Definition of "rich"?
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
definition of when you're "rich"?
In the EU (AFAIK), poverty is defined as being below 60% of the median
income. Could we establish being "rich" as say, being over 300% of the
median income? Or is there already such a measure in place?
--
regards, Peter Bjørn Perlsø
http://haxor.dk
http://liberterran.org
http://haxor.dk/fanaticism/
ro...@telus.net
(=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Peter_Bj=F8rn_Perls=F8?=) wrote:
>Everyone is talking about poverty and the poverty line, but do we have a
>definition of when you're "rich"?
Depends if you mean relatively or absolutely. Even the poorest in the
USA today are rich by the standards of 200 years ago.
>In the EU (AFAIK), poverty is defined as being below 60% of the median
>income. Could we establish being "rich" as say, being over 300% of the
>median income? Or is there already such a measure in place?
"Rich" has nothing to do with income. It is defined by assets. Just
how much wealth qualifies one as rich is moot, but IMO being three
sigmas above the mean in assets is unambiguously rich, while two
sigmas does not make it. Another way to think about it: if you can
afford a distinctly affluent lifestyle including at least one
full-time servant without either working or dipping into your assets
(adjusted for inflation), you are rich. In the USA, that would
require assets of about $5M.
Or to put it still another way: who wants to marry a mere millionaire?
-- Roy L
nospam
>>Everyone is talking about poverty and the poverty line, but do we have a
>>definition of when you're "rich"?
>
> Depends if you mean relatively or absolutely. Even the poorest in the
> USA today are rich by the standards of 200 years ago.
That is actually a common mythology. There are many different definition of
wealth. If you apply some of them you may be right, if you apply the other
you are absolutely wrong.
It is childish to say: Today every poor have a cell phone, 10..15 years ago
only rich could afford something similar therefore the poor today are
richer than the rich 15 years ago.
This is the reason I use often to refer to the definition of wealth into
the units of time:
Assuming you stop working today, how long time you can continue to have a
decent life ? If it is a week you are poor if is a lifetime or more you are
rich.
So, compare the today working man into a city having cellphone, computer,
second hand car .... with the 200 years ago man without a car, phone or
computer but having in his attic 60 sacs of grain and in barn 2 cows and
straws for them for 3 years. What difference does it make the cellphone or
the computer ?
If both are out of work who do you think can survive longer ?
What if the 200 years ago man also own an acre of land and a small (no
electricity) house.
Does the downtown apartment with plasma TV and 600W quadraphonic system
owned by today's man be at more help ?
I hope now you figured out what out of touch with reality your claim is :-)
William F Hummel
>This is the reason I use often to refer to the definition of wealth into
>the units of time: Assuming you stop working today, how long time
>you can continue to have a decent life ? If it is a week you are poor
>if is a lifetime or more you are rich.
If you hold claims on wealth in the form of stocks and bonds worth
$100 million, but choose to live in an old house with only the bare
necessities, you must be poor by your definition. Such people are
known as misers. Have you ever heard of Hetty Green?
Ron Peterson
Peter Bjørn Perlsø wrote:
> Everyone is talking about poverty and the poverty line, but do we have a
> definition of when you're "rich"?
We have an upper limit on being rich with examples like Warren Buffett
and Bill Gates.
> In the EU (AFAIK), poverty is defined as being below 60% of the median
> income. Could we establish being "rich" as say, being over 300% of the
> median income? Or is there already such a measure in place?
300% of the median income would be the bottom end of being rich if it
comes from an occupation. If it comes from wealth that would make it
unnecessary for a person to work for a living.
One article indicated that a well off life style would need $200,000 to
$400,000 per year depending on the are of the US. It included a second
home and luxury autos.
A better way to define rich is by a family's net equity. With 8 million
households have a net worth over $1,000,000 and 6% of those having a
net worth of over $10,000,000.
--
Ron
ruet...@outgun.com
>definition of when you're "rich"?
Barron's ran an article on this subject a few years ago. The criteria
that they used was the amount of annual income derived solely from
investment assets.
The threshold was $100,000 in annual investment income to be considered
borderline rich, $200,000 annually to be considered median rich, and
$1,000,000 annually to be really rich.
Assuming a rate of return of 8%, this correlates to $1.25 million, $2.5
million, and $12.5 million in investment assets respectively.
Note that income derived from wages and salary did not count, nor did
non-investment assets. The implication then was that wealth is a
function of the ability to generate income without actually working.
Jim Blair
<ro...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:4442f195...@news1.qc.sympatico.ca...
> On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 13:22:27 +0200, pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk
> (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Peter_Bj=F8rn_Perls=F8?=) wrote:
>
> >Everyone is talking about poverty and the poverty line, but do we have a
> >definition of when you're "rich"?
>
> Depends if you mean relatively or absolutely. Even the poorest in the
> USA today are rich by the standards of 200 years ago.
Hi,
Yes.
>
> >In the EU (AFAIK), poverty is defined as being below 60% of the median
> >income. Could we establish being "rich" as say, being over 300% of the
> >median income? Or is there already such a measure in place?
>
> "Rich" has nothing to do with income. It is defined by assets. Just
> how much wealth qualifies one as rich is moot, but IMO being three
> sigmas above the mean in assets is unambiguously rich, while two
> sigmas does not make it. Another way to think about it: if you can
> afford a distinctly affluent lifestyle including at least one
> full-time servant without either working or dipping into your assets
> (adjusted for inflation), you are rich.
I think you put too much emphasis on that servant. For example I would not
want one even if I could afford it. I would consider my self rich if I
could go where I pleased and do what I wanted, without even looking at a
price tag or checking to see if I could afford it. That would put me beyond
mere "rich".
My wife says being rich means not clipping coupons anymore.
>...In the USA, that would
> require assets of about $5M.
That sound reasonabe to me now. But if I actually had $5M if might not look
like so much anymore :-)
>
> Or to put it still another way: who wants to marry a mere millionaire?
>
> -- Roy L
A poor person.
If 1 million dollars seem like a lot, then you are poor. If one million
does not seem like a lot, then you are, if not rich, at least not poor.
,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
(_)
jim blair (jeb...@wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin USA.
This message was brought to you using biodegradable
binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good
time call: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834
nospam
You skip in purpose the fragment "to have a decent life".
The definition of a decent life change over time.
What was a decent life 200 years ago does not qualify today
as decent. And forget about cellphone or TV. It is enough to talk about
antibiotics and pain medicine just to figure out that the definition of
decent change over time.
I am talking in this definition about having a decent life based on the
standards of the respective timeframe.
ro...@telus.net
><ro...@telus.net> wrote in message
>news:4442f195...@news1.qc.sympatico.ca...
>> On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 13:22:27 +0200, pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk
>> (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Peter_Bj=F8rn_Perls=F8?=) wrote:
>>
>> >In the EU (AFAIK), poverty is defined as being below 60% of the median
>> >income. Could we establish being "rich" as say, being over 300% of the
>> >median income? Or is there already such a measure in place?
>>
>> "Rich" has nothing to do with income. It is defined by assets. Just
>> how much wealth qualifies one as rich is moot, but IMO being three
>> sigmas above the mean in assets is unambiguously rich, while two
>> sigmas does not make it. Another way to think about it: if you can
>> afford a distinctly affluent lifestyle including at least one
>> full-time servant without either working or dipping into your assets
>> (adjusted for inflation), you are rich.
>
>I think you put too much emphasis on that servant.
If you have to do your own laundry, cooking and cleaning, you are not
rich.
>For example I would not
>want one even if I could afford it.
OK, but if you can't afford it, you're not rich.
>I would consider my self rich if I
>could go where I pleased and do what I wanted, without even looking at a
>price tag or checking to see if I could afford it.
Hehe. Hell's Angels members can do that, too....
>That would put me beyond mere "rich".
Rich is defined by assets, not insouciance.
>My wife says being rich means not clipping coupons anymore.
Lots of poor people can't be bothered clipping coupons either.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
>It is childish to say: Today every poor have a cell phone, 10..15 years ago
>only rich could afford something similar therefore the poor today are
>richer than the rich 15 years ago.
I am talking about the things that were available 200 years ago, but
too expensive for ordinary people to afford: a wide variety of safe
and nutritious food, plenty of newish clothing, durable shoes, warm
and secure shelter, books and newspapers, soap and other hygiene
products, kitchen utensils, etc.
>So, compare the today working man into a city having cellphone, computer,
>second hand car .... with the 200 years ago man without a car, phone or
>computer but having in his attic 60 sacs of grain and in barn 2 cows and
>straws for them for 3 years.
Such a man would have been quite a bit above average in wealth by the
standards of those days. Most people at that time lived more or less
hand to mouth, many had almost no clothing but what they wore, which
was often ragged -- and usually filthy. Etc.
-- Roy L
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
> Everyone is talking about poverty and the poverty line, but do we have a
> definition of when you're "rich"?
>
> In the EU (AFAIK), poverty is defined as being below 60% of the median
> income. Could we establish being "rich" as say, being over 300% of the
> median income? Or is there already such a measure in place?
OK, seeing the followups, there seems to be a consensus that "being
rich" is defined by your assets, not your income.
Now here's the kicker: A lot of people talk about "taxing the rich for
the sake of the poor", and wanting to raise taxes on high incomes to
enact this taxation. Considering what has already been discussed, do you
consider this "fair"?
nospam
> OK, seeing the followups, there seems to be a consensus that "being
> rich" is defined by your assets, not your income.
wealth = assets-liabilities
wealth(T) = wealth(0) + integral from 0..T of (income(t)-expenses(t)) dt
They are very strictly corelated thou.
> Now here's the kicker: A lot of people talk about "taxing the rich for
> the sake of the poor", and wanting to raise taxes on high incomes to
> enact this taxation. Considering what has already been discussed, do you
> consider this "fair"?
Well, there are rich and RICH, there are poor and POOR.
The discution is longer ......
ro...@telus.net
(=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Peter_Bj=F8rn_Perls=F8?=) wrote:
>Peter Bjørn Perlsø <pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk> wrote:
>
>> Everyone is talking about poverty and the poverty line, but do we have a
>> definition of when you're "rich"?
>>
>> In the EU (AFAIK), poverty is defined as being below 60% of the median
>> income. Could we establish being "rich" as say, being over 300% of the
>> median income? Or is there already such a measure in place?
>
>OK, seeing the followups, there seems to be a consensus that "being
>rich" is defined by your assets, not your income.
>
>Now here's the kicker: A lot of people talk about "taxing the rich for
>the sake of the poor", and wanting to raise taxes on high incomes to
>enact this taxation. Considering what has already been discussed, do you
>consider this "fair"?
Depends if the income is earned or unearned. Earned income is the
measure of what the recipient conributes to society. Unearned income
is the measure of what society contributes to the recipient. Taxing
the latter is obviously very fair, just as taxing the former is
obviously wrong, vicious and foolish. Very high incomes tend to be
unearned, so incentive effects are not really relevant: if you're
getting the money for doing nothing, how can the tax make you do less
than that?
However, those who propose to tax high incomes typically end up taxing
not-so-high earned incomes, and leaving the unearned incomes of the
rich untaxed, as well.
-- Roy L
Ron Peterson
Peter Bjørn Perlsø wrote:
> OK, seeing the followups, there seems to be a consensus that "being
> rich" is defined by your assets, not your income.
There are people with high income who fail to accumulate assets.
> Now here's the kicker: A lot of people talk about "taxing the rich for
> the sake of the poor", and wanting to raise taxes on high incomes to
> enact this taxation. Considering what has already been discussed, do you
> consider this "fair"?
Those weren't my comments, but if there is going to be taxation, it
needs to have the greatest economic benefit (and/or least harm).
--
Ron
nospam
> Depends if the income is earned or unearned. Earned income is the
> measure of what the recipient conributes to society. Unearned income
> is the measure of what society contributes to the recipient. Taxing
> the latter is obviously very fair, just as taxing the former is
> obviously wrong, vicious and foolish.
Nice.
> Very high incomes tend to be
> unearned, so incentive effects are not really relevant: if you're
> getting the money for doing nothing, how can the tax make you do less
> than that?
Actually this is a discouragement for unearned income. I.E.:
"Move your stinky lazy ass and do something usefull for human kind not just
burn the oxygen for nothing".
The last recession was brought upon us exclusively by the speculations of
professional Wall Street gamblers. Overtaxing capital gains and dividends
may have (at least some of) them getting a job. This will make the Wall
Street more stable and less chances to have so many recessions one after
another. I.E.: Less Wall Street inducted economic instability.
> However, those who propose to tax high incomes typically end up taxing
> not-so-high earned incomes, and leaving the unearned incomes of the
> rich untaxed, as well.
That is the sad part.
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>Peter Bj=F8rn Perls=F8 wrote:
>
>> OK, seeing the followups, there seems to be a consensus that "being
>> rich" is defined by your assets, not your income.
>
>There are people with high income who fail to accumulate assets.
And are thus not rich. Right.
-- Roy L
The Trucker
news:kmc742d7svjt0g9ih...@4ax.com...
The key here is "choose to". It is that when you can do as you
please and are not enslaved by your needs then you might be
considered "rich". It is, however, the capacity to command the
labor of others that places one on the "rich" category. Bill Gates
commands the labor of millions of people. He can get an
"audience" with the Congress and has done so. I do not think
Gates is a big spender or that he even LIKES to spend money.
But he does have a lot of control over other people. That is NOT
necessarily bad, or good, but it IS the measure of wealth in a
society.
--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org
The Trucker
news:1hdyi3g.yly56qnwi9d3N%pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk...
> Peter Bjørn Perlsø <pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk> wrote:
>
>> Everyone is talking about poverty and the poverty line, but do we have a
>> definition of when you're "rich"?
>>
>> In the EU (AFAIK), poverty is defined as being below 60% of the median
>> income. Could we establish being "rich" as say, being over 300% of the
>> median income? Or is there already such a measure in place?
>
> OK, seeing the followups, there seems to be a consensus that "being
> rich" is defined by your assets, not your income.
>
> Now here's the kicker: A lot of people talk about "taxing the rich for
> the sake of the poor", and wanting to raise taxes on high incomes to
> enact this taxation. Considering what has already been discussed, do you
> consider this "fair"?
A highly progressive income tax is _fair_ to the exetent that really
high incomes are derived from economic rent. It is a lot simpler,
however, to apply a flat tax directly to "assets" and to forgo the
income tax. There is also the problem that American assets
are increasingly owned by foreigners and that it is not possible
to collect an income tax on the income from those assets.
http://GreaterVoice.org/econ/glossary/Asset_Tax_System.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent_%28economics%29
The Trucker
news:39idnQa8c6AEu9nZ...@comcast.com...
> Peter Bjørn Perlsø wrote:
>
>> OK, seeing the followups, there seems to be a consensus that "being
>> rich" is defined by your assets, not your income.
>
> wealth = assets-liabilities
> wealth(T) = wealth(0) + integral from 0..T of (income(t)-expenses(t)) dt
Wealth is the capacity to forgo or to command labor. That may or may
not be assets - liabilities. If I OWN a very large monoplistic company
and all of the tangible assets are pledged as a means to finance my
company I am STILL quite wealthy. It is the POWER derived from
control of these assets that imparts wealth on the form of command.
> They are very strictly corelated thou.
>
>> Now here's the kicker: A lot of people talk about "taxing the rich for
>> the sake of the poor", and wanting to raise taxes on high incomes to
>> enact this taxation. Considering what has already been discussed, do you
>> consider this "fair"?
>
> Well, there are rich and RICH, there are poor and POOR.
> The discution is longer ......
--
sinister
""Peter Bjørn Perlsø"" <pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk> wrote in message
<snip>
BTW:
Thelinked page above has text stating, "Additionally, I assert that my drive
to acquire property is a natural function of my being, and the robbing of or
denial of private property does not only deny me that which gives me
satisfaction, and hence happiness in life - it denies me of that which by
nature makes me human."
Are you a true, freedom-loving libertarian, or a royal/freedom-hating
libertarian?
http://geolib.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html
<snip>
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
Nevear heard of a ROyal Libertarian before, so I guess I must be a real
one...
sinister
""Peter Bjørn Perlsø"" <pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk> wrote in message
> sinister <sini...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> ""Peter Bjørn Perlsø"" <pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk> wrote in message
>> news:1hdw2ek.5uflebbro0kjN%pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk...
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > http://liberterran.org
>>
>> BTW:
>>
>> Thelinked page above has text stating, "Additionally, I assert that my
>> drive
>> to acquire property is a natural function of my being, and the robbing of
>> or
>> denial of private property does not only deny me that which gives me
>> satisfaction, and hence happiness in life - it denies me of that which by
>> nature makes me human."
>>
>> Are you a true, freedom-loving libertarian, or a royal/freedom-hating
>> libertarian?
>> http://geolib.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html
>>
>> <snip>
>
> Nevear heard of a ROyal Libertarian before, so I guess I must be a real
> one...
Read the page I linked to.
Many, perhaps most, libertarians are "Royal" libertarians and despise
freedom.
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
> The socialists invented that one as a pejorative way of characterizing
> libertarians. Because socialists want to abolish private property,
> they like to demonize those who oppose their views. Don't bother it
> them as they are just being retarded as usual.
I didn't get much out of that webpage, either. "geolibertarian" seems
like a new monicker for the Georgists that want to tax land and rent.
sinister
""Peter Bjørn Perlsø"" <pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk> wrote in message
> Just Cocky <ju...@cocky.com> wrote:
>
>> The socialists invented that one as a pejorative way of characterizing
>> libertarians. Because socialists want to abolish private property,
>> they like to demonize those who oppose their views. Don't bother it
>> them as they are just being retarded as usual.
>
> I didn't get much out of that webpage, either. "geolibertarian" seems
> like a new monicker for the Georgists that want to tax land and rent.
You're avoiding the question.
Do you think private agents should have the right to deny others the right
of access to natural resources in exchange for nothing, or don't you?
sinister
"Just Cocky" <ju...@cocky.com> wrote in message
news:1o9d421copphbirkk...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 20:48:09 +0200, pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk (Peter
> Bjørn Perlsø) wrote:
>>
>>sinister <sini...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> ""Peter Bjørn Perlsø"" <pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk> wrote in message
>>> news:1hdw2ek.5uflebbro0kjN%pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk...
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> > http://liberterran.org
>>>
>>> BTW:
>>>
>>> Thelinked page above has text stating, "Additionally, I assert that my
>>> drive
>>> to acquire property is a natural function of my being, and the robbing
>>> of or
>>> denial of private property does not only deny me that which gives me
>>> satisfaction, and hence happiness in life - it denies me of that which
>>> by
>>> nature makes me human."
>>>
>>> Are you a true, freedom-loving libertarian, or a royal/freedom-hating
>>> libertarian?
>>> http://geolib.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>
>>Nevear heard of a ROyal Libertarian before, so I guess I must be a real
>>one...
>>
>
> libertarians. Because socialists want to abolish private property,
> they like to demonize those who oppose their views. Don't bother it
> them as they are just being retarded as usual.
Thanks for demonstrating that you hate freedom.
Gotta love those government guns you enforce your feudalistic world view
with...
>
> --
> "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are
> cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt"
> -- Bertrand Russell
nospam
> Wealth is the capacity to forgo or to command labor.
Nope, that is executive power. In capitalism executive power belong to the
capital owner, who can eventually delegate it to a CEO.
> If I OWN a very large monoplistic company
> and all of the tangible assets are pledged as a means to finance my
> company I am STILL quite wealthy.
Nope. The bank is wealthy. If for a reason or another you can not pay back
the loan, the bank take all the assets and you are left without pants.
But the bank delegated to you the executive power to administer the company
to be able to pay back the loan.
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
> ""Peter Bjørn Perlsø"" <pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk> wrote in message
> news:1he2ear.q620ffwo88rpN%pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk...
> > Just Cocky <ju...@cocky.com> wrote:
> >
> >> The socialists invented that one as a pejorative way of characterizing
> >> libertarians. Because socialists want to abolish private property,
> >> they like to demonize those who oppose their views. Don't bother it
> >> them as they are just being retarded as usual.
> >
> > I didn't get much out of that webpage, either. "geolibertarian" seems
> > like a new monicker for the Georgists that want to tax land and rent.
>
> You're avoiding the question.
>
> Do you think private agents should have the right to deny others the right
> of access to natural resources in exchange for nothing, or don't you?
Access to natural resources is not a right, so, yes, I believe they
should have such powers.
nospam
> Access to natural resources is not a right, so, yes, I believe they
> should have such powers.
Also you know that the access to resources was the subject of all the wars
and most of the revolutions.
Violence is a direct result of resources control.
Food for the thought.
ro...@telus.net
>On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 20:48:09 +0200, pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk (Peter
>Bjørn Perlsø) wrote:
>>
>>sinister <sini...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Are you a true, freedom-loving libertarian, or a royal/freedom-hating
>>> libertarian?
>>> http://geolib.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>
>>Nevear heard of a ROyal Libertarian before, so I guess I must be a real
>>one...
>
>The socialists invented that one as a pejorative way of characterizing
>libertarians.
No, it's a way to distinguish between those who advocate freedom and
those who advocate feudalism. Feudalism is what happens when people
have "freedom" but no rights.
>Because socialists want to abolish private property,
>they like to demonize those who oppose their views.
Hehe. Because feudal (more accurate than ""royal") libertarians want
to enslave others by depriving them of their rights to use natural
resources, they like to demonize real libertarians by calling them
"socialists."
-- Roy L
sinister
""Peter Bjørn Perlsø"" <pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk> wrote in message
OK, so you're just another freedom-despising "libertarian" (aka, feudalist).
Thought as much.
sinister
""Peter Bjørn Perlsø"" <pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk> wrote in message
If there's no right to access natural resources, why is there a right to
control natural resources?
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
> ""Peter Bjørn Perlsø"" <pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk> wrote in message
> news:1he2mw6.1wli9kk4d5294N%pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk...
> > sinister <sini...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> ""Peter Bjørn Perlsø"" <pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk> wrote in message
> >> news:1he2ear.q620ffwo88rpN%pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk...
> >> > Just Cocky <ju...@cocky.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> The socialists invented that one as a pejorative way of characterizing
> >> >> libertarians. Because socialists want to abolish private property,
> >> >> they like to demonize those who oppose their views. Don't bother it
> >> >> them as they are just being retarded as usual.
> >> >
> >> > I didn't get much out of that webpage, either. "geolibertarian" seems
> >> > like a new monicker for the Georgists that want to tax land and rent.
> >>
> >> You're avoiding the question.
> >>
> >> Do you think private agents should have the right to deny others the
> >> right
> >> of access to natural resources in exchange for nothing, or don't you?
> >
> > Access to natural resources is not a right, so, yes, I believe they
> > should have such powers.
>
> OK, so you're just another freedom-despising "libertarian" (aka, feudalist).
>
> Thought as much.
I'm not a feudalist, so WRONG.
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
> If there's no right to access natural resources, why is there a right to
> control natural resources?
First come, first served.
sinister
""Peter Bjørn Perlsø"" <pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk> wrote in message
Yes, you are.
sinister
""Peter Bjørn Perlsø"" <pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk> wrote in message
> sinister <sini...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> If there's no right to access natural resources, why is there a right to
>> control natural resources?
>
> First come, first served.
Oh, boy, that's a well-thought out theory of human freedom.
Not.
There's actually a true libertarian utopia, already existing on planet
Earth. It's called "Somalia." Have you considered voting with your feet
and moving there?
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
> ""Peter Bjørn Perlsø"" <pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk> wrote in message
> news:1he32er.1tph8e8m1rbo1N%pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk...
> > sinister <sini...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> If there's no right to access natural resources, why is there a right to
> >> control natural resources?
> >
> > First come, first served.
>
> Oh, boy, that's a well-thought out theory of human freedom.
>
> Not.
>
> There's actually a true libertarian utopia, already existing on planet
> Earth. It's called "Somalia." Have you considered voting with your feet
> and moving there?
Yes, I have.
ro...@telus.net
Without a right to access natural resources, no other right can exist.
So you contend that the private owners of natural resources have
rights, but other people do not. OK.
-- Roy L
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
> Without a right to access natural resources, no other right can exist.
> So you contend that the private owners of natural resources have
> rights, but other people do not. OK.
>
> -- Roy L
Absolute nonsense.
I contend that humans have a right to their life, liberty and property.
But people do NOT have rights to the property of others. Not having a
right to the property of others does NOT mean that you can't have a
right to the property of yourself.
ro...@telus.net
>The problem with the socialists that like to call themselves
>geolibertarians
There are of course no such people. You are simply lying about
geolibertarians because you know that the facts they identify prove
your beliefs are false and evil.
>is that when someone mentions the right to property,
>all they can think about is land.
That is another lie. Geolibertarians explicitly state that people
have a right to property in the products of their labor and whatever
they consensually trade those products for. You are simply a liar.
>They are stuck in this feudalist mentality
No. It is the soi-disant "libertarians" who defend the privilege of
forcibly depriving others of their rights to access and use natural
resources who are stuck in a feudal mentality. The institutional
arrangements they advocate have been tried, and they result in
feudalism. That is just a fact.
>but like to call the true libertarians "royal".
I call the soi-disant libertarans who deny the human rights to life
and liberty "feudal libertarians" because that is more accurate.
Indeed, some of them even profess an explicit admiration for the
contractualism of historical feudal societies!
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
(=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Peter_Bj=F8rn_Perls=F8?=) wrote:
>sinister <sini...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> If there's no right to access natural resources, why is there a right to
>> control natural resources?
>
>First come, first served.
Nope. Wrong. That principle presupposes someone doing the serving,
who _chooses_ to thus allocate the benefits he is providing. Even
aside from its total irrelevance to the real world -- there is no plot
of land anywhere on earth whose current possession can be traced
through purely consensual transactions to a first-comer -- the evil
and idiotic notion that being first to discover, claim, or use a
natural resource confers any sort of property right in it is easily
refuted:
A man stumbles into an oasis from the desert, dying of thirst. He
rushes to the water and is about to drink, when he hears a revolver
being cocked behind his ear. A quiet, raspy voice intones, "Uh uh. I
know what you're thinkin'. 'Is he going to charge me six years' labor
for a sip of water, or only five?' And to tell the truth, in all this
excitement I haven't quite totalled up the rent myself. But bein' as
it's 44 miles to the next waterhole, which might as well be the other
side of the world, and I'd as soon run your sorry butt _clean_off_ my
land, you've got to ask yourself a question: 'Do I feel _thirsty_
today?' Well, do ya, _slave_?"
-- Roy L
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
1) That's a typically socialist way of portraying property rights, but
you don't have anyone fooled.
2) You haven't refuted anything. The person who is the first to claim a
piece of land/resource/whatever, gets to have it and exploit it as he
sees fit. It's called "homesteading". (BTW, whats your alternative?
government land grants, with nice fat taxations following? Has it
occurred to you that that's merely slavery in another, albeit more
popular, form?)
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
> On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 15:06:27 +0200, pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk (Peter
> Bjørn Perlsø) wrote:
> >
> >sinister <sini...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> ""Peter Bjørn Perlsø"" <pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk> wrote in message
> >> news:1he32er.1tph8e8m1rbo1N%pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk...
> >> > sinister <sini...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> If there's no right to access natural resources, why is there a right to
> >> >> control natural resources?
> >> >
> >> > First come, first served.
> >>
> >> Oh, boy, that's a well-thought out theory of human freedom.
> >>
> >> Not.
> >>
> >> There's actually a true libertarian utopia, already existing on planet
> >> Earth. It's called "Somalia." Have you considered voting with your feet
> >> and moving there?
> >
> >Yes, I have.
> >
>
> Somalia looks like an anarchy to me. These socialist retards continue
> to be unable to differentiate between anarchy and libertarianism.
Somalia is indeed an anarchy, although Puntland and Somaliland have
formed small represenatative democratic states. Mogadishu ("The Mog") is
still a purely anarchic area, with militias providing law and order.
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
> Personally, I don't see any moral justification for "first come, first
> serve". As such, if a second person arrives with bigger guns and
> expels the first, that's just ok. As such, in an organized society
> with some form of Government, the use of force to manage natural
> resources can certainly be delegated to a Government, including
> collection of monopoly use taxes.
>
> Just in case anyone is wondering, I am most definitely a libertarian.
> I just don't think that the right to property can be extended to
> natural resources on a moral basis. I do however think it is a good
> idea to have a pseudo-right to monopoly use of natural resources
> subject to specific conditions and limitations, on utilitarian
> grounds.
Well, I disagree. With anything government comes waste, favoritism,
populism and nepotism.
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
> Thing is, you don't need a Government to throw the "first one to
> arrive" out. If it's not immoral, then it's ok to do it yourself. If
> it's ok for you to do it yourself, then it's ok to delegate that power
> to Government.
>
> Most of the moral philosophy I follow is tied to the Principle of
> Self-ownership, i.e., the idea that each and every individual owns him
> or herself completely and at all times. From this Principle, one can
> deduce things like the rights to life, to liberty and to property of
> created things; but not to property of non-created things. I am
> unaware of any profound moral principle, similar to the Principle of
> Self-ownership, that allows one to deduce a right to property of
> natural resources.
Ever read Locke?
When I homestead a piece of land, and perform work on it, I mix my work
with the land, and it thus becomes mine. Thanks to *MY* work, the land
gives off useful resources, be it grain or valuable resources; metal,
oil, coal, gas, lumber, whatever.
Posession of natural resources is a natural relationship arising between
humans and the land/resources. Nothing untoward about that.
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
> On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 19:14:11 +0200, pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk (Peter
> Bjørn Perlsø) wrote:
> >
> >Just Cocky <ju...@cocky.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Thing is, you don't need a Government to throw the "first one to
> >> arrive" out. If it's not immoral, then it's ok to do it yourself. If
> >> it's ok for you to do it yourself, then it's ok to delegate that power
> >> to Government.
> >>
> >> Most of the moral philosophy I follow is tied to the Principle of
> >> Self-ownership, i.e., the idea that each and every individual owns him
> >> or herself completely and at all times. From this Principle, one can
> >> deduce things like the rights to life, to liberty and to property of
> >> created things; but not to property of non-created things. I am
> >> unaware of any profound moral principle, similar to the Principle of
> >> Self-ownership, that allows one to deduce a right to property of
> >> natural resources.
> >
> >Ever read Locke?
> >
>
> Yeap. Took me years but I finally read it all. Old English is a pain!
> :-)
>
> >
> >When I homestead a piece of land, and perform work on it, I mix my work
> >with the land, and it thus becomes mine. Thanks to *MY* work, the land
> >gives off useful resources, be it grain or valuable resources; metal,
> >oil, coal, gas, lumber, whatever.
> >
>
> Sure, and that is why I support a pseudo-right to property on
> utilitarian grounds, as it is bad to invest work on something without
> assuming one will be able to enjoy its fruits.
>
> But, what about land one keeps undeveloped, while claiming ownership?
> What would the utilitarian or moral basis for this ownership claim?
Bad for business to forgo potential profits!
>
> >
> >Posession of natural resources is a natural relationship arising between
> >humans and the land/resources. Nothing untoward about that.
> >
>
> I don't deny the natural relationship between Human and Nature. What I
> deny is that there are moral arguments for the completely exclusionary
> use of natural resources at all times. As such, this relationship
> cannot be interpreted as a right, in the moral sense. It can still be
> a right in the political sense for the reasons outline above, though.
My question is just this: Who would you have stewarding the equal
distribution of, if not the resources/lands themselves, the the rent
value or part of the profits from the resources/lands?
ruet...@outgun.com
Ever hear of the Lockean Provison? Even Locke recognized that the
homesteading of land is only justified as long as there is "as much and
as good left for others", which in reality is never, since the quantity
of land in existence is fixed.
>When I homestead a piece of land, and perform work on it, I mix my work
>with the land, and it thus becomes mine. Thanks to *MY* work, the land
>gives off useful resources, be it grain or valuable resources; metal,
>oil, coal, gas, lumber, whatever.
The entire concept of "mixing" labor with land is nonsense. Even if
such a thing were possible, how does mixing something you own with
something you do not own confer ownership of the whole?
Robert Nozick demolished the idiotic labor-mixing claim in Anarchy,
State, and Utopia by asking, "if I pour some tomato juice I own into
the ocean, do I now own the ocean or did I just waste my tomato juice?"
He is a libertarian, BTW.
He also asked an interesting question about homesteading - "does the
first private astronaut to land on Mars get to claim the patch of
ground his ship landed on, the whole planet, or the entire uninhabited
universe?"
There is no logically coherent way to provide a moral defense of
private property rights in land and unproduced natural resources.
None.
>Posession of natural resources is a natural relationship arising between
>humans and the land/resources. Nothing untoward about that.
Utter nonsense.
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
> >Ever read Locke?
>
> Ever hear of the Lockean Provison? Even Locke recognized that the
> homesteading of land is only justified as long as there is "as much and
> as good left for others", which in reality is never, since the quantity
> of land in existence is fixed.
Through trade (exchange) there is ALWAYS something left for others.
>
> >When I homestead a piece of land, and perform work on it, I mix my work
> >with the land, and it thus becomes mine. Thanks to *MY* work, the land
> >gives off useful resources, be it grain or valuable resources; metal,
> >oil, coal, gas, lumber, whatever.
>
> The entire concept of "mixing" labor with land is nonsense. Even if
> such a thing were possible, how does mixing something you own with
> something you do not own confer ownership of the whole?
>
> Robert Nozick demolished the idiotic labor-mixing claim in Anarchy,
> State, and Utopia by asking, "if I pour some tomato juice I own into
> the ocean, do I now own the ocean or did I just waste my tomato juice?"
> He is a libertarian, BTW.
I own the book, but I don't remember reading that passage.
>
> He also asked an interesting question about homesteading - "does the
> first private astronaut to land on Mars get to claim the patch of
> ground his ship landed on, the whole planet, or the entire uninhabited
> universe?"
Only as much land as he can reasonably cover on foot or in a rover.
>
> There is no logically coherent way to provide a moral defense of
> private property rights in land and unproduced natural resources.
> None.
I disagree. First come first serve is perfectly adequate justification
for me. Besides, the alternatives (collectivisation or government
intervention) are repugnant.
>
> >Posession of natural resources is a natural relationship arising between
> >humans and the land/resources. Nothing untoward about that.
>
> Utter nonsense.
:p
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
> On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 00:07:13 +0200, pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk (Peter
> Bjørn Perlsø) wrote:
> >
> >First come first serve is perfectly adequate justification for me.
> >
>
> The problem with "first come, first serve" is that it is arbitrary as
> "second come, second serve" given that there is no moral justification
> for either.
I agree that there is no moral justification for taking something others
own and have initially appropriated. But that is, after all, what
government does best.
>
> >
> >Besides, the alternatives (collectivisation or government intervention)
> >are repugnant.
> >
>
> In a libertarian world, it's only "Government intervention" *IF* the
> people delegate to Government that job.
What makes you think that government wont damn well do what it pleases?
Do you really think government answers to anybody?
> The people could simply choose
> to continue with a bigger guns win on an individual basis. However,
> I'd say that the potential for destruction of this society would
> probably be bigger than in the case of these power delegated to
> Government.
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Posession of natural resources is a natural relationship arising between
> >> >humans and the land/resources. Nothing untoward about that.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I don't deny the natural relationship between Human and Nature. What I
> >> deny is that there are moral arguments for the completely exclusionary
> >> use of natural resources at all times. As such, this relationship
> >> cannot be interpreted as a right, in the moral sense. It can still be
> >> a right in the political sense for the reasons outline above, though.
> >
> >My question is just this: Who would you have stewarding the equal
> >distribution of, if not the resources/lands themselves, the the rent
> >value or part of the profits from the resources/lands?
> >
>
> Ultimately, whoever has the biger guns!
>
> In an organized society, I'm pretty sure the people would delegate
> that job to whatever Government they had.
I'll make sure I have a rocket launcher for when the slavers come
knockin'
ruet...@outgun.com
>> homesteading of land is only justified as long as there is "as much and
>> as good left for others", which in reality is never, since the quantity
>> of land in existence is fixed.
>Through trade (exchange) there is ALWAYS something left for others.
Trade of produced goods with elastic supplies, not land, which is fixed
in supply.
>> Robert Nozick demolished the idiotic labor-mixing claim in Anarchy,
>> State, and Utopia by asking, "if I pour some tomato juice I own into
>> the ocean, do I now own the ocean or did I just waste my tomato juice?"
>> He is a libertarian, BTW.
>I own the book, but I don't remember reading that passage.
It's on page 174-5 in the edition I have, under the section "Locke's
Theory of Acquisition".
>> He also asked an interesting question about homesteading - "does the
>> first private astronaut to land on Mars get to claim the patch of
>> ground his ship landed on, the whole planet, or the entire uninhabited
>> universe?"
>Only as much land as he can reasonably cover on foot or in a rover.
Completely arbitrary.
ruet...@outgun.com
>own and have initially appropriated.
There is no moral justification for you to initially appropriate the
land either. Remember, every right implies a corresponding duty on the
part of everyone else to respect that right. You loudly declaring that
a piece of land is now exclusively yours attaches no such duty to the
rest of society.
ro...@telus.net
(=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Peter_Bj=F8rn_Perls=F8?=) wrote:
><ro...@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> Without a right to access natural resources, no other right can exist.
>> So you contend that the private owners of natural resources have
>> rights, but other people do not. OK.
>>
>Absolute nonsense.
It is fact.
>I contend that humans have a right to their life, liberty and property.
No, you don't. You contend that people who own land have property
rights in "their" land, and people who don't own land have no rights
at all. Without a right to use and access natural resources to
sustain one's life, no other right can have any effect.
>But people do NOT have rights to the property of others.
No matter what? Suppose government issued property titles to numbers
the same way it does to parcels of land. You wouldn't be able to use
the number "2," for example, unless you paid rent to its owner. Do
you really contend that such a government-issued privilege would
extinguish people's rights to use numbers without paying off the idle
parasites who happen to have legal property in all the numbers?
>Not having a
>right to the property of others does NOT mean that you can't have a
>right to the property of yourself.
It depends what that "property of others" consists of. "Property of
yourself" is completely meaningless without a right to access and use
the natural resources you need to sustain yourself. How can you have
any "property of yourself" if you must pay someone else rent just for
the space your "self" exists in?
Or to refute your claim still another way, suppose somebody privatizes
the atmosphere by operating a machine that compresses and stores air.
The air he compresses becomes his private property. He runs his
machine until the air gets so thin that aircraft can't fly over
mountains any more, Tibet and Bolivia become uninhabitable, and people
everywhere must pay him their entire assets for bottled air, just to
be able to breathe comfortably. Then he runs his machine a little
more, and requires that everyone either become his slave in return for
being allowed to breathe "his" air, or suffocate.
All those slaves are people that you claim have "property of
themselves" -- a notion that any honest person knows is laughable.
Give your head a shake, pal.
-- Roy L
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
> >> Ever hear of the Lockean Proviso? Even Locke recognized that the
> >> homesteading of land is only justified as long as there is "as much and
> >> as good left for others", which in reality is never, since the quantity
> >> of land in existence is fixed.
>
>
>
> >Through trade (exchange) there is ALWAYS something left for others.
>
> Trade of produced goods with elastic supplies, not land, which is fixed
> in supply.
As with all other resources, land is economically unlimited in supply.
Higher demand means better and more effective exploitation.
>
> >> Robert Nozick demolished the idiotic labor-mixing claim in Anarchy,
> >> State, and Utopia by asking, "if I pour some tomato juice I own into
> >> the ocean, do I now own the ocean or did I just waste my tomato juice?"
> >> He is a libertarian, BTW.
>
>
>
> >I own the book, but I don't remember reading that passage.
>
>
> It's on page 174-5 in the edition I have, under the section "Locke's
> Theory of Acquisition".
Thanks, will check it out.
>
> >> He also asked an interesting question about homesteading - "does the
> >> first private astronaut to land on Mars get to claim the patch of
> >> ground his ship landed on, the whole planet, or the entire uninhabited
> >> universe?"
>
>
>
> >Only as much land as he can reasonably cover on foot or in a rover.
>
> Completely arbitrary.
Disagree.
ro...@telus.net
(=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Peter_Bj=F8rn_Perls=F8?=) wrote:
>sinister <sini...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> ""Peter Bjørn Perlsø"" <pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk> wrote in message
>> news:1he32er.1tph8e8m1rbo1N%pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk...
>> > sinister <sini...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> >> If there's no right to access natural resources, why is there a right to
>> >> control natural resources?
>> >
>> > First come, first served.
>>
>> Oh, boy, that's a well-thought out theory of human freedom.
>>
>> Not.
>>
>> There's actually a true libertarian utopia, already existing on planet
>> Earth. It's called "Somalia." Have you considered voting with your feet
>> and moving there?
>
>Yes, I have.
And what stopped you? Too utopian? Too rich, too peaceful?
Inquiring minds want to know.
-- Roy L
nospam
> He also asked an interesting question about homesteading - "does the
> first private astronaut to land on Mars get to claim the patch of
> ground his ship landed on, the whole planet, or the entire uninhabited
> universe?"
Why do not take a look at how God (or Mother Nature if you like it) solved
the issue ? Human nature it is ruled by 2 fundamental natural instincts:
property instinct and community instinct.
An individual territory it is no larger than how much the individual can
cover to protect by itself. You are not going to see any mountain lion
owning an 10 square miles territory, isn't it?
A larger, faster, stronger individual is going to own a territory a little
larger than a smaller, slower, weaker. However, the differences are going
to be about 10%...200% larger but no more due to physiological limitations.
Human civilization it is responsible of breaking the nature laws by creation
of the human laws of property. Using these laws, a individual is going to
delegate the defense of it territory/wealth to other individuals.
Strangely enough, the human civilization (responsible to protect property
laws) originated due to community instinct.
It is the community instinct the one responsible to protect the property in
quantities greather than one can handle by itself. Many societies
understood that and they balanced the property with community.
Some did not and had a nasty outcome.
Communism for example, started with the idea of supressing the property
instinct. But when you fight the nature, it strike back and gets it
revenge. Suppressing a natural instinct it is unnatural, of course.
To be able to do it one must employ a stronger instinct: conservation
instinct. I.E. rule by fear and repression so the conservation instinct
act to prevent the self. This is the reason ALL communist regimes become to
use repression very very early in their life. The communist oligarchy was
the only segment of the population where the conservation instinct did not
inhibit the property instinct, and guess what. It did not get suppressed.
More than that, it got exacerbated. In the end the hypothetical "extreme
left" society where the wealth and resources were supposed to be shared by
everybody degenerated/evolved into the more extreme form of "extreme
right", a neo-feudalism. A new form of society ruled by an
aristocracy/oligarchy who own everything and rule by fear over a mass of
population who does not own anything.
It is the mother nature (God)'s way to balance the things by making no
difference betwen the "extreme right" and "extreme left".
They are EXACTLY THE SAME. It is not a line from left to right but a circle,
having tyranny(slavery, feudalism, communism, fascism, libertarianism) at a
point and the balanced social democracy at the opposed point on the
diameter.
In this context it is extremely strange to see the stupidity of the new
neoconservative/libertarian movement who didn't learn anything from history
and they want to repeat the experiment but supressing the community
instinct.
But that is: The lessons of Great Depression are over 70 years old
and weak minded fanatic radical right forgot the fact that was the balance
brought in by FDR who saved the US from becoming the "United Soviets of
America".
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
> On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 15:53:49 +0200, pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk
> (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Peter_Bj=F8rn_Perls=F8?=) wrote:
>
> ><ro...@telus.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Without a right to access natural resources, no other right can exist.
> >> So you contend that the private owners of natural resources have
> >> rights, but other people do not. OK.
> >>
> >Absolute nonsense.
>
> It is fact.
No, it is your personal *opinion*.
>
> >I contend that humans have a right to their life, liberty and property.
>
> No, you don't.
I just did.
> You contend that people who own land have property
> rights in "their" land, and people who don't own land have no rights
> at all.
Nonsense. People who own nothing have no rights to the property of
*others* but they still have the rights to their own life and liberty.
AS I said.
> Without a right to use and access natural resources to
> sustain one's life, no other right can have any effect.
Thats nonsense.
>
> >But people do NOT have rights to the property of others.
>
> No matter what?
No matter what!
> Suppose government issued property titles to numbers
> the same way it does to parcels of land. You wouldn't be able to use
> the number "2," for example, unless you paid rent to its owner. Do
> you really contend that such a government-issued privilege would
> extinguish people's rights to use numbers without paying off the idle
> parasites who happen to have legal property in all the numbers?
Concepts are not property. Therefore your example is false.
> >Not having a
> >right to the property of others does NOT mean that you can't have a
> >right to the property of yourself.
>
> It depends what that "property of others" consists of.
Don't be obtuse. Stuff that others own, naturally.
> "Property of
> yourself" is completely meaningless without a right to access and use
> the natural resources you need to sustain yourself.
Disagree completely.
> How can you have
> any "property of yourself" if you must pay someone else rent just for
> the space your "self" exists in?
Because your body naturally occupies an amount of space that you then
naturally lay claim to.
>
> Or to refute your claim still another way, suppose somebody privatizes
> the atmosphere by operating a machine that compresses and stores air.
> The air he compresses becomes his private property. He runs his
> machine until the air gets so thin that aircraft can't fly over
> mountains any more, Tibet and Bolivia become uninhabitable, and people
> everywhere must pay him their entire assets for bottled air, just to
> be able to breathe comfortably. Then he runs his machine a little
> more, and requires that everyone either become his slave in return for
> being allowed to breathe "his" air, or suffocate.
Easily solved - he is taking air away from people, who own airspace
above their houses, factories and such. As such, he must compensate
them. This, of course requires that the airspace above peoples houses
belong to them and have not been "socialised" by some silly government.
>
> All those slaves are people that you claim have "property of
> themselves" -- a notion that any honest person knows is laughable.
>
> Give your head a shake, pal.
Just did. Still doesn't make your stance seem anymore useful or
workable.
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
> In this context it is extremely strange to see the stupidity of the new
> neoconservative/libertarian movement who didn't learn anything from history
> and they want to repeat the experiment but supressing the community
> instinct.
>
> But that is: The lessons of Great Depression are over 70 years old
> and weak minded fanatic radical right forgot the fact that was the balance
> brought in by FDR who saved the US from becoming the "United Soviets of
> America".
What, by having FDR institute fascist economic measures?
Sorry, I don't buy it.
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
I reject the idea that i should accept duties to others just because I
acquire a new amount of property.
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
> I have no moral objection to that.
I have no moral objection to killing slavers, either. Not even if they
say they're from the tax department.
ro...@telus.net
(=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Peter_Bj=F8rn_Perls=F8?=) wrote:
><ro...@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 08:06:08 +0200, pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk
>> (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Peter_Bj=F8rn_Perls=F8?=) wrote:
>>
>> >sinister <sini...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> >> If there's no right to access natural resources, why is there a right to
>> >> control natural resources?
>> >
>> >First come, first served.
>>
>> Nope. Wrong. That principle presupposes someone doing the serving,
>> who _chooses_ to thus allocate the benefits he is providing. Even
>> aside from its total irrelevance to the real world -- there is no plot
>> of land anywhere on earth whose current possession can be traced
>> through purely consensual transactions to a first-comer -- the evil
>> and idiotic notion that being first to discover, claim, or use a
>> natural resource confers any sort of property right in it is easily
>> refuted:
>>
>> A man stumbles into an oasis from the desert, dying of thirst. He
>> rushes to the water and is about to drink, when he hears a revolver
>> being cocked behind his ear. A quiet, raspy voice intones, "Uh uh. I
>> know what you're thinkin'. 'Is he going to charge me six years' labor
>> for a sip of water, or only five?' And to tell the truth, in all this
>> excitement I haven't quite totalled up the rent myself. But bein' as
>> it's 44 miles to the next waterhole, which might as well be the other
>> side of the world, and I'd as soon run your sorry butt _clean_off_ my
>> land, you've got to ask yourself a question: 'Do I feel _thirsty_
>> today?' Well, do ya, _slave_?"
>
>1) That's a typically socialist way of portraying property rights,
Liar. Calling freedom, justice, and respect for human rights
"socialist" is a typically feudalist way of portraying any consistent
defense of the human rights to life, liberty and property in the
products of one's labor.
>but you don't have anyone fooled.
You're right. I don't have anyone fooled. What I wrote is so plain
and clear that none could possibly misunderstand it.
But you certainly have _yourself_ fooled.
>2) You haven't refuted anything.
Yes, of course I have. I have refuted your belief system by the
method of reductio ad absurdum: I have proved that the principles you
espouse imply an absurd and untenable conclusion.
>The person who is the first to claim a
>piece of land/resource/whatever, gets to have it and exploit it as he
>sees fit.
No, of course he doesn't. Why on earth would he? You might as well
claim that the first person to count up to each number gets to own it,
and charge other people rent if they want to use it. It's absurd.
>It's called "homesteading".
No, it's called "violating others' rights."
>(BTW, whats your alternative?
Those who wish to deprive others of natural resources should pay the
market rent of such resources to the community of those they deprive
of them.
>government land grants, with nice fat taxations following?
Government administers possession and use of land in any case. That's
what government _is_. A homestead is nothing but a government-issued
land title granted under certain government-specified conditions. It
would be better if government administered possession and use of land
in the interest of all the people, to secure the rights of all the
people, rather than violating everyone's rights for the unearned
benefit of a small, wealthy, idle, privileged minority.
>Has it
>occurred to you that that's merely slavery in another, albeit more
>popular, form?
No, because it very obviously isn't. Recovering the publicly created
rent of natural resources for the purposes and benefit of the public
that creates it is self-evident justice, and has historically resulted
in marked increases in freedom and prosperity every single time it has
been tried. It has been the fiscal foundation of most great
civilizations, and its abandonment has destroyed more civilizations
and economies than any other cause.
-- Roy L
nospam
> "nospam" is a retarded socialist.
Socialism imply no private ownership of any production means.
I am for a balanced society with private property but strong supervision to
prevent primitive individuals to abuse of others.
This is called centrism.
I explained you that at least ten times, but since your fanatic radical
right winger IQ is less than that of a drunk chicken in latest stage of
avian flu you are not capable to understand it.
> He'd have loved for the United
> States to become the "United Soviets of America".
Nope. I try to prevent primitive minded individuals (like you) to make it
that way.
The final outcome of libertarian like society is doomed to be the same as
communism or fascism.
The only difference is the path taken to achieve that outcome.
ro...@telus.net
>Just Cocky <ju...@cocky.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 00:07:13 +0200, pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk (Peter
>> Bjørn Perlsø) wrote:
>> >
>> >First come first serve is perfectly adequate justification for me.
>> >
>>
>> The problem with "first come, first serve" is that it is arbitrary as
>> "second come, second serve" given that there is no moral justification
>> for either.
>
>I agree that there is no moral justification for taking something others
>own and have initially appropriated.
Because you have not thought the matter through.
>> >Besides, the alternatives (collectivisation or government intervention)
>> >are repugnant.
>> >
>>
>> In a libertarian world, it's only "Government intervention" *IF* the
>> people delegate to Government that job.
>
>What makes you think that government wont damn well do what it pleases?
>Do you really think government answers to anybody?
Oh, I get it. This is just more "me hate government" spew.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
(=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Peter_Bj=F8rn_Perls=F8?=) wrote:
>JWith anything government comes waste, favoritism,
>populism and nepotism.
And that would be different from non-governmental institutions how,
exactly?
-- Roy L
nospam
> What, by having FDR institute fascist economic measures?
No. Remember Hoover addressing the business owners:
Please hire, Please hire, Please hire, Please hire, Please hire.
However, GD was a special type of recession. It was not generated by
the simple market stupidity (over reaction) as all the other. It was
generated by exhaustion of consumers disposable income.
Into a regular recession a company fire workers until costs are less than
the income from production and proffit is generated. Then the investors put
back money in the system.
In GD due to dramatic decline in wages before the recession, the income
dropped at the same pace as the average business fired workers. Therefore
the profitable point was not reached by layoffs and companies kept doing it
more and more just to see the income drop more and more. The investors pull
money out of the market with every income drop. Then the market crashed.
The stupid Hoover cry was not going to help restarting the circle.
FDR took painfull measures to force an economic restart.
> Sorry, I don't buy it.
Try to put logic before beliefs. It is going to help.
ro...@telus.net
>Ever read Locke?
Yes. And I understood him.
>When I homestead a piece of land, and perform work on it, I mix my work
>with the land,
No, of course you don't. That is nothing but a misleading metaphor.
You might as well claim that a day at the beach mixes enjoyment with
sand and water. It is literal nonsense.
>and it thus becomes mine.
No, it doesn't. "I breathe, and the atmosphere becomes mine."
ROTFL!
>Thanks to *MY* work, the land
>gives off useful resources, be it grain or valuable resources; metal,
>oil, coal, gas, lumber, whatever.
No. That claim is also false. The resources were already there,
ready to use, before you or any human being even existed. What your
labor does is create _products_, which have been _removed_ from nature
and are no longer part of the land. _That_ is what you have a right
to own: the things that _you_created_. There can be no right to
deprive others of their rights to use the things that you did _not_
create.
>Posession of natural resources is a natural relationship arising between
>humans and the land/resources.
But possession is not ownership. Possession of natural resources
while one uses them to obtain one's livelihood is indeed a natural
relationship, but private ownership of land and other natural
resources was unknown and indeed inconceivable in pre-agricultural
societies, and had never existed in the whole history of the world
until a few thousand years ago. By contrast, private property in
products of labor has been observed in every society anthropologists
have studied, no matter how primitive.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
>ruet...@outgun.com <ruet...@outgun.com> wrote:
>
>> >Ever read Locke?
>>
>> Ever hear of the Lockean Provison? Even Locke recognized that the
>> homesteading of land is only justified as long as there is "as much and
>> as good left for others", which in reality is never, since the quantity
>> of land in existence is fixed.
>
>Through trade (exchange) there is ALWAYS something left for others.
Locke didn't say "something." He said, "as much and as good."
>> Robert Nozick demolished the idiotic labor-mixing claim in Anarchy,
>> State, and Utopia by asking, "if I pour some tomato juice I own into
>> the ocean, do I now own the ocean or did I just waste my tomato juice?"
>> He is a libertarian, BTW.
>
>I own the book, but I don't remember reading that passage.
Yes, well, you seem to have misremembered Locke, too.
>> He also asked an interesting question about homesteading - "does the
>> first private astronaut to land on Mars get to claim the patch of
>> ground his ship landed on, the whole planet, or the entire uninhabited
>> universe?"
>
>Only as much land as he can reasonably cover on foot or in a rover.
And this arbitrary amount is justified how, exactly?
Thought not.
>> There is no logically coherent way to provide a moral defense of
>> private property rights in land and unproduced natural resources.
>> None.
>
>I disagree.
Of course, but you're just wrong.
>First come first serve is perfectly adequate justification for me.
But it has no moral basis and is not logically defensible, as I have
already proved.
>Besides, the alternatives (collectivisation or government
>intervention) are repugnant.
Only if your beliefs are false.
-- Roy L
ruet...@outgun.com
>> >own and have initially appropriated.
>> There is no moral justification for you to initially appropriate the
>> land either. Remember, every right implies a corresponding duty on the
>> part of everyone else to respect that right. You loudly declaring that
>> a piece of land is now exclusively yours attaches no such duty to the
>> rest of society.
>I reject the idea that i should accept duties to others just because I
>acquire a new amount of property.
You are not accepting a duty to others, you are imposing a duty on
others, namely, the duty to respect your claimed property right. Every
single right in existence implies a corresponding duty on the part of
others; in the case of negative rights, that duty is the duty of others
to respect that right.
It is pretty clear that you have not thought any of this through.
ruet...@outgun.com
>> Trade of produced goods with elastic supplies, not land, which is fixed
>> in supply.
>As with all other resources, land is economically unlimited in supply.
>Higher demand means better and more effective exploitation.
It's pretty clear that you do not understand what the terms "supply",
"demand", and "elasticity" mean in economics.
>> >> He also asked an interesting question about homesteading - "does the
>> >> first private astronaut to land on Mars get to claim the patch of
>> >> ground his ship landed on, the whole planet, or the entire uninhabited
>> >> universe?"
>> >Only as much land as he can reasonably cover on foot or in a rover.
>> Completely arbitrary.
>Disagree.
That's nice. Perhaps you would like to attempt a logical rebuttal by
demonstrating how it is non-arbitrary. Before doing that, you would
also need to provide a concise definition of the word "reasonable" in
the context you used it above.
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
I don't know arabic/whatever language they speak there, and I don't
suppose english is too commonly used down there.
Besides, I need initial capital to start on my own, capital which I
don't have - yet.
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
Yawn. Come up with a realistic scenario, instead of portraying all
resources that come from land like water in a desert. Thats an awfully
far-fetched scenario.
PS: Stop with the feudalist bullshit. I'm still not buying it.
>
> >but you don't have anyone fooled.
>
> You're right. I don't have anyone fooled. What I wrote is so plain
> and clear that none could possibly misunderstand it.
Or understand it, either.
>
> But you certainly have _yourself_ fooled.
>
Yada yada.
> >2) You haven't refuted anything.
>
> Yes, of course I have. I have refuted your belief system by the
> method of reductio ad absurdum: I have proved that the principles you
> espouse imply an absurd and untenable conclusion.
The only thing you have laid the groudwork for is that of the state
slavery - that those who come second, or later, have an equal claim on
resources that they were not the first to find or extract.
>
> >The person who is the first to claim a
> >piece of land/resource/whatever, gets to have it and exploit it as he
> >sees fit.
>
> No, of course he doesn't. Why on earth would he?
Because he's *THERE* first. Because he *CAN*. Because without his labor
and sweat, you woudn't see shit of the resources you are so eager to
redistribute.
> You might as well
> claim that the first person to count up to each number gets to own it,
> and charge other people rent if they want to use it. It's absurd.
As said elsewhere, udsing that analogy in the first place is absurd.
Would you also claim that you could own the concept of sunrays?
>
> >It's called "homesteading".
>
> No, it's called "violating others' rights."
The logical consequence is that others have a right to the entire
universes resources, even though they would never be exploited by man.
>
> >(BTW, whats your alternative?
>
> Those who wish to deprive others of natural resources should pay the
> market rent of such resources to the community of those they deprive
> of them.
1) Who should decide how much to effectively pay? You?
2) Those who bring resources to a market are obviously (i hope?) not
depriving others of these resources.
>
> >government land grants, with nice fat taxations following?
>
> Government administers possession and use of land in any case. That's
> what government _is_.
Bunk! Government is a collection of thugs with biggers guns than
everyone else, and a idea that they have the right to enslave others.
> A homestead is nothing but a government-issued
> land title
You're assuming that government own the land in the first place, which
is ridiculous. If you can't own something you didn't produce (which is
YOUR argument), how can government suddently own something THEY didn't
produce? Ergo: You are contradicting yourself.
> granted under certain government-specified conditions. It
> would be better if government administered possession and use of land
> in the interest of all the people,
Should this control "in the interest of everyone" be administered by a
democratically elected gov't? Say hello to special interests and
nepotism!
> to secure the rights of all the
> people,
Government does not secure rights, it is the supremely worst thug,
abuser and depriver of rights ever seen.
> rather than violating everyone's rights for the unearned
> benefit of a small, wealthy, idle, privileged minority.
Today, the primary sector (farming, fishery, mining(?)) accounts for
only a few percent of the national GDPs in the western world. This does
not support your claim that this land-owning minority is wealthy, and as
such, not priviledged in any way.
>
> >Has it
> >occurred to you that that's merely slavery in another, albeit more
> >popular, form?
>
> No, because it very obviously isn't.
That you're merely a socialist, shrouding yoruself in libertarian
clothes. At least have the decency to denominate yourself correctly, and
stop this deception.
> Recovering the publicly created
It is *still* privately created.
> rent of natural resources for the purposes and benefit of the public
> that creates it is self-evident justice,
Yes... for a socialist, it is.
> and has historically resulted
> in marked increases in freedom and prosperity every single time it has
> been tried. It has been the fiscal foundation of most great
> civilizations, and its abandonment has destroyed more civilizations
> and economies than any other cause.
>
> -- Roy L
You'll have to back up that claim. Will you really state that say, the
Egyptian, Greek and Roman cilizations, and the fall of these were to
blame for a lack of resource redistribution?
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
> On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 19:14:11 +0200, pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk
> (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Peter_Bj=F8rn_Perls=F8?=) wrote:
>
> >Ever read Locke?
>
> Yes. And I understood him.
>
> >When I homestead a piece of land, and perform work on it, I mix my work
> >with the land,
>
> No, of course you don't. That is nothing but a misleading metaphor.
Will "improvement of the land" make you understand it any better, then?
> You might as well claim that a day at the beach mixes enjoyment with
> sand and water. It is literal nonsense.
No, you could easily say that, but it has no meaning in this discussion.
>
> >and it thus becomes mine.
>
> No, it doesn't. "I breathe, and the atmosphere becomes mine."
False metaphor. When you breate, the air you inhale becomes yours. O2 is
respirated into your body, and combine with the sugar in your cells to
create water, carbon dioxide (the two of which is released to the
athmosphere again) and energy.
As was also the case with your Mars colonization scenario, the entire
surface (or geology) of Mars do not become the property of one man, upon
setting foot on the surface. Only what is physically accessible.
>
> ROTFL!
Glad you're amused.
>
> >Thanks to *MY* work, the land
> >gives off useful resources, be it grain or valuable resources; metal,
> >oil, coal, gas, lumber, whatever.
>
> No. That claim is also false. The resources were already there,
> ready to use,
So, tell me, how do you get gasoline, without MY work to refine it fron
crude oil? How would you turn naturally ocurring yelllowcake into useful
Uranium for nuclear reactors without MY work to refine it and prepare it
for use? This goes for ANY resource. If I were to happen to stumpble
upon a fully grown field of wheat, you WOUDN'T have grain for four
without my work of harvesting it. You WOULDN'T have breads from the four
without MY work of baking bread. And so on.
Do you get it now?
> before you or any human being even existed. What your
> labor does is create _products_, which have been _removed_ from nature
> and are no longer part of the land. _That_ is what you have a right
> to own: the things that _you_created_. There can be no right to
> deprive others of their rights to use the things that you did _not_
> create.
Same old hat. See above.
>
> >Posession of natural resources is a natural relationship arising between
> >humans and the land/resources.
>
> But possession is not ownership.
If it is legitimately acquired, yes it is.
> Possession of natural resources
> while one uses them to obtain one's livelihood is indeed a natural
> relationship, but private ownership of land and other natural
> resources was unknown and indeed inconceivable in pre-agricultural
> societies,
Obviously because there was no use of the land in the hunter-time stone
age. That has changed. We do not live is the stone age any more, Roy.
> and had never existed in the whole history of the world
> until a few thousand years ago.
Times change.
> By contrast, private property in
> products of labor has been observed in every society anthropologists
> have studied, no matter how primitive.
>
> -- Roy L
No disagreement there.
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
> On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 00:07:13 +0200, pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk
> (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Peter_Bj=F8rn_Perls=F8?=) wrote:
>
> >ruet...@outgun.com <ruet...@outgun.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >Ever read Locke?
> >>
> >> Ever hear of the Lockean Provison? Even Locke recognized that the
> >> homesteading of land is only justified as long as there is "as much and
> >> as good left for others", which in reality is never, since the quantity
> >> of land in existence is fixed.
> >
> >Through trade (exchange) there is ALWAYS something left for others.
>
> Locke didn't say "something." He said, "as much and as good."
Again, who will you have administer and decide "how much" is "as much
and as good"?
>
> >> Robert Nozick demolished the idiotic labor-mixing claim in Anarchy,
> >> State, and Utopia by asking, "if I pour some tomato juice I own into
> >> the ocean, do I now own the ocean or did I just waste my tomato juice?"
> >> He is a libertarian, BTW.
> >
> >I own the book, but I don't remember reading that passage.
>
> Yes, well, you seem to have misremembered Locke, too.
Oh, spare me.
>
> >> He also asked an interesting question about homesteading - "does the
> >> first private astronaut to land on Mars get to claim the patch of
> >> ground his ship landed on, the whole planet, or the entire uninhabited
> >> universe?"
> >
> >Only as much land as he can reasonably cover on foot or in a rover.
>
> And this arbitrary amount is justified how, exactly?
By the homesteaders mere precense on the area.
>
> Thought not.
...
>
> >> There is no logically coherent way to provide a moral defense of
> >> private property rights in land and unproduced natural resources.
> >> None.
> >
> >I disagree.
>
> Of course, but you're just wrong.
>
> >First come first serve is perfectly adequate justification for me.
>
> But it has no moral basis and is not logically defensible, as I have
> already proved.
Again, you've proved nothing, but merely endlessly reiterated your idea
that people should not own what they work to improve.
>
> >Besides, the alternatives (collectivisation or government
> >intervention) are repugnant.
>
> Only if your beliefs are false.
So, you are a friend of government power?
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
> On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 02:28:47 +0200, pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk (Peter
> Bjørn Perlsø) wrote:
> >
> >Just Cocky <ju...@cocky.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> In a libertarian world, it's only "Government intervention" *IF* the
> >> people delegate to Government that job.
> >
> >What makes you think that government wont damn well do what it pleases?
> >Do you really think government answers to anybody?
> >
>
> Well, libertarians aren't anarchists.
Not all, some are. I am.
> In libertarian land, Government
> has as it mandate to protect individual rights and whatever other
> functions people delegate to it consistent with the main mandate. In
> libertarian land, Government doesn't do as it pleases. That's why
> individuals are armed, after all.
Problem is, the western world have over the last few centuries,
especially since WWI, with the spread of democracy, been shown to be the
exact opposite of a libertarian minarchist state. The state has grown
beyond all believable bounds, and individual rights has become a tragic
farce.
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
> On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 02:28:47 +0200, pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk
> (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Peter_Bj=F8rn_Perls=F8?=) wrote:
>
> >Just Cocky <ju...@cocky.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 00:07:13 +0200, pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk (Peter
> >> Bjørn Perlsø) wrote:
> >> >
> >> >First come first serve is perfectly adequate justification for me.
> >> >
> >>
> >> The problem with "first come, first serve" is that it is arbitrary as
> >> "second come, second serve" given that there is no moral justification
> >> for either.
> >
> >I agree that there is no moral justification for taking something others
> >own and have initially appropriated.
>
> Because you have not thought the matter through.
And you alone are the one to share your all-knowing wisdom with poor me?
HA!
>
> >> >Besides, the alternatives (collectivisation or government intervention)
> >> >are repugnant.
> >> >
> >>
> >> In a libertarian world, it's only "Government intervention" *IF* the
> >> people delegate to Government that job.
> >
> >What makes you think that government wont damn well do what it pleases?
> >Do you really think government answers to anybody?
>
> Oh, I get it. This is just more "me hate government" spew.
>
> -- Roy L
Anybody who values life and liberty dislikes the government. If you
don't dislike the government, youre merely another thug who doesn't give
a shit about the Non-agression principle (NAP).
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
> Peter Bjørn Perlsø wrote:
>
>
> > What, by having FDR institute fascist economic measures?
>
> No. Remember Hoover addressing the business owners:
> Please hire, Please hire, Please hire, Please hire, Please hire.
>
> However, GD was a special type of recession. It was not generated by
> the simple market stupidity (over reaction) as all the other. It was
> generated by exhaustion of consumers disposable income.
What, are you also a Keynesianist?
Besides, it's incorrect. The GD was a result of the bust that followed
years of expansive monetary policy.
Read:
http://www.mises.org/rothbard/agd.pdf
>
> Into a regular recession a company fire workers until costs are less than
> the income from production and proffit is generated. Then the investors put
> back money in the system.
>
> In GD due to dramatic decline in wages before the recession, the income
> dropped at the same pace as the average business fired workers. Therefore
> the profitable point was not reached by layoffs and companies kept doing it
> more and more just to see the income drop more and more. The investors pull
> money out of the market with every income drop. Then the market crashed.
>
> The stupid Hoover cry was not going to help restarting the circle.
> FDR took painfull measures to force an economic restart.
FDR merely lengthened the crisis with his idiotic interventionist
measures.
http://www.mises.org/story/1623
>
> > Sorry, I don't buy it.
>
> Try to put logic before beliefs. It is going to help.
Try some of that advice on for yourself.
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
> Just Cocky wrote:
>
> > "nospam" is a retarded socialist.
>
> Socialism imply no private ownership of any production means.
> I am for a balanced society with private property but strong supervision to
> prevent primitive individuals to abuse of others.
> This is called centrism.
And how will you guard individual owners from the abuses of your
watchdogs (government)?
>
> I explained you that at least ten times, but since your fanatic radical
> right winger IQ
Oooohh.
> is less than that of a drunk chicken in latest stage of
> avian flu you are not capable to understand it.
>
> > He'd have loved for the United
> > States to become the "United Soviets of America".
>
> Nope. I try to prevent primitive minded individuals (like you) to make it
> that way.
>
> The final outcome of libertarian like society is doomed to be the same as
> communism or fascism.
> The only difference is the path taken to achieve that outcome.
So libertarianism will lead to a strong centralized government that uses
violence as a political means (fascism) or a stateless classless society
with perfect equality of outcome (communism)?
I'm not religious, but jeez...
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
> >> >I agree that there is no moral justification for taking something others
> >> >own and have initially appropriated.
>
> >> There is no moral justification for you to initially appropriate the
> >> land either. Remember, every right implies a corresponding duty on the
> >> part of everyone else to respect that right. You loudly declaring that
> >> a piece of land is now exclusively yours attaches no such duty to the
> >> rest of society.
>
>
>
> >I reject the idea that i should accept duties to others just because I
> >acquire a new amount of property.
>
>
> You are not accepting a duty to others, you are imposing a duty on
> others, namely, the duty to respect your claimed property right.
And I will respect the property right of others in exchange.
> Every
> single right in existence implies a corresponding duty on the part of
> others; in the case of negative rights, that duty is the duty of others
> to respect that right.
Which I am, as stated above.
>
> It is pretty clear that you have not thought any of this through.
I get that a lot, lately. Doesn't make it anymore true, though.
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
> >> >Through trade (exchange) there is ALWAYS something left for others.
>
>
> >> Trade of produced goods with elastic supplies, not land, which is fixed
> >> in supply.
>
>
>
> >As with all other resources, land is economically unlimited in supply.
> >Higher demand means better and more effective exploitation.
>
> It's pretty clear that you do not understand what the terms "supply",
> "demand", and "elasticity" mean in economics.
But I do.
>
>
> >> >> He also asked an interesting question about homesteading - "does the
> >> >> first private astronaut to land on Mars get to claim the patch of
> >> >> ground his ship landed on, the whole planet, or the entire uninhabited
> >> >> universe?"
>
>
> >> >Only as much land as he can reasonably cover on foot or in a rover.
>
>
> >> Completely arbitrary.
>
>
>
> >Disagree.
>
> That's nice. Perhaps you would like to attempt a logical rebuttal by
> demonstrating how it is non-arbitrary. Before doing that, you would
> also need to provide a concise definition of the word "reasonable" in
> the context you used it above.
Reasonable in the context means whatever would be prysically possible
for a homesteader to posses during his arrival at a new area of land.
Eg. I do not own the earths core, though I'm placed on top of it,
because I don't have access to it. But if i had machinery to dig all the
way to the center of the earth, there would be grounds for me to claim
it as my own.
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
> <ro...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 15:53:49 +0200, pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk
> > (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Peter_Bj=F8rn_Perls=F8?=) wrote:
> >
> > ><ro...@telus.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Without a right to access natural resources, no other right can exist.
> > >> So you contend that the private owners of natural resources have
> > >> rights, but other people do not. OK.
> > >>
> > >Absolute nonsense.
> >
> > It is fact.
BTW, roy, it's pretty appearent that we'll agree when hell freezes over,
so why don't we just stop here?
ruet...@outgun.com
Somali, I think.
>and I don't
>suppose english is too commonly used down there.
You'd be surprised. In any event, learning another language isn't THAT
hard, and it's a small price to pay for being able to live in what you
believe to be a utopian society.
>Besides, I need initial capital to start on my own, capital which I
>don't have - yet.
I'd be more worried about hanging onto that capital once you're there.
There are pirates and such always looking for easy marks; you could
enlist the services of a warlord for protection, but that would be
likely to quickly deplete whatever capital you had.
ruet...@outgun.com
>> >acquire a new amount of property.
>> You are not accepting a duty to others, you are imposing a duty on
>> others, namely, the duty to respect your claimed property right.
>And I will respect the property right of others in exchange.
Too late, someone has already claimed all of the land. Looks like
you'll just have to settle for being their slave, since without any
land there is no space in which to exist.
Of course, you still haven't provided any moral justification
whatsoever for why anyone should respect such a claim to own land any
more than a claim to own the entire atmosphere, or the oceans, or
anything else that was not brought into existence by someone's labor.
ruet...@outgun.com
>don't dislike the government, youre merely another thug who doesn't give
>a shit about the Non-agression principle (NAP).
By claiming exclusive control over a piece of land you did not create,
you are initiating force against everyone else who would use that land.
In fact, virtually everything you do initiates force against other
people, it's just a matter of degree. Speaking within earshot of
others is forcing them to be subject to your soundwaves, light that
emanates from your house trespasses onto the property of your
neighbors, etc.
I always recommend that anarcho-capitalists and libertarians who base
their philosophy on natural rights and the non-aggression principle
read chapter 41 from David Friedman's (a well-known anarcho-capitalist)
book, The Machinery of Freedom.
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_41.html
He demonstrates such an attempted justification to be completely
without foundation.
Unfortunately, he goes on to justify anarcho-capitalism on utilitarian
grounds, which I find to be illogical and counterfactual.
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
> >> >I reject the idea that i should accept duties to others just because I
> >> >acquire a new amount of property.
>
>
> >> You are not accepting a duty to others, you are imposing a duty on
> >> others, namely, the duty to respect your claimed property right.
>
>
>
> >And I will respect the property right of others in exchange.
>
> Too late, someone has already claimed all of the land. Looks like
> you'll just have to settle for being their slave, since without any
> land there is no space in which to exist.
What is it with you guys? I'm not a landowner today, and that STILL
doesn't make me a slave of anyone. It's about as crazy as the claims
that we are slaves of nature, because we have to eat and drink.
>
> Of course, you still haven't provided any moral justification
> whatsoever for why anyone should respect such a claim to own land any
> more than a claim to own the entire atmosphere, or the oceans, or
> anything else that was not brought into existence by someone's labor.
Why respect it? Because if you don't i'll put a bullet in your skull.
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
> >Anybody who values life and liberty dislikes the government. If you don't
> >dislike the government, youre merely another thug who doesn't give a shit
> >about the Non-agression principle (NAP).
>
> By claiming exclusive control over a piece of land you did not create, you
> are initiating force against everyone else who would use that land.
Thats correct. It's called ownership.
>
> In fact, virtually everything you do initiates force against other people,
> it's just a matter of degree. Speaking within earshot of others is
> forcing them to be subject to your soundwaves, light that emanates from
> your house trespasses onto the property of your neighbors, etc.
If it causes no harm, it's not initiation of force. Me talking to you is
NOT an assault on your eardrums, and claiming it is is utter nonsense.
>
> I always recommend that anarcho-capitalists and libertarians who base
> their philosophy on natural rights and the non-aggression principle read
> chapter 41 from David Friedman's (a well-known anarcho-capitalist) book,
> The Machinery of Freedom.
>
> http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapte
> r_41.html
>
> He demonstrates such an attempted justification to be completely without
> foundation.
>
> Unfortunately, he goes on to justify anarcho-capitalism on utilitarian
> grounds, which I find to be illogical and counterfactual.
I own the book, and the only thing David mentions of interest is the
example (p 168) with the 1000 Megawatt laser beam that's turned down to
the intensity of a regular flashlight. But I covered that above - if it
doesn't damage you or your property, it's not an assault/not force.
The rest of the chaper boils down to the fact that David Friedmann is
usure what stance he has on the georgists claim to general ownership of
land. IOW, this thread all over again.
ruet...@outgun.com
>> you'll just have to settle for being their slave, since without any
>> land there is no space in which to exist.
>What is it with you guys? I'm not a landowner today, and that STILL
>doesn't make me a slave of anyone. It's about as crazy as the claims
>that we are slaves of nature, because we have to eat and drink.
That fact that a landless person has to pay someone else for the right
to have space in which to exist does in fact make him a slave.
>> Of course, you still haven't provided any moral justification
>> whatsoever for why anyone should respect such a claim to own land any
>> more than a claim to own the entire atmosphere, or the oceans, or
>> anything else that was not brought into existence by someone's labor.
>Why respect it? Because if you don't i'll put a bullet in your skull.
So much for the non-aggression principle.
ruet...@outgun.com
>> are initiating force against everyone else who would use that land.
>Thats correct. It's called ownership.
So you do, in fact, support the initiation of force when it suits you.
As I figured.
>> In fact, virtually everything you do initiates force against other people,
>> it's just a matter of degree. Speaking within earshot of others is
>> forcing them to be subject to your soundwaves, light that emanates from
>> your house trespasses onto the property of your neighbors, etc.
>If it causes no harm, it's not initiation of force. Me talking to you is
>NOT an assault on your eardrums, and claiming it is is utter nonsense.
That depends on who gets to define harm. Like most everything within
the completely foundation-less philosophy known as libertarianism.
>I own the book, and the only thing David mentions of interest is the
>example (p 168) with the 1000 Megawatt laser beam that's turned down to
>the intensity of a regular flashlight. But I covered that above - if it
>doesn't damage you or your property, it's not an assault/not force.
And David thoroughly rebuts that position in that chapter.
Quoting:
-----------------------------------
One can avoid such results by qualifying the statements: saying that
they apply only to "significant" violations of my rights, or violations
that "really injure" me, or that by breathing and turning on lights and
doing other things that impose tiny costs on others I am implicitly
giving them permission to do the same to me. But once one starts
playing this game one can no longer use rights arguments to draw clear
conclusions about what should or should not happen. People who believe
in taxes can argue just as plausibly that taxes do not really injure
you, since the benefits they produce more than make up for the cost, or
that everyone implicitly consents to taxes by using government
services.
The longer I have thought about these issues, the more convinced I have
become that arguments about fundamental moral principles do not provide
answers to enough important questions. In particular, they provide no
answer, and no way of getting an answer, to a whole range of questions
about where to draw lines. It seems obvious that we want property rules
that prohibit trespass by thousand megawatt laser beams and machine-gun
bullets but not by flashlights and individual carbon dioxide molecules.
But how, in principle, do you decide where along that continuum the
rights of the property owner stop? We want rules that prohibit me from
demonstrating my marksmanship by shooting a rifle at flies hovering
around your head but do not prohibit all airplane flights. We want
rules that prohibit trespass by elephants but not by satellites
orbiting three thousand miles over my roof.
--------------------------------------------------------------
>The rest of the chaper boils down to the fact that David Friedmann is
>usure what stance he has on the georgists claim to general ownership of
>land. IOW, this thread all over again.
False. The rest of the chapter boils down to David being very sure of
the fact that a priori natural rights defenses of libertarianism cannot
withstand the slightest bit of logical scrutiny.
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
> >> Too late, someone has already claimed all of the land. Looks like
> >> you'll just have to settle for being their slave, since without any
> >> land there is no space in which to exist.
>
>
>
> >What is it with you guys? I'm not a landowner today, and that STILL
> >doesn't make me a slave of anyone. It's about as crazy as the claims
> >that we are slaves of nature, because we have to eat and drink.
>
>
> That fact that a landless person has to pay someone else for the right
> to have space in which to exist does in fact make him a slave.
Then you don't know what slavery is!
>
>
> >> Of course, you still haven't provided any moral justification
> >> whatsoever for why anyone should respect such a claim to own land any
> >> more than a claim to own the entire atmosphere, or the oceans, or
> >> anything else that was not brought into existence by someone's labor.
>
>
>
> >Why respect it? Because if you don't i'll put a bullet in your skull.
>
>
> So much for the non-aggression principle.
Excuse me, but when you trespass onto my property, you are the one using
force against me and my property, and I have the right to respond in
kind.
ruet...@outgun.com
>> >> Completely arbitrary.
>> >Disagree.
>> That's nice. Perhaps you would like to attempt a logical rebuttal by
>> demonstrating how it is non-arbitrary. Before doing that, you would
>> also need to provide a concise definition of the word "reasonable" in
>> the context you used it above.
>Reasonable in the context means whatever would be prysically possible
>for a homesteader to posses during his arrival at a new area of land.
How about drawing a line in the dirt and saying "everything on this
side is mine"?
Or declaring "everything as far as the eye can see is mine"?
>Eg. I do not own the earths core, though I'm placed on top of it,
>because I don't have access to it. But if i had machinery to dig all the
>way to the center of the earth, there would be grounds for me to claim
>it as my own.
You are now attempting to claim "use" as the basis for ownership. If I
fence off 10 acres and leave 2 of the acres to lie fallow, do I give up
ownership of those two acres? What if it were 10,000 acres with 2,000
lying fallow? Any response you can come up with will be arbitrary.