Talk About Network

Google


Register and Login
Nick
Password
Register create new account Sign up is FREE and you can post replies, new topics, bookmark posts and more!
Recover lost password


Businesses > Accountability Corporate > Re: Cor****ate ...
Latest [ Topics | Posts ] Archive Post A New Topic Post a Reply
<< Topic < Post Post 1 of 25 Topic 6 of 102
Post > Topic >>

Re: Cor****ate welfare (was: Re: Cor****ations Are Not Persons)

by Guilherme <groschke@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Jul 5, 2003 at 03:22 PM

On Sat, 5 Jul 2003, Constantinople wrote:

> Guilherme <groschke@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
> news:Pine.GSO.4.44.0307042327580.22204-100000@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > On 4 Jul 2003 maxpoundstone@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
> >
> >> Gabrielle Rapagnetta
> >> > Why not tackle this issue head on and explain to us a specific
> >> > process in which a slave might buy his freedom on the "free"
> >> > market?
> >>
> >> Withough government, a slave would "buy" his freedom by cru****ng the
> >> head of his captor with a shovel while others stand around an
> >> applaud.
> >>
> >> Either that or run away.
> >>
> >      says who?  libertarians always promise that in their govt-less
> > systems property would be protected by some mafia-like 'defence
> > associations'.
>
> No, "libertarians" (without a qualifier) don't say that. Anarcho-
> capitalists (which are ONE KIND of libertarian) argue that defence
> associations would protect ACTUAL RIGHTS, and would be far less likely
> than government to violate rights (such as the rights of slaves).

ok. anarcho capitalists.  but i see no reason why they would protect
actual rights.  looks more like they will protect the wishes of the
highest bidder.

>
> > why would slave/human property not be subject to the
> > same -- specially if the financial incentives are controlled by the
> > slave owners?
>
> Slaves stand to benefit more from their own freedom than slave-owners
> stand to benefit from their enslavement. This is true even though the
> slaves are poor and the slaveowners are rich.
>
> Consider that Bill Gates is very rich. Nevertheless, by enslaving me all
> he stands to gain is the approximate value of my work. But I already
> make the approximate value of my work. And moreover, if I were his
> slave, I would not be anywhere near as productive as I am now, being a
> free person. Therefore he would have far less to gain, financially, from
> enslaving me than I have to gain, financially, by being free. Therefore
> if he hired a mafioso to capture me and I hired a mafioso to defend me,
> I would be willing to offer my mafioso more money than he would be
> willing to offer his mafioso.
>
	what kind of money do slaves have to hire anything?

-gr
 




 25 Posts in Topic:
Re: Corporate welfare (was: Re: Corporations Are Not Persons)
Guilherme <groschke@[E  2003-07-05 15:22:49 
Re: Corporate welfare (was: Re: Corporations Are Not Persons)
Constantinople <consta  2003-07-05 22:41:28 
Re: Corporate welfare (was: Re: Corporations Are Not Persons)
Gabrielle Rapagnetta <  2003-07-05 16:32:08 
Re: Corporate welfare (was: Re: Corporations Are Not Persons)
Constantinople <consta  2003-07-06 00:10:25 
Re: Corporate welfare (was: Re: Corporations Are Not Persons)
Gabrielle Rapagnetta <  2003-07-06 10:04:50 
Re: Corporate welfare (was: Re: Corporations Are Not Persons)
Constantinople <consta  2003-07-06 19:11:31 
Re: Corporate welfare (was: Re: Corporations Are Not Persons)
maxpoundstone@[EMAIL PROT  2003-07-07 00:43:04 
Re: Corporate welfare (was: Re: Corporations Are Not Persons)
carnie <carnie@[EMAIL   2003-08-01 02:38:55 
Re: Corporate welfare (was: Re: Corporations Are Not Persons)
gcf@[EMAIL PROTECTED] (G  2003-07-05 21:14:45 
Re: Corporate welfare (was: Re: Corporations Are Not Persons)
Gabrielle Rapagnetta <  2003-07-06 10:58:35 
Re: Corporate welfare (was: Re: Corporations Are Not Persons)
gcf@[EMAIL PROTECTED] (G  2003-07-06 22:24:34 
Re: Corporate welfare (was: Re: Corporations Are Not Persons)
Gabrielle Rapagnetta <  2003-07-06 21:05:31 
Re: Corporate welfare (was: Re: Corporations Are Not Persons)
gcf@[EMAIL PROTECTED] (G  2003-07-07 09:19:43 
Re: Corporate welfare (was: Re: Corporations Are Not Persons)
"JD" <JanD60  2003-07-11 21:06:40 
Re: Corporate welfare (was: Re: Corporations Are Not Persons)
toto <scarecrow@[EMAIL  2003-07-11 21:54:30 
Re: Corporate welfare (was: Re: Corporations Are Not Persons)
Constantinople <consta  2003-07-12 04:19:18 
Re: Corporate welfare (was: Re: Corporations Are Not Persons)
"JD" <JanD60  2003-07-12 10:24:42 
Re: Corporate welfare (was: Re: Corporations Are Not Persons)
Matt <anonymatt@[EMAIL  2003-07-12 20:14:55 
Re: Corporate welfare (was: Re: Corporations Are Not Persons)
Constantinople <consta  2003-07-13 02:38:14 
Re: Corporate welfare (was: Re: Corporations Are Not Persons)
Constantinople <consta  2003-07-13 02:49:06 
Re: Corporate welfare (was: Re: Corporations Are Not Persons)
Matt <anonymatt@[EMAIL  2003-07-13 03:29:48 
Re: Corporate welfare (was: Re: Corporations Are Not Persons)
Constantinople <consta  2003-07-13 04:11:01 
Re: Corporate welfare (was: Re: Corporations Are Not Persons)
Constantinople <consta  2003-07-13 04:13:08 
Re: Corporate welfare (was: Re: Corporations Are Not Persons)
Dan Clore <clore@[EMAI  2003-07-12 13:38:35 
Re: Corporate welfare (was: Re: Corporations Are Not Persons)
maxpoundstone@[EMAIL PROT  2003-07-06 16:14:26 

Post A Reply:
  Go here to Signup

AddThis Feed Button


About - Advertising - Contact - Frequently Asked Questions - Privacy Policy - Terms of Use - Signup

Contact
tan12V112 Fri Nov 21 13:12:10 CST 2008.