| |
  
|
||||||||||
Just One Question for Dr. Paul
Submitted by jabowery on Fri, 11/13/2009 - 21:40
If legitimate government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily joined, then why would an individual sovereign join if it paid no dividends? » |
|
|||||||||
The Daily Paul is a community website with no official affiliation with Ron Paul or his Presidential Committee. The content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original poster, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. This site may contain adult language and adult concepts. If you are offended by such content, or feel you may be offended by such content, point your browser to a different site IMMEDIATELY. For more, read the Full Disclaimer
© 2007 - 2011 by The Daily Paul. Not paid for by, nor officially affiliated in any way with Ron Paul. | General Site Disclaimer | DMCA Disclaimer | Advertise here
What dividends would you expect?
?
LibertyDefined.org | If | Not Perfect
Not all land is created equal
exchange of dividends for protection from force or legal action.
I think privacy is worth more than gold, so the insurance company that protects my privacy would be a better choice for me than one who exploints me in the name of dividends (selling out).
WE ARE GOING TO WIN!
___.---.___
.' ( ) '.
) /)' '( )
',_( ';-;'\_,'
|-|
(")
Dividends Vs Services
The services provided by a company differ from the dividends: Services are paid for out of revenue. Profits are paid for out of the difference between revenue and costs of providing the services -- that is the profits of the company.
If you don't understand the importance of this distinction then you really have no business calling yourself a libertarian.
Land is a natural right.
If you read nothing else, read this: A Contract Between Americans
In the legal medicakl marijuana business
Miost consider a libertarian venrure since there are no taxes or regulations,... people pay for protection of the production.
WE ARE GOING TO WIN!
___.---.___
.' ( ) '.
) /)' '( )
',_( ';-;'\_,'
|-|
(")
For the services he recieves from his equal proportional
investment in that company (or government).
Government should be like any service, you should get what you paid for , if not go elsewhere.
Without government regulations and compulsion a totally free market would naturally reduce the scope and size of government through competition.
" The force of a correction is equal and opposite to the deception that proceded it"
B. Bonner
"Since 1789 the only government on Earth that has the power to crush the American people`s liberties across the board is the government of the United States"
Robert Higgs
Dividends Vs Services
The services provided by a company differ from the dividends: Services are paid for out of revenue. Profits are paid for out of the difference between revenue and costs of providing the services -- that is the profits of the company.
If you don't understand the importance of this distinction then you really have no business calling yourself a libertarian.
Land is a natural right.
If you read nothing else, read this: A Contract Between Americans
That`s my point, I don`t expect dividends from government, I
expect the service that I paid for equal to non governmental competition.
And I expect the right to chose my provider of those services that I require. The collection of revenue by the government should not be used to accumulate "dividends" for the people , it should be used only to pay for Constitutional obligations and nothing else.
If you think the government should be a "for profit" organization paying dividends then you should not call yourself a libertarian.
" The force of a correction is equal and opposite to the deception that proceded it"
B. Bonner
"Since 1789 the only government on Earth that has the power to crush the American people`s liberties across the board is the government of the United States"
Robert Higgs
Commie
So you believe that government shouldn't be replaced by competition between for-profit businesses?
So the only true "libertarians" are commies?
Quoting Lysander Spooner:
"All legitimate government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily agreed upon by the parties to it, for the protection of their rights against wrong-doers. In its voluntary character it is precisely similar to an association for mutual protection against fire or shipwreck. Before a man will join an association for these latter purposes, and pay the premium for being insured, he will, if he be a man of sense, look at the articles of the association; see what the company promises to do; what it is likely to do; and what are the rates of insurance. If he be satisfied on all these points, he will become a member, pay his premium for a year, and then hold the company to its contract. If the conduct of the company prove unsatisfactory, he will let his policy expire at the end of the year for which he has paid; will decline to pay any further premiums, and either seek insurance elsewhere, or take his own risk without any insurance. And as men act in the insurance of their ships and dwellings, they would act in the insurance of their properties, liberties and lives, in the political association, or government."
Land is a natural right.
If you read nothing else, read this: A Contract Between Americans
Self interest
Why do people buy stock in Apple Computer? It pays no dividends, either.
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?s...
Where are the capital gains?
The reason people buy stock in companies that pay no dividends is because they can sell at a profit later when ownership of shares goes up.
Where can one sell one's citizenship?
Land is a natural right.
If you read nothing else, read this: A Contract Between Americans
Buy and hold
Why sell an asset if it continues to provide you with value?
Pop quiz
What is the difference between a dividend paid to an investor and a service rendered to a customer?
Land is a natural right.
If you read nothing else, read this: A Contract Between Americans
Because it is the only game
Because it is the only game in town.
Ventura 2012
So You Believe In Monopolies?
"The only game in town" sounds suspiciously like a "monopoly".
How about this:
Two guys walk up to you offering you different contracts:
One contract says: "Join our mutual insurance company and you'll not only be indemnified for violation of your property rights in exchange for your premiums, but you'll receive dividends from the profits."
The other contract says: "Join our mutual insurance company and you'll be indemnified for violation of your property rights in exchange for your premiums but you'll receive no dividends from the profits."
It sounds to me like Ron Paul and the Austrian Economists are saying that sovereign individuals would or should sign the second rather than the first contract.
My question for them is, quite simply, clearly and insistently, "Why?"
In a situation where the middle class -- the very heart of liberty -- has been destroyed by both regulatory capture and by the welfare/warfare state, this is the single most important question that must be answered by the lovers of liberty.
Land is a natural right.
If you read nothing else, read this: A Contract Between Americans
my bad, I thought you
my bad, I thought you actually wanted an answer. It IS a monopoly.
Ventura 2012
Liberty is not provided by the gvmt
While I have to first say the analogies seem a bit off base to me, but maybe I am missing something. Here is my take on your post.
If one chooses the second option, as you describe it, you have sound money, private contracts, and maintain purchasing power, unlike the first. It really has nothing to do with a monopoly in the traditional sense. It boils down to understanding that liberty is not given by the gvmt, but the gvmt has been trusted, as defined in our Constitution, to protect liberty. So your natural rights are already yours, you are free, but unlike other nations our experiment in freedom is supposed to be such that the gvmt fears the people and not vice versa.
The largest benefit of Austrian school of thought, or sound money, is the removal of the money pyramid that allows credit to be amplified with fractional reserve banking, and replace it with sound money. The country was founded on sound money and that allows for free markets, and is how we became so strong, but we have squandered it away. We need to work on requiring savings to create capital, and the capital allows credit. In other words you only increase the money supply proportional to an increase in productivity. The Keynesian school of thought requires a constant increase in credit and "controlled" inflation, and penalizes savings as the model requires inflation.
It is like Ron Paul said the other day, how can we have Capitalism, when there is no Capital? Our gvmt operates with both fiscal and trade deficits and a huge debt.
Invalid contract
"If one chooses the second option, as you describe it, you have sound money, private contracts, and maintain purchasing power, unlike the first."
You argue solely by assertion here something that is not obvious at best.
The first contract differs from the second contract solely in that the first contract offers value to the share holder (dividends) in exchange for capital while the second contract offers no value to the share holder in exchange for capital. Indeed, under ordinary understanding of contract law the uncompensated transfer of territory as capital for the formation of the mutual insurance company cannot be a binding contract because there was no exchange of consideration.
Land is a natural right.
If you read nothing else, read this: A Contract Between Americans
I digress
There are many dividends, but they are not monetary. They are in the form already described, and more. With any contract comes risk, and there is no safety net.
Unless you support anarchy, government is a necessary evil that given enough time will become tyrannical. Today we have evolved into too much gvmt, markets are not free but driven by gvmt and big corporations. As Ron Paul said, how can we have capitalism when we have no capital?
I prefer as limited gvmt as possible, and believe that most issues are best handled locally. It is a lot easier to have a voice locally, rather than send a voice to Washington.
If there is a better contract than what is being offered by the liberty movement, please let me know. I am trying to determine if you support anarchy, or if you are arguing for a more collective form of gvmt.
All the beast.
Read the fine print offered by Rothbard and Paul
The services provided by a company differ from the dividends: Services are paid for out of revenue. Profits are paid for out of the difference between revenue and costs of providing the services -- that is the profits of the company.
If you don't understand the importance of this distinction then you really have no business calling yourself a libertarian.
If you are willing to invest with Ron Paul, Murray Rothbard, etc., who, in exchange for your investment, offer services but no dividends -- you are basically agreeing to a service fee equal to the expected dividend stream you are foregoing. (This is assuming the contract is valid, since without an exchange of consideration, there actually is no valid contract.)
It is your right as an individual sovereign to sign such a contract. However, my original question really gets to the heart of the matter: Why would an individual sovereign agree that the mutual insurance company he is joining should be non-profit and that all members premiums should be equal?
Land is a natural right.
If you read nothing else, read this: A Contract Between Americans
compared to what? Anarchy …Socialism?
I have to go back to the original question, or say, as compared to what? Anarchy …Socialism??
At any rate, I have read several of Paul's books, along with Peter Schiff's books, and the Austrian school of sound money is something I like. I also think the relation between civil liberty and sound money is valid.
If you have issues with the platform recommended by Paul, which is simply a Constitutional government, what do you recommend?
I do not see the gvmt being responsible for providing dividends, if you mean welfare or stimulus checks to help us spend money, and that is what the argument seems to boil down to.
As far as investing in any mutual fund, or financial investments, I believe that is a private contract and the gvmt simply are in the background in case the contract cannot be regulated by the individuals. I know that is not the fundamental of you analogy, but it is a point.
It is an interesting question, but I will see if someone else can better entertain your analogy, as I am having trouble with the core of it. I may be missing the point, so I will read the thread again and see if I change my thoughts.
What is your opinion? What type of gvmt do you support? Do you want a more centralized collective gvmt, or do you think Ron Paul is advocating too much gvmt?
From my perspective hearing of learning about Ron Paul back in 2007, it opened my eyes that there are people in Washington that take the law seriously. There really are Republicans that believe in small gvmt, small business, and less taxes.
While I am currently an Independent, I would switch to Republican in a heartbeat to have a chance to vote for Ron Paul in the primary, and I know much more about the philosophy now than I did back then.
I never really called myself a Libertarian, but I do find myself leaning more Libertarian everyday.
I am basing my argument from the state of affairs of today, where I see so many people sucking the system dry with every angle they can, from unemployment to Medicaid. It is not sustainable and I want a real change, even if it means sacrificing now for a better tomorrow. While I do not support all out Anarchy, I do want to keep gvmt as small as possible, and Ron Paul is an example of a state’s man that has been voting and advocating personal responsibility and limited gvmt for years.
Ron Paul is not "simply" a Constitutionalist
Quoting: "the platform recommended by Paul, which is simply a Constitutional government"
Obviously, Ron Paul is not "simply" a Constitutionalist: Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist who has a particular agenda for the Constitution which includes repeal of some amendments and not others, and possibly the introduction of new amendments.
One can be a Constitutionalist and have differences of opinion with other Constitutionalists over how the Constitution should be amended and even interpreted.
I'm getting to the root of Ron Paul's agenda here by stating in words the contract he is asking you, as an individual sovereign, to work to institute with, among other tools, Constitutional amendments.
Land is a natural right.
If you read nothing else, read this: A Contract Between Americans
I think it is more about
I think it is more about getting rid of unconstitutional agencies and programs like the federal reserve, irs, dept of edu, ect. than it is about amending that constitution.
My question would be, did you know there's water on the moon?
That's what they say at least.
Explore Orthodox Christianity
I will try, although I may not get it all in here,
as it is late, and my brain shut down a while ago.Of course, Dr. Paul would probably have it on the tip of his tongue, and be much more eloquent. First, it would have some dividends. You see, we need protection of those individual liberties, because we don't want to be bullied by those bigger and stronger than us, whether a neighbor, or another nation, or a corporation. Human nature being what it is, we don't want to allow criminal types to rule us, so ideally, the constitutional govt would be an insurance company protecting our individual rights. We've gotten a long way from that, haven't we?
You are speaking of benefits, not dividends
You misunderstand the nature of dividends. Dividends are payments, made from profits, to capital investment -- in this case the investment of an individual sovereign's natural rights including the right to contract as well as the natural right of land. Benefits are payments made to the insured for indemnity. When you refer to being "bullied" you are referring to an indemnification, not a dividend. The distinction is crucial to avoid moral hazard.
Land is a natural right.
If you read nothing else, read this: A Contract Between Americans
Ok, so we probably wouldn't get or maybe
even should get dividends by joining it, but wouldn't by joining it anyway be able to keep the dividends that we get by other means?
Not just dividends, but all income
Yes, of course and not just dividends but all income we get by other means.
That does not mean, however, that the service of upholding your property rights against force and fraud is free from any fees. You can "keep" those fees -- aka insurance premiums -- only by terminating your contract. You are then on your own in upholding your own property rights.
Land is a natural right.
If you read nothing else, read this: A Contract Between Americans
is land a natural right
or the right to purchase land a natural right?
Animal territory is purchased in blood, sweat and tears
Long before transactions occur for land, animals fight for the right to raise their families from nature.
This is self defense.
This is nature.
Land is a natural right.
If you read nothing else, read this: A Contract Between Americans
OK I missunderstood
I was thinking you where saying land is natural right like many are saying Health care is a right.