without any fuss or question- requested a photo of the damage, and promised a new frame. I sent the photo and *magic to you it seems* I got new frames - no cost. I have no enforcement over that company in China - so why did they do that, do you think?
Yet, you must agree that the constitution has protected our liberty in most cases. If you start a newspaper in your basement, the state isn't likely to even try to shut you down, because they'd be scared of violating your first amendment right to speech. If they did, you could bring a case against them, and as bad as our courts are, you'd probably win. If courts make bad decisions, that is the fault of the court, not the fault of the original framers.
Laws, derived from the prohibition of violence, protects people. You do not protect rights by destroying them with law - no matter how "deity-ized" some piece of paper may be. These destroy your rights: "To regulate Commerce ..." - infringes on your right of voluntary trade "..., by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors..." - infringes on right to profit by your own labor. All government act in the manner you so describe. All government - bar none - declare tyranny to be law.
My company bought some development boards from a relatively large and mostly respected Chinese company where the software license (GPL) requires the vendor to supply source code. They refused to do honor the license & refused to take the product back. "why did they do that, do YOU think?"
A doctor's skills obviously aren't of lower value to them. That is why they are doctors. Their skills are of equal value to them as they are to everyone. You see, when a person is injured and needs medical attention, and the doctor gives them medical attention, the injured person and the doctor are not the only ones who benefit. For example, their family benefits, as the person doesn't need to be supported by their family. Society benefits, as they can still work, earn, and contribute (taxes).
Taxation is always theft. Theft is violence on the non-violent. Violence on the non-violent is evil. Evil is always wrong. The last is an assertion of principle - an axiomatic declaration - but one I believe most people hold as well, including Faerlon
For one, each state could print its own money, set its own tariffs and taxes, the national government could not enforce any acts it legislated, there was no national military as each state kept its own military, some states made deals with foreign nations, etc, etc.
I have already provided ample details. I do not buy from people I do not trust. But you do. So right there we diverge. Because I do not buy from people I do not trust, I rarely have been faced with conflicts in that purchase - and if they do arise, they are handled easily, fairly and well. You do buy from untrusted people, so you face lots of conflicts, and they are rarely handled well, or fairly - so you need to use violence as the great decider of right and wrong.
The developer did not ask city to condem the land. The city decided to try to attract a large project developer by acquiring a large area for potential urban redevelopment. Pfizer came along AFTER the renewal plan was adopted that called for the acquisition of land (including Ms. Kelo's house). The city acted first, the developer came along later. This WAS NOT the case of the city exerciing it eminent domain powers for the benefit of a private developer.
Beautifully said that the language in a constitution needs to be made right the first time around. The example is not a good one since it's a developer with clout and the motion didn't get direct democratic voting by citizens, even though that would be equally as bad if not worse. It could potentially have been a reverse scenario. The point should be that it's not up for a vote unless it's an essential infrastructure project and the party is justly compensated or relocated.
PS: Certainly private people - which includes private security people - have shot unarmed people - "Security guard arrested in apartment shooting" ...note - arrested and jailed during investigation.... cops are immune to this.
Because in a directly democratic system, the system is a direct reflection of the will of the people and therefore a reflection of themselves, therefore, the people receive the government they deserve. I do not suggest that we live in anything resembling either a democracy or a republic. The system we currently live in would be more properly described as an Economic Monarchy. The wealthiest are free to do anything and everyone else is free to do nothing but work.
"George Zimmerman gets arrested again after judge revokes his bail "- next? The security guards buy their own lawyers or they have insurance. Note, they don't steal from you to do that.
No, my system rules by "voluntary". They do not enforce what I 'believe' are my rights. They enforce my right, singular. My right to be free from your violence.
"...the Constitution was designed to protect the rights of individuals from the will of the majority." Except that the majority decided to ignore the Constitution. *sigh*
Yes, and if a thief demands your wallet and you give it, you don't get knifed either. If you punch the thief -according to you- it is the punch that initiated the violence. Bizarre. You are shifting the "blame" - to you, if you do not surrender to the thief, it is you who is violent! Waved a metal object - a pen. A legless man with a pen! ...to be terrified of legless men in wheel chair with a pen .. gasp~! You with that excuse would be now behind bars with $1million bail on your head.
Value is imputed by the individual. What you may value does not imply that I must equally value it. Thus, what you may (or not) wish to pay for something does not imply that I, too, wish (or not) pay. What we use to trade is irrelevant -whether a rock or colored paper or apples or salt, etc - you may (or not) value holds no merit to me other than whether I see enough value for me to accept the trade.
Yes, we are a democracy. In the late 18th century if you looked up the word "democracy" in a dictionary it would say "see: republic". If you looked up the word "republic" in a dictionary back then it would say "see: democracy". A democracy and a republic is the same damn thing. There are many kinds of democracies. Direct democracies. Participatory democracies. Representative democracies. Parliamentary democracies. We are a democracy.
Then I'll ask one LAST time - what happens in a real-world irreconcilable dispute. One where neither party can willingly accept the negative outcome, but ultimately one must ? DO NOT resort to cheating or untrustworthy strawmen. There are many cases of honest disputes and disputants.
If one side doesn't agree - what is the consequence? One side "gets what they want" and the other side doesn't. What happens in court? One side "gets what they want" and the other side doesn't. The first, you declare "FAIL!" because there is a loser. The second, you declare "WIN!" because there is a loser. You argue for and against the same outcome. You sucker punch yourself brilliantly.
What conclusion? I'm saying if we got rid of it, we'd need to replace it with something, because "no government whatsoever" is not an option. The hard problem isn't "find something wrong with the system," it's "find a way to fix the problems in the system without making it worse overall." Anyone can say something sucks. Few people can improve upon it.
