Why? There are no limits to filing lawsuits against businesses, I believe there shouldn't be any limits on lawsuites filed against anybody. Why should there be limits? Also there shouldn't be any limits on contract clauses. People must be free to set up contracts in any way.
Property is exactly what you can protect. Having a rule of law based society, meaning society that does not discriminate, does not have multiple sets of laws for different people (no special case scenarios regardless of your wealth, race, gender, colour, whatever) is what allows us to have an actual working system, where the government is not there to own you but instead it's there only to enforce very specific rules in the same exact way to everybody. This of-course means you can't have income taxes and especially 'progressive' taxes, you can't have special privileges or entitlements based on any set of criteria that define any group to be different (government based discrimination).
I don't want government to steal anything, I want private property to be protected by private individuals on their own. To the extent that we have any government at all, its only function should be protection of private property (which also includes contract law), but taxes cannot come from income, levels of income, but they can only be capitation taxes or certain import duties, excise.
I don't see how the second follows from the first. The right to something isn't about who spend most time on it. If I am dying of thirst, and you are the only source of water, I have every moral right to acquire through any means short of killing you.
- why did you stop short of 'killing you'? How does that follow? You just made a very simple case, if you want or need something, you feel entitled to that item regardless of my wants and needs.
If you are in such a pickle that you are dying from thirst, you can ask me for water first and foremost, most people (including myself), will not deny you water because you are dying from thirst. You are not talking about me making a voluntary decision here, you are talking about using violence on the level of government to steal from me and to use all force needed to prevent me from protecting myself from this theft.
You can ask me for water, you can promise to pay me later, I may voluntarily give you water and not even ask for anything in return or I may put you on tab and hope that maybe you'll pay back, that would be up to me and a voluntary agreement. You are talking about theft and redistribution based on government violence, stop pretending in every comment that you do not understand this extremely simple concept.
How do I produce more land? What do I make it from? Who made it in the first place? How did they make it? Who is the original owner of the land?
- just because you don't understand the concept of trade makes you deficient in a sense, but it doesn't mean that there is no concept of trade.
You can sell a kidney and buy a house, you can work for 10 years, save money and buy a piece of property, land, house, lake, whatever, it doesn't matter, but you worked for it, your productive output was large enough to build savings that allowed you to purchase the property from whoever is owning it currently, the transaction is done, there is no 'lease granted by government', if there is, that's not ownership of property, that's slavery, again, be clear in what you stand for.
Take the people from a state. What do you have?
- there is no state that can own you that also is based on the rule of law. You can be a slave, but there is no equality there.
Neither do I. But it's a useful mechanism for allocating limited shared resources, such as land, and avoiding a tragedy of the commons type affair. If you have a better idea, I'm all ears.
- obviously a system based on rule of law, private contracts, private security and private courts.
The problem here is you considering the government to be your rulers rather than administrators. We are the state. Not them.
- government is the de facto ruler that buys votes of what you think is of as 'people' by destroying the rule of the law.
There is no need for any government administrators at all if the society is based on the rule of law, there is only need for private competing courts and private security companies, not even need for government cops actually.
There are no private property rights once 'society as a whole' can steal property from the owner. 'Society as a whole' doesn't exist. There are only people and some people want to steal from others, that's all there is. Some people will vote as a block to steal from others. Some other people will promise to destroy the rule of law and to steal on behalf of 'society as a whole' to stay in power and while in power they can steal from anybody they personally want to steal from as well.
There is no society once there is no rule of law, only a mob and thugs in power.
Neither. In Europe human rights include a requirement for the government to ensure that everyone has access to certain basic resources.
- not neither, the option 2 that I listed. Governments have no resources but what they steal from private individuals, so you are talking about theft and redistribution of stolen resources, let's name things what they are, don't pretend you don't understand such simple concepts.
Resources are divided up by various means, most obviously what people can afford to pay for them.
- free market based price discovery mechanism is the only way to provide access to resources in a way that maximises economic activity and profitability, which is the most moral way the humans devised how to run an economy. Once you interfere with the free market, you start building your government protected monopolies and oligopolies and start denying individual rights and you have to use violence on the government level to achieve that. There is no other way to put it, once you have a police/military/judicial/prison force that is used to take property away from owners and distribute it in some misguided socialist/fascist manner, you sow the seeds of destruction of your economy and society.
However, certain resources are not freely exploitable, so for example you may own a lake but you can't just drain it for your own benefit because of the impact on others. In other words, in exchange for the right to own a lake you also take on certain responsibilities like not draining or polluting it
- in a free market the owner of a resource finds the most appropriate (read profitable) and thus the most moral (based on the pressures of the economic forces around him, the invisible hand) way to handle the resource. Be it a lake or what have you, people tend not to make decisions that do not maximise profitability, especially with regard to assets (a lake is an asset). One doesn't drain a lake if the water in the lake is a valuable enough resources (there aren't many other lakes) so that the market pressure creates enough demand for the water and this demand and price discovery provides the most profitable way to benefit from that asset.
If, on the other hand, there are many lakes with plenty of water and the owner of the lake finds it more profitable not to use the lake for its water but to drain it (where would the water go exactly?) and put a park in that area, that's what he should do and government shouldn't be in any way at all in a position to prevent that type of operation of private property.
In the same way, if you want to live in a European society and you do certain things there are taxes to be paid.
- income based taxes are slavery. "Progressive" taxes are unequal application of the law and thus absence of the rule of law.
The government is required to spend a tiny fraction of the tax it raises providing people who lack certain basic needs with things. That doesn't mean they can use "violence" and take your stuff.
- that's called violence of the state, since if you try to protect your private property from this theft, your liberty and even life will be violated by the government. The machine guns in the hands of the government thugs are violence and the machine guns will come to play if one decides to protect his property (as he should) from this theft.
It just means that if you pay tax some small fraction of it will go to people who would otherwise be literally dying in the street.
- there is no more immoral act than to engage in this form of 'ends justify the means' type of socialism / fascism.
In a free market capitalist society there will always be poor and rich, but that society will thrive and the poor in it will have more than many of the 'rich' in the socialist/fascist societies. Building policy based on edge case scenarios is the way to destroy the rule of law and poor people dying on the streets are edge cases. They should plead for help, but nobody should be forced to provide it.
Most Europeans are fine with that. Aside from anything, stepping over the homeless, starving bodies is tiresome and we prefer the government to do something humane about it.
- most people anywhere are not productive enough to have enough of their resources stolen and since the majority of people are employees, not employers, they will most of the time, build powerful voting blocks designed to destroy the rule of law and put politicians to power who promise to do exactly that - destroy individual rights, destroy the rule of law, destroy private property rights and provide entitlements as bribes to the electorate.
No it isn't. That's a ridiculous claim.
- wrong. Do your kidneys belong to you or not? If they do, then whatever time you spend working on things is time that your kidneys had to support as well, you are spending your life, the productive output of your time on those things, you are transferring your time from leisure to work and the productive output of your work is the reward that you are willing to exchange the time of your life for.
The time that your body and mind had to input into productive activity is the time that you subtracted from the time in your life that you could have otherwise enjoyed doing nothing or doing something that you like more than working (of-course in some cases people actually like doing work, but I am sure that for most people work is not the point, the point is productivity of work that allows them to do other things, at the very minimum support their own existence on the planet).
So there is nothing 'ridiculous' about the claim that your productive output is extension of your own self, you subtracted from the limited time that is available to you on this planet and you exchanged that time for something that you produced. Whatever you produced is yours and yours alone and if some system of government takes it from you by force, it effectively is the owner of your property and of your time on this life, it owns you, it enslaves you, you are not a free individual if you are forced to give up your own property to anybody for any reason other than you wanted to without being coerced at all.
Land is property like any other, it can be bought in exchange for your productive output, whatever it may be. Exchanging one form of productivity for another on voluntary basis is the basis of individual freedom, and the fact that you don't understand it speaks volumes.
The government is just administrators of the state. I am part of the state.
- you are not part of the state, whatever 'state' you are born in, you are not its part, you are not its property either. If a state takes your productivity against your own will (not by voluntary exchange), then it does own you.
The government is not working for me, that is true, which is why I don't chose one particular government either, I prefer not to be owned and choose not to have one particular government, instead choosing a many flag strategy. I don't condone democracy, by the way, the rule of mob is not to my liking, the mob always ends up ruling the individual, stealing from the individual. I don't need to organise revolutions either to live outside of the state system. Eventually the state system will come to an end, but it's not a easy or a short journey.
So let me get this straight, for years employees have been suing employers for dismissal claims and raking in plenty of money in those claims, but the moment the tables turn you cry uncle?
The rural Georgia staffing firm boasts online of providing tech workers to IBM Corp., Bank of America Corp., Verizon Communications Inc. and other companies. Softech agreed to pay Muthuperiasamy $51,000 a year to continue improving Pennsylvaniaâ(TM)s workersâ(TM) compensation database. Instead, he changed his mind, taking a better-paying job in Ohio.
When Softech sued him in 2011 for more than $20,000, saying he had agreed to it when he signed his employment contract, Muthuperiasamy was astonished.
âoeYou should treat people like human beings,â the 32-year-old said, âoenot like animals, creatures that you make money off of.â
- the guy signs a contract and based on the contract he can get sued and he was sued and the problem is?
In your mind the only people that are liable to be sued are employers and never employees, businesses and never clients.
As far as I am concerned, an individual shouldn't lose his rights simply because he starts a business and sells something to somebody.
As to 'solidarity', the last refuge of a failing economy is 'solidarity', where people divide into groups and start fighting over a shrinking economic pie rather than actually fixing the real problem - removing government from business, removing income related taxes, reinstating real money and forbidding government from creating fiat and fiat based inflation.
You have an odd view of society, at least from a European point of view.
- not all of Europe. I rather like Switzerland and its take on things.
In Europe certain things are considered human rights, such as the right to life and to shelter and to water.
- please, define what you mean by 'human rights'?
If the human right in this case means that government cannot prevent an individual from attempting to build himself a better life, attempting to survive by building/acquiring shelter/water, that is one thing.
If by 'human right' you mean government using force and violence to take resources from some people in order to provide entitlements to items, that you think are 'rights' (food/shelter/water), then it's something else entirely.
A right is a protection against government abuse, nothing else, everything else is government abuse. An entitlement system is a system of government abuse and destruction of human rights. Also it doesn't work at all once you run out of people that you can abuse, look at Greece. Who will provide the Greeks with those entitlements if there is nobody left to steal from?
Therefore the water company can't turn your water off, ever.
- nonsense. A water company can shut down and not provide you with water. It can move the water pumps and cleaning facilities out of there and all of a sudden your entitlements are gone. Simpler still, a water company can shut down because it cannot pay energy bills because the people feel they have a 'right' to get water and it cannot be shut off 'ever' even if they stop paying the water bills to the water company.
The only way to maintain such a system of entitlements is to have government enforced monopoly on supply and then ration the supply based on the so called 'rights'. Of-course as all such schemes, this too ends the moment financial troubles start and they start eventually in a system like that, where there are no individual rights, there are plenty of people that feel entitled to be supplied stuff by others and there is a government that enforces this view with the rule of violence.
Similarly, the gas and electricity companies can't turn your supply off in the hope that the freezing weather and the fact that your kids can't do their homework in the dark is sufficient motivation to make you pay up, they have to supply that service while taking other legal action.
- and it is absolutely wrong to destroy individual rights of people (companies are ran by people, so that just we are clear) to turn off the lights this way, they are not property of the state and they are not your private slaves either. Of-course again, in a system like that this collapses eventually and inevitably, the only question is time.
Of-course natural monopolies are a myth, a way for governments to establish monopolies and destroy competition by destroying individual rights of people.
There is no loss of rights for the corporation, because they have none. They are not people, human rights don't apply.
- a corporation is a fiction, every business is ran by people, you are talking about destroying individual rights of people that run companies, don't pretend you don't understand it.
Again, it isn't that dissimilar to the US, where a business cannot refuse to serve people because of their religion, race, gender or sexual orientation.
- yeah, and people should be able to refuse to serve anybody they want for any reason they want.
A person can walk into any business he desires, thus discriminating against all other businesses, no questions asked. Same for people that run businesses, they should be able to discriminate against anybody who wants to use/buy their services. USA is wrong as well, but multiple wrongs don't make a right.
This system works pretty well for us. If you don't like it, don't do business here. There are plenty of others who want to, we don't need you.
- sure sure, the way of Greece is the way of all socialist / fascist societies.
A right is a protection against government abuse, nothing else. A 'right to private property' means not being abused by governments, not having your property taken from you. Your property starts with your own body.
Rephrase your comment: "I am not sure why you feel you have the right to your body".
Your private property is merely extension of your time on this planet, extension of your living self. If the society does not accept that people must have the right to own and operate property without government interference, then it is logical (and historically valid) to see people as property of the state.
People were property of the state in the former USSR, people are property of the state in North Korea and many other places, where there are no private property rights.
Wrong. Like somebody loses their right not to have to subsidise others with their own lives, loses their right not to have their private property stolen from them so government can buy votes by paying off those, who benefit financially by not having to pay for their own use.
Water is not an entitlement either, there is no entitlement that water has to be cleaned and provided to you by anybody and there should never be anything like that. You have the right to go drink out of a lake or a river, but you dont have an entitlement to force somebody to clean it for you and give it to you. Again, government shouldn't be in any business, water or Internet, stealing property and destroying individual rights, providing entitlements, stealing votes by purchasing them with stolen resources.
As to what you see in 'AFAIC', each one of us sees what he is personallg concerned about, so I see what your concerns and thoughts are. Get some help.
A list of entitlements, not rights. If somebody has to provide you with a supply of anything in any shape, way or form, then those are entitlements and entitlements destroy right, not provide them. Somebody has to lose his or her right not to supply you with an entitlement, for you to have that entitlement. You don't want people like Italy (or anybody), enforcing their ideas of entitlements. Let them figure out their labour entitlement system, how is that working out therr (Italy, Spain, or anywherr for that matter, where people cannot be fired because of 'rights', and what that does to freedom and eventually business and hiring).
Italy can shove it AFAIC.
Just install a reader for this chip in the wife and you'll get all of your privacy and security and many other things violated...
Oh, Irony. You are self defined as a serf the moment you vote or stand in any way on the side of having income of anybody being taxed for any reason whatsoever.
Oh my, there is no such thing as 'fair share' of taxes, there is no such thing, it's a gigantic cop out justification to steal from people. Nobody should be paying a single penny in any income related taxes, less of all businesses. Businesses shouldn't be paying any taxes whatsoever. There is no such fucking thing as 'fair' when we are talking about stealing money from people.
I swear to all the gods I don't believe in, this world stinks because there are people like you living in it.
Correct, which is why I don't live in any of them. Multiple flag method, banking separate from business, separate from residence, separate from income, separate from vacations and so on. There are a number of places where I feel more comfortable, but basically I always look at the place I am at specifically from that point of view: how much freedom does it want to steal from me? Some places are much worse than others, different places concentrate on stealing different types of freedoms.