Economy Trump tax cuts 6 months later: it was exactly what critics projected - everyone but the rich suffers

[Rod1]

How do you prove you own your iPhone without a government?

Because i bought it from the guy that created that iphone and i have a receipt.

Who is the creator of time-space?

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Property rights are maintained only by brute force? Are you a home owner? I am. There was no brute force involved in my home ownership.

Property is no different from anything else you own. People buy and sell property like they buy and sell cars and phones.

Too many make the mistake of thinking governments actually create things like wealth and rights.

Individual human intelligence is the only source of all wealth. Governments don't create wealth, they only piggyback off the discoveries of new wealth.

Rights are the necessary conditions of ones proper existence. A government doesn't grant rights. A government can only violate or uphold rights.

Those who disagree with these two notions of wealth and rights, also happened to be the people who desire an all-powerful State. I assure you that's no coincidence.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Those who disagree with these two notions of wealth and rights, also happened to be the people who desire an all-powerful State. I assure you that's no coincidence.

It's strange how people who support a corrupt, authoritarian president and are generally willing to humiliate themselves to defend him ("Trump has never lied") think that others desire an all-powerful state just because they believe that the gov't has a responsibility to compensate victims of its land appropriation.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Wrong. Rights are not granted by any government. This was recognized in the bill of rights. Rights are inalienable. They can't be alienated from a person by any person or institution. Rights are part of the nature of man.

Only uneducated slaves think that rights are granted by a government. If government can grant rights, then they can take them away. At least some of the founders of America understood this, and tried to correct that sick and twisted thinking.

Unless a right is enforced it's meaningless. Now, I think people SHOULD have a right to vote, right to healthcare, right to free speech, etc but if no one enforces these things they're just claims.

There's no such thing as a right to move someone from a piece of land unless one's government grants him that right. Lets say two people want to exclude each other from the same piece of land. What makes either person's claim more legitimate than the other?

 

[IReallyDoTrainUFC]

It's strange how people who support a corrupt, authoritarian president and are generally willing to humiliate themselves to defend him ("Trump has never lied") think that others desire an all-powerful state just because they believe that the gov't has a responsibility to compensate victims of its land appropriation.

For the record, I don't support any President, or any government, at all.

 

[Rod1]

Too many make the mistake of thinking governments actually create things like wealth and rights.

Individual human intelligence is the only source of all wealth. Governments don't create wealth, they only piggyback off the discoveries of new wealth.

Rights are the necessary conditions of ones proper existence. A government doesn't grant rights. A government can only violate or uphold rights.

Those who disagree with these two notions of wealth and rights, also happened to be the people who desire an all-powerful State. I assure you that's no coincidence.

Individual human intelligence created spacetime? go figure, we are living in someone's dreamworld.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Individual human intelligence created spacetime?

It was an individual human intelligence (Hermann Minkowski) that discovered the space time continuum in a way that was more easily understood.

"The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. henceforth, space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality."

-Hermann Minkowski

 

[Islam Imamate]

Those who disagree with these two notions of wealth and rights, also happened to be the people who desire an all-powerful State. I assure you that's no coincidence.

Not really. There are plenty of remote tribes in the Amazon who have no such conceptions of wealth and rights who nonetheless desire to maintain their traditional lives in the jungle instead of being coerced into a society defined by property rights where they ultimately suffer. People like you feel you have the right to use force to appropriate the land they live on and incorporate it into your own system of property because you see yourself as "granting" them rights they never conceived of themselves as having and that they have no desire of claiming if it comes at the expense of their traditional way of living.

 

[Rod1]

It was an individual human intelligence (Hermann Minkowski) that discovered the space time continuum in a way that was more easily understood.

"The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. henceforth, space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality."

-Hermann Minkowski

discovery =/= creation.

Land and natural resources have been there for millions of years, ownership of said resources is arbitrary and finite.

 

[IReallyDoTrainUFC]

Sure, because the state has full control over the territory. The force is so overwhelming that it doesn't need to be used. Absent a state, that isn't the case.

So, you are saying that the government protects my property by stealing my property (wealth) through taxation?

That's very bizarre and contradictory, isn't it?

 

[Jack V Savage]

So, you are saying that the government protects my property by stealing my property (wealth) through taxation?

That's very bizarre and contradictory, isn't it?

"Are you saying (something unrelated to your words)? That's very bizarre and contradictory, isn't it?"

Whenever you find yourself writing something of that form, stab yourself in the dick as hard as you can and delete what you wrote. That will help you more than anything anyone can tell you. If you want to learn, make a genuine effort to understand alternate points of view.

 

[Trotsky]

I very rarely LOL from this board, but @Rod1 futilely engaging the derp brigade on their property rights idiocy had me rolling.

You're better off reasoning with the wind. Yes, they are so very close to an obvious logical realization. No, they will not get it.

 

[helltoupee]

Whoever purchases the property is the propety owner. When you purchase or obtain property, there is a voluntary exchange between two parties.

That didn't work out so well for the American Indians, did it?

Maybe @Farmer Br0wn can explain to us how these mythical voluntary exchanges collapse?

 

[IReallyDoTrainUFC]

That didn't work out so well for the American Indians, did it?

Maybe @Farmer Br0wn can explain to us how these mythical voluntary exchanges collapse?

You just need to study history. There were major land sales by several native American groups and individuals. Some to white settlers, some to the American government. Some for money, some for other goods. The majority of land acquisition by settlers in early America was not how it you portray it. https://www.cmich.edu/library/clark...eaty_Rights/Pages/New-Section---The-Land.aspx

Of course some of the land was unjustly acquired. And in the instances that it was unjustly acquired, as a firm believer in private property, I would have been against it.

 

[helltoupee]

You just need to study history. There were major land sales by several native American groups and individuals. Some to white settlers, some to the American government. Some for money, some for other goods. The majority of land acquisition by settlers in early America was not how it you portray it. https://www.cmich.edu/library/clark...eaty_Rights/Pages/New-Section---The-Land.aspx

Of course some of the land was unjustly acquired. And in the instances that it was unjustly acquired, as a firm believer in private property, I would have been against it.

Maybe you should take a closer look at your source. The majority of land acquisition was exactly how I portrayed it. I didn't even get a tenth of the way through it before I came to this:

"This legal device created a vibrant land market in the British colonies. Individual Indians sold land either directly to a colonial government or to individual settlers who, at least theoretically, had a license to make such a purchase. The land market, however, was rife with fraud, usually, but not always perpetrated by the settlers on Indians. The most blatant problem was squatters who simply occupied Indian land. Ignoring the law, settlers simply started clearing the forest.

Other, more subtle swindles, invoked the form of the law, but rigged the process. The large number of stories, told by both sides, regarding the liberal use of free liquor by whites to promote ill-advised sales of land by Indians suggests that the practice was common. If liquor was not used, another frequent fraud was to exploit ambiguity over who had authority to sign a contract."

My original point stands. In the absence of government, the mythical portrayal of ethical voluntary exchange goes out the window, and the man with the biggest club wins.

Further, there was little to no recognition by European immigrants of the Indian's private property because there was no (or lack of) enforcement of such, rendering your argument that property rights exist without state power as merely wishful thinking.

 

[IReallyDoTrainUFC]

My original point stands. In the absence of government, the mythical portrayal of ethical voluntary exchange goes out the window, and the man with the biggest club wins. This country is based on an original theft.

Whoa whoa whoa. The government was present and involved when you are saying there was fraud and non ethical exchanges of land.

So, what is your point? It was the American government itself that was the cause of the fraud, so.... what is your point again?

 

[helltoupee]

Whoa whoa whoa. The government was present and involved when you are saying there was fraud and non ethical exchanges of land.

So, what is your point? It was the American government itself that was the cause of the fraud, so.... what is your point again?

Did you read the source?

usually, but not always perpetrated by the settlers on Indians

 

[IReallyDoTrainUFC]

Did you read the source?

usually, but not always perpetrated by the settlers on Indians

You said in the *absence* of government, there is fraud and unethical practice, but it is clear that there was fraud and unethical practices PERPETRATED by the American government itself! This is supposed to be an argument for government to save us from fraud? Haha what a joke... You statists are completely clueless...

 

[helltoupee]

You said in the *absence* of government, there is fraud and unethical practice, but it is clear that there was fraud and unethical practices PERPETRATED by the American government itself! This is supposed to be an argument for government to save us from fraud? Haha what a joke... You statists are completely clueless...

My point is that it was happening when there was little to no enforcement of "property rights" (from the Indians' perspective at least) - the very thing you say can exist as a form of voluntary exchange when men are unrestrained by law/state - obviously my example proves that the species is not as noble as you make it out to be.

Does this kind of thing happen today with more or less frequency? If less, what is preventing that?

 

[IReallyDoTrainUFC]

My point is that it was happening when there was little to no enforcement of "property rights" (from the Indians' perspective at least) - the very thing you say can exist as a form of voluntary exchange when men are unrestrained by law/state - obviously my example proves that the species is not as noble as you make it out to be.

Does this kind of thing happen today with more or less frequency? If less, what is preventing that?

It was the American government that was the CAUSE of the unethical practices! How could there be enforcement of private property rights when the American government itself is the one trampling them? Wake up dude... Your argument is completely contradictory. It is the government itself that is the violator of the rights of man.