planfaster

I don't know, you tell me.

If you receive a plot of farmland that you can live off of without any other citizen's help, and you don't owe anyone anything for having received that plot of farmland, then are you a serf?

Plus, after living in that farmland for a while, whenever you think you have the skills to be employed in the city, you are free to try again. But it would be illegal to be homeless in the city, so that if it doesn't work out, you'd have to go back to the farmland you own.

Is that serfdom? The answer is no, and contrary to your question, you are not really sorry you asked, you are just doing this coy exaggeration routine that people who aren't interested in engaging in argument but still want to poo-poo it do.

> The idea that the poor are just too stupid to know how to work is insulting.

If you think that is insulting, try getting your ideas attacked through a straw-man argument - that's even worse. What most poor people do not understand, however, is that in order for them to live off welfare, somebody else is personally sacrificing their own efforts, labor, life, money that could be saved for their kids, just to pay for some guy who not only has no skills to help society in building wealth, but has a strong enough sense of entitlement to demand that someone help them survive while they get to pick where to live. I want to help all the poor, but being mathematically literate I know this can only work if we put these poor people in a situation where instead of takers, they be producers.

> The point of a city isn't anything like what is suggested. Its a place where a lot of people gathered to live.

You are over-simplifying it to the point of being ahistorical. No, actually cities came about because farmers increasingly wanted to take their chances at being entrepreneurs or employees in an industrial setting. So if you fail at your chance of making it in the city, then you should go back to a farm. Sounds logical to me. That way everyone can keep trying to make it in the city without being a burden on anyone else.

> And 'transporting' folks is what they did to criminals in Britain in the bad old days (usually to Australia).

This reads like an emotional sophism to make me feel bad about giving the poor food and shelter that they can actually pay for themselves. Again, think back to our recent past pre Industrial age (1850 and before). Most people were farmers. That's the default. Living in the city, where you can't produce your own food and have to rely on other people's services (which costs money) is not the default. If everyone in the country can never be poorer than owning a small self-sufficient farm where one can live by oneself without needing money, then can you better point at the part of this plan that makes you be against it? I honestly see no problems here, not even an inkling of disrespect towards the poor.

The way I see it (my background is Austrian economics), the poor and the homeless are people who cannot afford to live in a city. City-living isn't a right, it's for those who can afford it. No one is owed anything for not having enough money to live in a city.

That means in general I am against helping the poor and the homeless stay in the city, since the point of city is to be a wealth-creation center, not a welfare experiment.

You say you have been homeless. I'd like to ask you what you think of my idea: instead of giving the homeless shelter in the city, and having them drain resources from people who produce wealth, meanwhile not producing anything, why not give them a cheap house in a small farmland with some chicken or turkey, rabbits, a vegetable garden, etc?

That way we solve many problems. 1. the poor are now productive, they produce their own food instead and don't need to drain other people's resources to have food and shelter; 2. they are far from the city, which won't encourage laziness by sending people a message that they can't try and game the system by getting help while still living in the city as a non-producer; 3. it will teach these poor people good work ethics and how work is necessary for everyone to survive, and that they can't just rely on the fact that other people work.

I'd say that besides the farm life, they should have good public libraries nearby in case they want to learn something in order to be able to later join the city life again, this time as a productive member.

Am I being inhumane for trying to make producers out of every human being, and for thinking even the disabled can help pick fruit from bushes or wash them or otherwise contribute in a communal farm setting? Would you be for a program to send the poor and the homeless to farms and basically instate a rule where you can't live in a place you can't afford?

> It's really hard to argue with the track-record of those politicians, pharma companies, and bought scientists.

As a lawyer, you should know it's pretty easy:

"Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results."

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Speaking as a self-taught programmer since I was in my early teens: I have nothing against it, some of my coworkers are bootcamp grads and I make sure they know I am available to help them. I also pull them aside to show some tricks or things to pay attention to.

Who is the lifelong programmer that dislikes showing others what they know about their favorite thing? Not me.

First of all, it is initiation of violence since the government has to threaten the bank in order to seize assets which the company had already contracted with the bank to keep safe and the company has not given the bank any power of attorney to transfer the property or otherwise relinquish it.

That is initiation of violence number one.

Second of all, it is theft since the government is appropriating goods it does not own without permission from the owner which in this case is the company that broke environmental regulations.

That is initiation of violence number two.

Now I must ask you, Mike Ash, after all this conversation and your refutations visibly fizzling out (first your silly "I refuse to look up 'violence' in the dictionary' and presently this 'I can't see the violence in threatening banks and stealing from them' grasping-at-straws move, and after having seen my arguments for what I am defending and after your not being able to offer substantive counter-arguments), are you ready to entertain the thought that we should give fully unregulated (-by the government or any other monopoly on violence) industries and private property law a try?

I am ready and willing to help you learn more as I hope to have demonstrated throughout this discussion where I wasn't disrespectful to you and treated your inquiries fairly. I must say though, that judging from your last replies, it might be that you do not possess the intellectual honesty I thought you did when we first started this discussion, because your last two responses have been intellectually dishonest (not looking up in the dictionary, and not being willing to see the violence in state coercion).

Alternatively, why would you not be OK with a system where the rule that everyone must abide by is "do not initiate force"? I wonder what problems you have with it. Is there something you'd like to do, that would be impossible for you to do under that system?

Again, I am for a formalized set of rules, and I am suggesting that the rule be "do not initiate force". You on the other hand, have not suggested any formalized set of rules, as something cannot be a rule if everyone is helpless to keep the biggest offender from breaking it.

> "do not enforce coordination", means cancer

You say things like that, and you think I'm trolling you? Not to mention, the word is "exempt", not "extempt".

> Governments are actors created within the system

This is meaningless when both good and bad are created "from within" according to you. If I pointed to US History and asked you were Central Banks on the good side or was Andrew Jackson on the good side, I'd say Jackson, but you'd still point out the Central Banks "are actors created within the system". So to me this is meaningless. It's better to talk about how much consent the government has. Recent Gallup polls show more than half of Americans fear their government. I'd say fearing and consenting do not go together. So it seems the people are saying they'd like to treat the cancerous government within our country.

> some time ago people agreed they'll let one group monopolize the violence

They did, or do you assume they did? If the people did agree to this, as you said, then please point me to the historical documents, like a social contract being signed by everyone in a given territory. Otherwise, don't make up facts while trolling me and calling me a troll.