/liberty/ - Liberty

>>77014

So long as you own the land no NAP violation.

>>77016

If I build the wall than I own it right? So I can surround any house and make someone prisonner of my wall that I own

>>77020

If you own the property. I only need to outbid you on a small section of land though.

>>77014

You're interfering with my use of my property by walling it off.

>>77205

>You're interfering with my use of my property by walling it off.

not if I wall you off inside your property

>>77209

Then you're trespassing and altering my property without my permission. At least try to come up with a gotcha! question/

>>77210

>Then you're trespassing

but I just built a wall on my property you fucking idiot

I have no obligation to let you pass thru my property

buy yourself a helicopter or something

This is why civil society came up with right of access easements. You can build the wall, but you must allow a reasonable way for me to access the outside world. One of the few legitimate and useful functions of zoning ordinance bodies is ensuring easements are provided for the common good. Otherwise, your property, do what you like.

>>77205

It's his property not yours. If you want access to something rent a path from him, or buy it before he does. There is no public property. Only one that would be violating the NAP is you if you trespassed.

>>77212

>but you must allow a reasonable way for me to access the outside world

what else must I do for you? feed you, clothe you? wipe your majestic arse?

>easements are provided for the common good

it is your common good at *my* expense

first you tell me I can't build a wall, next you'll tell me I must pay taxes to fund the roads "for the common good"

fuck off, my property - my rules

don't like it? speak to my defense contractor

gods am I enjoying this roleplaying :)

>>77218

This but ironically

>>77211

answered in >>77207 and >>77205

You're either retarded or pretending. Either case makes you a good communist

>have land

>have road that gets to my land pass through other area

>someone homesteads side of the road or buys it from previous owner (with which I would have had a previous contract, but even if that wasn't the case, there's a precedent for consuetudinary law if arbitration is called upon)

>if he tries to landlock me, he's taking access to my property from me that I previously owned

>private arbritation can be brought up to resolve the issue, but ancaps are no strangers to consuetudinary rules

Now if we had this other situation:

>piece of land for sale, is already landlocked as it was part of a greater lot

>no costumary means of accessing it

>I buy it anyway

>later try to force neighboring land to construct roads to let me pass

>that would be a violation of the NAP on my part, consuetudinary law would be against me in any private court

>in this case specifically, I would have to break a deal to create a road to and from my property

>>77211

Then I'll shoot you and tear your wall down, and not a single private court on earth would rule against me.

>>77205

But this is not an agression, I don't step on your property, i just build a wall around it.

>>77220

>have road that gets to my land pass through other area

You are either trespassing or have an agreement with the land owner then. There is no communal / public land.

if I seedbomb your property with soybeans and forbid you to not nurture them with love and care because Jesus Christ (RIP) loves us all and sees all little soybeans as equal?

>>77220

>pass through other area

>other area

you forgot to mention that it is MY fucking "other" area

>if he tries to landlock me, he's taking access to my property from me that I previously owned

I don't give a fuck about you being cockblocked by MY wall on MY property

I want a wall on my property, and it will be there and Mexico will pay for it

you can try to violate my NAP anytime, but don't be crying when me and my friends from McSecurity show you what we do with commies who have no respect for private property

>>77235

You have lowered the value of my land by revoking the previous contract for right of access and by building sewers, walls and brothels nextdoor to my property. I will be contacting a civil law arbitrator.

>>77244

I lower the value of the land you are selling by selling my land next to yours. Are you going to sue me for that too?

>>77244

>revoking the previous contract for right of access

Then sue the previous owner for contract breach not me. I had nothing to do with his contract. I signed no contract with him about that.

>>77235

>I don't give a fuck about you being cockblocked by MY wall on MY property

If YOUR wall is having an effect on MY property, then you should give a fuck. No one ever denied that.

I see what you're trying to do, applying our logic to show us how absurd it is, but the problem is that you're just ignorant of our logic. When we say that you can do what you want with your property, we naturally don't mean that you can infringe on the property of others with it. Also, none of us would take such a physicalist view of property as you did. It's very obvious that we do not make a big deal out of this because nine out of ten times, "your property, your rules" is as deep as we have to go to make ourselves understood.

Problem is that one out of ten times, someone comes along and thinks that our ideology can be wholly encompassed within one single sentence, as if there wasn't more to it.

>>77249

That loophole is easily closed with the title transfer theory of contracts, the one that Rothbard explicitly adhered to. If someone gives you a right of way, he transferred a title to you. He can't unilaterally revoke it by giving away the land on which you have the right of way, because that right is now yours to dispose of and no longer his.

That's really not such an esoteric principle. For one, it is at least as old as Thomas Hobbes, possibly older. For another, some jurisdictions follow it. Here in Germany, when you sell a house, then the new owner of the house becomes the new landlord of the people that you rented it to. Kauf bricht nicht Miete - Sale does not break rent, would be an odd, but pretty faithful translation of that. What our legal professors haven't realized is that de facto, despite their claims to the contrary, the rent contract creates a so called absolute and not a relative right, making the position of the tenant similar to a property or a mortgage title.

>>77250

Your civil contracts violate the NAP, I'm a true ancap and I do what I want with my property

>>77250

>If YOUR wall is having an effect on MY property, then you should give a fuck. No one ever denied that.

I lower the value of the land you are selling by selling my land next to yours. Are you going to sue me for that too?

>I see what you're trying to do, applying our logic to show us how absurd it is,

I am actually an AnCap. Just more property loving than you. The other guy is the commie.

>That loophole is easily closed with the title transfer theory of contracts

The terms of service that other guy signed is not the thing I signed. Sue him. I am not responsible for contract someone else signed that is insane.

>That's really not such an esoteric principle

Just like taxation, state theft, restriction of weapons, etc. We can find examples for plenty of things in the past and present.

>>77250

> He can't unilaterally revoke it by giving away the land

Then sue him not me.

>because that right is now yours to dispose of and no longer his.

Woah hey now I never agreed to that

>>77014

In anarchism, only as long as you "own" the surrounding land. In minarchism, denying someone actual access to their land violates their rights as a landowner. You must at least make a reasonable offer to lease a path to access my land if you surround it.

>>77248

Yes. If you knowingly were to sell your land to a sewerage plant development, then you should have approached me with a contract to settle it. Because it affects my land. Leachates in the soil and shit smell in the air. If a contract could not be brokered then you should have taken us to arbitration. It is your duty to do this because you knew the outcome and are culpable.

>>77257

I own the right to the economic fruit of my land. If you inhibit that in any way, be it monsanto cross-pollination, or mexican funded wall efforts, then I shall come to you with the arbitrators. You will lose before those arbitrators. Because right of way is a fundamental principle as old as feudalism.

>>77261

>Leachates in the soil and shit smell in the air.

Those are all things moving from my property to yours. I I bury nuclear waste on my plot and it does not hurt your soil no NAP violation.

At best a wall is blocking out some light and hurts your grass, we could make it into a fence instead though which would not hurt anything.

>>77260

>In anarchism, only as long as you "own" the surrounding land.

The situation is that he does

<because it is my private property?

>>77262

With regards to the wall, I own the right to the economic fruit of my land. That right does not fuck off along with the previous tenant. If you're going to suddenly make my chicken farm unviable by virtue of buying out all of the surrounding land, then that problem really ought to be resolved by arbitration.

>>77264

>does not fuck off along with the previous tenant

Then sue him for contract violation. I had no contract with you.

> If you're going to suddenly make my chicken farm unviable

You have no right to a viable chicken farm. If I start a chicken farm and charge 10x less I owe you nothing. You have a right to your own property. You don't have a right to what anyone else does with their property.

>>77263

Because successful anarchies don't exist, at least for long. Either a court will rule against you for violating someone's right of way, or a group of people who don't care about the NAP will shoot you and your captive, then say "my land now".

>>77269

Neither does minarchism. REAL communism (trademark) don't exist, real anarchism does not exist, real minarchism does not exist, muh true free market etc.

>>77268

>Then sue him for contract violation. I had no contract with you.

The right I'm talking about is not contractual but god-given. That said, the previous tenant isn't violating it.

>If I start a chicken farm and charge 10x less I owe you nothing

Yes but in this example, you are not inhibiting the free market operation of my chicken farm. You're just under-cutting my product by a factor of 10.

>You have a right to your own property. You don't have a right to what anyone else does with their property.

People have rights that extend beyond ownership of land, sea and air. Even noise pollution, which is hard to put an economic figure on, is detrimental to another's right to health. They can arbitrate due to this. Hell, they can try to sue you for "mental anguish" for putting swastikas up. It comes down to what the arbitrator or society deems worthy, and whether they deem it a contractual or god-given right.

>>77275

>god-given rights

<to someone elses property

okay mr commie

>inhibiting the free market operation of my chicken farm

I have prevented nothing except access to my property. You have no "free access" rights to anything you don't own. If you don't like it bid me out.

>Even noise pollution

Those things all go from by property to yours. What thing is going from my property to yours with a fence. At best you can sue for the minor amount of light blocked, not for the inability to trespass though.

>>77277

The air in my property is mine. The water in my property is mine. The land in my property is mine. The money in my property is mine. You cannot obstruct it. You cannot sneeze on it. You cannot disturb it. Or else I shall come to you looking for money, and when you don't have that money I'm going to build a gulag on my property and round up all the people with palindrome dubs and put them in there.

>>77279

>The air in my property is mine. The water in my property is mine. The land in my property is mine.

sure

>You cannot obstruct it

You don't get to force your air on my property if I don't want it.

>You cannot disturb it.

I can keep it off my property

> and round up all the people

The defense committee frowns on your decision. Prepare to get executed.

>>77279

>My car is my property. You don't get to obstruct it! Your cat was in the way! It was an obstruction!

>>77282

That would be taking the law into your own hands rather than attempting arbitration.

>>77281

>obstruct

obstructions to light cause economic damage

>disturb

noise is just pressured airwaves, but when passed through my properties causes harm to human health

>rounding up people into gulags

What can I say? I'm sorry that you thought you would win in the arbitration instead of going to debtors prison

>>77285

>obstructions to light cause economic damage

You can sue me for the damages caused by the light. Its probably almost nothing though. You cant sue for loss of trespassing though.

> I'm sorry that you thought you would win in the arbitration

I'd win :^)

>>77286

>You cant sue for loss of trespassing though.

If you damage the economic output of my land in any way, even by virtue of your own ownership of your own land, then you are depriving a tangible element of my land and I expect you to pay reparations. Just as you can obstruct light, you can obstruct the free market of my business and money. You don't do that. You are not allowed to do that.

>I'd win :^)

I don't think so. I think if anything it'd be a race to the regulatory bottom, until mere rights like freedom of speech become expensive.

>>77288

>If you damage the economic output of my land in any way

Yea this is not true. I have not damaged anything. If I went and set your grass on fire that would be one thing.

> element of my land

Nothing about your land. Just your access to my land.

>>77288

>you can obstruct the free market of my business and money

<If I refuse to let you onto my ebay site I am violating the NAP

>>77235

You're avoiding the two very basic points I made

>1)land was previously unclaimed or previous owner had an agreement with me

>2)land belonged to you and I came in later

Very simple, no problems there. Until you layed this marvelous pearl

>I don't give a fuck about you being cockblocked by MY wall on MY property

Buddy if you use YOUR property to hurt MY property then you violate the NAP. It's like saying that as long as a robery happens with private guns it's not a robery.

It isn't rocket science.

>>77297

> Until you layed this marvelous pearl

<No problem with my business until you opened your own chicken business and drove mine out of business

>Buddy if you use YOUR property to hurt MY property then you violate the NAP

I did not hurt your property at all. I changed a rule about my property. Nothing about my property is going onto your property hurting it that is relevant

>It's like saying that as long as a robery happens with private guns it's not a robery.

Its like saying a movie star moving away is a NAP violation because everyone wants to buy your land that is next to the movie star.

>>77304

I'm finally at home and can pick some texts for this argument.

>ctl+F: externalities

>0 results

Let's fix that

What is an Externality? - Gene Callahan - The Free Market 19, no. 8 (August 2001)

British economist A.C. Pigou was instrumental in developing the theory of externalities. The theory examines cases where some of the costs or benefits of activities "spill over" onto third parties. When it is a cost that is imposed on third parties, it is called a negative externality.

(…)

Let's say I operate a factory along a river, making foozle dolls. As a byproduct of my manufacturing, I dump lots of foozle waste into the river. This is a terrible cost to people downriver because, as everyone knows, foozle waste stinks to high heaven.

(…)

Pigou recommended taxing activities that produce negative externalities. Emission taxes on factories are an example of this approach.

(…)

The notion of justifying economic intervention on the basis of welfare analysis was dealt a severe blow in 1956, with the publication of Murray Rothbard's paper, "Toward a Reconstruction of Utility and Welfare Economics."

Rothbard pointed out that it is only through preference demonstrated in action that we can gauge what actors really value, and that to try to deduce values from mathematical formulas, without the evidence of action, is a hopeless cause. When people demonstrate their preferences by exchanging we can say that both parties felt that they would be better off trading goods than not. Since Pigou's solution involves imposing taxes and subsidies by fiat, without voluntary exchange, the numbers arrived at are mere guesswork.

(…)

Consider the case of river pollution from the foozle factory. If the people downriver from the factory have a property right in the river, the factory will have to negotiate with them in order to legally discharge waste through their property. We can't say what solution the participants might arrive at-the factory might shut down, the people downriver might be paid to move, or the factory might install pollution control devices or simply compensate those affected for suffering the pollution. What we can say is that, within a system of voluntary exchange, each party has demonstrated that it prefers the solution arrived at to the situation that existed before their negotiations

Furthermore, we should note that negotiating between the parties affected allows them to use the "particular circumstances of time and place," with which they alone are familiar, to arrive at a solution. The factory owner may be aware of an alternate foozle material that does not pollute the river, or the people downriver might know that the river is stinky anyway and that it's best to move. Regulators generally cannot take such specific knowledge into account in their drafting of edicts.

(…)

The free market is not a panacea. It does not eliminate old age, and it won't guarantee you a date for Saturday night. Private enterprise is fully capable of awful screwups. Both theory and practice indicate that its screwups are less pervasive and more easily corrected than those of government enterprises.

>tl;dr:

Externalities are damaging regardless of direct phisical damage or not. This isn't anything new nor hard to understand. It has been used both by the state to justify it's policies (demonstrably being less efficient than market solutions) and by private parties. An appartment complex might have it's own rules regarding noise. And no moron would try to argue that caging someone, restricting his movement, is ok as long as you don't physically hurt said person. Same for encircling a previouslyy free and accessible piece of land.

Merely pretending or not, I must say arguments like these are the most stimulating, and should be welcomed in our board.

>>77325

>Externalities are damaging regardless of direct phisical damage or not.

Externalities are always given in the context of pollution. A fence is not pollution It strictly stays on my property. You are saying just because you r utility / value is decreased its an externality. This is bullshit.

>Its like saying a movie star moving away is a NAP violation because everyone wants to buy your land that is next to the movie star.

>>77325

Not all externalities are NAP violations. A movie star moving away is external your property yet decreases its value.

>>77328

> in the context of pollution

*in the context of things like pollution

>>77328

>>77330

A movie star could hurt my ability to peddle my goods by moving from next door, especially if I was selling merch based off of them living there.

But in that case I was essentially farming my neighbor's crop. What you are doing with the wall is blocking tractors from reaching my own crop. Not only that but I can't reach the free market with my produce. This is straying into NAP violations, because the fruit of the land, this land that I own, will always be mine and negating the right to access it negates my right to do that.

And that is not a contractual right agreed upon by two parties, but a god-given right, that which you have by virtue of your birth similar to the right to life. If you cannot come to some agreeable terms then arbitration becomes the only option and the benevolence of the law will not look favorably on your piece of shit taco wall.

>>77340

>But in that case I was essentially farming my neighbor's crop

You are farming my crop by using my land to get places.

>What you are doing with the wall is blocking tractors from reaching my own crop

You can do what you want with your own land. I will do what I want with my land so long as nothing I do goes onto your land. If something I do does go onto your land (shadow, pollution, noise) then sue me for the damages those cause.

>but I can't reach the free market with my produce

The free market means I can let who I want on my land and block others.

>because the fruit of the land, this land that I own, will always be mine

I can own it, and do own it.

>negating the right to access it negates my right to do that.

Refusing to sell you a shovel negates your "right" to dig up all the minerals too. No NAP violation there. You have full right to your own land whatever you want on it so long as you don't directly hurt my land. You are mooching off my land and calling it hurting your land when I say no.

> but a god-given right

Ah like those other god given rights people talk about, like free food, free housing, free use of others property.

>that which you have by virtue of your birth similar to the right to life

Being born does not give you a right to someone elses property (at best your parents) you can fuck off commie

>If you cannot come to some agreeable terms then arbitration

I am fine with arbitration. They will rule in my favor for its my land that you have no right to. You are farming my land for free access to something and when I force you to stop exploiting my land you call it damaging yours.

>>77342

>I can own it, and do own it.

*You can

>>77328

>Externalities are always given in the context of thingd like pollution.

source?

>Not all externalities are NAP violations.

Never said otherwise

>A movie star moving away is external your property yet decreases its value.

A movie star living next to me increases my property value, it's a positive externality, since I'm not responsible for the movie star living thee. Moving away removes a positive externality, doesn't subtract anything I had previously earned myself.

>>77344

also meant to quote >>77330

>>77328

>You are saying just because you r utility / value is decreased its an externality. This is bullshit

Anon, that's the definition of externality

ex·ter·nal·i·ty

/ˌekstərˈnalədē/

noun: externality; plural noun: externalities

1.

ECONOMICS

a side effect or consequence of an industrial or commercial activity that affects other parties without this being reflected in the cost of the goods or services involved, such as the pollination of surrounding crops by bees kept for honey.

>>77344

>source?

>Noise, Sewage, Air, etc

you listed them off yourself

>Never said otherwise

and this is an example of one

>A movie star living next to me increases my property value

As does you having use of someone elses land to access another area

>it's a positive externality, since I'm not responsible for the movie star living thee.

Granting you access to land is a positive externality

>Moving away removes a positive externality,

building a wall removes the positive externality of you using your land when you feel like it

>>77347

>Anon, that's the definition of externality

Not all externalities are NAP violations. A movie star selling their house and moving away effects the price of your next door house as an externality.

>>77348

*using someone elses land when you feel like it

>>77347

There is the literal "anything external" and then there is the context libertarians almost always use it in which is "indirect NAP violation".

>>77348

>doesn't provide source

oh anon, you said only. Provide a source or don't embarass yourself

>use of someone elses land to access another area

anon, pretending to not be able to read drain you of more resources than actually making an argument. I'll refer once again to >>77297. As your example doesn't exists in a vacuum, there are a number of means that could settle that situation. Again, if the previous owner of your land and I had an agreement, that would have been taken into consideration when you bought the land. If instead I bought into that situation, I'd have to haggle a bargain with you. None of those are examples of externalities. The definition is above if you need any help. There is no way the universe was created in a magical flick of a wand and I just so happen to live in an area completely encapsulated by your land.

>>77349

Refer to >>77347 and >>77344

>>77351

Source?

kids, don't make affirmations if you can't back them up

>>77353

>oh anon, you said only. Provide a source or don't embarass yourself

Where does the word only appear? Can you read?

>Source?

<source that libertarians use externality in teh context of indirect NAP violation

How about you read read literally any libertarian text when "externalities" are brought up, its always in the context NAP violations.

>drain you of more resources than actually making an argument.

Its simple its my property, i'm not violating the NAP, the court will agree, and you can fuck off.

>if the previous owner of your land and I had an agreement, that would have been taken into consideration when you bought the land.

Then you should have included a clause saying "you will not sell this to someone else without them agreeing to this too". At which point when I buy it without them making me agree you sue THEM for contract violation.

>There is no way the universe was created in a magical flick of a wand and I just so happen to live in an area completely encapsulated by your land.

I bought it of course in a voluntary trade

>>77353

>Refer to >>77347 and >>77344

and where does it in that dictionary 101 version that it is a NAP violation

>Source?

<such as the pollination of surrounding crops by bees kept for honey.

Literally the definition you posted uses these as examples

>>77354

My mistake, it was aways. Your move?

>How about you read read literally any libertarian text when "externalities" are brought up, its always in the context NAP violations.

ok, provide one

>Its simple its my property, i'm not violating the NAP, the court will agree, and you can fuck off.

I provided literature reference that shows that externalities are accounted for in the market. You provided nothing. Can't you come up with one single text?

> you sue THEM

If the broke contract, your own property is null and void. You don't own it anymore, and can sue THEM too for your own money. Now fuck off the property I'll most likelly win in the settlement case against you both

>I bought it of course in a voluntary trade

If you and the other party broke contract you are both at fault

>>77355

I can't even make sense of this post

What are you objecting to?

I thought commies actually had degrees not taht you need one to flip burgers, but these two are pathetic.

>>77356

>My mistake, it was aways. Your move?

cant read clearly

>ok, provide one

how about this conversation where you did it multiple times, or the dictionary definition you linked

>if they broke contract, your own property is null and void.

No you sue them for damages. They pay for damages. Otherwise court rulings months later would have a massive chain effect in the economy and horribly fuck shit up.

>You don't own it anymore

I did not break any contracts and bought it from the rightful owner

> and can sue THEM too for your own money.

its my property you can sue them for contract violation I broke nothing

>the property I'll most likelly win in the settlement case against you both

you mean you will be isolated

>If you and the other party broke contract you are both at fault

I did not break a contract, he broke a contract with you.

>>77357

I am just the more liberty loving that you. The propertarian, while you are statist scum who believes he has rights to others land.

>>77358

>cant read clearly

Conotation was the same. You are avoiding your own flawed argument. "Always" would mean at the exclusion of other kinds of externalities. Source?

>how about this conversation where you did it multiple times, or the dictionary definition you linked

none mention the NAP. You can provie one example, I'm sure?

>No you sue them for damages.

Contract said land cannot be sold without taking roads into account. If you read the contract and ignored it you are at fault. If you didn't read the contract (being swindled yourself) then your purchase is null and void. Invalid. Part of an illegal activity. Just like purchasing of stolen goods isn't kept with the receptor.

Man I hope for your own sake you don't actually own any assets. With this level of knowledge you wouldn't hold them for very long.

>>77358

I'm ancap you dingus.

No ancap objects to property rights, consuetudinary rules and private arbitration. Kidnaping a person violates the NAP wether you hurt their body or not. Walling off another person't property is the same. If you really are liberty minded, you ought to read some more

>>77020

>if i build it, i own it, right?

Wrong. In fact. By extention, your smartphone is hearby owned by a chinese 12 year old. And my house is owned by the dead fucker who built it some 60 years ago.

>>77359

>With this level of knowledge you wouldn't hold them for very long.

Its morality

>Contract said land cannot be sold without taking roads into account.

Wrong

>If you read the contract and ignored it you are at fault.

That someone else made? Not my fault.

>Part of an illegal activity.

I did nothing illegal

> Just like purchasing of stolen goods isn't kept with the receptor.

Okay so the court ruling months later will be able to trace all of the economic activity derived from some transaction and reverse it all. Sure thing bud! That is more delusional than the thinking you can solve the calculation problem! No, AnCap courts will be based on damages, just like almost all civil actions are.

>>77360

>No ancap objects to property rights, consuetudinary rules and private arbitration.

Arbitration is fine, they will rule in my favor though.

>>77417

>That is more delusional than the thinking you can solve the calculation problem!

<b-but what about t-tacit knowledge?

kek, ancaps just can't deal with the fact that they were btfod by le based computer cockman

>>77426

I bet you are really good at predicting the stockmarket with le computers

>>77430

we don't need your crutches to efficiently allocate our resources

so you can keep your glorified casino, dumbfuck

>>77434

i'm just saying, if shit is so easily predictable you could make a killing on the stock market. You could make enough to go fund your own commie country.

>>77437

>i'm just saying, if shit is so easily predictable

man, you're dumb

nothing is easily predictable on a stock market because of the anarchy of production

which is not a thing in a planned economy

I thought you house niggers were supposed to be intelligent or something

>>77439

Even if you plan it all its anarchy production. Every single person effects every other person. You give more resources to this guy, it effects his relation with everyone else, you have to recalculate for everyone else. You update their values, fuck now you have to update everyone elses. You are going to misallocate so much basic shit.

>>77443

>Does that make them right?

It does not make them right! Just like your non esoteric thing is not right. You missed the point.

>>77440

>Even if you plan it all its anarchy production.

uwot mate

you have a plan that is updated regularly, I dunno modern APS systems have different planning horizons for different planning levels

you have an economy wide production matrix with regularly updated technical coefficients

you have a consumer goods market as a feedback mechanism

>You give more resources to this guy, it effects his relation with everyone else, you have to recalculate for everyone else

wat

you only need to make sure that the wage levels are tied to the amount of goods in circulation, so that there are no shortages

pure accounting problem

>You update their values, fuck now you have to update everyone elses

which takes what? half an hour according to cockshott

for the whole production matrix, kek

>>77454

>you only need to make sure that the wage levels are tied to the amount of goods in circulation, so that there are no shortages

lololo what

>which takes what? half an hour according to cockshott

<what are NP complete math problems

>>77454

>pure accounting problem

Breaking SHA256 is just a simple math problem brah

>>77456

>lololo what

you don't know what causes shortages, brainlet?

disbalance of wage levels and price levels

or for brainlets, when people have too much money on their hands and stores have not enough goods at the current prices

basic supply and demand shit really

>what are NP complete math problems

brainlet, this optimization problem can be solved in polynomial time

read TANS, the matrix is sparse

>>77463

>you don't know what causes shortages, brainlet?

clearly you don't know what a shortage is or how one works

>or for brainlets, when people have too much money on their hands and stores have not enough goods at the current prices

<The price going up is a shortage

hahhahahahahahaha

>brainlet, this optimization problem can be solved in polynomial time

sure thing bud

>>77465

>The price going up

the price can't go up because prices are fixed by the plan, brainlet

as a result we have a shortage of goods and waiting lines

>>77467

>as a result we have a shortage of goods and waiting lines

Ah so your solution is to have breadlines instead of prices that can adapt. Good idea.

>>77469

are you really this retarded or just pretending?

The wall is my property tho, are yoi refuting the NAP?

>>78024

The air around my house is my property. Building a wall there is vandalism on my air. A violation of the NAP

>>78025

>The air

>around my house

Its like suing me for stealing when you let your seeds blow into my field. If you want your air build a fucking bubble so that it stays or your property. The water that evaporates from your yard means the whole world is stealing from you right?

>>78028

Assaulting my with words I dont want tp read is a violation of the NAP. I insisted that you cease posting before I contact my rights enforcement agency.

>>78035

Your computer is requesting the words I am posting via internet protocols. No NAP violation.

>>78036

My computer is requesting cool, dank, internet protocols and you are sending it gay protocols. This is a flagrant breach of contract.

>>78041

I agreed to no contract with you

>>78042

You did when you posted on this website implicitly accepting the End User License Agreement

>>77463

>polynomial time

shit, dawg, i've been living in linear time all this time

>>78043

I cant accept a contract I did not know exists. "Person who agrees to be by slave says what!", "WHAT?".

as an outside observer I can safely say that 99% of this thread is commies and anarchists getting btfo; 1% grammatical errors leading to misunderstandings.

Also I agree we should encourage these types of discussions here on liberty. I feel better about my beliefs already just listening to them and their attempt at literacy on ideas incompatible to their own.

Like a fish attempting to fly and failing; then trying to explain to a bird that it is not able to fly so instead should try to swim.

>>78223

OP was a troll but one arguing for it not being a NAP violation is not a troll

>>77443

>you're not responsible for a contract you signed with someone else, you're only responsible for the contract you signed with him. One of your worries should be to ensure that he actually owns what he's selling you. If he doesn't own his property completely because he sold or transferred the right of way to it, that's your worry. He cannot transfer a title he lost.

Say you were taking right of way in exchange for providing fresh eggs for example. What then if the previous tenant's contract did not "sell" ownership, but merely leased it on a day-to-day basis?

Under anarchist society is it my fault for not insisting upon a heavily scrutinised contract for what appears to me to be a simple and fair arrangement?

What about the right to right of way between two lands of significant value? What about the right to the economic fruit of my land? If even the right to life is not assured upon trespassing onto a man's private property, what chances have I got that the arbitrator will recognise the other rights I need, in order to be compensated, or in order to have free market access whilst carrying the products of my farm?

>>77014

Breaking the wall would violate the NAP