[patriciacolling]

I think that my idea of dignity precludes the notion of voluntarily selling oneself into slavery. The problem is–who is to stop it? It is sort of like finding prostitution to be an assault against the human condition–but, again, who is to stop it? Perhaps if it is the belief of the people that we do not own ourselves, we could not feel pressure to sell ourselves anymore than we feel pressure to murder someone that we perceive to be causing us great distress. In a community of such believers, is it conceivable to have a law that prohibits these transactions? As long as the person is free to leave those communities, then would it be anti-freedom for them to be established? I guess it all comes down to self-governing. The second part of the passage about gifting oneself is how we come to own oneself does not feel right to me. I think this could be an affront to human dignity, as well, so I’m not sure how the author rationalizes this. I imagine gifting ourselves could be a form of slavery, too. The pressure to gift oneself for the benefit of the community, for instance. Perhaps it is the Conservative in me that is addressing this. The Liberal in me probably has more to do with the notion that no entity, save my conception of God, is in a better position to use me than myself.

[patriciacolling]

Osgood401: I wonder if the same people crying global warming want to subsidize people living in flood zones–I have often argued your point about living in flood zones. I’m glad you mentioned it. Perhaps the man-made global-warming enthusiasts (actually, as you say–protectionists; and, also, as I would suggest, possibly– misanthropes) want to encourage foolish homesteading to prove [cough] their point.

[patriciacolling]

Sometimes I don’t even understand why the power brokers even bother with pretense. They seem to be able to extract wealth and have more and more control over the population without approval by its sentiment. Really, how many people are concerned with climate change? Most people are just trying to buy themselves some leisure and golden years with their productivity (and a rainy day fund for the responsible ones) to worry about these things. When and if the population decides government is its bane and what, if anything, the population will do about it, is anyone’s guess.

[patriciacolling]

I wondered about something to that effect with all the reserves held at the Federal Reserve–whose to say they can’t just go up in smoke when things start to get out of control. The way I posed it was credibly shot down because I was confusing open-market operations with borrowing from the Fed. But still, as long as a couple trillion dollars or more are held in deposits at the Fed, that’s a lot of potential circulation to pull out of the economy by fiat. I still have to listen to the Q and A–going to try to get to that today.

[patriciacolling]

It occurred to me that the tax payer should not be subsidizing schools that restrict speech whether it come from subsidize loans or whatever; so, in order to obtain payment by loans secured by the government, it may stand to reason that the schools are subject to the same rules as congress, no? I may be reaching but it’s worth a try. 🙂

[patriciacolling]

Agreed.

[patriciacolling]

I used the word procreation because I was more interested in the actually having children part of sex. I was just wondering if, in a world of property rights–if all the land in all the world is owned but there are some people who do not own land, could the landowners decide to engage in population control by not allowing childbearing on their land? I guess that’s what I was saying. I see what your saying about adjudicating crime–I believe that the libertarian society agrees to the use of judges–and their decisions are accepted–something of a natural aristocracy.

[patriciacolling]

Thank you.

[patriciacolling]

I’m reading it because I heard that it is a, maybe, a blueprint, for some conspiratorial stuff. I am only reading small bits at a time because I have it in book form and it is easier for me to read on my Kindle. History, as laid out in this book so far, is very interesting and, seemingly, scholarly; but, the little that I read so far puts a negative spin on gold-backed money which I find laughable. The book is 1300+ pages and I have read about 120. LOL. I will finish it, though, if it takes me two years.

[patriciacolling]

What constitutes “property rights”? How is a conflict between a land-owner and a person who owns himself but does not own the space he takes up resolved? Moreover, how can we own anything at all, including ourselves, if we do not own the space on which things are placed? I brought up the “right” to procreate because it seems like a natural occurrence. The property-rights’ point that Rothbard makes about not being able to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theatre is because the owner of the theatre forbids it (contractual)–not that a tort can be filed for reckless behavior. That seems plausible until you apply it to what a person can and cannot do if he does not own any space he finds himself.

I may be confusing my inquiry even more–I’m not sure how to best communicate it.

[patriciacolling]

Sometimes I have to remember that the order we develop on this side of life is the best we can do in a paradoxical universe. There are grey areas as far as I can tell with NAP–at least on moral grounds. The legal use of NAP would be the order for societal function that is widely accepted or adjudicated. How a conflict is adjudicated in these grey areas is a resolution we accept to continue functioning. Even in the police state today, the excuse is about what constitutes injustice (or aggression) and it would appear that those reasons are propaganda for those who really want to benefit from using aggression themselves. There is always choice because choice involves opportunity costs–there is always an opportunity and a cost to our action. In my opinion, I guess, there are always trade-offs no matter what the order of society. I’m glad for this conversation–it’s the closest I’ve seen to my own philosophical dilemma and previous inquiries.

[patriciacolling]

That Forbes article, as far as I can tell, maybe I didn’t finish it, didn’t mention agreeing to lend out your savings by agreeing not to take it back before a period of time. I think it had a different definition of “bank” than I do, too. I don’t see how lending based on just a fraction of the savings is not a money multiplier, either. The fact that that money has to be paid back, essentially bringing back down the money supply, is demonstrated by the saw tooth money supply graphs before the federal reserve, I guess. I don’t think he mentions that the central bank keeps the equilibrium from happening by its system of inflation. I know this is from lending to the banks or the open market–the open market being the more culpable–the writer doesn’t mention all that, though, does he?

[patriciacolling]

You read too much. LOL. How is your reading marathon going? Thank you for letting me know.

[patriciacolling]

But profiting from usury is the motive for FRB, right? I guess an important implication of FRB is inflation. I suppose the risk of FRB could voluntarily be agreed upon but that doesn’t address the effects of inflation on people that do not volunteer for it. I guess because I see that time preference is an acceptable demand for a product, I’m trying to reconcile the sin of usury–although, I’m more comfortable with spending and investing from personal savings and/or contributions rather than personal debt; but, that is just a personal preference. I think using a reserve to earn profit (on an amount beyond that of which you have to lend out–and by keeping a portion of what is lent out while lending out the full amount–because the amount would have to come from nothing) could be sinful but I don’t have that sorted out yet either. Thank you Organization Man for the links–I’ll try to get to them soon. Thank you Professor Casey for your input, lessons and discussion–perhaps it is wrong of me to try to rationalize what is meant by usury for my own satisfaction. That is something I’ll have to reconcile with myself but I do not want to become complacent.

[patriciacolling]

I was going to mention that I wouldn’t suggest doing anything to interfere with the voluntary sale/purchase of shares but I can’t help but think that the evolution of the system has not been soundly beneficial to society. It is my understanding that I am not legally able to buy shares in private companies if their owners want to sell them to me–something to do with not being an accredited investor? Certainly, there has got to be some statist involvement with the application for a company to sell shares on the public market. Perhaps it is easier for CEOs to drive companies into the ground if there is a large public on whom to dump their shares. What protection does the board of a company have from lawsuits? In any case, as I said, there is a lot I don’t yet know but I need to start the conversation to learn–also, I want to believe and am more likely to believe that all systemic problems are because of government interference. I already believe monetary policy has had and is having terrible consequences on the stock market. The question is–how do we stop capitalism from becoming fascism or something like that, I guess? I’ll start by being as intellectually honest and inquisitive as possible.

[Author]

Posts