

TrueMaterialist
Regulars-
Content Count
55 -
Joined
-
Last visited
About TrueMaterialist
-
Rank
Junior Member
Previous Fields
-
Country
United States
-
State (US/Canadian)
Texas
-
Relationship status
Single
-
Sexual orientation
Straight
-
Real Name
Robert
-
Copyright
Copyrighted
-
Biography/Intro
Pretentious Reply
-
School or University
Ad hominem
-
Occupation
....
Profile Information
-
Gender
Male
-
The first man to sell land, called it his
TrueMaterialist replied to TrueMaterialist's topic in Economics
I think you are missing the point. I am saying that a real-estate market did not always exist. It had to begin somewhere. It begun with a person claiming land as his own, simply because he stood on it, or claimed to "find it." He claimed this land as his own because he desired something that land offered, beauty, resources, etc. When that man decides to sell it to another man, the seller must convince the buyer that the land is his. When the buyer agrees to pay for that land at whatever cost, this is the beginning of that market. Do you know of another way a real-estate market begins. Man -
The first man to sell land, called it his
TrueMaterialist replied to TrueMaterialist's topic in Economics
Okay. what itmeans t o call something yours is exactly the issue I am examining. If I stand on a piece of land and call it mine because I personally found it and maybe build a fence around it, does that make it mine, just because I say so? If I then sell that land to a man for a price we both agree upon, does that then make the land his? That is the issue I am essentially getting at. It is a question I actually ansking you to answer. The root of a real-estate market begins with one man, standing on a piece of land and calling it his because he is there and he "found it" and he protects it as -
The first man to sell land, called it his
TrueMaterialist replied to TrueMaterialist's topic in Economics
-
The first man to sell land, called it his
TrueMaterialist replied to TrueMaterialist's topic in Economics
Okay. what it means to call something yours is exactly the issue I am examining. If I stand on a piece of land and call it mine because I personally found it and maybe build a fence around it, does that make it mine, just because I say so? If I then sell that land to a man for a price we both agree upon, does that then make the land his? That is the issue I am essentially getting at. It is a question I am actually asking you to answer. The root of a real-estate market begins with one man, standing on a piece of land and calling it his because he is there and he "found it" and he protects it -
Okay, I am interested to hear your economic perspective. Keep in mind, however, that I am aware economics is more complex than just the concept behind minimum wage...and I you would like to pluge deeper into the subject, I would be happy to partake in a discussion. I was simply presenting one aspect. My personal perspective was rather absent. I wass simply providing the way in which many economists justify minimum wage. My perspective will always take "The Balance of Powers" into consideration. I do not believe in taking one side of a posed dichotomy, for I believe that dichotomy is a singular
-
I understand that, but he does support laws and the enforcing of said laws...and who will enforce such laws? Who will ensure that force or fraud is not used as a method of profiteering? Also, define force please. But be sure to answer my other questions too, so we dont go out of scope.
-
To me, it is obvious that the porn Industry should be defended.
-
I am in complete agreement
-
what do you mean by "recreating the world around you?" This vague statement without any example is what scares me. How does one do this exactly. I would like an example please. How would you personally do this?
-
A Governments right to take the property of it's people
TrueMaterialist replied to Atlas-'s topic in Law
"Eminent Domain Laws" do not only include the permission of the government to seize property, they also include prohibiting or limiting the governments power to seize property. "Eminent Domain" however was used by the government to seize land from native americans to allow settlers the use of that land. Natives did not like the fact that settlers invaded hunting grounds and area that the native population used for cultivation. Therefore many tribes would attempt to fight off these settlers. The settlers would then forcefully take the land under the protection of government, or the governmen -
The first man to sell land, called it his
TrueMaterialist replied to TrueMaterialist's topic in Economics
So than you believe that Europeans and early European settlers unfairly stole land from Native Americans, under the protection of government, and either kept or sold the land to others for profit? -
The first man to sell land, called it his
TrueMaterialist replied to TrueMaterialist's topic in Economics
"They" are those who do not recognize that a "discoverer" of land felt entitled to take the land without trading for it. He took the land and called it his because he "found" it. He may have stuck a flag in the ground, or secured boundaries around the area, but he did not make payment for it, nor did he pay any respect for any natives, who may have been inhabiting that land for centuries. He did however sell the land to some one of a similar ideology, who believed in the "discoverers" "ownership" of it...and that is how a real-estate market beings, unless you have another theory. Also keep -
Well, I think there is more to it than simply giving employees a "better situation." Many believe that minimum wage helps stimulate the buyer market. They think people need to be able to afford more than just basic necessities like the minimum shelter and food. They believe that if more people have enough money to buy other consumer products, besides the basics, then the pool of buyers grows, contributing to a higher rate of sales for businesses. This higher rate of sales makes products cheaper and dissuades employers from having to make labor cuts, or hike up prices to make up for the lack
-
freestyle, then you believe that government has a valid funtion in the market because an employee can take legal action against a company that violates labor laws? If some one reports the abuse of an employee, as it is defined in our legal system, then the justice system, a branch of the government, is obligated to conduct an investigation of the company in question, correct?
-
how will the market take care of employees?