TrueMaterialist

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.

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?

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?

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

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?

"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.

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?

"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.

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.

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?

Well, first you have to convince them that socialsim and capitalism are trully opposing, isolated concepts. The problem with teaching some one to accept your position lies in interpretation. Many will find socialist concepts in the ideas you present as capitalism. Are you really attempting to convert a socialist, however, or are you attempting to convert some one who you believe to be a socialist. These are two different things. If it is the absence, or presence, of government in the market that divides a socialist from a capitalist, then this is little more than a symmanitc game. But what is a government, other than a group of people who assume control over a population. A government governs, so whoever is governing in the government. Can a corperation that acheives a monopoly over a highly valued resource, acquire the power to govern men? How does one ensure that a new king does not rise by means of monopoly? Many actually believe a democratic government protects capitalism...and they may see you as the one who is destroying capitalism. How much is too much ownership? Is there a limit?

In my experience, people who discuss economics rarely start at the beginning. They often dicuss issues like The Right to Property within the context of selling and buying, under the assumption that a market has always existed. I would like to examine how property becomes property. Land: Can I stumble upon a piece of land and call it mine, then sell it to another person? Clearly the person I sold that land to will call his ownership of it legitmate, but it was legitimized through trade with me. I called the land mine without paying for it. I might claim that the land is mine because I found it, but what of the people who may have used that land before me and still exist there (native americans)? Will they agree that I found the land and therefore it belongs to me and is mine to sell...and once it is sold and a fence is built around it and they are forced from the property, will they say that the person I sold that land to has a legitimate claim on it. The American Government is the force that made this type of trade possible. They also enforced the finality of these types of agreements.

You know why banks can give you those things right? Because they are using other people's money to do it. I am exploring why we even need this type of currency at all. Im strong enough to make it on my own, but are you? Why dont we do this thing right. Free market!!!! You are a fake because banks are a form of socailsim, just another collective, sharing more qualities with the government than with Rands ideas. it is socialist behavior to pool money, to make it possible for an ornanization to use that money in their own interest, loaning it out for frofit that you will never see, for the sake of "protection," and pretty, little check-book for you to write your name on, so you can say, "look at me, I belong to a bank." its funny how you are forced into this situation with the threat of not being able to own a house, or get a job, if you dont have a bank account. Do you know who controls a socialist state? Whoever regulates the currency. Banks regulate currency more than the government. Ha. you just play at this, dont you? your not really serious about it. This is the source of my aggression. You dont really want individualism or a free market, you just want our system to work in your favor. Well, do yourself a favor and think about it. Dont be a hypocrite. bye.

You know why they can give you those services right? Because they are using other people's money to do it. I am exploring why we think we even need this type of currency. Why dont we do this thing right? Free market!!!! You are a fake because banks are a form of socailsim. Its a place where you pool your money, so that it can be used by others for their own personal gain...and your only profit is protection because you are too scared and insecure to guard it yourself. Do you know who controls a socialist state? Whoever regulates the currency. Funny that you trust the banks. Why? Ha. you just play at this, dont you. youre not really serious about it. This is the source of my aggression. You dont really want individualisma or a free market, you just want our system to work in your favor, so do yourself a favor and dont be hypocrite. Admit what you are.

Hi, your literary tone is pretentious. First, do not presume to know what I have learned. second, when I go to mcdonalds, I am buying something. What am I buying at a bank? A bank is not a mall, or a food court. there is nothing tangible inside a bank, just representational paper, so your analogy doesn't fit here. Next, ease up on the ad homonyms. My initial argument was a question of the value of work, I was not attacking wealth itself. I do not like the way many people want to misuse our currency, NOT because I DONT have money, but because I DO have money. Do you see how the opposite assumption can be equally true. I feel that our nation is collapsing not just because of the government, but also because of unregulated banks, big business, the sensasionalist media and the ignorance and gullibility of Americans. Its a group effort. I think that are people are getting poorer because they are belieivng lies...and I know that when less people can afford to buy my products, I will eventually lose money too. The only people who will make money, are those people in the position, or with the interest, to profit off of a collapsing economy, those who have enough money to exert power as the middle class loses any control it managed to obtain in the past 100 years. Here is an economic truth: Money is a representation. In truth, it is only paper. It is called currency because it is a concept derrived directly from the concept of "current." It is only worth something when it is moving, when it is changing hands. It is sybolism, a detachment from the things that shold be traded. The belief that money is backed by some asset...is just that, a belief. who prints your money? The government does. You have all stated that you do not trust your government, so why do you accept this money as being worth something, knowing the source? That is a double standard, a contridiction that you have overlooked. The truth is, for all you know, our currency is is the trade of faith. "in god we trust" haha. I will prove to you how speculation of the value or amount of representational currency is a self fulfilling prophecy. Take the recession for example. One economist cries, "RECESSION. We are in debt." The man throws out an estimated number. He does not know the exact amount, but he speculates. "We are going broke" he says, but he does not give an exact number. Its too complicated and too early to tell, but we think its blah blah blah." the media gets a hold of the story. The man is interviewed and says "the economy is tanking, stocks are plummeting, I foresee a 20 percent unemployment rate" he provides statements without evidence. People watching the news panic, they sell their stocks, companies start prepairing for downsizing, in reaction to the man's claims. The man comes back on the news. He uses the reaction, caused by his initial warning as evidence that his initial warning was, in fact, correct. The news begins to run stories on those plummeting stocks...and what businesses plan to do to prepare for the plunge, then a horror story "Mr Jones lost his job and now he is on unemployment." The news then runs a story speculating the amount of people who will be on unemployment, then welfare. The next story is about the amount of money the nation is losing in an attempt to support the unemployed "bums." Those who were skeptical at first, begin to worry. They think "well, now there's evidence that I cant deny!" Soon even rational, critical thinkers are selling stocks and sitting on their money. Every one decides it is not a time for spending, but a time to save save save save and screw taxes. "Why should we pay for people who cant help themselves." Currency stops circulating and thus loses its value..because trade that isn't traded is worthless. The value of the money drops, inflation occurs. Interest rates go up. Houses foreclose. "Blame the homeowner, but not the baks who loaned them our money. They are innocent." Political divisions become more and more apparent, people turn more radical. Political and social reform become a pressing issue. Blame the democrats, who cares if the recession hit just before Bush ended his last term. Thats nothing to be suspitious about. We turned our nightmare into a reality simply by believeing athe nightmare will happen and we furthered the nighmare by blaming the only organization the represents us and protecting the privacy of any equally questionible organizations that do not give us representation at all. Currency and the speculation of its amount and value, have turned us into irrational subjective fools. It just takes a couple of economist. All you have to do is a slip em a very large sum of money. Only a rich man and some of his whore politicians, can afford to orchestrate that despicable plan. He just has to find an economist greedy enough to go along with the plan. A small group of "trustworhty" people, lying and exaggerating on tv, is all it takes. Other economists argue against them, sure, but the argument itself will cause the damage anyway. "The economists who claim the recession isn't going to happen are liberals," says one news station. "They only believe in spending. They are not to be trusted. Their spending habits are the reason we're in this mess." Another news station yells, "The government is attempting to print more money, but that money is being printed without anything to back it," "how do you know," ask the people. The media dances around the question. "We heard from reliable sources," they reply. The reliable sources were a few low level government workers who were simply speculating, but were taken at their word. The news loves the new stories of dread. The feed them to us all on constant loop...because...HIGH RATINGS, MAGAZINES SOLD WEBSITES VISITED. CEOs law of mass amounts of people. "We need a bailout." If you don't believe this type of thing happens, you are in denial. If you know it can happen, I applaud you for your ability to see through the snow-screen and the white-noise. If you think this sounds unrealistic, ask yourself what would happen if the news reported that a large, doomsday meteor is on a collion course with earth, or oil companies report that there is an oil shortage and they will need to raise gas prices until we either lower taxes or give them the freedom to drill anywhere they please, whenever they please. Our economy is crumbling because we are being duped. Sorry, the truth hurts. But go ahead and trust the currency supplied to you by the government that you claim not to trust...and, while your at it, stay convinced that you are against the feds. The contradiction is comical...and its funniest when you dont notice it.

I find this to be reasonable and fair, but I do not think all rich people are bad. I do however attach wealth to power. The power to bribe, for example. Your argument is a good one, but still, it is weakened by the fact that you are leaving out the concept of economic power. You are overlooking the fact that the wealthy are more powerful than the poor, or the middle class, that a trust-fund boy with millions dollars and the keys to his father's company will always have more power than a middle class boy. This is why we call these rich kids privileged. Do you deny that these things happen in society, that big business bribes government? That unqualified people gain power simply because of what they were born with? You act as though government intrudes on big business, but do you think it is possible that the opposite is just as likely? Remember my sister-in-law did not want to be rich. She simply wanted to teach...and make a descent living, but, as of now, she cant even do that because she was laid off. We can privatize schools, but that will only lead to a bigger sea of idiots...because many cannot afford private school, even the educated middle class parents. will school be then only for the rich? Will that also hinge on supply and demand? Privatizing schools will only provide more proof that wealth is not just luxery, but power. Power that may be in the hands of bankers, who are skilled only in the art of money changing and nothing more. do you want a society where only about 10 percent of the population can read? Ayn Rand will have a much smaller following then.

Oh yes, I understand that. That's basically what I said. Did Rand herself value lipstick over microscopes? Why do you think Rand made that statement? Was this statement made merely to inform us, was she telling us to accept this, or change this? We have the power to change our environment for the better. I'm pretty sure my cousin and my uncle do not get their wages from the government. Im pretty sure my cousin makes his money off the interest of loans and the trade of those loans. I'm also pretty sure my uncle earns money trading stock for big investors. Yep, pretty sure. Do not try to drag me into la la land to make your point. Yes, some banks were bailed out at one point, but why? Have you given that any thought? While we're on the subject of bailouts, dont you think it is strange that banks borrow your money, charge heavy interest rates for loaning out that money, give loans to people who obviously cant afford them, raise the rates on those people, sell those loans to other bankers, based on a highly exaggerated speculation of profit return, so they can make money quick and aren't caught with the lemon (so to speak),like a game of musical chairs? Don't you also find it strange that, when music stops and debt is caused because the sold loans turn out to be garbage, tbankers turn around around and demand our tax dollars, blaming every one but themselves for the problems they caused? I wonder what you value. Do you value a banker over a scientist? Do you think a bank should be able to use your money, unregulated? Are you going to spend your time overseeing every bit of money? I'm getting the feeling we're not really having a conversation because you keep trying to go out of scope, throwing red herrings into the argument.

I would like to elaborate on what I mean t by my last post. Perhaps allowing a bank to borrow your money, without knowing exactly what that money is being invested in and how that money is being used and manipulated, is, in itself altruistic and therefore an act of evil. Perhaps by giving power to people who otherwise would not have it, if not for our conditioned trust in their purpose, we are being blind enablers. I mean, if we put money in a bank and they loan that money to other people at high interest rates, giving you a very small fraction of the profit from that loan, does that not make you a subjective altruist? If we, instead, invested in the scientific community, do you think we might profit more off the inventions and discoveries made in that field? What do you think? Are you disregarding objective morality in this thread, for the sake of argument?

perhaps society values one profession over another, not because that profession is actually more benificial than another, but because the population has been conditioned to accept one profession over another without giving any thought as to why, just as society is convinced that altruism is a supreme virtue. Perhaps the method of obtaining profit, in one profession, is dishonest, but the people in that profession have managed to strong-arm society into thinking they really need them, when they do not. You have not mentioned how an employer makes his money. Do you have any regard for ethics, concerning this issue? How do you think a banker makes money? Do you know? Perhaps society does value a banker over a teacher. Is that rational? Interesting that you would pin the banker against the teacher, but not at all suprising. Why did you not pin the engineer against the banker in this argument? What about "Atlas Shrugged." I trust you know the plot of that novel. Since this is an Ayn Rand forum, how would you compare that book to the subject of this thread?

so are you saying a banker is more uncommon and more in damand than a man with a doctrites in mechanical engineering? Another point was made in a different thread about "adapting the environment." Perhaps bankers convinced the world they are more important than they actually are. Is this sort of what you mean?