Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

TrueMaterialist

Regulars
  • Posts

    55
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

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
    ....

TrueMaterialist's Achievements

Junior Member

Junior Member (3/7)

0

Reputation

  1. 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. Many natives DID see land as theirs. There may have been certain tribes who did not believe in land ownership, but these tribes also did not believe that other people could assume control over it. These tribes believed that the land should be shared and many could inhabit it. This is an important distinction because it does not justify the "others" right to seize it and deny those native tribes equal usage and access, nor did they consent to forcefull rellocation. The certain tribes who did not believe that one could control, govern or seize land for personal ownership were not giving settlers permission to seize, control, or govern it. Other tribes were very territorial. They would kill you if you so much as walked through their territories without permission. So your point is moot, first, because you misunderstand certain native perspectives and, 2nd, because you assume all natives tribes shared the same perspectives. Further, I bring up the government role in "manifest destiny" and the forceful seizing of land from natives because I am driving the point that the government carved the ability for us to have property and use that property. The government would forcefully seize it, then it would sell, or give that land to settlers. Big business uses government all the time. The government in itself is benign. It exists as a catalyst for those who seek to use it. If you are upset with the government, it may be because of corruption caused by wealthy lobbyists and those wealthy enough to bribe public officials. If you like I can provide many examples of big business abusing power through government to achieve specific desires. So perhaps it is not government intervention in the market that is the problem, but rather big business intervention in government that is the problem. It is actually brilliant, though immoral, for a wealthy big business tycoon to influence government action through lobbying and "soft money," or bribes, to influence the market is said tycoons favor. Dishonnest business men often use middle use men as the fall guy, as a way to prtotect themsleves from being caught red-handed. If this sounds impossible to you, then you are not thinking realistically.
  2. 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 his. Is this conclusion incorrect?
  3. 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 as his. Is this conclusion incorrect?
  4. 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 singularity that is often mistaken for two isolated powers in "opposition." I agree with your defintion of force on is most simplistic level, but surely force can be much more complicated than that, correct. Force is actually, in its broadest defintion, "energy applied." surely robbing some one at gun point is a forceful immoral action, but dont you think more complicated immoral forceful actions are possible? Do you have an example of immoroal economic force that can be applied in the absence of government. Yes, government will enforce laws, therefore governnmet intervention is necessary in the market, in order to ensure that those laws are being follwed by those who partake in the market. In truth, you know no other way to enforce laws, except through the use of government. The enforcing of these laws can then be considered a service. No service is free. The government must have the funding to be able to conduct investigations of "immoral" behavior in the market system. Who will fund them for the service they provide? You have concluded that government must play a role in our market, in the interest of keeping that market free of immoral people who seek to abuse it. Do you mean to say that the government can actually regulate the market to promote capitalism and keep the market free? If so, this is the complexity of the issue I am attempting to address. Force, at its
  5. 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.
  6. To me, it is obvious that the porn Industry should be defended.
  7. 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?
  8. "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 government would kill, subdue or rforcefully relocate those tribes in area of interest and sell, or give, that land to settlers. This means, in order for settlers to make use of land, the government and citizens of that government felt "eminent domain" was justifiable.
  9. 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?
  10. "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 in mind, that in american history, native land was ceased by the government and sold to wealthy land buyers, so , this means that the real-estate market began with the government, so saying that the government has no place in the market is kind of ignorant.
  11. 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 of sales. Thus, in other words, they believe that minimum wage benefits more people than just the millions of low wage employees. when the pool of potential buyers shrinks, the price of an item must either become more expensive, or labor expenses must be cut even more. This can contribute to either inflation or deflation and both can be detrimental to a free market. In a free market, it must be possible for potential buyers to buy and it also must be possible for sellers to sell. This is an interdependent relationship, meaning that a balance must be acheived. If the consumer pool shrinks, it actually means that control is largerly in the hands of the few who can still afford to buy. Throughout history merchants sold only to the wealthy elite. It has only been in the past 200 years or so that merchants began having the luxery of buyer diversity, which is what has made many companies wealthy.
  12. 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?
  13. how will the market take care of employees?
×
×
  • Create New...