cab21

looking at some wealth distribution videos, i have seen some ask about why they are created and who could care. trying to think of a answer that could fit, whether there is a government or not i don't know if wealth increase or protecting services collect data on distribution of wealth of clients, or just simply the wealth of clients, in order to add value to the clients? so one thing i would be wondering is wealth distribution inumportant, while knowing the wealth of clients is? looking at the statist interest in keeping track of wealth and/ or wealth distribution. if the job is to increase and/ or protect the wealth of clients, knowing the wealth of clients sounds useful in order to do that job. if government job is to increase and/ or protect the wealth of clients, then knowing the wealth of clients sounds useful in order to do that job. if the government's job is neither to increase or protect the wealth of clients( citizens). then what does government do?

since eugenics is about breeding and such. if Serena Williams and usain bolt have a baby, what nation? american/jamacian if serena williams and tiger woods have a baby, what nation? american? if serena williams and peyton manning have a baby, what nation? american? if serena williams and Mariusz Pudzianowski have a baby, what nation? american/polish how is nation determined, as far as eugenics go?

it's part of nature i don't think it would make it a miracle plant.

this could be a contract matter if the contract says, don't drive with x or < alcohol level, and the person does drive with x or < alcohol level, then the contract has been violated. if people prefer to buy licences to drive on roads without such contracts, ok, if that's the market.

how is race real? how does one catagories people into separate, and objective, racial catagories? http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Leroi/ "Soon it may be possible to identify your ancestors not merely as African or European, but Ibo or Yoruba, perhaps even Celt or Castilian, or all of the above." what catagory does " all of the above" get? do they get a legit claim in each catagory? if all of the above, i don't think 1 person= 1 catagory only

i mean other from mankind? a phrase i sometimes see is "greatest book ever written in the history of mankind" and am curius about that as suppose to just "greatest book ever written"

what is a example of information being sold, but not access to that information?

oh you could have started on property ownership, and how public roads are wrong, and how the driver was the victim of the state, state rules for the road are not unlike private rules for some private roads, where speeding can be a violating of the contract between the owner of the road, and the person with a license to drive on the road. if you have fun with the reactions, ok if you don't have fun, choose not to.

say homesteading is a action, not a oppurtunity to act the right to the action is universial keven has the right to homestead susan has the right to homestead all have the right to homestead noone is left out of the right to the act.

have any books/writings been written before or outside the history of mankind?

1 premise consent of the owner does person 100 ask do i look at if person 99 is sharing, or do i look at if the owner consented to the sharing in the first place? if person 99 does not own it, and the owner does own it, looking to the consent of the owner , rather than the consent of the nonowner is preferable under consent of the owner the owner chooses what to share and how to share it. plenty of owners do share their music, on the terms of the owners. such as having a album for stream on downloand from the official website or a business partner or business agreement how smart it is to share or not share is not a moral question the choice to share or not share is a moral question

how is intellectual property to be protected? are we talking about contractual arangements, and if those contracts ought to be honered and protected? if i make a product, and a condition to sell it to you, is that you don't share, sharing would be violating the contract and violating such a contract is immoral, not amoral. if someone is employed, by contract with conditions of not sharing some information, sharing the information is breaching the contract.

A's human action on X geography , does not stop B from human action on Y geography. im just not sure about this world where the whole world is claimed through human action. there are over 7 billion people out there, and plenty of space not claimed through human action. people are choosing to move to places where others have already had human action, rather than homestead. how are regions given? at what time periods is the rent collected and how? who is owning and who is renting? how is market value of rent calculated? is this charging rent to people that rent? why do people displace each other from the land here? as for what rent is, rent is a payment for a service, so why should someones payment received for a service have to go to people that did not provide the service? what is the immigration policy- do people get to migrate to land near goldmines and be entitled to the gold from the mines without any work to help the goldmine owner? if one person raises the value of his land, and another lowers value in his land, does the person who raised the value of his land have to compensate the person who lowered the value of his land? if people want dividents, they can share ownership, with homesteading free market capitalism, people do not displace each other from land. a person cannot be displaced from land the person was never placed on in the first place. free market capitalism allows people to create property, it allows people to modify property as well who is to say earth is the only place to create property, or that any ability is limited by geography?

when volcanos erupt and form islands, is this process to be called modification or creation? how is land created? if i own private land that i have labored with, and prevent someone from destroying or taking over what i have created, am i preventing that person from search elswhere? i think rights can only be something a individual has, and not a collective. say the right is the right to not have others take homesteaded property someone who does not have homesteaded property in the first place, will not have this right violated someone who does have homesteaded property in the first place, could have the right violated. it's not the right to have unhomesteaded land available to homestead, its the right to not have homesteaded land taking away. say the right to not have one's penis circumsized, it's universial in the sense that it applies to all people but not all people have a penis in the first place to protect or choose if it gets circumsized. this does not mean there is unequal protection as much as it means that only some people own one to protect in the first place. how is too much land to be determined? all must have eaqual access to eaqual amount of resources? is this to be redivided everytime there is a population change? how does a person living at 1000 feet above sea level, redistribute the air he breaths to a person living at sea level or vise versa, if they are each supposed to get eaqual air? sure, not taking land away from people that have homesteaded land, will prevent others from having that exact land and exact resource, but does not prevent the person from other land and other resources, or a way to trade to get access. say the right is the right to not be prevented from free trade, that is something where there is no limit of supply. a person cannot free trade if others are telling the person how much land he can and cannot homestead.

if there is no original land left, then there is simply no longer the ability to homestead homesteading would in such case no longer be a option. the right to not be prevented from optaining someone you cannot obtain, is universial one person's action in one space, does not limit another person from persuring the same action in a different space. if one person has one square mile, and all square miles have 1 person, this is a effect of each person having one square mile, rather than the fault of any one person preventing others from having their own square mile. the person is just preventing another person from taking over the square mile that the individual owns. one person is not responsible for all people, and all land ownership. the universal right to do something, does not require the universal ability to do it. what was land created from? the actions of life have modified and improved and created land. so the homesteading theory puts a human over a beaver that creates a dam for instance. the beaver is modifing and improving the land for the sake of the beaver. so biowaste and natural resources had to come from other resources and evoluton of life using and modifying land. continuing the favor of humans in homesteading, why do humans get to eat a coconut, rather than the coconut tree deciding who gets to eat the coconut? life in nature modifies and improves land, no land just existed unmotified by some form of life. so anarcho capitalist thought gives preference to humans over beavers and coconut trees, and the modifications of humans over the modifications of other life forms. in that sense rights can be a form of manipulation, and really just a way to get humans to cooperate together rather than act more like other lifeforms that are not giving each other such options. if trees think about the universality of trees, and owls, i don't know. i don't know if this is good, but it's something to try out if nature can create land and humans are part of nature humans can create land as part of nature if land is created by modification nature motifying land can create land humans , as part of nature , motifying land can create land if a person has the right to modify land, not motified by others and all land is motified by others a person still has the right to modify land not mofied by others, just not the ability to do so by fact of all land already being modified.

it's not people that would be preventing homesteading, but conditions. a land owner could, choose to give up land for someone else to homestead, and that would be a change of conditions. new land can be created, say someone invents a process to turn biowaste into land, say someone builds multilevel greenhouses or gardens. humans can use their brains to invent new ways of gaining property and land. if homesteaded land requires mixing labor with the land, people provided to labor in order to homestead the land humans can use their brains to create ways to create more land homesteading is not getting land for nothing homesteading is getting land for mixing labor with the land, then ownership comes from that and the owner can do what the owner chooses a person does not get a natural resources for nothing, the person does get the natural resource as a result of the persons labor the untouched earth is from nature, the homesteaded earth is touched earth, and from a mix of humans and nature humans are part of nature... but making humans different the homesteading ishue applies. land ownership under homesteading is something for something if it's not, what is the land asking for that the land is not receiving? is the land a active player in the game? does one person need to give land to another and so on, for this to be universial to have a eaqual right to the land? not all land is created eaqual from nature. does one person with a square mile of fertile farmland, have to give land to anyone that wants part of the square mile of farmland rather than a part of the 10000 square miles of desert? if 5280 people want to live in that mile, do they each get 1 square foot? how can someone live on one square foot of land ownership? why did the 4 employees work late? why did they not ask for the amount of pizza they wanted before they did the work? surly these employes are each getting paid to work late, unless they choose to work late for free? they can each cooperate as to who gets how much pizza. say the owner of the pizza, bought the pizza, and abandoned the pizza, first one to get the pizza is the first one that has mixed labor with the pizza they all got paid for their work, they can all choose to not care about the pizza at all and go eat elsewhere this pizza is not the only source of food around. say there are 4 people if one takes the pizza, the next person will kill that person and take the pizza person 1- takes the pizza and is killed by person two person 2- kills person 1, takes the pizza and is killed by person three person 3- kills person 2, takes the pizza and is killed by person three person 4- kills person 3 , takes the pizza the last person to take the pizza would get the pizza all 4 members would likely just go after different food sources where there is not such zero sum game, or decide to cooporate and have parts of the pizza, or cooperate to get additonal food sources what is nature? is nature a actor in the game of life? can nature choose to trade, rather than given a gift how does nature communicate the principle of who mixes labor first stays the same here the principle of being free to go elsewhere if one oppurtunity is already taken is also there i'm not sure how many island are out there in nature with 1 tree 1 coconut no freash water no soil to grow the tree and coconut such islands of limited oppurtunity for growth don't sound habital, but could be created into a habital place with labor from other places with other resources.

what about freedom fighters who don't "fight for country"? what about individuals that "fight for the individuals property rights"? why would a individual give up ownership and move?

ill try a few of these, and i am fond of being silly. The right to land can equal not prevented from pursuing land, and pursuing trade. Rather than being a positive obligation for others to provide, it can just mean that others don't prevent the pursuit of people trying to acquire land through homestead or trade. If all land is homesteaded, land can still be gotten through trade. Homestead rights can be universal, by no one being prevented from such pursuit. It does not mean everyone gets land to homestead. it means neither bob or sally are prevented from the pursuit of homesteading. For something to be moral to be able to do universally not everyone has to do it, it can be moral to homestead, without everyone being required to homestead. Right to life, right to not be deliberately killed/murdered, not a right to be provided everything deemed required for life. Who determines how much is required for each person to receive? Who determines what "no longer using" is? for something to no longer be used, it must have once been used, so why not have the owner be the one that decides the usage cycle? this makes it different from land with a notice of abandonment, if there is a notice of deliberate use or reservation. in such a scenario of people that beleive in free markets, what is the interest of holding land not being used? either the land is being used, or there is not much of a rational point in ownership. letting value rise on the land is one such use of land. if someone could be put to work on the land to raise the value of the resources, that would also sound like a better use of the oppurtunity than letting land sit unused.

if a person in the march starts acting in a way the rest don't agree with, is the march supposed to naturaly disolve into a bunch of individuals again? a march at the core is numbers. how is 1000 marching better than 1100 marching against those 1000? usa governent constitution was ratified with a nice chunk of people who did not want to ratify it, a march of those against ratifycation would be vastly outnumberd by a march for ratification. if it's about individual liberty, then it does not matter what the numbers are.

a march is about as collectivist as it can get right?

perhaps joy was the wrong word, but accepting the fact of losing with such brutal honesty with no fight, seems more like a romantic ideal of how humans ought to relate than the reality of her own relationships or of many others. im reading rands personal life, and it says the person she had an affiar beleived she thought her husband was joyful about her having a affair. http://marriage.about.com/od/thearts/p/Marriage-Of-Frank-O-Connor-And-Ayn-Rand.htm from the article is appears rand was rationalizing the affair and thought she had a husband that she did not have in reality. sure in evolution there could be the drive to trade up in business and sex partners, but not many are "proper" about the loss in reality. at least people did not perceive her husbands reaction to be that of a "proper man" if rands view was that it ought not to cause conflict when she sleeps with other men in a open marriage.

im not at the end of the book yet, but so far people are happy when they lose the person they love to someone the person loves more, is this realistic? dagny loved hank more than francisco, and john more than hank, and the two men seem to be ok and happy with this , even though the two that lost did not get to be with her, but it says they are ok with it because it would be a lie if she choose them instead of the person she loved more. it seems like this would lead to lots of divorce or something if people just switched whenever they perceived they could trade up? people are also happy to lose in business to people that are better at business than they are. im getting confused as to the value of wanting to be the best vs working with those that are better or losing to those that are better.

it would be interesting to interview the martins on the expirence. watched some other episodes from the season, there is usally a middle that i think is good some of the stuff is crazy a few episodes are with religous families swaping with a family with a alturnative family structure. in one a guy starts reading leviticus about how homosexuals are against god, this guy has a tatoo, which the same book also says are against god.

i feel this show does not show the whole picture with what was presented a middle way seems more right. it's hard to tell what is normal life and what is a act on a edited tv show i dont think people need to choose between freedom and cleanlyness, those can both go along well together, nor do parents have to be mean to make cleaning a important part of running ones life and household. clean with love.

private school math teacher? private music teacher?