Top income brackets should be taxed at 99%.

The arbitrator decides.

 

Ahem. They didn't agree on an arbitrator. If the arbitrator is someone they didn't agree on, then it's a state.

 

No. It's exclusive private landholders who would keep you from using any land you chose, just as it is now. The difference would be that unlike now, you would have a right to use enough of the available advantageous land of your choice to have access to economic opportunity without having to pay a greedy, privileged parasite for permission to exercise your right to liberty.

 

I notice this was your reply to bringiton, after my explanation of why this is impossible:

the underlying reason is: All humans - including "a private citizen" - have both conscious and unconscious motivation, etc outlined in #833.

Can't address the explanation?

 

They agreed when they entered into a contract.

 

Cool. So I can use any land I want and the state won't get involved. Nice.

 

Conscious and unconscious. Got it. So why can't civilized people figure out how to resolve their disputes without the initiation of violence?

 

Originally quoted the wrong post.

1. There was no talking of disputing parties having entered some sort of contractual agreement, if I remember correctly. You just added that. And I do hope you're not implying that without contractual agreement there would be no disputes. This seems to be a dishonest debating trick that you're trying to pull here.

2. Assuming preexisting contractual agreement, what if one party refused to fulfill it's contractual obligations? War?

 

The contract would dictate the method of resolving disputes and they parties would have agreed on the terms ahead of time.

 

1. Not all disputes would involve parties that have entered contractual agreement of some form or other. There was no talking about that existing before the dispute. You decided to add preexisting contractual agreement to the conversation.

2. You didn't answer my question. What if one party decided not to fulfill its contractual obligations, including the arbitration agreement? War? Does the contract perform magic?

 

Because unconscious motivation, residing in the basal ganglia of the human brain ("reptilian brain") contains half a billion years of evolved survival mechanisms aka instinct, that predates the more recently evolved cerebral cortex (self aware "thinking brain" in humans) by almost that length of time (humans being a 'recent' species to appear on earth).

Just look at the individuals in a mob of seagulls squabbling over some food scraps...

 

But you can see how contractual disputes would be agreed to beforehand? So what other sorts of disputes are you talking about?

Society would peacefully enforce the results of the arbitration through the power of boycott.

 

One can agree on all sorts of contracts, but there needs to be a mechanism in place to enforce them, or at least to penalize accordingly if obligations aren't fulfilled. And not everyone is competent enough not to enter a contract that the other party has designed with malicious, perverse, destructive intention. Some may have no other choice but to agree to such contracts due to the destitute situation they find themselves that are of no fault of their own. Where is the line drawn with what should be contractually possible?

??? There are many possibilities.

Jim had a one night stand with Katy a month ago. The condom leaked and she is pregnant. He does not deny having intercourse with Katy, but he refuses any sort of responsibility for Katy and his future child. He does not even participate in a paternity test.

Okay. I'm just going to shut off my power plant that the community relies on for readily available energy. Good luck, winter is coming.

 

nvm

 

I could use many other examples of parties in dispute without any sort preexisting contractual agreement with regards to the situation they find themselves in.

The parenthood example may look a bit off the more economic, trade, ownership, etc, disputes this was presumably going the direction of, but I do believe it still fits adequately. Two parties in dispute over responsibility and finances, which may include requiring the father to submit to testing and perhaps pay alimony. How would one approach such a situation without certain laws about this in place and an authoritative third party like government?

 

As I said in my previous post. Society could use the power of boycott against contract breakers.

She could engage a socially respected arbitrator, and then society could show their displeasure with Jim through the power of boycott. When nobody in society will sell you food you quickly learn to get with the program.

Why would you cut off your income stream? What good does that do you?

 

The state will get involved to prevent violence between you and anyone else who would like to use the same land exclusively, and to secure and reconcile the equal individual rights of all to use the land. You don't seem to understand that by using whatever land you want, you will be violating others' rights to use the same land. The state's job is to stop you from violating others' rights, or require you to make just compensation when you do. I'm not sure there is any clearer or simpler way to explain that to you.

 

What contract? Who entered into a contract to give up their rights?

Oh, wait a minute, maybe I know what you are talking about: a social contract that is assumed to exist between the members of a community. Is that it?

 

Oh, there you are again with your truncheons and bayonets. I'm sure you're winning hearts and minds with our calls to violence.

 

Yes, as they are unfortunately necessary to secure and reconcile the equal individual rights of all to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor against the violent, coercive, physical aggression of greedy, evil thieves who seek to violate others' rights by force, and not make just compensation for what they are taking (maybe like you...?). You just do not like the community to have truncheons and bayonets at its disposal to defend innocent people's rights against your acts of forcible, violent, aggressive physical coercion. You want to be at liberty to rob and enslave others by force, and you act all butt-hurt if they have the means to defend themselves against your depredations.

There is no other way to defend people's rights against the perpetration of violence by the evil. The evil -- and it sounds more and more like you aspire to be one of them -- just want to make sure their victims will be defenseless.

 

Though it is refreshing to see Trump saying: " we are one people, we can do whatever takes...we have our own currency...."

https://twitter.com/i/status/1243674759201796098

Sounds liberal to me...over-rule the free market when necessary, with government ordering production at private companies like GM, and treasury printing funds as required to keep unemployed workers from starving or being evicted from their homes (it's a pity Obama was not able to do the same after the GFC).

 

That is because you do understand what he was saying, and to be honest, neither did he. The treasury does not print funds, it prints debt. (Treasury Notes) He was saying because we do not have a gold standard, the government is free to print as much money as it wants which is true. But in reality, the government does not print the money, the Federal Reserve does, and then it loans the money to the government at interest. You see the Fed is not a branch of the US government, it is a parent company for it's member banks, who are its stockholders. The US government borrows its money from the Fed at interest. That is why it can never get out of debt. If the Treasury printed the money, it could simply produce the money it needed and there would be no debt.
If you do not believe it look it up...

 

I like that.....I did not understand what Trump is saying, and neither did he understand what he is saying! Only you understand what he is saying…...

No, you are still living the fantasy of mainstream neoliberal economics.

Briefly to explain: sovereign currency issuing governments are limited by resources NOT MONEY.

Such governments do NOT need to tax or borrow (issue interest bearing bonds) in order to spend; they have the sole capacity to issue the currency in the first place, limited ONLY by the availability of real resources for purchase by the government. (Obviously government cannot spend beyond this limit, without casing inflation, but THAT is the true limit, not debt or deficits per se).

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/mmt-overcoming-the-political-divide.569365/

So Trump is right, and so am I; though I have yet to hear Trump say that indeed the current rescue package need NOT be a "burden on future generations" which is merely the oft-heard mainstream fallacy about debt and deficits.

[Debt and deficits need have nothing to do with "burdening future generations", if the nation's productive capacity remains intact (or improves, which is normally the case as technology improves)].

So, read the link and become enlightened, it's way overdue.

 

Enlightened? The only thing I am enlightened to is the fact you don't really know what you are talking about. You do not seem to understand the government borrows money at interest, and it is borrowing money by both government and the private sector that causes inflation.
Now kindly explain in your enlightened opinion why it is that the government borrows money, when as you say, they could just produce what they need through the Treasury as they used to do. Then kindly explain why it is not burdening future generations when the debt actually does exist and must be serviced.

 

Well, you obviously didn't take the time to read the link, and I can't force you to educate yourself; however I will take the time to answer a few of your questions, even though they are based on false mainstream classical economics:

1. Just to repeat:

A sovereign currency issuing government does NOT need to borrow AT ALL.
[Note: How difficult is that to understand, even if you are confused, like most people, by mainstream economics? If you (ie government) can issue your own currency, you don't need to borrow....although of course if you and I - who are USERS of the currency - tried to do it, will would be thrown into prison as counterfeiters).

As to the spending: an increase in the money in circulation will not cause inflation if the resources and productive capacity of the economy exist to absorb it.

2. So to your substantive question, namely:
WHY don't governments do this?
Answer:
BECAUSE of still entrenched, obsolete, classical economics that precludes a role for money creation in the public sector, despite the fact that recessions and worse are periodic outcomes of wealth creation in "invisible hand" market economies;
and because it's to the advantage of the wealthy to maintain the belief that government cannot spend without taxing or borrowing....since interest bearing bonds are a nice, secure, little earner for the wealthy....

So now Trump (In the link supplied previously) is talking about a cool $6.2 trillion rescue package...because "we are one nation...we issue our own currency...and we can do "whatever it takes...".