0 votes

How Propertarianism hurt Rand Paul

Of course Maddow is not Rand's or Ron's fault.

Mises declared who the individual was in society (the consumer). Not the Property-Owner, not the Worker, not the Student, and not the Senior or Minority.

All are "consumers" first.

Most Libertarians and Rothbardians claim right-seeking Propertarianism as the basis for all socio-economic and political questions.

The History of the "Racist" Property Rights Argument

1) Slaves were "property"
2) Indians never claimed "property" so it was claimed by the King and sold to his colonists
---Genocide was the answer to any Indian Nation that didn't respect the words (rights) on these "noble" documents
---13M killed in 1st 100 years
---All Tribes had 10's to 100's of broken treaties
---All pushed into Reseverationism
---All based on property rights
3) State Lines and Borders are 100% the result of Property "Rights" for the purpose of claims and redress
---This extended into Slavery especially

A "right" is a guarantee, it is protectionism against the failure of self-defense (individualism)

Hopefully I made my point here on the above (I could keep going).

Now -- How has this "hurt" Rand Paul?

We have been in Corporatism since 1964 (actually I would argue since the end of the capitalism-to-corporatism transition period.)
---Capitlaism (Washington to Taft)
---Transition Period (Wilson to Coolidge)
---Corporatism (Hoover to Obama)

....meaning when the Civil Rights Act was written we were deep into corporatism -- which means the Federal Gov't is into "everything" guaranteeing advantages (that come out of the total American dole -- including that contributed by blacks, women, gays/lesbians et al) mostly to whites -- especially wealthy and positioned white men, who by-and-large at that time were courting both poor and wealthy whites a like.

This means to counteract these "advantages" our "leaders" had one of two choices: 1) Eliminate All Rights (for all people and groups) or 2) Expand their voting horizon and broaden Right-Seeking.

Since, white people at that time could not live without "rights" and "advantages" (which in corporatism means all industries from farming to food retail, from oil to gas, from steel to plastics, from hydroelectric to consumer appliances were deeply entrenched by Big Gov't), there was no real political choice to abandon "right-seeking" (too profitable politically -- perpetual war means perpetual campaigning/lobbying).

The short version is: If there is a Fiat Monopoly Currency Market and since all property is valued in "dollars" then everything comes under the per view of Gov't -- because advantages are given out then right-seeking counter balancing efforts will be perpetually sought.

The choice was "Eliminate Propertarianism (right-seeking) in favor of Individualism (zero-rights)?" That's not a choice for a politician.

Rand's Correct Answer should of been

Rachel (given the above) if the goal is to keep Corporatist Propertariainism alive then one must Support the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in it's entirety.

Rachel, in a truly free-society there are zero-rights and thus everyone is free to defend themselves as consumers and there are no propertarian or work advantages -- zero right-seeking opportunity.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

yes

In this country under the constitution we have the right to start a business, and succeed or fail in business.
In (the USA) we have the right to put any item up for sale we want, and at any price we want and the government has no right to say anything about it.
As long as is is legal to sell the item.
If I charge too much and it does not sell I lose.
If I choose only to sell it to anyone with blue eyes that is my choice.
I lose out on all the sales that brown eyed and green eyed and hazel eyed people would make if I did not have that policy.
This is called freedom and we need to get back to freedom.
Government is not owned by me and I have no right to expect them to give privileges to blue eyed people.
Under US law we have equal rights and equal taxes and regulations. Don't we?
Read the "FEDERALIST PAPERS" SO YOU WILL KNOW THE INTENT OF OUR FOUNDERS FATHERS THAT WANTED TO CREATE A FREE COUNTRY.
Our founders were not perfect and we have put in some amendments that have been improving the rights of the people.
I could say more but I would be the only one to read more.

Liberty is our campaigns gift to the world it is our manifest destiny.
Freedom is a movement who's time has come. Our campaign will lead world wide freedom.

Octobox: You confuse me thoroughly. Is that your intention?

Honestly I don't know what to think about your writing. I have read all of your thread postings below as well as the original one above. Yet, I do not understand a single thing you are trying to say, it is all nonsensical gibberish to me.

But I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and listen again, because perhaps I just don't understand. So I will take some responsibility here for not understanding your point of view and what you are trying to tell us.

But Octobox, for a writer, you should take this not as personal criticism but as a challenge to write and explain better. Notice that I am not the only one who does not understand what you are trying to say. Most of all, this should be disappointing for you since I am your typical libertarian reader, very well read for over 30 years now. If you can't communicate your insights to someone like myself, who can you communicate with? I do not wish to say you are confused because perhaps you are on to something or you just need a better explanation to assist me with what I not getting.

After all, even if we take our time, we can even explain how to speak gibberish. Watch & listen how you say youtube in gibberish...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3UL_Qtd-fM&feature=related

In peace & liberty,
Treg

Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

Treg: Respect!

Reeeespect Mon (in Patois lingo) Reeeespect!

Why would I take offense, you posted a link to a tutorial on how to speek gibberish -- awesome!

The way I write requires that you make your own logical leaps -- I call it condensate-style. Think of it as short hand.

There are only a few on this page that don't get it and they fall into two camps (the sincere), folks like you. You obviously can't make the logical leaps. Nothing wrong with that -- your camp is very lonely, because relatively humble.

The other camp (the insincere) are either willfully ignorant or they just want an excuse to start a flame war. They rely on personality attacks and avoid debate all together.

Why don't you ask a simple question starting over at the top (the Op Thread).

What don't you get -- to many of the readers below they get it or they have enought to meditate on it and send me very thoughtful e-mails. Some of them have even expanded these thoughts (making logical extensions).

Start a new post line at the type with your "simple" question (no debate and no rebuttals) -- if we debate we can run a circular loop on premises that will never end.

Better yet, rather than me asking a question...

How about you post a link to several of your longer essays, or better yet a book? One that does not require me to make the logical extensions and answers common rebuttals.

My guess is that you are younger than I am, I am 49 now. If not younger, at least you are fresh and new into Mises and building or extending your own model. Anyway, I 'consumed' Mises, Rothbard, Friedman, and my favorite, Hazlitt back in the day (80's). So forgive me its been a while. The arcane arguments deep within Libertarianism 1.0 is a bit dusty.

Just so you know where I am coming from - I have been busy 'consuming' sociobiology, evolution and various understandings on of the brain and how human emotion works. The good news is that the 'science' of psychology has been taken over, bit by bit, by real hard biological science. Within this world of science, a general working out of JUST WHAT HUMAN NATURE IS, and WHAT IT IS NOT has taken place. As MIT's Steven Pinker points out this bodes well for the strange libertarian system (yikes! since many in the brain sciences are of the left). Please check out & See: Sociobiology by Edward O Wilson, Steven Pinker's THE BLANK SLATE & HOW THE MIND WORKS, DARWINIAN POLITICS, by libertarian economist Rubin, THE RED QUEEN by Matt Ridley, and THE GLOBAL BRAIN by H.K. Bloom, for starters.

What I wish to say to you is that each book has entered into my libertarian world view. For libertarianism to survive I found that I had to drop (or add) to what Libertarianism 1.0's view of what Human Nature Is and Is Not. This has resulted in a "new" libertarianism, a Libertarianism 2.0 if you will. I found that if I did not let go of the unscientific Libertarianism 1.0, then I was in danger of going the way of Sigmund Freud and his whole Is/Id/Super Ego psychology paradigm, rationally reasoned as it was, it still just amounted to one big 'thought bubble', grounded out to nothing. Libertarianism 1.0, is one big thought bubble, but I have hope that new thinkers will be able to tie it all down (or in) to the evolutionary sciences and the human mind. Darwinian Politics Professor Rubin points out some of the delemas. For instance, What do we as libertarians say about legalize drugs when its true that the human animal sexually operates on the handicap principle? It calls for a libertarian 2.0 answer, for none of our dead libertarian 1.0 ancestors can be consulted and referenced for a direct answer.

Question: Have you a published or posted up paper on your Mises consumer extension model?

In peace & liberty,
Treg

Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

I've been working (part-time) on a book

I'm un-published -- the model I've come up with came out of 20 years of meditation on the notion of liberty (internally and externally).

I veered off the typical path as well, in my meditations.

I cannot articulate myself in a scientific manner, but my meditation was on Fluid Dynamics (specifically on Vortices, Blow Back, Slip Streams, Failure, and Viscosity).

This greatly influenced my thinking as I re-thought the Mises vs Rothbard debates.

I was a Rothbardian for a long time.

Short question and answers work better in this format.

Octobox: So I am curious, what books are on your bookshelf?

I am in Arizona, and you?

So we are both want-to-be authors. lol. My book? You guessed it: "Libertarianism 2.0: Reciprocal Altruism and a scientific grounding of human liberty." As you may have guessed, I am also unfinished and unpublished.

It sounds to me as if I am a natural audience for your book and it also sounds as if you are a natural audience for mine. As writers, perhaps we can greatly benefit from exchanging chapters for commentary, deeper explanation, and wasteful redundancies? Maybe this is what we both need to get this done. What do you say?

In Peace & Liberty,
Treg

Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

I could commit to this by Mid-July and no sooner

I'm in business start-up mode and have a level of "busy" that will require me to rest on the 7th day.

Committment accepted

See you on the other side.

In peace & liberty,
Treg

Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

Octo, you never answered this question:

What is the commonly used word for
the transformation process you describe here:

"Let's say coal: You must transform (consume) resources, tools, knowledge, and assets into productive work -- to extract and bring to market the coal.

If you transform the coal into something else first, then it is yet another act of consumption (transformation)."

It is a very simple question-Only one word is required to respond completely.

"You are a den of vipers and thieves."

I mean to rout you out!

-Just because you are among us, does not make you with us

-The door is wide open, anything can slither in

Gmason: My mama couldn't get one word answers out of me

and neither will you -- smile.

I'll try to keep it short.

1st -- Consumption: To Use, To Transform, and to Dimminish (to waste or reduce).

If you transform the coal into something else first, then it is yet another act of consumption (transformation)."

Yes

There is ONLY ever "consumption" (it's the only thing happening from the tiniest atom to the largest stellar nursary to the biggest black hole.

Everything that humans do is an act or sub-act of consumption.

We consume: knowledge, resource, nutrients, fuel, energy, water, air, tools, creativity, emotions.

If the "consumer" is free then all "sub-consumptive activities" are free.

Sub-consumptive Roles: Worker, Owner, Student, Senior, Children, and the Infirm.

Their primary activity is "consumption" -- when they "produce" they are only consuming, when they "work" they are only consuming, when they study they are consuming, when they "diminish" (elderly) they are consuming, and when they are "ill" (infirm) they are consuming.

The "consumer" is everyone and it is every single activity.

To give "rights" (or power) to one of those "sub-consumptive roles" is to subvert total consumptive demand.

There was ONE production moment (Big Bang or God's All-Spark), smile. Whatever you want to call it.

After that production moment everything else has been CONSUMPTION (Use, Transformation, and Waste "diminish").

I find that very easy to believe-However-the question is about a

(one) word. It is very simple. Feel free to write all the words you wish before/after that word but failing to give a word is dodging the question.

Like I said, write all the words you wish before and after the word. Do you consider that word to be a dirty word?

I know you can do it Octo and the pain will only last a very short while.

"You are a den of vipers and thieves."

I mean to rout you out!

-Just because you are among us, does not make you with us

-The door is wide open, anything can slither in

Gmason: What I just gave you is a condensate of a very

deep truth.

The one word I wrote was "yes"

I answered your question.

The coal transformation question you asked.

If we transform then transform again, the second transformation is yet another act of consumption.

The answer is "YES"

I don't know what you are talking about if that does not answer it.

Unfortunately, you have nearly run out the clock on me again

today as I need to go out. No problem though, that resource is unlikely to be consumed to exhaustion for you or I in the next few days weeks. Knock on wood for us both and all.

The word is LABOR or WORK, either works(no pun).

Before continuing-we are speaking in terms of Human Kind, Humanity. Not in terms of Cosmology, Quantum Physics, etc.

Please give me an example 0ne(1) of any Human "Consumption" of scarce/limited resources, again Economics is the study of the allocation of scarce/limited resources, that occurs without labor/work occurring first-occurring as a prerequisite of consumption.

"You are a den of vipers and thieves."

I mean to rout you out!

-Just because you are among us, does not make you with us

-The door is wide open, anything can slither in

To "Work"

one must have had to "consume" first.

From Mother (egg) and Father (sperm)

Then from Mother's Milk

Then from Family provided Food, Love, Knowledge, Water

Then from Mentor "training" (skills of labor)

Then breakfast

Then "Labor" to "extract" elements of "production" for the purpose of future consumption.

Hahahahaha.

Everything prior to and including "breakfast" was consumption.

Imagine if Gov't interferes with the first act of transformation (sperm and ovum), mother's milk, family provided (wellness) -- all "consumption" prior to "labor."

Don't cheapen the argument by calling it "cosmology"

Show me where gov't or some force-agency (nobility) comes into action and I'll show you the beginnings of inflation.

Consumption is "all activities" it is "all chemical processes" it is "fission and fusion."

Every "role" we can play as humans is a "sub-consumptive role"

It is tied in to some consumptive activity.

Consumption: Use, Transformation, and Waste (reduction or diminishment).

Cosmology Octo-Not Cosmetology

I like you man and I encourage your efforts fully-just not full time in this forum but that is my view; you are free to do whatever no matter.

I encourage your efforts but if you are of the view that what you are doing is "cheapened" by my constraining you to Terra Firma by using the word Cosmology-The discipline that studies the universe, then we need to have another discussion after this one. What you are doing is certainly not cheapened in any way by the word "Cosmology" appearing in your thread. Please do not think I was in any way comparing what you are doing to the study of the universe. Just used the word Cosmology and the term Quantum Physics to rein you in from your referencing the Big Bang. Ha Ha. I will not state which effort is clearly far superior.

As to your reply to my request for one example of consumption that is not preceded by labor to put it succinctly-clear fail.

Octo, while it is a cliche joke in economics that economists ASSUME that which is inconvenient, difficult or impossible to quantify there is a limit to how far you can play games with terminology. Even Economists have standards and limits. Ha Ha x 3(any Economists reading this should get a good guffaw out of that) If your theory or model-always remain humble in the fact that it is JUST a theory or a model-requires you to make ridiculous ASSUMPTIONS about the meaning of words then you may wish to reconsider your model.

To Summarize:

1) Do not become blinded by your self generated press releases.

2) Language is not infinitely malleable to suit that which you hope to be true.

Hint: Your entire premise is terminally flawed because it "cheapens" the importance and value of human effort-LABOR-WORK. You are attempting to develop a model, ostensibly, that is of benefit to humanity, that is only useful on a human scale, yet your model completely discounts HUMANS and their activities.

"You are a den of vipers and thieves."

I mean to rout you out!

-Just because you are among us, does not make you with us

-The door is wide open, anything can slither in

Gmason: Saying cosmetology rather than cosmology

does not give you the "win"

I'm not the first "economist" to use this definition of consumption.

You cannot "win" if you do not risk personal assertions.

Your "hint" lost its way -- it "cheapens" (subjective) the importnace and value of human effort?

Labor-Work -- how does it cheapen it?

Besides -- I'm making Mises' argument, go hash it out with him, you obviously keep your own company (which is wise) -- you do not assert your opinions only judge others, why not take a chanse.

Or at the very least engage in a debate, rather than wrestle with semantics and definitions.

I am not trying to Win anything

I hope you are not. If you are, what is it you are attempting to win?; is there a prize for winning?

You seem to assume that Mises' argument has great gravity with me-if that is your assumption it is incorrect.

I am engaging and going somewhere, in my own way, though it is completely understandable if that is not yet apparent.

"wrestle with semantics and definitions."

I have no need to wrestle with them-I understand and accept the common meanings and need for common meanings. I am constraining you from harming your effort by saying now black means white.

BTW-What did it take for that mothers milk to get in that child's stomach? On the human scale of that child and mother? I am assuming that your effort is intended to have positive utility for humanity? Is that incorrect?

What did it take for that sperm to be in position to do its' WORK on that egg, on the scale of the mother and father? Did it just magically consume its' way from the fathers testes to the vaginal opening?

Let us take food for example. Everyone consumes food-at least if they are long to survive.

Your perspective-All are first, foremost and exclusively consumers.

For most people for the food that they eat to get into a position on their plate where it is in a useful form for consumption is largely a transformation process involving other people-in your perspective-the "consumption" of other people.

We know that some get the food they eat without providing any "consumption" in exchange or that their consumption is skewed from a FMV exchange.

Do you think it is a useful perspective to place all the humans involved in the "transformation" process as full equals by encouraging that they all be thought of equally as consumers? Have you ever labored on a farm transforming stuff into food? If so, would you consider your part in the food transformation process properly considered if it is portrayed as just another consumer as is the individual on food stamps. What happens to the food consumption process if all humans consume their food through the food stamp vehicle? Would the component parts of the food transformation process soon break down and grind to a halt?

Harshness alert-warning.

Octo, you are a smart guy and I assume you mean well. Realize that what you have accomplished is crafted a perspective for viewing things. It is an interesting perspective but is it a useful perspective-does it have special merit-does it encourage useful insight or is it destructive of useful insight? If your perspective became the prevailing perspective would it enhance the efficiency of resource allocation and improve the human condition or would it do the opposite?

This may help make those answers clear:

1) Available resources in unusable form.
2) Magic happens to make those available resources into a form useful for sustaining life and maximizing everything that makes life good.
3) End use by humans of magically transformed into a useful form resources.

Does glossing over step 2. lead to a better world for humankind?

Hate to bring this up here and I am in no way saying you are similar-just reminded of this by the fact that your perspective is devoid of humans.

Those that have studied Hitler closely noted that he had a clear trait of existing in a world without human inhabitants. His paintings had no humans. His architectural models-mostly created for him by Albert Speer-never depicted humans.

I am suggesting that if you wish to promote a perspective that improves the human condition-it may help to include the role of human activity in that perspective.

"You are a den of vipers and thieves."

I mean to rout you out!

-Just because you are among us, does not make you with us

-The door is wide open, anything can slither in

Gmason: I would love to debate with you

but you are a human -- also, I'm playing Bocce Ball with Hitler and Mussolini at 3.

*tootles*

I also think you are a "smart" guy, I'm very busy and have quite a few people interested in what I term to be "real" discussion that leads to solutions.....

Gotta get off, gonna get
Out of this merry-go-round
Gotta get off, gonna get
Need to get on where I'm bound

http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=FzL4m20rJ44&feature=related

Sorry you are going away

More sorry that you are going away in a way that seems perhaps angry and with a chip.

Anyway, good luck with all your efforts. Hope they take you where you wish to go. Best wishes for your book becoming a tremendous success.

Take care.

"You are a den of vipers and thieves."

I mean to rout you out!

-Just because you are among us, does not make you with us

-The door is wide open, anything can slither in

Gmason: No worries

Good luck to you

This is a Chicken/Egg argument (which is silly)

Until there is an "egg" (an actuality), there is no consumer (discretionary potential). The consumer is the secondary reaction, the natural by-product of a producer (the chicken). The consumer is a response. The producer initiates the cycle. The producer creates the thing of value. The consumer spends his (lesser) value to procure that which the producer creates (which the consumer desires).

Until the producer produces, there is nothing for the consumer to consume. The producer can always consume their own production and live to live the next day. Unless the consumer exchanges his (lesser) value for the product of the preferred producer, he twists in the wind.

Your philosophy is mirrored IMHO.

Gary: If it were that easy than Rothbard and Mises would not

have debated over this.

Consumption: To Use, To Transform, to Diminish

....that is the definition.

There was ONE production moment (Big Bang or God Creation) -- whatever you cup of Tea is.

After that everything has only ever been or only ever can be "consumption" (Use, Transformation, and Diminish or "dissolution").

There is no "permanence" and in a free-society there are no "guarantees" -- thus no property-rights.

A "right" is a guarantee.

The "producer" is really a "consumer"

We consume: Knowledge, Resources, Water, Nutrients, Air, Fuel, Tools, Electricity (all forms of energy), value etc etc.

If we come out of our roles as consumers and take on a tinier definition ("producer" or "worker") we must unionize to consolidate power -- thus rights or guarantees.

The consumer creates demand and the "producer" (a consumer in a different role) seeks to satisfy it.

The entrepreneur "imagines" what the consumer wants then creates it -- if he is right he is rewarded if not he fails (no guarantess).

A worker is a consumer (before, during, and after he gets off work).

All "costs" are paid by the consumer (this is fact).

A free-society has no hidden costs on the consumer.

Right-Seeking is a "cost" and it is hidden.

If the gov't boosts the money supply it hurts the consumer first -- the "producer" must consume inputs, resources etc with the idea that purchasing power is "here" -- if "here" becomes higher artificially the consumer is given a false signal (so he over producers) but it's not "real" purchasing power it is nominal the supply effect has not kicked in.

I can go on and on -- forgive my short-hand, what I put up there is "a lot" (pour some water on it and watch it hydrate, smile).

Octo- I admire your pursuit of the truth

I really do. But take all of your Rothbard and Mises books, read them and then appreciate them for what they are- the OPINIONS of another man, just like yourself. They contain no absolute truth or solution, just an opinion. Your opinion may have the same (or greater) value. Time will tell.

There are a handful of elements to human (commercial) interaction:

1. Natural resources- land, rocks minerals, water, etc. Private property is defined as "what I can protect". Git off my land boy or I'll blow your head off kinda stuff. Property rights are enforced. Sorry, law of the jungle kinda stuff. Not pretty.
But, natural resources tend to go to the guys with a track record of squeezing out the most value (or to their pathetic progeny SIX GENERATIONS LATER- but I digress).

2. Labor The guy (or gal) who works the hardest or has the best imagination (AND also has access to the resources needed to make it a reality) wins. Smart people are always going to do better than less-smart people. People who "own" resources love smart people.

3. Producers manage to balance #1 and #2. Someone may have been born in the position to defend 10,000 acres of copper mines (which they inherited). Other's may have been born with the skill or imagination of how to defend or exploit that same 10,000 acres. Maybe both- if they're lucky. Producers find a way to satisfy someone else's wants.

4. Consumers- Everyone is looking for something to make them feel good. Effortless (or a perceived lower than normal effort) "eating". "Whimpy" on the Popeye cartoons was the perfect example: "For a hamburger today, I will gladly repay you on Tuesday..." The consumer's impatience for "what they want" represents "profit". There is no "hidden cost" (unless they're stupid).

You and I are on a desert island- I get hungry; no action- just my need. You go for a walk (action) and find a bologna sandwich (production) under a rock and bring it back to camp. Sandwich looks GOOD man. What I choose to exchange for a portion of "your" sandwich (property) is profit (the price of deferred labor).

Marx (as I understand him) had one thing right: the common value among men is the value of (equal) labor. Who owns property is still being decided amongst the great-great grandchildren of feudal lords. That's what war is for (barbaric, huh?)

We live in such a sophisticated age- Ipads and everything...

Gary: I agree with your first paragraph

---I site these men because of the profound respect each has garnered in this movement, as I would site Ron Paul.

---Maybe in time my argument "will" carry the same weight; but I would probably be one of its detractors since the "root" of my character is that I can improve anything I unerstand, the defensive tactic system I teach is under such constant revision.

---Consumption is EVERYTHING a human being does -- it's all consumption.

Consumption Means: Use, Transformation, and Waste (to lesson or diminish)

We consume: Knowledge, Nutrients, Water, Fuel, Energy, Tools, Emotions, Resources - etc etc etc.

A "Producer" is only a "transformer" -- consumption
A "Worker" is only a "user and diminisher of tools and resources and energy" -- consumption

Both had to consumer knowledge and skill prior to being a producer and a worker.

Consumption is the broadest term in the whole universe that is provable.

Black Holes "consume" light

It's not just "Whimpy" wanting a hamburger on Tuesday, hahahahaha.

Great analogy by-the-by -- I loved Popeye as a kid.

What you wrote is jibberish.

There is no "permanence" and in a free-society there are no "guarantees" -- thus no property-rights.

"Guarantees" do not exist in any society. The "guarantees" you speak of are merely threats of force in order to back up certain claims. Hence, if I as an individual decide I own something, and I backup my claim through threats of force then I have in effect "guaranteed" my own property rights as much as any society could or would.

A free-society has no hidden costs on the consumer.

Its impossible for the consumer to be made aware of the costs of every transaction he makes. As it is impossible for the producer himself to be aware of all of the costs associated with the act of producing.

That's not to say that it is impossible to make rational economic transactions... its just a feature of informational deficiencies. No one is omnipotent and therefore no one can know to a certainty the side effects of their transactions.

Take for example smoking-- it causes higher rates of cancer. That is a cost that consumers were unaware of for hundreds of years. The problem wasn't that they were "serfs" or "subjects"; the problem had nothing to do with living or not living in a "free society"; it had to do with the limitations of knowledge.

The claim that "A free society has no hidden costs on the consumer," makes little to no sense.

Right-Seeking is a "cost" and it is hidden.

"Rights" are essentially abstract concepts codified by society into law. It is impossible for the act of "seeking rights" to be hidden, as, in order for society/government to recognize a right, society/government has to be made aware that someone desires said right.

For some very VISIBLE costs of "right-seeking" please see: The Civil Rights Movement, The Suffrage Movement, The Revolutionary War, The Civil War... etc.

I could go on, but I grow weary.

Dlind: How are you growing weary -- hahahahaha

I'm laughing at myself and the consternation I cause as much as your chagrin, smile.

My mother would extend her sympathy to you if she were still with us.

Your understanding of "hidden costs" is limited or misquided.

A "hidden cost" is "inflationary" -- it causes business cycles (as Ron Paul puts it).

The biggest "effector" of "hidden costs" is the Fed Bank; as they are manipulating the medium all property is valued in.

A "downstream" hidden cost would be a big union lobbying for a force-agency (gov't) pay raise -- this is called "rent-seeking" or more acurately "right-seeking"

A worker-lobbied rent can have one of two possible outcomes: 1) the Owner absorbs the cost (takes it out of profit) or 2) the Owner passes it on the the consumer.

If the Owner choses #1 he will lose profit and then consumer-investors -- the loss of consumer-investor capital will allow borrowing capability to go down and a reduction in R&D. In time the same effect as #2 occurs; unless.

Unless the Owner seeks a gov't subsidy (yet another "hidden cost" on the consumer).

The consumer has no idea how many costs woven into the prices he purchases at are "hidden" or "inflationary"

Your understanding of this is not even Rothbardian, let alone Misesian.

It's possible that my use of the term "hidden cost" thru you off.

Ron Paul talks about false business cycles all the time -- it was from RP that I learned this from back in '88.

Ok let me spell it out for you.

I'll stick with the "hidden costs" topic as you ignored my other contention.

You claim that:

A free-society has no hidden costs on the consumer.

"Hidden Costs" have nothing to do with living in a "free society." What you allege in your argument makes little to no sense.

A hidden cost is a cost that is not known about, which means that it is the result of informational deficiencies.

You yourself essentially argue this when you claim "Right-Seeking is a cost and it is hidden."

"Right seeking" is an activity that, by its very nature, cannot be kept secret. It is an attempt to get society to acknowledge a privaledge, and as such it necessarily has to be done in the open in a political system such as ours.

Now people might be unaware of it, because they don't read news papers, or watch news, or aren't dull enough to poor over court cases and laws in their spare time, but the fact remains the information is available to those who want to seek it out.

In essence the only way "Right-Seeking" could be considered a "hidden cost" is if we assume that the average individual doesn't take the time to learn about it.

And so, while your "free-society," whatever that is, may preclude "right-seeking" and/or "inflation," arguably two of the largest and most egregious sorts of "hidden costs," it in no way shape or form can solve the problem of people simply not knowing the full costs associated with the commerce in which they engage.

Hidden costs are the result of informational deficiencies, and that is a problem that cannot be addressed simply by changing the socio-political structure of society.

In essence. I'm calling Shenanigans.

P.S. My weariness was two parts due to the time at which I wrote the response, and one part due to the fact I had a sneaking suspicion that the discussion would be as productive as boxing a glacier.

Dlind: You are confused and semantical [this is Mises argument]

I'll stick with the "hidden costs" topic as you ignored my other contention.

[[[I didn’t “ignore” it – it’s just hard in this format to deal with everything; also I’m an individualist, as you are stuck specifically (semantically) on certain premises where others “get it” (as is), so you too focus on what you want.]]]

You claim that: A free-society has no hidden costs on the consumer.

"Hidden Costs" have nothing to do with living in a "free society." What you allege in your argument makes little to no sense.

[[[Take it up with Mises’ – I’m making his argument]]]

A hidden cost is a cost that is not known about, which means that it is the result of informational deficiencies.

You yourself essentially argue this when you claim "Right-Seeking is a cost and it is hidden."

[[[I’m making Mises’ argument – I don’t claim to be wiser than Mises – this is not the part of my work that is the “logical extension” of his. This part “the hidden costs” are Mises and Ron Paul’s arguments]]]

"Right seeking" is an activity that, by its very nature, cannot be kept secret. It is an attempt to get society to acknowledge a privaledge, and as such it necessarily has to be done in the open in a political system such as ours.

[[[You are missing the point – I’m not saying “hidden” means permanently secretive; “hidden” means it is not plain and obvious to the average consumer – To an economist it is not hidden at all; which is why Mises and RP are able to talk about it, hahaha]]]

Now people might be unaware of it, because they don't read news papers, or watch news, or aren't dull enough to poor over court cases and laws in their spare time, but the fact remains the information is available to those who want to seek it out.

[[[Agreed – Maybe it would be better when discussing things with you to build a special vocabulary list that does not include the works of Mises or Ron Paul – okay that was sarcastic]]]

In essence the only way "Right-Seeking" could be considered a "hidden cost" is if we assume that the average individual doesn't take the time to learn about it.

[[[Yes – Spot on – and Agreed. ]]]

And so, while your "free-society," whatever that is, may preclude "right-seeking" and/or "inflation," arguably two of the largest and most egregious sorts of "hidden costs," it in no way shape or form can solve the problem of people simply not knowing the full costs associated with the commerce in which they engage.

[[[You again do not understand the “term or phrase” – I could relent and let you “win” and it would still not disprove my main points because I can simply go back and define my term at the beginning. You are not debating you are fully engaged in semantics. Also, this word is used in the way I’m using it by Mises and Ron Paul – no I won’t do the research for you.]]]

Hidden costs are the result of informational deficiencies, and that is a problem that cannot be addressed simply by changing the socio-political structure of society.

[[[http://mises.org/daily/3478 ---- The use of “hidden cost” in this article is close to how I’m using it, though the claim I make is not necessarily made. When I say there are no hidden costs in a free-society, it would be better worded to mean; there are no costs associated with right-seeking and/or inflation. Both Misesian and Rothbardian scholars will use “hidden cost” in the way I have above. Since right-seeking and inflationary costs are eliminated in a free-society, all hidden costs are as well.]]]

ence. I'm calling Shenanigans.

[[[It’s not “shenanigans” it’s that you are not very well read in Mises or Rothbard. As I’ve said before, if I defined my term at the beginning then you’d have no argument here – this is purely semantical]]]

P.S. My weariness was two parts due to the time at which I wrote the response, and one part due to the fact I had a sneaking suspicion that the discussion would be as productive as boxing a glacier.

[[[“boxing a glacier” – I know the feeling]]]

I mostly agree with this

I mostly agree with this issue, but I wish Rand would have stayed out of this issue all together.