Retorting anarcho-capitalism... (yawn)
David Bright Morning
> The rest of your post seems to presuppose your claim that the current
> world is already anarcho-capitalist, a claim for which I have already
> given reasons against and which demonstates very little knowledge of
> what anarcho-capitalism actually is. You're welcome to go on assuming
> that you're correct, but don't expect me to talk to you.
Here ya go:
Think of the United States as THE OWNER of the LAND property you
live on and then think of what you know of purchase of that land
as being actually a permanent "renting" of that land. Of course
there will be renting fees (called land taxes). And if you fail to
keep up with your land taxes, your land will be repossesed. (Not
that you ever actually owned it at any point.)
Do you already live in an "anarcho-capitalist" society? Yes.
Now in this system, (which is an anarcho-capitalist system) because
it is the united states land, and you are such good advocates of
letting owners of land set the rules for their land and for the
"guests" that are on their land. They completely have the right to
enforce whatever laws they like with violence or the threat of
violence.
For that matter, the world is one big anarcho-capitalist system,
except that instead of small parcels of land, there are only very
large parcels of land, and none are really for sale.
Does this not fit your system? It most certainly does!
This is what you get when you let ownership of land, which IS
territorialism, into your political philosohpy, you give authority
to the owners of that territory.
So, do you have the right to tell people what to do if they are
on "your" land?
Think of the U.S. as a large land property owner that just does
not sell it's land. It only rents it. (This IS the actual case,
despite how they try to phrase it to you at the property office.)
Now, if you want to argue with me about it just being a matter of
scale then ask yourself: "If I'm able to get rid of the LAND property
owner we have now (the U.S.), would I substitute any corporation or
business in their place?
Imagine if the United States would lose it's land to China,
or any other nation, (I choose China because I am addressing
anarcho-capitalists) if it didn't exploit it's people as viciously.
You think that people would keep their land, but ask yourself:
"Doesn't the LAND property owner have the right to sell it to the
highest bidder?"
Eventually, your government will be bought by Ronald McDonald's
meaner nastier younger brother. (because he can really turn a profit
on his rentals. His renters are always so well behaved!)
LET THIS BE THE FINAL AND WELL DESERVED DEATH OF THE PHRASE
"ANARCHO-CAPITALISM".
And the reason the logic falls apart, is because LAND ownership is
territorialism, and is the basest form of authoritarianism.
And authoritarianism is the antithesis to Anarchism(tm).
Before we were social animals, our authoritarianism manifested
itself as territorialism. When the alpha-male lets others back
on "his" land, that's when the authoritarianism begins again.
Now this is certainly no argument for communism or socialism!
Their logic has a major fallacy too:
THE PROTECTION OF LAND FROM OWNERSHIP IS LAND OWNERSHIP!
+-> peace
Imperator Nero
http://www.geocities.com/froggisarmi/JFA.htm
Matt
frogg...@yahoo.com (David Bright Morning) wrote:
> Matt <ma...@anarchomail.com> writes:
> > The rest of your post seems to presuppose your claim that the current
> > world is already anarcho-capitalist, a claim for which I have already
> > given reasons against and which demonstates very little knowledge of
> > what anarcho-capitalism actually is. You're welcome to go on assuming
> > that you're correct, but don't expect me to talk to you.
>
> Here ya go:
>
> Think of the United States as THE OWNER of the LAND property you
> live on and then think of what you know of purchase of that land
> as being actually a permanent "renting" of that land.
But the US is not the owner of the country, nor do you even believe that
it is, so why should I think of it that way?
> Of course
> there will be renting fees (called land taxes). And if you fail to
> keep up with your land taxes, your land will be repossesed. (Not
> that you ever actually owned it at any point.)
>
> Do you already live in an "anarcho-capitalist" society? Yes.
Actually, no. In an anarcho-capitalist society, there is no government
and protection and adjudication services are provided on the market.
The US is obviously not such a society.
> Now in this system, (which is an anarcho-capitalist system) because
> it is the united states land, and you are such good advocates of
> letting owners of land set the rules for their land and for the
> "guests" that are on their land. They completely have the right to
> enforce whatever laws they like with violence or the threat of
> violence.
If I were to assume the government has some a priori right to own the
land, this would follow, but as you know, I deny that assumption, as do
you, so I fail to see the relevance of this line of argument.
> For that matter, the world is one big anarcho-capitalist system,
The world is an anarchy, and has capitalist elements, but is not
plausibly anarcho-capitalist, even if we assume states are the only
actors worth considering. If we are willing to consider individuals as
well, the world is obviously not anarcho-capitalist, because governments
force most individuals under their claimed territory to submit to their
monopoly of force. Anarcho-capitalism is explicitly an alternative to a
monopoly of force over one territory.
> except that instead of small parcels of land, there are only very
> large parcels of land, and none are really for sale.
>
> Does this not fit your system? It most certainly does!
No, it doesn't, for the reasons described above.
> This is what you get when you let ownership of land, which IS
> territorialism, into your political philosohpy, you give authority
> to the owners of that territory.
Owners only have authority over themselves and property they acquire
through voluntary exchange. Governments have authority over people and
have sovereignty to judge disputes within their territory, whereas
property owners do not.
> So, do you have the right to tell people what to do if they are
> on "your" land?
To a limited extent, I do have such a right if they are on land that is,
in fact, mine. Unlike a government, I do not have an absolute right
over them in the sense that any dispute will not be resolved
unilaterally by myself or by my appointees, but by a third party.
> Think of the U.S. as a large land property owner that just does
> not sell it's land. It only rents it. (This IS the actual case,
> despite how they try to phrase it to you at the property office.)
Despite your assertions, the US is no such thing. Although it acts as
if it is such a thing, it does not to my knowledge even claim it is a
landlord.
> Now, if you want to argue with me about it just being a matter of
> scale then ask yourself:
As argued previously, although it is a substantial difference in scale
there is also a difference in kind, in that the government has special
rights over citizens that landowners do not have over tenants.
> "If I'm able to get rid of the LAND property
> owner we have now (the U.S.), would I substitute any corporation or
> business in their place?
No such property owner exists, so the question doesn't make sense.
> Imagine if the United States would lose it's land to China,
> or any other nation, (I choose China because I am addressing
> anarcho-capitalists) if it didn't exploit it's people as viciously.
>
> You think that people would keep their land, but ask yourself:
> "Doesn't the LAND property owner have the right to sell it to the
> highest bidder?"
>
> Eventually, your government will be bought by Ronald McDonald's
> meaner nastier younger brother. (because he can really turn a profit
> on his rentals. His renters are always so well behaved!)
You utter a series of assertions that have no basis in fact, no apparent
connection to reality. Gibberish.
> LET THIS BE THE FINAL AND WELL DESERVED DEATH OF THE PHRASE
> "ANARCHO-CAPITALISM".
If you want to believe that, go ahead.
> And the reason the logic falls apart, is because LAND ownership is
> territorialism,
Territorialism over land people work on is distinguishable from
territorialism over whole categories of people.
If I want to keep hold of the land I have developed for my purposes,
that is quite different from someone who wants to obtain a monopoly of
force over the people living on one area of land in order to extort
them. The latter is authoritarian; the former is a simple willingess to
protect your honest investments, which is not authoritarian at all.
howard...@juno.com
Morning says...
>
>Matt <ma...@anarchomail.com> writes:
>> The rest of your post seems to presuppose your claim that the current
>> world is already anarcho-capitalist, a claim for which I have already
>> given reasons against and which demonstates very little knowledge of
>> what anarcho-capitalism actually is. You're welcome to go on assuming
>> that you're correct, but don't expect me to talk to you.
>
>Here ya go:
>
>Think of the United States as THE OWNER of the LAND property you
>live on and then think of what you know of purchase of that land
>as being actually a permanent "renting" of that land. Of course
>there will be renting fees (called land taxes). And if you fail to
>keep up with your land taxes, your land will be repossesed. (Not
>that you ever actually owned it at any point.)
>
>Do you already live in an "anarcho-capitalist" society? Yes.
>
anarchist..... And I am not an anarchocapitalist either.
H
Cydonia Structures on Mars proven to be artificial!
Check out Dr. Tom Van Flandern's website at:
http://www.metaresearch.org
howard...@juno.com
David Bright Morning MUST be a troll, NOBODY is as stupid as he is pretending to
be........
Etherman
"David Bright Morning" <frogg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ad5112cd.01081...@posting.google.com...
> Matt <ma...@anarchomail.com> writes:
> > The rest of your post seems to presuppose your claim that the
current
> > world is already anarcho-capitalist, a claim for which I have
already
> > given reasons against and which demonstates very little knowledge
of
> > what anarcho-capitalism actually is. You're welcome to go on
assuming
> > that you're correct, but don't expect me to talk to you.
>
> Here ya go:
>
> Think of the United States as THE OWNER of the LAND property you
> live on and then think of what you know of purchase of that land
> as being actually a permanent "renting" of that land.
Who says the US owns the land?
--
Etherman
AA # pi
EAC Director of Ritual Satanic Abuse Operations
"I tasted poison, when I drank the wine of fate."--Blind Guardian
Brad Chacos
confidential whisper, as if introducing the subject of nipple-piercing
in a nunnery...
}Who says the US owns the land?
The US.
--
Hey, you sass that hoopy Brad Chacos? There's a frood
who really knows where his towel is.
David Bright Morning
> In article <ad5112cd.01081...@posting.google.com>,
> frogg...@yahoo.com (David Bright Morning) wrote:
>
> > Matt <ma...@anarchomail.com> writes:
> > > The rest of your post seems to presuppose your claim that the current
> > > world is already anarcho-capitalist, a claim for which I have already
> > > given reasons against and which demonstates very little knowledge of
> > > what anarcho-capitalism actually is. You're welcome to go on assuming
> > > that you're correct, but don't expect me to talk to you.
> >
> > Here ya go:
> >
> > Think of the United States as THE OWNER of the LAND property you
> > live on and then think of what you know of purchase of that land
> > as being actually a permanent "renting" of that land.
>
> But the US is not the owner of the country, nor do you even believe that
> it is, so why should I think of it that way?
>
Sure, I don't believe it is the US's land, but I still do not see
a distinction between the US's claim of ownership of land, (or
China's for that matter) and one of your anarcho-capitalist
citizen/corporations ownership of land. Is the difference purely
one of scale? Please elaborate on the differences.
> > Of course
> > there will be renting fees (called land taxes). And if you fail to
> > keep up with your land taxes, your land will be repossesed. (Not
> > that you ever actually owned it at any point.)
> >
> > Do you already live in an "anarcho-capitalist" society? Yes.
>
> Actually, no. In an anarcho-capitalist society, there is no government
> and protection and adjudication services are provided on the market.
> The US is obviously not such a society.
>
O.K. let's assume for the sake of your argument that the rich CAN
bribe police officers, and government clerks.
> > Now in this system, (which is an anarcho-capitalist system) because
> > it is the united states land, and you are such good advocates of
> > letting owners of land set the rules for their land and for the
> > "guests" that are on their land. They completely have the right to
> > enforce whatever laws they like with violence or the threat of
> > violence.
>
> If I were to assume the government has some a priori right to own the
> land, this would follow, but as you know, I deny that assumption, as do
> you, so I fail to see the relevance of this line of argument.
>
Let's not call it a government then, let's call it an individual or
a corporation.
> > For that matter, the world is one big anarcho-capitalist system,
>
> The world is an anarchy, and has capitalist elements, but is not
> plausibly anarcho-capitalist, even if we assume states are the only
> actors worth considering. If we are willing to consider individuals as
> well, the world is obviously not anarcho-capitalist, because governments
> force most individuals under their claimed territory to submit to their
> monopoly of force. Anarcho-capitalism is explicitly an alternative to a
> monopoly of force over one territory.
>
It's still has the elements of territorial boundaries enforced by
police and military.
> > except that instead of small parcels of land, there are only very
> > large parcels of land, and none are really for sale.
> >
> > Does this not fit your system? It most certainly does!
>
> No, it doesn't, for the reasons described above.
>
If a person wants to set up a "government" on their territory,
how is that against the anarcho-capitalist system?
> > This is what you get when you let ownership of land, which IS
> > territorialism, into your political philosohpy, you give authority
> > to the owners of that territory.
>
> Owners only have authority over themselves and property they acquire
> through voluntary exchange. Governments have authority over people and
> have sovereignty to judge disputes within their territory, whereas
> property owners do not.
>
Until the tenets "willingly" sign a waiver of those rights,
because they are without land themselves.
> > So, do you have the right to tell people what to do if they are
> > on "your" land?
>
> To a limited extent, I do have such a right if they are on land that is,
> in fact, mine. Unlike a government, I do not have an absolute right
> over them in the sense that any dispute will not be resolved
> unilaterally by myself or by my appointees, but by a third party.
>
Who controls the third party? Is it a democracy?
> > Think of the U.S. as a large land property owner that just does
> > not sell it's land. It only rents it. (This IS the actual case,
> > despite how they try to phrase it to you at the property office.)
>
> Despite your assertions, the US is no such thing. Although it acts as
> if it is such a thing, it does not to my knowledge even claim it is a
> landlord.
>
It's quacking, it has feathers, and it floats...
> > Now, if you want to argue with me about it just being a matter of
> > scale then ask yourself:
>
> As argued previously, although it is a substantial difference in scale
> there is also a difference in kind, in that the government has special
> rights over citizens that landowners do not have over tenants.
>
Why do you even want this cage? Why do you want these static
boundaries? You want the stagnation that comes with it too?
Let it go man!
> > "If I'm able to get rid of the LAND property
> > owner we have now (the U.S.), would I substitute any corporation or
> > business in their place?
>
> No such property owner exists, so the question doesn't make sense.
>
Do you mean that they do not have the right? (With which I agree,
but is irrelevant to the argument.) Or do you mean that they do
not claim the right? (Which would be a bald-faced lie.)
> > Imagine if the United States would lose it's land to China,
> > or any other nation, (I choose China because I am addressing
> > anarcho-capitalists) if it didn't exploit it's people as viciously.
> >
> > You think that people would keep their land, but ask yourself:
> > "Doesn't the LAND property owner have the right to sell it to the
> > highest bidder?"
> >
> > Eventually, your government will be bought by Ronald McDonald's
> > meaner nastier younger brother. (because he can really turn a profit
> > on his rentals. His renters are always so well behaved!)
>
> You utter a series of assertions that have no basis in fact, no apparent
> connection to reality. Gibberish.
>
What? A landlord couldn't sell his rental property? (a.k.a.
micro-government)
> > LET THIS BE THE FINAL AND WELL DESERVED DEATH OF THE PHRASE
> > "ANARCHO-CAPITALISM".
>
> If you want to believe that, go ahead.
>
Well, it's a contradiction that I grow weary of re-demonstrating.
> > And the reason the logic falls apart, is because LAND ownership is
> > territorialism,
>
> Territorialism over land people work on is distinguishable from
> territorialism over whole categories of people.
>
> If I want to keep hold of the land I have developed for my purposes,
> that is quite different from someone who wants to obtain a monopoly of
> force over the people living on one area of land in order to extort
> them. The latter is authoritarian; the former is a simple willingess to
> protect your honest investments, which is not authoritarian at all.
Before we were social animals, our authoritarianism manifested
itself as territorialism. When the alpha-male lets others back
on "his" land, that's when the authoritarianism begins again.
FREEDOM TO TRAVEL! FREEDOM TO FOSTER NATURE WHEREEVER SHE MAY GROW!
FREEDOM! Accept no substitutes!
+-> peace
Imperator Nero
Frogma: http://www.geocities.com/froggisarmi/JFA.htm
mowhak
> frogg...@yahoo.com (David Bright Morning) wrote:
> > Now in this system, (which is an anarcho-capitalist system) because
> > it is the united states land, and you are such good advocates of
> > letting owners of land set the rules for their land and for the
> > "guests" that are on their land. They completely have the right to
> > enforce whatever laws they like with violence or the threat of
> > violence.
>
> If I were to assume the government has some a priori right to own the
> land, this would follow, but as you know, I deny that assumption, as do
> you, so I fail to see the relevance of this line of argument.
-Just for the sake of the argument: Who do you think has some a priori
right to "own" any land? How do you want to argue why he/she/it/who
the fuck owns it? Bought it from "God"?
mowhak
building a factory on it doesn't make it your property.
Matt
mow...@my-deja.com (mowhak) wrote:
> Matt <ma...@anarchomail.com> wrote in message
> news:<matt-368035.2...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > In article <ad5112cd.01081...@posting.google.com>,
> > frogg...@yahoo.com (David Bright Morning) wrote:
> > > Now in this system, (which is an anarcho-capitalist system) because
> > > it is the united states land, and you are such good advocates of
> > > letting owners of land set the rules for their land and for the
> > > "guests" that are on their land. They completely have the right to
> > > enforce whatever laws they like with violence or the threat of
> > > violence.
> >
> > If I were to assume the government has some a priori right to own the
> > land, this would follow, but as you know, I deny that assumption, as do
> > you, so I fail to see the relevance of this line of argument.
>
> -Just for the sake of the argument: Who do you think has some a priori
> right to "own" any land?
Rights do not exist a priori, but arise as a consequence of human
endeavor. In a society where no one endeavored to farm or develop the
land the way we moderns do, for example, it would be pretty meaningless
for anyone to talk of land ownership.
> How do you want to argue why he/she/it/who
> the fuck owns it? Bought it from "God"?
>
> mowhak
>
> building a factory on it doesn't make it your property.
All right, suppose we have someone who builds a factory on a plot of
land. Suppose also we have a farmer who decides, "hey, that's a nice
plot of land there--if I grew my corn on it it would cut my trip to
market in half." So does this farmer have every right to start planting
corn around the entire factory? Does he have a right to actually
bulldoze the factory because the factory owner can't "own" the land, and
is therefore wrongly depriving the farmer of the equal right to use it?
But the factory builder also wants to use the land to sit his factory
on, so how can they resolve this conflict?
One answer is to say you can only control the land that you're using.
But this answer begs the question of who gets to decide when the land is
"in use," and when it is not, in addition to the more fundamental
question of what counts as "use."
The inevitable answer is that there will be a system of property rights.
It is just a question of what kind of property rights. For example,
there might be a central authority defining what constitutes a
legitimate use and deciding who meets its standard and who does not.
This solution, however, should be anathema to anarchists, for familiar
reasons.
The anarchist solution is to have a system of "several property," in
which ownership rights are decentralized among individuals and
relatively small groups. This is not, however, so much a proposal as it
is an inevitable outcome of freedom: for if people are free to pursue
their own goals, and have relatively equal power such that no one person
or group can dominate the rest, they will develop customs and rules to
ensure that individuals can pursue their goals without infringing unduly
on the right of others to do the same.
In such a system of several property, individuals decide for themselves
how they will use property, and are free to transfer that right to
another should they decide to do so. There has to be some commonly
accepted standard for acquiring unowned land, and for returning
abandoned land to an owned state, but the vast majority of the time
people gain rights to land through voluntary, intentional transfers
between owners.
Matt
> Matt <ma...@anarchomail.com> wrote in message
> news:<matt-368035.2...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > In article <ad5112cd.01081...@posting.google.com>,
> > frogg...@yahoo.com (David Bright Morning) wrote:
> >
> > > Matt <ma...@anarchomail.com> writes:
> > > > The rest of your post seems to presuppose your claim that the current
> > > > world is already anarcho-capitalist, a claim for which I have already
> > > > given reasons against and which demonstates very little knowledge of
> > > > what anarcho-capitalism actually is. You're welcome to go on assuming
> > > > that you're correct, but don't expect me to talk to you.
> > >
> > > Here ya go:
> > >
> > > Think of the United States as THE OWNER of the LAND property you
> > > live on and then think of what you know of purchase of that land
> > > as being actually a permanent "renting" of that land.
> >
> > But the US is not the owner of the country, nor do you even believe that
> > it is, so why should I think of it that way?
> >
>
> Sure, I don't believe it is the US's land, but I still do not see
> a distinction between the US's claim of ownership of land, (or
> China's for that matter) and one of your anarcho-capitalist
> citizen/corporations ownership of land. Is the difference purely
> one of scale? Please elaborate on the differences.
There is a significant difference in scale, to be sure. But there is
also a substantial difference in the way the property is typically
acquired and maintained.
Governments acquire jurisdiction over land through outright conquest or
indirect conquest, such as by purchasing land rights from another
government that established them by conquest. Landowners, by contrast,
gain rights to land through voluntary exchange or acquire rights to
unowned land by developing it.
Thus the government's only real claim to land is the threat of force,
whereas a (legitimate) landowner's claim to land is that he has mixed
his labor with it, or someone who did transferred the land to him.
> > > Now in this system, (which is an anarcho-capitalist system) because
> > > it is the united states land, and you are such good advocates of
> > > letting owners of land set the rules for their land and for the
> > > "guests" that are on their land. They completely have the right to
> > > enforce whatever laws they like with violence or the threat of
> > > violence.
> >
> > If I were to assume the government has some a priori right to own the
> > land, this would follow, but as you know, I deny that assumption, as do
> > you, so I fail to see the relevance of this line of argument.
> >
>
> Let's not call it a government then, let's call it an individual or
> a corporation.
You're perfectly free to call a cat a dog, but saying so doesn't make it
one.
> > > For that matter, the world is one big anarcho-capitalist system,
> >
> > The world is an anarchy, and has capitalist elements, but is not
> > plausibly anarcho-capitalist, even if we assume states are the only
> > actors worth considering. If we are willing to consider individuals as
> > well, the world is obviously not anarcho-capitalist, because governments
> > force most individuals under their claimed territory to submit to their
> > monopoly of force. Anarcho-capitalism is explicitly an alternative to a
> > monopoly of force over one territory.
> >
>
> It's still has the elements of territorial boundaries enforced by
> police and military.
First, there would be no central police or military enforcing property
rights in anarcho-capitalism. Second, although people would doubtlessly
defend property rights, these rights would be limited in scope and would
develop out of agreements between people, unlike a government.
> > > except that instead of small parcels of land, there are only very
> > > large parcels of land, and none are really for sale.
> > >
> > > Does this not fit your system? It most certainly does!
> >
> > No, it doesn't, for the reasons described above.
> >
>
> If a person wants to set up a "government" on their territory,
> how is that against the anarcho-capitalist system?
If a landowner declares himself a government only on land that he owns,
he is still not a government in the usual sense of the word; he has no
privileged authority over others.
If a landowner declares himself a government over people on land that
_they_ own, or if he declares himself a goverment over people renting
his land, he is likely to run into violent conflict with his "subjects"
or those to whom they subscribe for their defense.
In the case of his tenants, he can set the terms on which they rent from
him, but he has to follow his contractual obligations to them. If he
doesn't, under anarcho-capitalism they will hire (or have hired) someone
to defend them from his predation. Some arbitrator independent of
either side will likely resolve the dispute, if they can't settle it
first.
> > > This is what you get when you let ownership of land, which IS
> > > territorialism, into your political philosohpy, you give authority
> > > to the owners of that territory.
> >
> > Owners only have authority over themselves and property they acquire
> > through voluntary exchange. Governments have authority over people and
> > have sovereignty to judge disputes within their territory, whereas
> > property owners do not.
> >
>
> Until the tenets "willingly" sign a waiver of those rights,
They can sign over some rights, but not their fundamental, natural
rights. The purpose of respecting contractual rights is to extend the
type of exchanges people can make to enhance their freedom, not to
diminish it. Any contract that purports to make someone a slave, for
example, is not a valid contract.
Thus in the real world landowners only have authority over their tenants
that pertains to their occupancy of the property. They do not have the
kind of expansive and arbitary powers that goverrnments have over their
citizens.
> > > So, do you have the right to tell people what to do if they are
> > > on "your" land?
> >
> > To a limited extent, I do have such a right if they are on land that is,
> > in fact, mine. Unlike a government, I do not have an absolute right
> > over them in the sense that any dispute will not be resolved
> > unilaterally by myself or by my appointees, but by a third party.
> >
>
> Who controls the third party? Is it a democracy?
In current capitalist democracies, elected officials typically appoint
judges, or sometimes judges are elected themselves. Often people make
private arrangements to resolve the dispute outside of state courts,
which is how it would happen in anarcho-capitalism.
> > > Think of the U.S. as a large land property owner that just does
> > > not sell it's land. It only rents it. (This IS the actual case,
> > > despite how they try to phrase it to you at the property office.)
> >
> > Despite your assertions, the US is no such thing. Although it acts as
> > if it is such a thing, it does not to my knowledge even claim it is a
> > landlord.
> >
>
> It's quacking, it has feathers, and it floats...
Taxes are not rent to a landlord, but extortion. Statists try to
justify the extortion by appealing to the fact that the government
provides you some services (roads, schools, police, etc.) for free, not
by saying you owe the government rent because it intrinsically owns the
land. The government is not a landlord in fact or even in statist
theory, so I'm not sure what basis you think there is for your claim.
> > > Now, if you want to argue with me about it just being a matter of
> > > scale then ask yourself:
> >
> > As argued previously, although it is a substantial difference in scale
> > there is also a difference in kind, in that the government has special
> > rights over citizens that landowners do not have over tenants.
> >
>
> Why do you even want this cage?
What cage?
> Why do you want these static
> boundaries?
I'm not proposing static boundaries. I am proposing some boundaries on
freedom, so that one person's excercise of liberty doesn't diminish
another's. These boundaries are not necessarily static, however; for
example, the freedom of contract permits people to transfer rights and
obligations in very complex ways as they see fit.
> You want the stagnation that comes with it too?
What stagnation?
> Let it go man!
What the hell are you babbling about? Are you high?
> > > "If I'm able to get rid of the LAND property
> > > owner we have now (the U.S.), would I substitute any corporation or
> > > business in their place?
> >
> > No such property owner exists, so the question doesn't make sense.
> >
>
> Do you mean that they do not have the right? (With which I agree,
> but is irrelevant to the argument.) Or do you mean that they do
> not claim the right? (Which would be a bald-faced lie.)
I agree with both claims, if I understand you right. The US is not a
legitmate land owner, nor does it claim to be to my knowledge.
> > > Imagine if the United States would lose it's land to China,
> > > or any other nation, (I choose China because I am addressing
> > > anarcho-capitalists) if it didn't exploit it's people as viciously.
> > >
> > > You think that people would keep their land, but ask yourself:
> > > "Doesn't the LAND property owner have the right to sell it to the
> > > highest bidder?"
> > >
> > > Eventually, your government will be bought by Ronald McDonald's
> > > meaner nastier younger brother. (because he can really turn a profit
> > > on his rentals. His renters are always so well behaved!)
> >
> > You utter a series of assertions that have no basis in fact, no apparent
> > connection to reality. Gibberish.
> >
>
> What? A landlord couldn't sell his rental property? (a.k.a.
> micro-government)
A landlord can sell his property. I don't know how this ties into
Ronald McDonald's relatives taking over everything.
> Before we were social animals,
We have always been social animals.
> our authoritarianism manifested
> itself as territorialism. When the alpha-male lets others back
> on "his" land, that's when the authoritarianism begins again.
I don't know what this is supposed to mean.
> FREEDOM TO TRAVEL! FREEDOM TO FOSTER NATURE WHEREEVER SHE MAY GROW!
> FREEDOM! Accept no substitutes!
Your concept of "freedom" seems very dogmatic and poorly thought out.
David Bright Morning
>
> Governments acquire jurisdiction over land through outright conquest or
> indirect conquest, such as by purchasing land rights from another
> government that established them by conquest. Landowners, by contrast,
> gain rights to land through voluntary exchange or acquire rights to
> unowned land by developing it.
>
This is ill-defined, and easily exploitable. You let enough people
draw lines on the world, and it will undoubtedly still be a cage.
> Thus the government's only real claim to land is the threat of force,
> whereas a (legitimate) landowner's claim to land is that he has mixed
> his labor with it, or someone who did transferred the land to him.
>
Just because someone has made Nature suit their purpose, just because
they have inflicted their goal-orientedness upon it, does not make
them stewards of Nature. It makes them stewards of their own ends.
Too much goal-oriented use of the land just fosters overpopulation.
Then that breeds problems that have to be resolved with legal and
economic systems like the one you are proposing.
> > Let's not call it a government then, let's call it an individual or
> > a corporation.
>
> You're perfectly free to call a cat a dog, but saying so doesn't make it
> one.
>
Yes, but by granting the authority to territorialism to corporations,
you turn these cats into dogs. No, they do not have these rights now,
so they are a different beast, but in the anarcho-capitalist system,
they are dogs.
[snip]
> >
> > It's still has the elements of territorial boundaries enforced by
> > police and military.
>
> First, there would be no central police or military enforcing property
> rights in anarcho-capitalism. Second, although people would doubtlessly
> defend property rights, these rights would be limited in scope and would
> develop out of agreements between people, unlike a government.
>
Specifically which people have to agree before territorialism becomes
a "right"? If you ask any government, they will always have a fair
amount of "people who agreed" that it was "their" land.
[snip]
>
> If a landowner declares himself a government only on land that he owns,
> he is still not a government in the usual sense of the word; he has no
> privileged authority over others.
>
I'll ask this way then: What is "RentalCorp Consolidated's"
specific "unprivileged" authority over it's tenets?
> If a landowner declares himself a government over people on land that
> _they_ own, or if he declares himself a goverment over people renting
> his land, he is likely to run into violent conflict with his "subjects"
> or those to whom they subscribe for their defense.
>
Ahhh, yes, your "bribable" cops. So much better than anarchy. :->
> In the case of his tenants, he can set the terms on which they rent from
> him, but he has to follow his contractual obligations to them. If he
> doesn't, under anarcho-capitalism they will hire (or have hired) someone
> to defend them from his predation. Some arbitrator independent of
> either side will likely resolve the dispute, if they can't settle it
> first.
>
Disputes resolved by money, that sounds really fair. I'm sure that
landlords will be in no better position than their renters. :->
> They can sign over some rights, but not their fundamental, natural
> rights. The purpose of respecting contractual rights is to extend the
> type of exchanges people can make to enhance their freedom, not to
> diminish it. Any contract that purports to make someone a slave, for
> example, is not a valid contract.
>
Specifically which rights? Specifically how much slavery?
That is ill-defined, you don't even have the details worked out.
Here are the words of the would-be-next revolution:
"All contracts are slavery. All contracts are toilet paper."
> Thus in the real world landowners only have authority over their tenants
> that pertains to their occupancy of the property. They do not have the
> kind of expansive and arbitary powers that goverrnments have over their
> citizens.
>
Which I asked you to elaborate on, in the previous post. This all
sounds so ill-defined and easily exploitable.
> > Who controls the third party? Is it a democracy?
>
> In current capitalist democracies, elected officials typically appoint
> judges, or sometimes judges are elected themselves. Often people make
> private arrangements to resolve the dispute outside of state courts,
> which is how it would happen in anarcho-capitalism.
>
So basically, you're proposing the same legal system, but with
judges resolving cases that are even less likely to be caught when
bought. In fact, all of these service are "for-hire" only.
You wanna know a good place to put your system?
> > > > Think of the U.S. as a large land property owner that just does
> > > > not sell it's land. It only rents it. (This IS the actual case,
> > > > despite how they try to phrase it to you at the property office.)
> > >
> > > Despite your assertions, the US is no such thing. Although it acts as
> > > if it is such a thing, it does not to my knowledge even claim it is a
> > > landlord.
> > >
> >
> > It's quacking, it has feathers, and it floats...
>
> Taxes are not rent to a landlord, but extortion. Statists try to
> justify the extortion by appealing to the fact that the government
> provides you some services (roads, schools, police, etc.) for free, not
> by saying you owe the government rent because it intrinsically owns the
> land. The government is not a landlord in fact or even in statist
> theory, so I'm not sure what basis you think there is for your claim.
>
Hey buddy, ALL RENT IS EXTORTION. STATISTS TRY TO JUSTIFY THE
EXTORTION BY APPEALING TO THE PSUEDO-FACT THAT THE LANDLORDS ARE
PROVIDING ANY GOODS OR SERVICES.
> > Why do you even want this cage?
>
> What cage?
>
A place for everyone, and everyone in their place.
> > Why do you want these static
> > boundaries?
>
> I'm not proposing static boundaries. I am proposing some boundaries on
> freedom, so that one person's excercise of liberty doesn't diminish
> another's. These boundaries are not necessarily static, however; for
> example, the freedom of contract permits people to transfer rights and
> obligations in very complex ways as they see fit.
>
All "justified" authority takes that justification: The
justification that you are increasing freedom by curtailing others'.
But, here is the big hole in your logic:
Who presupposes the right to measure whether one is within those
"boundaries on freedom", and by what authority do they measure?
> > You want the stagnation that comes with it too?
>
> What stagnation?
>
The stagnation of limited travel, the stagnation of "Nature for
mankind's purpose only". The stagnation of this is where you can
go, and this is where you can sleep. The stagnation of some
mini-territorial rent-a-cop tapping on my wagon door at 5 a.m.
because I'm not allowed to sleep in my wagon.
> > Let it go man!
>
> What the hell are you babbling about? Are you high?
>
The land, Nature, humanity.
> > > > "If I'm able to get rid of the LAND property
> > > > owner we have now (the U.S.), would I substitute any corporation or
> > > > business in their place?
> > >
> > > No such property owner exists, so the question doesn't make sense.
> > >
> >
> > Do you mean that they do not have the right? (With which I agree,
> > but is irrelevant to the argument.) Or do you mean that they do
> > not claim the right? (Which would be a bald-faced lie.)
>
> I agree with both claims, if I understand you right. The US is not a
> legitmate land owner, nor does it claim to be to my knowledge.
>
The U.S. doesn't claim any territory? You are full of shit.
> A landlord can sell his property.
That is where it begins.
> I don't know how this ties into
> Ronald McDonald's relatives taking over everything.
>
The efficient system will consume all of land. Once you put a
price on land, it will begin to eat. History proves this at
every scale.
[snip]
Before we were social animals, our authoritarianism manifested
itself as territorialism. When the alpha-male lets others back
on "his" land, that's when the authoritarianism begins again.
>
> We have always been social animals.
>
Hmmm... you must be a creationist to have that view.
> > FREEDOM TO TRAVEL! FREEDOM TO FOSTER NATURE WHEREEVER SHE MAY GROW!
> > FREEDOM! Accept no substitutes!
>
> Your concept of "freedom" seems very dogmatic and poorly thought out.
It's called "anarchy", and actually, it is defined all the way to the
edges. Your concept on the other hand, is ill-defined in almost
every place, and is easily exploitable.
Joe R. Golowka
> All right, suppose we have someone who builds a factory on a plot of
> land. Suppose also we have a farmer who decides, "hey, that's a nice
> plot of land there--if I grew my corn on it it would cut my trip to
> market in half." So does this farmer have every right to start planting
> corn around the entire factory? Does he have a right to actually
> bulldoze the factory because the factory owner can't "own" the land, and
> is therefore wrongly depriving the farmer of the equal right to use it?
> But the factory builder also wants to use the land to sit his factory
> on, so how can they resolve this conflict?
The two sides come together, talk things over, and come to a consensus on what to do.
There is no need for property rights in a society where people are willing to work
together and compromise.
Joe R. Golowka
> Governments acquire jurisdiction over land through outright conquest or
> indirect conquest, such as by purchasing land rights from another
> government that established them by conquest. Landowners, by contrast,
> gain rights to land through voluntary exchange or acquire rights to
> unowned land by developing it.
Almost all landowners in the US gain that land through direct or indirect conquest. They
stole it from the Native Americans. The only except would be surviving Native Americans.
> Thus the government's only real claim to land is the threat of force,
> whereas a (legitimate) landowner's claim to land is that he has mixed
> his labor with it, or someone who did transferred the land to him.
If you agree with that reasoning then some of the property the State owns is legitimate
property. Anything the state developed or created would belong to the state. In the US
this would include many schools and universities, the roads, the internet, and other
things. In China & Russia it would include most of those country's industry since they
were largely created by government planning. I'm in favor of the abolition of government
& private property, though, so I don't really agree with that.
> First, there would be no central police or military enforcing property
> rights in anarcho-capitalism.
Unless one or more landowners decided to hire a single police or military organisation to
enforce their property rights on their property. Then there would be a central police
force over those areas of property. That's not too different then today. There is no
central police force defending property rights all over the globe. There are different
forces that defend different state's land.
> Second, although people would doubtlessly
> defend property rights, these rights would be limited in scope
How so?
> If a landowner declares himself a government only on land that he owns,
> he is still not a government in the usual sense of the word; he has no
> privileged authority over others.
Except over others who are on his land. He can impose numerous requirements on them, and
if they do not like it require them to leave.
> If a landowner declares himself a government over people on land that
> _they_ own, or if he declares himself a goverment over people renting
> his land, he is likely to run into violent conflict with his "subjects"
> or those to whom they subscribe for their defense.
As do most governments.
> In the case of his tenants, he can set the terms on which they rent from
> him, but he has to follow his contractual obligations to them.
The landlord could put a requirement in the contract that the tenants are not allowed to
use violence, but that the landlord or his agent is the only one allowed to use force.
Then he would effectively establish himself as a government over his own land. Anyone who
doesn't agree to this monopoly can leave his land, just as anyone who doesn't like a
government can leave the country. The tenants may be able to get restrictions on how the
landlord or his agents can use force (call this a "bill of rights") and maybe require him
to solve disputes between tenants. This would be a literal social contract.
> If he
> doesn't, under anarcho-capitalism they will hire (or have hired) someone
> to defend them from his predation. Some arbitrator independent of
> either side will likely resolve the dispute, if they can't settle it
> first.
What if the landlord owns 51% of the stock in the company the tenant is hiring for
defense?
> > Until the tenets "willingly" sign a waiver of those rights,
>
> They can sign over some rights, but not their fundamental, natural
> rights.
Why? How will you stop people from signing them away?
> The purpose of respecting contractual rights is to extend the
> type of exchanges people can make to enhance their freedom, not to
> diminish it. Any contract that purports to make someone a slave, for
> example, is not a valid contract.
What if it makes them a temporary slave? Say, for a year. Would that still be invalid?
Who decides which contracts are valid? Why would your private protection agencies respect
this valid/non-valid contract thing and not enforce all contracts?
> Thus in the real world landowners only have authority over their tenants
> that pertains to their occupancy of the property.
Unless that landowner happens to be the state.
> Taxes are not rent to a landlord, but extortion.
Both rent and taxes are extortion.
> Statists try to
> justify the extortion by appealing to the fact that the government
> provides you some services (roads, schools, police, etc.) for free, not
> by saying you owe the government rent because it intrinsically owns the
> land. The government is not a landlord in fact or even in statist
> theory, so I'm not sure what basis you think there is for your claim.
It is in some statist's theories. If you read international treaties it refers to each
government's land, as if they owned everything in their domain. Which they defacto do.
There have been many governments in which the state has been the landowner. State
Socialist governments are one example.
David Bright Morning
Yes, I would also like to add that this sounds completely like an
overpopulation problem brought on by excessive goal-oriented use
of the land.
I also would like to state that farming isn't necessarily a
fostering of Nature, and it isn't our only option. There is a less
goal-oriented approach which would more securly establish an
edible plant as part of the environment. It would mean co-existence
of that plant, and not necessarily the domination of it across a
field. This might mean that combines won't run too effectively
across it, but I've never been a big fan of factory farming humans
anyway.
James A. Donald
Matt
> > Governments acquire jurisdiction over land through outright conquest or
> > indirect conquest, such as by purchasing land rights from another
> > government that established them by conquest. Landowners, by contrast,
> > gain rights to land through voluntary exchange or acquire rights to
> > unowned land by developing it.
David Bright Morning
> This is ill-defined, and easily exploitable. You let enough people
> draw lines on the world, and it will undoubtedly still be a cage.
If a few powerful people are drawing lines, indeed a cage.
If many ordinary people are drawing lines, not a cage.
If in anarcho capitalism one big landlord owned all of the USA, indeed
that would be oppressive. Statism is oppressive precisely because it
is rather like one big landlord owning all of the USA -- fill in the
usual pro capitalist argument about competition and monopoly so ably
given by Molinari
http://arts.adelaide.edu.au/person/DHart/ETexts/Liberalism/GustaveDeMolinari/EleventhSoiree.html
: : Grant a grocer the exclusive right to supply a
: : neighborhood, prevent the inhabitants of this
: : neighborhood from buying any goods from other grocers
: : in the vicinity, or even from supplying their own
: : groceries, and you will see what detestable rubbish
: : theileged grocer will end up selling and at what
: : prices! You will see how he will grow rich at the
: : expense of the unfortunate consumers, what royal pomp
: : tle will display for the greater glory of the
: : neighborhood.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
aqlEY4l+B+QCnL1kAXZ2eLX5oaGoqmmkabjpSHbq
4xGdvasUJ/PfFTZd4sA66VCiT245hesJoUkaeslfH
------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald
James A. Donald
Matt wrote:
> > All right, suppose we have someone who builds a factory on a
> > plot of land. Suppose also we have a farmer who decides,
> > "hey, that's a nice plot of land there--if I grew my corn on
> > it it would cut my trip to market in half." So does this
> > farmer have every right to start planting corn around the
> > entire factory? Does he have a right to actually bulldoze
> > the factory because the factory owner can't "own" the land,
> > and is therefore wrongly depriving the farmer of the equal
> > right to use it? But the factory builder also wants to use
> > the land to sit his factory on, so how can they resolve this
> > conflict?
Joe R. Golowka
> The two sides come together, talk things over, and come to a
> consensus on what to do. There is no need for property rights
> in a society where people are willing to work together and
> compromise.
And if they do not agree, as seems likely with real people, who
gets to wield the baton, and who gets the baton in the face?
If we look at history, such vast confidence in consensus and
cooperation, invariably came from those who had no hesitation in
setting up killing fields and torture chambers for those they
deemed insufficiently cooperative.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
E3JORqG37I6+hCS90cyxBXwYMcyBU8GfeBkTDmLC
4gWv5bSHYdvfD1DEKTMRW3MutD6q6plMflFwOfrN7
James A. Donald
On 18 Aug 2001 19:29:46 -0700, frogg...@yahoo.com (David
Bright Morning) wrote:
> I also would like to state that farming isn't necessarily a
> fostering of Nature, and it isn't our only option. There is a
> less goal-oriented approach which would more securly establish
> an edible plant as part of the environment. It would mean
> co-existence of that plant, and not necessarily the domination
> of it across a field.
Like most "anarcho" fascists, you seem to be planning a world
with a much reduced population. Who is it that is going to be
reduced?
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
SphdwwDcrof7tA1C8pBOXqgb13/fA8JzHmVYZX7q
4RJuSSdpFVrAWDraPattheHVRiO2XSmMMvrZ4nYt9
Marcin Tustin
> itself as territorialism. When the alpha-male lets others back
> on "his" land, that's when the authoritarianism begins again.
This repetition of dogma puts me in mind of that other troll who was
here arguing about "There is only one way" (Procapitalist). DBM seems to
have a better grasp of English. Another multiple-personality "Octapi" style
troll?
Marcin Tustin
James A. Donald <jame...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3b855565...@west.usenetserver.com...
> --
> On 18 Aug 2001 19:29:46 -0700, frogg...@yahoo.com (David
> Bright Morning) wrote:
> > I also would like to state that farming isn't necessarily a
> > fostering of Nature, and it isn't our only option. There is a
> > less goal-oriented approach which would more securly establish
> > an edible plant as part of the environment. It would mean
> > co-existence of that plant, and not necessarily the domination
> > of it across a field.
>
> Like most "anarcho" fascists, you seem to be planning a world
> with a much reduced population. Who is it that is going to be
> reduced?
Probably by culling the "Naturally unfit" who have chronic medical
conditions requiring drug treatment. Maybe a bit of starvation of high-tech
and knowledge-industry workers.
David Bright Morning
> --
> On 18 Aug 2001 19:29:46 -0700, frogg...@yahoo.com (David
> Bright Morning) wrote:
> > I also would like to state that farming isn't necessarily a
> > fostering of Nature, and it isn't our only option. There is a
> > less goal-oriented approach which would more securly establish
> > an edible plant as part of the environment. It would mean
> > co-existence of that plant, and not necessarily the domination
> > of it across a field.
>
> Like most "anarcho" fascists, you seem to be planning a world
> with a much reduced population. Who is it that is going to be
> reduced?
>
Unlike authoritarians like you, I don't plan to make Natures'
decisions for her.
I also challenge the lie that supporting increasing levels of
human population is the humane thing to do.
(You are closer to fascism than anyone else here. You propose
police and military and territorialism. I have proven that you are
not an anarchist, and you are a sore loser.)
> We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
> of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
> right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
>
Before we were social animals, our authoritarianism manifested itself
as "territorialism". When the "alpha male" lets you back on his
land, that is when the "authoritarianism" begins again: because of
the kind of animals that we are.
+-> peace
Imperator Nero
http://www.geocities.com/froggisarmi/JFA.htm
David Bright Morning
> Joe R. Golowka writes:
> > The two sides come together, talk things over, and come to a
> > consensus on what to do. There is no need for property rights
> > in a society where people are willing to work together and
> > compromise.
>
> And if they do not agree, as seems likely with real people, who
> gets to wield the baton, and who gets the baton in the face?
>
Again, this sounds exactly like an overpopulation problem,
probably brought on by excessive goal-oriented use of land.
> If we look at history, such vast confidence in consensus and
> cooperation, invariably came from those who had no hesitation in
> setting up killing fields and torture chambers for those they
> deemed insufficiently cooperative.
This is an argument for police and military. Furthermore, it
is an argument for systems of regulation. These are the same
old tired authoritarian arguments to which we _true_ anarchists
say: "No, the possibility of unrealized threats of violence does
not give you the authority to impose the threat of violence upon
the innocent and unconsenting with your police and military
systems."
> We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
> of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
> right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
>
This is just the same as any of the tired old territorialistic
arguments. An authoritarian and a territorialist. You are as far
from being an anarchist as one can possible get.
Before we were social animals, our authoritarianism manifested itself
as "territorialism". When the "alpha male" lets you back on his
land, that is when the "authoritarianism" begins again: because of
the kind of animals that we are.
+-> peace
Imperator Nero
http://www.geocities.com/froggisarmi/JFA.htm
James A. Donald
James A. Donald:
> > And if they do not agree, as seems likely with real people,
> > who gets to wield the baton, and who gets the baton in the
> > face?
David Bright Morning
> Again, this sounds exactly like an overpopulation problem,
> probably brought on by excessive goal-oriented use of land.
You mean brought on by excessive ability to feed people. Again,
who do you plan for reduction, and how do you plan the reduction
to be implemented?
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
9YwdcrfsKbaWzWKSz2uMEtG7rlxHSdGwCKu/QXIJ
4e9VwJ/42pVQv6YinucnpXapCVHZ54tA6vILTCnlo
------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald
Joe R. Golowka
> Like most "anarcho" fascists,
That's a description of yourself.
> you seem to be planning a world
> with a much reduced population. Who is it that is going to be
> reduced?
Birth rates tend to fall as living standards improve & women are given more freedom. A
post-revolutionary Anarchist world would probably see at least a small decline in
population as a result of lower birth rates.
Joe R. Golowka
> --
> Matt
> > > Governments acquire jurisdiction over land through outright conquest or
> > > indirect conquest, such as by purchasing land rights from another
> > > government that established them by conquest. Landowners, by contrast,
> > > gain rights to land through voluntary exchange or acquire rights to
> > > unowned land by developing it.
>
> David Bright Morning
> > This is ill-defined, and easily exploitable. You let enough people
> > draw lines on the world, and it will undoubtedly still be a cage.
>
> If a few powerful people are drawing lines, indeed a cage.
>
> If many ordinary people are drawing lines, not a cage.
A cage constructed by ordinary people is still a cage.
> If in anarcho capitalism one big landlord owned all of the USA, indeed
> that would be oppressive.
One big landlord does own all of the USA. It's called the government. Are you arguing for the
redistribution of ownership?
> Statism is oppressive precisely because it
> is rather like one big landlord owning all of the USA -- fill in the
> usual pro capitalist argument about competition and monopoly so ably
> given by Molinari
> http://arts.adelaide.edu.au/person/DHart/ETexts/Liberalism/GustaveDeMolinari/EleventhSoiree.html
> : : Grant a grocer the exclusive right to supply a
> : : neighborhood, prevent the inhabitants of this
> : : neighborhood from buying any goods from other grocers
> : : in the vicinity, or even from supplying their own
> : : groceries, and you will see what detestable rubbish
> : : theileged grocer will end up selling and at what
> : : prices! You will see how he will grow rich at the
> : : expense of the unfortunate consumers, what royal pomp
> : : tle will display for the greater glory of the
> : : neighborhood.
And land ownership gives certain people monopolies over certain pieces of land. Monopolies suck.
Joe R. Golowka
> --
> Matt wrote:
> > > All right, suppose we have someone who builds a factory on a
> > > plot of land. Suppose also we have a farmer who decides,
> > > "hey, that's a nice plot of land there--if I grew my corn on
> > > it it would cut my trip to market in half." So does this
> > > farmer have every right to start planting corn around the
> > > entire factory? Does he have a right to actually bulldoze
> > > the factory because the factory owner can't "own" the land,
> > > and is therefore wrongly depriving the farmer of the equal
> > > right to use it? But the factory builder also wants to use
> > > the land to sit his factory on, so how can they resolve this
> > > conflict?
>
> Joe R. Golowka
> > The two sides come together, talk things over, and come to a
> > consensus on what to do. There is no need for property rights
> > in a society where people are willing to work together and
> > compromise.
>
> And if they do not agree, as seems likely with real people, who
> gets to wield the baton, and who gets the baton in the face?
Neither. They should find some kind of compromise. All decision making systems can be
put into three categories:
A) Minority rule -some minority makes the decision
B) Majority - we vote
C) Consenus - things operate by free agreement
I consider C to be the best possible option. I would prefer B) over A), becuase less
people would be oppressed, but I think C) is better then B). Which one are you arguing
for?
> If we look at history, such vast confidence in consensus and
> cooperation, invariably came from those who had no hesitation in
> setting up killing fields and torture chambers for those they
> deemed insufficiently cooperative.
A system based on consensus/free agreement would never do such a thing because the people
put in the killing fields could block consensus and stop it from happening. If we look at
history your claim is blatantly false.
James A. Donald
On Sun, 19 Aug 2001 14:51:44 -0500, "Joe R. Golowka" <Jo...@ieee.org>
wrote:
> They should find some kind of compromise. All decision making systems can be
> put into three categories:
>
> A) Minority rule -some minority makes the decision
> B) Majority - we vote
> C) Consenus - things operate by free agreement
All of those are variations of tyranny, in practice scarcely
distinguishable from each other.
In a free society, I decide for myself, and you decide for yourself.
We might choose to get together on some matters, but we do not have
to.
If we have to, then you are going to have to apply the red hot irons
on those you deem insufficiently cooperative.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
tpxxqFh64KfW9q0m3R2LHcjWhtO/aJaDN18W4iNP
4PGWT2ttqnbBuifMD+C/GPEgjikVCN2CAgIgACFVB
David Bright Morning
> James A. Donald:
> > > And if they do not agree, as seems likely with real people,
> > > who gets to wield the baton, and who gets the baton in the
> > > face?
>
> David Bright Morning
> > Again, this sounds exactly like an overpopulation problem,
> > probably brought on by excessive goal-oriented use of land.
>
> You mean brought on by excessive ability to feed people. Again,
> who do you plan for reduction, and how do you plan the reduction
> to be implemented?
>
I am making no such plan, or goal or purpose for anything of the
sort!
However, overpopulation itself IS making plans, and results from
making plans, and ultimately will reduce anything that does not
fit into the impending factory farm chicken cage.
David Bright Morning
> If we have to, then you are going to have to apply the red hot irons
> on those you deem insufficiently cooperative.
"red hot irons"? How many times have you argued for police and
military.
Consensus is irrelevant though, much like jim.
James A. Donald
James A. Donald:
> > > > And if they do not agree, as seems likely with real
> > > > people, who gets to wield the baton, and who gets the
> > > > baton in the face?
David Bright Morning
> > > Again, this sounds exactly like an overpopulation problem,
> > > probably brought on by excessive goal-oriented use of land.
James A. Donald:
> > You mean brought on by excessive ability to feed people.
> > Again, who do you plan for reduction, and how do you plan the
> > reduction to be implemented?
David Bright Morning
> I am making no such plan, or goal or purpose for anything of
> the sort!
>
> However, overpopulation itself IS making plans, and results
> from making plans, and ultimately will reduce anything that
> does not fit into the impending factory farm chicken cage.
Population in the advanced countries is stable or declining,
apart from immigration, and we could fit everyone in the world
into a ranch style suburban house with a big yard, and still have
plenty of farm land left over.
In any case, we certainly will not get to a situation where land
is free through overpopulation. To attain the outcome you
desire, you will have to take some more positive and direct steps
to reduce the population to the levels you regard as desirable.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
32MSFWkRpu1X5nQ3Z9agfvKSWMLc+AV80RSQ6OAJ
4zXbj5cPucfwq4qEdwlDTz3pFmfRHMPVClrV5aCa2
David Bright Morning
> apart from immigration, and we could fit everyone in the world
> into a ranch style suburban house with a big yard, and still have
> plenty of farm land left over.
"Advanced" Countries:
The United States:
Population growth rate: 0.91% (2000 est.)
Birth rate: 14.2 births/1,000 population (2000 est.)
Death rate: 8.7 deaths/1,000 population (2000 est.)
Mexico:
Population growth rate: 1.53% (2000 est.)
Birth rate: 23.15 births/1,000 population (2000 est.)
Death rate: 5.05 deaths/1,000 population (2000 est.)
Net migration rate: -2.84 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2000 est.)
Canada:
Population growth rate: 1.02% (2000 est.)
Birth rate: 11.41 births/1,000 population (2000 est.)
Death rate: 7.39 deaths/1,000 population (2000 est.)
Net migration rate: 6.2 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2000 est.)
China: (even with their authoritarian population controls.)
Population growth rate: 0.9% (2000 est.)
Birth rate: 16.12 births/1,000 population (2000 est.)
Death rate: 6.73 deaths/1,000 population (2000 est.)
Net migration rate: -0.4 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2000 est.)
U.K.
Population growth rate: 0.25% (2000 est.)
Birth rate: 11.76 births/1,000 population (2000 est.)
Death rate: 10.38 deaths/1,000 population (2000 est.)
Net migration rate: 1.07 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2000 est.)
I guess you must have been just talking about Italy:
Population growth rate: 0.09% (2000 est.)
Birth rate: 9.13 births/1,000 population (2000 est.)
Death rate: 9.99 deaths/1,000 population (2000 est.)
Net migration rate: 1.74 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2000 est.)
Lemme guess, you saw some news story that seemed to twist this
into the case for all western countries. Well, wake up!
Italy has greater than 6 times the population density than
the U.S. I imagine that same news story had photos of
all of the beautiful nature there. (not being sarcastic,
there is some, but I bet the news story empasized it strongly, why?)
Furthermore, the people willing to breed to even higher heights
are just not present in high enough quantities there. They will be.
> In any case, we certainly will not get to a situation where land
> is free through overpopulation.
It seems you are arguing against yourself here.
> To attain the outcome you
> desire, you will have to take some more positive and direct steps
> to reduce the population to the levels you regard as desirable.
>
Hmmmm... "direct steps to reduce population". That would be just
treating the symptom. (It also sounds rather menacing.) No, the
only way is through DIRECTLY TREATING THE CAUSE.
Overpopulation is only possible because of the economic systems of
the world, all of which are based on ownership of land by the state
or individual. What comes free and naturally is taken by force.
Usually because of desire. This is the great prostitute.
The separation from Nature that the system provides allows
overpopulation, and it reduces humanities ability to exist
separately from the system.
Joe R. Golowka
> In a free society, I decide for myself, and you decide for yourself.
> We might choose to get together on some matters, but we do not have
> to.
And when we get together, what is the best method for making decisions that involve both
of us?
> If we have to, then you are going to have to apply the red hot irons
> on those you deem insufficiently cooperative.
I'm not going to force anyone to get together. But if you want to have any friends or
contact with other people (and most people do) then groups will inevitably form. Once
they're formed, consensus is the ideal process for making group decisions; it maximizes
the amount of freedom and basically makes oppression impossible. As for "red hot irons"
that would be a better description of what you advocate since your'e the one who supports
the existence of police & military (also called a state).
James A. Donald
James A. Donald:
> > In a free society, I decide for myself, and you decide for
> > yourself. We might choose to get together on some matters,
> > but we do not have to.
Joe R. Golowka
> And when we get together, what is the best method for making
> decisions that involve both of us?
With genuinely voluntary groups, usually the best and most
convenient method is that one guy leads and the rest follow. And
if the rest do not like where he is leading they give their
excuses and wander off
The game of everquest, or indeed almost any game that involves
very large numbers of people in the same game, illustrates this.
In Everquest people need to form up into groups and guilds in
order to achieve various game objectives. There are usually
hundreds of groups, and dozens of guilds in a single game world.
Guilds last for years, groups usually for mere hours. Players
invariably prefer a group or a guild with a strong leader, and I
have never seen a leader elected, and very rarely even nominated.
A bad leader leads to the disappearance of the guild or group,
not to elections.
Democracy sucks, and where people have a genuine choice, as in
the Everquest role playing universe, they do not choose it.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
zOBOgT8DqvI3d9/hcJX2eWU5uX++A+4Es0UXIOY6
4YWSHNfPw6m8aSAewUSYSAeE3CEl6sHDnOqQewRt6
Joe R. Golowka
> The game of everquest,
As if video games reflected reality. That's almost as idiotic as they guy who claimed Mad
Max is what Anarchy looks like.
James A. Donald
> "James A. Donald" wrote:
>
> The game of everquest,
>
On Tue, 21 Aug 2001 11:08:14 -0500, "Joe R. Golowka" <Jo...@ieee.org>
wrote:
> As if video games reflected reality. That's almost as idiotic as they guy who claimed Mad
> Max is what Anarchy looks like.
It is a multiplayer game with thousands of actual people involved in
the same game, playing with other real people. Those are actual
people, dealing with other actual people, not fictitious game
characters. The way they choose to organize is real, real as the
people doing the choosing.
And they do not choose democracy.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
vZCA1APlEhK610ablHkXMpP7yny8d7SRUbKAb8k6
46wqJOVmm9Hm95y4hKQB4pIcQT6eh0PRi7i15mCKV
Thomas Stuart Taylor
> convenient method is that one guy leads and the rest follow. And
> if the rest do not like where he is leading they give their
> excuses and wander off
Really? I think it would make more sense for people to accept the
leadership of one due to his known characteristics and skills. If both a
farmer and an accountant wanted to lead a group sowing seeds, who would be
the leader?
If they were sewing seeds (a difficult job involving small needles) then
both would be quite unable to lead very well, unless they had knowledge of
the skill.
In a dull roleplaying game everyone pretends to know where the Shadows of
Balkazar are, and everyone joins up with the person who proclaims to know
the best way to the Multi-Jeweled Psychic Crown of Bemshazel the Almighty
Squid. And when that person is shown to be less than great in fighting, or
exploring, or knowing-where-things-are, or loyalty to the group, or
not-leaving-the-computer-every-5-minutes-to-go-to-the-bathroom (an annoying
trait in an RPG leader) everyone leaves, mildly annoyed - BUT WITH NO
DETRIMENTAL LOSS TO ANYTHING IMPORTANT.
In real life, following a half-witted oaf who proceeds to tell everyone
that seeds grow better in concrete would be a waste of important things,
like time, seeds, crops, and probably that oafs' teeth.
And it is important to stress that the leader leads without imposing
needless authority or force on the followers. If the leader asks you to
stop eating all the seeds you should be planting, that is fair enough. If
he asks you to feed him grapes, supply him with the youngest virgin women
and give him 30% of the crop due to his immense, important help in teaching
the cretins how to farm, then this is unfair.
Tom
john adams
"James A. Donald" <jame...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3b845171...@west.usenetserver.com...
> --
>
> > "James A. Donald" wrote:
> >
> > The game of everquest,
> >
>
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2001 11:08:14 -0500, "Joe R. Golowka" <Jo...@ieee.org>
> wrote:
> > As if video games reflected reality. That's almost as idiotic as they guy who claimed Mad
> > Max is what Anarchy looks like.
>
> It is a multiplayer game with thousands of actual people involved in
> the same game, playing with other real people. Those are actual
> people, dealing with other actual people, not fictitious game
> characters. The way they choose to organize is real, real as the
> people doing the choosing.
>
> And they do not choose democracy.
>
Maybe they're lazy!
Constantinople
Maybe. If they don't act the way your political theory needs them to
act, if they wreck your plans, then there is something wrong with them
and they need to be changed. Maybe if all the lazy gameplayers who
never did an honest day's work were sent to the countryside to labor
side by side in collective agriculture, this might improve their
spirits. They might become less lazy, and then they might choose
democracy.
Constantinople
In all this, you don't seem to have contradicted anything that the
previous poster wrote in the material you quote.
Matt
"Joe R. Golowka" <Jo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> Matt wrote:
>
> > Governments acquire jurisdiction over land through outright conquest or
> > indirect conquest, such as by purchasing land rights from another
> > government that established them by conquest. Landowners, by contrast,
> > gain rights to land through voluntary exchange or acquire rights to
> > unowned land by developing it.
>
> Almost all landowners in the US gain that land through direct or
> indirect conquest. They stole it from the Native Americans. The
> only except would be surviving Native Americans.
1. Native Americans were far more sparsely settled than Americans are
today, so on much of the land they did not have anything that we might
reasonably call ownership.
2. Native Americans did not develop the land to anywhere near the same
extent to which Americans have today, thus do not have anywhere near the
same moral claim to it that most American landowners have over theirs.
A person who builds a house on a plot of land has a much better claim to
it than an Indian whose ancestors might have occaisonally walked over it
to hunt or gather food at some time in the past.
> > Thus the government's only real claim to land is the threat of force,
> > whereas a (legitimate) landowner's claim to land is that he has mixed
> > his labor with it, or someone who did transferred the land to him.
>
> If you agree with that reasoning then some of the property the State
> owns is legitimate property. Anything the state developed or created
> would belong to the state.
Perhaps, if we assume the state does not fund itself through extortion
and implement its policies under threat of violence (in contrast to
voluntary agreement). That is not however the case.
> In the US this would include many schools and universities, the
> roads, the internet, and other things. In China & Russia it would
> include most of those country's industry since they were largely
> created by government planning.
I would say the individual workers who created those things have the
best claim to them (through proportional shares). The bureaucrats and
administrators did none of the productive work, and the production
resulting from their compulsory demands might have been carried out
better in a voluntary system, hence they deserve no credit for it.
> I'm in favor of the abolition of government & private property,
> though, so I don't really agree with that.
You can say it, but in the real world you must choose one or the other
to coordinate large scale economic exchange and help resolve conflicts
over resources (though admittedly "private property" is broad enough
that it could include a system of individual worker-owners).
> > First, there would be no central police or military enforcing property
> > rights in anarcho-capitalism.
>
> Unless one or more landowners decided to hire a single police or
> military organisation to enforce their property rights on their
> property. Then there would be a central police force over those
> areas of property.
Nonsense. A police force that defends some people's property, while
others are free to subscribe to other police forces, is obviously not a
monopoly.
If you mean there might be little voluntary communities in which
everyone agrees to use one police force, I grant those could exist, but
as long as one of them could not impose its police force upon everyone,
the anarcho-capitalist society as a whole would still be anarchic.
My preference is for as much competition among police services as
possible, but I can see no moral basis for prohibiting a group of people
from forming their own community with their own rules, even if those
rules require a single police force. Can you?
> That's not too different then today. There is no central police
> force defending property rights all over the globe. There are
> different forces that defend different state's land.
And to that extent, the world is anarchic.
> > Second, although people would doubtlessly
> > defend property rights, these rights would be limited in scope
>
> How so?
I imagine there would be contractual as well as natural law obligations
limiting the absolute right of private property. For example, a
landowner may have an easement contractually embedded into his property
right that permits others a right of way to part of his land.
Natural law principles would also limit the extent to which a property
right is absolute. For example, a landowner may have a right to control
his property--even a right to shoot burglars--but if he shot a small
child who wandered onto his land, he would doubtlessly run into conflict
with the child's family and would have to pay for violating the rights
of the child.
> > If a landowner declares himself a government only on land that he owns,
> > he is still not a government in the usual sense of the word; he has no
> > privileged authority over others.
>
> Except over others who are on his land.
No, his only "authority" derives from agreed-upon provisions granting
it. Unlike a government, he cannot make it up for himself.
> He can impose numerous requirements on them, and if they do not like
> it require them to leave.
But he cannot supercede what is agreed upon in the contract, at least
not without the consent of his tenants.
> > If a landowner declares himself a government over people on land that
> > _they_ own, or if he declares himself a goverment over people renting
> > his land, he is likely to run into violent conflict with his "subjects"
> > or those to whom they subscribe for their defense.
>
> As do most governments.
Nonsense. Governments have already declared their authority over their
subjects, and maintain it under threat of force, without any significant
threat of retaliation. Indeed, by creating monopolies of force,
governments make it impossible for their subjects to have anyone to
defend them from the government.
In some cases, states will violate the sovereignty of other states, e.g.
NATO's war against Serbia supposedly to protect Kosovars. But as Noam
Chomsky will explain to you, these cases occur where the foreign policy
objectives of one state (such as the US) happen to involve protecting
some favored people inside another. There is no system by which
individuals in one state regularly and reliably subscribe to protection
services from outsiders.
> > In the case of his tenants, he can set the terms on which they rent from
> > him, but he has to follow his contractual obligations to them.
>
> The landlord could put a requirement in the contract that the tenants
> are not allowed to use violence, but that the landlord or his agent
> is the only one allowed to use force.
No such contract could be valid, nor would any reasonable person believe
it to be valid. We could imagine a contract in which the landlord
specifies his preferred security company for defense of the property,
but he could not conceivably insist that only he or his agent be
permitted to use force _in a dispute with him and the tenant_. Every
person has a natural, inalienable right to act in his own defense.
If the landlord were to gain enough power, he could, like a governent,
suppress this right in practice, but under anarcho-capitalism no one
would have such power.
> Then he would effectively establish himself as a government over his
> own land. Anyone who doesn't agree to this monopoly can leave his
> land, just as anyone who doesn't like a government can leave the
> country.
If the contract really forbade a tenant to act in his own defense, the
landlord would probably fail to attract any tenants, and if he did, the
courts might deem it an unconscionable contract should a dispute arise.
Something like you describe could well develop, since there would be
considerable freedom of contract, but it would likely only develop among
people who want such a restrictive arrangement (e.g. a religious cult).
> The tenants may be able to get restrictions on how the landlord or
> his agents can use force (call this a "bill of rights") and maybe
> require him to solve disputes between tenants. This would be a
> literal social contract.
Agreed. But again, any contract that diminishes the basic rights of a
person to act in his own defense, choose his own associations, or
control his own property is not likely to hold up in independent courts.
Contracts will certainly limit freedom, to be sure, but always in
specific, tangible ways that bestow a benefit on one party and impose a
cost on the other (e.g., a lease that binds a landlord to a specific
rent). The more a contract grants arbitrary, unlimited, or unclear
power to one party, the less likely it is to hold up. (at least to that
extent).
> > If he
> > doesn't, under anarcho-capitalism they will hire (or have hired) someone
> > to defend them from his predation. Some arbitrator independent of
> > either side will likely resolve the dispute, if they can't settle it
> > first.
>
> What if the landlord owns 51% of the stock in the company the tenant
> is hiring for defense?
If the company purports to be a genuinely objective company, rather than
just offering personal protection to the owner, it would have to
demonstrate its objectivity by acting in its customers interests, so
it's possible it would work out. Personally, I would advise the tenant
to hire someone else.
> > > Until the tenets "willingly" sign a waiver of those rights,
> >
> > They can sign over some rights, but not their fundamental, natural
> > rights.
>
> Why? How will you stop people from signing them away?
It is not that I would stop them; rather, the question is whether such
contracts would be enforceable in a society in which there is widespread
belief in the sancity of individual rights.
Under a state, the government provides a framework of law under which
contracts take place. Under anarchy, the ultimate backbone of law is
natural rights and the willingness of people to enforce them and to
incorporate them into private legal codes.
Although in general the freedom to make contracts--even contracts that
seem unfair--would be strictly enforced, I think the definition of
unconscionable contracts would expand somewhat to include those which
deprive people of their natural rights.
> > The purpose of respecting contractual rights is to extend the
> > type of exchanges people can make to enhance their freedom, not to
> > diminish it. Any contract that purports to make someone a slave, for
> > example, is not a valid contract.
>
> What if it makes them a temporary slave? Say, for a year.
There could be something practically similar to that if it were honed
down in more detail, such as an agreement to work only for one person
for a year, doing various tasks the "master" assigned.
But it would not be a true slave/master relationship, for genuine
slavery involves one person becoming the property of another, meaning
one person completely gives up his rights to another. And if that were
possible, the slave would have no basis for enforcing the master's
obligations to him, including the obligation to let him go.
If the "slave" could reasonably expect to hold the master accountable to
his responsibilities, he would not really be a slave.
> Would
> that still be invalid? Who decides which contracts are valid? Why
> would your private protection agencies respect this valid/non-valid
> contract thing and not enforce all contracts?
If they tried to enforce all contracts, every time a contract is absurd
or contradictory they would go to war against each other, or at least
waste a lot of time negotiating. The outcome of this would be widely
accepted provisions in the legal codes making certain kinds of contracts
invalid.
Furthermore, if one tried to enforce a contract that is unconscionable,
one which no reasonable person in his right mind would agree to, they
would gain a reputation as wicked and potentially dangerous.
Of course, this all depends on having a population that generally
supports individual rights, as I do, and is threatened by infringements
upon them. In such a population, a market for law would generally
produce law in accordance with natural rights. For greater detail and
for explanations of why such a system will produce more libertarian law
than democracy, I recommend _The Machinery of Freedom_.
> > Thus in the real world landowners only have authority over their tenants
> > that pertains to their occupancy of the property.
>
> Unless that landowner happens to be the state.
I fail to see the relevance. Even if we suppose every state is a
landowner, it doesn't follow that every landowner is a state, so there
is no evident contradiction in having a stateless system with landowners.
> > Taxes are not rent to a landlord, but extortion.
>
> Both rent and taxes are extortion.
With taxes, you are forced to pay the government regardless of whether
you agreed to it. With rent, you are only forced to comply with the
terms of a contract that you agreed to. One payment is involuntary, the
other is voluntary, hence not extortion.
> > Statists try to
> > justify the extortion by appealing to the fact that the government
> > provides you some services (roads, schools, police, etc.) for free, not
> > by saying you owe the government rent because it intrinsically owns the
> > land. The government is not a landlord in fact or even in statist
> > theory, so I'm not sure what basis you think there is for your claim.
>
> It is in some statist's theories. If you read international treaties
> it refers to each government's land,
Do you read international treaties? I don't, but as they are agreements
between states, I would expect their language to treat states as the
pertinent actors and the states' territories as the relevant
territories. Domestic law would cover relations between states and the
individuals within them, including property relations.
Indeed, domestic law in the US contradicts your view, since the US
constitution recognizes the right of individual property and requires
the government to compensate the individual if it wants to expropriate
property. If the US government imagined itself to be a single
landowner, it wouldn't bother with an eminent domain law--it would just
take "its" property.
> as if they owned everything in their domain. Which they defacto do.
We can consider jurisdiction over territory a kind of ownership right,
but a society in which the government owns all land is still easily
distinguishable from one in which the government permits substantial
private ownership of land with taxation and regulation of property
owners.
That said, the government's claimed basis for its authority is not, "we
own the land, so you pay us taxes and abide by our rules." In a
constitutional democracy, it is more like, "the individual citizens are
the owners, and submit to the state's demands for the common good."
Numerous people have pointed out problems with this reasoning, but my
impression is that statists use this far more than any kind of
landlord-tenant theory. Can you give an example of such a theory? I'm
thinking Hobbes's comes close, but his thinking does not at least
underlie the US constitution.
Matt
frogg...@yahoo.com (David Bright Morning) wrote:
> Matt <ma...@anarchomail.com> wrote in message
> news:<matt-5C5DD1.2...@corp.supernews.com>...
> >
> > Governments acquire jurisdiction over land through outright conquest or
> > indirect conquest, such as by purchasing land rights from another
> > government that established them by conquest. Landowners, by contrast,
> > gain rights to land through voluntary exchange or acquire rights to
> > unowned land by developing it.
> >
>
> This is ill-defined, and easily exploitable. You let enough people
> draw lines on the world, and it will undoubtedly still be a cage.
If you let no ordinary people draw lines, then there must be one single
cage for everyone, for there would be no personal area for each person
to pursue his own goals with his own resources.
You are correct, however, that I have only vaguely defined my views on
how one can lawfully acquire land, which is because I'm writing a Usenet
post, not a legal treatise.
Although I will not and cannot elaborate on the technical details of a
legal code, I can say that anarcho-capitalism is likely to produce law
that is efficient in the sense that the benefits of its allocation of
rights would exceed the costs (with costs and benefits based on the
preferences of customers).
A legal code providing an inefficient allocation of rights to land, or
one which you might consider "exploited," is likely to repel customers
of the private court endorsing it.
> > Thus the government's only real claim to land is the threat of force,
> > whereas a (legitimate) landowner's claim to land is that he has mixed
> > his labor with it, or someone who did transferred the land to him.
> >
>
> Just because someone has made Nature suit their purpose, just because
> they have inflicted their goal-orientedness upon it, does not make
> them stewards of Nature.
It makes them stewards of those particular parts of nature they made to
suit their purposes.
> It makes them stewards of their own ends.
> Too much goal-oriented use of the land just fosters overpopulation.
Who are you to tell people if they can have children? Also, your point
makes little sense, because some of the most heavily developed parts of
the world, such as advanced First World nations, have declining
populations supported mainly through immigration.
> Then that breeds problems that have to be resolved with legal and
> economic systems like the one you are proposing.
Your point being?
> > > Let's not call it a government then, let's call it an individual or
> > > a corporation.
> >
> > You're perfectly free to call a cat a dog, but saying so doesn't make it
> > one.
> >
>
> Yes, but by granting the authority to territorialism to corporations,
> you turn these cats into dogs.
Irrelevant. The question at issue is not whether corporations should
have rights, but whether several property rights are desirable. You're
pursuing the wrong argument.
> No, they do not have these rights now,
> so they are a different beast, but in the anarcho-capitalist system,
> they are dogs.
And you don't even have an argument, just your assertions.
Matt
"Joe R. Golowka" <Jo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> Matt wrote:
>
> > All right, suppose we have someone who builds a factory on a plot of
> > land. Suppose also we have a farmer who decides, "hey, that's a nice
> > plot of land there--if I grew my corn on it it would cut my trip to
> > market in half." So does this farmer have every right to start planting
> > corn around the entire factory? Does he have a right to actually
> > bulldoze the factory because the factory owner can't "own" the land, and
> > is therefore wrongly depriving the farmer of the equal right to use it?
> > But the factory builder also wants to use the land to sit his factory
> > on, so how can they resolve this conflict?
>
> The two sides come together, talk things over, and come to a
> consensus on what to do. There is no need for property rights in a
> society where people are willing to work together and compromise.
Problem is, this type of arrangement only works in very small societies
in which members have close ties to one another, with much time, energy,
and love invested in their relationships. Even then, however, it is
often extremely difficult to make such "stateless communism" possible,
because there are considerable negotiation costs involved when you need
the approval of many other people (or all other people) to use a
resource. People may spend more time bickering, fighting, or developing
power relationships so that they have more authority to do what they
want.
David Bright Morning
> In article <ad5112cd.01081...@posting.google.com>,
> frogg...@yahoo.com (David Bright Morning) wrote:
>
> > Matt <ma...@anarchomail.com> wrote in message
> > news:<matt-5C5DD1.2...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > >
> > > Governments acquire jurisdiction over land through outright conquest or
> > > indirect conquest, such as by purchasing land rights from another
> > > government that established them by conquest. Landowners, by contrast,
> > > gain rights to land through voluntary exchange or acquire rights to
> > > unowned land by developing it.
> > >
> >
> > This is ill-defined, and easily exploitable. You let enough people
> > draw lines on the world, and it will undoubtedly still be a cage.
>
> If you let no ordinary people draw lines, then there must be one single
> cage for everyone, for there would be no personal area for each person
> to pursue his own goals with his own resources.
>
All well and good for humans, where is our mother who gave us life
in this nobel scheme?
> You are correct, however, that I have only vaguely defined my views on
> how one can lawfully acquire land, which is because I'm writing a Usenet
> post, not a legal treatise.
>
You accuse me of having a concept of freedom which is "poorly
thought out". You are a hypocrite.
> Although I will not and cannot elaborate on the technical details of a
> legal code, I can say that anarcho-capitalism is likely to produce law
> that is efficient in the sense that the benefits of its allocation of
> rights would exceed the costs (with costs and benefits based on the
> preferences of customers).
>
> A legal code providing an inefficient allocation of rights to land, or
> one which you might consider "exploited," is likely to repel customers
> of the private court endorsing it.
>
> > > Thus the government's only real claim to land is the threat of force,
> > > whereas a (legitimate) landowner's claim to land is that he has mixed
> > > his labor with it, or someone who did transferred the land to him.
> > >
> >
> > Just because someone has made Nature suit their purpose, just because
> > they have inflicted their goal-orientedness upon it, does not make
> > them stewards of Nature.
>
> It makes them stewards of those particular parts of nature they made to
> suit their purposes.
>
> > It makes them stewards of their own ends.
> > Too much goal-oriented use of the land just fosters overpopulation.
>
> Who are you to tell people if they can have children? Also, your point
Liar, you accuse me of telling people if they can have children.
I never said that.
> makes little sense, because some of the most heavily developed parts of
> the world, such as advanced First World nations, have declining
> populations supported mainly through immigration.
>
That is an outright lie. Very few developed parts of the world
outside of western former U.S.S.R. are declining: even without
immigration factored in.
> > Then that breeds problems that have to be resolved with legal and
> > economic systems like the one you are proposing.
>
> Your point being?
>
That you are not an anarchist, and you never have been.
> > > > Let's not call it a government then, let's call it an individual or
> > > > a corporation.
> > >
> > > You're perfectly free to call a cat a dog, but saying so doesn't make it
> > > one.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, but by granting the authority to territorialism to corporations,
> > you turn these cats into dogs.
>
> Irrelevant. The question at issue is not whether corporations should
> have rights, but whether several property rights are desirable. You're
> pursuing the wrong argument.
>
"Mommy, Mommy, help me!"
> > No, they do not have these rights now,
> > so they are a different beast, but in the anarcho-capitalist system,
> > they are dogs.
>
> And you don't even have an argument, just your assertions.
Do they have these rights now? No.
Would they have these rights in your system? Yes.
Does that make them a "different beast"? Yes.
Matt
frogg...@yahoo.com (David Bright Morning) wrote:
> Matt <ma...@anarchomail.com> wrote in message
> news:<matt-A7BFF7.2...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > In article <ad5112cd.01081...@posting.google.com>,
> > frogg...@yahoo.com (David Bright Morning) wrote:
> >
> > > Matt <ma...@anarchomail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:<matt-5C5DD1.2...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > > >
> > > > Governments acquire jurisdiction over land through outright conquest or
> > > > indirect conquest, such as by purchasing land rights from another
> > > > government that established them by conquest. Landowners, by contrast,
> > > > gain rights to land through voluntary exchange or acquire rights to
> > > > unowned land by developing it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > This is ill-defined, and easily exploitable. You let enough people
> > > draw lines on the world, and it will undoubtedly still be a cage.
> >
> > If you let no ordinary people draw lines, then there must be one single
> > cage for everyone, for there would be no personal area for each person
> > to pursue his own goals with his own resources.
> >
>
> All well and good for humans, where is our mother who gave us life
> in this nobel scheme?
Please attempt coherent responses.
> > You are correct, however, that I have only vaguely defined my views on
> > how one can lawfully acquire land, which is because I'm writing a Usenet
> > post, not a legal treatise.
> >
>
> You accuse me of having a concept of freedom which is "poorly
> thought out". You are a hypocrite.
So what of mine is poorly thought out? How one can acquire land? I've
stated one can acquire land by mixing one's labor with it--more
generally, by developing it. If you do so in a way that others regard
as productive, your efforts at defending the claimed land will not
provoke retaliation. If your action is viewed as a land grab, it is
likely to be more controversial and may provoke resistance.
> > > It makes them stewards of their own ends.
> > > Too much goal-oriented use of the land just fosters overpopulation.
> >
> > Who are you to tell people if they can have children? Also, your point
>
> Liar, you accuse me of telling people if they can have children.
> I never said that.
All right, but you did say "fosters overpopulation," implying that you
object to people developing land for greater production, thereby
enabling them to feed more children. In any case, your claim
presupposes you have some business deciding whether people settle down
and have more children or not.
> > makes little sense, because some of the most heavily developed parts of
> > the world, such as advanced First World nations, have declining
> > populations supported mainly through immigration.
> >
>
> That is an outright lie. Very few developed parts of the world
> outside of western former U.S.S.R. are declining: even without
> immigration factored in.
My impression is they are either declining, or at or barely above the
replacement fertility level.
According to
<http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/DailyNews/worldpopulation010801.h
tml>
While most developed countries, particularly in Europe, have
shown signs of declining, or soon-to-be declining
populations, developing nations in sub-Saharan Africa and in
western Asia still have high population growth.
Which corresponds with what I claimed. Why don't you provide
contravening evidence.
> > > Then that breeds problems that have to be resolved with legal and
> > > economic systems like the one you are proposing.
> >
> > Your point being?
> >
>
> That you are not an anarchist, and you never have been.
That's odd, because I'm proposing a legal and economic systems for a
society without a government--an anarchy. Perhaps you have an
idiosyncratic definition of anarchism.
> > > Yes, but by granting the authority to territorialism to corporations,
> > > you turn these cats into dogs.
> >
> > Irrelevant. The question at issue is not whether corporations should
> > have rights, but whether several property rights are desirable. You're
> > pursuing the wrong argument.
> >
>
> "Mommy, Mommy, help me!"
Non responsive.
> > > No, they do not have these rights now,
> > > so they are a different beast, but in the anarcho-capitalist system,
> > > they are dogs.
> >
> > And you don't even have an argument, just your assertions.
>
> Do they have these rights now? No.
Presently corporations do have the right to own property.
David Bright Morning
> In article <ad5112cd.01082...@posting.google.com>,
> frogg...@yahoo.com (David Bright Morning) wrote:
>
> > Matt <ma...@anarchomail.com> wrote in message
> > news:<matt-A7BFF7.2...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > > In article <ad5112cd.01081...@posting.google.com>,
> > > frogg...@yahoo.com (David Bright Morning) wrote:
> > >
> > > > Matt <ma...@anarchomail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:<matt-5C5DD1.2...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > > > >
> > > > > Governments acquire jurisdiction over land through outright conquest or
> > > > > indirect conquest, such as by purchasing land rights from another
> > > > > government that established them by conquest. Landowners, by contrast,
> > > > > gain rights to land through voluntary exchange or acquire rights to
> > > > > unowned land by developing it.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > This is ill-defined, and easily exploitable. You let enough people
> > > > draw lines on the world, and it will undoubtedly still be a cage.
> > >
> > > If you let no ordinary people draw lines, then there must be one single
> > > cage for everyone, for there would be no personal area for each person
> > > to pursue his own goals with his own resources.
> > >
> >
> > All well and good for humans, where is our mother who gave us life
> > in this nobel scheme?
>
> Please attempt coherent responses.
>
Is it easier for you to demand that the person you are debating with
explain themselves more, than to actively participate in the debate?
Don't get too lazy on me.
My question is this:
Who draws the lines on account of Nature? No state or individual will
truly be looking out for her interests. Nor should we ever give that
authority to any state or individual.
And you have poopy pants...
> > > You are correct, however, that I have only vaguely defined my views on
> > > how one can lawfully acquire land, which is because I'm writing a Usenet
> > > post, not a legal treatise.
> > >
> >
> > You accuse me of having a concept of freedom which is "poorly
> > thought out". You are a hypocrite.
>
> So what of mine is poorly thought out? How one can acquire land? I've
> stated one can acquire land by mixing one's labor with it--more
> generally, by developing it. If you do so in a way that others regard
> as productive, your efforts at defending the claimed land will not
> provoke retaliation. If your action is viewed as a land grab, it is
> likely to be more controversial and may provoke resistance.
>
Ahem...
"I have only vaguely defined my views" -Matt
Land grab??? Despite arguing against me with thousands of words,
you have failed to coherently reframe non-territorialism as a form
of land grab. Don't feel bad, I can understand why: It would be a
contradiction. Now, anti-territorialism, as practiced by the U.S.S.R.
is actually a severe form of territorialism.
> > > > It makes them stewards of their own ends.
> > > > Too much goal-oriented use of the land just fosters overpopulation.
> > >
> > > Who are you to tell people if they can have children? Also, your point
> >
> > Liar, you accuse me of telling people if they can have children.
> > I never said that.
>
> All right, but you did say "fosters overpopulation," implying that you
> object to people developing land for greater production, thereby
> enabling them to feed more children. In any case, your claim
> presupposes you have some business deciding whether people settle down
> and have more children or not.
>
Not "deciding". How did it become "deciding"? Think of it as a public
awareness campaign about the ultimate goal of all of our
"goal-orientedness".
> > > makes little sense, because some of the most heavily developed parts of
> > > the world, such as advanced First World nations, have declining
> > > populations supported mainly through immigration.
> > >
> >
> > That is an outright lie. Very few developed parts of the world
> > outside of western former U.S.S.R. are declining: even without
> > immigration factored in.
>
> My impression is they are either declining, or at or barely above the
> replacement fertility level.
>
> According to
> <http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/DailyNews/worldpopulation010801.h
> tml>
>
Ahhh... Disney's infamous Go.com. (formerly Infoseek)
Do you know, they had a rogue search-engineer who deliberately put
porn in the search results? Even on clean title entries he would put
the occasional x-rated word in, where ever it made a subtle command
to the reader.
He also subverted the Go-Guardian mechanism which allow people to
get "porn-free" results.
I think he started doing this after they made him delete all results
that pointed to places to download DeCSS software. (That's Disney for
you.) Towards the end, he was the only remaining search-engineer
working on the main web index build.
Shortly after they confronted him about what he was doing, they
layed-off the entire Sunnyvale division and farmed out search to
their arch-rival GoTo.com.
> While most developed countries, particularly in Europe, have
> shown signs of declining, or soon-to-be declining
> populations, developing nations in sub-Saharan Africa and in
> western Asia still have high population growth.
>
> Which corresponds with what I claimed. Why don't you provide
> contravening evidence.
>
Sure :-)
"Advanced" Countries:
The United States:
Population growth rate: 0.91% (2000 est.)
Birth rate: 14.2 births/1,000 population (2000 est.)
Death rate: 8.7 deaths/1,000 population (2000 est.)
Net migration rate: 3.5 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2000 est.)
Mexico:
Population growth rate: 1.53% (2000 est.)
Birth rate: 23.15 births/1,000 population (2000 est.)
Death rate: 5.05 deaths/1,000 population (2000 est.)
Net migration rate: -2.84 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2000 est.)
Canada:
Population growth rate: 1.02% (2000 est.)
Birth rate: 11.41 births/1,000 population (2000 est.)
Death rate: 7.39 deaths/1,000 population (2000 est.)
Net migration rate: 6.2 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2000 est.)
China: (even with their authoritarian population controls.)
Population growth rate: 0.9% (2000 est.)
Birth rate: 16.12 births/1,000 population (2000 est.)
Death rate: 6.73 deaths/1,000 population (2000 est.)
Net migration rate: -0.4 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2000 est.)
U.K.
Population growth rate: 0.25% (2000 est.)
Birth rate: 11.76 births/1,000 population (2000 est.)
Death rate: 10.38 deaths/1,000 population (2000 est.)
Net migration rate: 1.07 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2000 est.)
Furthermore, I am not swayed by the arguments of that article that
population is "soon to be" declining. Life will find a way if you
keep feeding it.
> > > > Then that breeds problems that have to be resolved with legal and
> > > > economic systems like the one you are proposing.
> > >
> > > Your point being?
> > >
> >
> > That you are not an anarchist, and you never have been.
>
> That's odd, because I'm proposing a legal and economic systems for a
> society without a government--an anarchy. Perhaps you have an
> idiosyncratic definition of anarchism.
>
You are proposing micro-authoritarianism. You are proposing the
multiplication of authority, and territorialism.
The legal and logistic headaches you are encountering by even
attempting to define such a system should be a clue.
For the sake of your mental health, you can refer to the
governments of the future as corporations.
Everything in the hands of corporations. Land, law enforcement,
nature, where you sleep, where you eat.
I guess then after that world emerges, the true anarchists will
have to be called "ancorporists".
> > > > Yes, but by granting the authority to territorialism to corporations,
> > > > you turn these cats into dogs.
> > >
> > > Irrelevant. The question at issue is not whether corporations should
> > > have rights, but whether several property rights are desirable. You're
> > > pursuing the wrong argument.
> > >
> >
> > "Mommy, Mommy, help me!"
>
> Non responsive.
>
No argument is the wrong argument.
Or, more correctly:
All arguments are the wrong arguments.
> > > > No, they do not have these rights now,
> > > > so they are a different beast, but in the anarcho-capitalist system,
> > > > they are dogs.
> > >
> > > And you don't even have an argument, just your assertions.
> >
> > Do they have these rights now? No.
>
> Presently corporations do have the right to own property.
But they yet don't own the police force, and the justice system that
is active on "their" territory.
Matt
I'm not asking for more quantity, but more quality. I can't understand
what you are saying, because you are not coherent. You appear to
sometims make coherent points, but frequently you seem to ramble,
uttering whatever words come to your head at that moment.
> Don't get too lazy on me.
> My question is this:
> Who draws the lines on account of Nature? No state or individual will
> truly be looking out for her interests. Nor should we ever give that
> authority to any state or individual.
Nature does not have interests. Only people, or perhaps other sentient
creatures, have interests. Some people may find it in their interest to
preserve parts of nature to a certain degree, but other people may
disagree--hence the need for property rights so people can protect the
property they value.
Failure to develop property rights results in a problem known as
"tragedy of the commons." People take and destroy what is held in
common, because they can take or destroy as much as they please without
directly internalizing the costs of doing so.
> > > > You are correct, however, that I have only vaguely defined my views on
> > > > how one can lawfully acquire land, which is because I'm writing a
> > > > Usenet
> > > > post, not a legal treatise.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You accuse me of having a concept of freedom which is "poorly
> > > thought out". You are a hypocrite.
> >
> > So what of mine is poorly thought out? How one can acquire land? I've
> > stated one can acquire land by mixing one's labor with it--more
> > generally, by developing it. If you do so in a way that others regard
> > as productive, your efforts at defending the claimed land will not
> > provoke retaliation. If your action is viewed as a land grab, it is
> > likely to be more controversial and may provoke resistance.
> >
>
> Ahem...
> "I have only vaguely defined my views" -Matt
This is a dishonest, out of context snip.
> Land grab??? Despite arguing against me with thousands of words,
> you have failed to coherently reframe non-territorialism as a form
> of land grab.
I wasn't trying to do so, so why would I? I think you just did not
understand what I wrote. Try reading it again.
All completely irrelevant.
Evidently your answer to the problem is mass starvation--which would no
doubt be the result of your proposed economic system.
Also, your choices of advanced countries are rather odd: you include
Mexico, but neglect Japan, Germany, or France. You also neglect to
provide a cite, to see if your source is credible or if you are
excluding relevant information. The birth rates you do cite do not seem
high at all, and there is no information you cite indicating trends from
previous years. My impression is they have been declining in developed
countries. For example:
"As of 1998, 79 countries--representing fully 40% of the world's
population-had fertility rates below the level necessary to stave off
long term population decline. The developed nations are in the worst
straits. Already 15 of them, including Russia, Germany and Italy, each
year fill more coffins that cradles. Virtually all the others will soon
follow suit if the present trends persist. In Germany and Japan, despite
hefty financial rewards for women bearing children, the maternity wards
remain empty. "
http://www.uic.edu/classes/osci/osci590/15_3%20Population%20Growth%20II.h
tm
> > > That you are not an anarchist, and you never have been.
> >
> > That's odd, because I'm proposing a legal and economic systems for a
> > society without a government--an anarchy. Perhaps you have an
> > idiosyncratic definition of anarchism.
> >
>
> You are proposing micro-authoritarianism.
Define "authoritarianism." If it includes people voluntarily following
a leader if they so desire, I don't object to that nor do I see any
basis for doing so.
> You are proposing the
> multiplication of authority,
What does that mean?
> and territorialism.
People are naturally territorial animals, naturally strive to acquire
things for themselves to make themselves better off, which typically
involves excluding those from others who would take them.
There is no such thing as "non-territorialism" in a society advanced
enough to have surpluses of wealth and significant capital assets.
Someone has to control these things, the only question is who. If it is
not ordinary individuals controlling particular resources for their own
particular ends, it has to be one centralied authority with privileged
power controlling all resources for its ends. Of course, it is possible
to mix these different mechanisms for allocation, as occurs in many
societies, but having less of one implies more of the other.
> The legal and logistic headaches you are encountering by even
> attempting to define such a system should be a clue.
Any "headaches" I encounter are due to dealing with the problems of
reality, which we cannot just wish away. Likewise, one encounters
"headaches" when designing an airplane, but this is because there are
problems of physics that an enginner must take into account for his
plane to fly. There are similar problems of economics that one must
take into account before advocating an economic system. You, however,
wish them away, and just as a plane will crash and burn if it cannot
produce enough thrust, your "non-territorial" economy will result in
poverty and terror if it forbids people reestablishing property rights.
> For the sake of your mental health, you can refer to the
> governments of the future as corporations.
But they are not.
> Everything in the hands of corporations. Land, law enforcement,
> nature, where you sleep, where you eat.
You provide no argument explaining why the corporate model is so far
superior to partnerships and sole proprieterships that it will supercede
them entirely. Nor do you explain why corporations would become owners
of individual homes and apartments. All of these assumptions are
doubtful and have not happened today, although there is no reason why
they couldn't.
Your "argument" is just an emotional appeal to the corporate boogeyman.
> > > > > Yes, but by granting the authority to territorialism to corporations,
> > > > > you turn these cats into dogs.
> > > >
> > > > Irrelevant. The question at issue is not whether corporations should
> > > > have rights, but whether several property rights are desirable. You're
> > > > pursuing the wrong argument.
> > > >
> > >
> > > "Mommy, Mommy, help me!"
> >
> > Non responsive.
> >
>
> No argument is the wrong argument.
> Or, more correctly:
> All arguments are the wrong arguments.
You've gone from non-responsive to gibberish.
> > Presently corporations do have the right to own property.
>
> But they yet don't own the police force, and the justice system that
> is active on "their" territory.
You were talking about land ownership, so now you've gone on to
something else, making your claims impossible to follow.
David Bright Morning
> Nature does not have interests. Only people, or perhaps other sentient
> creatures, have interests. Some people may find it in their interest to
> preserve parts of nature to a certain degree, but other people may
> disagree--hence the need for property rights so people can protect the
> property they value.
>
There are things that benefit Nature, and there are things that
don't. Slash and burn farming doesn't benefit Nature, therefore
it is not in Nature's interest.
Paving the earth and making it a cage that can support 256 Billion
people is not in "Nature's interest".
> Failure to develop property rights results in a problem known as
> "tragedy of the commons." People take and destroy what is held in
> common, because they can take or destroy as much as they please without
> directly internalizing the costs of doing so.
The continued success of increasing population through the efficiency
of "organized" access to resources has already become a bigger tragedy
and will continue to worsen.
> > Ahem...
> > "I have only vaguely defined my views" -Matt
>
> This is a dishonest, out of context snip.
>
Then try:
"I have only vaguely defined my views how one can lawfully acquire land"
Are we debating a different issue? Have we been debating a different
issue? You started with unsupported claims that my ideas were not
thought out.
> > Land grab??? Despite arguing against me with thousands of words,
> > you have failed to coherently reframe non-territorialism as a form
> > of land grab.
>
> I wasn't trying to do so, so why would I? I think you just did not
> understand what I wrote. Try reading it again.
>
Oh, "try reading it again?" You expect me to clear up all of your
ambiguities when you sit and whine about me not explaining what I
mean? "Waaahhhh, you're being incoherent."
"Some people should die, that's just unconscious knowledge." -Pigs in Zen
> Also, your choices of advanced countries are rather odd: you include
> Mexico, but neglect Japan, Germany, or France. You also neglect to
Japan:
Population growth rate: 0.18% (2000 est.)
Birth rate: 9.96 births/1,000 population (2000 est.)
Death rate: 8.15 deaths/1,000 population (2000 est.)
Net migration rate: 0 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2000 est.)
Germany:
Population growth rate: 0.29% (2000 est.)
Birth rate: 9.35 births/1,000 population (2000 est.)
Death rate: 10.49 deaths/1,000 population (2000 est.)
Net migration rate: 4.01 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2000 est.)
France:
Population growth rate: 0.38% (2000 est.)
Birth rate: 12.27 births/1,000 population (2000 est.)
Death rate: 9.14 deaths/1,000 population (2000 est.)
Net migration rate: 0.66 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2000 est.)
Population densities vs. U.S.:
Japan: 11.76
Germany: 8.12
France: 3.78
> provide a cite, to see if your source is credible or if you are
> excluding relevant information. The birth rates you do cite do not seem
> high at all, and there is no information you cite indicating trends from
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/indexgeo.html
> previous years. My impression is they have been declining in developed
> countries. For example:
>
> "As of 1998, 79 countries--representing fully 40% of the world's
> population-had fertility rates below the level necessary to stave off
> long term population decline. The developed nations are in the worst
> straits. Already 15 of them, including Russia, Germany and Italy, each
> year fill more coffins that cradles. Virtually all the others will soon
> follow suit if the present trends persist. In Germany and Japan, despite
> hefty financial rewards for women bearing children, the maternity wards
> remain empty. "
>
That study is not founded in fact. Have a look at the (CIA's) factbook.
BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS: WHAT CAUSES POPULATION GROWTH TO SLOW???
> > You are proposing micro-authoritarianism.
>
> Define "authoritarianism." If it includes people voluntarily following
> a leader if they so desire, I don't object to that nor do I see any
> basis for doing so.
>
Why would a leader such as myself propose that definition?
No, authoritarianism is having some rent-a-cop waking you up at four
in the morning telling you that the "owner" of the toll-road you
are on doesn't allow people to sleep in their wagons on the roadside.
Anarcho-capitalist indeed!
> > You are proposing the
> > multiplication of authority,
>
> What does that mean?
>
> > and territorialism.
>
> People are naturally territorial animals, naturally strive to acquire
> things for themselves to make themselves better off, which typically
> involves excluding those from others who would take them.
Before we were social animals, our authoritarianism manifested itself
as "territorialism". When the "alpha male" lets you back on his
land, that is when the "authoritarianism" begins again: because of
the kind of animals that we are.
> There is no such thing as "non-territorialism" in a society advanced
> enough to have surpluses of wealth and significant capital assets.
We, like everyone else, have only a surplus of debt, and a surplus of
damage, and a surplus of "demand".
> Someone has to control these things, the only question is who. If it is
Nope.
> not ordinary individuals controlling particular resources for their own
> particular ends, it has to be one centralied authority with privileged
> power controlling all resources for its ends. Of course, it is possible
> to mix these different mechanisms for allocation, as occurs in many
> societies, but having less of one implies more of the other.
>
> > The legal and logistic headaches you are encountering by even
> > attempting to define such a system should be a clue.
>
> Any "headaches" I encounter are due to dealing with the problems of
> reality, which we cannot just wish away.
To every solution there is a problem.
> Likewise, one encounters
> "headaches" when designing an airplane, but this is because there are
> problems of physics that an enginner must take into account for his
> plane to fly.
> There are similar problems of economics that one must
> take into account before advocating an economic system.
Specifically which problems are you claiming that I didn't take
into account. (This is also one of your typical unsupported points.)
> You, however,
> wish them away, and just as a plane will crash and burn if it cannot
> produce enough thrust, your "non-territorial" economy will result in
> poverty and terror if it forbids people reestablishing property rights.
>
"Skin the sun, fall asleep.
Wish away, the soul is cheap.
Lesson learned, wish me luck.
Soothe the burn, wake me up."
I will fly my led zeppelin. We are Nero's Flying Circus!
(Is the head wound getting any better Manfred?)
> > For the sake of your mental health, you can refer to the
> > governments of the future as corporations.
>
> But they are not.
>
> > Everything in the hands of corporations. Land, law enforcement,
> > nature, where you sleep, where you eat.
>
> You provide no argument explaining why the corporate model is so far
> superior to partnerships and sole proprieterships that it will supercede
> them entirely. Nor do you explain why corporations would become owners
> of individual homes and apartments. All of these assumptions are
> doubtful and have not happened today, although there is no reason why
> they couldn't.
Superior how? As in more efficient? Because the cost of doing business
within the corporation will be cheaper when the economic system of the
state evaporates with it's destruction. But just because it is more
efficient doesn't make it better, just more useful in accomplishing some
goal. It's economic efficiency will enable it to purchase more
territory in a system similar to yours. (Or at least that's what the
time meddling 26th century historians speculate.)
>
> Your "argument" is just an emotional appeal to the corporate boogeyman.
>
I'm here to sell: nothing. No system. Zip. Nada. You are here to
sell a system of corporate states. So, it is you who are appealing to
the boogeyman of "the terror of the commons".
> > No argument is the wrong argument.
> > Or, more correctly:
> > All arguments are the wrong arguments.
>
> You've gone from non-responsive to gibberish.
>
"I think you just did not understand what I wrote. Try reading it again."
-Words of a lazy thinker: lazy in expression, lazy in interpretation
> > > Presently corporations do have the right to own property.
> >
> > But they yet don't own the police force, and the justice system that
> > is active on "their" territory.
>
> You were talking about land ownership, so now you've gone on to
> something else, making your claims impossible to follow.
Where exactly DO you stand on law enforcement Matt? Let's dig into
THAT issue. ;-)
Matt
> Matt <ma...@anarchomail.com> writes:
> > Nature does not have interests. Only people, or perhaps other sentient
> > creatures, have interests. Some people may find it in their interest to
> > preserve parts of nature to a certain degree, but other people may
> > disagree--hence the need for property rights so people can protect the
> > property they value.
> >
>
> There are things that benefit Nature, and there are things that
> don't. Slash and burn farming doesn't benefit Nature, therefore
> it is not in Nature's interest.
Again, nature has no interests. Nature is just composed of things we
use for our purposes. You might as well say, "it does not benefit that
stone wall to knock it down, therefore it is not in that stone wall's
interest." But who cares?
> Paving the earth and making it a cage that can support 256 Billion
> people is not in "Nature's interest".
So?
> > Failure to develop property rights results in a problem known as
> > "tragedy of the commons." People take and destroy what is held in
> > common, because they can take or destroy as much as they please without
> > directly internalizing the costs of doing so.
>
> The continued success of increasing population through the efficiency
> of "organized" access to resources has already become a bigger tragedy
> and will continue to worsen.
What kind of tragedy is it in which people more and more people can live
comfortably?
> > > Ahem...
> > > "I have only vaguely defined my views" -Matt
> >
> > This is a dishonest, out of context snip.
> >
>
> Then try:
> "I have only vaguely defined my views how one can lawfully acquire land"
>
> Are we debating a different issue?
You made it sound as if I said all of my views are vaguely defined, when
in fact I was noting specific formulations of laws will be complicated
and extensive, thus anything I write on the subject in this forum is
necessarily going to be vague by comparison.
One could similarly make arguments in favor of the scientific method
without actually being a scientist or without being able to describe
actual scientific theories in great detail. Here I argue for general
institutions that will produce law, and something about what that law is
likely to be, even though I cannot describe actual legal codes in great
detail.
> You started with unsupported claims that my ideas were not
> thought out.
They are obviously not thought out, as you have not explained how people
will have any kind of decent lifestyle if there is no territorialism,
nor have you explained how you can prevent it. You have only uttered
juneveille complaints and straw men against my views.
> > > Land grab??? Despite arguing against me with thousands of words,
> > > you have failed to coherently reframe non-territorialism as a form
> > > of land grab.
> >
> > I wasn't trying to do so, so why would I? I think you just did not
> > understand what I wrote. Try reading it again.
> >
>
> Oh, "try reading it again?" You expect me to clear up all of your
> ambiguities ...
There was nothing ambiguous about it. You simply misinterpreted. I
said:
> > So what of mine is poorly thought out? How one can acquire land? I've
> > stated one can acquire land by mixing one's labor with it--more
> > generally, by developing it. If you do so in a way that others regard
> > as productive, your efforts at defending the claimed land will not
> > provoke retaliation. If your action is viewed as a land grab, it is
> > likely to be more controversial and may provoke resistance.
Nothing in this construes "non-territorialism as a form of land grab."
It is rather a discussion on how acquisition would work in a
propertarian anarchist society. It is a discussion of my views, not an
attack on yours. You seem to have misunderstood because I wrote in the
second person. I was not, however, addressing you personally, but "you"
in a hypothetical sense of some person in the system I'm advocating.
> > previous years. My impression is they have been declining in developed
> > countries. For example:
> >
> > "As of 1998, 79 countries--representing fully 40% of the world's
> > population-had fertility rates below the level necessary to stave off
> > long term population decline. The developed nations are in the worst
> > straits. Already 15 of them, including Russia, Germany and Italy, each
> > year fill more coffins that cradles. Virtually all the others will soon
> > follow suit if the present trends persist. In Germany and Japan, despite
> > hefty financial rewards for women bearing children, the maternity wards
> > remain empty. "
> >
>
> That study is not founded in fact.
How do you know?
> Have a look at the (CIA's) factbook.
As far as I can tell it offers no analysis on what is happening to world
population or even in the particular countries it discusses. If, in
previous years, the growth rate was much higher (as I think was the
case), a positive growth rate statistic doesn't by itself tell you much.
It could just as well be that a declining growth trend will continue and
in the next few decades there will be major declines.
> BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS: WHAT CAUSES POPULATION GROWTH TO SLOW???
Freedom and prosperity, in general. Prosperity means better access to
health care, which means lower infant mortality, which may result in
more people in the short term but, as people realize they do not have to
have many children to procreate successfully, results in less
reproduction in the long term. Freedom means more choice for women
about when to have sex, and more access to contraception.
If you look at your family history, you may find that just a few
generations ago your relatives were having inordinate numbers of
children by today's standards.
> > Likewise, one encounters
> > "headaches" when designing an airplane, but this is because there are
> > problems of physics that an enginner must take into account for his
> > plane to fly.
>
> > There are similar problems of economics that one must
> > take into account before advocating an economic system.
>
> Specifically which problems are you claiming that I didn't take
> into account. (This is also one of your typical unsupported points.)
In your non-system, how do people allocate resources that are scarce,
i.e., finite such that if everyone could take as much as he wanted,
there would not be enough? If one person wants to build a house on some
land, and another wants to plant some crops, how is such a conflict
resolved?
> > > Everything in the hands of corporations. Land, law enforcement,
> > > nature, where you sleep, where you eat.
> >
> > You provide no argument explaining why the corporate model is so far
> > superior to partnerships and sole proprieterships that it will supercede
> > them entirely. Nor do you explain why corporations would become owners
> > of individual homes and apartments. All of these assumptions are
> > doubtful and have not happened today, although there is no reason why
> > they couldn't.
>
> Superior how? As in more efficient?
I mean so much more efficient that corporations will displace all other
forms of organization.
> Because the cost of doing business
> within the corporation will be cheaper when the economic system of the
> state evaporates with it's destruction.
You fail to explain any of the points I challenged you on. Instead you
rely on a vague assertion. Why will the cost of business within a
corporation decline without a statist part of the economy? I would say
the economy as a whole would become much more efficient, which would
result from more competition in more markets. I don't see what logical
connection the existence of the state has to the efficiency of the
corporate model of organization.
Some have speculated that government regulation favors large businesses
over small businesses, because large businesses can better handle the
costs of regulation. But your argument applies to the corporate model
per se viz-a-viz other forms of ownership, not to the size of firms. So
I don't follow your reasoning.
> But just because it is more
> efficient doesn't make it better, just more useful in accomplishing some
> goal. It's economic efficiency will enable it to purchase more
> territory in a system similar to yours.
But only if purchasing more territory continues to make it efficient. A
factory, for example, may procure more land on which to expand its
operations, but if it spends its money buying up land and properties
simply for the sake of having more stuff, it will lose market share to
competitors that spend their money on what they need to make money.
This will either drive it out of business, or get the CEO fired in favor
of someone who knows how to run a company.
It seems millions of people put great value in being able to own their
own homes and businesses, and this value is part of what goes into the
calculation of economic efficiency. In order for corporations to
supplant individually owned homes, shops, etc., they would have to
provide benefits to the current owners far in excess of the value to
them of ownership. I cannot see them managing that.
> > Your "argument" is just an emotional appeal to the corporate boogeyman.
> >
>
> I'm here to sell: nothing. No system. Zip. Nada.
OK, so then is it reasonable to describe your non-system as mass
suicide? For if things like food, medicine, and housing are to be
produced, there has to be some system, some established method of
producing them. Food will not just fall out of the sky for us to eat.
Are you saying you want to go back to before the stone age, with all
people living in little bands picking berries? This does not seem like
a desirable course of action, to me and no doubt to millions of others,
which brings us to the question of how are you going to enforce your
"non-system" on people who don't want it, on people who see some
advantage in domesticating animals, harvesting plants, and trading with
one another?
> You are here to
> sell a system of corporate states.
Bullshit.
> So, it is you who are appealing to
> the boogeyman of "the terror of the commons".
It is not a boogeyman, but a real phenomenon. For example, when there
are no property rights in fish, you have problems with overfishing. You
don't see the same problems with cows and chickens, because such
livestock is easy to own and breed.
> > > No argument is the wrong argument.
> > > Or, more correctly:
> > > All arguments are the wrong arguments.
> >
> > You've gone from non-responsive to gibberish.
> >
>
> "I think you just did not understand what I wrote. Try reading it again."
> -Words of a lazy thinker: lazy in expression, lazy in interpretation
Then why are you repeating them as your response? Your remarks above
make no sense. I do not understand how "all arguments are the wrong
arguments" relates to any point I made. I do not even understand what it
is supposed to mean.
> > > > Presently corporations do have the right to own property.
> > >
> > > But they yet don't own the police force, and the justice system that
> > > is active on "their" territory.
> >
> > You were talking about land ownership, so now you've gone on to
> > something else, making your claims impossible to follow.
>
> Where exactly DO you stand on law enforcement Matt?
Every person has an equal right to enforce justice, and to join
associations to facilitate enforcing justice.
James A. Donald
On 26 Aug 2001 14:25:30 -0700, frogg...@yahoo.com (David Bright
Morning) wrote:
> There are things that benefit Nature, and there are things that
> don't. Slash and burn farming doesn't benefit Nature,
> therefore it is not in Nature's interest.
Nature does not have interests. You are not referring to nature,
but to the Goddess Gaea.
I doubt there is an earth goddess Gaea, but suppose there is.
Then equally likely there is a sky god Yahweh, who supposedly
commanded: "fill the earth, and subdue it. Have dominion over the
fish of the sea, over the birds of the sky, and over every
living thing that moves on the earth" God supposedly reiterated
this and similar directives to several partriarchs in the line
of Abraham.
I find this directive much more to my liking than that which you
supposedly hear from Gaea.
Bend over Gaea.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
Kh+VE34j4uVoRpJod8RQAa9CM6eQKfoXRv84Lkbi
4Ri7mP/T2hRhfa5rLjjh+vy7ByEucrfZsPE7Hn7cO
G*rd*n
| ...
| Bend over Gaea.
Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.
--
(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 7/21/01 <-adv't
Joe R. Golowka
> So what of mine is poorly thought out? How one can acquire land? I've
> stated one can acquire land by mixing one's labor with it
So if I pee on a tree I own that tree? Do I own the whole tree or just the part I peed
on?
> --more
> generally, by developing it.
Who decides what counts as development?
> > > makes little sense, because some of the most heavily developed parts of
> > > the world, such as advanced First World nations, have declining
> > > populations supported mainly through immigration.
> > >
> >
> > That is an outright lie. Very few developed parts of the world
> > outside of western former U.S.S.R. are declining: even without
> > immigration factored in.
>
> My impression is they are either declining, or at or barely above the
> replacement fertility level.
>
> According to
> <http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/DailyNews/worldpopulation010801.h
> tml>
>
> While most developed countries, particularly in Europe, have
> shown signs of declining, or soon-to-be declining
> populations, developing nations in sub-Saharan Africa and in
> western Asia still have high population growth.
>
> Which corresponds with what I claimed. Why don't you provide
> contravening evidence.
>
> > > > Then that breeds problems that have to be resolved with legal and
> > > > economic systems like the one you are proposing.
> > >
> > > Your point being?
> > >
> >
> > That you are not an anarchist, and you never have been.
>
> That's odd, because I'm proposing a legal and economic systems for a
> society without a government--an anarchy.
No you don't. You want to privatize government, not abolish it.
Joe R. Golowka
> In article <ad5112cd.01082...@posting.google.com>,
> frogg...@yahoo.com (David Bright Morning) wrote:
>
> > Matt <ma...@anarchomail.com> writes:
> > > Nature does not have interests. Only people, or perhaps other sentient
> > > creatures, have interests. Some people may find it in their interest to
> > > preserve parts of nature to a certain degree, but other people may
> > > disagree--hence the need for property rights so people can protect the
> > > property they value.
> > >
> >
> > There are things that benefit Nature, and there are things that
> > don't. Slash and burn farming doesn't benefit Nature, therefore
> > it is not in Nature's interest.
>
> Again, nature has no interests.
The interests of nature are the sum total of the interests of all lifeforms.
> Nature is just composed of things we
> use for our purposes.
No it's not. It's that kind of thinking that has caused the ecological mess wer'e getting
ourselves into.
> Every person has an equal right to enforce justice, and to join
> associations to facilitate enforcing justice.
Real justice doesn't need enforcement; it arrises naturally in conditions of freedom and
equality.
G*rd*n
|>>> Nature does not have interests. Only people, or perhaps other sentient
|>>> creatures, have interests. Some people may find it in their interest to
|>>> preserve parts of nature to a certain degree, but other people may
|>>> disagree--hence the need for property rights so people can protect the
|>>> property they value.
frogg...@yahoo.com (David Bright Morning) wrote:
|>> There are things that benefit Nature, and there are things that
|>> don't. Slash and burn farming doesn't benefit Nature, therefore
|>> it is not in Nature's interest.
Matt wrote:
| > Again, nature has no interests.
"Joe R. Golowka" <Jo...@ieee.org>:
| The interests of nature are the sum total of the interests of all lifeforms.
Most people privilege some lifeforms over others, so this
definition is ambiguous until one comes to some conclusion
about the political relations between humans and between humans
and other possibly interested parties. I think it's basically
a good point, though.
Matt
"Joe R. Golowka" <Jo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> Matt wrote:
>
> > In article <ad5112cd.01082...@posting.google.com>,
> > frogg...@yahoo.com (David Bright Morning) wrote:
> >
> > > Matt <ma...@anarchomail.com> writes:
> > > > Nature does not have interests. Only people, or perhaps other sentient
> > > > creatures, have interests. Some people may find it in their interest
> > > > to
> > > > preserve parts of nature to a certain degree, but other people may
> > > > disagree--hence the need for property rights so people can protect the
> > > > property they value.
> > > >
> > >
> > > There are things that benefit Nature, and there are things that
> > > don't. Slash and burn farming doesn't benefit Nature, therefore
> > > it is not in Nature's interest.
> >
> > Again, nature has no interests.
>
> The interests of nature are the sum total of the interests of all lifeforms.
But "all lifeforms" do not have interests. Most are little biological
machines evolved for reproducing. They do not have interests in any
meaningful sense, no more than my car has an "interest" in me keeping it
well oiled.
> > Nature is just composed of things we
> > use for our purposes.
>
> No it's not.
What else is it composed of? Maybe you mean it's composed of things we
use, but should not. As far as I can tell, though, this is simply your
religious belief.
> It's that kind of thinking that has caused the
> ecological mess wer'e getting ourselves into.
What ecological mess?
> > Every person has an equal right to enforce justice, and to join
> > associations to facilitate enforcing justice.
>
> Real justice doesn't need enforcement; it arrises naturally in
> conditions of freedom and equality.
Unfortunately this is not so. Although I find it appealing to imagine a
world where nobody ever uses force against another, such a world is
hopelessly utopian.
To give up the means by which ordinary people can compel justice for
themselves is, in effect, to hand over our freedom to those who would
abuse us.
Matt
"Joe R. Golowka" <Jo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> Matt wrote:
>
> > So what of mine is poorly thought out? How one can acquire land? I've
> > stated one can acquire land by mixing one's labor with it
>
> So if I pee on a tree I own that tree? Do I own the whole tree or just the
> part I peed
> on?
Since when is pissing an act of labor? If capitalists pissed on you at
work, would you change your mind and decide they contribute to
production after all?
> > --more
> > generally, by developing it.
>
> Who decides what counts as development?
The premise of your question reveals an authoritarian mindset: one
person must make decisions for all. I'm arguing that order and law can
exist even without a central authority to impose rules on all, that
people can create and enforce customs and conventions in a decentralized
setting. Thus, no _one_ decides, but rather some convention develops
out of bargaining between people over what is an acceptable acquisition.
Someone who wants to own land only for pissing on will probably accede
rather quickly to someone who wants to own land for productive use.
> > That's odd, because I'm proposing a legal and economic systems for a
> > society without a government--an anarchy.
>
> No you don't. You want to privatize government, not abolish it.
To privatize government is to abolish it--at least if we are using
"privatize" in the standard sense of opening up a state controlled
sector to market competition.
Dave Palmer
Joe R. Golowka wrote:
> So if I pee on a tree I own that tree?
Well, as far as I'm concerned, you can have it.
Of course, this system of assigning property rights tends to
favor males over females, but it has the advantage of placing
natural limitation over the amount of property any one
individual can accumulate.
--dave
Matt
ar...@midway.uchicago.edu (Dave Palmer) wrote:
Oddly, drunks might become the wealthiest class in such a society.
David Bright Morning
> In article <ad5112cd.01082...@posting.google.com>,
> frogg...@yahoo.com (David Bright Morning) wrote:
[snip]
> > There are things that benefit Nature, and there are things that
> > don't. Slash and burn farming doesn't benefit Nature, therefore
> > it is not in Nature's interest.
>
> Again, nature has no interests. Nature is just composed of things we
> use for our purposes. You might as well say, "it does not benefit that
> stone wall to knock it down, therefore it is not in that stone wall's
> interest." But who cares?
>
> > Paving the earth and making it a cage that can support 256 Billion
> > people is not in "Nature's interest".
>
> So?
>
> What kind of tragedy is it in which people more and more people can live
> comfortably?
>
[snip]
> Here I argue for general
> institutions that will produce law, and something about what that law is
> likely to be, even though I cannot describe actual legal codes in great
> detail.
>
[snip]
>
> They are obviously not thought out, as you have not explained how people
> will have any kind of decent lifestyle if there is no territorialism,
> nor have you explained how you can prevent it. You have only uttered
> juneveille complaints and straw men against my views.
>
[snip]
> There was nothing ambiguous about it.
[snip]
> I was not, however, addressing you personally, but "you"
> in a hypothetical sense of some person in the system I'm advocating.
[snip]
> In your non-system, how do people allocate resources that are scarce,
> i.e., finite such that if everyone could take as much as he wanted,
> there would not be enough? If one person wants to build a house on some
> land, and another wants to plant some crops, how is such a conflict
> resolved?
[snip]
> ... when there
> are no property rights in fish, you have problems with overfishing. You
> don't see the same problems with cows and chickens, because such
> livestock is easy to own and breed.
>
[snip]
> > Where exactly DO you stand on law enforcement Matt?
>
> Every person has an equal right to enforce justice, and to join
> associations to facilitate enforcing justice.
You can have the last word on the subject, you've shown
anarcho-capitalism for what it truly is.
David Bright Morning
> Nature does not have interests.
"in the interest of X"
means "to the benefit of X"
and
"not in the interest of X"
means "to the detriment of X"
It does not imply that X has to have regard for this benefit.
Because there are things which are positive toward Nature,
and there are things which are negative toward her,
there are things that are in the interest of Nature, and
things that are not.
> Bend over Gaea.
Adore Iblis Adam!
> We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
> of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
> right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
Before we were social animals, our authoritarianism manifested itself
as "territorialism". When the "alpha male" lets you back on his
land, that is when the "authoritarianism" begins again: because of
"the kind of animals that we are".
+-> peace
Imperator Nero
http://www.geocities.com/froggisarmi/JFA.htm
Timothy Wesson
> Matt wrote:
>
> > In article <ad5112cd.01082...@posting.google.com>,
> > frogg...@yahoo.com (David Bright Morning) wrote:
> >
> > > Matt <ma...@anarchomail.com> writes:
> > > > Nature does not have interests. Only people, or perhaps other sentient
> > > > creatures, have interests. Some people may find it in their interest to
> > > > preserve parts of nature to a certain degree, but other people may
> > > > disagree--hence the need for property rights so people can protect the
> > > > property they value.
> > > >
> > >
> > > There are things that benefit Nature, and there are things that
> > > don't. Slash and burn farming doesn't benefit Nature, therefore
> > > it is not in Nature's interest.
> >
> > Again, nature has no interests.
>
> The interests of nature are the sum total of the interests of all lifeforms.
What weighting? Biological (i.e. gene- or self-replication)? Happiness? Freedom?
I do think that there are things that enrich an environment such as biodiversity, but it is
difficult to make "nature's interests" precise. I would suggest in any case that in the same
vein that humans don't have any interests.
> > Nature is just composed of things we
> > use for our purposes.
>
> No it's not. It's that kind of thinking that has caused the ecological mess wer'e getting
> ourselves into.
Nature just 'is'. But most theories of morality have consistency criteria, and how we treat
other species is a legitimate concern for our theories of morality. That we use our
environment to our own ends is a statement of no moral content, just as we use each other to
our own ends. Using others may even be a positive benefit to them BTW, especially if we are
providing quality work, or our ends are unselfish.
> > Every person has an equal right to enforce justice, and to join
> > associations to facilitate enforcing justice.
>
> Real justice doesn't need enforcement; it arrises naturally in conditions of freedom and
> equality.
I don't think that justice exists as an absolute, rather it is a human invention. Thus I am
opposed to punishment, at least as a starting point. I realise that in the current state of
society, vengeful as it is, punishment may be necessary in order to contain the wrath of the
vengeful.
Sorry: can't post to all the groups.
--
Tim Wesson
Joe R. Golowka
> In article <3B8AAF88...@ieee.org>,
> "Joe R. Golowka" <Jo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> > Matt wrote:
> >
> > > So what of mine is poorly thought out? How one can acquire land? I've
> > > stated one can acquire land by mixing one's labor with it
> >
> > So if I pee on a tree I own that tree? Do I own the whole tree or just the
> > part I peed
> > on?
>
> Since when is pissing an act of labor?
Well, when you say labor I think "modifying the enviroment around you". And peeing does
that. If that's not what you mean by "labor" then what do you mean?
> If capitalists pissed on you at
> work, would you change your mind and decide they contribute to
> production after all?
No, but production isn't the same thing as labor.
> > > --more
> > > generally, by developing it.
> >
> > Who decides what counts as development?
>
> The premise of your question reveals an authoritarian mindset: one
> person must make decisions for all.
No, it reveals an ecological mindset that realizes "development" actually means the rape
of the earth and the exploitation of third world nations.
> I'm arguing that order and law can
> exist even without a central authority to impose rules on all,
Since laws are the decress of the state one cannot have laws without a state.
> that
> people can create and enforce customs and conventions in a decentralized
> setting. Thus, no _one_ decides, but rather some convention develops
> out of bargaining between people over what is an acceptable acquisition.
Which is still a decision making process, but one in which few people know what the final
outcome will be or have any real say in what affects their lives.
> Someone who wants to own land only for pissing on will probably accede
> rather quickly to someone who wants to own land for productive use.
>
> > > That's odd, because I'm proposing a legal and economic systems for a
> > > society without a government--an anarchy.
> >
> > No you don't. You want to privatize government, not abolish it.
>
> To privatize government is to abolish it
Rubbish. If you privatize milk production, that doesn't mean milk is abolished. It means
youv'e changed the manner in which it's produced. You just want to change the way
government/law/police/military is produced, not abolish it.
> --at least if we are using
> "privatize" in the standard sense of opening up a state controlled
> sector to market competition.
Privatize means you take something that was administered by a political buerocracy and
transfer it to a corporate buerocracy. The separation between politics and economics is a
myth; they have a close relationship to each other, just as sex and children are
connected. Government = institutionalized violence.
Joe R. Golowka
> In article <3B8AB25E...@ieee.org>,
> "Joe R. Golowka" <Jo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> > > Again, nature has no interests.
> >
> > The interests of nature are the sum total of the interests of all lifeforms.
>
> But "all lifeforms" do not have interests.
Most do.
> Most are little biological
> machines evolved for reproducing.
You could say the same about human beings.
> They do not have interests in any
> meaningful sense, no more than my car has an "interest" in me keeping it
> well oiled.
Cars are not alive.
> > > Nature is just composed of things we
> > > use for our purposes.
> >
> > No it's not.
>
> What else is it composed of?
Living creatures which keep you and me alive. There are things in nature we don't use.
We don't use bacteria on the bottom of the earth very much. We didn't use all the species
which we drove to extinction.
> Maybe you mean it's composed of things we
> use, but should not. As far as I can tell, though, this is simply your
> religious belief.
As far as I can tell your notion that we should use nature as we see fit (and human beings
count as a part of nature, BTW) without regard to our effects on it has more similarity to
a religious belief then mine. The bible says something very similar.
> > It's that kind of thinking that has caused the
> > ecological mess wer'e getting ourselves into.
>
> What ecological mess?
The one that caused the north pole to melt.
> > Real justice doesn't need enforcement; it arrises naturally in
> > conditions of freedom and equality.
>
> Unfortunately this is not so. Although I find it appealing to imagine a
> world where nobody ever uses force against another, such a world is
> hopelessly utopian.
If people are too wicked (or violent) to be free then they are far too wicked (or violent)
to govern. Government = institutionalized violence.
> To give up the means by which ordinary people can compel justice for
> themselves is, in effect, to hand over our freedom to those who would
> abuse us.
And who will protect us from those "compelling justice"? If people are so wicked that
they requirce violent control then whomever you have instituting that violent control is
also wicked and will abuse their power. What you advocate is replacing a state run by
(corrupt) politicians with one run by (corrupt) businessmen.
Joe R. Golowka
> "Joe R. Golowka" wrote:
>
> > Matt wrote:
> >
> > > In article <ad5112cd.01082...@posting.google.com>,
> > > frogg...@yahoo.com (David Bright Morning) wrote:
> > >
> > > > Matt <ma...@anarchomail.com> writes:
> > > > > Nature does not have interests. Only people, or perhaps other sentient
> > > > > creatures, have interests. Some people may find it in their interest to
> > > > > preserve parts of nature to a certain degree, but other people may
> > > > > disagree--hence the need for property rights so people can protect the
> > > > > property they value.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > There are things that benefit Nature, and there are things that
> > > > don't. Slash and burn farming doesn't benefit Nature, therefore
> > > > it is not in Nature's interest.
> > >
> > > Again, nature has no interests.
> >
> > The interests of nature are the sum total of the interests of all lifeforms.
>
> What weighting? Biological (i.e. gene- or self-replication)? Happiness? Freedom?
All of the above.
> I do think that there are things that enrich an environment such as biodiversity, but it is
> difficult to make "nature's interests" precise.
I agree. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
> I would suggest in any case that in the same
> vein that humans don't have any interests.
Why?
> I don't think that justice exists as an absolute, rather it is a human invention.
This is probably true as well.
Matt
"Joe R. Golowka" <Jo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> Matt wrote:
>
> > In article <3B8AB25E...@ieee.org>,
> > "Joe R. Golowka" <Jo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> >
> > > > Again, nature has no interests.
> > >
> > > The interests of nature are the sum total of the interests of all
> > > lifeforms.
> >
> > But "all lifeforms" do not have interests.
>
> Most do.
Which do and which don't?
> > Most are little biological
> > machines evolved for reproducing.
>
> You could say the same about human beings.
You could, but if this is all you've learned about people, you haven't
learned much.
> > They do not have interests in any
> > meaningful sense, no more than my car has an "interest" in me keeping it
> > well oiled.
>
> Cars are not alive.
True. So why does life make something's interest so much more important?
> > > > Nature is just composed of things we
> > > > use for our purposes.
> > >
> > > No it's not.
> >
> > What else is it composed of?
>
> Living creatures which keep you and me alive.
So then maybe we are using them. What happens if, say, a beneficial
strain of bacteria mutates into one that is harmful? Should we try to
eradicate it, or should we let it annhiliate us because we don't want to
act against its 'interest'?
> There are things in nature we don't use. We don't use bacteria on the
> bottom of the earth very much.
Point taken. But if we need it, or if we're interested in it, we'll
then use it, if only to study.
> We didn't use all the species which we drove to extinction.
Actually, I think we did--at least a lot of them. That's what drove
them to extinction.
> > Maybe you mean it's composed of things we
> > use, but should not. As far as I can tell, though, this is simply your
> > religious belief.
>
> As far as I can tell your notion that we should use nature as we see
> fit (and human beings count as a part of nature, BTW) without regard
> to our effects on it has more similarity to a religious belief then
> mine. The bible says something very similar.
I'm using religious belief in the sense of something one accepts on
faith alone. I do not think people should use nature for their benefit
as a matter of faith. If people want to make themselves better off, to
live more comfortable and happy lives, reason tells me they will have to
make use of nature. And it is not faith that makes me assume people are
going to try to improve their lives, but observation of how people
naturally act.
> > > It's that kind of thinking that has caused the
> > > ecological mess wer'e getting ourselves into.
> >
> > What ecological mess?
>
> The one that caused the north pole to melt.
I'm not too concerned as of yet.
> > > Real justice doesn't need enforcement; it arrises naturally in
> > > conditions of freedom and equality.
> >
> > Unfortunately this is not so. Although I find it appealing to imagine a
> > world where nobody ever uses force against another, such a world is
> > hopelessly utopian.
>
> If people are too wicked (or violent) to be free then they are far
> too wicked (or violent) to govern. Government = institutionalized
> violence.
Granted, but irrelevant. You are mistakenly inferring that I mean all
people are wicked in general, and they need someone to govern them. I
never said anything of the kind.
On the contrary, I'm saying that there will always be _some_ people who
are wicked, and almost all people probably do something evil at some
point in their lives (particularly as youths), even if they are
otherwise decent. Thus, a society needs institutions to discourage such
behavior and to recompense its victims.
Some people jump from here straight to the conclusion that a government
is necessary, but that doesn't follow. It only follows that people will
find it beneficial to join organizations that can defend them from evil.
It doesn't follow that one of these must rule over all.
> > To give up the means by which ordinary people can compel justice for
> > themselves is, in effect, to hand over our freedom to those who would
> > abuse us.
>
> And who will protect us from those "compelling justice"?
You will protect yourself, or join some organization to help you.
> If people are so wicked that they requirce violent control then
> whomever you have instituting that violent control is also wicked and
> will abuse their power.
Agreed. What bearing this has on anything I said, though, remains to be
seen. People in general do not need to be violently controlled, but
clearly there are people who do choose to act maliciously, and thus
peaceful, honest people must still take measures to defend themselves
from those who would abuse them. This does not imply anyone needs to be
in a position of power over all people.
> What you advocate is replacing a state run by (corrupt) politicians
> with one run by (corrupt) businessmen.
How do you figure?
Matt
"Joe R. Golowka" <Jo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> Matt wrote:
>
> > In article <3B8AAF88...@ieee.org>,
> > "Joe R. Golowka" <Jo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Matt wrote:
> > >
> > > > So what of mine is poorly thought out? How one can acquire land? I've
> > > > stated one can acquire land by mixing one's labor with it
> > >
> > > So if I pee on a tree I own that tree? Do I own the whole tree or just
> > > the
> > > part I peed
> > > on?
> >
> > Since when is pissing an act of labor?
>
> Well, when you say labor I think "modifying the enviroment around
> you".
That is not a good definition. Lots of people labor on a computer
without causing any discernible effect on the environment around them.
What they are modifying consists of electronic information that other
people will find valuable.
> And peeing does that. If that's not what you mean by "labor"
> then what do you mean?
I mean producing something or performing some service that other people
value.
This definition excludes utterly pointless toiling, or acts that change
the environment (e.g. pissing), but I find it more useful than your
extremely broad definition. My definition also corresponds more closely
to convential usage of 'labor'; yours, by contrast, is comically
idiosyndratic.
> > If capitalists pissed on you at
> > work, would you change your mind and decide they contribute to
> > production after all?
>
> No, but production isn't the same thing as labor.
Agreed. Not all productive activity is labor, but all labor _worth
considering_ is productive.
> > > > --more
> > > > generally, by developing it.
> > >
> > > Who decides what counts as development?
> >
> > The premise of your question reveals an authoritarian mindset: one
> > person must make decisions for all.
>
> No, it reveals an ecological mindset that realizes "development"
> actually means the rape of the earth and the exploitation of third
> world nations.
Oh, nonsense. Not only are your claims silly, they're also not to the
point. Your implication was that for decisions to be made and for rules
to develop, "someone" in the sense of "someone in charge" must have
authority.
> > I'm arguing that order and law can
> > exist even without a central authority to impose rules on all,
>
> Since laws are the decress of the state one cannot have laws without a state.
Nonsense. You insist on only a narrow, statist definition of law, but
provide no reason to exclude other definitions; e.g., a convention
formally regarded as binding in a community. Such conventions have
existed in historical stateless societies, as they would in
anarcho-capitalism.
> > that
> > people can create and enforce customs and conventions in a decentralized
> > setting. Thus, no _one_ decides, but rather some convention develops
> > out of bargaining between people over what is an acceptable acquisition.
>
> Which is still a decision making process, but one in which few people
> know what the final outcome will be or have any real say in what
> affects their lives.
How do you know that? I don't think this would be true at all.
In a situation where law and enforcement are provided on the market,
people would have substantial choice over what laws are binding on them
and what principles become established law.
Such a system would provide the most choice in actions that have little
effect on other people, and less choice in actions that impose costs on
other people. In order to do those actions, you would have to find a
way to compensate those upon whom you would impose a cost.
> > > > That's odd, because I'm proposing a legal and economic systems for a
> > > > society without a government--an anarchy.
> > >
> > > No you don't. You want to privatize government, not abolish it.
> >
> > To privatize government is to abolish it
>
> Rubbish. If you privatize milk production, that doesn't mean milk is
> abolished.
You misunderstood, perhaps intentionally. I didn't say, "to privatize
is to abolish." I said, "to privatize _government_ is to abolish it.
In other words, I am obviously not claiming 'privatize' is synonymous
with 'abolish,' but rather that privatizing government results in its
abolition. It does so not because 'privatize' means 'abolish' but
because privatizing means opening up to competition, which is
antithetical to government control.
To privatize the government itself logically implies abolishing it,
because opening up the legal and enforcement services of government to
competition would eliminate its monopoly status, which by definition
would mean the government would cease to exist as a government. Either
it would disappear entirely, or it would become just another firm among
many.
> It means youv'e changed the manner in which it's produced.
Not quite. Government is not a product or service itself, but a
producer of a some legitimate services that could be provided
independently of government. Those include the services of adjudicating
disputes, enforcing rights, and providing roads, schools, and other
things the government now does. Thus, anarcho-capitalists wish for
these services to be privatized, not the government itself, since
privatizing the government itself makes no sense.
> You just
> want to change the way government/law/police/military is produced,
> not abolish it.
I want to change the way some legitimate services of government are
produced, which is compatible with abolishing government. In fact,
privatizing law enforcement entirely requires the abolition of
government.
> > --at least if we are using
> > "privatize" in the standard sense of opening up a state controlled
> > sector to market competition.
>
> Privatize means you take something that was administered by a
> political buerocracy and transfer it to a corporate buerocracy.
That's one definition, but not the definition I was using. This was
explicit in the quoted text above.
Earlier you said, "You want to privatize government, not abolish it."
You're telling me what I want, but, strangely, you're substituting your
definitions of words for mine.
How can anyone understand what I want unless they understand what I mean
by my own words?
You might make the argument that what I want would result in, say, a
corporate bureaucracy dominating everyone, but this argument might
require minimal thought. Apparently you find it easier to simply
rewrite my words with your own versions of them.
> The
> separation between politics and economics is a myth; they have a
> close relationship to each other,
Agreed.
Marcin Tustin
> Failure to develop property rights results in a problem known as
> "tragedy of the commons." People take and destroy what is held in
> common, because they can take or destroy as much as they please without
> directly internalizing the costs of doing so.
Considering the commons, has there ever been (or do there exist
necessary impediments to) a system where commons are held to be the property
of all, and so *anyone* could someone for diminishing the value of commons?
The idea is that the party bringing suit would sue for the amount necessary
to put the problem right, including compensation for their labours to that
end; by bringing suit the plaintiff undertakes to put the problem right.
There seem to be 3 classes of commons for these purposes, which I'd like to
discuss.
The first class is those like common land used for grazing of multiple
flocks/herds; these are characterised by non-excludability, and
non-attributability of damage (All using it are collectively responsible).
The key here is that no-one party can be pointed out as the tort-feasor.
What I propose is therefore that a plaintiff can sue to have the commons
placed under their administration, so that they can control who uses it and
how, thus preventing the damage. (There of course remains the question of
whether those who caused the damage should be held responsible for paying
for the repair, or if the plaintiff should recover the costs in the course
of their administration).
Secondly are commons like arable land, factories, nuclear reactors, etc.
These would seem to be the most common - it is possible to determine who is
using the item, who is responsible for the damage, and is already under the
control of the user (Or under no-one's control if abandoned). Either the
user will be the one bringing the suit (or one brought on their behalf), or
the suit wil be brought against them. If the latter, they will need to be al
so constrained to cooperate with the successful plaintiff.
The third class is composed of items like the air - non-excludable,
non-administerable, but with damage attributable. Damage against this class
of commons will have to be assessed on the basis of funding some sort of
compensation scheme. In the case of the air, there nevertheless exist real
problems: The actual polluters are extremely numerous (Including everyone
who owns a car), and relatively poor (not worth individual pursuit).
Concentrating just on pollution from car drivers, we could propose that
those who provide the opportunity should be pursued, and costs passed onto
the polluters. The problem is then that different industries provide the
opportunity to pollute - not just car manufacturers, but also those who
provide fossil fuels, and the providers of roads. Should everyone who
provides any kind of pollution opportunity be expected to contribute towards
compensation? How will this be assessed? Clearly, it should be possible for
companies to "self-internalise" (Because voluntary action will cost society
less) by voluntarily contributing to some relevant fund, but how will these
contribution levels be assessed?
A final point is that it should be equally possible to sue for
maladministration of commons that simply removes it from public use, purely
for the administrator's profit - courts might have to cap the level of
profit that an administrator could make. It seems to me that this approach
has advantages over direct privatisation of commons: It establishes a system
of allocating (and transferring) responsibility; and it distributes
responsibility, so that private organisations can scrutinise as much common
property as they can, rather than established agencies, who may struggle to
oversee their portion.
Comments?
Matt
Your proposals are more thoughtful than many others along similar
lines, but they are not practical. If there are thousands or millions
of people in a society, most of whom wish to use various resources for
various purposes, everyone would face interminable litigation to get
anything done.
Furthermore, from the anarchist perspective, there is some ambiguity
over how one could sue another without the court (or whoever controls
it) becoming an authority and perhaps a government.
The anarcho-capitalist position on this matter is clear: there could be
many courts in competition, all in the context of a highly decentralized
society with property rights vested in many individuals and small groups
(compared to the size of the society as a whole). Through the courts,
there could be multiple competing legal systems in the same territory,
each of which would apply to the particular individuals who choose to
adhere to it.
It's not clear that such a system could work if all property is held in
common, for courts, and their decisions about property, would all have
to be unified under one structure. Presumably independent courts would
serve the independent interests of their independent clients, not the
common interest.
So unless there is unanimous agreement about what the common interest
is, a decentralized anarcho-capitalist-type system could not serve the
objectives of your proposal. If there is unanimous agreement over the
common interest, presumably no one would sue at all.
If, however, there is only one court (or hierarchy of courts) with the
authority to make enforceable decisions, one has to wonder whether we
have re-created at least a minimal state. Even if juries make the final
verdicts, interested parties would no doubt make intense efforts to
influence the judge to set the rules of the court, and to choose the
jurors in the first place. A state whose policy is set by juries is
still a state and still subject to the problems of statism.
There is further risk of statism the more the court acts as like a
legislator and the less like a settler of disputes. Here I mean
'legislate' in the sense that the court would exercise much more
discretion in deciding how people are to act and especially how they are
to use resources.
This contrasts with a situation in which individuals generally set their
own policy, and courts use preexisting (and in the case of
anarcho-capitalism, voluntarily agreed to) principles for settling
disputes between individuals.
For example, in your system people might litigate over whether building
a factory on some land best serves the common interest, or would be a
łmaladministration of commons.˛ Discretion lies with the court.
In my view, a proper court might settle a contract dispute between
landowners, or a trespassing allegation, using preexisting common law or
natural law principles. It would not itself create policy for using
resources.
Note there is no absolute line between these two roles for courts; some
legislation by courts may prove inevitable, but the bulk of discretion
still lies with individuals.
Your proposal resembles what you might call łstate socialism,˛ even
though it is not a typical Marxist proposal, because discretion over how
to use resources lies in necessarily centralized institutions. This
compounded with the aforementioned need for a monopoly court could well
mean this would be a terrible system--even worse than modern democracies
because as oppressive as modern states can be, they still permit
substantial private discretion in the economic realm.
Marcin Tustin
> Marcin,
>
> Your proposals are more thoughtful than many others along similar
> lines, but they are not practical. If there are thousands or millions
> of people in a society, most of whom wish to use various resources for
> various purposes, everyone would face interminable litigation to get
> anything done.
You do, of course, realise that I'm not suggesting that you would always
need a court order to use some commons - rather a court order would be
needed to stop you, if you insisted on using it in ways that infringe upon
other's activities (ie damage of the property, or excluding current users
from using it).
> Furthermore, from the anarchist perspective, there is some ambiguity
> over how one could sue another without the court (or whoever controls
> it) becoming an authority and perhaps a government.
By following the anarcho-capitalist decentralised model.
[snip recap of this]
> It's not clear that such a system could work if all property is held in
> common, for courts, and their decisions about property, would all have
> to be unified under one structure.
Why?
> Presumably independent courts would
> serve the independent interests of their independent clients, not the
> common interest.
>
> So unless there is unanimous agreement about what the common interest
> is, a decentralized anarcho-capitalist-type system could not serve the
> objectives of your proposal. If there is unanimous agreement over the
> common interest, presumably no one would sue at all.
Who mentioned the common interest? What I was talking about was damage
to commons, in terms of reducing its value (Which would have to be measured
in terms of potential productivity, measured across some time span, taking
into account costs of shifting usage, if the proposed change would make the
item in question have only one productive role).
[snip]
> For example, in your system people might litigate over whether building
> a factory on some land best serves the common interest, or would be a
> łmaladministration of commons.˛ Discretion lies with the court.
Not at all. As I was saying, I was proposing a system only concerned
with matters of fact; if the land is unused, and the factory doesn't reduce
the value of the property (eg It produces something that only three people
could ever want, and can only be used for that purpose, that might reduce
the value of the land [assuming that the demandors aren't willing to pay a
lot]), then such litigation would be unreasonable, and costly.
> In my view, a proper court might settle a contract dispute between
> landowners, or a trespassing allegation, using preexisting common law or
> natural law principles. It would not itself create policy for using
> resources.
Nor would courts in this situation.
> Note there is no absolute line between these two roles for courts; some
> legislation by courts may prove inevitable, but the bulk of discretion
> still lies with individuals.
>
> Your proposal resembles what you might call łstate socialism,˛ even
> though it is not a typical Marxist proposal, because discretion over how
> to use resources lies in necessarily centralized institutions. This
> compounded with the aforementioned need for a monopoly court could well
> mean this would be a terrible system--even worse than modern democracies
> because as oppressive as modern states can be, they still permit
> substantial private discretion in the economic realm.
I see no justification for this statement (which runs through your
post). Where are you getting this from?
James A. Donald
Matt:
> > Your proposals are more thoughtful than many others along
> > similar lines, but they are not practical. If there are
> > thousands or millions of people in a society, most of whom
> > wish to use various resources for various purposes, everyone
> > would face interminable litigation to get anything done.
Marcin Tustin:
> You do, of course, realise that I'm not suggesting that you
> would always need a court order to use some commons - rather a
> court order would be needed to stop you, if you insisted on
> using it in ways that infringe upon other's activities (ie
> damage of the property, or excluding current users from using
> it).
But all activities damage the common property, or exclude current
users from using it. If I graze sheep on the commons, that
reduces the grass available for other sheep. If someone plants
wheat on the commons, he must exclude my sheep, or I must
restrain them.
So a substantial amount of property is common the "court" must
decide on every action of every person, and it is back to
recently existent socialism.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
fVi2IkiGCWXJ1huE7Ub8mpifCFFhqiuycZqMjGOn
4Fc7HCI4KdKX7xF6NE0Wy0sLezm9h/j6mYOdMWvmd
------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald
Marcin Tustin
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:3bab7a99...@west.usenetserver.com...
> --
> Matt:
> > > Your proposals are more thoughtful than many others along
> > > similar lines, but they are not practical. If there are
> > > thousands or millions of people in a society, most of whom
> > > wish to use various resources for various purposes, everyone
> > > would face interminable litigation to get anything done.
>
> Marcin Tustin:
> > You do, of course, realise that I'm not suggesting that you
> > would always need a court order to use some commons - rather a
> > court order would be needed to stop you, if you insisted on
> > using it in ways that infringe upon other's activities (ie
> > damage of the property, or excluding current users from using
> > it).
>
> But all activities damage the common property, or exclude current
> users from using it.
I don't believe this to be the case: Some (most) commons have a
well-defined "saturation point" where any more use will exclude those
already using it (Consider a computing lab). Please see my original post, in
which I delineated 3 categories of commons (Although one could argue for
more categories, or better yet a small set of mixable features).
> If I graze sheep on the commons, that
> reduces the grass available for other sheep. If someone plants
> wheat on the commons, he must exclude my sheep, or I must
> restrain them.
>
> So a substantial amount of property is common the "court" must
> decide on every action of every person, and it is back to
> recently existent socialism.
Again, as I said in my original post, this is exactly the sort of case
where someone has to be put in place to administer a commons. The person
would be the first to show that there was a need for an administrator (Eg
overgrazing occurring), and that they had some sort of reasonable plan for
administering the land. They would for most purposes be the owner, thus
eliminating need for court action in future (unless they also start
destroying the land, or perhaps violate some condition of their
stewardship).
Why have you placed "Court" in quotes?
James A. Donald
Marcin Tustin:
> > > You do, of course, realise that I'm not suggesting that you
> > > would always need a court order to use some commons -
> > > rather a court order would be needed to stop you, if you
> > > insisted on using it in ways that infringe upon other's
> > > activities (ie damage of the property, or excluding current
> > > users from using it).
James A. Donald:
> > But all activities damage the common property, or exclude
> > current users from using it.
Marcin Tustin:
> I don't believe this to be the case: Some (most) commons have a
> well-defined "saturation point" where any more use will exclude
> those already using it
Typically all commons are used up to the saturation point for
less intensive uses, for example grazing, producing conflicts
between people wishing to use it for that less intensive use
Then people start wishing to use if for more intensive uses, for
example wheat, producing conflicts between less intensive and
more intensive uses.
A normal commons has many uses, and is usually saturated for less
intensive uses, and unsaturated for more intensive uses..
> Again, as I said in my original post, this is exactly the sort
> of case where someone has to be put in place to administer a
> commons.
But the vast majority of cases are of that sort, so someone
always has to be put in place to administer the commons, and it
is back to recently existent socialism.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
s0vnroPkTAOoG3Ow5LIxURZr781rcWpTuNbUpOfY
4JVzGSuFYyig3vUHTcP5kzuM/7QPBuG8A4Dyqo7T4
David Harmon
"Joe R. Golowka" <Jo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>> Since when is pissing an act of labor?
>
>Well, when you say labor I think "modifying the enviroment around you". And peeing does
>that. If that's not what you mean by "labor" then what do you mean?
The reason you chose to write "pee on" is precisely because to "pee on" is
not an act of labor, however it might have some superficial non-essential
in common with labor. You wrote it in order to ridicule, and trivialize,
productive labor.
G*rd*n
"Joe R. Golowka" <Jo...@ieee.org> wrote:
| >Well, when you say labor I think "modifying the enviroment around you". And peeing does
| >that. If that's not what you mean by "labor" then what do you mean?
David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com>:
| The reason you chose to write "pee on" is precisely because to "pee on" is
| not an act of labor, however it might have some superficial non-essential
| in common with labor. You wrote it in order to ridicule, and trivialize,
| productive labor.
Maybe better than fetishizing it.
--
(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 8/30/01 <-adv't
Lee Rudolph
>| The reason you chose to write "pee on" is precisely because to "pee on" is
>| not an act of labor, however it might have some superficial non-essential
>| in common with labor. You wrote it in order to ridicule, and trivialize,
>| productive labor.
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n):
>Maybe better than fetishizing it.
"Mankind shall not be crucified beneath a shower of gold!"?
If you keep this up, you may have to insert "bimetallist" in your
list of epithets, you know.
Lee Rudolph
G*rd*n
| >| The reason you chose to write "pee on" is precisely because to "pee on" is
| >| not an act of labor, however it might have some superficial non-essential
| >| in common with labor. You wrote it in order to ridicule, and trivialize,
| >| productive labor.
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n):
| >Maybe better than fetishizing it.
lrud...@panix.com (Lee Rudolph):
| "Mankind shall not be crucified beneath a shower of gold!"?
"That's why Danae was a tramp."
| If you keep this up, you may have to insert "bimetallist" in your
| list of epithets, you know.
-- and some even swing both ways....
David Harmon
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>| >> Since when is pissing an act of labor?
>
>"Joe R. Golowka" <Jo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>| >Well, when you say labor I think "modifying the enviroment around you". And peeing does
>| >that. If that's not what you mean by "labor" then what do you mean?
>
>David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com>:
>| The reason you chose to write "pee on" is precisely because to "pee on" is
>| not an act of labor, however it might have some superficial non-essential
>| in common with labor. You wrote it in order to ridicule, and trivialize,
>| productive labor.
>
>Maybe better than fetishizing it.
Which is neither here nor there with regard to the point about Joe's less
than candid debate tactics. Thank you for tacitly agreeing.
Marcin Tustin
> --
> Marcin Tustin:
> > > > You do, of course, realise that I'm not suggesting that you
> > > > would always need a court order to use some commons -
> > > > rather a court order would be needed to stop you, if you
> > > > insisted on using it in ways that infringe upon other's
> > > > activities (ie damage of the property, or excluding current
> > > > users from using it).
>
> James A. Donald:
> > > But all activities damage the common property, or exclude
> > > current users from using it.
JAD:
> A normal commons has many uses, and is usually saturated for less
> intensive uses, and unsaturated for more intensive uses..
Accepted. I think that the principle of allowing those currently using a
property to keep using it in that manner is the fairest for deciding these
issues. If there were another consensus on how to decide it, then again the
system would be workable.
Therefore, under the scheme I envisage, users would have first dibs on
the property until they abandoned it (or possibly until they abandoned their
current mode of usage). (Or dibs, as noted above could be otherwise
determined).
> > Again, as I said in my original post, this is exactly the sort
> > of case where someone has to be put in place to administer a
> > commons.
>
> But the vast majority of cases are of that sort, so someone
> always has to be put in place to administer the commons, and it
> is back to recently existent socialism.
Why is it like socialism, rather than capitalism? How does someone put
in place as an "administrator" resemble a bureaucrat rather than a trustee,
or an asset manager?
Unlike an owner the "administrator" is bound to first justify his plans
for the commons as feasible and necessary. Having gained control, he may be
constrained to a maximum level of profit. Like an asset manager, within any
initially set down limits, the administrator has carte blanche to maintain
that property (to his, and other's profit), limited only by a counter-suit
if he is guilty of maladministration.
Consider the grazing field - probably the best way to deal with the
problem is to fence it off, and charge usage fees such that it remains in
maximum usage without being denuded (possibly employing any technology
necessary), or the amount necessary to keep it in condition, plus normal
profit for the administrator, whichever is greater.
How does this resemble socialism? There is no continuing political
process of interference, building a permanenet powerstructure within the
community.
James A. Donald
Marcin Tustin:
> Accepted. I think that the principle of allowing those
> currently using a
> property to keep using it in that manner is the fairest for
> deciding these issues. If there were another consensus on how
> to decide it, then again the system would be workable.
> Therefore, under the scheme I envisage, users would have
> first dibs on
> the property until they abandoned it
That is what the pioneers did. "first beneficial use". No one
ever abandoned it, unless paid to do so, resulting in existing
private property.
> > > Again, as I said in my original post, this is exactly the
> > > sort of case where someone has to be put in place to
> > > administer a commons.
> > But the vast majority of cases are of that sort, so someone
> > always has to be put in place to administer the commons, and
> > it is back to recently existent socialism.
> Why is it like socialism, rather than capitalism? How does
> someone put
> in place as an "administrator" resemble a bureaucrat rather
> than a trustee, or an asset manager?
I choose my own asset manager to manage my own assets. The
"commons manager" is not managing assets, but people.
I will give an example: Suppose all land is declared to be a
commons. Obviously there is not enough to go around, so the
government must "manage" it. We then have a single big landlord
with the exclusive right to own land, and no one else allowed to
own land. Such a landlord will have vastly more power than any
capitalist landlord.
> Consider the grazing field - probably the best way to deal
> with the
> problem is to fence it off, and charge usage fees such that it
> remains in maximum usage without being denuded (possibly
> employing any technology necessary), or the amount necessary to
> keep it in condition, plus normal profit for the administrator,
> whichever is greater.
> How does this resemble socialism?
The state gets to decide the usage.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
+QTra6qkFDTQyfU57kzcOcF+z3thXM/kyNsJoexP
4NSNO2UlbtfVf2N6TMLubKhRp67DE60D2oqdE4RPa
Matt
"Marcin Tustin" <Mar...@GUeswhatthisbitisfor.mindless.com> wrote:
> Matt <ma...@anarchomail.com> wrote in message
> news:matt-CEFA33.0...@corp.supernews.com...
> > Marcin,
> >
> > Your proposals are more thoughtful than many others along similar
> > lines, but they are not practical. If there are thousands or millions
> > of people in a society, most of whom wish to use various resources for
> > various purposes, everyone would face interminable litigation to get
> > anything done.
>
> You do, of course, realise that I'm not suggesting that you would always
> need a court order to use some commons - rather a court order would be
> needed to stop you, if you insisted on using it in ways that infringe upon
> other's activities (ie damage of the property, or excluding current users
> from using it).
As James noted, simply by using the property I am stopping someone else
from using it (assuming we are talking about rivalrous things like land
and cars, as opposed to things like air and sunlight). Indeed, when you
mention exclusion, you seem to recognize this problem but seem to think
most valuable things are naturally public rather than private goods,
hence it is not much of a problem.
This is a mistaken assumption, one which will create insuperable
difficulty in converting naturally private goods (such as land) into
public goods. (Anarcho-capitalists also face difficulty in converting
naturally public goods to private ones).
If, for example, I build a factory where you wish to let sheep graze, I
have clearly infringed upon your desired activities. Hence under your
system a court has to decide whether the land should be used for grazing
or manufacturing; hence the court effectively owns the land. If there
are many independent courts, such an arrangement would resemble
feudalism. If there is only one (or one hierarchy of courts), it is
what you would call "state socialism."
> > Furthermore, from the anarchist perspective, there is some ambiguity
> > over how one could sue another without the court (or whoever controls
> > it) becoming an authority and perhaps a government.
>
> By following the anarcho-capitalist decentralised model.
> [snip recap of this]
OK that is good but I don't think it will work for common ownership (at
least, for the society as a whole).
> > It's not clear that such a system could work if all property is held in
> > common, for courts, and their decisions about property, would all have
> > to be unified under one structure.
>
> Why?
Owning something in common implies that one will, the putative common
will, controls it. Thus decisions about how control is to excercised
must come from one decision maker (it could be a democratic decision
maker, but even then the decisions of many must be amalgamated into
one--typically the majority vote).
If there are many independent courts, settling disputes between many
private parties, it is hard to see how ownership could be collective.
Regardless of whether ownership is mainly vested in the courts or in the
individuals who patronize them, decision making power lies severally
among many independent people acting in their own interests. Thus to
effectively hold property in common, we have to unify decision making
power in some organizational structure acting in the common interest.
> > Presumably independent courts would
> > serve the independent interests of their independent clients, not the
> > common interest.
> >
> > So unless there is unanimous agreement about what the common interest
> > is, a decentralized anarcho-capitalist-type system could not serve the
> > objectives of your proposal. If there is unanimous agreement over the
> > common interest, presumably no one would sue at all.
>
> Who mentioned the common interest? What I was talking about was damage
> to commons, in terms of reducing its value (Which would have to be measured
> in terms of potential productivity, measured across some time span, taking
> into account costs of shifting usage, if the proposed change would make the
> item in question have only one productive role).
You mentioned common ownership, so I presumed you wish for things to be
owned in the common interest. I have difficulty imagining a kind of
ownership wherein the owner doesn't control whatever he owns for his
interests; just the same with common ownership.
Consider that the value of commons depends on the subjective preferences
of various people within the society. When I build a shoe factory on a
plot of land, that "damages" the commons--reduces its value--from the
perspective of the shepherd who wishes to let his sheep graze on it.
From the perspective of people who want to buy shoes, it improves the
value of the land.
You might note that it's possible to estimate the market value of the
land (or other properties), but a market value implies there is buying
and selling going on such that prices can stablize at an equilibrium
point. If there is no buying and selling, it will be up to the courts
to estimate what usage is most valuable.
> > For example, in your system people might litigate over whether building
> > a factory on some land best serves the common interest, or would be a
> > "maladministration of commons." Discretion lies with the court.
>
> Not at all. As I was saying, I was proposing a system only concerned
> with matters of fact; if the land is unused, and the factory doesn't reduce
> the value of the property (eg It produces something that only three people
> could ever want, and can only be used for that purpose, that might reduce
> the value of the land [assuming that the demandors aren't willing to pay a
> lot]), then such litigation would be unreasonable, and costly.
Neither of these assumptions is plausible in the real world. Most land
is not going to go unused, at least in areas people find valuable. So
most of the time there is going to be a user, and others who are
excluded from use. Additionally, one usage of the land might prove
valuable for some but costly for others. Anyone who suffers these
costs, or would benefit more by gaining the right to "administer" the
land, may find an incentive to sue despite the cost of litigation.
This raises the prospect of incessant litigation to get anything done.
To solve this problem, I predict either the courts would secure for
themselves more discretion in setting policy, or the courts would permit
individuals most of the discretion in setting policy for resource use.
Which way it goes might depend on how much power the courts have to
begin with.
> > In my view, a proper court might settle a contract dispute between
> > landowners, or a trespassing allegation, using preexisting common law or
> > natural law principles. It would not itself create policy for using
> > resources.
>
> Nor would courts in this situation.
Then who does create policy concerning resource use? Your proposal
seems like the middle ground between two conflicting systems of
property. That doesn't mean it couldn't exist, but it's hard to see
just how it would work, and whether it would tend to become more like
one system than another.
For example, if individuals and firms decide for the most part how to
use resources they currently possess, with a few exceptions that can be
pursued in court, it is basically an anarcho-capitalist system (quite
similar, in fact, to one of my earlier proposals for land ownership in
anarcho-capitalism).
If, on the other hand, people need to arbitrate over every use of
property that has some effect on others, the courts will be the
effective owners. If, in the name of the common good, one court system
subsumes the others under its centralized control, it will be more like
"state socialism."
> > Note there is no absolute line between these two roles for courts; some
> > legislation by courts may prove inevitable, but the bulk of discretion
> > still lies with individuals.
> >
> > Your proposal resembles what you might call "state socialism," even
> > though it is not a typical Marxist proposal, because discretion over how
> > to use resources lies in necessarily centralized institutions. This
> > compounded with the aforementioned need for a monopoly court could well
> > mean this would be a terrible system--even worse than modern democracies
> > because as oppressive as modern states can be, they still permit
> > substantial private discretion in the economic realm.
>
> I see no justification for this statement (which runs through your
> post). Where are you getting this from?
I explained the need for a unified court system in this post and the
previous one. I can accept it if you continue to reject such a system,
although I have difficulty imagining how things could be held in common
without it. I have also explained that discretion concerning how
resources are used seems to lie with the courts.
Marcin Tustin
Suppose that all land is commons and that more than one person seeks to
administer commons - then that person doesn't have a lot of power. James, if
you're not willing to engage in reasonable without introducing men of straw,
don't bother.
> > Consider the grazing field - probably the best way to deal
> > with the
> > problem is to fence it off, and charge usage fees such that it
> > remains in maximum usage without being denuded (possibly
> > employing any technology necessary), or the amount necessary to
> > keep it in condition, plus normal profit for the administrator,
> > whichever is greater.
> > How does this resemble socialism?
>
> The state gets to decide the usage.
Are you under the influence of some sort of psychedelic drug? Where does
a state appear in the above paragraph, or indeed anywhere in my previous
posts?
Marcin Tustin
Marcin Tustin
> In article <9mqfmb$n5f$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> "Marcin Tustin" <Mar...@GUeswhatthisbitisfor.mindless.com> wrote:
>
> > Matt <ma...@anarchomail.com> wrote in message
> > news:matt-CEFA33.0...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > Marcin,
> > >
> > > Your proposals are more thoughtful than many others along similar
> > > lines, but they are not practical. If there are thousands or millions
> > > of people in a society, most of whom wish to use various resources for
> > > various purposes, everyone would face interminable litigation to get
> > > anything done.
> >
> > You do, of course, realise that I'm not suggesting that you would
always
> > need a court order to use some commons - rather a court order would be
> > needed to stop you, if you insisted on using it in ways that infringe
upon
> > other's activities (ie damage of the property, or excluding current
users
> > from using it).
>
> As James noted, simply by using the property I am stopping someone else
> from using it (assuming we are talking about rivalrous things like land
> and cars, as opposed to things like air and sunlight). Indeed, when you
> mention exclusion, you seem to recognize this problem but seem to think
> most valuable things are naturally public rather than private goods,
> hence it is not much of a problem.
This does seem to be an unspoken assumption, and as you note, an
incorrect one. We have been talking about rivalrous things like land (but
not rivalrous things like cars), but I originally addressed non-rivalrous
things like air (and sunlight).
Concerning the fact that use always excludes others - not in the (rare)
case that that good still has spare capacity; hence my point.
> If, for example, I build a factory where you wish to let sheep graze, I
> have clearly infringed upon your desired activities. Hence under your
> system a court has to decide whether the land should be used for grazing
> or manufacturing;
That certainly looks to be the case. However, as I said in a later post,
replying to James Donald, whoever was there first (Or any other criteria
that are backed by a broad consensus), would be the deciding factor as to
who would be in the right. Thus, the court doesn't have to make a policy
decision in most (or any) cases.
> hence the court effectively owns the land. If there
> are many independent courts, such an arrangement would resemble
> feudalism. If there is only one (or one hierarchy of courts), it is
> what you would call "state socialism."
This would be true iff the courts routinely made policy decisions. I
don't *think* it would turn out that way.
This is a very valid point, and one I'll expand (the description of my
position) [And I think I do mean expand rather than expound] upon.
What I envisage is the kind of control where the owner controls what he
controls for his own benefit, but does not own it in the sense of being able
to sell it. This is because it would prevent the "owner" from becoming a
capitalist with more power than others. Hence, if the "owner" wishes to make
shoes using some commons (possibly with a bit of capital added), then he has
to persuade others to join in partnership with him; if no-one will join in
his enterprise, he cannot sit upon the land and exclude people. Nor can he
engage in lock-outs (That well known, and now almost completely unpractised
practise), or any other typical "evil capitalist" acts.
This of course demands that I address the matter of economies of scale:
If firms operating on separate facilities wish to form one enterprise, then
they can instead of interacting throught the market, interact according to
some common plan. E.g. Firm A produces frobs and buys grommets from B to
make widgets; Firm B and A can simply decide to coopoerate to form a mighty
widget-frob-grommet combine.
> Consider that the value of commons depends on the subjective preferences
> of various people within the society. When I build a shoe factory on a
> plot of land, that "damages" the commons--reduces its value--from the
> perspective of the shepherd who wishes to let his sheep graze on it.
> From the perspective of people who want to buy shoes, it improves the
> value of the land.
Surely the value of the land would depend upon the market value of the
goods that the land would produce over some timescale across which a fair
comparison can be made (Assuming it can't be sold, which it can't)? So if
sheep (or wool and lamb) are very valuable, then that is the use which
maximises the value of the land; if shoes are highly valued, then the shoe
factory is the choice to make. I think that this is the key to whether or
not commons would be "damaged" (To stretch that word), particularly if the
act were not irrevocable.
> You might note that it's possible to estimate the market value of the
> land (or other properties), but a market value implies there is buying
> and selling going on such that prices can stablize at an equilibrium
> point. If there is no buying and selling, it will be up to the courts
> to estimate what usage is most valuable.
Yes.
> > > For example, in your system people might litigate over whether
building
> > > a factory on some land best serves the common interest, or would be a
> > > "maladministration of commons." Discretion lies with the court.
> >
> > Not at all. As I was saying, I was proposing a system only concerned
> > with matters of fact; if the land is unused, and the factory doesn't
reduce
> > the value of the property (eg It produces something that only three
people
> > could ever want, and can only be used for that purpose, that might
reduce
> > the value of the land [assuming that the demandors aren't willing to pay
a
> > lot]), then such litigation would be unreasonable, and costly.
>
> Neither of these assumptions is plausible in the real world. Most land
> is not going to go unused, at least in areas people find valuable. So
> most of the time there is going to be a user, and others who are
> excluded from use. Additionally, one usage of the land might prove
> valuable for some but costly for others. Anyone who suffers these
> costs, or would benefit more by gaining the right to "administer" the
> land, may find an incentive to sue despite the cost of litigation.
Are we talking about (negative) externalities here, like pollution? If
the activity generates such a cost, which is identifiably caused by the
person operating on that property, and there is someone who can show that
they bear that cost privately, then that is a tort, addressable in the
normal manner (substitute whatever you feel is normal). If that cost is in
the form of damage to commons (be it land, air, or whatever), then and only
then does administration come into it. Oh, and I'm sure I've mentioned that
to avoid the land falling under "administration" the malfeasor could simply
desist from causing damage, and put right any damage caused.
> This raises the prospect of incessant litigation to get anything done.
> To solve this problem, I predict either the courts would secure for
> themselves more discretion in setting policy, or the courts would permit
> individuals most of the discretion in setting policy for resource use.
> Which way it goes might depend on how much power the courts have to
> begin with.
>
> > > In my view, a proper court might settle a contract dispute between
> > > landowners, or a trespassing allegation, using preexisting common law
or
> > > natural law principles. It would not itself create policy for using
> > > resources.
> >
> > Nor would courts in this situation.
>
> Then who does create policy concerning resource use? Your proposal
> seems like the middle ground between two conflicting systems of
> property. That doesn't mean it couldn't exist, but it's hard to see
> just how it would work, and whether it would tend to become more like
> one system than another.
>
> For example, if individuals and firms decide for the most part how to
> use resources they currently possess, with a few exceptions that can be
> pursued in court, it is basically an anarcho-capitalist system (quite
> similar, in fact, to one of my earlier proposals for land ownership in
> anarcho-capitalism).
This is what I envisage. What was your proposal? Have you abandoned it,
and if so, why?
> If, on the other hand, people need to arbitrate over every use of
> property that has some effect on others, the courts will be the
> effective owners. If, in the name of the common good, one court system
> subsumes the others under its centralized control, it will be more like
> "state socialism."
Indeed to be avoided.
> > > Note there is no absolute line between these two roles for courts;
some
> > > legislation by courts may prove inevitable, but the bulk of discretion
> > > still lies with individuals.
> > >
> > > Your proposal resembles what you might call "state socialism," even
> > > though it is not a typical Marxist proposal, because discretion over
how
> > > to use resources lies in necessarily centralized institutions. This
> > > compounded with the aforementioned need for a monopoly court could
well
> > > mean this would be a terrible system--even worse than modern
democracies
> > > because as oppressive as modern states can be, they still permit
> > > substantial private discretion in the economic realm.
> >
> > I see no justification for this statement (which runs through your
> > post). Where are you getting this from?
>
> I explained the need for a unified court system in this post and the
> previous one.
I didn't see anything on it in the previous post, sorry.
> I can accept it if you continue to reject such a system,
> although I have difficulty imagining how things could be held in common
> without it. I have also explained that discretion concerning how
> resources are used seems to lie with the courts.
I think I've addressed this, by clarifying that this is primarily a
system for resolving who gets to use something, until they abandon it, or
they damage it, in which case those who feel that it is a loss can take
action.
James A. Donald
On Sat, 8 Sep 2001 11:15:21 +0100, "Marcin Tustin"
> Suppose that all land is commons and that more than one
> person seeks to
> administer commons
But if it is actually common, and if despite it being common we
need an administrator, then we cannot have more than one
apparatus appointing and supervising such administrators, and
with such an apparatus, we have socialism as it recently existed.
Marcin Tustin
> > > Consider the grazing field - probably the best way to deal
> > > with the problem is to fence it off, and charge usage fees
> > > such that it remains in maximum usage without being denuded
> > > (possibly employing any technology necessary), or the
> > > amount necessary to keep it in condition, plus normal
> > > profit for the administrator, whichever is greater.
> > > How does this resemble socialism?
James A. Donald:
> > The state gets to decide the usage.
Marcin Tustin
> Are you under the influence of some sort of psychedelic
> drug? Where does
> a state appear in the above paragraph, or indeed anywhere in my
> previous posts?
Your use of the passive tense implies that all the actors are
slaves of a totalitarian state.
Who sets and charges the usage fees? Who collects the usage fees,
who decides what shall be done with the usage money? Who decides
that this land shall be grazed, that land shall be wheat, that
land shall be forest, and this other land shall be roads?
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
kHYw1xmv2OqyqR0faOFmmLDew29G6uSYzbR2qflM
4pjB2wpmriaSZTsiquCHzz5cen7zS/E5GYoO3SWBi
Marcin Tustin
> --
> On Sat, 8 Sep 2001 11:15:21 +0100, "Marcin Tustin"
> > Suppose that all land is commons and that more than one
> > person seeks to
> > administer commons
>
> But if it is actually common, and if despite it being common we
> need an administrator, then we cannot have more than one
> apparatus appointing and supervising such administrators,
Why not? This would only be the case if the "apparatus" acted as some
sort of policy making secretariat, something which I believe to be
unnecessary.
> and
> with such an apparatus, we have socialism as it recently existed.
> Marcin Tustin
> > > > Consider the grazing field - probably the best way to deal
> > > > with the problem is to fence it off, and charge usage fees
> > > > such that it remains in maximum usage without being denuded
> > > > (possibly employing any technology necessary), or the
> > > > amount necessary to keep it in condition, plus normal
> > > > profit for the administrator, whichever is greater.
> > > > How does this resemble socialism?
>
> James A. Donald:
> > > The state gets to decide the usage.
>
> Marcin Tustin
> > Are you under the influence of some sort of psychedelic
> > drug? Where does
> > a state appear in the above paragraph, or indeed anywhere in my
> > previous posts?
>
> Your use of the passive tense implies that all the actors are
> slaves of a totalitarian state.
Actually, I find that quite a stretch of the imagination. Although it is
not clear who is doing the charging, the only subject of a "being
<participle>" construction is the field. To clarify, I envisage the
"administrator" being the one doing the charging.
> Who sets and charges the usage fees? Who collects the usage fees,
I think that I've made it fairly clear that the "administrator" would.
> who decides what shall be done with the usage money?
Essentially the administrator, although the court assessing the suit
would have to make sure that the paln was reasonable (Eg refuse an
administration suit from someone whose plan for regenerating some grazing
land would be to inflate very big balloons.)
> Who decides
> that this land shall be grazed, that land shall be wheat, that
> land shall be forest, and this other land shall be roads?
I'd like to address this in the context of my post of yesterday to Matt,
so if after you've read that, you'd like to respond to that (Even in the
extent of "It doesn't address these at all", if you wish).
Robert Allen Leeper
anarcho-capitalism... (yawn))]
Matt wrote:[...]
> (Anarcho-capitalists also face difficulty in converting
> naturally public goods to private ones). [...]
Why assume that there are any "naturally public goods"? I deny that
there are any such, but am open to argument.
I do insist that the simple leap from 'unowned' to 'public' is
unjustified. By "naturally public goods", I suppose you are thinking of
such things as the earth's air, but the fact that the nature of the good
makes certain forms of ownership impracticable cannot, without more,
legitimize a leap to the conclusion that there are any collective rights
in the good.
--
Best wishes,
Robert Allen Leeper
Reason Is Not a Perfect Guide
But There Is No Other
G*rd*n
| anarcho-capitalism... (yawn))]
Matt wrote:[...]
| > (Anarcho-capitalists also face difficulty in converting
| > naturally public goods to private ones). [...]
Robert Allen Leeper <ra...@hcsmail.com>:
| Why assume that there are any "naturally public goods"? I deny that
| there are any such, but am open to argument.
|
| I do insist that the simple leap from 'unowned' to 'public' is
| unjustified. By "naturally public goods", I suppose you are thinking of
| such things as the earth's air, but the fact that the nature of the good
| makes certain forms of ownership impracticable cannot, without more,
| legitimize a leap to the conclusion that there are any collective rights
| in the good.
Suppose someone could destroy the air? Many people would be
inconvenienced.
James A. Donald
> > > Suppose that all land is commons and that more than one
> > > person seeks to administer commons
James A. Donald:
> > But if it is actually common, and if despite it being common
> > we need an administrator, then we cannot have more than one
> > apparatus appointing and supervising such administrators,
Marcin Tustin
> Why not? This would only be the case if the "apparatus"
> acted as some sort of policy making secretariat, something
> which I believe to be unnecessary.
As I asked before, who then gets to decide the fees, collects the
money, allocates land between wheat and grazing, and so on and so
forth. Then as use becomes more intensive there are roads,
irrigation, ditches, fences. Who owns this stuff and takes care
of it?
James A. Donald:
> > Your use of the passive tense implies that all the actors are
> > slaves of a totalitarian state.
Marcin Tustin
> Actually, I find that quite a stretch of the imagination.
The passive tense implies they do not decide -- thus someone else
does decide. Been there..
James A. Donald:
> > who decides what shall be done with the usage money?
Marcin Tustin
> Essentially the administrator,
If he really gets to decide, he will put it in his own pocket and
spend some of it on a big house with a hot tub overlooking the
ocean. If he does not really get to decide, it is back to
socialism as usual
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
r5AdkSh4dI2Xd1MVISoSxA60xm8yGk6/5SP6di2f
4NKetZX9IEcIQmh2XQ8TeOLGo07PJxh+IyzhD1MLd
Marcin Tustin
That's the point - you don't get anything for free, including keeping
your commons in shape.
> If he does not really get to decide, it is back to
> socialism as usual
>
> --digsig
> James A. Donald
> 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
> r5AdkSh4dI2Xd1MVISoSxA60xm8yGk6/5SP6di2f
> 4NKetZX9IEcIQmh2XQ8TeOLGo07PJxh+IyzhD1MLd
Incidentally, what do you use to generate your "digsig"?
Matt
Robert Allen Leeper <ra...@hcsmail.com> wrote:
> Matt wrote:[...]
> > (Anarcho-capitalists also face difficulty in converting
> > naturally public goods to private ones). [...]
>
> Why assume that there are any "naturally public goods"? I deny that
> there are any such, but am open to argument.
By "naturally public" I mean the nature of the good makes it
non-rivalrous and difficult, or impossible, to exclude free riders.
Defense of individual people and properties is naturally private, but
defense of a larger geographic area from large scale threats is
naturally public. Flood control might be another example.
That doesn't mean there are no private solutions for providing those
goods; it just means finding a solution is more challenging than it is
for providing things like groceries or guns.
> I do insist that the simple leap from 'unowned' to 'public' is
> unjustified. By "naturally public goods", I suppose you are thinking of
> such things as the earth's air, but the fact that the nature of the good
> makes certain forms of ownership impracticable cannot, without more,
> legitimize a leap to the conclusion that there are any collective rights
> in the good.
Agreed.
Robert Allen Leeper
[Returning to your original comment quoted above] I think the
enlightened anarcho-capitalist should be able to deal with his his anger
at the free riders, and just get over it that he is unable to secure
certain benefits for himself, because of the nature of the interests
involved, without incidentally benefitting others. 'Public good' and
'free riders' are not a logical problem for AC theory, as long as we
reject the demand for some sort of direct relationship between value
given and value received.
It is not the left alone that may be subject to the false allure of 'the
quest for cosmic justice'.
--
Marcin Tustin
Robert Allen Leeper <ra...@hcsmail.com> wrote in message
news:3B9B5E7D...@hcsmail.com...
> [Was - Re: Dealing with commons (Was: Re: Retorting
> anarcho-capitalism... (yawn))]
>
> Matt wrote:[...]
> > (Anarcho-capitalists also face difficulty in converting
> > naturally public goods to private ones). [...]
>
> Why assume that there are any "naturally public goods"? I deny that
> there are any such, but am open to argument.
>
> I do insist that the simple leap from 'unowned' to 'public' is
> unjustified. By "naturally public goods", I suppose you are thinking of
> such things as the earth's air, but the fact that the nature of the good
> makes certain forms of ownership impracticable cannot, without more,
> legitimize a leap to the conclusion that there are any collective rights
> in the good.
The atmosphere cannot be provided privately - it is non excludable, non
rivalrous, but it is damageable, and that damage is born by everyone. It is
also an economic good that every single person requires. That looks like a
public good to me.
Marcin Tustin
> --
> > > > Suppose that all land is commons and that more than one
> > > > person seeks to administer commons
>
> James A. Donald:
> > > But if it is actually common, and if despite it being common
> > > we need an administrator, then we cannot have more than one
> > > apparatus appointing and supervising such administrators,
>
> Marcin Tustin
> > Why not? This would only be the case if the "apparatus"
> > acted as some sort of policy making secretariat, something
> > which I believe to be unnecessary.
>
> As I asked before, who then gets to decide the fees, collects the
> money, allocates land between wheat and grazing, and so on and so
> forth. Then as use becomes more intensive there are roads,
> irrigation, ditches, fences. Who owns this stuff and takes care
> of it?
I managed to miss this before.
The "administrator" (I always quote the term because it smacks of a
bureacrat) would set fees, collect them, etc. (As I envisage it - there is
of course the possibility that certain courts would impose certain
restrictions, but if they discouraged competent people from wishing to do a
good job, those courts would lose this kind of business).
As commons are unsellable, some would be abandoned, and the next person
would be able to develop them. Of course, some land would become
unprofitable (eg more grazing land than anyone needs) and the administrator
could decide to develop it as something else. This does raise the issue of
whether a change of land use could ever be the subject of a
maladministration suit, or whether or not administrators have carte blanche,
but of course, this is only a usenet discussion and not legally binding on
any court, unless Proposition 304 passes, which we all hope it will. Some
things are just up to the consensus of the community that adopts these
practices, as expressed through precedents of respected courts.
As to who owns the stuff on the commons, they're part of the commons,
and it's up to whoever is the user/administrator of the land to keep up
stuff on it, and their privilege to benefit from it.
> James A. Donald:
> > > Your use of the passive tense implies that all the actors are
> > > slaves of a totalitarian state.
>
> Marcin Tustin
> > Actually, I find that quite a stretch of the imagination.
>
> The passive tense implies they do not decide -- thus someone else
> does decide. Been there..
Cheers for snipping out the rest of the paragraph, so you can reply to
the bit that supports your "point".
Chiron McAnndra
> | Why assume that there are any "naturally public goods"? I deny that
> | there are any such, but am open to argument.
> |
> | I do insist that the simple leap from 'unowned' to 'public' is
> | unjustified. By "naturally public goods", I suppose you are thinking of
> | such things as the earth's air, but the fact that the nature of the good
> | makes certain forms of ownership impracticable cannot, without more,
> | legitimize a leap to the conclusion that there are any collective rights
> | in the good.
>
> Suppose someone could destroy the air? Many people would be
> inconvenienced.
sounds like a very radical form of suicide ...
you implicate what ever governmentalists really like to do : take
either this, or that, but don't think too much ...
to be public, or to be privat are not the only possibilities in this
universe.
noone is supposed to do anything against the sanity of others. to
destroy the air surely will be against the sanity of mostly all others
... I'm sure, noone would define such an act as not criminal .... in
every kind of society.
in my opinion, you're not supposed to destroy what you don't own in
private.
you own the air in your breathe, the air in a basked you carry with
you, aso....
but if you destroy the air completely, you claim first to own all air
you want to destroy for your own ... sounds simply impossible ...
.... crazy ...
Chiron McAnndra
'Violence - it is ever the last refuge for the incompetent."
(S.Hardin)
Chiron McAnndra
> non-rivalrous and difficult, or impossible, to exclude free riders.
> Defense of individual people and properties is naturally private, but
> defense of a larger geographic area from large scale threats is
> naturally public. Flood control might be another example.
of these people who needs such things like flood control ? is
'combined private interests' not expressive enough ? 'public goods'
implicates also 'public interests' ...
but why should someonle living in the desert care anything about flood
control ? noone forces people to live in areas that might be flooded
...
> That doesn't mean there are no private solutions for providing those
> goods; it just means finding a solution is more challenging than it is
> for providing things like groceries or guns.
politicians in all kinds of states get a lot of money for thinking
about such solutions ... ever in order to fulfill public interests
.... ever by taking it from all individuals ... and ever by collecting
more money for themselves than necessary to perform these solutions
Chiron McAnndra
> rivalrous, but it is damageable, and that damage is born by everyone. It is
> also an economic good that every single person requires. That looks like a
> public good to me.
Humm .... the atmosphere is been actually performed to destroy since
about 150 years ... the most of all within the last about 40 years.
existing law allows people to hide behind annonymized legal
contructions that provide them to be reliable for what was done in
their orders.
this happened in a world where the air IS understand as a public good.
that looks not good to me.
Robert Allen Leeper
clearer case than pollution, because that may be analyzable as
trespass]. You can secure your own air technologically [domed cities or
air generation plants], you can pay me not to use the machine, or you
can use force to stop me.
If you chose the last, I'm not going to be too mad at you. But I am
certainly not going to buy into the idea that needs create rights.
I missed the earlier parts of this thread, so someone may have given a
definition of 'public goods'. I understand the term to mean, roughly,
goods that are owned in common - by everyone, or every member of the
'public' - with every owner having rights to the good. Unowned goods
are obviously entirely different. With regard to them something like a
state of nature exists. Disputes regarding their use are resolved by
negotiation and upon the failure of negotiation by force. Where we
probably differ is that I see nothing deplorable about such a state of
affairs.
Marcin Tustin wrote:
>
> Robert Allen Leeper <ra...@hcsmail.com> wrote[...]
> > I do insist that the simple leap from 'unowned' to 'public' is
> > unjustified. By "naturally public goods", I suppose you are thinking of
> > such things as the earth's air, but the fact that the nature of the good
> > makes certain forms of ownership impracticable cannot, without more,
> > legitimize a leap to the conclusion that there are any collective rights
> > in the good.
>
> The atmosphere cannot be provided privately - it is non excludable, non
> rivalrous, but it is damageable, and that damage is born by everyone. It is
> also an economic good that every single person requires. That looks like a
> public good to me.
--
Libertarian
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>If he really gets to decide, he will put it in his own pocket and
>spend some of it on a big house with a hot tub overlooking the
>ocean. If he does not really get to decide, it is back to
>socialism as usual
So what you are saying is that if there is no more land to get a house
by the ocean, or a person cannot hope to afford such things,
then he will rightfully choose (libertarian) socialism.
Løten Folkebibliotek
Marcin Tustin
Chiron McAnndra <chi...@artefakt.com> wrote in message
news:256c1b0c.0109...@posting.google.com...
> > The atmosphere cannot be provided privately - it is non excludable,
non
> > rivalrous, but it is damageable, and that damage is born by everyone. It
is
> > also an economic good that every single person requires. That looks like
a
> > public good to me.
>
> Humm .... the atmosphere is been actually performed to destroy since
> about 150 years ... the most of all within the last about 40 years.
> existing law allows people to hide behind annonymized legal
> contructions that provide them to be reliable for what was done in
> their orders.
> this happened in a world where the air IS understand as a public good.
> that looks not good to me.
To get a handle on this discussion, I suggest that you read
<9mjbt0$m6o$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk> and all followups.
Marcin Tustin
Robert Allen Leeper <ra...@hcsmail.com> wrote in message
news:3B9DAD6D...@hcsmail.com...
> OK. Say I have a machine that uses up the air [depletion provides a
> clearer case than pollution, because that may be analyzable as
> trespass]. You can secure your own air technologically [domed cities or
> air generation plants], you can pay me not to use the machine, or you
> can use force to stop me.
>
> If you chose the last, I'm not going to be too mad at you. But I am
> certainly not going to buy into the idea that needs create rights.
>
> I missed the earlier parts of this thread, so someone may have given a
> definition of 'public goods'.
No one has. However, we seem to have been using the standard economic
definition of a good that is non-excludable (If it exists, anyone who wants
to can benefit) and non-rivalrous (It isn't used up); it remains an economic
good, in that to be provided, costs are incurred. This is the "official"
definition as I understand it. Basically, it's something that if it exists,
anyone who wants to can benefit.
> I understand the term to mean, roughly,
> goods that are owned in common - by everyone, or every member of the
> 'public' - with every owner having rights to the good.
These are known as commons.
> Unowned goods
> are obviously entirely different. With regard to them something like a
> state of nature exists. Disputes regarding their use are resolved by
> negotiation and upon the failure of negotiation by force. Where we
> probably differ is that I see nothing deplorable about such a state of
> affairs.
The air is a different matter from most of the discussion, which has not
been about public goods. Public goods are an extreme example of the commons,
which, probably more than anything, require some form of privatisation (I
obviously advocate the scheme given in the current discussion).
Chiron McAnndra
[...]
> <9mjbt0$m6o$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk> and all followups.
What is said, is said. No words growing worth inside in opposite to
outside any context. So the whole context cannot turn my meaning to
this particular point. I just commented what was said there.
Any problems with that ?
Chiron McAnndra
'.... Most people trying to kill, what they don't understand .....'
(an unknown monk)