gleanings from Austrian economics, and ideas, reflections, questions on the state of Liberty in the world - market news and views, from an Austrian perspective - current affairs, mainly from the USA and India, from a libertarian perspective - links to libertarian writings and scholars, sometimes libertarian commentary on other writings... that is what you'll find here
I would rather be in Ratan Tata's hands than the state's, does not matter what it is being done, even defense
purely hypothetically, let us say oxygen needs to be produced for humans because we cut down too many trees through "greed", never mind that you bought all the stuff the trees produced, even further let us say we were in such dire straits that even with oxygen from human food producing plants it became difficult to breathe in metros, then free markets will supply quality oxygen to climate controlled buildings just like gas and electric, and outdoors one would have all manner of breathing devices providing us oxygen supplements with oxygen farmed from the ocean or amoeba or whatever
now the demand for areas where trees provide all the oxygen will go up, because people don't enjoy the devices they have to wear for oxygen (or perhaps the oxygen business has been monopolized by govt and now you have to smell your neighbour's farts all day!) the free markets would plant trees like crazy because the real estate value would go up, and industries will plant forests around their operations as a way to reduce cost of paid oxygen for their employees and so on, the net result would be re-forestation with such side benefits as private interest protecting forests from fires and such
catalytic private property is not a theory, it is how human life works, from the simplest to the most complex division of labor - forget all the legal definitions of history and grasp this one if your objective is to operate in real markets, where you have to adjudge values by human demand and human supply (the monetary effects are not critical, only temporary) - history does not lie, states do
what about the wildlife?! animals have rights too! er, only by making the concept of "rights" totally absurd
here is how it works for the wildlife - capitalism will give everyone freedom to spend more and more time on their pursuit of happiness (instead of survival) because in a sound money regime productivity improvements will enablle wave after wave of people to quickly make small fortunes supporting more, if not complete leisure from labor - the demand for interactions with animals in the wild will rise, as people take more and longer holidays, the animals will be better cared for than by the govt - it is all about you, your needs and demands drive free markets, and that is the best case scenario for you, because capital will always seek to reach the most customers possible - no one "regulator" or wise council of experts can plan out the maximum human benefit iin a given equation of resources and humans, placing this power in the hands of bureaucrats is inviting inevitable crime
applying "imminent domain" on resources already homesteaded by humans is one of the worst crimes a state can commit - neither hindu rule nor muslim rule has tempted adivasis to leave the forests - free market capitalism will, if they have equity in the development (no tricks please! exactly why I would trust Tata more, to deal with the adivasis on his own, let them work out whatever is mutually acceptable) - in this specific case the resources needed by industry are not homesteaded by the humans, they are underground, but their extraction presents a loss of usability of the homesteaded resources that have an existing value in the local economy and to which they have catalytic property rights - of course, any use of force is an immediate violation of the constitutional liberty of the adivasi!
I would rather be in Ratan Tata's hands than the state's, does not matter what it is being done, even defense
ReplyDeletepurely hypothetically, let us say oxygen needs to be produced for humans because we cut down too many trees through "greed", never mind that you bought all the stuff the trees produced, even further let us say we were in such dire straits that even with oxygen from human food producing plants it became difficult to breathe in metros, then free markets will supply quality oxygen to climate controlled buildings just like gas and electric, and outdoors one would have all manner of breathing devices providing us oxygen supplements with oxygen farmed from the ocean or amoeba or whatever
now the demand for areas where trees provide all the oxygen will go up, because people don't enjoy the devices they have to wear for oxygen (or perhaps the oxygen business has been monopolized by govt and now you have to smell your neighbour's farts all day!) the free markets would plant trees like crazy because the real estate value would go up, and industries will plant forests around their operations as a way to reduce cost of paid oxygen for their employees and so on, the net result would be re-forestation with such side benefits as private interest protecting forests from fires and such
catalytic private property is not a theory, it is how human life works, from the simplest to the most complex division of labor - forget all the legal definitions of history and grasp this one if your objective is to operate in real markets, where you have to adjudge values by human demand and human supply (the monetary effects are not critical, only temporary) - history does not lie, states do
what about the wildlife?! animals have rights too! er, only by making the concept of "rights" totally absurd
ReplyDeletehere is how it works for the wildlife - capitalism will give everyone freedom to spend more and more time on their pursuit of happiness (instead of survival) because in a sound money regime productivity improvements will enablle wave after wave of people to quickly make small fortunes supporting more, if not complete leisure from labor - the demand for interactions with animals in the wild will rise, as people take more and longer holidays, the animals will be better cared for than by the govt - it is all about you, your needs and demands drive free markets, and that is the best case scenario for you, because capital will always seek to reach the most customers possible - no one "regulator" or wise council of experts can plan out the maximum human benefit iin a given equation of resources and humans, placing this power in the hands of bureaucrats is inviting inevitable crime
applying "imminent domain" on resources already homesteaded by humans is one of the worst crimes a state can commit - neither hindu rule nor muslim rule has tempted adivasis to leave the forests - free market capitalism will, if they have equity in the development (no tricks please! exactly why I would trust Tata more, to deal with the adivasis on his own, let them work out whatever is mutually acceptable) - in this specific case the resources needed by industry are not homesteaded by the humans, they are underground, but their extraction presents a loss of usability of the homesteaded resources that have an existing value in the local economy and to which they have catalytic property rights - of course, any use of force is an immediate violation of the constitutional liberty of the adivasi!
ReplyDelete