We've only gained one fact from your twaddle: you can't refer to any evidence in support. Crikey, even the Daily Sport did better than that in their 'World War II bomber found on the moon' story. At least they mocked up a photograph!
Wrong again. The definition of capitalism says nothing about who issues money. And capitalism can't exist without government "interference," as already proved.
Authors of academic papers have to restrict themselves to very narrow topics, so it is impossible to publish one that supports my position, which is multifaceted. As you are well aware.
No I'm not, as that is drivel. There are hundreds of available publications, including multiple heterodox journals. That you can't refer to just one publication is of course revealing. Let's widen the net. Provide any reference, including online sources from assorted nut-jobs, that you think best represent your economic views.
It's a plain fact. But they don't publish wide-ranging papers that cover multiple aspects of economics, anthropology, moral philosophy, etc., which is what you claim I would have to provide a reference to to satisfy your demands for "evidence" for my views. It only reveals that you are being disingenuous. As usual. Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man." It's available on the Net. I mostly just advocate free markets; but REAL free markets, not markets in which the privileged trade other people's rights.
There are a multitude of interdisciplinary journals. This is your best offering? HAHA! Enjoy your ranting
And I'm happy to provide it. Capitalism by definition requires private ownership of land and capital. Private ownership of capital predates government, but private ownership of land is impossible without government to issue and enforce land titles, as all land titles are based on forcible dispossession and exclusion of others. If those who hold land have to defend their possession of it themselves, without government's help, that is feudalism, not capitalism, as all the rent of land must be devoted to defense of its possession, and is consequently not available for productive capital investment.
And one "interdisciplinary" enough to publish a reasonably complete account of my views would inevitably not meet your standard of scholarly seriousness. Yawn. So you were not actually interested in my views. Thought not.
I have to defend my own property. The government does not help me. It's still mine. Whether or not the government agree's with me, it's still mine. So you can trade with me peacefully, or not at all. Or I can kill you. And it makes no difference to me who you are. Government operative or private person. These rules remain the same. When I sell my land, I exchange deeds. The deeds to my current house were only recently registered with the government. After 40 years of ownership. They were done so for the purpose of taxation only.
ownership of private property in general is difficult without govt or private means to prevent theft.
Such claims are false and absurd. Oh, really, now? And just what makes it yours? Garbage. What if someone else also says it's his? No, you have already admitted you do not intend to trade peacefully. You intend to use violence to deprive others of their natural liberty to use what you claim is yours, but which nature provided equally to all. The other guy who claims to own the same land says the same to you. What then? Or vice versa. Or the next guy will do it, or the next. That's your idea of peaceful??? Sorry, champ, but what you describe already has a name: feudalism. Your "rules" are absurd anti-human nonsense with no basis in fact, history, law, economics, morality, or anything else but your fevered imagination. Like a slave owner exchanging deeds. And with just as much right. You misspelled, "possession." No, they were also registered so the government would have a record of ownership in the event of a dispute.
Private property in the products of labor long antedates the advent of government. Private property in land is impossible without it.
I already did. Without government -- the sovereign authority over a specific area of land -- possession of land must be forcibly defended by the possessor. That is not ownership, but mere forcible animal territoriality.
No, that's false. Property in land is never claimed on the basis of common rules, only force, because by the time land is valuable enough to merit claiming, rival claimants must be dispossessed and excluded by force.
I just bought property and am unaware of any force used by any party involved. Seems voluntary all the way around just like buying a Snickers bar. do you understand?
