Hello from an ex apathetic non-voter

BonnieDundee · 28-04-2008, 05:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MVW

So you arnt infact against property rights just that you want it to be distributed more fairly.

In fact I believe they are a good bulwark against the state to increase freedom. However they do this better when they are well dispersed, firstly because this allows many more individuals more freedom and autonomy and secondly because it increases the bulwark, its flexibility and its support among the populace.

Quote:

How would you even go about doing such a thing? Tell rich people how they can spend their money (de facto , owning all income) ? Have the government , by default, own all the land?
Lets get past the moral implications and even the anti-freedom aspects here and mention how inefficient government is , not to mention the massive lobbying for land that would no doubt occur. Theres also the massive administration costs.

I don't suggest the gov't owns the land. Personally I have no iron law suggestions, I advocate local regions decide in a decentralised and libertarian fashion. There are many different ideas on this : Georgism, mutualism, distributism and many others. It might be something as simple as juries and courts enforcing the rights of and tenants and workers and squatters to property that someone claims as an absentee owners which pretty much is mutualism.

Quote:

You are being massively vague I have to say. Lots of "shoulds" but now many "hows".

Two reasons for that. One is I was mainly critiquing you as this is your thread. Two there are many alternative ways to do this in a libertarian and decentralist fashion and I think it is best for a local community or region to decide itself.

libertylover · 29-04-2008, 08:17 PM

BonnieDundee, I can see why you believe I'm a libertarian since I support
Ron Paul but I do not believe in any political party. If I had the power of the
stoke of the pen, I would repeal all politcal parties. I pledge my allegance to
God, no other.

I do believe in removing the money supply from the government.
They can mint coins. I believe in the gold standard and a free market
(has the market really ever been a free market, I doubt it) without interference from governments or those from the powers that be.

The Bank of England and Lord Rothschild each and every day at 10 a.m.
set the price of metals. Duh!

A federal government must be small with each state collecting the taxes for
their state and passing a portion to the federal government to pay expenses.
All governments must be on a balanced budget. No borrowing or credit at all.
Borrowing of governments results in wars. Just don't give them the power to
borrow.

Here is American so many think they're wealthy. Why? Credit. They think
they are free and weathy.

Wasn't Hayek of the believe private individuals should be free to
print money? I only briefly read of this theory after reading his book
Road To Serfdom and wanted to know more of his background.

BonnieDundee · 01-05-2008, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by libertylover

BonnieDundee, I can see why you believe I'm a libertarian since I support
Ron Paul but I do not believe in any political party. If I had the power of the
stoke of the pen, I would repeal all politcal parties. I pledge my allegance to
God, no other.

I do believe in removing the money supply from the government.
They can mint coins. I believe in the gold standard and a free market
(has the market really ever been a free market, I doubt it) without interference from governments or those from the powers that be.

The Bank of England and Lord Rothschild each and every day at 10 a.m.
set the price of metals. Duh!

A federal government must be small with each state collecting the taxes for
their state and passing a portion to the federal government to pay expenses.
All governments must be on a balanced budget. No borrowing or credit at all.
Borrowing of governments results in wars. Just don't give them the power to
borrow.

Here is American so many think they're wealthy. Why? Credit. They think
they are free and weathy.

Wasn't Hayek of the believe private individuals should be free to
print money? I only briefly read of this theory after reading his book
Road To Serfdom and wanted to know more of his background.

Yes Hayek believed in denationalising the money supply, this is a far better idea than the gold standard.

29-04-2008, 08:17 PM	#32 (permalink)
libertylover Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: central Arkansas, USA Posts: 72	BonnieDundee, I can see why you believe I'm a libertarian since I support Ron Paul but I do not believe in any political party. If I had the power of the stoke of the pen, I would repeal all politcal parties. I pledge my allegance to God, no other. I do believe in removing the money supply from the government. They can mint coins. I believe in the gold standard and a free market (has the market really ever been a free market, I doubt it) without interference from governments or those from the powers that be. The Bank of England and Lord Rothschild each and every day at 10 a.m. set the price of metals. Duh! A federal government must be small with each state collecting the taxes for their state and passing a portion to the federal government to pay expenses. All governments must be on a balanced budget. No borrowing or credit at all. Borrowing of governments results in wars. Just don't give them the power to borrow. Here is American so many think they're wealthy. Why? Credit. They think they are free and weathy. Wasn't Hayek of the believe private individuals should be free to print money? I only briefly read of this theory after reading his book Road To Serfdom and wanted to know more of his background. __________________ “Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition”.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode