Gov't loves Gov't

John K Clark (
Sat, 24 Jan 1998 21:40:33 -0800 (PST)


>If I want to sell something, and you want to buy, we agree on a
>price and make the exchange, end of story. It's understandable to
>both of us, it's simple, it's elegant, it works.

> (Tony Hollick)
>This is true, but it also completely begs the question of how
>_either_ of you come to own anything in the first place.

True, and it doesn't explain why continental drift exists either. I wasn't
talking philosophy, I was talking about a practical way to get things done.
It doesn't matter why people own anything in the first place, the fact is
that in the real world they do and we must deal with it.

>No-one has ever provided a satisfying explanation of how a person
>comes to 'own' a given piece of land from a state of nature.

So what? People undoubtedly do own land and if you believe in determinism,
and I'll bet you do, then there must be a reason that they do, you just don't
know what it is. Even if you did have an explanation, of what practical value
could it possibly be.

>The 'labour-mixing' argument doesn't hold water. [...].The 'resources
>-mixing' argument begs the first question

That could be, but I wouldn't know. What are those arguments?

>Why is your labour not just wasted effort?

If your labor is foolish then it is wasted effort, not all labor is of equal
value, or of any value at all. The great thing about the market is that it
will tell you very quickly if you're working smart or stupid.

>Look back far enough, and you find something pretty questionable
>(or outright predatory).

Look back far enough, and you can find anything you want. It's pointless to
worry about what a bunch of dead men I never met did to another bunch of dead
men I never met, I just want the best system for making me rich, free, and
happy and it certainly isn't socialism.

>How, precisely, do you assert 'your' exclusive property claim to
>_anything_, without threatening to initiate _violence_ againt a
>non-violent 'intruder'?

Obviously you can not, who said you could?

>Let's choose the (Pareto-optimal?) catallaxy together; and agree
>shares in the output; and that way, we _all_ gain from selecting the
>most productive, rights-enhancing system."

Feel free to do just that if you think you can, but I'll pass.

>Here, we had the goddamn Norman invaders stealing everything from
>the indigenous Saxons, Celts, Angles etc., destroyingtheir free ways
>of life, and subjugating them. [...] So first we have predatory
>feaudalism (or whatever) and thus a distribution of property (and
>the positional advantages property buys over time), and the resulting
>patterns of injustice aren't of any concern?

It's of absolutely no concern to me because the perpetrators of the injustice
as well as the victims have all been dead for a thousand years. With the
exception of Antarctica , every square inch of land on planet Earth has been
stolen from somebody else a thousand times over, I can't sort it out and I
see no reason to even try. I don't believe in object morality but I do think
it would be nice if most people were free and rich most of the time. If your
goal is a happy creative world you will never achieve it by trying avenge
every ancient crime.

>Why does 'capital' hire 'labour'? Why does not 'labour' hire
>'capital' for time-preference (interest) plus a risk factor?

That's exactly what happens when a working man gets a loan from a bank and
buys a house.

>Why do we still have a _hierarchical_ - 'Crony-Capitalist' --
>verticalist structure for our prevailing version of a 'free-market'
>society, when most people would prefer a much more 'horizontal'
>reticular -- Agorist! -- pattern of economic interactions?

I can't answer your question because I have no idea what your question is.

>we have to adapt our vector-driven catallactic economic systems to
>the 21st Century.

Right. Ah, ... Is your vector-driven catallactic fuel injection or does it
have a carburetor?

John K Clark

Version: 2.6.i