cab21

that does give the incentive to just murder people and take property though, if simply dying makes the property unowned and all contracts null and void

the father seems like a asshole for saying he was disappointed and did not want a girl. what is going on in this household? the whole concept of wanting a boy or a girl and being disappointed seems like a horrible issue.

interesting blog how does the calender stuff work i was looking at it, for the 30 minute starting consultation the times were 30 minutes apart, how does one meeting start as soon as the previous one ends? a online schedule looks like first come first serve? would there be monthly subscriptions as well? will you just be doing one on one or will group lessons be part of this as well?

i think there would be competition for customer service. stores would build up brands and reputations with clients. one company might have cheaper prices and less customer service, while another offers more customer service with a greater price. there could be in the nature of the relationship between buyer and seller, that the seller hold a higher hand, but if buyers choose to they can even out the relationship by not buying from from those that make it too much of a power game. with a DRO, something like only going to shops with the DRO or a certain rating can be a way to build a market for more symmetrical relationships. refusing to comply with the other in a free market really just amount to not making the trade. really what would be wanted is for the store owner to care about the needs of the customer and the customer to care about the needs of the store owner, that builds value added relationships. one party can state how that party buys , and the other can state how that party sells, and if the two agree on the methods the transaction makes sense. just dropping the money on the table would be unethical if that is not how the store owner wants to do business, so it depends on if the store owner consents to such a transaction or not. i would not say this creates a privilege of store owner over the potential customer, since each still have to reach a voluntary agreement for the transaction. the store owner only gets the trade if the customer wants to make the trade, and the customer only gets the trade if the store owner wants to make the trade. neither side is allowed to commit fraud, and i would say there is legal equality between the two.

that is a different definition of contract than i have ever seen. contracts that i have seen and definitions in legal dictionaries have included negative obligations as something that can be part of contracts. legal dictionaries also indicate of contracts that can be implicit rather than formal. for there to be a store owner, there needs to be a system in place to recognize ownership for someone to grant tempory, conditional usage, there needs to be a system that recognizes private property. what the visitor gives is the recognition of the stores ownership and private property, neither automatically exist in nature. the entry into the store has negative obligations of recognizing the stores ownership, private property, and the conditions of entry , and legal system used if the conditions and negative obligations are violated. positive obligations happen when the customer makes a purchase, but the negative obligation is there whether or not there is a purchase. in that definition where only positive obligations are contracts, then there would not be contracts to enter the store. i think in a free market a store would be allowed to choose how it's customers make purchases, and can compete on that level. this can depend on the needs of the store, one store might need to keep inventory and track of what it sells more than another store. someone just dropping cash on the table could make more work for the store owner, and the owner would want a higher price for the additional work involved. cash registers also can have scanners that deactivate the security system from going off if the person tries to leave the store without deactivating the product.

it's your decision to make. what about finding people to associate with that don't treat their children this way? the you can work with this family more by choice than feeling like you are giving up your opportunity if you come to the conclusion that the family will continue the child abuse.

the union laws are government laws, so it's not like a free market union. when union means state privalige, it's not talking about a free market union.

there is a difference in prosecution between shoplifting and breaking and entering. there are specific shop lifting laws, indicating a difference between shop lifting and other crimes of theft. a shoplifter was welcome into the store, but not welcome to steal other crimes of theft include people not welcome into the store, and not welcome to steal. since there is a different crime depending on if the person was welcome into the store or not, that shows different catagories of theft. i gave the example of costco. i don't own my own store, but i am a member of stores like costco that do require a membership. with government ( or dro) registered stores, one knows what law the store is supposed to follow, what legal system will be used if someone is suspected of breaking that law. that would be different than each store having it's own system of law, each with different ways of prosecution. knowing what legal system is at work i think is important so a person knows what laws the store has, and what happens if someone walks into the store to break those laws, or if someone in the store does something to a customer. the law of the store is the main ishue, if one does not want to call that a contract. a contract is a agreement of what a person can or can't legally do. 1. an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified. if someone enters a store, and that store has a contract with a legal enforcement, knowing that the company follows that contract is important, rather than a company that just does what it wants. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied-in-fact_contract this page has a example of implied in fact contract.

doing what someone else tells you is hierarchy , hierarchy of a collective over a individual does not eliminate hierarchy, so it looks like they hate individual choice hierarchy. that looks like it creates a hierarchy of intellectuals. i would think that would mean creating elites rather than a democracy of equality the ceo sees a lot more of what goes on at a company than the janitor in capitalism, so if the intellectual sees more than the non intellectual in marxism, in neither does it make sense to have the two make decisions at legal power. how do they enforce such education. the person would know intellectual of what is expected, but knowing does not mean doing or wanting to work a certain way. by not really owning it, but being forced to pay for it, and others to ban me from its use. equal say is the majority exploiting the minority, so one group has control over another group. interesting how they would say this, but also say there are intellectual minority that see things at a deeper level than the majority,

a person is only allowed to enter a store if the owner consents to the entry. there are laws about legal entry into a store, and people agree to not break those laws, or they do break the laws and face prosecution for breaking the law. a "open" sign as supposed to a "closed" sign is a indication that people in general can enter the store , or not enter the store. private stores may have their own rules posted on the door for entry, or have guest lists and tickets for entry. Costco for instance only allows registered members into the store legally. if there are no contracts, then a person enters a store without agreeing that the store owner owns the store, and without agreeing that the property in the store belongs to the store owner. they are part of the same process first comes contract, then payment, than receipt of payment.

im considering that my understanding might be inaccurate, that's why i asked. i don't need for your statement to be false. these being examples of conditions that people must agree to or the person would not be welcome in the establishment. perhaps the word im looking for is consent, rather than contract, with consent being part of a contract. whether or not one wants to say a contract was involved, one could look at consent and the morality of consent. a person buys from a grocery store because each party consented. if the grocery store owner did not consent, the owner would kick the person out without selling the goods, or have closed the store before the person entered, or told the person he not welcome in the store consent can be considered a moral assertion if someone says "i went over to my friends house without needing a contract, maybe that does sounds different than "i went over to my friends house without my friends consent". that consent itself is different from a contract could be the case. acknowledgement of property ownership, and consent that goes along with such acknowledgement when entering someone else s property is going to create more peace than people refusing to acknowledging and consent to the property ownership of others. signed contracts/receipts play a role in acknowledging exchange of ownership or acknowledgement of ownership registration wise. i think the mutual acknowledgement of who owns what is part of what goes on when people consent to entering a store, or letting people enter a store. saying peaceful human interaction depends on common understanding and consent rather than signed contracts i think seems accurate, but i also think signed contracts play a part in such common understanding and consent. a signed contract on it's own have it's trouble when a person has a moral theory that the contract was signed, but without consent, or a court system that considered the contract something a person should not be allowed to consent to morally.

with collectivism its no longer about individual sovereinty. this seems just as exploitive as any capitalism could be. capitalists hope there will be people willing, and able to do any work the employer hires for. did he do any research about this? so if he thinks being exploited is a good trade for not needing to have the responsibility of being a owner, is he allowed such self sovereinty? the owner would have a lot more education than than the worker, so the worker would need years of education to catch up on knoledge of how to even run a company. How do they define exploitation in a way where their own theory is not exploitation?

walking in the store in the first place is a contract. you are going into the store because you are allowed into the store in the first place, and the store can choose to remove consent from you being on the property. a store will consent to allowing people in the store, but not to stealing, so in that way its breeching the understanding that people are welcome in the store as long as they follow rules of the store. this can make the crime shoplifting instead of breaking and entering and theft. the reciept is proof of the contract that happened in order for the exchange to take place. there would be no receipt or exchange without a contract prior to the exchange. ownership would not be transfered if there was no contract before the exchange. the transfer of the goods is not done without a contract before it happens and a receipt after it happens.

what is a receipt if not the recognition of a contract? do these stores just let you come in and take their product without exchange? if you go take from a store without paying, aka a contract, it's theft. not all contracts need paper to still be contracts. transfer of property is contractual though.

do it

people work for all sorts of reasons, how does one person know whats best for another and what that other person wants? if there is equality, each person should be able to choose what the person works for, how long, and what the person receives in return for the work. how does the society get the resources to do this? how to they propose this new breed of man will come into existance? good of society and individual autonomy seems like a contradiction,since the good of society would not be individualistic and would turn into factions. fair goal, capitalism will do it better, current socialist statist policies hold back technology. if money from the business less living expenses is put back into the business to grow the business, and it's no longer called profit in accounting, is that ok in their system? a house or car seem just as much means of production as the tools of the job in a business. looking at earthships, looks like those can be energy positive houses. why would a worker , who does not want to take responsibiltity for running a business, not be able to choose to be a worker, knowing that working would make him happier than having the responsibilty of running the business? capitalism encourages the saving and investment of capital, going for long term growth and more wealthyer future. looks like communism encourages spending capital to not have profits, something that does not allow room for emergencies. the boss has a responsibility that the worker does not have, and that the worker chose not to take. the worker can be riding on the skillset of the boss, without the worker would not have the job. the difference in responsibility is real, the difference in competence is real as well. the division of labor allows people of different skillsets and desires to get good fits and allows for competitive advantage. seems they can have people die off for the greater good of society, and then the more selfish ones stay alive, then they have to go towards a new breed of man all over again.

if the person thinks god wants it, that could be the point for the person.

how can a wage be a living cost some people get 10$ a hour, others are getting 100$ an hour and so on. living costs are under 10$ an hour. seems like with this, people with bigger families having higher living costs, so two people making the same wage, and one has surplus and the other does not, because one choose to have a family and the other made different choices. and if people don't want to do the job otherwise, is the company just supposed to fall apart and not be able to do it's mission? would the workers plan to make robots to help make a post scarcity world? it seems like technology would help out in equality, so worker committees would use to to free other pursuits? workers have bank and savings accounts, making them capitalists as well. this separation of worker from capital provider seems false what does it say about self employed, is a self employed worker with a bank account exploiting himself in this theory? plenty of money goes to paying for leisure goods that are not about essentials, going for luxaries instead of frugality . the workers can buy means of production with their wages, or choose to work where they own their own means of production instead of using others means of production. the worker must see profit in using someone elses means of production rather than their own. why not become a enterpreneur if someone is so intent on using his own means of production? capitalists can do a competant job at creating farms that creates a abundance of food, i guess a socialist vote would make it impossible to fit in equality with creating a abundance of food. it does succeed at attacking success

cool, that will be interesting to see what attention is gets.

why is the employees profit ok, but the employers profit not ok? what about these nonprofits which still pay executives high salaries and benefits, but the employers don't have the intention of profits? so this encourages people building robots and not employing widget builders at all. the profit is because of the tools the employees use, such as equipment or training provided by the employer. the worker intends to profit, and does, when he gets his paycheck. it's not the employers fault if the worker considers the workers paycheck a failure. the worker used the tools of the employer to even do the job in the first place to even get a paycheck does competence play a role in here, or is it just a bunch of people who don't know how to run things voting ignorantly? If autonomy and happiness is important, and people not deciding needs) or use of means of production being determined by vote) and people slack off, then people would not be happy, and the goal of human needs and human happiness has failed. having a philosophy for human needs, that does not ( and cannot) meet human needs, seems like a fatal flaw. the results have not been giving, NAP is not a fundamental in objectivism, looks like ayn rand makes a critisim of libertarians trying to make NAP a fundamental.

the constitution started out counting slaves as 3/5's of a citizen for voting purposes. republic or democracy, it's not some document that has great checks and balances. some of the checks and balances have since been amended to make it more of a democracy as well.

that seems like a very weird way to calculate how do the widgets provide profit, they have even been sold yet at this stage of production? what if the person gets paid per widget instead of some wage? a product can't be sold for it's exact cost of production, what if the product does not even sell for such a price? even if things are overbought, what happens if not enough gets produced to fulfill the order? how is "need" calculated? that seems like a recipe for people "needing" more than they produce"?

might as well put this out for comparison. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/Victims_of_the_1921_famine_in_Russia.jpg communism in a nut shell then the people can be asked if they would rather be in a tent city with plenty of food or a stack of dead bodies that died of starvation

How do the Marxists come to the conclusion about some human need for equality? That seems to make humans hostage to the coveting of others. that a bunch of people who don't know how to farm, get to ruin farmland over the 1 person that does know how to farm, seems like a death sentence, which looking at communism, they have a track record of death sentences. what examples are there of this left libertarian marxist expirements that have gone years into the expirement? i think i have read of stalin and other marxist statists killings libertarian marxists as part of purges.

the full value of labor is whatever a person sells for labor for, and whatever the labor was bought for. how else could the full value of labor be determined? if its the sale price, then the value goes up or down depending on what the sale is. if it's indepedent of the sale price, then the value can be more or less than the sale price. i thought a marxist theory was people getting according to needs or something. if people get according to work, would that mean that more productive workers are oppressing the less productive workers by gaining more resources by being more productive?