I'm a crusty ole curmudgeon so I don't really give a fuck who I offend here.
It isn't cool to move the goalposts in the 4th quarter and rewrite the rules of the game. Do a complete reset like a Jubilee if you want to change the system. The fact of the matter is that there are about 1-billion seniors in first world nations who've paid into pensions their whole life. Are Ancaps suggesting throwing these billion seniors under the bus of free-market capitalism? Why the hell should 90-year-olds have to compete with 25-year olds under a neo- free market Ancap system? Why should our pensions which we've paid into our whole lives be arbitrarily taken away because Ancaps don't like social welfare systems?
What about children, the mentally ill, and all those who don't fall neatly into the box of productive capitalist norms? Fuck 'em, Eh? We'll see...I'm not against Ancap per se but it needs to address a whole shit-load of issues before I subscribe to it.
BTW: all these issues I mentioned can be solved by capitalists agreeing to abandon FOUR areas of exploitation: housing, food, healthcare, and education. Exploiting me and profiting off my basic needs is simply fucking lazy and uncreative. Capitalists should be able to do better...Changing the way currency is created and distributed would also address my area of concerns.
I chose to fund my own retirement by buying income producing real estate in my 30s and letting the tenants pay off the principal with their rent payments. I don't wish Ill on anyone but why is it that you feel more entitled to a pension and my efforts and risk taking are irrelevant? I had no trust fund or windfall. All done with simple loans and delayed gratification.
Posted using Partiko Android
To buy and sell the earth is spiritual anathema to anyone who understands the nature of reality.
But do what thou whilst...In the end, the universe will have the final say.
And BTW: even with those incredibly strong intuitions about existence, I'm still not an anti-propertarian like many left-leaning anarchists. It's a fact that no human needs more than one house to live in. Make that the agreement for any rational sustainable spiritual civilization.
Who are you to dictate what others shoukd be allowed, based in your percepion if need? That is the height of arrogance.
The question is not what someone has, but how it was acquired. is it through the productive means of voluntary exchanges, ir the coercive means of political plunder? Politicians and megacorp CEOs fall under the latter, but people who invest in rental property or own a vacation cabin on a lake or maintain a residence in multiple cities due to work needs are hardly depriving anyone of anything.
You condemn "ownership of the earth," but when someone transforms land outnof its state of nature to fulfill a need or want, why has a superior claim to the result of that action if not the acting human? Tending a field, planting and orchard, building a home, or otherwuse mixing labor with the soil to use unowned land for productive means creates a right of use. Who has the right to violate that claim? Why shoudl it not be transferrable if someone else perceives the past human action to have added value, and thus allow an economic exchange?
Do you have the right to rob me? No. If your social security check relies on robbing me, that is, taking money from me without my consent, how can you claim a right to it? You may be the victim of massive governmental fraud, but that does not justify you committing new crimes against me.
Says the believer is Casper economics! You, worshipers of the God KA$H, crack me up!
Money is property. Property is the result of human action. Theft of money, like any other theft, is a usurpation of authority over another individual.
Printing up usurious property is the crime of the century and theft beyond measure as is quantitative easing and all the other ways the earth has been turned into a casino.
Please go troll someone else manchild!
Please don't build a strawman and then accuse me of being the troll. I do not support the modern incarnation of government monopoly money. I am talking about the principle of a medium of exchange, and only citing government funny money incidentally since it is the status quo. My argument is the same whether we are discussing FRNs, gold, silver, crypto, a voluntary scrip system, or wampum beads.
You are not entitled to stolen loot, even if you are accustomed to receiving it. And no, you didn't "pay into" anything, other than a forced Ponzi scheme. You are not entitled to have other people continually robbed so you can keep benefiting from it.
It's curious as to which robbery you seem concerned about. Hopefully, you're also concerned with the robbery of the commons by the central banksterr fiat currency system. They've rewarded themselves by the trillions since 2008 via Q.E. and such for committing some of the most egregious economic crimes in human history.
Okay, fair enough, that is not a priority.
But defining things accurately should be. A Ponzi scheme is a short-lived economic investment scheme usually enacted by corrupt financial entrepreneurs who swindle investors via using initial investment income leveraged against new income (marks) with no substantial 'product' backing the venture. Comparing our Social Security to this is ignorance at worst and disinformation at best. It's fine that you disagree with this kind of welfare system but it isn't a Ponzi Scheme...Nor is the Central Banking Fiat Currency system--that is a pyramid scheme and any anarchist worth their salt should be against it.
Other than you making up the part about "short-lived," that is a description of Social Security. No one "pays into" anything. What recipients receive is being stolen from other, productive people. (Of course I oppose the fiat "fractional reserve" fraud, too.)
I'm happy to find points of agreement Larkin. It was a relatively short period of time that Bernie Madoff got to implement his fraud (one exp.) I try my damnest not to make shit up...
Most countries have people pay for their own pension. This was supposed to be the tack that Roosevelt took in '35. I don't know how it works in America but I've paid into my pension every year I've worked and most people I know do, too. So if you're advocating all these millions upon millions of people (perhaps a billion in the coming 30-years) to not get the money they paid into then you've got a fight on your hands. Never forget also that this is happening while the banksters rape the reward pool...
I'm still wondering why you see neo-feudalism and as the best possible way forward and I don't feel I'm Strawmaning you in asking.
Please address my concerns in the links I posted rather than coughing up terse and pithy scripted replies. I'm not a paid actor...Real thoughtful responses would be more appreciated even if we couldn't agree on every point of contention.
Of course you should get back from the thief's what they have stolen from you and the other people!
I'm not advocating the opposite ( I speak for myself here because that's the only person I can speak for or from) I'm also not responsible for the ponzi scheme others have put in place and am not guilty of the theft of those billions. But that I say I can't do anything about it or have a solution to get the money back is not the same as advocating the thiefs to get away with their billions.
It's saying. I take my lost and I'm gonna be free from now on and let others be free.
I don't (or even can't) find a solution for the problem that I did not create. And I believe noone can. Except, if you don't advocate for governments or masterplans or mechanism which force everybody to do something under the threats or violence in the future.
Maybe this analogy helps, Imagine the "cotton slaves" that want to be free but other slaves telling them you first have to take care that we get our cotton back (or the equivalent), before you can be free, or else you are for neo-slavery. Then the slave that want to be free is made responsible for what the masters have done and stolen.
The other slaves want him to solve the problems of the slavery and theft in the past before they"can let him be free" which means they keep him as a slave and they are the master that can decide to let him be free as he has done as they dictated
In this analogy the slaves surrounding the "slave" (free man or woman) are his or her master, they may not see it but they are keeping him or her enslaved.