kant anticipated miscegenation
galathaea
was recently reading this interesting article
" the bodies of black folk:
from kant and hegel to dubois and baldwin "
by david farrell krell
( available online only with university account or similar )
in it he quotes kant's " physical geography " (1802)
some notables:
he claims that negroes are
" born white except for their genitals and a black ring around their
navel "
and then goes on:
" In hot countries human beings mature earlier
but do not reach the perfection of the temperate
zones. Humanity in its grandest perfection is in
the race of the whites [in der Race der Weißen].
The yellow Indians [sic] already have less talent.
The Negroes are much lower, and at the bottom
stand a segment of the [native] American tribes
[ein Theil der amerikanischen Völkerschaften]. "
it is so very good
that kant had such a deep understanding
of " the human being all over the world,
with regard to his other innate properties "
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar
Malrassic Park
>
>was recently reading this interesting article
>" the bodies of black folk:
> from kant and hegel to dubois and baldwin "
>by david farrell krell
>
>( available online only with university account or similar )
>
>in it he quotes kant's " physical geography " (1802)
>
>some notables:
>
>he claims that negroes are
> " born white except for their genitals and a black ring around their
>navel "
>
>and then goes on:
>
> " In hot countries human beings mature earlier
> but do not reach the perfection of the temperate
> zones. Humanity in its grandest perfection is in
> the race of the whites [in der Race der Weißen].
> The yellow Indians [sic] already have less talent.
> The Negroes are much lower, and at the bottom
> stand a segment of the [native] American tribes
> [ein Theil der amerikanischen Vo?lkerschaften]. "
>
>it is so very good
> that kant had such a deep understanding
> of " the human being all over the world,
> with regard to his other innate properties "
Houses are superior to tepees, yurts and caves. What can I say?
galathaea
the article contains this beautiful return from the author
" How shall we separate the empirical from the
transcendental, the empirically misinformed
from the transcendentally cretinous? Worse, how
shall we separate the ar ts and ar tifices from
the guns, the sense of humor from the spirit of
conquest? How shall we isolate the teaching,
belehren, from the compulsion, bezwingen? Here
one may try and try, and still be proved a
dunce or a villain. And so one decides, in a
fit of mercy, to scrap Kant’s physical geography
and all its empirical embarrassments but retain
his crystalline architectonic of lucid epistemology
and pristine morality. To be sure, the entire
architectonic is tenuously held together by Kant’s
intricate account of aesthetic and teleological
judgment. And, if Rober t Bernasconi is right, if
teleological judgment proves to be embroiled in the
special teleology of racial distinction, hierarchy,
and segregation, then the Kantian architectonic as
a whole—with its central pillar of a morality of
respect for the individual human being will tremble
and tumble. We would scarcely recognize philosophy
after such a tumble, inasmuch as, both on the
Continent and in Anglo-American circles, Kant is king.
After all, the kingdom of ends is his, and his, the
universal peace; the enlightened community adheres
to him, and the moral law is at the beck and call
of his Critical works and their epigones. Yet
something of Kant’s helter-skelter physical
geography, akin to his eccentric anthropology, shows
how white the moral law and even the tribunal of pure
reason can be. The physical geography can help us to
understand why Kantian philosophers today, the
philosophers who are always right and always righteous,
are ever ready to sit in judgment over those of an
inferior cognitive talent and a baser moral nature.
Perhaps what we can learn from Kant on the Negro, and
on questions of race in general, is that intuitions
with concepts are blinding, and that concepts without
intuitions are what Kant, like the rest of us, is
transcendentally good at, whether he is doing physical
geography, Critical epistemology, or, pardon the
euphemism, ‘‘moral’’ philosophy. Kant’s community of
self-proclaimed rational agents is, to repeat, the
dominant philosophical community. It claims universal,
a priori authority, and it still has big sticks and
heavy guns, especially in the English-speaking academic
and philosophical world. "
Publius
@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
> it is so very good
> that kant had such a deep understanding
> of " the human being all over the world,
> with regard to his other innate properties "
Heh. I think all you can conclude from that is that Kant was not a competent
anthropologist or biologist. So we should probably disregard his musings on
those topics (but keeping in mind that neither was anyone else at the time).
It is a mistake to suppose incompetence in one realm extends to all realms,
however. If we make that assumption we'll have to dismiss the entire corpus
of Western thought --- Aristotle thought slaves were inferior, Newton was an
alchemist, David Hume was a racist, Thomas Jefferson kept slaves, William
Shockley was a racist, etc.
Nor does Kant's ill-considered racism predict his moral views. It does not
follow that, because he thought Negroes inferior in certain ways, they ceased
to be equal moral agents. His views may be best summed up, not by his own
words, but by the words of US Supreme Court Justice John Harlan, in his
dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson:
"The white race deems itself to be the dominant race in this country. And so
it is, in prestige, in achievements, in education, in wealth, and in power.
So, I doubt not, it will continue to be for all time, if it remains true to
its great heritage, and holds fast to the principles of constitutional
liberty. But in view of the constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in
this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no
caste here. Our constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates
classes among citizens. . . .
"In my opinion, the judgment this day rendered will, in time, prove to be
quite as pernicious as the decision made by this tribunal in the Dred Scott
Case."
Did Harlan think the white race superior?
Yup. But he still thought blacks were entitled to equal treatment under the
law.
galathaea
> "galathaea" <galath...@gmail.com> wrote in news:1176102648.213003.138780
well
he certainly goes a bit furthur
he point is that a moralist
can always be called on his morality
listen to some more "innate" postulamising
from " of national characteristics,
so far as they depend upon the distinct feeling
of the beautiful and the sublime "
( a perfect title here )
" The Negroes of Africa have by nature no feeling
that rises above the trifling. Mr. Hume challenges
anyone to cite a single example in which a Negro
has shown talents, and asserts that among the
hundreds of thousands of blacks who are transported
elsewhere from their countries, although many of
them have even been set free, still not a single
one was ever found who presented anything great
in art or science or any other praiseworthy quality,
even though among the whites some continually rise
aloft from the lowest rabble, and through superior
gifts earn respect in the world. So fundamental is
the difference between these two races of man, and
it appears to be as great in regard to mental
capacities as in colour. The religion of fetishes
so widespread among them is perhaps a sort of
idolatry that sinks as deeply into the trifling
as appears to be possible to human nature. A bird's
feather, a cow's horn, a conch shell, or any other
common object, as soon as it becomes consecrated by
a few words, is an object of veneration and of
invocation in swearing oaths. The blacks are very
vain but in the Negro's way, and so talkative that
they must be driven apart from each other with thrashings. "
" pure reason " was saved for the whites
so they could steal their technology
from ragheads
chinks
beaks
and make their industry more militaristic
than such "savages"
and therefore obviously superior
geographic segregation codified into legal segregation
smallpox blankets are the obvious "solution"
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
galathaea
that final line
is of course what all apologists will ignore
" must be driven apart from each other with thrashings "
kant at his smug finest
when i battle his a priori universality
do you see why i claim it leads to this?
i didn't even know about this side of kant
until this past week
but i made claims that it underlies racism
and other atrocities of monovalence
long prior
is this support for my claim?
that a priori universality
whether in the field of metaphysics
or in ethics
is a scar
an abomination of humanity
an arrogance that excuses...?
GatherNoMoss
>
> - Show quoted text -
The physical geography can help us to
understand why galathaea philosophers today, the
philosophers who are always right and always righteous,
are ever ready to sit in judgment over those of an
inferior cognitive talent and a baser moral nature.
The difference is Kant is read all over the world.
While it's just you and you dark Turk, bashing honkeys.
Wordsmith
"Anticipated"??!!? So it didn't occur before Kant's time? Bull.
W
Malrassic Park
wrote:
>On Apr 9, 1:10 am, "galathaea" <galath...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> was recently reading this interesting article
>> " the bodies of black folk:
>> from kant and hegel to dubois and baldwin "
>> by david farrell krell
>>
>> ( available online only with university account or similar )
>>
>> in it he quotes kant's " physical geography " (1802)
>>
>> some notables:
>>
>> he claims that negroes are
>> " born white except for their genitals and a black ring around their
>> navel "
>>
>> and then goes on:
>>
>> " In hot countries human beings mature earlier
>> but do not reach the perfection of the temperate
>> zones. Humanity in its grandest perfection is in
>> the race of the whites [in der Race der Weißen].
>> The yellow Indians [sic] already have less talent.
>> The Negroes are much lower, and at the bottom
>> stand a segment of the [native] American tribes
>> [ein Theil der amerikanischen Vo?lkerschaften]. "
>>
>> it is so very good
>> that kant had such a deep understanding
>> of " the human being all over the world,
>> with regard to his other innate properties "
>>
>> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>> galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar
>
>"Anticipated"??!!? So it didn't occur before Kant's time? Bull.
Welcome to TROLL HELL.
galathaea
> understand why galathaea philosophers today, the
> philosophers who are always right and always righteous,
> are ever ready to sit in judgment over those of an
> inferior cognitive talent and a baser moral nature.
>
> The difference is Kant is read all over the world.
> While it's just you and you dark Turk, bashing honkeys.
thank you for your concern over my loved one
they just defended their masters' thesis
( ironically named ;) )
last friday
in metallo-organic chemistry
i don't know about the laws in your states
but from what i've seen
soon they'll be letting "them" be gynocologists
and all sorts of other unthinkable things
SAVE "YOUR" WOMEN NOW!
GatherNoMoss
>
> - Show quoted text -
The women in my state are "worse" than the men.
It'll be ok.
Publius
news:1176141951....@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> he point is that a moralist
> can always be called on his morality
False!
That is a key error on your part. It is a common one, however. A moralist's
*theories* may be criticized on logical or factual grounds. Pointing to his
own personal behavior is irrelevant to the validity of his theories.
Criticisms in that vein are merely *ad hominems*.
His behavior may show that he is a hypocrite, but being a hypocrite doesn't
invalidate his theories.
Yup. Not at all surprising. Such views were all but universal in Kant's day,
and not only among European whites, but among every group with respect to
"outgroups." The Greeks considered non-Greeks barbarians. The Chinese and
Japanese thought whites were rude barbarians. Muslims and Christians
consider each other evil infidels. Etc.
As I mentioned, if you are prepared to dismiss the work of historical
thinkers on that ground, you've have very little left to work with.
Descartes, Hobbes, Locke, Hume, Hegel, and even Marx have been accused of
racism, all with some justification. George Berkeley (and Thomas Jefferson,
of course) owned slaves.
Regarding Kant, you might find this discussion of interest:
http://www.philosophy.northwestern.edu/people/facDocuments/McCarthy%20Kant%20on%20Race.pdf
One thing you might keep in mind: racism, not to mention slavery, has been
ubiquitous thoughout human history, among virtually all cultures. When
slavery was abolished throughout the British Empire in 1830, it was the
first time in history that institution had been outlawed by any people, and
it was banned on purely moral grounds. It was perhaps the most spectacular
triumph of moral philosophy in history. Who do you think laid that moral
groundwork?
Hobbes, Locke, Hume, Kant, and Jefferson, of course.
You condemn racism today, g, on the basis of principles you learned from
them, whether you know it or not.
Publius
> that final line
> is of course what all apologists will ignore
>
> " must be driven apart from each other with thrashings "
>
> kant at his smug finest
He is describing a practice, not judging it.
> when i battle his a priori universality
> do you see why i claim it leads to this?
>
> i didn't even know about this side of kant
> until this past week
>
> but i made claims that it underlies racism
> and other atrocities of monovalence
> long prior
>
> is this support for my claim?
No. Kant's racial views do not bear on the validity of his moral philosophy,
any more than Newton's obsession with alchemy undermines his physics. You
are indulging in *ad hominems*.
Nor can Kant's philosphy underlie racism, since the latter precedes the
former by several thousand years. On the contrary --- Kant's moral
philosophy, among others, underlies the modern moral objections to it.
galathaea
> "galathaea" <galath...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1176143767....@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > that final line
> > is of course what all apologists will ignore
>
> > " must be driven apart from each other with thrashings "
>
> > kant at his smug finest
>
> He is describing a practice, not judging it.
yes
he is describing the practice
without any moral outrage
indeed
he is supporting the practice
and justifying it
> > when i battle his a priori universality
> > do you see why i claim it leads to this?
>
> > i didn't even know about this side of kant
> > until this past week
>
> > but i made claims that it underlies racism
> > and other atrocities of monovalence
> > long prior
>
> > is this support for my claim?
>
> No. Kant's racial views do not bear on the validity of his moral philosophy,
> any more than Newton's obsession with alchemy undermines his physics. You
> are indulging in *ad hominems*.
this is precisely the case where ad hominems are completely valid
kant is a moralist
he believes he has laid a foundation for human action
if the philosopher that creates a morality
cannot live to that morality themselves
with their direct and intimate understanding
of the reasons behind their own position
it calls that morality into question
it calls into question whether it is a livable morality
one in which humans can reasonably aspire
much much more so here
where kant's philosophy relies upon innate capabilities
he seems able to grant to whites only
it calls into question why there is this discrepancy
why innateness and universality
isn't so innate or universal
newton's alchemical studies did not oppose his work on physics or math
plus
this is just another part of his corpus on morality
what are the criteria for ignoring this work
and studying others?
> Nor can Kant's philosophy underlie racism, since the latter precedes the
> former by several thousand years. On the contrary --- Kant's moral
> philosophy, among others, underlies the modern moral objections to it.
i think kant's moral philosophy doesn't underlie much
except for moral philosophising as done in journal settings
kind people running the underground railroad
did more to shape the morality of racism
simple people opposed to the public lynchings of the south
martin luther king jr.
appealing to common people
not abstract thought on duty and categorical imperatives
when a preacher cries out that homosexuality is evil
A SIN AGAINST GOD!!!
and then is found screwing little boys in the backroom
it certainly does call into question the premise
is homosexuality something one can control?
ought one?
or is this instead a edict
merely to induce feelings of guilt and regret
to ensure control over a populace?
when hypocrisy exists in moralising
it is always a valid indication
that the moralising itself is suspect
Malrassic Park
Publius
>> He is describing a practice, not judging it.
>
> yes
> he is describing the practice
> without any moral outrage
>
> indeed
> he is supporting the practice
> and justifying it
True; there is no moral outrage. That is because Africans were
"underdeveloped." It was the duty of whites to civilize them; to assist them
to reach their full potential. I.e., the "white man's burden."
Mill (and many others) held similar views. Should we therefore dismiss
Mill's advocacy of equality for women?
> this is precisely the case where ad hominems are completely valid
*Ad hominems* are never valid. I'm surprised at you, g.
> kant is a moralist
>
> he believes he has laid a foundation for human action
>
> if the philosopher that creates a morality
> cannot live to that morality themselves
> with their direct and intimate understanding
> of the reasons behind their own position
> it calls that morality into question
Would you deem the theories of Cantor or Hilbert invalid, and declare them
of no value, if you discovered they could not balance their checkbooks?
> it calls into question whether it is a livable morality
> one in which humans can reasonably aspire
Nope. It only shows that Kant held some beliefs which were factually false,
and which therefore led him to misapply his own moral theories. It doesn't
call the theories into question. You might also keep in mind that Kant had
probably never met an African in his life.
> this is just another part of his corpus on morality
> what are the criteria for ignoring this work
> and studying others?
The criteria are the same in both cases: evaluating the truth of the
premises and the validity of the conclusions drawn from them. The "practical
anthropology" rests upon shoddy empirical evidence (entirely hearsay for
Kant); the moral theories upon reasoning from empirical facts which are
incontrovertible. In short, Kant was in possession of good data in the one
case, bad data in the other.
> i think kant's moral philosophy doesn't underlie much
> except for moral philosophising as done in journal settings
>
> kind people running the underground railroad
> did more to shape the morality of racism
>
> simple people opposed to the public lynchings of the south
>
> martin luther king jr.
> appealing to common people
That is an instructive example:
"When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the
Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a
promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a
promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be
guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness. . . . I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and
live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be
self-evident: that all men are created equal."
---ML King, "I Have A Dream" speech, 1963.
Where do you think that creed came from?
From the likes of Locke, Kant, Jefferson, and Mill --- all racists.
Tidings
And speaking of American presidents like Jefferson, it was a later
racist who granted emancipation to the slaves. Also an irreligious
sort, but still understood the practical political benefit of lacing
Bibliolatrous references into his orations.
6
galathaea
> "galathaea" <galath...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1176154790....@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> He is describing a practice, not judging it.
>
> > yes
> > he is describing the practice
> > without any moral outrage
>
> > indeed
> > he is supporting the practice
> > and justifying it
>
> True; there is no moral outrage. That is because Africans were
> "underdeveloped." It was the duty of whites to civilize them; to assist them
> to reach their full potential. I.e., the "white man's burden."
>
> Mill (and many others) held similar views. Should we therefore dismiss
> Mill's advocacy of equality for women?
the demonstration
is in the derivation
the levels of certainty involved in the deduction
if i were to model kant
i would model an agent with an internal model M
that has some some specified ontological language O
and a collection of theories T on the logic of its dynamics
that describes how he believes
deduction and expectation are associated
this involves all we know about how kant saw the world
including his critiques
his judgements
his physical geography
some of this is contradictory
it is broken along the lines of
things thought less and less about
it is likely everyone's such viewpoint
is contradictory
> > this is precisely the case where ad hominems are completely valid
>
> *Ad hominems* are never valid. I'm surprised at you, g.
now
if one does not assume fallibility likely in their morality
and i mean to the point of an axiom of their moral calculus
that actions are calculated to realise
the calculations themselves may be wrong
then there can be more unstable dynamics
in control theory
one seeks robustness to uncertainty
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i am saying that kant's moral certainty
is what allows him to be racist
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
that this certainty
this a priori
these transcendental intuitions
that they are a blindness
that hides obvious human cruelty
publius
i don't know how to phrase this
in a way that makes complete sense
i don't have that certainty
but it is something i feel very deeply
because of what i have seen
and what could be inferred
but
there were people who opposed
long ago
long long ago
there have always been pacifists
some early sects of christianity were fiercely pacifist
there have always been emancipationists
alcidamas argued in the messeniakos
for the freedom of the messenians
and his eulogy on death worries over human suffering
there is this sentiment found throughout much history
fluctuating in size as empires have grown and fallen
there are those that take the imperialistic esprit or zeitgeist
and try to provide a rigid logical foundation to justify it
these are the apologists
they build excuses
which
because they are also absolutes
excuse absolutely anything
there is no point where
hey what if we're wrong
because really
if its possible that african stock can aspire
to the same greatness of engineering
and the same greatness of philosophy
and all that every other stock has done
including the caucasian
then slavery becomes more aggressive
it becomes more clearly subjugation
when i claim a fundamental flaw in kant
it is that there are so many excuses for errors
i really am too broken to explain this right
publius
because making errors is fine with me
( i do it constantly )
but when one is preaching an ought
that they claim any absoluteness to
then they become challengeable on every action they do
in relation to their claims of ought
if you claim universal ought
you are universally responsible
i couldn't last a week under such conditions
kant obviously didn't last
and if you can't be universally responsible
if you acknowledge fallibility
learning becomes possible
> > kant is a moralist
>
> > he believes he has laid a foundation for human action
>
> > if the philosopher that creates a morality
> > cannot live to that morality themselves
> > with their direct and intimate understanding
> > of the reasons behind their own position
> > it calls that morality into question
>
> Would you deem the theories of Cantor or Hilbert invalid, and declare them
> of no value, if you discovered they could not balance their checkbooks?
if hilbert ever claimed that
all mathematicians ought be competent in computational skills
if he made deontologic moralising
and i found him lacking in such effort
then i would think hilbert is a poor moraliser
not a poor mathematician
[...]
> > i think kant's moral philosophy doesn't underlie much
> > except for moral philosophising as done in journal settings
>
> > kind people running the underground railroad
> > did more to shape the morality of racism
>
> > simple people opposed to the public lynchings of the south
>
> > martin luther king jr.
> > appealing to common people
>
> That is an instructive example:
>
> "When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the
> Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a
> promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a
> promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be
> guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of
> happiness. . . . I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and
> live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be
> self-evident: that all men are created equal."
> ---ML King, "I Have A Dream" speech, 1963.
>
> Where do you think that creed came from?
>
> From the likes of Locke, Kant, Jefferson, and Mill --- all racists.
anyone who claims absolute duties
that must be followed even if they do not seem healthy
even if they cause suffering
unnecessary destruction
or are otherwise pathetic
is suspect
that's not something i rationalise easily
it is much more base
it is emotional
it is experiential
it is learned from pains and pleasures
and correlations of avoidance behaviors
i suspect those more
who defend more strongly the certainty
kant's racist hypocrisy
is just as despicable to me as bush's militaristic hypocrisy
that is not intellectual enlightenment
there were those who were opposed
even in his time
i admire intellectual courage
but see none of it in kant
its something that just feels wrong
Malrassic Park
wrote:
>!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>i am saying that kant's moral certainty
>is what allows him to be racist
>!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Do not wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty, and the pig likes it."
Insomniac
>"Do not wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty, and
> the pig likes it."
But from a time consumption standpoint in regard to the responses,
you've got to love a topic that skewers itself on a logical fallacy.
Even if Adolf Hitler had formulated a serious philosophical argument,
Jewish debaters could not properly dispel it by foaming at the mouth
about the author --they would have to deal with the argument itself
(banning it outright would be simple thuggery rather than
dismemberment via critical thinking).
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
+++++++++++++
Publius
news:1176177203.7...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
> And speaking of American presidents like Jefferson, it was a later
> racist who granted emancipation to the slaves. Also an irreligious
> sort, but still understood the practical political benefit of lacing
> Bibliolatrous references into his orations.
Yes indeed.
Malrassic Park
which is 'reproduction by parents of different races (especially by
white and non-white persons).'
On 9 Apr 2007 00:10:48 -0700, "galathaea" <gala...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>was recently reading this interesting article
>" the bodies of black folk:
> from kant and hegel to dubois and baldwin "
>by david farrell krell
>
>( available online only with university account or similar )
>
>in it he quotes kant's " physical geography " (1802)
>
>some notables:
>
>he claims that negroes are
> " born white except for their genitals and a black ring around their
>navel "
>
>and then goes on:
>
> " In hot countries human beings mature earlier
> but do not reach the perfection of the temperate
> zones. Humanity in its grandest perfection is in
> the race of the whites [in der Race der Weißen].
> The yellow Indians [sic] already have less talent.
> The Negroes are much lower, and at the bottom
> stand a segment of the [native] American tribes
> [ein Theil der amerikanischen Vo?lkerschaften]. "
Malrassic Park
wrote:
While I certainly agree with all of that, I could spend all day
running around usenet stamping out fires like you describe. But what's
the point of it? Life is too short to deal with people who can't be
persuaded by logic.
stumper
"Ad hominems are not necessarily fallacious."
http://philosophy.missouri.edu/show-me/?p=343
--
~Stumper
Malrassic Park
wrote:
>Malrassic Park wrote:
There are too many fallacies to deal with, and I doubt if some of them
even have names. What is it called when someone applies 21st century
cultural standards, specific to the US, to individuals living in 18th
century Germany?
I think the real question is this: was Kant correct in his
observations? It is not necessary to play the race card here, unless
of course someone has a personal agenda against Kant (and this is
obvious anyway). While this tactic worked well for that killer OJ
Simpson and his lawyers, I think we are on to it now. Even the OJ
jurors should be on to it by now.
Now, someone with a personal agenda could argue that Kant was
making these observations in order to promote racism. This sort of
racist rhetoric takes place all the time, although it has mainly gone
underground. That is why I mentioned houses vs. tepees, yurts, tents,
caves, grass huts, etc. in my original response. The fact that
westerners have houses while other cultures do not is not generally
used to promote racism, and I'm arguing that Kant, being a scientist,
was thinking in terms of relative scientific progress.
Technologically, philosophically, intellectually, scientifically,
aesthetically, even morally -- all over the board -- the average
westerner of Kant's era was far more sophisticated to everybody else
in the world -- as far as he knew. And Kant was not a very
well-traveled person at all, only very well-read. In some cultures
even their most basic sense of time was undeveloped, as with the
Polynesians who only had a very limited sense of time and never
developed a calendar. American Indians only thought in terms of "many
moons ago," and even then the "many" was anything more than 3 moons.
The American Indians had no abstract ability, everything was expressed
in the most intuitive form possible in terms of static mythologies
passed down over thousands of generations. This is not progress, this
is not even a culture since the very idea of culture, in Kant's day at
least, must include progress.
If Kant denigrated other races, it was not because they had black
rings around their navels, but because they had no culture. And in
fact, I have never read where Kant leveled a harsh word at anybody,
in words or in writing, no matter what race they were. If we reject
Kant's idea of culture, we reject progress and will eventually find
ourselves back in the Stone Ages, living in caves, tepees, and yurts.
If there is any truth to the existence of a proto-Nazi, that would
definitely take the form of Kant's student Johann Gottlieb Fichte. But
then, he rejected Kant's philosophy by rejecting the doctrine of the
thing-in-itself, and went his own way in pursuing the Absolute. Hegel
followed Fichte in a similar manner. Kant, on the other hand, was
never an Absolutist in any sense. The basic argument at hand here,
whether Kant was allegedly a racist or whatever e-villll thing, is
based on the lie that Kant was a philosophical and moral Absolutist.
This is not even close, the very idea betrays a profound ignorance
about Kant's philosophy, and even about Kant the individual. It is an
ignorance so profound that, as with the American aborigines of the
18th century, that there is no hope for improvement, no progress is
possible. And that is another reason why I respond the way I do. But
at least the aborigines had an excuse. In this age, there can be no
excuse for certain people who post here The information is out there,
freely available to anybody. Therefore, it must be a self-imposed
ignorance.
That is why I do not fight with pigs, if the vast ignorance seen
around here is a type of dirt.
galathaea
that is a very good explanation
i was going to go into
obtuse and overly obscure referrences
to correlation analysis
and the distinction between
empiricism as a guide to judgement
and absolutisms avoidances in the realm of this "fallacy"
but that site was much clearer than i could ever be
..
i should stress that attacking kant's racism
is also not _just_ ad hominem
( though i completely admit it _is_ that as well )
when a person makes claims for a position
that leads to absurd justifications for things
it is completely justifiable logically
( and is textbook debating )
to call them on it
the cortex is good at logical deduction and other conceptual
manipulation
the lymbic is great at judgements of circumstance and weight
here
my gut is telling me the ad hominem correlations
are the much more important argument source
Jan Burse
>>> if hilbert ever claimed that
>>> all mathematicians ought be competent in computational skills
>>> if he made deontologic moralising
>>>and i found him lacking in such effort
>>>
>>>then i would think hilbert is a poor moraliser
>>> not a poor mathematician
if galathea would have learned English
all sentences would be joined by coordinating particles
if she would use the first person pronoun first place
and i don't see all of this
then i would think her postings are not mere interjections
but express a arguable opinions
Daryl McCullough
>"Ad hominems are not necessarily fallacious."
>http://philosophy.missouri.edu/show-me/?p=343
It depends on what you mean by fallacious. I would say
that if you arguing about the credibility of a person's
testimony, then you've gone beyond *syllogisms* where
the notions of valid/fallacious forms of reasoning are
applicable. At that point, you're talking about probabilistic
reasoning or reasoning under uncertainty.
The issue in that case is the relative values of two
numbers:
Suppose witness A makes claim B.
Let x = the probability that A would say B *if* B were true.
Let y = the probability that A would say B *if* B were false.
If x > y, then A's testimony should make you more likely to believe B.
If x < y, then you should be less likely to believe B.
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
george
wrote:
> stumper says...
>
> >"Ad hominems are not necessarily fallacious."
> >http://philosophy.missouri.edu/show-me/?p=343
>
> It depends on what you mean by fallacious.
No, It doesn't. It depends on what you mean by
ad hominem.
That is especially relevant in the context of this
newsgroup because we get people attacking each other
("against the man") all the time and people WRONGLY
complaining about that that THOSE attacks are "ad hominem".
The term "ad hominem"-as-we-know-it was DEFINED as
a class of fallacy. Therefore ad hominems ARE NECESSARILY
fallacious BY DEFINITION.
The problem is that Not Everybody using the term is
EDUCATED enough to KNOW the CORRECT definition of it.
galathaea
> I'm still trying to figure out how Kant anticipated miscegenation,
> which is 'reproduction by parents of different races (especially by
> white and non-white persons).'
my play on words was on the "anticipation"
i was trying
( failing as i always do )
to jokingly suggest the different races were a turn on for kant
that his focus on genetalia
was not just clinical
and that he might not have any qualms
" mixin' the genes" to make "better" stock
i meant "anticipate" as in "deeply consider"
not "preempts" or "premonitions"
and was of course mocking you
and your post on einstein in the process
Publius
news:WKqdnWKTGc41WYbb...@ptd.net:
> "Ad hominems are not necessarily fallacious."
> http://philosophy.missouri.edu/show-me/?p=343
"First, it shows that ad hominems are not necessarily fallacious. It is an
empirical fact that most ad hominems are of the fallacious variety, but there
is nothing about the form of the ad hominem that makes it inherently
fallacious (as is the case with, say, denying the antecedent.)
"Second, it provides a fairly rigorous standard for determining when an ad
hominem is non-fallacious: if an increasingly larger subset of S’s utterances
about T are false, then it is increasingly more likely that p belongs in that
subset. The attack is focused on a feature relevant to S’s opinions on T,
namely, that they’re not trustworthy. In a nutshell, an ad hominem is non-
fallacious when it accurately points to S’s poor track record."
Rubbish. The first point (not "inherently fallacious") is nothing more than
the truism that an informal fallacy is not a formal fallacy. Only formal
fallacies are "inherently fallacious".
The second point is itself a fallacy, namely, begging the question. The
trustworthiness of S is irrelevant to the validity of S's argument. One
accepts or rejects the conclusion of that argument, not on the basis of S's
trusthworthiness, but by examining the premises of the argument and the logic
connecting those premises to the conclusion.
In other words, you evaluate the argument *prima facie*, as though you had no
idea who advanced it.
stumper
But you seem to be abusing it.
Glance over the link, please.
--
~Stumper
stumper
You seem to think all statements are just true or false.
Some are more convincing than others.
Some are wiser than others.
I have a bird in my hand.
Is it alive or dead?
--
~Stumper
Publius
news:8IKdnb_WdIdmZobb...@ptd.net:
> You seem to think all statements are just true or false.
Nope. Some are undecidable. They can be undecidable for various reasons.
> Some are more convincing than others.
Undoubtedly. But being "convincing" is a relative property. Convincing to
whom? What factors determine, for you, whether a statement is convincing?
If various attributes of the speaker are among those factors, then you are
fated to be frequently misled. You will accept or reject the statement based
on the credibility you assign to the speaker, rather than on its merits. You
cease to be an inquirer and accept the role of syncophant, a "yes man"
content to let someone else do your thinking.
stumper
You worry too much and needlessly.
We know what is good for us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalama_Sutta
It's almost trivial to be coherent.
But it's rather difficult to be wise.
--
~Stumper
Publius
news:dJSdnQ_gAc0nnoHb...@ptd.net:
> You worry too much and needlessly.
> We know what is good for us.
No. You know only what others say is good for you. By your own admission.
galathaea
> stumper <stum...@newvessel.com> wrote innews:WKqdnWKTGc41WYbb...@ptd.net:
the assumption that there is something wrong with ad hominem
is that there is an absolute basis or criteria for judgement
independent of the person
certainly kant thought so
but it is wrong
_and_it_is_intellectually_dishonest_to_claim_so_
similarly
the assumption that there is something wrong with ad linqua
( a new "fallacy" i just made up
where you argue something should not be taken as likely
due to the language the idea was presented in )
is that there is an absolute basis of meaning
beyond all languages
ad hominem and ad lingua share many qualities
who states an argument
and what language the argument is stated in
are all characteristics relating to the form of the argument
that are normally considered nonlogical
but the problem is
there is nothing about the form that guarantees such nonlogicity
in many many cases
to be sure
there is little or no logical relationship
now
let L be the statement
"kopt ic far g'nish tal hami"
should one agree or disagree with this statement?
obviously one doesn't have enough information
because it is a language SX-7 that i just made up
but now assume a native speaker tells you that it means something like
"most people fully understand SX-7"
but that it means something more that cannot be expressed in english
you know nothing else
just these statements
is it valid to argue
" i do not understand the statement
which is claimed to be in SX-7
but it is not a form i think others would understand
and think it likely false "
?
doesn't the language L is stated in
have a very logical role here?
if L was in swahili
would one's conclusions change?
should they?
similarly
kant is a moralist
he claims to lay a foundations for all morality and ethics
a foundation with imperatives
kant is also a racist
who has no problem speaking about the whipping of slaves
why is it invalid to deduce
that it is likely his morality does not condemn such racism?
isn't attacking the person here
like pointing to my computer running a program
pointing out an error in execution
and claiming the _program_ has a bug?
yes it is ad hominem
in that i am attacking kant's position
by attacking who kant was
but for it to be an ad hominem fallacy
mustn't it be established that the connection is nonlogical?
at a minimum
i still claim this as validation of my own claims
- foundations based on universality and necessity
can lead one to accept atrocious beliefs
- kant's philosophy is one such foundation
- kant accepted atrocious beliefs
again
not proof
just another instance
another validation
stumper
You seem to be trying too hard.
We know what is good for us
if we are mindful of what we are doing.
Winning an argument is losing it.
Coming up with a wise sentence or two will do.
--
~Stumper
Publius
HtsoHbnZ2dn...@ptd.net:
> Winning an argument is losing it.
Uh-oh, sounds very Zen. Can't argue with that, by definition.
> Coming up with a wise sentence or two will do.
Provided you have a means for distinguishing between wise and unwise
sentences.
stumper
We can start with trying to make all of us feel better,
understand better, and have a better attitude.
--
~Stumper
Publius
Not so, g. The assumption is only that there are (far) better criteria for
evaluating an argument than whether it is advanced by a Jew, and that those
criteria are indeed independent of the person. If the argument makes no
reference to the person, and includes no variable denoting that person, then
inquiries into the properties of the person are irrelevant to the argument.
The criteria need not be assumed "absolute." One may always undertake some
metalogical inquiry into the foundations of logic. But you'll have to settle
on *some* rules of inference even to conduct that inquiry.
When you analyze a mathematical proof do you employ a "beats his wife" test,
or a "cheats on his income tax" test? Where would that fit in --- right
after the first transformation, perhaps?
> certainly kant thought so
>
> but it is wrong
>
> _and_it_is_intellectually_dishonest_to_claim_so_
Well, if that's the case, then we'll have to re-evaluate virtually all of
science and mathematics. Those theories all studiously ignore the various
personal quirks and traits of their diverse contributors. Should we conclude
that string theory must be right because Brian Greene is a cute guy and a
pretty good actor? What if it turns out he hates kids? Does that cast doubt
on string theory?
> the assumption that there is something wrong with ad linqua
> ( a new "fallacy" i just made up
> where you argue something should not be taken as likely
> due to the language the idea was presented in )
> is that there is an absolute basis of meaning
> beyond all languages
Well, that one is at least relevant. :-) Terms do have connotations. But
what "something" do you refer to, Kant's "practical anthropology" or his
theory of practical reason? I dismiss the former, because it rests on a
superficial understanding of the subject matter.
> ad hominem and ad lingua share many qualities
>
> who states an argument
> and what language the argument is stated in
> are all characteristics relating to the form of the argument
> that are normally considered nonlogical
Not so. The language of the argument has logical implications. Who states it
does not.
> let L be the statement
> "kopt ic far g'nish tal hami"
>
> should one agree or disagree with this statement?
>
> obviously one doesn't have enough information
> because it is a language SX-7 that i just made up
>
> but now assume a native speaker tells you that it means something like
> "most people fully understand SX-7"
> but that it means something more that cannot be expressed in english
>
> you know nothing else
> just these statements
>
> is it valid to argue
> " i do not understand the statement
> which is claimed to be in SX-7
> but it is not a form i think others would understand
> and think it likely false "
> ?
Your argument seems to be:
1. I do not undertand SX-7.
2. N claims that L is a WFF of SX-7.
3. N also claims that L is a conjunction translating to:
La. "Most people fully understand SX-7" and
Lb., which cannot be translated.
4. If L translates as claimed, then L is false, based on the empirical fact
that at least one of its alleged conjuncts is false ("most people understand
SX-7"). (Assuming "most people" refers to the English-speaking speech
community).
Is that what you're asking?
> doesn't the language L is stated in
> have a very logical role here?
>
> if L was in swahili
> would one's conclusions change?
No. You can substitute Swahili for SX-7 throughout and the conclusion would
be the same (provided the "most people" referred to are not Bantu).
> similarly
>
> kant is a moralist
>
> he claims to lay a foundations for all morality and ethics
> a foundation with imperatives
>
> kant is also a racist
> who has no problem speaking about the whipping of slaves
>
> why is it invalid to deduce
> that it is likely his morality does not condemn such racism?
Because his racist views rest upon empirical facts, not upon moral theory,
his own or anyone else's. The moral theory applies once you have the facts
straight. For example, we distinguish, on factual grounds, between persons
("full-fledged moral agents") and numerous classes of "moral subjects," such
as children, animals, fetuses, etc. The perennial argument over abortion
turns on whether a fetus is a person --- and that is not itself a moral
question. It is a factual one, or perhaps a philosophical but pre-moral one.
Moral theory should provide consistent rules for interactions among all
those type of agent. But the rules are not necessarily the same for all. We
assume, for example, that we must treat children differently from adults in
various ways, and animals differently from both. But we have moral duties of
some kind to all; they all fall somewhere within the scope of moral theory.
Kant's views of Africans are almost identical to Mill's:
"The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to
society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns
himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own
body and mind, the individual is sovereign.
"It is, perhaps, hardly necessary to say that this doctrine is meant to
apply only to human beings in the maturity of their faculties. We are not
speaking of children, or of young persons below the age which the law may
fix as that of manhood or womanhood. Those who are still in a state to
require being taken care of by others, must be protected against their own
actions as well as against external injury. For the same reason, we may
leave out of consideration those backward states of society in which the
race itself may be considered as in its nonage. The early difficulties in
the way of spontaneous progress are so great, that there is seldom any
choice of means for overcoming them; and a ruler full of the spirit of
improvement is warranted in the use of any expedients that will attain an
end, perhaps otherwise unattainable. Despotism is a legitimate mode of
government in dealing with barbarians, provided the end be their
improvement, and the means justified by actually effecting that end.
Liberty, as a principle, has no application to any state of things anterior
to the time when mankind have become capable of being improved by free and
equal discussion. Until then, there is nothing for them but implicit
obedience to an Akbar or a Charlemagne, if they are so fortunate as to find
one. But as soon as mankind have attained the capacity of being guided to
their own improvement by conviction or persuasion (a period long since
reached in all nations with whom we need here concern ourselves),
compulsion, either in the direct form or in that of pains and penalties for
non-compliance, is no longer admissible as a means to their own good, and
justifiable only for the security of others."
---JS Mill, On Liberty, Ch. 2
http://www.constitution.org/jsm/liberty.htm
What is important about both Kant and Mill is that they both regarded
Africans and other "savages" as child-like, rather than as animals. Hence
our duty to them must be their "improvement" --- guiding them to
full-fledged moral agency. That would be the morally favored course --- if
the facts were as Kant and Mill (and most of their contemporaries) believed
them to be.
> isn't attacking the person here
> like pointing to my computer running a program
> pointing out an error in execution
> and claiming the _program_ has a bug?
Nope. The moral theory and the practical anthropology are two different
programs. A bug in one does not imply a bug in the other.
> yes it is ad hominem
> in that i am attacking kant's position
> by attacking who kant was
> but for it to be an ad hominem fallacy
> mustn't it be established that the connection is nonlogical?
We've already done that. :-)
Publius
> if i were to model kant
> i would model an agent with an internal model M
> that has some some specified ontological language O
> and a collection of theories T on the logic of its dynamics
> that describes how he believes
> deduction and expectation are associated
>
> this involves all we know about how kant saw the world
> including his critiques
> his judgements
> his physical geography
>
> some of this is contradictory
No doubt. But it does not follow that any particular theory T is
contradictory.
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> i am saying that kant's moral certainty
> is what allows him to be racist
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Then you will need to show that derivation. I.e., derive a racist conclusion
from the Categorical Imperative or from some of Kant's premises.
That is a gratuitous conclusion on your part, g. Especially given Kant's own
stated sources for his "anthropological" views, which are others' reported
observations and writings.
> there were people who opposed
>
> long ago
> long long ago
>
> there have always been pacifists
> some early sects of christianity were fiercely pacifist
> there have always been emancipationists
>
> alcidamas argued in the messeniakos
> for the freedom of the messenians
> and his eulogy on death worries over human suffering
>
> there is this sentiment found throughout much history
Quite true. That tends to happen when "civilized" people are thrust into
close relationships with "barbarians." They often discover the barbarians
aren't so barbaric after all. Frederick Douglass's writings had a great deal
to do with changing attitudes toward slavery in the North, as did *Uncle
Tom's Cabin*. People began to see blacks as persons, as full-fledged moral
agents. Once that happens slavery is no longer defensible.
Had Kant read those books and others like them, or had he an opportunity to
associate with Africans personally, I suspect his views would have quickly
changed.
> because really
> if its possible that african stock can aspire
> to the same greatness of engineering
> and the same greatness of philosophy
> and all that every other stock has done
> including the caucasian
> then slavery becomes more aggressive
>
> it becomes more clearly subjugation
There is certainly some truth there. There were those who had great
investments in slavery and colonial domination generally, mainly financial
but often personal also. E.g., the social status of poor Southern whites. If
blacks were to become their equals, then the "white trash" would share their
position at the bottom of the social barrel. Thus they were not receptive to
arguments that blacks might be persons.
But it is gratuitous to impute such motives to Kant.
Publius
news:btidnc0CoJrI34Hb...@ptd.net:
> We can start with trying to make all of us feel better,
> understand better, and have a better attitude.
"If it feels good, believe it"?
stumper
You don't have to believe in anything.
You don't even have the self to do the believing.
--
~Stumper
galathaea
> "galathaea" <galath...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1176250930....@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> >> "First, it shows that ad hominems are not necessarily fallacious. It is
> >> an empirical fact that most ad hominems are of the fallacious variety,
> >> but there is nothing about the form of the ad hominem that makes it
> >> inherently fallacious (as is the case with, say, denying the
> >> antecedent.)
>
> >> "Second, it provides a fairly rigorous standard for determining when an
> >> ad hominem is non-fallacious: if an increasingly larger subset of S's
> >> utterances about T are false, then it is increasingly more likely that
> >> p belongs in that subset. The attack is focused on a feature relevant
> >> to S's opinions on T, namely, that they're not trustworthy. In a
> >> nutshell, an ad hominem is non- fallacious when it accurately points to
> >> S's poor track record."
>
> >> Rubbish. The first point (not "inherently fallacious") is nothing more
> >> than the truism that an informal fallacy is not a formal fallacy. Only
> >> formal fallacies are "inherently fallacious".
>
> >> The second point is itself a fallacy, namely, begging the question. The
> >> trustworthiness of S is irrelevant to the validity of S's argument. One
> >> accepts or rejects the conclusion of that argument, not on the basis of
> >> S's trusthworthiness, but by examining the premises of the argument and
> >> the logic connecting those premises to the conclusion.
>
> >> In other words, you evaluate the argument *prima facie*, as though you
> >> had no idea who advanced it.
of course
but that does not preclude prima facie evidence
that reveals in the process of evaluation
who advanced it
take communism
( please! )
are you claiming it is not possible to point to soviet russia
or mao's china
and say
" see! this philosophy likely doesn't work
the governments
because of focussed power over the economy
become magnets for the thugs
who are always trying to control it
because of the structure of centralised control
such governments have a natural tendency
to legalise and legitimise
the mafias and chieftains that always struggle for such "
are examples invalid logic?
> > the assumption that there is something wrong with ad hominem
> > is that there is an absolute basis or criteria for judgement
> > independent of the person
>
> Not so, g. The assumption is only that there are (far) better criteria for
> evaluating an argument than whether it is advanced by a Jew, and that those
> criteria are indeed independent of the person. If the argument makes no
> reference to the person, and includes no variable denoting that person, then
> inquiries into the properties of the person are irrelevant to the argument.
i agree with you
einstein's science should not be attacked
simply because he was jewish
but an experiment which validates relativity
should provide some justification for likeliness
put differently
when evaluating a morality of human action
is it not legitimate to look at specific humans
and their specific actions ?
>
> > the assumption that there is something wrong with ad linqua
> > ( a new "fallacy" i just made up
> > where you argue something should not be taken as likely
> > due to the language the idea was presented in )
> > is that there is an absolute basis of meaning
> > beyond all languages
>
> Well, that one is at least relevant. :-) Terms do have connotations. But
> what "something" do you refer to, Kant's "practical anthropology" or his
> theory of practical reason? I dismiss the former, because it rests on a
> superficial understanding of the subject matter.
kant didn't know anything about the biology of african men
so we can excuse those errors as hubris
but kant most certainly knew that whips hurt
_i_ do not dismiss his _avocation_ here
yes
> > doesn't the language L is stated in
> > have a very logical role here?
>
> > if L was in swahili
> > would one's conclusions change?
>
> No. You can substitute Swahili for SX-7 throughout and the conclusion would
> be the same (provided the "most people" referred to are not Bantu).
i meant
the sentence L still translates as described
that "most people fully understand SX-7"
but now it is stated that L is actually in swahili
in other words
the sentence is no longer an instance of SX-7
and it is now unclear what the language SX-7 looks like
it could very well be something that most humans understand
i think it is important to study
the full failure of european intellectualism
as it applies to slavery
slavery was a failure of most the great intellectuals
whipping animals is just as bad
and a failure that extends into our modern era
i am curious about the nature of that error
is it not valid science
to call into question the moralities established in those times
study their form
and look for instances where form meets function
in this particular arena ?
Wordsmith
I agree...in the "A broken clock is right twice a day" sense.
W : )
stumper
If you keep that up,
nobody would bother to read you. ;-)
--
~Stumper
Publius
>> >> In other words, you evaluate the argument *prima facie*, as though
>> >> you had no idea who advanced it.
>
> of course
>
> but that does not preclude prima facie evidence
> that reveals in the process of evaluation
> who advanced it
But what then? If you glean clues from the argument to the identity of the
author, do you change the criteria you use for evaluating its validity? Or
do you set those aside as irrelevant to that endeavor?
> take communism
> ( please! )
>
> are you claiming it is not possible to point to soviet russia
> or mao's china
> and say
> " see! this philosophy likely doesn't work
> the governments
> because of focussed power over the economy
> become magnets for the thugs
> who are always trying to control it
> because of the structure of centralised control
> such governments have a natural tendency
> to legalise and legitimise
> the mafias and chieftains that always struggle for such "
>
> are examples invalid logic?
Invalid parallel. You can certainly evaluate a theory of a system by
observing the behavior of a system designed per that theory. I.e., you can
discover that the system does not behave as the theory predicts, or that a
system cannot be built which implements the theory (because the theory
failed to take certain inescapable factors into account).
But you can't rationally reject a theory by observing a system which does
not implement the theory (except by showing that no system can implement the
theory).
At most you can claim that Kant did not live up to the ideals of his own
theory. That may place Kant in bad light, but not his theory.
BTW, communism did not fail because it was managed by thugs (although it
usually was). It failed for the reasons Hayek predicted.
> when evaluating a morality of human action
> is it not legitimate to look at specific humans
> and their specific actions ?
Of course. But not when evaluating moral *theories*.
> kant didn't know anything about the biology of african men
> so we can excuse those errors as hubris
Nor about their psychology or sociology. Nor, more importantly, about the
profound differences between tribal and civilized cultures --- differences
which can be easily but naively attributed to "innate" differences among
persons, when they are due instead to the size and insularity of
communities.
> but kant most certainly knew that whips hurt
So does a willow switch applied to a child's butt. But it is "for their own
good."
Well, now you have an undefined term. So the argument can't be evaluated.
>> What is important about both Kant and Mill is that they both regarded
>> Africans and other "savages" as child-like, rather than as animals.
>> Hence our duty to them must be their "improvement" --- guiding them to
>> full-fledged moral agency. That would be the morally favored course ---
>> if the facts were as Kant and Mill (and most of their contemporaries)
>> believed them to be.
>
> i think it is important to study
> the full failure of european intellectualism
> as it applies to slavery
>
> slavery was a failure of most the great intellectuals
That is a serious mistake, g. It's one I've posted on several times in this
group. Western intellectuals did not invent slavery. It is ubquitous
throughout history and human society, both East and West. Africans enslaved
other Africans. Arabs enslaved Africans. Greeks enslaved "barbarians, Romans
enslaved almost everyone they conquered, Aztecs enslaved other tribes,
Japanese enslaved Chinese. State slavery is practiced today by the
socialist-military regime in Myanmar (Burma).
Slavery as an institution was challenged, on moral grounds, nowhere in the
world, until the 18th century in Britain, which by that time had become the
world's greatest slave trader (having the world's largest merchant marine).
Slavery was outlawed in Britain itself in 1772, by the ruling of a Royal
judge, William Murray, Earl of Mansfield. He wrote, "the air of England is
too pure for a slave to breathe, and so everyone who breathes it becomes
free. Everyone who comes to this island is entitled to the protection of
English law, whatever oppression he may have suffered and whatever may be
the colour of his skin."
In 1807 Britain abolished the slave trade --- transport of slaves was
fobidden on ships flying the British flag. In 1830 Parliament outlawed
slavery outright, throughout the British Empire, and appropriated 20 million
lbs. Sterling to compensate slave owners.
Why did that happen? Well, because of moral arguments made by the
philosophers you disparage, most of them racists. Arguments proclaiming the
moral equality of all persons, the existence of natural rights, and the
primary value of freedom --- arguments many people found compelling.
Western intellectuals did not "fail" on the issue of slavery. They laid the
foundations which eventually (and quite quickly, for a change of that
magnitude) led to its abolition in the West. But for those arguments we'd
still have slavery today, and think it perfectly natural and acceptable, as
all humans did for 10,000 years.
> is it not valid science
> to call into question the moralities established in those times
> study their form
> and look for instances where form meets function
> in this particular arena ?
Sure. Just don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
galathaea
moderate publius
i do not know if you mind me calling you that
but you regularly have much more patience
and temper your aggression to whom you respond
i really think this may be a fundamental disagreement
between our positions
i do not believe slavery was destroyed by deontological ethics
the constitution has a three-fifths clause
even though a large majority of the participants
were deontologists
i believe there is good analysis
showing slavery was abolished because of economics
the actual slave traders
were only mildly profitable
averaging yearly profits at around 10%
the slaveowners
still needed to pay for housing and feeding their slaves
and had the furthur impediment of unenthused workers
abolition followed wage labor
which provided much greater motivated workers
and placed the burden of providing a living
onto the workers
the northern states were an economic boom
compared a much more modest south
in places where there was wholesale rape of the land
like the belgian rubber plantations
or other south american slave centers
there was immense wealth
but sustainability is not assisted by slavery
similarly
communism was not sustainable
for very much the same reason
and it regularly fails because of economics
not
i believe
deontological ethics
a centralised economy
is identical to a slave economy
in larger economic collections
the whip is fear
compulsion is integrated in the system
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..
the only "burden" in the intersection of cultures
is understanding
my heroes are not the missionaries
who try to preach to "aboriginals" what is "right"
my hero is richard evans schultes
who went to study people around south america
and learn their medicines
he taught them to protect their intellectual rights
and when he would come back
he taught his students why these cultures were respectable
he has a number of beautiful books of photographs
the forests and their people
celebrations and impromptu
who loved him too
with his exacting professionalism
dilligent about rigorous botany and biochemistry
he founded the study of humanity use of the plant world
in all its technological uses
ethnobotany
scientific measurements of health
Publius
> i really think this may be a fundamental disagreement
> between our positions
It probably traces to the difference between organisms and CAS's.
> i do not believe slavery was destroyed by deontological ethics
>
> the constitution has a three-fifths clause
> even though a large majority of the participants
> were deontologists
True. But as I mentioned, there is in every moral judgment a theoretical
component and an empirical one. Moral theory will tell you how one must
treat moral agents, and give the defining characteristics of such agents,
but it will not tell you which entities have those characteristics. The
latter is an empirical question. The Dred Scott decision turned on that
empirical question. It held that people of African descent were not persons,
but "a subordinate and inferior class of beings."
Already, by the time that ruling was handed down, many American whites had
come to the opposite conclusion, just as had the British public 50 years
earlier. Africans were obviously persons, and hence slavery was intolerable.
> i believe there is good analysis
> showing slavery was abolished because of economics
>
> the actual slave traders
> were only mildly profitable
> averaging yearly profits at around 10%
Those "analyses" are nonsense *prima facie*. Governments do not forbid trade
in certain commodities because they are unprofitable. Whether trade in a
particular commodity is profitable or not is a problem for the investors in
that trade to worry about. Governments did not ban trade in buggys and
kerosense lamps when trade in those articles became unprofitable. The
British Parliament, and later the US Congress, abolished slavery because
there was great popular pressure to do so. By the beginning of the 18th
century Great Britain had a free press; newsletters, newspapers, pamphlets
and tracts of all kinds papered the tabletops in coffee houses and pubs. A
major topic for debate was the morality of slavery, just as it was in
America in the 1840s and 1850s. That pressure resulted in a few more
abolitionists getting elected to Parliament every year. Those MPs were not
elected by slave traders pleading to abolish the trade because they were
losing money. That is ridiculous.
That claim is a staple of leftist pseudo-history. Slavery was not abolished
by anonymous economic forces. It was abolished by the likes of Lord
Mansfield, William Wilberforce, John Brown, Frederick Douglass, Harriet
Beecher Stowe, and many others, none of whom had the slightest interest in
the economics of slavery. They were objecting on moral grounds, as perusal
of any of their works will show.
> similarly
> communism was not sustainable
> for very much the same reason
> and it regularly fails because of economics
> not
> i believe
> deontological ethics
Communism does fail for economic reasons. Perhaps slavery would have been
abandoned eventually for the same reason. But that was not what happened to
it --- it was abolished by law, on moral grounds, in Great Britain at a time
when the slave trade was hugely profitable.
> my heroes are not the missionaries
> who try to preach to "aboriginals" what is "right"
Mine either. :-)
> my hero is richard evans schultes
> who went to study people around south america
> and learn their medicines
>
> he taught them to protect their intellectual rights
> and when he would come back
> he taught his students why these cultures were respectable
What?! Rights?? Where do you think he got that idea?
PS: Hey, g, you always change the subject line when you respond. That
fragments the thread!
Publius
news:h9udnROV7boBT4Lb...@comcast.com:
> That claim is a staple of leftist pseudo-history. Slavery was not
> abolished by anonymous economic forces. It was abolished by the likes of
> Lord Mansfield, William Wilberforce, John Brown, Frederick Douglass,
> Harriet Beecher Stowe, and many others, none of whom had the slightest
> interest in the economics of slavery. They were objecting on moral
> grounds, as perusal of any of their works will show.
PS: You might read Wiki's entry on Wilberforce.
galathaea
> "galathaea" <galath...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1176445483....@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > i really think this may be a fundamental disagreement
> > between our positions
>
> It probably traces to the difference between organisms and CAS's.
>
> > i do not believe slavery was destroyed by deontological ethics
>
> > the constitution has a three-fifths clause
> > even though a large majority of the participants
> > were deontologists
>
> True. But as I mentioned, there is in every moral judgment a theoretical
> component and an empirical one. Moral theory will tell you how one must
> treat moral agents, and give the defining characteristics of such agents,
> but it will not tell you which entities have those characteristics. The
> latter is an empirical question. The Dred Scott decision turned on that
> empirical question. It held that people of African descent were not persons,
> but "a subordinate and inferior class of beings."
>
> Already, by the time that ruling was handed down, many American whites had
> come to the opposite conclusion, just as had the British public 50 years
> earlier. Africans were obviously persons, and hence slavery was intolerable.
i would strongly suspect
the effectiveness of humanity to judge the intolerability
does not correlate well to their deductive capabilities
in empirical conclusion
possibly measures of prefrontal connectivity
( the neural complexity measures )
or the interplay of limbic dominance
empathy
and property drives
but not
i think
a sense of universal justice
moving an empirical bar
> > i believe there is good analysis
> > showing slavery was abolished because of economics
>
> > the actual slave traders
> > were only mildly profitable
> > averaging yearly profits at around 10%
>
> Those "analyses" are nonsense *prima facie*. Governments do not forbid trade
> in certain commodities because they are unprofitable. Whether trade in a
> particular commodity is profitable or not is a problem for the investors in
> that trade to worry about. Governments did not ban trade in buggys and
> kerosense lamps when trade in those articles became unprofitable.
monied interests do have strong influence over government
extremely profitable enterprise
produces a class with power over decision making
in america
the northern industrialists had much stronger control over government
because they were much more profitable
they knew emancipation
would be a great source of cheap labor
for the emerging wage labor structures in the north
> The British Parliament, and later the US Congress, abolished slavery because
> there was great popular pressure to do so. By the beginning of the 18th
> century Great Britain had a free press; newsletters, newspapers, pamphlets
> and tracts of all kinds papered the tabletops in coffee houses and pubs. A
> major topic for debate was the morality of slavery, just as it was in
> America in the 1840s and 1850s. That pressure resulted in a few more
> abolitionists getting elected to Parliament every year. Those MPs were not
> elected by slave traders pleading to abolish the trade because they were
> losing money. That is ridiculous.
the original bans in great britain
were ownership
great britain never had any great uses internally for slaves
particularly not agriculture
or other easily controllable large scale work force
much of its use was in servants for the elite
so there was never a really big market there
they kept their much more profitable
slave trading enterprises
completely legal for many years after their ban on use of slaves
> That claim is a staple of leftist pseudo-history. Slavery was not abolished
> by anonymous economic forces. It was abolished by the likes of Lord
> Mansfield, William Wilberforce, John Brown, Frederick Douglass, Harriet
> Beecher Stowe, and many others, none of whom had the slightest interest in
> the economics of slavery. They were objecting on moral grounds, as perusal
> of any of their works will show.
but these were often empathic appeals
there are powerful ideas out there
i agree completely with this sentiment
powerful arguments on ought
that form movements of human action
frederick douglas learned the understanding how to access ideas
reading
could make one desire freedom from bondage
but
the civil war was started over the economic struggle
between the industrialists wanting a wage economy
and the slave owners desiring a slave economy
this was propagating into the new territories
and soon exploded into a full-out economic war
between the corporatists and the plantationists
almost completely
that was the distinction of the financial backers
the corporatists did not oppose slavery on moral reasons
they opposed it because it was more financially burdensome
than the marketplace of industrial wage labor
in slave labors
when a slave goes ill
the slave owner is still out the purchase price
and must either support the slave
or kill the slave
in wage labors
when an employee goes ill
they can maintain the position in their industrial flow
operating by hiring a fit worker
maintenance of the worker's state
is the worker's burden
in wage economies
wage economies allow the economics to change referrent
so that qualification for job position stays fluid
with the worker abundance of industrialisation
this meant money
corporatism wants slavery abolished in worker abundances
and will back popular movements
too attain their own ends
this still happens today
with big tobacco funding smoker's advocacy groups
and sometimes less rigorous "research"
to sway popular opinion
the only financially successful corporatisms
are popular corporatists
and militaristically-backed predatory corporatists
neither automatically imply any connection to health
> > similarly
> > communism was not sustainable
> > for very much the same reason
> > and it regularly fails because of economics
> > not
> > i believe
> > deontological ethics
>
> Communism does fail for economic reasons. Perhaps slavery would have been
> abandoned eventually for the same reason. But that was not what happened to
> it --- it was abolished by law, on moral grounds, in Great Britain at a time
> when the slave trade was hugely profitable.
both were economic positionings
and militaristic confrontationalism
between corporatists and collectivists
here i do not mean collectivism in ayn rand's catch all
with its many other synonyms
i mean those who supported a slave economy
which is what sovietism amounted to
cenrally controlled education
and centrally controlled selection for the job market
slave owner burdens of housing and nourishment
> > my heroes are not the missionaries
> > who try to preach to "aboriginals" what is "right"
>
> Mine either. :-)
>
> > my hero is richard evans schultes
> > who went to study people around south america
> > and learn their medicines
>
> > he taught them to protect their intellectual rights
> > and when he would come back
> > he taught his students why these cultures were respectable
>
> What?! Rights?? Where do you think he got that idea?
yes
but it was much more a linguistic game
he knew how valuable their knowledge was
that as societies
they had evolved scientific solutions to many ailments
western scientists were still struggling with
he tried to teach them
as do a number of his students today
notably wade davis
not to be exploited
he wanted to give them the benefit of some wealth
so they can maintain as much of their way of being
as they desire
finding oneself in the middle of a wage economy
with no accumulated wealth
and no marketable skills
is worse than slavery
tribes rich from the knowledge they shared
can protect their homelands and lifestyles
to any degree they desire
they still often modernise
because the modern world has much to offer
but many tribes have strong desires to protect their environment
where they have lived
sometimes for thousands of years
> PS: Hey, g, you always change the subject line when you respond. That
> fragments the thread!
i'm not trying to fragment the thread
how a newsreader should thread is personal preference
but i don't often notice such fragmentation
because the newsreaders i have used
( most regularly now google's - ugh )
don't thread on subject
mostly
though
i'm just playing around with what to call the discussion
i will try to do it less often when responding to you
so it is easier to follow
Publius
>> Already, by the time that ruling was handed down, many American whites
>> had come to the opposite conclusion, just as had the British public 50
>> years earlier. Africans were obviously persons, and hence slavery was
>> intolerable.
>
> i would strongly suspect
> the effectiveness of humanity to judge the intolerability
> does not correlate well to their deductive capabilities
> in empirical conclusion
>
> possibly measures of prefrontal connectivity
> ( the neural complexity measures )
> or the interplay of limbic dominance
> empathy
> and property drives
>
> but not
> i think
> a sense of universal justice
> moving an empirical bar
Yikes, g! What are you saying there --- that humanity is too stupid to grasp
moral concepts? Or to recognize a "person" (in the moral sense) when they
see one?
If that's the case we are in deep trouble indeed.
>> Those "analyses" are nonsense *prima facie*. Governments do not forbid
>> trade in certain commodities because they are unprofitable. Whether
>> trade in a particular commodity is profitable or not is a problem for
>> the investors in that trade to worry about. Governments did not ban
>> trade in buggys and kerosene lamps when trade in those articles became
>> unprofitable.
> monied interests do have strong influence over government
>
> extremely profitable enterprise
> produces a class with power over decision making
>
> in america
> the northern industrialists had much stronger control over government
> because they were much more profitable
>
> they knew emancipation
> would be a great source of cheap labor
> for the emerging wage labor structures in the north
Monied interests have much less influence over government when the
government has little or no power to sell, as the US government did in the
19th century.
But there is utterly no empirical support for your thesis. The debate over
slavery --- in the press, in political campaigns, in congressional debates
leading to the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments after the war --- were all
couched in moral terms, not economic ones. You'll need to produce some
evidence that the Congressmen who voted for those Amendments did so at the
behest of "monied interests," and that those "monied interests" in fact had
any economic interest in the slavery issue. I think you'll find that hard to
produce. You'll also need some evidence that the "monied interests" in Great
Britain were responsible for the abolition of slavery there. In that case,
the evidence is uniformly to the contrary.
During the Civil War Harriet Beecher Stowe attended a function at the White
House, and was introduced to Lincoln. He said, "Ah, so this is the little
lady responsible for this big war."
You are unwittingly adopting Marx's "economic theory of history" there. His
theory of history is as silly as his economic theories.
> the original bans in great britain
> were ownership
>
> great britain never had any great uses internally for slaves
> particularly not agriculture
> or other easily controllable large scale work force
Yes. Slavery was never economically significant there to the domestic
economy. It was hugely important to the economy of the Empire, however. Thus
when Lord Mansfield ruled it illegal in Britain, there was no great outcry
from the "monied interests," and neither Parliament nor George III
intervened. But abolishing the slave trade was a different story --- that
took another 35 years. Abolition bills were introduced every year beginning
in 1792 (I believe). The public debate intensified; each year those bills
got a few more votes. One abolitionist MP was assassinated. Finally, in
1807, the bill passed (interestingly, it passed first in the House of
Lords). But the abolitionists did not rest with ending the slave trade; they
demanded outright abolition. That took another 30 years.
> the civil war was started over the economic struggle
> between the industrialists wanting a wage economy
> and the slave owners desiring a slave economy
That is inaccurate. The *war* resulted from Lincoln's refusal to allow the
South to secede (an arguably unconsitutional decision on his part). The
southern states were driven to secede by the inexorable pressure resulting
from the rising antipathy in the North to slavery. That antipathy was fueled
and fanned by the like of Stowe, Douglass, and others --- not by any
"industrialists" or "monied interests." South Carolina set out its reasons
for seceding in detail:
"We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have
been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them
by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the
right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have
denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and
recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the
institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of
societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the
property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted
thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have
been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection . . .
. Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope
of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has
invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous
religious belief."
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/secession_causes.htm
> the corporatists did not oppose slavery on moral reasons
> they opposed it because it was more financially burdensome
> than the marketplace of industrial wage labor
Who are these "corporatists"? What evidence do you have for their opinions,
or that their opinions influenced anyone?
> corporatism wants slavery abolished in worker abundances
> and will back popular movements
> too attain their own ends
Evidence? Sources? "Corporatism" is a Marxist shibboleth --- a meaningless
abstraction advanced in lieu of names and documents.
>> Communism does fail for economic reasons. Perhaps slavery would have
>> been abandoned eventually for the same reason. But that was not what
>> happened to it --- it was abolished by law, on moral grounds, in Great
>> Britain at a time when the slave trade was hugely profitable.
>
> both were economic positionings
> and militaristic confrontationalism
> between corporatists and collectivists
Listen to that, g! That is not an argument --- it is a mouthful of vacuous
leftist slogans! That is way beneath your abilities.
>> > my hero is richard evans schultes
>> > who went to study people around south america
>> > and learn their medicines
>>
>> > he taught them to protect their intellectual rights
>> > and when he would come back
>> > he taught his students why these cultures were respectable
>>
>> What?! Rights?? Where do you think he got that idea?
>
> yes
> but it was much more a linguistic game
>
> he knew how valuable their knowledge was
>
> that as societies
> they had evolved scientific solutions to many ailments
> western scientists were still struggling with
That is what all rights aim to protect --- things of value.
> finding oneself in the middle of a wage economy
> with no accumulated wealth
> and no marketable skills
> is worse than slavery
Surely not. As long as you are not a slave you can acquire both wealth and
skills. Everyone who arrives in this world lacks both.
galathaea
> "galathaea" <galath...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1176755198.8...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
|
> >> Already, by the time that ruling was handed down, many American whites
> >> had come to the opposite conclusion, just as had the British public 50
> >> years earlier. Africans were obviously persons, and hence slavery was
> >> intolerable.
>
> > i would strongly suspect
> > the effectiveness of humanity to judge the intolerability
> > does not correlate well to their deductive capabilities
> > in empirical conclusion
>
> > possibly measures of prefrontal connectivity
> > ( the neural complexity measures )
> > or the interplay of limbic dominance
> > empathy
> > and property drives
>
> > but not
> > i think
> > a sense of universal justice
> > moving an empirical bar
>
> Yikes, g! What are you saying there --- that humanity is too stupid to grasp
> moral concepts? Or to recognize a "person" (in the moral sense) when they
> see one?
>
> If that's the case we are in deep trouble indeed.
i think i am being overly obtuse
empathy is a real phenomena
apparently connected to the mirror neuron systems
that reflect external entities onto internal drives
for comparison and prediction
empathy is the desire to protect others
as you would protect yourself
there are many good natural selection models
that show why empathy provides better fitness
this is a very tunable trait
empathy spans
from realistic associations of correspondences
to anthropomorphic caricatures
from strict isomorphismism
to any commonality shared
i am arguing that it was not any deontologic ethic
that overthrew slavery
it was the triumph of an empathic understanding
that was economically favored
in other words
i am still convinced that it was not a deductive analysis
of tomes on transcendental categorisations
and the categorical imperatives
brought upon by destiny in the face of free will
i am strongly suspecting that
less than 1 in 100 people
of any era since the dawn of such terminology
may regularly make that association
i am not saying this because i think they are dumb
i am saying this because i think most people don't care
and perhaps they may have reason here
kant's own application of such thought
did not lead him there
empathy is gut morality
it is conservativism
in its most biological form
that these drives
varied in their reactions to stimuli and state
have at least been selected as likely fit
the great social understanding
was that slaves were capable of deep thought
and could achieve so much more
if not subjugated
that enslaving them was not really different than enslaving oneself
i am agreeing with you
that it was an entirely empirical process
that was economically favored
i keep adding that extra bit
because i think there were other times in human history
where slaves could be empirically seen as equals
but their economic influence was different
imperialistic slavery is economically strong
due to the worker shortfalls
caused by diversion to the imperialistic growth
military
...
but when there is a glut of workers for industry
other economic forms become favorable
so
what i guess i am really trying to say is
roman slavery
chinese slavery
greek slaves were always troubling to the greeks
they did not change their systems
because people are willing to look the other way
if it helps them out with a better lifestyle
it was the buddhist emperor wang mang
that abolished the chinese slave trade
possibly the first such abolition
the south was still so economically tied to slavery
that it was much less influenced by empathy appeals
this is not because they were much more ignorant than the north
the rich south were educated comparable to the rich north
and the poor south was about as poorly educated as the poor north
( except for the slaves themselves
who
- surprising for their lack of education -
where often antislavery )
make someone fear something
tie it up in hate
and it is amazing what reason will not penetrate
the south
like all slave states
were finding the slave economy marginalised
due to the success of wage labor in worker surplus conditions
in other countries
the absence of the economy
made way for the moral indignation
that allowed their peaceful permanent ban
in the us
as is common in the us
things got more violent
i am looking for some dynamical model
to explain behavior when economies interact
marxist models usually do pretty poor in predicting
because there are many more drives than economic
in influencing the law
i don't disagree with this fundamental point
in fact i am offering a much more complicated model
where various avoidance techniques are in play
with assistance from economic benefit
corresponding well with models
on legalisation and abolition
the key points in this model are
- slavery is an economic boom in worker scarce societies
where military might drives imperialistic expansion
and aggriculturalisation
- but it is less competitive than wage worker economies
in situation of worker glut
like those found in industrialisation
and other revolutions of efficiency
( player piano )
- when slavery influences an economy deeply
as it did in the most imperialist of societies
appeals to empathy are ignored
- but when slavery becomes less tied to one's own well being
the avoidance mechanisms are not fueled by as many drives
and outrage and abolitionism take hold
> > the original bans in great britain
> > were ownership
>
> > great britain never had any great uses internally for slaves
> > particularly not agriculture
> > or other easily controllable large scale work force
>
> Yes. Slavery was never economically significant there to the domestic
> economy. It was hugely important to the economy of the Empire, however. Thus
> when Lord Mansfield ruled it illegal in Britain, there was no great outcry
> from the "monied interests," and neither Parliament nor George III
> intervened. But abolishing the slave trade was a different story --- that
> took another 35 years. Abolition bills were introduced every year beginning
> in 1792 (I believe). The public debate intensified; each year those bills
> got a few more votes. One abolitionist MP was assassinated. Finally, in
> 1807, the bill passed (interestingly, it passed first in the House of
> Lords). But the abolitionists did not rest with ending the slave trade; they
> demanded outright abolition. That took another 30 years.
exactly
the slave trade was not as powerful in england
as other trades it was benefiting immensely in
due to its own imperialism
one slavery was replaced for the others of imperialism
more lucrative exploitations of natural resources
this is not a valiant story of an idea succeeding
it is the valiant story of one idea suceeding
others being obscured
some people benefiting
other being exploited
the economic battle played out strongest in america
where it was fought eventually by militaries
it started with a number of duplicitous congressmen
with strong fundraising ties to industry
using the issues of slavery
to hide issues of tariffs
and economic aggression hid in law
this was an aggression
that played itself out over the frontier states
where government infrastructure was badly needed
and tariffs the main source of revenue
the compromise of 1850
was completely tariff stained in almost every congressperson's vote
illinois voted entirely for railroad monopolist protectionist reasons
pennsylvania came over for tariff adjustments
the events in trying to bring kansas to statehood
show just how financiers from the two economies
started these battles
the free soil emigrants
were completely funded by the likes of
the massachusetts emigrant aid company and its later incarnations
many such companies
funneled large amounts of money directly from
many rich northern industrialists
its also not conspiratorial
to point out john calhoun's deep ties
with many of the most powerful plantation owners of his time
and the point behind his outrage over the tariff of "abominations"
in fact
i don't think much of this is conspiratorial
or naive
i think it is a very realistic stand
to understand the influence of money over power
and that despite any ideals anyone may hold
america has never been a law completely of ideals
in explaining why lincoln was chosen to lead the republican party
a new party formed with backing from the industrialist north
to break the connection with old world bankers
that was entrenched in the old whig fundraising apparatus
senator john sherman stated:
" Those who elected Mr. Lincoln expect him . . .
to secure to free labor its just right to the Territories
of the United States; to protect . . . by wise revenue
laws, the labor of our people; to secure the public
lands to actual settlers . . . ; to develop the internal
resources of the country by opening new means of
communication between the Atlantic and Pacific. "
these were the wise revenue laws
that levied 47 percent tariffs
most heavily affecting southern cotton plantations
and this was the internal development
promised to railroad monopolists
and other western prospectors
( including coal and mineral mining )
the illinois lobby desperately wanted these measures
and were instrumental in overthrowing an entire party apparatus
through their powerful monied backing
> > the corporatists did not oppose slavery on moral reasons
> > they opposed it because it was more financially burdensome
> > than the marketplace of industrial wage labor
>
> Who are these "corporatists"? What evidence do you have for their opinions,
> or that their opinions influenced anyone?
studies
studies on industrial coal mining
studies on the textile factories
studies on the rise of monopoly
in the late 1800's america
there are strong economic reasons to favor the corporation structure
vertical integration
horizontal integration
bulk transport and quantity economics
these were the people in charge
of which political parties would make it up north
and eventually throughout the nation
> > corporatism wants slavery abolished in worker abundances
> > and will back popular movements
> > too attain their own ends
>
> Evidence? Sources? "Corporatism" is a Marxist shibboleth --- a meaningless
> abstraction advanced in lieu of names and documents.
in council bluffs, iowa
lincoln made huge investments in land
when there was no development nearby
he then pushed the enactment of the union pacific railroad
which had as its easternmost stop this same land
the same families that made a killing
in these monopolistic frontiers
were the families shaping and agreeing to the republican party
its platforms and purposes
the money does trace out
in historically verifiable documents
as far as the many researchers i've seen have verified
[...]
> >> > my hero is richard evans schultes
> >> > who went to study people around south america
> >> > and learn their medicines
>
> >> > he taught them to protect their intellectual rights
> >> > and when he would come back
> >> > he taught his students why these cultures were respectable
>
> >> What?! Rights?? Where do you think he got that idea?
>
> > yes
> > but it was much more a linguistic game
>
> > he knew how valuable their knowledge was
>
> > that as societies
> > they had evolved scientific solutions to many ailments
> > western scientists were still struggling with
>
> That is what all rights aim to protect --- things of value.
>
> > finding oneself in the middle of a wage economy
> > with no accumulated wealth
> > and no marketable skills
> > is worse than slavery
>
> Surely not. As long as you are not a slave you can acquire both wealth and
> skills. Everyone who arrives in this world lacks both.
but you must accumulate the skills of the existing system
tribes are forced to adapt
to rampant industrialisation
and resource exploitation
when tribes interact with western society
they do not need to "enter" western society
there is no pressing need
when they have developed their own equilibriums
to change their lifestyles to fit that of other cultures
but without money
they cannot stop this exploitation
sure
every single one of them could work a lifetime
studying hard
becoming engineers and doctors
lawyers and industrialists alike
but that need not be thrust upon them
in the orgiastic violence money seems to secretly fetishise sometimes
there is a definite cultural transition that occurs
which still today is usually done
in ways that are very unhealthy to the future generations
third world exploitation is a very serious health problem
which transforms cultural structures
that have been providing for their needs for ages
into cultures that struggle to survive
diabetes and other health problems
begin setting in
and quality of living measures
such as leisure time
time with children
or metrics such as effort to attain food
usually indicate the culture's situation is worse in the short term
intellectual property rights are a technological solution
they mistake real product for some abstraction
attach contractual requirements on to this abstraction
( floating around in the magic of language )
and use it to stimulate ideas
many times
intellectual property law does promote growth in marketable goods
and provides healthy stimulation to the economy
but as a foundational principle
it is too noncorporeal to be consistently healthy
sometimes
it is a good idea to market cheap aids cocktails
as cheap as technology can take it
for instance
Steve Campbell
> On Apr 18, 12:32 am, "Publius" <m.publ...@nospam.comcast.net> wrote:
>
> i am looking for some dynamical model
> to explain behavior when economies interact
Try Commanding Heights: The Battle for the World Economy:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/
Slavery was a lynchpin issue in the U.S. Civil War, but the war would
likely have happened over some other issue had slavery not been
present. The real issue was a strong federal government or strong
state governments.
That scenario will play itself out again on the world stage. Will we
have a strong global federal government or strong, independent nation-
states?
> intellectual property rights are a technological solution
>
> they mistake real product for some abstraction
> attach contractual requirements on to this abstraction
> ( floating around in the magic of language )
> and use it to stimulate ideas
>
> many times
> intellectual property law does promote growth in marketable goods
> and provides healthy stimulation to the economy
> but as a foundational principle
> it is too noncorporeal to be consistently healthy
Without property rights, the U.S. could not have become the economic
engine that it is today. I forming the nation, the land was divided
into lots and awarded as property to those who staked a claim. They
could then use the documented ownership of the land to leverage
improvements through debt, or they could sell the land to use the
capital for other economic activities.
The many parts of the third world that lack property rights today have
no hope of advancing economically until property rights are
established and documented.
Intellectual property rights offer the same dynamic for capitalization
as land property rights. Just as the owner of a piece of property has
economic control over its use, so too does the intellectual property
owner. No trespassing, buddy. If you want to use it you have to pay.
Ultimately the economic benefit to society of intellectual property
ownership will always exceed the inconvenience to those who desire
access because intellect is not a finite resource. In terms of
software, only the code can be copyrighted not the idea of the product
itself. So, all that is necessary is for someone to think of another
way to write code that generates the same function. Stepping on
intellectual property rights is lazy. A person who wishes to bypass
the creative process should have to pay the person or entity that owns
the product of their investment in creativity.
Publius
news:1177001311.6...@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
> Without property rights, the U.S. could not have become the economic
> engine that it is today. I forming the nation, the land was divided
> into lots and awarded as property to those who staked a claim. They
> could then use the documented ownership of the land to leverage
> improvements through debt, or they could sell the land to use the
> capital for other economic activities.
>
> The many parts of the third world that lack property rights today have
> no hope of advancing economically until property rights are
> established and documented.
>
> Intellectual property rights offer the same dynamic for capitalization
> as land property rights. Just as the owner of a piece of property has
> economic control over its use, so too does the intellectual property
> owner. No trespassing, buddy. If you want to use it you have to pay.
>
> Ultimately the economic benefit to society of intellectual property
> ownership will always exceed the inconvenience to those who desire
> access because intellect is not a finite resource. In terms of
> software, only the code can be copyrighted not the idea of the product
> itself. So, all that is necessary is for someone to think of another
> way to write code that generates the same function. Stepping on
> intellectual property rights is lazy. A person who wishes to bypass
> the creative process should have to pay the person or entity that owns
> the product of their investment in creativity.
Good post. You may be interested in this:
galathaea
wrote:
[...]
> Ultimately the economic benefit to society of intellectual property
> ownership will always exceed the inconvenience to those who desire
> access because intellect is not a finite resource. In terms of
> software, only the code can be copyrighted not the idea of the product
> itself. So, all that is necessary is for someone to think of another
> way to write code that generates the same function. Stepping on
> intellectual property rights is lazy. A person who wishes to bypass
> the creative process should have to pay the person or entity that owns
> the product of their investment in creativity.
i just wanted to focus on this
as i will respond to the rest later
i work for a gaming software company
the company i work for has
among numerous other patents
a patent for the "use of usb in a gaming environment"
they did not invent usb
they did not invent the gaming enviorment
other companies must pay us to use usb
which includes a number of peripherals common to gaming machines
there are many cases
where ideas were patented
not code
the same goes for much intellectual property
much elliptic curve cryptography is patented by certicom
monsanto is patenting DNA sequences
intellectual property is useful sometimes
but it is also a tool of aggression used by corporations
to secure economic strangleholds
and has no basis in reality
it should always be viewed as a technological solution
and not some absolute basis of rights
because it utterly lacks some of the basic founding in reality
that makes the other "property rights" at least more predictable and
studyable
ro...@telus.net
<SteveC...@avicorcho.com> wrote:
>Without property rights, the U.S. could not have become the economic
>engine that it is today.
Oddly enough, the exact same argument was used to defend slavery:
"When the emancipation of the African was spoken of, and when the
nation of Britain appeared to be taking into serious consideration the
rightfulness of abolishing slavery, what tremendous evils were to
follow! Trade was to be ruined, commerce was almost to cease, and
manufacturers were to be bankrupt. Worse than all, private property
was to be invaded (property in human flesh), the rights of planters
sacrificed to the speculative notions of fanatics, and the British
government was to commit an act that would forever deprive it of the
confidence of British subjects."
--Patrick Edward Dove, The Theory of Human Progression, 1850
Your reasoning is fallacious. The need for and rightfulness of _some_
property rights does not imply that all property rights are necessary
or rightful, any more than the fact that we need food to survive means
that eating 10 pounds of junk food a day is good for you.
>I forming the nation, the land was divided
>into lots and awarded as property to those who staked a claim.
Wrong. It was taken by force and given mostly to those with political
connections. Your claim that private property in land is necessary to
prosperity is flat-out refuted by the example of Hong Kong, which has
long had faster economic growth than the USA, and where the only
privately owned land is sitting under the Anglican cathedral.
However, I am aware that you will refuse to know all such facts, as
they disprove your false beliefs.
>They
>could then use the documented ownership of the land to leverage
>improvements through debt, or they could sell the land to use the
>capital for other economic activities.
IOW, armed with unjust privilege, they could get unearned wealth.
What a concept!
>The many parts of the third world that lack property rights today have
>no hope of advancing economically until property rights are
>established and documented.
As proved above, private property in land is not necessary to economic
advancement, and the evidence from the Third World is just as strong
the other way: some of the worst economic performances have been
turned in by countries where private landowner privilege is most
firmly established, such as Mexico, Bangladesh, and Haiti.
>Intellectual property rights offer the same dynamic for capitalization
>as land property rights.
Right: an unjust and economically destructive dynamic.
>Just as the owner of a piece of property has
>economic control over its use, so too does the intellectual property
>owner. No trespassing, buddy. If you want to use it you have to pay.
An excellent definition of idle, unproductive rent seeking. The
landowner requires others to pay for what nature provided for free,
the IP owner requires them to pay for what is actually (though not
legally) already in the public domain.
>Ultimately the economic benefit to society of intellectual property
>ownership will always exceed the inconvenience to those who desire
>access because intellect is not a finite resource.
You have it exactly backwards. It is known that granting monopolies
is one of the least efficient ways to achieve an economic objective.
>In terms of
>software, only the code can be copyrighted not the idea of the product
>itself.
Right, the ideas are covered by patents.
>So, all that is necessary is for someone to think of another
>way to write code that generates the same function.
Wrong. Software patents prevent others from writing code that
performs patented functions.
>Stepping on
>intellectual property rights is lazy.
Wrong. The laziness is all on the rent seekers' side: they want to
get rich without lifting a finger, by depriving others of what they
would otherwise have been free to use.
>A person who wishes to bypass
>the creative process should have to pay the person or entity that owns
>the product of their investment in creativity.
And did the owner pay all the people whose creativity he used? Of
course he didn't. Most of them are long dead. The IP owner is a
hypoocrite who just wants to have his cake and eat it too: he wants to
get the advantage of the vast edifice of human culture that millions
of other people created without paying them for their contributions,
but demands payment from others when they want to use the one thing he
contributed. He also wants government to convert into his private
property what he has already sold and released to the public.
-- Roy L
Publius
> Your reasoning is fallacious. The need for and rightfulness of _some_
> property rights does not imply that all property rights are necessary
> or rightful, any more than the fact that we need food to survive means
> that eating 10 pounds of junk food a day is good for you.
You fail to distinguish between property *claims* and property *rights*. Not
all claims to property are grounded in property rights. Slavery was one such
example.
All rights are property rights. A right is relation between a person and
some thing. A right is always *to* something; the property is whatever thing
the right is *to*.
>>I forming the nation, the land was divided
>>into lots and awarded as property to those who staked a claim.
> Wrong. It was taken by force and given mostly to those with political
> connections. Your claim that private property in land is necessary to
> prosperity is flat-out refuted by the example of Hong Kong, which has
> long had faster economic growth than the USA, and where the only
> privately owned land is sitting under the Anglican cathedral.
You are wrong, on both points. Most land in the US was not taken by force.
You are probably laboring under the myth that all land in the New World
"belonged to the Indians." In fact, most of it was neither occupied not
claimed by natives nor anyone else.
And although fee title to land in Hong Kong vests in the State (due to the
original treaty concluded by the British government), most of it is held
under long-term leases, and thus is privately controlled. Those lessees hold
all powers of ownership except the right to sell.
>>They
>>could then use the documented ownership of the land to leverage
>>improvements through debt, or they could sell the land to use the
>>capital for other economic activities.
> IOW, armed with unjust privilege, they could get unearned wealth.
> What a concept!
Ah, you are apparently laboring under another myth also --- the "labor
theory of value." Hence any wealth not derived from labor is "unearned."
Sorry, but returns to capital are "earned" as much as are returns to labor.
There is no "privilege" involved.
> As proved above, private property in land is not necessary to economic
> advancement, and the evidence from the Third World is just as strong
> the other way: some of the worst economic performances have been
> turned in by countries where private landowner privilege is most
> firmly established, such as Mexico, Bangladesh, and Haiti.
There was no claim that property rights were a sufficient condition for
prosperity; only that they were a necessary condition. Nor was there any
claim that all claimed property titles are based on property *rights*. To
learn the difference, check here:
http://www.newliberalreview.com/heck.htm
>>Just as the owner of a piece of property has
>>economic control over its use, so too does the intellectual property
>>owner. No trespassing, buddy. If you want to use it you have to pay.
> An excellent definition of idle, unproductive rent seeking. The
> landowner requires others to pay for what nature provided for free,
> the IP owner requires them to pay for what is actually (though not
> legally) already in the public domain.
Nature provides nothing "for free." Whatever it provides requires an
investment of labor or capital or both to be rendered useful. A natural
rersource then belongs to whoever made those investments, and to no one
else. I suspect you are relying there on another myth --- the myth of a
"primordial common ownership" of the Earth and its resources.
Nor is IP "actually in the public domain." It is not in the public domain
until and unless its creator places it there. It may be "actually" in public
*hands* -- but, like any other property, it may have arrived there either
with the owner's permission, or because it was stolen.
> You have it exactly backwards. It is known that granting monopolies
> is one of the least efficient ways to achieve an economic objective.
All property rights confer monopolies over the owned property. They all
confer the powers of exclusive use and control of the titled property. Those
are *constructive monopolies*. Monopolies are destructive only when they
grant control over unowned property, such as entire classes of property.
E.g., if Microsoft had legal control over word processing software as a
class it would have a destructive monopoly. Having exclusive control only
over MS Word is a constructive monopoly.
> Right, the ideas are covered by patents.
False. Patents do not protect "ideas;" they protect inventions. The
application must describe the invention in sufficient detail to allow
construction of a working model.
> Wrong. Software patents prevent others from writing code that
> performs patented functions.
Rubbish.
> Wrong. The laziness is all on the rent seekers' side: they want to
> get rich without lifting a finger, by depriving others of what they
> would otherwise have been free to use.
All property would be "free to others to use" if there were no property
rights. And as a consequence there would be very little property.
Publius
@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
> i just wanted to focus on this
> as i will respond to the rest later
>
> i work for a gaming software company
>
> the company i work for has
> among numerous other patents
> a patent for the "use of usb in a gaming environment"
>
> they did not invent usb
>
> they did not invent the gaming enviorment
>
> other companies must pay us to use usb
> which includes a number of peripherals common to gaming machines
Have you read the actual patent? It *should* specify, in detail, a
particular, non-obvious use of USB in a "gaming environment." If it purports
to protect any use of USB in a gaming environment, i.e., loading a game from
a USB drive, then it should not have been patentable.
Don't tell royls, whose IP notions I just poured cold water on, but you're
right that patent law needs a lot of cleanup. Like all other law it is a
creature of politics, and hence suffers all the distortions, corruptions, and
sleaze that politics entails.
> intellectual property is useful sometimes
> but it is also a tool of aggression used by corporations
> to secure economic strangleholds
> and has no basis in reality
Intellectual property rights have the same basis in principle as all other
rights.
Mark M.
>
> Without property rights, the U.S. could not have become the economic
> into lots and awarded as property to those who staked a claim.
Hardly. Land was appropriated from the natives by force. Private individuals then
gained land from government through sale or grant. Personal connections
(corruption) played a large role. By 1763 millions of acres of untilled land was
owned by a handful of speculators, including several US founding fathers. The
Royal Proclamation of 1763 restricted settlement to areas east of the Appalachians,
effectively voiding earlier land grants of million of virgin acres in western
territories. The reaction by large land owners to this proclamation was the real
reason for the American rebellion. The talk about freedom and liberty was smoke.
Mark M.
Mark M.
(...)
>
> Have you read the actual patent? It *should* specify, in detail, a
> particular, non-obvious use of USB in a "gaming environment." If it purports
> to protect any use of USB in a gaming environment, i.e., loading a game from
> a USB drive, then it should not have been patentable.
>
> Don't tell royls, whose IP notions I just poured cold water on, but you're
> right that patent law needs a lot of cleanup. Like all other law it is a
> creature of politics, and hence suffers all the distortions, corruptions, and
> sleaze that politics entails.
>
>
>>intellectual property is useful sometimes
>> but it is also a tool of aggression used by corporations
>> to secure economic strangleholds
>>and has no basis in reality
>
>
> Intellectual property rights have the same basis in principle as all other
> rights.
How do you figure that? Property in tangible products of labor can be said to
naturally derive from the labor itself. How can a twenty year government grant of
exclusion be anything but an arbitrary number? The justification for invention
patents is that they promote the common good. That is, patent grants make for more
inventions and a higher general prosperity. Whether or not patents actually live
up to this ambition is debatable. One thing is certain: patents belong to the
category of things government actively does in attempt to promote the common good;
they belong with farm subsidies, research grants, and welfare, not with houses,
cars, and crops.
Mark M.
Publius
>> Yikes, g! What are you saying there --- that humanity is too stupid to
>> grasp moral concepts? Or to recognize a "person" (in the moral sense)
>> when they see one?
>>
>> If that's the case we are in deep trouble indeed.
>
> i think i am being overly obtuse
>
> empathy is a real phenomena
>
> apparently connected to the mirror neuron systems
> that reflect external entities onto internal drives
> for comparison and prediction
> empathy is the desire to protect others
> as you would protect yourself
>
> there are many good natural selection models
> that show why empathy provides better fitness
>
> this is a very tunable trait
>
> empathy spans
> from realistic associations of correspondences
> to anthropomorphic caricatures
> from strict isomorphismism
> to any commonality shared
>
> i am arguing that it was not any deontologic ethic
> that overthrew slavery
>
> it was the triumph of an empathic understanding
> that was economically favored
I think empathy is misunderstood, and hence greatly overrated as a
behavioral motivator or modifier. Empathy is the capacity to *see oneself in
others*, i.e., the kinship sense. It is an innate capacity in all primates,
and probably most other social mammals also. It evolved as a device for
maintaining peace and cohesion within a social group. It serves to reinforce
tribal identity among tribal groups; it distinguishes "us" from "them" and
binds the "us." Hence natural empathy has a group focus, not a global focus.
Among civilized humans empathy depends upon two variables:
1. Each person's own self-concept, i.e., how he understands or defines
himself, and
2. What he believes is just or appropriate or otherwise acceptable treatment
of beings like himself.
Hence, for any person, to whom his empathy extends depends upon their
perceived similarities to himself, per his own definition of himself. Thus
if being a "white person" is an essential component of his own self-concept,
then he will not sense empathy with non-white persons. Or if his
self-concept defines him as a Christian, then his empathy will not extend to
"heathen."
The second variable is important also. If he believes certain standards of
treatment apply to beings like himself, then he will not object if others
whom he perceives to be like himself are so treated. He would expect to be
treated the same way in the same circumstances, and would himself treat
others that way. So even though he may feel empathy for a person (like
himself) who is being punished, he will not necessarily consider that
punishment unacceptable. In fact, his very empathy for that person will
serve to deter him from doing whatever provoked the punishment --- he "feels
their pain," and modifies his own conduct accordingly.
So what empathy entails, behaviorally speaking, and to whom it extends,
depends upon a whole mess of beliefs --- about "justice" and how one
understands the subjects of justice, such as oneself.
The upshot is, if you change those beliefs, then you change, *ipso facto*,
the workings of empathy. That is what moral philosophy aims to do.
By the end of the 18th century liberalism had altered the beliefs of many
people, especially in Britain, the US, and elsewhere in Europe. An important
change was widespread acceptance of the notion of "moral equality," that
there were no "natural classes," that all persons are born free and entitled
to equal treatment in the same circumstances. As people began to grasp, via
the writings of Wilberforce, Stowe, Douglass, et al, that Africans were
indeed persons, then their empathies extended to them --- because of the
liberal beliefs they now held.
Empathy is an innate (though not universal) capacity. But to whom it extends
and what it entails for behavior are learned.
> in other words
> i am still convinced that it was not a deductive analysis
> of tomes on transcendental categorisations
> and the categorical imperatives
> brought upon by destiny in the face of free will
>
> i am strongly suspecting that
> less than 1 in 100 people
> of any era since the dawn of such terminology
> may regularly make that association
I agree with that. Most people, in that era as well as our own, have never
read Locke or Rousseau or Kant or any other philosopher. They acquire moral
beliefs through "social osmosis." They acquire all of their other beliefs in
the same way --- by absorption from the surrounding intellectual culture,
i.e., from parents, teachers, friends, preachers, newspaper columnists,
talking heads on teevee. Most people have never read Pasteur or Jenner,
either, and know nothing about the theory of bacteriology or virology. Yet
they understand that many diseases are caused by microbes, and not by "evil
spirits."
At times, however, the "cultural pipeline" is shortened, as in Britain
during the debates over slavery and in America prior to the Revolution.
Millions of people were exposed to liberal doctrines almost "from the
horse's mouth." Thomas Paine's *Common Sense* sold over 600,000 copies in
the US (among a population of 3 million). His "Declaration of the Rights of
Man" was almost as widely read, not only in America but in Britain and
France (he was convicted *in absentia* in Britain for "seditious libel").
Radicals were running amok in those countries at that time, and found
receptive audiences. Slavery was plainly incompatible with those doctrines,
and could be tolerated only as long as Africans could be dismissed as
sub-human. Wilberforce, Stowe, Douglass *et al* undermined that excuse.
(BTW, Douglass had a forerunner in 18th century Britain, Olaudah Equiano, a
former slave whose lucid writings had the same impact as Douglass's 60 years
later in America).
> empathy is gut morality
> it is conservativism
> in its most biological form
>
> that these drives
> varied in their reactions to stimuli and state
> have at least been selected as likely fit
>
> the great social understanding
> was that slaves were capable of deep thought
> and could achieve so much more
> if not subjugated
> that enslaving them was not really different than enslaving oneself
I agree. But that "social understanding" is not biological and is not "gut
morality." Only the empathic faculty is. It does not instinctively extend to
all humans, much less to other animals. Were that the case, slavery would
never have existed in the first place. Its extent and application depend on
other beliefs, as mentioned above.
> i am agreeing with you
> that it was an entirely empirical process
>
> that was economically favored
>
> i keep adding that extra bit
> because i think there were other times in human history
> where slaves could be empirically seen as equals
> but their economic influence was different
>
> imperialistic slavery is economically strong
> due to the worker shortfalls
> caused by diversion to the imperialistic growth
> military
Slavery always has economic motives. So does robbery. But economic motives
alone cannot justify it. That requires some moral principles and empirical
beliefs. When those are in place they trump economics. But the empathic
faculty alone will not put them in place.
> what i guess i am really trying to say is
>
> roman slavery
> chinese slavery
>
> greek slaves were always troubling to the greeks
>
> they did not change their systems
> because people are willing to look the other way
> if it helps them out with a better lifestyle
It did not trouble Plato or Aristotle.
> it was the buddhist emperor wang mang
> that abolished the chinese slave trade
> possibly the first such abolition
Temporarily. The ban lasted barely 3 years. And unlike the ban in 18th
century Britain, it was a top-down decree, not a policy driven from the
bottom up.
> make someone fear something
> tie it up in hate
> and it is amazing what reason will not penetrate
No argument there.
> in other countries
> the absence of the economy
> made way for the moral indignation
> that allowed their peaceful permanent ban
What about Britain? The slave trade was hugely important there, as important
as any other component of Empire commerce. But it was banned anyway.
In America there was a secondary motive in the southern resistance to
abolition --- the belief in states' rights. Many persons in the South who
had doubts about the justice of slavery or its economic future nonetheless
resented the impositions threatened by "self-righteous Yankee interlopers."
"There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge
that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to
expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white
than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf
of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The
blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically,
and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for
their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for
better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and
ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from
the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and
tempest of fiery controversy."
---Robert E. Lee, Letter, Dec. 27, 1856.
After the war, Lee wrote:
"So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that
Slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interest of the
South. So fully am I satisfied of this that I would have cheerfully lost all
that I have lost by the war, and have suffered all that I have suffered to
have this object attained."
---Robert E. Lee, May 1, 1870
> i am looking for some dynamical model
> to explain behavior when economies interact
>
> marxist models usually do pretty poor in predicting
> because there are many more drives than economic
> in influencing the law
Indeed.
> in fact i am offering a much more complicated model
> where various avoidance techniques are in play
> with assistance from economic benefit
> corresponding well with models
> on legalisation and abolition
There are no conflicts when economic and moral motivations coincide.
Conflicts arise when they are in opposition.
> - when slavery influences an economy deeply
> as it did in the most imperialist of societies
> appeals to empathy are ignored
It was not ignored in Britain. And as I mentioned, to whom empathy extends
is dependent on the totality of one's beliefs.
> the slave trade was not as powerful in england
> as other trades it was benefiting immensely in
> due to its own imperialism
> one slavery was replaced for the others of imperialism
> more lucrative exploitations of natural resources
Not so. Natural resources were negligible components of 18th century trade.
It was virtually all manufactured goods of one sort or another, including
agricultural products such as tea, cotton, sugar, Asian silk, etc. Plus
slaves. Colonialism in Africa did not become significant until well after
the abolition of slavery. The first French colony in Africa, Algeria, was
established in 1848. The first British colony, Cape Colony, was established
in 1806, but it was an agricultural colony, not unlike the West Indies.
Intensive colonialization in Africa didn't commence until the 1880s. BTW,
Britain not only abolished slavery in its own territories, its Navy
attempted to interdict that trade by other countries. It was partly a loss
of that revenue that prompted more intensive colonialization.
> this is not a valiant story of an idea succeeding
>
> it is the valiant story of one idea suceeding
> others being obscured
> some people benefiting
> other being exploited
Would you have expected contemporary moral standards to have been in place
throughout history? Wouldn't that require that those precepts be innate?
> the economic battle played out strongest in america
> where it was fought eventually by militaries
>
> it started with a number of duplicitous congressmen
> with strong fundraising ties to industry
> using the issues of slavery
> to hide issues of tariffs
> and economic aggression hid in law
Of course. Taxes are always used as political weapons. Still are.
> the events in trying to bring kansas to statehood
> show just how financiers from the two economies
> started these battles
> the free soil emigrants
> were completely funded by the likes of
> the massachusetts emigrant aid company and its later incarnations
What has that to do with "financiers"? Eli Thayer was an abolitionist who
ran a women's college. His goal was to make sure Kansas (and later other new
states) was admitted as a free state. Later it assisted in migration of
women to Oregon.
> its also not conspiratorial
> to point out john calhoun's deep ties
> with many of the most powerful plantation owners of his time
> and the point behind his outrage over the tariff of "abominations"
Discriminatory tariffs were indeed a sore point in the South. They were seen
as indicators of Northern hostility to slavery and an invasion of states'
rights.
> i think it is a very realistic stand
> to understand the influence of money over power
> and that despite any ideals anyone may hold
> america has never been a law completely of ideals
What country has? But showing that ideals are not the sole motivators of
policy is not to show that they had no role.
> in explaining why lincoln was chosen to lead the republican party
> a new party formed with backing from the industrialist north
> to break the connection with old world bankers
> that was entrenched in the old whig fundraising apparatus
> senator john sherman stated:
>
> " Those who elected Mr. Lincoln expect him . . .
> to secure to free labor its just right to the Territories
> of the United States; to protect . . . by wise revenue
> laws, the labor of our people; to secure the public
> lands to actual settlers . . . ; to develop the internal
> resources of the country by opening new means of
> communication between the Atlantic and Pacific. "
>
> these were the wise revenue laws
> that levied 47 percent tariffs
> most heavily affecting southern cotton plantations
> and this was the internal development
> promised to railroad monopolists
> and other western prospectors
> ( including coal and mineral mining )
The railroad "monopolists" had no interest in the slavery issue (other,
perhaps, than personal ones). They would have built railroads whether the
West was free or slave. Why the term "monopolists"? What did they
"monopolize" --- their own tracks and rolling stock? Do you disapprove of
the land grant system? How else would railroads have been built and minerals
developed --- by the gummint?
>> Who are these "corporatists"? What evidence do you have for their
>> opinions, or that their opinions influenced anyone?
>
> studies
> studies on industrial coal mining
> studies on the textile factories
> studies on the rise of monopoly
> in the late 1800's america
>
> there are strong economic reasons to favor the corporation structure
>
> vertical integration
> horizontal integration
>
> bulk transport and quantity economics
>
> these were the people in charge
> of which political parties would make it up north
> and eventually throughout the nation
By the late 1800s the slavery issue had already been settled. What role did
the railroads and textile factories play in the slavery debate?
>> Evidence? Sources? "Corporatism" is a Marxist shibboleth --- a
>> meaningless abstraction advanced in lieu of names and documents.
>
> in council bluffs, iowa
> lincoln made huge investments in land
> when there was no development nearby
>
> he then pushed the enactment of the union pacific railroad
> which had as its easternmost stop this same land
You think Lincoln launched the Civil War so he could profit from the UP's
railroad? Which didn't even start construction until 2 years later? Or that
the UP's investors backed him so that he would abolish slavery, rather than
because he supported land grants for railroads?
During the 19th century the federal gummint granted lands to almost anyone
who asked. I myself think they should have privatized a lot more of it. :-)
>> Surely not. As long as you are not a slave you can acquire both wealth
>> and skills. Everyone who arrives in this world lacks both.
> third world exploitation is a very serious health problem
> which transforms cultural structures
> that have been providing for their needs for ages
> into cultures that struggle to survive
They have provided for their needs at a subsistence level. In between
famines, plagues, and tribal wars, that is. Many 3rd world people aspire to
more than that. No 3rd world person goes to work at a foreign-owned factory
unless he thinks he will do better than by continuing whatever he was
previously doing. And they almost always do better.
> diabetes and other health problems
> begin setting in
> and quality of living measures
> such as leisure time
> time with children
> or metrics such as effort to attain food
> usually indicate the culture's situation is worse in the short term
Only those people, individually, can decide how to measure their own quality
of life. Whether leisure time with children outweighs being able to educate
those children is a decision only they can make. And hours of labor required
to obtain food declines spectacularly with industrialization. That is why
3rd world people abandon subsistence farming for factory work.
Publius
news:462819f5$0$9896$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
>> Intellectual property rights have the same basis in principle as all
>> other rights.
> How do you figure that? Property in tangible products of labor can be
> said to naturally derive from the labor itself. How can a twenty year
> government grant of exclusion be anything but an arbitrary number? The
> justification for invention patents is that they promote the common
> good. That is, patent grants make for more inventions and a higher
> general prosperity. Whether or not patents actually live up to this
> ambition is debatable. One thing is certain: patents belong to the
> category of things government actively does in attempt to promote the
> common good; they belong with farm subsidies, research grants, and
> welfare, not with houses, cars, and crops.
Granting patents promotes the "common good" in the same way that protecting
any other property promotes the "common good." The "common good" is never
anything more than the good of individuals. And you promote the good of
individuals by protecting their individual property.
Subsidies also promote only the good of individuals. The difference is that
they do so by reducing the good of other individuals, i.e., taxpayers.
You might find this of value:
Mark M.
(...)
> - but it is less competitive than wage worker economies
> in situation of worker glut
> like those found in industrialisation
> and other revolutions of efficiency
> ( player piano )
>
> - when slavery influences an economy deeply
> as it did in the most imperialist of societies
> appeals to empathy are ignored
>
> - but when slavery becomes less tied to one's own well being
> the avoidance mechanisms are not fueled by as many drives
> and outrage and abolitionism take hold
“No man can point to any law in the U.S. by which slavery was originally
established. Men first make slaves and then make laws.”
--Frederick Douglas
Early American land owners attempted to style themselves after English landed
gentry. They wanted to live off the rents of their land in lavish aristocratic
splendor. But one thing hindered them: the new world had too much good land.
Without land scarcity laborers would not come hat in hand for permission to use
land owned by others. English lords were able to extract a leisurely lifestyle
from their tenants because land in England was dear. American landlord wannabes
found they needed to tie the workers to the land by force; that is, by law.
By making the workers property, they could reproduce the conditions English
landlords enjoyed. Southern slave owners accomplished through human-property-law
what English landlords accomplished simply by landowning, thus showing landlordism
and slave holding are essentially the same.
Like the English landlords, the southern planters had little need of bankers. They
lived off the labor of their slaves, just as the English landlords lived off the
labor of their tenants. The desire of the Bankers to dominate every part of the
economy through debt was the impetus for the Civil War.
Mark M.
ro...@telus.net
<m.pu...@nospam.comcast.net> wrote:
>Don't tell royls, whose IP notions I just poured cold water on,
??? ROTFL!
>but you're right that patent law needs a lot of cleanup.
Because it is fundamentally indefensible both morally and
economically.
>Like all other law it is a
>creature of politics, and hence suffers all the distortions, corruptions, and
>sleaze that politics entails.
No, it is a mess bcause like income tax, it is just fundamentally
wrong and cannot be made right. Ever.
>> intellectual property is useful sometimes
>> but it is also a tool of aggression used by corporations
>> to secure economic strangleholds
>> and has no basis in reality
>
>Intellectual property rights have the same basis in principle as all other
>rights.
Garbage. A number of pre-modern societies understood and respected
_genuine_ rights pretty well, and IP was inconceivable to them.
-- Roy L
The Trucker
discourse. The exchange below is one of these few jewels. I get
to make a comment of my own.
"Publius" <m.pu...@nospam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:DZadnYV0N6ecsrXb...@comcast.com...
I am very interested in why anyone would see the exploitation of
agricultural land as anything but an exploitation of natural resources.
While it is true that labor must always be exploited in the creation
of "goods" that produce "profits" it is also essential that LAND be
employed. Whether the "goods" are corn or iron ore would seem
to be less relevant. Labor all you will in the middle of the Atlantic
and no corn or iron ore will ye produce.
So who "financed" Eli Thayer?
>> its also not conspiratorial
>> to point out john calhoun's deep ties
>> with many of the most powerful plantation owners of his time
>> and the point behind his outrage over the tariff of "abominations"
>
> Discriminatory tariffs were indeed a sore point in the South. They were seen
> as indicators of Northern hostility to slavery and an invasion of states'
> rights.
Whatever "excuse" can be conjured up to support ones own self interest
will indeed be conjured up. Nobody WANTS to be poor or to lose power.
>> i think it is a very realistic stand
>> to understand the influence of money over power
>> and that despite any ideals anyone may hold
>> america has never been a law completely of ideals
>
> What country has? But showing that ideals are not the sole motivators of
> policy is not to show that they had no role.
Yep. There are limits to how far the lies will take you.
Any grant in perpetuity is WRONG. It commits those not yet born
to a deal in which they had no input. Land grants were also called
land patents. Just like IP rights there should be a fixed term for such
"grant". In the case of the railroads that term should have been
discerned by the profitability of the enterprise over the life of
the actual capital (capital is the infrastructure including the building
up of the pathway for the tracks). Renegotiation of the fee paid
for such rights could be, and probably should be renegotiated
on perhaps a 10 year basis. As the rail company invests in
maintenance of the capital then the depreciation of the capital life
is extended such that the "patent" can be extended. There should
be no grant in perpetuity.
You are quite wrong in that position when the good of all is the objective.
>>> Surely not. As long as you are not a slave you can acquire both wealth
>>> and skills. Everyone who arrives in this world lacks both.
>
>> third world exploitation is a very serious health problem
>> which transforms cultural structures
>> that have been providing for their needs for ages
>> into cultures that struggle to survive
>
> They have provided for their needs at a subsistence level. In between famines,
> plagues, and tribal wars, that is. Many 3rd world people aspire to more than
> that. No 3rd world person goes to work at a foreign-owned factory unless he
> thinks he will do better than by continuing whatever he was previously doing.
> And they almost always do better.
Your point concerning the betterment of the local inhabitants is
probably valid. However, such exploitation works to the disadvantage
of more civilized people (The middle class of the developed world).
This disadvantage manifests itself as a loss of eonomic and political
self determination. As the rich get richer and the middle class lose
their high paid jobs and are marched toward slavery.
>> diabetes and other health problems
>> begin setting in
>> and quality of living measures
>> such as leisure time
>> time with children
>> or metrics such as effort to attain food
>> usually indicate the culture's situation is worse in the short term
>
> Only those people, individually, can decide how to measure their own quality
> of life.
This is a well maintained lie of the Libertarian anarchist and the latter
day neoconomist. There are statistics such as hours worked, life span,
infant mortality and others that are most certainly indicative of
quality of life. The validity of majoritarian values is, in America,
sacrosanct. If you object to that then you are a Republican and you
will soon be shown the door. Read my quote from Jefferson in my
signature very carefully.
> Whether leisure time with children outweighs being able to educate those
> children is a decision only they can make. And hours of labor required to
> obtain food declines spectacularly with industrialization. That is why 3rd
> world people abandon subsistence farming for factory work.
But it always gets down to the FREEDOM of the individual to make
those choices. The more _TIME_ the individual has that is his own
(not working) then the more prosperous that individual IS. We have
much more _capital_ (tools and machinery and infrastructure) today
than we had 30 years ago yet people are working longer and harder.
That is a wealth distribution problem pure and simple.
--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org
Steve Campbell
> Good post. You may be interested in this:
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yep. The information behind your link is "spot on" with my point of
view.
Publius
>>Don't tell royls, whose IP notions I just poured cold water on,
>
> ??? ROTFL!
>
>>but you're right that patent law needs a lot of cleanup.
>
> Because it is fundamentally indefensible both morally and
> economically.
Now that we have your unvarnished opinion (earnestly and passionately held,
I'm sure), some arguments or evidence would be in order.
>>Intellectual property rights have the same basis in principle as all
>>other rights.
> Garbage. A number of pre-modern societies understood and respected
> _genuine_ rights pretty well, and IP was inconceivable to them.
Well, that is not promising --- advancing a *non sequitur* right off the bat.
I suspect you have no idea what "property" or "rights" are. This might help:
Publius
news:f0aka...@news1.newsguy.com...
> It is not often that I get to read stuff that can be sefined as
> intgelligent discourse. The exchange below is one of these few jewels. I
> get to make a comment of my own.
Galathaea always has an intriguing and challenging perspective, usually
"out-of-the-box." It sometimes draws her into the Twilight Zone, however.
Your own comments are thoughtful as well. I'll try to reply in kind.
> I am very interested in why anyone would see the exploitation of
> agricultural land as anything but an exploitation of natural resources.
Well, it is, in the broadest sense. But then so is everything. But the
term is normally used in contemporary discussions to distinguish between
manufactured goods and such natural goods as mineral ores, raw timber,
petroleum, and the like. The Cape Colony was founded originally as merely
a provisioning and service facility for ships. Crops were planted only for
the use of the station, and for trading with the nearby natives, who were
livestock herders. But the colony grew, and conflicts with the natives
ensued. There was at that time no interest in "exploitation" of any
resources as currently understood, and which would drive later
colonialization.
Also, are you using "exploited" in its normal sense, which means "to make
use of," or in its ideological sense, i.e., "to ravage and pillage"?
> While it is true that labor must always be exploited in the creation
> of "goods" that produce "profits" it is also essential that LAND be
> employed. Whether the "goods" are corn or iron ore would seem
> to be less relevant.
It is highly relevant. Global trade in the 18th century and first half of
the 19th century, i.e., the era of sailing ships, consisted of low-weight,
high-value goods. Except for gold and silver, those were manufactured
goods of some sort, which includes high-value agricultural products such
as tea, spices, coffee, tobacco, molasses (for making rum), etc. Even the
gold and silver were refined before shipping.
>>> the events in trying to bring kansas to statehood
>>> show just how financiers from the two economies
>>> started these battles
>>> the free soil emigrants
>>> were completely funded by the likes of
>>> the massachusetts emigrant aid company and its later incarnations
>> What has that to do with "financiers"? Eli Thayer was an abolitionist
>> who ran a women's college. His goal was to make sure Kansas (and later
>> other new states) was admitted as a free state. Later it assisted in
>> migration of women to Oregon.
> So who "financed" Eli Thayer?
It was a public corporation which sold stocks. You might be interested in
this:
http://www.territorialkansasonline.org/cgiwrap/imlskto/index.php?SCREEN=sho
w_document&document_id=101820&SCREEN_FROM=search&submit=search&search=%20%2
0Massachusetts%20Emigrant%20Aid%20Company&startsearchat=0&searchfor=authors
Tracking down the stockholders would be difficult, and irrelevant. The
implied argument is to the effect, "Joe Capitalist contributed to the
organization. Therefore the stated purposes of the organization must be
disregarded, since we know Joe Capitalist is only interested in making
money."
That is an *ad hominem* and thus fallacious. It is a popular form of
argument, of course, especially among the Left ("That researcher received
funding from ExxonMobil. Thus the conclusions must be false").
>> The railroad "monopolists" had no interest in the slavery issue (other,
>> perhaps, than personal ones). They would have built railroads whether
>> the West was free or slave. Why the term "monopolists"? What did they
>> "monopolize" --- their own tracks and rolling stock? Do you disapprove
>> of the land grant system? How else would railroads have been built and
>> minerals developed --- by the gummint?
> Any grant in perpetuity is WRONG. It commits those not yet born
> to a deal in which they had no input.
Well, we obviously have radically different understandings of the basis
and origins of property. Those "not yet born" have no input because they
have no claims.
I suspect you are relying there on the "primodial common ownership"
fallacy --- the notion that the Earth (and all its natural products) are
the "common property of mankind." But that claim is gratuitous. A tract of
land or a resource discovered on it does not belong to "all mankind."
Until it is discovered and brought into use it belongs to no one. Upon
discovery it belongs to the discoverer. No one else, born or unborn, has
the slightest claim upon it.
During the 19th century the US government did not regard itself as the
"owner" of Western lands, or of any lands other than those to which it
held express titles. When the US bought Louisiana, for example, it did not
buy real estate; it merely bought sovereignty --- the power to make and
enforce laws --- over that territory. Much of the land was already owned,
by settlers and Indian tribes. None of those titles were disturbed. It saw
itself instead as a trustee, whose role was to oversee orderly settlement.
That meant recognizing and enforcing claims by their first occupants to
unoccupied or unused land or other resources. It did that though land
grants for dozens of purposes, homestead laws, mining laws, etc.
Property rights begin with first possession, not with imaginary primordial
entitlements or government declarations. The government did not "grant"
any land. It had no land to grant. It merely agreed to recognize and
enforce claims to various lands.
> Land grants were also called
> land patents. Just like IP rights there should be a fixed term for such
> "grant".
There are practical problems with enforcing IP rights, namely, diffusion
and obsolescence. Technologies and other intellectual property diffuses
into new technologies and properties. After a time it becomes difficult to
determine what is old and thus protected and what is new. And due to
obsolescence, the value of that property declines over time, until
protecting it costs more than it is worth. Neither problem affects most
tangible property.
You might be interested in this:
http://www.newliberalreview.com/jeffip0.htm
> Renegotiation of the fee paid
> for such rights could be, and probably should be renegotiated
> on perhaps a 10 year basis. As the rail company invests in
> maintenance of the capital then the depreciation of the capital life
> is extended such that the "patent" can be extended. There should
> be no grant in perpetuity.
You are presuming that government held some original legitimate title. It
didn't.
>> During the 19th century the federal gummint granted lands to almost
>> anyone who asked. I myself think they should have privatized a lot more
>> of it. :-)
> You are quite wrong in that position when the good of all is the
> objective.
I suspect we have another basic disagreement. The "good of all" is either
the good of individuals, or it is meaningless. There is no means of
determining what is the "good of all" except by determining what is the
good for each individual. You secure the good of individuals by securing
to each person whatever goods he or she has first possessed, i.e., either
created or discovered. That is the only way to secure a good to one
individual without first depriving another individual of a good.
Individuals may then share or pool their goods, cooperate in securing
particular goods, or exchange goods. As long as all those transactions are
voluntary you maximize the good of each, and thus for all. That is the
only way in which the "common good" can be maximized. In other words, the
"common good" is meaningful only distributively, not collectively.
> Your point concerning the betterment of the local inhabitants is
> probably valid. However, such exploitation works to the disadvantage
> of more civilized people (The middle class of the developed world).
> This disadvantage manifests itself as a loss of eonomic and political
> self determination. As the rich get richer and the middle class lose
> their high paid jobs and are marched toward slavery.
The statistics belie that claim. Median incomes and incomes in all
quintiles have increased steadily in the US and all other Western
countries since the end of WWII. Unemployment in the US is at
near-historic lows. Until the launching of the "War on Poverty," poverty
steadily declined. Every technological change since the invention of the
steam engine, and every liberalization of trade, has provoked a Luddite or
Chicken Little response. Those claims have all been nonsense. Quality of
life in the West, by every measure, has constantly improved.
>> Only those people, individually, can decide how to measure their own
>> quality of life.
> This is a well maintained lie of the Libertarian anarchist and the
> latter day neoconomist. There are statistics such as hours worked, life
> span, infant mortality and others that are most certainly indicative of
> quality of life.
Yes --- those are measures upon which most people would agree. And in
countries with the most active trade and the freest economies, those
indicators have improved the most.
Galathaea had asserted that what is lost are such things as "more time spent
with kids." And the value of that good in comparison with others (and indeed
the values of all goods), is solely a decision for each individual to make.
> The validity of majoritarian values is, in America,
> sacrosanct. If you object to that then you are a Republican and you
> will soon be shown the door. Read my quote from Jefferson in my
> signature very carefully.
There is no such thing as a "majoritarian value." Values are only defined
for individuals, and they differ from individual to individual. A majority
may perhaps agree upon a value for X --- but their agreement has no
implications whatsoever for any individual not in that majority. The fact
that Tom and Dick agree on the value of codfish has no implications at all
for Harriet. She may continue to prefer tuna.
> But it always gets down to the FREEDOM of the individual to make
> those choices. The more _TIME_ the individual has that is his own
> (not working) then the more prosperous that individual IS. We have
> much more _capital_ (tools and machinery and infrastructure) today
> than we had 30 years ago yet people are working longer and harder.
No they aren't --- not for the same return. They may work as many hours, but
the returns are about twice as high. And the value of leisure time, like
that of all other goods, is a personal decision. Many people will trade
leisure time for a big-screen teevee, or a snazzier car. People's working
time *is* their own time. They are deciding how to invest it.
Publius
> Read my quote from Jefferson in my
> signature very carefully.
Forgot to comment on your signature. If you understand ""people" there
distributively, rather than collectively, you'll have Jefferson's meaning.
ro...@telus.net
<m.pu...@nospam.comcast.net> wrote:
><ro...@telus.net> wrote in message news:46279f1c...@news.telus.net...
>
>> Your reasoning is fallacious. The need for and rightfulness of _some_
>> property rights does not imply that all property rights are necessary
>> or rightful, any more than the fact that we need food to survive means
>> that eating 10 pounds of junk food a day is good for you.
>
>You fail to distinguish between property *claims* and property *rights*.
Garbage. People can claim whatever they like. The relevant
distinction is between _legal_ property rights -- such as the legal
right to own slaves, natural resources, or intellectual property
monopolies -- and _rightful_ property rights in products of labor.
>Not
>all claims to property are grounded in property rights. Slavery was one such
>example.
As are private claims to own natural resources, inventions, music,
etc.
>All rights are property rights.
That is nothing but propertarian nonsense. How is your right to vote
a property right? You certainly can't sell it. How is your right to
breathe a property right?
Please get that propertarian bull$#!+ out of your head.
>A right is relation between a person and some thing.
No, it isn't. It is a relation between a person and society that may
or may not involve a third object, which may or may not be a "thing."
>A right is always *to* something; the property is whatever thing
>the right is *to*.
Utter drivel. A right *to* vote is not a property right in any sense
whatsoever. Your vote is not your property, and you do not own it.
Nor does the right "to" liberty mean that liberty is property of some
sort: you don't own it, can't sell it, etc. The attempt to redefine
all rights as property rights is a transparent attempt to make all
property rightful by definition.
>>>I forming the nation, the land was divided
>>>into lots and awarded as property to those who staked a claim.
>
>> Wrong. It was taken by force and given mostly to those with political
>> connections. Your claim that private property in land is necessary to
>> prosperity is flat-out refuted by the example of Hong Kong, which has
>> long had faster economic growth than the USA, and where the only
>> privately owned land is sitting under the Anglican cathedral.
>
>You are wrong, on both points.
No, I am of course completely and indisputably correct, and you are
simply another lying apologist for privilege and injustice who is not
clever enough to understand when he is about to be demolished and
humiliated for his ignorance, stupidity and dishonesty.
Ready?
>Most land in the US was not taken by force.
That is a flat-out lie. However, it is true that the US government
did not take most of it by force _directly_: it simply agreed to
recognize as rightful the forcible appropriations effected by others.
>You are probably laboring under the myth that all land in the New World
>"belonged to the Indians."
They certainly occupied and used most of it, though they did not
consider it ownable. In any case, it didn't have to "belong" to them
to be taken from them. Consider the parallel example of public
streets: they don't "belong" to you, but if your right to use them was
taken away from you by force, as the American aboriginals' rights to
use the land was taken from them by force, you would certainly resent
and resist the deprivation, as they did.
>In fact, most of it was neither occupied not
>claimed by natives nor anyone else.
That is another lie. Most that was privatized was certainly
previously occupied and also claimed, in the sense that the aboriginal
users resisted the forcible extinction of their liberty to use it.
>And although fee title to land in Hong Kong vests in the State (due to the
>original treaty concluded by the British government), most of it is held
>under long-term leases, and thus is privately controlled.
But it is public land, not private property, which flat-out demolishes
all your claims that private property in land is necessary to economic
prosperity.
>Those lessees hold
>all powers of ownership except the right to sell.
That is also flat false, like all your other claims. Their tenure and
possession are temporary and limited, just like the tenure of any
tenant, and conspicuously _un_like the tenure of an owner. The
lessees most certainly do _NOT_ hold all powers of ownership except
the right to sell. Indeed, they _do_ have the right to sell their
leasehold rights and any improvements they have made to the land.
They just don't own the land.
Please understand: your false claims have been refuted and demolished.
You cannot rescue them, no matter how many lies you tell from this
point on. And I guarantee you, the more you try, the more stupid and
transparent your lies will become. That is the invariable pattern
with all apologists for privilege and injustice.
>>>They
>>>could then use the documented ownership of the land to leverage
>>>improvements through debt, or they could sell the land to use the
>>>capital for other economic activities.
>
>> IOW, armed with unjust privilege, they could get unearned wealth.
>> What a concept!
>
>Ah, you are apparently laboring under another myth also --- the "labor
>theory of value."
<yawn> Wrong again. Inevitably. You're batting .000!
>Hence any wealth not derived from labor is "unearned."
No, but any wealth acquired other than in return for a commensurate
contribution to production is unearned, by definition.
>Sorry, but returns to capital are "earned" as much as are returns to labor.
Only if by "returns to capital" you mean payments for contributions of
capital to production. Most of what passes for "returns to capital"
actually consists of economic rents, which are economically and
morally equivalent to the returns "earned" by the bandits in the
passes who exacted tolls from the merchant caravans passing through.
How does a landowner "earn" the economic rent of the land he owns?
The land was already there, ready to be used, with no help from him or
any previous landowner. All the landowner does is extort a payment
from the user in return for not forcibly preventing him from using
what nature provided for free. The landowner's role is entirely
parasitic.
>There is no "privilege" involved.
Now you are just being (surprise!) stupid and dishonest. The
landowner is self-evidently and indisputably _privileged_ to charge
others a fee for use of what nature provided for free. The land rent
he pockets is literally a payment in return for no contribution
whatsoever, the very quintessence of privilege.
>> As proved above, private property in land is not necessary to economic
>> advancement, and the evidence from the Third World is just as strong
>> the other way: some of the worst economic performances have been
>> turned in by countries where private landowner privilege is most
>> firmly established, such as Mexico, Bangladesh, and Haiti.
>
>There was no claim that property rights were a sufficient condition for
>prosperity; only that they were a necessary condition.
But I have already proved to you that private property rights in land
are _not_ necessary for prosperity. You just refuse to know that
fact, because it disproves your false beliefs.
Prediction: you will continue to lie about the absence of private
property in land in Hong Kong -- which until 1997, btw, was a world
exemplar of freedom and prosperity.
>Nor was there any
>claim that all claimed property titles are based on property *rights*. To
>learn the difference, check here:
>
>http://www.newliberalreview.com/heck.htm
LOL!! Too bad Morton's "property right by first possession" claim is
not only flat wrong and indefensible but utterly irrelevant, as there
is no plot of land anywhere in the world whose current possession can
be shown to have derived from first possession and consensual
transfers therefrom. Morton's claim that a property right derived
from first possession of natural resources does not injure anyone else
is likewise clearly flat false: at a minimum, it deprives others of
their rights to use what is being appropriated, extinguishing rights
which they previously enjoyed.
Rightful property can only be founded on an act of production, never
an act of forcible appropriation, no matter how "first" that act of
appropriation might be, because only _production_ results in property
that does not deprive others of access to what they would otherwise
have been free to use. It's easy enough to destroy Morton's notion of
"rightful property by first possession":
A greedy, unscrupulous parasite and apologist for parasites -- let us
call him "Publius," for that is indeed his name -- comes upon a spring
in the desert that has never been possessed by anyone. He claims it
as his property, according to the magical Morton-Publius spell for
conjuring property rights out of thin air. Shortly thereafter, a man
stumbles in from the desert, dying of thirst. Seeing the spring, he
stoops to drink the water that nature provided for free (and that,
contrary to your filthy, evil lies, no one ever had to invest anything
to make useful), when he hears the sound of a revolver being cocked
behind his ear, and a quiet, sibilant voice says, "Uh-uh. I know what
you're thinkin'. You're thinkin', 'Will he charge me six years' labor
for a sip of water, or only five?' And to tell the truth, in all this
excitement I haven't quite added up the bill myself. But bein' as
it's 44 miles to the next waterhole, which might as well be the other
side of the world, and I'd as soon run your sorry ass _clean_off_ my
land, you gotta ask yourself a question: 'Do I feel thirsty today?'
Well, do ya? _Slave_."
The absolute indefensibility of Publius's property claim should not
require any further explanation. But just to make the demolition of
Morton's absurd notion completely clear and indisputable:
Publius is now extremely wealthy: the thirsty man at the waterhole
just happened to be Bill Gates, and Publius got $50G for a gallon of
spring water (such was his productive genius!). Publius then invents
and builds a machine that compresses and stores air. Fast. And for
$50G, it's a big machine. He turns his machine on, thereby obtaining
the sacred "first possession" of the air it stores. By and by his
machine has compressed and stored so much air that the atmosphere
begins to get noticeably thinner. He continues to run his machine,
and people can no longer live at high altitudes in Bolivia and Tibet.
Airplanes cannot fly over some mountain ranges they easily cleared
before. That's when Publius starts to sell his "property," the air he
"rightfully" owns through first taking possession of it. People want
to breathe, so they pay Publius for air. Such is Publius's business
acumen that he soon has enough money from selling air to build another
compressing machine: the money the people have paid him in order not
to suffocate just gave him the capital to expand his business!
Publius is clearly the most productive business genius the world has
ever seen, and before long he owns everything, everywhere, as everyone
must pay him his price for his "rightful property" or die.
Clearly, this outcome is even more indefensible than Dirty Publius's
behavior at the spring in the desert. The claim that property rights
originate in first possession rather than production is thus shown to
be indefensible and false. Learn it, or condemn yourself to talk
nonsense on the subject permanently.
>>>Just as the owner of a piece of property has
>>>economic control over its use, so too does the intellectual property
>>>owner. No trespassing, buddy. If you want to use it you have to pay.
>
>> An excellent definition of idle, unproductive rent seeking. The
>> landowner requires others to pay for what nature provided for free,
>> the IP owner requires them to pay for what is actually (though not
>> legally) already in the public domain.
>
>Nature provides nothing "for free."
Yes, of course it does. It provides everything it provides for free,
two good examples being spring water and air. You are just lying
again. That is normal, expected, and inevitable. You will continue
to lie as long as you presume to dispute with me, and the longer you
presume to dispute with me, the stupider and more transparent your
lies will become. That is certain.
>Whatever it provides requires an
>investment of labor or capital or both to be rendered useful.
No, that is just another lie, as proved above. Both the spring water
and the air were perfectly useful with no investment whatever. If
your claim were true, no natural resource could ever be used, because
no resource could ever have become useful in the first place. You are
just spouting self-refuting nonsense, now.
>A natural
>rersource then belongs to whoever made those investments, and to no one
>else.
Garbage. Nobody has to make any "investment" to make useful natural
resources useful. People just start using them because they are
_already_ useful, as I already proved to you above.
If you are walking through a natural forest, and come upon an apple
tree, and pick an apple therefrom, you have made no investment to make
the tree useful: it was useful before you even existed. Your claim
that picking an apple gives you ownership of the tree -- or even,
apparently, of the whole forest -- depriving others of their rights to
use it, is nothing but a rationalization of forcible appropriation for
yourself of what nature provided equally to all.
You are therefore simply a thief, and an apologist for thieves.
>I suspect you are relying there on another myth --- the myth of a
>"primordial common ownership" of the Earth and its resources.
No, I am relying on the natural human rights to life and liberty whose
wholesale violation for the unearned profit of the privileged you are
intent on justifying and rationalizing.
>Nor is IP "actually in the public domain."
Yes, of course it is. The only difference between public domain works
like "Hamlet" and works covered by copyright is the government-issued
and -enforced monopoly copyright privilege on the latter.
>It is not in the public domain
>until and unless its creator places it there.
Which he does as soon as he discloses it.
>It may be "actually" in public
>*hands* -- but, like any other property, it may have arrived there either
>with the owner's permission, or because it was stolen.
There is no rightful owner of the public domain to give any
"permission," and it could not have been stolen because the creator
still has it.
>> You have it exactly backwards. It is known that granting monopolies
>> is one of the least efficient ways to achieve an economic objective.
>
>All property rights confer monopolies over the owned property.
Nope. That is simply not what the word, "monopoly" means. A monopoly
is a single provider of _all_ of a product whose specific examples are
ready substitutes for each other. Thus, a monopoly on steel is not
obtained by having some steel to sell, but by being the _only_
provider of steel. And a monopoly on steel is no less a monopoly by
virtue of the fact that aluminum, plastic, etc., can in various cases
be substituted for steel.
You need to consult a good dictionary to learn the definition of
"monopoly." Either that, or buy (or steal) some honesty somewhere.
>They all
>confer the powers of exclusive use and control of the titled property.
But that is not what "monopoly" means, as you now know very well, and
I suspect knew when you wrote the false claim above.
>Those are *constructive monopolies*.
Garbage. Ownership of an item that others own similar examples of is
not a monopoly at all, constructive or otherwise.
>Monopolies are destructive only when they
>grant control over unowned property, such as entire classes of property.
No, they are destructive whenever they prevent competition from
improving quality and reducing price.
>E.g., if Microsoft had legal control over word processing software as a
>class it would have a destructive monopoly. Having exclusive control only
>over MS Word is a constructive monopoly.
Nope. Flat wrong. The M$ monopoly privileges prevent people from
improving on M$ products and selling the improved products at lower
prices for the benefit of consumers.
>> Right, the ideas are covered by patents.
>
>False. Patents do not protect "ideas;" they protect inventions.
Bull$#!+. The _fact_ of the matter is that when Bell got a patent on
the telephone, Elisha Gray's telephone, which WAS NOT THE SAME
INVENTION as Bell's, was deemed a violation of the Bell patent. Bell
became rich because he obtained a government-issued and -enforced
monopoly privilege over the _idea_ of the telephone, not just his own
implementation of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisha_Gray_and_Alexander_Bell_Controversy
I have worked professionally with people whose jobs were to obtain
patents, and your notions of the process are laughable.
>The
>application must describe the invention in sufficient detail to allow
>construction of a working model.
And that would be relevant to the monopoly privilege how, exactly?
Gray's telephone was different from -- and superior to -- Bell's. But
the patent was not just on Bell's invention, it covered Gray's too.
>> Wrong. Software patents prevent others from writing code that
>> performs patented functions.
>
>Rubbish.
Fact.
>> Wrong. The laziness is all on the rent seekers' side: they want to
>> get rich without lifting a finger, by depriving others of what they
>> would otherwise have been free to use.
>
>All property would be "free to others to use" if there were no property
>rights.
Too bad you couldn't think of anything relevant to say. Read the
above again, and note the presence of the pivotal word, "otherwise."
Products of labor would not _otherwise_ be free for others to use in
the absence of property rights, because they would not exist had their
producers not produced them in order to own them as property.
By contrast, natural resources existed all along, with no help from --
or investment by -- anyone, and most certainly _would_ otherwise be
free for others to use in the absence of any private ownership of
them.
You are destroyed.
>And as a consequence there would be very little property.
?? Do you think natural resources suddenly pop into existence when
people appropriate them as private property?
ROTFL!!
-- Roy L
Publius
>>You fail to distinguish between property *claims* and property *rights*.
> Garbage. People can claim whatever they like. The relevant
> distinction is between _legal_ property rights -- such as the legal
> right to own slaves, natural resources, or intellectual property
> monopolies -- and _rightful_ property rights in products of labor.
Heh. Feisty post. Most articulate challenge I've encountered in a while.
Too late tonite to repond, so you get a few hours of grace. Enjoy it!
uri
that comes with it
Publius
>>You fail to distinguish between property *claims* and property *rights*.
> Garbage. People can claim whatever they like. The relevant
> distinction is between _legal_ property rights -- such as the legal
> right to own slaves, natural resources, or intellectual property
> monopolies -- and _rightful_ property rights in products of labor.
Well, you have that half right. At least you understand the distinction
between legal and natural rights. Not everyone here does.
But you can't draw the distinction with the term "rightful property
rights," since that is question-begging. You'll need to provide some
criterion of "rightfulness." HINT: "Labor" is not it. At least, not as
that term is ordinarily understood. There is no correlation between the
values of property and their labor investment. Nor is any labor at all
required to establish a right, unless you wish to count the mere labor of
taking possession. If a diamond-laden meteorite lands in your backyard it
is your property, every carat of it. The only labor you need invest is
picking it up and carrying it to the diamond wholesaler. Likewise if you
find a $100 bill on the sidewalk. Since that item had to have been owned
by someone else, you cannot be the first possessor. Hence you have a duty
to try to locate its prior owner, if that's possible. If it's not possible
the $100 is your property, and the only labor you've invested is picking
it up.
In fact, property rights have been recognized to all kinds of property,
since time immemorial, without any consideration of labor investment ---
except, of course, the "labor" of taking possession and asserting the
claim.
Labor investments bear on property rights only to the extent that they
evidence first possession. E.g., the labor you invest in making a spear is
evidence of your first possession of the spear. By making it, you are its
first possessor. But there was no labor investment in the stick from which
you made the spear, or the flint from which you made the point. Those
became your property the moment you picked them up. Prior to that moment
they were no one's property, and you need not obtain anyone's permission
to pick them up. They were *res nullius*.
>>All rights are property rights.
> That is nothing but propertarian nonsense. How is your right to vote
> a property right?
Now, now. We are speaking of natural rights here, not legal rights.
"Rightful" rights, remember? The basis of a legal right, such as the right
to vote, is a decree of a lawgiver, nothing more or less. They are not
necessarily "rightful" nor rational, and often neither. If there is a
statute declaring you have a legal right to vote, then you do, just as if
there is a statute declaring you have a legal right to enslave others,
then you do.
>> A right is relation between a person and some thing.
> No, it isn't. It is a relation between a person and society that may
> or may not involve a third object, which may or may not be a "thing."
First, anything is a "thing," by definition. Rights claims have the form,
(1) R(P,x)
meaning, "P has a right to x." The only constraints on x are that it have
some value to P and cannot be another agent, Q. It may be tangible or
intangible, concrete or abstract. The only relation to "society" involved
is that the meanings of those terms, and the truth conditions for
propositions like (1), must be public, like the meanings and truth
conditions of all objective propositions. Rights claims also *presume* a
social context --- that is, that there are other agents about who may also
value x and hence might challenge P's claim. The sole inhabitant of an
island would have no reason to assert any rights claims.
Otherwise, "society" (nor any other particular person) has no role in
rights claims. There is no variable y for "society" in (1). No
relationship is presumed or required between either P or x and any y.
If you wish to claim otherwise, perhaps you can give your formal analysis
of rights claims and their truth conditions.
>>A right is always *to* something; the property is whatever thing
>>the right is *to*.
> Utter drivel. A right *to* vote is not a property right in any sense
> whatsoever. Your vote is not your property, and you do not own it.
> Nor does the right "to" liberty mean that liberty is property of some
> sort: you don't own it, can't sell it, etc. The attempt to redefine
> all rights as property rights is a transparent attempt to make all
> property rightful by definition.
>
> How is your right to breathe a property right?
We already covered the right to vote. The "right to breathe," and all
liberty rights, are derivatives of the right of self-ownership. If you own
a car, then you have a right to the car. Having that right entails several
powers over that car --- the power to drive it, sell it, loan it to
someone, demolish it, operate a taxicab service with it, or just park it
in your driveway and admire it. In short, having a right to the car
entails exclusive control over the use of that car, and to any benefits it
may afford. All of those may be called "rights," but they are only
derivatives of the underlying right --- the right to the car.
Liberty rights --- to free speech, freedom to travel, "right to breathe,"
are of the same ilk. They are derivatives of your natural right to your
own physical body, and to all the uses it may be put and benefits it may
confer. Just as with your car, your right to it entails that you may do
with it anything you please, provided you don't use it to violate others'
rights.
>>Most land in the US was not taken by force.
> That is a flat-out lie. However, it is true that the US government
> did not take most of it by force _directly_: it simply agreed to
> recognize as rightful the forcible appropriations effected by others.
>
>>You are probably laboring under the myth that all land in the New World
>>"belonged to the Indians."
>
> They certainly occupied and used most of it, though they did not
> consider it ownable.
Sorry, but that is empirically false, on both points. Indians did consider
land ownable. Although most N. American tribes did not recognize
*individual* ownership of land, they did recognize and enforce tribal
ownership. E.g., hunters or settlers (whether white or from other tribes)
on "their" land would be driven off. Nomadic and hunter/gatherer tribes do
not recognize individual ownership of land because they have no need for
it. Virtually all conflicts between whites and natives in N. America
resulted from trespasses by whites upon Indian lands or other resources.
As to the extent of native occupation, the most accurate picture is
the most complex one, i.e., different analyses apply in almost every
different case. In some places, land was seized by force, in others it
was bought or traded, in others it was unoccupied and unclaimed by
natives, and settlement was not opposed by nearby native groups. That was
the most common situation: there were only 500,000 - 800,000 Native
Americans in N. America north of Mexico, spread over 5 million square
miles. They claimed and used only a small fraction of that land, and the
earliest settlers in an area tended to settle where Indians would not
molest them.
There is no question that some land was seized from natives by force, or in
violation of treaties. Where tribes have been able to make a showing to that
effect, their claims are being recognized. The Coeur d'Alene Tribe in N.
Idaho last year was awarded sovereignty over the southern half of Lake Coeur
d'Alene --- a hugely popular and valuable piece of real estate. Northwest
tribes west of the Cascades have been awarded one-half of the annual
Columbia River salmon runs. In both cases the tribes were able to show that
whites violated treaties. I'm sure many similar claims remain to be filed.
More power to them.
> In any case, it didn't have to "belong" to them
> to be taken from them. Consider the parallel example of public
> streets: they don't "belong" to you, but if your right to use them was
> taken away from you by force, as the American aboriginals' rights to
> use the land was taken from them by force, you would certainly resent
> and resist the deprivation, as they did.
The park *does* belong to me. It is a jointly-owned property. So were many
N. American lands claimed and defended by natives.
You are assuming some kind of general collective ownership by Indians of the
entire continent. Such claims are vacuous, whether asserted by American
Indians or by a European explorer standing on a hilltop and claiming an
entire continent in the name of his King.
>>And although fee title to land in Hong Kong vests in the State (due to
>>the original treaty concluded by the British government), most of it is
>>held under long-term leases, and thus is privately controlled.
> But it is public land, not private property, which flat-out demolishes
> all your claims that private property in land is necessary to economic
> prosperity.
Hardly. It is public in name only.
> Please understand: your false claims have been refuted and demolished.
> You cannot rescue them, no matter how many lies you tell from this
> point on. And I guarantee you, the more you try, the more stupid and
> transparent your lies will become. That is the invariable pattern
> with all apologists for privilege and injustice.
LOL.
> No, but any wealth acquired other than in return for a commensurate
> contribution to production is unearned, by definition.
Production of what?
I'm afraid, sir, that you've assumed some sort of socialist conception of
economics, and thus arrived at a mistaken conception of property.
"Contributions to production" are irrelevant to the basis of property. A
person who produces or discovers things of value is not "contributing" to
anything. He is not a piston in a social machine, nor an enlistee in any
"social enterprise." He seeks wealth and produces goods to meet ends of his
own, not any "social goals" or collective ends. There are no such things. He
may cooperate with others to meet those ends, but the ends pursued are still
his own. He will cooperate with others to the extent that he and they can
reach mutually agreeable terms. But he is not motivated by their ends, nor
they his.
Of course, *if* he elects to cooperate with others in some mutually
advantageous endeavor, then he will be entitled to a share of the return.
But there is no way to measure the value of his "contribution to production"
except by examining the value he assigned to it and agreed to when joining
in the enterprise. Any other presumed measure would be gratuitous.
And in any case, property rights have nothing to do with any "contribution
to production." Property rights precede any cooperative productive endeavor.
Each contributor brings some assets to the endeavor; their rights to those
assets precede any cooperation, and in fact must be assumed by it.
> Only if by "returns to capital" you mean payments for contributions of
> capital to production. Most of what passes for "returns to capital"
> actually consists of economic rents, which are economically and
> morally equivalent to the returns "earned" by the bandits in the
> passes who exacted tolls from the merchant caravans passing through.
>
> How does a landowner "earn" the economic rent of the land he owns?
> The land was already there, ready to be used, with no help from him or
> any previous landowner. All the landowner does is extort a payment
> from the user in return for not forcibly preventing him from using
> what nature provided for free. The landowner's role is entirely
> parasitic.
Sorry, but the land was *not* ready to be used. Nor are any other natural
resources "ready to be used." They do not become "ready to be used" until
they are discovered, and in the case of most resources, recovered. An acre
of land, or a mineral deposit, only become "ready to be used" once they are
discovered, secured, land cleared and cultivated, or minerals located and
recovered from the earth. Every one of those steps requires an investment,
of either labor, capital, or both. That land and that resource then belongs
to those who made those investments, and not to anyone else.
Undiscovered, unrecovered resources are utterly worthless. There are no
doubt billions of barrels of oil in ocean-floor deposits, such as the Mars
field discovered by Shell Oil a few years ago. Suppose everyone has an equal
share to that undiscovererd, unrecovered oil. What would you pay for "my
share"?
Yet when someone makes those investments and discovers the next deposit, all
the free lunchers, who have invested nothing, will claim "their share" of
that "gift of Nature."
What nonsense. The Mars field is not a "gift of Nature." It is a gift from
Shell Oil.
>>There was no claim that property rights were a sufficient condition for
>>prosperity; only that they were a necessary condition.
> But I have already proved to you that private property rights in land
> are _not_ necessary for prosperity. You just refuse to know that
> fact, because it disproves your false beliefs.
>
> Prediction: you will continue to lie about the absence of private
> property in land in Hong Kong -- which until 1997, btw, was a world
> exemplar of freedom and prosperity.
Actually, the Beijing regime has tried not to upset the golden goose too
much.
But I didn't make that claim. You were responding there to Steve Campbell's
claim. And even he did not make the claim you are purporting to refute.
*My* claim was that property rights are necessary for prosperity. It was not
that fee-simple property rights in land are necessary to prosperity. There
are extensive property rights in land in Hong Kong. Leaseholds are
themselves property rights. The only difference between the situation in
Hong Kong and elsewhere is that the landlord is the State, and thus extracts
some rents from that land. That is perfectly acceptable in that case --- the
land was acquired from the Chinese government as a leasehold by the British
government. Upon expiration of that lease the land reverted to the fee
holder, namely, China. So it is now the landlord and collects the rents.
Like any prudent landlord it sets rents for maximum returns.
In the US fee simple title vested in the original settlers, as it should.
> LOL!! Too bad Morton's "property right by first possession" claim is
> not only flat wrong and indefensible but utterly irrelevant, as there
> is no plot of land anywhere in the world whose current possession can
> be shown to have derived from first possession and consensual
> transfers therefrom.
That isn't necessary. All that is necessary is to show that of two or more
claimants, one's claim is better than the others --- that his title claim is
better documented than the others. Breaks in title which may have occurred a
hundred generations in the past but cannot be substantiated are irrelevant.
Nor does the probability of such breaks create any basis for a title claim
by anyone now living, and certainly not for "the public." Title disputes are
settled on the basis of the best available evidence. And there is no
evidence at all, in most cases, for claims asserted on behalf of "the
public."
> Morton's claim that a property right derived
> from first possession of natural resources does not injure anyone else
> is likewise clearly flat false: at a minimum, it deprives others of
> their rights to use what is being appropriated, extinguishing rights
> which they previously enjoyed.
Sorry, but you didn't read carefully. They previously enjoyed no such
rights, because the resources (like the Mars oil field) were not known to
exist. They benfited no one.
You may be confusing discovery of an unknown resource with unilateral
appropriation of a common resource. If a tribe has been using a certain
water hole in common for generations (or in fact at all), and then one
member builds a fence around it and attempts to charge admission, he is a
thief. He is stealing a common resource already known to and in use by many
others. On the other hand, if he discovers a new water hole some distance
away, which perhaps offers some amenities (shade trees, fruit trees, etc.)
and charges for access to that, he is well within his rights. That water
hole is his property; it is not tribal property.
> Rightful property can only be founded on an act of production, never
> an act of forcible appropriation, no matter how "first" that act of
> appropriation might be, because only _production_ results in property
> that does not deprive others of access to what they would otherwise
> have been free to use.
As I said, you did not read carefully enough. There is no force involved in
discovery or appropriation of a new resource, any more than there is force
involved in making a spear. Force only appears when free-lunchers appear and
begin asserting gratuitous claims.
> A greedy, unscrupulous parasite and apologist for parasites -- let us
> call him "Publius," for that is indeed his name -- comes upon a spring
> in the desert that has never been possessed by anyone. He claims it
> as his property, according to the magical Morton-Publius spell for
> conjuring property rights out of thin air.
Thin air? Oh, the "labor" thing. Let's see about that . . .
> Shortly thereafter, a man
> stumbles in from the desert, dying of thirst. Seeing the spring, he
> stoops to drink the water that nature provided for free (and that,
> contrary to your filthy, evil lies, no one ever had to invest anything
> to make useful), when he hears the sound of a revolver being cocked
> behind his ear, and a quiet, sibilant voice says, "Uh-uh. I know what
> you're thinkin'. You're thinkin', 'Will he charge me six years' labor
> for a sip of water, or only five?'
Well, if he did that, Publius would be a very nasty fellow. But let's assume
your "labor theory" and suppose that the discoverer of the spring had
discovered it only after extensive study of the geology of the area, months
of exploring, and some minor excavation. He believes the spring will serve
as the anchor of a desert inn, though he has not built it yet.
Or alternatively, instead of discovering a spring, suppose Publius is a
water hauler. He buys water at one large oasis and hauls it in his tanker to
several remote desert villages, where he sells it to the villagers.
So now, in both scenarios, Publius has invested both labor and capital in
his water source. Hence he unquestionably has a property right in his
water --- correct?
Now comes the traveler dying of thirst, and has no money. If Publius refuses
to allow him to drink, is he any less evil than in the original scenario?
If he is equally evil in all three scenarios, then having invested labor
doesn't seem to make any difference, does it?
> Publius then invents
> and builds a machine that compresses and stores air. Fast. And for
> $50G, it's a big machine. He turns his machine on, thereby obtaining
> the sacred "first possession" of the air it stores. By and by his
> machine has compressed and stored so much air that the atmosphere
> begins to get noticeably thinner.
I suspect that, if you try, you can handle that one yourself.
>>Whatever it provides requires an
>>investment of labor or capital or both to be rendered useful.
>
> No, that is just another lie, as proved above. Both the spring water
> and the air were perfectly useful with no investment whatever.
How is an unknown, buried spring useful? Useful to whom? And as I said, I'll
leave the air scenario for your reflection.
> If you are walking through a natural forest, and come upon an apple
> tree, and pick an apple therefrom, you have made no investment to make
> the tree useful: it was useful before you even existed.
Not if its existence was unknown. In that case it benefited no one.
>> I suspect you are relying there on another myth --- the myth of a
>> "primordial common ownership" of the Earth and its resources.
>
> No, I am relying on the natural human rights to life and liberty whose
> wholesale violation for the unearned profit of the privileged you are
> intent on justifying and rationalizing.
You natural right to life does not entail a right to resources other people
have discovered or produced. Nor does your right to liberty entail a right
to use other people's property. And the way we decide which property
belongs to whom is via the first possession rule.
>> It is not in the public domain
>> until and unless its creator places it there.
>
> Which he does as soon as he discloses it.
>
>>It may be "actually" in public
>>*hands* -- but, like any other property, it may have arrived there
>>either with the owner's permission, or because it was stolen.
>
> There is no rightful owner of the public domain to give any
> "permission," and it could not have been stolen because the creator
> still has it.
Here is some more reading for you:
http://www.newliberalreview.com/jeffip0.htm
>>All property rights confer monopolies over the owned property.
>
> Nope. That is simply not what the word, "monopoly" means. A monopoly
> is a single provider of _all_ of a product whose specific examples are
> ready substitutes for each other. Thus, a monopoly on steel is not
> obtained by having some steel to sell, but by being the _only_
> provider of steel.
Holding a monopoly over all the steel it produces does not give the
manufacturer a destructive monopoly. Nor is Microsoft's monopoly over code
it produced a destructive monopoly. If you don't wanna pay Microsoft you can
write your own code. MS will have no claim on that.
> Nope. Flat wrong. The M$ monopoly privileges prevent people from
> improving on M$ products and selling the improved products at lower
> prices for the benefit of consumers.
Not at all. People can make any improvements they like, as long as their
product is all original code.
>>False. Patents do not protect "ideas;" they protect inventions.
>
> Bull$#!+. The _fact_ of the matter is that when Bell got a patent on
> the telephone, Elisha Gray's telephone, which WAS NOT THE SAME
> INVENTION as Bell's, was deemed a violation of the Bell patent. Bell
> became rich because he obtained a government-issued and -enforced
> monopoly privilege over the _idea_ of the telephone, not just his own
> implementation of it.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisha_Gray_and_Alexander_Bell_Controversy
I'll leave that one aside. How patents should work in principle and how they
work in practice are two different issues. I'd concede that latter leaves
something to be desired.
> ?? Do you think natural resources suddenly pop into existence when
> people appropriate them as private property?
If they discovered them, that is exactly what they do. They pop into
*economic* existence. And that's what counts.
ro...@telus.net
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 12:51:57 -0700, "Publius"
<m.pu...@nospam.comcast.net> wrote:
><ro...@telus.net> wrote in message news:46297189...@news.telus.net...
>
>>>You fail to distinguish between property *claims* and property *rights*.
>
>> Garbage. People can claim whatever they like. The relevant
>> distinction is between _legal_ property rights -- such as the legal
>> right to own slaves, natural resources, or intellectual property
>> monopolies -- and _rightful_ property rights in products of labor.
>
>Well, you have that half right. At least you understand the distinction
>between legal and natural rights. Not everyone here does.
>
>But you can't draw the distinction with the term "rightful property
>rights," since that is question-begging.
OK, call them "property rights that are consistent with equal human
rights to life and liberty."
>You'll need to provide some
>criterion of "rightfulness." HINT: "Labor" is not it.
HINT: I have already proved to you that it is. The only way to obtain
a property right that does not deprive others of their rights is by
_adding_ property -- products of labor -- that they did not previously
have a right to use because it did not exist. That takes labor. A
property right that consists of depriving others of their rights
without compensation, such as private property in natural resources,
can never be rightful because it is inherently criminal.
You stand refuted.
>At least, not as
>that term is ordinarily understood. There is no correlation between the
>values of property and their labor investment.
That is irrelevant, because value has nothing to do with it. You are
simply trying to deflect attention from the facts with a strawman
argument by falsely claiming that my argument is derived from the
Labor Theory of Value. It is not. So kindly stop lying about what I
have plainly written.
>Nor is any labor at all
>required to establish a right,
See above for the proof that it is.
>unless you wish to count the mere labor of
>taking possession.
That is not labor. Labor is defined as productive human effort.
Appropriating for oneself what already existed (and which others
consequently have just as much right to as you) is not productive.
>If a diamond-laden meteorite lands in your backyard it
>is your property, every carat of it.
Perhaps legally (though even that is questionable) but certainly not
rightfully, any more than the land itself is rightfully your property.
You again stand refuted.
>The only labor you need invest is
>picking it up and carrying it to the diamond wholesaler.
That is, of course, labor. Thank you for providing additional proof
that I am indeed completely correct and you are totally wrong.
>Likewise if you find a $100 bill on the sidewalk.
No. That is a completely different case, as the money was previously
someone else's and the meteorite was not.
You clearly have not the slightest understanding of the relevant
philosophical issues, and have cobbled together your "arguments" based
on an uncritical immersion in philosophically and economically
illiterate feudal libertarian websites like New Liberal Review.
>Since that item had to have been owned
>by someone else, you cannot be the first possessor. Hence you have a duty
>to try to locate its prior owner, if that's possible.
No, you have no such duty. The money is simply not yours. If you
pick it up and keep it, you are a thief.
>If it's not possible
>the $100 is your property, and the only labor you've invested is picking
>it up.
The $100 is not your rightful property, and does not become your legal
property unless you turn it in to the authorities and it remains
unclaimed for some time. In any case, there is no labor involved, as
the money already existed and you have produced nothing.
>In fact, property rights have been recognized to all kinds of property,
>since time immemorial, without any consideration of labor investment ---
That is simply another flat-out lie. Forcible appropriation (the only
alternative to labor investment) has almost never been recognized as a
source of rightful property -- other than by the appropriators
themselves, that is.
>except, of course, the "labor" of taking possession and asserting the
>claim.
As I already proved to you above, the effort expended by a thief in
appropriating what is not rightfully his is not labor, as it is not
productive.
>Labor investments bear on property rights only to the extent that they
>evidence first possession.
Lie. As usual, you have it exactly backwards: first possession only
bears on property rights to the extent that it evidences investment of
labor (most particularly the labor of bringing the property into
existence). First possession only has any bearing whatever on
property rights when it results in a _product_ that inherently first
appears in the producer's hands.
You are again utterly refuted, as has happened with every substantive
claim you have essayed in this discussion to date. Every single one.
>E.g., the labor you invest in making a spear is
>evidence of your first possession of the spear.
No, you have it backwards again. The labor is the proof that you have
_contributed_ the spear to the sum of what exists, rather than just
_appropriating_ it from others as a common thief would do.
>By making it, you are its first possessor.
You incidentally become its first possessor in the course of making
it. The latter, not the former, is the basis of your rightful
property in the spear, because that is what ensures your property in
it does not violate anyone else's rights. Conspicuously _un_like
initial appropriation of natural resources.
>But there was no labor investment in the stick from which
>you made the spear, or the flint from which you made the point.
They started as natural resources to which everyone had just as much
right as you. Correct.
>Those became your property the moment you picked them up.
Yes, when you removed them from nature and made them into a product by
your investment of labor -- _assuming_ they were not so scarce that
your use of them deprived others of equivalent spear-making
opportunities. Correct.
It is trivially easy to prove beyond any possibility of dispute that
your notion of property rights deriving from first possession has
never been anything but a feudal libertarian lie. If a man shoots a
wild animal but another man is closer when it falls, the other man
cannot go and claim it by first possession. It is former man's the
labor of killing the animal, not the latter's of grabbing it first,
that confers a genuine property right in the quarry. This simple
example proves that first possession is never even a relevant
criterion in determining rightful ownership. The contribution of
labor to the property's production is therefore the relevant
criterion.
>Prior to that moment
>they were no one's property, and you need not obtain anyone's permission
>to pick them up. They were *res nullius*.
Not quite. As natural resources they were indeed no one's property
(you might want to think about that fact, and see if you can't bring
yourself to know it), but if they were so scarce that your use of them
deprived others of their equivalent rights, you owe them just
compensation for that deprivation.
This fact is self-evident and indisputable, although you have decided
not to know it because it disproves your false beliefs. Read and
learn: a dozen men are shipwrecked on an island, and the only thing
there that they can eat are coconuts. But the coconuts are up in the
trees, out of reach, and none of the men can climb any of the trees.
They look around for a stick to knock the coconuts down, and by and
by, one of them finds the only stick on the island long and strong
enough to do the job. Do you think the other eleven men would grant
the lucky finder property in the stick, and the effective monopoly of
their food supply? Please try not to be so stupid. Of course they
would not, and they have no reason to. He did not create the stick,
and they all have equal rights to use it. His discovery of it gets
him first use, and that's all. When he's got his coconut, he yields
the stick to the next man; none of them for one second imagines the
stick is the discoverer's property; and any attempt by the discoverer
to assert a bogus property right in the stick would very likely get
him killed with it. First possession is
_*always*_absolutely_irrelevant_ in determining property rights.
You stand refuted. As usual.
>>>All rights are property rights.
>
>> That is nothing but propertarian nonsense. How is your right to vote
>> a property right?
>
>Now, now. We are speaking of natural rights here, not legal rights.
>"Rightful" rights, remember? The basis of a legal right, such as the right
>to vote, is a decree of a lawgiver, nothing more or less.
The equal right to influence collective decisions that apply equally
to all -- e.g., the right to speak at a community meeting -- is not
merely a legal right, and long antedates legal codes. Democracy
simply codifies a pre-existing right.
>They are not
>necessarily "rightful" nor rational, and often neither. If there is a
>statute declaring you have a legal right to vote, then you do, just as if
>there is a statute declaring you have a legal right to enslave others,
>then you do.
People have long had a right to be heard in the community's councils
even in the absence of such statutes, as widely attested by
anthropologists.
>>> A right is relation between a person and some thing.
>
>> No, it isn't. It is a relation between a person and society that may
>> or may not involve a third object, which may or may not be a "thing."
>
>First, anything is a "thing," by definition.
Equivocation. Actions, qualities and relationships are not things and
thus cannot be property.
>Rights claims have the form,
>
>(1) R(P,x)
>
>meaning, "P has a right to x." The only constraints on x are that it have
>some value to P and cannot be another agent, Q.
Where do these constraints come from? You are apparently just makin'
$#!+ up again.
>It may be tangible or
>intangible, concrete or abstract. The only relation to "society" involved
>is that the meanings of those terms, and the truth conditions for
>propositions like (1), must be public, like the meanings and truth
>conditions of all objective propositions.
No. Rights only have meaning in a social context. The _content_ of
"P has a right to x" is that society recognizes an obligation on the
part of others not to interfere with P's enjoyment of x and to
restrain any who do not recognize that obligation so that P _can_
enjoy x.
>Rights claims also *presume* a
>social context --- that is, that there are other agents about who may also
>value x and hence might challenge P's claim.
No. Society's role in P's right to x is much deeper and absolutely
crucial, as explained above, and implies recognition of an obligation
of non-interference on the part of others.
>The sole inhabitant of an
>island would have no reason to assert any rights claims.
Correct. Rights have meaning only in a social context, because they
can only be respected or violated by others.
>Otherwise, "society" (nor any other particular person) has no role in
>rights claims.
False, as proved above.
>There is no variable y for "society" in (1).
(1) is only defined at all in the domain of society (y).
>No relationship is presumed or required between either P or x and any y.
False. See above.
>If you wish to claim otherwise, perhaps you can give your formal analysis
>of rights claims and their truth conditions.
See above.
>>>A right is always *to* something; the property is whatever thing
>>>the right is *to*.
>
>> Utter drivel. A right *to* vote is not a property right in any sense
>> whatsoever. Your vote is not your property, and you do not own it.
>> Nor does the right "to" liberty mean that liberty is property of some
>> sort: you don't own it, can't sell it, etc. The attempt to redefine
>> all rights as property rights is a transparent attempt to make all
>> property rightful by definition.
>>
>> How is your right to breathe a property right?
>
>We already covered the right to vote. The "right to breathe," and all
>liberty rights, are derivatives of the right of self-ownership.
Garbage. The alleged "right of self-ownership" is merely another
attempt to recast all rights as property rights. But ownership is a
transitive relationship, not a reflexive one. People cannot own
themselves any more than they can marry themselves.
>If you own
>a car, then you have a right to the car. Having that right entails several
>powers over that car --- the power to drive it, sell it, loan it to
>someone, demolish it, operate a taxicab service with it, or just park it
>in your driveway and admire it. In short, having a right to the car
>entails exclusive control over the use of that car, and to any benefits it
>may afford. All of those may be called "rights," but they are only
>derivatives of the underlying right --- the right to the car.
>
>Liberty rights --- to free speech, freedom to travel, "right to breathe,"
>are of the same ilk.
No, they self-evidently and indisputably are not. The transitive
relationship "a owns b" is entirely different from a reflexive
relationship. There is in fact no relationship "a owns a." You are
simply trying to fabricate a reflexive ownership relationship that
would apply to no "a" but human beings. As human beings cannot
rightly own one another, it is self-evident that the reflexive
relationship you have fabricated is not the same as the transitive "a
owns b" relationship.
You stand refuted. Again.
>They are derivatives of your natural right to your
>own physical body, and to all the uses it may be put and benefits it may
>confer.
That is not ownership, because unlike the car, you cannot sell your
body.
You stand refuted. Repeatedly.
>Just as with your car, your right to it entails that you may do
>with it anything you please, provided you don't use it to violate others'
>rights.
But you can't, because you can't sell it.
You stand refuted. Inevitably.
>>>Most land in the US was not taken by force.
>
>> That is a flat-out lie. However, it is true that the US government
>> did not take most of it by force _directly_: it simply agreed to
>> recognize as rightful the forcible appropriations effected by others.
>>
>>>You are probably laboring under the myth that all land in the New World
>>>"belonged to the Indians."
>>
>> They certainly occupied and used most of it, though they did not
>> consider it ownable.
>
>Sorry, but that is empirically false, on both points.
No, it is a fact of objective reality, and provably so, and you are
simply a liar.
>Indians did consider land ownable.
Lie.
>Although most N. American tribes did not recognize
>*individual* ownership of land,
Your evidence that _any_ did....?
Thought not.
>they did recognize and enforce tribal ownership.
Nope. Flat, outright wrong. There is a difference between land
ownership and territoriality. Ownership is recognized and defended by
other parties than the owners, territorial possession only by the
owners. However, I am sure you refuse to know all such facts.
>E.g., hunters or settlers (whether white or from other tribes)
>on "their" land would be driven off.
Right. Which is what made it territoriality, not ownership.
Ownership implies an obligation and agreement on the part of others to
respect and secure the owner's rights. That did not exist wrt tribal
territories, which had to be forcibly defended by their claimants,
like the unowned territories of animals.
>Nomadic and hunter/gatherer tribes do
>not recognize individual ownership of land because they have no need for
>it.
But aren't you the same ignoramus who claimed that land was never
useful until someone appropriated it as their private property and
made an investment in it? What on earth were those hunter/gatherers
doing living on all that "useless" unowned land, hmmmmm?
ROTFL!!
>Virtually all conflicts between whites and natives in N. America
>resulted from trespasses by whites upon Indian lands or other resources.
Hehe. I thought you were the one claiming the whites obtained
rightful ownership through _first_ possession of the land. Now you
admit the whites invaded and stole "Indian lands."
You've just been busted, champ. Again.
>As to the extent of native occupation, the most accurate picture is
>the most complex one, i.e., different analyses apply in almost every
>different case. In some places, land was seized by force,
Almost always.
>in others it
>was bought or traded, in others it was unoccupied and unclaimed by
>natives, and settlement was not opposed by nearby native groups.
Initial settlement was often not opposed exactly _because_ the
aboriginals had no concept of land ownership. The natives didn't
realize the white settlers intended to keep them from _ever_ using
that land again. They assumed the white settlers understood that each
human being has an equal right to use natural resources. If they had
known the whites intended permanently to dispossess them of their
rights to life and liberty, they would quite rightly have slaughtered
every one of them, like poisonous snakes or any other deadly predator.
In some cases they appear to have figured it out and done just that,
if it wasn't too late.
>That was the most common situation:
Utter garbage.
>there were only 500,000 - 800,000 Native
>Americans in N. America north of Mexico, spread over 5 million square
>miles.
More utter garbage. The 500,000 estimate was produced by the US
Census Bureau in 1894, and is now considered a ridiculous
underestimate by all credible scholars. Here is a more informed
number:
"In the 1960s, a Berkeley geographer, Carl Sauer, cited evidence of a
1496 census that Columbus's brother Bartholomew ordered for tax
purposes on Hispaniola (now Haiti and the Dominican Republic). The
Spanish counted 1.1 million Indians. Since that sum covered only
Hispaniola's Spanish-controlled half and excluded children, Sauer
concluded that 3 million Indians once inhabited the island."
http://www.usna.edu/Users/history/kolp/HH345/PRE1492.HTM
And that was just one island. The native population north of the Rio
Grande in 1492 was at least an order of magnitude larger than your
claim, and maybe two orders.
>They claimed and used only a small fraction of that land, and the
>earliest settlers in an area tended to settle where Indians would not
>molest them.
More garbage. The natives used almost all the land the white settlers
appropriated. They just didn't use it intensively.
The settlers tended to settle where the soil looked most fertile,
where there was a good source of water, etc. IOW, just where native
populations were already living. They simply counted on superior
technology, firepower and divine intervention to overcome native
resistance to this forcible appropriation of land -- and though
generally successful in stealing the land, were sometimes rudely
awakened. The natives, OTOH, just assumed the whites had a right to
use the land, same as theirs. What they didn't understand was that
the settlers' intention was to violate the natives' _own_ rights to
use the land.
>> In any case, it didn't have to "belong" to them
>> to be taken from them. Consider the parallel example of public
>> streets: they don't "belong" to you, but if your right to use them was
>> taken away from you by force, as the American aboriginals' rights to
>> use the land was taken from them by force, you would certainly resent
>> and resist the deprivation, as they did.
>
>The park *does* belong to me.
As I predicted, your lies have merely become even stupider and more
transparent.
>It is a jointly-owned property.
And it therefore does _not_ belong to you but to the community.
>So were many N. American lands claimed and defended by natives.
The land was claimed and held as tribal territory by force and
sometimes custom or agreement. Not owned.
>You are assuming some kind of general collective ownership by Indians of the
>entire continent.
Lie. I am identifying the fact that the natives' pre-existing rights
to use and occupy the land were unilaterally violated, by force, when
invaders from Europe appropriated the land as private property.
>Such claims are vacuous, whether asserted by American
>Indians or by a European explorer standing on a hilltop and claiming an
>entire continent in the name of his King.
Bingo. Ergo, first appropriation confers no valid ownership rights
whatever.
>>>And although fee title to land in Hong Kong vests in the State (due to
>>>the original treaty concluded by the British government), most of it is
>>>held under long-term leases, and thus is privately controlled.
>
>> But it is public land, not private property, which flat-out demolishes
>> all your claims that private property in land is necessary to economic
>> prosperity.
>
>Hardly. It is public in name only.
It is public in fact, liar, and privately held by leasehold only.
>> Please understand: your false claims have been refuted and demolished.
>> You cannot rescue them, no matter how many lies you tell from this
>> point on. And I guarantee you, the more you try, the more stupid and
>> transparent your lies will become. That is the invariable pattern
>> with all apologists for privilege and injustice.
>
>LOL.
Hehe. See the proof that I was right above and below.
>> No, but any wealth acquired other than in return for a commensurate
>> contribution to production is unearned, by definition.
>
>Production of what?
Goods and services.
>I'm afraid, sir, that you've assumed some sort of socialist conception of
>economics, and thus arrived at a mistaken conception of property.
<yawn> I'm afraid, sir, that you are a lying fool who, whenever he
realizes he has no argument (which is always), resorts to strawmen,
name calling, and/or prevarication.
>"Contributions to production" are irrelevant to the basis of property.
No, they are fundamental to rightful property, because they are the
only consistently defensible basis of property. Only by contributing
to production can one obtain property that does not consist in
depriving others of rights they would otherwise have had.
>A person who produces or discovers things of value is not "contributing" to
>anything.
To claim that the producer contributes nothing is, as I predicted, a
lie even stupider and more transparent than the lies you told in your
previous post. And the discoverer contributes knowledge, which may
have no economic value but is certainly a contribution.
>He is not a piston in a social machine, nor an enlistee in any
>"social enterprise."
He is, though, the contributor of what he produces to the sum of what
exists.
>He seeks wealth and produces goods to meet ends of his
>own, not any "social goals" or collective ends.
And where did I talk about social goals or collective ends? His right
of ownership derives from the fact that he has added something to what
exists, and not merely appropriated from others what already existed.
>There are no such things. He
>may cooperate with others to meet those ends, but the ends pursued are still
>his own. He will cooperate with others to the extent that he and they can
>reach mutually agreeable terms. But he is not motivated by their ends, nor
>they his.
Thanks for the irrelevancies. Too bad they have no bearing on the
facts I have identified. Sorry, but you are not going to get away
with that strawman, any more than I have allowed you to get away with
all your previous strawmen.
>Of course, *if* he elects to cooperate with others in some mutually
>advantageous endeavor, then he will be entitled to a share of the return.
He is entitled to own what he produces and whatever he can
consensually trade it for. But there is no way natural resources can
be produced by human labor, and thus no way for them ever to become
rightfully owned in the first place. The only possible meaning of
"first possession" is "stealers keepers."
>But there is no way to measure the value of his "contribution to production"
>except by examining the value he assigned to it and agreed to when joining
>in the enterprise. Any other presumed measure would be gratuitous.
The market _measures_ the value of his product; but he _creates_ it.
>And in any case, property rights have nothing to do with any "contribution
>to production."
Liar. You know perfectly well that they do. Genuine property rights
are founded on nothing else, and that has in fact been widely known
for many millennia. Just not by thieves and their apologists.
>Property rights precede any cooperative productive endeavor.
First of all, that is another lie: even ants can cooperate in
productive endeavors, and they certainly do not recognize property
rights. Secondly, cooperation has nothing whatever to do with it.
Production confers the right to own the product, because that right
deprives no one else of what they would otherwise have had, but
denying it would deprive the producer of what _he_ would otherwise
have had. That is the defining quality of what people have a right
to: what they would otherwise have had.
>Each contributor brings some assets to the endeavor;
Labor is not an asset.
>their rights to those
>assets precede any cooperation, and in fact must be assumed by it.
And the natural resource owner by definition brings nothing whatever
to the endeavor, because the resources were already there, ready to
use, before any human being even existed.
>> Only if by "returns to capital" you mean payments for contributions of
>> capital to production. Most of what passes for "returns to capital"
>> actually consists of economic rents, which are economically and
>> morally equivalent to the returns "earned" by the bandits in the
>> passes who exacted tolls from the merchant caravans passing through.
>>
>> How does a landowner "earn" the economic rent of the land he owns?
>> The land was already there, ready to be used, with no help from him or
>> any previous landowner. All the landowner does is extort a payment
>> from the user in return for not forcibly preventing him from using
>> what nature provided for free. The landowner's role is entirely
>> parasitic.
>
>Sorry, but the land was *not* ready to be used.
Sorry, but yes, of course it was. How could anyone ever start to use
it if it was not ready to be used? And what on earth has the
landowner done to make it more ready to be used that would justify
payment of the rent to him? All he does is extort rent from those who
_are_ ready to use it in return for not stopping them from using it.
As I predicted, your lies are merely becoming stupider and more
transparent.
>Nor are any other natural resources "ready to be used."
They all are, liar. Obviously, self-evidently, and indisputably. It
is merely _people_ who may not yet be ready to use _them_.
>They do not become "ready to be used" until they are discovered,
Lie. Discovery merely makes someone ready to use the resources. It
affects the state of the discoverer's knowledge, not the condition of
the resource.
>and in the case of most resources, recovered.
Flat false. How could a resource be recovered if it was not first
ready to be used to create the product (the recovered resource)?
>An acre
>of land, or a mineral deposit, only become "ready to be used" once they are
>discovered, secured,
Garbage. They are only _worth_ securing if they are _already_useful_,
and discovery alters their condition not one whit. Discovery readies
the potential user, not the resource, and thus earns absolutely no
property right in the resource. As I proved above, by the example of
the coconut stick, the discoverer of a natural resource gets nothing
but the first turn using it, until others learn of it. After that,
it's someone else's turn.
>land cleared and cultivated, or minerals located and
>recovered from the earth.
More of the same stupid, transparent lies. Who would clear and
cultivate useless land, or recover useless minerals? If the land and
minerals were not already useful before being used, why would anyone
choose to use _them_ rather than all the land and minerals that remain
_un_used? The self-evident and indisputable _fact_ of objective
reality is that people only _choose_ to use particular natural
resources because they are _already_ more useful than all the other
resources they don't use.
Your claims are thus proved to be false and nonsensical. As usual.
>Every one of those steps requires an investment,
>of either labor, capital, or both.
Refuted above. No one will make such an investment in a useless
resource, only in a resource that they are convinced is _already_
useful. That is why they choose to invest in that resource rather
than in all the other unused resources. You are just spouting
stupider and more transparent lies, now, exactly as I predicted you
would.
>That land and that resource then belongs
>to those who made those investments, and not to anyone else.
That is nothing but another ridiculous, evil lie, with zero (0)
factual or logical support. We already know that principle is false
and indefensible, because it implies the rightfulness of Dirty
Publius's self-evidently evil, criminal behavior at the water hole,
and with his air-compressing machine.
>Undiscovered, unrecovered resources are utterly worthless.
ROTFL!! That must be why oil companies pay millions of dollars for
exploration licenses where no resources have yet been discovered!
You poor, stupid, lying idiot.
>There are no
>doubt billions of barrels of oil in ocean-floor deposits,
?? Oh, but how could there be? You think natural resources don't
even exist until they are discovered!
ROTFL!!
>such as the Mars
>field discovered by Shell Oil a few years ago. Suppose everyone has an equal
>share to that undiscovererd, unrecovered oil.
Which they do.
>What would you pay for "my share"?
Your equal right to use what nature provided to all is not rightly
salable for any sum, any more than your right to vote or breathe is.
But I'll tell you what: if you were legally empowered to sell your
share of all the world's undiscovered resources, I'd give you quite a
lot for it.
>Yet when someone makes those investments and discovers the next deposit, all
>the free lunchers, who have invested nothing,
That is another lie. Those who do not do the drilling have
nevertheless invested something in the exploration: they have
consented to hold in abeyance their own rights to drill there, in
return for equal compensation for any depletion of the resource -- to
which they have equal rights with everyone else. That is why
exploration licenses are put out to bid, and why Alaska sends oil
royalty dividend cheques to all its adult citizens.
>will claim "their share" of that "gift of Nature."
Which they have a perfect right to, just as we have a right to drink
the spring water and breathe the air that Dirty Publius wants to
appropriate by force and then charge us for.
>What nonsense. The Mars field is not a "gift of Nature." It is a gift from
>Shell Oil.
??? ROTFL!!!! I told you your lies wou8ld only become stupider and
more transparent, but you wouldn't believe me; noooooo....
_You_ are the only one who is spouting nonsense here, Publius, and it
is self-evidently, provably, and indisputably nonsense. The Mars
Field was there before Shell Oil ever existed, and if Shell had not
discovered it, someone else eventually would have. That is absolutely
certain, and it is very unlikely that it would have taken that someone
more than a few years longer than it took Shell. The Mars Field
existed, ready to be used, Shell Oil or no Shell Oil. That is simply
an objective fact of physical reality.
And that hard, stubborn, indisputable fact brings your whole house of
cards crashing to the ground. Shell Oil contributed exactly _nothing_
to the Mars Field. All it did was insert itself as the owner of what
was already there.
In point of fact, therefore, the Mars Field is a gift from the
community _to_ Shell Oil, not _from_ Shell Oil. You have got it
exactly backwards, as usual, and have consequently now been destroyed.
>>>There was no claim that property rights were a sufficient condition for
>>>prosperity; only that they were a necessary condition.
>
>> But I have already proved to you that private property rights in land
>> are _not_ necessary for prosperity. You just refuse to know that
>> fact, because it disproves your false beliefs.
>>
>> Prediction: you will continue to lie about the absence of private
>> property in land in Hong Kong -- which until 1997, btw, was a world
>> exemplar of freedom and prosperity.
>
>Actually, the Beijing regime has tried not to upset the golden goose too
>much.
Yes, and HK is still prosperous; but it is no longer a bastion of
freedom.
>But I didn't make that claim. You were responding there to Steve Campbell's
>claim. And even he did not make the claim you are purporting to refute.
>
>*My* claim was that property rights are necessary for prosperity.
But that claim, which is not controversial and with which I agree
completely, won't do the work you want it to do of justifying
privilege and injustice that happen to take the form of wrongful
property rights in natural resources, monopoly privileges, etc.
You see, I know that your aim here is to make a dishonest and
fallacious argument in order to rationalize privilege and justify
injustice, because you have carefully avoided distinguishing between
rightful and wrongful property rights. You are trying to piggyback
wrongful property in natural resources and monopoly privileges on the
necessity of rightful property in products of labor to prosperity.
In fact, not _all_ property rights are necessary to prosperity. Only
property rights that encourage production are. Fabricating property
rights in natural resources cannot encourage production because they
reward their holder for making no contribution to production. And
issuing monopoly privileges cannot encourage production, because they
directly _prevent_ production by potential competitors.
>It was not
>that fee-simple property rights in land are necessary to prosperity. There
>are extensive property rights in land in Hong Kong. Leaseholds are
>themselves property rights.
No, they are contract rights.
>The only difference between the situation in
>Hong Kong and elsewhere is that the landlord is the State, and thus extracts
>some rents from that land. That is perfectly acceptable in that case --- the
>land was acquired from the Chinese government as a leasehold by the British
>government. Upon expiration of that lease the land reverted to the fee
>holder, namely, China. So it is now the landlord and collects the rents.
>Like any prudent landlord it sets rents for maximum returns.
Actually, it doesn't, as the recent proliferation of Chinese real
estate billionaires proves, but we'll let that go.
>In the US fee simple title vested in the original settlers, as it should.
That is just another lie. They weren't the original settlers -- the
natives were -- and title should not have vested in them by any
consistently defensible account of property rights.
>> LOL!! Too bad Morton's "property right by first possession" claim is
>> not only flat wrong and indefensible but utterly irrelevant, as there
>> is no plot of land anywhere in the world whose current possession can
>> be shown to have derived from first possession and consensual
>> transfers therefrom.
>
>That isn't necessary.
Yes, actually, it is, if the first possession principle is going to
have any validity. So it doesn't.
>All that is necessary is to show that of two or more
>claimants, one's claim is better than the others --- that his title claim is
>better documented than the others.
What utter garbage. That simply shows who has the better paper trail,
same as the documentation of title to a slave. It does absolutely
nothing to show that such a paper trail confers any validity on the
title claim it documents. It couldn't matter less how many notarized
documents Dirty Publius flourishes before us to support his claims to
own the desert spring and the atmosphere. He's still just a
despicable, lying thief.
>Breaks in title which may have occurred a
>hundred generations in the past but cannot be substantiated are irrelevant.
Wrong again. They prove that the "first possession" argument has zero
(0) relevance, because all _current_ titles trace not to first
possession but to forcible _dis_possession. And any title founded on
nothing more than force is just as rightly overturned by force.
>Nor does the probability of such breaks create any basis for a title claim
>by anyone now living, and certainly not for "the public."
Wrong again. Everyone has an equal right to use what nature provided
equally to all, and the only way to secure that right is public
administration for the equal benefit of all. The public cannot
rightly _own_ natural resources any more than anyone else; but
government administers natural resources in trust for the public,
because that is the only way to secure and reconcile everyone's equal
rights to use them.
>Title disputes are
>settled on the basis of the best available evidence.
Just like disputes over title to a slave. Right. But that is mere
legal title, not rightful property, and the "best available evidence"
never even considers whether private property in the land is rightful
in the first place.
>And there is no
>evidence at all, in most cases, for claims asserted on behalf of "the
>public."
OTC, there is the self-evident and indisputable fact that private
titles all consist in nothing but the uncompensated violation of the
public's pre-existing rights to use the land.
>> Morton's claim that a property right derived
>> from first possession of natural resources does not injure anyone else
>> is likewise clearly flat false: at a minimum, it deprives others of
>> their rights to use what is being appropriated, extinguishing rights
>> which they previously enjoyed.
>
>Sorry, but you didn't read carefully.
Ah, sorry, but in fact I most certainly did, stupid, lying filth. It
is _you_ who have not _thought_ carefully.
>They previously enjoyed no such rights,
Yes, they most certainly did, lying filth, just as the guy in the
desert had the right to drink from the spring that Dirty Publius
appropriated.
>because the resources (like the Mars oil field) were not known to
>exist. They benfited no one.
Garbage. Even if that were not almost always false, which it
certainly is (almost all land has been well known and used long before
first being appropriated -- even many oil fields have been known since
ancient times through surface seeps), it would be irrelevant. Dirty
Publius can make the same argument when he appropriates the spring:
"It's not benefiting anyone," and likewise when he appropriates the
atmosphere: "The air my machine compressed was nowhere near those
Bolivians! It was benefitting no one, so I own it by right of first
possession!"
Whatever gave the appropriator a right to appropriate the resource
before it was known to exist gave the same right to everyone else.
Exercising that right "first" does not extinguish others' equal
rights. It gets you nothing but the first free turn, until others
exercise their rights, learn of the resource, and want their turns.
>You may be confusing discovery of an unknown resource with unilateral
>appropriation of a common resource.
No, you are confusing the discoverer's improvement of his own
knowledge with an improvement of the resource.
>If a tribe has been using a certain
>water hole in common for generations (or in fact at all), and then one
>member builds a fence around it and attempts to charge admission, he is a
>thief. He is stealing a common resource already known to and in use by many
>others. On the other hand, if he discovers a new water hole some distance
>away, which perhaps offers some amenities (shade trees, fruit trees, etc.)
>and charges for access to that, he is well within his rights.
No, he is not. He can use it himself all he wants, and keep it secret
as long as he can if he likes. But if he has a right to find and use
it, so does everyone else. He self-evidently has _no_right_whatever_
to stop them from doing what he himself claims a right to do.
>That water hole is his property; it is not tribal property.
No, it is most certainly _not_ his property, as he did not create it,
and granting it to him as property deprives everyone else of the
opportunity they would otherwise have enjoyed to do exactly what he
has done: find and use the resource. AFAIK, no society in the history
of the world has ever granted anyone private title to a natural
resource simply for discovering it. You are just spouting absolute
crap with not the slightest foundation in history, morality, economics
or logic.
>> Rightful property can only be founded on an act of production, never
>> an act of forcible appropriation, no matter how "first" that act of
>> appropriation might be, because only _production_ results in property
>> that does not deprive others of access to what they would otherwise
>> have been free to use.
>
>As I said, you did not read carefully enough.
And as _I_ said, yes, I most certainly did.
>There is no force involved in
>discovery or appropriation of a new resource, any more than there is force
>involved in making a spear.
That is simply a lie, as natural resources are there all by
themselves, ready to be used, with no help from any "discoverer" or
"appropriator." The spear, OTOH, is not. Appropriation of a natural
resource forcibly deprives others of opportunities they would
otherwise have enjoyed -- i.e., the exact same opportunity the
appropriator claims a right to enjoy -- which is by definition a
violation of their rights.
>Force only appears when free-lunchers appear and
>begin asserting gratuitous claims.
Heheh. You got that right. "Free-lunchers" would accurately describe
those who claim private ownership of natural resources based on
nothing but having appropriated them from everyone else "first," and
then presume to charge others a fee for access to what nature provided
to all of us free of charge.
>> A greedy, unscrupulous parasite and apologist for parasites -- let us
>> call him "Publius," for that is indeed his name -- comes upon a spring
>> in the desert that has never been possessed by anyone. He claims it
>> as his property, according to the magical Morton-Publius spell for
>> conjuring property rights out of thin air.
>
>Thin air? Oh, the "labor" thing.
Right. As opposed to the "grabbing" thing.
>Let's see about that . . .
Yes. Let's:
>> Shortly thereafter, a man
>> stumbles in from the desert, dying of thirst. Seeing the spring, he
>> stoops to drink the water that nature provided for free (and that,
>> contrary to your filthy, evil lies, no one ever had to invest anything
>> to make useful), when he hears the sound of a revolver being cocked
>> behind his ear, and a quiet, sibilant voice says, "Uh-uh. I know what
>> you're thinkin'. You're thinkin', 'Will he charge me six years' labor
>> for a sip of water, or only five?'
>
>Well, if he did that, Publius would be a very nasty fellow.
But according to you and Morton, within his rights.
>But let's assume
>your "labor theory" and suppose that the discoverer of the spring had
>discovered it only after extensive study of the geology of the area, months
>of exploring, and some minor excavation.
No, let's stick with the case as stated, as that is much more likely,
and is how almost all such discoveries have actually been made.
You see, if Dirty Publius had made an excavation, he would actually
have produced something -- an improvement to the resource -- that did
not exist before. That would give him a property right in his
product. But allow me to remind you that your claim is that his
production of such a product is irrelevant, and his property right in
the resource rests _exclusively_ on his having forcibly appropriated
the resource "first."
So no, I am not going to let you avoid being refuted by borrowing,
from my argument, the producer's legitimate right to property in the
product of his labor. You'll have to find some way to justify owning
natural resources purely on the grounds of having stolen them first.
And I'm guessing you can't.
>He believes the spring will serve
>as the anchor of a desert inn, though he has not built it yet.
>
>Or alternatively, instead of discovering a spring, suppose Publius is a
>water hauler. He buys water at one large oasis and hauls it in his tanker to
>several remote desert villages, where he sells it to the villagers.
But once he has removed the water from nature, it becomes a product of
his labor, and rightfully his property (though if the resource is
scarce, he may owe compensation to those whom he deprives of it). As
above, you are again trying to get out of having to defend your own
false and indefensible claims by dishonestly borrowing my
self-evidently true and indisputable ones.
>So now, in both scenarios, Publius has invested both labor and capital in
>his water source.
No, that is a lie. He invested no labor or capital in the initial
scenario. He simply did what you and Morton claim he has a right to
do: forcibly deprive others of access to a natural resource with no
justification other than doing it first.
>Hence he unquestionably has a property right in his
>water --- correct?
He only has a property right in the water he has hauled, not the water
that nature provides at the spring.
>Now comes the traveler dying of thirst, and has no money. If Publius refuses
>to allow him to drink, is he any less evil than in the original scenario?
Absolutely, just as a grocer has a right to refuse free food to a
starving man: he has his own livelihood to consider. Refusing the
traveler bottled water that _Publius_ provides is within Publius's
rights (though he would likely be willing to come to an arrangement --
why not?). Forcibly depriving another of access to what _nature_
provides, OTOH, is self-evidently evil and indefensible, and he has no
right whatever to do so. The two cases are worlds apart.
>If he is equally evil in all three scenarios, then having invested labor
>doesn't seem to make any difference, does it?
But he isn't. The only true evil is depriving the traveler, without
just compensation, of what he would otherwise have had: access to what
nature provided freely to all. That is definitively a violation of
his rights. Refusing him free bottled water is completely different,
because the water would not have been there if Publius had not brought
it. The spring water would.
You need to take a couple of months off work and try to think some of
these things through. It's not that hard, as long as you are willing
to know the self-evident and indisputable facts of objective reality
that prove your beliefs are false. But I'm betting you aren't.
>> Publius then invents
>> and builds a machine that compresses and stores air. Fast. And for
>> $50G, it's a big machine. He turns his machine on, thereby obtaining
>> the sacred "first possession" of the air it stores. By and by his
>> machine has compressed and stored so much air that the atmosphere
>> begins to get noticeably thinner.
>
>I suspect that, if you try, you can handle that one yourself.
ROTFL!! Yep. I already have: like the waterhole example, it
conclusively destroys your whole belief system, right down to the
ground.
>>>Whatever it provides requires an
>>>investment of labor or capital or both to be rendered useful.
>>
>> No, that is just another lie, as proved above. Both the spring water
>> and the air were perfectly useful with no investment whatever.
>
>How is an unknown, buried spring useful?
It's not buried, lying filth, nor is it unknown. It just hasn't yet
been stolen by a greedy, thieving parasite named Publius.
>Useful to whom?
To the guy who stumbles in from the desert dying of thirst, for one.
Duh. Whom do you think you are fooling?
>And as I said, I'll
>leave the air scenario for your reflection.
Hehe. I've already reflected on it plenty, thank you very much, and
so have much brighter apologists for privilege and injustice than you.
Don't worry: they had no answer to it, either.
But thanks for admitting that you know you have been conclusively
refuted, and have no arguments.
>> If you are walking through a natural forest, and come upon an apple
>> tree, and pick an apple therefrom, you have made no investment to make
>> the tree useful: it was useful before you even existed.
>
>Not if its existence was unknown.
?? Yes, of course it was, just as oxygen was useful for breathing and
vitamins useful for sustaining health long before their existence was
known. Even if people don't know about the apple tree, it may still
be useful to them: it may attract game animals to the area, for
example, or help sustain a colony of bees that pollinate the people's
gardens.
The fact is, the tree is what it is before and after being discovered.
Its discovery changes the discoverer, not the tree.
>In that case it benefited no one.
Things have to be useful _before_ they are actually used and benefit
anyone. Duh.
>>> I suspect you are relying there on another myth --- the myth of a
>>> "primordial common ownership" of the Earth and its resources.
>>
>> No, I am relying on the natural human rights to life and liberty whose
>> wholesale violation for the unearned profit of the privileged you are
>> intent on justifying and rationalizing.
>
>You natural right to life does not entail a right to resources other people
>have discovered or produced.
But of course, by definition, people do not produce natural resources,
lying filth.
You just lie and lie and lie.
And my natural right to life most certainly _does_ entail a right to
use resources other people have discovered, as the example of Dirty
Publius and the spring proves so irrefutably. People have always had
a right to breathe air, and that right was in no way impaired by the
fact that some chemist discovered oxygen or nitrogen, any more than it
would be compromised by Dirty Publius's air compressing machine.
If a discoverer has a right to find and use a natural resource, how
can others not have the same rights? How can his discovery or
appropriation of the resource extinguish their rights to do just
exactly as he claims a right to do?
Thought not.
>Nor does your right to liberty entail a right
>to use other people's property.
Correction: their _rightful_ property, which does not include any
natural resource unless they have justly compensated those whom they
deprive of it, nor anything in the public domain, as I have already
proved.
>And the way we decide which property
>belongs to whom is via the first possession rule.
Lie. That is merely how _you_ would prefer to decide it, because that
rule allows you to rationalize privilege and justify injustice.
People who are interested in liberty, justice and truth decide which
property belongs to whom via respect for equal human rights, not a
kindergartener's rule of "I saw it first!"
>>> It is not in the public domain
>>> until and unless its creator places it there.
>>
>> Which he does as soon as he discloses it.
>>
>>>It may be "actually" in public
>>>*hands* -- but, like any other property, it may have arrived there
>>>either with the owner's permission, or because it was stolen.
>>
>> There is no rightful owner of the public domain to give any
>> "permission," and it could not have been stolen because the creator
>> still has it.
>
>Here is some more reading for you:
>
>http://www.newliberalreview.com/jeffip0.htm
<yawn> I'd recommend some simple reading for you, if I thought there
was any possibility of you learning anything by it.
The author of that article is a fool with no more understanding of
property rights than your other stupid "authority," Morton, whom I
have already demolished. The first claim Idiot Boy makes in the above
article is the following:
"Now property, or a property right, is normally understood to entail
that its owner is entitled to any and all benefits or advantages
derivable or realizable from the item deemed to be his property."
But that claim, on which his whole argument rests, is just flat false
on its face as a matter of objective fact (and is -- surprise! -- far
from the only provably false claim he makes). If you own a house with
nice landscaping, others are perfectly entitled to the benefit of
looking at and enjoying that landscaping, and owe you nothing whatever
for the benefit they obtain therefrom.
So much for another of your idiotic appeals to the "authority" of
feudal libertarian nitwits.
>>>All property rights confer monopolies over the owned property.
>>
>> Nope. That is simply not what the word, "monopoly" means. A monopoly
>> is a single provider of _all_ of a product whose specific examples are
>> ready substitutes for each other. Thus, a monopoly on steel is not
>> obtained by having some steel to sell, but by being the _only_
>> provider of steel.
>
>Holding a monopoly over all the steel it produces
<sigh> I have already informed you that that is not what "monopoly"
means. Please stop lying.
>does not give the
>manufacturer a destructive monopoly.
Or any monopoly.
>Nor is Microsoft's monopoly over code
>it produced a destructive monopoly.
But Micro$oft doesn't just have a monopoly over code it produced. It
has a monopoly over code produced by others that is judged "too
similar" to what M$ produced.
>If you don't wanna pay Microsoft you can
>write your own code. MS will have no claim on that.
I don't want to write my own code, any more than I want to write my
own version of "Hamlet," or make up my own alphabet. Shakespeare's
version of "Hamlet" and the idiosyncratic Roman alphabet (imagine a
symbol system where numeral "one," lower-case "L" and upper-case "i"
all look the same!) are the standards society has arrived at, and
unfortunately so is M$'s crappy code. And as all three are in the
public domain, I have every right to use them as much as I please --
other than, in the case of M$, a legal one, of which I have been
arbitrarily deprived.
>> Nope. Flat wrong. The M$ monopoly privileges prevent people from
>> improving on M$ products and selling the improved products at lower
>> prices for the benefit of consumers.
>
>Not at all. People can make any improvements they like, as long as their
>product is all original code.
That's not an improvement, liar, that's a whole new product. And
there is not the slightest justification for denying people the right
to use whatever parts of M$'s code they find useful. It's in the
public domain every way but by arbitrary legal fiat.
>>>False. Patents do not protect "ideas;" they protect inventions.
>>
>> Bull$#!+. The _fact_ of the matter is that when Bell got a patent on
>> the telephone, Elisha Gray's telephone, which WAS NOT THE SAME
>> INVENTION as Bell's, was deemed a violation of the Bell patent. Bell
>> became rich because he obtained a government-issued and -enforced
>> monopoly privilege over the _idea_ of the telephone, not just his own
>> implementation of it.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisha_Gray_and_Alexander_Bell_Controversy
>
>I'll leave that one aside.
Of course. This time, you can't even think of a plausible lie.
>How patents should work in principle and how they
>work in practice are two different issues.
Agreed. In principle, they should not exist at all. 1000 years ago,
no one had even conceived that such a property "right" could exist.
>I'd concede that latter leaves something to be desired.
"Our system would work perfectly, if only people were not imperfect!"
Sound familiar?
>> ?? Do you think natural resources suddenly pop into existence when
>> people appropriate them as private property?
>
>If they discovered them, that is exactly what they do.
No, that is just another stupid and transparent lie.
You continue to pretend that initial appropriation of natural
resources is always effected by their discoverer, when in fact that
has almost never happened in the whole history of the world. And even
in the rare cases where that might occur, the only way discovery of a
resource can extinguish the rights of others to discover it for
themselves is if the discoverer places his knowledge of it in the
public domain, rendering discovery impossible.
>They pop into *economic* existence.
Garbage. Natural resources have rarely had any economic significance
on first being discovered. Their value comes later, after the
community creates opportunities to use them advantageously.
>And that's what counts.
What counts is that you continue to be conclusively refuted on every
substantive claim you make. Every single one.
-- Roy L
Publius
>>But you can't draw the distinction with the term "rightful property
>>rights," since that is question-begging.
>
> OK, call them "property rights that are consistent with equal human
> rights to life and liberty."
>
>>You'll need to provide some
>>criterion of "rightfulness." HINT: "Labor" is not it.
>
> HINT: I have already proved to you that it is. The only way to obtain
> a property right that does not deprive others of their rights is by
> _adding_ property -- products of labor -- that they did not previously
> have a right to use because it did not exist. That takes labor. A
> property right that consists of depriving others of their rights
> without compensation, such as private property in natural resources,
> can never be rightful because it is inherently criminal.
>
> You stand refuted.
Hm. You shall have to learn the meanings of "proof" and "refutation." A mere
denial of a proposition is not a disproof or refutation of it. Especially
when the denials are question begging, such as "depriving others of their
rights without compensation." If others have rights to the stick you used to
make the spear before you picked it up, you'll need to set forth the basis
of those alleged rights. You are apparently assuming the the "primordial
common ownership" thesis, which holds that all natural goods are originally
common property. There is no basis for such a claim (which, in fact, you
acknowledge below). And if the stick is no one's property, then no one has
any *rights* to it, since those two terms are correlative and in fact
interdefined.
(1) R(P,x) (P has a right to x) defines P as an *owner*, and x as
*property*.
Not only does a right not exist prior to first possession, neither does an
owner, or property.
Hence you can't argue that taking possession of unowned property deprives
others of their *rights*, since others have no rights to it at that point.
Or if they do, you'll need to explain where they got them. Note that
non-first-possessors lack such rights even by your own criterion, since they
have invested no labor in the stick either.
I gave you several examples of rights in property which would be generally
acknowledged but which involve no labor (other than the labor of taking
possession). Here are a few more:
1. "A woman has a right to her body." Obviously no woman produced her body
via her own labor. She is it's first possessor, however.
2. You win $1 million in a sweepstakes. Your name was drawn at random from
the phone book. The $1 million becomes your property upon your appearance at
the sweepstakes office and presenting ID. No labor involved, other than
taking possession.
3. You have a property right to anything given to you, provided the donor
himself had a right to it prior to making the gift. No labor required on
your part.
>>At least, not as
>>that term is ordinarily understood. There is no correlation between the
>>values of property and their labor investment.
> That is irrelevant, because value has nothing to do with it. You are
> simply trying to deflect attention from the facts with a strawman
> argument by falsely claiming that my argument is derived from the
> Labor Theory of Value. It is not. So kindly stop lying about what I
> have plainly written.
It is entirely relevant. But the relationship is not the one you assume. The
Labor Theory of Value derives from the Labor Theory of Property, as
mistakenly attributed to Locke, not the other way around. If property
originates in labor, then it is reasonable to conclude the value of property
should be proportional to labor. Which of course it isn't. But it is the
first premise, the Labor Theory of Property, which leads to that error.
There is no relationship between labor and the value of property because
there is no relationship between labor and property to begin with.
Considering the value of property also serves as an inductive check on the
Labor Theory of Property. It heads off attempts to tautologize the Labor
Theory of Property by counting any act by the agent, such as holding out
one's hand to receive a gift, as "labor."
>> unless you wish to count the mere labor of taking possession.
> That is not labor.
OK. At least we agree on that.
> Labor is defined as productive human effort.
Agree there also.
> Appropriating for oneself what already existed (and which others
> consequently have just as much right to as you) is not productive.
Ah, you are back in your circle. We are arguing about the basis for property
rights here, remember? If others have rights to what you have just first
possessed, you'll need to explain the basis/origin of those alleged rights.
You cannot blithely assume them.
Note also your formulation, "what already existed (and which others
consequently have just as much right to as you)." It is *not* a consequence
of the existence of x that anyone has a right to x. Neither you nor anyone
else has a right to x merely because x exists. That is, again, the
"primoridal common ownership" thesis, that everything that exists is owned
in common by all. Which is an utterly gratuitous and baseless claim.
Let me try to clear up your confusion. Prior to any takings of natural
goods, no one has any rights to any such goods. No property rights (in those
goods) exist. However, each person already has a property right in his own
body, being its first possessor. Being the owner of his own body, he has
entailed rights to use his body as he sees fit, including the right to
explore the Earth and take possession of any good x he desires, provided no
one else has already taken possession of x. (Perhaps I should explain what I
mean by "taking possession." P takes possession of x by placing himself in a
position to derive some use or benefit from x, and declares his intent to do
so. See the legal cite below).
What others have "just as much right as you" to do, of course, is to explore
the Earth themselves and take possession of any goods they desire, including
x. Their rights to do so are perfectly symmetrical with yours. But until a
taking of x occurs, *no one has any property right to x*. They all only have
an equal (liberty) right to take x, if they discover it and desire to
possess it. Until someone does that, no property right to x exists, and
hence the first possessor cannot possibly violate anyone's right to x.
You are confusing "the right to x" with "the right to take x." The latter
originates in your first possession of your own body. The former originates
in your first possession of x.
>>If a diamond-laden meteorite lands in your backyard it
>>is your property, every carat of it.
> Perhaps legally (though even that is questionable) but certainly not
> rightfully, any more than the land itself is rightfully your property.
"Rightfully"? Still in your circle, I see. If you think others have rights
to the meteorite (or the land), you'll need to explain the origin of those
rights. But I did not mean that one has only a legal right to the meteorite.
I meant that your right to the meteorite would be acknowledged wherever the
concept of property, as it has been generally understood in the West, is
understood. Few would challenge or dispute it.
It is also worth pointing out that the only "legal right" to the meteorite
would be a common-law right. Should anyone challenge your right to it in an
ordinary civil suit, they'd lose. First possession is the *sine qua non* for
resolving property disputes in common law.
>>The only labor you need invest is
>>picking it up and carrying it to the diamond wholesaler.
>
> That is, of course, labor. Thank you for providing additional proof
> that I am indeed completely correct and you are totally wrong.
Ah. Now you are trying to tautologize "labor." But above you agreed that
mere taking possession does *not* constitute "labor". So is it the labor of
carrying it to the wholesaler that vests your right? You have no right to
the meteorite until you arrive at the wholesaler's shop (having then
invested that labor)?
What if you don't carry it to the wholesaler, but instead summon him by
phone to your place to assay the meteorite. Is the phone call then the
crucial labor?
>>Likewise if you find a $100 bill on the sidewalk.
> No. That is a completely different case, as the money was previously
> someone else's and the meteorite was not.
Why does that matter? Are you arguing that labor is not required for found
manmade goods, but only for found natural goods?
> You clearly have not the slightest understanding of the relevant
> philosophical issues, and have cobbled together your "arguments" based
> on an uncritical immersion in philosophically and economically
> illiterate feudal libertarian websites like New Liberal Review.
Well, I'd be happy to hear what you think are the relevant philosophical
issues. So far you have only begged all the questions.
>>Since that item had to have been owned
>>by someone else, you cannot be the first possessor. Hence you have a
>>duty to try to locate its prior owner, if that's possible.
>
> No, you have no such duty. The money is simply not yours. If you
> pick it up and keep it, you are a thief.
>
>>If it's not possible
>>the $100 is your property, and the only labor you've invested is picking
>>it up.
>
> The $100 is not your rightful property, and does not become your legal
> property unless you turn it in to the authorities and it remains
> unclaimed for some time.
"Authorities"? Where do "authorities" enter the picture? Are you confusing
natural rights with legal rights again? Suppose there are no "authorities."
To make that more plausible, imagine that you have found a well-crafted
spear point instead of a $100 bill. I should think you have some duty to ask
around in your tribe to try to locate the previous owner. But you know that
many other tribes traverse the area from time to time, and that it would be
impossible to make inquiries among them, even if you could locate them (some
of them might kill you on sight). When no one in your tribe claims it, what
then?
> In any case, there is no labor involved, as
> the money already existed and you have produced nothing.
Perfectly true. So how do I gain the right to the spear point? Or don't I
have one? Does lost or abandoned property remain forever *res nullius*,
which can never become anyone else's property?
Your labor theory has a problem there, Roy. It can't account for property
rights in found, manmade goods (or indeed for any found goods). There is no
problem for first possession, however. Lost or abandoned goods revert to
*res nullius*, and first possession starts over. You're probably familiar
with the principle, which is all but universally accepted --- it's called
"finders keepers." That is just another term for the first possession
principle.
> That is simply another flat-out lie. Forcible appropriation (the only
> alternative to labor investment) has almost never been recognized as a
> source of rightful property -- other than by the appropriators
> themselves, that is.
Well, we've already covered that. There is no force involved in
appropriating a hitherto unknown, unused natural good. Against whom is force
applied?
You really need to answer that one, Roy. And be sure you don't confuse
*appropriating* the good with *defending* one's right to the good *after* it
has been appropriated. You need to show what force is exerted, and against
whom, in the act of *appropriating* the good. Especially given that in
typical cases there would be no one else around to be "forced." You are no
doubt confused there because you suppose others already have rights to that
good, and thus that defending an appropriated natural good entails force
against its other "owners." Which of course begs the question. Those others
have no right to that good (or at least none you have shown).
> As I already proved to you above, the effort expended by a thief in
> appropriating what is not rightfully his is not labor, as it is not
> productive.
Again I agree. But it is not the lack of productive labor which prevents the
thief from gaining a right to stolen goods. He fails to gain a right because
his acquisition does not comply with the first possession rule. The
recipient of a gift invests no productive labor either, but he *does* gain a
right. You need a theory which can account for that difference.
>>Labor investments bear on property rights only to the extent that they
>>evidence first possession.
>
> Lie. As usual, you have it exactly backwards: first possession only
> bears on property rights to the extent that it evidences investment of
> labor (most particularly the labor of bringing the property into
> existence). First possession only has any bearing whatever on
> property rights when it results in a _product_ that inherently first
> appears in the producer's hands.
Well, we've already looked at several cases where no labor is invested, yet
rights are not (generally) disputed. (You realize I have to insert
"generally" because someone will dispute anything).
>>E.g., the labor you invest in making a spear is
>>evidence of your first possession of the spear.
>
> No, you have it backwards again. The labor is the proof that you have
> _contributed_ the spear to the sum of what exists, rather than just
> _appropriating_ it from others as a common thief would do.
>
>>By making it, you are its first possessor.
>
> You incidentally become its first possessor in the course of making
> it. The latter, not the former, is the basis of your rightful
> property in the spear, because that is what ensures your property in
> it does not violate anyone else's rights. Conspicuously _un_like
> initial appropriation of natural resources.
You're still begging the question. Which rights of whom are violated? What
is their basis?
>>But there was no labor investment in the stick from which
>>you made the spear, or the flint from which you made the point.
> They started as natural resources to which everyone had just as much
> right as you. Correct.
And you are correct there also. Prior to an appropriation everyone has an
equal right to all natural resources. They are all equal in being zero.
Hence an act of first appropriation violates no one's rights.
As you can perhaps see, saying "everyone's rights to natural resources are
equal" doesn't get you anywhere. You also have to establish that some or all
of them have some positive right. Which you have so far failed to do.
>>Those became your property the moment you picked them up.
> Yes, when you removed them from nature and made them into a product by
> your investment of labor -- _assuming_ they were not so scarce that
> your use of them deprived others of equivalent spear-making
> opportunities. Correct.
Well, we were discussing the stick and the stone prior to their being
fashioned into a spear. You may not make a spear with them until next week.
May anyone take them from you in the meantime?
But I also see Locke's "enough and as good" proviso lurking in there. That
leads to a *reductio ad absurdum*. Here is the argument:
1. Everyone has an equal right to appropriate any unowned natural good x1.
2. No given person A may appropriate x1 unless "enough and as good," e.g.,
an x2, is left for the next person, B, who may come along and wish to
appropriate an x.
3. But B may not appropriate x2 unless there is an x3 left for C to
appropriate, and so on.
4. But unless the supply of x is sufficient for everyone, now and in the
future, to appropriate an x, then someone N will be left with the last x,
and thus may not take it (since the "proviso" would then be violated).
5. Hence the person preceding N may not take an x either, since N would then
be left only with a share he cannot take.
6. And so on back to x1.
Thus no one may appropriate any natural good unless he can assure that the
supply will be sufficient for all future demand. And since no one can assure
that, everyone starves in the midst of plenty.
Very simply, the first person A has no duty, and cannot have a duty, to
assure that the supply of x will be sufficient for B and all his successors.
B and the successors have no right to an x2, or to any x. The only rights
they have are to appropriate whatever x's there may happen to be.
But perhaps you think A does have some such duty. You'll have to explain the
origin of that duty (which will turn out to be equivalent to justifying the
claim that B has a right to an x2).
It is perfectly true that appropriation by any agent of any good x
forecloses the opportunity to appropriate that x to all other agents. If 100
explorers are searching for the Holy Grail, then when one of them finds it,
the opportunity to find it is foreclosed to the other 99. And that is
perfectly acceptable, since none of the 100 has any duty to guarantee
opportunities for the other 99.
Of course, if you disagree, then you'll need to supply some argument
(non-question-begging) for that presumed duty.
> It is trivially easy to prove beyond any possibility of dispute that
> your notion of property rights deriving from first possession has
> never been anything but a feudal libertarian lie. If a man shoots a
> wild animal but another man is closer when it falls, the other man
> cannot go and claim it by first possession. It is former man's the
> labor of killing the animal, not the latter's of grabbing it first,
> that confers a genuine property right in the quarry. This simple
> example proves that first possession is never even a relevant
> criterion in determining rightful ownership. The contribution of
> labor to the property's production is therefore the relevant
> criterion.
That question was actually addressed in a classic case, Pierson v. Post
(1805). But the question is not one of labor v. possession, but of what
constitutes possession. The court ruled in Pierson that whoever kills the
animal has taken possession.
"Consider Pierson v. Post, a classic wild animal case from the early
nineteenth century. Post was hunting a fox one day on an abandoned beach and
almost had the beast in his gunsight when an interloper appeared, killed the
fox, and ran off with the carcass. The indignant Post sued the interloper
for the value of the fox on the theory that his pursuit of the fox had
established his property right to it.
"The court disagreed. It cited a long list of learned authorities to the
effect that "occupancy" or "possession" went to the one who killed the
animal, or who at least wounded it mortally or caught it in a net. These
acts brought the animal within the 'certain control' that gives rise to
possession and hence a claim to ownership."
---Perspectives on Property Law, 2nd Edition, Ellickson, Rose, Ackerman
(181-189).
http://www.kentlaw.edu/classes/kbaker/property/Possession.htm
There is no consideration of the relative amounts of labor invested. The
labor invested by the first hunter probably well exceeded that invested by
the interloper. Nonetheless, he had not taken possession.
They also state, "For the common law, possession or 'occupancy' is the
origin of property."
Lunchtime, sir. More later.
The Trucker
I do not see that this distinction has any significance in what Jefferson
has to say. My own interpretation is that if you fear your neighbors
it is probably because you have withheld the real facts from them
or lied to them.
The Trucker
>> intelligent discourse. The exchange below is one of these few jewels. I get
>> to make a comment of my own.
>
> Galathaea always has an intriguing and challenging perspective, usually
> "out-of-the-box." It sometimes draws her into the Twilight Zone, however.
>
> Your own comments are thoughtful as well. I'll try to reply in kind.
>
>> I am very interested in why anyone would see the exploitation of
>> agricultural land as anything but an exploitation of natural resources.
>
> Well, it is, in the broadest sense. But then so is everything.
That is how I mean the term -- in the broad sense.
> But the
> term is normally used in contemporary discussions to distinguish between
> manufactured goods and such natural goods as mineral ores, raw timber,
> petroleum, and the like.
Latter day language is far too often used to mislead and to
obfuscate. We see terms that are broad being redefined to
be too specific and then being changed in meaning altogether.
One such term is "exploit".
> The Cape Colony was founded originally as merely
> a provisioning and service facility for ships. Crops were planted only for
> the use of the station, and for trading with the nearby natives, who were
> livestock herders. But the colony grew, and conflicts with the natives
> ensued. There was at that time no interest in "exploitation" of any
> resources as currently understood, and which would drive later
> colonialization.
But that LOCATION was chosen because it had some natural
endowments that would lend themselves to that particular use. Thus
the natural resource was exploited to an end.
> Also, are you using "exploited" in its normal sense, which means "to make
> use of," or in its ideological sense, i.e., "to ravage and pillage"?
I am obviously using it in the normal sense but I will also use it
from time to time in the "political" sense. The context will be
telling.
>> While it is true that labor must always be exploited in the creation
>> of "goods" that produce "profits" it is also essential that LAND be
>> employed. Whether the "goods" are corn or iron ore would seem
>> to be less relevant.
>
> It is highly relevant. Global trade in the 18th century and first half of
> the 19th century, i.e., the era of sailing ships, consisted of low-weight,
> high-value goods. Except for gold and silver, those were manufactured
> goods of some sort, which includes high-value agricultural products such
> as tea, spices, coffee, tobacco, molasses (for making rum), etc. Even the
> gold and silver were refined before shipping.
While clarifying: The word "goods" is used to differentiate between
natural resources and the output of labor. Any "good" in my own
economic sense will be the fruit of labor. Gold ore in the ground
is a natural resource. Refined gold in the form of bars or coins
is a "good". In some remarks below you comment as to the
fact that gold "goods" were created on site. It would not really
matter whether the ore was refined or not. The stuff once taken
from the earth is a "good".
Yes. We most certainly have a disagreement about _privatization_ of
property. You see those things as inseparable. Yet I see all natural
resource in any given sovereignty as held in trust for the good of
the people/voters in that sovereignty and their natural and naturalized
descendents.
> I suspect you are relying there on the "primodial common ownership"
> fallacy --- the notion that the Earth (and all its natural products) are
> the "common property of mankind." But that claim is gratuitous. A tract of
> land or a resource discovered on it does not belong to "all mankind."
> Until it is discovered and brought into use it belongs to no one. Upon
> discovery it belongs to the discoverer. No one else, born or unborn, has
> the slightest claim upon it.
We have a religious disagreement here. I take the pragmatic approach
and ask which of the two views of natural resources serves best in the
utilitarian sense. I choose the former -- that all natural resource belongs
to all of us equally. The se of sovereignty as "trustee", if you will, is a
capitulation to religion and morality as it differs among peoples. And
even then, the air and the water (oceans) are not sovereign.
> During the 19th century the US government did not regard itself as the
> "owner" of Western lands, or of any lands other than those to which it
> held express titles. When the US bought Louisiana, for example, it did not
> buy real estate; it merely bought sovereignty --- the power to make and
> enforce laws --- over that territory. Much of the land was already owned,
> by settlers and Indian tribes. None of those titles were disturbed. It saw
> itself instead as a trustee, whose role was to oversee orderly settlement.
> That meant recognizing and enforcing claims by their first occupants to
> unoccupied or unused land or other resources. It did that though land
> grants for dozens of purposes, homestead laws, mining laws, etc.
No problem with this at all. The owners may just as well be seen as
local trustees and should at least pay the cost of enforcing their
tenant rights.
> Property rights begin with first possession, not with imaginary primordial
> entitlements or government declarations. The government did not "grant"
> any land. It had no land to grant. It merely agreed to recognize and
> enforce claims to various lands.
The rights to private property begin with rights of the self. The products
of individual labor ("goods") belong to the individual who labored to create
the "good" after he has paid the other members of the sovereignty for the
taking or use of the common natural resources used in the production.
That price depends upon the market demand for the resources.
>> Land grants were also called
>> land patents. Just like IP rights there should be a fixed term for such
>> "grant".
>
> There are practical problems with enforcing IP rights, namely, diffusion
> and obsolescence. Technologies and other intellectual property diffuses
> into new technologies and properties. After a time it becomes difficult to
> determine what is old and thus protected and what is new. And due to
> obsolescence, the value of that property declines over time, until
> protecting it costs more than it is worth. Neither problem affects most
> tangible property.
This problem does not present itself in natural resource cost determinations.
> You might be interested in this:
>
> http://www.newliberalreview.com/jeffip0.htm
>
>> Renegotiation of the fee paid
>> for such rights could be, and probably should be renegotiated
>> on perhaps a 10 year basis. As the rail company invests in
>> maintenance of the capital then the depreciation of the capital life
>> is extended such that the "patent" can be extended. There should
>> be no grant in perpetuity.
>
> You are presuming that government held some original legitimate title. It
> didn't.
No. I am assuming that people have need of land and that the best
use of that land is not set in stone. Government does not "own"
the land in the sense of privatized property. Government oversees
the use of land. That has been done with land titles. A leasing system
would IMHO be better.
>>> During the 19th century the federal gummint granted lands to almost
>>> anyone who asked. I myself think they should have privatized a lot more
>>> of it. :-)
>
>> You are quite wrong in that position when the good of all is the
>> objective.
>
> I suspect we have another basic disagreement. The "good of all" is either
> the good of individuals, or it is meaningless. There is no means of
> determining what is the "good of all" except by determining what is the
> good for each individual. You secure the good of individuals by securing
> to each person whatever goods he or she has first possessed, i.e., either
> created or discovered. That is the only way to secure a good to one
> individual without first depriving another individual of a good.
> Individuals may then share or pool their goods, cooperate in securing
> particular goods, or exchange goods. As long as all those transactions are
> voluntary you maximize the good of each, and thus for all. That is the
> only way in which the "common good" can be maximized. In other words, the
> "common good" is meaningful only distributively, not collectively.
The "good of all" is pretty easily determined regarding the use of natural
resources in that the most efficient and effective use of the resources
will provide the "good of all". But I must admit that this only works for
sane people. If government collects the market rate for the use of
resources and redistributes those funds equally to all voting members
of the sovereignty then the "good of all" is served. What the individuals
in the sovereignty do with this income is their own affair.
>> Your point concerning the betterment of the local inhabitants is
>> probably valid. However, such exploitation works to the disadvantage
>> of more civilized people (The middle class of the developed world).
>> This disadvantage manifests itself as a loss of eonomic and political
>> self determination. As the rich get richer and the middle class lose
>> their high paid jobs and are marched toward slavery.
>
> The statistics belie that claim. Median incomes and incomes in all
> quintiles have increased steadily in the US and all other Western
> countries since the end of WWII. Unemployment in the US is at
> near-historic lows. Until the launching of the "War on Poverty," poverty
> steadily declined. Every technological change since the invention of the
> steam engine, and every liberalization of trade, has provoked a Luddite or
> Chicken Little response. Those claims have all been nonsense. Quality of
> life in the West, by every measure, has constantly improved.
You are entitled to your opinion. That is all it is in that income does
not reflect quality of life. Most certainly "unemployment" as measured
by lying politicians does not reflect anything. People in the USA work
many more hours today so as to get along than they did in the past.
And all the lying with statistics cannot hide the fact that wages
have not kept pace with land rent escalation.
>>> Only those people, individually, can decide how to measure their own
>>> quality of life.
>
>> This is a well maintained lie of the Libertarian anarchist and the
>> latter day neoconomist. There are statistics such as hours worked, life
>> span, infant mortality and others that are most certainly indicative of
>> quality of life.
>
> Yes --- those are measures upon which most people would agree. And in
> countries with the most active trade and the freest economies, those
> indicators have improved the most.
>
> Galathaea had asserted that what is lost are such things as "more time spent
> with kids." And the value of that good in comparison with others (and indeed
> the values of all goods), is solely a decision for each individual to make.
We have a point of agreement here. Let me press forward in this by
stating that I am of the opinion that the only valid measures of
economic performance are the statistics concerning quality of life
and that those statistics should include the amount of FREEDOM
realized in aggregate. And this "freedom" thing is a measure of how
much TIME one has to do what one WANTS to do. The "time with
the kids" is part of that. But so too is the time to pursue knowledge
or to pursue beer and women; time to go fishin' or bet on football
games. It does not matter what one does with the time. But the
aggregate free time is part of "the common good" and the "quality of
life".
>> The validity of majoritarian values is, in America,
>> sacrosanct. If you object to that then you are a Republican and you
>> will soon be shown the door. Read my quote from Jefferson in my
>> signature very carefully.
>
> There is no such thing as a "majoritarian value." Values are only defined for
> individuals, and they differ from individual to individual.
Yet the freedom to exercise ones "pursuit of property" or "pursuit
of happiness" is a recognized as valuable by the majority. I would
argue that is agreeable to the supermajority within the USA. That
might be different Pakistan or Iraq or Russia. But here in the USA
my position is quite defensible.
> A majority may perhaps agree upon a value for X --- but their agreement has no
> implications whatsoever for any individual not in that majority.
There will always be total loons such as hell bent rapture right pretenders
of Christiandom and far left communist loons that disagree with the
vast majority of the people in any FREE society. But to punish the
vast majority out of respect for individual opinions is simply wrong.
So long as the minority is not unduly compromised (allowed to
pursue their own destinies in league with other like minded people)
then there is no foul. The minority however, does not have the
"right" to enforce their idea of righteousness on the majority
regardless of what crutch might be used for an excuse. (Jefferson
again).
> The fact that Tom and Dick agree on the value of codfish has no implications
> at all for Harriet. She may continue to prefer tuna.
Yep. It is called "freedom" and is a common value here in the USA.
>> But it always gets down to the FREEDOM of the individual to make
>> those choices. The more _TIME_ the individual has that is his own
>> (not working) then the more prosperous that individual IS. We have
>> much more _capital_ (tools and machinery and infrastructure) today
>> than we had 30 years ago yet people are working longer and harder.
>
> No they aren't --- not for the same return. They may work as many hours, but
> the returns are about twice as high. And the value of leisure time, like that
> of all other goods, is a personal decision. Many people will trade leisure
> time for a big-screen teevee, or a snazzier car. People's working time *is*
> their own time. They are deciding how to invest it.
Unfortunately, people are trading leisure time for medical care and
land rent. Income has increased. But health care costs and housing
costs have risen more. These costs are part of the baseline that
must be met BEFORE the leisure time or discretionary purchase
can be exercised.
Aggregate or per capita GDP and income do not track quality of life.
Only statistics at the mean (the vast middle) and at the bottom
are of any importance and even then freedom and self determination
are lost when the upper group gets too far ahead of the rest. The
quality of life is measured more in self determination than in the
amount of available "lip gloss".
The Trucker
> <ro...@telus.net> wrote in message news:46297189...@news.telus.net...
> But you can't draw the distinction with the term "rightful property
> rights," since that is question-begging. You'll need to provide some
> criterion of "rightfulness." HINT: "Labor" is not it. At least, not as
> that term is ordinarily understood. There is no correlation between the
> values of property and their labor investment. Nor is any labor at all
> required to establish a right, unless you wish to count the mere labor of
> taking possession. If a diamond-laden meteorite lands in your backyard it
> is your property, every carat of it. The only labor you need invest is
> picking it up and carrying it to the diamond wholesaler. Likewise if you
> find a $100 bill on the sidewalk. Since that item had to have been owned
> by someone else, you cannot be the first possessor. Hence you have a duty
> to try to locate its prior owner, if that's possible. If it's not possible
> the $100 is your property, and the only labor you've invested is picking
> it up.
In all cases you have invested your labor in privatizing the "good". If you
will have taken from the natural resources what would, without government
enforcement of land rights, been available to all then you have stolen from
the commons unless the other people of the sovereignty are paid for being
deprived of the resource. The amount paid is the market rate for the use
or consumption of the resource. The "meteor" is an example of a
privatization of resource that was not actually available to the common
people and there were no bids for the use of it. The cost of privatization
is therefore zero and the total cost in labor is also very small. There are
those in the Neoclassical school who continually use Marx to distort
Adam Smith's theory of value. Such liars proclaim that THE labor theory
of value infers that the value of an item is the labor expended in its
creation. That was never claimed by Smith and he claims only that the
value is measured in the labor one will trade for the item in question. And
it matters not if one trades gold or silver or dollars for the object of
ones desires. The currency is a store of value and what is stored is the
capacity to command the labor of others.
> In fact, property rights have been recognized to all kinds of property,
> since time immemorial, without any consideration of labor investment ---
> except, of course, the "labor" of taking possession and asserting the
> claim.
That is a very weak argument to employ in support of privatization of
natural resources. We could all be still living in caves.
> Labor investments bear on property rights only to the extent that they
> evidence first possession. E.g., the labor you invest in making a spear is
> evidence of your first possession of the spear. By making it, you are its
> first possessor. But there was no labor investment in the stick from which
> you made the spear, or the flint from which you made the point. Those
> became your property the moment you picked them up. Prior to that moment
> they were no one's property, and you need not obtain anyone's permission
> to pick them up. They were *res nullius*.
The use of a fancy term does not change our religious predispositions
regarding the "rightful" owner/user of natural resources. There is no
argument other than a religious position that would justify either alternative
to "rightful" owner/user of natural resource. The question must be resolved
pragmatically; e.g. what works best. Until recently the problem did not rise
to a point where it must be addressed. My opinion is as time (and population)
moved forward the problems of privatization have become more pronounced.
It is time to have this discussion.
>>>All rights are property rights.
>
>> That is nothing but propertarian nonsense. How is your right to vote
>> a property right?
>
> Now, now. We are speaking of natural rights here, not legal rights.
> "Rightful" rights, remember? The basis of a legal right, such as the right
> to vote, is a decree of a lawgiver, nothing more or less. They are not
> necessarily "rightful" nor rational, and often neither. If there is a
> statute declaring you have a legal right to vote, then you do, just as if
> there is a statute declaring you have a legal right to enslave others,
> then you do.
Nonetheless, a "right to vote" is not a "property right". And to say that
all rights emerge from property rights is incorrect even if you want to
proceed to sever the link between propertization and privatization.
That is a trip I would be happy to take. i.e. a property can be
owned in common as a trust and managed in that fashion. See
Capitalism3.com. Whether our current "trust" relationship with
our government is sufficient is questionable.
>>> A right is relation between a person and some thing.
>
>> No, it isn't. It is a relation between a person and society that may
>> or may not involve a third object, which may or may not be a "thing."
>
> First, anything is a "thing," by definition. Rights claims have the form,
>
> (1) R(P,x)
>
> meaning, "P has a right to x." The only constraints on x are that it have
> some value to P and cannot be another agent, Q. It may be tangible or
> intangible, concrete or abstract. The only relation to "society" involved
> is that the meanings of those terms, and the truth conditions for
> propositions like (1), must be public, like the meanings and truth
> conditions of all objective propositions. Rights claims also *presume* a
> social context --- that is, that there are other agents about who may also
> value x and hence might challenge P's claim. The sole inhabitant of an
> island would have no reason to assert any rights claims.
>
> Otherwise, "society" (nor any other particular person) has no role in
> rights claims. There is no variable y for "society" in (1). No
> relationship is presumed or required between either P or x and any y.
>
> If you wish to claim otherwise, perhaps you can give your formal analysis
> of rights claims and their truth conditions.
RoyL may wish to indulge in such silliness. I do not. The expression
of "rights" as a math function is counterintuitive and, well, ugh, just
plain silly. It is an obfuscation. Religious positions are not
mathematical and economic effects are only resolved pragmatically
when metrics can be agreed.
>>>A right is always *to* something; the property is whatever thing
>>>the right is *to*.
>
>> Utter drivel. A right *to* vote is not a property right in any sense
>> whatsoever. Your vote is not your property, and you do not own it.
>> Nor does the right "to" liberty mean that liberty is property of some
>> sort: you don't own it, can't sell it, etc. The attempt to redefine
>> all rights as property rights is a transparent attempt to make all
>> property rightful by definition.
>>
>> How is your right to breathe a property right?
>
> We already covered the right to vote. The "right to breathe," and all
> liberty rights, are derivatives of the right of self-ownership. If you own
> a car, then you have a right to the car. Having that right entails several
> powers over that car --- the power to drive it, sell it, loan it to
> someone, demolish it, operate a taxicab service with it, or just park it
> in your driveway and admire it. In short, having a right to the car
> entails exclusive control over the use of that car, and to any benefits it
> may afford. All of those may be called "rights," but they are only
> derivatives of the underlying right --- the right to the car.
Nothing wrong with this so far.
> Liberty rights --- to free speech, freedom to travel, "right to breathe,"
> are of the same ilk. They are derivatives of your natural right to your
> own physical body, and to all the uses it may be put and benefits it may
> confer. Just as with your car, your right to it entails that you may do
> with it anything you please, provided you don't use it to violate others'
> rights.
But all of those "rights", to the extent that they can actually be realized
are societal and not individual or private. They do NOT proceed from
self ownership in today's crowded world. While you may have a
natural right to breath the society can make that "right" a non reality.
What good is a "right" that is denied by society?
>>>Most land in the US was not taken by force.
>
>> That is a flat-out lie. However, it is true that the US government
>> did not take most of it by force _directly_: it simply agreed to
>> recognize as rightful the forcible appropriations effected by others.
>>
>>>You are probably laboring under the myth that all land in the New World
>>>"belonged to the Indians."
>>
>> They certainly occupied and used most of it, though they did not
>> consider it ownable.
>
> Sorry, but that is empirically false, on both points. Indians did consider
> land ownable. Although most N. American tribes did not recognize
> *individual* ownership of land, they did recognize and enforce tribal
> ownership. E.g., hunters or settlers (whether white or from other tribes)
> on "their" land would be driven off. Nomadic and hunter/gatherer tribes do
> not recognize individual ownership of land because they have no need for
> it. Virtually all conflicts between whites and natives in N. America
> resulted from trespasses by whites upon Indian lands or other resources.
Correct. The ownership was societal and sovereignty based.
> As to the extent of native occupation, the most accurate picture is
> the most complex one, i.e., different analyses apply in almost every
> different case. In some places, land was seized by force, in others it
> was bought or traded, in others it was unoccupied and unclaimed by
> natives, and settlement was not opposed by nearby native groups. That was
> the most common situation: there were only 500,000 - 800,000 Native
> Americans in N. America north of Mexico, spread over 5 million square
> miles. They claimed and used only a small fraction of that land, and the
> earliest settlers in an area tended to settle where Indians would not
> molest them.
>
> There is no question that some land was seized from natives by force, or in
> violation of treaties. Where tribes have been able to make a showing to that
> effect, their claims are being recognized. The Coeur d'Alene Tribe in N. Idaho
> last year was awarded sovereignty over the southern half of Lake Coeur
> d'Alene --- a hugely popular and valuable piece of real estate. Northwest
> tribes west of the Cascades have been awarded one-half of the annual Columbia
> River salmon runs. In both cases the tribes were able to show that whites
> violated treaties. I'm sure many similar claims remain to be filed. More power
> to them.
It all goes back to the religious disagreement regarding "ownership" of natural
resources (that which is NOT the fruit of labor). The question can only be
resolved pragmatically and even then there must be consensus on the
metrics and the goals. I choose utilitarianism as the guidebook. It is,
of course, debatable.
James A. Donald
<mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
> In all cases you have invested your labor in
> privatizing the "good". If you will have taken from
> the natural resources what would, without government
> enforcement of land rights, been available to all then
> you have stolen from the commons
Does every fisherman steal form the commons? Does the
government enforce the fisherman's right to the fish?
Further, if we look at what happened with the pioneers
privatizing the land, it was not government enforcement
- indeed they were frequently in a state of near war
with the government - the Australian government *still*
has not recognized the land rights of the pioneers.
Even in California, where the pioneers had the decisive
upper hands, the government only recognized the land
rights of the pioneers in about 1865, long after reality
had been established on the ground.
The state does not create property rights. The state is
created in large part to violate property rights, and to
suppress private property rights in land requires an
enormously powerful, violent, and intrusive state.
--
----------------------
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
Publius
>> But you can't draw the distinction with the term "rightful property
>> rights," since that is question-begging. You'll need to provide some
>> criterion of "rightfulness." HINT: "Labor" is not it. At least, not as
>> that term is ordinarily understood. There is no correlation between the
>> values of property and their labor investment. Nor is any labor at all
>> required to establish a right, unless you wish to count the mere labor
>> of taking possession. If a diamond-laden meteorite lands in your
>> backyard it is your property, every carat of it. The only labor you
>> need invest is picking it up and carrying it to the diamond wholesaler.
>> Likewise if you find a $100 bill on the sidewalk. Since that item had
>> to have been owned by someone else, you cannot be the first possessor.
>> Hence you have a duty to try to locate its prior owner, if that's
>> possible. If it's not possible the $100 is your property, and the only
>> labor you've invested is picking it up.
> In all cases you have invested your labor in privatizing the "good".
That move trivializes the labor theory of property by making it
tautologous. On that theory holding out my hand to receive a gift
constitutes "labor." I think Roy agrees that move is unproductive.
> If
> you will have taken from the natural resources what would, without
> government enforcement of land rights, been available to all then you
> have stolen from the commons unless the other people of the sovereignty
> are paid for being deprived of the resource.
Well, like Roy, you are begging the question. A good can only be "stolen"
from a person, and compensation due to that person, if that person has a
right to the "stolen" good, if the good is that person's property. But you
offer no evidence that is the case. You are assuming the "primordial
common ownership" thesis. And that is an arbitrary and baseless claim.
> The "meteor" is
> an example of a privatization of resource that was not actually
> available to the common people and there were no bids for the use of it.
That is the case with all unknown, undiscovered, unused resources. They
all become *property* only when they are discovered, taken possession of,
and a claim to that effect asserted. Until then they are no one's property
and are not even "resources."
> The cost of privatization is therefore zero and the total cost in labor
> is also very small. There are those in the Neoclassical school who
> continually use Marx to distort Adam Smith's theory of value. Such
> liars proclaim that THE labor theory of value infers that the value of
> an item is the labor expended in its creation. That was never claimed
> by Smith and he claims only that the value is measured in the labor one
> will trade for the item in question. And it matters not if one trades
> gold or silver or dollars for the object of ones desires. The currency
> is a store of value and what is stored is the capacity to command the
> labor of others.
You're right about Smith v. Marx. The latter of course had an agenda.
>> In fact, property rights have been recognized to all kinds of property,
>> since time immemorial, without any consideration of labor investment
>> --- except, of course, the "labor" of taking possession and asserting
>> the claim.
> That is a very weak argument to employ in support of privatization of
> natural resources. We could all be still living in caves.
Not sure of your point there.
>> Labor investments bear on property rights only to the extent that they
>> evidence first possession. E.g., the labor you invest in making a spear
>> is evidence of your first possession of the spear. By making it, you
>> are its first possessor. But there was no labor investment in the stick
>> from which you made the spear, or the flint from which you made the
>> point. Those became your property the moment you picked them up. Prior
>> to that moment they were no one's property, and you need not obtain
>> anyone's permission to pick them up. They were *res nullius*.
>
> The use of a fancy term does not change our religious predispositions
> regarding the "rightful" owner/user of natural resources.
It is a legal term which means a "thing with no legal status," i.e., not
property.
> There is no
> argument other than a religious position that would justify either
> alternative to "rightful" owner/user of natural resource.
Well, sure there is. The "primordial common ownership" thesis does indeed
have a religious basis, namely, the belief that God gave the Earth to
"mankind in common." Unfortunately, that belief embodies all kinds of
dubious assumptions, and there is no evidence whatever in support of it.
The first possession principle, on the other hand, is ubiquitous; it is
followed in virtually all human societies. There is a reason that rule has
become dominant --- first possession is the only means by which goods can
be obtained by one person without taking them from another, and thus
inflicting injury upon the person from whom they were taken. If I create a
good, or discover a natural good unknown to and therefore not benefiting
any others, then I injure no one by claiming it for myself. I make myself
better off without thereby making anyone else worse off (Pareto's
Principle).
> The question
> must be resolved pragmatically; e.g. what works best. Until recently the
> problem did not rise to a point where it must be addressed. My opinion
> is as time (and population) moved forward the problems of privatization
> have become more pronounced. It is time to have this discussion.
First you'll need a criterion for deciding what counts as "working best," and
make sure that criterion does not embody the "organic fallacy" --- the notion
that "the good" can be defined for societies, as distinct from the good of
individuals.
The problem is always one of maximizing the disparate goods of individuals,
not of "societies," regardless of population. Pareto's Principle always
applies.
>> Now, now. We are speaking of natural rights here, not legal rights.
>> "Rightful" rights, remember? The basis of a legal right, such as the
>> right to vote, is a decree of a lawgiver, nothing more or less. They
>> are not necessarily "rightful" nor rational, and often neither. If
>> there is a statute declaring you have a legal right to vote, then you
>> do, just as if there is a statute declaring you have a legal right to
>> enslave others, then you do.
>
> Nonetheless, a "right to vote" is not a "property right".
No, it isn't. It is a legal right. That is the point made above. All *natural
rights* are property rights. Legal rights (rights created by statutes) are
arbitrary, and any "property" they create will be equally arbitrary.
> And to say
> that all rights emerge from property rights is incorrect even if you
> want to proceed to sever the link between propertization and
> privatization. That is a trip I would be happy to take. i.e. a property
> can be owned in common as a trust and managed in that fashion. See
> Capitalism3.com. Whether our current "trust" relationship with
> our government is sufficient is questionable.
Natural rights do not "emerge" from property rights. All natural rights are
*to* something, and whatever they are to, is property. The right and the
property come into existence together, via the same act (an act of first
possession). But all of that has nothing to do with legal rights, such as the
right to vote. Those have an entirely different basis.
Properties can certainly be owned in common. There are all kinds of common
property (any property in whom ownership is shared by more more than one
person). But the criterion of ownership is always the same, whether the
purported owner is an individual or a group, namely, first possession. Groups
do not acquire ownership of anything merely by claiming it, any more than do
individuals, whether or not such claims are asserted by governments on their
behalf. A 16th century explorer who climbs to the top of a hill and declares
ownership of the entire continent before him in the name of his King is
merely spouting hot air. He does not own it and neither does his King,
because they have not taken possession of it. On the other hand, if he builds
a fort and begins cultivating a few acres around his landing site, he may
claim ownership of those.
> RoyL may wish to indulge in such silliness. I do not. The expression
> of "rights" as a math function is counterintuitive and, well, ugh, just
> plain silly. It is an obfuscation. Religious positions are not
> mathematical and economic effects are only resolved pragmatically
> when metrics can be agreed.
Well, I'm not sure what rights or property have to do with "religious
positions." The concepts do not have their origins in religion, and questions
about who has a right to what are not resolved on religious grounds. (Which
is not to say that various religions don't want to inject their 2 cents worth
on such questions, as they do on all questions).
Sorry you dislike formalizations of those propositions. They aid in the
logical analysis of those concepts, as they do for the central concepts of
most other fields, such as economics, geometry, mechanics, chemistry, etc.
>> We already covered the right to vote. The "right to breathe," and all
>> liberty rights, are derivatives of the right of self-ownership. If you
>> own a car, then you have a right to the car. Having that right entails
>> several powers over that car --- the power to drive it, sell it, loan
>> it to someone, demolish it, operate a taxicab service with it, or just
>> park it in your driveway and admire it. In short, having a right to the
>> car entails exclusive control over the use of that car, and to any
>> benefits it may afford. All of those may be called "rights," but they
>> are only derivatives of the underlying right --- the right to the car.
> Nothing wrong with this so far.
Good!
>> Liberty rights --- to free speech, freedom to travel, "right to
>> breathe," are of the same ilk. They are derivatives of your natural
>> right to your own physical body, and to all the uses it may be put and
>> benefits it may confer. Just as with your car, your right to it entails
>> that you may do with it anything you please, provided you don't use it
>> to violate others' rights.
> But all of those "rights", to the extent that they can actually be
> realized are societal and not individual or private. They do NOT proceed
> from self ownership in today's crowded world. While you may have a
> natural right to breath the society can make that "right" a non reality.
> What good is a "right" that is denied by society?
Well, you'll have to explain what a "societal right" is, where such things
might come from and how they are justified. Are you arguing here for "might
makes right"? Or are you wondering how one responds to violations of rights,
whether by "society" or anyone else?
>> Sorry, but that is empirically false, on both points. Indians did
>> consider land ownable. Although most N. American tribes did not
>> recognize *individual* ownership of land, they did recognize and
>> enforce tribal ownership. E.g., hunters or settlers (whether white or
>> from other tribes) on "their" land would be driven off. Nomadic and
>> hunter/gatherer tribes do not recognize individual ownership of land
>> because they have no need for it. Virtually all conflicts between
>> whites and natives in N. America resulted from trespasses by whites
>> upon Indian lands or other resources.
> Correct. The ownership was societal and sovereignty based.
Yes. And those common ownerships, like all bonafide ownerships, rested on
first possession.
> It all goes back to the religious disagreement regarding "ownership" of
> natural resources (that which is NOT the fruit of labor). The question
> can only be resolved pragmatically and even then there must be consensus
> on the metrics and the goals. I choose utilitarianism as the guidebook.
> It is, of course, debatable.
You'll have to explain the "religious" aspect to all this. You've used that
term a few times.
Of course, you are right that utilitarianism is debatable. The main problem
with it is that values cannot be summed across persons. Hence the
calculations utilitarians require cannot be performed. But that is another
argument.
Mark M.
> 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.
You malign animals by declaring yourself one of them. Animals cooperate to survive
and ensure survival of their young. Only a human can become so corrupted by greed
and selfishness that he becomes an enemy of his own species.
Mark M.
ro...@telus.net
<jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 17:41:29 -0700, "The Trucker"
><mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> In all cases you have invested your labor in
>> privatizing the "good". If you will have taken from
>> the natural resources what would, without government
>> enforcement of land rights, been available to all then
>> you have stolen from the commons
>
>Does every fisherman steal form the commons?
No, because most fish stocks have historically been (though few still
are) so abundant that the fisherman does not inflict a deprivation on
anyone else by fishing: his catch does not add noticeably to natural
attrition of the fish by predators, etc. Obviously, that is no longer
the case with a lot of fish stocks, and nowadays those who catch from
scarce stocks are indeed stealing from the commons, a fact
increasingly recognized in international law and agreements. The only
consistently defensible criterion of property rights is whether a
deprivation is imposed on others: you have a right not to be deprived
of what you would otherwise have had, and others have exactly the same
right. Private appropriation of natural resources violates that
right. We've been through this a hundred times, and you still refuse
to know it.
>Does the
>government enforce the fisherman's right to the fish?
Hehe. You'd better believe it. And if you don't believe it, you are
either deeply ignorant of the fishing industry, or you don't _want_ to
believe it.
>Further, if we look at what happened with the pioneers
>privatizing the land, it was not government enforcement
>- indeed they were frequently in a state of near war
>with the government -
Well, fancy that: people who presume to violate others' rights being
in a state of near war with the government!
And pray tell, what _other_ sort of state should organized criminal
gangs expect to be in with the government?
>the Australian government *still*
>has not recognized the land rights of the pioneers.
What a load of drivel. "Land rights"? I have already informed you
that a "right" founded on nothing but forcible appropriation is just
as rightly overturned by forcible appropriation. You of course refuse
to know that fact.
>Even in California, where the pioneers had the decisive
>upper hands, the government only recognized the land
>rights of the pioneers in about 1865, long after reality
>had been established on the ground.
By forcible theft with a liberal application of genocide...
>The state does not create property rights.
OTC, it fabricates legal property rights rather prolifically -- patent
and copyright monopolies among others.
Denial ain't just a river in Africa...
>The state is
>created in large part to violate property rights,
Thank you for proving that you are stupid, ignorant and dishonest.
Fortunately, some people very much smarter, more learned and more
honest than you have already considered the matter in great detail and
with penetrating insight:
"The preservation of property is the end of government, and that for
which men enter into society. It is true governments cannot be
supported without great charge, and it is fit everyone who enjoys his
share of that protection should pay out of his estate his proportion
for the maintenance of it."
-- John Locke, Second Treatise on Government, 1690
>and to
>suppress private property rights in land requires an
>enormously powerful, violent, and intrusive state.
More utter drivel. There are no such things as private property
rights in land, other than the legal ones the state fabricates. Maybe
that's why we see not the slightest evidence of your, "enormously
powerful, violent, and intrusive state" among the hunter/gatherer
tribes that "suppress" private property rights in land.
>We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
>of the kind of animals that we are.
But our property can never include the natural resources our fellows
have a right to access and use, because of the kind of animals _they_
are.
>True law derives from this
>right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
<yawn> Another moron keen to eradicate all human rights other than
property rights....
Do you really think your readers can't figure out that when all rights
are property rights, those who have all the property will have all the
rights?
-- Roy L
w_b_...@yahoo.com
make up stuff about Vickrey, Samuelson,
Friedman, and "the other Nobel laureates."
And then you source to a Wiki article.
Actually, you should read real books on
economics.
Art
wrote:
>> Galathaea had asserted that what is lost are such things as "more time spent
>> with kids." And the value of that good in comparison with others (and indeed
>> the values of all goods), is solely a decision for each individual to make.
>
>We have a point of agreement here. Let me press forward in this by
>stating that I am of the opinion that the only valid measures of
>economic performance are the statistics concerning quality of life
>and that those statistics should include the amount of FREEDOM
>realized in aggregate. And this "freedom" thing is a measure of how
>much TIME one has to do what one WANTS to do. The "time with
>the kids" is part of that. But so too is the time to pursue knowledge
>or to pursue beer and women; time to go fishin' or bet on football
>games. It does not matter what one does with the time. But the
>aggregate free time is part of "the common good" and the "quality of
>life".
Seems to me all you can say is that disgressionary time is one form of
freedom (from the "slavery" of having to earn a living). But even this
form of freedom can't be reliably measured. Many people are
workaholics who enjoy working for a financial return when the money
isn't needed, and in the case of many entrepanuers, money is just a
way of keeping score. I don't think gummints even have a handle
on net worth data. Local gummints are often shot down immediatley
when they attempt to add special "rich man's taxes" based on net
worth. I know for a fact that here in Pennsylvania, such taxes have
been legal for about a century or more, but they are so unpopular
that they rarely, if ever, get off the ground. So I doubt that
anyone has any realistic data on "affluence". But it's affluence
that I think is what is signficant here.
Art
ro...@telus.net
<m.pu...@nospam.comcast.net> wrote:
><ro...@telus.net> wrote in message news:462ed5da...@news.telus.net...
>
>>>But you can't draw the distinction with the term "rightful property
>>>rights," since that is question-begging.
>>
>> OK, call them "property rights that are consistent with equal human
>> rights to life and liberty."
>>
>>>You'll need to provide some
>>>criterion of "rightfulness." HINT: "Labor" is not it.
>>
>> HINT: I have already proved to you that it is. The only way to obtain
>> a property right that does not deprive others of their rights is by
>> _adding_ property -- products of labor -- that they did not previously
>> have a right to use because it did not exist. That takes labor. A
>> property right that consists of depriving others of their rights
>> without compensation, such as private property in natural resources,
>> can never be rightful because it is inherently criminal.
>>
>> You stand refuted.
>
>Hm. You shall have to learn the meanings of "proof" and "refutation."
I know them very well. That is why I have used them accurately.
>A mere
>denial of a proposition is not a disproof or refutation of it.
I know. Which is why you have not refuted or disproved a single
statement I have made, while I have refuted and disproved every
substantive claim you have made.
>Especially
>when the denials are question begging, such as "depriving others of their
>rights without compensation."
That is not question begging. It is a statement of fact.
>If others have rights to the stick you used to
>make the spear before you picked it up, you'll need to set forth the basis
>of those alleged rights.
?? How could you have a right to pick it up and use it, but others
not have the same right?
>You are apparently assuming the the "primordial
>common ownership" thesis, which holds that all natural goods are originally
>common property.
I have already told you that I do not make any such assumption, nor
have you ever offered any evidence that I do. All you do is
repeatedly lie that I do, because the only argument you have is to lie
about what I have plainly written.
>There is no basis for such a claim (which, in fact, you
>acknowledge below). And if the stick is no one's property, then no one has
>any *rights* to it, since those two terms are correlative and in fact
>interdefined.
No, that is just another of your constantly expanding universe of
lies. As you know, I have already proved to you that people have a
right to breathe atmospheric air, even though it is not their
property.
All your arguments are refuted by that simple, self-evident and
indisputable fact of objective reality.
>(1) R(P,x) (P has a right to x) defines P as an *owner*, and x as
>*property*.
?? ROTFL!!!
No, it most certainly does not. That is just another in your long
succession of idiotic lies. "I have a right to breathe," does not
mean "breathe" is my property. "A woman has a right to refuse a man's
advances," does not mean "refuse a man's advances" is her property.
What utter -- and _literal_ -- nonsense!
You are just being stupid and dishonest again, because that is the
only way to pursue your evil, greed-besotted agenda of eradicating all
human rights other than property rights in order to make the extent of
people's property the measure of what rights they may enjoy (yes:
although you never mention it, the vicious nature of your objective is
not at all difficult to discern).
>Not only does a right not exist prior to first possession, neither does an
>owner, or property.
Again, that claim is just provably false as a matter of objective
fact. First possession itself cannot be rightful without a prior
right to _take_ possession. That is what I proved to you above: if
you have a right to take possession of a natural resource, you are
unilaterally extinguishing the rights of others to do likewise when
you appropriate it without compensating them for the deprivation.
That is not question begging. It is just a fact. You might want to
consider including some of them in what you are no doubt pleased to
think of as your "arguments."
>Hence you can't argue that taking possession of unowned property
Natural resources are not "unowned property," liar. They are not
property at all. There is not even any such thing as unowned
property, because what is not owned is not property.
You are again just spouting nonsense in your frantic effort to
eradicate all concepts other than property: somehow, the human right
to breathe is property, the whole universe -- stars, galaxies, the
whole she-bang! -- is property, we just don't know who will own it
yet!
What a load of absolute rubbish.
>deprives
>others of their *rights*, since others have no rights to it at that point.
Refuted above, as well as in my previous message. You have simply
added another false premise in a foredoomed attempt to shore up your
demolished argument: the premise that no one has any rights to
anything they do not own. But I have already proved that is false:
people have a right to breathe air they do not own, to cast votes they
do not own, to use a language they do not own, to walk through
wilderness they do not own, to gaze at stars they do not own, to
consensually associate with others they do not own, etc., etc., etc.
Of course, you are permanently ignorant of all these facts, because
they disprove the false beliefs that you prefer to the truth, and you
have consequently chosen never to know them.
>Or if they do, you'll need to explain where they got them.
People are born with rights to life, liberty, and property in the
products of their labor. The physical universe is divided into three
mutually exclusive sets: people, the products of their labor, and
natural resources. As the right to life can only mean a right to act
to sustain one's life, it _must_ mean a right to access the natural
resources needed to do so. As the right to life cannot mean a right
to deprive others of their lives or the products of labor they use to
sustain them, it can _only_ mean the right to use natural resources to
sustain one's life. As the right to liberty cannot imply a right to
make free with other people or the products of their labor, it can
_only_ mean a right to make free with natural resources.
QED.
Now, it's your turn to explain where people got the right forcibly to
deprive others of their rights to life and liberty by appropriating
the natural resources they need to use in order to exercise those
rights.
I'm waiting. But I'm not holding my breath.
>Note that
>non-first-possessors lack such rights even by your own criterion, since they
>have invested no labor in the stick either.
No, that is just another lie. I have already proved to you that
_everyone_ has a right to use -- but not to _own_ -- natural
resources. That is what their rights to life and liberty _mean_, and
all they _can_ mean. You are simply denying that there are any such
things as rights other than property rights. But that claim is just
false, as I have already proved, and you have never even bothered to
offer any sort of logical or factual justification for it (hint: you
can't).
>I gave you several examples of rights in property which would be generally
>acknowledged but which involve no labor (other than the labor of taking
>possession).
And I demolished every one of them.
>Here are a few more:
>
>1. "A woman has a right to her body." Obviously no woman produced her body
>via her own labor. She is it's first possessor, however.
But it is not her property, as she cannot sell it. It is inseparably
hers, and so by definition is not property at all: one of the four
defining rights in property is the right to transfer it (the others
are the rights to use, control, and benefit by it).
You stand refuted. Again.
>2. You win $1 million in a sweepstakes. Your name was drawn at random from
>the phone book. The $1 million becomes your property upon your appearance at
>the sweepstakes office and presenting ID. No labor involved, other than
>taking possession.
That is a gift. Whoever owned the money before giving it away had the
labor-based property right in it, which they consensually transfer to
you.
You stand refuted. Again.
>3. You have a property right to anything given to you, provided the donor
>himself had a right to it prior to making the gift. No labor required on
>your part.
But some labor required on someone's part: someone who then has the
original property right to dispose of as he pleases.
You stand refuted. Again.
>>>At least, not as
>>>that term is ordinarily understood. There is no correlation between the
>>>values of property and their labor investment.
>
>> That is irrelevant, because value has nothing to do with it. You are
>> simply trying to deflect attention from the facts with a strawman
>> argument by falsely claiming that my argument is derived from the
>> Labor Theory of Value. It is not. So kindly stop lying about what I
>> have plainly written.
>
>It is entirely relevant.
No, it is clearly and indisputably not relevant. You simply have no
arguments other than to lie about my arguments.
>But the relationship is not the one you assume. The
>Labor Theory of Value derives from the Labor Theory of Property, as
>mistakenly attributed to Locke, not the other way around.
Absolute garbage. The Labor Theory of Value derives from the
observation that the prices of things tend to track the labor it takes
to make them and the labor saved by buying them. That's all. You are
just makin' $#!+ up again.
>If property
>originates in labor, then it is reasonable to conclude the value of property
>should be proportional to labor.
No, it is not reasonable to conclude that, any more than it is
reasonable to conclude that because people originate in sex, the value
of people should be proportional to sex, or that because music
originates in sound, the value of music should be proportional to
sound.
IOW, you are just makin' $#!+ up again.
>Which of course it isn't. But it is the
>first premise, the Labor Theory of Property, which leads to that error.
No; as I proved above, the only error is your absurd non sequitur.
>There is no relationship between labor and the value of property because
>there is no relationship between labor and property to begin with.
No, that is clearly just idiocy designed to justify the property
"rights" of the free-lunchers who have contributed nothing to
production, but demand the products of others's labor in return for
not interfering with their productive use of natural resources that
nature provided for free.
>Considering the value of property also serves as an inductive check on the
>Labor Theory of Property. It heads off attempts to tautologize the Labor
>Theory of Property by counting any act by the agent, such as holding out
>one's hand to receive a gift, as "labor."
I have already informed you that labor is productive human effort --
i.e., the kind of effort the free-lunchers who demand payment from
others for what nature provided free of charge don't expend.
>> Appropriating for oneself what already existed (and which others
>> consequently have just as much right to as you) is not productive.
>
>Ah, you are back in your circle. We are arguing about the basis for property
>rights here, remember?
Oh, I do, I do.
>If others have rights to what you have just first possessed,
Uh, excuse me, Stupid? How did _you_ get the right to possess it?
Why didn't they have the same right?
Inquiring minds want to know.
>you'll need to explain the basis/origin of those alleged rights.
See above. People cannot have a right to life if you have a right to
deprive them of the natural resources they need to sustain it, as I
already proved to you by the example of Dirty Publius -- which you
have yet to address.
>You cannot blithely assume them.
You mean, the way you blithely assume Dirty Publius's right to murder
others in the Holy Name of First Possession...?
>Note also your formulation, "what already existed (and which others
>consequently have just as much right to as you)." It is *not* a consequence
>of the existence of x that anyone has a right to x.
No, it is a consequence of the fact that it _already_ existed with no
help from any _person_, and that they would therefore _otherwise_ have
been free to use it.
>Neither you nor anyone
>else has a right to x merely because x exists.
<sigh> Please stop lying about what I have plainly written. I did
not say people have a right to natural resources or anything else just
because they exist. I said they have a right to them because they
_already_ existed, are not products of anyone's labor, and thus are
not rightly anyone's property.
>That is, again, the
>"primoridal common ownership" thesis, that everything that exists is owned
>in common by all. Which is an utterly gratuitous and baseless claim.
Lie. The right to use natural resources is the same as the right to
breathe atmospheric air: no one owns it, either personally or
communally, but all have equal rights to use it.
You have consistently refused to address this fact, choosing instead
to lie that my argument assumes "primordial common ownership." Stop
lying. My argument assumes primordial _absence_ of ownership, which
is a self-evident and indisputable fact of objective reality. _Your_
argument, OTOH, assumes primordial undefined (but certainly private!)
ownership ("unowned property") by those who will one day become
everything's "first possessors."
>Let me try to clear up your confusion. Prior to any takings of natural
>goods, no one has any rights to any such goods.
??? ROTFL!!! Speaking of confusion, by what right did anyone take
them in the first place, then, hmmmm?
You have just refuted -- and destroyed and humiliated -- yourself.
>No property rights (in those goods) exist.
Bingo. But the right to use natural resources -- e.g., drink the
water and breathe the air nature provides -- is self-evidently not a
property right in them. The very concept of property rights in
natural resources is only a bare few thousand years old. People were
using natural resources perfectly well without them for eons -- a fact
that utterly demolishes your theory.
>However, each person already has a property right in his own
>body, being its first possessor.
??? ROTFL!! Being his own unique and irreplaceable self, he cannot
be his own possessor, let alone his own owner.
>Being the owner of his own body, he has
>entailed rights to use his body as he sees fit, including the right to
>explore the Earth and take possession of any good x he desires,
<sigh> Uh, Stupid? You just got through saying _no_ one had _any_
right to such goods, remember? Here, let me refresh your memory:
"Prior to any takings of natural goods, no one has any rights to any
such goods."
How can a man have a right to use his body as he sees fit, but no
right to use any natural resources? What could his right consist of?
He needs to use land just for a space for his body to exist in, let
alone doing anything else with his body like breathe the air, drink
the water, or obtain the food he needs to sustain his body's very
existence.
Are you starting to get the picture, yet, moron? All your "arguments"
are nothing but idiotic, self-refuting garbage.
>provided no
>one else has already taken possession of x.
Which you claimed they had no right to do, remember....
>(Perhaps I should explain what I
>mean by "taking possession." P takes possession of x by placing himself in a
>position to derive some use or benefit from x, and declares his intent to do
>so. See the legal cite below).
Oh, stop lying. That's _not_ what you mean by "taking possession" and
you know it. What you mean by "taking possession" is forcibly
_depriving_others_ of what they would otherwise have been at liberty
to use unless they pay extortion money to the possessor for refraining
from physically attacking them. If you only meant placing oneself in
a position to derive some use or benefit from x, that's just
equivalent to a right to use x, and we would have no disagreement.
The central _issue_ of this whole discussion is that your only
intention is to justify not merely a right to use x, but a right to
_deprive_others_ of the use of x without compensation.
>What others have "just as much right as you" to do, of course, is to explore
>the Earth themselves and take possession of any goods they desire, including
>x.
Already refuted by the example of Dirty Publius and the spring.
>Their rights to do so are perfectly symmetrical with yours. But until a
>taking of x occurs, *no one has any property right to x*.
Or afterwards, either.
>They all only have
>an equal (liberty) right to take x, if they discover it and desire to
>possess it.
Garbage. They have a right to _use_ x, not a right to deprive others
of the use of it or "possess" it in order to extort rent payments from
them for access to what nature provided for free.
>Until someone does that, no property right to x exists, and
>hence the first possessor cannot possibly violate anyone's right to x.
That is just an obvious self-contradiction. The fact that x is not
property yet does not mean no one has a right to it -- indeed, just
the opposite: _everyone_ has a right to it, exactly as I have been
explaining to you so patiently. You even stipulated yourself that
everyone has the same right to take x -- a right that is
self-evidently and indisputably not a property right, as x is not yet
property. _That_ is the right that the appropriator of natural
resources violates.
>You are confusing "the right to x" with "the right to take x."
No, I am trying to persuade you to consent to know the fact that the
right to x that everyone starts out with is _NOT_ the right to _take_
(i.e., deprive others of) x or own x, but only to _use_ x.
>The latter
>originates in your first possession of your own body.
?? How can first possession of your body give you a right to deprive
others of opportunities to sustain _their_ bodies?
>The former originates in your first possession of x.
Only a child imagines that taking a thing confers a right to it.
>>>If a diamond-laden meteorite lands in your backyard it
>>>is your property, every carat of it.
>
>> Perhaps legally (though even that is questionable) but certainly not
>> rightfully, any more than the land itself is rightfully your property.
>
>"Rightfully"? Still in your circle, I see.
<yawn>
>If you think others have rights
>to the meteorite (or the land), you'll need to explain the origin of those
>rights.
Done, above. Now it's your turn to explain how depriving others of x
gives you the right to deprive others of x.
This should be good.
>But I did not mean that one has only a legal right to the meteorite.
>I meant that your right to the meteorite would be acknowledged wherever the
>concept of property, as it has been generally understood in the West, is
>understood. Few would challenge or dispute it.
There is a "finders keepers" tradition with meteorites because it
normally takes considerable labor to find and retrieve them. The idea
that it would belong to the landowner is just an artifact of a feudal
common law legal system saturated in rationalizations of landowner
privilege.
>It is also worth pointing out that the only "legal right" to the meteorite
>would be a common-law right. Should anyone challenge your right to it in an
>ordinary civil suit, they'd lose.
Not necessarily. Depends who found it, where, how, etc.
>First possession is the *sine qua non* for
>resolving property disputes in common law.
Nope. Documented legal title recognized by the state is. If first
possession were relevant, the Indians would own North America.
>>>The only labor you need invest is
>>>picking it up and carrying it to the diamond wholesaler.
>>
>> That is, of course, labor. Thank you for providing additional proof
>> that I am indeed completely correct and you are totally wrong.
>
>Ah. Now you are trying to tautologize "labor."
No. But you are again lying about what I have said.
>But above you agreed that
>mere taking possession does *not* constitute "labor".
Correct.
>So is it the labor of
>carrying it to the wholesaler that vests your right?
No, the labor of removing it from its natural place to any place where
it will be more useful.
>You have no right to
>the meteorite until you arrive at the wholesaler's shop (having then
>invested that labor)?
You have a right to _use_ it from the outset, and to own it once you
have expended the effort improving its utility.
>What if you don't carry it to the wholesaler, but instead summon him by
>phone to your place to assay the meteorite. Is the phone call then the
>crucial labor?
No.
>>>Likewise if you find a $100 bill on the sidewalk.
>
>> No. That is a completely different case, as the money was previously
>> someone else's and the meteorite was not.
>
>Why does that matter?
It doesn't matter to you, because you want to be able to just grab
both of them -- and as much more as you can grab. It only matters to
people who care about others' rights.
>Are you arguing that labor is not required for found
>manmade goods, but only for found natural goods?
The C-note is not made more valuable by being picked up. The
meteorite is. There is also a principle of salvage to consider, but
it is not generally understood to imply an indiscriminate application
of "finders keepers" to cases like money on a sidewalk.
>> You clearly have not the slightest understanding of the relevant
>> philosophical issues, and have cobbled together your "arguments" based
>> on an uncritical immersion in philosophically and economically
>> illiterate feudal libertarian websites like New Liberal Review.
>
>Well, I'd be happy to hear what you think are the relevant philosophical
>issues.
See above.
>So far you have only begged all the questions.
While you have only lied about what I have said....
>>>If it's not possible
>>>the $100 is your property, and the only labor you've invested is picking
>>>it up.
>>
>> The $100 is not your rightful property, and does not become your legal
>> property unless you turn it in to the authorities and it remains
>> unclaimed for some time.
>
>"Authorities"? Where do "authorities" enter the picture?
In deciding legal ownership of found property.
>Are you confusing
>natural rights with legal rights again?
No, I explicitly stated that the authorities were involved in deciding
the _legal_ issue of ownership. Look up about 10 lines. Yep. There
it is.
But thanks for lying about what I said again.
>Suppose there are no "authorities."
>To make that more plausible, imagine that you have found a well-crafted
>spear point instead of a $100 bill. I should think you have some duty to ask
>around in your tribe to try to locate the previous owner. But you know that
>many other tribes traverse the area from time to time, and that it would be
>impossible to make inquiries among them, even if you could locate them (some
>of them might kill you on sight). When no one in your tribe claims it, what
>then?
Depends on how the tribe treats similar cases, but salvage is a
recognized principle: abandoned products of labor can be claimed as if
they were natural resources by removing them from their "natural"
place to a more useful location. You don't get a right of salvage
just by saying, "That's mine, keep off." You get it by actually
retrieving the goods.
>> In any case, there is no labor involved, as
>> the money already existed and you have produced nothing.
>
>Perfectly true. So how do I gain the right to the spear point?
Salvage it.
>Or don't I
>have one? Does lost or abandoned property remain forever *res nullius*,
>which can never become anyone else's property?
It can normally be salvaged.
>Your labor theory has a problem there, Roy.
Nope.
>It can't account for property
>rights in found, manmade goods (or indeed for any found goods).
Wrong. The labor of retrieving abandoned products of labor is
productive because it saves them from deterioration by the elements
(in theory this might also apply to the money on the sidewalk, but
that sort of case is not considered salvage).
>There is no
>problem for first possession, however. Lost or abandoned goods revert to
>*res nullius*, and first possession starts over. You're probably familiar
>with the principle, which is all but universally accepted --- it's called
>"finders keepers." That is just another term for the first possession
>principle.
And very suitable it is, too -- for kindergarteners.
>> That is simply another flat-out lie. Forcible appropriation (the only
>> alternative to labor investment) has almost never been recognized as a
>> source of rightful property -- other than by the appropriators
>> themselves, that is.
>
>Well, we've already covered that. There is no force involved in
>appropriating a hitherto unknown, unused natural good.
Yes, there is, as Dirty Publius proved to you so very conclusively
with his revolver. And what about the overwhelming majority of cases,
of natural resources like land that have almost always been known and
used long before they were ever appropriated? Your theory of rights
derived from discovery is simply irrelevant to most property in
natural resources, because their discovery and first possession are
lost to antiquity.
>Against whom is force applied?
Anyone else who wants to exercise their rights to use it. Duh.
>You really need to answer that one, Roy.
I have, idiot.
>And be sure you don't confuse
>*appropriating* the good with *defending* one's right to the good *after* it
>has been appropriated.
<yawn> Be sure you don't just _assume_ that appropriating a natural
resource somehow _confers_ a right forcibly to violate others' rights
to access it.
>You need to show what force is exerted, and against
>whom, in the act of *appropriating* the good.
No, I most certainly don't, any more than I need to show what force is
exerted against whom by a protection racket in the act of extorting
payments. There's no force there; just, "an accident might happen."
The force (the accident) comes later, after the extortion is
unsuccessful, exactly the same way the force applied after the
appropriation of natural resources is unsuccessful in extorting a rent
payment from a prospecitve user. You are simply trying to pretend
that the force is not part of the appropriation because it happens
later. But that is just as fallacious and dishonest as pretending the
force is not part of the protection racket's demand for payment. The
_intention_, from the outset, of both the protection racketeer and the
natural resource appropriator is to get wealth from others in return
for no contribution by forcibly depriving them of what they would
otherwise have had.
>Especially given that in
>typical cases there would be no one else around to be "forced."
Flat false. In almost all cases, there _have_ been other people
around to be forced, which was why the resources had value worth
appropriating in the first place.
>You are no
>doubt confused there because you suppose others already have rights to that
>good,
There is no doubt that they have a right to use natural resources, as
that is the only possible meaning of their rights to life and liberty.
_You_ are confused because you suppose that an appropriator somehow
has a right to deprive others of their rights to use natural resources
before he even has any right to use them himself! It would be
difficult to construct a more incoherent, inconsistent and
indefensible account of property rights.
>and thus that defending an appropriated natural good entails force
>against its other "owners." Which of course begs the question.
No, you are just lying again. The guy in the desert does not own the
spring Dirty Publius appropriated. But he does have a right to drink
from it.
You have never addressed that fact.
Likewise, you have never addressed (other than to assume away) the
fact, repeat, __**FACT**__ that no one owns the atmosphere, but all
have a right to breathe it. And you will never address that fact,
because it disproves and demolishes your false beliefs.
>Those others
>have no right to that good (or at least none you have shown).
Wrong. I have proved that their rights to life and liberty can have
no other possible content.
>> As I already proved to you above, the effort expended by a thief in
>> appropriating what is not rightfully his is not labor, as it is not
>> productive.
>
>Again I agree. But it is not the lack of productive labor which prevents the
>thief from gaining a right to stolen goods. He fails to gain a right because
>his acquisition does not comply with the first possession rule.
No. The thief fails to gain a right because he is _depriving_ someone
of what they would otherwise have had, the fundamental violation of
rights. Whether or not he expends any labor is not relevant -- e.g.,
he does not gain a right to a stolen car by changing the oil. And
neither is your so-called first possession rule relevant: Dirty
Publius has no right to appropriate and own the spring or the
atmosphere, even though he is the first to take possession of them.
>The
>recipient of a gift invests no productive labor either, but he *does* gain a
>right. You need a theory which can account for that difference.
I have one: the donor's right to transfer his property. You remember:
that's the right that proves people do not own themselves.
>>>Labor investments bear on property rights only to the extent that they
>>>evidence first possession.
>>
>> Lie. As usual, you have it exactly backwards: first possession only
>> bears on property rights to the extent that it evidences investment of
>> labor (most particularly the labor of bringing the property into
>> existence). First possession only has any bearing whatever on
>> property rights when it results in a _product_ that inherently first
>> appears in the producer's hands.
>
>Well, we've already looked at several cases where no labor is invested,
And I have proved you wrong on every single one of them.
>yet
>rights are not (generally) disputed. (You realize I have to insert
>"generally" because someone will dispute anything).
Yes; for example, I will dispute all your false claims.
>>>E.g., the labor you invest in making a spear is
>>>evidence of your first possession of the spear.
>>
>> No, you have it backwards again. The labor is the proof that you have
>> _contributed_ the spear to the sum of what exists, rather than just
>> _appropriating_ it from others as a common thief would do.
>>
>>>By making it, you are its first possessor.
>>
>> You incidentally become its first possessor in the course of making
>> it. The latter, not the former, is the basis of your rightful
>> property in the spear, because that is what ensures your property in
>> it does not violate anyone else's rights. Conspicuously _un_like
>> initial appropriation of natural resources.
>
>You're still begging the question. Which rights of whom are violated?
The equal rights of all to use what nature provided for all.
>What is their basis?
The fact that human beings need access to natural resources in order
to exist or exercise any other rights.
>>>But there was no labor investment in the stick from which
>>>you made the spear, or the flint from which you made the point.
>
>> They started as natural resources to which everyone had just as much
>> right as you. Correct.
>
>And you are correct there also. Prior to an appropriation everyone has an
>equal right to all natural resources. They are all equal in being zero.
No, they are all obviously not zero, as you insist the appropriator
somehow has a non-zero right to take them.
How is the right of the man in the desert to drink from the spring a
"zero" right? How is your right to breathe the air of the earth's
atmosphere a "zero" right? Would you not feel a bit ill-used if
someone deprived you of access to the atmosphere?
You are just spouting nonsense again.
>Hence an act of first appropriation violates no one's rights.
As you know, that claim was already refuted by Dirty Publius and his
revolver at the waterhole. You are simply attempting to justify
murder, as long as it is committed for profit by a property owner.
>As you can perhaps see, saying "everyone's rights to natural resources are
>equal" doesn't get you anywhere. You also have to establish that some or all
>of them have some positive right. Which you have so far failed to do.
Lie. I have proved that a right to use natural resources is the
necessary and only possible meaning of the rights to life and liberty.
By contrast, your claim of a right to take resources from others that
is prior to any right to use them oneself is just incoherent,
self-contradictory, and logically inverted.
>>>Those became your property the moment you picked them up.
>
>> Yes, when you removed them from nature and made them into a product by
>> your investment of labor -- _assuming_ they were not so scarce that
>> your use of them deprived others of equivalent spear-making
>> opportunities. Correct.
>
>Well, we were discussing the stick and the stone prior to their being
>fashioned into a spear. You may not make a spear with them until next week.
>May anyone take them from you in the meantime?
They are products of labor as soon as you have expended productive
effort on them. Moving them to a more convenient location is labor,
as it increases their utility.
>But I also see Locke's "enough and as good" proviso lurking in there. That
>leads to a *reductio ad absurdum*. Here is the argument:
>
>1. Everyone has an equal right to appropriate any unowned natural good x1.
I simply don't accept that premise. People have equal rights to _use_
natural resources, not to deprive others of them. The need to secure
and reconcile those rights is why we need governments.
>2. No given person A may appropriate x1 unless "enough and as good," e.g.,
>an x2, is left for the next person, B, who may come along and wish to
>appropriate an x.
Because you are assuming a right to deprive others of resources rather
than to use them oneself, and depriving people of what they would
otherwise have had is the fundamental form of rights violation, you
are just assuming a universal right that is inherently
self-contradictory.
>3. But B may not appropriate x2 unless there is an x3 left for C to
>appropriate, and so on.
>
>4. But unless the supply of x is sufficient for everyone, now and in the
>future, to appropriate an x, then someone N will be left with the last x,
>and thus may not take it (since the "proviso" would then be violated).
>
>5. Hence the person preceding N may not take an x either, since N would then
>be left only with a share he cannot take.
>
>6. And so on back to x1.
Right, because you are assuming a right to _subtract_from_ the supply
available to others, not merely to use the resource oneself. There is
no problem with all of us using the same atmosphere to breathe, the
same springs to drink from, etc. The problem arises when Dirty (and,
let's face it, Lazy and Greedy) Publius starts to bottle the
atmosphere, charge for drinks from the springs, etc. in order to
extort wealth from others in return for no contribution to the
production of wealth.
>Thus no one may appropriate any natural good unless he can assure that the
>supply will be sufficient for all future demand. And since no one can assure
>that, everyone starves in the midst of plenty.
Nope. People can all have the opportunity to enjoy and add to the
plenty, as long as they understand they have rights to _use_ natural
resources, but not to deprive others of them without compensation.
That is the only account of property rights I have ever seen that is
consistent with equal human rights to life and liberty.
>Very simply, the first person A has no duty, and cannot have a duty, to
>assure that the supply of x will be sufficient for B and all his successors.
Strawman. Dirty Publius has no duty to supply everyone with water,
either. But he also has no right to _deprive_ them of the water
supply they would otherwise have been free to use.
>B and the successors have no right to an x2, or to any x.
Yes, they most certainly have a right to use the resources they would
otherwise have been free to use if others had not forcibly deprived
them of access to them.
>The only rights
>they have are to appropriate whatever x's there may happen to be.
Garbage. You are again assuming an incoherent right to deprive others
of use of x that is prior to the appropriator's own right to use x!
>But perhaps you think A does have some such duty. You'll have to explain the
>origin of that duty (which will turn out to be equivalent to justifying the
>claim that B has a right to an x2).
A right _is_ a duty on the part of others not to deprive one of what
one would otherwise have had. B certainly has a right to use the
natural resources he would have been free to use if others had not
deprived him of them.
>It is perfectly true that appropriation by any agent of any good x
>forecloses the opportunity to appropriate that x to all other agents.
Right. Appropriation is zero-sum. Productive use is not. You
advocate a theory of property rights based on appropriation of what
others would otherwise have been free to use, I advocate one based on
securing and reconciling everyone's equal rights to use them
productively.
>If 100
>explorers are searching for the Holy Grail, then when one of them finds it,
>the opportunity to find it is foreclosed to the other 99.
No, it depends on what the finder does with it. If he just drinks
from it and leaves it there, the others all have exactly the same
opportunity he had. Only if he _takes_ the Grail does he deprive
others of the opportunity to find it. You are just flat wrong, as
usual.
>And that is
>perfectly acceptable, since none of the 100 has any duty to guarantee
>opportunities for the other 99.
They all have a duty not to deprive the others of opportunities they
would otherwise have had, without compensating them for the loss. But
the "opportunity to find the Grail" is not an opportunity in the
relevant sense, as finding it per se confers no benefit.
And btw, it is well established that the finders of antiquities do not
thereby obtain a property right to them. They revert to the country
where they are found.
>> It is trivially easy to prove beyond any possibility of dispute that
>> your notion of property rights deriving from first possession has
>> never been anything but a feudal libertarian lie. If a man shoots a
>> wild animal but another man is closer when it falls, the other man
>> cannot go and claim it by first possession. It is former man's the
>> labor of killing the animal, not the latter's of grabbing it first,
>> that confers a genuine property right in the quarry. This simple
>> example proves that first possession is never even a relevant
>> criterion in determining rightful ownership. The contribution of
>> labor to the property's production is therefore the relevant
>> criterion.
>
>That question was actually addressed in a classic case, Pierson v. Post
>(1805).
No, of course it wasn't. You are just a liar. Pierson v Post
addressed the issue of claims arising from productive effort (labor)
_and_ possession as opposed to mere unproductive effort. The
disappointment of unproductive effort does not constitute a claim to
property under either of our theories.
>But the question is not one of labor v. possession,
It wasn't in Pierson v Post, anyway, because the same individual had
both claims. As you know, that wasn't what I was talking about above.
Please stop trying to change the subject whenever I prove you wrong.
>but of what
>constitutes possession. The court ruled in Pierson that whoever kills the
>animal has taken possession.
IOW, it recognized that the relevant criterion is in fact the
production, not the possession.
>"Consider Pierson v. Post, a classic wild animal case from the early
>nineteenth century. Post was hunting a fox one day on an abandoned beach and
>almost had the beast in his gunsight when an interloper appeared, killed the
>fox, and ran off with the carcass. The indignant Post sued the interloper
>for the value of the fox on the theory that his pursuit of the fox had
>established his property right to it.
An obviously fallacious argument, as his effort had not yet been
productive.
(But boy, some people obviously needed a life, even back then...)
>"The court disagreed. It cited a long list of learned authorities to the
>effect that "occupancy" or "possession" went to the one who killed the
>animal, or who at least wounded it mortally or caught it in a net.
I.e, recognizing the primacy of production over possession: the dead
or trapped animal that can't get away having been made more valuable
than the beast in the bush.
>These
>acts brought the animal within the 'certain control' that gives rise to
>possession and hence a claim to ownership."
Bringing an animal into certain control is labor because the animal is
thus made more valuable. Saying, "This land is mine" is not labor,
because it merely deprives others of what they would otherwise have
been free to use.
>---Perspectives on Property Law, 2nd Edition, Ellickson, Rose, Ackerman
>(181-189).
>http://www.kentlaw.edu/classes/kbaker/property/Possession.htm
OK, now cite the case where A killed the animal, B took possession
first, and B's first possession took priority over A's labor.
Thought not.
>There is no consideration of the relative amounts of labor invested.
Yes, of course there is: only the successful hunter invested any.
Post just wasted his time in an unsuccessful hunt, as his effort was
not productive. Up to the point where the fox was shot, it could
still have got away, leaving Post empty-handed.
>The
>labor invested by the first hunter probably well exceeded that invested by
>the interloper.
Equivocation. We have already defined labor as productive effort,
which his was not.
>Nonetheless, he had not taken possession.
Wrong. Post invested no labor whatever, because his effort was
unproductive.
Suppose the second hunter had killed the fox but the first was closer,
and grabbed it as you advocate the grabbing of natural resources from
those who would otherwise be at liberty to use them. Do you think the
court would rule for the first possessor or the producer?
>They also state, "For the common law, possession or 'occupancy' is the
>origin of property."
ROTFL! Despite having just ruled that it was production....
-- Roy L
Publius
Where were we?
>>Prior to that moment
>>they were no one's property, and you need not obtain anyone's permission
>>to pick them up. They were *res nullius*.
> Not quite. As natural resources they were indeed no one's property
> (you might want to think about that fact, and see if you can't bring
> yourself to know it), but if they were so scarce that your use of them
> deprived others of their equivalent rights, you owe them just
> compensation for that deprivation.
Points already addressed in previous post. Prior to someone taking
possession of them, no one had any right to the stick or stone. (So of
course, being zero, everyone's rights to them were indeed equivalent.)
They all also had equal rights to appropriate that stick and stone, should
they become their first possessors. But once one of them does appropriate
those items, that opportunity is then foreclosed to all others.
As already shown, none of them has any duty to guarantee "equivalent
opportunities" to anyone else. Assuming there is such a duty renders every
taking illegitimate.
You may note also that the prior rights they all have equally, i.e., to
appropriate the stick and stone, imply appropriation of the stick and
stone. Your analysis grants them a right to do something which you claim
they are barred from doing. Hence it is self-contradictory.
> This fact is self-evident and indisputable, although you have decided
> not to know it because it disproves your false beliefs. Read and
> learn: a dozen men are shipwrecked on an island, and the only thing
> there that they can eat are coconuts. But the coconuts are up in the
> trees, out of reach, and none of the men can climb any of the trees.
> They look around for a stick to knock the coconuts down, and by and
> by, one of them finds the only stick on the island long and strong
> enough to do the job. Do you think the other eleven men would grant
> the lucky finder property in the stick, and the effective monopoly of
> their food supply? Please try not to be so stupid. Of course they
> would not, and they have no reason to. He did not create the stick,
> and they all have equal rights to use it. His discovery of it gets
> him first use, and that's all. When he's got his coconut, he yields
> the stick to the next man; none of them for one second imagines the
> stick is the discoverer's property; and any attempt by the discoverer
> to assert a bogus property right in the stick would very likely get
> him killed with it. First possession is
> _*always*_absolutely_irrelevant_ in determining property rights.
>
> You stand refuted. As usual.
Heh. You *really* need to learn what counts as a refutation.
Your tale is ambiguous. Have they made some prior agreement to search for
a stick and share one if found? If so, then they have duties to abide by
that agreement. If there is no such agreement, and each sets off on his
own to find some means to retrieve coconuts, then whoever first finds the
stick owns it, and may use it as he likes. But in the circumstances as you
describe them what he will probably do is share the stick with the others
--- there are (apparently) enough coconuts for all, and the stick
(apparently) has no other uses. So because he values their companionship
and good will, he'll share the stick.
That decision could be different in different circumstances. For example,
if there are not enough coconuts to feed them all, even with the stick. Or
if the finder disliked some of his fellow exiles and had no interest in
sharing anything with them. In that case he might keep his discovery to
himself and share it only selectively.
The real questions raised by your scenario, however, are not who owns the
stick and how that ownership arises (which I presume is the point of this
discussion), but what duties one person may have to share his property.
Suppose instead that no one finds a suitable stick, but that one of the
exiles happened to have his slingshot in his pocket when stranded. He can
bring down coconuts using the slingshot and beach rocks. I assume you'd
agree the slingshot (a manufactured item he'd earlier bought and paid
for), is unquestionably his property. Wouldn't the questions you raise be
the same?
There are questions about how property and ownership arise, but also
questions about the moral duties one has with respect to his property.
Those are different kinds of questions.
>>Now, now. We are speaking of natural rights here, not legal rights.
>>"Rightful" rights, remember? The basis of a legal right, such as the
>>right to vote, is a decree of a lawgiver, nothing more or less.
> The equal right to influence collective decisions that apply equally
> to all -- e.g., the right to speak at a community meeting -- is not
> merely a legal right, and long antedates legal codes. Democracy
> simply codifies a pre-existing right.
That is still a legal right. It derives from a contract, rather than a
statute. If someone joins a club he'll probably gain the right to vote
annually on its officers. That right is defined and created by agreement
among the club members, as set forth in its charter and bylaws.
>>First, anything is a "thing," by definition.
>
> Equivocation. Actions, qualities and relationships are not things and
> thus cannot be property.
Anything that may be of value to an agent, and is alienable, may be
property. All of the things you mention may be property, and are
routinely recognized as such. Persons may sue one another for damage to
reputation, loss of good will, alienation of affections, breach of
promise, etc. What links everything recognized as property is *value*. If
x is valuable to any agent, and it is possible for an agent to be deprived
of x by the action of another agent, then x will qualify as property. And
x will be the property of P IFF P is the first possessor of x. The
physical characteristics of x (or lack of them) make utterly no
difference.
The entire aim and purpose of the concept of property is to prevent one
agent P from reducing the welfare of another agent Q by taking something
of value to Q. You need to grasp that point.
>>Rights claims have the form,
>>
>>(1) R(P,x)
>>
>>meaning, "P has a right to x." The only constraints on x are that it
>>have some value to P and cannot be another agent, Q.
>
> Where do these constraints come from? You are apparently just makin'
> $#!+ up again.
See above for value. The constraint that x may not be another agent
derives from the presumption that all agents are moral equals (the same
rules apply in the same way to all). That excludes ownership of one agent
by another. Of course, as we all know, slavery has been widely practiced
and accepted throughout human history. Perhaps you can figure out for
yourself how the "equal agency" constraint can construed to allow slavery.
>>It may be tangible or
>>intangible, concrete or abstract. The only relation to "society"
>>involved is that the meanings of those terms, and the truth conditions
>>for propositions like (1), must be public, like the meanings and truth
>>conditions of all objective propositions.
>
> No. Rights only have meaning in a social context.
That's what I just said.
> The _content_ of
> "P has a right to x" is that society recognizes an obligation on the
> part of others not to interfere with P's enjoyment of x and to
> restrain any who do not recognize that obligation so that P _can_
> enjoy x.
Yes, except it is not "society" which recognizes anything (societies are
not entities or moral agents). It is other agents, via their
understandings of the meanings of those terms. And that obligation is not
entailed, and cannot be derived, solely from a proposition relating P to
x, such as (1)
(1) R(P,x).
(1) is a purely empirical proposition. It states nothing more than that a
certain relationship exists between P and x. Its truth conditions are
entirely empirical --- the relationship exists if P is the first possessor
of x; nothing else counts and nothing else is implied.
To get an obligation you need a further proposition:
(2) One agent ought not violate another's rights.
Justifying (2) requires a moral theory. One cannot derive "ought" from
"is." (1) merely states an "is;" the ought requires different arguments,
namely, some moral arguments.
>>Rights claims also *presume* a
>>social context --- that is, that there are other agents about who may
>>also value x and hence might challenge P's claim.
>
> No. Society's role in P's right to x is much deeper and absolutely
> crucial, as explained above, and implies recognition of an obligation
> of non-interference on the part of others.
See above. P's right to x implies no such thing. Obligations cannot be
derived from facts. You need a moral theory in addition to the facts. And
of course, you need to have the facts straight before you can rationally
apply the moral theory. (1) aims to get the facts straight.
And to get anywhere with this discussion, you'll need to eschew referring
to "society" as though it is a moral agent. It is only a collective term
for a group of moral agents.
>>We already covered the right to vote. The "right to breathe," and all
>>liberty rights, are derivatives of the right of self-ownership.
> Garbage. The alleged "right of self-ownership" is merely another
> attempt to recast all rights as property rights. But ownership is a
> transitive relationship, not a reflexive one. People cannot own
> themselves any more than they can marry themselves.
Well, transitivity has nothing to do with it. Rights and marriage are both
binary relationships, one of which is reflexive and the other not. Many
binary relationships are reflexive, e.g., P loves Q, P knows Q, P is a
subset of Q, P is talking to Q, P contains Q, etc. In all of them, P and Q
may be identical with no lapse in logic. P owns Q works the same way. Or
if you think otherwise, you'll need to come up with some absurdities that
follow from that construal.
> No, they self-evidently and indisputably are not. The transitive
> relationship "a owns b" is entirely different from a reflexive
> relationship.
I don't think you understand what a "transitive relationship" is.
Transitivity is a property of relationships among 3 or more elements.
Transitivity is not defined for binary relationships.
Check here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitive_relation
> There is in fact no relationship "a owns a." You are
> simply trying to fabricate a reflexive ownership relationship that
> would apply to no "a" but human beings. As human beings cannot
> rightly own one another, it is self-evident that the reflexive
> relationship you have fabricated is not the same as the transitive "a
> owns b" relationship.
Get back to me when you get clear on what transitivity is, and when you
can articulate the problems you imagine you see with "a owns a." If P and
Q are both persons, then P cannot own Q because P would then control Q, in
violation of the Equal Agency principle. P can, however, control himself.
The latter relationship is well-defined and perfectly coherent.
>>They are derivatives of your natural right to your
>>own physical body, and to all the uses it may be put and benefits it may
>>confer.
> That is not ownership, because unlike the car, you cannot sell your
> body.
Of course you can. People do it all the time. You're not alluding to
arbitrary legal prohibitions, are you? People sell their blood, their
kidneys and other body parts they can do without. Some of those sales may
be illegal in some places, but that is irrelevant. They also rent out
their bodies for various purposes, most of which are quite legal (though a
few, like prostitution, are not in many places). Renting out one's body
requires ownership just as does selling it. They may also sell their
entire bodies upon their deaths, with proceeds going to their estates.
> You stand refuted. Repeatedly.
:-)
>>>>You are probably laboring under the myth that all land in the New
>>>>World "belonged to the Indians."
>>>
>>> They certainly occupied and used most of it, though they did not
>>> consider it ownable.
>>
>>Sorry, but that is empirically false, on both points.
>
> No, it is a fact of objective reality, and provably so, and you are
> simply a liar.
>
>>Indians did consider land ownable.
>
> Lie.
http://www.perc.org/perc.php?id=802
http://www.law.gmu.edu/faculty/papers/docs/00-14.pdf
http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/rubenstein_stan_indian_land_ownersh
ip.html
>>they did recognize and enforce tribal ownership.
>
> Nope. Flat, outright wrong. There is a difference between land
> ownership and territoriality.
No there isn't.
> Ownership is recognized and defended by
> other parties than the owners, territorial possession only by the
> owners.
Depends upon what is owned (or claimed) and upon whether a group of owners
have agreed upon a joint enforcement method. 'Tis irrelevant.
> Ownership implies an obligation and agreement on the part of others to
> respect and secure the owner's rights.
No. Ownership *per se* implies neither. See above. A moral theory will
supply the "respect" part. The "secure" part requires a further agreement
to establish an enforcement mechanism.
>>Nomadic and hunter/gatherer tribes do
>>not recognize individual ownership of land because they have no need for
>>it.
> But aren't you the same ignoramus who claimed that land was never
> useful until someone appropriated it as their private property and
> made an investment in it? What on earth were those hunter/gatherers
> doing living on all that "useless" unowned land, hmmmmm?
Not having a need to individually own land does not imply that land is not
useful. I have no need to individually own park land in order to make use
(the use I desire) from it. Not all uses require individual ownership.
>>Virtually all conflicts between whites and natives in N. America
>>resulted from trespasses by whites upon Indian lands or other resources.
>
> Hehe. I thought you were the one claiming the whites obtained
> rightful ownership through _first_ possession of the land. Now you
> admit the whites invaded and stole "Indian lands."
They sure did in some cases.
[I'm gonna skip arguments over the history of N. American settlement. That
is a topic in its own right, and incidental to the main issues here]
>>there were only 500,000 - 800,000 Native
>>Americans in N. America north of Mexico, spread over 5 million square
>>miles.
>
> More utter garbage. The 500,000 estimate was produced by the US
> Census Bureau in 1894, and is now considered a ridiculous
> underestimate by all credible scholars. Here is a more informed
> number:
>
> "In the 1960s, a Berkeley geographer, Carl Sauer, cited evidence of a
> 1496 census that Columbus's brother Bartholomew ordered for tax
> purposes on Hispaniola (now Haiti and the Dominican Republic). The
> Spanish counted 1.1 million Indians. Since that sum covered only
> Hispaniola's Spanish-controlled half and excluded children, Sauer
> concluded that 3 million Indians once inhabited the island."
Those numbers may be good for 1496. Plausible estimates for N. America
range from 5 to 20 million (although there are certainly many
ideologically-motivated estimates well above and below that figure).
However, by 1796, when settlement of the American West began in earnest,
that population had been reduced by up to 95%, due largely to disease,
especially smallpox. The west by then was largely depopulated, and had
been for a century or more.
> http://www.usna.edu/Users/history/kolp/HH345/PRE1492.HTM
Your source is good. It confirms my numbers. See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_American_indigenous_peop
les
>>It is a jointly-owned property.
>
> And it therefore does _not_ belong to you but to the community.
The "community" is nothing but the individuals who comprise it.
[more snipped --- repetitive of earlier points]
>> Sorry, but the land was *not* ready to be used.
> Sorry, but yes, of course it was. How could anyone ever start to use
> it if it was not ready to be used?
Because someone has made it ready for use, such as discovering it.
>> They do not become "ready to be used" until they are discovered,
> Lie. Discovery merely makes someone ready to use the resources. It
> affects the state of the discoverer's knowledge, not the condition of
> the resource.
LOL. I admit I would never have thought of splitting that hair. It won't
get you anywhere, however, since it just changes the frame of reference.
What the discover then sells is not the resource, but his knowledge.
But that is silly. A resource is not "ready to be used" until someone is
able to use it. And that doesn't happen until it is discovered, recovered,
and transformed into usable form. There are no uses for a barrel of
undiscovered, unrecovered oil.
>>and in the case of most resources, recovered.
> Flat false. How could a resource be recovered if it was not first
> ready to be used to create the product (the recovered resource)?
Because once it is discovered it becomes ready to be recovered. Prior to
that it is ready only to be discovered. And of course everyone's rights to
discover it are precisely the same.
"Ready to be used to create the product" means, "Sitting in tankers at the
refinery."
> Garbage. They are only _worth_ securing if they are _already_useful_,
> and discovery alters their condition not one whit.
Being useful and being ready to be used are two different things. Their
usefulness is *contingent* upon their being discovered, recovered, and
usually processed in some way. Until those events happen, they are
perfectly useless.
>> Undiscovered, unrecovered resources are utterly worthless.
> ROTFL!! That must be why oil companies pay millions of dollars for
> exploration licenses where no resources have yet been discovered!
Well, the companies must pay for licenses because the land upon which they
wish to explore is owned by someone else (except in the case of licenses
from the gummint, whose claims to ownership are baseless). That expense is
an investment against future revenue, just as the investment in drills and
labor. Here is something you need to realize: "Mother Nature" is never
paid a cent for any resource. That is because those resources in their
natural, undiscovered state are worthless. Every cent paid, by every
consumer of that resource, is paid to someone who contributed something to
the discovery and production of that resource. No one is paid for
undiscovered, unrecovered resource *per se*, and no one pays for the
resource in that state.
>> There are no
>> doubt billions of barrels of oil in ocean-floor deposits,
>
> ?? Oh, but how could there be? You think natural resources don't
> even exist until they are discovered!
Where did I say that?
>>such as the Mars
>>field discovered by Shell Oil a few years ago. Suppose everyone has an
>>equal share to that undiscovererd, unrecovered oil.
>
> Which they do.
>
>>What would you pay for "my share"?
>
> Your equal right to use what nature provided to all is not rightly
> salable for any sum, any more than your right to vote or breathe is.
I see we're back to the question-begging. Whence cometh this alleged
"right to use"? In what sense has nature provided anything *to* anyone? Do
you have some sort of deed evidencing that conveyance? Sorry, Roy, but
you're trying to go from the mere existence of some natural substance to a
title to that substance. That is a *non sequitur*.
There are no shares, and no rights to use, by anyone, until an act of
possession occurs.
>> Yet when someone makes those investments and discovers the next deposit,
>> all the free lunchers, who have invested nothing,
> That is another lie. Those who do not do the drilling have
> nevertheless invested something in the exploration: they have
> consented to hold in abeyance their own rights to drill there,
More question-begging.
> That is why
> exploration licenses are put out to bid, and why Alaska sends oil
> royalty dividend cheques to all its adult citizens.
Yup. The governments involved are asserting bogus claims and enforcing them
at gunpoint. Gummints do that regularly.
> _You_ are the only one who is spouting nonsense here, Publius, and it
> is self-evidently, provably, and indisputably nonsense. The Mars
> Field was there before Shell Oil ever existed, and if Shell had not
> discovered it, someone else eventually would have.
That much is true. It would then be the property of that discoverer.
> And that hard, stubborn, indisputable fact brings your whole house of
> cards crashing to the ground. Shell Oil contributed exactly _nothing_
> to the Mars Field. All it did was insert itself as the owner of what
> was already there.
Oh, my. That is a truly amazing claim. You might want to inform Susan Waters
and Mark Stockwell, the geologists who (after many days poring over seismic
maps all the free lunchers who think they have a "share" could not even
comprehend) thought that site was worth drilling, and persuaded the company
to spend $14 million to do it.
You're right that had they not discovered that field someone else would
have, eventually. But it would not have been any of your free lunchers.
"Shell Oil contributed exactly _nothing_ to the Mars Field."
That one is a keeper. The leech mentality in all its sucking, mindless,
naked glory.
[more snipped, repetitive]
>>All that is necessary is to show that of two or more
>>claimants, one's claim is better than the others --- that his title
>>claim is better documented than the others.
>
> What utter garbage. That simply shows who has the better paper trail,
> same as the documentation of title to a slave. It does absolutely
> nothing to show that such a paper trail confers any validity on the
> title claim it documents. It couldn't matter less how many notarized
> documents Dirty Publius flourishes before us to support his claims to
> own the desert spring and the atmosphere. He's still just a
> despicable, lying thief.
Before you can establish that Publius is a thief you'll have to establish
that your claim is better than his. Which you have so far failed to do.
> Wrong again. Everyone has an equal right to use what nature provided
> equally to all,
We might as well stop here. Perhaps we can resume after you solve the
question-begging problem.
Peter B. P.
> >The state is
> >created in large part to violate property rights,
>
> Thank you for proving that you are stupid, ignorant and dishonest.
>
> Fortunately, some people very much smarter, more learned and more
> honest than you have already considered the matter in great detail and
> with penetrating insight:
>
> "The preservation of property is the end of government, and that for
> which men enter into society. It is true governments cannot be
> supported without great charge, and it is fit everyone who enjoys his
> share of that protection should pay out of his estate his proportion
> for the maintenance of it."
> -- John Locke, Second Treatise on Government, 1690
Of course, this doesn't address that the government severely violates my
property rights to the product of my labor. Care to comment on that,
Roy?
--
regards , Peter B. P.
http://titancity.com/blog , http://macplanet.dk
Peter B. P.
ro...@telus.net
Few governnments do a very good job of discharging their rightful
functions. A government that taxes earned income is not trying to
protect the _rightful_ property rights of _working_ people, only the
unjust privileges of the rich. Great inequality of wealth is
effectively proof that government is robbing working people for the
unearned benefit of the rich, a system I call "plutism."
-- Roy L
Publius
>> If others have rights to the stick you used to
>> make the spear before you picked it up, you'll need to set forth the
>> basis of those alleged rights.
>
> ?? How could you have a right to pick it up and use it, but others
> not have the same right?
I think we covered that. Prior to anyone picking it up everyone has the
identical right to do so. Everyone has a liberty right (derived from their
rights to their own bodies) to pick up unowned sticks. But prior to picking
one up, no has a right *to any stick*.
There are two different rights here, Roy. You'll have to get them straight.
The rights to pick up an unowned stick, and a right *to the stick*, are two
different rights. Both originate in first possession. The right to pick it
up rests on one's first possession of one's body, which (like all rights)
entails exclusive control of that body and thus what one may do with it,
including picking up sticks. A right *to the stick*, however, begins when
*it* is first possessed by someone, i.e., picked up.
Try to keep those straight. You seem to be assuming that because everyone
has an equal right to pick up an unowned stick, they must then have equal
rights *to the stick* (in fact, to every stick anyone picks up). And that is
fallacious. The right to control one's own body does not entail rights to
any other things. Each thing to which a right is asserted requires a
separate act of possession.
Perhaps an analogy will help. Everyone has a right to enter a footrace.
Everyone who enters has an equal right to win (they have an equal rights to
try their best to finish first). Whoever wins gets the trophy. But those
equal rights to enter and compete to not entail equal rights to the trophy
(or prize money) at the conclusion of the race. Comprende?
>>You are apparently assuming the the "primordial
>>common ownership" thesis, which holds that all natural goods are
>>originally common property.
> I have already told you that I do not make any such assumption, nor
> have you ever offered any evidence that I do. All you do is
> repeatedly lie that I do, because the only argument you have is to lie
> about what I have plainly written.
You adhere to a version of it (a "primordial right to use").
> No, that is just another of your constantly expanding universe of
> lies. As you know, I have already proved to you that people have a
> right to breathe atmospheric air, even though it is not their
> property.
I'll leave this 'til later, after we've examined your main argument.
>>(1) R(P,x) (P has a right to x) defines P as an *owner*, and x as
>>*property*.
>
> ?? ROTFL!!!
>
> No, it most certainly does not. That is just another in your long
> succession of idiotic lies. "I have a right to breathe," does not
> mean "breathe" is my property. "A woman has a right to refuse a man's
> advances," does not mean "refuse a man's advances" is her property.
We've covered that also. Liberty rights (rights to act in certain ways) are
rights entailed by having a right to some property. Having a right to some
property x entails the right to control x. That in turn entails a right to
act in certain ways with respect to x. But all those entailed "rights to
act" are not separate rights with their own "property." There is really only
one right involved, and one property, namely x. Saying that "P has a right
to do such-and-such with x" does not imply that P has any right except the
right to x. The latter right confers upon P exclusive powers over x, the
power to control x. Those powers are implicit in P's right to x; they are
not separate rights in addition to it.
Your "right to breathe" is merely an implication of your right to your body,
which entails that you may decide what to do with it. It is no different
than that your right to your car entails a right to drive it.
I'm sure you'll be able to grasp this if you give it some thought.
One question you *could* raise here is whether anyone has a right to breathe
any particular air. And of course, your "right to breathe" (which is merely
the right to control your body) does not entail a right to breathe any
particular air, any more than your right to drive your car entails a right
to drive it on any particular road. Any air you wish to breathe, or any road
you wish to use, will require separate rights to those things.
But we'll come back to this later.
> You are just being stupid and dishonest again, because that is the
> only way to pursue your evil, greed-besotted agenda of eradicating all
> human rights other than property rights in order to make the extent of
> people's property the measure of what rights they may enjoy (yes:
> although you never mention it, the vicious nature of your objective is
> not at all difficult to discern).
Your passion is noted. Now you just need to redirect it into a more
defensible channel. But I certainly don't wish to "eradicate" any rights
except fictitious ones. And of course an alleged "right" lacking any
discernible basis is fictitious.
>>Not only does a right not exist prior to first possession, neither does
>>an owner, or property.
> Again, that claim is just provably false as a matter of objective
> fact. First possession itself cannot be rightful without a prior
> right to _take_ possession. That is what I proved to you above: if
> you have a right to take possession of a natural resource, you are
> unilaterally extinguishing the rights of others to do likewise when
> you appropriate it without compensating them for the deprivation.
We covered that above, and also in the post prior to this one. Everyone's
right to take possession of x is equal as long as x is not possessed. But
once possession of x is taken by someone, the rights of all others to
possess it cease. The right to take possession of x rigorously *entails*
that consequence. If that consequence is denied, then there *is* no right to
take possession, for anyone --- the right cannot be exercised. The purported
right is self-contradictory --- exercising it violates it.
If this is too hard to grasp, perhaps another example will help.
Having a right to pick a banana entails that you may eat the banana. If you
pick and eat the banana, no one else may then pick the banana, nor eat it.
Before you picked, of course, everyone had a right to pick it. But upon your
picking and eating it, those rights became moot. They cease to exist,
because the banana no longer exists. But in fact, others rights to pick that
banana ceased *before* you ate it. They vanished the moment you picked it,
because that banana was no longer *res nullius*. It became property at that
point, and was thus no longer available for picking or eating by others.
Your analysis of rights, Roy, entails than every exercise of a right entails
a violation of someone else's rights. You might give that some thought.
>> Hence you can't argue that taking possession of unowned property
>
> Natural resources are not "unowned property," liar. They are not
> property at all. There is not even any such thing as unowned
> property, because what is not owned is not property.
Oooh, you got me there. I should have said "unowned goods," or "unowned
substances or entities." Happy?
>> deprives
>> others of their *rights*, since others have no rights to it at that
>> point.
> Refuted above, as well as in my previous message. You have simply
> added another false premise in a foredoomed attempt to shore up your
> demolished argument: the premise that no one has any rights to
> anything they do not own. But I have already proved that is false:
> people have a right to breathe air they do not own, to cast votes they
> do not own, to use a language they do not own, to walk through
> wilderness they do not own, to gaze at stars they do not own, to
> consensually associate with others they do not own, etc., etc., etc.
Still having a hard time with that distinction, aren't you? As a matter of
fact, they do own most of those things (we'd need more info on the
wilderness). So let's deal now with this "right to breathe."
As mentioned, your "right to breathe" is merely a liberty right. It is
entailed by your right to your body and lungs. That right does not entail a
right to breathe any particular air, however. Fortunately for both of us,
however, the atmosphere is a "natural common." There are a number of those
in existence --- the surface of the oceans, many other natural bodies of
water, languages, for example. There are also many "artificial commons" ---
commons which have been created by compacts or consensus among groups of
people.
The atmosphere is a natural common because it is an undifferentiated whole
which has been in common use by all plants and animals since time
immemorial. Because it is mobile and homogeneous, portions of it cannot be
parceled out to particular individuals. Hence no one may use it in ways that
deprive others of their existing uses.
The same is true of the ocean surfaces. They have been used for navigation
since time immemorial by all comers. Hence no one may fence off a portion of
the oceans and charge "transit fees."
On the other hand, there is a "Law of the Sea" treaty to which many nations
have subscribed (not the US). That treaty declares that seabed minerals are
the "common property of mankind," and purports to demand royalties from
anyone who wishes to extract those minerals. That claim is mere pompous
puffery. Unlike surface rights, which are a bonafide common (having been
used in common for millenia), seabed minerals are *not* a common. No one has
ever used or benefited from them, and thus "mankind" (meaning grasping
gummints, of course) has no claim whatsoever to them.
Private appropriation from bonafide commons is a no-no. But before you can
claim that some resource is a common, you have to *show* that it is, by
showing a history of common use. If you can't show that, then the resource
is *res nullius*, and available for taking by the first comer.
You indeed have a "right to breathe," and fortunately, on Earth you also
have something *to* breathe for which you don't have to pay. If you should
find yourself in a colony on the Moon or Mars, however, that would not be
the case. The only air you'd have is that which someone extracted from rocks
or brought from Earth. And you can be sure they'd charge you for the
privilege.
> People are born with rights to life, liberty, and property in the
> products of their labor. The physical universe is divided into three
> mutually exclusive sets: people, the products of their labor, and
> natural resources. As the right to life can only mean a right to act
> to sustain one's life, it _must_ mean a right to access the natural
> resources needed to do so.
Ok. There is your main argument, the means by which you hope to avoid my
charge of question-begging.
Your contention is that the right to life entails a right to whatever is
required to sustain your life.
That is a *non sequitur*. Having a right to an x does not entail any rights
to anything else, whether they are needed to maintain or make use of x or
not. Your right to your car does not entail rights to the fuel, oil, tires,
or anything else needed to use and maintain it. It does not entitle you to
the services of a mechanic if it breaks down. Nor does your right to your
house entail rights to heat, electricity, cleaning services, or roof
repairs. If you need any of those things to maintain your house and car,
you'll need to acquire rights to them separately.
Now you'll need either to show that your right to life (and the maintenance
of your body) differs from all other rights in this respect, and why it
does.
Needs do not give rise to rights, no matter whether the things needed are
natural or manmade goods. Rights have nothing whatever to do with needs. You
specifically mentioned "access to natural resources." But why should a
natural good differ from manmade goods? If your needs gives rise to rights,
and you have a disease which can be cured only with a certain manmade drug,
wouldn't you have as much right to that drug as to any natural goods you
might need? If not, why not?
Apart from being simply false and *ad hoc* as a basis for rights, your
"needs thesis" has many other problems. A major one is that outside the
Garden of Eden, none of the things you need to sustain your life are
"natural." You cannot eat land, or build houses with it (at least, not a
house you'd want to live in). Virtually none of the medicines and medical
devices you might need to sustain your life are natural. Nor are any of
things you might find necessary to live a rewarding and enjoyable life. The
only thing an *a priori* right to "natural resources" will get you is a
place to stand, air to breathe, and (if you're in the right place) water to
drink. For everything else, you'll have to rely on the fruits of human
efforts. And your "primoridal right to natural resources," even if it
existed, does not entitle you to one iota of the efforts of those who
discovered, recovered, and transformed those resources into usable forms.
Your "right" can extend only to natural goods "in the state Nature hath
provided and left it it," which is undiscovered, unrecovered, and unusable.
The "needs thesis" is non-starter, Roy.
> Now, it's your turn to explain where people got the right forcibly to
> deprive others of their rights to life and liberty by appropriating
> the natural resources they need to use in order to exercise those
> rights.
Already been answered. No one has any right to approriate natural resources
others "need to use" to maintain their lives. Or for that matter, that
others "need to use" for any other purpose. One may only appropriate a
natural good others are *not* using (and have no plans to use, because they
don't know it exists). And if they are *not* using them when P appropriates
them, then they don't *need* to use them at that time. And if others decide
that they need to use them later, then they'll need to deal with P, because
by then those particular resources have already been appropriated, by P. If
they don't like P's terms they can get off their butts and discover some
alternative sources, then invest the efforts necessary to recover and
transform them.
You often oscillate between appropriations from a common and appropriations
of *res nullius*. There is no right to appropriate from a common except with
the permission of all other owners. But a common is simply a form of
ownership, and evidence for the existence of that form of ownership is the
same as for any other form, namely, first possession. Resources that are
unknown and neither used nor claimed by others are not property, neither
individual nor common.
> No, that is just another lie. I have already proved to you that
> _everyone_ has a right to use -- but not to _own_ -- natural
> resources. That is what their rights to life and liberty _mean_, and
> all they _can_ mean.
Well, we've already seen that they don't mean any such thing. Having a right
to life *means* that others may not (morally) kill you, and may not take
from you any property you need for life, provided that property is
rightfully yours, just as having a right to your car *means* that others may
not take it, use it, or destroy it without your permission. It does not
"mean" that they have a duty to help you maintain it.
Having a right to life does not mean that anyone has a duty to supply you
with the things you need to live. Securing the means you require to maintain
your life is your problem, not anyone else's.
You are still begging the question here. Needs do not create any rights
whatsoever, neither rights to appropriate nor rights to "use." And the
distinction you're trying to draw between "rights to own" and "rights to
use" is otiose. Rights to use derive from ownership; there is no right to
use any owned good except with the permission of the owner. No one has any
"right to use" any good until ownership commences, and then the only persons
who have "rights to use" are the owner and those acting with his permission.
Your "right to use" requires the same justification as the right to own
(they are in fact the same right). And the "needs thesis" won't suffice;
needs do not establish any kind of rights.
There is another problem with your "right to use." For most resources, to
use them is to consume them. Each person who "uses" a resource thus
appropriates some portion of it, which is then no longer available to be
used by anyone else. Hence (by your thesis) no one may "use" them either.
You are again trapped in the "enough and as good" paradox.
> You are simply denying that there are any such
> things as rights other than property rights. But that claim is just
> false, as I have already proved, and you have never even bothered to
> offer any sort of logical or factual justification for it (hint: you
> can't).
You really need to learn what "proof" consists in.
But you're right that I deny there are any rights that are not property
rights (legal rights excluded). A right and property are interdefined and
come into being together, via the same act, an act of first possession.
Those primary rights do give rise to numerous powers over the rightful
property, which are often called "rights to act" in various ways with
respect to the property. But those are not separate rights from the property
right; they are implications of it and creatures of it. They come into being
with the property right and are extinguished when it is. They are "child
processes," so to speak.
Your "disproof" attempts to elevate an implication of a property right, a
"child process" of it, namely, the right to use, to a free-standing right,
and then to justify that orphaned right via an *ad hoc* "needs thesis."
You thus end up with a dual criterion for rights --- the "labor criterion"
for manmade goods, and the "needs criterion" for natural goods. And then you
complicate the issue further by claiming that the "needs criterion" does not
generate property rights, but only "rights to use."
And of course you then have all kinds of problems. Which has priority, the
labor criterion or the needs criterion? If someone "needs" a manmade good,
does his "need right" override the owner of that good's property right?
Then your "right to use" leads to paradoxes. For most resources using them
consumes them. Hence those resources are being appropriated whether you like
it or not. And that, by your theory, is illegitimate; those resources cannot
be used, either.
> But it is not her property, as she cannot sell it. It is inseparably
> hers, and so by definition is not property at all: one of the four
> defining rights in property is the right to transfer it (the others
> are the rights to use, control, and benefit by it).
Sorry, but that is not a definition of property. That is a legal
positivist's analysis of property, which has nothing to do with the common
(or common law) definition. The word "property" derives from "proper," and
signifies anything which "properly belongs" to a person. E.g., anything to
which that person has a right. Property *entails* that the owner has those
powers over it, for most property, most of the time. They do not "define"
property.
Most of the rest seems to repeat points already covered. If there were
particular points you'd like to hang me on, let me know and I'll respond to
them.
In the meantime you'll need to come up with something other than your "needs
criterion" to justify your "right to use," explain how the "right to use"
avoids becoming a right to own, how "needs" and rights are to be reconciled.
And you still seem to have no means of dealing with the meteorite. Surely no
one else "needs" the meteorite or its diamonds. Yet it is a natural good.
What about gold? Is your definition of "needs" so broad as to cover anything
someone might desire to have?
Back to square one for you, Roy.
Andy F.
>
> The entire aim and purpose of the concept of property is to prevent one
> agent P from reducing the welfare of another agent Q by taking something
> of value to Q. You need to grasp that point.
Anyone who appropriates a piece of land is reducing the welfare of other
agents.
Wrong. Claiming that somebody has a 'right' is clearly a moral statement.
And "P is the first possessor
of x" is not an empirical statement, unless you have an agreed definition
of 'possession'.In fact it's far from clear what 'possessing' a piece of
land actually means.
The reason you're using pseudo-mathematical jargon is that what you're
saying so nonsensical that nobody would believe it if you wrote it in plain
english.
>
> To get an obligation you need a further proposition:
>
> (2) One agent ought not violate another's rights.
>
> Justifying (2) requires a moral theory. One cannot derive "ought" from
> "is." (1) merely states an "is;" the ought requires different arguments,
> namely, some moral arguments.
No, (2) simply follows from the definition of 'rights'. You've just tried to
hide your moral claims in the bogus maths of (1)
>
Michael Scheltgen
>>
>> (1) R(P,x).
>>
>> (1) is a purely empirical proposition. It states nothing more than that a
>> certain relationship exists between P and x. Its truth conditions are
>> entirely empirical --- the relationship exists if P is the first possessor
>> of x; nothing else counts and nothing else is implied.
>
> Wrong. Claiming that somebody has a 'right' is clearly a moral statement.
> And "P is the first possessor
> of x" is not an empirical statement, unless you have an agreed definition
> of 'possession'.In fact it's far from clear what 'possessing' a piece of
> land actually means.
>
> The reason you're using pseudo-mathematical jargon is that what you're
> saying so nonsensical that nobody would believe it if you wrote it in plain
> english.
>> To get an obligation you need a further proposition:
>>
>> (2) One agent ought not violate another's rights.
>>
>> Justifying (2) requires a moral theory. One cannot derive "ought" from
>> "is." (1) merely states an "is;" the ought requires different arguments,
>> namely, some moral arguments.
>
> No, (2) simply follows from the definition of 'rights'. You've just tried to
> hide your moral claims in the bogus maths of (1)
>
>
No ethics in, no ethics out.
Publius
in news:59e475F...@mid.individual.net:
> Anyone who appropriates a piece of land is reducing the welfare of other
> agents.
Perhaps you can explain how. Might read the backthread first.
> Wrong. Claiming that somebody has a 'right' is clearly a moral
> statement.
Sorry, but you're mistaken. It is an empirical statement with moral
implications. Might check this:
http://www.newliberalreview.com/heck.htm
> And "P is the first possessor
> of x" is not an empirical statement, unless you have an agreed
> definition
> of 'possession'.In fact it's far from clear what 'possessing' a piece of
> land actually means.
It is quite clear in common law, where the notions of "rights" and
"property" evolved (although they are older than that, of course).
One is in possession of a good when one is in a position to use and control
that good. Here is one reference:
http://www.kentlaw.edu/classes/kbaker/property/Possession.htm
> No, (2) simply follows from the definition of 'rights'. You've just
> tried to hide your moral claims in the bogus maths of (1)
Propositions containing "ought" cannot be derived from propositions only
containing "is." I.e., moral conclusions can only be derived from moral
premises.
Michael Scheltgen
Hume, right? But isn't there an implicit moral premise in your
arguments, as well as Roy's?
Publius
news:NkAYh.138344$aG1.96746@pd7urf3no:
>> Propositions containing "ought" cannot be derived from propositions
>> only containing "is." I.e., moral conclusions can only be derived from
>> moral premises.
> Hume, right?
Yes.
> But isn't there an implicit moral premise in your
> arguments, as well as Roy's?
There is an explicit one in mine, namely, that one ought not violate others'
rights. That is derived via a moral argument (also in the backthread). But
how one determines whether a right exists, or whether a rights claim is true
or false, does not itself require any moral argument. It is strictly a
factual question, decidable on empirical grounds.
I won't presume to speak for Roy.
ro...@telus.net
reply, only alt.philosophy appeared in the newsgroups field. How does
that work?
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 22:59:04 -0500, Publius
<m.pu...@nospam.comcast.net> wrote:
>"Andy F." <never...@tesco.net> wrote
>in news:59e475F...@mid.individual.net:
>
>> Anyone who appropriates a piece of land is reducing the welfare of other
>> agents.
>
>Perhaps you can explain how. Might read the backthread first.
He deprives them of what they would otherwise have been at liberty to
use.
You know that.
>> Wrong. Claiming that somebody has a 'right' is clearly a moral
>> statement.
>
>Sorry, but you're mistaken. It is an empirical statement with moral
>implications. Might check this:
>
>http://www.newliberalreview.com/heck.htm
As you know, I've already demolished Morton.
>> And "P is the first possessor
>> of x" is not an empirical statement, unless you have an agreed
>> definition
>> of 'possession'.In fact it's far from clear what 'possessing' a piece of
>> land actually means.
>
>It is quite clear in common law, where the notions of "rights" and
>"property" evolved (although they are older than that, of course).
>
>One is in possession of a good when one is in a position to use and control
>that good. Here is one reference:
>
>http://www.kentlaw.edu/classes/kbaker/property/Possession.htm
Hehe. Too bad you neglected to read your own source:
"Suppose I own a lot in the mountains, and some stranger to me,
without my permission, builds a house on it, clears the woods, and
farms the lot continuously for a given period, say twenty years.
During that time, I am entitled to go to court to force him off the
lot. But if I have not done so at the end of twenty years, or some
other period fixed by statute, not only can I not sue him for recovery
of what was my land, but the law recognizes him as the title owner."
ROTFL!!
"First possession is decisive"?? Ah, no, actually.
You are destroyed.
Nothing you can say makes any difference any more, because you have
been proved wrong by your own authority.
>> No, (2) simply follows from the definition of 'rights'. You've just
>> tried to hide your moral claims in the bogus maths of (1)
>
>Propositions containing "ought" cannot be derived from propositions only
>containing "is." I.e., moral conclusions can only be derived from moral
>premises.
Then no one has any reason to pay any attention to your claims that we
"ought" to recognize titles founded on nothing but grabbing.
-- Roy L
Publius
> Strange. I'm reading this thread in sci.econ. But When I clicked on
> reply, only alt.philosophy appeared in the newsgroups field. How does
> that work?
Most "pro" newsreaders force selection of a followup group for posts to more
than 3 groups, by default. The idea is to reduce cross-posting. You can
alter that default behavior, but I don't. In fact, if there are more than 4
groups, I delete some of them entirely.
>>"Andy F." <never...@tesco.net> wrote
>>in news:59e475F...@mid.individual.net:
>>
>>> Anyone who appropriates a piece of land is reducing the welfare of
>>> other agents.
>>
>>Perhaps you can explain how. Might read the backthread first.
>
> He deprives them of what they would otherwise have been at liberty to
> use.
>
> You know that.
Exercise caution with Roy, Andy F. He likes to confuse "liberty to use" a
common with "liberty to discover" an unknown, unused resource. There is no
right to appropriate from a common (without permission from all other
owners), but a universal right to appropriate a resource hitherto unknown
and thus unused. And of course no one has any "liberty to use" a resource
not known to exist. Nor can such an appropriation reduce anyone's welfare,
since prior to its discovery no one derives any benefit from it.
>>Sorry, but you're mistaken. It is an empirical statement with moral
>>implications. Might check this:
>>
>>http://www.newliberalreview.com/heck.htm
>
> As you know, I've already demolished Morton.
Also be cautious with Roy's declarations that he has "refuted," "proved,"
and "demolished" an argument. He thinks a refutation of an argument consists
in passionate denials of its conclusion, i.e., foot-stamping.
> "Suppose I own a lot in the mountains, and some stranger to me,
> without my permission, builds a house on it, clears the woods, and
> farms the lot continuously for a given period, say twenty years.
> During that time, I am entitled to go to court to force him off the
> lot. But if I have not done so at the end of twenty years, or some
> other period fixed by statute, not only can I not sue him for recovery
> of what was my land, but the law recognizes him as the title owner."
>
> ROTFL!!
>
> "First possession is decisive"?? Ah, no, actually.
Yup. That is called "adverse possession." The premise is that a nominal
owner who has not derived any benefit from the land in 20 years, and is not
even aware that another has occupied it, has abandoned it. Hence it reverts
to *res nullius* and possession starts over.
> Then no one has any reason to pay any attention to your claims that we
> "ought" to recognize titles founded on nothing but grabbing.
Grabbed from whom? If from no one, then yes, we should. We should recognize
titles to all property which any person has acquired without injury to
others. That is the only morally relevant consideration. Any property which
one discovers, creates, brings with one into the world, or which falls from
the sky, like the meteor, qualifies. Since someone's acquisition of such
things did not injure anyone else, then where and how he got it is none of
our business.
Publius
> Strange. I'm reading this thread in sci.econ. But When I clicked on
> reply, only alt.philosophy appeared in the newsgroups field. How does
> that work?
Most "pro" newsreaders force selection of a followup group for posts to more
than 3 groups, by default. The idea is to reduce cross-posting. You can
alter that default behavior, but I don't. In fact, if there are more than 4
groups, I delete some of them entirely.
>>"Andy F." <never...@tesco.net> wrote
>>in news:59e475F...@mid.individual.net:
>>
>>> Anyone who appropriates a piece of land is reducing the welfare of
>>> other agents.
>>
>>Perhaps you can explain how. Might read the backthread first.
>
> He deprives them of what they would otherwise have been at liberty to
> use.
>
> You know that.
Exercise caution with Roy, Andy F. He likes to confuse "liberty to use" a
common with "liberty to discover" an unknown, unused resource. There is no
right to appropriate from a common (without permission from all other
owners), but a universal right to appropriate a resource hitherto unknown
and thus unused. And of course no one has any "liberty to use" a resource
not known to exist. Nor can such an appropriation reduce anyone's welfare,
since prior to its discovery no one derives any benefit from it.
>>Sorry, but you're mistaken. It is an empirical statement with moral
>>implications. Might check this:
>>
>>http://www.newliberalreview.com/heck.htm
>
> As you know, I've already demolished Morton.
Also be cautious with Roy's declarations that he has "refuted," "proved,"
and "demolished" an argument. He thinks a refutation of an argument consists
in passionate denials of its conclusion, i.e., foot-stamping.
> "Suppose I own a lot in the mountains, and some stranger to me,
> without my permission, builds a house on it, clears the woods, and
> farms the lot continuously for a given period, say twenty years.
> During that time, I am entitled to go to court to force him off the
> lot. But if I have not done so at the end of twenty years, or some
> other period fixed by statute, not only can I not sue him for recovery
> of what was my land, but the law recognizes him as the title owner."
>
> ROTFL!!
>
> "First possession is decisive"?? Ah, no, actually.
Yup. That is called "adverse possession." The premise is that a nominal
owner who has not derived any benefit from the land in 20 years, and is not
even aware that another has occupied it, has abandoned it. Hence it reverts
to *res nullius* and possession starts over.
> Then no one has any reason to pay any attention to your claims that we
> "ought" to recognize titles founded on nothing but grabbing.
Grabbed from whom? If from no one, then yes, we should. We should recognize