Best explanation for Weimar Republic Inflation I ever read....

What every the individual decides as long as it does not initiate an aggression against another individual, there for immorally infringing upon that person's rights.

IRSC 877. Learn it.

As long as you don't infringe upon those of others, you don't have to. However, recognize that the concept of legal rights after the divine right of kings were thrown on the trash heap of history were instituted to protect the natural rights of human beings. Legal right have since been bastardized to infringe upon the rights "of the governed" which is proof that no government will ever work.

noun
noun: partisan; plural noun: partisans; noun: partizan; plural noun: partizans
1.
a strong supporter of a party, cause, or person.

Please, brush up on your definitions.

Well, we were talking about economics, correct? If you know so much about economics, shouldn't you understand what scarcity means in said context?

No, that isn't the definition of economics.

DEFINITION of 'Economics'
Economics is a social science concerned with the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services. It studies how individuals, businesses, governments and nations make choices on allocating resources to satisfy their wants and needs, and tries to determine how these groups should organize and coordinate efforts to achieve maximum output.

See, economics isn't always group-centric. An individual can produce goods (say, from a garden) to satisfy a need (this is the first priority) which is food.

And this is the authoritarian/central planners mistake. Of course individualism (if you are defining it correctly) pays attention to this, how it emphasizes freedom of association in order to do is just of paramount importance. It is immoral to force association between individuals- it should be voluntary. Unfortunately, if order for collectivism to work it MUST force association between individuals infringing upon their natural right.

I've pretty much concluded that due to misrepresentations, omissions and willful ignorance you aren't really worth the amount of time from my busy schedule to discuss thus matter.

TTFN!

 

A big chunk? That paper is 28 pages long. You quoted 4 lines. .

"Chortle, chortle!"

Like, this part?

9. Conclusions
In our analysis, the rise of Nazism is seen more as a consequence of the flaws in the Versailles treaty. In particular, the Allies' huge reparations bill created a long war of attrition that encouraged Germans to cultivate the Great Depression and threat of Nazi dictatorship.

 

It amuses me that, despite being presented with a source that just repeated what I said, you still blubber on. Insight 101 for evening classes?

The flaw the author is referring to is how the reparations were designed: they weren't every going to be paid back (i.e. its not about ability to pay); but they still impacted on macro policy (i.e. it is about the incentive to pay)

 

Oh no! Really? That makes me so sad.

 

Yes, precisely. My point is that @Reiver and @Econ4Every1 aren't discussing economics. They are talking about using force to make people do what they want them to do. That's not economics. That's force.

 

No, I've highlighted what's in the best interest of the individual, the rest is unnecessary.

The question is, how does the individual decide?

What are "rights" and who decides the right we have? "Natural rights" are a concept, an idea that has arisen as a result of awareness. Agreeing to respect the rights of others is nothing more than a person deciding what is best for them is to reciprocate rights because it is what's best for them.

Again, natural rights is just an idea, a good one I grant you that, but in reality, rights are something we choose to accept or not accept.

And how does your defining the word refute anything I said?

Sure, I know what it means, I just call BS.

Dollars aren't an end, they are a means to an end. You believe that the desire to acquire scarce ends is insatiable, but if that were true, people, very rich people, wouldn't save dollars, they'd acquire ends with them. The only thing that the ultra-rich want is the power that the saving of money represents, not scarce ends.

Where did I define economics?

Ok, so you own a room on a ship. You're told that the ship will sink if the crew cannot gain access to your room. You believe that the claim is an excuse to gain entry into your private space so you refuse.

Should everyone die to maintain your right to your property?

Yes, take alllll that time writing your reply, then tell me you don't have any....lol

 

No, that's called the social contract.

 

Right. You're not talking about economics. You're talking about using violence to make others do what you want.

 

Setting aside the hyperbole, The two aren't mutually exclusive.

 

Yeah, they kind of are mutually exclusive. If you use violence to force someone to do what you want, then they are unable to make economic decisions.

 

This is when economics changes to the classic definition of politics (the study of force used upon an individual by a group).

 

Give us an example of people forced to do the bidding of others, under the "threat of force" to do the bidding of others. Oh and tell us what that "force" is and give us some examples, please.

 

if you don't pay taxes to support the welfare state with which you disagree men with guns come to encourage you to support the welfare state with which you disagree. Liberalism is based in violent coercion, not freedom. No wonder liberals want gun control for other people.

 

I was referring to stuff like this:

 

not at all since libertarians see the advantage of a huge military in defeating the huge militarys of libcommie countries

 

That quote ("If the US were to be individualist as you see it, it would quickly break up into multiple smaller nations") is not me. It's @Econ4Every1

 

I have a cousin who hasn't paid his taxes in 4 years, no one has "violently coerced" him. I didn't pay my taxes in 2001, no one with guns came to my house.

Hyperbole.

 

So in your world "penalty" = men with guns enacting violence?

 

How else would the penalty be imposed?

 

Obviously if taxes were voluntary few would pay them and liberal men with guns would come.

 

Inability to pay taxes is not against the law.

 

Do you think a group of countries can wage "economic war" against another country?

 

why change subject rather than admit liberal economics is about violence, about forcing others to do what you want at gun point because you think you are superior

 

Tell that to Wesley Snipes.