Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Groups keyboard shortcuts have been updated
Dismiss
See shortcuts

Definition of "rich"?

6 views
Skip to first unread message

Peter Bjørn Perlsø

unread,
Apr 16, 2006, 7:22:27 AM4/16/06
to
Everyone is talking about poverty and the poverty line, but do we have a
definition of when you're "rich"?

In the EU (AFAIK), poverty is defined as being below 60% of the median
income. Could we establish being "rich" as say, being over 300% of the
median income? Or is there already such a measure in place?

--
regards, Peter Bjørn Perlsø
http://haxor.dk
http://liberterran.org
http://haxor.dk/fanaticism/

ro...@telus.net

unread,
Apr 16, 2006, 9:46:21 PM4/16/06
to
On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 13:22:27 +0200, pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk
(=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Peter_Bj=F8rn_Perls=F8?=) wrote:

>Everyone is talking about poverty and the poverty line, but do we have a
>definition of when you're "rich"?

Depends if you mean relatively or absolutely. Even the poorest in the
USA today are rich by the standards of 200 years ago.

>In the EU (AFAIK), poverty is defined as being below 60% of the median
>income. Could we establish being "rich" as say, being over 300% of the
>median income? Or is there already such a measure in place?

"Rich" has nothing to do with income. It is defined by assets. Just
how much wealth qualifies one as rich is moot, but IMO being three
sigmas above the mean in assets is unambiguously rich, while two
sigmas does not make it. Another way to think about it: if you can
afford a distinctly affluent lifestyle including at least one
full-time servant without either working or dipping into your assets
(adjusted for inflation), you are rich. In the USA, that would
require assets of about $5M.

Or to put it still another way: who wants to marry a mere millionaire?

-- Roy L

nospam

unread,
Apr 16, 2006, 10:54:03 PM4/16/06
to
ro...@telus.net wrote:

>>Everyone is talking about poverty and the poverty line, but do we have a
>>definition of when you're "rich"?
>
> Depends if you mean relatively or absolutely. Even the poorest in the
> USA today are rich by the standards of 200 years ago.

That is actually a common mythology. There are many different definition of
wealth. If you apply some of them you may be right, if you apply the other
you are absolutely wrong.

It is childish to say: Today every poor have a cell phone, 10..15 years ago
only rich could afford something similar therefore the poor today are
richer than the rich 15 years ago.

This is the reason I use often to refer to the definition of wealth into
the units of time:
Assuming you stop working today, how long time you can continue to have a
decent life ? If it is a week you are poor if is a lifetime or more you are
rich.

So, compare the today working man into a city having cellphone, computer,
second hand car .... with the 200 years ago man without a car, phone or
computer but having in his attic 60 sacs of grain and in barn 2 cows and
straws for them for 3 years. What difference does it make the cellphone or
the computer ?
If both are out of work who do you think can survive longer ?
What if the 200 years ago man also own an acre of land and a small (no
electricity) house.
Does the downtown apartment with plasma TV and 600W quadraphonic system
owned by today's man be at more help ?

I hope now you figured out what out of touch with reality your claim is :-)


William F Hummel

unread,
Apr 17, 2006, 11:33:51 AM4/17/06
to
On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 22:54:03 -0400, nospam <nos...@example.com> wrote:

>This is the reason I use often to refer to the definition of wealth into
>the units of time: Assuming you stop working today, how long time
>you can continue to have a decent life ? If it is a week you are poor
>if is a lifetime or more you are rich.

If you hold claims on wealth in the form of stocks and bonds worth
$100 million, but choose to live in an old house with only the bare
necessities, you must be poor by your definition. Such people are
known as misers. Have you ever heard of Hetty Green?


Ron Peterson

unread,
Apr 17, 2006, 12:41:51 PM4/17/06
to

Peter Bjørn Perlsø wrote:
> Everyone is talking about poverty and the poverty line, but do we have a
> definition of when you're "rich"?

We have an upper limit on being rich with examples like Warren Buffett
and Bill Gates.

> In the EU (AFAIK), poverty is defined as being below 60% of the median
> income. Could we establish being "rich" as say, being over 300% of the
> median income? Or is there already such a measure in place?

300% of the median income would be the bottom end of being rich if it
comes from an occupation. If it comes from wealth that would make it
unnecessary for a person to work for a living.

One article indicated that a well off life style would need $200,000 to
$400,000 per year depending on the are of the US. It included a second
home and luxury autos.

A better way to define rich is by a family's net equity. With 8 million
households have a net worth over $1,000,000 and 6% of those having a
net worth of over $10,000,000.

--
Ron

ruet...@outgun.com

unread,
Apr 17, 2006, 1:08:36 PM4/17/06
to
>Everyone is talking about poverty and the poverty line, but do we have a
>definition of when you're "rich"?

Barron's ran an article on this subject a few years ago. The criteria
that they used was the amount of annual income derived solely from
investment assets.

The threshold was $100,000 in annual investment income to be considered
borderline rich, $200,000 annually to be considered median rich, and
$1,000,000 annually to be really rich.

Assuming a rate of return of 8%, this correlates to $1.25 million, $2.5
million, and $12.5 million in investment assets respectively.

Note that income derived from wages and salary did not count, nor did
non-investment assets. The implication then was that wealth is a
function of the ability to generate income without actually working.

Jim Blair

unread,
Apr 17, 2006, 12:51:43 PM4/17/06
to

<ro...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:4442f195...@news1.qc.sympatico.ca...

> On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 13:22:27 +0200, pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk
> (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Peter_Bj=F8rn_Perls=F8?=) wrote:
>
> >Everyone is talking about poverty and the poverty line, but do we have a
> >definition of when you're "rich"?
>
> Depends if you mean relatively or absolutely. Even the poorest in the
> USA today are rich by the standards of 200 years ago.

Hi,

Yes.


>
> >In the EU (AFAIK), poverty is defined as being below 60% of the median
> >income. Could we establish being "rich" as say, being over 300% of the
> >median income? Or is there already such a measure in place?
>
> "Rich" has nothing to do with income. It is defined by assets. Just
> how much wealth qualifies one as rich is moot, but IMO being three
> sigmas above the mean in assets is unambiguously rich, while two
> sigmas does not make it. Another way to think about it: if you can
> afford a distinctly affluent lifestyle including at least one
> full-time servant without either working or dipping into your assets
> (adjusted for inflation), you are rich.

I think you put too much emphasis on that servant. For example I would not
want one even if I could afford it. I would consider my self rich if I
could go where I pleased and do what I wanted, without even looking at a
price tag or checking to see if I could afford it. That would put me beyond
mere "rich".

My wife says being rich means not clipping coupons anymore.

>...In the USA, that would


> require assets of about $5M.

That sound reasonabe to me now. But if I actually had $5M if might not look
like so much anymore :-)


>
> Or to put it still another way: who wants to marry a mere millionaire?
>
> -- Roy L

A poor person.

If 1 million dollars seem like a lot, then you are poor. If one million
does not seem like a lot, then you are, if not rich, at least not poor.

,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
(_)
jim blair (jeb...@wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin USA.
This message was brought to you using biodegradable
binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good
time call: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834


nospam

unread,
Apr 17, 2006, 1:18:05 PM4/17/06
to
William F Hummel wrote:

You skip in purpose the fragment "to have a decent life".
The definition of a decent life change over time.

What was a decent life 200 years ago does not qualify today
as decent. And forget about cellphone or TV. It is enough to talk about
antibiotics and pain medicine just to figure out that the definition of
decent change over time.

I am talking in this definition about having a decent life based on the
standards of the respective timeframe.

ro...@telus.net

unread,
Apr 17, 2006, 2:23:26 PM4/17/06
to
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 11:51:43 -0500, "Jim Blair" <j...@wisc.edu> wrote:

><ro...@telus.net> wrote in message
>news:4442f195...@news1.qc.sympatico.ca...
>> On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 13:22:27 +0200, pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk
>> (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Peter_Bj=F8rn_Perls=F8?=) wrote:
>>
>> >In the EU (AFAIK), poverty is defined as being below 60% of the median
>> >income. Could we establish being "rich" as say, being over 300% of the
>> >median income? Or is there already such a measure in place?
>>
>> "Rich" has nothing to do with income. It is defined by assets. Just
>> how much wealth qualifies one as rich is moot, but IMO being three
>> sigmas above the mean in assets is unambiguously rich, while two
>> sigmas does not make it. Another way to think about it: if you can
>> afford a distinctly affluent lifestyle including at least one
>> full-time servant without either working or dipping into your assets
>> (adjusted for inflation), you are rich.
>
>I think you put too much emphasis on that servant.

If you have to do your own laundry, cooking and cleaning, you are not
rich.

>For example I would not
>want one even if I could afford it.

OK, but if you can't afford it, you're not rich.

>I would consider my self rich if I
>could go where I pleased and do what I wanted, without even looking at a
>price tag or checking to see if I could afford it.

Hehe. Hell's Angels members can do that, too....

>That would put me beyond mere "rich".

Rich is defined by assets, not insouciance.

>My wife says being rich means not clipping coupons anymore.

Lots of poor people can't be bothered clipping coupons either.

-- Roy L

ro...@telus.net

unread,
Apr 17, 2006, 2:37:54 PM4/17/06
to
On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 22:54:03 -0400, nospam <nos...@example.com> wrote:

>It is childish to say: Today every poor have a cell phone, 10..15 years ago
>only rich could afford something similar therefore the poor today are
>richer than the rich 15 years ago.

I am talking about the things that were available 200 years ago, but
too expensive for ordinary people to afford: a wide variety of safe
and nutritious food, plenty of newish clothing, durable shoes, warm
and secure shelter, books and newspapers, soap and other hygiene
products, kitchen utensils, etc.

>So, compare the today working man into a city having cellphone, computer,
>second hand car .... with the 200 years ago man without a car, phone or
>computer but having in his attic 60 sacs of grain and in barn 2 cows and
>straws for them for 3 years.

Such a man would have been quite a bit above average in wealth by the
standards of those days. Most people at that time lived more or less
hand to mouth, many had almost no clothing but what they wore, which
was often ragged -- and usually filthy. Etc.

-- Roy L

Peter Bjørn Perlsø

unread,
Apr 17, 2006, 2:56:32 PM4/17/06
to
Peter Bjørn Perlsø <pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk> wrote:

> Everyone is talking about poverty and the poverty line, but do we have a
> definition of when you're "rich"?
>
> In the EU (AFAIK), poverty is defined as being below 60% of the median
> income. Could we establish being "rich" as say, being over 300% of the
> median income? Or is there already such a measure in place?

OK, seeing the followups, there seems to be a consensus that "being
rich" is defined by your assets, not your income.

Now here's the kicker: A lot of people talk about "taxing the rich for
the sake of the poor", and wanting to raise taxes on high incomes to
enact this taxation. Considering what has already been discussed, do you
consider this "fair"?

nospam

unread,
Apr 17, 2006, 7:37:16 PM4/17/06
to
Peter Bjørn Perlsø wrote:

> OK, seeing the followups, there seems to be a consensus that "being
> rich" is defined by your assets, not your income.

wealth = assets-liabilities
wealth(T) = wealth(0) + integral from 0..T of (income(t)-expenses(t)) dt

They are very strictly corelated thou.

> Now here's the kicker: A lot of people talk about "taxing the rich for
> the sake of the poor", and wanting to raise taxes on high incomes to
> enact this taxation. Considering what has already been discussed, do you
> consider this "fair"?

Well, there are rich and RICH, there are poor and POOR.
The discution is longer ......

ro...@telus.net

unread,
Apr 17, 2006, 11:30:00 PM4/17/06
to
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 20:56:32 +0200, pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk
(=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Peter_Bj=F8rn_Perls=F8?=) wrote:

>Peter Bjørn Perlsø <pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk> wrote:
>
>> Everyone is talking about poverty and the poverty line, but do we have a
>> definition of when you're "rich"?
>>
>> In the EU (AFAIK), poverty is defined as being below 60% of the median
>> income. Could we establish being "rich" as say, being over 300% of the
>> median income? Or is there already such a measure in place?
>
>OK, seeing the followups, there seems to be a consensus that "being
>rich" is defined by your assets, not your income.
>
>Now here's the kicker: A lot of people talk about "taxing the rich for
>the sake of the poor", and wanting to raise taxes on high incomes to
>enact this taxation. Considering what has already been discussed, do you
>consider this "fair"?

Depends if the income is earned or unearned. Earned income is the
measure of what the recipient conributes to society. Unearned income
is the measure of what society contributes to the recipient. Taxing
the latter is obviously very fair, just as taxing the former is
obviously wrong, vicious and foolish. Very high incomes tend to be
unearned, so incentive effects are not really relevant: if you're
getting the money for doing nothing, how can the tax make you do less
than that?

However, those who propose to tax high incomes typically end up taxing
not-so-high earned incomes, and leaving the unearned incomes of the
rich untaxed, as well.

-- Roy L

Ron Peterson

unread,
Apr 18, 2006, 12:47:49 AM4/18/06
to

Peter Bjørn Perlsø wrote:

> OK, seeing the followups, there seems to be a consensus that "being
> rich" is defined by your assets, not your income.

There are people with high income who fail to accumulate assets.

> Now here's the kicker: A lot of people talk about "taxing the rich for
> the sake of the poor", and wanting to raise taxes on high incomes to
> enact this taxation. Considering what has already been discussed, do you
> consider this "fair"?

Those weren't my comments, but if there is going to be taxation, it
needs to have the greatest economic benefit (and/or least harm).

--
Ron

nospam

unread,
Apr 18, 2006, 6:20:30 AM4/18/06
to
ro...@telus.net wrote:

> Depends if the income is earned or unearned. Earned income is the
> measure of what the recipient conributes to society. Unearned income
> is the measure of what society contributes to the recipient. Taxing
> the latter is obviously very fair, just as taxing the former is
> obviously wrong, vicious and foolish.

Nice.

> Very high incomes tend to be
> unearned, so incentive effects are not really relevant: if you're
> getting the money for doing nothing, how can the tax make you do less
> than that?

Actually this is a discouragement for unearned income. I.E.:
"Move your stinky lazy ass and do something usefull for human kind not just
burn the oxygen for nothing".

The last recession was brought upon us exclusively by the speculations of
professional Wall Street gamblers. Overtaxing capital gains and dividends
may have (at least some of) them getting a job. This will make the Wall
Street more stable and less chances to have so many recessions one after
another. I.E.: Less Wall Street inducted economic instability.

> However, those who propose to tax high incomes typically end up taxing
> not-so-high earned incomes, and leaving the unearned incomes of the
> rich untaxed, as well.

That is the sad part.

ro...@telus.net

unread,
Apr 18, 2006, 7:46:22 PM4/18/06
to
On 17 Apr 2006 21:47:49 -0700, "Ron Peterson" <r...@shell.core.com>
wrote:

>Peter Bj=F8rn Perls=F8 wrote:
>
>> OK, seeing the followups, there seems to be a consensus that "being
>> rich" is defined by your assets, not your income.
>
>There are people with high income who fail to accumulate assets.

And are thus not rich. Right.

-- Roy L

The Trucker

unread,
Apr 19, 2006, 12:44:13 PM4/19/06
to
"William F Hummel" <wfhu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:kmc742d7svjt0g9ih...@4ax.com...


The key here is "choose to". It is that when you can do as you
please and are not enslaved by your needs then you might be
considered "rich". It is, however, the capacity to command the
labor of others that places one on the "rich" category. Bill Gates
commands the labor of millions of people. He can get an
"audience" with the Congress and has done so. I do not think
Gates is a big spender or that he even LIKES to spend money.
But he does have a lot of control over other people. That is NOT
necessarily bad, or good, but it IS the measure of wealth in a
society.

--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org


The Trucker

unread,
Apr 19, 2006, 12:43:56 PM4/19/06
to
""Peter Bjørn Perlsø"" <pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk> wrote in message
news:1hdyi3g.yly56qnwi9d3N%pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk...

> Peter Bjørn Perlsø <pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk> wrote:
>
>> Everyone is talking about poverty and the poverty line, but do we have a
>> definition of when you're "rich"?
>>
>> In the EU (AFAIK), poverty is defined as being below 60% of the median
>> income. Could we establish being "rich" as say, being over 300% of the
>> median income? Or is there already such a measure in place?
>
> OK, seeing the followups, there seems to be a consensus that "being
> rich" is defined by your assets, not your income.
>
> Now here's the kicker: A lot of people talk about "taxing the rich for
> the sake of the poor", and wanting to raise taxes on high incomes to
> enact this taxation. Considering what has already been discussed, do you
> consider this "fair"?


A highly progressive income tax is _fair_ to the exetent that really
high incomes are derived from economic rent. It is a lot simpler,
however, to apply a flat tax directly to "assets" and to forgo the
income tax. There is also the problem that American assets
are increasingly owned by foreigners and that it is not possible
to collect an income tax on the income from those assets.

http://GreaterVoice.org/econ/glossary/Asset_Tax_System.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent_%28economics%29

The Trucker

unread,
Apr 19, 2006, 12:49:23 PM4/19/06
to
"nospam" <nos...@example.com> wrote in message
news:39idnQa8c6AEu9nZ...@comcast.com...

> Peter Bjørn Perlsø wrote:
>
>> OK, seeing the followups, there seems to be a consensus that "being
>> rich" is defined by your assets, not your income.
>
> wealth = assets-liabilities
> wealth(T) = wealth(0) + integral from 0..T of (income(t)-expenses(t)) dt

Wealth is the capacity to forgo or to command labor. That may or may
not be assets - liabilities. If I OWN a very large monoplistic company
and all of the tangible assets are pledged as a means to finance my
company I am STILL quite wealthy. It is the POWER derived from
control of these assets that imparts wealth on the form of command.


> They are very strictly corelated thou.
>
>> Now here's the kicker: A lot of people talk about "taxing the rich for
>> the sake of the poor", and wanting to raise taxes on high incomes to
>> enact this taxation. Considering what has already been discussed, do you
>> consider this "fair"?
>
> Well, there are rich and RICH, there are poor and POOR.
> The discution is longer ......

--

sinister

unread,
Apr 19, 2006, 2:36:08 PM4/19/06
to

""Peter Bjørn Perlsø"" <pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk> wrote in message
news:1hdw2ek.5uflebbro0kjN%pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk...

<snip>

> http://liberterran.org

BTW:

Thelinked page above has text stating, "Additionally, I assert that my drive
to acquire property is a natural function of my being, and the robbing of or
denial of private property does not only deny me that which gives me
satisfaction, and hence happiness in life - it denies me of that which by
nature makes me human."

Are you a true, freedom-loving libertarian, or a royal/freedom-hating
libertarian?
http://geolib.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html

<snip>

Peter Bjørn Perlsø

unread,
Apr 19, 2006, 2:48:09 PM4/19/06
to
sinister <sini...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

Nevear heard of a ROyal Libertarian before, so I guess I must be a real
one...

sinister

unread,
Apr 19, 2006, 2:54:00 PM4/19/06
to

""Peter Bjørn Perlsø"" <pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk> wrote in message
news:1he273l.1ig5ps81ykm94mN%pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk...

> sinister <sini...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> ""Peter Bjørn Perlsø"" <pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk> wrote in message
>> news:1hdw2ek.5uflebbro0kjN%pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk...
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > http://liberterran.org
>>
>> BTW:
>>
>> Thelinked page above has text stating, "Additionally, I assert that my
>> drive
>> to acquire property is a natural function of my being, and the robbing of
>> or
>> denial of private property does not only deny me that which gives me
>> satisfaction, and hence happiness in life - it denies me of that which by
>> nature makes me human."
>>
>> Are you a true, freedom-loving libertarian, or a royal/freedom-hating
>> libertarian?
>> http://geolib.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html
>>
>> <snip>
>
> Nevear heard of a ROyal Libertarian before, so I guess I must be a real
> one...

Read the page I linked to.

Many, perhaps most, libertarians are "Royal" libertarians and despise
freedom.

Message has been deleted

Peter Bjørn Perlsø

unread,
Apr 19, 2006, 5:23:55 PM4/19/06
to
Just Cocky <ju...@cocky.com> wrote:

> The socialists invented that one as a pejorative way of characterizing
> libertarians. Because socialists want to abolish private property,
> they like to demonize those who oppose their views. Don't bother it
> them as they are just being retarded as usual.

I didn't get much out of that webpage, either. "geolibertarian" seems
like a new monicker for the Georgists that want to tax land and rent.

sinister

unread,
Apr 19, 2006, 6:53:49 PM4/19/06
to

""Peter Bjørn Perlsø"" <pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk> wrote in message
news:1he2ear.q620ffwo88rpN%pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk...

> Just Cocky <ju...@cocky.com> wrote:
>
>> The socialists invented that one as a pejorative way of characterizing
>> libertarians. Because socialists want to abolish private property,
>> they like to demonize those who oppose their views. Don't bother it
>> them as they are just being retarded as usual.
>
> I didn't get much out of that webpage, either. "geolibertarian" seems
> like a new monicker for the Georgists that want to tax land and rent.

You're avoiding the question.

Do you think private agents should have the right to deny others the right
of access to natural resources in exchange for nothing, or don't you?

sinister

unread,
Apr 19, 2006, 6:54:31 PM4/19/06
to

"Just Cocky" <ju...@cocky.com> wrote in message
news:1o9d421copphbirkk...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 20:48:09 +0200, pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk (Peter
> Bjørn Perlsø) wrote:
>>
>>sinister <sini...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> ""Peter Bjørn Perlsø"" <pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk> wrote in message
>>> news:1hdw2ek.5uflebbro0kjN%pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk...
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> > http://liberterran.org
>>>
>>> BTW:
>>>
>>> Thelinked page above has text stating, "Additionally, I assert that my
>>> drive
>>> to acquire property is a natural function of my being, and the robbing
>>> of or
>>> denial of private property does not only deny me that which gives me
>>> satisfaction, and hence happiness in life - it denies me of that which
>>> by
>>> nature makes me human."
>>>
>>> Are you a true, freedom-loving libertarian, or a royal/freedom-hating
>>> libertarian?
>>> http://geolib.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>
>>Nevear heard of a ROyal Libertarian before, so I guess I must be a real
>>one...
>>
>
> The socialists invented that one as a pejorative way of characterizing
> libertarians. Because socialists want to abolish private property,
> they like to demonize those who oppose their views. Don't bother it
> them as they are just being retarded as usual.

Thanks for demonstrating that you hate freedom.

Gotta love those government guns you enforce your feudalistic world view
with...

>
> --
> "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are
> cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt"
> -- Bertrand Russell

nospam

unread,
Apr 19, 2006, 7:24:22 PM4/19/06
to
The Trucker wrote:

> Wealth is the capacity to forgo or to command labor.

Nope, that is executive power. In capitalism executive power belong to the
capital owner, who can eventually delegate it to a CEO.

> If I OWN a very large monoplistic company
> and all of the tangible assets are pledged as a means to finance my
> company I am STILL quite wealthy.

Nope. The bank is wealthy. If for a reason or another you can not pay back
the loan, the bank take all the assets and you are left without pants.

But the bank delegated to you the executive power to administer the company
to be able to pay back the loan.

Peter Bjørn Perlsø

unread,
Apr 19, 2006, 8:30:06 PM4/19/06
to
sinister <sini...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> ""Peter Bjørn Perlsø"" <pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk> wrote in message
> news:1he2ear.q620ffwo88rpN%pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk...
> > Just Cocky <ju...@cocky.com> wrote:
> >
> >> The socialists invented that one as a pejorative way of characterizing
> >> libertarians. Because socialists want to abolish private property,
> >> they like to demonize those who oppose their views. Don't bother it
> >> them as they are just being retarded as usual.
> >
> > I didn't get much out of that webpage, either. "geolibertarian" seems
> > like a new monicker for the Georgists that want to tax land and rent.
>
> You're avoiding the question.
>
> Do you think private agents should have the right to deny others the right
> of access to natural resources in exchange for nothing, or don't you?

Access to natural resources is not a right, so, yes, I believe they
should have such powers.

nospam

unread,
Apr 19, 2006, 8:37:35 PM4/19/06
to
Peter Bjørn Perlsø wrote:

> Access to natural resources is not a right, so, yes, I believe they
> should have such powers.


Also you know that the access to resources was the subject of all the wars
and most of the revolutions.
Violence is a direct result of resources control.

Food for the thought.

ro...@telus.net

unread,
Apr 19, 2006, 8:23:44 PM4/19/06
to
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 17:10:59 -0400, Just Cocky <ju...@cocky.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 20:48:09 +0200, pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk (Peter
>Bjørn Perlsø) wrote:
>>
>>sinister <sini...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>

>>> Are you a true, freedom-loving libertarian, or a royal/freedom-hating
>>> libertarian?
>>> http://geolib.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>
>>Nevear heard of a ROyal Libertarian before, so I guess I must be a real
>>one...
>

>The socialists invented that one as a pejorative way of characterizing
>libertarians.

No, it's a way to distinguish between those who advocate freedom and
those who advocate feudalism. Feudalism is what happens when people
have "freedom" but no rights.

>Because socialists want to abolish private property,
>they like to demonize those who oppose their views.

Hehe. Because feudal (more accurate than ""royal") libertarians want
to enslave others by depriving them of their rights to use natural
resources, they like to demonize real libertarians by calling them
"socialists."

-- Roy L

sinister

unread,
Apr 19, 2006, 8:50:43 PM4/19/06
to

""Peter Bjørn Perlsø"" <pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk> wrote in message
news:1he2mw6.1wli9kk4d5294N%pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk...

OK, so you're just another freedom-despising "libertarian" (aka, feudalist).

Thought as much.

sinister

unread,
Apr 19, 2006, 8:54:42 PM4/19/06
to

""Peter Bjørn Perlsø"" <pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk> wrote in message
news:1he2mw6.1wli9kk4d5294N%pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk...

If there's no right to access natural resources, why is there a right to
control natural resources?

Message has been deleted

Peter Bjørn Perlsø

unread,
Apr 20, 2006, 2:06:03 AM4/20/06
to
sinister <sini...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> ""Peter Bjørn Perlsø"" <pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk> wrote in message
> news:1he2mw6.1wli9kk4d5294N%pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk...
> > sinister <sini...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> ""Peter Bjørn Perlsø"" <pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk> wrote in message
> >> news:1he2ear.q620ffwo88rpN%pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk...
> >> > Just Cocky <ju...@cocky.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> The socialists invented that one as a pejorative way of characterizing
> >> >> libertarians. Because socialists want to abolish private property,
> >> >> they like to demonize those who oppose their views. Don't bother it
> >> >> them as they are just being retarded as usual.
> >> >
> >> > I didn't get much out of that webpage, either. "geolibertarian" seems
> >> > like a new monicker for the Georgists that want to tax land and rent.
> >>
> >> You're avoiding the question.
> >>
> >> Do you think private agents should have the right to deny others the
> >> right
> >> of access to natural resources in exchange for nothing, or don't you?
> >
> > Access to natural resources is not a right, so, yes, I believe they
> > should have such powers.
>
> OK, so you're just another freedom-despising "libertarian" (aka, feudalist).
>
> Thought as much.

I'm not a feudalist, so WRONG.

Peter Bjørn Perlsø

unread,
Apr 20, 2006, 2:06:08 AM4/20/06
to
sinister <sini...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> If there's no right to access natural resources, why is there a right to
> control natural resources?

First come, first served.

sinister

unread,
Apr 20, 2006, 2:32:46 AM4/20/06
to

""Peter Bjørn Perlsø"" <pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk> wrote in message
news:1he32e6.11hwcgnsg4fenN%pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk...

Yes, you are.

sinister

unread,
Apr 20, 2006, 2:34:23 AM4/20/06
to

""Peter Bjørn Perlsø"" <pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk> wrote in message
news:1he32er.1tph8e8m1rbo1N%pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk...

> sinister <sini...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> If there's no right to access natural resources, why is there a right to
>> control natural resources?
>
> First come, first served.

Oh, boy, that's a well-thought out theory of human freedom.

Not.

There's actually a true libertarian utopia, already existing on planet
Earth. It's called "Somalia." Have you considered voting with your feet
and moving there?

Peter Bjørn Perlsø

unread,
Apr 20, 2006, 9:06:27 AM4/20/06
to
sinister <sini...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> ""Peter Bjørn Perlsø"" <pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk> wrote in message
> news:1he32er.1tph8e8m1rbo1N%pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk...
> > sinister <sini...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> If there's no right to access natural resources, why is there a right to
> >> control natural resources?
> >
> > First come, first served.
>
> Oh, boy, that's a well-thought out theory of human freedom.
>
> Not.
>
> There's actually a true libertarian utopia, already existing on planet
> Earth. It's called "Somalia." Have you considered voting with your feet
> and moving there?

Yes, I have.

ro...@telus.net

unread,
Apr 20, 2006, 9:11:30 AM4/20/06
to

Without a right to access natural resources, no other right can exist.
So you contend that the private owners of natural resources have
rights, but other people do not. OK.

-- Roy L

Peter Bjørn Perlsø

unread,
Apr 20, 2006, 9:53:49 AM4/20/06
to
<ro...@telus.net> wrote:

> Without a right to access natural resources, no other right can exist.
> So you contend that the private owners of natural resources have
> rights, but other people do not. OK.
>
> -- Roy L

Absolute nonsense.

I contend that humans have a right to their life, liberty and property.
But people do NOT have rights to the property of others. Not having a
right to the property of others does NOT mean that you can't have a
right to the property of yourself.

ro...@telus.net

unread,
Apr 20, 2006, 9:46:07 AM4/20/06
to
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 01:08:57 -0400, Just Cocky <ju...@cocky.com> wrote:

>The problem with the socialists that like to call themselves
>geolibertarians

There are of course no such people. You are simply lying about
geolibertarians because you know that the facts they identify prove
your beliefs are false and evil.

>is that when someone mentions the right to property,
>all they can think about is land.

That is another lie. Geolibertarians explicitly state that people
have a right to property in the products of their labor and whatever
they consensually trade those products for. You are simply a liar.

>They are stuck in this feudalist mentality

No. It is the soi-disant "libertarians" who defend the privilege of
forcibly depriving others of their rights to access and use natural
resources who are stuck in a feudal mentality. The institutional
arrangements they advocate have been tried, and they result in
feudalism. That is just a fact.

>but like to call the true libertarians "royal".

I call the soi-disant libertarans who deny the human rights to life
and liberty "feudal libertarians" because that is more accurate.
Indeed, some of them even profess an explicit admiration for the
contractualism of historical feudal societies!

-- Roy L

ro...@telus.net

unread,
Apr 20, 2006, 10:03:27 AM4/20/06
to
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 08:06:08 +0200, pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk
(=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Peter_Bj=F8rn_Perls=F8?=) wrote:

>sinister <sini...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> If there's no right to access natural resources, why is there a right to
>> control natural resources?
>
>First come, first served.

Nope. Wrong. That principle presupposes someone doing the serving,
who _chooses_ to thus allocate the benefits he is providing. Even
aside from its total irrelevance to the real world -- there is no plot
of land anywhere on earth whose current possession can be traced
through purely consensual transactions to a first-comer -- the evil
and idiotic notion that being first to discover, claim, or use a
natural resource confers any sort of property right in it is easily
refuted:

A man stumbles into an oasis from the desert, dying of thirst. He
rushes to the water and is about to drink, when he hears a revolver
being cocked behind his ear. A quiet, raspy voice intones, "Uh uh. I
know what you're thinkin'. 'Is he going to charge me six years' labor
for a sip of water, or only five?' And to tell the truth, in all this
excitement I haven't quite totalled up the rent myself. But bein' as
it's 44 miles to the next waterhole, which might as well be the other
side of the world, and I'd as soon run your sorry butt _clean_off_ my
land, you've got to ask yourself a question: 'Do I feel _thirsty_
today?' Well, do ya, _slave_?"

-- Roy L

Message has been deleted

Peter Bjørn Perlsø

unread,
Apr 20, 2006, 10:37:23 AM4/20/06
to
<ro...@telus.net> wrote:

1) That's a typically socialist way of portraying property rights, but
you don't have anyone fooled.

2) You haven't refuted anything. The person who is the first to claim a
piece of land/resource/whatever, gets to have it and exploit it as he
sees fit. It's called "homesteading". (BTW, whats your alternative?
government land grants, with nice fat taxations following? Has it
occurred to you that that's merely slavery in another, albeit more
popular, form?)

Message has been deleted

Peter Bjørn Perlsø

unread,
Apr 20, 2006, 11:08:57 AM4/20/06
to
Just Cocky <ju...@cocky.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 15:06:27 +0200, pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk (Peter
> Bjørn Perlsø) wrote:
> >
> >sinister <sini...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> ""Peter Bjørn Perlsø"" <pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk> wrote in message
> >> news:1he32er.1tph8e8m1rbo1N%pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk...
> >> > sinister <sini...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> If there's no right to access natural resources, why is there a right to
> >> >> control natural resources?
> >> >
> >> > First come, first served.
> >>
> >> Oh, boy, that's a well-thought out theory of human freedom.
> >>
> >> Not.
> >>
> >> There's actually a true libertarian utopia, already existing on planet
> >> Earth. It's called "Somalia." Have you considered voting with your feet
> >> and moving there?
> >
> >Yes, I have.
> >
>

> Somalia looks like an anarchy to me. These socialist retards continue
> to be unable to differentiate between anarchy and libertarianism.

Somalia is indeed an anarchy, although Puntland and Somaliland have
formed small represenatative democratic states. Mogadishu ("The Mog") is
still a purely anarchic area, with militias providing law and order.

Peter Bjørn Perlsø

unread,
Apr 20, 2006, 11:08:57 AM4/20/06
to
Just Cocky <ju...@cocky.com> wrote:

> Personally, I don't see any moral justification for "first come, first
> serve". As such, if a second person arrives with bigger guns and
> expels the first, that's just ok. As such, in an organized society
> with some form of Government, the use of force to manage natural
> resources can certainly be delegated to a Government, including
> collection of monopoly use taxes.
>
> Just in case anyone is wondering, I am most definitely a libertarian.
> I just don't think that the right to property can be extended to
> natural resources on a moral basis. I do however think it is a good
> idea to have a pseudo-right to monopoly use of natural resources
> subject to specific conditions and limitations, on utilitarian
> grounds.

Well, I disagree. With anything government comes waste, favoritism,
populism and nepotism.

Message has been deleted

Peter Bjørn Perlsø

unread,
Apr 20, 2006, 1:14:11 PM4/20/06
to
Just Cocky <ju...@cocky.com> wrote:

> Thing is, you don't need a Government to throw the "first one to
> arrive" out. If it's not immoral, then it's ok to do it yourself. If
> it's ok for you to do it yourself, then it's ok to delegate that power
> to Government.
>
> Most of the moral philosophy I follow is tied to the Principle of
> Self-ownership, i.e., the idea that each and every individual owns him
> or herself completely and at all times. From this Principle, one can
> deduce things like the rights to life, to liberty and to property of
> created things; but not to property of non-created things. I am
> unaware of any profound moral principle, similar to the Principle of
> Self-ownership, that allows one to deduce a right to property of
> natural resources.

Ever read Locke?

When I homestead a piece of land, and perform work on it, I mix my work
with the land, and it thus becomes mine. Thanks to *MY* work, the land
gives off useful resources, be it grain or valuable resources; metal,
oil, coal, gas, lumber, whatever.

Posession of natural resources is a natural relationship arising between
humans and the land/resources. Nothing untoward about that.

Message has been deleted

Peter Bjørn Perlsø

unread,
Apr 20, 2006, 3:42:38 PM4/20/06
to
Just Cocky <ju...@cocky.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 19:14:11 +0200, pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk (Peter
> Bjørn Perlsø) wrote:
> >
> >Just Cocky <ju...@cocky.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Thing is, you don't need a Government to throw the "first one to
> >> arrive" out. If it's not immoral, then it's ok to do it yourself. If
> >> it's ok for you to do it yourself, then it's ok to delegate that power
> >> to Government.
> >>
> >> Most of the moral philosophy I follow is tied to the Principle of
> >> Self-ownership, i.e., the idea that each and every individual owns him
> >> or herself completely and at all times. From this Principle, one can
> >> deduce things like the rights to life, to liberty and to property of
> >> created things; but not to property of non-created things. I am
> >> unaware of any profound moral principle, similar to the Principle of
> >> Self-ownership, that allows one to deduce a right to property of
> >> natural resources.
> >
> >Ever read Locke?
> >
>

> Yeap. Took me years but I finally read it all. Old English is a pain!
> :-)


>
> >
> >When I homestead a piece of land, and perform work on it, I mix my work
> >with the land, and it thus becomes mine. Thanks to *MY* work, the land
> >gives off useful resources, be it grain or valuable resources; metal,
> >oil, coal, gas, lumber, whatever.
> >
>

> Sure, and that is why I support a pseudo-right to property on
> utilitarian grounds, as it is bad to invest work on something without
> assuming one will be able to enjoy its fruits.
>
> But, what about land one keeps undeveloped, while claiming ownership?
> What would the utilitarian or moral basis for this ownership claim?

Bad for business to forgo potential profits!

>
> >
> >Posession of natural resources is a natural relationship arising between
> >humans and the land/resources. Nothing untoward about that.
> >
>

> I don't deny the natural relationship between Human and Nature. What I
> deny is that there are moral arguments for the completely exclusionary
> use of natural resources at all times. As such, this relationship
> cannot be interpreted as a right, in the moral sense. It can still be
> a right in the political sense for the reasons outline above, though.

My question is just this: Who would you have stewarding the equal
distribution of, if not the resources/lands themselves, the the rent
value or part of the profits from the resources/lands?

ruet...@outgun.com

unread,
Apr 20, 2006, 5:44:17 PM4/20/06
to
>Ever read Locke?

Ever hear of the Lockean Provison? Even Locke recognized that the
homesteading of land is only justified as long as there is "as much and
as good left for others", which in reality is never, since the quantity
of land in existence is fixed.

>When I homestead a piece of land, and perform work on it, I mix my work
>with the land, and it thus becomes mine. Thanks to *MY* work, the land
>gives off useful resources, be it grain or valuable resources; metal,
>oil, coal, gas, lumber, whatever.

The entire concept of "mixing" labor with land is nonsense. Even if
such a thing were possible, how does mixing something you own with
something you do not own confer ownership of the whole?

Robert Nozick demolished the idiotic labor-mixing claim in Anarchy,
State, and Utopia by asking, "if I pour some tomato juice I own into
the ocean, do I now own the ocean or did I just waste my tomato juice?"
He is a libertarian, BTW.

He also asked an interesting question about homesteading - "does the
first private astronaut to land on Mars get to claim the patch of
ground his ship landed on, the whole planet, or the entire uninhabited
universe?"

There is no logically coherent way to provide a moral defense of
private property rights in land and unproduced natural resources.
None.

>Posession of natural resources is a natural relationship arising between
>humans and the land/resources. Nothing untoward about that.

Utter nonsense.

Peter Bjørn Perlsø

unread,
Apr 20, 2006, 6:07:13 PM4/20/06
to
ruet...@outgun.com <ruet...@outgun.com> wrote:

> >Ever read Locke?
>
> Ever hear of the Lockean Provison? Even Locke recognized that the
> homesteading of land is only justified as long as there is "as much and
> as good left for others", which in reality is never, since the quantity
> of land in existence is fixed.

Through trade (exchange) there is ALWAYS something left for others.

>
> >When I homestead a piece of land, and perform work on it, I mix my work
> >with the land, and it thus becomes mine. Thanks to *MY* work, the land
> >gives off useful resources, be it grain or valuable resources; metal,
> >oil, coal, gas, lumber, whatever.
>
> The entire concept of "mixing" labor with land is nonsense. Even if
> such a thing were possible, how does mixing something you own with
> something you do not own confer ownership of the whole?
>
> Robert Nozick demolished the idiotic labor-mixing claim in Anarchy,
> State, and Utopia by asking, "if I pour some tomato juice I own into
> the ocean, do I now own the ocean or did I just waste my tomato juice?"
> He is a libertarian, BTW.

I own the book, but I don't remember reading that passage.

>
> He also asked an interesting question about homesteading - "does the
> first private astronaut to land on Mars get to claim the patch of
> ground his ship landed on, the whole planet, or the entire uninhabited
> universe?"

Only as much land as he can reasonably cover on foot or in a rover.

>
> There is no logically coherent way to provide a moral defense of
> private property rights in land and unproduced natural resources.
> None.

I disagree. First come first serve is perfectly adequate justification
for me. Besides, the alternatives (collectivisation or government
intervention) are repugnant.

>
> >Posession of natural resources is a natural relationship arising between
> >humans and the land/resources. Nothing untoward about that.
>
> Utter nonsense.

:p