I didn't make an argument. You said you won every exchange, I asked for example and you cant provide it.Do you understand?
<sigh> You have tried the same irrelevancy before. The earth's atmosphere is also not a living thing. But if it was someone's property, as land is, and you had to meet their terms in order to have air to breathe, they would own your right to liberty just as landowners do. You stand refuted.
Of course there is: other people and the fruits of their labor. Without those people to provide it, I could not have access to them or the fruits of their labor. By contrast, I COULD have my liberty to access and use land without the landowner. If I were alone, I would have my liberty to use the land. The landowner takes that liberty away from me. By owning the land, he makes me worse off by depriving me of what I would otherwise have. By contrast, if I were alone, I would NOT be able to deal with my fellow human beings or access what they have produced. They therefore do NOT deprive me of anything I would otherwise have by owning the fruits of their labor. You will now destroy the integrity of your own consciousness to avoid knowing these self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality because you have already realized that they prove your beliefs are false and evil. You will sacrifice your mind and your humanity because you value your false and evil beliefs above them. It is a most sorry spectacle. Wrong again. I am advocating a society where the rules secure and reconcile the equal rights of all to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor. That would not include rules forcibly stripping people of their rights to liberty without just compensation and making those rights into others' property.
Wrong. You just don't understand what being informed, honest, intelligent and unafraid to disprove conventional wisdom implies about my economics. You have proved many times that you don't WANT to understand.
Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man" is pretty close. I have improved on some details of implementation for the modern context.
Not interested in whine. What type of society do you support and can you give a political economic source in support?
for 9th time: do you have a quote from a human who is representative of Austrian Economics( your term) supporting market socialism?? This is yes or no question. You can be held in contempt of court for not answering
"I'll show you mine if you show me yours"? Crikey, that's well creepy! I've never hidden from my stance: I'm a market socialist who acknowledges the importance of genuine economic choice and the significance of entrepreneurial spirit. Its a shame that you have to play 'you is evil' games to hide from genuine economic comment. I appreciate the plastic libertarians on here encourage a non-economic outlook, but you can shy away from that limitation! Just try.
totally insane of course since socialism is about govt control that takes away choice and spirit. Are you a capitalist communist too?? What about a Christian Jew?
So wrong. Socialism is about economic choice. With market socialism you will see self-employment rates to reflect desired rates.
Entrepreneurial spirit is largely risk tolerance. That is an individual quality, not a social one, and it relies on the prospect of individual reward. <yawn> If you want "details," you'll have to specify about what. Otherwise I have no idea if my answer will be just another occasion for your false claims about what I have plainly written.
Utter garbage, as usual. It is elimination of ignorance through creativity. You can't be an entrepreneur just because you're risk loving. That would make you a fan of the lottery!
Nonsense. Creativity is easy. Turning it into money is hard. And risky. But you also can't be an entrepreneur if you don't like risk. I said, "largely risk tolerance," not, "stupidity."
Nonsense! It requires tacit knowledge that makes entrepreneurial behaviour unique. The idea that 'It's the same as a bloke playing the lottery ', given it shows risk loving behaviour, is not credible.
