# Are all economic ideologies aside from free-market/Randian theory obsolete? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 24, 2013, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-all-economic-ideologies-aside-from-free-market-randian-theory-obsolete/656625 "2013-04-24T22:57:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2013, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-all-economic-ideologies-aside-from-free-market-randian-theory-obsolete/656625/121 "2013-04-28T02:57:26Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > It’s the “anarchism of the right”. It wants the wealthy and wannabe-wealthy to have the right to screw over everyone else, and for the main function of the government to be protecting such people from their victims. It should really be called something like “neofeudalism”, since it aims to drag the world back to a regime of lords and serfs. Last I checked, libertarians favored anti-fraud laws. Granted, a lot of libertarians don’t like laws that burden negotiations between employer and employee, like minimum wage laws and overtime laws, but there are a lot more of us “small-l libertarians” who understand why those laws might be necessary. But all libertarians are united in the belief that laws must be justified as the uses of force that they are, and that the burden of proof is on those who want to make new laws. Whereas non-libertarians don’t really get much further than “I think this law is good, let’s pass it.” > [@](#): > > That’s a false choice. A government can have all sorts of built in safeguards, elections and separation of powers and so on, to make it far more effective at governing than a random collection of people. As well, a government is full of specialist organizations and people who are going to be much better than a bunch of poorly equipped amateurs at performing its functions, and less motivated by the profit motive. You are comparing apples and oranges. No one questions that a government of smart people is better than a government of stupid people. But now matter how smart those people are, no matter how educated they are, they can’t run your life better than you can. Most of them don’t run their own lives any better than you do. Government is qualified to do that which must be done collectively. When it starts getting involved in individual decisionmaking and risk assessment it’s like having a nuclear physicist give you marriage advice. > [@](#): > > If anything we’re getting less free, and the libertarians are working hard to eliminate all freedom for anyone who isn’t rich and amoral. I don’t see how we’re getting less free. Your side is winning on social issues, be happy with that. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2013, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-all-economic-ideologies-aside-from-free-market-randian-theory-obsolete/656625/122 "2013-04-28T03:21:59Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Last I checked, libertarians favored anti-fraud laws. Some. Most either want government so weak it can’t enforce such laws or any other, or outright denounce such laws as unnecessary. > [@adaher](#): > > But all libertarians are united in the belief that laws must be justified as the uses of force that they are, and that the burden of proof is on those who want to make new laws. Whereas non-libertarians don’t really get much further than “I think this law is good, let’s pass it.” That’s nonsense. Non-libertarians are far more sophisticated than that, and libertarians have no problem at all with force and coercion, as long as it isn’t the government forcing people. If some rich man or corporation wants to crush and exploit people, they have no problem with that; the only thing they want the government to do is shoot his victims if they fight back. > [@adaher](#): > > You are comparing apples and oranges. No one questions that a government of smart people is better than a government of stupid people. But now matter how smart those people are, no matter how educated they are, they can’t run your life better than you can. More nonsense. In many ways they can, because I’m not some superhuman polymath who is an expert in every specialty and capable of doing the jobs of multiple government agencies all by myself. People are constantly faced with problems that as individuals they are simply incapable of handling well, or at all; that’s where government comes in. > [@adaher](#): > > I don’t see how we’re getting less free. Your side is winning on social issues, be happy with that. That’s hardly support for the claim that libertarianism stands for “freedom”, when increasing social freedom is a defeat for it. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2013, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-all-economic-ideologies-aside-from-free-market-randian-theory-obsolete/656625/123 "2013-04-28T04:00:47Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > That’s nonsense. Non-libertarians are far more sophisticated than that, and libertarians have no problem at all with force and coercion, as long as it isn’t the government forcing people. If some rich man or corporation wants to crush and exploit people, they have no problem with that; the only thing they want the government to do is shoot his victims if they fight back. In some sense I guess you’re right, but the way liberalism actually works in government is that they just pass laws and regulations to signal support or opposition to this or that, which is why you get licensing laws for interior designers and fortune tellers. In cases where licensing might be considered a good idea, such as with barbers, no research is done to determine if states or countries without such licensing experience problems because of this. And when I debate proposed laws with liberals, I find that their support or opposition tends to be about the WHO rather than the what. If the subject of the law is unsympathetic, the attitude is “stick it to 'em”. Legislation as punishment. There’s also the constant need to “do something” whenever a big news story breaks, without consideration of whether the something in question will actually accomplish anything. So yeah, in practice, liberals generally just pass laws because they think it’s a good idea. The bar for passing new laws is incredibly low for them. > [@](#): > > More nonsense. In many ways they can, because I’m not some superhuman polymath who is an expert in every specialty and capable of doing the jobs of multiple government agencies all by myself. People are constantly faced with problems that as individuals they are simply incapable of handling well, or at all; that’s where government comes in. LIke whether to get a large soda or a small soda? Whether to buy a gun or not buy a gun? Whether to get a payday loan or not get a payday loan? ---
**Author:** ![rogerbox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/76d3ee/32.png) [@rogerbox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rogerbox)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2013, 7:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-all-economic-ideologies-aside-from-free-market-randian-theory-obsolete/656625/124 "2013-04-28T07:14:58Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Yes. > I have a funny feeling that you’re thinking of mentioning slavery, but I’ve already explained that I was not including that when talking about the conditions of the working poor in America in the 19th century. But we’re talking about how only a retard could fuck up America given the vast resources and the ability of people to work for you for free. It’s very relevent. They wouldn’t have done it if it didn’t generate wealth for them, slave holders being capitalists after all. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2013, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-all-economic-ideologies-aside-from-free-market-randian-theory-obsolete/656625/125 "2013-04-28T07:36:56Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > LIke whether to get a large soda or a small soda? Whether to buy a gun or not buy a gun? Whether to get a payday loan or not get a payday loan? Like whether or not your medicine or food is poisonous or not, whether or not your boss can demand that you have sex with him, whether or not your boss can demand you follow his religion, whether or not a company can dump poison in your water. And yes, whether or not you can buy a gun - they should be very heavily regulated if not outright outlawed for civilians. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2013, 10:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-all-economic-ideologies-aside-from-free-market-randian-theory-obsolete/656625/126 "2013-04-28T10:11:21Z")
I understand regulations for consumer safety. As for guns, why would civilians be barred from owning guns? Is there a superior class of people more qualified to own guns than the rest of us? Have you paid attention to how police handle their weapons? Practically every day there’s a story somewhere of cops either demonstrating exceptional lack of skill with firearms, or exceptional lack of responsibility. Lest we go off topic, which the gun debate can certainly cause, it’s just part of that debate we were having earlier: is people are not fit to own guns, then why would we let some of them own guns? If people can’t be trusted with guns, then you don’t give the people in power guns either. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2013, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-all-economic-ideologies-aside-from-free-market-randian-theory-obsolete/656625/127 "2013-04-28T13:35:46Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > You are comparing apples and oranges. No one questions that a government of smart people is better than a government of stupid people. But now matter how smart those people are, no matter how educated they are, they can’t run your life better than you can. Most of them don’t run their own lives any better than you do. Government is qualified to do that which must be done collectively. When it starts getting involved in individual decision making and risk assessment it’s like having a nuclear physicist give you marriage advice. Conservatives and libertarians always toss up the straw man of the “government trying to run your life”. In what specific way does the Government try to run your life? Not letting you buy drugs? Preventing you from having abortions? Not allowing gays to marry? Those are ideologies of the Right. The only area where the Right feels comfortable in allowing people to run their own lives is in deciding which guns to buy. Government legislation is a necessary check against the excesses of business. Businesses, be definition, are amoral. They exist to maximize profits by converted raw materials into goods or services people want and need. And they are effective at doing this. What they are not effective at is self regulating because ultimately their decision-making is based on profitability, not moral judgment. Without laws, a corporation could determine that rather than employ 10,000 employees, it is more cost effective to employ 1000 highly trained mercenaries and force 9000 people to work as slaves for whatever it costs to feed, clothe and house them. In fact, that’s not far off from how many governments used to work. Business regulation exists to make sure companies are not making products that hurt people or the environment or defraud others by taking advantage of their ignorance. Instead of calling for “more” or “less” regulation, people should be demanding more effective enforcement of “better” regulation. > [@even\_sven](#): > > You don’t think millions of acres of sparsely populated prime farmland essentially free for the taking by a rapidly expanding population might have had something to do with it? > > It’s hard NOT to get rich with that level of expansion, even if you have the crappiest economic system in the world. You mean like Africa? ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2013, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-all-economic-ideologies-aside-from-free-market-randian-theory-obsolete/656625/128 "2013-04-28T13:48:09Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I understand regulations for consumer safety. As for guns, why would civilians be barred from owning guns? Is there a superior class of people more qualified to own guns than the rest of us? Have you paid attention to how police handle their weapons? Practically every day there’s a story somewhere of cops either demonstrating exceptional lack of skill with firearms, or exceptional lack of responsibility. > > Lest we go off topic, which the gun debate can certainly cause, it’s just part of that debate we were having earlier: is people are not fit to own guns, then why would we let some of them own guns? If people can’t be trusted with guns, then you don’t give the people in power guns either. The answer to your question is that policemen are trained in the use of their firearms and have certain standards and guidelines that must be met in order to maintain their employment. Given that there are over 600,000 law enforcement officers in the USA, I’m sure you could easily have a case of an officer misusing his weapon on a daily basis. But if you look at the statistics of people injured or killed by firearms, I would be you dollars to donuts that most of those people are civilians. It is absurd to lump “people” together as some monolithic entity. The reason “we” let “some people” do certain things is because those things are dangerous or require certain skills or training. Do I trust “people” to fly an airplane across country? No. I trust a trained pilot who meets the criteria established by a governing body. If a pilot is found flying a plane while drunk, does it make sense to say “government is ineffective! Let’s disband the FAA and NTSB and let the market take over?” ---
**Author:** ![OurLordPeace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/e8c25b/32.png) [@OurLordPeace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OurLordPeace)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2013, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-all-economic-ideologies-aside-from-free-market-randian-theory-obsolete/656625/129 "2013-04-28T16:08:11Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > You mean like Africa? Yes, a great deal of wealth has been extracted from Africa and Africans, and much potential indigenous African development has been prevented by those same extractors, who feared competition. ---
**Author:** ![OurLordPeace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/e8c25b/32.png) [@OurLordPeace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OurLordPeace)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2013, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-all-economic-ideologies-aside-from-free-market-randian-theory-obsolete/656625/130 "2013-04-28T16:18:21Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Of course, a Libertarian Socialist would say that property is the creation of the state, so true freedom from oppression means no private property, or something. I’m not clear how that works. Property is theft. The situation of “no private property” is achieved when the means of production (i.e. property, as distinct from possessions) are in the hands of those who actually do the work- neither capitalists nor the state. This can take the form of unions, workers’ councils, collectives, co-ops, etc. That’s a big part of what anarchism means, along with some other non-anarchist ideologies that still devolve power to the people, like council communism and such. It all falls under the “libertarian socialist” umbrella. This is what the word “libertarian” originally meant, and it’s what it still means in most of the world. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2013, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-all-economic-ideologies-aside-from-free-market-randian-theory-obsolete/656625/131 "2013-04-28T20:28:22Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > If I were you I wouldn’t want to repeat the faceplant that was post 84 either. You’re not me and I do not consider post #84 to be faceplant. > [@rogerbox](#): > > But we’re talking about how only a retard could fuck up America given the vast resources Here’s what I wrote in response to that line of argument in post #84: History proves this to be false. 19th-century Brazil had plentiful natural resources but it did not give its people prosperity the way the United States did. What Brazil lacked was a free economy. Likewise for 19th-century China. And Russia. And India. But perhaps the clearest case is Argentina. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Argentina was among the wealthiest nations on earth, and a popular destination for immigrants from all over, just like the United States. It had plentiful open space and natural resources and certainly seemed destined for greatness. But starting in mid-20th century, Argentina went down the path of socialism and today is poorer than its neighbors. It’s also worth noting that many of the world’s richest countries are not blessed with plentiful natural resources and vast open spaces: Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong, Denmark, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Israel, … Open space and natural resources do not produce prosperity. Economic freedom produces prosperity. > [@rogerbox](#): > > and the ability of people to work for you for free. It’s very relevent. They wouldn’t have done it if it didn’t generate wealth for them, slave holders being capitalists after all. You’re going to have to write posts that are at least coherent if you want a response from me. Between its founding and 1900, the USA grew from poverty to the wealthiest nation in world history. This calls for an explanation. It was not because of natural resources; that explanation has been debunked. It was not because of slavery; little of the growth occurred in states and territories where slavery was legal. I’ve proposed that it was because of the USA’s unique economic freedom. If you have a serious alternative explanation, I’d be glad to hear it. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2013, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-all-economic-ideologies-aside-from-free-market-randian-theory-obsolete/656625/132 "2013-04-28T20:42:40Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > Tellingly, Argentina was among the richest places in the world for much of this period- and their version of western expansionism into fertile farmland looked quite similar to ours. As I’ve already said, Argentina was rich when it had a policy more oriented towards free markets. Then it went down the path of socialism, and now it’s poor. It makes a particularly sharp contrast with its neighbor Chili, which elected socialist Salvador Allende in 1970. Allende tried to run the country’s economy from a control room modeled on a set from _Star Trek_. Not surprisingly he sent the economy into the ground. Then Chile switched to economic freedom, and today the Chilean people are vastly better off than their neighbors in Argentina. I have already listed many other examples of countries that had plentiful farmland and natural resources and yet did not become prosperous in the 19th century or any other time. If open land, oil, and such were the major cause of prosperity, then the Soviet Union would have been the most prosperous country on Earth. It wasn’t; the United States was and still is, because of economic freedom. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2013, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-all-economic-ideologies-aside-from-free-market-randian-theory-obsolete/656625/133 "2013-04-28T21:02:07Z")
> [@OurLordPeace](#): > > Property is theft. The situation of “no private property” is achieved when the means of production (i.e. property, as distinct from possessions) are in the hands of those who actually do the work- neither capitalists nor the state. This can take the form of unions, workers’ councils, collectives, co-ops, etc. Property is theft from who exactly? ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2013, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-all-economic-ideologies-aside-from-free-market-randian-theory-obsolete/656625/134 "2013-04-28T21:17:30Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Those are rich _small_ countries. How many people do they support? Again, scientific economics cares about numbers. > > Further, Denmark has a massive welfare state, the Netherlands are radically communitarian _(or they all would drown)_, Singapore is authoritarian, Israel is an army with a religion or something (and unstable now), Japan is corporatist and protectionist if not _dirigiste_. None of them are your libertarian paradise. > > What of the other two? Switzerland is propped by topography–there’s geopolitics again–and crooked bankers. > > And then there’s Hong Kong. I don’t know much about it, but it’s been a vassal of the British Empire and then China, not really geopolitically self-sustaining, but able to leverage its trade position between great powers. Maybe it is what you’re looking for, but it’s not the USA either. I wonder, how important is HK now that China proper is the world’s manufacturer, and outsiders trade directly with Shanghai and Shenzhen? First of all, I was unaware that Japan was small. I thought that it was among the ten most populous countries in the world. More importantly, your attempts to cram each nation’s economic system into a single negative phrase are misleading or outright incorrect. The [Index of Economic Freedom](http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking) gives us a precise, measurable way of looking at a nation’s economic freedom. Hong Kong, Singapore, Denmark, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Japan are all ranked near the top in economic freedom. (Israel is a wee bit further down at #51.) That why’s they’re so prosperous despite the fact that none are awash in natural resources and land, or at least that’s my theory. If you have a better theory for why Singapore and Hong Kong are so much more prosperous than the rest of Southeast Asia, and why nations such as Chile and Israel are so much more prosperous than their neighbors, I’d love to hear it. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2013, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-all-economic-ideologies-aside-from-free-market-randian-theory-obsolete/656625/135 "2013-04-29T00:33:08Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Libertarianism is not anarchism. No, it isn’t, nor is anarchism simply a more extreme form of libertarianism; anarchism comes from an anti-property LW tradition very closely associated with Marxism. Libertarianism derives from, and is a more extreme form of, 19th-Century classical liberalism, with some flavoring from Objectivism. ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2013, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-all-economic-ideologies-aside-from-free-market-randian-theory-obsolete/656625/136 "2013-04-29T01:00:54Z")
> [@OurLordPeace](#): > > Property is theft. The situation of “no private property” is achieved when the means of production (i.e. property, as distinct from possessions) are in the hands of those who actually do the work- neither capitalists nor the state. This can take the form of unions, workers’ councils, collectives, co-ops, etc. I have to believe that people who make such statements really have no understanding of the concepts of Property and Ownership, or of Human Nature. To which I always have to go back to something as basic as a Shirt. If your shirt is not your property, then who has a right to that shirt? Who has the right to say that you can wear it, or that you have to give it to someone else? If your argument is that the Community decides this, then I say your concept is not that there is no Property, but that Property is owned by the Community and not individuals. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2013, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-all-economic-ideologies-aside-from-free-market-randian-theory-obsolete/656625/137 "2013-04-29T01:35:02Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > Property is theft from who exactly? Me. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2013, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-all-economic-ideologies-aside-from-free-market-randian-theory-obsolete/656625/138 "2013-04-29T02:05:53Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > The answer to your question is that policemen are trained in the use of their firearms and have certain standards and guidelines that must be met in order to maintain their employment. Given that there are over 600,000 law enforcement officers in the USA, I’m sure you could easily have a case of an officer misusing his weapon on a daily basis. But if you look at the statistics of people injured or killed by firearms, I would be you dollars to donuts that most of those people are civilians. Police get a training course and then their shooting skill goes the same place their physical fitness goes. However, if training is what separates cops from civilians, then just make civilians test their skills. Test them on gun safety and marksmanship. And anyone who passes is entitled to carry. My point was that there’s no reason to have a superior class of people who can have guns, or in the case of celebrities and politicians, armed protection. I have seen zero gun control proposals that would ban private armed guards, which by definition means civilian gun ownership. Hollywood and the Beltway would be in an uproar if they couldn’t keep their right to bear arms. ---
**Author:** ![OurLordPeace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/e8c25b/32.png) [@OurLordPeace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OurLordPeace)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2013, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-all-economic-ideologies-aside-from-free-market-randian-theory-obsolete/656625/139 "2013-04-29T14:24:42Z")
> [@Chimera](#): > > I have to believe that people who make such statements really have no understanding of the concepts of Property and Ownership, or of Human Nature. > > To which I always have to go back to something as basic as a Shirt. If your shirt is not your property, then who has a right to that shirt? Who has the right to say that you can wear it, or that you have to give it to someone else? If your argument is that the Community decides this, then I say your concept is not that there is no Property, but that Property is owned by the Community and not individuals. I made the distinction between “property” and “possessions” above. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2013, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-all-economic-ideologies-aside-from-free-market-randian-theory-obsolete/656625/140 "2013-04-29T14:31:53Z")
> [@OurLordPeace](#): > > I made the distinction between “property” and “possessions” above. When does one become the other? If I own a vehicle and use it to make deliveries on contract, and use my profits to buy another and another, and pay others to drive them and make deliveries…is there a point at which my possessions, the vehicles, have become property, and are thus theft from someone? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-all-economic-ideologies-aside-from-free-market-randian-theory-obsolete/656625.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-all-economic-ideologies-aside-from-free-market-randian-theory-obsolete/656625.md?page=8)