Re: capitalist religion (was: NANO: _Forbes_ cover story)

From: Tiberius Gracchus (
Date: Sun Jul 22 2001 - 11:30:05 MDT

On Sun, 22 Jul 2001 11:50:37 -0400, you wrote:

>>Tiberius wrote:
>>An example is housing. Given the relative level of sophistication of
>>manufacturing methods, I would wager that comfortable homes could be
>>cheaply manufactured in Mexico and shipped here. Never mind the
>>current model/style of moble home: simply consider the possiblities
>>in the realm of very cheap modular housing.
>At whos expence?

Well, um, the person buying the cheap manufactured house, for one?

And implied by my post is that the person with the "traditional" house
down the street would not be able to sell HIS house. Why? Because I
could probably buy a factory-line, modular house in Mexico and have it
shipped here if not for the myriad of laws that prohibit such. So when
I buy the cheap house, I won't buy yours, so your house goes down in
value. So the transaction is also at YOUR expense. So therefore YOU
vote for politicians who prop up your money with laws. All implied by
my post...

>> But prevailing laws prevent that. Look as an example at the many
>>laws against the placement and moving of mobile homes. I doubt you
>>are even aware of the scope and magnitude of these laws. And never
>>mind zoning and housing associations...
>I agree about the zoning laws, their clearly anti-freedom based.

Zoning laws are all libertarians seem to see...

> Homeownership assoc. on the other hand are a perfectly acceptable mechanism to
>"block off" a large section of area to keep it all under one set of
>standards. As long as their is no force being delivered from the government,
>people are free to contract and make arrangments all they want. If you dont
>like the rules of a particular group, dont deal with them and find a group
>you like.

So if I put chains on you, that's OK since it's "private"?

>>These laws act to prop up the values of current ocuppied and future
>>homes--at the expense of those without a home. So now the 60% or so
>>of people own homes in the USA can prop-up their own wealth... at the
>>expense of others. Many of these "others" can be seen sleeping under
>I would be willing to bet a VERY large percentage of people sleeping under
>bridges in the US are their from the choices they made. (99% maybe?,
>certainly over 95%). They were not put there by "Tha manT".

Of course, common sense tells us that those people are just one small
fraction of the players in the housing market. Walk around some of
these crappy apartments. There is where the moeny is being made....

>>The recent removal of barriers to immigration into the USA help to
>>prop up property values and therefore preserve the wealth of those
>>that are land owners, and conversely, help to empty the pockets of
>>those that are not landowners. Those green pieces of paper fly out of
>>the pockets of the landless and into the pockets of the landed. With
>>more people coming into the country, more green pieces of paper are
>Man, lock out the aliens, and were depriving them of the chance for a good
>life, let them in and were exploiting them... Plus, this sounds kinda
>conspritorial as if smoking man had the plans for this locked up out in area

Conspiracy accusations....ho hum

>>Medical care is another of the pillars of a "comfortable life". I
>>note that the physician lobby acted a few years ago to limit the
>>supply of doctors. The accompanying propaganda was laughable...
>I to agree against the government "limiting" or licensing doctors, nurses,
>midwives, etc.... Theres tons of other ways to accomplish this without their
>intrusion (which I dont feel the need to go into here).

Doctrinaire libertarianism....ho hum

>>Ehrenbach is completely right (in her recent book _Nickled and Dimed_
>>which detailed her sojourns as a low paid worker) when she said that
>>we all exploit these low paid workers. In fact, our own wealth and
>>status depends upon their presence. If they were not poor and working
>>to obtain the resources we possess, much of our wealth would be
>>worthless.... just pieces of green paper.
>Why am I "exploiting" the guy at the drive through a mcdonalds? If hes a
>teen working there, Id say its a great job for him. If its a 30 year old man
>with a family working there, Id say hes made some REAL bad choices in his
>life. I guess you could argue that our society exploits stupidity or

Did you read my post? Maybe, but you sure didn't understand it....

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:54 MDT