The *Serious* LIBERTARIAN Thread [Archive]

Der Übermensch

08-04-2009, 10:11 AM

Not much tbh. African Americans make up pretty much half of most of the South's population, and they aren't just going to roll over and die because of racist whitey. Especially after enjoying the freedoms they have.
... I was being hyperbolic... I pointed that out in the damn post...

He never proposed increasing the power of the states, though.

To lazy to rephrase, so from wiki: "Citing the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, Paul advocates states' rights to decide how to regulate social matters not directly found in the Constitution. "
That scares the living **** out of me. Do you think Mississippi is going to pass laws that are supportive of individual rights? Last I checked they were still trying to keep banning the sale of sex toys.

But anyways, States Rights is all about increasing the power of the states. It removes the limits placed on them by the Federal government and lets them run wild.

A few more examples:
"In 1997, Paul introduced a Constitutional amendment giving states the power to prohibit the destruction of the flag of the United States.[131] In June 2003, he voted against a Constitutional amendment to prohibit the physical "desecration" of the flag of the United States.[132] He believes that prohibiting flag burning is a state power, not a federal power."
"He comments on the Tenth Amendment, "States' rights simply means the individual states should retain authority over all matters not expressly delegated to the federal government in Article I of the Constitution.""
"Paul calls himself "strongly pro-life"[172] and "an unshakable foe of abortion."[173] He believes regulation of medical decisions about maternal or fetal health is "best handled at the state level."[174][175][176] He believes that, for the most part, states should retain jurisdiction, in accordance with the U.S. Constitution."
"Paul opposes all federal efforts to define marriage, whether defined as a union between one man and one woman, or defined as including anything else as well. He believes that recognizing or legislating marriages should be left to the states, and not subjected to "judicial activism"."

I'm sure that was tldr, but the point is that Paul does NOT support Libertarian social view points anywhere near as often as you would think. He supports, as do many American Libertarians, the lessening of Federal statutes that prevent states from regulating the mores of society on the grounds of states rights. He would love to see states ban flag burning, not allow gay marriage, bring back prayer in school and ban abortion to name a few... I would love his view point on the Federal government if the Federal government wasn't the only thing protecting us from the States (which, recent interpretations of the 14th Amendment aside - as I'm sure such judicial activism would be out the door when they take power - are not bound by the First Amendment...)

No, the Confederacy wasn't a centralized authority it was a collection of states, thus the reason it was a confederacy. Learn about the Civil War before you make statements pls.
The Constitution of the Confederacy was literally the US Constitution with some words crossed out and maybe 10 added. It was no different from the theoretical composition of the nation to its north, the only difference being "States Rights" was their leading interpretation (which they threw out the door when, in 1864 they realized they needed more taxes and conscription) which it was considered BS to the Yanks. Over the few years of its existence, the Southern Government abandoned a lot of its philosophy for the practicality of centralization. Its hard to wage a war with 10+ different leaders.

Haliburton

08-04-2009, 10:22 AM

He would love to see states ban flag burning, not allow gay marriage, bring back prayer in school and ban abortion to name a few...
i dont think you can say he would personally love to see those things, he supports devolution to the states i suppose because the constitution is his political gimmick, and you cant start talking complete sense to people right off the bat or they'll think you're a crazy

Raayl

08-04-2009, 10:37 AM

yeah man we should vote for candidates based on their personal views of irrelevant things

you can't be serious right now. doesn't playing devil's advocate ever get old, big guy?

Haliburton

08-04-2009, 10:43 AM

of course im serious why the **** do i care what ron pauls religious views are

hate to tell you but obama is a christian too

Raayl

08-04-2009, 10:49 AM

of course im serious why the **** do i care what ron pauls religious views are

hate to tell you but obama is a christian too

what color is the sky in your world? I'm not an obama supporter.

Der Übermensch

08-04-2009, 10:51 AM

i dont think you can say he would personally love to see those things, he supports devolution to the states i suppose because the constitution is his political gimmick, and you cant start talking complete sense to people right off the bat or they'll think you're a crazy

He is virulently anti-abortion, in 1997 he introduced a anti-flag burning amendment, he has been a vocal supporter of allowing prayer in school... I didn't chose those for no reason...

Haliburton

08-04-2009, 10:55 AM

only the first would be opposed to libertarianism and he voted to give the right to the states, not in support of banning flag burning itself

Der Übermensch

08-04-2009, 11:02 AM

Actually no, in 1997 he introduced a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning. A few years later he did change his stance to "leave it to the states" but he certainly made clear his personal view on the matter.

Haliburton

08-04-2009, 11:05 AM

no he didnt, the amendment was to give states the ability to do so

he also voted against a federal one that was pro-banning

Der Übermensch

08-04-2009, 11:08 AM

Even if you are right, the point is he is pro-banning of it, which was the only point I was making from the start, so I don't see how you have a point regardless.

Haliburton

08-04-2009, 11:10 AM

hes not pro-banning it wtf you just made that up

unless you have other evidence that im not aware of

Haliburton

08-04-2009, 11:12 AM

To me, why this is scary is because the flag is a symbol today of the State. Why is it, our side never seems to answer this question when we bring it up, why is it that we have the Red Chinese, Cuba, North Korea, and Saddam Hussein who support the position that you severely punished those who burn a flag? No, they just gloss over this. They gloss over it. Is it not rather ironic today that we have troops dying in Iraq, “spreading freedom” and, yet, we are here trying to pass laws similar to what Saddam Hussein had with regard to the flag? I just do not see where that makes a lot of sense.

http://www.reasontofreedom.com/statement_on_the_flag_burning_amendment_by_us_rep_ ron_paul.html

Der Übermensch

08-04-2009, 11:19 AM

Option a) He believes that the right to burn a flag is part of free speech.

Option b) He doesn't

Result 1) If he believes A, than it neither the Fed OR the states should have the right to ban it.

Result 2) He believes the states do have the right to ban it, thus he believes B.

Result 3) If he believes A but if he thinks that the States should still have the right to ban it, and thus put forth the amendment because of that, than he certainly isn't a Libertarian, but rather, as I have been saying this whole time, merely a proponent of States Rights..

Haliburton

08-04-2009, 11:21 AM

Haliburton

08-04-2009, 11:24 AM

i mean all statists have to support some form of tax, which would seem to be against libertarian principles and so only anarcho capitalists can be libertarians

but thats not how the term is used

Der Übermensch

08-04-2009, 11:27 AM

i never said he was a libertarian for this specifically i said he wasnt pro-banning flag burning

and he's not

the distinction of what makes a libertarian and what does not seems arbitrary though, its a huge umbrella term

You were implicitly arguing that he was, as I have been simply supporting my initial post in which I said "Ron Paul isn't anything close to a Libertarian." If you don't disagree with that, then I don't know why you are bothering with this, as all I have been doing is supporting that statement.

Haliburton

08-04-2009, 11:28 AM

it depends what you mean by libertarian, as per

i mean all statists have to support some form of tax, which would seem to be against libertarian principles and so only anarcho capitalists can be libertarians

but thats not how the term is used

Der Übermensch

08-04-2009, 11:30 AM

A Libertarian is someone who believes your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.

Haliburton

08-04-2009, 11:32 AM

i dont think thats an adequate description since followers of pretty much every ideology would agree with that

beso negro

08-04-2009, 05:52 PM

He denies evolution. He's an idiot. End of story. If it were anyone else, you'd say the same thing. He isn't a god, man.

orthodox christian libertarian >>>>>>>>> atheist socialist this should be obvious

StreetlightRock

08-04-2009, 09:28 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBHicyqMML4

Haliburton

08-04-2009, 09:32 PM

old

supa old

fight the power

siva_chair

08-04-2009, 11:05 PM

A Libertarian is someone who believes your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.

That really is a piss poor description of what makes a Libertarian.

A better one is: No one may threaten or initiate aggression against another man's person or property.

Also, pretty much what Chad said in regards to flag burning and the like.

Mr. Ron

08-04-2009, 11:51 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBHicyqMML4
I

died

Der Übermensch

08-04-2009, 11:58 PM

That really is a piss poor description of what makes a Libertarian.

A better one is: No one may threaten or initiate aggression against another man's person or property.

Also, pretty much what Chad said in regards to flag burning and the like.

Which is what I said, just all haughty.

And no true Libertarian would ban, or make it possible to ban flag burning as a legitimate expression of Free Speech.

siva_chair

08-05-2009, 12:04 AM

Which is what I said, just all haughty.

Well in that case only Ancaps can be Libertarians with no cognitive dissonance.

And no true Libertarian would ban, or make it possible to ban flag burning as a legitimate expression of Free Speech.

That isn't true. A Libertarian would support the right of an individual to ban flag burning on their property.

Der Übermensch

08-05-2009, 12:20 AM

siva_chair

08-05-2009, 12:37 AM

Libertarianism is a social doctrine. It has nothing to do with economics. **** the American Libertarian Party. They represent Libertarianism in the same way the Constitution Party represents stringent upholding of the principles on the Constitution.
---

Lol no. Liberty has everything to do with economics because it has everything to do with the utilization of scarce resources.

Also, the American Libertarian Party isn't Ancap silly.

No, thats not what they would support. That would imply they support the right of a government to regulate the burning of flags, which would be government interference in a right of free speech.

No it wouldn't because the government /= individual private property.

die of starvation

08-05-2009, 02:45 AM

then in a wholly privately owned world a non-landowner could theoretically have no place to permissibly burn a flag they own if all landowners barred it.

siva_chair

08-05-2009, 02:46 AM

then in a wholly privately owned world a non-landowner could theoretically have no place to permissibly burn a flag they own if all landowners barred it.

Yeah pretty much.

die of starvation

08-05-2009, 02:53 AM

sounds more like feudal aristocracy than anarcho-capitalism

siva_chair

08-05-2009, 03:02 AM

sounds more like feudal aristocracy than anarcho-capitalism

Pretty sure a land owner is perfectly within their rights to restrict people lighting fires on their property.

Der Übermensch

08-05-2009, 12:39 PM

Lol no. Liberty has everything to do with economics because it has everything to do with the utilization of scarce resources.
Unregulated Capitalism is the scourge of mankind. Even Adam Smith feared it.

Also, the American Libertarian Party isn't Ancap silly.
No. They are just one of the principle reasons Libertarianism has been co-opted to include Economic idiocy under its wings.

No it wouldn't because the government /= individual private property.
This isn't about individual private property. Its about public property and the government restricting what you can do there.

Iskandar

08-05-2009, 12:46 PM

Pretty sure a land owner is perfectly within their rights to restrict people lighting fires on their property.
That's not the point. Certain rights are only meaningful with a public venue to express them. Tway's right to free speech doesn't mean much if it can be compromised by anyone at any time (since all land is privately owned). You could argue it's unlikely many people would do this, but the point is this his rights are not guaranteed on your property since your property rights are supposed to supersede them.

Haliburton

08-05-2009, 01:27 PM

of course they supersede them

you dont get privileges just because they feel nice inside iskandar this isnt girl scouts

if you come to my house you dont get to call me a dick or ill kick you out its pretty simple

Unregulated Capitalism is the scourge of mankind.
well its nice that we can make big statements without any form of argument

Der Übermensch

08-05-2009, 02:02 PM

I've written why extensively before. I don't see any reason to bother saying the same things again.

Haliburton

08-05-2009, 02:04 PM

why are you repeating the bold statements if you're not willing to prove them then

thats kinda stupid

blacks should be exterminated

oh whats that you want to know why well ah i've explained it before to someone so just take my word for it

Iskandar

08-05-2009, 02:55 PM

of course they supersede them

you dont get privileges just because they feel nice inside iskandar this isnt girl scouts

if you come to my house you dont get to call me a dick or ill kick you out its pretty simpleAgain missing the point.

If all land is privately owned, where can I call you a dick without fear of reprisal? Do I need to find someone sympathetic to me first?

What if people want to hold a large protest? Again, do they have to do it on someone else's property? Do they have to pay for the privilege of doing so? There are so many logistical problems that you haven't considered properly.

Haliburton

08-05-2009, 02:59 PM

you can call me a dick anywhere without fear of reprisal, all i can do is ask you to leave

unless you signed a contract saying you wouldnt before coming to my house or something

i mean personally i dont really mind you calling me a dick on my land, and i'd probably be willing to donate to some sort of collectively funded 'free land' initiative even if you are just going to use it to call me a dick - there are plenty of people sympathetic to freedom of speech

Iskandar

08-05-2009, 03:06 PM

you can call me a dick anywhere without fear of reprisal, all i can do is ask you to leaveActually you could call the police to book me for being disorderly.

Assuming it works the same way with private law enforcement.
i mean personally i dont really mind you calling me a dick on my land, and i'd probably be willing to donate to some sort of collectively funded 'free land' initiative even if you are just going to use it to call me a dick - there are plenty of people sympathetic to freedom of speechOr we could just have public lands in the first place and not have to resort to silly schemes like this.

Haliburton

08-05-2009, 03:07 PM

Actually you could call the police to book me for being disorderly.

Assuming it works the same way with private law enforcement.
only if you refused to leave, thats trespassing

but not for just calling me a dick

Or we could just have public lands in the first place and not have to resort to silly schemes like this.
no because im not into forcing other people to do what i think is right

Iskandar

08-05-2009, 03:14 PM

We don't have to force anyone for the state to own land.

Maybe we need to tax them to pay for its upkeep, idk.

PS. the idea is that other people want public lands, not just you.

Haliburton

08-05-2009, 03:17 PM

forcing one person is still pretty arrogant of you

libertarian society can tolerate socialist society, socialist society cannot tolerate libertarian society

if you can have a socialist society within a libertarian society i dont know what you're complaining about

Der Übermensch

08-05-2009, 03:20 PM

why are you repeating the bold statements if you're not willing to prove them then

Because I don't care what you think. There are maybe 5 people on this forum who I do care to argue with, and they all know at least to some extent what I mean when I say that.

Iskandar

08-05-2009, 03:21 PM

forcing one person is still pretty arrogant of youWe always have to force people to do things.
libertarian society can tolerate socialist society, socialist society cannot tolerate libertarian society

if you can have a socialist society within a libertarian society i dont know what you're complaining aboutThat's sort of a false dichotomy but okay.

Haliburton

08-05-2009, 03:26 PM

Because I don't care what you think. There are maybe 5 people on this forum who I do care to argue with, and they all know at least to some extent what I mean when I say that.
so you only argue with people who agree with you

cute

http://www.revleft.com/vb/

That's sort of a false dichotomy but okay.
no its not

libertarian society permits socialist (or any ideological) society within itself

socialism (and most other ideologies based on non-voluntarism) cannot tolerate voluntary sub-societies

so i dont know why you're whining about libertarian society when it allows for both what you want and what other people want

Iskandar

08-05-2009, 03:29 PM

so you only argue with people who agree with you

cute

http://www.revleft.com/vb/Pretty sure he's not a far left anarchist.
libertarian society permits socialist (or any ideological) society within itself

socialism (and most other ideologies based on non-voluntarism) cannot tolerate voluntary sub-societies

so i dont know why you're whining about libertarian society when it allows for both what you want and what other people wantI don't know why you're whining when liberal society permits you the freedom to do this as well.

Go live in the woods.

Just don't expect the state to pick up the tab.

Der Übermensch

08-05-2009, 03:32 PM

so you only argue with people who agree with you
Do Siva and I seem to be agreeing right now?

Haliburton

08-05-2009, 03:38 PM

I don't know why you're whining when liberal society permits you the freedom to do this as well.

Go live in the woods.

Just don't expect the state to pick up the tab.
no it doesnt if me and my acquaintances decide to band together into a libertarian collective then the 'liberal' state will come aggress against us for ignoring its power

but if we were living under libertarianism and you went and started a socialist society somewhere the libertarian state isnt going to give a **** and will leave you to it

ergo greater choice in ideology

Do Siva and I seem to be agreeing right now?
pretty sure he's not going to agree with what you said either

and you still wont source it

or if you do you'll have just had a retarded conversation with me

Iskandar

08-05-2009, 03:38 PM

Does anyone agree with him but Chad?
no it doesnt if me and my acquaintances decide to band together into a libertarian collective then the 'liberal' state will come aggress against us for ignoring its power
Sounds to me what you want is a separate state for libertarians.

Which isn't a bad idea. I've thought about it, and it would get rid of y'all so us folk living in the real world can get down to the serious business of governing. Me, I intend to go into politics. I'm gonna be a behind-the-scenes string puller for left-wing causes.

Now if we can just block the IPs from Libertopia, we won't have to put up with your fervent rhetoric either.

Haliburton

08-05-2009, 03:40 PM

the internet is on average more libertarian than society

its also on average more intelligent

coincidence, i think not

Iskandar

08-05-2009, 03:42 PM

the internet is on average more libertarian than society

its also on average more intelligent

coincidence, i think notIf you seriously think the internet is more intelligent, you've never seen Youtube comments.

Including those left by libertarians on political vids.

Haliburton

08-05-2009, 03:43 PM

Now if we can just block the IPs from Libertopia, we won't have to put up with your fervent rhetoric either.
now you're thinking like a liberal statist

crush all dissent and we can be right

second only to the communist mantra

if we kill all the unhappy people we can have utopia

Haliburton

08-05-2009, 03:44 PM

If you seriously think the internet is more intelligent, you've never seen Youtube comments.sounds anecdotal to me

gregulus

08-05-2009, 03:45 PM

the internet is on average more libertarian than society

its also on average more intelligent

coincidence, i think not

I think you dropped something from that hat of yours.

Here, I found it...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

Iskandar

08-05-2009, 03:46 PM

now you're thinking like a liberal statist

crush all dissent and we can be right

second only to the communist mantra

if we kill all the unhappy people we can have utopiaYou're forgetting the libertarian code:

Only we are right and see the truth. Everyone else is an ignorant socialist. We the sheeple!

Der Übermensch

08-05-2009, 03:46 PM

Does anyone agree with him but Chad?
He and I see pretty eye to eye on gun rights...

Iskandar

08-05-2009, 03:50 PM

Lots of people are for gun rights.

Not many are anarcho-capitalists.

Haliburton

08-05-2009, 03:53 PM

I think you dropped something from that hat of yours.

Here, I found it...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
it does imply causation though

Only we are right and see the truth.
i already said you can have your socialist society within a libertarian one

unless you are worried that having the two compete side by side might not be so favourable for socialism

Iskandar

08-05-2009, 04:33 PM

i already said you can have your socialist society within a libertarian one

unless you are worried that having the two compete side by side might not be so favourable for socialismWhy are you assuming I'm a socialist, and why do you assume your society will perform better when it doesn't exist.

PS. the only way this can work is without a state.

Haliburton

08-05-2009, 04:37 PM

because you've openly said you're a socialist before

maybe you've changed now but you havent said that yet so i will continue to assume so

and why do you assume your society will perform better when it doesn't exist.
in this specific argument im not im saying that if we can allow people to choose between both in a voluntary super-society then surely that is preferable

or do you hate all competition in anything, not just markets

Iskandar

08-05-2009, 06:19 PM

I'm a socialist and I hate competition, according to you.

But you don't know if either of those things are true so you're strawmanning.

PS. people can choose between both.

You can live with the normal people, or you can found a libertopia on a coral reef. Take your pick.

gregulus

08-05-2009, 06:25 PM

No, save the coral reef. They'll have to go somewhere else.

Haliburton

08-05-2009, 06:52 PM

i love it when liberals take the neocon line of if you dont like it get out

I'm a socialist and I hate competition, according to you.

But you don't know if either of those things are true so you're strawmanning.
no you said those things yourself

Iskandar

08-05-2009, 07:16 PM

i love it when liberals take the neocon line of if you dont like it get outI don't think you understand the fine distinction between having to leave, and having a choice.
no you said those things yourselfI don't think I've ever said I hate competition. Why would I do that.

PS. if I lived in libertopia, I'd have to leave there in order to go live in the socialist paradise next to it.

Haliburton

08-05-2009, 07:39 PM

I don't think you understand the fine distinction between having to leave, and having a choice.yeah its

choose to believe in what iskandar believes in or get out

but the neocons are saying the same thing it seems nobody can win this game and everybody has to leave the country

PS. if I lived in libertopia, I'd have to leave there in order to go live in the socialist paradise next to it.and i wouldnt care because i'd be living in comparative luxury instead of shooting myself in the foot on stubborn principle

beso negro

08-05-2009, 08:18 PM

then in a wholly privately owned world a non-landowner could theoretically have no place to permissibly burn a flag they own if all landowners barred it.

if you don't own any land why should you have any say in anything

Haliburton

08-05-2009, 08:26 PM

because my voice is so important everyone should have to listen to it

Iskandar

08-05-2009, 08:34 PM

yeah its

choose to believe in what iskandar believes in or get outNot at all.

You're free to hold whatever opinions you want in a liberal society.
and i wouldnt care because i'd be living in comparative luxury instead of shooting myself in the foot on stubborn principleCare to explain why my way of thinking leads to the highest standards of living in the world.

You can even get pretty wealthy my way too.

Embrace it. We are superior.
if you don't own any land why should you have any say in anythingHow much more reactionary could you get.

You assume that land equals enfranchisement, then ignore the problem of people who inherit land having an advantage those who are born poor don't.

In conclusion, your ideology sucks.

Haliburton

08-05-2009, 08:50 PM

You're free to hold whatever opinions you want in a liberal society.
true, they havent got the technology to punish thought crimes yet

but they'll certainly get you for expressing or acting them out

Care to explain why my way of thinking leads to the highest standards of living in the world.
dont think it does

statistically speaking as we approach laissez-faire capitalism standards of living get higher and higher

You assume that land equals enfranchisement, then ignore the problem of people who inherit land having an advantage those who are born poor don't.

smart people are born with an advantage stupid people dont have

and the bleeding hearts wept

DENEpants

08-05-2009, 10:03 PM

statistically speaking as we approach laissez-faire capitalism standards of living get higher and higher

smart people are born with an advantage stupid people dont have

and the bleeding hearts wept

just looking at what NAFTA has done to the bottom 98% of people in the countries involved would show that standard of living only improves for the higher classes. rich people are born with an advantage stupid people don't have regardless of actual intelligence.

if you don't own any land why should you have any say in anything

Because owning units of labor to work the land is just as valuable.

and the capitalist pigs sweat.

Haliburton

08-05-2009, 10:07 PM

are you kidding we have practically perfect experiments in places like east/west germany and north/south korea

are you trying to tell me the only difference between these places was for the upper classes

DENEpants

08-05-2009, 10:22 PM

Those were also extremely oppressive regimes vs. governments on the american payroll. and i bet all the freaking sanctions didn't act as economic stimulus. i'll agree with you to a certain extent but tip-toeing to an actual global laissez-faire economy is just bad government.

Haliburton

08-05-2009, 10:32 PM

well it seems like every attempt at anticapitalism resulted in an oppressive regime

or do you think thats a coincidence

DENEpants

08-05-2009, 10:37 PM

Yes, yes it is.

i'm not saying capitalism is bad. i'm saying pure capitalism is stupid. capitalist countries should still have protectionist laws, subsidies, land grants, tarriffs, blah blah blah.

Haliburton

08-05-2009, 10:41 PM

if the trend is for standard of life to increase as societies head towards capitalism why stop at an arbitrary point

Iskandar

08-05-2009, 10:43 PM

Standards of life also improve further as we move away from laissez-faire towards a welfare society.

Capitalism is better than subsistence agricultural. Very astute of you to point this out.
capitalist countries should still have protectionist laws, subsidies, land grants, tarriffsNo there are much better things they should have than those.

Iskandar

08-05-2009, 10:46 PM

true, they havent got the technology to punish thought crimes yet

but they'll certainly get you for expressing or acting them outI don't think you know what liberalism is.
dont think it does

statistically speaking as we approach laissez-faire capitalism standards of living get higher and higherI'm not sure how many times I've told you this is wrong.
smart people are born with an advantage stupid people dont have

and the bleeding hearts weptWe can't change that.

We can change other things.

Haliburton

08-05-2009, 10:55 PM

I'm not sure how many times I've told you this is wrong.

see: previous post about germany and korea

now if you're going to offer me an equal display of the welfare state making that sort of difference then you might be able to say what you're saying but until then im going to say no

We can't change that.

We can change other things.
we can force smart people not to use their intelligence!

lets tax smarts

DENEpants

08-05-2009, 10:58 PM

we can force smart people not to use their intelligence!

lets tax smarts

We (california) do, it's called expensive *** higher education.

Haliburton

08-05-2009, 11:01 PM

the state is broke how else do you think they are going to make it up

oh by not spending it on stupid things and balancing the budget

well no thats completely out of the question

DENEpants

08-05-2009, 11:06 PM

the state is broke how else do you think they are going to make it up

taxing marijuana
or are you too libertarian to tax harmful substances

oh by not spending it on stupid things and balancing the budget

You think college is a stupid thing?

Haliburton

08-05-2009, 11:08 PM

im as libertarian as libertarian can be

and i think the state spending money on college is a stupid thing

siva_chair

08-05-2009, 11:09 PM

Unregulated Capitalism is the scourge of mankind. Even Adam Smith feared it.

Lol no.

Adam Smith also believed lots of other wrong things like the labor theory of value.

No. They are just one of the principle reasons Libertarianism has been co-opted to include Economic idiocy under its wings.

What is awesome is the fact that it isn't economic idiocy.

And you believe Proudhon was a good economist lol.

This isn't about individual private property. Its about public property and the government restricting what you can do there.

Public property is pretty retarded and a scourge to mankind.

That's not the point. Certain rights are only meaningful with a public venue to express them. Tway's right to free speech doesn't mean much if it can be compromised by anyone at any time (since all land is privately owned). You could argue it's unlikely many people would do this, but the point is this his rights are not guaranteed on your property since your property rights are supposed to supersede them.

You don't have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded public place.

That's sort of a false dichotomy but okay.

No actually it is perfectly accurate.

I don't know why you're whining when liberal society permits you the freedom to do this as well.

No it doesn't it forces you to do things all the time you seriously can't be this stupid.

Go live in the woods.

You sound like a Republican. "If you don't like it, then you can giiiit out!"

Just don't expect the state to pick up the tab.

Lol they still will force you to pay taxes. You cannot practice individual secession.

Not at all.

You're free to hold whatever opinions you want in a liberal society.

And you are free to do that in a libertarian society. Only you get to actually live that way too instead of just holding opinions about stuff.

Care to explain why my way of thinking leads to the highest standards of living in the world.

LLLOOOOOLLL

You can even get pretty wealthy my way too.

You assume that land equals enfranchisement, then ignore the problem of people who inherit land having an advantage those who are born poor don't.

In conclusion, your ideology sucks.

You assume everyone is equal and no one should naturally have to work any harder to achieve things than anyone else.

In conclusion, your assumptions are pretty retarded.

Standards of life also improve further as we move away from laissez-faire towards a welfare society.

No.

DENEpants

08-05-2009, 11:10 PM

then how do you propose poor people go to college.

Haliburton

08-05-2009, 11:12 PM

then how do you propose poor people go to college.
ability based scholarships, charitable scholarships, loans

Iskandar

08-05-2009, 11:12 PM

see: previous post about germany and korea

now if you're going to offer me an equal display of the welfare state making that sort of difference then you might be able to say what you're saying but until then im going to say noLiberal democracies are superior to authoritarian states. I don't dispute this at all.

But welfare states are superior to laissez-faire so.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/2006nian_Renlei_Fazhan_Zhishu.svg
The USA and Japan are welfare states too, if not as deeply entrenched as those of Iceland, Norway or Canada (1st, 2nd and 3rd respectively).

So why is Hong Kong 22nd then and not 1st?
we can force smart people not to use their intelligence!

lets tax smartsWill you ever stop strawmanning.
LLLOOOOOLLLAnd you wonder why I don't respond to you more.

Haliburton

08-05-2009, 11:16 PM

But welfare states are superior to laissez-faire so.
i asked you for a clear cut example like i gave

now lets see it

Will you ever stop strawmanning.
no thats called taking your reasoning to its logical conclusion

Iskandar

08-05-2009, 11:17 PM

i asked you for a clear cut example like i gave

now lets see itNorway is ranked higher than Hong Kong.

Haliburton

08-05-2009, 11:17 PM

also idk what you've linked me to apart from some rainbow map

Haliburton

08-05-2009, 11:18 PM

Norway is ranked higher than Hong Kong.
and you think that difference is comparable to the one between east and west germany; between north and south korea

thats quite a reach there iskandar

the point of my comparisons is that they were the same country before

Iskandar

08-05-2009, 11:18 PM

also idk what you've linked me to apart from some rainbow mapHuman Development Index. The darker green countries (all of which are welfare states) have the highest standards of living.
and you think that difference is comparable to the one between east and west germany; between north and south korea

thats quite a reach there iskandarNo but Hong Kong is not a Communist dictatorship. It's not hard to do better than that. It's still not in the league of Iceland, Norway and Canada though.

If laissez-faire is better, how come these countries (none of which is remotely laissez-faire) are on top?

Don't get mad that you called me out on this and lost.

Haliburton

08-05-2009, 11:22 PM

the point of my comparisons is that they were the same country before

the point of my comparisons is that they were the same country before

the point of my comparisons is that they were the same country before

the point of my comparisons is that they were the same country before

hurrr this is how scientific process works

Iskandar

08-05-2009, 11:26 PM

You can't set up impossible conditions for me to meet. That would be unscientific to say the least.

You showed a capitalist democracy outperforms a communist dictatorship. Then I showed a welfare state outperforms a relatively laissez-faire economy. In quality of life, that is.

Obviously not all conditions are equal but they do have enough similarities to make the comparison warranted.

Haliburton

08-05-2009, 11:26 PM

also even if we ignore that obvious misunderstanding of the point one could equally say if welfare state is better how come there are welfare states lower than hong kong

ill tell you why its because there are a hundred factors in standard of living and thats why them being the same country was so important

Haliburton

08-05-2009, 11:27 PM

no you cant compare two entities with a ton of other environmental variables and call it an equal comparison to one where we started off with exactly the same thing and only altered a few

thats just stupid

i asked you for a similar proof

Der Übermensch

08-05-2009, 11:27 PM

And you believe Proudhon was a good economist lol.
By the standards of the 1840s.

Public property is pretty retarded and a scourge to mankind.
The amount of public property that exists is directly proportional to the extent to which we possess civil liberties. If there is no public property, we are only free on the land we own, and liable to the tyranny of others anywhere else that we venture.

Iskandar

08-05-2009, 11:28 PM

That's irrelevant to the fact that several welfare states outperform Hong Kong when you claimed laissez-faire was objectively better.

But if you like, we can dig up statistics on how quality of life in the USA improved over the years since the welfare state was created.

Or any country for that matter.

Haliburton

08-05-2009, 11:29 PM

http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/9754/4wdfgw34tasd.png

Haliburton

08-05-2009, 11:34 PM

That's irrelevant to the fact that several welfare states outperform Hong Kong when you claimed laissez-faire was objectively better.

and you're claiming the welfare state is objectively better

how come germany is below hong kong then

see i wouldnt be stupid and argue this point for real because i know there are other environmental factors, and thats why i specifically asked you for a similar example where a minimal number of variables are involved

splitting a country and making one half capitalist and one not is almost a perfect experiment

Iskandar

08-05-2009, 11:37 PM

and you're claiming the welfare state is objectively better

how come germany is below hong kong thenNah no I'm not, just as a general trend.
splitting a country and making one half capitalist and one not is almost a perfect experimentYou're the one ignoring the variables here.

Namely, that one side is extremely authoritarian; it is a command economy; and the other side is not laissez-faire capitalism but some form of a welfare state.

Haliburton

08-05-2009, 11:41 PM

what i said was as we approach laissez faire theres a trend of higher standard of living

so why stop at some arbitrary point

Iskandar

08-05-2009, 11:52 PM

Because it's not that simple. If it were only that laissez-faire meant higher standards of living, Hong Kong would beat out Norway. But it doesn't. Clearly other factors must be at work, and I argue the welfare state is chief among them.

Haliburton

08-05-2009, 11:55 PM

not necessarily

laissez faire can mean the highest standards of living for individual countries within their own individual environmental factors that doesnt mean they will automatically be better than other countries in the world that have different environmental factors

even the best oil wont make your car a ferrari but that doesnt mean its not the best oil

dont you love analogies

Iskandar

08-05-2009, 11:57 PM

Where has laissez-faire delivered superior results to welfare states. You can't really test this within a single country, only between them.
dont you love analogiesNot really and that one was pretty bad.

siva_chair

08-05-2009, 11:57 PM

And you wonder why I don't respond to you more.

Probably because you keep making incorrect assertions about economic issues and I keep correcting you. Like when you realized you were totally wrong about the Austrian school so you didn't respond in that other thread.

Iskandar

08-06-2009, 12:01 AM

Nah, I just didn't care enough.

siva_chair

08-06-2009, 12:05 AM

By the standards of the 1840s.

And he was still wrong then.

Also, why would you hold on to outdated ideas anyway?

The amount of public property that exists is directly proportional to the extent to which we possess civil liberties. If there is no public property, we are only free on the land we own, and liable to the tyranny of others anywhere else that we venture.

Yeah on public property we are subject to the whims of the majority (or realistically, whoever holds the mantle of political power at the time).

All rights stem from property rights. Free speech included.

Haliburton

08-06-2009, 12:06 AM

Where has laissez-faire delivered superior results to welfare states. You can't really test this within a single country, only between them.
well you can test it in a single country when its split as in the examples i gave you

which werent modern welfare states but i never claimed anything about welfare states it was you who said welfare states are what grant the highest standards of living today so its you who must prove it is so in a satisfactory manner

did you notice that most of your pet utopias are capitalistic too

and most of the worst in history were communist (which ill go ahead and call hyper-welfare so you can whine)

siva_chair

08-06-2009, 12:08 AM

Nah, I just didn't care enough.

Convenient excuse.

siva_chair

08-06-2009, 12:16 AM

Also, the HDI is very flawed so it is pretty stupid to use it as some sort of example here.

Iskandar

08-06-2009, 12:24 AM

did you notice that most of your pet utopias are capitalistic tooThey are mixed economies.
and most of the worst in history were communist (which ill go ahead and call hyper-welfare so you can whine)I don't support communism so why would I whine.

Against Miik!

08-06-2009, 12:27 AM

Communism in theory is different from commumism in practice. Thats the same with all forms of government. So shouldn't we say they all have there merits, and human nature ****s them up?

Iskandar

08-06-2009, 12:28 AM

Everything sounds good in theory. If it didn't, we wouldn't make theories about stuff.

Besides some things are worse in practice than others.

siva_chair

08-06-2009, 12:30 AM

They are mixed economies.

Oic so countries are now referred to as mixed economies when we are praising certain qualities about them and referred to as capitalist economies when we are demonizing them (or rather using them to demonize capitalism).

Against Miik!

08-06-2009, 12:32 AM

Everything sounds good in theory. If it didn't, we wouldn't make theories about stuff.

Yes we would. We would just make them available at Wal Mart.

Besides some things are worse in practice than others.\

Absolutely. But I would argue its not because of the proposed system, but because of human error. So shouldn't we base our form of government on which ones leave the least room for this error? Devising a sound theory that forces those practicing it to stick to theory sounds pretty good to me.

Iskandar

08-06-2009, 12:32 AM

Technically every economy is mixed.

These are closer to a genuine mix of capitalism and socialism though.

PS. Isn't that just the opposite of what you guys do.

Der Übermensch

08-06-2009, 12:33 AM

Yeah on public property we are subject to the whims of the majority (or realistically, whoever holds the mantle of political power at the time).
Your argument is seriously flawed. You are implying I like the government the way it is now. I'm advocating a government which has, effectively speaking, no ability to regulate our actions on public property (short of the obvious... like murdering someone... but that matters on private property too).
All rights stem from property rights. Free speech included.
What good is free speech if I have nowhere to use it other than my own house?

Iskandar

08-06-2009, 12:33 AM

Absolutely. But I would argue its not because of the proposed system, but because of human error. So shouldn't we base our form of government on which ones leave the least room for this error?If human error is a constant, why do some things work better in practice than others. I'm not sure, but these are the things we should adopt.

Against Miik!

08-06-2009, 12:38 AM

If human error is a constant, why do some things work better in practice than others. I'm not sure, but these are the things we should adopt.

The mere existence of human error is a constant, but not the extent. Like for example, given a mathematical equation, say you were given the choice of using a calculator or pen and paper. With the pen and paper, you could draw a dinosaur or something. With the calculator, you could press random buttons having nothing to do with the equation, but at least you would get a numerical answer, which is hugely closer to the solution than a drawing of a dinosaur.

Sweet ****ing analogy imo

Iskandar

08-06-2009, 12:39 AM

Yeah sure bud. But we don't need to make it complicated. We can just say "monarchy sucks, let's not practice it."

Against Miik!

08-06-2009, 12:40 AM

Come to think of it, as far as longevity goes, monarchy ain't half bad.

siva_chair

08-06-2009, 12:41 AM

Technically every economy is mixed.

These are closer to a genuine mix of capitalism and socialism though.

PS. Isn't that just the opposite of what you guys do.

Just pointing out your inconsistencies.

Your argument is seriously flawed. You are implying I like the government the way it is now. I'm advocating a government which has, effectively speaking, no ability to regulate our actions on public property (short of the obvious... like murdering someone... but that matters on private property too).

No I'm saying public property is pretty much a scam. The fact is that regardless of whether it is labeled public, it is still owned and controlled by someone. Someone makes the rules.

Should I have the right to start a large fire on public property?

What good is free speech if I have nowhere to use it other than my own house?

That is like asking what good is free speech if I don't own a printing press or a television station.

Iskandar

08-06-2009, 12:43 AM

Just pointing out your inconsistencies.Political terms are generally inconsistent, at least in application.

siva_chair

08-06-2009, 12:44 AM

Political terms are generally inconsistent, at least in application.

Yeah when you use them for spin like you do.

You are going to make a fine politician IskandAr

Iskandar

08-06-2009, 12:47 AM

Why thank you. I wasn't serious about running for office though.

Der Übermensch

08-06-2009, 12:56 AM

No I'm saying public property is pretty much a scam. The fact is that regardless of whether it is labeled public, it is still owned and controlled by someone. Someone makes the rules.
And the only rules should be the same that govern behavior on private property.

Should I have the right to start a large fire on public property?
As long as it isn't for the purpose of arson, or in the middle of the highway, yes. There should be nothing inherently wrong with doing so. It is the reason for doing so that generally would matter, or in some cases the location makes it impractical - such as blocking traffic.

That is like asking what good is free speech if I don't own a printing press or a television station.
I really don't see how that is a reasonable comparison. I like being able to, if I were an old wacky Persian, go and camp in-front of the White House for 8 days living on water. That would be using my right to free speech - on public property - without any need for a ****ing TV station. There are myriads of ways that Free Speech and other rights play into our lives every day that has nothing to do with being able to broadcast it to a large audience. Its the principle of it.

Der Übermensch

08-06-2009, 12:57 AM

Political terms are generally inconsistent, at least in application.

Understatement of the thread :chug:

siva_chair

08-06-2009, 01:23 AM

And the only rules should be the same that govern behavior on private property.

Rules on private property are decided on the basis of private property.

As long as it isn't for the purpose of arson, or in the middle of the highway, yes. There should be nothing inherently wrong with doing so. It is the reason for doing so that generally would matter, or in some cases the location makes it impractical - such as blocking traffic.

Oh but those things are infringing on my right to freedom of expression. What if I am protesting cars and emissions? Why don't I get to protest by setting a fire?

I really don't see how that is a reasonable comparison.

Of course it is.

I like being able to, if I were an old wacky Persian, go and camp in-front of the White House for 8 days living on water. That would be using my right to free speech - on public property - without any need for a ****ing TV station. There are myriads of ways that Free Speech and other rights play into our lives every day that has nothing to do with being able to broadcast it to a large audience. Its the principle of it.

What you like being able to do and what you have the right to do aren't necessarily the same thing. I like having a playstation 3, but that doesn't justify me stealing one from a store.

Also, if it has nothing to do with broadcasting it to a large audience, why does it matter if you do it in a public place? Afterall, you can protest on your own land. It is the principle of it, right?

"Freedom of speech" cannot be upheld as an absolute except as it is subsumed under the general rights of property of the individual.

Smokey D

08-06-2009, 01:38 AM

Question: are you capable of owning a fishery or some other non-traditional property in libertarianism?

siva_chair

08-06-2009, 01:43 AM

Question: are you capable of owning a fishery or some other non-traditional property in libertarianism?

Sure why not?

There is no reason people can't homestead the ocean. Particularly with today's technology.

Smokey D

08-06-2009, 01:48 AM

Well, I struggle with the idea that you can add your labour to fisheries in the same way that libertarians say you can add your labour to a farm.

I also struggle with the idea that 'homesteading' (by which I assume you mean fencing off) is sufficient to establish property rights.

siva_chair

08-06-2009, 02:03 AM

Well, I struggle with the idea that you can add your labour to fisheries in the same way that libertarians say you can add your labour to a farm.

The act of fishing would be labor. The fish are the product of you inputting labor into the resources, i.e. utilizing a scarce resource.

I also struggle with the idea that 'homesteading' (by which I assume you mean fencing off) is sufficient to establish property rights.

Well that is an overly simplistic view of what is meant by homesteading.

Smokey D

08-06-2009, 02:08 AM

The act of fishing would be labor. The fish are the product of you inputting labor into the resources, i.e. utilizing a scarce resource.
"

Right but surely that would entitle me to the fish which I caught, not the fishery itself.

Well that is an overly simplistic view of what is meant by homesteading.

Okay, perhaps a more accurate question is do people own fisheries now, even in the absence of extensive homesteading operations?

siva_chair

08-06-2009, 02:16 AM

"

Right but surely that would entitle me to the fish which I caught, not the fishery itself.

Idk if you go on to a farmers land and pick some corn does that necessarily entitle you to it?

Okay, perhaps a more accurate question is do people own fisheries now, even in the absence of extensive homesteading operations?

Yes people own fish farms right now I used to live near one.

And as for oceanic fisheries, there hasn't been a claim of ownership yet.

Smokey D

08-06-2009, 02:19 AM

Idk if you go on to a farmers land and pick some corn does that necessarily entitle you to it?

No, but this is what I'm saying. A person who fishes has not input labour in the same way that a farmer has into his land. A fisherman profits from nature, a farmer profits (more than a fisherman, anyway) from his labour. To me, a better comparison would be asking whether the taking of an apple from a wild tree by a woodsman entitle him to the apple or to the tree.

Yes people own fish farms right now I used to live near one.

Yeah but I'm not talking about fish farms. Those are uncontroversial.

And as for oceanic fisheries, there hasn't been a claim of ownership yet.

Well, fisheries located within EEZs are usually allocated in some way.

siva_chair

08-06-2009, 02:24 AM

No, but this is what I'm saying. A person who fishes has not input labour in the same way that a farmer has into his land. A fisherman profits from nature, a farmer profits (more than a fisherman, anyway) from his labour.

And a lumberjack doesn't input labor in the same manner as a farmer either, but he is still inputting his labor. Same with a fisherman. He is laboring to catch fish. he is investing his labor for some output, and that requires a use of a scarce resource.

Yeah but I'm not talking about fish farms. Those are uncontroversial.

Well fish farms are a form of fisheries. There is no reason why the sea cannot be homesteaded in a similar manner to fish farms.

Well, fisheries located within EEZs are usually allocated in some way.

Therein lies your answer. There is no reason that private individuals can't claim exclusive rights of ownership over sections of the ocean. I don't see what the problem is here.

Smokey D

08-06-2009, 02:29 AM

And a lumberjack doesn't input labor in the same manner as a farmer either, but he is still inputting his labor. Same with a fisherman. He is laboring to catch fish. he is investing his labor for some output, and that requires a use of a scarce resource.

Yeah but a lumberjack is entitled to the tree he cuts down, not to the land from which he cuts it.

Well fish farms are a form of fisheries. There is no reason why the sea cannot be homesteaded in a similar manner to fish farms.

So ownership of fisheries requires an area of ocean to be fenced off and have labour added to it?

Therein lies your answer. There is no reason that private individuals can't claim exclusive rights of ownership over sections of the ocean. I don't see what the problem is here.

My problem is that fisheries aren't really allocated on the basis of added labour or anything, which seems to be the basis of ownership in a self-onwership embracing conception of libertarianism.

siva_chair

08-06-2009, 02:42 AM

Yeah but a lumberjack is entitled to the tree he cuts down, not to the land from which he cuts it.

Tree farms.

And use of the scarce resource of the land is required to cut down that tree, just like the scarce resource of the ocean is required to fish.

So ownership of fisheries requires an area of ocean to be fenced off and have labour added to it?

If by fenced off you mean some sort of designator of property, I suppose.

My problem is that fisheries aren't really allocated on the basis of added labour or anything, which seems to be the basis of ownership in a self-onwership embracing conception of libertarianism.

Well if you will recall with Lockean homesteading, it is based on the principle of first use, which is the only objective, fair, rational principle for allocating property rights.

Smokey D

08-06-2009, 02:47 AM

Tree farms.

Yeah in which case he owns the land in the first place, but we're not disputing that that's possible. What I'm getting at is what action would be sufficient to generate the property rights in the first place? Would the lumberjack have to plant the trees?

Well if you will recall with Lockean homesteading, it is based on the principle of first use, which is the only objective, fair, rational principle for allocating property rights.

If I recall, it's subject to the proviso that taking is only justifiable if it doesn't derogate from the amount reasonably available to any other takers.

But we still haven't solved the riddle. What would be sufficient for first use? And, I suppose a subsidiary question is why don't my first use rights expire when the object my first use created has been removed? It's one thing to say I'm entitled to land because I improved it, but why do I maintain my entitlement if my improvement is removed?

siva_chair

08-06-2009, 03:03 AM

Yeah in which case he owns the land in the first place, but we're not disputing that that's possible. What I'm getting at is what action would be sufficient to generate the property rights in the first place? Would the lumberjack have to plant the trees?

No.

If I recall, it's subject to the proviso that taking is only justifiable if it doesn't derogate from the amount reasonably available to any other takers.

Which means you couldn't reasonably put up a huge fence around an area and say "This is mine." This is because you cannot reasonably cultivate all that land/ocean/etc.

A man cannot produce anything without the co-operation of original nature-given factors, if only as standing room. In order to produce and possess any capital good or consumers’ good, therefore, he must appropriate and use an original nature-given factor. He cannot form products purely out of his labor alone; he must mix his labor with original nature-given factors. Therefore, if property in land or other nature-given factors is to be denied man, he cannot obtain property in the fruits of his labor.

EDIT: Also, I don't believe in the priviso, tbh. I am a "neo-Lockean" in this respect.

But we still haven't solved the riddle. What would be sufficient for first use?

Being the first to utilize it and pluck the resource from its unowned state out of the commons.

And, I suppose a subsidiary question is why don't my first use rights expire when the object my first use created has been removed? It's one thing to say I'm entitled to land because I improved it, but why do I maintain my entitlement if my improvement is removed?

Because once a man mixes their labor with the land (or cultivated it), the man has appropriated the nature-given factor, and for anyone else to seize it would be an invasive act.

Smokey D

08-06-2009, 03:36 AM

Which means you couldn't reasonably put up a huge fence around an area and say "This is mine." This is because you cannot reasonably cultivate all that land/ocean/etc.

Yes I know.

A man cannot produce anything without the co-operation of original nature-given factors, if only as standing room. In order to produce and possess any capital good or consumers’ good, therefore, he must appropriate and use an original nature-given factor. He cannot form products purely out of his labor alone; he must mix his labor with original nature-given factors. Therefore, if property in land or other nature-given factors is to be denied man, he cannot obtain property in the fruits of his labor.

While I probably agree, I'm not quite sure why you quoted this.

Being the first to utilize it and pluck the resource from its unowned state out of the commons.

So me plucking an apple entitles me to the tree I took it from and an undefined area of land around it?

Because once a man mixes their labor with the land (or cultivated it), the man has appropriated the nature-given factor, and for anyone else to seize it would be an invasive act.

How have I mixed my labour with it if my improvements have gone?

siva_chair

08-06-2009, 03:51 AM

While I probably agree, I'm not quite sure why you quoted this.

Because it illustrates the principle of homesteading well.

So me plucking an apple entitles me to the tree I took it from and an undefined area of land around it?

It gives you first use of that tree to further cultivate it. Same with any surrounding land that is used for cultivation.

How have I mixed my labour with it if my improvements have gone?

Because first use principle grants right of possession to that land. It transfers the land from unowned, to owned.

Smokey D

08-06-2009, 04:40 AM

Because it illustrates the principle of homesteading well.

Well, yeah but it didn't really explain while harvesting should create full blown property rights equivalent to freehold title.

It gives you first use of that tree to further cultivate it. Same with any surrounding land that is used for cultivation.

Why? I haven't added anything. All I've done is take away.

Because first use principle grants right of possession to that land. It transfers the land from unowned, to owned.

Well I'm not sure why that right should exist for ever rather than for as long as the improvement subsists.

siva_chair

08-06-2009, 04:50 AM

Well, yeah but it didn't really explain while harvesting should create full blown property rights equivalent to freehold title.

Because he already mixed his labor with nature.

Why? I haven't added anything. All I've done is take away.

You have added labor to produce an edible apple (or an apple in a form fit for production). In other words, you have cultivated the apple and transformed it into a more useful form.

Well I'm not sure why that right should exist for ever rather than for as long as the improvement subsists.

Because he has already invested his labor into the land which creates a legitimate title. It is of no matter whether he continues to invest labor into this land. Just like it is no matter if I build a bookshelf and then sit it in my closet, never to be used. It is still legitimately mine, and no one else has the right to come just take it from me because it isn't being used at the moment.

And I don't see why it is necessary to keep "improving" something to have legitimate title.

Smokey D

08-06-2009, 04:56 AM

Because he already mixed his labor with the nature.

Yeah I do that by walking around as well. It seems to be a remarkably low threshold to create such extensive rights.

You have added labor to produce an edible apple (or an apple in a form fit for production).

Yah which explains why the apple becomes my property but not why I gain exclusive possession of the tree.

Because he has already invested his labor into the land which creates a legitimate title. It is of no matter whether he continues to invest labor into this land. Just like it is no matter if I build a bookshelf and then sit it in my closet, never to be used. It is still legitimately mine, and no one else has the right to come just take it from me because it isn't being used at the moment.

Unless you divest yourself of it, you own your bookcase for as long as it exists. Its existence is the embodiment of your labour and improvement. But if your book case is left so long that it rots away, you don't own anything.

Also, I don't see why extensive addition of labour by a second person shouldn't create an interest in same object which might defeat the interests of the first, if the first person's labour was minimal.

And I don't see why it is necessary to keep "improving" something to have legitimate title.

Because I see no reason you should be entitled to anything except the product of your labour.

siva_chair

08-06-2009, 05:08 AM

Yeah I do that by walking around as well. It seems to be a remarkably low threshold to create such extensive rights.

No you don't. You don't cultivate anything by merely walking around.

Yah which explains why the apple becomes my property but not why I gain exclusive possession of the tree.

Unless you claim it and designate it to be. Good title consists in uniting possession, right of possession, and right of property in the same person(s).

Unless you divest yourself of it, you own your bookcase for as long as it exists. Its existence is the embodiment of your labour and improvement. But if your book case is left so long that it rots away, you don't own anything.

The title's existence is an embodiment of your labor and such as well.

Also, I don't see why extensive addition of labour by a second person shouldn't create an interest in same object which might defeat the interests of the first, if the first person's labour was minimal.

Because if the second person invested the labor in the object without the first users consent, he has aggressed against the property of the first user and his claim isn't legitimate.

Because I see no reason you should be entitled to anything except the product of your labour.

Umm you are entitled to the land because of the product of your labor. You mixing your labor with nature creates a legitimate title (claim) to that land. Thus, ownership is the product of that input of labor into nature.

Smokey D

08-06-2009, 05:20 AM

No you don't. You don't cultivate anything by merely walking around.

I don't cultivate anything by pulling an apple from a tree either.

And if I walk as part of my effort to pluck an apple, how have I not added my labour?

Unless you claim it and designate it to be. Good title consists in uniting possession, right of possession, and right of property in the same person(s).

Okay so why does a pulling an apple from a tree create a freehold right?

The title's existence is an embodiment of your labor and such as well.

Well, yah a title over nothing isn't a real title.

Because if the second person invested the labor in the object without the first users consent, he has aggressed against the property of the first user and his claim isn't legitimate.

What if he was acting in good faith without notice?

And why should the first party benefit from the second party's labour?

Umm you are entitled to the land because of the product of your labor. You mixing your labor with nature creates a legitimate title (claim) to that land. Thus, ownership is the product of that input of labor into nature.

Well, I don't know why I should get title to the apple tree by plucking an apple. And I don't know why the title should stop with the tree.

TerranYouApart

08-06-2009, 05:31 AM

in a strict libertarian society i think that eating human meat would be the status equivalent of eating escargot for appetizers and drinking perrier currently

siva_chair

08-06-2009, 05:40 AM

I don't cultivate anything by pulling an apple from a tree either.

You cultivate an apple in a productive or usable form.

And if I walk as part of my effort to pluck an apple, how have I not added my labour?

Not to the ground you walk on.

You may be able to make the case if the path you walk on is required for you to make use of the tree (i.e. pick more fruit). Barring no other person already owns this land you are walking on.

Okay so why does a pulling an apple from a tree create a freehold right?

To the apple. To claim the tree you would probably need some sort of property demarcation like a fence or something.

Well, yah a title over nothing isn't a real title.

Land /= nothing.

What if he was acting in good faith without notice?

And why should the first party benefit from the second party's labour?

Ignorantia juris non excusat

And the first party benefits as compensation for the aggression of the second party.

Well, I don't know why I should get title to the apple tree by plucking an apple. And I don't know why the title should stop with the tree.

It doesn't in of itself. You need to think of the word 'use' of property teleologically not mechanically.

If you were walking through the wilderness and came across an apple tree, reached up, and plucked an apple, you would definitely own the apple, but I don't think you could make a legitimate claim for the whole tree unless you in fact utilized the tree and set sort of demarcation of property. For instance, say you picked lots of apples and sold them. You then built a fence around this tree. You would have a legitimate claim of property then, as you invested your labor (picking the fruit and building the fence to protect and designate the property) and produced grounds for title. Now, it matters little if I ever pick any more fruit from that tree as I now have legitimate title to the scarce resource that is that land (and the tree on the land).

Smokey D

08-06-2009, 05:50 AM

You cultivate an apple in a productive or usable form.

But by transforming the apple into an edible one, how have I added anything to the tree? The tree is not the subject of my cultivation, the apple is. My title should be restricted to the apple.

Not to the ground you walk on.

You may be able to make the case if the path you walk on is required for you to make use of the tree (i.e. pick more fruit). Barring no other person already owns this land you are walking on.

So the first creator of paths creates a right to exclude people the land on which paths have been created? Is the exclusive possession limited to the paths themselves or the land generally?

Ignorantia juris non excusat

And the first party benefits as compensation for the aggression of the second party.

Ignorance of the facts may excuse an offence.

And I struggle to think of good faith undertakings without notice as aggression. Aggression is fraud, theft or violence.

It doesn't in of itself. You need to think of the word 'use' of property teleologically not mechanically

Well, I understand it as a law student. But what do you mean?

If you were walking through the wilderness and came across an apple tree, reached up, and plucked an apple, you would definitely own the apple, but I don't think you could make a legitimate claim for the whole tree unless you in fact utilized the tree and set sort of demarcation of property.

This is what I have been saying.

You then built a fence around this tree. You would have a legitimate claim of property then, as you invested your labor (picking the fruit and building the fence to protect and designate the property) and produced grounds for title. Now, it matters little if I ever pick any more fruit from that tree as I now have legitimate title to the scarce resource that is that land (and the tree on the land).

Strictly speaking, though, you would be entitled to the tree alone right? I mean, you haven't cultivated anything except the tree, so you shouldn't have title to the land unless and until you modify the land itself.

But now that we've settled that, I think we need to pay more attention to the Lockean proviso. If me gaining exclusive possession over a resource derogates from the amount reasonably available for taking to the general population, how good is my title?

siva_chair

08-06-2009, 06:15 AM

But by transforming the apple into an edible one, how have I added anything to the tree? The tree is not the subject of my cultivation, the apple is. My title should be restricted to the apple.

Already covered this.

So the first creator of paths creates a right to exclude people the land on which paths have been created? Is the exclusive possession limited to the paths themselves or the land generally?

He has the right to exclude people from using that path.

Ignorance of the facts may excuse an offence.

And I struggle to think of good faith undertakings without notice as aggression. Aggression is fraud, theft or violence.

Well if the person used the property (and changed it in any way) without the consent of the owner it could be vandalism. If he used resources from the owners property it would be theft, etc.

Well, I understand it as a law student. But what do you mean?

I mean you need to understand the word "use" as it is used in Lockean property rights in a teleological sense instead of a mechanical sense. It does not mean something that is being physically used all the time.

This is what I have been saying.

Then what are you disagreeing with me for? I thought I mentioned this earlier when I said you would probably need to create some sort of demarcation to designate property claim.

Strictly speaking, though, you would be entitled to the tree alone right? I mean, you haven't cultivated anything except the tree, so you shouldn't have title to the land unless and until you modify the land itself.

The land around the tree is necessary to utilize the resource of the tree. This is easily solved with a fence or some sort of demarcation.

But now that we've settled that, I think we need to pay more attention to the Lockean proviso. If me gaining exclusive possession over a resource derogates from the amount reasonably available for taking to the general population, how good is my title?

I don't believe in the proviso though.

If it is through homesteading that property rights arise, then un-homesteaded
land ipso facto cannot come with property strings already attached. In other words, the general population has no inherent "right" to this land to begin with.

Smokey D

08-06-2009, 06:27 AM

Well if the person used the property (and changed it in any way) without the consent of the owner it could be vandalism. If he used resources from the owners property it would be theft, etc.

Well, I'm inclined to think that intention is relevant to whether something is morally culpable. I can't really see why it would be fair to punish someone acting without fault.

I suppose it depends whether they have actually reduced the value of the property in question.

I mean you need to understand the word "use" as it is used in Lockean property rights in a teleological sense instead of a mechanical sense. It does not mean something that is being physically used all the time.

This is what exclusive possession means in law.

Then what are you disagreeing with me for? I thought I mentioned this earlier when I said you would probably need to create some sort of demarcation to designate property claim.

I don't see as demarcating the property as sufficient to give rise to full rights of ownership either, otherwise I could fence off the world and thereby claim it, which you have said is not allowed.

If it is through homesteading that property rights arise, then un-homesteaded
land ipso facto cannot come with property strings already attached. In other words, the general population has no inherent "right" to this land to begin with.

So I can fence off hte world?

siva_chair

08-06-2009, 06:40 AM

Well, I'm inclined to think that intention is relevant to whether something is morally culpable. I can't really see why it would be fair to punish someone acting without fault.

I suppose it depends whether they have actually reduced the value of the property in question.

Yes.

This is what exclusive possession means in law.

I know. Which is why even if you stop actually using legitimately owned land, you still have legitimate ownership (exclusive possession)

I don't see as demarcating the property as sufficient to give rise to full rights of ownership either, otherwise I could fence off the world and thereby claim it, which you have said is not allowed.

And I already explained why, but I suppose you are just going to ignore it.

All a person would have to do is mow the grass or rake the sand or something in that fenced in property and viola, problem solved. I don't see why you are adding all these silly hypotheticals. If there is a claim dispute, that is what arbitration is for.

So I can fence off hte world?

You can try but I don't really see how you are going to enforce that (or get anyone to enforce that). Particularly since plenty of land has already been homesteaded and legitimately claimed, and you trespassing on it to build your fence would be an act of aggression so good luck.

Smokey D

08-06-2009, 06:46 AM

And I already explained why, but I suppose you are just going to ignore it.

All a person would have to do is mow the grass or rake the sand or something in that fenced in property and viola, problem solved. I don't see why you are adding all these silly hypotheticals. If there is a claim dispute, that is what arbitration is for.

Well, I saw what you wrote but I'm not sure I agree the merest of labours can give rise to the fullest of rights. You appear to have accepted this to a degree, given our discussion re the apple.

It seems a more credible account of the role of labour and 'mixing self-ownership' is that low intensity use can give rise to usufruct rights in particular items on the land (the right to take apples from a tree or fish from a stream, for example), and these rights have the potential to mature into full rights of exclusive possession if the intensity of use increases. An usufructary can prevent people from interfering with their limited rights, but does not have the right to ejectment or exclusive control. State of mind is probably relevant, so if a person thinks they have done enough to create a right to exclusive possession, their acts are more likely to be construed as having perfected their title; if they never intended their acts to create an exclusive title, it will require more intense use to create full rights .

You can try but I don't really see how you are going to enforce that (or get anyone to enforce that). Particularly since plenty of land has already been homesteaded and legitimately claimed, and you trespassing on it to build your fence would be an act of aggression so good luck.

Well, I'm talking about hypotheticals since the pedigree of title is vital this account of distributive justice.

If I went to the moon and put a flag on it and declared it mine, would my title extend as far as there was no rival claim (presumably encompassing the whole thing)?

siva_chair

08-06-2009, 06:56 AM

Well, I saw what you wrote but I'm not sure I agree the merest of labours can give rise to the fullest of rights. You appear to have accepted this to a degree, given our discussion re the apple.

Well I never said that if you pick an ear of corn, you then own the whole cornfield....

Well, I'm talking about hypotheticals since the pedigree of title is vital this account of distributive justice.

If I went to the moon and put a flag on it and declared it mine, would my title extend as far as there was no rival claim (presumably encompassing the whole thing)?

I will answer this later I have to go right now.

Smokey D

08-06-2009, 06:58 AM

Well I never said that if you pick an ear of corn, you then own the whole cornfield....

Well, I see no obvious reason why not. Without the proviso, I don't see that there is any reasonable stopping point except when my rights run up against other people's rights. Presumably at some point one person created property in land before anyone else (i.e. there were no competing rights to constrain his) and thus came to own the whole world.

Der Übermensch

08-06-2009, 12:08 PM

Rules on private property are decided on the basis of private property.
Huh? I'm referring to laws which govern stuff like Murder, Rape, Assault, Theft and such. You know, ones that have nothing to do with whether it is on private or public property. I have no more right to murder someone in the privacy of my own home than I do if I went down to the Mall.

Oh but those things are infringing on my right to freedom of expression.
As I said before, the right to swing ones fist ends at the other persons nose. Freedom of Speech does not protect you from charges of arson.

Of course it is.
What you like being able to do and what you have the right to do aren't necessarily the same thing. I like having a playstation 3, but that doesn't justify me stealing one from a store.
Your analogy does not make much sense compared to what I was saying. I like being able to protest in front of the White House, sure, but I also happen to have the RIGHT to do it, and I was commenting on that I LIKE having that RIGHT.
You like having a Playstation 3, but you don't have the RIGHT to simply take one. You're analogy isn't about liking the RIGHT to have a PS3. There is no entitlement for you towards it. Only the ability to purchase it.

Also, if it has nothing to do with broadcasting it to a large audience, why does it matter if you do it in a public place? Afterall, you can protest on your own land. It is the principle of it, right?
For someone who espouses Libertarian ideals, you sure put little stock in social liberties. Honestly, I don't have a satisfactory answer to "why does it matter if you do it in a public place." It probably doesn't matter. What matters is that no one can tell me I can't if I want to, no matter how insignificant my protest may be.

"Freedom of speech" cannot be upheld as an absolute except as it is subsumed under the general rights of property of the individual.
I won't completely disagree with that sentiment, except for the fact that I know when explicated, what that would, in your opinion, entail. If the everything is turned into private property, than all social rights are excessively curtailed.
Freedom of speech obviously does not apply to private property, we can both agree on that. The landowner governs what is allowable there. But that is exactly why the existence of public property is so essential. To provide an arena for the marketplace of ideas. Public discourse is exactly why we have the freedom of speech in the first place.

To quote Mill, "If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he were to have the power, would be in silencing mankind. [...] The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion, is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error." (Seriously, Chapter two of On Liberty, is, imo, one of the most important sections of writing in Western thought).

I know. Which is why even if you stop actually using legitimately owned land, you still have legitimate ownership (exclusive possession)
You need to reread the Second Treatise on Government...

siva_chair

08-06-2009, 11:26 PM

Well, I see no obvious reason why not. Without the proviso, I don't see that there is any reasonable stopping point except when my rights run up against other people's rights. Presumably at some point one person created property in land before anyone else (i.e. there were no competing rights to constrain his) and thus came to own the whole world.

There is a reasonable stopping point. It is called not being able to actually utilize the volume of the land to originally appropriate it.

Just as Columbus couldn't arrive in the New World and gaze out and say "Mine," neither could anyone else do that with the moon or anything else. It is quite clear that you have to cultivate the land to appropriate it. Once appropriated, however, there is no requirement that land continue to be used in order for it to continue to be a man’s property. If, for example, I homestead a piece of ground (say I'm thinking of building a factory on it or something like that). I clear the ground, fence it off (or whatever), and therefore obtain title for it. I then decide that the factory would be unprofitable so I don't build it. The land, however, is still mine because I have irretrievably mixed my labor with the land. I can let it sit indefinitely if I wish.

Huh? I'm referring to laws which govern stuff like Murder, Rape, Assault, Theft and such. You know, ones that have nothing to do with whether it is on private or public property. I have no more right to murder someone in the privacy of my own home than I do if I went down to the Mall.

Murder, rape, assault, and theft are wrong because they aggress against the property of others. Thus, they can be subsumed under property rights.

As I said before, the right to swing ones fist ends at the other persons nose. Freedom of Speech does not protect you from charges of arson.

Why not? I'm not burning any person or even their private property, I'm demonstrating on PUBLIC property remember? Free to use.

Your analogy does not make much sense compared to what I was saying. I like being able to protest in front of the White House, sure, but I also happen to have the RIGHT to do it, and I was commenting on that I LIKE having that RIGHT.
You like having a Playstation 3, but you don't have the RIGHT to simply take one. You're analogy isn't about liking the RIGHT to have a PS3. There is no entitlement for you towards it. Only the ability to purchase it.

So rights are just derived from what the government says is right and wrong?

For someone who espouses Libertarian ideals, you sure put little stock in social liberties. Honestly, I don't have a satisfactory answer to "why does it matter if you do it in a public place." It probably doesn't matter. What matters is that no one can tell me I can't if I want to, no matter how insignificant my protest may be.

Social liberties are subsumed under property rights. You DON'T have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater, and as you have acknowleged for good reason. Your freedom of speech requires property whether you realize it or not. It requires you to own yourself, and it requires you a medium for speech or demonstration. You don't have a right to steal or rob people so you can have a place to say whatever you want.

I won't completely disagree with that sentiment, except for the fact that I know when explicated, what that would, in your opinion, entail. If the everything is turned into private property, than all social rights are excessively curtailed.
Freedom of speech obviously does not apply to private property, we can both agree on that. The landowner governs what is allowable there. But that is exactly why the existence of public property is so essential. To provide an arena for the marketplace of ideas. Public discourse is exactly why we have the freedom of speech in the first place.

No, we can't both agree on that because freedom of speech is only a right because you own exclusive right to your body (property rights). A person does not have a “right to freedom of speech.” What he does have is the right to hire a hall/theater/etc and address the people who enter the premises. He doesn't have a “right to freedom of the press.” What he does have is the right to write or publish a pamphlet/newpaper/etc, and to sell that to those who are willing to buy it (or to give it away to those who are willing to accept it). Thus, what he has in each of these cases is property rights.

By treating "social rights" etc as something other than property rights only leads to confusion and the weakening of the very concept of rights. Take the "fire!" in a crowded theater example: If by treating speech as some seperate right from property rights, we can see that it is not an absolute right and subject to the whims of "public policy." Yet if we analyze the problem in terms of property rights we can see that no weakening of the absoluteness of rights is necessary.

To quote Mill, "If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he were to have the power, would be in silencing mankind. [...] The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion, is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error." (Seriously, Chapter two of On Liberty, is, imo, one of the most important sections of writing in Western thought).

Yet we can silence a person who falsly yells fire? We can stop someone from demonstrating by lighting a fire in a public place? We are robbing people of dissent dammit! I also find it kind of amusing that you speak of robbing people of abstract things like ideas, but you have no problem robbing people of actual wealth to fund "public" places.

Your concept of rights simply isn't absolute, but rather wishy washy.

You need to reread the Second Treatise on Government...

No, I really don't.

Smokey D

08-07-2009, 01:00 AM

There is a reasonable stopping point. It is called not being able to actually utilize the volume of the land to originally appropriate it.

Well yes that's a reasonable stopping point, but you denied the proviso. We don't have rights to stop someone from building the fence and making everything contained within it his.

Just as Columbus couldn't arrive in the New World and gaze out and say "Mine," neither could anyone else do that with the moon or anything else.

Well, Columbus couldn't do that because his claim would run up against the competing claims of hte original inhabitants. But on the moon there are no original inhabitants, so what is to stop the extension of my title to encompass the whole thing?

It is quite clear that you have to cultivate the land to appropriate it. Once appropriated, however, there is no requirement that land continue to be used in order for it to continue to be a man’s property.

Well perhaps but it's not at all what is sufficient to establish what sort of property right. You seem to be suggesting that even the merest addition of labour can give rise to full and indefeasible rights of beneficial ownership. So why isn't me building a fence around a given block sufficient to establish my title over everything contained within it?

If, for example, I homestead a piece of ground (say I'm thinking of building a factory on it or something like that). I clear the ground, fence it off (or whatever), and therefore obtain title for it. I then decide that the factory would be unprofitable so I don't build it. The land, however, is still mine because I have irretrievably mixed my labor with the land. I can let it sit indefinitely if I wish.

I should make it clear I don't really buy the mystical process by which I mix my labour with property and so claim title. I see it as a device to explain things rather than as an ontological reality.

But sure, I can accept that in some circumstances you can sit on your land idly more or less indefinitely and retain title.

But if the land reverts to its natural state and there are no markers indicating your prior ownership and a second person, acting in ignorance of your title and in good faith, improves the same lot of land to a higher state than you ever did (say, actually builds the factory), does he really have no interest in the land?

It seems to me that you are only entitled to the marginal improvements. You can't claim everything you have mixed your labour with, only what you have improved or altered and only to that extent.

siva_chair

08-07-2009, 02:10 AM

Well yes that's a reasonable stopping point, but you denied the proviso. We don't have rights to stop someone from building the fence and making everything contained within it his.

Except merely building fences isn't adding labor to the land contained within the fences. You still have to appropriate the land legitimately. We already covered this.

And I deny the priviso in the sense that once a legitimate title is acquired, you can do with the land what you will.

Well, Columbus couldn't do that because his claim would run up against the competing claims of hte original inhabitants. But on the moon there are no original inhabitants, so what is to stop the extension of my title to encompass the whole thing?

If you added your labor to all of the moon that you are claiming, you would have proper title over it.

And the Columbus example was just to illustrate that you couldn't just say "Mine" and it be a legitimate title. I realize that there were other inhabitants (which is also why your fence everything in example is absurd as well).

Well perhaps but it's not at all what is sufficient to establish what sort of property right. You seem to be suggesting that even the merest addition of labour can give rise to full and indefeasible rights of beneficial ownership. So why isn't me building a fence around a given block sufficient to establish my title over everything contained within it?

Because you haven't added labor to everything contained within it. If you fenced it off and cut the grass or cleared it, or something like that, then you have invested labor and you have legitimate title.

I should make it clear I don't really buy the mystical process by which I mix my labour with property and so claim title. I see it as a device to explain things rather than as an ontological reality.

Well no one said it was really a mystical process, but if you believe you own yourself (and by extension your labor), it rationally follows.

"Though the earth and all inferior creatures be common to all men, yet every man has a "property" in his own "person." This nobody has any right to but himself. The "labour" of his body and the "work" of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that Nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with it, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property."

I will try to clarify my position a bit here. Property is a praxeological, not a physicalist, concept (though with solid objects and land property, the physical concept and the praxeological concept yield similar results). One's property is only in 'means of action,' not in things as such. It is an exclusive claim to the use of a scarce resource. By mixing your labor with this resource, you are gaining a legitimate title on praxeological grounds.

But sure, I can accept that in some circumstances you can sit on your land idly more or less indefinitely and retain title.

But if the land reverts to its natural state and there are no markers indicating your prior ownership and a second person, acting in ignorance of your title and in good faith, improves the same lot of land to a higher state than you ever did (say, actually builds the factory), does he really have no interest in the land?

That would probably be a decision for an arbitration service to decide. This, however, doesn't negate the homesteading principle or property rights at all, since the purpose of a judicial system is to discover the law.

It seems to me that you are only entitled to the marginal improvements. You can't claim everything you have mixed your labour with, only what you have improved or altered and only to that extent.

That is what mixing your labor means. And I'm not understanding what you mean by "only to that extent."

EDIT: The first use principle is simply the fairest, most consistent, just rationale for titles and property.

Smokey D

08-07-2009, 02:23 AM

Except merely building fences isn't adding labor to the land contained within the fences. You still have to appropriate the land legitimately. We already covered this.

Well, why? How have I mixed my labour with the land more thoroughly by tilling it than by fencing it?

If you added your labor to all of the moon that you are claiming, you would have proper title over it.

Well, by my labours I have made the moon accessible just as by my labours I make the apple I pluck edible. If the latter is sufficient to confer title, why not the former?

And the Columbus example was just to illustrate that you couldn't just say "Mine" and it be a legitimate title. I realize that there were other inhabitants (which is also why your fence everything in example is absurd as well).

Yes well all the Columbus example establishes is that where there are previous owners title can't go on forever. It doesn't explain why title should end at point A and not point Z

Because you haven't added labor to everything contained within it. If you fenced it off and cut the grass or cleared it, or something like that, then you have invested labor and you have legitimate title.

Again, why? Why do I need to take the additional step?

Well no one said it was really a mystical process, but if you believe you own yourself (and by extension your labor), it rationally follows.

Not really since your body is ontologically separate from the world around it. It would be quite an amazing thing if you could change the nature of the world simply by adding labour too it.

"Though the earth and all inferior creatures be common to all men, yet every man has a "property" in his own "person." This nobody has any right to but himself. The "labour" of his body and the "work" of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that Nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with it, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property."

Well, to be honest I read that as conferring an interest in the marginal product of one's labour not in whatever ones labour has touched.

I will try to clarify my position a bit here. Property is a praxeological, not a physicalist, concept (though with solid objects and land property, the physical concept and the praxeological concept yield similar results). One's property is only in 'means of action,' not in things as such. It is an exclusive claim to the use of a scarce resource. By mixing your labor with this resource, you are gaining a legitimate title on praxeological grounds.

I don't like the jargon but this isn't new to me. Property is a relational concept.

That would probably be a decision for an arbitration service to decide. This, however, doesn't negate the homesteading principle or property rights at all, since the purpose of a judicial system is to discover the law.

Er, well a) that's a non sequitur and b) that's a very controversial proposition and c) it negates the idea that your interests are absolute and intransgressable.

That is what mixing your labor means. And I'm not understanding what you mean by "only to that extent."

Well, mixing my labour doesn't entitle me to the land itself it entitles me to the fruitful production of the land, derived from my labour, and perhaps it gives me a right to exclusive possession so long as the land continues to bear the fruit of my labour.

siva_chair

08-07-2009, 02:58 AM

Well, why? How have I mixed my labour with the land more thoroughly by tilling it than by fencing it?

Because by fencing it you have only mixed your labor with the land in which the fence sits.

Well, by my labours I have made the moon accessible just as by my labours I make the apple I pluck edible. If the latter is sufficient to confer title, why not the former?

You haven't done anything to the moon except plant a flag on it. You could argue that you have gained legitimate title of the area of the moon that the flag sits on and the land that is required to use the flag.

Yes well all the Columbus example establishes is that where there are previous owners title can't go on forever. It doesn't explain why title should end at point A and not point Z

Because Columbus didn't add any labor to the point up until Z so he hasn't established legitimate title.

Again, why? Why do I need to take the additional step?

Because it is still wilderness and you haven't added any labor to it to appropriate it this is how the homesteading principle works.

Not really since your body is ontologically separate from the world around it. It would be quite an amazing thing if you could change the nature of the world simply by adding labour too it.

People change the world around them by adding their labor to it all the time what are you talking about?

Labor is a product of your being. You own your labor.

Now please don't tell me you are going to deny self-ownership, because we have already discussed that previously.

Well, to be honest I read that as conferring an interest in the marginal product of one's labour not in whatever ones labour has touched.

That is what is meant by what one's labor has touched.

I don't like the jargon but this isn't new to me. Property is a relational concept.

I don't see what is wrong with the jargon at all. Sums it up perfectly. Property is a means of action.

Er, well a) that's a non sequitur and b) that's a very controversial proposition

Don't care if it is controversial, it is logically sound and ethical.

and c) it negates the idea that your interests are absolute and intransgressable.

Not at all. Agreeing to arbitration is a voluntary way of disputing conflicts.

Well, mixing my labour doesn't entitle me to the land itself it entitles me to the fruitful production of the land, derived from my labour, and perhaps it gives me a right to exclusive possession so long as the land continues to bear the fruit of my labour.

No, it entitles you to the exclusive use of that scarce resource. Once you have mixed your labor with the land, (and there are objective traces of this) then property, i.e., the right of exclusive control has bestowed upon you the title for the use of that scarce resource. A title has been created as an objective demarcation of that ownership, and the person is now entitled to do what they will with control over that scarce resource. The title to that scarce resource can then only be acquired by a contractual transfer of property titles from a previous to a later owner.

Der Übermensch

08-07-2009, 12:20 PM

Murder, rape, assault, and theft are wrong because they aggress against the property of others. Thus, they can be subsumed under property rights.
You know I'm referring to the fact that you can't do them in the privacy of your own home... They supersede the sanctity of private property in that regard.

Why not? I'm not burning any person or even their private property, I'm demonstrating on PUBLIC property remember? Free to use.
Huh? Arson would involve burning someone's private property... I just said you DO have the right to do it on public property as long as it wouldn't lead to arson or undue harm to people...

So rights are just derived from what the government says is right and wrong?
Rights are derived from our ability to act without harming others.

Social liberties are subsumed under property rights. You DON'T have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater, and as you have acknowleged for good reason. Your freedom of speech requires property whether you realize it or not.
As I said, I agree with the sentiment as you expressed it there, but not as completly explicated in your viewpoint.

It requires you to own yourself,
That would imply it would be possible to not own oneself.

and it requires you a medium for speech or demonstration.
The ability to speak...?

You don't have a right to steal or rob people so you can have a place to say whatever you want.
I'm getting tired of you acting like I'm not saying these things myself. I have already admitted this fact. It is one of the main reasons I am arguing that the existence of public areas are so essential. So you have areas to say whatever you want.

No, we can't both agree on that because freedom of speech is only a right because you own exclusive right to your body (property rights). A person does not have a “right to freedom of speech.” What he does have is the right to hire a hall/theater/etc and address the people who enter the premises. He doesn't have a “right to freedom of the press.” What he does have is the right to write or publish a pamphlet/newpaper/etc, and to sell that to those who are willing to buy it (or to give it away to those who are willing to accept it). Thus, what he has in each of these cases is property rights.
Perhaps I stated that poorly. I think I should have said "on private property" instead of "to". I'm referring to the fact that on ones property, you have the final say. If I own a house, and you visit, you have to obey my rules, just like I have to obey yours if I am on your land.

By treating "social rights" etc as something other than property rights only leads to confusion and the weakening of the very concept of rights. Take the "fire!" in a crowded theater example: If by treating speech as some seperate right from property rights, we can see that it is not an absolute right and subject to the whims of "public policy." Yet if we analyze the problem in terms of property rights we can see that no weakening of the absoluteness of rights is necessary.
As I said, that passage was poorly stated. Social rights can be seen as a form of property right if you want. The possession of self, of ideas and so on. But it doesn't change the fact that violating them is wrong. If we put speech down as "property", the expression of an idea possessed, I still will call silencing speech to be illegitimate. In the case of "Fire!" in a crowded theater, it is using property as a weapon. Assault. Knowingly attacking people by putting them into panic in a situation where it can be reasonably suspected harm will come to them from it.

Yet we can silence a person who falsly yells fire?
If we can reasonably suspect doing it would lead to a panic which would injure people. The one and only legitimate role of government is to protect us from others.

We can stop someone from demonstrating by lighting a fire in a public place?
For ****'s sake. I said that people CAN light fire on public places. I only said that you can't commit arson, as it is a crime against property.

I also find it kind of amusing that you speak of robbing people of abstract things like ideas, but you have no problem robbing people of actual wealth to fund "public" places.
I'd love to see you quote the passage where I said that. I've been sticking to civil liberties in this thread.

Your concept of rights simply isn't absolute, but rather wishy washy.
Its quite absolute. Fist =/= Nose.

No, I really don't.
Its only the major pillar of post 1950-Libertarian thought...

But anyways, I mentioned it because he talks extensively about how you don't have the right to hold property and let it waste, as it causes harm to others.... "The exceeding of the bounds of his just property not lying in the largeness of his possession, but in the perishing of anything uselessly in it."

Haliburton

08-07-2009, 01:14 PM

Rights are derived from our ability to act without harming others. then whats harm

is coercing another individual to provide you with rights with a threat of force harm

Der Übermensch

08-07-2009, 02:15 PM

If someone is depriving you of your rights, you certainly can be justified in fighting for them, if thats what you mean.

Haliburton

08-07-2009, 05:09 PM

no i mean theres a distinction between rights and privileges which is key to libertarianism

rights are entitlements which dont require infringements on the equal rights of other individuals to maintain, whereas privileges do

e.g healthcare is a privilege because one must infringe upon the right of free trade to provide it

free speech is a right so far as you are free to say what you like, but privilege enters when you think you should have the right to a piece of property on which to voice your opinions without limit since providing that piece of property requires infringement on someone elses right to something else

Der Übermensch

08-07-2009, 05:49 PM

That would depend on what you consider the philosophical meaning of "right" to be... If he is banned, do I even need to bother...?

Wickerton

08-07-2009, 05:51 PM

ya because im still here

right as in right and wrong or what

seems like you want to force your arbitrary worldview on others to me, why are the rights you think you should have worth aggressing against people for

Der Übermensch

08-07-2009, 06:01 PM

right as in right and wrong or what
Right as in the inalienable rights possessed by mankind. Life, Liberty, Property and all that jazz. The love-child of Locke and Mill would be a pretty good approximation. Locke was more concerned with property, Mill with ideas.

seems like you want to force your arbitrary worldview on others to me, why are the rights you think you should have worth aggressing against people for
Um... where did I say that? Aggression against others wouldn't fall within the category of rights. I said you can fight an oppressor. Creating a state of war is not correct, but if someone else does so against you, then you can do as needed.

Wickerton

08-07-2009, 06:06 PM

how do you propose to have a right to a forum for free expression of views without resorting to aggression

to fund public land you need taxes, to obtain taxes you need to use aggression

to force people to let you use private land for free speech you also need to use aggression

thats what im saying, the right to a place for your free speech is a privilege, not a right

Der Übermensch

08-07-2009, 06:16 PM

Edit: Lockean Justification of Taxes.

Starting with the latter, the root of Locke’s theory is found in a small number of provisos lain out in his Treatises on Government, namely those concerned with the nature of property and possession. Theoretically, man begins in a state of nature, with all goods held in common. Although Locke is quite clear that through labor man is able to take these goods for himself through his labor and thus make it his property, at the same time he places certain limits upon this. To take more than you need, and thus to allow goods to possibly spoil, is a breach of the laws of nature, for as he states, “nothing was made by God for Man to spoil or destroy.” Further more, as property is being created from that which was formerly held in common with all men, any given man can only take from nature an amount that will leave just as good a quantity for the rest. [...]
Everyone starting with nothing, and given equal opportunity in the state of nature to take equally from the bounty of the land is one thing, but whether or not this situation ever did exist, we certainly can see it is not the case now. Instead, the world is one of inequality. If one man possesses much and another nothing, and they reside in a world where all that was common has long since been claimed as private property, the latter man has cause of grievance against all those who possess property via the provisos of Locke. As he has no access to anything as plentiful and as what the titled hold, his natural rights are being violated. Since new common property can’t be created from nothing to provide for this poor soul, the only logical conclusion is that those who unjustly possess more than their fair share of the once common wealth are obligated to provide for those lacking in means and opportunity.
That being said though, it is wrong to take from this interpretation that such individuals should expect to rely on others for their sustenance. While Locke may have hoped that everyone could in theory be titled to a fair distribution of property, he whole-heartedly supported the system that almost certainly led to the inequality that caused the previous situation. In the provisos, as stated, he tells us that a man must not hoard goods. Later on though, he qualifies this statement, clarifying that “the exceeding of the bounds of his just Property [is not] in the largeness of his Possession, but the perishing of anything uselesly in it.” That is to say, there is nothing wrong with hoarding goods in of itself, but rather the evil of such acts comes from when those goods are allowed to spoil. The logical result of this is the development of money. Whereas previously a man could, by the laws of nature, only collect as many apples as he would be able to eat before they went bad, with the institution of currency he now can collect as many apples as he is able, and instead of letting them lay to rot, trade them to another in exchange for a medium representative of the value.
So despite the fact that Locke writes that “Charity gives every Man a Title to so much out of another’s Plenty, as will keep him from extream want,” it can not escape that fact that on the other side of that declaration, Locke explicitly accepts the mechanisms that would lead to such inequality in the first place.
What obligation to the disadvantaged that exists is only due to the fact that men have the right to accumulate inordinate amounts of wealth. To do so to the extent as to cause the actual death of another human being through deprivation would be almost analogous to Locke’s State of War, as it would violate a fundamental law of nature, namely that Man must always be preserved. When laying out the extent of governmental power, Locke is quite adamant about the sanctity of property when he says, “the Supream Power cannot take from any Man any part of his Property without his own consent.” It can be implicitly assumed that a man would always consent to giving from his own wealth so as to keep another alive, if but for the reason that to do otherwise would be to enter into a State of War with the needy individual, but to be forced to give beyond such a situation would be a breach of property rights.

For the tldr crowd, in a sentence, Taxes are allowable only to the degree that they are necessary in preventing harm to others in situations directly related to the inequality of property, for to not allow ones self to be taxed in such a situation would be aggression against your fellow man.

I wrote a second essay which more directly addressed the use of taxes in a Lockean context, but I can't seem to find it :(

Edit two: I just reread your post and realized I should also address a different angle you brought up, as this didn't. You said "thats what im saying, the right to a place for your free speech is a privilege, not a right." And while I don't agree with that, even if I did concede that the right to a place for free speech isn't a right (that sounds weird...) I would still insist that it is a necessity for the health of society (see the earlier passage from Mill).

Smokey D

08-07-2009, 08:14 PM

Because by fencing it you have only mixed your labor with the land in which the fence sits.

Presumably then no one may lawfully cross the boundary delineated by my fence without my consent, for that is a trespass against the land which I have made mine. Since no one may violate any of my rights in order to further their own ends, I can exclude everyone on the wrong side of the fence. So everything contained within the fence, though not mine, is inaccessible to the world. Denied to the world, I would be free to add the land within the fence line to my dominium at my leisure, and even if I didn't it would still be excluded from the land generally available for acquisition.
The only way people could gain access to the land contained within the fence would be to breach my property rights, which you have said is not permissible.

You haven't done anything to the moon except plant a flag on it. You could argue that you have gained legitimate title of the area of the moon that the flag sits on and the land that is required to use the flag.

So I must physically alter or impose myself on every piece of earth I claim to be mine to support good title?

Because Columbus didn't add any labor to the point up until Z so he hasn't established legitimate title.

He made the New World accessible to the Old. You have said accessibility is enough to support good title.

Because it is still wilderness and you haven't added any labor to it to appropriate it this is how the homesteading principle works.

I understand that's what the homestead principle says but I don't see it as the neat and obvious solution you have presented it as.

People change the world around them by adding their labor to it all the time what are you talking about?

They don't change its metaphysical character.

Labor is a product of your being. You own your labor.

Exactly. I own my labour and the product of my labour. I cannot own what my labour did not make, so my title is limited to the extent my labour changed the object.

Now please don't tell me you are going to deny self-ownership, because we have already discussed that previously.

I do deny it as an ontological reality. I see it as a thought experiment.

That is what is meant by what one's labor has touched.

But it is limited to the marginal product of your labour, so you don't come to own everything your labour has touched however briefly.

[quote]I don't see what is wrong with the jargon at all. Sums it up perfectly. Property is a means of action.

I don't really know what praxeology means. It seems like a pretty dumb word.

Don't care if it is controversial, it is logically sound and ethical.

It's controversial in the sense that most people would say it misdescribes how judges interact with the law. I'd say it's incredibly naieve to think judges are only discovering the law. And I don't get how it is 'logical' or 'ethical'.

Not at all. Agreeing to arbitration is a voluntary way of disputing conflicts.

Well, you have said that the merest of labour creates an absolute and inviolable interest in the land in perpetuity. If you recognise that the second person has an interest capable of taking to arbitration, you recognise that the first person's rights can be diminished.

No, it entitles you to the exclusive use of that scarce resource. Once you have mixed your labor with the land, (and there are objective traces of this) then property, i.e., the right of exclusive control has bestowed upon you the title for the use of that scarce resource. A title has been created as an objective demarcation of that ownership, and the person is now entitled to do what they will with control over that scarce resource. The title to that scarce resource can then only be acquired by a contractual transfer of property titles from a previous to a later owner.

I see nothing obvious and just about this argument.

Der Übermensch

08-07-2009, 09:12 PM

I see nothing obvious and just about this argument.

"He that is nourished by the acorns he picked up under an oak, or the apples he gathered from the trees in the wood, has certainly appropriated them to himself. No body can deny but the nourishment is his. I ask then, when did they begin to be his? when he digested? or when he eat? or when he boiled? or when he brought them home? or when he picked them up? and it is plain, if the first gathering made them not his, nothing else could. That labour put a distinction between them and common: that added something to them more than nature, the common mother of all, had done; and so they became his private right. "

Smokey D

08-07-2009, 09:34 PM

Yes I accept that picking up unclaimed objects is probably sufficient to create title in them. But I don't accept that picking up the apples or acorns or what have you is enough to create absolute and unlimited rights to the land you took them from. I don't see how it creates an indefinite and unqualified right.

Der Übermensch

08-09-2009, 03:10 AM

It doesn't It gives you right to what you can use without spoilage,. you can convert excess into non spoilable wealth though.

Smokey D

08-09-2009, 04:23 AM

Does it give you a right to anything other than what your labour has created?

siva_chair

08-09-2009, 04:29 AM

You know I'm referring to the fact that you can't do them in the privacy of your own home... They supersede the sanctity of private property in that regard.

No, you don’t understand. Murder, rape, etc. isn’t allowed even on private property because they involve aggressing against another’s property: their person. Thus, they are based in property rights. No one said you can use your property rights to aggress against another's property rights.

Huh? Arson would involve burning someone's private property... I just said you DO have the right to do it on public property as long as it wouldn't lead to arson or undue harm to people...

So I can start a big fire that blocks traffic for purpose of demonstration?

Rights are derived from our ability to act without harming others.

Too bad public property requires aggressing against the property of others.

That would imply it would be possible to not own oneself.

And now you see why murder and such is wrong. It also demonstrates why libertarian ethics are implied by anyone that argues anything whether they realize it or not.

The ability to speak...?

That and a medium be it television, newspaper, the ground to stand on, etc. Whatever is neccessary for your speech to be effective at being excercised, as it were. It is all dependant on property rights. You don’t have the right to steal or rob people so you can say whatever you want.

I'm getting tired of you acting like I'm not saying these things myself. I have already admitted this fact. It is one of the main reasons I am arguing that the existence of public areas are so essential. So you have areas to say whatever you want.

Except public places inherently require you to steal from people so they can exist and be maintained.

Pragmatically speaking, “society” cannot own anything, only individuals can.

Perhaps I stated that poorly. I think I should have said "on private property" instead of "to". I'm referring to the fact that on ones property, you have the final say. If I own a house, and you visit, you have to obey my rules, just like I have to obey yours if I am on your land.

Yes. And it doesn’t take much insight to see that “public places” inherently involve stealing from people so they can exist. You don’t agree with theft, do you?

As I said, that passage was poorly stated. Social rights can be seen as a form of property right if you want. The possession of self, of ideas and so on. But it doesn't change the fact that violating them is wrong. If we put speech down as "property", the expression of an idea possessed, I still will call silencing speech to be illegitimate. In the case of "Fire!" in a crowded theater, it is using property as a weapon. Assault. Knowingly attacking people by putting them into panic in a situation where it can be reasonably suspected harm will come to them from it.

I never said you had the right to assault someone to silence them. If you are saying something on my property that I don’t like, I am perfectly within my rights to tell you to leave. If you don’t, you are trespassing. This doesn’t mean I get to punch you in the face for saying something I don’t like. I never said anything of the sort.

What I am saying, however, is that by demanding public property, you are advocating stealing.

If we can reasonably suspect doing it would lead to a panic which would injure people. The one and only legitimate role of government is to protect us from others.

Government (in the sense of a state apparatus, which is what anarchists of all types are against) is not required for that.

Also, the state isn’t justified in harming others (by stealing from people) so they can take that role on for themselves.

For ****'s sake. I said that people CAN light fire on public places. I only said that you can't commit arson, as it is a crime against property.

You have repeatedly called for “public property” which requires theft to fund. Unless you can demonstrate how public property can be maintained without aggression and theft.....?

Hint: It cannot, therefore public property is illegitimate.

I'd love to see you quote the passage where I said that. I've been sticking to civil liberties in this thread.

And I'm saying that these things we call civil liberties are really just contingent on property rights. The reason collectivists like to seperate them is because they don't want to associate them with something like property rights because it undermines their whole ideology.

Its only the major pillar of post 1950-Libertarian thought...

But anyways, I mentioned it because he talks extensively about how you don't have the right to hold property and let it waste, as it causes harm to others.... "The exceeding of the bounds of his just property not lying in the largeness of his possession, but in the perishing of anything uselessly in it."

If you read the back and forth with Smokey and myself you will see that I don’t care what Locke says about that as I don’t believe in the proviso. You don’t have to agree with someone 100% to find value in some of their ideas you know.

Wickerton

08-09-2009, 04:57 AM

Edit: Lockean Justification of Taxes.
Taxes are allowable only to the degree that they are necessary in preventing harm to others in situations directly related to the inequality of property, for to not allow ones self to be taxed in such a situation would be aggression against your fellow man.

I don't see the validity in the claim over resources just because you exist on the planet. But nonetheless, the worlds resources may be zero-sum, but wealth is what we use to live, not natural resources - and everyone on earth is far wealthier now than they were decades ago with the same amount of resources and a growing population. Wealth is being continually created, it's not a case of the more I have the less you can have. So why tax wealth.

siva_chair

08-09-2009, 05:17 AM

Presumably then no one may lawfully cross the boundary delineated by my fence without my consent, for that is a trespass against the land which I have made mine. Since no one may violate any of my rights in order to further their own ends, I can exclude everyone on the wrong side of the fence. So everything contained within the fence, though not mine, is inaccessible to the world. Denied to the world, I would be free to add the land within the fence line to my dominium at my leisure, and even if I didn't it would still be excluded from the land generally available for acquisition.
The only way people could gain access to the land contained within the fence would be to breach my property rights, which you have said is not permissible.

Well, this is an issue of debate even amongst propertarians. Someone like Walter Block would say that the fence builder must allow an easement to a homesteader of that unused land because the fence does not grant the right of a person to "forestall" others from homesteading.

Others, like Stephen Kinsella, Hoppe, etc. take a different approach. I haven't completely made up my mind on the issue and it is something I have been reading about lately. I am more inclined to say that it is dependant on A) how big a fence and how big of area of land is being encircled and B) what the smallest relevant "technological unit" that is required for use of the land. I do not, however, believe in the ad coelum rule by any means, so a potential homesteader could tunnel under the fence to gain access to the land as long as the tunnel didn't disturb the fence.

So I must physically alter or impose myself on every piece of earth I claim to be mine to support good title?

I would say you must make use of it to establish it, yes.

He made the New World accessible to the Old. You have said accessibility is enough to support good title.

No I did not. Where did I say this?

I understand that's what the homestead principle says but I don't see it as the neat and obvious solution you have presented it as.

It is rational and just principle.

They don't change its metaphysical character.

They change the parts they have ownership over's character. Taking the wood from a tree and changing it into furniture is changing the tree into a piece of furniture. In theory if one person were capable of adding his labor to the entire earth, he would change its character. This isn't pragmatic, though.

Exactly. I own my labour and the product of my labour. I cannot own what my labour did not make, so my title is limited to the extent my labour changed the object.

Then what in the hell are you arguing about here? I don't see what your problem is with this principle.

I do deny it as an ontological reality. I see it as a thought experiment.

Except it is an ontological reality. You do own yourself in reality. To argue against that is to contradict yourself.

But it is limited to the marginal product of your labour, so you don't come to own everything your labour has touched however briefly.

It is limited to what you have transformed to use. This is what establishes title or ownership.

I don't really know what praxeology means. It seems like a pretty dumb word.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praxeology

It is an a priori framework for modeling human action.

It's controversial in the sense that most people would say it misdescribes how judges interact with the law. I'd say it's incredibly naieve to think judges are only discovering the law. And I don't get how it is 'logical' or 'ethical'.

Today's judges aren't, you are right. They are simply enforcing positivist law, but that isn't what I am talking about. I am talking about the original role of judges and in fact the just and proper role. Remember I believe in natural law, not positivist law.

It is logical because it is discovered through reason and logic, and it is ethical because it is both true and universal.

Well, you have said that the merest of labour creates an absolute and inviolable interest in the land in perpetuity. If you recognise that the second person has an interest capable of taking to arbitration, you recognise that the first person's rights can be diminished.

Arbitration is a voluntary method of dispute resolution. By agreeing on arbitration, both parties are agreeing to abide by the abitration. The first person's rights are only diminished through voluntary contract, which is not at all in conflict with anything I have been saying. They aren't diminished through the initiation of aggression.

I see nothing obvious and just about this argument.

Look harder.

Der Übermensch

08-09-2009, 11:45 AM

No, you don’t understand. Murder, rape, etc. isn’t allowed even on private property because they involve aggressing against another’s property: their person. Thus, they are based in property rights. No one said you can use your property rights to aggress against another's property rights.
And, for the last time, that has nothing to do with what I said. I simply said that any crime which is still a crime in the privacy of your own home would be also be a crime outside of it.

So I can start a big fire that blocks traffic for purpose of demonstration?
I might be inclined to say yes actually, but a good argument could be made that by closing down a thoroughfare, you are causing undue harm to the people who need to get to work and ****.

Too bad public property requires aggressing against the property of others.
I direct you to a few posts back where I wrote up on that extensively.

That and a medium be it television, newspaper, the ground to stand on, etc. Whatever is neccessary for your speech to be effective at being excercised, as it were. It is all dependant on property rights. You don’t have the right to steal or rob people so you can say whatever you want.
Ground to stand on? Calling that a medium seems pretty specious, even if it is simply for the sake of maintaining your argument. That is to say, I understand what you mean given the context, but as I have said many many times, public discourse is necessary for the health of society, and thus providing that "medium" is required to prevent undue harm to its development.

Except public places inherently require you to steal from people so they can exist and be maintained.
Again, I wrote on that.

Pragmatically speaking, “society” cannot own anything, only individuals can.
A corporation can "own" something, and it isn't an individual. The concept that abstract entities can possess title is essential to modern business practice.

Yes. And it doesn’t take much insight to see that “public places” inherently involve stealing from people so they can exist. You don’t agree with theft, do you?
You are implying they would be created via eminent domain or something? I certainly wouldn't advocate that...

I never said you had the right to assault someone to silence them. If you are saying something on my property that I don’t like, I am perfectly within my rights to tell you to leave. If you don’t, you are trespassing. This doesn’t mean I get to punch you in the face for saying something I don’t like. I never said anything of the sort.
I think you read my post exactly the opposite of what it said. I said the person yelling fire is committing Assault.

Government (in the sense of a state apparatus, which is what anarchists of all types are against) is not required for that.
What is? A private security company?

Also, the state isn’t justified in harming others (by stealing from people) so they can take that role on for themselves.
It is justified in harming someone as a reaction to prevent harm to another that could be caused by the action of the first.

You have repeatedly called for “public property” which requires theft to fund. Unless you can demonstrate how public property can be maintained without aggression and theft.....?
I wrote a whole post on it.

Hint: It cannot, therefore public property is illegitimate.
Nope.

And I'm saying that these things we call civil liberties are really just contingent on property rights. The reason collectivists like to seperate them is because they don't want to associate them with something like property rights because it undermines their whole ideology.
No, they are property rights.

If you read the back and forth with Smokey and myself you will see that I don’t care what Locke says about that as I don’t believe in the proviso. You don’t have to agree with someone 100% to find value in some of their ideas you know.
No, you don't have to agree, but I didn't feel like writing too much of a summary of the passage, given that it wasn't even a debate I was contingent too.

Smokey D

08-09-2009, 11:41 PM

Well, this is an issue of debate even amongst propertarians. Someone like Walter Block would say that the fence builder must allow an easement to a homesteader of that unused land because the fence does not grant the right of a person to "forestall" others from homesteading.

Others, like Stephen Kinsella, Hoppe, etc. take a different approach. I haven't completely made up my mind on the issue and it is something I have been reading about lately. I am more inclined to say that it is dependant on A) how big a fence and how big of area of land is being encircled and B) what the smallest relevant "technological unit" that is required for use of the land. I do not, however, believe in the ad coelum rule by any means, so a potential homesteader could tunnel under the fence to gain access to the land as long as the tunnel didn't disturb the fence.

Well, the ad coelum rule has been modified at common law such that the property owner has the right to exclusive possession above and below the plane of the earth sufficient for his reasonable enjoyment. I find it a little strange that you digging beneath someone's fence in order to gain access to what is fenced off, since that presumably is a violation of his reasonable enjoyment.

But if you don't believe in ad coelum, just how extensive are a land owner's rights?

I would say you must make use of it to establish it, yes.

Every atom?

No I did not. Where did I say this?

When you said plucking the apple conferred title to it.

It is rational and just principle.

That begs the question of what is rational and just.

They change the parts they have ownership over's character. Taking the wood from a tree and changing it into furniture is changing the tree into a piece of furniture. In theory if one person were capable of adding his labor to the entire earth, he would change its character. This isn't pragmatic, though.

The problem is people change the world all the time simply by existing, but of course this isn't sufficient to generate title to every unclaimed object. I really struggle with the practical details of this theory of just acquisition.

Then what in the hell are you arguing about here? I don't see what your problem is with this principle.

Well, it means that your interest in a piece of property doesn't exhaust the potential interests in it. It also means that you haven't made something which was not yours yours; what you own has always been yours because before you owned it didn't exist.

Except it is an ontological reality. You do own yourself in reality. To argue against that is to contradict yourself.

I've yet to be convinced of this.

It is limited to what you have transformed to use. This is what establishes title or ownership.

Well, when I plough a field I have transformed more than just the field. I have changed all sorts of relationships. It is purely artificial to say that I have only changed the field.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praxeology

It is an a priori framework for modeling human action.

Yes but you can say this about anything.

Today's judges aren't, you are right. They are simply enforcing positivist law, but that isn't what I am talking about. I am talking about the original role of judges and in fact the just and proper role. Remember I believe in natural law, not positivist law.

Well, I'm not sure judges are purely enforcing positive law either. I'd say judges have a creative dialogue with the law.

It is logical because it is discovered through reason and logic, and it is ethical because it is both true and universal.

What?

Arbitration is a voluntary method of dispute resolution. By agreeing on arbitration, both parties are agreeing to abide by the abitration. The first person's rights are only diminished through voluntary contract, which is not at all in conflict with anything I have been saying. They aren't diminished through the initiation of aggression.

But if we go with your version, the original owner doesn't need to go to arbitration. His rights are absolute. He can have the second person ejected and seize any valuable improvements because they are on his property, no matter how minimal the fault of the second person.

Look harder.

Well, at the very least you're going to have to justify the above situation.

siva_chair

08-09-2009, 11:56 PM

And, for the last time, that has nothing to do with what I said. I simply said that any crime which is still a crime in the privacy of your own home would be also be a crime outside of it.

Yes obvious things are obvious. What is your point?

I might be inclined to say yes actually, but a good argument could be made that by closing down a thoroughfare, you are causing undue harm to the people who need to get to work and ****.

And this is where you get into the wishy washy nature that comes along with public places. Does someone's right to protest override other's freedom to get to work or vice versa?

I direct you to a few posts back where I wrote up on that extensively.

Yeah and I don't buy that "to not allow yourself to be taxed would be aggression against other men." That is bullshit if I have ever heard it. It is pretty much saying that not allowing yourself to be stolen from is aggression against the robber. Sorry but I believe in rights, not entitlements, and no one is required to give you stuff so you can have a place to say whatever you want. You don't get to steal legitimately owned things, and you don't get to employ others to steal legitimately owned things for you.

Ground to stand on? Calling that a medium seems pretty specious, even if it is simply for the sake of maintaining your argument. That is to say, I understand what you mean given the context, but as I have said many many times, public discourse is necessary for the health of society, and thus providing that "medium" is required to prevent undue harm to its development.

You act as though discourse wouldn't exist in absence of public places. That is a pretty bold and unfounded assumption. I'd also like to know what exactly you mean by "health of society."

Again, I wrote on that.

Again, crock of ****. His rights have not been violated just because he can't find any more land to homestead. We don't live in the Garden of Eden. Resources are scarce and if there is none left for someone that is the result of scarcity, not someone's rights being aggressed against.

A corporation can "own" something, and it isn't an individual. The concept that abstract entities can possess title is essential to modern business practice.

Difference being that a corporation is a group of individuals that excercises ownership in fact, whereas "society" is an abstract entity that cannot pragmatically own anything.

Corporation is simply a legal term, so this is a silly analogy.

You are implying they would be created via eminent domain or something? I certainly wouldn't advocate that...

No, public places require the taking of some people's property (usually through taxation) to fund and maintain. This is theft. There is really no other way to have actual public places.

I think you read my post exactly the opposite of what it said. I said the person yelling fire is committing Assault.

I understand that but that isn't what I was referencing. You were implying that I had said people have a right to assault someone to silence them on private property. This is not the case nor did I say anything of the sort. So what exactly are you taking issue with?

What is? A private security company?

Well more likely a free market of security providers but ya.

It is justified in harming someone as a reaction to prevent harm to another that could be caused by the action of the first.

Except it is the one initiating aggression. Sorry but I don't get to aggress against everyone on the basis that some of them might aggress against me or someone else.

And to make things worse, it bars anyone else from the legitimate use of force. Not only does it steal so that it can exist, it prevents others from competing with it to provide that service that some didn't even ask for to begin with.

"Here are a bunch of hamburgers I made for you. I don't care if you didn't ask for them, I am giving them to you anyway. Also, you are still going to give me money for them regardless of whether you eat them or not, or whether you go and get other hamburgers from some other place that you prefer. And if you don't pay me for these hamburgers I am making you take, I'm going to put you in jail and punish you."

I wrote a whole post on it.

And it assumes the Lockean proviso which I have already said I don't believe in. And fwiw you didn't really demonstrate how it didn't involve theft and aggression.

Nope.

Yep.

No, they are property rights.

Well not really in of themselves. They are derived from them, but that is a rather trivial point.

No, you don't have to agree, but I didn't feel like writing too much of a summary of the passage, given that it wasn't even a debate I was contingent too.

So now you see why throwing the Lockean proviso at me to try and justify things is quite futile because I don't believe it, nor do I believe his attempt to justify taxes. This doesn't mean I don't think Locke was correct with some of his other ideas, however. Nor does it mean that any of my beliefs on this stuff are at conflict with one another.

siva_chair

08-10-2009, 12:24 AM

Well, the ad coelum rule has been modified at common law such that the property owner has the right to exclusive possession above and below the plane of the earth sufficient for his reasonable enjoyment. I find it a little strange that you digging beneath someone's fence in order to gain access to what is fenced off, since that presumably is a violation of his reasonable enjoyment.

But if you don't believe in ad coelum, just how extensive are a land owner's rights?

The owner owns the relevant technological unit of the resource, which is the minimum amount necessary (in whatever relevant dimension) for the use of the property.

Every atom?

Enough so as to include necessary appurtenances.

When you said plucking the apple conferred title to it.

I said it confers title to the apple. To claim to own the apple tree probably would take a bit more than picking a single apple.

That begs the question of what is rational and just.

Umm it is rational because it is consistent and based on reason which is what rational means and it is just because it doesn't violate anyone's rights which is what just means.

The problem is people change the world all the time simply by existing, but of course this isn't sufficient to generate title to every unclaimed object. I really struggle with the practical details of this theory of just acquisition.

Make. Use. Of.

What are you struggling with here?

Well, it means that your interest in a piece of property doesn't exhaust the potential interests in it.

Yeah people want stuff so what? I have an interest in my neighbor's PS3, but that doesn't mean I get to go take it because he never plays it.

It also means that you haven't made something which was not yours yours; what you own has always been yours because before you owned it didn't exist.

Yeah the title didn't exist before. I fail to see what your problem is here.

I've yet to be convinced of this.

Arguing against owning yourself is a performative contradiction.

Well, when I plough a field I have transformed more than just the field. I have changed all sorts of relationships. It is purely artificial to say that I have only changed the field.

See above concerning appurtenances.

Yes but you can say this about anything.

Umm what?

Well, I'm not sure judges are purely enforcing positive law either. I'd say judges have a creative dialogue with the law.

For the most part they are enforcing positive law.

What?

Things are logical and rational when they follow logic and reason.

But if we go with your version, the original owner doesn't need to go to arbitration. His rights are absolute. He can have the second person ejected and seize any valuable improvements because they are on his property, no matter how minimal the fault of the second person.

The arbitration is to settle disputes of ownership. It is in the original owner (if he is in fact the just and legitimate owner) to establish this as such through arbitration.

Well, at the very least you're going to have to justify the above situation.

I don't really see what the big problem is. There is nothing really damning about the above situation.

Smokey D

08-10-2009, 12:57 AM

The owner owns the relevant technological unit of the resource, which is the minimum amount necessary (in whatever relevant dimension) for the use of the property.

The problem I have is if the owner owns the minimum amount necessary to use the property (this seems like a similar enough approach to the common law rule that you are entitled to the amount required for reasonable use), then the owner of a fence is entitled to prevent anyone from digging under (or jumping over) his fence. The purpose of a fence is to exclude people, so presumably the minimum amount necessary for use of the fence would be the amount required to stop people from circumventing the fence.

Enough so as to include necessary appurtenances.

What?

I said it confers title to the apple. To claim to own the apple tree probably would take a bit more than picking a single apple.

I don't see why. You have added your labour to the apple and to the tree and have thereby modified the character of both. You said elsewhere this was sufficient.

Umm it is rational because it is consistent and based on reason which is what rational means and it is just because it doesn't violate anyone's rights which is what just means.

Well, I don't know if what judges do is rational.

And I don't know if your definition of just is a full account.

What are you struggling with here?

I make use of air by breathing it but I don't have absolute and unlimited title to it.

I make use of the earth by walking across it but I don't have title to it.

Yeah people want stuff so what? I have an interest in my neighbor's PS3, but that doesn't mean I get to go take it because he never plays it.

Um, yeah but I'm not saying that it does.

That's not to say that his interest is the sum of all interests in the PS3.

Yeah the title didn't exist before. I fail to see what your problem is here.

So I don't own land, I own the modifications to the land.

I don't own the ingredients to the PS3, I own the interest created by modifying them into a functioning machine.

Etc

Arguing against owning yourself is a performative contradiction.

It's a cute phrase but I'm not convinced.

Especially when people try to use it to convince me that other people have self-ownership. Even if I acknowledge that I own myself, I don't see why it means I acknowledge that other people own themselves.

See above concerning appurtenances.

What

Umm what?

Well, communism's praxeological.

For the most part they are enforcing positive law.

I dunno. I don't think it's nearly so simple, but that may be a reflection of the cases I'm reading at the moment.

Things are logical and rational when they follow logic and reason.

Repeating a tautology isn't really helpful.

The arbitration is to settle disputes of ownership. It is in the original owner (if he is in fact the just and legitimate owner) to establish this as such through arbitration.

But either way the second guy will get nothing if the original owner can prove he mowed the grass or something.

I don't really see what the big problem is. There is nothing really damning about the above situation.

Yes there is. You mowed the grass I built a house but you get to claim absolute ownership over everything ever built or done on that patch of earth you mowed once.

siva_chair

08-10-2009, 02:50 AM

The problem I have is if the owner owns the minimum amount necessary to use the property (this seems like a similar enough approach to the common law rule that you are entitled to the amount required for reasonable use), then the owner of a fence is entitled to prevent anyone from digging under (or jumping over) his fence. The purpose of a fence is to exclude people, so presumably the minimum amount necessary for use of the fence would be the amount required to stop people from circumventing the fence.

Except excluding people from homesteading unowned resources you have no title in is using your property to aggress against others and isn't legitimate.

What?

Enough to include necessary appurtenances.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/appurtenance

I don't see why. You have added your labour to the apple and to the tree and have thereby modified the character of both. You said elsewhere this was sufficient.

Ok if you want to be really pedantic about this then ok sure you own the whole tree because you picked an apple and claimed use of the entire tree. Now build your little fence around the tree. Satisfied?

Well, I don't know if what judges do is rational.

Some of them act irrationally no doubt but their job is to judge rationally.

And I don't know if your definition of just is a full account.

So are we gonna turn this into a semantics debate or are we gonna focus on the issue at hand. You know perfectly well what I meant by just. Do I really need to start typing out lengthy paragraphs to define a single word?

I make use of air by breathing it but I don't have absolute and unlimited title to it.

You do to the technological unit of air you are utilizing.

I make use of the earth by walking across it but I don't have title to it.

Yeah and if you walk across land that belongs to someone else without their permission it is called trespassing.

Um, yeah but I'm not saying that it does.

That's not to say that his interest is the sum of all interests in the PS3.

Other interests in his PS3 are irrelevant. Just because a bunch of people want what you have doesn't mean they have a right take it from you.

So I don't own land, I own the modifications to the land.

You own the use of the land.

I don't own the ingredients to the PS3, I own the interest created by modifying them into a functioning machine.

Etc

Um no you own the components to the PS3 because they are required to use the PS3.

It's a cute phrase but I'm not convinced.

Especially when people try to use it to convince me that other people have self-ownership. Even if I acknowledge that I own myself, I don't see why it means I acknowledge that other people own themselves.

When you are arguing you are acknowledging that others are free to accept or deny your propositions (this is what the act of arguing entails). Discourse is a conflict-free way of discovering truth. Only with argumentation does the idea of validity and truth emerge. Only within argumentation are truth claims of any kind made and decided upon. This is undeniably true: one cannot argue that one cannot argue. It is also undeniably true that any argument requires an arguing person, as arguing doesn’t consist of free-floating propositions. It is an activity. Any argumentation whatsoever requires that a person must have exclusive control over the scarce resource of his body. As long as there is argumentation, there is a mutual recognition of each other’s property right in his own body. When you are arguing you are acknowledging that others are free to accept or deny your propositions (i.e. they have exclusive right and control over the use of their body/mind).

What

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/appurtenance

Well, communism's praxeological.

No, it isn't. I don't think you understand praxeology.

For one, communism calls for a labor theory of value.

I dunno. I don't think it's nearly so simple, but that may be a reflection of the cases I'm reading at the moment.

Well it is no secret that law today is pretty much dominated by positivist law enacted by the state.

Repeating a tautology isn't really helpful.

Well I don't really know what you aren't understanding if you just keep saying "what." Do you not know what the words 'logical' and 'rational' mean or something?

But either way the second guy will get nothing if the original owner can prove he mowed the grass or something.

If he proves he has legitimate title in the land, yeah. I don't see what the problem is here?

Yes there is. You mowed the grass I built a house but you get to claim absolute ownership over everything ever built or done on that patch of earth you mowed once.

Maybe you should have checked if that land was unowned first before you built the house. :smash:

TerranYouApart

08-10-2009, 02:55 AM

since women are more productive as spouses than on their own in the market it would be nice to have them for sale and it would give me incentive to work harder so i could have a more beautiful wife

siva_chair

08-10-2009, 03:14 AM

since women are more productive as spouses than on their own in the market it would be nice to have them for sale and it would give me incentive to work harder so i could have a more beautiful wife

__________________
| |

____
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |

+

http://i496.photobucket.com/albums/rr323/disablingpeach/fdafd.jpg

=

Exponentially small chance that you will find a beautiful wife regardless of how hard you work.

1338 h4x0r

08-10-2009, 03:17 AM

http://i26.tinypic.com/2cftilg.png

siva_chair

08-10-2009, 03:20 AM

http://i26.tinypic.com/2cftilg.png

Do mine eyes deceive me, or is that his future wife shitting all over his hopes and dreams?

1338 h4x0r

08-10-2009, 03:25 AM

that adorable golden retriever looks nothing like a Filipina ex-barmaid with a black eye and mascara running down her cheek

Smokey D

08-10-2009, 05:18 AM

Except excluding people from homesteading unowned resources you have no title in is using your property to aggress against others and isn't legitimate.

Well, I'm inclined to agree but I don't really think that solves the problem. All it reveals is that your neo Lockean conception (ie without the proviso) of property acquisition can be used to agress against the rights of others

Enough to include necessary appurtenances.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/appurtenance

Yes I know what appurtenances means. I was asking you to explain.

Ok if you want to be really pedantic about this then ok sure you own the whole tree because you picked an apple and claimed use of the entire tree. Now build your little fence around the tree. Satisfied?

No, I think that's retarded.

Some of them act irrationally no doubt but their job is to judge rationally.

Well, their job is to apply the authorities and from time to time make up new authority. I dunno if this is rational. Probably in aggregate.

So are we gonna turn this into a semantics debate or are we gonna focus on the issue at hand. You know perfectly well what I meant by just. Do I really need to start typing out lengthy paragraphs to define a single word?

Well, you say 'just is having your rights respected' but if I say 'justice is fairness' or 'justice is from each according to his ability and to each according to her need' what then?

I know what you meant by just, but it doesn't mean I accept your definition.

You do to the technological unit of air you are utilizing.

Er, that would mean I could stop people breathing my oxygen atoms.

Yeah and if you walk across land that belongs to someone else without their permission it is called trespassing.

But this is not how we interact with the land.

Other interests in his PS3 are irrelevant. Just because a bunch of people want what you have doesn't mean they have a right take it from you.

I'm not saying someone is interested in your PS3. I'm saying they have a potentially actionable interest in it. That is, your rights to the PS3 do not exhaust all possible interests in it. It may be that some people remain uncompensated. Justice in acquisition demands that these people be compensated.

Um no you own the components to the PS3 because they are required to use the PS3.

No. You own the use of the PS3. The presence of the components is coincidental.

When you are arguing you are acknowledging that others are free to accept or deny your propositions (this is what the act of arguing entails).

No I'm not. The only thing I acknowledge is that you're too far away to hit.

Discourse is a conflict-free way of discovering truth.

No it's not.

Only with argumentation does the idea of validity and truth emerge.

I doubt it.

Only within argumentation are truth claims of any kind made and decided upon. This is undeniably true: one cannot argue that one cannot argue.

Well I can dispute that truth claims only emerge in argumentation.

It is also undeniably true that any argument requires an arguing person, as arguing doesn’t consist of free-floating propositions.

Yeah probably.

It is an activity. Any argumentation whatsoever requires that a person must have exclusive control over the scarce resource of his body.

Does not follow.

As long as there is argumentation, there is a mutual recognition of each other’s property right in his own body.

No, I acknowledge only your right to say stuff back to me. That cannot be mistaken for acknowledgment of full rights of exclusive control and ownership.

When you are arguing you are acknowledging that others are free to accept or deny your propositions (i.e. they have exclusive right and control over the use of their body/mind).

No, I only acknowledge you are too far away to hit.

No, it isn't. I don't think you understand praxeology.

For one, communism calls for a labor theory of value.

Well, yes I said I didn't understand it. Can you explain it.

Well it is no secret that law today is pretty much dominated by positivist law enacted by the state.

Um yeah but I was saying that judges don't just enforce law they can discover it's a far more dynamic process.

Well I don't really know what you aren't understanding if you just keep saying "what." Do you not know what the words 'logical' and 'rational' mean or something?

Yes I know what they mean but saying 'practice X is rational and just because it's rational and just' isn't an argument.

If he proves he has legitimate title in the land, yeah. I don't see what the problem is here?

All I can say, I suppose, it fundamentally contradicts my moral intuitions regarding fairness and stuff. I don't see why mowing the grass should entail such a complete interest as to deny absolutely any further interests, no matter how much work person B put into them (in good faith and without notice).

Maybe you should have checked if that land was unowned first before you built the house. :smash:

Maybe person A should not have worn false colours.

siva_chair

08-10-2009, 06:50 AM

Well, I'm inclined to agree but I don't really think that solves the problem. All it reveals is that your neo Lockean conception (ie without the proviso) of property acquisition can be used to agress against the rights of others

No, no it can't. I already said you can't use your property to aggress against others please quit trying to twist it around. Someone tunnelling under your fence or flying over it isn't aggressing against your property rights because you don't have any right to block someone from homesteading unowned land. It is not a right you had to begin with.

Yes I know what appurtenances means. I was asking you to explain.

What would you like me to explain then?

No, I think that's retarded.

Well I think it is kind of retarded you aren't even arguing a coherent point here.

Well, their job is to apply the authorities and from time to time make up new authority. I dunno if this is rational. Probably in aggregate.

So justice is an arbitrary concept subject to the whims of whatever they feel like?

The legitimate purpose of a judge is to discover the law in a given situation. That is, to discover the natural law of things.

Well, you say 'just is having your rights respected' but if I say 'justice is fairness' or 'justice is from each according to his ability and to each according to her need' what then?

What I have stated is completely fair because it is based in universal ethics that are applicable to everyone on the basis of them being human.

The last bit isn't justice, it is some socialist wet dream, and it certainly isn't even close to fair.

I know what you meant by just, but it doesn't mean I accept your definition.

Ok then offer an alternative please so we can get somewhere here.

Er, that would mean I could stop people breathing my oxygen atoms.

You already do by breathing them yourself. Or by bottling them up in oxygen tanks for later use.

By breathing them you are restricting anyone else from using those particular oxygen atoms and have exclusive use of them.

But this is not how we interact with the land.

What are you talking about?

I'm not saying someone is interested in your PS3. I'm saying they have a potentially actionable interest in it. That is, your rights to the PS3 do not exhaust all possible interests in it. It may be that some people remain uncompensated. Justice in acquisition demands that these people be compensated.

No, I acquired the proper title for the exclusive use of the PS3 through voluntary exchanges.

And ffs we already covered this "residual interest" crap before. Utility is marginal.

No. You own the use of the PS3. The presence of the components is coincidental.

The use of the PS3 requires the components. I cannot use the PS3 if I do not have exclusive right to those particular components.

No I'm not. The only thing I acknowledge is that you're too far away to hit.

Then you are contradicting yourself by trying to argue a point here. There is no reason to engage in argumentation if your purpose is not in fact to persuade or reach an understanding on a subject here. You wouldn't even bother to open your mouth, because there would be no purpose in communicative reasoning.

If I am not free to accept or deny any propositions you present, then what are you discussing?

No it's not.

Erm, yes it is. The ability to persuade or convince in absence of violence is an operative presupposition of discourse in general. That is the entire purpose of discourse and no offense but the fact that you are studying to be a lawyer of all professions and don't understand this is kind of disturbing Smokey.

For more in depth treatment of this subjct see Habermas' Universal Pragmatics. Probably clear up some of the misconception you seem to have about the nature of discourse. May even help you with your lawyer studies.

I doubt it.

Oh you know of another way to demonstrate the validity or truth of presuppositions in absence of communicative reasoning? Do tell.

Well I can dispute that truth claims only emerge in argumentation.

Not without arguing. Please do show how truth claims can be validated in absence of discourse.

Yeah probably.

It is a fact.

Does not follow.

Yes, it absolutely does. One cannot engage in an activity (argumentation) without exclusive use or control of one's body/mind. It is impossible.

No, I acknowledge only your right to say stuff back to me. That cannot be mistaken for acknowledgment of full rights of exclusive control and ownership.

The nature of argumentation does because the nature of argumentation is to reach a shared understanding. This is not possible unless a person has exclusive control over his own body and is free to reject or accept propositions presented. This is what discourse means. Once again, please see Universal Pragmatics.

No, I only acknowledge you are too far away to hit.

That is irrelevant to the actual purpose and reason of you engaging in argumentation right now.

Well, yes I said I didn't understand it. Can you explain it.

Read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praxeology

If you can't understand this then there is nothing I can do to explain it to you.

Um yeah but I was saying that judges don't just enforce law they can discover it's a far more dynamic process.

Hey do you remember that part where I never denied that?

Yes I know what they mean but saying 'practice X is rational and just because it's rational and just' isn't an argument.

It is rational and just because of all the reasons I have laid out here. It is rational because these principles can be derived from reason and logic, and it is just because it is fair and consistent with natural law.

All I can say, I suppose, it fundamentally contradicts my moral intuitions regarding fairness and stuff. I don't see why mowing the grass should entail such a complete interest as to deny absolutely any further interests, no matter how much work person B put into them (in good faith and without notice).

Because the first use principle is the only fair and objective method of establishing proper title. Any further interests of outside parties is irrelevant. It doesn't matter how really bad you want someone else's property, you don't have the right to just take it from them because you have an interest in it.

I'm sure thieves have a further interest in my flatscreen television set, but they certainly aren't justified in taking it regardless of how hard they worked to break into my house and steal it and how bad they wanted it.

Maybe person A should not have worn false colours.

Umm what? It was his property, he didn't do anything wrong.

Der Übermensch

08-10-2009, 11:13 AM

Gonna try to lump and shorten a few. Getting loooong
Yes obvious things are obvious. What is your point?
I think it was in reference to you saying that on private property, "someone makes the rules," to which I retorted that is all but irrelevant, as the rules are no different than the ones you are bound to on private property. Which you say is obvious...

And this is where you get into the wishy washy nature that comes along with public places. Does someone's right to protest override other's freedom to get to work or vice versa?
Unless you can identify that direct, knowing harm to the person would be caused... then yes.

Yeah and I don't buy that "to not allow yourself to be taxed would be aggression against other men." That is bullshit if I have ever heard it. It is pretty much saying that not allowing yourself to be stolen from is aggression against the robber. Sorry but I believe in rights, not entitlements, and no one is required to give you stuff so you can have a place to say whatever you want. You don't get to steal legitimately owned things, and you don't get to employ others to steal legitimately owned things for you.
Will the robber die unless he manages to nick your stereo? No? Then your analogy isn't correct. You don't get to steal legitimately owned things, but the point is that wealth to the point of causing actual harm to another person is illegitimate. It is not theft to tax illegitimate wealth, and it is not aggression if government is engaged in the prevention of a state of war arising between two parties. Now go ahead and complain all you want about how that is still thievery and blah blah blah, but seriously, you are the only person on this forum who probably would think my argument here is not free-market enough.

You act as though discourse wouldn't exist in absence of public places. That is a pretty bold and unfounded assumption. I'd also like to know what exactly you mean by "health of society."
It would exist, but it would be controlled and unfree, as only those who own mediums of broadcast would be able to reach an audience of reasonable size.

I understand that but that isn't what I was referencing. You were implying that I had said people have a right to assault someone to silence them on private property. This is not the case nor did I say anything of the sort. So what exactly are you taking issue with?
I didn't mean to imply that. Only that you had the right to silence them. Kicking them out of your house would suffice. I don't think it would be cause for you to start literally kicking them.

Well more likely a free market of security providers but ya.
I could actually be ok with the police force being contracted through the market as long as their accountability wasn't thrown aside... but would the courts be free-market too?

Except it is the one initiating aggression. Sorry but I don't get to aggress against everyone on the basis that some of them might aggress against me or someone else.
The government can't intercede because they suspect you might do something. They can only stop you doing it.

And to make things worse, it bars anyone else from the legitimate use of force. Not only does it steal so that it can exist, it prevents others from competing with it to provide that service that some didn't even ask for to begin with.
Of course you still have the right to self-defense and such...

"Here are a bunch of hamburgers I made for you. I don't care if you didn't ask for them, I am giving them to you anyway. Also, you are still going to give me money for them regardless of whether you eat them or not, or whether you go and get other hamburgers from some other place that you prefer. And if you don't pay me for these hamburgers I am making you take, I'm going to put you in jail and punish you."
... you want to talk about silly analogies...?

Wickerton

08-10-2009, 11:29 AM

wealth to the point of causing actual harm to another person is illegitimate.
good thing its also impossible

siva_chair

08-10-2009, 11:48 AM

I think it was in reference to you saying that on private property, "someone makes the rules," to which I retorted that is all but irrelevant, as the rules are no different than the ones you are bound to on private property. Which you say is obvious...

No I was saying that the property makes the rules in the sense that he can allow what is said or not and such on his property.

Unless you can identify that direct, knowing harm to the person would be caused... then yes.

Well, human beings are too complicated to quantify what constitutes "harm" in such a way.

Will the robber die unless he manages to nick your stereo? No?

Irrelevant.

Then your analogy isn't correct. You don't get to steal legitimately owned things, but the point is that wealth to the point of causing actual harm to another person is illegitimate.

And on what basis are you asserting this?

It is not theft to tax illegitimate wealth, and it is not aggression if government is engaged in the prevention of a state of war arising between two parties. Now go ahead and complain all you want about how that is still thievery and blah blah blah, but seriously, you are the only person on this forum who probably would think my argument here is not free-market enough.

I really don't care if I am the only person on this forum that thinks that.

And I would say your point about taxing illegitimate wealth is moot. The government doesn't distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate wealth, and even if it did it still does not follow that it gets to use the threat of violence to claim a monopoly on that function anyhow.

It would exist, but it would be controlled and unfree, as only those who own mediums of broadcast would be able to reach an audience of reasonable size.

Umm there would certainly be a market for free speech television, radio, and the like. In fact, I would bet dollars to nickels that speech and ideas would be much freer than they are right now. Great example: the Internet.

I didn't mean to imply that. Only that you had the right to silence them. Kicking them out of your house would suffice. I don't think it would be cause for you to start literally kicking them.

What is wrong with having the authority to kick unwanted persons off of your property? I see nothing unjust about that.

I could actually be ok with the police force being contracted through the market as long as their accountability wasn't thrown aside... but would the courts be free-market too?

Of course.

And I would say there is adequate reason to believe there would be far more accountability in a free market than under a state run monopoly on justice and law enforcement.

The government can't intercede because they suspect you might do something. They can only stop you doing it.

No, I was referring to the fact that the government is initiating aggression against innocents by taxing them so they can fund their operation of stopping these potential criminals.

Hey, the mob stopped other crime by demanding people pay them protection money. The government operates in the exact same way because all the government is is a large group of organized criminals.

Of course you still have the right to self-defense and such...

Yes but I can't start a firm that can utilize the legitimate use of force like state law enforcement can. I get in big trouble for that.

... you want to talk about silly analogies...?

There is nothing wrong with the analogy. Providing justice and law enforcement (and all of the other things the government has a de facto monopoly on) are all services just like providing hamburgers.

Iskandar

08-10-2009, 12:58 PM

good thing its also impossibleAre you denying it's possible to gain wealth by harming others.

Slavery.

Wickerton

08-10-2009, 01:06 PM

i think you're misunderstanding what he was saying

its impossible for the gaining of wealth itself to be harmful

because wealth is not zero sum

Iskandar

08-10-2009, 01:10 PM

I don't see your point. I just pointed out a clear example of how wealth can be gained by harming others. Are you claiming that having wealth is not harmful in itself? Perhaps not actively, but there are other variables at work here.

Wickerton

08-10-2009, 01:15 PM

i think hes claiming a watered down property is theft, so owning natural resources is theft and therefore harmful and then he's saying wealth is the same thing or at least derived from property

or thats what i think hes arguing

and im saying its not harmful to own wealth because wealth isnt a zero sum game, so me having wealth doesnt harm you

Der Übermensch

08-10-2009, 01:23 PM

No I was saying that the property makes the rules in the sense that he can allow what is said or not and such on his property.
And I said I agree, but that doesn't mean someone can allow murder on their property.

Well, human beings are too complicated to quantify what constitutes "harm" in such a way.
Which is why I said yes unless proven otherwise.

And on what basis are you asserting this?
I posted a whole essay on what basis it was being asserted...

I really don't care if I am the only person on this forum that thinks that.
I know, it was just a slightly ironic aside...

And I would say your point about taxing illegitimate wealth is moot. The government doesn't distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate wealth, and even if it did it still does not follow that it gets to use the threat of violence to claim a monopoly on that function anyhow.
Why the present tense? I'm not advocating the government we have now. I'm advocating a government that would distinguish as such. And I made no reference to threat of violence. The person would simply lose any benefits of association.

Umm there would certainly be a market for free speech television, radio, and the like. In fact, I would bet dollars to nickels that speech and ideas would be much freer than they are right now. Great example: the Internet.
The internet? The government is the only thing preventing a complete degradation of net neutrality. If ISP's had their way, they would be charging premiums for access to anything beyond the basic websites. The internet is free because the government prevents its over-commercialization, not in-spite of government...

What is wrong with having the authority to kick unwanted persons off of your property? I see nothing unjust about that.
Huh? That is exactly what I wrote...

Of course.
And I would say there is adequate reason to believe there would be far more accountability in a free market than under a state run monopoly on justice and law enforcement.
Law enforcement. Yeah. Justice. No. Justice isn't a competitive thing. It should, as they say, be blind.

No, I was referring to the fact that the government is initiating aggression against innocents by taxing them so they can fund their operation of stopping these potential criminals.

No one is stopping potential criminals. They have to act first - be violating the law - before government has right to intercede.

Hey, the mob stopped other crime by demanding people pay them protection money. The government operates in the exact same way because all the government is is a large group of organized criminals.
Which is why I really, really don't like the current organization of government.

Yes but I can't start a firm that can utilize the legitimate use of force like state law enforcement can. I get in big trouble for that.

http://www.bodyguards.com/
http://www.g4s.com/usw

There is nothing wrong with the analogy. Providing justice and law enforcement (and all of the other things the government has a de facto monopoly on) are all services just like providing hamburgers.
Justice and law are the only thing I advocate government having a monopoly on (and law is iffy even). As for the analogy you made, I never said anything about punishing non-compliance.