Men in Ewes' Clothing: The Stealth Politics of the Transgender Movement

Originally posted by ilikecomics
The people who want to use it i.e. people investing in gold, silver, crypto, stocks, etc.

Competition between currencies would reveal which are good and which aren't. The better currency that holds it value longer would be stored, while the lesser curricies would have a rapid circulation. This is a principle known as Gresham's law.

The things that stops someone from stealing other people's property is; a sense of decency/moral compass, self defense (if someone comes to steal from me and I point a shotgun at them, they're going to be deterred.), Security measures i.e. gravel to hear someone's approach, security cameras, dogs, signage.
These are also the things that stop property crime now, as around 40 percent of murders in America currently go unsolved, in addition to thousands and thousands of other property crimes.
Laws aren't what stop the average person from murdering, raping, or stealing, common decency is. Immoral people don't give a shit about following laws or not.

If your family has no property it's because they didn't provide any value to anyone, if they did then they'd be able to afford property.
Everyone is born with property, it's called your body and it's effects.

No I'm saying we should go back 300 years before there were violent cartels known as governments, that only exist as parasites on the back of consumer-producers.
They provide nothing, if they did provide value they wouldn't be in mutli-trillionaire debt.

If a powerful company in a free market doesn't provide value then it collapses as a business. The only place valueless businesses exist is under the state, in the form or bailout or artificially low interest loans.

So if a powerful company became violent in a free market, it would quickly collapse.

History by itself should tell this isn't going to work. First off not all land is created equal. And what happens when multiple join forces to take over land from other people. And since land ownership is the most important property in your entire system as the make the rules it does indeed matter you starts off with land or not.

Like this system will just turn in to feudal Europe within a year.

Originally posted by Newjak
Dude this fanfiction bullshit.

History by itself should tell this isn't going to work. First off not all land is created equal. And what happens when multiple join forces to take over land from other people. And since land ownership is the most important property in your entire system as the make the rules it does indeed matter you starts off with land or not.

Like this system will just turn in to feudal Europe within a year.

Obviously land isnt created equally and I never said it was. That's why there will be competition between those who want to use that land and it's in everyone's best interest that those who make the most efficient use out of the factors of production own the most valuable pieces of land.

Again insurance companies and dispute resolution organizations would sell their services of property defense and insurance.
If you're violent or associate with violent people then no one will insure you.

Why do you think that everyone is so violent ? Do you really think everyone doesn't kill each other because cops exist ?
Do you not kill because it's wrong to kill or because you're afraid to get caught ?
If you dont murder because you're afraid to get caught then that may explain why you don't understand the moral underpinnings of what I'm saying.

You act like if we got rid of the state that all modern conveniences would disappear.
Iphones and arbitration would still exist without the state.

Just because land is very valuable doesn't mean everything else is valueless. Not sure why you'd think that.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Obviously land isnt created equally and I never said it was. That's why there will be competition between those who want to use that land and it's in everyone's best interest that those who make the most efficient use out of the factors of production own the most valuable pieces of land.

Again insurance companies and dispute resolution organizations would sell their services of property defense and insurance.
If you're violent or associate with violent people then no one will insure you.

Why do you think that everyone is so violent ? Do you really think everyone doesn't kill each other because cops exist ?
Do you not kill because it's wrong to kill or because you're afraid to get caught ?
If you dont murder because you're afraid to get caught then that may explain why you don't understand the moral underpinnings of what I'm saying.

You act like if we got rid of the state that all modern conveniences would disappear.
Iphones and arbitration would still exist without the state.

Just because land is very valuable doesn't mean everything else is valueless. Not sure why you'd think that.

And I don't humanity has to be violent but a free for all where its a race to buy up the most land to get the most resources is most definitely just going to create Feudal Europe all over again.

Heck it may even come to violence but if a large corporation or business gets enough military might all they have to do is say give us your land or we'll take it.

Like this is history. This history as it has always been. To pretend otherwise is to ignore the flaws in your system.

Originally posted by Newjak
The people who get make the rules are the ones with the most power. That inherently makes land the valuable assets as they make the rules. Also all these companies how are they regulating themselves in this market. Sounds like they would just buy up all the land or take it from other people.

And I don't humanity has to be violent but a free for all where its a race to buy up the most land to get the most resources is most definitely just going to create Feudal Europe all over again.

Heck it may even come to violence but if a large corporation or business gets enough military might all they have to do is say give us your land or we'll take it.

Like this is history. This history as it has always been. To pretend otherwise is to ignore the flaws in your system.

That's not true, Catholics would follow Catholic law regardless of how much land the Catholic church owns. There are values outside of monetary value, like osycho-spiritul value. This idea disproves your premise, which means your conclusion is also incorrect.

Do you think land isn't valuable right now ? States own the most land right now, and they make the rules, but only because their unique status as a territorial monopoly on violence.

If land is valuable right now, people seem to acquire it nonviolently all the time i.e. real estate agents showing houses to people looking for a house, then they buy them from the seller.

A corporation only exists if the state exists. I think you mean company. A company can only pay people if they provide value to customers, no one would buy from someone threatening to take their land.

Only States and conquerers acquire land through violence.

Are you saying a powerful company has acted as a state ? When did that happen ? I've never heard of it.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
That's not true, Catholics would follow Catholic law regardless of how much land the Catholic church owns. There are values outside of monetary value, like osycho-spiritul value. This idea disproves your premise, which means your conclusion is also incorrect.

Do you think land isn't valuable right now ? States own the most land right now, and they make the rules, but only because their unique status as a territorial monopoly on violence.

If land is valuable right now, people seem to acquire it nonviolently all the time i.e. real estate agents showing houses to people looking for a house, then they buy them from the seller.

A corporation only exists if the state exists. I think you mean company. A company can only pay people if they provide value to customers, no one would buy from someone threatening to take their land.

Only States and conquerers acquire land through violence.

Are you saying a powerful company has acted as a state ? When did that happen ? I've never heard of it.

And companies have tried to create their own currencies and towns and rule over their employees lives. It is the coal miner towns all over again.

And land doesn't have to always be acquired violently. They could also purchase it via money and status in their kingdoms from smaller land owners.

Also just the threat of violence is sometimes to be enough. Like your system isn't going to work because there are so many open ended questions that you're just going to get governments again. In fact the land owners are governments unto themselves.

Originally posted by Newjak
Face the facts man. You're just recreating feudal Europe but it's the corporations that will be the rulers.

And companies have tried to create their own currencies and towns and rule over their employees lives. It is the coal miner towns all over again.

And land doesn't have to always be acquired violently. They could also purchase it via money and status in their kingdoms from smaller land owners.

Also just the threat of violence is sometimes to be enough. Like your system isn't going to work because there are so many open ended questions that you're just going to get governments again. In fact the land owners are governments unto themselves.

What do you think the term feudalism describes ?

So you think that whoever controls the money rules over the people in a tyrannical way ?

Land is only acquired violently by states. If land is traded for or gifted it's morally acquired by the social means.

It's not my system, it's a system of thought that's been developing and evolving for thousands of years. It is simply a society without violence, and where violence inevitably crops up the victim will be compensated. That's it.

Why are you so pro violence ? It's weird.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
What do you think the term feudalism describes ?

So you think that whoever controls the money rules over the people in a tyrannical way ?

Land is only acquired violently by states. If land is traded for or gifted it's morally acquired by the social means.

It's not my system, it's a system of thought that's been developing and evolving for thousands of years. It is simply a society without violence, and where violence inevitably crops up the victim will be compensated. That's it.

Why are you so pro violence ? It's weird.

It's not about being pro violence it's about understand how this works.

Companies will very much buy up as land and resources as they want. And since they will own the land they will get to make the rules. It's greed and still exists even to this day.

And the main point I'm trying get you to understand is you're not getting rid of governments you're just creating new ones. And in your system the ones the ability to acquire the most land have the most advantages.

Originally posted by Newjak
You can not be this dense.

It's not about being pro violence it's about understand how this works.

Companies will very much buy up as land and resources as they want. And since they will own the land they will get to make the rules. It's greed and still exists even to this day.

And the main point I'm trying get you to understand is you're not getting rid of governments you're just creating new ones. And in your system the ones the ability to acquire the most land have the most advantages.

Calling me dense isn't you defining feudalism, which is what I asked for

Companies are made of individuals, individuals buy land.

Governments are violent companies are not. You're assuming land = power, it doesn't.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Calling me dense isn't you defining feudalism, which is what I asked for

Companies are made of individuals, individuals buy land.

Governments are violent companies are not. You're assuming land = power, it doesn't.

Originally posted by Newjak
And the main point I'm trying get you to understand is you're not getting rid of governments you're just creating new ones.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

And what he fails to understand is that at least in representative governments, people have influence over how things are run. In the system he is proposing, the power is concentrated into the hands of the owner or owners of the corporation. No one has any influence over them. So they can buy all the natural resources, and literally charge you to breathe air, and you would have no recourse.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Ding! Ding! Ding!

And what he fails to understand is that at least in representative governments, people have influence over how things are run. In the system he is proposing, the power is concentrated into the hands of the owner or owners of the corporation. No one has any influence over them. So they can buy all the natural resources, and literally charge you to breathe air, and you would have no recourse.

I also love how he keeps saying companies aren't violent.

Like history completely debunks that idea. Companies have hired union breakers to commit violence against workers going on strike before. They have tried to make employees like indentured servants before.

And then he acts like somehow humans aren't going to human and try to take more resources and land from each other.

Also his spat about land not equaling power when he literally said whoever owns the property gets to make the rules lol.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Ding! Ding! Ding!

And what he fails to understand is that at least in representative governments, people have influence over how things are run. In the system he is proposing, the power is concentrated into the hands of the owner or owners of the corporation. No one has any influence over them. So they can buy all the natural resources, and literally charge you to breathe air, and you would have no recourse.

Woodrow Wilson (2016). “The New Freedom: [Illustrated & Biography Added]”, p.117, eKitap Projesi via PublishDrive

Wilson was strongly against monopolies and sought a government with an internal revenue service and a federal reserve banking system for the people to decide the interest rates as proposed by congress.

The biggest problem with this is when a President decides to build a giant monument, like the Hoover Dam.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
That's not true, Catholics would follow Catholic law regardless of how much land the Catholic church owns. There are values outside of monetary value, like osycho-spiritul value. This idea disproves your premise, which means your conclusion is also incorrect.

Do you think land isn't valuable right now ? States own the most land right now, and they make the rules, but only because their unique status as a territorial monopoly on violence.

If land is valuable right now, people seem to acquire it nonviolently all the time i.e. real estate agents showing houses to people looking for a house, then they buy them from the seller.

A corporation only exists if the state exists. I think you mean company. A company can only pay people if they provide value to customers, no one would buy from someone threatening to take their land.

Only States and conquerers acquire land through violence.

Are you saying a powerful company has acted as a state ? When did that happen ? I've never heard of it.