Re: The Property Protocol

Ian Goddard (
Mon, 04 Nov 1996 22:37:45 -0500

At 09:33 PM 11/4/96 +0000, banjo wrote:
>Ian Goddard wrote:
>> Allocation of resources by consumer choice, by the voice
>> of the people, founded upon the theory and application of private
>> property, contract law, and tort liability consistently prove to
>> yield maximal social outcomes [SNiP]
> i disagree
> where is the proof ?
> how does "maximal social outcomes" coincide with high poverty,
> homelessness, a stuffed-to-overflowing penal system, and as
> Dale Carnegie said a place where " and poor are both free
> to sleep under bridges".

IAN: Sometimes I have to accord myself the luxury of not
documenting ever statement I make. Your questions can only
be answered property from a lengthy inquiry, which it seems
you've yet to begin. But here are quick answers, and they're
all I've time for:

(1) Poverty is measured by the inability to access resources.
Laissez-faire capitalism has basically done one thing: maximize
accessibility of resources as a result of free enterprise and
mass production, founded upon the theory of private property.
Laws do not and cannot reduced poverty, they can only spread
it around.

(2) Homelessness is measured as a condition in which the supply
of available housing falls below demand. Price controls, such as
rent controls, are universally correlated to this phenomenon.
Such cantorls are vioaltions of laissez-faire markets.

(3) The penal system overload is a direct result of violations
of Laissez-faire capitalism, specifically, free trade in drugs.

>some people don't win in a market economy
>> simply because each individual is
>> compelled to serve the consumer, the people, or suffer material
>> privations. Privations which would not exceed those suffered had
>> the individual chosen to forgo human association altogether, and
>> therefore such privations cannot be measured as an initiation of harm.
> i don't understand. are you saying that someone who "suffers material
> privation" (aka Poverty), deserves it. Is the market equivalent of
> an outcaste or hermit ??

IAN: It's not a matter of "deserves," it's a matter of fact.
If I receive no votes, nobody voted for me, ipso facto. Did I
"deserve" no votes? I guess the whole of the people thought so.

You see, the position you hold stands at odds with the will of
the people. If people don't want to vote for someone, the redist-
ributionist will force people to vote for them. That's why the
redistributors instinctively seek to marshal the weaponry of
the State to force their neighbors against the threat of physical
violence to serve their will and to distribute their resources
according to their plans. I think people do not deserve that.

The allocation of votes -- capital -- should be
directed by choice not force. That's democracy.

VISIT Ian Goddard's Universe ----->