Trying to apply reputational standards to “crimes” in a post-criminal society is even more difficult. How can you tell if someone is a “criminal” when there are no courts and no prisons? How do you track these people when they move between cities or adopt new names (not registered since this is another element of government regulation).[quote=“stupendousman, post:99, topic:15348”]
There is a finite number of customers. Additionally I was referring to the development of working conditions, litigious workers were rare back in the day so hiring costs were lower.
[/quote]
Who cares how many customers there are? All a corporation has to know is that there is a market for x widgets. Given this market for x widgets, why would they want to hire more workers to work fewer hours as opposed to hiring fewer workers to work longer hours? Each additional worker means additional fixed costs ranging from benefits to work space.
Even applying this extremely generous interpretation of tax contributions, the fact remains that individual taxpayers are the largest component of school funding, which was the original point.
No? Here’s what you did say
Copyright and other intellectual property laws are property laws. Yet you say that responding to an infringement (such as copyright infringement) isn’t coercion. It seems very much like you’re saying that responses—such as imprisonment—to property law infringements aren’t coercion.
I’m not saying that all laws, or all property laws are bad. I’m saying that you have to recognize that property laws are not neutral, and that they are forms of regulation that help determine who the winners and losers are.
And I wouldn’t mind a law that said I have to take in random strangers if the law also meant I could take the money of random strangers.
So that’s your principled defence of the law? Tradition? The status quo? How long do things like the FLSA or other government regulations have to exist before they become just as traditional and sacrosanct?
Because, as a Lockian, labour-theory of property individual you shouldn’t be recognizing gains made through no productive exertion of your labour to be legitimate.
Umm, you’re the one who argued in favour of labour-based property rights. If you’re not working the land, and I am, doesn’t that mean I own it? There’s nothing complex about squatters rights at their most absolute: if squatters are in possession, they own it. The current system of land titles, registration, liens, mortgages, etc. is a real mess in comparison.
Really? Can a property owner purchase a gun? Can a slave? Can a property owner pay someone? Can a slave?
You don’t think violence is a market force?
