cab21

opportunity cost is the loss of the potential gain of a alturnative choice. supply and demand is a relationship between supply, demand and price. higher demand than supply drives prices up, lower demand than supply drives prices down. division of labor is when individuals take on specialized roles to cooperate in a business venture.

i'm not sure if these are correct as to why, but i'll take some guesses cell phone access takes less real estate area to provide than toilet access. cell phone access can apply to anyone in a given area 100% of the time, while toilet access can require people get in lines while others are using the toilet, as less people can use the same toilet at the same time as people that can use the same cell phone network at the same time. the material costs of providing toilet access are greater than the material costs of providing cell phone access.

how would a anarcho capitalist go about providing affordable housing real estate? There are many government programs set up to help both buyers and sellers of affordable housing real estate, do you think the same could be achieved if only using private methods of real estate development, and private methods of helping people get into affordable income homes.

Volkswagenwent out of their way to develop products to pass the test, id consider that different from a company that just made bare minimum, without spending money to specifically develop products to pass a test, while not applying on real conditions of the consumer of the product. if other industries have to get errors and omission insurance, it sounds like omission if sellers did not disclose such emissions systems to government testing, and to more importantly, the consumers who asked about the cars emissions.

only passing a test under test mode sounds deceptive. What would this be in other industries, a restaurant only passing health codes when giving a notice of inspection before the inspection, and only passing health code for the inspection?

i think they have ratings on the stickers on each car on the lots, so i am thinking about the numbers on those stickers that talk about emission ratings. i think it's called the Federal fuel economy and environmental label.

the situation was that the cars had higher emissions than advertised. why would a company put aside money and recall a product if the company thought the product did not need the recall? what are they going to do with the recalled cars if the company thinks it needs to do nothing?

from Volkswagen's website it does say Volkswagen is looking into the situation, at least. http://www.volkswagenag.com/content/vwcorp/info_center/en/news/2015/09/Volkswagen_AG_has_issued_the_following_information.html

you could look to only do jobs in the police that you would be able to do outside the police, like a homicide detective. you could join a private firm or create a private firm. in one aspect the only bad aspect of police work could be how you get funded, when you are doing activities that you could privately morally do.

would have to look at the books to see the numbers, all the ceo said was that it was selling at a loss, and the price change made it so the company would not lose money selling the drug. on one video he compared it to selling a aston martin for the price of a bicycle when it was the previous price. i would not exactly call this guy a free market capitalist, as a hedge fund manager, he urged government fda to not pass drugs from companies he was shorting.

the article says they admitted it, lawers on the case will do a better job backing it up than me, here. some quotes from the article Volkswagen’s stunning admission that it sold diesel-powered cars that intentionally faked emissions testing results has left many of their owners — who thought they were buying fuel-efficient and environmentally friendly vehicles — angry and feeling betrayed. John Schilling, a Volkswagen spokesman, said in an email that it was unclear how long it would take to start fixing vehicles, but that the automaker was “committed to fixing this issue as soon as possible” and to developing “a remedy that meets emissions standards and satisfies our loyal and valued customers.” “Of course, owners who bought these diesel vehicles in part because of any environmental benefits may have moral objections to driving them, and they may feel they have no other option but to keep their cars parked for the time being,” Ms. Caldwell said. “And then there are owners who just feel flat-out deceived and will want their money back.

the article said the company committed fraud in how it advertised to consumers. so that's more than "outwitting" the EPA.

they do it against other professions, so at least it would be consistent in who they are using force against

how do you give free access to natural resources? if anything, it's going to take the labor of others to either transport people to natural resources, or natural resources to people. or we could say anyone is free to make their own way to access the volcanic rock of Hawaii, but lets see how many make it their without the labor of others? access to natural resources, where natural resources require human labor for access to, should be a aspect of markets, and people can buy and sell the human labor it takes to provide such access. it does not take labour to get air to people in general, there are circumstances where it does, but it does take labour to get other natural resources to people. people that don't inherit wealth are not harmed by those that create wealth, or by those that inherit wealth. people that don't inherit wealth, can work with those that have earned wealth, or those that have inherited wealth, to increase the wealth of all. those that don't inherit wealth could get a loan to pay back with their future productivity. the prices go down on many essentials people need to create wealth, not up, with competition. capitalists don't have a monopoly on what they need, they need to earn it. there is equal standing among free market capitalists, as people that trade with each other of their own free will. private ownership of the means of production is a social relationship that treats all as equals in their ability to trade capital and labor at their own free will. there is no coercion in people freely trading with one another, unless we also say that a bank giving a interest free loan is coercive if the bank wants to get it's money back in the future, and that banks must accept the loss of money and not being able to use that money to give another person a interest free loan. one way to get out of poverty is to not have children until you are out of poverty. is this not a form of violence to just have more kids and then to say others are obligated to increase their labor so that your family can get out of higher and higher levels of welfare needed to be above arbitrary set poverty lines? market competition is not darwinian, in that a free market has rules against violating individual rights, that other animals don't have. lions don't live by the same rules against the initiation of force that a free market capitalist lives by. people have to live by trading with another, rather than stealing from one another through brute force. darwinianism in the animal kingdom has no such parameters, and the animals are not giving a moral analysis of their actions. if they are doing it for all these reasons, they aren't dead. capitalism rewards people for all these reasons, they are allowed to trade with each other, and not allowed to steal from one another. if creativity is it's own reward, then we should not have a socialist system that steals from those that create wealth and gives to those that give "creativity". the people that want to be creative should labour and trade just like anyone else. i'm not saying markets are only distorted by states, private individuals can be just as criminal in initiating the use of force. i am saying those that do initiate the use of force are not using a market. coercian is not using a market. if some price fix, start your own company that does not price fix, and there is no more price fixing in the marketplace if people collude, start your own company that does not collude. people in a market are not prevented from participating in the market.

How can someone get an equal amount and quality of natural resources, when the earth does not provide such equality, and the value of natural resources depends on human subjective value as well as the inventions of humans? if value comes from the labor applied to a natural resource, how do we tell what the value of the natural resource was? is it if one person is allowed to use a tree, 7 billion people need to get a tree of equal quality? If income can only be gained through labour, what are the consequences? so what of the young, the old, the disabled, they can only gain resources through labor? No retirement, any maternity leaves, no vacation, no sick pay? Inheritance is simply a person choosing how to spend resources gained through that persons labor I don’t think we can say infants labor, are people not allowed to feed them, since that food is income? i think pay needs to be based on value added, not just time spent paying more because someone spent more time encourages people to waste time, and does not take into account quality control, and the skills needed to perform, and the value added by the performance. the highwayman is not legitmate because theft violates individual rights. lending capital does not violate rights, and is voluntary. people go to capitalists to get capital, they don't go to highwayman to get robbed. The capital provided by capitalists make it possible for labor, since the capital pays for the means of production, that the labor would not even have without the capital. Not all people that acquire wealth desire to use that wealth in the same way. think empire implies initiation of violence, and free market capitalist does not allow that. more wealth would be a result of giving more value in trades to people. what are some of the barriers some systems of anarchistic socialism puts in the way of natural human driving forces. people choose to have children for different reasons, some choose to have children because they are wealthy, or adopt or foster a lot of children because they are wealthy. darwinian survival is pressure put on people by nature, not by other people through the initiation of violence. the ability to join or create your own organization is of self interest, and pressure from the natural world, rather than pressure from other people. so people get to pick their self interest, whether to join or create business of their own. without competition, how do we get better inventions that serve mankind better? different people working to provide safe drinking water is going to help to get safe drinking water faster than noone trying to provide safe drinking water, or only one organization working to provide safe drinking water. distortions that change price are usally government driven, and not market driving. economic mobility is slowed down through government intervention more than any free market capitalism. our system is a form of mixed market, rather than free market capitalism, so mobility has to take into account how government intervention in a free market takes away meritocratism. why do they think they must work for a boss, rather than start their own business? there are also jobs where people get paid in equity, thereby becoming a owner through labour. there are many compensation methods availiable for negotiation or for people to just startup. im not sure about the management practices of pre spanish revolution spain, but i don't think it would be current capitalistic management practices. ill look more into the general electrics program, and others that you dig up. i think current 21st century capitalist managment styles involve workers in a way that 20th century styles did not.

i think typically labor will be mixed with some land, and that land will become exclusive, and that exclusive ownership can be traded. if workers put a factory on some land in a workers coop, how would anyone else also own that land? wouldn't that land have to belong exclusively to those workers until they choose to sell the land, or abandon the land and factory? i did mean to have that qualification how do we give people of lessor means the opportunity to gain resources? donald trump and other billionairs borrow money at interest, and call it leverage, so i don't think all borrowing is done by poor people, unless we say that donald trump is being exploited when he borrows money to develup real estate. in the very least, i think lending someone money should not be a cost to the lender, and that the lender should get the same value back that was lent. say a 4% inflation would need a 4% interest just to break even. then the lender could make money through providing labour to the person that the lender provided the loan to. many venture capital deals will have money and labour in return for equity, so if we want, we can call it all labour for equity as a more legitimate means of income. wouldn't investments and stock holdings and lending count as additional labour inputs? it does take time and paperwork and neogiation and other intellectual skills and education to put this all together so a company can continue to serve peoples needs and even allow people to use the products generated from the business. aspects such as stockholder voting, or being employee owned and having all the employees vote either for a manager or directly involve labour in learning to make decisions based on knowledge rather than whim. i feel like life itself creates those conditions. how would a different system create conditions where a lack of growth is sustainable? people must eat to live, so unless we have some system that kills people off when it is deemed there is overpopulation, wouldn't the food supply have to grow as well? if someone wants to have X amount of calories per day, there has to be consistant work to provide such amount of calories per day, having a family expands the amount of calories any family would need. so it seems the only system which does not require growth is a system which kills people off i think labour should agree to the growth of a company, and that companies should grow rational to fit basic needs of populations. by expand on labour, i mean give more resources to labour, such as job training, providing for the needs of families, and giving more people the ability to get proper nutrition, housing, medical, education. what would a socialistic lack of competition look like? wouldn't different workers organization voting on what they want to consume create a environment where different people want to consume different things in a free and subjective marketplace? a musical example could be some people wanting to play guitar and others wanting to play piano, does it make sense to limit choices to just guitar or just piano? i think the price for capital can be bought and sold, just look at a show like shark tank where they bid on being the person that provides capital and labour for a Entrepreneur in exchange for equity, or a royalty. all parties have full control over taking or not taking any deal. there is economic mobility in different jobs, i think a person can earn capital in one job through labor, then apply that capital to a new business where the person has a higher ownership level and thus a bigger ability to earn a greater income through leverage. i think of monopoly privilege as something government granted, or granted through the initiation of force. capitalist business ownership is only protected through the retaliation use of force against those that would initiate force. it's never legitimate for a capitalist to initiate force against another, but it is OK to retaliate against others that use force against the capitalist. a capitalist business owner is not going to initiate force to prevent competition if the capitalist is being what i consider legitimate. theyhave to follow the principle of not violating another individual rights. there are many different business structures in capitalist companies, and there has been evolution in management styles, competition allows companies to develop that attract workers. a manager is not forced on workers, the workers can just choose a different company, such as one without management, or choose to open their own business. there are capitalist owned companies that have different management structures, and those structures compete, and can compete with companies that are employee owned, and whatever those employee owned companies choose. what are some examples of worker run enterprises that have run efficient compared to other companies in the same industry in the 21st century?

why is this?

i thought the book was much better than the way they did the movies.

sounds like a important ishue to address. what are you saying constitutes just income? just income wise, i think here are some of the opinions i have 1.mutual consent 2. supply and demand 3. does not violate individual rights 4. both labour and capital play a role in production, and deserve to share in the fruits of production. 5. private property ownership 6 freedom of association 7. individuals have the right to spend their justly earned income as they see fit. 8. the right to view your trade as profitable/valuable to your needs and wants. 9. offer oppurtunities for equity ownership, but equity ownership should be earned. 10. trading labour for capital, and vise versa, is legitimate 11. money is a symbol, and the return for money should be higher than the value the persons values of money, just like any other trade 12. income should leave room for a company to grow, and for the individuals receiving income to grow. 12. a companies net profits are a safty net for the company to help expand on labour and capital, and to give the company room to stay alive if the companies income drops.

theft does require theft prevention. theft prevention is retaliation , theft is the initiation of violence. any system of property requires theft prevention. There is opportunity to own what you have. Capitalism gives such an opportunity. Even at 0% interest, people are choosing to go after property already built rather than develop their own property that would be cheaper to develop. so the person with no money gets to exploit the person with money because the person without money does not have anything to give a fair trade to the person with money? the person who borrows should give something in return to the person who lends, if not interest, what? is the person who lends the slave of the person who wants to borrow? people with money borrow money all the time, one example would be someone making a 400k downpayment on a 500k house and borrowing 100k at 5% interest. so a fair trade would be what, 500k for 500k, so the person that gives 400k and wants to borrow 100k, must then make up that 100k in other trades, why not just allow interest that saves the persons time, rather than require something like 100k of time? most people that get loans aren't coming without money, those people are refused loans if they can't give collateral, for high interest loans, that covers the risk of the lender not being paid back at all , let alone interest. there is competition for who people sleep with, this is a choice to pursue 1 specific person to want to have sex with. the seller of 1 million dollor sex is not forcing there to be buyers of 1 million dollor sex. the buyer always has the option of going out and finding a willing partner to have sex with, it's self imposed if the buyer thinks about only having sex with 1 particular person. you said above that anarcho capitalism was exchanges handled on the free market.

if you are against being taxed and claim you are getting that money back you could write how much you were taxed and make sure you don't claim beyond that amount plus whatever interest rate you think is justifiable.

so how is personal usage to be decided? current social norms allow people to buy property as investments, and rent them, flip them, speculate on them, hire managers for them. are the social norms of this new system going to just completely change all the current social norms of acceptable ownership and commercial activity? usage in capitalism allows more types of usage than it looks like usage in socialism allows for, how are these social norms just supposed to flip? with competing currencies, i don't know if interest free credit currency would gain more value than a currency that allows people to charge interest. a currency that charges interest would only be beat by force. i did read about Proudhon wanting to paying for a interest free credit system through imposing huge taxes on other people, hardly people volunteering to get together and make a system of interest free credit work. perhaps a example here would help. just thinking about the chair and the fish has me confused, it might have taken a lot more time and effort to create the chair and prepare it for trade, or it might have taken a lot more time and effort to obtain the fish and prepare it for trade. sometimes doing something faster is more valuable in a marketplace, and sometimes doing it slower is more valuable. if someone is under anesthetics, it's not proper to keep the person under for a longer time just to say it took longer and thus the price should be higher, that puts the persons life at danger. there are other cases where doing something too fast creates danger and is not desired. a marketplace is not going to normally just say "hey we both spend 2 hours on our products, lets exchange them", because that does not account for how much each person values the products how is it not the same as a moneylender deriving profit through loans? the market handles the amount of profit that can be derived through loans money is a symbol, used to represent use value, so profiting off of loaning money is no different from profiting off of trading one material for another material. money is not like trading 1 chair for 1.1 identical chairs later, even if i see nothing wrong with that, but money is more like trading one unit of use value now for a greater use value in the future. the person being lent money is also subjectivly thinking they will trade a lesser value in the future for a greater value now. how are those conditions removed? is a person not allowed to say "i loved it when my son smiled at me, that smile is the labor i wanted to receive in exchange for me giving 1 million dollars of my own labor"? who decides if money is earned? if a person legitimately earned incomes, does the person not have the right to decide how to trade or who deserves the fruit of that labor? free market capitalism provides such happiness and freedom. a person under free market capitalism is free to make his own choices, pursue those things he thinks will bring him join. freedom and opportunity for a person to achieve prosperity are all there in free market capitalism. no system is going to guarantee everyone prosperity, but free market capitalism guarantees the freedom to pursue prosperity. i'm still unclear on the math of all these socialist regulations and restrictions on freedoms, but it sounds like socialism restricts opportunity for prosperity where free market capitalism does not. free market capitalism even allows people to create their own socialistic societies with whatever cultural norms and regulations within those societies. such as if a person wants to create a socialist real estate development, they can do so within that develupment, if a person wants to create a worker owned and democratically ran company, the person can do so

how does this socialist system define "absentee ownership"? How is this interest free credit made available? how is a "unit of effort" measured? why is time not considered as part of value, and why would it be coercive to trade on speculation or based on how people value time? how is the value of the cost of labor measured? how is use value calculated? is use value not speculation? what happens to all this money that gets taken away from people that "did not earn it", and through what process is it confiscated? how do we measure "aggregate happiness" and "liberty" of mankind? i would say happiness is subjective while liberty is objective ( at least if defined in a objective way). one person coveting what another person earned subtracts from "happiness", yet does not subtract from liberty. a person that covets and steals subtracts from both happiness and liberty. people choosing to not covet would might increase or be neutral to happiness, and would not subtract from liberty, offering someone veggies can decrease happiness, but it's not going to decrease liberty. someone being forced to offer veggies, might increase happiness , but decrease liberty. i think my problem with aggregate happiness and liberty does not take into account individual happiness and liberty. individual liberty can be objective, individual happiness can be subjective, and people can work to increase their individual happiness, but there is not program that can demand people choose to be happy.

600 bullets in a hostage situation...what are the odds of not killing the hostage?

could a community choose to do support local companies to protect infant industries in theory without a government? right now it seems like protectionism trades off local jobs for higher local consumer prices.