Think of a small tribe of people...
Adrian
"The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it which obliges
everyone; and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but
consult it that, being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm
another in his life, health, liberty or possessions..."
Whatever piece of unclaimed land I can farm, the products of which are mine.
No one has a right to it. What ever unclaimed Gazelle I can kill, I can eat
and have the last word on who gets the meat. I could exchange the
vegetables in my garden for Gazelle meat. I could offer the guy next door
to help him till the land for a share of the harvest. That share I earned
is mine to dispose of as I see fit. It would require the initiation of
force to take it from me -- not to keep it to myself.
I toil away while others simply do not work as hard. I instill the same
work ethic in my offspring. Over centuries my family line becomes wealthy
and inventive while others continue to live in the stone age, doing just
enough to get by. Some activities become invaluable and so a man in my (now
independent society) can make their fortune with just one good invention.
While others will perish (especially in the stone age society) because they
did not have any medical care (just a tribal shaman). In my society, a
penicillin shot would have fixed him right up.
It wasn't his fault -- he was just born into the wrong society. Don't we
owe him medical care? No.
Adrian
Adrian
Andrew J. Brehm wrote in message
<1dq2u3d.14c...@dialup-415.germany.ecore.net>...
>Adrian <dur...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> Excellent! Pulls out John Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government:
>
>
>> "The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it which obliges
>> everyone; and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but
>> consult it that, being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm
>> another in his life, health, liberty or possessions..."
>>
>> Whatever piece of unclaimed land I can farm, the products of which are
mine.
>
>the land the tribe lives in. People probably use the land you want to
>claim for walking around, hunting, sleeping etc. You will have to use
>force to remove them from the land you want to claim.
>
How does one stake a claim simply by having known of it or having walked
across it? You stake a claim by settling on it. Either the land is claimed
or it isn't. If I do not need to use force to build a house and a garden on
it then it is mine. If someone later comes a long and says that they
claimed it first then they have the burden of proof that it is theirs. It
seems rather unlikely that they had any claim to it if there is nothing but
this tribe of 100 men and no trace of them on the land.
In any case, either they do have a claim to it or they don't. If you are
going to say that ownership is meaningless altogether, then you are a
socialist -- no mere liberal could say that. Such a notion can allow no
capitalism. All that is necessary for what I have said is that one have
some claim to land. I originally had not claims to any property. I never
could even just simply acquire property, either. But simply through just
transfers of wealth, I now own property. One need not even own any land.
>Also, how much land can you claim? All of it?
This may be your problem right here. You can only claim land, originally,
that you can actually take or squat on -- that you can acually inhabit and
use. It is through just transfers of wealth that one can accumulate more
land or food that they can actually eat, use or squat on.
>
>> No one has a right to it. What ever unclaimed Gazelle I can kill, I can
eat
>> and have the last word on who gets the meat.
>
>I don't see how this could be argued. As long as nobody claimed any
>land, any gazelle can be killed by you, that is correct.
>
Right. As long as I am not killing Gazelles in your Gazelle herd or
pasture, then I am fine. That Gazelle *that I kill* is mine.
>> I could exchange the
>> vegetables in my garden for Gazelle meat.
>
>That is, if you have a garden. You can plant something, somewhere. To do
>this you need to use land nobody else is using. After that nobody can
>simply use what you planted as they needed to use force against you to
>do so.
>
Exactly. Now why is it that you think that every square inch of land is
being used? That is not even true in today's world. Surely if there was a
world with only 100 men on it, there would be plenty of land somewhere to
claim. Supposing we are crammed on an island. Even so, the burden of
ownership rests on the owner. Whoever actually works a piece of land is the
owner unless one can prove otherwise. It would be easy to prove otherwise
if you manage to stake your own claim through just means and can show this.
>> I could offer the guy next door
>> to help him till the land for a share of the harvest.
>
>Certainly. If the person in question found a piece of land that is used
>by noone. I still find that very improbable, tho, as our 100 men might
>be running around and sleep somewhere. Remember, our people don't live
>in houses yet. No doors. We don't know yet, whether building houses was
>ok!
>
Okay -- great! Then it sounds like all land is currently unclaimed. I will
just squat down and make a garden. If someone tramples my garden then they
are in the wrong. If someone tries to claim the land after the fact then
they are in the wrong. One does not stake a just claim to land simply by
positing it. I can not stand on Earth and claim Mars. I must go to Mars
and take the planet over. The only reason this might be difficult is
because the planet is so big. If I could do that, then since no one is
there and I initiate force on no one, Mars is mine.
>All we know up to know is three things:
>
>a) People don't have to help others.
>b) People can kill unclaimed animals and eat/sell them.
>c) Land is difficult if not impossible to claim with using force.
>
Why do you think that is true. Does some one already have a claim to the
land? Who do I have to physically remove from it? Who has a legitimate
claim to it? You sound like we are already living in a city or a full blown
civilization where all the land in a given area is owned or occupied. All
things being equal in our 100 man tribe, if I walk out to a piece of wild
woods and clear it, build a house, and plant a garden, then how can any one
of the 99 other men stake a claim to that piece of land now?
>Another problem is _how many_ animals you can kill.
I don't know how many I am capable of killing, but I feel fairly safe in
saying that in the real world enviornmentalism is not a top priority for a
hundred man tribe in the stone age, nor should it be.
>Since you are not
>using force against anyone, you could kill a few hundred animals and eat
>one of them. The rest would just be dead. A few days later all animals
>in the region might have died, a species is extinct. And nobody can hunt
>them anymore.
Indeed. So? Maybe they all had partial ownership in the species. So what.
It is on grounds of ownership -- property rights -- that you would argue
against it being morally permisable to kill them all. These grounds are
libertarian grounds.
>
>In this case you will have caused the deaths of 99 people, without
>having used force. It is therefore legal from what we know about the
>tribe.
>
So supposing I can do all this we are presented with what *might* be a moral
quandry. So what -- your example lacks any relevance to this discussion of
the existence of property rights.
>It's time to define whether life was a right in this tribe. You cannot
>take somebody's life by force, that's what we know. But do you have to
>care for others? Up to now it is morally completely ok to kill all the
>animals and let the others die. No problem there.
>
Whether or not it is okay to kill the animals is an issue of property. It
may be argued that because of a right to life, the rest of the tribe had
property rights in some of the gazelles. In no case could it be argued that
one has property rights unless it results in an even we dislike. That is
incoherent. Either they have property rights or they don't. Either they
have a right to life or they don't. These rights existed or not quite
independently of our thinking of them. They were foregone conclusions when
we started to talk about them in the first place. The idea of "property"
and "right" is such that one has "property rights" in a given situation or
not.
>> That share I earned
>> is mine to dispose of as I see fit. It would require the initiation of
>> force to take it from me -- not to keep it to myself.
>
>Correct. Cannot be argued. The point is the original owner. Did he find
>a pice of land not used by anyone else of the 98 remaining persons?
>
If he did not, then he owes maybe some payment to the owner of the land. I
do not.
>> I toil away while others simply do not work as hard. I instill the same
>> work ethic in my offspring. Over centuries my family line becomes
wealthy
>> and inventive while others continue to live in the stone age, doing just
>> enough to get by.
>
>You are too fast for the model. Up to now, we don't even have the basic
>rights in our tribe, and you are already living in the industrial age!
>
You are avoiding the point. Your idea that I was in the industrial age is
silly. The point is to show how one accumulates more land than they could
ever farm, access to more gazelles than they could ever kill, etc.
Evidentally you are afraid of this point.
>(snipped the rest, as it was too fast forward, too many things were left
>out).
>
>--
>Fan of Woody Allen
>Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza
Let's suppose that 100 men are crammed onto an island already with limited
resources. Suppose that we have to all catalogue all the wealth and say
that we can only all share in it equally. Then, I will trade what share of
the wealth I have for some other wealth that I may labor to increase. As I
increase my wealth I will trade for more wealth, etc. I will do this until
I can buy a plot of land from the group. Viola! I own land! If you are
going to argue with the premises here then you are reaching. I cannot think
of very many more pathological examples that are remotely realistic. It
takes force to make it so that people do not try to fend for themselves. It
takes force to thwart private enterprise. It takes force to establish
communism or socialism -- not the other way around.
Adrian
Andrew J. Brehm
> Excellent! Pulls out John Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government:
I thought it was a good idea.
> "The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it which obliges
> everyone; and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but
> consult it that, being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm
> another in his life, health, liberty or possessions..."
>
> Whatever piece of unclaimed land I can farm, the products of which are mine.
Given that the land was _really_ unclaimed, which seems improbable in
the land the tribe lives in. People probably use the land you want to
claim for walking around, hunting, sleeping etc. You will have to use
force to remove them from the land you want to claim.
Also, how much land can you claim? All of it?
> No one has a right to it. What ever unclaimed Gazelle I can kill, I can eat
> and have the last word on who gets the meat.
I don't see how this could be argued. As long as nobody claimed any
land, any gazelle can be killed by you, that is correct.
> I could exchange the
> vegetables in my garden for Gazelle meat.
That is, if you have a garden. You can plant something, somewhere. To do
this you need to use land nobody else is using. After that nobody can
simply use what you planted as they needed to use force against you to
do so.
> I could offer the guy next door
> to help him till the land for a share of the harvest.
Certainly. If the person in question found a piece of land that is used
by noone. I still find that very improbable, tho, as our 100 men might
be running around and sleep somewhere. Remember, our people don't live
in houses yet. No doors. We don't know yet, whether building houses was
ok!
All we know up to know is three things:
a) People don't have to help others.
b) People can kill unclaimed animals and eat/sell them.
c) Land is difficult if not impossible to claim with using force.
Another problem is _how many_ animals you can kill. Since you are not
using force against anyone, you could kill a few hundred animals and eat
one of them. The rest would just be dead. A few days later all animals
in the region might have died, a species is extinct. And nobody can hunt
them anymore.
In this case you will have caused the deaths of 99 people, without
having used force. It is therefore legal from what we know about the
tribe.
It's time to define whether life was a right in this tribe. You cannot
take somebody's life by force, that's what we know. But do you have to
care for others? Up to now it is morally completely ok to kill all the
animals and let the others die. No problem there.
> That share I earned
> is mine to dispose of as I see fit. It would require the initiation of
> force to take it from me -- not to keep it to myself.
Correct. Cannot be argued. The point is the original owner. Did he find
a pice of land not used by anyone else of the 98 remaining persons?
> I toil away while others simply do not work as hard. I instill the same
> work ethic in my offspring. Over centuries my family line becomes wealthy
> and inventive while others continue to live in the stone age, doing just
> enough to get by.
You are too fast for the model. Up to now, we don't even have the basic
rights in our tribe, and you are already living in the industrial age!
(snipped the rest, as it was too fast forward, too many things were left
Andrew J. Brehm
> Andrew J. Brehm wrote in message
> >Given that the land was _really_ unclaimed, which seems improbable in
> >the land the tribe lives in. People probably use the land you want to
> >claim for walking around, hunting, sleeping etc. You will have to use
> >force to remove them from the land you want to claim.
> >
>
> How does one stake a claim simply by having known of it or having walked
> across it?
I don't know.
> You stake a claim by settling on it. Either the land is claimed
> or it isn't.
What if other people simply walk around it, use it, and don't want to
claim it, because other people walk around it, use it, and don't want to
claim it?
You might come, claim it, and forcibly make all these people accept it,
just because you believe in the concept of property, and they might not.
But we agreed that using force was wrong.
So think of a different way to get your land!
> If I do not need to use force to build a house and a garden on
> it then it is mine.
You cannot build a house and a garden on something that isn't yours
without forcing other people to accept your house and garden on the
land. First you need to peacefully obtain the land, then you can do
whatever you wish with it.
> If someone later comes a long and says that they
> claimed it first then they have the burden of proof that it is theirs.
You already assume that claiming something was ok, but we have yet to
prove that for your tribe. They don't have any laws yet. At the moment,
you stand alone with the idea you could simply claim and take the land
the tribe lives on. Now it is your job to prove to our tribe that you
can take the land without forcing them to do anything.
> It
> seems rather unlikely that they had any claim to it if there is nothing but
> this tribe of 100 men and no trace of them on the land.
The concept of claiming is not yet legal in the tribe. Claiming and
taking land requires you to use force against the other 99 people
living, walking and playing on that land you want to claim. You have to
find a means to accuire land that does not require force.
> In any case, either they do have a claim to it or they don't.
In any case, before you introduce any concepts to our tribe, you have to
show how these concepts can exist without force. At the moment, we have
you forcing others to leave the land because you want to claim and own
it. The other 99 people are still walking, sleeping, and eating on this
land of yours. You need to use force to make them accept this land was
yours. Thus your claim was not legal according to our constitution. You
can use the land, but so can they.
> If you are
> going to say that ownership is meaningless altogether, then you are a
> socialist -- no mere liberal could say that.
I'm not saying anything. This is a thought experiment to find out
whether property can exist without force. You were trying to find a way
to obtain land without using force. Up to now, you haven't found a way.
Frankly, I don't know a way. Maybe you find one. But I think we have to
do something about and force everyone to accept some rules. Our anarchy,
so far, hasn't worked.
> Such a notion can allow no capitalism.
That is correct. We first need to introduce some laws by force to allow
for capitalism.
Do we wish to do that?
I would agree. Let us begin introducing capitalism to our tribe.
How do we start? Does everyone of our tribal people get a piece of land
to do as they please? How do we make sure everyone can still get to each
given piece of land? Do we need public streets or ways or something
alike? Or do we give all land to private people and make them pay each
other for walking their land?
I would agree to force our 100 men to accept that land can be property
of others and that they are no longer allowed to touch it, if they don't
own it themselves.
But we need to set up some rules, maybe...
Do we define rules for our capitalism, or do we want a totally free
market?
We are yet setting up the concept of capitalism, so any rules we would
make up now, wouldn't require extra force.
I guess streets would be a somewhat good concept. Also, we have to see
HOW the land will be given to our 100 people. Do they all just claim
land and fight it out? Or do we force some of them into a militia that
has to fight for the rights of whoever claimed the land first?
Or do we make a setup where each and everyone of our 100 men gets an
equal slice of the land?
Also, what do we do to defend our new capitalism against other tribes?
Do we force people to fight for other people's property or just for
their own? Do we force our tribe to pay taxes and pay some of them to
defend all property against intruders?
Or would we simply set up each of them to defend their own piece of
land?
Also, if we want to give equal slices of the land to our people, how
would we make them accept this concept?
Either way requires force. Since we agreed (at least I did, don't know
about you) to use force to make people accept the concept of property,
as we think it was benefitial to everyone and the individual, we can
also force them to accept our way to devide the land.
I would propose we give each of them an equal piece of land for the
beginning, no conditions whatsoever. The other idea, of everyone
claiming whatever they like best would probably result in a civil war
because most people would like to have what they consider the best
piece, and also, they would try to claim _all_ the land they know, as
there is nothing that would prevent them from doing so, once the concept
of claiming land was legal.
We seem to need regulation of some kind. Who does the regulation? Do we
need a government?
What do you think?
I think I know a way of equally and fairly deviding the land into equal
pieces. It would require these 100 people working together on a common
goal, and I think if the common goal was equal private property for each
of them, they might want to join me.
BTW what do we do with those of our 100 people who don't accept the new
concept we force upon them? We might need a police.
Do we force or pay people to work as police forces. If we pay them,
where do we collect the money/property to pay them?
> All that is necessary for what I have said is that one have
> some claim to land. I originally had not claims to any property. I never
> could even just simply acquire property, either. But simply through just
> transfers of wealth, I now own property. One need not even own any land.
You are of course correct. The people in our tribe don't need to own
land, if they don't wish to. They can sell land they might have to
others for a share of the harvest, or some wood, or whatever they like.
But at the moment we are still at the beginning. Trade will start as
soon as we established our new capitalism. But first you need to agree
on the concept itself.
My proposal is we force our 100 men to accept the concept of private
property. We force those who don't want to accept it, to do accept it.
We devide the land into equal pieces of land that we give to our people
to do as they please. The devision of the land will be base democratic
according to a system I will make up and tell you for verification after
we agreed on the concept of capitalism itself. Your job is find out
whether we would need a government to protect the rights of people and
how this government would do so.
In the annuals of our tribe, this proposal will be known as proposition
001 and was considered to have good chances.
Uh, that reminds me, if we need a government for our 100 men, we need to
find a government system. Dictatorships or monarchies won't work, as
they require force. So there are three democratic systems left, that
require less force:
a) direct democracy.
Our 100 men meet once per month and vote, if there is anything to vote
on. This will work as long as our tribe consists of only few people.
b) parliamentary democracy.
Every ten people living in the same region elect one of themselves (we
might allow totally strangers that don't live in the region to be voted
for) and this guy represents them in a parliament we force them to
accept. This will eventually replace system a).
We might pay representatives according to one of three plans:
1. A federal government pays all representatives.
2. The district pays their representative.
3. Nobody pays the representatives.
Numbers 1. and 2. require force to collect taxes of some kind. (Or a
district that doesn't want to pay anyone just isn't represented.)
Number 3. does not require force, but would also limit the job of
representative to those who don't need their time to work for their
needs/wishes, so we simply cannot apply this system for now, as all our
people have to work for their food.
c) soviet democracy
Every 5 people elect one of themselves to be their soviet. Every 5
soviets will elect of of themselves to be their next soviet. The last
soviet group that could vote another set of soviets elects a president
instead. This president will then be the executive until the soviets
decide to remove him from office (which they can do whenever they like).
The advantages are that we don't have to pay anyone save the president,
since the jobs of the soviets are limited to voting for or against
someone. They don't have to decide about individual acts of the
executive. Their job is solely to appoint and remove a president.
The disadvantage is that people tend to vote people they already know
and respect. Thus evenm tho the people at the voter base of the system
vote different people, the people voted for at the end will often stay
the same. We could, however, force presidents to only serve a certain
amount of time or only once, or whatever.
This is my proposition 002. You have to think about it and try to
calirify the remining questions (do we need government, do we elect
government, do we limit government's power, how do we elect governmne
tif we elect it).
> >Also, how much land can you claim? All of it?
>
> This may be your problem right here. You can only claim land, originally,
> that you can actually take or squat on -- that you can acually inhabit and
> use.
How is this defined? Do we force our people to accept this definition or
do we want them to make up their own definition? Or do we instead give
them land?
> It is through just transfers of wealth that one can accumulate more
> land or food that they can actually eat, use or squat on.
Yes, but at the moment, our people still don't have land. We need to
agree on a system for them to own land in. My proposal stands.
> >I don't see how this could be argued. As long as nobody claimed any
> >land, any gazelle can be killed by you, that is correct.
> >
> Right. As long as I am not killing Gazelles in your Gazelle herd or
> pasture, then I am fine. That Gazelle *that I kill* is mine.
None of our 100 men owns a gazelle yet. That was never defined. Even my
land proposition 001 does not include free gazelles at all.
I would propose you set up proposition 003 about people's right to kill
gazelles and where this right is limited due to a gazelle running on
private property or due to the number of gazelless left. I will then
look at your proposition and we will discuss it.
But don't forget to discuss my two proposals.
> >> I could exchange the
> >> vegetables in my garden for Gazelle meat.
> >
> >That is, if you have a garden. You can plant something, somewhere. To do
> >this you need to use land nobody else is using. After that nobody can
> >simply use what you planted as they needed to use force against you to
> >do so.
> >
>
> Exactly. Now why is it that you think that every square inch of land is
> being used?
It doesn't matter whethr I do think that. If you claim land, without
claiming be legitimate, you need to prove that the land you want to
claim would never be used by anyone else. We can solve these problems by
forcing our people to accept proposition 001, tho.
> That is not even true in today's world. Surely if there was a
> world with only 100 men on it, there would be plenty of land somewhere to
> claim.
Supposedly. However, we don't know whether our tribe is alone. We would
need to set up an expedition to find or not find other tribes or
individuals.
That will confront us with another problem: immigration.
But I'd propose we discuss this AFTER we found someone in our tribe to
start an expedition or when some other expedition finds our tribe (then
we would have to apply defense or immigration laws).
> Supposing we are crammed on an island.
We can suppose that, but we don't know yet. If it is an island, we could
later discuss whether claiming land on _other_ islands was legal, since
our tribal people never used this land.
However, we might find other people on other islands. What happens if
one tribe member claims land on other islands? However, we'll discuss
this _later_ after someone has enough property collected to build a ship
to find new lands. At the moment, we are trying to organize the tribe as
such.
> Even so, the burden of
> ownership rests on the owner. Whoever actually works a piece of land is the
> owner unless one can prove otherwise. It would be easy to prove otherwise
> if you manage to stake your own claim through just means and can show this.
Now you are starting to develope a concept. It sound socialist a bit,
but then again, at the moment, we have neither system in our land. We
have a neutral anarchy.
That reminds me, someone has to define rights to life and liberty or
change proposition 001 so that life and liberty are part of the property
of a man.
Then we have to discuss what we do to life, liberty, and property if
someone commits a crime (like stealing land or property, ensvlaving
someone or killing him).
> >Certainly. If the person in question found a piece of land that is used
> >by noone. I still find that very improbable, tho, as our 100 men might
> >be running around and sleep somewhere. Remember, our people don't live
> >in houses yet. No doors. We don't know yet, whether building houses was
> >ok!
> >
>
> Okay -- great! Then it sounds like all land is currently unclaimed. I will
> just squat down and make a garden. If someone tramples my garden then they
> are in the wrong.
Not neccessarily, as our 100 men did not agree about this concept of
yours. Others could make up other concepts (seems probable) and hate you
for infringing on what they consider their rights. The result would be
civil war. We better avoid this. Proposition 001 can do that, if we
force them to accept it (the first few propositions can later be called
the constituion or whatever).
> If someone tries to claim the land after the fact then
> they are in the wrong. One does not stake a just claim to land simply by
> positing it. I can not stand on Earth and claim Mars. I must go to Mars
> and take the planet over. The only reason this might be difficult is
> because the planet is so big. If I could do that, then since no one is
> there and I initiate force on no one, Mars is mine.
Not yet. This concept of yours is not yet accepted among our tribe. I
somewhat like the idea of your concept. I would agree that we force the
tribe to accept it, as formulated in proposition 001.
> >All we know up to know is three things:
> >
> >a) People don't have to help others.
> >b) People can kill unclaimed animals and eat/sell them.
> >c) Land is difficult if not impossible to claim with using force.
> >
>
> Why do you think that is true. Does some one already have a claim to the
> land?
No, but the concept of claming land simply doesn's exist yet. That's why
I think this is true. You simply cannot claim land without forcing
others to accept your claim.
> Who do I have to physically remove from it?
Anybody who migh sleep/stand/eat on it.
> Who has a legitimate claim to it?
Nobody. The concept of claiming does not yet exist. You just proposed it
and automatically assumed everybody would have to follow your orders. I
made a contra proposition 001 which I want you to read and
approve/disaprove. After that we can go on.
> You sound like we are already living in a city or a full blown
> civilization where all the land in a given area is owned or occupied.
Not at all. We are at early stages of civilization and no land is
claimed, not did anyone ever get the idea that land could be claimed.
You were the first. Your idea is certainly an important point in teh
history of our tribe, but you have yet to learn that not all your ideas
are simply law just after you had them. We have to make your tribe to
accept the concept you proposed. Or, as I proposed, we make them to
accept proposition 001, where the concept is formulated.
> All
> things being equal in our 100 man tribe, if I walk out to a piece of wild
> woods and clear it, build a house, and plant a garden, then how can any one
> of the 99 other men stake a claim to that piece of land now?
They can't. But they can claim that you cannot just go somewhere, take
something, and do something with it. Yesterday, one of the other people
might have hunted in this forest. You just took his right to do so, by
taking the forest with most gazelles and force him not to hunt there
anymore.
> >Another problem is _how many_ animals you can kill.
>
> I don't know how many I am capable of killing, but I feel fairly safe in
> saying that in the real world enviornmentalism is not a top priority for a
> hundred man tribe in the stone age, nor should it be.
Not yet, that is correct. However, if we kill all the gazelles in this
region, our tribe might have to move. By killing all gazelles you might
force everyone else to go somewhere else. Maybe proposition 003 will
solce this problem.
> >Since you are not
> >using force against anyone, you could kill a few hundred animals and eat
> >one of them. The rest would just be dead. A few days later all animals
> >in the region might have died, a species is extinct. And nobody can hunt
> >them anymore.
>
> Indeed. So? Maybe they all had partial ownership in the species. So what.
> It is on grounds of ownership -- property rights -- that you would argue
> against it being morally permisable to kill them all. These grounds are
> libertarian grounds.
Yes, but we don't have a libertarian system for our tribe yet. We are at
the beginning. You already take everything for granted.
> >In this case you will have caused the deaths of 99 people, without
> >having used force. It is therefore legal from what we know about the
> >tribe.
>
> So supposing I can do all this we are presented with what *might* be a moral
> quandry. So what -- your example lacks any relevance to this discussion of
> the existence of property rights.
I don't think so. We are currently confronted with the question whether
property (like any gazelle you kiill becomes your property) can be used
without any conditions, or whether you have to take care for other
people.
This question has not yet been solved for our tribe.
> >It's time to define whether life was a right in this tribe. You cannot
> >take somebody's life by force, that's what we know. But do you have to
> >care for others? Up to now it is morally completely ok to kill all the
> >animals and let the others die. No problem there.
>
> Whether or not it is okay to kill the animals is an issue of property.
Good one. That's why we _have_ to intriduce the concept of private
proprty NOW.
> It
> may be argued that because of a right to life, the rest of the tribe had
> property rights in some of the gazelles. In no case could it be argued that
> one has property rights unless it results in an even we dislike. That is
> incoherent.
Now we are getting closer.
> Either they have property rights or they don't. Either they
> have a right to life or they don't. These rights existed or not quite
> independently of our thinking of them. They were foregone conclusions when
> we started to talk about them in the first place. The idea of "property"
> and "right" is such that one has "property rights" in a given situation or
> not.
Yes, and we need to definde these rights for our tribe, before they get
themselves killed.
> >Correct. Cannot be argued. The point is the original owner. Did he find
> >a pice of land not used by anyone else of the 98 remaining persons?
>
> If he did not, then he owes maybe some payment to the owner of the land. I
> do not.
It doesn't matter whether you do or do not in real life. Did our man who
claimed land find a piece of land that was not and never used by anyone
else who's rights he might be infrinfing upon by taking the land?
> >You are too fast for the model. Up to now, we don't even have the basic
> >rights in our tribe, and you are already living in the industrial age!
>
> You are avoiding the point.
Now, I am trying to delay the point until we can solve it. At the
moment, our tribe has no laws and rights at all. Before we discuss laws
and rights, we better make them up.
> Your idea that I was in the industrial age is silly.
I was exagerating to point out that you were too fast with your
thinking. We are still at the beginning. You simply accepted your own
opinion as a valid set of rules for our tribe and went on. It's not that
easy.
> The point is to show how one accumulates more land than they could
> ever farm, access to more gazelles than they could ever kill, etc.
> Evidentally you are afraid of this point.
That isn't important for now. At the moment, the concept of life,
libertym and property is unknown in our tribe. Arguing what will be
later is therefore pointless until we define a starting point.
> Let's suppose that 100 men are crammed onto an island already with limited
> resources.
Ok, it is an island.
> Suppose that we have to all catalogue all the wealth and say
> that we can only all share in it equally.
Hm... take a look at proposition 001 first.
> Then, I will trade what share of
> the wealth I have for some other wealth that I may labor to increase. As I
> increase my wealth I will trade for more wealth, etc. I will do this until
> I can buy a plot of land from the group. Viola! I own land!
That's a method. So we first define the land to be owned by the group. I
guess we can do this without using force. Good idea!
How will the group manage their land? I hope they'd do it in a
democratic way.
What would you do if the group votes not to sell you land? They could do
this, until we make property a right as such. And this is where
proposition 001 comes in.
> If you are
> going to argue with the premises here then you are reaching. I cannot think
> of very many more pathological examples that are remotely realistic. It
> takes force to make it so that people do not try to fend for themselves. It
> takes force to thwart private enterprise. It takes force to establish
> communism or socialism -- not the other way around.
It takes force to establish socialism in a libertarian system and it
takes force to establish capitalism in a communist system. That's all we
know. You left out the second part.
However, what we are confronted with here, is a system not yet defined.
We have to introduce a system (whatever we see fit), preferably with no
force. My proposition includes force, which we need to make our tribe do
what we want. Your idea of land being owned by the tribe as such, does
not guarantee that at some point someone is owning land. Also, we need a
constitution first to guarantee that the democratic decisions what to do
with the land are fair. Otherwise 51 people could simply vote on
deviding the land among themselves and giving the others no land at all.
Then our tribe will turn into a feudalist government system. We don't
want this, I presume, that's why we better set up a constitution before
we give anything to anybody.
I think the experiment is working quite well...
We are just way too slow.
We need basic right laws NOW.
Adrian
Andrew J. Brehm wrote in message
>Adrian <dur...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> Andrew J. Brehm wrote in message
>
>> >Given that the land was _really_ unclaimed, which seems improbable in
>> >the land the tribe lives in. People probably use the land you want to
>> >claim for walking around, hunting, sleeping etc. You will have to use
>> >force to remove them from the land you want to claim.
>> >
>>
>> How does one stake a claim simply by having known of it or having walked
>> across it?
>
>I don't know.
>
>> You stake a claim by settling on it. Either the land is claimed
>> or it isn't.
>
>What if other people simply walk around it, use it, and don't want to
>claim it, because other people walk around it, use it, and don't want to
>claim it?
>
Then the land will be unclaimed. Even according to an anarchist, they have
no right to horde land they are not using. I would certainly agree with
this if they do not own it.
>You might come, claim it, and forcibly make all these people accept it,
>just because you believe in the concept of property, and they might not.
>
No. You are avoiding the issue. I am not forcing them to accept it at all.
The question is who must use force on whom. If I drive them off of their
land then I am taking THEIR land from them. If they are not using a piece
of land and do not otherwise claim it while they are not using it, then they
have to force me to get off the land once I claim it. In other words they
must forcibly remove me from my land. I am not forcing anyone to accept my
concept of property rights. I am merely being bullied and pushed around by
THEM. Maybe they will take my land... It is still mine.
>But we agreed that using force was wrong.
>
>So think of a different way to get your land!
>
Please -- I am not forcing anyone.
>> If I do not need to use force to build a house and a garden on
>> it then it is mine.
>
>You cannot build a house and a garden on something that isn't yours
>without forcing other people to accept your house and garden on the
>land.
I sure can. What I cannot do is build a house and a garden on something
that is someone else's. What you cannot do is give me somethig that isn't
your's. I do not need to get permission from them UNLESS they have claimed
the land and own it. In this case, they have ownership of the land, and
we're done -- the land has a rightful owner.
>First you need to peacefully obtain the land, then you can do
>whatever you wish with it.
>
Indeed. If no one owns it then I may claim it. You are slipping all around
the issue of rights. Either someone else has the right to tell me that I
cannot claim the land or not. In the former case they are rightful owners
of the land. In the latter case, I may claim the land and rightfully own it
myself.
>> If someone later comes a long and says that they
>> claimed it first then they have the burden of proof that it is theirs.
>
>You already assume that claiming something was ok, but we have yet to
>prove that for your tribe.
No I haven't. All I have done is assme that they may not use force against
me and I may not use force against them. Please stop twisting the scenario.
It is absurd to think that I am forcing them to do anything by simply
getting up and going out to an unoccupied piece of land and making a house
and a garden. There is no one there! Who am I forcing to leave or do
anything? I am just building a house and a garden. Now what will they have
to do if they come around some time afterwards and decide they do not want
the house and the garden there. They will have to remove me and it
physically. That is a use of force. Me building the house was not.
>They don't have any laws yet.
They have at least one law -- do not intiate force. It isn't just a law,
but rather a moral. We are accepting it (at least for right now) as a rule
with which to decide if someone acts inappropriately. If they make unjust
laws or not, we can decide with this rule. The issue in this thread is
whether or not actions are consistent with the application of this rule.
their particular mores -- their civil code -- is irrelevant here.
>At the moment,
>you stand alone with the idea you could simply claim and take the land
>the tribe lives on.
I am not even claiming my land with the force of centuries of philosophical
thought under a pronciple of property rights. I am merely saying "Hey! No
fair trampling my garden!" I am just trying to live and let live in may own
little area that everyone had abandoned. By the fruits of my own labor I
made a house and a garden. Why does anyone now have the right to just
ARBITRARILY take those fruits? More specifically how have I used force to
make the house and garden? They certainly must use force to take it or part
of it.
>Now it is your job to prove to our tribe that you
>can take the land without forcing them to do anything.
>
I don't have to convince anyone of anything. I simply have to not intitiate
force. Check your hypothesis. If they own it -- if they have staked a
claim to it -- then the land is justly owned. We're done -- someone has
property rights. If they do not, then it requires no force to claim it
myself.
>> It
>> seems rather unlikely that they had any claim to it if there is nothing
but
>> this tribe of 100 men and no trace of them on the land.
>
>The concept of claiming is not yet legal in the tribe.
The legality of claiming is irrelevant. I am merely building a house and a
garden. Who am I coercing in doing this? Show me a person coerced and I
will show you someone that had a legitimate claim to the land prior to my
using it. That person will have property rights. Done.
>Claiming and
>taking land requires you to use force against the other 99 people
>living, walking and playing on that land you want to claim.
Well if I must move them to build my house, then sure. That is not what I
am doing. I am going to a place where no one is and just building a house
and a garden. I am not removing someone from a portion of land kicking and
screaming and then building my house. I am going some place wher no one is
and building my house. I am trying to imagine a bunch of kids playing in
the sand and someone coming along and building a house over them while they
play. I am trying to imagine a tribe of indians and someone going in and
just knocking down teepees to build a house. It doesn't make any sense. It
rarely happens that way unless it is a dispute over owned property. And
that is certainly not what I am talking about.
>You have to
>find a means to accuire land that does not require force.
I have. The only way I am using force in what I am doing would be in a very
subtle way if the land was already owned. Let me repeat this for the hard
of reading: IF the land was ALREADY owned. Either I have used force and the
land is rightfully owned or I am not. Either way, the land is rightfully
owned by someone.
>
>> In any case, either they do have a claim to it or they don't.
>
>In any case, before you introduce any concepts to our tribe, you have to
>show how these concepts can exist without force.
I am not introducing concepts to my tribe. I am just building a house and a
garden and living and let living. They must use force against me to take my
land.
>At the moment, we have
>you forcing others to leave the land because you want to claim and own
>it.
That is stupid. You simply have to ignore my construction to say that I
must removve someone from the land. I specifically said that I wasn't doing
that. In fact, if I have to do that, then THEY own the land. Done.
>The other 99 people are still walking, sleeping, and eating on this
>land of yours.
If they are using it, then that land is theirs. If they are not then I may
claim it. What you cannot do is stand in the middle of America and claim
the entire continent on the grounds that you might use it some day or on the
grounds that you used it once. This has nothing to do with the tribe's
laws. This has only to do with the initiation of force.
>You need to use force to make them accept this land was
>yours.
No -- they need to use force to come physically remove me from my house and
trample my garden and otherwise defile the land that I was using.
>Thus your claim was not legal according to our constitution. You
>can use the land, but so can they.
Legality has nothing to do with it. I did not use force against them, and
they must now use force against me.
>
>> If you are
>> going to say that ownership is meaningless altogether, then you are a
>> socialist -- no mere liberal could say that.
>
>I'm not saying anything. This is a thought experiment to find out
>whether property can exist without force. You were trying to find a way
>to obtain land without using force. Up to now, you haven't found a way.
You are just ignoring me.
>Frankly, I don't know a way. Maybe you find one. But I think we have to
>do something about and force everyone to accept some rules. Our anarchy,
>so far, hasn't worked.
>
They need not accept any rules. If they do not then they might come and
steal from my garden. Or they might live in my house while I am out in the
graden. Or they might drag me out kicking and screaming and then burn the
whole thing down and trample the garden just to put me in my place.
Regardless of what they decide to do -- regardless of what actually
happens -- they are the ones that have initiated force against me. It
simply doesn;t matter what actually happens. What matters is the abstract
description of the possible scenarios. One essential characteristic of the
scenario we are discussing is that the tribe initiates force against the
renegade indian that chooses to settle down in forcing him to remain nomadic
as they are. Whether or not they know it, they are violating the rule of
not initiating force.
>> Such a notion can allow no capitalism.
>
>That is correct. We first need to introduce some laws by force to allow
>for capitalism.
No we do not.
>
>Do we wish to do that?
>
Yes I do. I do not wish to artificially create a social concept of
ownership, though. I wish to use force to retaliate against the unjust
initiation of force by others.
>I would agree. Let us begin introducing capitalism to our tribe.
>
Capitalism existed before we created land rights -- to suggest otherwise is
truly absurd. Forget about land rights. Suppose no one owned the land and
I planted a garden and harvested it. No one owns the fruits of my labor and
I may still trade it. This type of thing occurs even amond nomadic peoples.
The only reason nomadic poeple do not own land is becuase they have no
interest in it -- they still own things and trade with each other. That is
capitalism (assuming no force). The idea that some cultures have no concept
of ownership is a myth perpetrated by pseudoscience in cultural
anthropology.
>How do we start? Does everyone of our tribal people get a piece of land
>to do as they please? How do we make sure everyone can still get to each
>given piece of land? Do we need public streets or ways or something
>alike? Or do we give all land to private people and make them pay each
>other for walking their land?
>
WE do not give land to anyone. WE do not own any land. You are assuming
that we all start out owning the land jointly. That is an additional
assumption to the idea that one may not initiate force against another. You
are not being parsimonious.
>I would agree to force our 100 men to accept that land can be property
>of others and that they are no longer allowed to touch it, if they don't
>own it themselves.
>
No -- they may touch it all they want to whether or not they own it. The
issue is whether or not someone else owns it. If it is someone else's
property, then they may not touch it without that other person's permission.
Why may they not touch it? Because someone else is using it. Just like it
is wrong for you to come and take my penis gourde while I am wearing it.
>But we need to set up some rules, maybe...
>
The principle of not initiating force is okay for now. The only other issue
that I can think of off hand is fraud. I do not think of fraud as entailing
force, and I would disallow this too. But this point has little relevance
at present to our discussion.
>Do we define rules for our capitalism, or do we want a totally free
>market?
>
A totally free market is free of force and fraud. The only rules we need
are the ones that prevent these things from actually happening. The only
force we need to engage in is to defend ourselves from these two activities.
>We are yet setting up the concept of capitalism, so any rules we would
>make up now, wouldn't require extra force.
>
How do you figure? ANY rules? That seems almost surely false.
>I guess streets would be a somewhat good concept. Also, we have to see
>HOW the land will be given to our 100 people. Do they all just claim
>land and fight it out? Or do we force some of them into a militia that
>has to fight for the rights of whoever claimed the land first?
>
Why would the latter even occur to you? Why is it that the one that claimed
it first might seem like the rightful owner, if only possibly so? Streets
need not exist. Who gives the land to the people? Only an owner can give
their property to someone. If no one owns the land, then how is it "given
to our 100 peope"?
>Or do we make a setup where each and everyone of our 100 men gets an
>equal slice of the land?
>
Even in the case where we all have joint (as opposed to partial) ownership
of the land. I am well within my rights to ask for a piece of the jointly
owned land and forfeit my rights to jointly own the other part. In fact it
would generally require force to prevent me from doing this -- the tribe
would have to enforce the joint ownership of the land. Conversely, I merely
would just focus my attention to a piece that is my fair share and not
interfere with the other larger piece, informing them of my plan. If the
tribe were to come back and say they had joint ownership of my piece
(supposing I were to build it up and make it much more valuable than the
other pieces), then they would have to initiate force against me. They
would have to use me as a means to their own ends, and treat themselves
preferentially to me.
>Also, what do we do to defend our new capitalism against other tribes?
If another tribe comes to forcibly take our tribe's property, then they are
violating the rule of noninitiation of force. What we do to defend
ourselves from immoral behavior is a good question, but not relevant to this
discussion. All we are doing here is identifying what is in compliance with
or not incompliance with the rule of noninitiation of force.
>Do we force people to fight for other people's property or just for
>their own? Do we force our tribe to pay taxes and pay some of them to
>defend all property against intruders?
If their property is also defended, then maybe we could argue that they
ought to pay taxes to have someone else's property defended also. Or maybe
not. A moot point with regard to their property rights.
>
>Or would we simply set up each of them to defend their own piece of
>land?
>
Why would we set them up? We would just leave them to defend their own
piece of land. Remember that they are part of the "we" here.
>Also, if we want to give equal slices of the land to our people, how
>would we make them accept this concept?
>
Interesting -- you must make them accept your concept of how the land must
be divied up. That is because you have unjustly staked a claim to all the
land and are now deciding how you will give it back to everyone. It is not
your land.
>Either way requires force.
That is correct -- no matter how you take control of the people, you must
use force to do it. However if you just mind your own business and do not
push everyone around, you can go off to a piece of land that no one is using
and build a house and a garden and live happily ever after. If someone come
s to take your house and your garden then they are initiating force against
you -- not the other way around. One does not have a claim to everything in
the universe merely by existing.
>Since we agreed (at least I did, don't know
>about you) to use force to make people accept the concept of property,
>as we think it was benefitial to everyone and the individual, we can
>also force them to accept our way to devide the land.
>
You are correct. I did not agree to use force to make everyine accept my
concept of property. My concept of property is derived analytically from
the principle of noninitiation of force. Yours is not. You must use force
to make everyone agree to your irrational idea.
>I would propose we give each of them an equal piece of land for the
>beginning, no conditions whatsoever. The other idea, of everyone
>claiming whatever they like best would probably result in a civil war
>because most people would like to have what they consider the best
>piece, and also, they would try to claim _all_ the land they know, as
>there is nothing that would prevent them from doing so, once the concept
>of claiming land was legal.
>
That depends on what you think is justified in claiming land. According to
you, one has a claim to everything simply by being born. I am basing any
notion of property on a principle of noninitiation of force. If you have to
force me off the land (at least in the beginning), then it is rightfully my
land. If you can show that you were there first and actually using the
land, etc., then I did not have the right to take over your land and was
passive-aggressively forcing you off your land. Where exactly one draws the
line between using and not using an object is a good question but academic
to this discussion since there are situations in which one is clearly using
an object (my penis gourd) and clearly not (Mars).
>We seem to need regulation of some kind. Who does the regulation? Do we
>need a government?
>
We all create a government through an invisible hand process (Robert Nizick
discusses this in the first section of Anarchy, State and Utopia).
>What do you think?
>
I think we should have a government to prevent fraud and coercion.
>I think I know a way of equally and fairly deviding the land into equal
>pieces. It would require these 100 people working together on a common
>goal, and I think if the common goal was equal private property for each
>of them, they might want to join me.
>
That would be entering into a relationship of joint ownership of the fruits
of your common labor (like buying a car together -- you would never cut the
car into pieces and divi it up). Is it possible to also have partial
ownership (like buying a cake -- you get half and I get half)? On what
grounds can one deny another partial ownership in favor of joint ownership?
>BTW what do we do with those of our 100 people who don't accept the new
>concept we force upon them? We might need a police.
>
Certainly we would need police. We shouldn't force upon anyone an
inconsistent concept, though.
>Do we force or pay people to work as police forces. If we pay them,
>where do we collect the money/property to pay them?
It would have to be taxes. I was never an advocate of no government.
>
>> All that is necessary for what I have said is that one have
>> some claim to land. I originally had not claims to any property. I
never
>> could even just simply acquire property, either. But simply through just
>> transfers of wealth, I now own property. One need not even own any land.
>
>You are of course correct. The people in our tribe don't need to own
>land, if they don't wish to. They can sell land they might have to
>others for a share of the harvest, or some wood, or whatever they like.
>But at the moment we are still at the beginning. Trade will start as
>soon as we established our new capitalism. But first you need to agree
>on the concept itself.
>
We do not need to agree on that concept. It is a foregone conclusion form
the principle of noninitiantion of force. That does not mean that one must
_actually_ allow for capitalism. It just means that if they do not, then
they have also violated a priciple of noninitiation of force. You must
force me to give up my penis gourd. If I have some unsed extras that I
made, then they are mine to dispose of as I please. The only reason nomadic
peoples do not have a natural notion of property with regard to land is
bcause they have no interest in owning land -- NOT because there is no
natural notion of ownership among primitive peoples.
>My proposal is we force our 100 men to accept the concept of private
>property. We force those who don't want to accept it, to do accept it.
>We devide the land into equal pieces of land that we give to our people
>to do as they please. The devision of the land will be base democratic
>according to a system I will make up and tell you for verification after
>we agreed on the concept of capitalism itself. Your job is find out
>whether we would need a government to protect the rights of people and
>how this government would do so.
>
You are again mistaken in your notion that capitalism describes a contrived
economy. This fallacy is born out of the idea that all economies are
created by the planners -- what ever government there is. In reality,
economies exist and planners merely try to change them.
Who controls the voting? That is the real president. How could I possibly
know that the voting was done corectly?
>> >Also, how much land can you claim? All of it?
>>
>> This may be your problem right here. You can only claim land,
originally,
>> that you can actually take or squat on -- that you can acually inhabit
and
>> use.
>
>How is this defined? Do we force our people to accept this definition or
>do we want them to make up their own definition? Or do we instead give
>them land?
>
Define "this". How is what defined? Whether or not we actually explicitely
articulate each and every step, the definition of anything we conclude here
must presumably follow ultimately from:
1) Every proposition is uniquely uderstood
2) Every proposition is true or false
3) No proposition is both true and false
4) It is wrong to initiate force.
>> It is through just transfers of wealth that one can accumulate more
>> land or food that they can actually eat, use or squat on.
>
>Yes, but at the moment, our people still don't have land. We need to
>agree on a system for them to own land in. My proposal stands.
>
No we do not. Ownership in the context I am discussing it follows
analytically from #4 above. It need not nor could it be defined
independently (unless it just happened to agree exactly with the analytic
result). Whatever your defintion or concept of ownership is, you must check
it for consitency with the 4 assertions above.
>> >I don't see how this could be argued. As long as nobody claimed any
>> >land, any gazelle can be killed by you, that is correct.
>> >
>> Right. As long as I am not killing Gazelles in your Gazelle herd or
>> pasture, then I am fine. That Gazelle *that I kill* is mine.
>
>None of our 100 men owns a gazelle yet. That was never defined. Even my
>land proposition 001 does not include free gazelles at all.
>
Fine then I may kill and eat one without the use of force.
>I would propose you set up proposition 003 about people's right to kill
>gazelles and where this right is limited due to a gazelle running on
>private property or due to the number of gazelless left. I will then
>look at your proposition and we will discuss it.
>
>But don't forget to discuss my two proposals.
>
Your proposals are proabbly not going to be agreed to by this little indian.
I doubt they will ultimately be consistent with the four rules above.
>> >> I could exchange the
>> >> vegetables in my garden for Gazelle meat.
>> >
>> >That is, if you have a garden. You can plant something, somewhere. To do
>> >this you need to use land nobody else is using. After that nobody can
>> >simply use what you planted as they needed to use force against you to
>> >do so.
>> >
>>
>> Exactly. Now why is it that you think that every square inch of land is
>> being used?
>
>It doesn't matter whethr I do think that. If you claim land, without
>claiming be legitimate, you need to prove that the land you want to
>claim would never be used by anyone else. We can solve these problems by
>forcing our people to accept proposition 001, tho.
>
No I don't. It simply must not be being used by someone else. As long as
no one is actually using it, then I need not initiate force against someone
to claim it. See the four rules -- those are what have been agreed to.
>> That is not even true in today's world. Surely if there was a
>> world with only 100 men on it, there would be plenty of land somewhere to
>> claim.
>
>Supposedly. However, we don't know whether our tribe is alone. We would
>need to set up an expedition to find or not find other tribes or
>individuals.
>
>That will confront us with another problem: immigration.
>
>But I'd propose we discuss this AFTER we found someone in our tribe to
>start an expedition or when some other expedition finds our tribe (then
>we would have to apply defense or immigration laws).
>
Immigration is not really relevant to the issue of property rights or at
least not in this discussion.
>> Supposing we are crammed on an island.
>
>We can suppose that, but we don't know yet. If it is an island, we could
>later discuss whether claiming land on _other_ islands was legal, since
>our tribal people never used this land.
>
You just ignored the point completely. The issue is whether or not you can
easily find land that is not being used or if land is scarce. If we all
stumble upon a scarce resource that is as yet unclaimed then our ability to
claim may be adversely affected. By contrast, in early America there was
plenty of land.
>However, we might find other people on other islands. What happens if
>one tribe member claims land on other islands? However, we'll discuss
>this _later_ after someone has enough property collected to build a ship
>to find new lands. At the moment, we are trying to organize the tribe as
>such.
>
I agree -- this is irrelevant to our current discussion. It rearranges the
nature of the examplpe I am giving to consider completely different issues
and specifically not consider the issue I was addressing with it.
>> Even so, the burden of
>> ownership rests on the owner. Whoever actually works a piece of land is
the
>> owner unless one can prove otherwise. It would be easy to prove
otherwise
>> if you manage to stake your own claim through just means and can show
this.
>
>Now you are starting to develope a concept. It sound socialist a bit,
>but then again, at the moment, we have neither system in our land. We
>have a neutral anarchy.
>
>That reminds me, someone has to define rights to life and liberty or
>change proposition 001 so that life and liberty are part of the property
>of a man.
>
Why do they have to define these rights. If you violate my right to life,
then I think you almost surely must initiate force, do you not?
>Then we have to discuss what we do to life, liberty, and property if
>someone commits a crime (like stealing land or property, ensvlaving
>someone or killing him).
>
See #4 above.
>> >Certainly. If the person in question found a piece of land that is used
>> >by noone. I still find that very improbable, tho, as our 100 men might
>> >be running around and sleep somewhere. Remember, our people don't live
>> >in houses yet. No doors. We don't know yet, whether building houses was
>> >ok!
>> >
>>
>> Okay -- great! Then it sounds like all land is currently unclaimed. I
will
>> just squat down and make a garden. If someone tramples my garden then
they
>> are in the wrong.
>
>Not neccessarily, as our 100 men did not agree about this concept of
>yours. Others could make up other concepts (seems probable) and hate you
>for infringing on what they consider their rights. The result would be
>civil war. We better avoid this. Proposition 001 can do that, if we
>force them to accept it (the first few propositions can later be called
>the constituion or whatever).
>
Regardless of what actually would happen (a civil war for instance), there
is still the purely academic question of whether their made up version of
rights is consistent with the four rules above. Mine is.
>> If someone tries to claim the land after the fact then
>> they are in the wrong. One does not stake a just claim to land simply by
>> positing it. I can not stand on Earth and claim Mars. I must go to Mars
>> and take the planet over. The only reason this might be difficult is
>> because the planet is so big. If I could do that, then since no one is
>> there and I initiate force on no one, Mars is mine.
>
>Not yet. This concept of yours is not yet accepted among our tribe. I
>somewhat like the idea of your concept. I would agree that we force the
>tribe to accept it, as formulated in proposition 001.
>
Whether or not they accept it is irrelevant. The question is does this
concept of mine consistently fit in with the rules of logic combined with
the one premise of this entire thread -- the noninitiation of force
principle. What actually happens is irrelevant. Whether or not we must use
force to defend against an intiation of force is irrelevant. The question
is whether or not property rights can exist without anyone ever having had
initiated force against another.
>> >All we know up to know is three things:
>> >
>> >a) People don't have to help others.
>> >b) People can kill unclaimed animals and eat/sell them.
>> >c) Land is difficult if not impossible to claim with using force.
>> >
>>
>> Why do you think that is true. Does some one already have a claim to the
>> land?
>
>No, but the concept of claming land simply doesn's exist yet. That's why
>I think this is true. You simply cannot claim land without forcing
>others to accept your claim.
>
No -- my "claiming land" simply amounts to my occupying it and using it at
this point. Force is required to remove me from it. Force is required to
take the products of my using it. Force was not required (by hypothesis)
for me to occupy and use it. Therefore, the ones that would remove me from
my land or take some portion of the fruits of my labor on that land, to say
help a sick person, must intitiate force against me to steal, vandalize, or
otherwise physically remove me from the premices.
>> Who do I have to physically remove from it?
>
>Anybody who migh sleep/stand/eat on it.
>
Supposing no one is sleeping, standing, or eating on it.... And if they
are, then the land is their land since I may not initiate force against them
to take it.
>> Who has a legitimate claim to it?
>
>Nobody. The concept of claiming does not yet exist. You just proposed it
>and automatically assumed everybody would have to follow your orders. I
>made a contra proposition 001 which I want you to read and
>approve/disaprove. After that we can go on.
I did not propose it and assume that anyone would follow my orders. I
simply articualted a way in which one could violate the principle of
noninitiation of force. Whether or not they follow my orders the following
statement is true: if no one has claimed a piece of land then I may occupy
and use it, so that one who later prevents me from reaping the fruits of my
labor will have to violate number four above. If the y take the land then
they have violated number four; otherwise they have not. What actually
happens does not matter -- I am merely describing the possible outcomes
abstractly.
>
>> You sound like we are already living in a city or a full blown
>> civilization where all the land in a given area is owned or occupied.
>
>Not at all. We are at early stages of civilization and no land is
>claimed, not did anyone ever get the idea that land could be claimed.
>You were the first. Your idea is certainly an important point in teh
>history of our tribe, but you have yet to learn that not all your ideas
>are simply law just after you had them. We have to make your tribe to
>accept the concept you proposed. Or, as I proposed, we make them to
>accept proposition 001, where the concept is formulated.
>
I am not asking that our tribe accept anything. I am articualting a logical
relationship between abstract ideas. You are he one that wishes to force
the acceptance of certain conditions among the tribe.
>> All
>> things being equal in our 100 man tribe, if I walk out to a piece of wild
>> woods and clear it, build a house, and plant a garden, then how can any
one
>> of the 99 other men stake a claim to that piece of land now?
>
>They can't. But they can claim that you cannot just go somewhere, take
>something, and do something with it. Yesterday, one of the other people
>might have hunted in this forest. You just took his right to do so, by
>taking the forest with most gazelles and force him not to hunt there
>anymore.
>
Well if he can show that he was really using it, then fine. It must have
been his land. Going back to the island scenario where land is really
scarce, then I get at least a fair share in joint ownership if nothing else.
Suppose I want to trade my vote over all the land for a small piece of land
that I have exclusive control over. On what grounds does the tribe FORCE me
to not proceed with this course of action. They can deny me a voice
passively (without force) if I forfeit my equal right to a voice, but they
certainly cannot deny me an equal share without initiating force against me.
Incidentally, I know that I have an equal voice/share in the common land
since otherwise they would treat themselves preferentially to me without any
reason for doing so. A principle of arbitrarily preferential treatment
violates the law of contradicition (#3 above).
>> >Another problem is _how many_ animals you can kill.
>>
>> I don't know how many I am capable of killing, but I feel fairly safe in
>> saying that in the real world enviornmentalism is not a top priority for
a
>> hundred man tribe in the stone age, nor should it be.
>
>Not yet, that is correct. However, if we kill all the gazelles in this
>region, our tribe might have to move. By killing all gazelles you might
>force everyone else to go somewhere else. Maybe proposition 003 will
>solce this problem.
>
Supposing this is a problem, and the tribe has the right to stay, then maybe
they have ownership in the species. That is to say that based solely on a
notion of compossible property rights, the tribe _might_ have some say over
the gazelles as an entire species existing or not. In any case, this
question is somewhat academic since it would derive solely from property
rights as it is being discussed here and that is the very issue we are
discussing.
>> >Since you are not
>> >using force against anyone, you could kill a few hundred animals and eat
>> >one of them. The rest would just be dead. A few days later all animals
>> >in the region might have died, a species is extinct. And nobody can hunt
>> >them anymore.
>>
>> Indeed. So? Maybe they all had partial ownership in the species. So
what.
>> It is on grounds of ownership -- property rights -- that you would argue
>> against it being morally permisable to kill them all. These grounds are
>> libertarian grounds.
>
>Yes, but we don't have a libertarian system for our tribe yet. We are at
>the beginning. You already take everything for granted.
>
No I don't. I am merely trying to remain consistent with the four rules
above. I am in fact saying in the above statement that the grounds on which
you would prohibit the killing of all the deer would be based on the tribes
partial ownership of them. That is a libertarian concept. In other words,
YOU are assuming property rights to prohibit the extinction of this species.
>> >In this case you will have caused the deaths of 99 people, without
>> >having used force. It is therefore legal from what we know about the
>> >tribe.
>>
>> So supposing I can do all this we are presented with what *might* be a
moral
>> quandry. So what -- your example lacks any relevance to this discussion
of
>> the existence of property rights.
>
>I don't think so. We are currently confronted with the question whether
>property (like any gazelle you kiill becomes your property) can be used
>without any conditions, or whether you have to take care for other
>people.
>
Okay -- how does it relate to the rules of logic or the intitiation of
force? Are you changing the premise on which this thread is based?
>This question has not yet been solved for our tribe.
>
The answer to this question in any particualr situation should, at this
point, reduce _analytically_ to the four rules above.
>> >It's time to define whether life was a right in this tribe. You cannot
>> >take somebody's life by force, that's what we know. But do you have to
>> >care for others? Up to now it is morally completely ok to kill all the
>> >animals and let the others die. No problem there.
>>
>> Whether or not it is okay to kill the animals is an issue of property.
>
>Good one. That's why we _have_ to intriduce the concept of private
>proprty NOW.
>
Then how are you deriving it as an issue independent of property rights?
Your point was that independently of ones property rights, there is this bad
thing that can take place. In order to prevent this bad thing, we need to
weaken the right to property. That is your argument.
>> It
>> may be argued that because of a right to life, the rest of the tribe had
>> property rights in some of the gazelles. In no case could it be argued
that
>> one has property rights unless it results in an even we dislike. That is
>> incoherent.
>
>Now we are getting closer.
>
You are trying to argue the latter not the former.
>> Either they have property rights or they don't. Either they
>> have a right to life or they don't. These rights existed or not quite
>> independently of our thinking of them. They were foregone conclusions
when
>> we started to talk about them in the first place. The idea of "property"
>> and "right" is such that one has "property rights" in a given situation
or
>> not.
>
>Yes, and we need to definde these rights for our tribe, before they get
>themselves killed.
>
Reread the above paragraph. These rights exist as foregone conclusions or
they do not -- that means we could not define them. Any proposition we
would insert into the four above would cause the axiomatic system to either
be a consistent and dependent set of axioms (meaning one of the axioms is
redundant) or an inconsistenet set. That is what the above paragraph I
wrote says -- not that you need to define another concept.
>> >Correct. Cannot be argued. The point is the original owner. Did he find
>> >a pice of land not used by anyone else of the 98 remaining persons?
>>
>> If he did not, then he owes maybe some payment to the owner of the land.
I
>> do not.
>
>It doesn't matter whether you do or do not in real life. Did our man who
>claimed land find a piece of land that was not and never used by anyone
>else who's rights he might be infrinfing upon by taking the land?
>
What rights? Just because you once used the land, that does not mean that I
would use force against you to use it long after you have left the premices
(possibly never to return). If the land was someone else's land, then maybe
the man that claimed it owes that other person rent. If I enter into an
agreement with the usurper of the land and make good on my end of the
agreement, then it is an indirect application of force to not uphold your
end of the agreement. That is whatever we have agreed to that we both
created and so cannot be anyone else's but ours, is mine if we have so
agreed. There may be some etreme and pathological potential counterexamples
to this principle, but under many if not all circumstances we can easily see
that the rent the usurper should pay comes out of his share while I walk
away with mine. Otherwise, we have a problem with preferential treatment
and ultimately violate #3 above.
>> >You are too fast for the model. Up to now, we don't even have the basic
>> >rights in our tribe, and you are already living in the industrial age!
>>
>> You are avoiding the point.
>
>Now, I am trying to delay the point until we can solve it. At the
>moment, our tribe has no laws and rights at all. Before we discuss laws
>and rights, we better make them up.
>
I am not making any laws or rights up -- they occur naturally as analytic
implications of the rule if noninitiation of force and the laws of logic.
>> Your idea that I was in the industrial age is silly.
>
>I was exagerating to point out that you were too fast with your
>thinking. We are still at the beginning. You simply accepted your own
>opinion as a valid set of rules for our tribe and went on. It's not that
>easy.
>
I am not really doing that. What I was doing was demonstrating how large
amounts of wealth may be concentrated into certain rich people through an
invisible hand process and over time. All the while, no one ever violated
the rule of noninitiation of force in my hypothetical example, and we had a
somewhat communistic or socialistic concept of ownership in the beginning --
you own what you are using. In the end, we ended up with the regular
property rights that we might see to day, where one man can own more than he
could ever use let alon what he is actually using at the moment. Actually,
John Locke has done all this already in "Of Property" in his Second
Treatise.
>> The point is to show how one accumulates more land than they could
>> ever farm, access to more gazelles than they could ever kill, etc.
>> Evidentally you are afraid of this point.
>
>That isn't important for now. At the moment, the concept of life,
>libertym and property is unknown in our tribe. Arguing what will be
>later is therefore pointless until we define a starting point.
>
The concept of these things are most certainly known. They are contained in
the principle of noninitiation of force.
>> Let's suppose that 100 men are crammed onto an island already with
limited
>> resources.
>
>Ok, it is an island.
>
>> Suppose that we have to all catalogue all the wealth and say
>> that we can only all share in it equally.
>
>Hm... take a look at proposition 001 first.
>
>> Then, I will trade what share of
>> the wealth I have for some other wealth that I may labor to increase. As
I
>> increase my wealth I will trade for more wealth, etc. I will do this
until
>> I can buy a plot of land from the group. Viola! I own land!
>
>That's a method. So we first define the land to be owned by the group. I
>guess we can do this without using force. Good idea!
>
No -- we must use force to do this unless there is _unanimous_ consent for
it.
>How will the group manage their land? I hope they'd do it in a
>democratic way.
>
>What would you do if the group votes not to sell you land? They could do
>this, until we make property a right as such. And this is where
>proposition 001 comes in.
>
I doubt it. I could go off and take one portion of the land while the group
denies me a voice in the other portion of the land. If the portion I take
is my fair share, then they would initiate force against me in preventing me
from doing this (as opposed to my indirectly initiating force and them
simply defending themselves). The issue is really centered around the thrid
rule of the four above -- the law of contradiction -- and whether or not we
are inadvertently treating one person preferentially to another and doing it
arbitrarily so.
>> If you are
>> going to argue with the premises here then you are reaching. I cannot
think
>> of very many more pathological examples that are remotely realistic. It
>> takes force to make it so that people do not try to fend for themselves.
It
>> takes force to thwart private enterprise. It takes force to establish
>> communism or socialism -- not the other way around.
>
>It takes force to establish socialism in a libertarian system and it
>takes force to establish capitalism in a communist system. That's all we
>know. You left out the second part.
>
No -- it does not take force to establish capitalism in a communist system.
That would contradict the first assertion that it takes force to establish
socialism in a libertarian system. If everyone agrees to voluntarily be
communist, then they are all entering into a joint ownership situation and
_voluntarily_ deciding what to do with their private property. Otherwise,
you are _forcing_ communism. If you simply stop forcing this system you
either have the "voluntary communism" I described aove or you have something
else entailing private ownership of property. Either way, the individuals
privately own and dispose of the property -- that's capitalism.
>However, what we are confronted with here, is a system not yet defined.
>We have to introduce a system (whatever we see fit), preferably with no
>force. My proposition includes force, which we need to make our tribe do
>what we want. Your idea of land being owned by the tribe as such, does
>not guarantee that at some point someone is owning land. Also, we need a
>constitution first to guarantee that the democratic decisions what to do
>with the land are fair. Otherwise 51 people could simply vote on
>deviding the land among themselves and giving the others no land at all.
>Then our tribe will turn into a feudalist government system. We don't
>want this, I presume, that's why we better set up a constitution before
>we give anything to anybody.
>
>I think the experiment is working quite well...
>
>We are just way too slow.
>
>We need basic right laws NOW.
>
>--
>Fan of Woody Allen
>Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza
Whatever laws we create, we had better make sure they are consistent with
the rule of noninitiation of force. As you have confessed, your system
_initiates_ force against those that it is imposed upon. We need a
different system.
Adrian
Andrew J. Brehm
> >What if other people simply walk around it, use it, and don't want to
> >claim it, because other people walk around it, use it, and don't want to
> >claim it?
>
> Then the land will be unclaimed. Even according to an anarchist, they have
> no right to horde land they are not using. I would certainly agree with
> this if they do not own it.
We can only start to claim land when we forced our tribe to accept the
concept of claiming land. You cannot just do something just because you
think it's right.
> >You might come, claim it, and forcibly make all these people accept it,
> >just because you believe in the concept of property, and they might not.
> >
>
> No. You are avoiding the issue. I am not forcing them to accept it at all.
Good. Then they won't have to accept it.
> The question is who must use force on whom. If I drive them off of their
> land then I am taking THEIR land from them.
Certainly.
> If they are not using a piece
> of land and do not otherwise claim it while they are not using it, then they
> have to force me to get off the land once I claim it. In other words they
> must forcibly remove me from my land.
Not from your land... until the others accept it was your land, it isn't
your land. The concept of property has yet to be forced upon them.
> I am not forcing anyone to accept my
> concept of property rights. I am merely being bullied and pushed around by
> THEM. Maybe they will take my land... It is still mine.
It is yours only when you force them to accept the concept. Until then
your concept of simly going somewhere and taking something used by
others is wrong.
> >But we agreed that using force was wrong.
> >
> >So think of a different way to get your land!
> >
>
> Please -- I am not forcing anyone.
If you don't force anyone to stop using land once it is "yours", you
can't claim it.
> >> If I do not need to use force to build a house and a garden on
> >> it then it is mine.
> >
> >You cannot build a house and a garden on something that isn't yours
> >without forcing other people to accept your house and garden on the
> >land.
>
> I sure can. What I cannot do is build a house and a garden on something
> that is someone else's. What you cannot do is give me somethig that isn't
> your's. I do not need to get permission from them UNLESS they have claimed
> the land and own it. In this case, they have ownership of the land, and
> we're done -- the land has a rightful owner.
What do you think would happen if all our 100 men would be allowed to
claim ownership of the land they used to stay on together before?
> >First you need to peacefully obtain the land, then you can do
> >whatever you wish with it.
> >
>
> Indeed. If no one owns it then I may claim it. You are slipping all around
> the issue of rights.
Certainly, since we don't have any rights defined yet. You are basing
your actions on what you consider your rights. However, your system of
rights has not yet been established in the colony. If we want the
tribe's social system to be baased on property, we will have to find a
way to introduce this system to them without the use of force. However,
if one of them suddenly gets the idea that he can claim the land others
live on, just because the concept of property is something new and
nobody ever got the idea before, he needs to use force to remove them.
Think of it, how could you, without force, "claim" and take a forest
these people usually hunt in?
> Either someone else has the right to tell me that I
> cannot claim the land or not. In the former case they are rightful owners
> of the land. In the latter case, I may claim the land and rightfully own it
> myself.
You can, but only according to a set of values we don't have defined
yet. These people simply do not live to your standards (maybe yet). You
cannot simply put your values on them and force them to live up to them.
It might be hard to understand but your system of belief is not
neccessarily the natural system of belief.
Think for one moment that the concept of claiming _just doesn't exist_
and you will see what I mean.
If you claimed land, you would introduce the system by force.
> >> If someone later comes a long and says that they
> >> claimed it first then they have the burden of proof that it is theirs.
> >
> >You already assume that claiming something was ok, but we have yet to
> >prove that for your tribe.
>
> No I haven't.
Yes, you do. We have to set up a system of belief for them without
force. That means that you cannot just force them to accept yours.
> All I have done is assme that they may not use force against
> me and I may not use force against them. Please stop twisting the scenario.
I don't. But if you introduce a new concept you are using force. You are
forcing them to accept your concept.
> It is absurd to think that I am forcing them to do anything by simply
> getting up and going out to an unoccupied piece of land and making a house
> and a garden. There is no one there!
Not at the moment. But probably yesterday, or in the morning, and
tomorrow whoever hunted/slept there will come back.
> Who am I forcing to leave or do anything?
Anyone who might have used or wants to use that piece of land.
> I am just building a house and a garden. Now what will they have
> to do if they come around some time afterwards and decide they do not want
> the house and the garden there. They will have to remove me and it
> physically. That is a use of force. Me building the house was not.
That is a new proposal. Would you like me to list proposition 005 about
building houses somewhere and making it a right to do so?
> >They don't have any laws yet.
>
> They have at least one law -- do not initiate force.
Exactly. Now try to introduce a new concept without using force.
> It isn't just a law, but rather a moral.
> We are accepting it (at least for right now) as a rule
> with which to decide if someone acts inappropriately.
Exactly.
> If they make unjust
> laws or not, we can decide with this rule.
Certainly. That's what we are trying to do at the moment. My proposal is
set. Proposition 001 proposed that we ignore the first law and set up a
capitalist system by force, deviding the land into private property so
that every one gets a fair share.
You can either help me getting through proposition 001 or think of a
different way to do it. But one guy doing something alone is not a
decent way to organize a tribal system.
What you are trying to do is feudalism. You seek out the best part of
the land for yourself, god knows how big it is, and other people have to
live by these rules you set up.
> The issue in this thread is
> whether or not actions are consistent with the application of this rule.
> their particular mores -- their civil code -- is irrelevant here.
They don't have any yet.
> >At the moment,
> >you stand alone with the idea you could simply claim and take the land
> >the tribe lives on.
>
> I am not even claiming my land with the force of centuries of philosophical
> thought under a pronciple of property rights.
I hoped so. We don't have centuries of philosphical thought. The tribe
is merely two days old.
> I am merely saying "Hey! No fair trampling my garden!"
The key word is "my". You can probably say "No fair tramplimg this
garden" when you built a garden somewhere. The work invested in the
garden is yours. The land is not (yet).
However, whether something you use automatically turns into your
property if noone else was using it, has yet to be defined.
> I am just trying to live and let live in may own
> little area that everyone had abandoned.
You just stand somewhere, watch hunters and farmers, wait until they
leave a certain piece of land, and then take the land. That's what you
do.
> By the fruits of my own labor I
> made a house and a garden.
Not yet. At the moment, it hasb't been clarified whether building a
house requires force or not. We are still discussing it. Make it
proposition 005 and we will discuss the matter of building a house
somewhere.
> Why does anyone now have the right to just
> ARBITRARILY take those fruits? More specifically how have I used force to
> make the house and garden? They certainly must use force to take it or part
> of it.
Certainly. That's why proposition might have a chance to pass. Building
a house somewhere is certainly different from just taking some land you
happened to see at the moment you got the idea that claiming land was
ok.
> >Now it is your job to prove to our tribe that you
> >can take the land without forcing them to do anything.
>
> I don't have to convince anyone of anything. I simply have to not intitiate
> force. Check your hypothesis. If they own it -- if they have staked a
> claim to it -- then the land is justly owned. We're done -- someone has
> property rights. If they do not, then it requires no force to claim it
> myself.
The concept of property just doesn't exist. You can claim whatever you
like, but people don't have to care. They can walk and sleep in your
land (which isn't yours, only in your eyes) without initiating force
against you. That's the problem.
If you stand somewhere and remove someone from some land, you are
initiating force. The only exception is when the land is yours. Then
this force would be defensive.
Now, in order to make your force a defensive force you have to force
people to accept your idea of land being your property. And that's
exactly what you don't seem to understand.
Think for a moment that the concept of property simply doesn't exist!
Nobody ever thought about it. Do you think you can, without infringing
on anybody's liberty, claim land they might ewant to walk on?
> >The concept of claiming is not yet legal in the tribe.
>
> The legality of claiming is irrelevant.
Not at all. Nothing is irrelevant. Otherwise some other guy could insist
that in his eyes murdering was not a use of force and kill everybody
else.
At the moment no land is owned and everybody has the liberty to walk and
hunt whereever they like. By introducing the concept of land ownership
you are infringing on the rights people had before you invented the idea
of property. That is use of force.
> I am merely building a house and a garden.
> Who am I coercing in doing this?
Any person that used to hunt on this land. Probably all 99 other people.
> Show me a person coerced and I
> will show you someone that had a legitimate claim to the land prior to my
> using it. That person will have property rights. Done.
That's easy for you. Since the concept of land ownership was invented by
yourself, nobody can possibly have a claim to any land. Without force
you won't be able to convince people that your "property" may not be
walked on.
They just wouldn't understand why the place they used to hunt on
yesterday was suddenly out of bounds for them, just because you decided
to do something to the land they didn't know before.
What you can do, when you invent a new concept, is to make it a
proposition. Nobody can simply do whatever he thinks was right.
> >Claiming and
> >taking land requires you to use force against the other 99 people
> >living, walking and playing on that land you want to claim.
>
> Well if I must move them to build my house, then sure. That is not what I
> am doing. I am going to a place where no one is and just building a house
> and a garden.
It won't be hard to find a place where no one is at the moment. However,
when someone comes back to the place he might slept on yesterday, it is
up to you to use force against him, even tho he hasn't used force
against you. He was simply walking on the gras. The concept of property
is not yet defined, so he wouldn't even know this was your land or what
it means that some land was yours. You would have to force him to accept
the concept. That's the initial force you are using, so please stop
talking about "defending your property" as this is not the issue here.
The issue is whether you are allowed to introduce the concept of
property by force.
> I am not removing someone from a portion of land kicking and
> screaming and then building my house. I am going some place wher no one is
> and building my house. I am trying to imagine a bunch of kids playing in
> the sand and someone coming along and building a house over them while they
> play. I am trying to imagine a tribe of indians and someone going in and
> just knocking down teepees to build a house. It doesn't make any sense. It
> rarely happens that way unless it is a dispute over owned property. And
> that is certainly not what I am talking about.
You are talking about introducing a new concept by force. If you want to
do this, I would ask you to support my proposition 001.
> >You have to
> >find a means to accuire land that does not require force.
>
> I have.
No you didn't. Your means are based on a new system. Your land claiming
itself does not require force, but introducing your concept does.
> The only way I am using force in what I am doing would be in a very
> subtle way if the land was already owned. Let me repeat this for the hard
> of reading: IF the land was ALREADY owned. Either I have used force and the
> land is rightfully owned or I am not. Either way, the land is rightfully
> owned by someone.
You are using the words "property" and "own" very often. You are even
legitimizing your actions with them. Your are of course correct in your
system of belief. However, this system is simply not yet applied here.
You can apply it by force, which is effectively what proposition 001
would do (only that the land wouldn't be claimed but equally devided
among the tribe members, so that noone can get a better piece of land).
> >In any case, before you introduce any concepts to our tribe, you have to
> >show how these concepts can exist without force.
>
> I am not introducing concepts to my tribe.
You are.
> I am just building a house and a
> garden and living and let living. They must use force against me to take my
> land.
You are introducing the concept that some land is owned by you and may
not be walked upon. Nobody could destroy a house you built. That would
require force. But they could walk by your house without using force. If
you claim ownership of the land, you would have to force them to leave
your land. For that you need to introduce the concept of land ownership,
which was not yet done.
Support proposition 001 or set up your own. Proposition 004 was an
alternative setup. You could set up a third alternative (005) or support
one of the earliers. Also, you need to define the proposition for the
gazelle problem, as I believe it was you who first mentioned it (003).
Also, I'd like you to comment on proposition 002 (government setup).
> >At the moment, we have
> >you forcing others to leave the land because you want to claim and own
> >it.
>
> That is stupid. You simply have to ignore my construction to say that I
> must remove someone from the land. I specifically said that I wasn't doing
> that. In fact, if I have to do that, then THEY own the land. Done.
They didn't own the land, because you are the inventor of the concept of
property. They simply used the land you later claimed to be yours to
hunt and sleep on.
> >The other 99 people are still walking, sleeping, and eating on this
> >land of yours.
>
> If they are using it, then that land is theirs.
In that case it is simple. We have already agreed that the land was an
island (I think). The way it looks, it is very probable that all 100 men
are using all the land (to hunt, sleep, play, and/or walk around).
In that case you cannot claim any land, because all land is already
owned (by the tribe as such).
If you want it to be this way, you might never own anything yourself as
the tribe might decide not to sell any land to individuals.
But we want a right to own land, don't we?
> If they are not then I may claim it.
> What you cannot do is stand in the middle of America and claim
> the entire continent on the grounds that you might use it some day or on the
> grounds that you used it once. This has nothing to do with the tribe's
> laws. This has only to do with the initiation of force.
Good. In this case, the tribe automatically owns the land and you cannot
claim it, but must obbey the tribe's wishes about what to do with the
land of theirs.
> >You need to use force to make them accept this land was
> >yours.
>
> No -- they need to use force to come physically remove me from my house and
> trample my garden and otherwise defile the land that I was using.
If you claim land used by others you need to use force to make them
accept it. Your dream of some unused land somewhere on the island you
could claim is not very probable.
> >Thus your claim was not legal according to our constitution. You
> >can use the land, but so can they.
>
> Legality has nothing to do with it. I did not use force against them, and
> they must now use force against me.
Above.
> >> If you are
> >> going to say that ownership is meaningless altogether, then you are a
> >> socialist -- no mere liberal could say that.
> >
> >I'm not saying anything. This is a thought experiment to find out
> >whether property can exist without force. You were trying to find a way
> >to obtain land without using force. Up to now, you haven't found a way.
>
> You are just ignoring me.
I am not. I am in fact answering every single article you write. I just
want to know how you want to introduce a system of beliefs people have
to obbey to without the use of force. That's all.
> >Frankly, I don't know a way. Maybe you find one. But I think we have to
> >do something about and force everyone to accept some rules. Our anarchy,
> >so far, hasn't worked.
>
> They need not accept any rules.
In that case they probably won't accept the new concept of land
ownership.
> If they do not then they might come and
> steal from my garden.
Oh, they can't steal from _your_ garden. But you have to prove that the
garden was yours. At the moment, according to your statements, that
garden is owned by the whole tribe, since they used to hunt on it,
before you "claimed" it.
> Or they might live in my house while I am out in the
> graden. Or they might drag me out kicking and screaming and then burn the
> whole thing down and trample the garden just to put me in my place.
> Regardless of what they decide to do -- regardless of what actually
> happens -- they are the ones that have initiated force against me.
If you apply the concept of property, that is correct. However, to apply
a concept you have to force people to accept the concept. Otherwise they
won't have used force against you in whatever concept they might use.
> It
> simply doesn;t matter what actually happens. What matters is the abstract
> description of the possible scenarios. One essential characteristic of the
> scenario we are discussing is that the tribe initiates force against the
> renegade indian that chooses to settle down in forcing him to remain nomadic
> as they are. Whether or not they know it, they are violating the rule of
> not initiating force.
Certainly. They cannot force you to stay on one piece of land forever.
You can stay, if you wish. But you also cannot force them to stop
walking about your land as they have always done.
> >That is correct. We first need to introduce some laws by force to allow
> >for capitalism.
>
> No we do not.
In that case, the concept of property will never exist.
> >Do we wish to do that?
> >
>
> Yes I do. I do not wish to artificially create a social concept of
> ownership, though. I wish to use force to retaliate against the unjust
> initiation of force by others.
So do I. How do we claim ownership of land without forcing people to
accept your ownership of the land?
> >I would agree. Let us begin introducing capitalism to our tribe.
>
> Capitalism existed before we created land rights
No. Capitalism was an economical system defined in the late 18th
century. The earlier systems were usually mercantilistic or even
socialist (specifically in "wild" tribes).
The idea of capitalism is fairly new.
> -- to suggest otherwise is truly absurd.
You are lucky the inventors of capitalism are not alive anymore...
> Forget about land rights. Suppose no one owned the land and
> I planted a garden and harvested it. No one owns the fruits of my labor and
> I may still trade it. This type of thing occurs even amond nomadic peoples.
> The only reason nomadic poeple do not own land is becuase they have no
> interest in it -- they still own things and trade with each other. That is
> capitalism (assuming no force). The idea that some cultures have no concept
> of ownership is a myth perpetrated by pseudoscience in cultural
> anthropology.
Any concept was introduced at one point or another. Nobody was born with
the true belief he could own anything. In fact, most people even have to
learn they they can own things.
> >How do we start? Does everyone of our tribal people get a piece of land
> >to do as they please? How do we make sure everyone can still get to each
> >given piece of land? Do we need public streets or ways or something
> >alike? Or do we give all land to private people and make them pay each
> >other for walking their land?
> >
>
> WE do not give land to anyone.
Ok.
> WE do not own any land. You are assuming
> that we all start out owning the land jointly.
No. I am assuming that the concept of property does not yet exist. You
were assuming (!) that people can claim land.
> That is an additional
> assumption to the idea that one may not initiate force against another. You
> are not being parsimonious.
See above.
> >I would agree to force our 100 men to accept that land can be property
> >of others and that they are no longer allowed to touch it, if they don't
> >own it themselves.
>
> No -- they may touch it all they want to whether or not they own it.
So it doesn't really matter whether land is your or not, people can
still walk it (given that they don't destroy what you planted on it),
they can use it etc.?
I don't like this concept. I want to own property that _noone_ is
allowed to touch. If they were, they would be initiating force against
my property (and against me).
I want to convice those people that such property can exist.
> The
> issue is whether or not someone else owns it. If it is someone else's
> property, then they may not touch it without that other person's permission.
> Why may they not touch it? Because someone else is using it. Just like it
> is wrong for you to come and take my penis gourde while I am wearing it.
So your concept is that if you use something, nobody else can use it
without initiating force against you?
I can see that.
However, this would exclude land you curently don't work or even see
(like on the other side of the house) and would allow people to use any
tool you might own if you don't currently use it. Also, you couldn't use
your tools if someone else is using them.
I can see but not agree with that.
> >But we need to set up some rules, maybe...
>
> The principle of not initiating force is okay for now. The only other issue
> that I can think of off hand is fraud. I do not think of fraud as entailing
> force, and I would disallow this too. But this point has little relevance
> at present to our discussion.
We'll save it for later. It might become proposition 010 or so.
> >Do we define rules for our capitalism, or do we want a totally free
> >market?
>
> A totally free market is free of force and fraud.
Why is a totally free market free of fraud?
> The only rules we need
> are the ones that prevent these things from actually happening. The only
> force we need to engage in is to defend ourselves from these two activities.
Certainly. But we better define some rules, so we all agree about
whether force was used or not.
> >We are yet setting up the concept of capitalism, so any rules we would
> >make up now, wouldn't require extra force.
>
> How do you figure? ANY rules? That seems almost surely false.
We could make up a rule that forbids selling other people even if they
did agree. We could make up a rule that illegalized child labor and
force this rule upon our tribe. We could make up several rules to avoid
the market to totally control the people... there are lots of
possibilities.
> >I guess streets would be a somewhat good concept. Also, we have to see
> >HOW the land will be given to our 100 people. Do they all just claim
> >land and fight it out? Or do we force some of them into a militia that
> >has to fight for the rights of whoever claimed the land first?
>
> Why would the latter even occur to you?
Because your rights need to be defended, I thought.
> Why is it that the one that claimed
> it first might seem like the rightful owner, if only possibly so?
You know, you could claim land and someone else might claim it too. In
this case, would others be free to help you, or would they have to help
you?
> Streets need not exist.
So we don't have to reserve land for the community?
> Who gives the land to the people? Only an owner can give
> their property to someone. If no one owns the land, then how is it "given
> to our 100 peope"?
I don't know. Currently the land has no owner.
> >Or do we make a setup where each and everyone of our 100 men gets an
> >equal slice of the land?
>
> Even in the case where we all have joint (as opposed to partial) ownership
> of the land. I am well within my rights to ask for a piece of the jointly
> owned land and forfeit my rights to jointly own the other part. In fact it
> would generally require force to prevent me from doing this -- the tribe
> would have to enforce the joint ownership of the land.
How would you know your piece of the land was even usable? Maybe your
percent of the land was some sqr meter there, and one sqr meter
somewhere else. You would have to force people to grant you a piece of
land that is interconnected. That is, if we make the land the property
of the tribe.
> Conversely, I merely
> would just focus my attention to a piece that is my fair share and not
> interfere with the other larger piece, informing them of my plan. If the
> tribe were to come back and say they had joint ownership of my piece
> (supposing I were to build it up and make it much more valuable than the
> other pieces), then they would have to initiate force against me.
Depends on whether they are in the right. We don't know whether they
are, yet.
First, you force them to accept your plan, they they force you to give
your land back to the tribe.
> They
> would have to use me as a means to their own ends, and treat themselves
> preferentially to me.
Whatever...
> >Also, what do we do to defend our new capitalism against other tribes?
>
> If another tribe comes to forcibly take our tribe's property, then they are
> violating the rule of noninitiation of force.
Certainly. But that rule is not valid for them. They are not part of the
system. They come from elsewhere. They might not care for this rule of
ours. They want to claim our land.
> What we do to defend
> ourselves from immoral behavior is a good question, but not relevant to this
> discussion.
It is relevant as defending property is an important aspect of the
concept of property.
> All we are doing here is identifying what is in compliance with
> or not incompliance with the rule of noninitiation of force.
Yes, how do we defend property following these rules? That's the
question.
> >Do we force people to fight for other people's property or just for
> >their own? Do we force our tribe to pay taxes and pay some of them to
> >defend all property against intruders?
>
> If their property is also defended, then maybe we could argue that they
> ought to pay taxes to have someone else's property defended also. Or maybe
> not. A moot point with regard to their property rights.
We force them to pay taxes? That would be another proposition. Would you
set up a tax system for us?
> >Or would we simply set up each of them to defend their own piece of
> >land?
>
> Why would we set them up? We would just leave them to defend their own
> piece of land. Remember that they are part of the "we" here.
So they don't have to help each other?
> >Also, if we want to give equal slices of the land to our people, how
> >would we make them accept this concept?
>
> Interesting -- you must make them accept your concept of how the land must
> be divied up.
Certainly. That was my idea. I would force them to accept the concept of
capitalism and land ownership and how to start this new system. That is
correct. Are you supporting it?
> That is because you have unjustly staked a claim to all the
> land and are now deciding how you will give it back to everyone. It is not
> your land.
Oh, it doesn't have to be me who gives the land to the individuals. In
facft, I think a system could be made up that could regulate itself. If
you support proposition 001, I will setup such a system. If you think
the system was unfair to anyone of the tribe members, we will come back
to the point before proposition 001. Ok?
> >Either way requires force.
>
> That is correct -- no matter how you take control of the people, you must
> use force to do it. However if you just mind your own business and do not
> push everyone around, you can go off to a piece of land that no one is using
> and build a house and a garden and live happily ever after. If someone come
> s to take your house and your garden then they are initiating force against
> you -- not the other way around. One does not have a claim to everything in
> the universe merely by existing.
You are still begging the question on how you make them accept your new
concept of property without using force.
> >Since we agreed (at least I did, don't know
> >about you) to use force to make people accept the concept of property,
> >as we think it was benefitial to everyone and the individual, we can
> >also force them to accept our way to devide the land.
>
> You are correct. I did not agree to use force to make everyine accept my
> concept of property. My concept of property is derived analytically from
> the principle of noninitiation of force.
That is wrong. You are initiating force against people by simply
claiming land they all used to use before you came. You force them to
accept a concept. This is force, no matter how logical the concept might
look to you. The concept simply doesn't exist yet.
> Yours is not. You must use force
> to make everyone agree to your irrational idea.
Capitalism is no irrational idea. In fact it is the most effective way
of exchanging and developing goods. If we could introduce capitalism, we
would be a great step forward.
> >I would propose we give each of them an equal piece of land for the
> >beginning, no conditions whatsoever. The other idea, of everyone
> >claiming whatever they like best would probably result in a civil war
> >because most people would like to have what they consider the best
> >piece, and also, they would try to claim _all_ the land they know, as
> >there is nothing that would prevent them from doing so, once the concept
> >of claiming land was legal.
>
> That depends on what you think is justified in claiming land. According to
> you, one has a claim to everything simply by being born.
No. According to me one has no claim to anything by doing anything.
> I am basing any
> notion of property on a principle of noninitiation of force.
So you wait until people left a certain piece of land you like, and
claim it for you. And that's peaceful?
Next day the come back and are suddenly no longer allowed to hunt where
they always hunted?
> If you have to
> force me off the land (at least in the beginning), then it is rightfully my
> land. If you can show that you were there first and actually using the
> land, etc., then I did not have the right to take over your land and was
> passive-aggressively forcing you off your land.
In that case you won't own any land, since our tribal men have been
using all land the whole time (which is highly probable).
> Where exactly one draws the
> line between using and not using an object is a good question but academic
> to this discussion since there are situations in which one is clearly using
> an object (my penis gourd) and clearly not (Mars).
So since the tribe was using the land the tribe could claim it (after
the concept of claiming was invented). But how could you claim land
first?
> >We seem to need regulation of some kind. Who does the regulation? Do we
> >need a government?
>
> We all create a government through an invisible hand process (Robert Nizick
> discusses this in the first section of Anarchy, State and Utopia).
How do we create government?
> >What do you think?
>
> I think we should have a government to prevent fraud and coercion.
So you support proposition 002?
> >I think I know a way of equally and fairly deviding the land into equal
> >pieces. It would require these 100 people working together on a common
> >goal, and I think if the common goal was equal private property for each
> >of them, they might want to join me.
>
> That would be entering into a relationship of joint ownership of the fruits
> of your common labor (like buying a car together -- you would never cut the
> car into pieces and divi it up). Is it possible to also have partial
> ownership (like buying a cake -- you get half and I get half)?
Certainly. Read proposition 001. You can make any plans with other
people as you like. We could, of course, add that as an extra point to
make sure everyone gets the idea.
> On what
> grounds can one deny another partial ownership in favor of joint ownership?
On no grounds. Since proposition 001 would devide all land in the very
beginning, the concept of joint ownership would not exist and would have
to be invented. We can make up the idea of joint ownership based on a
system that proposition 001 initiated later.
If two people decide to work one land instead of two, they may freely do
so, but they better clarifiy first, whether this new land would be
treated as owned together or not. We could call this idea marriage, if
we like. We could then define how many people can marry each other, and
hos this marriage will affect their legal status.
> >BTW what do we do with those of our 100 people who don't accept the new
> >concept we force upon them? We might need a police.
>
> Certainly we would need police.
Ok. We force them to accept a police force that can imprison people that
infringed on other people's rights.
> We shouldn't force upon anyone an inconsistent concept, though.
My concept isn't inconsistent.
> >Do we force or pay people to work as police forces. If we pay them,
> >where do we collect the money/property to pay them?
>
> It would have to be taxes. I was never an advocate of no government.
Taxes are force. Do we agree on a second use of force to basically limit
the right to property that proposition 001 introduced?
Would you make up a tax system for us?
> >You are of course correct. The people in our tribe don't need to own
> >land, if they don't wish to. They can sell land they might have to
> >others for a share of the harvest, or some wood, or whatever they like.
> >But at the moment we are still at the beginning. Trade will start as
> >soon as we established our new capitalism. But first you need to agree
> >on the concept itself.
>
> We do not need to agree on that concept. It is a foregone conclusion form
> the principle of noninitiantion of force.
No. Doing nothing is a conclusion from the priciple of noninitiation of
force. Reserving something you use for you even AFTER you used it (when
people could take it without use of force), aka making it property,
requires the use of force.
> That does not mean that one must
> _actually_ allow for capitalism. It just means that if they do not, then
> they have also violated a priciple of noninitiation of force. You must
> force me to give up my penis gourd. If I have some unsed extras that I
> made, then they are mine to dispose of as I please. The only reason nomadic
> peoples do not have a natural notion of property with regard to land is
> bcause they have no interest in owning land -- NOT because there is no
> natural notion of ownership among primitive peoples.
Does the natural notion of ownership allow using force against those who
don't accept he idea?
> >My proposal is we force our 100 men to accept the concept of private
> >property. We force those who don't want to accept it, to do accept it.
> >We devide the land into equal pieces of land that we give to our people
> >to do as they please. The devision of the land will be base democratic
> >according to a system I will make up and tell you for verification after
> >we agreed on the concept of capitalism itself. Your job is find out
> >whether we would need a government to protect the rights of people and
> >how this government would do so.
>
> You are again mistaken in your notion that capitalism describes a contrived
> economy. This fallacy is born out of the idea that all economies are
> created by the planners -- what ever government there is. In reality,
> economies exist and planners merely try to change them.
Yes. But what economical system does exist before any planners come to
it? You insist that capitalism existed very early. In fact, even the
idea of not using force is new.
Capitalism is a brand new concept. Earlier, mercantilism was widely
used.
You can't. We would have to trust someone. Using concept a), the problem
would be solved by definition anyway.
> >How is this defined? Do we force our people to accept this definition or
> >do we want them to make up their own definition? Or do we instead give
> >them land?
>
> Define "this". How is what defined? Whether or not we actually explicitely
> articulate each and every step, the definition of anything we conclude here
> must presumably follow ultimately from:
>
> 1) Every proposition is uniquely uderstood
> 2) Every proposition is true or false
> 3) No proposition is both true and false
> 4) It is wrong to initiate force.
Ok. And?
> >Yes, but at the moment, our people still don't have land. We need to
> >agree on a system for them to own land in. My proposal stands.
>
> No we do not. Ownership in the context I am discussing it follows
> analytically from #4 above.
You mean forcing people not to use certain tools you might own is
compatible to 4)?
4) does only guarantee that nobody is allowed to use force against you
(like none can make you give up your chair while you are sitting on it).
The concept of using your chair while you are asleep, however, is not
covered.
> It need not nor could it be defined
> independently (unless it just happened to agree exactly with the analytic
> result). Whatever your defintion or concept of ownership is, you must check
> it for consitency with the 4 assertions above.
I did. You can use someone elses chair while he is asleep without using
force. You cannot however, make someone not use your chair while you
don't use it without using force.
> >> Right. As long as I am not killing Gazelles in your Gazelle herd or
> >> pasture, then I am fine. That Gazelle *that I kill* is mine.
> >
> >None of our 100 men owns a gazelle yet. That was never defined. Even my
> >land proposition 001 does not include free gazelles at all.
>
> Fine then I may kill and eat one without the use of force.
Certainly. How many can you kill and eat? Assuming that a certain number
of gazelles exists on the island, large enough to make the species
survive (aka if less than five gazelles are left, the speciec will die
out).
> >I would propose you set up proposition 003 about people's right to kill
> >gazelles and where this right is limited due to a gazelle running on
> >private property or due to the number of gazelless left. I will then
> >look at your proposition and we will discuss it.
> >
> >But don't forget to discuss my two proposals.
>
> Your proposals are proabbly not going to be agreed to by this little indian.
Neither of them?
We neither introduce the concept of property nor a government?
> I doubt they will ultimately be consistent with the four rules above.
Certainly now. Government requires force.
> >> Exactly. Now why is it that you think that every square inch of land is
> >> being used?
> >
> >It doesn't matter whethr I do think that. If you claim land, without
> >claiming be legitimate, you need to prove that the land you want to
> >claim would never be used by anyone else. We can solve these problems by
> >forcing our people to accept proposition 001, tho.
> >
>
> No I don't. It simply must not be being used by someone else. As long as
> no one is actually using it, then I need not initiate force against someone
> to claim it. See the four rules -- those are what have been agreed to.
What if the whole island is used by the tribe and their gazelles?
> >> That is not even true in today's world. Surely if there was a
> >> world with only 100 men on it, there would be plenty of land somewhere to
> >> claim.
> >
> >Supposedly. However, we don't know whether our tribe is alone. We would
> >need to set up an expedition to find or not find other tribes or
> >individuals.
> >
> >That will confront us with another problem: immigration.
> >
> >But I'd propose we discuss this AFTER we found someone in our tribe to
> >start an expedition or when some other expedition finds our tribe (then
> >we would have to apply defense or immigration laws).
> >
>
> Immigration is not really relevant to the issue of property rights or at
> least not in this discussion.
Immigration is very relevant to the issue of property, since immigration
asks the question whether a country is owned by its people and whether
this people could vote not to allow anyone in.
> >We can suppose that, but we don't know yet. If it is an island, we could
> >later discuss whether claiming land on _other_ islands was legal, since
> >our tribal people never used this land.
>
> You just ignored the point completely. The issue is whether or not you can
> easily find land that is not being used or if land is scarce. If we all
> stumble upon a scarce resource that is as yet unclaimed then our ability to
> claim may be adversely affected. By contrast, in early America there was
> plenty of land.
I didn't ignore the point, I hope. If I did, it was probably by
accident. Would you please repewt this point?
> >However, we might find other people on other islands. What happens if
> >one tribe member claims land on other islands? However, we'll discuss
> >this _later_ after someone has enough property collected to build a ship
> >to find new lands. At the moment, we are trying to organize the tribe as
> >such.
>
> I agree -- this is irrelevant to our current discussion. It rearranges the
> nature of the examplpe I am giving to consider completely different issues
> and specifically not consider the issue I was addressing with it.
So we'll discuss this later.
> >Now you are starting to develope a concept. It sound socialist a bit,
> >but then again, at the moment, we have neither system in our land. We
> >have a neutral anarchy.
> >
> >That reminds me, someone has to define rights to life and liberty or
> >change proposition 001 so that life and liberty are part of the property
> >of a man.
>
> Why do they have to define these rights. If you violate my right to life,
> then I think you almost surely must initiate force, do you not?
Sure. But what if I bought you while you were part of the body of your
mother? We better define your body as your property from the very
beginning of your existence. But then we'd run into abortion problems...
It's really quite difficult to base everything on a concept of property.
> >Then we have to discuss what we do to life, liberty, and property if
> >someone commits a crime (like stealing land or property, ensvlaving
> >someone or killing him).
>
> See #4 above.
So we basically cannot do anything but make this guy stop doing whatever
he does? We cannot imprison or kill anyone for his crimes? And we cannot
force him to give back what he stole after he sold it?
> >Not neccessarily, as our 100 men did not agree about this concept of
> >yours. Others could make up other concepts (seems probable) and hate you
> >for infringing on what they consider their rights. The result would be
> >civil war. We better avoid this. Proposition 001 can do that, if we
> >force them to accept it (the first few propositions can later be called
> >the constituion or whatever).
>
> Regardless of what actually would happen (a civil war for instance), there
> is still the purely academic question of whether their made up version of
> rights is consistent with the four rules above. Mine is.
And so is theirs. My proposition is not, but it would allow private
property.
> >Not yet. This concept of yours is not yet accepted among our tribe. I
> >somewhat like the idea of your concept. I would agree that we force the
> >tribe to accept it, as formulated in proposition 001.
>
> Whether or not they accept it is irrelevant. The question is does this
> concept of mine consistently fit in with the rules of logic combined with
> the one premise of this entire thread -- the noninitiation of force
> principle.
It doesn't. See the example with the chair.
> What actually happens is irrelevant. Whether or not we must use
> force to defend against an intiation of force is irrelevant. The question
> is whether or not property rights can exist without anyone ever having had
> initiated force against another.
The answer was given by some other guy in this thread, I think.
> >> >All we know up to know is three things:
> >> >
> >> >a) People don't have to help others.
> >> >b) People can kill unclaimed animals and eat/sell them.
> >> >c) Land is difficult if not impossible to claim with using force.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Why do you think that is true. Does some one already have a claim to the
> >> land?
> >
> >No, but the concept of claming land simply doesn's exist yet. That's why
> >I think this is true. You simply cannot claim land without forcing
> >others to accept your claim.
>
> No -- my "claiming land" simply amounts to my occupying it and using it at
> this point. Force is required to remove me from it.
But not to not remove you from it. People could just go and play in your
garden without using force.
> Force is required to
> take the products of my using it. Force was not required (by hypothesis)
> for me to occupy and use it. Therefore, the ones that would remove me from
> my land or take some portion of the fruits of my labor on that land, to say
> help a sick person, must intitiate force against me to steal, vandalize, or
> otherwise physically remove me from the premices.
That much is correct. But they could, according to the four basic rules,
walk your land, play in your garden, and use whatever tools you might
have in the garden, as long as you don't currently use them. And you
could, according to the four basic rules not do anything to them if you
wanted to use your tools while they used them. And this is where we need
to force them to accept the idea of private property.
> >> Who do I have to physically remove from it?
> >
> >Anybody who migh sleep/stand/eat on it.
> >
>
> Supposing no one is sleeping, standing, or eating on it.... And if they
> are, then the land is their land since I may not initiate force against them
> to take it.
Then I am interested on where you might find land never used by anyone
on our island.
> >> Who has a legitimate claim to it?
> >
> >Nobody. The concept of claiming does not yet exist. You just proposed it
> >and automatically assumed everybody would have to follow your orders. I
> >made a contra proposition 001 which I want you to read and
> >approve/disaprove. After that we can go on.
>
> I did not propose it and assume that anyone would follow my orders.
In that case people could still use your land as they please. They just
wouldn't be allowed to use force against, like removing you from your
land or whatever.
> I
> simply articualted a way in which one could violate the principle of
> noninitiation of force. Whether or not they follow my orders the following
> statement is true: if no one has claimed a piece of land then I may occupy
> and use it, so that one who later prevents me from reaping the fruits of my
> labor will have to violate number four above. If the y take the land then
> they have violated number four; otherwise they have not. What actually
> happens does not matter -- I am merely describing the possible outcomes
> abstractly.
Ok. And so did I above.
> >> You sound like we are already living in a city or a full blown
> >> civilization where all the land in a given area is owned or occupied.
> >
> >Not at all. We are at early stages of civilization and no land is
> >claimed, not did anyone ever get the idea that land could be claimed.
> >You were the first. Your idea is certainly an important point in teh
> >history of our tribe, but you have yet to learn that not all your ideas
> >are simply law just after you had them. We have to make your tribe to
> >accept the concept you proposed. Or, as I proposed, we make them to
> >accept proposition 001, where the concept is formulated.
>
> I am not asking that our tribe accept anything.
In that case they won't have to accept that they cannot use your land
while you are not using it.
> I am articualting a logical
> relationship between abstract ideas. You are he one that wishes to force
> the acceptance of certain conditions among the tribe.
Yes, I am. But so are you.
Are you not trying to introduce a system of ownerwhip?
> >They can't. But they can claim that you cannot just go somewhere, take
> >something, and do something with it. Yesterday, one of the other people
> >might have hunted in this forest. You just took his right to do so, by
> >taking the forest with most gazelles and force him not to hunt there
> >anymore.
>
> Well if he can show that he was really using it, then fine.
So you mean you can claim any land you want if other people cannot prove
you wrong?
In that case you might want to claim one piece of land today, and
another one tomorrow.
> It must have
> been his land. Going back to the island scenario where land is really
> scarce, then I get at least a fair share in joint ownership if nothing else.
You do. And following proposition 001 you could do with your part of the
land as you please.
> Suppose I want to trade my vote over all the land for a small piece of land
> that I have exclusive control over.
Proposition 001 allows for that.
> On what grounds does the tribe FORCE me
> to not proceed with this course of action.
The tribe doesn't, at least not according to proposition 001. Otherwise
the tribe might argue that you don't have the right to choose which of
the tribal land was yours, as you would infringe on other people's right
to the same land (which they also own a part of). We have to find out
which part is owned by you. But in finding this out, you are not better
than anyone else, which means that everybody must agree that a certain
piece of land would be yours. Proposition 001 sees a way to do this.
You want me to apply it?
> They can deny me a voice
> passively (without force) if I forfeit my equal right to a voice, but they
> certainly cannot deny me an equal share without initiating force against me.
You are correct. However, remember that your voice is not better than
anyone else's.
Does this mean we do accept the idea of the island being owned by the
whole tribe for a beginning?
I mean the tribe used the land anyway...
> Incidentally, I know that I have an equal voice/share in the common land
> since otherwise they would treat themselves preferentially to me without any
> reason for doing so. A principle of arbitrarily preferential treatment
> violates the law of contradicition (#3 above).
Yes.
> >Not yet, that is correct. However, if we kill all the gazelles in this
> >region, our tribe might have to move. By killing all gazelles you might
> >force everyone else to go somewhere else. Maybe proposition 003 will
> >solce this problem.
>
> Supposing this is a problem, and the tribe has the right to stay, then maybe
> they have ownership in the species.
Do we define this? It sounds somewhat logical if the tribe owns the
island, that the tribe also owns the gazelles.
> That is to say that based solely on a
> notion of compossible property rights, the tribe _might_ have some say over
> the gazelles as an entire species existing or not. In any case, this
> question is somewhat academic since it would derive solely from property
> rights as it is being discussed here and that is the very issue we are
> discussing.
Yes.
So two preprositions stand:
pre 001: The island is owned by the tribe and everyone has the right to
remove his equal share from the community property and own it alone.
pre 002: Gazelles as a species are owned by the tribe and can be
regulated by vote.
> >Yes, but we don't have a libertarian system for our tribe yet. We are at
> >the beginning. You already take everything for granted.
>
> No I don't. I am merely trying to remain consistent with the four rules
> above.
You are trying, and so am I, that is correct.
> I am in fact saying in the above statement that the grounds on which
> you would prohibit the killing of all the deer would be based on the tribes
> partial ownership of them. That is a libertarian concept. In other words,
> YOU are assuming property rights to prohibit the extinction of this species.
I didn't assume anything. I only stated what could happen. I didn't say
that we had to do something against it. Don't mix that up!
> >I don't think so. We are currently confronted with the question whether
> >property (like any gazelle you kiill becomes your property) can be used
> >without any conditions, or whether you have to take care for other
> >people.
>
> Okay -- how does it relate to the rules of logic or the intitiation of
> force? Are you changing the premise on which this thread is based?
No.
> >This question has not yet been solved for our tribe.
>
> The answer to this question in any particualr situation should, at this
> point, reduce _analytically_ to the four rules above.
I hope so, yes.
So how can the concept of property (aka things that are not allowed to
be used by anyone else but the owner) be reduced to these rules?
How can you, without force, make anyone not use your chair while you
don't want to use it. And how can you, without force, get the chair back
from him while he is using it?
> >> Whether or not it is okay to kill the animals is an issue of property.
> >
> >Good one. That's why we _have_ to intriduce the concept of private
> >proprty NOW.
>
> Then how are you deriving it as an issue independent of property rights?
I am not. I was just pointing out what would happen of gazelles are
owned by nobody.
> Your point was that independently of ones property rights, there is this bad
> thing that can take place. In order to prevent this bad thing, we need to
> weaken the right to property. That is your argument.
No. My argument is that we need the concept of property to allow for
saving gazelles from being killed to extinction.
> >Yes, and we need to definde these rights for our tribe, before they get
> >themselves killed.
>
> Reread the above paragraph. These rights exist as foregone conclusions or
> they do not -- that means we could not define them.
Ok, then find out whether the concept of property can be reduced to the
four rules.
Up to now, you have only argued that you can claim ownership without
forcing anyone to do anything (except accepting your claim). You have
not even started to point out how property that is lying around (like
unused land or a tool you don't use for a moment) is protected by these
rules.
> Any proposition we
> would insert into the four above would cause the axiomatic system to either
> be a consistent and dependent set of axioms (meaning one of the axioms is
> redundant) or an inconsistenet set. That is what the above paragraph I
> wrote says -- not that you need to define another concept.
The concept of provate property would be a new concept as it allowed the
use of force against someone who, without using force (!), wanted to use
a tool of yours.
> >It doesn't matter whether you do or do not in real life. Did our man who
> >claimed land find a piece of land that was not and never used by anyone
> >else who's rights he might be infrinfing upon by taking the land?
>
> What rights? Just because you once used the land, that does not mean that I
> would use force against you to use it long after you have left the premices
> (possibly never to return). If the land was someone else's land, then maybe
> the man that claimed it owes that other person rent. If I enter into an
> agreement with the usurper of the land and make good on my end of the
> agreement, then it is an indirect application of force to not uphold your
> end of the agreement. That is whatever we have agreed to that we both
> created and so cannot be anyone else's but ours, is mine if we have so
> agreed. There may be some etreme and pathological potential counterexamples
> to this principle, but under many if not all circumstances we can easily see
> that the rent the usurper should pay comes out of his share while I walk
> away with mine. Otherwise, we have a problem with preferential treatment
> and ultimately violate #3 above.
Sure.
> >> >You are too fast for the model. Up to now, we don't even have the basic
> >> >rights in our tribe, and you are already living in the industrial age!
> >>
> >> You are avoiding the point.
> >
> >Now, I am trying to delay the point until we can solve it. At the
> >moment, our tribe has no laws and rights at all. Before we discuss laws
> >and rights, we better make them up.
>
> I am not making any laws or rights up -- they occur naturally as analytic
> implications of the rule if noninitiation of force and the laws of logic.
Yet you didn't tell me how the use of force for protecting your property
was justified. If someone is using your property while you don't use it
he is not initiating force against you, except we accept the concept of
property as being part of you.
> >I was exagerating to point out that you were too fast with your
> >thinking. We are still at the beginning. You simply accepted your own
> >opinion as a valid set of rules for our tribe and went on. It's not that
> >easy.
> >
>
> I am not really doing that. What I was doing was demonstrating how large
> amounts of wealth may be concentrated into certain rich people through an
> invisible hand process and over time. All the while, no one ever violated
> the rule of noninitiation of force in my hypothetical example, and we had a
> somewhat communistic or socialistic concept of ownership in the beginning --
> you own what you are using.
Good, but by what argumentation do you still own something that you
don't use anymore? Would it not require force to defend your property
against someone? If this someone would use force to take your property,
your defensive force would be justified, but how do you justify using
force against someone who wants to use your property if you don't it
anymore?
> In the end, we ended up with the regular
> property rights that we might see to day, where one man can own more than he
> could ever use let alon what he is actually using at the moment. Actually,
> John Locke has done all this already in "Of Property" in his Second
> Treatise.
But how do we reduce this concept to the four rules?
> >That isn't important for now. At the moment, the concept of life,
> >liberty and property is unknown in our tribe. Arguing what will be
> >later is therefore pointless until we define a starting point.
>
> The concept of these things are most certainly known. They are contained in
> the principle of noninitiation of force.
Not as much as you might think.
Can you sell your liberty to others and enslave yourself? Your children?
Do you own your children or do they own themselves? Does a woman own a
child no yet born or is this child also its own property? How do we
reduce the concept of unused property to law number 4?
> >That's a method. So we first define the land to be owned by the group. I
> >guess we can do this without using force. Good idea!
>
> No -- we must use force to do this unless there is _unanimous_ consent for
> it.
So we can't define you owns the land, except we agree that people can
just take it, if they like. Since you were the first to get the idea,
you can claim all the land, get rich, and everybody else will have to
work for you. In this case we won't need capitalism, mercantilism will
do in our feudalistic society.
> >How will the group manage their land? I hope they'd do it in a
> >democratic way.
> >
> >What would you do if the group votes not to sell you land? They could do
> >this, until we make property a right as such. And this is where
> >proposition 001 comes in.
>
> I doubt it. I could go off and take one portion of the land while the group
> denies me a voice in the other portion of the land.
How do you know which portion of the land was yours? Would you just pick
the best part? Wouldn't that be against the preferential treatment
paragraph?
> If the portion I take
> is my fair share, then they would initiate force against me in preventing me
> from doing this (as opposed to my indirectly initiating force and them
> simply defending themselves).
If what we are discussing was milk, not land, you'd be right. But since
land is not equal all over the island, it would be evyr hard to find out
what exactly your share is (two sqr miles of rocks, or one sqr mile of
gras?).
Proposition 001 could solve this problem.
> >It takes force to establish socialism in a libertarian system and it
> >takes force to establish capitalism in a communist system. That's all we
> >know. You left out the second part.
>
> No -- it does not take force to establish capitalism in a communist system.
Yes, it does. How would you turn communal property into private
property?
> That would contradict the first assertion that it takes force to establish
> socialism in a libertarian system.
Not at all. Otherwise the fact that you can turn a democracy into a
dictatorship by force would contradict the fact that you can turn a
dictatorship into a democracy by force. Both has happened.
> If everyone agrees to voluntarily be
> communist, then they are all entering into a joint ownership situation and
> _voluntarily_ deciding what to do with their private property. Otherwise,
> you are _forcing_ communism. If you simply stop forcing this system you
> either have the "voluntary communism" I described aove or you have something
> else entailing private ownership of property. Either way, the individuals
> privately own and dispose of the property -- that's capitalism.
Not yet. The concept of ownership is not compatible with the four basic
laws, which means that all argumentation based on this concept is
incorrect.
Property requires force to stay property. It requires force against
people who didn't initiate force against you in the first place.
> >However, what we are confronted with here, is a system not yet defined.
> >We have to introduce a system (whatever we see fit), preferably with no
> >force. My proposition includes force, which we need to make our tribe do
> >what we want. Your idea of land being owned by the tribe as such, does
> >not guarantee that at some point someone is owning land. Also, we need a
> >constitution first to guarantee that the democratic decisions what to do
> >with the land are fair. Otherwise 51 people could simply vote on
> >deviding the land among themselves and giving the others no land at all.
> >Then our tribe will turn into a feudalist government system. We don't
> >want this, I presume, that's why we better set up a constitution before
> >we give anything to anybody.
> >
> >I think the experiment is working quite well...
> >
> >We are just way too slow.
> >
> >We need basic right laws NOW.
> >
>
> Whatever laws we create, we had better make sure they are consistent with
> the rule of noninitiation of force. As you have confessed, your system
> _initiates_ force against those that it is imposed upon. We need a
> different system.
What alternatives are there to capitalism?
Communism is not very effective and mercantilism requires force to keep
trade inline.
Adrian
blatantly ignored many of the points I have made. I will respond to your
post when I get back. Maybe then I will be less irritated by it. You
refuse to question your assumption that force is required to introduce the
concept of property. I continuously claim it is implied by the NOF
principle and have derived it repeatedly. You incessantly ignore this and
just reassert that I am introducing a new concept and forcing others to
agree to it. Grow up.
Andrew J. Brehm
> I have to go out of town for the moment. Judging from what I read, you have
> blatantly ignored many of the points I have made. I will respond to your
> post when I get back. Maybe then I will be less irritated by it. You
> refuse to question your assumption that force is required to introduce the
> concept of property.
Actually, no. I did question my assumption and I agreed that you were
right about the principle.
But I think you refuse to question your assumption that no initiating
force was required to keep property.
I do not doubt that you can accuire things without force. But that is
not yet the same as property.
Making things property gives you the right to use force against other
people who want to use them, and I do not know where you draw this right
from.
Your argumentation for how property can be claimed without force does
not explain this at all. You claim something, and then you change the
rules for it, by force.
That's my problem with your argumentation. The concept of property does
not exist at the beginning. If you want it, you need to be able to
reduce it to our agreed principle. However, iniating force against other
people who want to use your property is not yet legal on our island,
since it hasn't been explained _why_ the status "property" if a thing
gives you the right to change the rules and make the use of force a
defensive use of force.
> I continuously claim it is implied by the NOF
> principle and have derived it repeatedly. You incessantly ignore this and
> just reassert that I am introducing a new concept and forcing others to
> agree to it. Grow up.
The concept that a status "property" exists which allows you to defend
something, is indeed a new concept and cannot be reduced to our
principle.
And stop flaming me, please.
Glen Raphael
Like dogs, cats, and fish, human beings are inately territorial. We
recognize the concepts of familiar and unfamiliar territory, of home and
away from home. You deny this by starting out with the dubious assertion
that the entire island is used by all the people all the time. What seems
more likely to me - based simply on anthropology - is that the residents
of the island would have a few areas where they feel safe and comfortable,
and other areas that are unfamiliar and best avoided unless there is some
compelling reason to go there. Sleeping and walking in a different
randomly-selected location every night as you suggest makes no sense; to
do so would be to routinely throw away hard-won knowledge of what is safe
and what is unsafe. People who behaved as you propose would find
themselves sleeping and stepping near anthills, scorpion nests and panther
lairs more often than people who picked for themselves a primary "home
ground" for a while and defended it against human and non-human intruders.
Given the fact that humans are territorial, there are likely to be many
parts of the island where people don't often go. Someone wishing to "own"
property would be most likely to avoid conflict by scouting out some such
location and making themselves a home there.
As for how to defend it in your absence, there are several ways. (1)
stealth. For instance, make your home in a cave with a hidden entrance.
Until someone else finds it, you own it; no force is required. (2)
walling. Build a fence or moat or other structure to make entrance
difficult. (3) watching. Have friends or family members guard the entrance
whenever you leave.
One of the most efficient ways of defending territory is to make friends
with other territorial animals and use them to guard your property. Pet
dogs (or wolves) do an excellent job at this.
If you have normal territorial humans, property falls naturally out of the
way they interact. You don't need laws or registries to accomplish it.
--
Glen Raphael
rap...@pobox.com
Liberals and Libertarians: http://www.impel.com/liblib/
Andrew J. Brehm
> Andrew:
> Like dogs, cats, and fish, human beings are inately territorial.
Inately?
> We
> recognize the concepts of familiar and unfamiliar territory, of home and
> away from home.
A dog does not care for "home", a dog only cares for his family. If you
had a dog, you would recognize that. A dog cares less for the territory
it is on than for who it is with.
> You deny this by starting out with the dubious assertion
> that the entire island is used by all the people all the time.
I suppose it was, if it was an island.
> What seems
> more likely to me - based simply on anthropology - is that the residents
> of the island would have a few areas where they feel safe and comfortable,
> and other areas that are unfamiliar and best avoided unless there is some
> compelling reason to go there.
Could be, as well. In that case, we might have to make up some different
territories on the island. At the moment the scenario was a river, some
grasland, a fores, and a beach of some kind.
> Sleeping and walking in a different
> randomly-selected location every night as you suggest makes no sense;
Certainly not. But we have yet to bring sense to our tribe. That's our
job here.
> to
> do so would be to routinely throw away hard-won knowledge of what is safe
> and what is unsafe.
You were the first to even mention the idea that some places on the
island were unsafe. It's not my mistake that you haven't said that
earlier.
> People who behaved as you propose would find
> themselves sleeping and stepping near anthills, scorpion nests and panther
> lairs more often than people who picked for themselves a primary "home
> ground" for a while and defended it against human and non-human intruders.
Our tribe has a home ground: the island. Our model is a simple, perfect
environment. I didn't want to discuss how to react on difficult
situations, but how to devide land into property in theory.
> Given the fact that humans are territorial,
Neither humans nor dogs are territorial. In fact, all human beings were
nomadic until the age of hunters was over. Only after the idea to plant
and farm it was even possible to stay at one point. Wild dog tribes (In
Siberia or so) do not live in a certain territory by themselves.
> there are likely to be many
> parts of the island where people don't often go.
Could be, let's assume there are.
> Someone wishing to "own"
> property would be most likely to avoid conflict by scouting out some such
> location and making themselves a home there.
Yes. But he would have to make up a principle that would allow him to
defend this property on the grounds that using force against intruders
was a defensive use of force. Until then all attacks are exactly that:
attacks.
> As for how to defend it in your absence, there are several ways. (1)
> stealth. For instance, make your home in a cave with a hidden entrance.
> Until someone else finds it, you own it; no force is required.
That is absolutely possible. I agree.
> (2)
> walling. Build a fence or moat or other structure to make entrance
> difficult.
You can do this. I agree. This would also limit the property you can
claim by how fast you are building a safe wall around it. In fact it was
similar to this how Rome was founded (according to legend). Romulus frew
a line around a place, and said this was his new town. Remus doubted it
and crossed the line. Romulus killed him.
> (3) watching. Have friends or family members guard the entrance
> whenever you leave.
I think it would require force to make someone not go somewhere
manually.
> One of the most efficient ways of defending territory is to make friends
> with other territorial animals and use them to guard your property. Pet
> dogs (or wolves) do an excellent job at this.
Using wolves or dogs against intruders is a use of force. Apparently it
is not possible to own property without the need to use the initial
force. Except of course if you hide your property or build a wall around
it. Than you have to define nothing. It just wouldn't be possible to
find your land or enter it without braking your wall (thus initiating
force against something you build).
Do you want our tribe to build walls around as much land as any
individual can, or do we better go after proposition 001 and fairly
devide the land (by force, actually)?
> If you have normal territorial humans, property falls naturally out of the
> way they interact. You don't need laws or registries to accomplish it.
You need to redefine attacking someone on your land to be a defensive
force.
The only concepts we can legally introduce are conclusions. We cannot
legally define something on our island, as a definition requires force
to make people follow it.
We CANNOT define anything without the use of force.
To you know where the word "definio" comes from and what is means?
Adrian
on my way from a seminar to a meeting. In any case, I believe you have
conceded the following:
1) Justice of Acquisition exists. That is, one owns the property they
currently posses, assuming this property is not owned by someone else.
2) Land is no different from any other physical object. This ownership of
objects otherwise unowned that are immediately in contact with them would
include the land they are standing on, for instance.
So what you are griping about in this last post is Justice of Transfer. In
other words, you are asking me how does one get to keep their property? In
particular how do you get to have the last word on a given physical object
even if you "abandon" it for others to pick-up and use?
The short response to this question is as I said earlier that taking
someone's property is equivalent to slavery. In other words, while I would
say that it is not due to a direct application of the noninitiation of force
(NOF) principle, it _is_ logically equivalent to it. So that taking my
property if, say, I were sleeping and did not resist as you snuck up and
"stole" it does not use force, but is logically the same as if you snatched
it out of my hand. That means that the three rules of logic and NOF,
combined, result in the more extensive rights to property that we commonly
acknowledge.
Let us at the moment abandon the land issue in favor of a simpler example,
since land is not in principle any different from say a stick. Suppose I
happen to have the opportunity to address all 99 of the other tribe members
and ask them if they want this piece of wood I found. Suppose they all say
no. Suppose I take this piece of wood and make a whistle out of it. Now
almost all of the other tribe members would like to play with my whistle --
it is valuable to them. If I were to ask them if they wanted "this piece of
wood" they would say yes.
My question for you is
a) Do you agree that you have conceded what I have written above?
b) Would you agree that I own the whistle in the traditional extensive
sense?
I might remind you that I labored for the whistle and that it is not allowed
to take the whistle by force. If there is a compelling reason to take the
whistle later (without the use of force) and give it to a needy tribe member
say, then that argument that the tribe member should have it is equally
compelling now. So then I should be morally obliged to give the whistle to
the tribe member of my own free will. This result contradicts the idea that
I have a right to the whistle (so long as you must use force to take it)
since being morally obliged to give it up is specifically meaning that one
does not have a right to it.
Basically, how is it that say this whistle being able to help this hungry
man eat (say) is a good reason to steal it while I sleep but is not a
compelling reason to snatch it from my grasp while awake? I could say more
and probably be more formal. I think, actually, that I needn't even apply
NOF but rather that it can itself be derived (though, I must confess that I
am not confident of it and it would be much more difficult). In any case, I
will let you reply to this...
Adrian
Andrew J. Brehm
> Okay Andy. I have a very brief moment or two to reply. I am stopping home
> on my way from a seminar to a meeting. In any case, I believe you have
> conceded the following:
>
> 1) Justice of Acquisition exists. That is, one owns the property they
> currently posses, assuming this property is not owned by someone else.
>
> 2) Land is no different from any other physical object. This ownership of
> objects otherwise unowned that are immediately in contact with them would
> include the land they are standing on, for instance.
I still don't understand how you can reduce these principled to NOF. You
are currently redefining initiation of force to defensive use of force
because of property rights. That sounds legitimate. However, for
property rights to be "reducable" to NOF, these definitions couldn't
exist.
Currently, your are arguing that since the concept of property doesn't
require force, it can be reduced to NOF. However, you state, all usage
of force to defend property is defensive and does therefore not qualify
as initiation of force.
The principle of property redefines initiation of force to NOF and is
only then qualified for being reducable to NOF.
Without the concept of property the concept of property couldn't be
reduced to NOF.
And that's what makes it an axiom, a definition, and not a conclusion.
I could also introduce a second concept, that would define slavery as
freedom, which could also reduce itself to the concept of NOF (and I say
"itself", because no other arguments than the concept itself are used),
since NOF allowes anything does doesn't require the use of force.
However, I would need force to implement this concept, since it is
self-explanatory and self-evident.
The concept "slavery is freedom" does, if it was true, not collide with
NOF. Since it doesn't collide with NOF, it must be true. An axiom, so to
speak. And the same concept seems to be used for property.
> So what you are griping about in this last post is Justice of Transfer. In
> other words, you are asking me how does one get to keep their property? In
> particular how do you get to have the last word on a given physical object
> even if you "abandon" it for others to pick-up and use?
No, I tried to address the justification. I don't doubt that if property
exists, stealing it would be an IF (initiation of force). I only wonder
whether introducing something self-evident would require force. And I
believe it does. Definitions cannot be reduced to anything. Owned land
is a definition (and this is where the word "definition" actually comes
from, since it was originally latin for "making borders").
> The short response to this question is as I said earlier that taking
> someone's property is equivalent to slavery.
Certainly. However, you must try to understand that I don't doubt the
the concept of property within the bounds of the applied rules. I
couldn't, since property is self-evident. To doubt something
self-evident, you _must_ look at it from the outside system, where the
rules of the axiom do not apply.
Your founding fathers _believed_ their rights to be self-evident, that's
specifically what they said. Anything that is believed cannot be reduced
to anything, otherwise it would be known.
If we believe in NOF, which we agreed upon, anything that can be reduced
to it are facts within the system of NOF.
If we looked at it from a system outside NOF, all our conclusion would
be opinions/definitions/axioms, not facts.
And I believe that the concept of property (especially land ownership,
not talking about things you made yourself) is not a logical conclusion
from NOF, but a new element, as it is self-evident and a definition.
It's even worse: land ownership is a definition by definition, since
definition means exactly that: land ownership (aka "making borders").
I'd be happy if you'd be able to explain how this concept can be reduced
to NOF, but you must do so from outside the concept, however, logical it
might seem to you, since as long as you argue from within the concept
(aka as long as you accept it as a self-evident and argue likewise) you
simply _cannot_ reduce it to NOF. That's technically impossible, since
your argumentation always requires the concept of property to exist,
which you then constantly use to prove that it does exist.
I do have someone in this group (I believe it was Eric, the "anonymous")
who agreed with me that the concept of property was self-evident,
altaugh I specifically warned him to make no mistake, since I believe he
wouldn't want me to use this argument here.
1. An axiom cannot be reduced to any principle.
2. Anything that is self-evident is an axiom.
3. Property rights are self-evident and therefore an axiom.
1. Axioms cannot be reduced to any principle.
4. Therefore property rights cannot be reduced to any principle.
5. And therefore property rights cannot be reduced to NOF.
You can, however, apply the principle to NOF to property rights, which
we both did in our scenario, making it impossible to steal property or
to regulate trading of it.
Where is my mistake?
> In other words, while I would
> say that it is not due to a direct application of the noninitiation of force
> (NOF) principle, it _is_ logically equivalent to it. So that taking my
> property if, say, I were sleeping and did not resist as you snuck up and
> "stole" it does not use force, but is logically the same as if you snatched
> it out of my hand. That means that the three rules of logic and NOF,
> combined, result in the more extensive rights to property that we commonly
> acknowledge.
Certainly. That is applying NOF to the concept of property, which is
valid, if we accept both of them, which you did in your example.
> Let us at the moment abandon the land issue in favor of a simpler example,
> since land is not in principle any different from say a stick. Suppose I
> happen to have the opportunity to address all 99 of the other tribe members
> and ask them if they want this piece of wood I found. Suppose they all say
> no. Suppose I take this piece of wood and make a whistle out of it. Now
> almost all of the other tribe members would like to play with my whistle --
> it is valuable to them. If I were to ask them if they wanted "this piece of
> wood" they would say yes.
>
> My question for you is
>
> a) Do you agree that you have conceded what I have written above?
I would agree that the tribe cannot without initiation of force take
something from you in which you invested work. They could doubt your
ownership of the stick in the first placee, but not after they accepted
it was yours and you worked with it, making it more valuable.
The value you won by making your stick a whistle is yours alone, as you
do own your work. And I think this can be reduced to the principle of
NOF, as people would initiate force against you when they take your
_work_ from you without your consent.
> b) Would you agree that I own the whistle in the traditional extensive
> sense?
What is the tradition extensive sense? I think I explain why I agree
above fairly well.
> I might remind you that I labored for the whistle and that it is not allowed
> to take the whistle by force.
See above. I agree.
> If there is a compelling reason to take the
> whistle later (without the use of force) and give it to a needy tribe member
> say, then that argument that the tribe member should have it is equally
> compelling now. So then I should be morally obliged to give the whistle to
> the tribe member of my own free will. This result contradicts the idea that
> I have a right to the whistle (so long as you must use force to take it)
> since being morally obliged to give it up is specifically meaning that one
> does not have a right to it.
Ok.
> Basically, how is it that say this whistle being able to help this hungry
> man eat (say) is a good reason to steal it while I sleep but is not a
> compelling reason to snatch it from my grasp while awake?
1. Technically you don't need force to steal something while someone is
asleep.
2. However, your whistle consists of the material (not yours without the
concept of property as such) and your work (yours by the concept of NOF,
as I would believe). That makes it impossible to steal a whistle you
made without forcing you to give up the work you invested, which is
legally and morally yours.
> I could say more
> and probably be more formal. I think, actually, that I needn't even apply
> NOF but rather that it can itself be derived (though, I must confess that I
> am not confident of it and it would be much more difficult). In any case, I
> will let you reply to this...
Applying NOF to something and reducing something to NOF are two
completely different things. The operators even follow different rules.
"Apply" is commutative, meaning that if you apply A (aka NOF) to B (aka
the concept of property, COP (this abrev. even makes sense)) you are
also applying B to A.
But if you reduce B to A you do not reduce A to B.
Our concept A (aka NOF), which we _agreed_ on, is self-evident, and
cannot be proven. We just believe in it and accept it for our
experiment.
Axioms (aka self-evident concepts) cannot be proven and cannot be
reduced to anything, otherwise they wouldn't be self-evident.
Your concept B (aka COP), which we did not agree on, needs to be able to
be reduced to A (aka NOF), otherwise it wouldn't be automatically valid.
You argue that COP can be reduced to NOF. I argue that COP is
self-evident. You cannot argue both, which many people apparantly try
to.
To reduce COP to NOF, you need not apply NOF to COP, since if COP can be
reduced to NOF, NOF is valid for it anyway.
That's basically the current problem we are discussing, I think.
Adrian
Andrew J. Brehm wrote in message
Andrew...please. You are talking about ownership in terms of the view of
property that we would generally intuitively have. Let me put it this way.
Suppose one has no property rights that we would recognize as such in our
particular society. Suppose that these so called rights are really
priviledges established ultimately by the use of force. Nonetheless, the
right to use a physical object at all is not necessarily dismissed here
altogether. Without any notion of property rights bear in mind that it is
equally impossible for one to forbid someone using property as it is to
allow the use of property.
What I am saying is really a lot simpler than you are making it out to be.
It is this simple: I, by existing on top of a plot of land, am not
initiating force against anyone unless we already have a notion of property
rights and they own the property I am on. So, given that we as yet have no
notion of property, I can easily say that I am not initiating force against
someone by standing whereever it is that I am standing. That means I have a
right to occupy the land that I am standing on. In this albeit very limited
sense, I have property rights -- a right to this portion of the land --
since it would require force to remove me from it.
Any question about whether or not I get to keep that land (even if I move to
another square foot of land, say) is a question of Justice of Transfer not
Justice of Acquisition. There is a Fallacy of Ambiguity developing here. I
am ultimately talking about the right to use and/or dispose of a physical
object even if in only some limited way when I speak of property rights
(some sort of a right to certain property). You are talking about a very
well developed idea of property that may not even exist according to classic
capitalist/libertarian views.
>> So what you are griping about in this last post is Justice of Transfer.
In
>> other words, you are asking me how does one get to keep their property?
In
>> particular how do you get to have the last word on a given physical
object
>> even if you "abandon" it for others to pick-up and use?
>
>No, I tried to address the justification. I don't doubt that if property
>exists, stealing it would be an IF (initiation of force). I only wonder
>whether introducing something self-evident would require force. And I
>believe it does. Definitions cannot be reduced to anything. Owned land
>is a definition (and this is where the word "definition" actually comes
>from, since it was originally latin for "making borders").
>
The question is when if ever someone can have the same sovereigty over
physical objects that they clearly must under NOF while they currently have
physical possession of an otherwise unowned object. If the object is
unowned, then no one has a right of defense (so that they can not claim they
are merely defending their property rights by using force). Barring this
possible argument that one has subtly initiated force by picking this
physical object up and not physically so much as coming into contact with
anyone to do it, it is impossible to claim that one is not intiating force
to say snatch the object from their grasp. If they snatched it and ran,
then they took the object by force. Since no force has been as yet
initiated, then they were the first to use force. Therefore they initiated
force. The same is true if they push you off your square foot of land.
Land is no different from a stick on the ground.
>> The short response to this question is as I said earlier that taking
>> someone's property is equivalent to slavery.
>
>Certainly. However, you must try to understand that I don't doubt the
>the concept of property within the bounds of the applied rules. I
>couldn't, since property is self-evident. To doubt something
>self-evident, you _must_ look at it from the outside system, where the
>rules of the axiom do not apply.
>
Maybe you should doubt it a little more for the purposes of this discussion
becuase I think you are mixing Justice of Acquisition with Justice of
Transfer in a way that I think is technically inapropriate. The real issue
is what are the rights a person has if they set an object they have
possession of down? If they do this and someone else picks it up and
possesses it, have the rules of Justice of Transfer been followed? Is it
"Finders Keepers"? Again, one must intiate force to deny you your right to
the otherwise unowned physical object you actually hold in your hand, the
otherwise unowned land you are currently standing on, ....
>Your founding fathers _believed_ their rights to be self-evident, that's
>specifically what they said. Anything that is believed cannot be reduced
>to anything, otherwise it would be known.
>
Well, they said that in their Declaration of Independence, but that is not
necessarily what they truly believed. In any case, Locke (the origin of
these rights: compare "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" from
Jefferson to Locke's "Life, Health, Liberty, and Possessions" ) did not
think it was all just self evident. He certainly tried to justify the
existence of these rights and to say when exactly how these rights
interacted with each other so as to be co-possible.
>If we believe in NOF, which we agreed upon, anything that can be reduced
>to it are facts within the system of NOF.
>
That is exactly correct
>If we looked at it from a system outside NOF, all our conclusion would
>be opinions/definitions/axioms, not facts.
>
That is exactly correct
>And I believe that the concept of property (especially land ownership,
>not talking about things you made yourself) is not a logical conclusion
>from NOF, but a new element, as it is self-evident and a definition.
That is exactly correct (that _you_ believe that).
>It's even worse: land ownership is a definition by definition, since
>definition means exactly that: land ownership (aka "making borders").
>
Whether or not that is the etymology of the word "definition", it has little
to do with rights to property.
>I'd be happy if you'd be able to explain how this concept can be reduced
>to NOF, but you must do so from outside the concept, however, logical it
>might seem to you, since as long as you argue from within the concept
>(aka as long as you accept it as a self-evident and argue likewise) you
>simply _cannot_ reduce it to NOF.
That is exactly correct
>That's technically impossible, since
>your argumentation always requires the concept of property to exist,
>which you then constantly use to prove that it does exist.
>
That is exactly false. If anything Justice of Acquisition requires the
complete absence of a notion of property if nothing else in the object being
acquired. If there is a notion of property, then someone already owns the
object, and so it can not be acquired. One could not say they are nto
initiating force by taking physical possession of the object. However if
they _can_ say they are not initiating any force by simply picking this
object up, then someone else must _necessarily_ be the person _initiating_
force if this other person uses force to take the object from the one that
is actually holding it.
>I do have someone in this group (I believe it was Eric, the "anonymous")
>who agreed with me that the concept of property was self-evident,
>altaugh I specifically warned him to make no mistake, since I believe he
>wouldn't want me to use this argument here.
>
>1. An axiom cannot be reduced to any principle.
>
>2. Anything that is self-evident is an axiom.
>
>3. Property rights are self-evident and therefore an axiom.
>
>1. Axioms cannot be reduced to any principle.
>
>4. Therefore property rights cannot be reduced to any principle.
>
>5. And therefore property rights cannot be reduced to NOF.
>
>You can, however, apply the principle to NOF to property rights, which
>we both did in our scenario, making it impossible to steal property or
>to regulate trading of it.
>
>Where is my mistake?
>
Property rights are not self evident. Incidentally, I would also like to
point out (though am not necessarily ready to defend) that I do not think
that NOF is self evident either. In fact I thik that it may all be reduced
to the Laws of Identity, Excluded Middle, and Contradiction. For instance,
suppose we decide that it is rational to treat person A preferentially to B.
Suppose that this decision lacks any reason (it is self evident, say). Then
it must be equally rational to treat person B to person A by the same
argument (none at all). This result contradicts the hypothesis. Therefore,
we must conclude that in order to treat any person A preferentially to some
other person, one must accept the burden of proof. This result though maybe
seemingly insignificant, but consider the possible ramifications. In any
case, I think in this way we can reduce at least some ethical principles to
the rules of logic (and the meanings of the statements themselves). Those
ethical principles that may be reduced in this way would then be objectively
discernable while all others would seem to likely be subjective.
>> In other words, while I would
>> say that it is not due to a direct application of the noninitiation of
force
>> (NOF) principle, it _is_ logically equivalent to it. So that taking my
>> property if, say, I were sleeping and did not resist as you snuck up and
>> "stole" it does not use force, but is logically the same as if you
snatched
>> it out of my hand. That means that the three rules of logic and NOF,
>> combined, result in the more extensive rights to property that we
commonly
>> acknowledge.
>
>Certainly. That is applying NOF to the concept of property, which is
>valid, if we accept both of them, which you did in your example.
>
That is what I am doing given that we have the minimal sort of Justice of
Acquisition that I described above. The argument for a right to property
occurring in this way would go as follows:
1) It requires force to snatch an object from my grasp.
2) Unless this object is previously owned, such force would constitute an
initiation of force.
3) Therefore, this object, being previously unowned, is now owned by the one
that holds it (by NOF).
>> Let us at the moment abandon the land issue in favor of a simpler
example,
>> since land is not in principle any different from say a stick. Suppose I
>> happen to have the opportunity to address all 99 of the other tribe
members
>> and ask them if they want this piece of wood I found. Suppose they all
say
>> no. Suppose I take this piece of wood and make a whistle out of it. Now
>> almost all of the other tribe members would like to play with my
whistle --
>> it is valuable to them. If I were to ask them if they wanted "this piece
of
>> wood" they would say yes.
>>
>> My question for you is
>>
>> a) Do you agree that you have conceded what I have written above?
>
>I would agree that the tribe cannot without initiation of force take
>something from you in which you invested work. They could doubt your
>ownership of the stick in the first placee, but not after they accepted
>it was yours and you worked with it, making it more valuable.
>
Then you agree that Justice of Transfer cannot occur simply in me setting
the stick down once I have in some way managed to own it to begin with.
>The value you won by making your stick a whistle is yours alone, as you
>do own your work. And I think this can be reduced to the principle of
>NOF, as people would initiate force against you when they take your
>_work_ from you without your consent.
>
Indeed.
>> b) Would you agree that I own the whistle in the traditional extensive
>> sense?
>
>What is the tradition extensive sense? I think I explain why I agree
>above fairly well.
>
The traditional sense is that I would be able to claim ownership of the
whistle if someone picked it up after I had set it down (without directly
using force).
>> I might remind you that I labored for the whistle and that it is not
allowed
>> to take the whistle by force.
>
>See above. I agree.
>
Okay then the issue is do I have a right to the object if I merely pick it
up and hold it. You have two options:
1) I do
2) Someone else has an over-riding right to my own (negating any possibility
of my having a right) to the object
In either case, someone (even if it is not me) has a right to the object
(i.e. has property rights). The only way one can dispute the justice of my
acquisition of the object (and subsequent mixing of my labor with it) is if
they have a right to that object themselves.
>> If there is a compelling reason to take the
>> whistle later (without the use of force) and give it to a needy tribe
member
>> say, then that argument that the tribe member should have it is equally
>> compelling now. So then I should be morally obliged to give the whistle
to
>> the tribe member of my own free will. This result contradicts the idea
that
>> I have a right to the whistle (so long as you must use force to take it)
>> since being morally obliged to give it up is specifically meaning that
one
>> does not have a right to it.
>
>Ok.
>
>> Basically, how is it that say this whistle being able to help this hungry
>> man eat (say) is a good reason to steal it while I sleep but is not a
>> compelling reason to snatch it from my grasp while awake?
>
>1. Technically you don't need force to steal something while someone is
>asleep.
>
>2. However, your whistle consists of the material (not yours without the
>concept of property as such) and your work (yours by the concept of NOF,
>as I would believe). That makes it impossible to steal a whistle you
>made without forcing you to give up the work you invested, which is
>legally and morally yours.
>
All under the principle of NOF. Do I have a right to the whistle? The
answer to that question is either yes or no. If it is yes, then I have
property rights. If it is no, then someone else (or possibly an entire
group) must have, and so they have property rights.
>> I could say more
>> and probably be more formal. I think, actually, that I needn't even
apply
>> NOF but rather that it can itself be derived (though, I must confess that
I
>> am not confident of it and it would be much more difficult). In any
case, I
>> will let you reply to this...
>
>Applying NOF to something and reducing something to NOF are two
>completely different things. The operators even follow different rules.
>
>"Apply" is commutative, meaning that if you apply A (aka NOF) to B (aka
>the concept of property, COP (this abrev. even makes sense)) you are
>also applying B to A.
>
So if I apply car wax to a floor then I am also applying the floor to the
car wax?
>But if you reduce B to A you do not reduce A to B.
>
>Our concept A (aka NOF), which we _agreed_ on, is self-evident, and
>cannot be proven. We just believe in it and accept it for our
>experiment.
>
For the purposes of this discussion...
>Axioms (aka self-evident concepts) cannot be proven and cannot be
>reduced to anything, otherwise they wouldn't be self-evident.
>
yep
>Your concept B (aka COP), which we did not agree on, needs to be able to
>be reduced to A (aka NOF), otherwise it wouldn't be automatically valid.
>
correct
>You argue that COP can be reduced to NOF. I argue that COP is
>self-evident. You cannot argue both, which many people apparantly try
>to.
>
that is true
>To reduce COP to NOF, you need not apply NOF to COP, since if COP can be
>reduced to NOF, NOF is valid for it anyway.
That is right. I do not need to take different notions of ownership and
apply NOF to see which ones are acceptable. What I am doing is using NOF to
show that it is unacceptable to deny someone had ownership of an object for
at least as long as they held it. It would require force to remove the
object from their grasp. The only way to say this force was not an
initiation of force is if one had previously had ownership in the object.
_You_ must say that ownership exists (before it actually does) in order to
doubt the ownership one has in an object they currently hold.
Andrew J. Brehm
> Andrew...please. You are talking about ownership in terms of the view of
> property that we would generally intuitively have.
I do not doubt that property is self-evident.
> Let me put it this way.
> Suppose one has no property rights that we would recognize as such in our
> particular society. Suppose that these so called rights are really
> priviledges established ultimately by the use of force. Nonetheless, the
> right to use a physical object at all is not necessarily dismissed here
> altogether. Without any notion of property rights bear in mind that it is
> equally impossible for one to forbid someone using property as it is to
> allow the use of property.
>
> What I am saying is really a lot simpler than you are making it out to be.
And what I am saying is that it is really a lot more complicated than we
both think it was. Let's face it, we both grew up in a world with this
concept already established, and it is ultimately impossible to fully
understand the concept from the outside, where we have never been.
> It is this simple: I, by existing on top of a plot of land, am not
> initiating force against anyone unless we already have a notion of property
> rights and they own the property I am on.
Correct.
> So, given that we as yet have no
> notion of property, I can easily say that I am not initiating force against
> someone by standing whereever it is that I am standing.
Correct.
> That means I have a
> right to occupy the land that I am standing on.
As long as you are standing on it, your argumentation would be correct,
yes.
> In this albeit very limited
> sense, I have property rights -- a right to this portion of the land --
> since it would require force to remove me from it.
Certainly.
> Any question about whether or not I get to keep that land (even if I move to
> another square foot of land, say) is a question of Justice of Transfer not
> Justice of Acquisition.
The question whether you can keep the land when you move away is exactly
what is answered by the concept of property. But you haven't proven that
this concept can be reduced to NOF.
What you continously prove, altaugh I don't doubt it, is that you own
the land you are standing on, if no one else used to be there before
you. However, this is not what "property" means. This would also be
valid in a socialist system.
> There is a Fallacy of Ambiguity developing here. I
> am ultimately talking about the right to use and/or dispose of a physical
> object even if in only some limited way when I speak of property rights
> (some sort of a right to certain property). You are talking about a very
> well developed idea of property that may not even exist according to classic
> capitalist/libertarian views.
Basically, when you leave the land (for whatever reason), what right do
you have to still possess it? And how can this right be reduced to NOF
without first accepting the right?
The question is whether COP is self-evident or not, whether it is an
axiom (which you would have to force on those who don't believe in it)
or whether it is a theorem based on NOF (which you wouldn't have to
force on anyone, theoretically).
Eric (anonymous) stated that property was self-evident and a definition.
He apparently didn't know what that would mean. I even warned him to
think about his answer, when I asked him whether property was
self-evident. He still stood on the point that it was self-evident, and
so do I. Only that I know that anything self-evident cannot be reduced
to anything and is thus an axiom, which must be believed in in order to
be valid. And to make people believe in something, you will have to use
force. And at this point socialism and libertarianism leave their common
ancestor (anarchy), and may even build governments systems (aka use
force again) to defend their point of view.
> >No, I tried to address the justification. I don't doubt that if property
> >exists, stealing it would be an IF (initiation of force). I only wonder
> >whether introducing something self-evident would require force. And I
> >believe it does. Definitions cannot be reduced to anything. Owned land
> >is a definition (and this is where the word "definition" actually comes
> >from, since it was originally latin for "making borders").
>
> The question is when if ever someone can have the same sovereigty over
> physical objects that they clearly must under NOF while they currently have
> physical possession of an otherwise unowned object.
???
Let's reduce it to a simple model: someone stands on some land, thus
possess it for the moment. Then he leaves. Does he still own the land?
> If the object is
> unowned, then no one has a right of defense (so that they can not claim they
> are merely defending their property rights by using force).
Correct.
> Barring this
> possible argument that one has subtly initiated force by picking this
> physical object up and not physically so much as coming into contact with
> anyone to do it, it is impossible to claim that one is not intiating force
> to say snatch the object from their grasp. If they snatched it and ran,
> then they took the object by force. Since no force has been as yet
> initiated, then they were the first to use force. Therefore they initiated
> force. The same is true if they push you off your square foot of land.
> Land is no different from a stick on the ground.
Well, not quite. Old English law made a distinction between real
property (aka real estate, land) and personal property, like a stick.
Personal property exists in both systems, socialism and libertarianism.
> >> The short response to this question is as I said earlier that taking
> >> someone's property is equivalent to slavery.
> >
> >Certainly. However, you must try to understand that I don't doubt the
> >the concept of property within the bounds of the applied rules. I
> >couldn't, since property is self-evident. To doubt something
> >self-evident, you _must_ look at it from the outside system, where the
> >rules of the axiom do not apply.
>
> Maybe you should doubt it a little more for the purposes of this discussion
> becuase I think you are mixing Justice of Acquisition with Justice of
> Transfer in a way that I think is technically inapropriate.
Not at all. I can't even tough justice of transfer before I accept COP.
Justice of Transfer is a theorem that can be reduced to COP, and can
thus be completely ignored when discussing COP itself.
If you want to prove that 1+1=2, you cannot do so by stating that
5+5=10, because the second is a theorem based on 1+1=2.
> The real issue
> is what are the rights a person has if they set an object they have
> possession of down? If they do this and someone else picks it up and
> possesses it, have the rules of Justice of Transfer been followed?
That is _not_ the real issue, as you are again working from within the
system. I am talking about whether property rights can be reduced to
NOF. You are talking about wether the concept of justice of transfer can
be reduced to COP.
That is two completely different things.
The justice of transfer _can_ be reduced to COP, no doubt. But since
they come _after_ COP in any logical way of thinking (you cannot have
the concept of jstice of transfer before you have property rights),
justife of transfer (JOF) cannot prove or disprove COP itself.
> Is it
> "Finders Keepers"? Again, one must intiate force to deny you your right to
> the otherwise unowned physical object you actually hold in your hand, the
> otherwise unowned land you are currently standing on, ....
No doubt about things you are currently using. Why do you keep
discussing this issue? I completely agree with you that you own objects
you currently use.
> >Your founding fathers _believed_ their rights to be self-evident, that's
> >specifically what they said. Anything that is believed cannot be reduced
> >to anything, otherwise it would be known.
>
> Well, they said that in their Declaration of Independence, but that is not
> necessarily what they truly believed. In any case, Locke (the origin of
> these rights: compare "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" from
> Jefferson to Locke's "Life, Health, Liberty, and Possessions" ) did not
> think it was all just self evident. He certainly tried to justify the
> existence of these rights and to say when exactly how these rights
> interacted with each other so as to be co-possible.
I don't doubt they are co-possible. But by arguing that they are
co-possible and interact with each other, you also admit that they are
three different rights. However, we didn't define these three rights to
be the axiom we agreed on. Our axiom was NOF. Life and liberty can be
reduced to it. COP can't. That's why your founding fathers based their
axiom on the three rights.
> >If we believe in NOF, which we agreed upon, anything that can be reduced
> >to it are facts within the system of NOF.
>
> That is exactly correct
Ok.
> >If we looked at it from a system outside NOF, all our conclusion would
> >be opinions/definitions/axioms, not facts.
>
> That is exactly correct
Ok.
> >And I believe that the concept of property (especially land ownership,
> >not talking about things you made yourself) is not a logical conclusion
> >from NOF, but a new element, as it is self-evident and a definition.
>
> That is exactly correct (that _you_ believe that).
What is also correct is that apparently people are unable to prove that
COP can be reduced to NOF for anything but personal objects you are
currently using.
All your argumentation is based on the fact that you can without
initiating force go somewhere and stand somewhere. I agree with this.
However, you do not prove that byou can go away from that point and
still own it under any circumstances.
> >It's even worse: land ownership is a definition by definition, since
> >definition means exactly that: land ownership (aka "making borders").
>
> Whether or not that is the etymology of the word "definition", it has little
> to do with rights to property.
Oh, it has. Because that is what "definition" means. It is not the
etymology, it is the exact translation. One might say that the word
definition is defined as exactly that.
Do you know the legend of how Rome was founded? It points at exactly
that problem.
Romulus and Remus stood in that valley in the middle of the seven hills
(in 753 BC apparantly ("septem quinque tres nata romana res")). They
were brothers and woulnd _never_ initiate force against each other.
Well, then Romulus took a stick and marked the valley, which was
unclaimed at that point, as _his_ property for _his_ town he wanted to
found. He defined (made borders) this area as his. He claimed he would
kill anyone who wouldn't accept his definition. Remus did not accept it,
walked over the line, and was killed.
The question is, who initiated force against whom.
I believe it was Romulus by first trying to force Remus to accept his
_definition_. Romulus could not _prove_ that this land was his, he only
defined that he could draw a line around it to make this _his_ land and
thus redefine his rights within it borders.
That is where the word comes from. This is what a definition is. And a
definition cannot be reduced to anything, and must be forced on other
people in order to be valid.
> >I'd be happy if you'd be able to explain how this concept can be reduced
> >to NOF, but you must do so from outside the concept, however, logical it
> >might seem to you, since as long as you argue from within the concept
> >(aka as long as you accept it as a self-evident and argue likewise) you
> >simply _cannot_ reduce it to NOF.
>
> That is exactly correct
Tell that Eric (anonymous), he doesn't even understand that.
> >That's technically impossible, since
> >your argumentation always requires the concept of property to exist,
> >which you then constantly use to prove that it does exist.
>
> That is exactly false.
Then why do you always use COP to prove COP?
> If anything Justice of Acquisition requires the
> complete absence of a notion of property if nothing else in the object being
> acquired. If there is a notion of property, then someone already owns the
> object, and so it can not be acquired.
Wrong. Again you are discussing this using COP. COP is not the
difference between something is owned or is not owned, but the
difference between something _could_ be owned or could not be owned.
You are discussing the matter from within the system, still.
> One could not say they are nto
> initiating force by taking physical possession of the object.
But that's not what I say.
> However if
> they _can_ say they are not initiating any force by simply picking this
> object up, then someone else must _necessarily_ be the person _initiating_
> force if this other person uses force to take the object from the one that
> is actually holding it.
No doubt. But then again, this is not COP. COP is the concept that
people still must use force to take something from you which yu are not
using.
> >I do have someone in this group (I believe it was Eric, the "anonymous")
> >who agreed with me that the concept of property was self-evident,
> >altaugh I specifically warned him to make no mistake, since I believe he
> >wouldn't want me to use this argument here.
> >
> >1. An axiom cannot be reduced to any principle.
> >
> >2. Anything that is self-evident is an axiom.
> >
> >3. Property rights are self-evident and therefore an axiom.
> >
> >1. Axioms cannot be reduced to any principle.
> >
> >4. Therefore property rights cannot be reduced to any principle.
> >
> >5. And therefore property rights cannot be reduced to NOF.
> >
> >You can, however, apply the principle to NOF to property rights, which
> >we both did in our scenario, making it impossible to steal property or
> >to regulate trading of it.
> >
> >Where is my mistake?
>
> Property rights are not self evident. Incidentally, I would also like to
> point out (though am not necessarily ready to defend) that I do not think
> that NOF is self evident either.
NOF is self-evident, as much as any other idea we might make up. 1+1=2
is self-evident. All axioms are self-evident, altaugh it becomes
unpoplar to say so, because more complicated axioms are not easy to
understand.
If property rights are not self-evident, then why are you unable to
reduce them to NOF without using them to prove it?
> In fact I thik that it may all be reduced
> to the Laws of Identity, Excluded Middle, and Contradiction. For instance,
> suppose we decide that it is rational to treat person A preferentially to B.
> Suppose that this decision lacks any reason (it is self evident, say).
Oh, it is.
> Then
> it must be equally rational to treat person B to person A by the same
> argument (none at all).
No, that would be against this axiom. The axiom "A is better than B" is
not neccessarily comparative. It even contradicts that notion.
> This result contradicts the hypothesis.
Your result does, because you are assuming, against the currently valid
axiom, that A and B are interchangeable, which they aren't, according to
the currently valid definition.
What you are trying to say is that the axiom is "A better B" contradicts
the axiom of equality of all letters (in this case). It does not,
however, contradict itself.
> Therefore,
> we must conclude that in order to treat any person A preferentially to some
> other person, one must accept the burden of proof.
Not if it is an accepted axiom. You cannot prove an axiom.
> This result though maybe
> seemingly insignificant, but consider the possible ramifications. In any
> case, I think in this way we can reduce at least some ethical principles to
> the rules of logic (and the meanings of the statements themselves). Those
> ethical principles that may be reduced in this way would then be objectively
> discernable while all others would seem to likely be subjective.
Whether you accept an axiom or not is entirely subjective. We accepted
the axiom of NOF. I suggested that we also force COP on our tribe.
> >Certainly. That is applying NOF to the concept of property, which is
> >valid, if we accept both of them, which you did in your example.
>
> That is what I am doing given that we have the minimal sort of Justice of
> Acquisition that I described above. The argument for a right to property
> occurring in this way would go as follows:
>
> 1) It requires force to snatch an object from my grasp.
Correct.
> 2) Unless this object is previously owned, such force would constitute an
> initiation of force.
And this is where COP comes into your argumentation, thus making it
recursive and self evident.
You can claim that you have a right to take it back, when someone took
it from you, but this isn't COP yet.
> 3) Therefore, this object, being previously unowned, is now owned by the one
> that holds it (by NOF).
For the moment, yes.
> >> My question for you is
> >>
> >> a) Do you agree that you have conceded what I have written above?
> >
> >I would agree that the tribe cannot without initiation of force take
> >something from you in which you invested work. They could doubt your
> >ownership of the stick in the first placee, but not after they accepted
> >it was yours and you worked with it, making it more valuable.
>
> Then you agree that Justice of Transfer cannot occur simply in me setting
> the stick down once I have in some way managed to own it to begin with.
JOT requires COP to exist. Your ownership of the stick vanished at the
very moment you put it away. You only keep the ownership of the work
invested. For anything else, COP would have to exist.
> >The value you won by making your stick a whistle is yours alone, as you
> >do own your work. And I think this can be reduced to the principle of
> >NOF, as people would initiate force against you when they take your
> >_work_ from you without your consent.
>
> Indeed.
However, that does not explain property that exists without work, aka
land or anything else you found. If you find same stick, do not invest
work, and put it away, COP would make it still yours, without COP you
would loose all rights to own it.
> >> b) Would you agree that I own the whistle in the traditional extensive
> >> sense?
> >
> >What is the tradition extensive sense? I think I explain why I agree
> >above fairly well.
>
> The traditional sense is that I would be able to claim ownership of the
> whistle if someone picked it up after I had set it down (without directly
> using force).
For the whistle, yes.
> >See above. I agree.
> >
>
> Okay then the issue is do I have a right to the object if I merely pick it
> up and hold it. You have two options:
That's an issue we already agreed about several postings ago.
> 1) I do
I agree, as long as you hold it it is impossible to take it from you
without violating NOF.
> 2) Someone else has an over-riding right to my own (negating any possibility
> of my having a right) to the object
Without COP nobody could possible have that right, so I agree with a).
> In either case, someone (even if it is not me) has a right to the object
> (i.e. has property rights).
If work was invested, yes. However, this is exactly what makes the
difference between a whistle and land.
> The only way one can dispute the justice of my
> acquisition of the object (and subsequent mixing of my labor with it) is if
> they have a right to that object themselves.
The above does not prove the justice of acquisition. It does only prove
two points:
a) You own something as long as you hold it.
b) You own anything which you owned according to a) and invested work
in.
If I am not mistaked justice of acquisition gives you the right to
continue to own something even after you have put it away and have
invested no work in it.
This situation is not covered by the above argumentation. Justice of
acquisition cannot exist without COP and thus cannot be used to prove
COP.
> >> Basically, how is it that say this whistle being able to help this hungry
> >> man eat (say) is a good reason to steal it while I sleep but is not a
> >> compelling reason to snatch it from my grasp while awake?
> >
> >1. Technically you don't need force to steal something while someone is
> >asleep.
> >
> >2. However, your whistle consists of the material (not yours without the
> >concept of property as such) and your work (yours by the concept of NOF,
> >as I would believe). That makes it impossible to steal a whistle you
> >made without forcing you to give up the work you invested, which is
> >legally and morally yours.
>
> All under the principle of NOF. Do I have a right to the whistle? The
> answer to that question is either yes or no.
Yes.
> If it is yes, then I have property rights.
No. You have the right to your work, which canot be taken from you
without initiating force against you. Owning that which you use or
created is not COP. COP is the principle of owning that which you own,
even things you
a) don't currently hold in your hands
AND
b) have not invested work in.
Land, which you have claimed, is not covered by the above argumentation,
and neither would be a whistle which you find somewhere, assuming that
nobody claims to have created it, of course.
What you prove above is a form of ownership, but not the concept of
property required for a capitalist system.
It is basically that which socialists would force you to accept it
doesn't exist.
On the other hand real property (aka land, which has neither been
created by you nor are you always standing on it) is a concept forced on
you by libertarians.
The system we currently have for our tribe is some kind of centrist
anarchism, accepting the right to own personal property (aka anything
which you currently hold or invested work in), but not the right to own
real property (aka something you own, but is not covered by the above).
I would like to refer to this first concept as CPP (concept of personal
property), and would want to know whether you agree that CPP was a
theorem, not an axiom, as it doesn't need itself to be proven.
> If it is no, then someone else (or possibly an entire
> group) must have, and so they have property rights.
Again, you are assuming that property rights already exist. If someone
doesn't have A (could be property rights), the logical conclusion is not
neccessarily that someone else owns A. A might also not exist.
The fact that someone doesn't own A, does not prove anything, since
there are two unknowns in this statement.
Does A exist?
Does someone else own A?
You need a second term to find the answer.
> >Applying NOF to something and reducing something to NOF are two
> >completely different things. The operators even follow different rules.
> >
> >"Apply" is commutative, meaning that if you apply A (aka NOF) to B (aka
> >the concept of property, COP (this abrev. even makes sense)) you are
> >also applying B to A.
>
> So if I apply car wax to a floor then I am also applying the floor to the
> car wax?
Yes. Don't you agree?
> >But if you reduce B to A you do not reduce A to B.
> >
> >Our concept A (aka NOF), which we _agreed_ on, is self-evident, and
> >cannot be proven. We just believe in it and accept it for our
> >experiment.
>
> For the purposes of this discussion...
Yes.
> >Axioms (aka self-evident concepts) cannot be proven and cannot be
> >reduced to anything, otherwise they wouldn't be self-evident.
>
> yep
_Please_ tell that Eric. :-)
> >Your concept B (aka COP), which we did not agree on, needs to be able to
> >be reduced to A (aka NOF), otherwise it wouldn't be automatically valid.
>
> correct
Ok.
> >You argue that COP can be reduced to NOF. I argue that COP is
> >self-evident. You cannot argue both, which many people apparantly try
> >to.
>
> that is true
Sadly yes. And most of them call themselves Libertarians, I'm afraid, at
least in this group. I am happy to see that at least you seem to know
the basics of logic and mathematics that need to be used here.
> >To reduce COP to NOF, you need not apply NOF to COP, since if COP can be
> >reduced to NOF, NOF is valid for it anyway.
>
> That is right. I do not need to take different notions of ownership and
> apply NOF to see which ones are acceptable.
I'm not sure whether I understand you correctly?
Are you saying that if you reduce one subset of COP to NOF, all other
subsets must be true as well?
That would be wrong.
If we define NOF as true, which we did for the purpose of this
discussion, and subset A of COP (aka personal property, aka property you
currently hold or invested work into) is true:
cop.a == true
You cannot conclude that COP is true.
For anything to be true ALL its subsets must be true, aka.
IF (cop.a == true) AND (cop.b == true) THEN cop=true.
We know cop.a to be true, since it can be reduced to NOF.
But from this we cannot conclude that cop.b must also be true, which you
apparently do, as all your argumentations are based on cop.a.
> What I am doing is using NOF to
> show that it is unacceptable to deny someone had ownership of an object for
> at least as long as they held it.
Correct. I agree.
> It would require force to remove the
> object from their grasp.
Certainly.
> The only way to say this force was not an
> initiation of force is if one had previously had ownership in the object.
One might say it this way: "The only way to _define_ this force as a
defensive force is if one had previously had ownership in the object."
> _You_ must say that ownership exists (before it actually does) in order to
> doubt the ownership one has in an object they currently hold.
Certainly. That's what it makes self-evident. If it exists, it exists.
If it doesn't, it doesn't.
Adrian
Andrew J. Brehm wrote in message
>Adrian <dur...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Andrew...please. You are talking about ownership in terms of the view of
>> property that we would generally intuitively have.
>
>I do not doubt that property is self-evident.
>
No way! Really?? (read: sarcasm) I do doubt that. I think it can be
derived. I have held this position throughout this entire thread. In fact,
I think that your NOF can be derived also. If I did not think that I would
be amoral.
>> Let me put it this way.
>> Suppose one has no property rights that we would recognize as such in our
>> particular society. Suppose that these so called rights are really
>> priviledges established ultimately by the use of force. Nonetheless, the
>> right to use a physical object at all is not necessarily dismissed here
>> altogether. Without any notion of property rights bear in mind that it
is
>> equally impossible for one to forbid someone using property as it is to
>> allow the use of property.
>>
>> What I am saying is really a lot simpler than you are making it out to
be.
>
>And what I am saying is that it is really a lot more complicated than we
>both think it was. Let's face it, we both grew up in a world with this
>concept already established, and it is ultimately impossible to fully
>understand the concept from the outside, where we have never been.
>
You mean as if we were raised that way? We surely can _understand_ it if it
is intelligible and makes sense. Nonsese! Anything that succumbs to
rational thought may be fully understood. Anything that does not succumb
completely to rational thought ultimately may not be understood at all.
Nope. The "concept of property" is simply the idea that one have some right
to use, dispose of, possess, etc a physical object. Try formulating a
precise statement of the "concept of property" that does not use the word
"property" (or "concept" for that matter).
>What you continously prove, altaugh I don't doubt it, is that you own
>the land you are standing on, if no one else used to be there before
>you. However, this is not what "property" means. This would also be
>valid in a socialist system.
>
That is what "property" means. And that is why everyone believes that
property ("owned physical object" or in this thread sometimes just "physical
object") exists -- even socialists! They just think that property is not
_privately_ owned. They just think that some or all property must be always
jointly owned.
>> There is a Fallacy of Ambiguity developing here. I
>> am ultimately talking about the right to use and/or dispose of a physical
>> object even if in only some limited way when I speak of property rights
>> (some sort of a right to certain property). You are talking about a very
>> well developed idea of property that may not even exist according to
classic
>> capitalist/libertarian views.
>
>Basically, when you leave the land (for whatever reason), what right do
>you have to still possess it? And how can this right be reduced to NOF
>without first accepting the right?
>
Well, that is a question (as I said earlier) of Justice of Transfer. You
are claiming that the right to the land is automatically transferred to
anyone that stands on it so long as they never use force to do it. We have
already begun to discuss the Lockean issue of comingle labor with objects.
I believe you have conceded sometime ago that one also owns (in the simple
sense) their labor. Are you rejecting hat view now?
>The question is whether COP is self-evident or not, whether it is an
>axiom (which you would have to force on those who don't believe in it)
>or whether it is a theorem based on NOF (which you wouldn't have to
>force on anyone, theoretically).
>
That is true. If COP is self evident then it must be agreed upon by
everyone without exception. Such a thing can only happen if either everyone
explicitely agrees to it (which is not the case for the "concept of
property" as you put it) or if everyone must implicitely agree to it since
to do otherwise would result in a contradiction and so be meaningless. Of
course, this latter case is really more like saying it is not self evident
but rather can be derived analytically which is my contention. In fact, I
would contend that all morality may be derived analytically (though
admittedly I would have trouble showing such a profound statement if it is
true).
>Eric (anonymous) stated that property was self-evident and a definition.
>He apparently didn't know what that would mean. I even warned him to
>think about his answer, when I asked him whether property was
>self-evident. He still stood on the point that it was self-evident, and
>so do I. Only that I know that anything self-evident cannot be reduced
>to anything and is thus an axiom, which must be believed in in order to
>be valid. And to make people believe in something, you will have to use
>force. And at this point socialism and libertarianism leave their common
>ancestor (anarchy), and may even build governments systems (aka use
>force again) to defend their point of view.
>
The way you are using "self-evident" would require it to come axiomatically.
Surely if it does this, and we can disagree with the axiom, then said axiom
may not be used to establish a universal moral position of private ownership
in property. However, what I thik Eric really meant was that it followed
analytically from the rules of logic. He calls this "self-evident" because
the proof of the assertion is contained in the meanings of the words the
assertion is constituted of combined with the application of logic. For
instance, "a purple dinosaur is purple" might be said to be self evidently
true.
>> >No, I tried to address the justification. I don't doubt that if property
>> >exists, stealing it would be an IF (initiation of force). I only wonder
>> >whether introducing something self-evident would require force. And I
>> >believe it does. Definitions cannot be reduced to anything. Owned land
>> >is a definition (and this is where the word "definition" actually comes
>> >from, since it was originally latin for "making borders").
>>
>> The question is when if ever someone can have the same sovereigty over
>> physical objects that they clearly must under NOF while they currently
have
>> physical possession of an otherwise unowned object.
>
>???
>
>Let's reduce it to a simple model: someone stands on some land, thus
>possess it for the moment. Then he leaves. Does he still own the land?
>
I doubt it. If that was the only scenario that occurred then we would
probably have no concept of ownership of land as is the case with most
nomadic peoples. However if the nomads settle, then we enter into a
situation where they comingle their labor in nontrivial ways with the land
by building houses on it, farming it, etc. Not only are we lead to this
point at which the notion of extensive property rights _logically_ must
enter to prevent contradictions and/or the violation of NOF, but it is at
this point that the notion of land ownership has actually entered
historically into society.
>> If the object is
>> unowned, then no one has a right of defense (so that they can not claim
they
>> are merely defending their property rights by using force).
>
>Correct.
>
>> Barring this
>> possible argument that one has subtly initiated force by picking this
>> physical object up and not physically so much as coming into contact with
>> anyone to do it, it is impossible to claim that one is not intiating
force
>> to say snatch the object from their grasp. If they snatched it and ran,
>> then they took the object by force. Since no force has been as yet
>> initiated, then they were the first to use force. Therefore they
initiated
>> force. The same is true if they push you off your square foot of land.
>> Land is no different from a stick on the ground.
>
>Well, not quite. Old English law made a distinction between real
>property (aka real estate, land) and personal property, like a stick.
>Personal property exists in both systems, socialism and libertarianism.
>
You are talking about manmade laws -- constructs of society -- again. I
thought the issue was to get beyond all that. According to NOF, there is no
difference between the right to a square foot of land and the right to carry
a stick. It requires force just the same to push me off the land as it does
to take the stick. If this violates NOF for the stick then it logically
must violate NOF for the land. If I can show that one might maintain
ownership of the stick after they set it down, then by a similar argument
one could have a right to land they walk off of. There is no essential
logical difference between land and any other physical object.
>> >> The short response to this question is as I said earlier that taking
>> >> someone's property is equivalent to slavery.
>> >
>> >Certainly. However, you must try to understand that I don't doubt the
>> >the concept of property within the bounds of the applied rules. I
>> >couldn't, since property is self-evident. To doubt something
>> >self-evident, you _must_ look at it from the outside system, where the
>> >rules of the axiom do not apply.
>>
>> Maybe you should doubt it a little more for the purposes of this
discussion
>> becuase I think you are mixing Justice of Acquisition with Justice of
>> Transfer in a way that I think is technically inapropriate.
>
>Not at all. I can't even tough justice of transfer before I accept COP.
>Justice of Transfer is a theorem that can be reduced to COP, and can
>thus be completely ignored when discussing COP itself.
>
Well one must have a right to the object they have acquired (so that no one
can take it from them without violating NOF for the purposes of this thread)
before we can question whether or not they have transferred this right.
However, you have conceeded that they indeed do have this right.
>If you want to prove that 1+1=2, you cannot do so by stating that
>5+5=10, because the second is a theorem based on 1+1=2.
>
That is correct. However you have conceded that 1+1=2, and now the question
is does 5+5=10?
>> The real issue
>> is what are the rights a person has if they set an object they have
>> possession of down? If they do this and someone else picks it up and
>> possesses it, have the rules of Justice of Transfer been followed?
>
>That is _not_ the real issue, as you are again working from within the
>system. I am talking about whether property rights can be reduced to
>NOF. You are talking about wether the concept of justice of transfer can
>be reduced to COP.
>
You have conceeded that one owns the land they are standing on. We have the
concept of ownership. Just incase you try to slip out from under this
concession, you have conceded that it violates NOF to remove you from the
land you are standing on (unless we have a concept of ownership prior to
your standing on it). I am saying the meaning of COP is that NOF is
violated in this way. All this business of whether or not you get to retain
access to the land you are standing on even if you move is irrelevant to the
issue of whether you have COP in it while you are there.
>That is two completely different things.
>
>The justice of transfer _can_ be reduced to COP, no doubt. But since
>they come _after_ COP in any logical way of thinking (you cannot have
>the concept of jstice of transfer before you have property rights),
>justife of transfer (JOF) cannot prove or disprove COP itself.
>
Actually, that is not exactly true. COP is a very complicated concept in
the end. COP in extremely simple scenarios is simple, but as we apply NOF
with simple rules of logic to more and more complex scenarios, COP becomes
extraordinarily complicated. Justice of Acquistion (JOA), Justice of
Transfer (JOT), and Justice of Rectification (JOR) alrtogether fully specify
the Concept of Ownersip of Property (COP) or so I would contend.
>> Is it
>> "Finders Keepers"? Again, one must intiate force to deny you your right
to
>> the otherwise unowned physical object you actually hold in your hand, the
>> otherwise unowned land you are currently standing on, ....
>
>No doubt about things you are currently using. Why do you keep
>discussing this issue? I completely agree with you that you own objects
>you currently use.
Great! You are saying that we have COP in otherwise unowned objects that we
are currently in possesion of. COP remember is merely the right to the
object -- nothing more yet since we have not inquired as to any issues of
whether one retains COP after they set it down, or it is forcibly taken from
them, etc.
>
>> >Your founding fathers _believed_ their rights to be self-evident, that's
>> >specifically what they said. Anything that is believed cannot be reduced
>> >to anything, otherwise it would be known.
>>
>> Well, they said that in their Declaration of Independence, but that is no
t
>> necessarily what they truly believed. In any case, Locke (the origin of
>> these rights: compare "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" from
>> Jefferson to Locke's "Life, Health, Liberty, and Possessions" ) did not
>> think it was all just self evident. He certainly tried to justify the
>> existence of these rights and to say when exactly how these rights
>> interacted with each other so as to be co-possible.
>
>I don't doubt they are co-possible. But by arguing that they are
>co-possible and interact with each other, you also admit that they are
>three different rights. However, we didn't define these three rights to
>be the axiom we agreed on. Our axiom was NOF. Life and liberty can be
>reduced to it. COP can't. That's why your founding fathers based their
>axiom on the three rights.
>
Well, I don't think that NOF was an explicit part of the political
philosophy back then, but I could be wrong. I think that NOF is relatively
modern. It is also, btw, usually associated with libertarianism. In fact,
I think that Ayn Rand bases her philosophy on this pronciple and most would
agree that it results in laissez faire capitalism.
>> >If we believe in NOF, which we agreed upon, anything that can be reduced
>> >to it are facts within the system of NOF.
>>
>> That is exactly correct
>
>Ok.
>
>> >If we looked at it from a system outside NOF, all our conclusion would
>> >be opinions/definitions/axioms, not facts.
>>
>> That is exactly correct
>
>Ok.
>
>> >And I believe that the concept of property (especially land ownership,
>> >not talking about things you made yourself) is not a logical conclusion
>> >from NOF, but a new element, as it is self-evident and a definition.
>>
>> That is exactly correct (that _you_ believe that).
>
>What is also correct is that apparently people are unable to prove that
>COP can be reduced to NOF for anything but personal objects you are
>currently using.
>
Great! you think that COP exists for personal objects one is currently in
possession of (barring any other logical constraints that you do not think
exist anyway). But, you forget your earlier concession that one has COP in
their labor on these grounds above. That is, you have conceded that COP in
labor reduces to NOF. What if they comingle their labor with an object?
According to you they can do this by first acquiring COP in the object by
picking it up (if it is not otherwise owned but you say that it cannot be
otherwise owned, so this proviso should ot matter to you).
>All your argumentation is based on the fact that you can without
>initiating force go somewhere and stand somewhere. I agree with this.
>However, you do not prove that byou can go away from that point and
>still own it under any circumstances.
>
I do not need to show that you can do this under _any_ circumstances. I
merely need to show that it can be done under _some_ circumstances. In
fact, Locke, himself, said that there are many circumstances in which it
could not be done. However if there is so much as _one_ scenario that it
can be done, then under this scenario one can have the traditional COP
simply on the grounds that otherwise NOF would be violated. Indeed, I would
even go so far as to say that at least for the purposes of this disscussion
it is precisely the collection of scenarios in which COP can be reduced to
NOF even after one loses possession of the object that we have a legitimate
claim to property and that in any other case we simple do not. It is
_precisely_ on these grounds that I reject socialism.
>> >It's even worse: land ownership is a definition by definition, since
>> >definition means exactly that: land ownership (aka "making borders").
>>
>> Whether or not that is the etymology of the word "definition", it has
little
>> to do with rights to property.
>
>Oh, it has. Because that is what "definition" means. It is not the
>etymology, it is the exact translation. One might say that the word
>definition is defined as exactly that.
>
definition n. a statement of the meaning of a word or the nature of a thing
The fact that it might of once been used to mean something else is
irrelevant to this meaning -- the common understanding and the menaing I
intend when using the word. Stick to the issue here.
>Do you know the legend of how Rome was founded? It points at exactly
>that problem.
>
>Romulus and Remus stood in that valley in the middle of the seven hills
>(in 753 BC apparantly ("septem quinque tres nata romana res")). They
>were brothers and woulnd _never_ initiate force against each other.
>
>Well, then Romulus took a stick and marked the valley, which was
>unclaimed at that point, as _his_ property for _his_ town he wanted to
>found. He defined (made borders) this area as his. He claimed he would
>kill anyone who wouldn't accept his definition. Remus did not accept it,
>walked over the line, and was killed.
>
>The question is, who initiated force against whom.
>
>I believe it was Romulus by first trying to force Remus to accept his
>_definition_. Romulus could not _prove_ that this land was his, he only
>defined that he could draw a line around it to make this _his_ land and
>thus redefine his rights within it borders.
>
I would probably agree with you. He did not sufficiently (or at all for
that matter) comingle his labor with the land to make it rightfully his.
>That is where the word comes from. This is what a definition is. And a
>definition cannot be reduced to anything, and must be forced on other
>people in order to be valid.
>
Or agreed upon. Actually, it cannot be forced on anyone -- that is
physically impossible, unless you have a way of actually entering my mind.
A definition is agreed upon as any linguist will tell you. When you say
"forced upon" you are not referring to the concept which one may or may not
_understand_, but rather the physical ramifications based on the concept or
argument that may or may not be agreed to. If some one undertands what you
are saying, then they understand your defintion and agree to it. What they
disagree with is the arguments based on it.
>> >I'd be happy if you'd be able to explain how this concept can be reduced
>> >to NOF, but you must do so from outside the concept, however, logical it
>> >might seem to you, since as long as you argue from within the concept
>> >(aka as long as you accept it as a self-evident and argue likewise) you
>> >simply _cannot_ reduce it to NOF.
>>
>> That is exactly correct
>
>Tell that Eric (anonymous), he doesn't even understand that.
You may be misinterpretting him, though I have admittedly not read his post
since I have been struggling just to get my own in, having been out of town
all this time. If he says that X is self evident and then procedes to
justify X, then maybe he means something different from what you think he
means.
>
>> >That's technically impossible, since
>> >your argumentation always requires the concept of property to exist,
>> >which you then constantly use to prove that it does exist.
>>
>> That is exactly false.
>
>Then why do you always use COP to prove COP?
>
I don't
>> If anything Justice of Acquisition requires the
>> complete absence of a notion of property if nothing else in the object
being
>> acquired. If there is a notion of property, then someone already owns
the
>> object, and so it can not be acquired.
>
>Wrong. Again you are discussing this using COP. COP is not the
>difference between something is owned or is not owned, but the
>difference between something _could_ be owned or could not be owned.
>
COP is the idea that one have a right to use, dispose of, etc a physical
object. Now if I say that an other wise unowned physical object may be
acquired then I am making a proviso that according to you I need not even
make. your position is that no physical object that is not already
possessed could possibly be owned according to NOF. I claim this is false,
so I have to make these additional provisos to remain consistent. However,
supposing you are correct, then it must be the case that I have COP simply
by possessing an object without using force against anyone to do it.
>You are discussing the matter from within the system, still.
>
Not really. Reread it.
>> One could not say they are nto
>> initiating force by taking physical possession of the object.
>
>But that's not what I say.
>
That is true! You have conceded that COP exists in an object that is
possessed. I only make those additional provisos because later on you will
see they are necessary.
>> However if
>> they _can_ say they are not initiating any force by simply picking this
>> object up, then someone else must _necessarily_ be the person
_initiating_
>> force if this other person uses force to take the object from the one
that
>> is actually holding it.
>
>No doubt. But then again, this is not COP. COP is the concept that
>people still must use force to take something from you which yu are not
>using.
>
Yes that is COP. COP is the right to dispose of, use, possess, etc. a
physical object. This right under our thread can only be derived from NOF
or the rules of logic. Therefore, if you have such a right and so are said
to have COP, then that is logically equivalent to saying that COP means the
application of NOF to certain circumstances.
>> >I do have someone in this group (I believe it was Eric, the "anonymous")
>> >who agreed with me that the concept of property was self-evident,
>> >altaugh I specifically warned him to make no mistake, since I believe he
>> >wouldn't want me to use this argument here.
>> >
>> >1. An axiom cannot be reduced to any principle.
>> >
>> >2. Anything that is self-evident is an axiom.
>> >
>> >3. Property rights are self-evident and therefore an axiom.
>> >
>> >1. Axioms cannot be reduced to any principle.
>> >
>> >4. Therefore property rights cannot be reduced to any principle.
>> >
>> >5. And therefore property rights cannot be reduced to NOF.
>> >
>> >You can, however, apply the principle to NOF to property rights, which
>> >we both did in our scenario, making it impossible to steal property or
>> >to regulate trading of it.
>> >
>> >Where is my mistake?
>>
>> Property rights are not self evident. Incidentally, I would also like to
>> point out (though am not necessarily ready to defend) that I do not think
>> that NOF is self evident either.
>
>NOF is self-evident, as much as any other idea we might make up. 1+1=2
>is self-evident. All axioms are self-evident, altaugh it becomes
>unpoplar to say so, because more complicated axioms are not easy to
>understand.
>
I am not sure those axioms are necessarily self evident. Actually there are
what are known as Peano's Axioms from which we could derive 1+1=2 (by the
definition of "1", "+", and "2"). Godel proved that these axioms are not
reducible to the rules of logic since first order logic is complete and
arithmetic is not. In any case, I think that the axioms of morality are
really just the rules of logic. Were this not the case, then anyone may
construct a different set of axioms and correctly claim that their set shows
the morality of their views (which are presumably in conflict with other
views based on other axioms). I think though that there is a unique,
correct answer to the question "which set of axioms are correct?"
The reason I think this is true is because claerly the language says mor
than what is contained in the axioms of logic since it introduces objects
that would otherwise not be discussed such as "person", "force", etc. Also,
the rules of logic may be applied to the definitions of these objects in
order to discuss how they relate to each other, and so conclusions may be
drawn based on these definitions and the rules of logic. These conclusions
(one of which I have outlined previously), I think, are nontrivial and in
any case constitute what can be considered objective morality. The rest is
subjective.
>If property rights are not self-evident, then why are you unable to
>reduce them to NOF without using them to prove it?
>
Well, I thought that would mean that COP is not self evident, but rather a
derived result (if I could reduce it to a more fundamental principle like
NOF). Regardless of what you want to call self-evident and what you would
call a derived result, I think that COP reduces to NOF.
>> In fact I thik that it may all be reduced
>> to the Laws of Identity, Excluded Middle, and Contradiction. For
instance,
>> suppose we decide that it is rational to treat person A preferentially to
B.
>> Suppose that this decision lacks any reason (it is self evident, say).
>
>Oh, it is.
>
>> Then
>> it must be equally rational to treat person B to person A by the same
>> argument (none at all).
>
>No, that would be against this axiom. The axiom "A is better than B" is
>not neccessarily comparative. It even contradicts that notion.
>
Actually A is better than B does not specify who A is or who B is. I
specifically made it a general rule. I am saying that one may not
arbitrarily assign preference and requiring A and B be interchangeable -- to
be merely names.
>> This result contradicts the hypothesis.
>
>Your result does, because you are assuming, against the currently valid
>axiom, that A and B are interchangeable, which they aren't, according to
>the currently valid definition.
>
Actually, that is not what the axiom says. The axiom says that I will take
some object and treat it preferential to another as a rule in some way.
However, if I do this without specifying the specific objects and make it a
rule to do so at my discretion to any objects, then it results in a
contradiction since I the objects are logically interchangeable if I am
constructing a general rule.
>What you are trying to say is that the axiom is "A better B" contradicts
>the axiom of equality of all letters (in this case). It does not,
>however, contradict itself.
>
No -- I am not talking about the letter A and the letter B. "A" and "B" are
merely variables to formulate a rule. So that you could be the one in
referred to in a specific case by A and I could be referred to in a specific
case by B. Later on, I could be referred to in a different case by A and
you could be referred to by B. They are variables not constants.
>> Therefore,
>> we must conclude that in order to treat any person A preferentially to
some
>> other person, one must accept the burden of proof.
>
>Not if it is an accepted axiom. You cannot prove an axiom.
>
I am showing that the rule cannot exist coherently.
>> This result though maybe
>> seemingly insignificant, but consider the possible ramifications. In any
>> case, I think in this way we can reduce at least some ethical principles
to
>> the rules of logic (and the meanings of the statements themselves).
Those
>> ethical principles that may be reduced in this way would then be
objectively
>> discernable while all others would seem to likely be subjective.
>
>Whether you accept an axiom or not is entirely subjective. We accepted
>the axiom of NOF. I suggested that we also force COP on our tribe.
>
That is not true at all. Is the meaning of "subjective" an axiom or require
the assumption of certain axioms? If so, then what you are saying could
just as easily be false as true. You are trying to make meaningfully true
utterances. Such an activity requires the assumption of the rules of logic
which are themselves axioms.
>> >Certainly. That is applying NOF to the concept of property, which is
>> >valid, if we accept both of them, which you did in your example.
>>
>> That is what I am doing given that we have the minimal sort of Justice of
>> Acquisition that I described above. The argument for a right to property
>> occurring in this way would go as follows:
>>
>> 1) It requires force to snatch an object from my grasp.
>
>Correct.
>
>> 2) Unless this object is previously owned, such force would constitute an
>> initiation of force.
>
>And this is where COP comes into your argumentation, thus making it
>recursive and self evident.
>
How is it that COP comes into my argument here. I have listed a proviso
that you should not even care about. What if I simply said that "such force
would constitute an initiation of force" instead of adding the additional
proviso that "unless this object is previously owned". You are assumming
that not only is it not previously owned but that it is impossible that it
could be, so I hardly see how you could dispute the fact that "such force
would constitute an initiation of force." Indeed, you would say that it
always _unconditionally_ is an initiation of force.
>You can claim that you have a right to take it back, when someone took
>it from you, but this isn't COP yet.
>
I am saying that we are not considering such cases yet by adding the
proviso. Do you agree or disagree that the use of force above is an
initiation of force? You agree -- you have conceded this point. Your
question is how does one maintain control of the object even if they no
longer actually possess it?
>> 3) Therefore, this object, being previously unowned, is now owned by the
one
>> that holds it (by NOF).
>
>For the moment, yes.
>
Great! COP in action -- the holder has a right to use, dispose of, consume,
etc the object they hold. Now what if this object is inexorably comingled
with the holders labor? Can another just come and take possession of it?
You said no to this. Actually, I think even the purest communist must agree
with you and me that one owns their labor.
>> >> My question for you is
>> >>
>> >> a) Do you agree that you have conceded what I have written above?
>> >
>> >I would agree that the tribe cannot without initiation of force take
>> >something from you in which you invested work. They could doubt your
>> >ownership of the stick in the first placee, but not after they accepted
>> >it was yours and you worked with it, making it more valuable.
>>
>> Then you agree that Justice of Transfer cannot occur simply in me setting
>> the stick down once I have in some way managed to own it to begin with.
>
>JOT requires COP to exist. Your ownership of the stick vanished at the
>very moment you put it away. You only keep the ownership of the work
>invested. For anything else, COP would have to exist.
>
JOT discusses whether or not and/or when you retain ownership when you put
the stick down not that you always do. If that ownership vanished then you
are saying that JOT says that ownership is automatically transferred to
anyone that does not take the stick by force. I am saying that this is not
logically possible if one owns their labor and comingles it with the stick.
In this case, you still in a sense have possession of the stick since you
possess the labor that is irremovable from the stick. You have conceded
this point to me. When you put a stick comingled with your labor down then
for someone else to deny you access to what may now be called _your_ stick
constitutes a violation of NOF.
>> >The value you won by making your stick a whistle is yours alone, as you
>> >do own your work. And I think this can be reduced to the principle of
>> >NOF, as people would initiate force against you when they take your
>> >_work_ from you without your consent.
>>
>> Indeed.
>
>However, that does not explain property that exists without work, aka
>land or anything else you found. If you find same stick, do not invest
>work, and put it away, COP would make it still yours, without COP you
>would loose all rights to own it.
>
What if a I build a house on the land or plow it to make a garden? Then I
have comingled my labor with it. Not even Locke said that if you did not
comingle your labor with something that you own it. Indeed, he said the
opposite of that. COP is the right to physical objects not some wierd
contrived notion that you are making it out to be. We could just as well
talk about the Right to Physical Objects (RPO) as COP and how they work in
connection with the Rules Of Logic (ROL) and the Noninitiation Of Force
principle (NOF). You would be saying then RPO+ROL+NOF<COP and that the
balancing item is the use of force (i.e. throwing out NOF for a slightly
modified pronciple that allows some intiation of force). I am saying that
COP is by defintion the sum of those three, and that you are just saying
what you think COP entails when you say that no one can own something once
they reliquish actual possession of it. This much is surely true since you
have a notion of private property in as much as one actually possesses an
object and so acquires RPO in it. That is a concept of property -- a COP.
The question is do they lose their RPO when the put the object down.
>> >> b) Would you agree that I own the whistle in the traditional extensive
>> >> sense?
>> >
>> >What is the tradition extensive sense? I think I explain why I agree
>> >above fairly well.
>>
>> The traditional sense is that I would be able to claim ownership of the
>> whistle if someone picked it up after I had set it down (without directly
>> using force).
>
>For the whistle, yes.
You have conceded the point. We have COP then for the whistle in any
heretofore discussed notion of COP. I have RPO to the whistle even if I am
not in possession of it! That is all that is required for the Concept of
Property as it exists in a laissez faire captalist context.
>> >See above. I agree.
>> >
>>
>> Okay then the issue is do I have a right to the object if I merely pick
it
>> up and hold it. You have two options:
>
>That's an issue we already agreed about several postings ago.
>
>> 1) I do
>
>I agree, as long as you hold it it is impossible to take it from you
>without violating NOF.
>
>> 2) Someone else has an over-riding right to my own (negating any
possibility
>> of my having a right) to the object
>
>Without COP nobody could possible have that right, so I agree with a).
>
>> In either case, someone (even if it is not me) has a right to the object
>> (i.e. has property rights).
>
>If work was invested, yes. However, this is exactly what makes the
>difference between a whistle and land.
>
What if I plow the land and make a garde out of it? What if I build a house
on it?
>> The only way one can dispute the justice of my
>> acquisition of the object (and subsequent mixing of my labor with it) is
if
>> they have a right to that object themselves.
>
>The above does not prove the justice of acquisition. It does only prove
>two points:
>
>a) You own something as long as you hold it.
>
>b) You own anything which you owned according to a) and invested work
>in.
What?? Did we not start with an unowned stick and end with a whistle that
was owned by its creator even if its creator temporarily reliquish control
of the object? Then the creator has acquired this stick.
>
>If I am not mistaked justice of acquisition gives you the right to
>continue to own something even after you have put it away and have
>invested no work in it.
>
You are mistaken. JOA simply says how you may acquire if at all possible
(JOA could conceivably say, for instance, that there is No Justice in
Acuisition) RPO in a physical object. You have done so merely by possessing
it. The whistle, though, you cannot acquire this way since you are
possessing someone else's labor and so violating NOF.
>This situation is not covered by the above argumentation. Justice of
>acquisition cannot exist without COP and thus cannot be used to prove
>COP.
>
JOA is not COP nor does it rely on COp. JOA is merely the set of rules
under which one may justly acquire RPO.
>> >> Basically, how is it that say this whistle being able to help this
hungry
>> >> man eat (say) is a good reason to steal it while I sleep but is not a
>> >> compelling reason to snatch it from my grasp while awake?
>> >
>> >1. Technically you don't need force to steal something while someone is
>> >asleep.
>> >
>> >2. However, your whistle consists of the material (not yours without the
>> >concept of property as such) and your work (yours by the concept of NOF,
>> >as I would believe). That makes it impossible to steal a whistle you
>> >made without forcing you to give up the work you invested, which is
>> >legally and morally yours.
>>
>> All under the principle of NOF. Do I have a right to the whistle? The
>> answer to that question is either yes or no.
>
>Yes.
>
>> If it is yes, then I have property rights.
>
>No. You have the right to your work, which canot be taken from you
>without initiating force against you. Owning that which you use or
>created is not COP. COP is the principle of owning that which you own,
>even things you
>
>a) don't currently hold in your hands
>
>AND
>
>b) have not invested work in.
>
No that is not COP (the Concept of Property). COP is simply the conditions
under which one has RPO (the Right to Physical Objects)
>Land, which you have claimed, is not covered by the above argumentation,
>and neither would be a whistle which you find somewhere, assuming that
>nobody claims to have created it, of course.
>
That is correct. If the whistle were eventually shown to have been created
by someone that wnated it back, then you would have to violate NOF in order
to keep it. As far as land goes, are you saying that it is impossible for
someone to comingle their labor with land buth that they can comingle their
labor with a stick?
>What you prove above is a form of ownership, but not the concept of
>property required for a capitalist system.
>
Indeed it is the only concept of property necessary for capitalism.
Capitalism merely requires the concept of private property. We have shown
that one can have private property in something. Done.
>It is basically that which socialists would force you to accept it
>doesn't exist.
>
>On the other hand real property (aka land, which has neither been
>created by you nor are you always standing on it) is a concept forced on
>you by libertarians.
>
Not really. The stick was not created by you but you managed to comingle
your labor with it. How exactly is carving a whistle out of a stick
comingling labor while tilling the soil not comingly labor. Plowing,
sewing, etc is back breaking work!
>The system we currently have for our tribe is some kind of centrist
>anarchism, accepting the right to own personal property (aka anything
>which you currently hold or invested work in), but not the right to own
>real property (aka something you own, but is not covered by the above).
>
Okay. Then I find a plot of land on which no one is standing. I erect a
house and plant a garden real quick while no one is looking. ;-) Now are
you saying that I have not comingled my labor with the land? I guess they
can take and move the house and garden (unscathed) to a new location if they
want but my house is merely a collection of "sticks" I have acquired. I
have labored on the garden and barring any interference, I will receive
great rewards for my laboring. Where did all this labor go if not comingled
into the land? How is it that this labor could yield any fruits if it was
not cmingled with anything? I could understand if I just sat in one place
and strained real hard, but my labor will bear fruit. How can it do this
and not be comingled with something, and if it is comingled with something
then what if not the land?
>I would like to refer to this first concept as CPP (concept of personal
>property), and would want to know whether you agree that CPP was a
>theorem, not an axiom, as it doesn't need itself to be proven.
>
I agree wholeheartedly that CPP is a theorem. I would say that my house and
garden is CPP -- I guess you would not.
>> If it is no, then someone else (or possibly an entire
>> group) must have, and so they have property rights.
>
>Again, you are assuming that property rights already exist. If someone
>doesn't have A (could be property rights), the logical conclusion is not
>neccessarily that someone else owns A. A might also not exist.
>
I am not saying that since I do not own A someone else must. I am saying
that since I _cannot acquire_ A someone else must already own A. Think
about the whistle example. I cannot acquire someone else's whistle.
>The fact that someone doesn't own A, does not prove anything, since
>there are two unknowns in this statement.
>
If no one owns A, then no one can object to me picking it up and possessing
it.
>Does A exist?
>
Presumably physical objects exist.
>Does someone else own A?
>
The only way one can object to my taking possession of A is if they already
own it. Under the hypothesis that this prior ownership is impossible, I may
justly acquire A in this way (which simply means that I have RPO in A).
>You need a second term to find the answer.
>
>> >Applying NOF to something and reducing something to NOF are two
>> >completely different things. The operators even follow different rules.
>> >
>> >"Apply" is commutative, meaning that if you apply A (aka NOF) to B (aka
>> >the concept of property, COP (this abrev. even makes sense)) you are
>> >also applying B to A.
>>
>> So if I apply car wax to a floor then I am also applying the floor to the
>> car wax?
>
>Yes. Don't you agree?
>
No
>> >But if you reduce B to A you do not reduce A to B.
>> >
>> >Our concept A (aka NOF), which we _agreed_ on, is self-evident, and
>> >cannot be proven. We just believe in it and accept it for our
>> >experiment.
>>
>> For the purposes of this discussion...
>
>Yes.
>
Though it may be derivable from ROL itself and the meaning of the terms in
the statement of NOF.
>> >Axioms (aka self-evident concepts) cannot be proven and cannot be
>> >reduced to anything, otherwise they wouldn't be self-evident.
>>
>> yep
>
>_Please_ tell that Eric. :-)
>
I think he is on my side! ;-)
>> >Your concept B (aka COP), which we did not agree on, needs to be able to
>> >be reduced to A (aka NOF), otherwise it wouldn't be automatically valid.
>>
>> correct
>
>Ok.
>
>> >You argue that COP can be reduced to NOF. I argue that COP is
>> >self-evident. You cannot argue both, which many people apparantly try
>> >to.
>>
>> that is true
>
>Sadly yes. And most of them call themselves Libertarians, I'm afraid, at
>least in this group. I am happy to see that at least you seem to know
>the basics of logic and mathematics that need to be used here.
>
>> >To reduce COP to NOF, you need not apply NOF to COP, since if COP can be
>> >reduced to NOF, NOF is valid for it anyway.
>>
>> That is right. I do not need to take different notions of ownership and
>> apply NOF to see which ones are acceptable.
>
>I'm not sure whether I understand you correctly?
>
I am not applying NOF to pick a notion of ownership which violates it the
least. I am using NOF to derive a _unique_ notion of ownership (RPO) that
does not violate it.
>Are you saying that if you reduce one subset of COP to NOF, all other
>subsets must be true as well?
>
That subset whichis reducible to NOF is COP by defintion unless no subset
may be reduced to NOF. What we say is such and such is not a legitimate
concept of property if it does not reduce to NOF.
>That would be wrong.
>
>If we define NOF as true, which we did for the purpose of this
>discussion, and subset A of COP (aka personal property, aka property you
>currently hold or invested work into) is true:
>
>cop.a == true
>
>You cannot conclude that COP is true.
>
What is COP? Maybe you should give me a precise statement of it without
using "property" or "concept"
>For anything to be true ALL its subsets must be true, aka.
>
>IF (cop.a == true) AND (cop.b == true) THEN cop=true.
>
I nor any libertarian would say that every possible way to decide on
property is true. In particular, we reject socialism. So we would say by
your syntax cop.s is false. However, SOP was originally supposed to refer
to the capitalist/libertarian notion of property.
>We know cop.a to be true, since it can be reduced to NOF.
>
>But from this we cannot conclude that cop.b must also be true, which you
>apparently do, as all your argumentations are based on cop.a.
>
Indeed I do. CPP is an example of cop.b
>> What I am doing is using NOF to
>> show that it is unacceptable to deny someone had ownership of an object
for
>> at least as long as they held it.
>
>Correct. I agree.
>
>> It would require force to remove the
>> object from their grasp.
>
>Certainly.
>
>> The only way to say this force was not an
>> initiation of force is if one had previously had ownership in the object.
>
>One might say it this way: "The only way to _define_ this force as a
>defensive force is if one had previously had ownership in the object."
>
You might say that, but I wouldn't. The only reason you think it is a
definition is because you do not know its derivation. See the CPP that you
have agreed to. We did nto define anything -- it follows from NOW
Adrian
the possibility of personal property. That is, we have gotten as far as
being able to actually acquire a physical object and commingle one's work
with it to make it owned even if the object is temporarily put down. The
outstanding questions then as far as I can tell are
1) Can this be done with land?
2) How is it then that one can come to own far more than what would be
normally thought of as personal effects (like a moderate wardrobe, a
reasonable car, etc) while others can end up even lacking these basic
necessities?
This last question we have not even touched on yet, though I can imagine
that we might. We also have the following acronyms:
NOF = noninitiation of force (the principle of)
COP = the concept of property
CPP = the concept of personal property
RPO = the right to physical objects
ROL = the rules of logic
JOA = justice of acquisition
JOT = justice of transfer
JOR = justice of rectification
Andrew J. Brehm
> There are so many typos in my last post. So far I think that we agree on
> the possibility of personal property. That is, we have gotten as far as
> being able to actually acquire a physical object and commingle one's work
> with it to make it owned even if the object is temporarily put down.
Not exactly, but the result would be the same.
I did not, nor could I, agree with the statement that you _own_ the
object you invested work into itself, as stated in the formula
production = object + work
You own the work, and you own the production. However, you cannot
redefine the status of the object involved based on the status of the
result or the status of the work you applied (or the status of the worl
you applied the object too, it doesn't really matter, which way you add
it, in theory).
> The
> outstanding questions then as far as I can tell are
>
> 1) Can this be done with land?
Yes.
> 2) How is it then that one can come to own far more than what would be
> normally thought of as personal effects (like a moderate wardrobe, a
> reasonable car, etc) while others can end up even lacking these basic
> necessities?
That is one good question.
> This last question we have not even touched on yet, though I can imagine
> that we might.
Probably. As we might want our indians to live in huts and houses at one
time or another.
> We also have the following acronyms:
> NOF = noninitiation of force (the principle of)
> COP = the concept of property
> CPP = the concept of personal property
> RPO = the right to physical objects
> ROL = the rules of logic
Ok. That was it. :-)
(I forgot that in the other post. I better make a list and publish it on
my website (www.netneurotic.de).
> JOA = justice of acquisition
> JOT = justice of transfer
> JOR = justice of rectification
And CRP = concept of real property
Andrew J. Brehm
> Andrew J. Brehm wrote in message
> <1dqep9f.1rn...@dialup-134.germany.ecore.net>...
> >Adrian <dur...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Andrew...please. You are talking about ownership in terms of the view of
> >> property that we would generally intuitively have.
> >
> >I do not doubt that property is self-evident.
> >
>
> No way! Really?? (read: sarcasm) I do doubt that. I think it can be
> derived. I have held this position throughout this entire thread.
I know. And I doubted your position.
> In fact,
> I think that your NOF can be derived also. If I did not think that I would
> be amoral.
From what would you think it can be derived?
> >And what I am saying is that it is really a lot more complicated than we
> >both think it was. Let's face it, we both grew up in a world with this
> >concept already established, and it is ultimately impossible to fully
> >understand the concept from the outside, where we have never been.
>
> You mean as if we were raised that way? We surely can _understand_ it if it
> is intelligible and makes sense. Nonsense! Anything that succumbs to
> rational thought may be fully understood. Anything that does not succumb
> completely to rational thought ultimately may not be understood at all.
People understood that the earth was the middle of the universe, even
tho it turned out to be wrong.
> >The question whether you can keep the land when you move away is exactly
> >what is answered by the concept of property. But you haven't proven that
> >this concept can be reduced to NOF.
>
> Nope. The "concept of property" is simply the idea that one have some right
> to use, dispose of, possess, etc a physical object. Try formulating a
> precise statement of the "concept of property" that does not use the word
> "property" (or "concept" for that matter).
I can't. That's why I think it was self-evident.
> >What you continously prove, altaugh I don't doubt it, is that you own
> >the land you are standing on, if no one else used to be there before
> >you. However, this is not what "property" means. This would also be
> >valid in a socialist system.
>
> That is what "property" means. And that is why everyone believes that
> property ("owned physical object" or in this thread sometimes just "physical
> object") exists -- even socialists! They just think that property is not
> _privately_ owned. They just think that some or all property must be always
> jointly owned.
And?
That doesn't prove or disprove anything here.
If COP could be derived from NOF, all actions regarding it (aka to
defend your land against someone who steps on it without permission)
must be able to be explained without refering to COP.
Aka, I believe that liberty (concept of liberty, COL) is not an axiom
within the system of NOF, since the right to walk around freely can also
be explained without COL: aka you must use force to make someone stop
walking around.
I believe that this cannot be done for COP, and so far you have failed,
imo, to show me wrong, since your whole argumentation was always based
on either CPP (which can be derived from NOF, just like COL), or COP
itself.
> >Basically, when you leave the land (for whatever reason), what right do
> >you have to still possess it? And how can this right be reduced to NOF
> >without first accepting the right?
>
> Well, that is a question (as I said earlier) of Justice of Transfer.
No. Not until COP has been proven or defined. JOT is a derivative of
COP.
> You
> are claiming that the right to the land is automatically transferred to
> anyone that stands on it so long as they never use force to do it.
I am claiming that JOT is not an issue here, since it doesn't exist
without COP.
> We have
> already begun to discuss the Lockean issue of comingle labor with objects.
> I believe you have conceded sometime ago that one also owns (in the simple
> sense) their labor. Are you rejecting hat view now?
Not at all, and neither have I done that before.
> >The question is whether COP is self-evident or not, whether it is an
> >axiom (which you would have to force on those who don't believe in it)
> >or whether it is a theorem based on NOF (which you wouldn't have to
> >force on anyone, theoretically).
>
> That is true. If COP is self evident then it must be agreed upon by
> everyone without exception. Such a thing can only happen if either everyone
> explicitely agrees to it (which is not the case for the "concept of
> property" as you put it) or if everyone must implicitely agree to it since
> to do otherwise would result in a contradiction and so be meaningless. Of
> course, this latter case is really more like saying it is not self evident
> but rather can be derived analytically which is my contention.
Yes.
> In fact, I
> would contend that all morality may be derived analytically (though
> admittedly I would have trouble showing such a profound statement if it is
> true).
I would strongly disagree with that view, but I have read about it
before.
> >Eric (anonymous) stated that property was self-evident and a definition.
> >He apparently didn't know what that would mean. I even warned him to
> >think about his answer, when I asked him whether property was
> >self-evident. He still stood on the point that it was self-evident, and
> >so do I. Only that I know that anything self-evident cannot be reduced
> >to anything and is thus an axiom, which must be believed in in order to
> >be valid. And to make people believe in something, you will have to use
> >force. And at this point socialism and libertarianism leave their common
> >ancestor (anarchy), and may even build governments systems (aka use
> >force again) to defend their point of view.
>
> The way you are using "self-evident" would require it to come axiomatically.
I don't know of any other way to use "self-evident".
> Surely if it does this, and we can disagree with the axiom, then said axiom
> may not be used to establish a universal moral position of private ownership
> in property.
Exactly. You do understand my position.
> However, what I thik Eric really meant was that it followed
> analytically from the rules of logic.
I think that he just didn't know the difference between an axiom and a
theorem and how important it is for the question of property.
> He calls this "self-evident" because
> the proof of the assertion is contained in the meanings of the words the
> assertion is constituted of combined with the application of logic.
Surely. If I got that right...
> For
> instance, "a purple dinosaur is purple" might be said to be self evidently
> true.
Certainly. And I think this axiom (altaugh in a different form, without
dinosaurs) is one of the basics of logic as we know it.
> >Let's reduce it to a simple model: someone stands on some land, thus
> >possess it for the moment. Then he leaves. Does he still own the land?
>
> I doubt it. If that was the only scenario that occurred then we would
> probably have no concept of ownership of land as is the case with most
> nomadic peoples. However if the nomads settle, then we enter into a
> situation where they comingle their labor in nontrivial ways with the land
> by building houses on it, farming it, etc. Not only are we lead to this
> point at which the notion of extensive property rights _logically_ must
> enter to prevent contradictions and/or the violation of NOF, but it is at
> this point that the notion of land ownership has actually entered
> historically into society.
Certainly.
However society does not prove something to be right.
Certainly introducing COP makes everything much easier.
> >Well, not quite. Old English law made a distinction between real
> >property (aka real estate, land) and personal property, like a stick.
> >Personal property exists in both systems, socialism and libertarianism.
>
> You are talking about manmade laws -- constructs of society -- again.
Oh, well, I was trying to point out that the difference between personal
and real property does really exist.
I believe CPP doesn't change anything, since even without it, people
couldn't take anything from anybody else. This is why it is reducable to
NOF.
But I do believe that without COP people could still walk on the land
somebody might have claimed, thus COP makes a difference and cannot be
derived from NOF.
Anything that can be reduced to the basic axioms of a system doesn't
change anything in the system.
If it would change something in the system, some new element must have
been brought into the system. There is no such thing as an effect
without cause.
I see the effect of COP in your scenario. Thus there must be a cause of
that effect. If the cause was NOF, your scenario would be identical to a
scenario where COP does not exist, since the effect wouldn't be required
for the actions in your scenario.
For example, in the NOF system you can't take the whistle from the
person who made it without permission, no matter whether CPP exists or
not.
You can't kill anyone in the NOF system without his permission, no
matter whether a right to live exists or not.
Thus both the right to live and CPP can be derived as logical
conclusions from NOF.
However, COP is different. Without COP people could walk on whatever
land they wanted, if noone else is standing on it. With COP they can't.
Thus COP makes a difference, which means that it has an effect, thus it
must have a cause. Since the above scenarion has two outcomes, there
must be two different causes for it. No cause has two different effects.
(except of course for an electron fired into a box with two holes on the
other side)
> I
> thought the issue was to get beyond all that. According to NOF, there is no
> difference between the right to a square foot of land and the right to carry
> a stick.
The concept of NOF forbids you to
a) step on land which somebody else is standing on
b) take something someone else has in his hands
c) take someone elses labor
(all that assuming you have no permission to do the above).
Problems will occur when you want to take a stick someone made a whistle
of. You can take the stick, but not the labor invested in it.
> It requires force just the same to push me off the land as it does
> to take the stick.
Yes.
> If this violates NOF for the stick then it logically
> must violate NOF for the land.
Yes.
> If I can show that one might maintain
> ownership of the stick after they set it down, then by a similar argument
> one could have a right to land they walk off of.
If the same conditions apply, yes.
> There is no essential
> logical difference between land and any other physical object.
Are the conditions always the same?
> >Not at all. I can't even tough justice of transfer before I accept COP.
> >Justice of Transfer is a theorem that can be reduced to COP, and can
> >thus be completely ignored when discussing COP itself.
>
> Well one must have a right to the object they have acquired (so that no one
> can take it from them without violating NOF for the purposes of this thread)
> before we can question whether or not they have transferred this right.
> However, you have conceeded that they indeed do have this right.
For personal property, that is correct.
> >If you want to prove that 1+1=2, you cannot do so by stating that
> >5+5=10, because the second is a theorem based on 1+1=2.
>
> That is correct. However you have conceded that 1+1=2, and now the question
> is does 5+5=10?
Yes, because of 1+1=2. Within the system of the 1+1 axiom, the statement
"5+5=10" is true.
> >> The real issue
> >> is what are the rights a person has if they set an object they have
> >> possession of down? If they do this and someone else picks it up and
> >> possesses it, have the rules of Justice of Transfer been followed?
> >
> >That is _not_ the real issue, as you are again working from within the
> >system. I am talking about whether property rights can be reduced to
> >NOF. You are talking about wether the concept of justice of transfer can
> >be reduced to COP.
>
> You have conceeded that one owns the land they are standing on.
Yes, for the moment they are standing on it.
Also, "ownership" is a non-issue there, since you have no right to force
someone from the land he is standing on according to NOF. Thus is
doesn't matter whether CPP exists or not, thus we don't need a second
cause (other than NOF) to get the effect of CPP. We wouldn't even need
think about CPP. It doesn't need to be defined. It is no definition.
> We have the concept of ownership.
No.
What we have is the concept of NOF. That is what forbids people to force
you to leave the point of land you are standing on. Any concept of
ownership is not required to cause that effect.
If you get a different effect from the usual effect of NOF, then some
other cause must exist. Whatever other cause exists is a definition.
> Just incase you try to slip out from under this
> concession, you have conceded that it violates NOF to remove you from the
> land you are standing on (unless we have a concept of ownership prior to
> your standing on it).
Thank you.
I do agree with the above. In your brackets you have also admitted that
COP would make a difference to the scenario, and thus has an effect
different from NOF. Where is the cause?
> I am saying the meaning of COP is that NOF is
> violated in this way.
But you wouldn't need COP to explain how NOF is violated in that way.
> All this business of whether or not you get to retain
> access to the land you are standing on even if you move is irrelevant to the
> issue of whether you have COP in it while you are there.
But it is irrelevant whether you have COP while you are standing on this
land, since nobody is allowed to force you to leave it anyway.
> >That is two completely different things.
> >
> >The justice of transfer _can_ be reduced to COP, no doubt. But since
> >they come _after_ COP in any logical way of thinking (you cannot have
> >the concept of jstice of transfer before you have property rights),
> >justife of transfer (JOF) cannot prove or disprove COP itself.
>
> Actually, that is not exactly true. COP is a very complicated concept in
> the end. COP in extremely simple scenarios is simple, but as we apply NOF
> with simple rules of logic to more and more complex scenarios, COP becomes
> extraordinarily complicated. Justice of Acquistion (JOA), Justice of
> Transfer (JOT), and Justice of Rectification (JOR) alrtogether fully specify
> the Concept of Ownersip of Property (COP) or so I would contend.
That might be true for CPP. But then again, for CPP to exist nothing new
is needed.
> >No doubt about things you are currently using. Why do you keep
> >discussing this issue? I completely agree with you that you own objects
> >you currently use.
>
> Great! You are saying that we have COP in otherwise unowned objects that we
> are currently in possesion of.
Yes. But I would call this CPP alone. It doesn't apply to anything but
currently used objects.
> COP remember is merely the right to the
> object -- nothing more yet since we have not inquired as to any issues of
> whether one retains COP after they set it down, or it is forcibly taken from
> them, etc.
COP is the concept of property as we need it to exist for a full-blown
capitalism. With the concept above you would never be able to own land
you aren't using for a moment.
> >I don't doubt they are co-possible. But by arguing that they are
> >co-possible and interact with each other, you also admit that they are
> >three different rights. However, we didn't define these three rights to
> >be the axiom we agreed on. Our axiom was NOF. Life and liberty can be
> >reduced to it. COP can't. That's why your founding fathers based their
> >axiom on the three rights.
>
> Well, I don't think that NOF was an explicit part of the political
> philosophy back then, but I could be wrong.
I don't really know.
> I think that NOF is relatively modern.
In real life, it might.
> It is also, btw, usually associated with libertarianism. In fact,
> I think that Ayn Rand bases her philosophy on this pronciple and most would
> agree that it results in laissez faire capitalism.
The result of defining NOF in a system such as ours is Libertarianism,
that is correct.
But then again, the result of defining NOF in a system such as the 13
British colonies would have resulted in the revolution to be
illegitimate, since no force was being used against the colonists within
the system's definitions of force.
> >What is also correct is that apparently people are unable to prove that
> >COP can be reduced to NOF for anything but personal objects you are
> >currently using.
>
> Great! you think that COP exists for personal objects one is currently in
> possession of (barring any other logical constraints that you do not think
> exist anyway). But, you forget your earlier concession that one has COP in
> their labor on these grounds above.
No. I haven't forgotten that.
> That is, you have conceded that COP in
> labor reduces to NOF.
Yes, I think so.
> What if they comingle their labor with an object?
They would still "own" the labor in the sense that noone would have
permission to take it from them by force.
They would, however, not "own" the object itself after they put it
somewhere. If someone would find a solution to extract the labor from
the object, he could still take the object. (I'm not saying that this
was possible, just looking at it from theoretical points of view)
> According to you they can do this by first acquiring COP in the object by
> picking it up (if it is not otherwise owned but you say that it cannot be
> otherwise owned, so this proviso should ot matter to you).
Yes.
However, what would we do about the problem that people could simply go
everywhere, take as many things as possible and investing as few labor
as possible in them?
> >All your argumentation is based on the fact that you can without
> >initiating force go somewhere and stand somewhere. I agree with this.
> >However, you do not prove that byou can go away from that point and
> >still own it under any circumstances.
>
> I do not need to show that you can do this under _any_ circumstances.
Oh, yes, you do, since COP would an absolute right.
> I
> merely need to show that it can be done under _some_ circumstances.
No. If you merely show that COP applies in _some_ circumstances, you
don't prove that it applies in _all_ circumstances.
You are turning around the system of logic here.
It does take just _one_ example to prove something _wrong_, not the
other way around.
> In
> fact, Locke, himself, said that there are many circumstances in which it
> could not be done. However if there is so much as _one_ scenario that it
> can be done, then under this scenario one can have the traditional COP
> simply on the grounds that otherwise NOF would be violated. Indeed, I would
> even go so far as to say that at least for the purposes of this disscussion
> it is precisely the collection of scenarios in which COP can be reduced to
> NOF even after one loses possession of the object that we have a legitimate
> claim to property and that in any other case we simple do not. It is
> _precisely_ on these grounds that I reject socialism.
I agree with you that COP is true for all scenarions where it can be
reduced to NOF.
However, COP is not true for scenarios in which it cannot be reduced to
NOF.
Thus if you just leave the land you have claimed, someone else can come
and take it. Thus COP wouldn't be an absolute right.
You wouldn't be able to own land (except for the land you are standing
on). Thus the difference between personal property (that socialists to
accept) and real property (that only capitalists accept).
Basically, for land, it is the difference between the production (aka
your harvest, which can be owned by yourself) and the means of
production (aka the land itself, which cannot be owned by yourself).
Basically, you have concluded what Marx has concluded.
If the above is true, Marx's theory would be correct up to the point
where work was invested in the means of production.
> >Oh, it has. Because that is what "definition" means. It is not the
> >etymology, it is the exact translation. One might say that the word
> >definition is defined as exactly that.
>
> definition n. a statement of the meaning of a word or the nature of a thing
I know. I do own several dictionaries.
In latin, definiton meant the same thing, used as a metapher.
The metapher of "borders around a word" to exactly make sure what it can
mean and what not, is a direct derivative of the concept of land
ownership.
> The fact that it might of once been used to mean something else is
> irrelevant to this meaning -- the common understanding and the menaing I
> intend when using the word. Stick to the issue here.
I am. I am saying that 2000 years ago, people derived the idea of
defining the meaning of words from the idea of owning land. Thus, if the
concept of defining words can be reduced to land ownership, it is
logical to assume that both are the same, since no other cause would be
used in this system.
> >Do you know the legend of how Rome was founded? It points at exactly
> >that problem.
> >
> >Romulus and Remus stood in that valley in the middle of the seven hills
> >(in 753 BC apparantly ("septem quinque tres nata romana res")). They
> >were brothers and woulnd _never_ initiate force against each other.
> >
> >Well, then Romulus took a stick and marked the valley, which was
> >unclaimed at that point, as _his_ property for _his_ town he wanted to
> >found. He defined (made borders) this area as his. He claimed he would
> >kill anyone who wouldn't accept his definition. Remus did not accept it,
> >walked over the line, and was killed.
> >
> >The question is, who initiated force against whom.
> >
> >I believe it was Romulus by first trying to force Remus to accept his
> >_definition_. Romulus could not _prove_ that this land was his, he only
> >defined that he could draw a line around it to make this _his_ land and
> >thus redefine his rights within it borders.
>
> I would probably agree with you. He did not sufficiently (or at all for
> that matter) comingle his labor with the land to make it rightfully his.
How would you define how much labor he would need to make it rightfully
his?
However, the above is the very base of the Roman law, which was the
grounds for the English law, which was then the grounds for the American
law. Thus in the real world, COP is absoutely based on that which I said
above.
> >That is where the word comes from. This is what a definition is. And a
> >definition cannot be reduced to anything, and must be forced on other
> >people in order to be valid.
>
> Or agreed upon. Actually, it cannot be forced on anyone -- that is
> physically impossible, unless you have a way of actually entering my mind.
> A definition is agreed upon as any linguist will tell you. When you say
> "forced upon" you are not referring to the concept which one may or may not
> _understand_, but rather the physical ramifications based on the concept or
> argument that may or may not be agreed to. If some one undertands what you
> are saying, then they understand your defintion and agree to it. What they
> disagree with is the arguments based on it.
Ok.
> >Tell that Eric (anonymous), he doesn't even understand that.
>
> You may be misinterpretting him, though I have admittedly not read his post
> since I have been struggling just to get my own in, having been out of town
> all this time. If he says that X is self evident and then procedes to
> justify X, then maybe he means something different from what you think he
> means.
That is a possibility, but Eric has too long showen that he doesn't
really care for thinking about my position anyway.
Read his postings, you will see what I mean.
> >> That is exactly false.
> >
> >Then why do you always use COP to prove COP?
>
> I don't
In earlier postings you do.
You said that it would require force to make you give up the land you
claimed. Thus COP would exist in NOF. At least this is what I remember.
> >Wrong. Again you are discussing this using COP. COP is not the
> >difference between something is owned or is not owned, but the
> >difference between something _could_ be owned or could not be owned.
>
> COP is the idea that one have a right to use, dispose of, etc a physical
> object.
And that other do not have this right, yes.
> Now if I say that an other wise unowned physical object may be
> acquired then I am making a proviso that according to you I need not even
> make.
If COP can be reduced to NOF, you wouldn't have to, that is correct.
> your position is that no physical object that is not already
> possessed could possibly be owned according to NOF. I claim this is false,
> so I have to make these additional provisos to remain consistent.
What additional provisos? And how can they be reduced to NOF?
What could you possibly derive from NOF which could change the outcome
of a scenario which was valid before?
> However,
> supposing you are correct, then it must be the case that I have COP simply
> by possessing an object without using force against anyone to do it.
That is correct, yes.
> >You are discussing the matter from within the system, still.
>
> Not really. Reread it.
I did, several times. I can't see your point.
> >> One could not say they are nto
> >> initiating force by taking physical possession of the object.
> >
> >But that's not what I say.
> >
>
> That is true! You have conceded that COP exists in an object that is
> possessed. I only make those additional provisos because later on you will
> see they are necessary.
What is neccessary is of no issue here.
It might also be neccessary to introduce social welfare and government
to make our island work. However, if it can't be reduced to NOF, you
would have to use force to make people accept your additional provisos.
> >No doubt. But then again, this is not COP. COP is the concept that
> >people still must use force to take something from you which yu are not
> >using.
>
> Yes that is COP. COP is the right to dispose of, use, possess, etc. a
> physical object.
Exactly. And the above concept is the right to dispose of, use, possess,
etc. a physical object while you are doing one of the actions (aka
holding it in your hands, standint on it, etc.). The above is a subset
of COP, which can be reduced to NOF. We called it CPP.
> This right under our thread can only be derived from NOF
> or the rules of logic.
That is correct.
> Therefore, if you have such a right and so are said
> to have COP,
No. This only applies for the above subset.
> then that is logically equivalent to saying that COP means the
> application of NOF to certain circumstances.
Correct for CPP. Not for COP.
> >NOF is self-evident, as much as any other idea we might make up. 1+1=2
> >is self-evident. All axioms are self-evident, altaugh it becomes
> >unpoplar to say so, because more complicated axioms are not easy to
> >understand.
>
> I am not sure those axioms are necessarily self evident. Actually there are
> what are known as Peano's Axioms from which we could derive 1+1=2 (by the
> definition of "1", "+", and "2"). Godel proved that these axioms are not
> reducible to the rules of logic since first order logic is complete and
> arithmetic is not.
It is fun discussing this with you, as you always seem to know what I am
talking about. This is a compliment.
> In any case, I think that the axioms of morality are
> really just the rules of logic.
If you happened to prove _that_, you might win the argument!
However, I doubt it.
> Were this not the case, then anyone may
> construct a different set of axioms and correctly claim that their set shows
> the morality of their views (which are presumably in conflict with other
> views based on other axioms). I think though that there is a unique,
> correct answer to the question "which set of axioms are correct?"
Couldn't be, because of the very definition of the concept of axioms. We
could doubt that concept of course, but then we would fall through the
net of language and logic and couldn't discuss anything.
(But we might reach a new point in human abilities, tho) :-)
> The reason I think this is true is because claerly the language says mor
> than what is contained in the axioms of logic since it introduces objects
> that would otherwise not be discussed such as "person", "force", etc. Also,
> the rules of logic may be applied to the definitions of these objects in
> order to discuss how they relate to each other, and so conclusions may be
> drawn based on these definitions and the rules of logic. These conclusions
> (one of which I have outlined previously), I think, are nontrivial and in
> any case constitute what can be considered objective morality. The rest is
> subjective.
The only objective facts we have are nature's laws, which we currently
don't understand. Nature's laws cannot be wrong, because it is
impossible for us to leave the system they define. Thus we can never see
the system from the outside, where nature's laws would be axioms as
well. If you believe in god, you can name that which is outside our
system "god", who, according to old belief, made up nature's laws.
> >If property rights are not self-evident, then why are you unable to
> >reduce them to NOF without using them to prove it?
>
> Well, I thought that would mean that COP is not self evident, but rather a
> derived result (if I could reduce it to a more fundamental principle like
> NOF).
That is difficult.
If you could prove that NOF was only a result of a more fundamental
principle and can be reduced to it, you might also prove that COP can
also be reduced to that more fundamental principle (MFP). However, if
COP exists in the NOF subsystem of the MFP system, while contradicting
NOF, something must be seriously wrong with the whole concept of logic.
I propose we do not think about this, since for the matter of this
experiment we have _agreed_ on NOF to be true. We have not agreed that
NOF was only the result of something else, neither have we started to
discuss the issue on some other principle.
> Regardless of what you want to call self-evident and what you would
> call a derived result, I think that COP reduces to NOF.
Regardsless of what you want to call self-evident my question stands.
_How_ can it be reduced to NOF?
> >> Then
> >> it must be equally rational to treat person B to person A by the same
> >> argument (none at all).
> >
> >No, that would be against this axiom. The axiom "A is better than B" is
> >not neccessarily comparative. It even contradicts that notion.
>
> Actually A is better than B does not specify who A is or who B is.
In political terms it usually does, as A is defined as white people, and
B is defined as black people. Very often.
Do not mix up the idea of variables in algebra and informatics!
> I
> specifically made it a general rule. I am saying that one may not
> arbitrarily assign preference and requiring A and B be interchangeable -- to
> be merely names.
If A is better than B, these are clearly not interchangeable.
> >> This result contradicts the hypothesis.
> >
> >Your result does, because you are assuming, against the currently valid
> >axiom, that A and B are interchangeable, which they aren't, according to
> >the currently valid definition.
>
> Actually, that is not what the axiom says. The axiom says that I will take
> some object and treat it preferential to another as a rule in some way.
> However, if I do this without specifying the specific objects and make it a
> rule to do so at my discretion to any objects, then it results in a
> contradiction since I the objects are logically interchangeable if I am
> constructing a general rule.
That would mean that your axiom's terms (A and B) and comparative, which
they are clearly not. Thus you can only apply it once to your set (aka
the tribe) and NOT turn it around after that.
For that you would need a different axiom that is comparative.
> >What you are trying to say is that the axiom is "A better B" contradicts
> >the axiom of equality of all letters (in this case). It does not,
> >however, contradict itself.
>
> No -- I am not talking about the letter A and the letter B.
_I know_. And this is not what I assumed. You are disappointing me. I
assumed you meant A and B in the algebraic sense, and I believe that you
mixed it up with A and B as variables in the informatic sense.
> "A" and "B" are
> merely variables to formulate a rule. So that you could be the one in
> referred to in a specific case by A and I could be referred to in a specific
> case by B. Later on, I could be referred to in a different case by A and
> you could be referred to by B. They are variables not constants.
Actually, in algebra, a variable is constant after it was "filled" with
something _once_. What you are talking about is variables in
informatics, which can be used as often as you like. However, algebraic
variables are more similar to constants in programming (I happened to
participiate in an Ada95 course in TFH college in Berlin
(http://www.tfh-berlin.de). My professor pointed that out to the class
at the very beginning.).
> >Not if it is an accepted axiom. You cannot prove an axiom.
>
> I am showing that the rule cannot exist coherently.
You are showing that the rule is not comparative, which doesn't matter.
Examples of such rules are religion and feudalism. However, our possible
systems for our tribes are comparative as I believe.
> >Whether you accept an axiom or not is entirely subjective. We accepted
> >the axiom of NOF. I suggested that we also force COP on our tribe.
>
> That is not true at all. Is the meaning of "subjective" an axiom or require
> the assumption of certain axioms? If so, then what you are saying could
> just as easily be false as true. You are trying to make meaningfully true
> utterances. Such an activity requires the assumption of the rules of logic
> which are themselves axioms.
Ok.
So within the rules of logic, can COP be reduced to NOF?
> >You can claim that you have a right to take it back, when someone took
> >it from you, but this isn't COP yet.
>
> I am saying that we are not considering such cases yet by adding the
> proviso. Do you agree or disagree that the use of force above is an
> initiation of force? You agree -- you have conceded this point. Your
> question is how does one maintain control of the object even if they no
> longer actually possess it?
That's the question. How can one redefine the use of force required to
take something from someone to a defensive force?
> Now what if this object is inexorably comingled
> with the holders labor? Can another just come and take possession of it?
> You said no to this. Actually, I think even the purest communist must agree
> with you and me that one owns their labor.
I believe they do.
That's probably what Marx meant when he said "the means of production",
as opposed to the production itself ("production" being defined as
"object+work").
> >> Then you agree that Justice of Transfer cannot occur simply in me setting
> >> the stick down once I have in some way managed to own it to begin with.
> >
> >JOT requires COP to exist. Your ownership of the stick vanished at the
> >very moment you put it away. You only keep the ownership of the work
> >invested. For anything else, COP would have to exist.
>
> JOT discusses whether or not and/or when you retain ownership when you put
> the stick down not that you always do. If that ownership vanished then you
> are saying that JOT says that ownership is automatically transferred to
> anyone that does not take the stick by force. I am saying that this is not
> logically possible if one owns their labor and comingles it with the stick.
Whatever work you invest in the stick, it is yours. Nobody can take it
from you by force. However, the stick itself is not. By investing work
in the stick, you make it impossible for others to own the stick, but
don't exactly own it yourself. _Theoretically_ someone could still use
the stick.
> In this case, you still in a sense have possession of the stick since you
> possess the labor that is irremovable from the stick. You have conceded
> this point to me.
And vice versa, since I never doubted it.
> When you put a stick comingled with your labor down then
> for someone else to deny you access to what may now be called _your_ stick
> constitutes a violation of NOF.
Yes. But I wouldn't call it "your stick". Otherwise we might forget,
that the stick itself is not yet your property (after you put it down).
Afaik the only way to "own" a stick is to "own" the land it was found
on. If the land was privately owned, the rules for how to accuire the
stick would be redefined. Just taking it would suddenly be an initiation
of force, as opposed to before.
> >However, that does not explain property that exists without work, aka
> >land or anything else you found. If you find same stick, do not invest
> >work, and put it away, COP would make it still yours, without COP you
> >would loose all rights to own it.
>
> What if a I build a house on the land or plow it to make a garden? Then I
> have comingled my labor with it. Not even Locke said that if you did not
> comingle your labor with something that you own it. Indeed, he said the
> opposite of that. COP is the right to physical objects not some wierd
> contrived notion that you are making it out to be. We could just as well
> talk about the Right to Physical Objects (RPO) as COP and how they work in
> connection with the Rules Of Logic (ROL) and the Noninitiation Of Force
> principle (NOF). You would be saying then RPO+ROL+NOF<COP and that the
> balancing item is the use of force (i.e. throwing out NOF for a slightly
> modified pronciple that allows some intiation of force). I am saying that
> COP is by defintion the sum of those three, and that you are just saying
> what you think COP entails when you say that no one can own something once
> they reliquish actual possession of it. This much is surely true since you
> have a notion of private property in as much as one actually possesses an
> object and so acquires RPO in it. That is a concept of property -- a COP.
> The question is do they lose their RPO when the put the object down.
Building a house on a piece of land is one way to "own" land (as long as
the house stands on it). However, COP is not only that. COP is the
concept that you can own unused land that you might never use.
"The land is owned by those who work it" is not a capitalist concept!
> >> The traditional sense is that I would be able to claim ownership of the
> >> whistle if someone picked it up after I had set it down (without directly
> >> using force).
> >
> >For the whistle, yes.
>
> You have conceded the point. We have COP then for the whistle in any
> heretofore discussed notion of COP. I have RPO to the whistle even if I am
> not in possession of it! That is all that is required for the Concept of
> Property as it exists in a laissez faire captalist context.
No. With the above you cannot explain how one can possibly own unused
land. The above does explain why you can own the production, it does not
explain why you can own the means of production (aka land and
resources).
The concept of capitalism, however, requires private ownership of the
means of production.
You own the work invested in the whistle, not the stick you made it of.
This is just a theoretical point, but you seem to want to forget it.
However, this very point makes the difference between socialism and
capitalism and all that comes after it.
> >If work was invested, yes. However, this is exactly what makes the
> >difference between a whistle and land.
>
> What if I plow the land and make a garde out of it? What if I build a house
> on it?
In that case you own house and garden, but still not the land. You own
the production (what you made of it), but not the means of production
(aka the land you built it on).
If you sold it you could only get paid for the house, not for the land
it stands on.
> >The above does not prove the justice of acquisition. It does only prove
> >two points:
> >
> >a) You own something as long as you hold it.
> >
> >b) You own anything which you owned according to a) and invested work
> >in.
>
> What?? Did we not start with an unowned stick and end with a whistle that
> was owned by its creator even if its creator temporarily reliquish control
> of the object? Then the creator has acquired this stick.
No. He did not accuire anything. He just owns what he always owned: his
work. He does not suddenly own something else. The stick is still not
owned by him, only the work invested in it. However, the word invested
makes it impossible for others to take it from you.
> >If I am not mistaked justice of acquisition gives you the right to
> >continue to own something even after you have put it away and have
> >invested no work in it.
>
> You are mistaken. JOA simply says how you may acquire if at all possible
> (JOA could conceivably say, for instance, that there is No Justice in
> Acuisition) RPO in a physical object. You have done so merely by possessing
> it. The whistle, though, you cannot acquire this way since you are
> possessing someone else's labor and so violating NOF.
The same way the owner of the work invested cannot acquire the stick he
made the whistle from. He can only own the work and thus reserve the
stick himself.
For our tribe, I think, we need to define how many sticks one is allowed
to invest work in. Otherwise one indian might start "investing" work in
every single tree he sees.
I stand with proposition 001, which would regulate the whole concept
once and for all.
> >This situation is not covered by the above argumentation. Justice of
> >acquisition cannot exist without COP and thus cannot be used to prove
> >COP.
>
> JOA is not COP nor does it rely on COP. JOA is merely the set of rules
> under which one may justly acquire RPO.
Acquiring something redefines the rules that may be applied to it.
Anything that can be reduced to a concept doesn't change anything in the
scenario of the concept. Otherwise we would have a new effect and thus a
new cause.
> >> If it is yes, then I have property rights.
> >
> >No. You have the right to your work, which canot be taken from you
> >without initiating force against you. Owning that which you use or
> >created is not COP. COP is the principle of owning that which you own,
> >even things you
> >
> >a) don't currently hold in your hands
> >
> >AND
> >
> >b) have not invested work in.
> >
>
> No that is not COP (the Concept of Property). COP is simply the conditions
> under which one has RPO (the Right to Physical Objects)
You overlooked the word "even", I believe.
Or do you disagree that in our capitalistic systems objects that fit the
criteria a) and b) can be owned?
> >Land, which you have claimed, is not covered by the above argumentation,
> >and neither would be a whistle which you find somewhere, assuming that
> >nobody claims to have created it, of course.
>
> That is correct. If the whistle were eventually shown to have been created
> by someone that wnated it back, then you would have to violate NOF in order
> to keep it. As far as land goes, are you saying that it is impossible for
> someone to comingle their labor with land buth that they can comingle their
> labor with a stick?
No. Nor have I in the past, I think.
> >What you prove above is a form of ownership, but not the concept of
> >property required for a capitalist system.
>
> Indeed it is the only concept of property necessary for capitalism.
> Capitalism merely requires the concept of private property. We have shown
> that one can have private property in something. Done.
We would have "capitalism light". However, we cannot sell land,
resources, and food/water.
I doubt that this capitalism will work for long.
I believe that we better define a right to own land, its natural
resources, and waterways (or we define how waterways can be used by
everyone).
Proposition 001 does this.
> >It is basically that which socialists would force you to accept it
> >doesn't exist.
> >
> >On the other hand real property (aka land, which has neither been
> >created by you nor are you always standing on it) is a concept forced on
> >you by libertarians.
>
> Not really. The stick was not created by you but you managed to comingle
> your labor with it. How exactly is carving a whistle out of a stick
> comingling labor while tilling the soil not comingly labor. Plowing,
> sewing, etc is back breaking work!
You are reducing this question to a problem we never had. I do not doubt
that you own the production of whatever you plant on land. I only doubt
that you own the land, the means of production. Or, which is probably
more correct, I doubt that you can reduce this to NOF.
> >The system we currently have for our tribe is some kind of centrist
> >anarchism, accepting the right to own personal property (aka anything
> >which you currently hold or invested work in), but not the right to own
> >real property (aka something you own, but is not covered by the above).
>
> Okay. Then I find a plot of land on which no one is standing. I erect a
> house and plant a garden real quick while no one is looking. ;-) Now are
> you saying that I have not comingled my labor with the land?
No. Nor have I indicated that much.
> I guess they
> can take and move the house and garden (unscathed) to a new location if they
> want but my house is merely a collection of "sticks" I have acquired. I
> have labored on the garden and barring any interference, I will receive
> great rewards for my laboring.
Yes. Let's call it the "production".
For the purpose of this experiment:
production = object + work
And our addition (+) is defined as
"The sum of an addition is owned by whoever turns out to be the only
owner of any number of the involved actions and objects."
In no way would we have a chance to redefine the status of any of the
involved objects and/or actions based on the result. Doing this would
make the status of the object/action in question recursive and thus
self-evident, which we want to avoid.
> Where did all this labor go if not comingled
> into the land?
Again, you are barking up the wrong tree. See the addition rule and
whether you agree with it.
> How is it that this labor could yield any fruits if it was
> not cmingled with anything?
See above.
> I could understand if I just sat in one place
> and strained real hard, but my labor will bear fruit. How can it do this
> and not be comingled with something, and if it is comingled with something
> then what if not the land?
See above.
> >I would like to refer to this first concept as CPP (concept of personal
> >property), and would want to know whether you agree that CPP was a
> >theorem, not an axiom, as it doesn't need itself to be proven.
>
> I agree wholeheartedly that CPP is a theorem. I would say that my house and
> garden is CPP -- I guess you would not.
Of course I would. As I have all the time. That's why I wanted to devide
COP in two subsets: CPP (personal property) and CRP (real property).
(Or cop.a and cop.b in our functional terms.)
> >Again, you are assuming that property rights already exist. If someone
> >doesn't have A (could be property rights), the logical conclusion is not
> >neccessarily that someone else owns A. A might also not exist.
>
> I am not saying that since I do not own A someone else must. I am saying
> that since I _cannot acquire_ A someone else must already own A. Think
> about the whistle example. I cannot acquire someone else's whistle.
Again, if you don't own something, it wouldn't have to automatically be
owned by someone else. It might also be unowned and might not even be
"ownable". Thus this proves nothing.
> >The fact that someone doesn't own A, does not prove anything, since
> >there are two unknowns in this statement.
>
> If no one owns A, then no one can object to me picking it up and possessing
> it.
No. But you can also not object to anyone picking it up AFTER you had
owned it (except, of course, you add work to the object and make it a
production as shown in my theorem above).
> >Does A exist?
>
> Presumably physical objects exist.
What about property rights as a status of an object (object owned /
object not owned)?
> >Does someone else own A?
>
> The only way one can object to my taking possession of A is if they already
> own it. Under the hypothesis that this prior ownership is impossible, I may
> justly acquire A in this way (which simply means that I have RPO in A).
For the time you hold and after you invested work in it.
> >> So if I apply car wax to a floor then I am also applying the floor to the
> >> car wax?
> >
> >Yes. Don't you agree?
>
> No
Hm.
What's the physical difference?
I'd think "applying" something to something else was equivalent to an
addition (like addign wax to the floor).
> >> >But if you reduce B to A you do not reduce A to B.
> >> >
> >> >Our concept A (aka NOF), which we _agreed_ on, is self-evident, and
> >> >cannot be proven. We just believe in it and accept it for our
> >> >experiment.
> >>
> >> For the purposes of this discussion...
> >
> >Yes.
> >
>
> Though it may be derivable from ROL itself and the meaning of the terms in
> the statement of NOF.
I'm confused. What's ROL? I am writing this one day after I actually
read it the first time and only had the edited quote version of. Did I
accidentally erase the part about ROL?
> >> >Axioms (aka self-evident concepts) cannot be proven and cannot be
> >> >reduced to anything, otherwise they wouldn't be self-evident.
> >>
> >> yep
> >
> >_Please_ tell that Eric. :-)
> >
>
> I think he is on my side! ;-)
I think it won't do you any good that he is. :-(
> >> >To reduce COP to NOF, you need not apply NOF to COP, since if COP can be
> >> >reduced to NOF, NOF is valid for it anyway.
> >>
> >> That is right. I do not need to take different notions of ownership and
> >> apply NOF to see which ones are acceptable.
> >
> >I'm not sure whether I understand you correctly?
>
> I am not applying NOF to pick a notion of ownership which violates it the
> least. I am using NOF to derive a _unique_ notion of ownership (RPO) that
> does not violate it.
I don't think that using NOF is the same as reducing something to it. In
any ways, your RPO can only mean something which would only be valid if
RPO wouldn't be stated at all, IF it is reduceable to NOF.
> >Are you saying that if you reduce one subset of COP to NOF, all other
> >subsets must be true as well?
>
> That subset whichis reducible to NOF is COP by defintion unless no subset
> may be reduced to NOF. What we say is such and such is not a legitimate
> concept of property if it does not reduce to NOF.
Ok.
So you agree with me that anything that might be considered property in
the real world, which cannot be proven to be reduceable to NOF, is not
part of the COP (which is actually just CPP, as we defined it) in our
experiment?
In that case you cannot go and claim land, as I pointed out at the very
beginning.
You might build a house on unsed land, tho. But anyone who wants to can
walk around your house, even in your garden, if he doesn't do any harm
to your production.
Anyway, I would consider this scenario rather difficult to apply to our
tribe, since all 100 men would immidiately start fighting about where
they want to build houses, and noone had a right to build any house
anywhere, as I believe all tribe members would want the best place to do
so.
That is why I stand with proposition 001, which means exactly that we
introduce CRP (concept of real property) and devide the land among all
our tribe members. Only then can we have ownership of land and natural
resources, water and food.
To make our economy go, we could also define public property (aka 3
meters to each side of each border between two then-privately-owned
pieces of land (for use as streets) and a neutrality of waterways (aka
also owned by everyone).
> >That would be wrong.
> >
> >If we define NOF as true, which we did for the purpose of this
> >discussion, and subset A of COP (aka personal property, aka property you
> >currently hold or invested work into) is true:
> >
> >cop.a == true
> >
> >You cannot conclude that COP is true.
>
> What is COP? Maybe you should give me a precise statement of it without
> using "property" or "concept"
As I said before (I think) I understand COP as the concept of property
we usually refer to in the real world, which can be devided in several
subclasses, as I believe:
1. Personal Property (aka anything that you currently hold or have
invested work in)
2. Real Property (aka land)
3. Intelectual Property (which has not yet been discussed and has a
somewhat special status, since it can be copied)
Subset 1 (cop.a or CPP) can be reduced to NOF.
Subset 2 (cop.b or CRP) cannot be reduced to NOF (imo).
Subset 3 (cop.c or IP) has not yet been discussed.
(I would also define two subsets of 3 for a beginning:
3.1 (cop.c.a or PI): Personal Information (aka diaries etc.)
3.2 (cop.c.b or RI): Real Information (aka books you publish, software)
but we might want to discuss this AFTER we solved our first problem. So
I would ask you to copy the above three points, save them somewhere, and
come back to them after the CPP/CRP discussion.
> >For anything to be true ALL its subsets must be true, aka.
> >
> >IF (cop.a == true) AND (cop.b == true) THEN cop=true.
>
> I nor any libertarian would say that every possible way to decide on
> property is true.
The above is not about different ways to decide on property. It is about
different concepts of property.
If subset 1 (CPP) is true, as we agreed, it doesn't prove that subset 2
(CRP) is also true. However, capitalism somewhat requires private
ownership of all means of production, including natural resources.
> In particular, we reject socialism. So we would say by
> your syntax cop.s is false. However, SOP was originally supposed to refer
> to the capitalist/libertarian notion of property.
See above.
> >We know cop.a to be true, since it can be reduced to NOF.
> >
> >But from this we cannot conclude that cop.b must also be true, which you
> >apparently do, as all your argumentations are based on cop.a.
>
> Indeed I do. CPP is an example of cop.b
Not at all, as CPP is equivalent to cop.a in the above formula. "cop.a"
is the idea that somebody owns something which he has not invested work
into and does not currently hold in his hands.
In anyway, if you turn it around and say CPP was cop.b, then cop.a
wouldn't have to be true. I suggest we stay with whatever name was made
up first to avoid serious stress.
> >> The only way to say this force was not an
> >> initiation of force is if one had previously had ownership in the object.
> >
> >One might say it this way: "The only way to _define_ this force as a
> >defensive force is if one had previously had ownership in the object."
>
> You might say that, but I wouldn't. The only reason you think it is a
> definition is because you do not know its derivation. See the CPP that you
> have agreed to. We did not define anything -- it follows from NOF
As I stated in the formula, that doesn't prove that all property must be
reduceable to NOF. You found ONE concept of property (aka personal
property) that can be reduced to NOF. I didn't actually doubt that at
all.
Adrian
done flawlessly for the time being). Then you go out and build a house and
a garden. The only point I ever tried to make was that one can do this, if
nothing else, without anyone's permission, and do work on something and own
the work they did without forfeiting it on the grounds that they never owned
what they did work on. Of course if we had a notion of ownership in the
state of natuer (as locke calls it) then we might not be able to claim this,
but we are in the state of nature -- no ownership yet. So we can add work
to something and, at the same time, add value.
In any case, lets suppose for the moment that one has the right to dislocate
me from my house and garden if they compensate me fairly for my work. Then
they should pay me the difference of the value of unsettled land and the
settled land at the minimum. Is it not possible with this method of
compensating that one could accumulate, through their own hard work, much
wealth? Would they also not have the right to give this wealth if they so
chose to anyone they wished? What if they were hard workers and accumulated
much more wealth than they needed just to survive and eventually passed this
wealth to their children whom they instilled the same work ethic and so on?
Couldn't we eventually have rich and poor? Couldn't it be that there would
be those that never could really get off the ground so to speak (maybe it
was their work ethic, maybe they just never were that bright) and so their
children start almost with nothing whereas most children start with much
more and some children yet would start with far more than even the
average -- possibly enough that they would never have to labor a day in
their lives because of their magnanamous ancestors?
You have conceded that one owns their labor. Does that mean that they can
only have as much as they need to survive and/or could carry with them, and
that the rest is negotiable if someone else, say, does not have enough to
survive? I think not. It is entirely possible that one do more work than
is clearly sufficient let alone necessary to allow them to survive several
times over -- even assuming they start fresh with nothing other than what
can be reasonably assumed we all should at least start with. For the time
being, I will assume that one might have to pay some small property tax (for
that portion of their property they gained by JOA), and that this tax goes
to orphans that did not have the benefit of parents to help them through
childhood so that they may have the same minimal fresh start of anyone.
This tax would also pay for the minimal government required to allow them
access to the land (this much I might, in fact, require) -- police, army,
legislators, a judiciary, ....
Okay, all of these things I can see so far at least _potentially_ allowable
without violating their right to their labor. But these taxes and programs
are rather minimal compared to public health care, for instance. Moreover,
we have the potential for far more than personal property. In time, one
might labor far more than others (as what used to be both the American and
German -- I think -- paradigm for success) to accumulate great wealth. In
fact, over time someone could accumulate a lot of surplus wealth in a
business, say, and their children could labor as hard, taking over the
family business and accumulate even more wealth as the business grows due to
their labor. Over time a family might get quite rich as their cousins sell
off parts of the business becoming interested in other things or not wanting
to work very hard, while they continue the traditional work ethic.
Not long ago (or maybe it is still with us) in America, there used to be a
motto "work smarter, not harder". That means that the prior generation
(that is who they were criticizing, but if not them then surely someone) was
being criticized for trying to accumulate wealth the old fashoined way -- by
working for it (no not inheriting it or prostituting for it or politicing
for it or stealing it or gambling for it or selling for it or conning
someone out of it or beating someone up for it....). They were being
criticized for working too hard when there were easier more efficient ways
to profit -- perhaps through the government.
Keeping the list of acronyms with us...
>> We also have the following acronyms:
>
>> NOF = noninitiation of force (the principle of)
>> COP = the concept of property
>> CPP = the concept of personal property
>> RPO = the right to physical objects
>> ROL = the rules of logic
>
>Ok. That was it. :-)
>(I forgot that in the other post. I better make a list and publish it on
>my website (www.netneurotic.de).
>
>> JOA = justice of acquisition
>> JOT = justice of transfer
>> JOR = justice of rectification
>
>And CRP = concept of real property
>
Andrew J. Brehm
> Okay, so lets measure everything quantitatively (and assume that that can be
> done flawlessly for the time being). Then you go out and build a house and
> a garden. The only point I ever tried to make was that one can do this, if
> nothing else, without anyone's permission, and do work on something and own
> the work they did without forfeiting it on the grounds that they never owned
> what they did work on.
What you said was this:
"Whatever piece of unclaimed land I can farm, the products of which are
mine."
So far I can agree with this (with the minor, but important exception
that I do not agree with the concept of "claiming" land, as this would
change the status of an object, which according to production = object +
work, is not possible).
"No one has a right to it."
That's where we disagree. You don't have any other right to the land in
question than anyone else. You just happen to own the work invested in
it. The result does not effect the factors, thus the status of the
object can never ben changed without initiating force.
> Of course if we had a notion of ownership in the
> state of natuer (as locke calls it) then we might not be able to claim this,
As I said.
> but we are in the state of nature -- no ownership yet. So we can add work
> to something and, at the same time, add value.
Certainly. But "claiming" land does not add value for it. It's only the
grounds for working the land in a capitalist system, which we don't have
(maybe yet).
> In any case, lets suppose for the moment that one has the right to dislocate
> me from my house and garden if they compensate me fairly for my work.
> Then
> they should pay me the difference of the value of unsettled land and the
> settled land at the minimum. Is it not possible with this method of
> compensating that one could accumulate, through their own hard work, much
> wealth?
Certainly.
> Would they also not have the right to give this wealth if they so
> chose to anyone they wished?
Certainly.
> What if they were hard workers and accumulated
> much more wealth than they needed just to survive and eventually passed this
> wealth to their children whom they instilled the same work ethic and so on?
> Couldn't we eventually have rich and poor? Couldn't it be that there would
> be those that never could really get off the ground so to speak (maybe it
> was their work ethic, maybe they just never were that bright) and so their
> children start almost with nothing whereas most children start with much
> more and some children yet would start with far more than even the
> average -- possibly enough that they would never have to labor a day in
> their lives because of their magnanamous ancestors?
I don't doubt that, nor have I before.
> You have conceded that one owns their labor.
You are formulating this as if I did not agree with this at the
beginning. Even communists talk about state ownership of the means of
production, not the work invested.
> Does that mean that they can
> only have as much as they need to survive and/or could carry with them, and
> that the rest is negotiable if someone else, say, does not have enough to
> survive? I think not.
They can have anything they invested work in or currently use any
anything which someone who did have these rights voluntarily gave to
them. Nothing else.
> It is entirely possible that one do more work than
> is clearly sufficient let alone necessary to allow them to survive several
> times over -- even assuming they start fresh with nothing other than what
> can be reasonably assumed we all should at least start with. For the time
> being, I will assume that one might have to pay some small property tax (for
> that portion of their property they gained by JOA), and that this tax goes
> to orphans that did not have the benefit of parents to help them through
> childhood so that they may have the same minimal fresh start of anyone.
> This tax would also pay for the minimal government required to allow them
> access to the land (this much I might, in fact, require) -- police, army,
> legislators, a judiciary, ....
We don't have a government yet. See proposition 002.
> Okay, all of these things I can see so far at least _potentially_ allowable
> without violating their right to their labor. But these taxes and programs
> are rather minimal compared to public health care, for instance.
Oh, we probably won't have public health care, as we don't rate life as
anything. We base our tribe's society on NOF, which doesn't define life
to be worth anything.
Our philophy is not a philosophy defining anything, but rather a
philosophy that forbids people to use force against others.
The only reason why you can't murder someone legally on our island is
that you are not allowed to do so without his consent, not because life
was worth anything.
> Moreover,
> we have the potential for far more than personal property. In time, one
> might labor far more than others (as what used to be both the American and
> German -- I think -- paradigm for success) to accumulate great wealth. In
> fact, over time someone could accumulate a lot of surplus wealth in a
> business, say, and their children could labor as hard, taking over the
> family business and accumulate even more wealth as the business grows due to
> their labor. Over time a family might get quite rich as their cousins sell
> off parts of the business becoming interested in other things or not wanting
> to work very hard, while they continue the traditional work ethic.
Maybe.
> Not long ago (or maybe it is still with us) in America, there used to be a
> motto "work smarter, not harder". That means that the prior generation
> (that is who they were criticizing, but if not them then surely someone) was
> being criticized for trying to accumulate wealth the old fashoined way -- by
> working for it (no not inheriting it or prostituting for it or politicing
> for it or stealing it or gambling for it or selling for it or conning
> someone out of it or beating someone up for it....). They were being
> criticized for working too hard when there were easier more efficient ways
> to profit -- perhaps through the government.
Well, we have no axiom or rule stating that we need to ensure equal
chances for everyone. We took the Libertarian axiom set, not the liberal
one (European Liberals believe in what is called "humanistic
liberalism", where the human being is in the foreground, which
ultimately means that life is worth more than property and must be
treated as such by everyone. Also, it stands for equal chances which
must be paid for by everyone as well).
Adrian
Andrew J. Brehm wrote in message
>Adrian <dur...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> Okay, so lets measure everything quantitatively (and assume that that can
be
>> done flawlessly for the time being). Then you go out and build a house
and
>> a garden. The only point I ever tried to make was that one can do this,
if
>> nothing else, without anyone's permission, and do work on something and
own
>> the work they did without forfeiting it on the grounds that they never
owned
>> what they did work on.
>
>What you said was this:
>
>"Whatever piece of unclaimed land I can farm, the products of which are
>mine."
>
>So far I can agree with this (with the minor, but important exception
>that I do not agree with the concept of "claiming" land, as this would
>change the status of an object, which according to production = object +
>work, is not possible).
>
>"No one has a right to it."
>
>That's where we disagree. You don't have any other right to the land in
>question than anyone else. You just happen to own the work invested in
>it. The result does not effect the factors, thus the status of the
>object can never ben changed without initiating force.
>
*rolls eyes* Look, your idea that simply by drawing lines in the sand one
claims land is not a capitalist one. It sounds like a feudal one really.
If you want to know what classic liberalism/libertarianism/laissez fair
capitalism is really based on then read Locke's Treatises. He said long
before Marx was even born that one owns things because of the labor they
have comingled with it. These Lockean notions of property rights were the
origin of capitalism. Try again...your view that capitalism is based on an
arbitrary asignment of property couldn't be farther from the mark.
>> Of course if we had a notion of ownership in the
>> state of natuer (as locke calls it) then we might not be able to claim
this,
>
>As I said.
>
>> but we are in the state of nature -- no ownership yet. So we can add
work
>> to something and, at the same time, add value.
>
>Certainly. But "claiming" land does not add value for it. It's only the
>grounds for working the land in a capitalist system, which we don't have
>(maybe yet).
>
We agreed that one may work land without infringing on anyone's rights.
Once worked, your labor is comingled...done.
Except that that is not what those that run the state seize. For starters
they claim more land than they, themselves, can lanor on. And what's more
is that the land they claim is usually being used by someone else. They
also seize and distrubute what is produced on the land they claim and
distribute it as the see fit. This simply cannot be just acording to what
we have discussed.
>> Does that mean that they can
>> only have as much as they need to survive and/or could carry with them,
and
>> that the rest is negotiable if someone else, say, does not have enough to
>> survive? I think not.
>
>They can have anything they invested work in or currently use any
>anything which someone who did have these rights voluntarily gave to
>them. Nothing else.
>
That is the notion of private ownership of property. It has as much merit
as person's right to life. If someone else is in need of medical care but
cannot afford it, then you cannot at this point logically conclude a right
to take someone's labor to p[rovide this other person health care (unless
the needy person is actually owed it by some other reason).
>> It is entirely possible that one do more work than
>> is clearly sufficient let alone necessary to allow them to survive
several
>> times over -- even assuming they start fresh with nothing other than what
>> can be reasonably assumed we all should at least start with. For the
time
>> being, I will assume that one might have to pay some small property tax
(for
>> that portion of their property they gained by JOA), and that this tax
goes
>> to orphans that did not have the benefit of parents to help them through
>> childhood so that they may have the same minimal fresh start of anyone.
>> This tax would also pay for the minimal government required to allow them
>> access to the land (this much I might, in fact, require) -- police, army,
>> legislators, a judiciary, ....
>
>We don't have a government yet. See proposition 002.
>
Right. I am not proposing that we manufacture one really. To see a
description of how a government might naturally arise, though, read Part I
of Anarchy, State, and Utopia.
>> Okay, all of these things I can see so far at least _potentially_
allowable
>> without violating their right to their labor. But these taxes and
programs
>> are rather minimal compared to public health care, for instance.
>
>Oh, we probably won't have public health care, as we don't rate life as
>anything. We base our tribe's society on NOF, which doesn't define life
>to be worth anything.
>
That's right. Life is not intrinsically valuable.
>Our philophy is not a philosophy defining anything, but rather a
>philosophy that forbids people to use force against others.
>
That's right and it entails laissez fair capitalism.
>The only reason why you can't murder someone legally on our island is
>that you are not allowed to do so without his consent, not because life
>was worth anything.
>
That is exactly right! If someone wanted to die, he has that right on our
island. I suppose you would forbid suicide and euthanasia?
We took the libertarian axiom set? But I thought this excercise was to show
that NOF did not produce laisez fair capitalism? I think maybe it is clear
now that it does. It is in fact a classic libertarian argument that all
other systems require force to impliment and so are unacceptable.
>> Keeping the list of acronyms with us...
>>
>> >> We also have the following acronyms:
>> >
>> >> NOF = noninitiation of force (the principle of)
>> >> COP = the concept of property
>> >> CPP = the concept of personal property
>> >> RPO = the right to physical objects
>> >> ROL = the rules of logic
>> >
>> >Ok. That was it. :-)
>> >(I forgot that in the other post. I better make a list and publish it on
>> >my website (www.netneurotic.de).
>> >
>> >> JOA = justice of acquisition
>> >> JOT = justice of transfer
>> >> JOR = justice of rectification
>> >
>> >And CRP = concept of real property
>> >
>> >--
>> >Fan of Woody Allen
>> >Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza
>
>
>--
>Fan of Woody Allen
>Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza
And on a final note, this idea you have running that JOA means that you can
just pick something up and posit your ownership of it and have the rights to
it forever and ever is way off base. For one thing it directly contradicts
Locke who could be said to be the origin of libertarianism. For another
thing it contradicts itself, since anyone can posit ownership of the entire
universe and there is no way to prove them wrong. all of the JO's -- JOA,
JOT, JOR -- are simply set sof rule that state the means by which one may do
the thing they are suppose to describe (Acquire, Transfer, Rectify). A
socialist would not necessarily reject JOA but simply say that JOA says that
Acquisition is never Justified (for instance). One does not need anyone to
own anything to have JOT, it is merely a conditional statement that says
_if_ someone ever comes to own something _then_ here's how ownership can be
justly transfered. Statements of this form are true or false regardless of
whether or not ownership is possible. If ownership is impossible (which we
have both agreed now that it is possible under NOF) then JOT would simply be
a set of statements like "If triangles had four sides, then...."
Andrew J. Brehm
> *rolls eyes* Look, your idea that simply by drawing lines in the sand one
> claims land is not a capitalist one.
No. My idea is that our capitalism today, what we refer to as
capitalism, is based on private ownership of the means of production, a
concept which is not existing as such for our tribe.
> It sounds like a feudal one really.
Really?
> If you want to know what classic liberalism/libertarianism/laissez fair
> capitalism is really based on then read Locke's Treatises. He said long
> before Marx was even born that one owns things because of the labor they
> have comingled with it. These Lockean notions of property rights were the
> origin of capitalism. Try again...your view that capitalism is based on an
> arbitrary asignment of property couldn't be farther from the mark.
My view that capitalism is based on arbitrary assignment of property is
non-existent. You misunderstood or ignored my statements. I said that we
need a concept to make sure there was a right for people to privately
own natural resources and other means of production for capitalism to
work.
> >Certainly. But "claiming" land does not add value for it. It's only the
> >grounds for working the land in a capitalist system, which we don't have
> >(maybe yet).
> >
>
> We agreed that one may work land without infringing on anyone's rights.
> Once worked, your labor is comingled...done.
But we did not agree that you could "claim" land.
> >You are formulating this as if I did not agree with this at the
> >beginning. Even communists talk about state ownership of the means of
> >production, not the work invested.
> >
>
> Except that that is not what those that run the state seize. For starters
> they claim more land than they, themselves, can lanor on. And what's more
> is that the land they claim is usually being used by someone else. They
> also seize and distrubute what is produced on the land they claim and
> distribute it as the see fit. This simply cannot be just acording to what
> we have discussed.
I don't know how a "communist" could claim more land than he could work
on based on communist ideas like "to each according to their needs" and
"state (society) ownership of the means of production."
I doubt that what you are refering to are communists in the Marxist
sense. Maybe it's more like Leninism and Stalinism?
> >They can have anything they invested work in or currently use any
> >anything which someone who did have these rights voluntarily gave to
> >them. Nothing else.
>
> That is the notion of private ownership of property. It has as much merit
> as person's right to life. If someone else is in need of medical care but
> cannot afford it, then you cannot at this point logically conclude a right
> to take someone's labor to p[rovide this other person health care (unless
> the needy person is actually owed it by some other reason).
Not based on NOF, no. But I didn't do that anyway, so what are you
discussing?
> >We don't have a government yet. See proposition 002.
> >
>
> Right. I am not proposing that we manufacture one really. To see a
> description of how a government might naturally arise, though, read Part I
> of Anarchy, State, and Utopia.
Ok.
> >Oh, we probably won't have public health care, as we don't rate life as
> >anything. We base our tribe's society on NOF, which doesn't define life
> >to be worth anything.
> >
>
> That's right. Life is not intrinsically valuable.
For our tribe, of course. In real life, one might use a different set of
axioms, as it is mostly done in Europe (and around the world).
> >Our philophy is not a philosophy defining anything, but rather a
> >philosophy that forbids people to use force against others.
> >
>
> That's right and it entails laissez fair capitalism.
Not as such, no. Until now, we couldn't prove that private ownership of
all means of production can logically exist. I believe capitalism needs
such. Up to now, we have some kind of voluntary mercantilism.
> >The only reason why you can't murder someone legally on our island is
> >that you are not allowed to do so without his consent, not because life
> >was worth anything.
>
> That is exactly right! If someone wanted to die, he has that right on our
> island. I suppose you would forbid suicide and euthanasia?
You mean in real life? Suicide, I wouldn't. Euthanasia, I might. I
haven't read into it yet, however.
> >Well, we have no axiom or rule stating that we need to ensure equal
> >chances for everyone. We took the Libertarian axiom set, not the liberal
> >one (European Liberals believe in what is called "humanistic
> >liberalism", where the human being is in the foreground, which
> >ultimately means that life is worth more than property and must be
> >treated as such by everyone. Also, it stands for equal chances which
> >must be paid for by everyone as well).
>
> We took the libertarian axiom set?
Given that the libertarian axiom set was really just NOF and not
something else they would need to force on people, yes.
> But I thought this excercise was to show
> that NOF did not produce laisez fair capitalism?
Not neccessarily. This was neutral. However, we have arrived at a point
that convinced me that of the three kinds of property (personal, real,
intelectual) only one can be reduced to NOF.
> I think maybe it is clear now that it does.
Maybe to you. To me it isn't. I have yet to see proof that real property
exists. And you have failed to prove it. You only repeatedly proven that
which we agreed on anyway: CPP.
> It is in fact a classic libertarian argument that all
> other systems require force to impliment and so are unacceptable.
And it is my argument (and a classic liberal one, too) that there is no
such things as a completely right ideology that stands beyond doubt.
We need force to establish real property. And we need real property (and
maybe intelectual propertey) to establish capitalism. Up to now, I
believe, the economical system of our tribe is a voluntary mercantilism.
You always need to initiate force to force your set of axioms on other
people. All idologies to that. There is no such things as one holy
ideology that is better than and above all others. "Holier than thou"
doesn't exist, altaugh all four extremist groups (Libertarians,
Fascists, Communists, and Anarcho-Socialists) believe so.
Why do you think did Voltaire say that the right to an opinion was so
important he would die for it?
Let me tell you, what I think. I think the reason was _not_ that he
thought that one ideology was just "right" and wouldn't have to be
doubted anyway.
There is two things I generally distrust in all politics:
a) Any opinion that believes it was right and can "prove" that it is.
b) Anyone who's ideals match his interests.
That's what I meant when I doubted your "claiming" land.
> all of the JO's -- JOA,
> JOT, JOR -- are simply set sof rule that state the means by which one may do
> the thing they are suppose to describe (Acquire, Transfer, Rectify). A
> socialist would not necessarily reject JOA but simply say that JOA says that
> Acquisition is never Justified (for instance). One does not need anyone to
> own anything to have JOT, it is merely a conditional statement that says
> _if_ someone ever comes to own something _then_ here's how ownership can be
> justly transfered. Statements of this form are true or false regardless of
> whether or not ownership is possible. If ownership is impossible (which we
> have both agreed now that it is possible under NOF)
Actually I have agreed that ownership as a concept is not needed when it
can be reduced to NOF anyway. Calling this "ownershop" might only lead
to the believe that other forms of ownerships (real/intelectual) would
also exist.
> then JOT would simply be
> a set of statements like "If triangles had four sides, then...."
Aha.
adrian...@hotmail.com
ajb...@sundance.netneurotic.de (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
> Adrian <dur...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > *rolls eyes* Look, your idea that simply by drawing lines in the sand one
> > claims land is not a capitalist one.
>
> No. My idea is that our capitalism today, what we refer to as
> capitalism, is based on private ownership of the means of production, a
> concept which is not existing as such for our tribe.
>
Yes it does. You have conceded this. I can go and farm land without
anyone's permission and take the produce for myown since it is my labor. The
only way I cannot do this is if someone has done so already. Humans have
been setteled into societies for thousands of years now, so most land has a
legitimate claim to it by the principle of owning one's labor and NOF (which
is really just NOF).
> > It sounds like a feudal one really.
>
> Really?
>
> > If you want to know what classic liberalism/libertarianism/laissez fair
> > capitalism is really based on then read Locke's Treatises. He said long
> > before Marx was even born that one owns things because of the labor they
> > have comingled with it. These Lockean notions of property rights were the
> > origin of capitalism. Try again...your view that capitalism is based on an
> > arbitrary asignment of property couldn't be farther from the mark.
>
> My view that capitalism is based on arbitrary assignment of property is
> non-existent. You misunderstood or ignored my statements. I said that we
> need a concept to make sure there was a right for people to privately
> own natural resources and other means of production for capitalism to
> work.
>
I guess this is where we see the religiosity of your position emerge. You
have slipped back into the standard rhetoric. Just ignore the fact that you
have so far conceded that one may settle on otherwise unowned land and mix
their labor with it to come to own it. If they have surplus labor, then they
might even buy the right to land with it. Depriving them of their right is
equivalent to depriving them of their labor in that case.
> > >Certainly. But "claiming" land does not add value for it. It's only the
> > >grounds for working the land in a capitalist system, which we don't have
> > >(maybe yet).
> > >
> >
> > We agreed that one may work land without infringing on anyone's rights.
> > Once worked, your labor is comingled...done.
>
> But we did not agree that you could "claim" land.
>
Straw man. Only you mean something other than just squatting on it and
laboring on it. You have this artificial idea that "claiming" means
something that I have said over and over and over and over and over and over
and over and over and over and over again that it does not. You keep
incessantly reasserting that it means that though....
> > >You are formulating this as if I did not agree with this at the
> > >beginning. Even communists talk about state ownership of the means of
> > >production, not the work invested.
> > >
> >
> > Except that that is not what those that run the state seize. For starters
> > they claim more land than they, themselves, can lanor on. And what's more
> > is that the land they claim is usually being used by someone else. They
> > also seize and distrubute what is produced on the land they claim and
> > distribute it as the see fit. This simply cannot be just acording to what
> > we have discussed.
>
> I don't know how a "communist" could claim more land than he could work
> on based on communist ideas like "to each according to their needs" and
> "state (society) ownership of the means of production."
>
State ownership of anything is a meaningless concept. The only way to
interpret that is that the ones that the state (or government) is consituted
of own the land. In other words the presidente or whomever runs the
government owns that land. Maybe it is actually several people that make up
the government. In any case it is a minority and the land is not truly
publicly owned if it is actually controlled by a minority.
> I doubt that what you are refering to are communists in the Marxist
> sense. Maybe it's more like Leninism and Stalinism?
>
Lenin was a Marxist. Stalin truly understood Marxism but was actually just a
dictator. Marxism is impossible and lame. Hegel was lame. It is all
meaningless, really. In any case, whether you subscribe to that stuff or
not, please see the above reality. Simply put, you will never be able to
change the fact that governments will exist and as long as the government
owns stuff it will be the ones that run the government that really control
and exploit that property.
> > >They can have anything they invested work in or currently use any
> > >anything which someone who did have these rights voluntarily gave to
> > >them. Nothing else.
> >
> > That is the notion of private ownership of property. It has as much merit
> > as person's right to life. If someone else is in need of medical care but
> > cannot afford it, then you cannot at this point logically conclude a right
> > to take someone's labor to p[rovide this other person health care (unless
> > the needy person is actually owed it by some other reason).
>
> Not based on NOF, no. But I didn't do that anyway, so what are you
> discussing?
>
I am merely showing that NOF is a clasic liberal or libertarian foundation --
not a modern liberal one. The original hypothesis of our tribe was that they
only have the NOF principle. It has lead us to laissez fair capitalism
> > >We don't have a government yet. See proposition 002.
> > >
> >
> > Right. I am not proposing that we manufacture one really. To see a
> > description of how a government might naturally arise, though, read Part I
> > of Anarchy, State, and Utopia.
>
> Ok.
>
> > >Oh, we probably won't have public health care, as we don't rate life as
> > >anything. We base our tribe's society on NOF, which doesn't define life
> > >to be worth anything.
> > >
> >
> > That's right. Life is not intrinsically valuable.
>
> For our tribe, of course. In real life, one might use a different set of
> axioms, as it is mostly done in Europe (and around the world).
>
Then your alternate set of axioms requires force to put in place, unlike
laissez fair capitalism which is based on NOF.
> > >Our philophy is not a philosophy defining anything, but rather a
> > >philosophy that forbids people to use force against others.
> > >
> >
> > That's right and it entails laissez fair capitalism.
>
> Not as such, no. Until now, we couldn't prove that private ownership of
> all means of production can logically exist. I believe capitalism needs
> such. Up to now, we have some kind of voluntary mercantilism.
>
Whatever. What we have is a principle that ownership -- or in other words
RPO -- only exists privately for individuals. Even if it starts publicly it
collapses into privately held interests. You have conceded that one may work
the land independently of everyone else and reap the fruits of theeir labor
and keep it for themselves. Our discussion is sufficiently general to apply
to all physical objects, including any means of production. This result is a
direct violation of any kind of socialism that requires the person give at
least some portion of their privately acquired product (acquired by their own
labor) to the public. No one has a right to that but them according to NOF
and our prior discussion.
> > >The only reason why you can't murder someone legally on our island is
> > >that you are not allowed to do so without his consent, not because life
> > >was worth anything.
> >
> > That is exactly right! If someone wanted to die, he has that right on our
> > island. I suppose you would forbid suicide and euthanasia?
>
> You mean in real life? Suicide, I wouldn't. Euthanasia, I might. I
> haven't read into it yet, however.
>
> > >Well, we have no axiom or rule stating that we need to ensure equal
> > >chances for everyone. We took the Libertarian axiom set, not the liberal
> > >one (European Liberals believe in what is called "humanistic
> > >liberalism", where the human being is in the foreground, which
> > >ultimately means that life is worth more than property and must be
> > >treated as such by everyone. Also, it stands for equal chances which
> > >must be paid for by everyone as well).
> >
> > We took the libertarian axiom set?
>
> Given that the libertarian axiom set was really just NOF and not
> something else they would need to force on people, yes.
>
> > But I thought this excercise was to show
> > that NOF did not produce laisez fair capitalism?
>
> Not neccessarily. This was neutral. However, we have arrived at a point
> that convinced me that of the three kinds of property (personal, real,
> intelectual) only one can be reduced to NOF.
>
But we have a concept of real property. I go out to an unowned piece of land
and settle it. In settling it, I have comingled my labor with it. Now I own
the land according to you by NOF -- just like I would any other physical
object that I did this to.
> > I think maybe it is clear now that it does.
>
> Maybe to you. To me it isn't. I have yet to see proof that real property
> exists. And you have failed to prove it. You only repeatedly proven that
> which we agreed on anyway: CPP.
>
CPP is enough to own land.
> > It is in fact a classic libertarian argument that all
> > other systems require force to impliment and so are unacceptable.
>
> And it is my argument (and a classic liberal one, too) that there is no
> such things as a completely right ideology that stands beyond doubt.
>
Are you sure of that? I guess your ideology that says to doubt all
ideologies is beyond doubt -- or at least that part of it? I asked you once
before not to doubt the possibility of knowledge with regard tothe very thing
you are discussing.
> We need force to establish real property. And we need real property (and
> maybe intelectual propertey) to establish capitalism. Up to now, I
> believe, the economical system of our tribe is a voluntary mercantilism.
>
No -- it is capitalism. There is not even the possibility of unowned things
in our tribe since anything that is unowned may be acquired privately any
time by an entrepeneur that simply goes out and uses it and comingles his
labor with it.
> You always need to initiate force to force your set of axioms on other
> people. All idologies to that. There is no such things as one holy
> ideology that is better than and above all others. "Holier than thou"
> doesn't exist, altaugh all four extremist groups (Libertarians,
> Fascists, Communists, and Anarcho-Socialists) believe so.
>
Again you have doubted the possibility of knowledge of the very thing you are
discussing. What do you have to contribute if you are going to do that? NOF
cannot logically require the initiation of force or force at all for that
matter to have. Saying otherwise is ludicrous. I am not going to continue
if you are going to start lapsing back into that kind of stuff.
> Why do you think did Voltaire say that the right to an opinion was so
> important he would die for it?
>
Well is he forcing his ideology on us? Would he kill for it? I don't think
he was right... can you show he was? According to everything you have been
saying int he last few posts you cannot even come close -- nothing is
certain. Thaty means that the certainties you would even try to base a
likelihood on do not exist. So nothing is even likely.
> Let me tell you, what I think. I think the reason was _not_ that he
> thought that one ideology was just "right" and wouldn't have to be
> doubted anyway.
>
> There is two things I generally distrust in all politics:
>
> a) Any opinion that believes it was right and can "prove" that it is.
>
> b) Anyone who's ideals match his interests.
>
Yet by simply discussing this matter at all and presenting a side you are
implicitely if not explicitely claiming you can prove your case. Even if you
claim uncertainty about some of the major conclusions there are at least
minor ones along the way you must claim certainty of. In fact, there must be
many such propositions you can prove or else everything out of your computer
is worthless. "If I cannot be sure of anything else, I can be sure that
everything is uncertain." That is an ancient _fallacy_.
So you think I am violating someone else's rights by going to an un touched
piece of land where there is no one nor does any one (for the sake of
argument) stumble across for years. When they do I have a fully erected hous
and a thriving garden. All of these things occupying the land are created by
my labor. To deprive me of them is depriving me of my labor. When did I
violate anbothers rights? When did I violate NOF? I didn't (unless we
already had the concept of ownership). But you have conceded that to deprive
me now of my labor -- of my land -- is a violation of NOF.
>
> > all of the JO's -- JOA,
> > JOT, JOR -- are simply set sof rule that state the means by which one may do
> > the thing they are suppose to describe (Acquire, Transfer, Rectify). A
> > socialist would not necessarily reject JOA but simply say that JOA says that
> > Acquisition is never Justified (for instance). One does not need anyone to
> > own anything to have JOT, it is merely a conditional statement that says
> > _if_ someone ever comes to own something _then_ here's how ownership can be
> > justly transfered. Statements of this form are true or false regardless of
> > whether or not ownership is possible. If ownership is impossible (which we
> > have both agreed now that it is possible under NOF)
>
> Actually I have agreed that ownership as a concept is not needed when it
> can be reduced to NOF anyway. Calling this "ownershop" might only lead
> to the believe that other forms of ownerships (real/intelectual) would
> also exist.
For the last time -- that is the concept of ownership. Ownership as a
concept is nothing more than NOF according to our axioms. You seem to have a
this rigid COP. It is liek saying "morality is what is in the bible" so
either you accept the bible literally or you reject the whole idea of
morality altogether. That is a straw man -- morality is not what is in the
bible. The bible is just one take on morality. Similarly your distortions
of classic liberal thought about what COP entails is just one incoherent take
on COP. Locke had quite a different view. So, did Rand. Their views are
well known to result in laissez fair capitalism. It is unweildy to have to
reduce everything to NOF all the time. That is why we use the derived
concept of ownership.
>
> > then JOT would simply be
> > a set of statements like "If triangles had four sides, then...."
>
> Aha.
>
That's right. such statements are common in math. There are several
alternatives to Euclidean Geometry for instance. If I merely rename "square"
with "triangle" and conversely, then such statements above have a very
relevant application. In either case, they are just as true.
> --
> Fan of Woody Allen
> Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza
>
Adrian
http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/mbs.cgi/mb413727
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Andrew J. Brehm
> In article <1dqm7lm.me...@dialup-32.germany.ecore.net>,
> ajb...@sundance.netneurotic.de (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote: > Adrian
> <dur...@mindspring.com> wrote: > > > *rolls eyes* Look, your idea that
> simply by drawing lines in the sand one > > claims land is not a
> capitalist one. > > No. My idea is that our capitalism today, what we
> refer to as > capitalism, is based on private ownership of the means of
> production, a > concept which is not existing as such for our tribe. >
>
> Yes it does. You have conceded this.
I haven't.
> I can go and farm land without anyone's permission and take the produce
> for myown since it is my labor. The only way I cannot do this is if
> someone has done so already. Humans have been setteled into societies for
> thousands of years now, so most land has a legitimate claim to it by the
> principle of owning one's labor and NOF (which is really just NOF).
However, that does not apply to natural resources that are still owned
by nobody.
> > > If you want to know what classic liberalism/libertarianism/laissez
> > > fair capitalism is really based on then read Locke's Treatises. He
> > > said long before Marx was even born that one owns things because of
> > > the labor they have comingled with it. These Lockean notions of
> > > property rights were the origin of capitalism. Try again...your view
> > > that capitalism is based on an arbitrary asignment of property
> > > couldn't be farther from the mark.
> >
> > My view that capitalism is based on arbitrary assignment of property is
> > non-existent. You misunderstood or ignored my statements. I said that we
> > need a concept to make sure there was a right for people to privately
> > own natural resources and other means of production for capitalism to
> > work.
>
> I guess this is where we see the religiosity of your position emerge. You
> have slipped back into the standard rhetoric. Just ignore the fact that
> you have so far conceded that one may settle on otherwise unowned land and
> mix their labor with it to come to own it.
I have at no point conceded that the status of the land is changed by
working it.
Have you forgotten?
I mentioned _several times_ that I agree with the formula
production = object (land) + work.
"work" is owned by someone, "object" is not. "production" is earned
again, but the result cannot change the factors involved. I pointed this
out several times!
Are you ignoring it?
> If they have surplus labor, then they might even buy the right to land
> with it.
From whom?
> Depriving them of their right is equivalent to depriving them of their
> labor in that case.
What are you talking about?
> > > We agreed that one may work land without infringing on anyone's
> > > rights. Once worked, your labor is comingled...done.
> >
> > But we did not agree that you could "claim" land.
>
> Straw man. Only you mean something other than just squatting on it and
> laboring on it. You have this artificial idea that "claiming" means
> something that I have said over and over and over and over and over and
> over and over and over and over and over again that it does not. You keep
> incessantly reasserting that it means that though....
You said that "claiming" means that someone has the right to the land,
which I don't agree with as a concept.
> > I don't know how a "communist" could claim more land than he could work
> > on based on communist ideas like "to each according to their needs" and
> > "state (society) ownership of the means of production."
>
> State ownership of anything is a meaningless concept. The only way to
> interpret that is that the ones that the state (or government) is
> consituted of own the land. In other words the presidente or whomever
> runs the government owns that land. Maybe it is actually several people
> that make up the government. In any case it is a minority and the land is
> not truly publicly owned if it is actually controlled by a minority.
Certainly. And this is why I believe that Eastern Europe was not
socialist or communist, but simply dictatorships.
And as you say, a dictatorship is not the same as "everyone" owning the
land.
> > I doubt that what you are refering to are communists in the Marxist
> > sense. Maybe it's more like Leninism and Stalinism?
>
> Lenin was a Marxist.
No.
Lenin believed that communism (or whatever he called communism) could
raise from a country that doesn't even have the neccessary
industrialization. Marx said industrialization was the primary condition
for communism to rise. Russia was not industrialized. That's when Lenin
changed the ide of a workers state into a farmers state.
> Stalin truly understood Marxism but was actually just a dictator. Marxism
> is impossible and lame. Hegel was lame. It is all meaningless, really.
> In any case, whether you subscribe to that stuff or not, please see the
> above reality. Simply put, you will never be able to change the fact that
> governments will exist and as long as the government owns stuff it will be
> the ones that run the government that really control and exploit that
> property.
I don't believe that government would eventually vanish. Leave that to
the anarchists of both sides.
> > Not based on NOF, no. But I didn't do that anyway, so what are you
> > discussing?
>
> I am merely showing that NOF is a clasic liberal or libertarian foundation
> -- not a modern liberal one.
Why? I never doubted it.
> The original hypothesis of our tribe was that they only have the NOF
> principle. It has lead us to laissez fair capitalism
It hasn't. It has lead us to voluntary mercantilism. For laissez faire
capitalism we need private oenwerhip of netural resoources which we
don't have.
> > For our tribe, of course. In real life, one might use a different set of
> > axioms, as it is mostly done in Europe (and around the world).
>
> Then your alternate set of axioms requires force to put in place,
Certainly. However such a force is simply defined as "defensive", much
as protecting your land is defined as "defensive" in capitalism.
> unlike laissez fair capitalism which is based on NOF.
The concept of ownership of real property is not based on NOF.
> > Not as such, no. Until now, we couldn't prove that private ownership of
> > all means of production can logically exist. I believe capitalism needs
> > such. Up to now, we have some kind of voluntary mercantilism.
>
> Whatever. What we have is a principle that ownership -- or in other words
> RPO -- only exists privately for individuals. Even if it starts publicly
> it collapses into privately held interests. You have conceded that one
> may work the land independently of everyone else and reap the fruits of
> theeir labor and keep it for themselves. Our discussion is sufficiently
> general to apply to all physical objects, including any means of
> production.
Not as such, no.
> This result is a direct violation of any kind of socialism that requires
> the person give at least some portion of their privately acquired product
> (acquired by their own labor) to the public. No one has a right to that
> but them according to NOF and our prior discussion.
You are simply ignoring the fact that you can't explain how real
property could possibly exist on our island, aren't you?
> > > But I thought this excercise was to show that NOF did not produce
> > > laisez fair capitalism?
> >
> > Not neccessarily. This was neutral. However, we have arrived at a point
> > that convinced me that of the three kinds of property (personal, real,
> > intelectual) only one can be reduced to NOF.
>
> But we have a concept of real property. I go out to an unowned piece of
> land and settle it. In settling it, I have comingled my labor with it.
> Now I own the land according to you by NOF -- just like I would any other
> physical object that I did this to.
But you can't own any other land save the one you work, and you
woulodn't be able to own natural resources.
> > Maybe to you. To me it isn't. I have yet to see proof that real property
> > exists. And you have failed to prove it. You only repeatedly proven that
> > which we agreed on anyway: CPP.
>
> CPP is enough to own land.
To own land to live on, yes.
However, capitalism is based on more.
> > And it is my argument (and a classic liberal one, too) that there is no
> > such things as a completely right ideology that stands beyond doubt.
>
> Are you sure of that? I guess your ideology that says to doubt all
> ideologies is beyond doubt -- or at least that part of it?
I didn't say you may not doubt other ideologies. But you cannot prove
they are wrong based on the fact that they are incompatible with yours.
> > We need force to establish real property. And we need real property (and
> > maybe intelectual propertey) to establish capitalism. Up to now, I
> > believe, the economical system of our tribe is a voluntary mercantilism.
>
> No -- it is capitalism. There is not even the possibility of unowned
> things in our tribe since anything that is unowned may be acquired
> privately any time by an entrepeneur that simply goes out and uses it and
> comingles his labor with it.
Well, there is not only the possibility of unowned things, there is even
some things that just cannot be owned: a river, natural resources like
oil (oil fields), fish grounds, trees, gazelles, the ocean, air, etc..
> > You always need to initiate force to force your set of axioms on other
> > people. All idologies to that. There is no such things as one holy
> > ideology that is better than and above all others. "Holier than thou"
> > doesn't exist, altaugh all four extremist groups (Libertarians,
> > Fascists, Communists, and Anarcho-Socialists) believe so.
>
> Again you have doubted the possibility of knowledge of the very thing you
> are discussing. What do you have to contribute if you are going to do
> that? NOF cannot logically require the initiation of force or force at
> all for that matter to have. Saying otherwise is ludicrous. I am not
> going to continue if you are going to start lapsing back into that kind of
> stuff.
Excuse me? If you can't argue for the concept of real property, why is
it my fault?
> > Why do you think did Voltaire say that the right to an opinion was so
> > important he would die for it?
>
> Well is he forcing his ideology on us? Would he kill for it? I
> don't think he was right... can you show he was?
No. I believe he was.
> > Let me tell you, what I think. I think the reason was _not_ that he
> > thought that one ideology was just "right" and wouldn't have to be
> > doubted anyway.
> >
> > There is two things I generally distrust in all politics:
> >
> > a) Any opinion that believes it was right and can "prove" that it is.
> >
> > b) Anyone who's ideals match his interests.
>
> Yet by simply discussing this matter at all and presenting a side you are
> implicitely if not explicitely claiming you can prove your case.
Well, I did prove my case that natural resources cannot be owned
according to NOF.
> > > >> Keeping the list of acronyms with us...
> > > >>
> > > >> >> We also have the following acronyms:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> NOF = noninitiation of force (the principle of) COP = the
> > > >> >> concept of property CPP = the concept of personal property RPO =
> > > >> >> the right to physical objects ROL = the rules of logic
> > > >> >
> > > >> >Ok. That was it. :-) (I forgot that in the other post. I better
> > > >> >make a list and publish it on my website (www.netneurotic.de).
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> JOA = justice of acquisition T = justice of transfer R = justice
> > > >> >> JOof rectification
> > > >> >
> > > >> >And CRP = concept of real property
> > > >> >
> > > >> >-- Fan of Woody Allen Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >-- Fan of Woody Allen Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza
> > >
> > > And on a final note, this idea you have running that JOA means that
> > > you can just pick something up and posit your ownership of it and have
> > > the rights to it forever and ever is way off base. For one thing it
> > > directly contradicts Locke who could be said to be the origin of
> > > libertarianism. For another thing it contradicts itself, since anyone
> > > can posit ownership of the entire universe and there is no way to
> > > prove them wrong.
> >
> > That's what I meant when I doubted your "claiming" land.
>
> So you think I am violating someone else's rights by going to an un
> touched piece of land where there is no one nor does any one (for the sake
> of argument) stumble across for years. When they do I have a fully
> erected hous and a thriving garden. All of these things occupying the
> land are created by my labor. To deprive me of them is depriving me of my
> labor. When did I violate anbothers rights? When did I violate NOF? I
> didn't (unless we already had the concept of ownership). But you have
> conceded that to deprive me now of my labor -- of my land -- is a
> violation of NOF.
That is correct. But you mistake that for accepting the idea that this
land was owned by you.
> > > all of the JO's -- JOA, JOT, JOR -- are simply set sof rule that state
> > > the means by which one may do the thing they are suppose to describe
> > > (Acquire, Transfer, Rectify). A socialist would not necessarily
> > > reject JOA but simply say that JOA says that Acquisition is never
> > > Justified (for instance). One does not need anyone to own anything to
> > > have JOT, it is merely a conditional statement that says _if_ someone
> > > ever comes to own something _then_ here's how ownership can be justly
> > > transfered. Statements of this form are true or false regardless of
> > > whether or not ownership is possible. If ownership is impossible
> > > (which we have both agreed now that it is possible under NOF)
> >
> > Actually I have agreed that ownership as a concept is not needed when it
> > can be reduced to NOF anyway. Calling this "ownershop" might only lead
> > to the believe that other forms of ownerships (real/intelectual) would
> > also exist.
>
> For the last time -- that is the concept of ownership.
No. The concept of ownership consists of personal, real, and intelectual
property. Only the first one can be reduced to NOF according to our
experiment. Maqybe the others can, but you somehow try not to touch real
property anyway.
> Ownership as a concept is nothing more than NOF according to our axioms.
> You seem to have a this rigid COP. It is liek saying "morality is what is
> in the bible" so either you accept the bible literally or you reject the
> whole idea of morality altogether. That is a straw man -- morality is not
> what is in the bible. The bible is just one take on morality. Similarly
> your distortions of classic liberal thought about what COP entails is just
> one incoherent take on COP. Locke had quite a different view. So, did
> Rand. Their views are well known to result in laissez fair capitalism.
> It is unweildy to have to reduce everything to NOF all the time. That
> is why we use the derived concept of ownership.
Which is CPP, yes. But I guess we need private ownership of the means of
production (and that included natural resources) for capitalism to work.
Otherwise it will just be mercantilism.
adrian...@hotmail.com
ajb...@sundance.netneurotic.de (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
> <adrian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1dqm7lm.me...@dialup-32.germany.ecore.net>,
> > ajb...@sundance.netneurotic.de (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote: > Adrian
> > <dur...@mindspring.com> wrote: > > > *rolls eyes* Look, your idea that
> > simply by drawing lines in the sand one > > claims land is not a
> > capitalist one. > > No. My idea is that our capitalism today, what we
> > refer to as > capitalism, is based on private ownership of the means of
> > production, a > concept which is not existing as such for our tribe. >
> >
> > Yes it does. You have conceded this.
>
> I haven't.
>
> > I can go and farm land without anyone's permission and take the produce
> > for myown since it is my labor. The only way I cannot do this is if
> > someone has done so already. Humans have been setteled into societies for
> > thousands of years now, so most land has a legitimate claim to it by the
> > principle of owning one's labor and NOF (which is really just NOF).
>
> However, that does not apply to natural resources that are still owned
> by nobody.
>
If they are not owned by anyone then I may use them at my leisure without
violating NOF (unless I have to directly force someone to do something for
somereason which was not advocated by either side). If I comingle my labor
with the object then that object is mine because of the labor. You are just
erecting a straw man by saying that "mine" means something no one (but you)
ever said it did and pointing out that I do not own the object but only the
product (which is inexorably comingled with the object).
> > > > If you want to know what classic liberalism/libertarianism/laissez
> > > > fair capitalism is really based on then read Locke's Treatises. He
> > > > said long before Marx was even born that one owns things because of
> > > > the labor they have comingled with it. These Lockean notions of
> > > > property rights were the origin of capitalism. Try again...your view
> > > > that capitalism is based on an arbitrary asignment of property
> > > > couldn't be farther from the mark.
> > >
> > > My view that capitalism is based on arbitrary assignment of property is
> > > non-existent. You misunderstood or ignored my statements. I said that we
> > > need a concept to make sure there was a right for people to privately
> > > own natural resources and other means of production for capitalism to
> > > work.
> >
> > I guess this is where we see the religiosity of your position emerge. You
> > have slipped back into the standard rhetoric. Just ignore the fact that
> > you have so far conceded that one may settle on otherwise unowned land and
> > mix their labor with it to come to own it.
>
> I have at no point conceded that the status of the land is changed by
> working it.
>
Dammit Andrew, I am tired of your digressing and evading. You are merely nit
picking ove rhtis issue of official title to some such thing that is purely
YOUR OWN creation. Locke did not have this in his philosophy nor do I or
many other classic liberals and libertarians. A socialist wants to not just
hold the land in common or something like that, but all that is produced on
it. A socialist wants to share in _what is produced_ equally. Why do they
get to take my product if that product was made from otherwise unowned
resources?
> Have you forgotten?
>
> I mentioned _several times_ that I agree with the formula
>
> production = object (land) + work.
>
> "work" is owned by someone, "object" is not. "production" is earned
> again, but the result cannot change the factors involved. I pointed this
> out several times!
>
> Are you ignoring it?
>
I am ignoring your irrelevant digression and straw man.
> > If they have surplus labor, then they might even buy the right to land
> > with it.
>
> From whom?
>
From the "public" -- whatever that means. If they don't need to buy it from
society then you can have it without owing anything to anyone. Ownership
MEANS RPO under various circumstances we have yet to settle on. Some of the
more common notions are that you would have RPO even if you put the object
away or temporarily left it for some reason. Most libertarians would say
that you lose or transfer ownership if you were to, say, completely abandon
an object (like garbage for instance -- someone else can have the couch you
throw away) or if you never really comingled your labor with it by buying it
or fashoning it into something valuable. So you cannot just posit a claim to
land -- that is a socialist idea NOT a libertarian one.
> > Depriving them of their right is equivalent to depriving them of their
> > labor in that case.
>
> What are you talking about?
>
> > > > We agreed that one may work land without infringing on anyone's
> > > > rights. Once worked, your labor is comingled...done.
> > >
> > > But we did not agree that you could "claim" land.
> >
> > Straw man. Only you mean something other than just squatting on it and
> > laboring on it. You have this artificial idea that "claiming" means
> > something that I have said over and over and over and over and over and
> > over and over and over and over and over again that it does not. You keep
> > incessantly reasserting that it means that though....
>
> You said that "claiming" means that someone has the right to the land,
> which I don't agree with as a concept.
>
Andrew you are being purposefully dense. What does "right to the land" mean?
What does RPO mean? You know what it means -- stop trying to evade the
inevitable conclusion. Do not try to pretend that I am physically
dislocating someone by planting a garden in uninhabited territory. Do not
try to pretend that I am initiating force when you have no one else that
could possibly have a right to use the land. If they do not then why can't
I? You are forcing a conclusion that is not natural -- not me. You have the
burden of proof here -- not me.
> > > I don't know how a "communist" could claim more land than he could work
> > > on based on communist ideas like "to each according to their needs" and
> > > "state (society) ownership of the means of production."
> >
> > State ownership of anything is a meaningless concept. The only way to
> > interpret that is that the ones that the state (or government) is
> > consituted of own the land. In other words the presidente or whomever
> > runs the government owns that land. Maybe it is actually several people
> > that make up the government. In any case it is a minority and the land is
> > not truly publicly owned if it is actually controlled by a minority.
>
> Certainly. And this is why I believe that Eastern Europe was not
> socialist or communist, but simply dictatorships.
>
> And as you say, a dictatorship is not the same as "everyone" owning the
> land.
>
Under what conditions then would everyone own the land? It sounds like the
only possible way is if they _unanimously_ consent. Otherwise, NOF must be
violated to force someone into the collective.
> > > I doubt that what you are refering to are communists in the Marxist
> > > sense. Maybe it's more like Leninism and Stalinism?
> >
> > Lenin was a Marxist.
>
> No.
>
Yep
> Lenin believed that communism (or whatever he called communism) could
> raise from a country that doesn't even have the neccessary
> industrialization. Marx said industrialization was the primary condition
> for communism to rise. Russia was not industrialized. That's when Lenin
> changed the ide of a workers state into a farmers state.
>
So you disagree with his interpretation of Marx. He claimed to be a Marxist
and many thought he was and many agreed with his interpretation. Many still
do and claim that it was Stalin that was clearly the dictator. If Lenin
wasn;t a Marxist then teh Crusades were not a religious war. You can say
they aren't, but adults understand that they really were.
> > Stalin truly understood Marxism but was actually just a dictator. Marxism
> > is impossible and lame. Hegel was lame. It is all meaningless, really.
> > In any case, whether you subscribe to that stuff or not, please see the
> > above reality. Simply put, you will never be able to change the fact that
> > governments will exist and as long as the government owns stuff it will be
> > the ones that run the government that really control and exploit that
> > property.
>
> I don't believe that government would eventually vanish. Leave that to
> the anarchists of both sides.
>
Well, that is true Marxism.
> > > Not based on NOF, no. But I didn't do that anyway, so what are you
> > > discussing?
> >
> > I am merely showing that NOF is a clasic liberal or libertarian foundation
> > -- not a modern liberal one.
>
> Why? I never doubted it.
>
That means that according to NOF we can have the right to "real property" as
you put it.
> > The original hypothesis of our tribe was that they only have the NOF
> > principle. It has lead us to laissez fair capitalism
>
> It hasn't. It has lead us to voluntary mercantilism. For laissez faire
> capitalism we need private oenwerhip of netural resoources which we
> don't have.
>
No we don't. If I can take oil and refine it into gasoline then the gas is
mine according to NOF. Beyond this type of thing, I do not know what you are
talking about. You are misrepresenting what "private ownership of property"
is and creating a straw man. Stop defining capitalism to be something it is
not.
> > > For our tribe, of course. In real life, one might use a different set of
> > > axioms, as it is mostly done in Europe (and around the world).
> >
> > Then your alternate set of axioms requires force to put in place,
>
> Certainly. However such a force is simply defined as "defensive", much
> as protecting your land is defined as "defensive" in capitalism.
>
Protecting one's land is not defined as defensive -- it follows from NOF just
as CPP does. In fact, the land is personal property.
> > unlike laissez fair capitalism which is based on NOF.
>
> The concept of ownership of real property is not based on NOF.
>
Yes it is. You are only being obstinate. Is the land I am standing on
personal property (if I refuse to move or take it with me)? It is in contact
with me. What if I comingle my labor directly with it, then how is it
different from any other physical object? Would you answer the damn
question? If you had a good response to this we would not have to be stuck
in this tedious rut. Right now I would like just any response at all.
> > > Not as such, no. Until now, we couldn't prove that private ownership of
> > > all means of production can logically exist. I believe capitalism needs
> > > such. Up to now, we have some kind of voluntary mercantilism.
> >
> > Whatever. What we have is a principle that ownership -- or in other words
> > RPO -- only exists privately for individuals. Even if it starts publicly
> > it collapses into privately held interests. You have conceded that one
> > may work the land independently of everyone else and reap the fruits of
> > theeir labor and keep it for themselves. Our discussion is sufficiently
> > general to apply to all physical objects, including any means of
> > production.
>
> Not as such, no.
>
What a pretentious statement -- "Not as such". How is it that our concept of
personal property does not apply to physical objects "as such". What kind of
physical objects does it apply to and why are these physical objects
different from any other? What is special about land versus a stick or a
tree growing in the land for that matter? Why is it that I can comingle my
labor with the stick but for some reason I cannot with the land?
> > This result is a direct violation of any kind of socialism that requires
> > the person give at least some portion of their privately acquired product
> > (acquired by their own labor) to the public. No one has a right to that
> > but them according to NOF and our prior discussion.
>
> You are simply ignoring the fact that you can't explain how real
> property could possibly exist on our island, aren't you?
>
I did:
1) You may without violating NOF comingle your labor with the land.
2) One must violate NOF to take your labor from you.
3) You own the land (at least in any sense that I would use the word "own" --
apparently you have a whole lot of other ways of distorting this word).
> > > > But I thought this excercise was to show that NOF did not produce
> > > > laisez fair capitalism?
> > >
> > > Not neccessarily. This was neutral. However, we have arrived at a point
> > > that convinced me that of the three kinds of property (personal, real,
> > > intelectual) only one can be reduced to NOF.
> >
> > But we have a concept of real property. I go out to an unowned piece of
> > land and settle it. In settling it, I have comingled my labor with it.
> > Now I own the land according to you by NOF -- just like I would any other
> > physical object that I did this to.
>
> But you can't own any other land save the one you work, and you
> woulodn't be able to own natural resources.
>
You would not be able to posit ownership and so own as do the socialists.
What you would be able to do is use them assuming you do not have to initiate
force to do so. Someone else may not guard some sorce but merely use that
sorce as they see fit. If someone else may access and use it, then they both
have the right to it unless one of them somehow had rights to begin with over
the entire source. For instance, no libertarian or laissez fair capitalist
would advocate the right of someone to blot out the sun so that none but he
may have solar energy.
> > > Maybe to you. To me it isn't. I have yet to see proof that real property
> > > exists. And you have failed to prove it. You only repeatedly proven that
> > > which we agreed on anyway: CPP.
> >
> > CPP is enough to own land.
>
> To own land to live on, yes.
>
> However, capitalism is based on more.
>
Only your distortion of it. (Laissez Fair) Capitalism simply means private
ownership of property. It means that all endeavors are accomplished through
private and voluntary means and not publicly. Several people could all
collaborate in a rather socialistic sort of way to accomplish a common end.
That is capitalist since the interested parties privately accomplish a task
with their private property. Even if everyone collaborates, it would still
be done on a basis of everyone contributing their private labor to a common
end. It is socialism that forces these private endeavors to become public
and subject to the will of the public. Socialism requires that contribution
be compulsory. If not then the right to not contribute means that each
person contributes privately -- capitalism.
> > > And it is my argument (and a classic liberal one, too) that there is no
> > > such things as a completely right ideology that stands beyond doubt.
> >
> > Are you sure of that? I guess your ideology that says to doubt all
> > ideologies is beyond doubt -- or at least that part of it?
>
> I didn't say you may not doubt other ideologies. But you cannot prove
> they are wrong based on the fact that they are incompatible with yours.
>
I doubt the ideaology that says that all ideologies may be douted. Can you
show that is true?
> > > We need force to establish real property. And we need real property (and
> > > maybe intelectual propertey) to establish capitalism. Up to now, I
> > > believe, the economical system of our tribe is a voluntary mercantilism.
> >
> > No -- it is capitalism. There is not even the possibility of unowned
> > things in our tribe since anything that is unowned may be acquired
> > privately any time by an entrepeneur that simply goes out and uses it and
> > comingles his labor with it.
>
> Well, there is not only the possibility of unowned things, there is even
> some things that just cannot be owned: a river, natural resources like
> oil (oil fields), fish grounds, trees, gazelles, the ocean, air, etc..
>
Why can they not be owned?
> > > You always need to initiate force to force your set of axioms on other
> > > people. All idologies to that. There is no such things as one holy
> > > ideology that is better than and above all others. "Holier than thou"
> > > doesn't exist, altaugh all four extremist groups (Libertarians,
> > > Fascists, Communists, and Anarcho-Socialists) believe so.
> >
> > Again you have doubted the possibility of knowledge of the very thing you
> > are discussing. What do you have to contribute if you are going to do
> > that? NOF cannot logically require the initiation of force or force at
> > all for that matter to have. Saying otherwise is ludicrous. I am not
> > going to continue if you are going to start lapsing back into that kind of
> > stuff.
>
> Excuse me? If you can't argue for the concept of real property, why is
> it my fault?
>
I already have and you have already conceded to it. You are just clinging to
the idea that land is somehow different from any other physical object when it
scomes to ownership. You have the burden of proof now -- show that I can
comingle my labor to come to own other physical objects as personal property,
but that when I do this with land I do not come to own it somehow.
> > > Why do you think did Voltaire say that the right to an opinion was so
> > > important he would die for it?
> >
> > Well is he forcing his ideology on us? Would he kill for it? I
> > don't think he was right... can you show he was?
>
> No. I believe he was.
>
> > > Let me tell you, what I think. I think the reason was _not_ that he
> > > thought that one ideology was just "right" and wouldn't have to be
> > > doubted anyway.
> > >
> > > There is two things I generally distrust in all politics:
> > >
> > > a) Any opinion that believes it was right and can "prove" that it is.
> > >
> > > b) Anyone who's ideals match his interests.
> >
> > Yet by simply discussing this matter at all and presenting a side you are
> > implicitely if not explicitely claiming you can prove your case.
>
> Well, I did prove my case that natural resources cannot be owned
> according to NOF.
>
I don't even know what you mean by "natural resources". What qualifies? Is
the methane I pass out of my body a natural resource? Is my body a natural
resource? What if I just don't ask anyone and use a natural resource to
create something? Is my creation now subject to public ownership?
You mistake what "own" means. You are redefining the word to mean something
other than having a right to the object which is owned or sole right if the
object is completely owned and not just partially so. I basically own the
whistle -- why do I not basically own the land I am inhabiting and have
labored on? That is all any laissez fair capitalist means by "ownership".
> > > > all of the JO's -- JOA, JOT, JOR -- are simply set sof rule that state
> > > > the means by which one may do the thing they are suppose to describe
> > > > (Acquire, Transfer, Rectify). A socialist would not necessarily
> > > > reject JOA but simply say that JOA says that Acquisition is never
> > > > Justified (for instance). One does not need anyone to own anything to
> > > > have JOT, it is merely a conditional statement that says _if_ someone
> > > > ever comes to own something _then_ here's how ownership can be justly
> > > > transfered. Statements of this form are true or false regardless of
> > > > whether or not ownership is possible. If ownership is impossible
> > > > (which we have both agreed now that it is possible under NOF)
> > >
> > > Actually I have agreed that ownership as a concept is not needed when it
> > > can be reduced to NOF anyway. Calling this "ownershop" might only lead
> > > to the believe that other forms of ownerships (real/intelectual) would
> > > also exist.
> >
> > For the last time -- that is the concept of ownership.
>
> No. The concept of ownership consists of personal, real, and intelectual
> property. Only the first one can be reduced to NOF according to our
> experiment. Maqybe the others can, but you somehow try not to touch real
> property anyway.
>
I don;t knwo about intellectual property -- that is another digression that
you have recently introduced. I am talking about land -- the right to
exclusively inhabit a certain area. You can come by this right by settling
on that area in the same way you come by the exclusive right to possess a
whistle of your own creation. The are is yours only because you have settled
it and in so doing comingled your labor with it. I suppose if someone could
transplant you to someother place without initiating force and destroying or
otherwise taking possession of your labor then that would be perfectly
acceptable under laissez fair capitalism.
> > Ownership as a concept is nothing more than NOF according to our axioms.
> > You seem to have a this rigid COP. It is liek saying "morality is what is
> > in the bible" so either you accept the bible literally or you reject the
> > whole idea of morality altogether. That is a straw man -- morality is not
> > what is in the bible. The bible is just one take on morality. Similarly
> > your distortions of classic liberal thought about what COP entails is just
> > one incoherent take on COP. Locke had quite a different view. So, did
> > Rand. Their views are well known to result in laissez fair capitalism.
> > It is unweildy to have to reduce everything to NOF all the time. That
> > is why we use the derived concept of ownership.
>
> Which is CPP, yes. But I guess we need private ownership of the means of
> production (and that included natural resources) for capitalism to work.
>
> Otherwise it will just be mercantilism.
>
No we do not. Mercantilism is the theory that money is wealth and that a
nations exports should exceed their imports (Websters). There is no such
thing as money in our tribe. Wealth is, if anything, labor for right now,
but I am not even sure we have a precise notion of wealth, in fact.
Mercantilism is based on a social construct that we certainly do not have at
this point -- money or some other object used as units of exchange.
What we do have is private property.
> --
> Fan of Woody Allen
> Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza
>
Adrian
Andrew J. Brehm
> If they are not owned by anyone then I may use them at my leisure without
> violating NOF (unless I have to directly force someone to do something for
> somereason which was not advocated by either side).
That is correct.
> If I comingle my labor
> with the object then that object is mine because of the labor.
No.
A result cannot change factors. The labor is yours, the object is not
and never will be.
> You are just
> erecting a straw man by saying that "mine" means something no one (but you)
> ever said it did and pointing out that I do not own the object but only the
> product (which is inexorably comingled with the object).
"mine" means that something is owned by me and nobody has a right to it.
This is simply not true for any objects on our island. Did you or did
you not agree to "production = object + work"?
> > I have at no point conceded that the status of the land is changed by
> > working it.
>
> Dammit Andrew, I am tired of your digressing and evading. You are merely nit
> picking ove rhtis issue of official title to some such thing that is purely
> YOUR OWN creation. Locke did not have this in his philosophy nor do I or
> many other classic liberals and libertarians.
Oh, you do. By using the idea of "claiming" land you are trying to
change its status from "not owned" to "owned".
We have agreed that ones owns one's own laber. At no point have I agreed
or have you proven that a status of an object can be changed without the
use of force.
> A socialist wants to not just
> hold the land in common or something like that, but all that is produced on
> it.
The primary socialist thesis I know is that of society's (aka
everyone's) ownership of the means of production.
You said that even socialists agree that one's work is one's own.
> A socialist wants to share in _what is produced_ equally. Why do they
> get to take my product if that product was made from otherwise unowned
> resources?
They don't. And I would really like to know where I said they would.
> > Have you forgotten?
> >
> > I mentioned _several times_ that I agree with the formula
> >
> > production = object (land) + work.
> >
> > "work" is owned by someone, "object" is not. "production" is earned
> > again, but the result cannot change the factors involved. I pointed this
> > out several times!
> >
> > Are you ignoring it?
> >
>
> I am ignoring your irrelevant digression and straw man.
Maybe you should stop ignoring my arguments and we will get somewhere.
> > > If they have surplus labor, then they might even buy the right to land
> > > with it.
> >
> > From whom?
> >
>
> From the "public" -- whatever that means.
In this case we'd have to force proposition 001 on our tribe to make the
land public property and then give it to private owners.
> If they don't need to buy it from
> society then you can have it without owing anything to anyone.
There is no such thing as an effect without a cause. Whatever effect
makes a scenario different from same scenario without the effect must
have a cause.
> Ownership
> MEANS RPO under various circumstances we have yet to settle on. Some of the
> more common notions are that you would have RPO even if you put the object
> away or temporarily left it for some reason. Most libertarians would say
> that you lose or transfer ownership if you were to, say, completely abandon
> an object
I agree with this.
> (like garbage for instance -- someone else can have the couch you
> throw away) or if you never really comingled your labor with it by buying it
> or fashoning it into something valuable. So you cannot just posit a claim to
> land
I know. That's what I said and insisted on. You wanted to claim land.
Remember?
> -- that is a socialist idea NOT a libertarian one.
Claiming land is a socialist idea?
Come on, this "everything I don't happen to agree with must be left"
attitude should really be too old to be funny now.
"socialism" seems to be defined very differently in different regions.
It is usually always defined as "everything I don't agree with" (or
"everything that is stupid") in the public opinion.
However, at no point was socialism the idea of "claiming land and owning
it".
> > > Straw man. Only you mean something other than just squatting on it and
> > > laboring on it. You have this artificial idea that "claiming" means
> > > something that I have said over and over and over and over and over and
> > > over and over and over and over and over again that it does not. You keep
> > > incessantly reasserting that it means that though....
> >
> > You said that "claiming" means that someone has the right to the land,
> > which I don't agree with as a concept.
>
> Andrew you are being purposefully dense.
Thank you.
> What does "right to the land" mean?
I don't know. I don't believe in such a right based on NOF.
> What does RPO mean? You know what it means -- stop trying to evade the
> inevitable conclusion.
What conclusion? That you can create an effect that doesn't have a
cause?
> Do not try to pretend that I am physically
> dislocating someone by planting a garden in uninhabited territory.
I don't and never did. Just try to argue against what I said and not
what you want me to say.
> Do not
> try to pretend that I am initiating force when you have no one else that
> could possibly have a right to use the land.
What "right" to use the land?
That right does not yet exist.
Either you can prove it would, by showing how this right doesn't change
anything, or the right simply doesn't exist.
If this right can be reduced to NOF it could not possibly change
anything, could it?
> If they do not then why can't
> I? You are forcing a conclusion that is not natural -- not me. You have the
> burden of proof here -- not me.
Actually it is you who has introduced a concept in our experiment so it
your job to prove it is indeed based on NOF.
I mentioned once or twice that I think you didn't really do that. And
now you come up and tell me that you thought you wouldn't have to?
Anyway, a result can never change a factor.
> > Certainly. And this is why I believe that Eastern Europe was not
> > socialist or communist, but simply dictatorships.
> >
> > And as you say, a dictatorship is not the same as "everyone" owning the
> > land.
>
> Under what conditions then would everyone own the land?
According to the American Heritage Dictionary the idea was that some
kind of democracy rules over it.
> It sounds like the
> only possible way is if they _unanimously_ consent. Otherwise, NOF must be
> violated to force someone into the collective.
Same with your idea of property. You will have to violate NOF to make
people accept that you "own" something.
> > > Lenin was a Marxist.
> >
> > No.
> >
>
> Yep
Prove it, if you think you can.
> > Lenin believed that communism (or whatever he called communism) could
> > raise from a country that doesn't even have the neccessary
> > industrialization. Marx said industrialization was the primary condition
> > for communism to rise. Russia was not industrialized. That's when Lenin
> > changed the ide of a workers state into a farmers state.
>
> So you disagree with his interpretation of Marx.
Fully and absolutely, yes.
I guess you agree with his interpretation of Marx?
> He claimed to be a Marxist
> and many thought he was and many agreed with his interpretation. Many still
> do and claim that it was Stalin that was clearly the dictator.If Lenin
> wasn;t a Marxist then teh Crusades were not a religious war. You can say
> they aren't, but adults understand that they really were.
I guess you used the world "adults" to point out your superiority to me
in this discussion.
Pointless, as I don't believe in superiority of any human being over any
other human being. If I didn't know that you _are_ able to discuss
something on a serious level, I would now ask you not to do such things,
as they could be considered offensive (except by "adults" as you might
define them).
What is your argument against my point that the conditions required for
communism according to Marx were simply not present in Russia? "Adults
know he was still a Marxist"? Is that all?
I explain my opinion and all you can reply is "adults know you are
wrong"?
And what has Stalin got to do with it? His reign came after Lenin's.
> > I don't believe that government would eventually vanish. Leave that to
> > the anarchists of both sides.
>
> Well, that is true Marxism.
I know. But the theory that I was a Marxist was yours, not mine.
I know that Marxism is an anarchistic ideology and I pointed that out
several times.
> > > I am merely showing that NOF is a clasic liberal or libertarian foundation
> > > -- not a modern liberal one.
> >
> > Why? I never doubted it.
>
> That means that according to NOF we can have the right to "real property" as
> you put it.
No. The fact that NOF was a classical liberal concept does not
automatically prove that other classical liberal concepts can be reduced
to it.
It is in fact even completely unimportant where NOF comes from if you
want to prove or disprove anything.
If real property could exist within the system of NOF, it wouldn't
change anything. No effect without cause.
> > > The original hypothesis of our tribe was that they only have the NOF
> > > principle. It has lead us to laissez fair capitalism
> >
> > It hasn't. It has lead us to voluntary mercantilism. For laissez faire
> > capitalism we need private oenwerhip of netural resoources which we
> > don't have.
>
> No we don't. If I can take oil and refine it into gasoline then the gas is
> mine according to NOF.
Certainly. And so can others.
> Beyond this type of thing, I do not know what you are
> talking about.
I noticed that.
> You are misrepresenting what "private ownership of property"
> is and creating a straw man. Stop defining capitalism to be something it is
> not.
If capitalism was not the idea of private ownership of all means of
production, what else is it?
Simply barter for goods and exchange goods for other goods is not
capitalism, that's "trade". Capitalism is but one system of trade.
> > Certainly. However such a force is simply defined as "defensive", much
> > as protecting your land is defined as "defensive" in capitalism.
>
> Protecting one's land is not defined as defensive -- it follows from NOF just
> as CPP does. In fact, the land is personal property.
Protecting one's land is defined as defensove. You cannot coclude from
NOF that you have the right to iniate force against someone standing on
your land.
If you attack someone somewhere it is an initiation of force. So far for
NOF.
If you attack someone on "your" land it is not. That is COP what makes
the difference here. Thus we got a new effect, and thus a new cause.
Without COP defending land would be an initiation of force. Thus this
use of force is only defensive with COP in place. This makes COP
self-evident.
> > > unlike laissez fair capitalism which is based on NOF.
> >
> > The concept of ownership of real property is not based on NOF.
>
> Yes it is. You are only being obstinate.
Then prove your point.
> Is the land I am standing on
> personal property (if I refuse to move or take it with me)?
No, but nobody can move you from it. You might call it personal property
if you like, as it changes nothing.
Anything that can be reduced to NOF can't change the scenario. For the
situation above (you standing somewhere) it is completely irrelevant
whether CPP exists or not.
> It is in contact
> with me. What if I comingle my labor directly with it, then how is it
> different from any other physical object?
It isn't. And I never claimed it was.
> Would you answer the damn question?
Certainly. And I have done so in the past.
> If you had a good response to this we would not have to be stuck
> in this tedious rut.
Oh, we don't have to be stuck here. It's just that you keep explaining
why you think personal property (aka the "production" from my formula)
can be reduced to NOF and I keep agreeing with you about this.
Then you keep explaining that since personal property can be reduced to
NOF all property could be. And I keep disagreeing.
Than you return to explaining the idea of personal property again, and I
agree again.
After two or three turns you then resort to name calling in one form or
another ("Grow up!", "Adults know....").
And I _know_ that this all must be my fault. At least in your eyes.
> Right now I would like just any response at all.
Again? Look back a few postings. Anyway, I gave my answer.
And I will do so again in five or six postings.
No problem.
> What a pretentious statement -- "Not as such".
Not much more than "grow up", but at least more on-topic.
> How is it that our concept of
> personal property does not apply to physical objects "as such".
Because our concept of personal property is based on work invested and
the result of investing work in an object.
Thus the result of the scenario can only be used by you, but the object
in question _as such_ is not owned by you.
> What kind of
> physical objects does it apply to and why are these physical objects
> different from any other?
Any physical objects and no differences. What's your problem with that?
> What is special about land versus a stick or a
> tree growing in the land for that matter?
Nothing. Again, was it you I discussed this stick/whistle scenario with?
Can't find it at the moment.
> Why is it that I can comingle my
> labor with the stick but for some reason I cannot with the land?
I don't know.
I only realize that, altaugh you accuse me of that straw men thingy, you
seem to be rather fond of repeating and over-repeating this one issue
which I already agreed with.
Is this your last straw?
> > You are simply ignoring the fact that you can't explain how real
> > property could possibly exist on our island, aren't you?
> >
>
> I did:
>
> 1) You may without violating NOF comingle your labor with the land.
Ok.
> 2) One must violate NOF to take your labor from you.
Ok.
> 3) You own the land (at least in any sense that I would use the word "own" --
> apparently you have a whole lot of other ways of distorting this word).
Well, I use the word "own" as a praedicat describing the relation of an
oil-field-owner in Texas (or wherever) to the oil-field in question.
That's but one example of property rights, isn't it?
My point for real property:
1. Anything that cannot be reduced to NOF is a new axiom and must be
forced upon people in order to be valid within our system. Agree?
2. Anything that can be reduced to NOF is a theorem and must be valid
within our system anyway. Agree?
3. Anything that is valid in our system doens't change anything in our
system. Agree?
4. Anything that changes anything else in our system must be based on a
new concept, an axiom. Agree?
5. You cannot attack someone who is standing somewhere and not doing any
harm to you or your work. Agree?
6. You can, however, attack someone who is standing on your land and not
dog any harm to you or your work. Agree?
7. That means, that effectively the same force is used in botn
scenarior, but in 6 the force is used as an attack, while in 7 the force
is used to defend property. Agree?
8. That means, that property rights effectively redefine the definition
of force in the above scenario. Agree?
9. And any definition must be agreen upon or forced on people to be
accepted.
And my points for personal property:
1. One cannot without violating NOF take your work from you without your
consent. Agree?
2. You can take an object (that is not already protected by these
points) and invest work in it, thus making it unavailable for other
people. Agree?
3. The object and work are both factors, and the production (aka a
whistle if the object was a stick) is the result. Agree?
4. We can only know the status of the result of we know both stati of
the the factors. Agree?
5. The status of the object is "not owned", the status of the work is
"owned". Thus the result's status becomes effectively "owned" as well.
Agree?
6. The result cannot change any of the original stati. Neither can the
work become "not owned" nor can the object become "owned". Agree?
7. Thus the object _as such_ is not your property. Agree?
> > > > And it is my argument (and a classic liberal one, too) that there is no
> > > > such things as a completely right ideology that stands beyond doubt.
> > >
> > > Are you sure of that? I guess your ideology that says to doubt all
> > > ideologies is beyond doubt -- or at least that part of it?
> >
> > I didn't say you may not doubt other ideologies. But you cannot prove
> > they are wrong based on the fact that they are incompatible with yours.
>
> I doubt the ideaology that says that all ideologies may be douted. Can you
> show that is true?
No. I can only say I find it useful.
> > Well, there is not only the possibility of unowned things, there is even
> > some things that just cannot be owned: a river, natural resources like
> > oil (oil fields), fish grounds, trees, gazelles, the ocean, air, etc..
>
> Why can they not be owned?
I tried to explain that while you were still (repeatedly) explaining why
CPP exists.
Your question actually shows why they can't be owned. If NOF was our
sole principle, then there is no such things as a definition of
property. Without such a definition however, NOTHING can be owned as
such. You can only own something while you hold it and when you invested
labor in it. It is impossible to invest labor in any of the things above
(at least to any serious extend). Thus the listed examples would always
be "unowned", as you cannot change the status of anything without the
use of force.
However, your question also shows me that you too seem to believe that
private ownership of the things above is one of the grounds of
capitalism. Why else would you want to know why tey couldn't be owned?
> > Excuse me? If you can't argue for the concept of real property, why is
> > it my fault?
>
> I already have and you have already conceded to it.
You haven't explain anything, and neither have I conceded to it.
You explained the concept of personal property three times and I agreed
with it three times. That is all that happened.
> You are just clinging to
> the idea that land is somehow different from any other physical object when it
> scomes to ownership.
No.
> You have the burden of proof now -- show that I can
> comingle my labor to come to own other physical objects as personal property,
> but that when I do this with land I do not come to own it somehow.
Why would I have to prove something which I don't advocate or believe???
> > > > There is two things I generally distrust in all politics:
> > > >
> > > > a) Any opinion that believes it was right and can "prove" that it is.
> > > >
> > > > b) Anyone who's ideals match his interests.
> > >
> > > Yet by simply discussing this matter at all and presenting a side you are
> > > implicitely if not explicitely claiming you can prove your case.
> >
> > Well, I did prove my case that natural resources cannot be owned
> > according to NOF.
>
> I don't even know what you mean by "natural resources".
Ok.
> What qualifies?
Oil, woood, water, fish, gazelles, anything that can be found on our
island.
> Is the methane I pass out of my body a natural resource? Is my body a natural
> resource?
I think this was meant as a joke anyway.
It's just that I don't think your jokes ("grow up", "adults believe",
"my body") are very funny. And they don't really make me believe you
anymore than an argument.
> What if I just don't ask anyone and use a natural resource to
> create something?
Do so.
> Is my creation now subject to public ownership?
Do you think this would match the formula I made up?
production = object + work
There is three possibilities here:
1. You never read the formula and I can thus be sure that you didn't
read any of my texts anyway.
2. You didn't think about the formula, which would also give me the
impression that you don't really care much for what I say, but are
instead fully convinced that you are right anyway, and I don't care for
"holier than thou" attititudes.
3. You disagree with my formula and do not believe that the production
cannot be taken away from anyone without violating NOF.
I can't think of any other reasons _why_, at this stage of the
discussion, after so many postings, you would ask me this question.
> > > So you think I am violating someone else's rights by going to an un
> > > touched piece of land where there is no one nor does any one (for the sake
> > > of argument) stumble across for years. When they do I have a fully
> > > erected hous and a thriving garden. All of these things occupying the
> > > land are created by my labor. To deprive me of them is depriving me of my
> > > labor. When did I violate anbothers rights? When did I violate NOF? I
> > > didn't (unless we already had the concept of ownership). But you have
> > > conceded that to deprive me now of my labor -- of my land -- is a
> > > violation of NOF.
> >
> > That is correct. But you mistake that for accepting the idea that this
> > land was owned by you.
>
> You mistake what "own" means. You are redefining the word to mean something
> other than having a right to the object which is owned or sole right if the
> object is completely owned and not just partially so.
I actually don't.
> I basically own the
> whistle -- why do I not basically own the land I am inhabiting and have
> labored on?
Again, you seem to ignore everything I said. Or at least everything you
need to ignore to keep on procing that which you can prove: CPP.
Not only did we agree with each other about that you do "own" what you
have invested work in, but you even reminded me of the issue several
times, whenever you felt like it.
> That is all any laissez fair capitalist means by "ownership".
So laissez-fair capitalism doesn't know real property and private
ownershop of natural resources?
> > No. The concept of ownership consists of personal, real, and intelectual
> > property. Only the first one can be reduced to NOF according to our
> > experiment. Maqybe the others can, but you somehow try not to touch real
> > property anyway.
>
> I don;t knwo about intellectual property -- that is another digression that
> you have recently introduced.
And postponed, and this correct.
> I am talking about land -- the right to exclusively inhabit a certain area.
I know.
> You can come by this right by settling
> on that area in the same way you come by the exclusive right to possess a
> whistle of your own creation.
That is correct. And don't come up to ask me to give you this answer
again! This is the fifth or sixth time it came up.
> The are is yours only because you have settled
> it and in so doing comingled your labor with it.
Correct.
> I suppose if someone could
> transplant you to someother place without initiating force and destroying or
> otherwise taking possession of your labor then that would be perfectly
> acceptable under laissez fair capitalism.
Ok.
In that case private ownership of natural resources like oil-fields
wouldn't be possible.
> > Which is CPP, yes. But I guess we need private ownership of the means of
> > production (and that included natural resources) for capitalism to work.
> >
> > Otherwise it will just be mercantilism.
>
> No we do not. Mercantilism is the theory that money is wealth and that a
> nations exports should exceed their imports (Websters). There is no such
> thing as money in our tribe. Wealth is, if anything, labor for right now,
> but I am not even sure we have a precise notion of wealth, in fact.
> Mercantilism is based on a social construct that we certainly do not have at
> this point -- money or some other object used as units of exchange.
That's why I refered to it as "voluntary mercantilism".
Forget it.
> What we do have is private property.
In the personal sense, that is correct.
Adrian
why it is that if I labor on land I cannot own it every bit as much as I own
a stick that I have fashioned into a whistle. Fine -- say I do not actually
own the wood, but I do own the whistle. Say I do not own the land but I do
own the garden. All of that is irrelevant. All of that is not something
that is necessary for capitalism -- the private ownership of property. You
have conceded earlier that I have exclusive rights to the whistle that I
made. Now why do I not have exclusive rights to the garden I planted? I
have already even conceded for the sake of argument that you could
transplant this garden else where, but I still own the garden. What I am
tired of is your evasiveness. You will not accept your burden of proof.
You must show that the garden is somehow different from the whistle which
you claim I "own" as personal property. At least if you go up a few posts
you said that specifically. Why is this not true about the garden? If it
is
then we have capitalism -- the private ownership of property -- we have
COP. If you do not think we do then it is because you have a distorted
notion of COP and capitalism.
Adrian
Andrew J. Brehm
> Your break down into production and object is irrelevant.
I think not.
> You must explain
> why it is that if I labor on land I cannot own it every bit as much as I own
> a stick that I have fashioned into a whistle.
That is enough.
I replied to this several (I think seven or eight) times. You keep on
ignoring it and return to this point of this discussion where we were
several days ago.
You should maybe quote my last article and reply on it. Than you
wouldn't have this amnesia of yours, I presume.
Anyways, I predicted that you would ignore my answer anyway and that I
had to answer it again and again and again some postings later.
For now, the answer is (again): there is no difference between land and
a stick to this regards.
This is what I have said for the last six or seven postings, and as much
as I know your style of discussion, I will be asked this question again,
being accused of never asnwering it, and I will answer it again and
again and again.
We won't get anywhere from here.
Simply post your question every now and then, and I will give you your
answer. We don't need all this other stuff around it.
> Fine -- say I do not actually
> own the wood, but I do own the whistle.
Ok.
> Say I do not own the land but I do
> own the garden.
Ok.
> All of that is irrelevant.
Not at all.
> All of that is not something
> that is necessary for capitalism -- the private ownership of property. You
> have conceded earlier that I have exclusive rights to the whistle that I
> made.
Actually, I never doubted it. Don't try to advocate something which we
agreed on from the very beginning as a victory of yours. Or I will claim
that your agreeing to my NOF was a victory of mine.
> Now why do I not have exclusive rights to the garden I planted?
For the eighth or ninth time: you do.
> I
> have already even conceded for the sake of argument that you could
> transplant this garden else where, but I still own the garden.
I know.
> What I am tired of is your evasiveness.
evasive, adj,
somebody who keeps on answering the same question over and over again
while the answer is usually ignored and the question asked again
Is that your definition of "evasive"?
Noted.
> You will not accept your burden of proof.
What burdern of proof?
> You must show that the garden is somehow different from the whistle which
> you claim I "own" as personal property.
I don't believe that the garden was somehow different from the whistle.
Gosh, this is really becoming ridiculous.
> At least if you go up a few posts
> you said that specifically.
I did, that is correct.
> Why is this not true about the garden?
It is.
Jesus.
> If it is then we have capitalism
Not yet. We need private ownership of naturel resources like fished,
oil, and water for a complete capitalism.
> -- the private ownership of property -- we have COP.
No.
> If you do not think we do then it is because you have a distorted
> notion of COP and capitalism.
Probably, as you can't possibly be wrong.
Ever noted that since you asked the same question over and over again,
even tho I answered it several times (ten after the last count) and you
ignored all my answers to it, that you might have also ignored some of
my points about why I believe that COP does not only consist of CPP, but
also of CRP?
I mean, could that be possible?
adrian...@hotmail.com
several times previously that you did not.
So which is it?
Adrian: "If I comingle my labor with the object then that object is mine
because of the labor."
Andrew: "No..."mine" means that something is owned by me and nobody has a
right to it."
I thought you said that I DO gain exclusive rights to, for instance the
whistle or the land, if I comingle my labor with it. That means that nobody
has a right to it? If I make a whistle out of a stick, then can someone come
and take it away from me? I thought you said no to this. It sounded like
you agreed to the same for land in the previous post, yet in the post
imediately preceding that one you say what's quoted above. How about:
Andrew: "I have at no point conceded that the status of the land is changed by
working it."
If I gain exclusive right to a given plot of land by comingling my labor with
it, then the status of that land has changed. Whereas before anyone could
walk onto it without violating NOF, according to you in the previous post you
have repeatedly agreed that to do so after it has been worked would violate
NOF (even if the laborer has left for the day). Yet, in the quote
immediately above, you seem to say that the land is just as much a publicly
owned (or unowned or whatever) item as it always was. It cannot be both. I
either have exclusive right to the land or I do not. As far as I know, "I
own", "mine", etc. simply mean that I have an exclusive right to as you
seemed to have agreed to in the first set of prior quotes.
I am not going to go back and dredge up the long history of things that you
said to make me genuinely believe that you would say that one cannot own land
like they can own the whistle. I think you even said at several points that
the whistle was _personal property_ while land was _real property_ -- do you
remember that? It sounds like you would like to take a position that one can
"own", according to NOF, all the normal things that one would in capitalism,
but that capitalism requires a different notion of ownership than simple
exclusive RPO or that capitalism allows for a different entitlement theory
than would be derived from NOF. So far we have a set of rules that
articulate at least some of JOA and JOT in terms of how one would gain
exclusive RPO over physical objects including land. To me that IS COP.
In fact, it is when you say you do not concede that one can own land
according to NOF that I return here to showing that they can. You are the
one that is bringing me back here. Why does COP need to include more than
what we have discussed? As far as I know, in any capitalism that I have run
accross (Locke for instance), COP does not contain anymore than what we have
described as CPP with regard to land or any other physical object. Owning a
physical object (including land) just means that you have exclusive rights to
that object (exclusive RPO), nothing more (at least as far as I would claim
and I think that most capitalists would agree).
In fact, I think I can recall American movies that have been made centered
around the theme of how someone happens to be sitting on part of an
underground oil well and the oil barons try to buy or force them off. As far
as I know, you cannot just claim natural resources in the most capitalist of
America, for instance, simply because you found it first or some such thing.
If the homesteader can drill to the oil, then they can have access to it as
can anyone else who can drill to it from their own location -- possibly the
same deposit that you have drilled to first from your own property. Who
acquires exclusive rights to natural resources directly by merely staking a
claim to it in capitalism? What capitalist political philosophers adhere to
this position?
Socialism however entails that one or some group of people claim unsettled
land and prevent anyone from settling on it until they decide (vote
democratically or however their particular brand of socialism works) what
they want to do with it. Therefore, socialsts must violate NOF. Capitalists
(or the ones that I know of, at least), would simply allow folks to go out to
any unsettled land and settle it if they can (as for instance in Colonial
America). What they cannot do is just stand in Washington, DC, and say "Oh,
by the way, I claim all of the rest of this continent that is unsettled".
Apparently the socialists can if they impose their albeit democratic
sovereignty over it.
Are you saying that what I call capitalism is really socialism? I fail to
see the relevance of not owning the wood of the whistle, say, if I have
exclusive RPO to the whistle. I do not understand how that relates to
anything that is important. How will I end up any different if I have
exclusive RPO versus what you are calling COP? It seems like all anyone
cares about is exclusive RPO. If I can have private eRPO (exclusive RPO -- I
guess the word "exclusive already means it is private) over any given thing,
then how are we in a different state than capitlaism? How would we ever have
publicly owned land, for instance, as in socialism if we have eRPO?
Andrew J. Brehm
> So you acknowledge ownership of land as reducing to NOF, then? You had said
> several times previously that you did not.
> So which is it?
Read any of the last postings and you will see.
I agreed (again and again and again) that whatever you invested work in,
the production was yours. You will _never_ get me to agree that a result
can change a factor.
> I thought you said that I DO gain exclusive rights to, for instance the
> whistle or the land, if I comingle my labor with it. That means that nobody
> has a right to it? If I make a whistle out of a stick, then can someone come
> and take it away from me? I thought you said no to this.
I did.
> It sounded like
> you agreed to the same for land in the previous post, yet in the post
> imediately preceding that one you say what's quoted above. How about:
>
> Andrew: "I have at no point conceded that the status of the land is changed by
> working it."
I might have said that, yes.
Again, a result can never change a factor.
> If I gain exclusive right to a given plot of land by comingling my labor with
> it, then the status of that land has changed.
No.
> Whereas before anyone could
> walk onto it without violating NOF, according to you in the previous post you
> have repeatedly agreed that to do so after it has been worked would violate
> NOF (even if the laborer has left for the day). Yet, in the quote
> immediately above, you seem to say that the land is just as much a publicly
> owned (or unowned or whatever) item as it always was. It cannot be both.
It isn't. The land is not yours. Only what you planted on it is yours. I
just so happens that no-one can walk on the land without violating your
rights. However, the status of the land (object) itself is never
changed.
> I
> either have exclusive right to the land or I do not. As far as I know, "I
> own", "mine", etc. simply mean that I have an exclusive right to as you
> seemed to have agreed to in the first set of prior quotes.
You own your labor and anything that partly conists of that labor.
> I am not going to go back and dredge up the long history of things that you
> said to make me genuinely believe that you would say that one cannot own land
> like they can own the whistle.
Hello? I didn't make you believe anything. It was who who repeatedly
ignored my answer and asked the question again and again.
> I think you even said at several points that
> the whistle was _personal property_ while land was _real property_ -- do you
> remember that?
I actually assumed that what you plant on land was personal property
according to the definition we used (anything you hold and anything you
invested work in).
> It sounds like you would like to take a position that one can
> "own", according to NOF, all the normal things that one would in capitalism,
> but that capitalism requires a different notion of ownership than simple
> exclusive RPO or that capitalism allows for a different entitlement theory
> than would be derived from NOF. So far we have a set of rules that
> articulate at least some of JOA and JOT in terms of how one would gain
> exclusive RPO over physical objects including land. To me that IS COP.
To many others, most others, as I believe, COP would also include the
idea that you could own rivers, fishbanks, oilfields, and other objects.
> In fact, it is when you say you do not concede that one can own land
> according to NOF that I return here to showing that they can.
I thought so.
> You are the one that is bringing me back here.
By repeatedly answering your question? Silly me!
> Why does COP need to include more than
> what we have discussed?
Because you can own more than personal property. You can own natural
resources, ideas, enventions, software, oil-fields, rivers, etc. All
this is not yet covered by CPP.
If you want to end it here, I'd say ok. Let's end it here. But don't
call it COP as if this was comparable to modern COPs used in the western
world.
> As far as I know, in any capitalism that I have run
> accross (Locke for instance), COP does not contain anymore than what we have
> described as CPP with regard to land or any other physical object. Owning a
> physical object (including land) just means that you have exclusive rights to
> that object (exclusive RPO), nothing more (at least as far as I would claim
> and I think that most capitalists would agree).
Ok. No problem. But I wouldn't really call this capitalism, as it lacks
many features of property that can be found in modern capitalism around
the world.
> In fact, I think I can recall American movies that have been made centered
> around the theme of how someone happens to be sitting on part of an
> underground oil well and the oil barons try to buy or force them off. As far
> as I know, you cannot just claim natural resources in the most capitalist of
> America, for instance, simply because you found it first or some such thing.
??? I thought there such things as claims for gold mines and other
things?
> If the homesteader can drill to the oil, then they can have access to it as
> can anyone else who can drill to it from their own location
Ok. But that neglects the idea of real property.
> -- possibly the
> same deposit that you have drilled to first from your own property. Who
> acquires exclusive rights to natural resources directly by merely staking a
> claim to it in capitalism? What capitalist political philosophers adhere to
> this position?
> Socialism however entails that one or some group of people claim unsettled
> land and prevent anyone from settling on it until they decide (vote
> democratically or however their particular brand of socialism works) what
> they want to do with it.
Socialists do _not_ advocate the idea that one can claim anything.
You are correct however, that there are different branches of socialism,
and I wish other people in this group would know that. This would make
discussions _much_ easier.
> Therefore, socialsts must violate NOF. Capitalists
> (or the ones that I know of, at least), would simply allow folks to go out to
> any unsettled land and settle it if they can (as for instance in Colonial
> America). What they cannot do is just stand in Washington, DC, and say "Oh,
> by the way, I claim all of the rest of this continent that is unsettled".
Didn't the American government do this?
> Apparently the socialists can if they impose their albeit democratic
> sovereignty over it.
Yes, since socialists don't have the concept of property.
> Are you saying that what I call capitalism is really socialism?
No. Have I?
> I fail to
> see the relevance of not owning the wood of the whistle, say, if I have
> exclusive RPO to the whistle.
Maybe you will see the relevance later, when we discuss the concept of
intelectual property (CIP).
> I do not understand how that relates to
> anything that is important.
You'll see.
It becomes important, for example, in the oil field issue. You seem to
agree with me that anyone could use an oil field under land which is, so
to speak, "owned". For this to work, the _land_ cannot be owned,
otherwise drilling to the oil beneath it would violate someone's rights.
> How will I end up any different if I have
> exclusive RPO versus what you are calling COP? It seems like all anyone
> cares about is exclusive RPO. If I can have private eRPO (exclusive RPO -- I
> guess the word "exclusive already means it is private) over any given thing,
> then how are we in a different state than capitlaism? How would we ever have
> publicly owned land, for instance, as in socialism if we have eRPO?
I don't know.
adrian...@hotmail.com
Andrew J. Brehm wrote in message
<1dqqriw.1td...@dialup-300.germany.ecore.net>...
><adrian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So you acknowledge ownership of land as reducing to NOF, then? You had
said
>> several times previously that you did not.
>> So which is it?
>
>Read any of the last postings and you will see.
>
>I agreed (again and again and again) that whatever you invested work in,
>the production was yours. You will _never_ get me to agree that a result
>can change a factor.
>
Perhaps you would care to enlighten me as to how it is that "ownership"
means something other than exclusive RPO. What you have said in the rest of
this post leads me to think that you think that "ownership must mean
something else since in the modern world we seem to own a lot of things that
you cannot see would be ownable under notions already discussed. That means
you say that those notions of "ownership" are not correct (or at least
inconsistent with NOF) not that ownership requires force. I think we are
very slowly trudging our way into a situation where, for instance,
homesteaders get to have ranches -- very large ones over time as they work
on theirs and expand it. They work a ranch and build a house on it and
raise cattle, chickens in a chicken coupe, fruits and vegetables in a
garden, etc. Maybe they get tired of the ranch and trade their eRPO to it
for someone else's eRPO to a beach house. All these types of things can
happen under NOF, can they not?
>> I thought you said that I DO gain exclusive rights to, for instance the
>> whistle or the land, if I comingle my labor with it. That means that
nobody
>> has a right to it? If I make a whistle out of a stick, then can someone
come
>> and take it away from me? I thought you said no to this.
>
>I did.
>
>> It sounded like
>> you agreed to the same for land in the previous post, yet in the post
>> imediately preceding that one you say what's quoted above. How about:
>>
>> Andrew: "I have at no point conceded that the status of the land is
changed by
>> working it."
>
>I might have said that, yes.
>
>Again, a result can never change a factor.
>
That statement is meaningless.
>> If I gain exclusive right to a given plot of land by comingling my labor
with
>> it, then the status of that land has changed.
>
>No.
Yeah it has -- see below.
>
>> Whereas before anyone could
>> walk onto it without violating NOF, according to you in the previous post
you
>> have repeatedly agreed that to do so after it has been worked would
violate
>> NOF (even if the laborer has left for the day). Yet, in the quote
>> immediately above, you seem to say that the land is just as much a
publicly
>> owned (or unowned or whatever) item as it always was. It cannot be both.
>
>It isn't. The land is not yours. Only what you planted on it is yours. I
>just so happens that no-one can walk on the land without violating your
>rights. However, the status of the land (object) itself is never
>changed.
>
Yes it has -- you have eRPO to that land. Now if you abandon it, then maybe
the idea that you did not own the land, itself comes to bear. In any case,
as in the laissez fair capitalist view, you may ultimately transfer your
eRPO to someone else that takes the land over. All of this is a question of
how can eRPO transfer justly from one individual to another? That is a
question of JOT.
>> I
>> either have exclusive right to the land or I do not. As far as I know,
"I
>> own", "mine", etc. simply mean that I have an exclusive right to as you
>> seemed to have agreed to in the first set of prior quotes.
>
>You own your labor and anything that partly conists of that labor.
>
Incidentally I am not sure I would agree with that statement (you might
partially or jointly own something, for instance), but we have some sort of
ownership nonetheless -- all under NOF.
>> I am not going to go back and dredge up the long history of things that
you
>> said to make me genuinely believe that you would say that one cannot own
land
>> like they can own the whistle.
>
>Hello? I didn't make you believe anything. It was who who repeatedly
>ignored my answer and asked the question again and again.
>
Well, you had directly contradicted that answer several times.
>> I think you even said at several points that
>> the whistle was _personal property_ while land was _real property_ -- do
you
>> remember that?
>
>I actually assumed that what you plant on land was personal property
>according to the definition we used (anything you hold and anything you
>invested work in).
>
Right. That labor gives you eRPO over the land. As far as I know eRPO=COP.
>> It sounds like you would like to take a position that one can
>> "own", according to NOF, all the normal things that one would in
capitalism,
>> but that capitalism requires a different notion of ownership than simple
>> exclusive RPO or that capitalism allows for a different entitlement
theory
>> than would be derived from NOF. So far we have a set of rules that
>> articulate at least some of JOA and JOT in terms of how one would gain
>> exclusive RPO over physical objects including land. To me that IS COP.
>
>To many others, most others, as I believe, COP would also include the
>idea that you could own rivers, fishbanks, oilfields, and other objects.
>
Well, let me see. Is it possible that through a series of complicated
transactions that one could gain eRPO over these things? Probably. What if
I gained eRPO over all the land from some point on a river down to the
ocean. Barring anything I may do to significantly change the ocean (by way
of what I may put in the river) against anyone's will, I would say that I
now have eRPO over this bottom half of the river. I could now damn it for
instance and make a power plant. The reason I could not do this if others
had RPO over land further down the river is because they gain partial RPO
over the river with that land. The "river" is not really treated as a
collection of H2O molecules that someone gains RPO over but rather a state
of nature one might have he right to exploit. Actually the same is true
with land. If I were to take a bunch of dirt from your property and
exchange it with some dirt from someone else's property, then probably all
else being equal, I have not infringed on anyone's rights. This is why in a
_laissez fair capitalist_ world it is not acceptable to just go a round
polluting as you please, for instance. In this case, you are defiling
_someone else's_ land. As long as that is not the case then not only do
laissez fair capitalists think it is probably okay, but most other people do
not care either. Again, as far as fishbanks go or oil fields, those are
questions of eRPO to particular locations. The natural resource -- the fish
and the oil -- are not owned or disputed over. It seems to be entirely a
question of eRPO.
>> In fact, it is when you say you do not concede that one can own land
>> according to NOF that I return here to showing that they can.
>
>I thought so.
>
As far as I know eRPO=COP. How are they different? COP over different
objects is just eRPO over those objects. Are you saying that no one can
have eRPO over certain objects like land? Are you changing it to say they
can over land but not other things like oil fields? If you say they can
have eRPO over land, but not COP over that same land, then it sounds to me
like you are contradicting yourself. The eRPO they have is COP.
>> You are the one that is bringing me back here.
>
>By repeatedly answering your question? Silly me!
>
Yes it is silly to answer affirmatively and then negatively. If you stuck
to one answer then there wouldn't be a problem. You say one can have eRPO
but not COP. I don't understand the difference -- perhaps you would like to
enlighten me. In particular, why is it that COP requires some sort of
ownership of the raw materials themselves that eRPO may not. If I have eRPO
to a particular object, then that is all anyone would care to have -- even
the greediest capitalist. Could you have COP in something but someone else
have eRPO to it, for instance?
>> Why does COP need to include more than
>> what we have discussed?
>
>Because you can own more than personal property. You can own natural
>resources, ideas, enventions, software, oil-fields, rivers, etc. All
>this is not yet covered by CPP.
>
Well, the buzz word intellectual property is a stand in for some sort of
complicated thing that many libertarians do not agree with, per se. What's
more is that this sort of thing is not something that is addressed by
classic literature probably because it was not as much of an issue. In any
case, the idea of intellectual property is not something like the lynch pin
of modern capitalism, for instance. That is something we could discuss, but
it comes long after discussions about rivers or oil fields which comes long
after just simple land.
>If you want to end it here, I'd say ok. Let's end it here. But don't
>call it COP as if this was comparable to modern COPs used in the western
>world.
>
Well, COP as it is used in the modern western world would include a
socialists notion of COP. I think that COP exists, but I have my own ideas
about what it entails. I do not think that it necessarily requires force to
have, and in fact would say that if one has a COP that does violate NOF,
then their idea of COP is probably wrong.
>> As far as I know, in any capitalism that I have run
>> accross (Locke for instance), COP does not contain anymore than what we
have
>> described as CPP with regard to land or any other physical object.
Owning a
>> physical object (including land) just means that you have exclusive
rights to
>> that object (exclusive RPO), nothing more (at least as far as I would
claim
>> and I think that most capitalists would agree).
>
>Ok. No problem. But I wouldn't really call this capitalism, as it lacks
>many features of property that can be found in modern capitalism around
>the world.
>
Well, for one thing most of the capitalism around the world is not laissez
fair capitalism. In fact, a lot of it is crony capitalism where the
government favors some and not others. For instance if you have to bribe
the government simply to go into business, then that is not really laissez
fair capitalism. Japan was not laissez fair capitalism. A country with
something like the Federal Reserve (America) is not laissez fair capitalist.
It is a mixed economy.
>> In fact, I think I can recall American movies that have been made
centered
>> around the theme of how someone happens to be sitting on part of an
>> underground oil well and the oil barons try to buy or force them off. As
far
>> as I know, you cannot just claim natural resources in the most capitalist
of
>> America, for instance, simply because you found it first or some such
thing.
>
>??? I thought there such things as claims for gold mines and other
>things?
That is right -- someone might somehow gain eRPO to it. It is argued over
what is really necessary to gain eRPO to something -- what are the minimal
requirements? What no one was ever able to do is try to claim the gold in
California without ever so much as travelling to the Mississippi. I am not
sure how such a thing would even work. No one was ever allowed to just
posit their claim. What they had to do was go there and mine it and find
it. Then -- once they commingled their labor with it -- they could claim to
have eRPO to it. the whole question with any of that is what exactly it
takes to have commingled one's labor with something NOT whether or not they
had to and NOT whether or not they would own it (have eRPO to it) once they
had.
>
>> If the homesteader can drill to the oil, then they can have access to it
as
>> can anyone else who can drill to it from their own location
>
>Ok. But that neglects the idea of real property.
>
Well, you were talking about owning the oil under the ground. Whoever owns
the land has the right to drill on it. I suppose if they were knee deep in
oil already, then they would get to have that oil that is already there on
the land (as part of their eRPO to the land). At some point though, the oil
is so far beneath the surface of the Earth that under even the most
capitalist economy, no one would consider rights to the deposit to go along
with rights to the land above.
>> -- possibly the
>> same deposit that you have drilled to first from your own property. Who
>> acquires exclusive rights to natural resources directly by merely staking
a
>> claim to it in capitalism? What capitalist political philosophers adhere
to
>> this position?
>> Socialism however entails that one or some group of people claim
unsettled
>> land and prevent anyone from settling on it until they decide (vote
>> democratically or however their particular brand of socialism works) what
>> they want to do with it.
>
>Socialists do _not_ advocate the idea that one can claim anything.
>
Then how is it that they assert their sovereignty over the land in place of
a capitalists claim to some piece of it? Do they violate NOF? One way or
another a socialist must gain RPO either partially or totally to all land,
including land they neither labored on nor acquired in a free exchange. If
not, then how is it that they seem to have the right to vote on how the land
is to be used? Is that not a partial RPO (pRPO)?
>You are correct however, that there are different branches of socialism,
>and I wish other people in this group would know that. This would make
>discussions _much_ easier.
>
I believe that even Hitler came to power on a socialist platform.
>> Therefore, socialsts must violate NOF. Capitalists
>> (or the ones that I know of, at least), would simply allow folks to go
out to
>> any unsettled land and settle it if they can (as for instance in Colonial
>> America). What they cannot do is just stand in Washington, DC, and say
"Oh,
>> by the way, I claim all of the rest of this continent that is unsettled".
>
>Didn't the American government do this?
>
That is correct. Many libertarians and laissez fair capitalists disagree
with this. Now, we have publicly owned land. From time to time the
government will hold auctions and convert the public land to private land.
A laissez fair capitalist would generally say that they should not have to
pay for otherwise unowned land like that. Beyond that, the only thing
America has done is say that they would enforce the laws of America over an
increasingly larger territory. So, in other words if America says that it
claims Mexico, then that does not necessarily mean that it claims that land
as publicly owned land, but rather that it will extend its sovereignty to
Mexico. So if I go to Mexico and acquire some land and then someone comes
to take it from me, then the _American_ army will now defend it for me as
opposed to the _Mexican_ army. Also, what is considered fair or moral is
now subject to interpretation by the _American_ laws (i.e. the constitution
of the US, etc) and not the _Mexican_ laws. It would not necessarily mean
that any of the Mexicans would lose their land -- just that they would be
ruled now my the American government rather than the Mexican one they were
under. That kind of claiming is completely different from claiming the land
itself.
>> Apparently the socialists can if they impose their albeit democratic
>> sovereignty over it.
>
>Yes, since socialists don't have the concept of property.
They are claiming eRPO to land. How are they doing this? I want to go out
and settle on this land. They say "Nope!" And, they hold a meeting amongst
themselves and decide what to do with it. They might even invite me to join
but under the proviso that I agree to this meeting. Either way, they have
collectively taken ownership of the land (i.e. eRPO).
>
>> Are you saying that what I call capitalism is really socialism?
>
>No. Have I?
>
Maybe you are. It is hard to tell since you seem to be saying I have eRPO
over something, but wait a minute I do not have ownership of it -- that
means something completely different. I do not make this distinction and
neither do most _laissez fair capitalists_. Socialists and those that work
that sort of thing into their position (mixed economy capitalists) seem to.
>> I fail to
>> see the relevance of not owning the wood of the whistle, say, if I have
>> exclusive RPO to the whistle.
>
>Maybe you will see the relevance later, when we discuss the concept of
>intelectual property (CIP).
>
When was that buzz word invented? In the 80s? Was it a capitalist that
invented it or an American corporate welfare queen? Remember that you are
talking to a classic liberal/libertarian -- not a conservative. I am sure
that there is some way to abstract a right to profit from one's own ideas,
however I am not sure that ideas are themselves property like physical
objects or the states of physical objects.
>> I do not understand how that relates to
>> anything that is important.
>
>You'll see.
>
>It becomes important, for example, in the oil field issue. You seem to
>agree with me that anyone could use an oil field under land which is, so
>to speak, "owned".
Probably. All things being equal? Most certainly. At least as far as I
know, owning a plot of land or even a large portion of land is only
ownership of the surface. In fact, such ownership probably ends at the
ground water in a classic liberal/laissez fair capitalist/libertarian
universe.
>For this to work, the _land_ cannot be owned,
>otherwise drilling to the oil beneath it would violate someone's rights.
>
Why is that? You mean the land on the surface? Are you saying that it
cannot be owned but someone can have eRPO to it? I never agreed to some
idea like everyone has a right to the oil under any circumstances. I merely
agree to the idea that anyone may drill to the oil. In fact, my position is
that the oil is _not owned_ until someone can get it and barrel it up for
themselves. So if I do so, then you cannot claim to have partial ownership
of what I have labored to get. The land which consists of the oil deposit
and maybe a fair amount of the dirt along the way to the oil is _unowned_
until it is unearthed. All have equal right to unearth it (all things being
equal), but only the one with eRPO to a given plot of land may unearth it
from that particular plot of land (without violating NOF, that is).
>> How will I end up any different if I have
>> exclusive RPO versus what you are calling COP? It seems like all
anyone
>> cares about is exclusive RPO. If I can have private eRPO (exclusive
RPO -- I
>> guess the word "exclusive already means it is private) over any given
thing,
>> then how are we in a different state than capitlaism? How would we ever
have
>> publicly owned land, for instance, as in socialism if we have eRPO?
>
>I don't know.
>
>--
>Fan of Woody Allen
>Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza
Adrian
Andrew J. Brehm
> Andrew J. Brehm wrote in message
> <1dqqriw.1td...@dialup-300.germany.ecore.net>...
> >I agreed (again and again and again) that whatever you invested work in,
> >the production was yours. You will _never_ get me to agree that a result
> >can change a factor.
> >
>
> Perhaps you would care to enlighten me as to how it is that "ownership"
> means something other than exclusive RPO. What you have said in the rest of
> this post leads me to think that you think that "ownership must mean
> something else since in the modern world we seem to own a lot of things that
> you cannot see would be ownable under notions already discussed. That means
> you say that those notions of "ownership" are not correct (or at least
> inconsistent with NOF) not that ownership requires force. I think we are
> very slowly trudging our way into a situation where, for instance,
> homesteaders get to have ranches -- very large ones over time as they work
> on theirs and expand it. They work a ranch and build a house on it and
> raise cattle, chickens in a chicken coupe, fruits and vegetables in a
> garden, etc. Maybe they get tired of the ranch and trade their eRPO to it
> for someone else's eRPO to a beach house. All these types of things can
> happen under NOF, can they not?
I doubt that you can own a large ranch, since this would mean you had to
define a system of ownership over land.
We found out that personal property does exist, but how would a ranch
fit into this?
I believe that somebody owning a ranch would indeed change a scenario.
Personal property, however, makes no difference. Whether or not it
exists, you cannot take something from someone without violating his
rights.
However, you _can_ settle on someone's ranch if ownership wouldn't
exist. Thus the concept of property makes a difference here, which means
that it cannot be reduced to NOF.
> >I might have said that, yes.
> >
> >Again, a result can never change a factor.
> >
>
> That statement is meaningless.
Why? Because you can't argue it?
That statement is btw one of the foundations for mathematics and
philosphy, I believe.
> >It isn't. The land is not yours. Only what you planted on it is yours. I
> >just so happens that no-one can walk on the land without violating your
> >rights. However, the status of the land (object) itself is never
> >changed.
>
> Yes it has -- you have eRPO to that land.
That is _not_ reducable to NOF.
If you own land, I mean the land itself, this ownership would make a
difference in the scenario, and must thus have a different cause.
> Now if you abandon it, then maybe
> the idea that you did not own the land, itself comes to bear.
Exactly.
> >You own your labor and anything that partly consists of that labor.
>
> Incidentally I am not sure I would agree with that statement (you might
> partially or jointly own something, for instance), but we have some sort of
> ownership nonetheless -- all under NOF.
Some sort, that is correct. However, that does not automatically cover
all subsets.
> >Hello? I didn't make you believe anything. It was who who repeatedly
> >ignored my answer and asked the question again and again.
>
> Well, you had directly contradicted that answer several times.
No, I haven't.
> >I actually assumed that what you plant on land was personal property
> >according to the definition we used (anything you hold and anything you
> >invested work in).
>
> Right. That labor gives you eRPO over the land. As far as I know eRPO=COP.
Afaik
COP = CPP + CRP + CIP
CPP is what we concluded to exist (house and garden included)
CRP is owning land itself
CIP is intelectual property (not touched yet)
You hzave at no point proven how CRP can be reduced to NOF. So far, we
are only working with CPP in our economical system (capitalism).
> >To many others, most others, as I believe, COP would also include the
> >idea that you could own rivers, fishbanks, oilfields, and other objects.
>
> Well, let me see. Is it possible that through a series of complicated
> transactions that one could gain eRPO over these things? Probably.
No. These things could simply never enter the status "owned". So you
can't obtain them from anyone.
> What if
> I gained eRPO over all the land from some point on a river down to the
> ocean. Barring anything I may do to significantly change the ocean (by way
> of what I may put in the river) against anyone's will, I would say that I
> now have eRPO over this bottom half of the river. I could now damn it for
> instance and make a power plant. The reason I could not do this if others
> had RPO over land further down the river is because they gain partial RPO
> over the river with that land. The "river" is not really treated as a
> collection of H2O molecules that someone gains RPO over but rather a state
> of nature one might have he right to exploit. Actually the same is true
> with land. If I were to take a bunch of dirt from your property and
> exchange it with some dirt from someone else's property, then probably all
> else being equal, I have not infringed on anyone's rights. This is why in a
> _laissez fair capitalist_ world it is not acceptable to just go a round
> polluting as you please, for instance. In this case, you are defiling
> _someone else's_ land. As long as that is not the case then not only do
> laissez fair capitalists think it is probably okay, but most other people do
> not care either. Again, as far as fishbanks go or oil fields, those are
> questions of eRPO to particular locations. The natural resource -- the fish
> and the oil -- are not owned or disputed over. It seems to be entirely a
> question of eRPO.
Then try to reduce ownership of a fishbank to NOF.
How can you own a fishbank without introducing any new concept?
> >I thought so.
>
> As far as I know eRPO=COP. How are they different? COP over different
> objects is just eRPO over those objects. Are you saying that no one can
> have eRPO over certain objects like land?
I think I did say so before that you cannot own anything which doesn't
consist of something that you owned before, like your labor.
> Are you changing it to say they
> can over land but not other things like oil fields?
Neither.
> If you say they can
> have eRPO over land, but not COP over that same land, then it sounds to me
> like you are contradicting yourself. The eRPO they have is COP.
I said, and I will continue to do so, even if you don't believe me, that
I believe in
production = object + work.
The object may be unowned (like a stick or land), the work is always
owned. Thus the produced new object (e.g. a whistle or a garden) is not
really owned by whoever invested the work, but nobody could take it from
him anyway, because of the labor invested.
This is what I am saying. Agree to it, or explain how it could possbly
be any different.
Afaics this is the only way to reduce any property rights to NOF.
> >> You are the one that is bringing me back here.
> >
> >By repeatedly answering your question? Silly me!
>
> Yes it is silly to answer affirmatively and then negatively. If you stuck
> to one answer then there wouldn't be a problem.
I did stick to one answer. If you found another, it wasn't me who
answered. Check my articles. I did reply one thing and only one thing.
Anything else might just be a misunderstanding on your part (as I
believe).
> You say one can have eRPO
> but not COP. I don't understand the difference -- perhaps you would like to
> enlighten me.
Sure, again, if you comingle your work with a stick, you get a whistle
(in your example). Nobody can take the result (the whistle) from you,
because the work invested was yours.
Understood so far?
However, since a result can never change a factor,
3 * 4 = 12
4 is an even number, thus 12 is an even number, but 3 remains an odd
number.
the stick can never be possibly owned by you, and nor can the whistle in
the full sense. If somebody found a method to remove your work from the
whistle (probably impossible), he could take the stick, and you wouldn't
have any right to stop him.
This difference is only minor and of no relevance to the whistle/stick
combination, of course. However, applied on land, the result can
dramatically change.
For example, you can plant a garden, live there for two years, then
leave it. Thus your work would be gone (with the fruits of the garden)
and anyone could take the land.
Also, you could never possibly own a fishbank, since it is impossible
(or at least very difficult) to work around it in a way that noone can
take a fish without also taking your labor from it (except if you breed
the fishes).
Same is true for an oil-field. Or for water.
We will meet this again when we talk about intelectual property.
THEN it becomes really important.
For the stick/whistle example it is rather meaningless, but I insist on
that we make this difference, so that we don't forget it.
> In particular, why is it that COP requires some sort of
> ownership of the raw materials themselves that eRPO may not. If I have eRPO
> to a particular object, then that is all anyone would care to have -- even
> the greediest capitalist. Could you have COP in something but someone else
> have eRPO to it, for instance?
As long as COP doesn't exist, no.
But if COP with all its subsets existed, the following situation could
come up (and property rights would collide):
1. Somebody builds a garden on your land.
2. Somebody owns a book that contains a story you wrote.
3. Somebody builds a house and thus owns the land he built the house on
and someone else tries to dig for oil under the house.
I might make up more examples, if required.
> >> Why does COP need to include more than
> >> what we have discussed?
> >
> >Because you can own more than personal property. You can own natural
> >resources, ideas, enventions, software, oil-fields, rivers, etc. All
> >this is not yet covered by CPP.
>
> Well, the buzz word intellectual property is a stand in for some sort of
> complicated thing that many libertarians do not agree with, per se.
Good thing.
> What's
> more is that this sort of thing is not something that is addressed by
> classic literature probably because it was not as much of an issue. In any
> case, the idea of intellectual property is not something like the lynch pin
> of modern capitalism, for instance. That is something we could discuss, but
> it comes long after discussions about rivers or oil fields which comes long
> after just simple land.
Certainly. But I believe that for discussing CIP at one point we need to
bear in mind what we concluded here. And I believe that the difference
between owning something and having exclusive rights to something
becomes rather important when property can be copied.
> >If you want to end it here, I'd say ok. Let's end it here. But don't
> >call it COP as if this was comparable to modern COPs used in the western
> >world.
>
> Well, COP as it is used in the modern western world would include a
> socialists notion of COP. I think that COP exists, but I have my own ideas
> about what it entails. I do not think that it necessarily requires force to
> have, and in fact would say that if one has a COP that does violate NOF,
> then their idea of COP is probably wrong.
So we agree on this.
> >Ok. No problem. But I wouldn't really call this capitalism, as it lacks
> >many features of property that can be found in modern capitalism around
> >the world.
>
> Well, for one thing most of the capitalism around the world is not laissez
> fair capitalism. In fact, a lot of it is crony capitalism where the
> government favors some and not others. For instance if you have to bribe
> the government simply to go into business, then that is not really laissez
> fair capitalism. Japan was not laissez fair capitalism. A country with
> something like the Federal Reserve (America) is not laissez fair capitalist.
> It is a mixed economy.
Ok.
> >??? I thought there such things as claims for gold mines and other
> >things?
>
> That is right -- someone might somehow gain eRPO to it. It is argued over
> what is really necessary to gain eRPO to something -- what are the minimal
> requirements? What no one was ever able to do is try to claim the gold in
> California without ever so much as travelling to the Mississippi. I am not
> sure how such a thing would even work. No one was ever allowed to just
> posit their claim. What they had to do was go there and mine it and find
> it. Then -- once they commingled their labor with it -- they could claim to
> have eRPO to it. the whole question with any of that is what exactly it
> takes to have commingled one's labor with something NOT whether or not they
> had to and NOT whether or not they would own it (have eRPO to it) once they
> had.
Whatever. Anything we make up about what to do to own something through
comingling labour with it, is a definition!
We could say that you have to build a wall around land to own it, or
draw a line (like in the Rome legend, which is exactly about our
problem), or whatever.
The result is that we can't implement such a thing without forcing
people to accept a definition of how work needs to be comingled with the
object in order to own it.
> >Ok. But that neglects the idea of real property.
>
> Well, you were talking about owning the oil under the ground. Whoever owns
> the land has the right to drill on it.
You see how important the question whether you do own the land or just
the production suddenly becomes?
> I suppose if they were knee deep in
> oil already, then they would get to have that oil that is already there on
> the land (as part of their eRPO to the land).
They do not have RPO to the land, just to the house and garden on it. By
changing the status of the land to "owned" you would have to implement a
definition in the system.
> At some point though, the oil
> is so far beneath the surface of the Earth that under even the most
> capitalist economy, no one would consider rights to the deposit to go along
> with rights to the land above.
So you do agree that capitalists would usually consider such rights as
these of the land owner?
> >Socialists do _not_ advocate the idea that one can claim anything.
>
> Then how is it that they assert their sovereignty over the land in place of
> a capitalists claim to some piece of it?
I don't know.
> Do they violate NOF?
Someone pointed out that if noone owned the land it would be equivalent
to everyone owning the land. Maybe this is their base?
> One way or
> another a socialist must gain RPO either partially or totally to all land,
> including land they neither labored on nor acquired in a free exchange. If
> not, then how is it that they seem to have the right to vote on how the land
> is to be used? Is that not a partial RPO (pRPO)?
You might be correct.
> >You are correct however, that there are different branches of socialism,
> >and I wish other people in this group would know that. This would make
> >discussions _much_ easier.
>
> I believe that even Hitler came to power on a socialist platform.
And I have read his platform and do not believe that he did. But this is
another discussion.
> >Didn't the American government do this?
>
> That is correct. Many libertarians and laissez fair capitalists disagree
> with this. Now, we have publicly owned land. From time to time the
> government will hold auctions and convert the public land to private land.
> A laissez fair capitalist would generally say that they should not have to
> pay for otherwise unowned land like that.
I would agree.
But would all laisser faire capitalists? I have read many "libertarians"
in this group who don't seem to agree about this with each other.
Luckily, they can always simply bash someone else, so they will never be
confronted with such fundamental/philosophical issues.
Do you think that many people here actually did do the work you did,
actually _proving_ that at least some property can exist without force?
Most simply accept property as an axiom, and don't even know what this
means.
I don't like people who take things for granted and never doubt them.
"Doubt everything!" was one of the first things my analysis prof told
me.
> Beyond that, the only thing
> America has done is say that they would enforce the laws of America over an
> increasingly larger territory. So, in other words if America says that it
> claims Mexico, then that does not necessarily mean that it claims that land
> as publicly owned land, but rather that it will extend its sovereignty to
> Mexico. So if I go to Mexico and acquire some land and then someone comes
> to take it from me, then the _American_ army will now defend it for me as
> opposed to the _Mexican_ army. Also, what is considered fair or moral is
> now subject to interpretation by the _American_ laws (i.e. the constitution
> of the US, etc) and not the _Mexican_ laws. It would not necessarily mean
> that any of the Mexicans would lose their land -- just that they would be
> ruled now my the American government rather than the Mexican one they were
> under. That kind of claiming is completely different from claiming the land
> itself.
Ok.
> >Yes, since socialists don't have the concept of property.
>
> They are claiming eRPO to land. How are they doing this? I want to go out
> and settle on this land. They say "Nope!" And, they hold a meeting amongst
> themselves and decide what to do with it. They might even invite me to join
> but under the proviso that I agree to this meeting. Either way, they have
> collectively taken ownership of the land (i.e. eRPO).
Depends on whether the formula
no one owns the land = everyone owns the land
was correct. If it is, spocialists would be correct.
We could try to prove or disprove it, however.
In order to do this, we need to know exactly what "ownership" means.
Does it mean having exclusive rights to use the object? You might want
to calculate this over.
If the above is given, the formula would be:
everyone has exclusive rights to the land = no one has exlusive rights
to the land
Since "everyone" and "exclusive" contradict each other, we have to
remove them both (logically consistent of course). Try it.
> >> Are you saying that what I call capitalism is really socialism?
> >
> >No. Have I?
>
> Maybe you are. It is hard to tell since you seem to be saying I have eRPO
> over something, but wait a minute I do not have ownership of it -- that
> means something completely different.
I believe it does.
> I do not make this distinction and
> neither do most _laissez fair capitalists_.
It seems that laissez faire capitalists make that difference too,
otherwise they would decide like the might decide in the oil field
issue.
Not to make this difference would be a violation of ROL, since a result
can not change a factor.
> Socialists and those that work
> that sort of thing into their position (mixed economy capitalists) seem to.
If it is correct, why shouldn't they?
> >Maybe you will see the relevance later, when we discuss the concept of
> >intelectual property (CIP).
>
> When was that buzz word invented? In the 80s? Was it a capitalist that
> invented it or an American corporate welfare queen? Remember that you are
> talking to a classic liberal/libertarian -- not a conservative. I am sure
> that there is some way to abstract a right to profit from one's own ideas,
> however I am not sure that ideas are themselves property like physical
> objects or the states of physical objects.
I agree with you.
> >> I do not understand how that relates to
> >> anything that is important.
> >
> >You'll see.
> >
> >It becomes important, for example, in the oil field issue. You seem to
> >agree with me that anyone could use an oil field under land which is, so
> >to speak, "owned".
>
> Probably. All things being equal? Most certainly. At least as far as I
> know, owning a plot of land or even a large portion of land is only
> ownership of the surface.
Ok. There we have a difference. If you had "ownership" of the land, you
would "own" the land. However, exclusive rights to it only affect
whatever actions you commited (building a house etc.).
> In fact, such ownership probably ends at the
> ground water in a classic liberal/laissez fair capitalist/libertarian
> universe.
That would be a definition! Why not one meter below the ground water? Or
ten centimeters above it? Be careful!
> >For this to work, the _land_ cannot be owned,
> >otherwise drilling to the oil beneath it would violate someone's rights.
>
> Why is that? You mean the land on the surface? Are you saying that it
> cannot be owned but someone can have eRPO to it? I never agreed to some
> idea like everyone has a right to the oil under any circumstances. I merely
> agree to the idea that anyone may drill to the oil. In fact, my position is
> that the oil is _not owned_ until someone can get it and barrel it up for
> themselves. So if I do so, then you cannot claim to have partial ownership
> of what I have labored to get. The land which consists of the oil deposit
> and maybe a fair amount of the dirt along the way to the oil is _unowned_
> until it is unearthed. All have equal right to unearth it (all things being
> equal), but only the one with eRPO to a given plot of land may unearth it
> from that particular plot of land (without violating NOF, that is).
I agree. And this is exactly the difference that I noticed.
It seems that we are getting forwards here.
At least when we talk about property, we know what it is, because we
have invented/proven it here!
Adrian
Andrew J. Brehm wrote in message
<1dqsevs.8w...@dialup-56.germany.ecore.net>...
No -- all I have to do is comingle my labor with the property. From now on
I will just use eRPO...
>We found out that personal property does exist, but how would a ranch
>fit into this?
>
If I labor to create the ranch then I would have eRPO because of my labor
right? Suppose I build a fence around it and use the area to graze the
cattle that I am breeding. Suppose also that I removed several trees to
make it grassy field. Furhter suppose that the other parts of the land I
have used to build a house on and maybe a garden, chicken coup (with
chickens I caught or got in a fair exchange), a garden, stables, ....
Suppose I do all this with myown labor or labor that has been given to me or
bought in a fair exchange of wealth. Certainly it is possible for a man to
accomplish far more with his labor in his life time than just to support
himself and other wise only have what he could carry or a small house on a
quarter acre of land.
>I believe that somebody owning a ranch would indeed change a scenario.
>
>Personal property, however, makes no difference. Whether or not it
>exists, you cannot take something from someone without violating his
>rights.
>
I might point out here that we decided that he not only had RPO (just
because he might be possessing the object at the time), but that he had
_eRPO_. So, even if he lost possession through purely peacful means, it was
not ppossible for someone else to possess it against his will without
violating NOF.
>However, you _can_ settle on someone's ranch if ownership wouldn't
>exist. Thus the concept of property makes a difference here, which means
>that it cannot be reduced to NOF.
>
But what if you building a house on say his grazing field interrupts his
ability to graze. He cleared, say, that field -- took him the better part
of a year to chop down the trees and remove the stumps. Plus he maintains
it by not over grazing certain parts while leaving others to get overgrown.
So he even has to go out ahnd herd his cattle around or at least build
fences for it.
>> >I might have said that, yes.
>> >
>> >Again, a result can never change a factor.
>> >
>>
>> That statement is meaningless.
>
>Why? Because you can't argue it?
>
>That statement is btw one of the foundations for mathematics and
>philosphy, I believe.
>
Please. I doubt that particular statement is generally even said by
mathematicians. Suppose x(x-2)=0 and x-1>0. thenthe result of the second
inequality changes the possible factors for the first equation. This is an
illustration of how imprecise your statement is and why it is meaningless.
I am not going to argue this any further...
>> >It isn't. The land is not yours. Only what you planted on it is yours. I
>> >just so happens that no-one can walk on the land without violating your
>> >rights. However, the status of the land (object) itself is never
>> >changed.
>>
>> Yes it has -- you have eRPO to that land.
>
>That is _not_ reducable to NOF.
>
Why is it not? I thought that you had labored on it. This is why you keep
contradicting yourself. You had said earlier that you did -- just like the
whistle.
>If you own land, I mean the land itself, this ownership would make a
>difference in the scenario, and must thus have a different cause.
>
Or maybe your idea of the "scenario" is wrong.
>> Now if you abandon it, then maybe
>> the idea that you did not own the land, itself comes to bear.
>
>Exactly.
>
>> >You own your labor and anything that partly consists of that labor.
>>
>> Incidentally I am not sure I would agree with that statement (you might
>> partially or jointly own something, for instance), but we have some sort
of
>> ownership nonetheless -- all under NOF.
>
>Some sort, that is correct. However, that does not automatically cover
>all subsets.
>
So what if the land partly consists of my labor and no one else's? Do I not
have exclusive RPO to it? If not why would I have it with the whistle? Or
any other personal property? I only ask because you said above that I would
not have eRPO or at least that eRPO is not reducible to NOF.
>> >Hello? I didn't make you believe anything. It was who who repeatedly
>> >ignored my answer and asked the question again and again.
>>
>> Well, you had directly contradicted that answer several times.
>
>No, I haven't.
>
>> >I actually assumed that what you plant on land was personal property
>> >according to the definition we used (anything you hold and anything you
>> >invested work in).
>>
>> Right. That labor gives you eRPO over the land. As far as I know
eRPO=COP.
>
>Afaik
>
>COP = CPP + CRP + CIP
>
>CPP is what we concluded to exist (house and garden included)
>CRP is owning land itself
>CIP is intelectual property (not touched yet)
>
Why? I disagree. Can you prove me wrong?
>You hzave at no point proven how CRP can be reduced to NOF. So far, we
>are only working with CPP in our economical system (capitalism).
>
>> >To many others, most others, as I believe, COP would also include the
>> >idea that you could own rivers, fishbanks, oilfields, and other objects.
>>
>> Well, let me see. Is it possible that through a series of complicated
>> transactions that one could gain eRPO over these things? Probably.
>
>No. These things could simply never enter the status "owned". So you
>can't obtain them from anyone.
>
Why not?
Then you agree that I would own the bottom half of the river in the above
case? What if I owned all the land surrounding a pond? What if I build a
dock on the bank? What if I build a boat ramp beside the dock? Do I not
own that part of the bank?
>> >I thought so.
>>
>> As far as I know eRPO=COP. How are they different? COP over different
>> objects is just eRPO over those objects. Are you saying that no one can
>> have eRPO over certain objects like land?
>
>I think I did say so before that you cannot own anything which doesn't
>consist of something that you owned before, like your labor.
>
What if I trade my labor for someone else's labor?
>> Are you changing it to say they
>> can over land but not other things like oil fields?
>
>Neither.
>
Then why can you have eRPO over a whistle but not land that you have
comingled your labor with? Now do you understand why I keep asking you this
question?
>> If you say they can
>> have eRPO over land, but not COP over that same land, then it sounds to
me
>> like you are contradicting yourself. The eRPO they have is COP.
>
>I said, and I will continue to do so, even if you don't believe me, that
>I believe in
>
>production = object + work.
>
This distinction does not matter if I have eRPO to the production.
>The object may be unowned (like a stick or land), the work is always
>owned. Thus the produced new object (e.g. a whistle or a garden) is not
>really owned by whoever invested the work, but nobody could take it from
>him anyway, because of the labor invested.
>
That is what I mean by "own" -- eRPO. Can you prove me wrong?
>This is what I am saying. Agree to it, or explain how it could possbly
>be any different.
>
What you are saying is wrong because all "own" means is no one can take it
away.
How would he remove the work from the stick if he did not have RPO to the
whistle? I'll say it is impossible unless he gets me to agree to it. All
"ownership" means to me is that I have eRPO. Why is that not the case?
>This difference is only minor and of no relevance to the whistle/stick
>combination, of course. However, applied on land, the result can
>dramatically change.
>
>For example, you can plant a garden, live there for two years, then
>leave it. Thus your work would be gone (with the fruits of the garden)
>and anyone could take the land.
>
Indeed.
>Also, you could never possibly own a fishbank, since it is impossible
>(or at least very difficult) to work around it in a way that noone can
>take a fish without also taking your labor from it (except if you breed
>the fishes).
>
No -- they can not have access to (at least my part of the bank) since they
would be exploiting my labor in using my dock or boat ramp.
>Same is true for an oil-field. Or for water.
>
Are you talking about a common resource that all have access to? Or are you
talking about something that runs accross only my property? What about a
manmade lake? What about a stream that runs only accross my property? What
about where I have eRPO over land from one point on a river all the way down
to the ocean?
>We will meet this again when we talk about intelectual property.
>
I doubt we will talk much about that
>THEN it becomes really important.
>
>For the stick/whistle example it is rather meaningless, but I insist on
>that we make this difference, so that we don't forget it.
>
Fine -- Locke quite easily makes the distinction.
>> In particular, why is it that COP requires some sort of
>> ownership of the raw materials themselves that eRPO may not. If I have
eRPO
>> to a particular object, then that is all anyone would care to have --
even
>> the greediest capitalist. Could you have COP in something but someone
else
>> have eRPO to it, for instance?
>
>As long as COP doesn't exist, no.
>
>But if COP with all its subsets existed, the following situation could
>come up (and property rights would collide):
>
>1. Somebody builds a garden on your land.
>
I thought we decided they couldn;t do that. If you build a garden over my
garden then aren;t you violating NOF?
>2. Somebody owns a book that contains a story you wrote.
>
If you agree to not have eRPO to the story when you buy the book and I agree
to reliquish my eRPO, then where's the conflict?
>3. Somebody builds a house and thus owns the land he built the house on
>and someone else tries to dig for oil under the house.
>
I thought that owning the land under capitalism just means the surface.
>I might make up more examples, if required.
>
Please do.
I thought you said that I might comingle my labor with something and come to
have eRPO over it by NOF. Here you seem to be saying that there is no way
to have such a result since we must define what is necessary for eRPO
through the comingling of labor. Didn;t you say I had eRPO over the
whistle? Do you understand why I am asking you this question again?
>> >Ok. But that neglects the idea of real property.
>>
>> Well, you were talking about owning the oil under the ground. Whoever
owns
>> the land has the right to drill on it.
>
>You see how important the question whether you do own the land or just
>the production suddenly becomes?
>
No. This point has been discussed and resolved this way in laissez fair
capitalism. How would this show that we lose the capitalist notion of
ownership?
>> I suppose if they were knee deep in
>> oil already, then they would get to have that oil that is already there
on
>> the land (as part of their eRPO to the land).
>
>They do not have RPO to the land, just to the house and garden on it. By
>changing the status of the land to "owned" you would have to implement a
>definition in the system.
>
I thought you said earlier they have RPO to the land just like the whistle?
This is what you kept saying that you had answered over and over again that
you had answered -- the land is no different than the whistle.
>> At some point though, the oil
>> is so far beneath the surface of the Earth that under even the most
>> capitalist economy, no one would consider rights to the deposit to go
along
>> with rights to the land above.
>
>So you do agree that capitalists would usually consider such rights as
>these of the land owner?
>
I am saying that no one would consider that one owns the deposite far
beneath the surface simply because they bought a plot of land over it. All
their land gives them the right to do is drill form there. If someone
drilled so that they went under the surface of their property, but close
enough to the surface, then I suppose they would be tresspassing. Barring
this type of thing, they could also drill to a point under the other
person's land probably (all things being equal).
>> >Socialists do _not_ advocate the idea that one can claim anything.
>>
>> Then how is it that they assert their sovereignty over the land in place
of
>> a capitalists claim to some piece of it?
>
>I don't know.
>
>> Do they violate NOF?
>
>Someone pointed out that if noone owned the land it would be equivalent
>to everyone owning the land. Maybe this is their base?
>
But it isn't, is it? (equivalent, that is)
Well, I am really defending what I think most people think is natural. But,
I have to say that most folks do not attempt to probe the details of their
positions on anything probably this closely (at least not on a news group).
I can say that as much as I have had some occasion to become extremely
irritated with you, you have managed to probe more or less to my
satisfaction. In fact, it is precisely when I think you are not, that I get
irritated with you. Actually it is not precisely -- it is not until I have
thought that several times repeatedly that I get irritated.
BTW: beware the skeptic's fallacy.
How about
everyone has partial co-possible rights to the land = no one has any rights
to the land
That is more like what they are saying, and the reason the equality does not
hold is because on the right hand side rights to the land exist and on the
left hand side no rights to the land exist.
>> >> Are you saying that what I call capitalism is really socialism?
>> >
>> >No. Have I?
>>
>> Maybe you are. It is hard to tell since you seem to be saying I have
eRPO
>> over something, but wait a minute I do not have ownership of it -- that
>> means something completely different.
>
>I believe it does.
>
Why?
>> I do not make this distinction and
>> neither do most _laissez fair capitalists_.
>
>It seems that laissez faire capitalists make that difference too,
>otherwise they would decide like the might decide in the oil field
>issue.
>
>Not to make this difference would be a violation of ROL, since a result
>can not change a factor.
>
Yet if I gain eRPO to a whistle because I had eRPO to the work I comingled
with it, I have gained eRPO to the stick as well. If you separate my work
from the stick, then you must have RPO to the whistle to do so. You can
only have this with my consent. So you started without any RPO to the
stick. You then picked it up and gained possession of it and so by NOF had
RPO, but not eRPO. Then without ever setting it down you comingled your
labor with it and gained eRPO to the stick. I thought you agreed to this,
but I guess I was wrong?
So I can have a house but not the neighboring vicinity. I can have a house
but not the yard. What if I build a fence around the yard? What if I take
trees down and lanscpae and groom the yard? Would I gain eRPO to it then?
>> In fact, such ownership probably ends at the
>> ground water in a classic liberal/laissez fair capitalist/libertarian
>> universe.
>
>That would be a definition! Why not one meter below the ground water? Or
>ten centimeters above it? Be careful!
>
Not really. The ground water is a common resource that all have access to.
If I pollute the ground water then I am infringing on my neighbors pRPO to
it (assuming he has drilled a well and all -- if he hasn't then it would not
be an issue).
>> >For this to work, the _land_ cannot be owned,
>> >otherwise drilling to the oil beneath it would violate someone's rights.
>>
>> Why is that? You mean the land on the surface? Are you saying that it
>> cannot be owned but someone can have eRPO to it? I never agreed to some
>> idea like everyone has a right to the oil under any circumstances. I
merely
>> agree to the idea that anyone may drill to the oil. In fact, my position
is
>> that the oil is _not owned_ until someone can get it and barrel it up for
>> themselves. So if I do so, then you cannot claim to have partial
ownership
>> of what I have labored to get. The land which consists of the oil
deposit
>> and maybe a fair amount of the dirt along the way to the oil is _unowned_
>> until it is unearthed. All have equal right to unearth it (all things
being
>> equal), but only the one with eRPO to a given plot of land may unearth it
>> from that particular plot of land (without violating NOF, that is).
>
>I agree. And this is exactly the difference that I noticed.
>
>It seems that we are getting forwards here.
>
>At least when we talk about property, we know what it is, because we
>have invented/proven it here!
>
Well have we invented it or proven it? I think that the whole issue is what
one can use NOF to justify, right? Most laissez fair capitalists would say
that such justification ends somewhere between the surface and the earth's
core. So we need not have dibs on oil sufficiently far beneath the surface
of my property to have a truly capitalist notion of ownership.
Moreover, one need not have ownership of anything that comes onto their
property to have ownership in a cpaitalist system. Not even if the thing is
inanimate and comes onto it purely by chance. So, just because you own land
on either side of a river, that does not mean that under pure laissez fair
capitalism, you would own the river. I am fairly certain most laissez fair
capitalist political philosophers would disagree with the idea of owning a
river just because it runs through your property.
>--
>Fan of Woody Allen
>Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza
Adrian
Adrian
Andrew J. Brehm wrote in message
<1dqsevs.8w...@dialup-56.germany.ecore.net>...
No -- all I have to do is comingle my labor with the property. From now on
I will just use eRPO...
>We found out that personal property does exist, but how would a ranch
>fit into this?
>
If I labor to create the ranch then I would have eRPO because of my labor
right? Suppose I build a fence around it and use the area to graze the
cattle that I am breeding. Suppose also that I removed several trees to
make it grassy field. Furhter suppose that the other parts of the land I
have used to build a house on and maybe a garden, chicken coup (with
chickens I caught or got in a fair exchange), a garden, stables, ....
Suppose I do all this with myown labor or labor that has been given to me or
bought in a fair exchange of wealth. Certainly it is possible for a man to
accomplish far more with his labor in his life time than just to support
himself and other wise only have what he could carry or a small house on a
quarter acre of land.
>I believe that somebody owning a ranch would indeed change a scenario.
>
>Personal property, however, makes no difference. Whether or not it
>exists, you cannot take something from someone without violating his
>rights.
>
I might point out here that we decided that he not only had RPO (just
because he might be possessing the object at the time), but that he had
_eRPO_. So, even if he lost possession through purely peacful means, it was
not ppossible for someone else to possess it against his will without
violating NOF.
>However, you _can_ settle on someone's ranch if ownership wouldn't
>exist. Thus the concept of property makes a difference here, which means
>that it cannot be reduced to NOF.
>
But what if you building a house on say his grazing field interrupts his
ability to graze. He cleared, say, that field -- took him the better part
of a year to chop down the trees and remove the stumps. Plus he maintains
it by not over grazing certain parts while leaving others to get overgrown.
So he even has to go out ahnd herd his cattle around or at least build
fences for it.
>> >I might have said that, yes.
>> >
>> >Again, a result can never change a factor.
>> >
>>
>> That statement is meaningless.
>
>Why? Because you can't argue it?
>
>That statement is btw one of the foundations for mathematics and
>philosphy, I believe.
>
Please. I doubt that particular statement is generally even said by
mathematicians. Suppose x(x-2)=0 and x-1>0. thenthe result of the second
inequality changes the possible factors for the first equation. This is an
illustration of how imprecise your statement is and why it is meaningless.
I am not going to argue this any further...
>> >It isn't. The land is not yours. Only what you planted on it is yours. I
>> >just so happens that no-one can walk on the land without violating your
>> >rights. However, the status of the land (object) itself is never
>> >changed.
>>
>> Yes it has -- you have eRPO to that land.
>
>That is _not_ reducable to NOF.
>
Why is it not? I thought that you had labored on it. This is why you keep
contradicting yourself. You had said earlier that you did -- just like the
whistle.
>If you own land, I mean the land itself, this ownership would make a
>difference in the scenario, and must thus have a different cause.
>
Or maybe your idea of the "scenario" is wrong.
>> Now if you abandon it, then maybe
>> the idea that you did not own the land, itself comes to bear.
>
>Exactly.
>
>> >You own your labor and anything that partly consists of that labor.
>>
>> Incidentally I am not sure I would agree with that statement (you might
>> partially or jointly own something, for instance), but we have some sort
of
>> ownership nonetheless -- all under NOF.
>
>Some sort, that is correct. However, that does not automatically cover
>all subsets.
>
So what if the land partly consists of my labor and no one else's? Do I not
have exclusive RPO to it? If not why would I have it with the whistle? Or
any other personal property? I only ask because you said above that I would
not have eRPO or at least that eRPO is not reducible to NOF.
>> >Hello? I didn't make you believe anything. It was who who repeatedly
>> >ignored my answer and asked the question again and again.
>>
>> Well, you had directly contradicted that answer several times.
>
>No, I haven't.
>
>> >I actually assumed that what you plant on land was personal property
>> >according to the definition we used (anything you hold and anything you
>> >invested work in).
>>
>> Right. That labor gives you eRPO over the land. As far as I know
eRPO=COP.
>
>Afaik
>
>COP = CPP + CRP + CIP
>
>CPP is what we concluded to exist (house and garden included)
>CRP is owning land itself
>CIP is intelectual property (not touched yet)
>
Why? I disagree. Can you prove me wrong?
>You hzave at no point proven how CRP can be reduced to NOF. So far, we
>are only working with CPP in our economical system (capitalism).
>
>> >To many others, most others, as I believe, COP would also include the
>> >idea that you could own rivers, fishbanks, oilfields, and other objects.
>>
>> Well, let me see. Is it possible that through a series of complicated
>> transactions that one could gain eRPO over these things? Probably.
>
>No. These things could simply never enter the status "owned". So you
>can't obtain them from anyone.
>
Why not?
Then you agree that I would own the bottom half of the river in the above
case? What if I owned all the land surrounding a pond? What if I build a
dock on the bank? What if I build a boat ramp beside the dock? Do I not
own that part of the bank?
>> >I thought so.
>>
>> As far as I know eRPO=COP. How are they different? COP over different
>> objects is just eRPO over those objects. Are you saying that no one can
>> have eRPO over certain objects like land?
>
>I think I did say so before that you cannot own anything which doesn't
>consist of something that you owned before, like your labor.
>
What if I trade my labor for someone else's labor?
>> Are you changing it to say they
>> can over land but not other things like oil fields?
>
>Neither.
>
Then why can you have eRPO over a whistle but not land that you have
comingled your labor with? Now do you understand why I keep asking you this
question?
>> If you say they can
>> have eRPO over land, but not COP over that same land, then it sounds to
me
>> like you are contradicting yourself. The eRPO they have is COP.
>
>I said, and I will continue to do so, even if you don't believe me, that
>I believe in
>
>production = object + work.
>
This distinction does not matter if I have eRPO to the production.
>The object may be unowned (like a stick or land), the work is always
>owned. Thus the produced new object (e.g. a whistle or a garden) is not
>really owned by whoever invested the work, but nobody could take it from
>him anyway, because of the labor invested.
>
That is what I mean by "own" -- eRPO. Can you prove me wrong?
>This is what I am saying. Agree to it, or explain how it could possbly
>be any different.
>
What you are saying is wrong because all "own" means is no one can take it
away.
>Afaics this is the only way to reduce any property rights to NOF.
How would he remove the work from the stick if he did not have RPO to the
whistle? I'll say it is impossible unless he gets me to agree to it. All
"ownership" means to me is that I have eRPO. Why is that not the case?
>This difference is only minor and of no relevance to the whistle/stick
>combination, of course. However, applied on land, the result can
>dramatically change.
>
>For example, you can plant a garden, live there for two years, then
>leave it. Thus your work would be gone (with the fruits of the garden)
>and anyone could take the land.
>
Indeed.
>Also, you could never possibly own a fishbank, since it is impossible
>(or at least very difficult) to work around it in a way that noone can
>take a fish without also taking your labor from it (except if you breed
>the fishes).
>
No -- they can not have access to (at least my part of the bank) since they
would be exploiting my labor in using my dock or boat ramp.
>Same is true for an oil-field. Or for water.
>
Are you talking about a common resource that all have access to? Or are you
talking about something that runs accross only my property? What about a
manmade lake? What about a stream that runs only accross my property? What
about where I have eRPO over land from one point on a river all the way down
to the ocean?
>We will meet this again when we talk about intelectual property.
>
I doubt we will talk much about that
>THEN it becomes really important.
>
>For the stick/whistle example it is rather meaningless, but I insist on
>that we make this difference, so that we don't forget it.
>
Fine -- Locke quite easily makes the distinction.
>> In particular, why is it that COP requires some sort of
>> ownership of the raw materials themselves that eRPO may not. If I have
eRPO
>> to a particular object, then that is all anyone would care to have --
even
>> the greediest capitalist. Could you have COP in something but someone
else
>> have eRPO to it, for instance?
>
>As long as COP doesn't exist, no.
>
>But if COP with all its subsets existed, the following situation could
>come up (and property rights would collide):
>
>1. Somebody builds a garden on your land.
>
I thought we decided they couldn;t do that. If you build a garden over my
garden then aren;t you violating NOF?
>2. Somebody owns a book that contains a story you wrote.
>
If you agree to not have eRPO to the story when you buy the book and I agree
to reliquish my eRPO, then where's the conflict?
>3. Somebody builds a house and thus owns the land he built the house on
>and someone else tries to dig for oil under the house.
>
I thought that owning the land under capitalism just means the surface.
>I might make up more examples, if required.
>
Please do.
I thought you said that I might comingle my labor with something and come to
have eRPO over it by NOF. Here you seem to be saying that there is no way
to have such a result since we must define what is necessary for eRPO
through the comingling of labor. Didn;t you say I had eRPO over the
whistle? Do you understand why I am asking you this question again?
>> >Ok. But that neglects the idea of real property.
>>
>> Well, you were talking about owning the oil under the ground. Whoever
owns
>> the land has the right to drill on it.
>
>You see how important the question whether you do own the land or just
>the production suddenly becomes?
>
No. This point has been discussed and resolved this way in laissez fair
capitalism. How would this show that we lose the capitalist notion of
ownership?
>> I suppose if they were knee deep in
>> oil already, then they would get to have that oil that is already there
on
>> the land (as part of their eRPO to the land).
>
>They do not have RPO to the land, just to the house and garden on it. By
>changing the status of the land to "owned" you would have to implement a
>definition in the system.
>
I thought you said earlier they have RPO to the land just like the whistle?
This is what you kept saying that you had answered over and over again that
you had answered -- the land is no different than the whistle.
>> At some point though, the oil
>> is so far beneath the surface of the Earth that under even the most
>> capitalist economy, no one would consider rights to the deposit to go
along
>> with rights to the land above.
>
>So you do agree that capitalists would usually consider such rights as
>these of the land owner?
>
I am saying that no one would consider that one owns the deposite far
beneath the surface simply because they bought a plot of land over it. All
their land gives them the right to do is drill form there. If someone
drilled so that they went under the surface of their property, but close
enough to the surface, then I suppose they would be tresspassing. Barring
this type of thing, they could also drill to a point under the other
person's land probably (all things being equal).
>> >Socialists do _not_ advocate the idea that one can claim anything.
>>
>> Then how is it that they assert their sovereignty over the land in place
of
>> a capitalists claim to some piece of it?
>
>I don't know.
>
>> Do they violate NOF?
>
>Someone pointed out that if noone owned the land it would be equivalent
>to everyone owning the land. Maybe this is their base?
>
But it isn't, is it? (equivalent, that is)
>> One way or
Well, I am really defending what I think most people think is natural. But,
I have to say that most folks do not attempt to probe the details of their
positions on anything probably this closely (at least not on a news group).
I can say that as much as I have had some occasion to become extremely
irritated with you, you have managed to probe more or less to my
satisfaction. In fact, it is precisely when I think you are not, that I get
irritated with you. Actually it is not precisely -- it is not until I have
thought that several times repeatedly that I get irritated.
BTW: beware the skeptic's fallacy.
>> Beyond that, the only thing
How about
everyone has partial co-possible rights to the land = no one has any rights
to the land
That is more like what they are saying, and the reason the equality does not
hold is because on the right hand side rights to the land exist and on the
left hand side no rights to the land exist.
>> >> Are you saying that what I call capitalism is really socialism?
>> >
>> >No. Have I?
>>
>> Maybe you are. It is hard to tell since you seem to be saying I have
eRPO
>> over something, but wait a minute I do not have ownership of it -- that
>> means something completely different.
>
>I believe it does.
>
Why?
>> I do not make this distinction and
>> neither do most _laissez fair capitalists_.
>
>It seems that laissez faire capitalists make that difference too,
>otherwise they would decide like the might decide in the oil field
>issue.
>
>Not to make this difference would be a violation of ROL, since a result
>can not change a factor.
>
Yet if I gain eRPO to a whistle because I had eRPO to the work I comingled
with it, I have gained eRPO to the stick as well. If you separate my work
from the stick, then you must have RPO to the whistle to do so. You can
only have this with my consent. So you started without any RPO to the
stick. You then picked it up and gained possession of it and so by NOF had
RPO, but not eRPO. Then without ever setting it down you comingled your
labor with it and gained eRPO to the stick. I thought you agreed to this,
but I guess I was wrong?
>> Socialists and those that work
So I can have a house but not the neighboring vicinity. I can have a house
but not the yard. What if I build a fence around the yard? What if I take
trees down and lanscpae and groom the yard? Would I gain eRPO to it then?
>> In fact, such ownership probably ends at the
>> ground water in a classic liberal/laissez fair capitalist/libertarian
>> universe.
>
>That would be a definition! Why not one meter below the ground water? Or
>ten centimeters above it? Be careful!
>
Not really. The ground water is a common resource that all have access to.
If I pollute the ground water then I am infringing on my neighbors pRPO to
it (assuming he has drilled a well and all -- if he hasn't then it would not
be an issue).
>> >For this to work, the _land_ cannot be owned,
>> >otherwise drilling to the oil beneath it would violate someone's rights.
>>
>> Why is that? You mean the land on the surface? Are you saying that it
>> cannot be owned but someone can have eRPO to it? I never agreed to some
>> idea like everyone has a right to the oil under any circumstances. I
merely
>> agree to the idea that anyone may drill to the oil. In fact, my position
is
>> that the oil is _not owned_ until someone can get it and barrel it up for
>> themselves. So if I do so, then you cannot claim to have partial
ownership
>> of what I have labored to get. The land which consists of the oil
deposit
>> and maybe a fair amount of the dirt along the way to the oil is _unowned_
>> until it is unearthed. All have equal right to unearth it (all things
being
>> equal), but only the one with eRPO to a given plot of land may unearth it
>> from that particular plot of land (without violating NOF, that is).
>
>I agree. And this is exactly the difference that I noticed.
>
>It seems that we are getting forwards here.
>
>At least when we talk about property, we know what it is, because we
>have invented/proven it here!
>
Well have we invented it or proven it? I think that the whole issue is what
one can use NOF to justify, right? Most laissez fair capitalists would say
that such justification ends somewhere between the surface and the earth's
core. So we need not have dibs on oil sufficiently far beneath the surface
of my property to have a truly capitalist notion of ownership.
Moreover, one need not have ownership of anything that comes onto their
property to have ownership in a cpaitalist system. Not even if the thing is
inanimate and comes onto it purely by chance. So, just because you own land
on either side of a river, that does not mean that under pure laissez fair
capitalism, you would own the river. I am fairly certain most laissez fair
capitalist political philosophers would disagree with the idea of owning a
river just because it runs through your property.
>--
>Fan of Woody Allen
>Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza
Adrian
Andrew J. Brehm
> >I doubt that you can own a large ranch, since this would mean you had to
> >define a system of ownership over land.
> >
>
> No -- all I have to do is comingle my labor with the property. From now on
> I will just use eRPO...
>
> >We found out that personal property does exist, but how would a ranch
> >fit into this?
> >
>
> If I labor to create the ranch then I would have eRPO because of my labor
> right? Suppose I build a fence around it and use the area to graze the
> cattle that I am breeding.
In that case anyone could breed their cattle there (if they jump it over
the fence) without violating NOF.
They could also similarly build fences around all the other land.
Building a fence can't be enough to own land. It makes you own the
fence, tho.
> Suppose also that I removed several trees to
> make it grassy field.
That the trees are yours.
> Furhter suppose that the other parts of the land I
> have used to build a house on and maybe a garden, chicken coup (with
> chickens I caught or got in a fair exchange), a garden, stables, ....
> Suppose I do all this with myown labor or labor that has been given to me or
> bought in a fair exchange of wealth. Certainly it is possible for a man to
> accomplish far more with his labor in his life time than just to support
> himself and other wise only have what he could carry or a small house on a
> quarter acre of land.
Certainly. But this is all "suppose". Generally, a ranch would not fit
into this. A ranch is an abstract word defining a defined space. It is
not natural in the sense of being reducable to NOF.
> >I believe that somebody owning a ranch would indeed change a scenario.
> >
> >Personal property, however, makes no difference. Whether or not it
> >exists, you cannot take something from someone without violating his
> >rights.
> >
>
> I might point out here that we decided that he not only had RPO (just
> because he might be possessing the object at the time), but that he had
> _eRPO_. So, even if he lost possession through purely peacful means, it was
> not ppossible for someone else to possess it against his will without
> violating NOF.
Certainly. For anything he holds in his hands or invested work in.
> >However, you _can_ settle on someone's ranch if ownership wouldn't
> >exist. Thus the concept of property makes a difference here, which means
> >that it cannot be reduced to NOF.
>
> But what if you building a house on say his grazing field interrupts his
> ability to graze. He cleared, say, that field -- took him the better part
> of a year to chop down the trees and remove the stumps. Plus he maintains
> it by not over grazing certain parts while leaving others to get overgrown.
> So he even has to go out ahnd herd his cattle around or at least build
> fences for it.
But this is not neccessarily true for a ranch. This could have happened
a year ago, and this year the land might no longer be used.
> >> >I might have said that, yes.
> >> >
> >> >Again, a result can never change a factor.
> >> >
> >>
> >> That statement is meaningless.
> >
> >Why? Because you can't argue it?
> >
> >That statement is btw one of the foundations for mathematics and
> >philosphy, I believe.
> >
>
> Please. I doubt that particular statement is generally even said by
> mathematicians. Suppose x(x-2)=0 and x-1>0. thenthe result of the second
> inequality changes the possible factors for the first equation. This is an
> illustration of how imprecise your statement is and why it is meaningless.
> I am not going to argue this any further...
Hello?
You have _two_ formulas.
You show that the result of another calculation can influence a factor
of one calculation.
My statement was that the result of an calculatiion cannot change a
factor in this calculation.
And this means that you effectively didn't argue the point above.
> >That is _not_ reducable to NOF.
>
> Why is it not? I thought that you had labored on it. This is why you keep
> contradicting yourself. You had said earlier that you did -- just like the
> whistle.
Yeah, whistle, not stick. Garden, not land. Production, not object.
The contradition only exists when you ignore my formula, which you
effectively do.
> >If you own land, I mean the land itself, this ownership would make a
> >difference in the scenario, and must thus have a different cause.
>
> Or maybe your idea of the "scenario" is wrong.
I don't have an idea of a scenario. Scenarios exist without anyone
having an idea.
> >Some sort, that is correct. However, that does not automatically cover
> >all subsets.
>
> So what if the land partly consists of my labor and no one else's? Do I not
> have exclusive RPO to it?
Yes.
> If not why would I have it with the whistle? Or
> any other personal property? I only ask because you said above that I would
> not have eRPO or at least that eRPO is not reducible to NOF.
You constantly repeat that you don't understand the difference I see
between ownership and RPO. You seem to notice that I see a difference,
however.
Since this is so, you would by now have noticed that I said that
ownership of land cannot be reduced to NOF while RPO can.
> >> Right. That labor gives you eRPO over the land. As far as I know
> eRPO=COP.
> >
> >Afaik
> >
> >COP = CPP + CRP + CIP
> >
> >CPP is what we concluded to exist (house and garden included)
> >CRP is owning land itself
> >CIP is intelectual property (not touched yet)
> >
>
> Why? I disagree. Can you prove me wrong?
Prove you wrong about a definition? No.
> >> Well, let me see. Is it possible that through a series of complicated
> >> transactions that one could gain eRPO over these things? Probably.
> >
> >No. These things could simply never enter the status "owned". So you
> >can't obtain them from anyone.
>
> Why not?
Because they can't get the status owned. It is completely impossible to
hold a fishbank or invest work in it (other than breeding it yourself).
> >Then try to reduce ownership of a fishbank to NOF.
> >
> >How can you own a fishbank without introducing any new concept?
> >
>
> Then you agree that I would own the bottom half of the river in the above
> case? What if I owned all the land surrounding a pond? What if I build a
> dock on the bank? What if I build a boat ramp beside the dock? Do I not
> own that part of the bank?
Anyone could come and fish in your lake, not using your dock, of course.
> >I think I did say so before that you cannot own anything which doesn't
> >consist of something that you owned before, like your labor.
> >
>
> What if I trade my labor for someone else's labor?
That is possible.
> >> Are you changing it to say they
> >> can over land but not other things like oil fields?
> >
> >Neither.
> >
>
> Then why can you have eRPO over a whistle but not land that you have
> comingled your labor with? Now do you understand why I keep asking you this
> question?
No.
Because I will repeatedly answer that you do have RPO over the land.
> >I said, and I will continue to do so, even if you don't believe me, that
> >I believe in
> >
> >production = object + work.
> >
>
> This distinction does not matter if I have eRPO to the production.
Production wouldn't exist without the other two.
> >The object may be unowned (like a stick or land), the work is always
> >owned. Thus the produced new object (e.g. a whistle or a garden) is not
> >really owned by whoever invested the work, but nobody could take it from
> >him anyway, because of the labor invested.
> >
>
> That is what I mean by "own" -- eRPO. Can you prove me wrong?
No. But I can doubt your results. If you cann this own, what I call RPO.
Ok.
> >This is what I am saying. Agree to it, or explain how it could possbly
> >be any different.
> >
>
> What you are saying is wrong because all "own" means is no one can take it
> away.
In that case it doesn't affect land at all, because noone could possibly
take it anyway.
People could settle there, of course.
> >Sure, again, if you comingle your work with a stick, you get a whistle
> >(in your example). Nobody can take the result (the whistle) from you,
> >because the work invested was yours.
> >
> >Understood so far?
> >
> >However, since a result can never change a factor,
> >
> >3 * 4 = 12
> >
> >4 is an even number, thus 12 is an even number, but 3 remains an odd
> >number.
> >
> >the stick can never be possibly owned by you, and nor can the whistle in
> >the full sense. If somebody found a method to remove your work from the
> >whistle (probably impossible), he could take the stick, and you wouldn't
> >have any right to stop him.
> >
>
> How would he remove the work from the stick if he did not have RPO to the
> whistle?
He can't.
> I'll say it is impossible unless he gets me to agree to it. All
> "ownership" means to me is that I have eRPO. Why is that not the case?
It is.
> >This difference is only minor and of no relevance to the whistle/stick
> >combination, of course. However, applied on land, the result can
> >dramatically change.
> >
> >For example, you can plant a garden, live there for two years, then
> >leave it. Thus your work would be gone (with the fruits of the garden)
> >and anyone could take the land.
>
> Indeed.
Good.
> >Also, you could never possibly own a fishbank, since it is impossible
> >(or at least very difficult) to work around it in a way that noone can
> >take a fish without also taking your labor from it (except if you breed
> >the fishes).
> >
>
> No -- they can not have access to (at least my part of the bank) since they
> would be exploiting my labor in using my dock or boat ramp.
They could dive into it and fish.
> >Same is true for an oil-field. Or for water.
> >
>
> Are you talking about a common resource that all have access to? Or are you
> talking about something that runs accross only my property?
Both.
> What about a manmade lake?
It's yours.
> What about a stream that runs only accross my property?
Can't happen, as the land is not your property. You are againassuming
that a result changes a factor. You can only own what you hold or
invested labor in (or traded or whatever).
> What
> about where I have eRPO over land from one point on a river all the way down
> to the ocean?
In that case people might jump over your land, or enter the river
through the ocean without ever touching your garden.
> >We will meet this again when we talk about intelectual property.
> >
>
> I doubt we will talk much about that
Ok.
> >THEN it becomes really important.
> >
> >For the stick/whistle example it is rather meaningless, but I insist on
> >that we make this difference, so that we don't forget it.
> >
>
> Fine -- Locke quite easily makes the distinction.
I hope so.
That's interesting.
For one thing you doubt that there is such a dictinction. Then you say
Locke made such a distinction.
> >As long as COP doesn't exist, no.
> >
> >But if COP with all its subsets existed, the following situation could
> >come up (and property rights would collide):
> >
> >1. Somebody builds a garden on your land.
> >
>
> I thought we decided they couldn;t do that. If you build a garden over my
> garden then aren;t you violating NOF?
They are. But the above refered to building a garden on owned land that
you have given up.
> >2. Somebody owns a book that contains a story you wrote.
>
> If you agree to not have eRPO to the story when you buy the book and I agree
> to reliquish my eRPO, then where's the conflict?
_IF_
> >3. Somebody builds a house and thus owns the land he built the house on
> >and someone else tries to dig for oil under the house.
> >
>
> I thought that owning the land under capitalism just means the surface.
So I thought. However, I can't come to the surface conclusion without
definitions.
> >I might make up more examples, if required.
> >
>
> Please do.
4. Somebody drops a whistle on your garden (for whatever reason).
5. Somebody uses a whistle to play a song of yours.
6. Somebody uses his whistle in your house.
> >Whatever. Anything we make up about what to do to own something through
> >comingling labour with it, is a definition!
> >
> >We could say that you have to build a wall around land to own it, or
> >draw a line (like in the Rome legend, which is exactly about our
> >problem), or whatever.
> >
> >The result is that we can't implement such a thing without forcing
> >people to accept a definition of how work needs to be comingled with the
> >object in order to own it.
>
> I thought you said that I might comingle my labor with something and come to
> have eRPO over it by NOF.
Yes.
> Here you seem to be saying that there is no way
> to have such a result since we must define what is necessary for eRPO
> through the comingling of labor.
Yes, for anything other than holding it or investing labor in it
directly we need to do that.
Planting a garden makes the land yours, building a fence around it
doesn't. For the second we'd need a definition stating that investing
work in an area around land also makes the land within thet area yours.
> Didn;t you say I had eRPO over the
> whistle? Do you understand why I am asking you this question again?
No. As I stick to my answer.
But I notice that you are starting to repeat another question as well.
My answer will always be "no".
> >You see how important the question whether you do own the land or just
> >the production suddenly becomes?
>
> No. This point has been discussed and resolved this way in laissez fair
> capitalism.
Yes, but the surface idea is a definition.
> How would this show that we lose the capitalist notion of
> ownership?
Seems that capitalists need the surface idea. At least that's what you
said above.
> >They do not have RPO to the land, just to the house and garden on it. By
> >changing the status of the land to "owned" you would have to implement a
> >definition in the system.
>
> I thought you said earlier they have RPO to the land just like the whistle?
Yes, like the whistle. That means they own the garden and the house, not
the land itself.
> This is what you kept saying that you had answered over and over again that
> you had answered -- the land is no different than the whistle.
That's what I answered, that is correct.
I insisted, and continue to insist, that the production (garden/whistle)
will be yours in both cases, but the object (land/stick) will not.
> >So you do agree that capitalists would usually consider such rights as
> >these of the land owner?
>
> I am saying that no one would consider that one owns the deposite far
> beneath the surface simply because they bought a plot of land over it. All
> their land gives them the right to do is drill form there. If someone
> drilled so that they went under the surface of their property, but close
> enough to the surface, then I suppose they would be tresspassing. Barring
> this type of thing, they could also drill to a point under the other
> person's land probably (all things being equal).
Ok.
And that's the difference to land ownership here. When you own the land,
nobody could drill under it.
> >> Do they violate NOF?
> >
> >Someone pointed out that if noone owned the land it would be equivalent
> >to everyone owning the land. Maybe this is their base?
>
> But it isn't, is it? (equivalent, that is)
I don't know. Haven't calculated that over yet.
> >But would all laisser faire capitalists? I have read many "libertarians"
> >in this group who don't seem to agree about this with each other.
> >Luckily, they can always simply bash someone else, so they will never be
> >confronted with such fundamental/philosophical issues.
> >
> >Do you think that many people here actually did do the work you did,
> >actually _proving_ that at least some property can exist without force?
> >Most simply accept property as an axiom, and don't even know what this
> >means.
> >
> >I don't like people who take things for granted and never doubt them.
> >
> >"Doubt everything!" was one of the first things my analysis prof told
> >me.
> >
>
> Well, I am really defending what I think most people think is natural. But,
> I have to say that most folks do not attempt to probe the details of their
> positions on anything probably this closely (at least not on a news group).
> I can say that as much as I have had some occasion to become extremely
> irritated with you, you have managed to probe more or less to my
> satisfaction. In fact, it is precisely when I think you are not, that I get
> irritated with you. Actually it is not precisely -- it is not until I have
> thought that several times repeatedly that I get irritated.
_:-) I seem to have reached my goal. At least you can't say that you
ever thought about this as much as here, at least not in newsgroups,
wouldn't you agree?
Remember what I said at the very beginning, when I first entered the
newsgroup?
I said that I wasn't here to win a discussion, but to learn.
Winning a discussion is easy. All it takes is the firm belief that the
opponents was stupid. Even (and mostly) the most ignorant people can
reach that status.
> BTW: beware the skeptic's fallacy.
That's why I reduce everything to mathematics.
To make it less easy to understand, but more easy to prove or disprove.
> >Depends on whether the formula
> >
> >no one owns the land = everyone owns the land
> >
> >was correct. If it is, spocialists would be correct.
> >
> >We could try to prove or disprove it, however.
> >
> >In order to do this, we need to know exactly what "ownership" means.
> >
> >Does it mean having exclusive rights to use the object? You might want
> >to calculate this over.
> >
> >If the above is given, the formula would be:
> >
> >everyone has exclusive rights to the land = no one has exlusive rights
> >to the land
> >
> >Since "everyone" and "exclusive" contradict each other, we have to
> >remove them both (logically consistent of course). Try it.
> >
>
> How about
>
> everyone has partial co-possible rights to the land = no one has any rights
> to the land
Would be the same, wouldn't it?
> That is more like what they are saying, and the reason the equality does not
> hold is because on the right hand side rights to the land exist and on the
> left hand side no rights to the land exist.
But the question is whether that was the same. It is self-evident that
it can't possibly be equal because of the factor "right to land" missing
on one side.
But can it be proven?
> >It seems that laissez faire capitalists make that difference too,
> >otherwise they would decide like the might decide in the oil field
> >issue.
> >
> >Not to make this difference would be a violation of ROL, since a result
> >can not change a factor.
>
> Yet if I gain eRPO to a whistle because I had eRPO to the work I comingled
> with it, I have gained eRPO to the stick as well. If you separate my work
> from the stick, then you must have RPO to the whistle to do so. You can
> only have this with my consent. So you started without any RPO to the
> stick. You then picked it up and gained possession of it and so by NOF had
> RPO, but not eRPO. Then without ever setting it down you comingled your
> labor with it and gained eRPO to the stick. I thought you agreed to this,
> but I guess I was wrong?
I agreed that you RPO to the whistle.
> >> Probably. All things being equal? Most certainly. At least as far as I
> >> know, owning a plot of land or even a large portion of land is only
> >> ownership of the surface.
> >
> >Ok. There we have a difference. If you had "ownership" of the land, you
> >would "own" the land. However, exclusive rights to it only affect
> >whatever actions you commited (building a house etc.).
>
> So I can have a house but not the neighboring vicinity. I can have a house
> but not the yard. What if I build a fence around the yard? What if I take
> trees down and lanscpae and groom the yard? Would I gain eRPO to it then?
By building a fence? No. You would only own the fence and have RPO over
the land beneath in (not within it). That's the difference.
> >That would be a definition! Why not one meter below the ground water? Or
> >ten centimeters above it? Be careful!
>
> Not really. The ground water is a common resource that all have access to.
Certainly.
> If I pollute the ground water then I am infringing on my neighbors pRPO to
> it (assuming he has drilled a well and all -- if he hasn't then it would not
> be an issue).
Agreed.
> >I agree. And this is exactly the difference that I noticed.
> >
> >It seems that we are getting forwards here.
> >
> >At least when we talk about property, we know what it is, because we
> >have invented/proven it here!
>
> Well have we invented it or proven it? I think that the whole issue is what
> one can use NOF to justify, right? Most laissez fair capitalists would say
> that such justification ends somewhere between the surface and the earth's
> core. So we need not have dibs on oil sufficiently far beneath the surface
> of my property to have a truly capitalist notion of ownership.
Ok.
> Moreover, one need not have ownership of anything that comes onto their
> property to have ownership in a cpaitalist system. Not even if the thing is
> inanimate and comes onto it purely by chance. So, just because you own land
> on either side of a river, that does not mean that under pure laissez fair
> capitalism, you would own the river.
Ok.
> I am fairly certain most laissez fair
> capitalist political philosophers would disagree with the idea of owning a
> river just because it runs through your property.
I hoped so.
Adrian
Andrew J. Brehm wrote in message
>Adrian <dur...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>> >I doubt that you can own a large ranch, since this would mean you had to
>> >define a system of ownership over land.
>> >
>>
>> No -- all I have to do is comingle my labor with the property. From now
on
>> I will just use eRPO...
>>
>> >We found out that personal property does exist, but how would a ranch
>> >fit into this?
>> >
>>
>> If I labor to create the ranch then I would have eRPO because of my labor
>> right? Suppose I build a fence around it and use the area to graze the
>> cattle that I am breeding.
>
>In that case anyone could breed their cattle there (if they jump it over
>the fence) without violating NOF.
>
>They could also similarly build fences around all the other land.
>Building a fence can't be enough to own land. It makes you own the
>fence, tho.
>
Why? I am not necessarily disagreeing with you, but how can you show that I
am not comingling my labor with the land contained within? With that fence
around it, the land inside is more valuable. I have labored to make a fence
and that labor has increased the value of the otherwise unowned land. Is my
labor not comingled with it? If not, then how has its value increased?
>> Suppose also that I removed several trees to
>> make it grassy field.
>
>That the trees are yours.
>
In this case I would probably almost surely disagree with you. Clearing the
land generally makes it more valuable. In fact, you have to usually pay a
lot for that type of service. Not only that but such a thing constitutes
direct labor on the and itself (unlike possibly the fence -- depending on
how big an area the fence encloses).
>> Furhter suppose that the other parts of the land I
>> have used to build a house on and maybe a garden, chicken coup (with
>> chickens I caught or got in a fair exchange), a garden, stables, ....
>> Suppose I do all this with myown labor or labor that has been given to me
or
>> bought in a fair exchange of wealth. Certainly it is possible for a man
to
>> accomplish far more with his labor in his life time than just to support
>> himself and other wise only have what he could carry or a small house on
a
>> quarter acre of land.
>
>Certainly. But this is all "suppose". Generally, a ranch would not fit
>into this. A ranch is an abstract word defining a defined space. It is
>not natural in the sense of being reducable to NOF.
>
I guess. I am merely showing how one might come to be wealthy and/or gain
eRPO to large expanes of land.
It need not be necessarily true. It only need be possible. I will be the
fist to say that property has come to be owned in many an unjust manner over
the millenia. It may even be the case that on particular situations my
favorite laissez capitalists have made errors in judgment. The question
here is whether or not the principles on which they base their judgment are
consistent with NOF. So whether or not they may have violated NOF on one
case or another is sort of irrelevant to the issue of whether or not their
basis for making that judgment was violating NOF. In any case, if it is
merely _possible_ for someone to own a ranch justly under NOF, then I have
sufficiently made my point (about ranches at least).
Do I have eRPO to the whistle? If so, I have eRPO to the wood that the
whistle is composed of.
>> >If you own land, I mean the land itself, this ownership would make a
>> >difference in the scenario, and must thus have a different cause.
>>
>> Or maybe your idea of the "scenario" is wrong.
>
>I don't have an idea of a scenario. Scenarios exist without anyone
>having an idea.
>
>> >Some sort, that is correct. However, that does not automatically cover
>> >all subsets.
>>
>> So what if the land partly consists of my labor and no one else's? Do I
not
>> have exclusive RPO to it?
>
>Yes.
>
I have eRPO to the _land_? Are you sure?
>> If not why would I have it with the whistle? Or
>> any other personal property? I only ask because you said above that I
would
>> not have eRPO or at least that eRPO is not reducible to NOF.
>
>You constantly repeat that you don't understand the difference I see
>between ownership and RPO. You seem to notice that I see a difference,
>however.
>
>Since this is so, you would by now have noticed that I said that
>ownership of land cannot be reduced to NOF while RPO can.
>
You have? A couple times I think you have said that one could never have
eRPO to things that one might otherwise have eRPO to (possibly because of
the physical objects involved or some other reasoning). Again, I do not
know of ownership that means anything else other than eRPO. Please explain
what additional meaning ownership has that is not reducible to eRPO to the
thing that is owned. All of the examples you have given COP, CIP, and CRP
boil down as far as I can tell to eRPO to the things in question --
exclusive rights to the idea, resource, or physical object.
>> >> Right. That labor gives you eRPO over the land. As far as I know
>> eRPO=COP.
>> >
>> >Afaik
>> >
>> >COP = CPP + CRP + CIP
>> >
>> >CPP is what we concluded to exist (house and garden included)
>> >CRP is owning land itself
>> >CIP is intelectual property (not touched yet)
>> >
>>
>> Why? I disagree. Can you prove me wrong?
>
>Prove you wrong about a definition? No.
>
I would like just some explanation of your defintion. How does it differ
from eRPO? You have said that you can have eRPO of the whistle but not
ownership. Ownership would mean that you own not only the labor but also
the wood (according to you). Of course that point is part of what is being
disputed here. You say that this distinction is something we will need
later for intellectual property and natural resources. If you wish to make
a distindtion then do so by articulating the precise difference in terms
that do not involve the word "ownership". Is ownership eRPO to the wood,
while eRPO to the whistle is just eRPO to the labor or product? How is it
that one could have eRPO to the product but not to the wood if the product
is partially composed of the wood?
>> >> Well, let me see. Is it possible that through a series of complicated
>> >> transactions that one could gain eRPO over these things? Probably.
>> >
>> >No. These things could simply never enter the status "owned". So you
>> >can't obtain them from anyone.
>>
>> Why not?
>
>Because they can't get the status owned. It is completely impossible to
>hold a fishbank or invest work in it (other than breeding it yourself).
>
We are talking about the _bank_ of a body of water, right?
>> >Then try to reduce ownership of a fishbank to NOF.
>> >
>> >How can you own a fishbank without introducing any new concept?
>> >
>>
>> Then you agree that I would own the bottom half of the river in the above
>> case? What if I owned all the land surrounding a pond? What if I build
a
>> dock on the bank? What if I build a boat ramp beside the dock? Do I not
>> own that part of the bank?
>
>Anyone could come and fish in your lake, not using your dock, of course.
>
We were talking about the bank. I have gained eRPO to the portion of the
bank that my dock is attached to at the very least. Probably (assuming my
boat ramp is near by) I have eRPO to the portion to the bank between the
ramp and the dock. And so I might have gained access to a significant
amoutn of bank here. Is it possible that several folks do the same? If it
is not fair for someone to buil the same structure immediately beside mine
(possibly so that their dock might even touch the cement of my boat ramp),
then how far apart from my structure do they have to build? Whatever the
parameters are for that is where I would justly acquire eRPO by building my
structure (whether they build next to me or not). So it is possible that
they would within hese boundaries build their own structures and that the
bank of this pond would become completely privately owned and inaccessible
except to the owners at their point of ownership.
>> >I think I did say so before that you cannot own anything which doesn't
>> >consist of something that you owned before, like your labor.
>> >
>>
>> What if I trade my labor for someone else's labor?
>
>That is possible.
>
>> >> Are you changing it to say they
>> >> can over land but not other things like oil fields?
>> >
>> >Neither.
>> >
>>
>> Then why can you have eRPO over a whistle but not land that you have
>> comingled your labor with? Now do you understand why I keep asking you
this
>> question?
>
>No.
>
>Because I will repeatedly answer that you do have RPO over the land.
>
Why then would I ask that question as if you had just said otherwise? If
you go back to the original post it appears in you will see the context I
ask the question in.
>> >I said, and I will continue to do so, even if you don't believe me, that
>> >I believe in
>> >
>> >production = object + work.
>> >
>>
>> This distinction does not matter if I have eRPO to the production.
>
>Production wouldn't exist without the other two.
>
So? We are talking about "owning" the product versus owning the
constituents of the product. You are saying something like I can own the
product because I own the work, but in owning the product I do not own the
object. All capitalists want to do is own the product. They do not want to
own a bunch of sticks scatter through the woods, they want the house. They
do not want the oil under the ground, they want the barrels of it in the
hanger. They want the product not the object. If they had exclusive rights
to the oil under the ground they would still drill for it and make it into
oil in the barrels. The only reason a capitalist would ever even be
interested in the object is because of the product they might make out of
it. You would find you had no customers if you tried to sell oil rights
that said that they had the right to the oil as long as it remained under
ground in the deposite.
>> >The object may be unowned (like a stick or land), the work is always
>> >owned. Thus the produced new object (e.g. a whistle or a garden) is not
>> >really owned by whoever invested the work, but nobody could take it from
>> >him anyway, because of the labor invested.
>> >
>>
>> That is what I mean by "own" -- eRPO. Can you prove me wrong?
>
>No. But I can doubt your results. If you cann this own, what I call RPO.
>Ok.
>
So the question might be what is the natural notion of "own". What does a
capitalist want -- your version of ownership or just my version of eRPO?
Would a capitalist choose, I wonder, to live in a world with your ownership
or my eRPO? Which would he stand to profit the most from (assuming he
starts with nothing)? (Those are rhetorical questions.)
>> >This is what I am saying. Agree to it, or explain how it could possbly
>> >be any different.
>> >
>>
>> What you are saying is wrong because all "own" means is no one can take
it
>> away.
>
>In that case it doesn't affect land at all, because noone could possibly
>take it anyway.
>
Yeah they can. They can prevent me from having acess to the land.
>People could settle there, of course.
>
That would prevent me from having access to the land that they have settled
on. they might also be profitting from my own labor if I cleared that land
and leveled it (and then they conveniently build a house on it).
>> >Sure, again, if you comingle your work with a stick, you get a whistle
>> >(in your example). Nobody can take the result (the whistle) from you,
>> >because the work invested was yours.
>> >
>> >Understood so far?
>> >
>> >However, since a result can never change a factor,
>> >
>> >3 * 4 = 12
>> >
>> >4 is an even number, thus 12 is an even number, but 3 remains an odd
>> >number.
>> >
>> >the stick can never be possibly owned by you, and nor can the whistle in
>> >the full sense. If somebody found a method to remove your work from the
>> >whistle (probably impossible), he could take the stick, and you wouldn't
>> >have any right to stop him.
>> >
>>
>> How would he remove the work from the stick if he did not have RPO to the
>> whistle?
>
>He can't.
>
>> I'll say it is impossible unless he gets me to agree to it. All
>> "ownership" means to me is that I have eRPO. Why is that not the case?
>
>It is.
>
I thought you were saying it wasn't. You were saying that we must define
ownership to mean something else if we are to have any kind of a capitalist
notion. And I believe this is the whole point of this entire thread to see
whether or not capitalism requires the initiation of force.
>> >This difference is only minor and of no relevance to the whistle/stick
>> >combination, of course. However, applied on land, the result can
>> >dramatically change.
>> >
>> >For example, you can plant a garden, live there for two years, then
>> >leave it. Thus your work would be gone (with the fruits of the garden)
>> >and anyone could take the land.
>>
>> Indeed.
>
>Good.
>
>> >Also, you could never possibly own a fishbank, since it is impossible
>> >(or at least very difficult) to work around it in a way that noone can
>> >take a fish without also taking your labor from it (except if you breed
>> >the fishes).
>> >
>>
>> No -- they can not have access to (at least my part of the bank) since
they
>> would be exploiting my labor in using my dock or boat ramp.
>
>They could dive into it and fish.
We were talking about fishing _banks_ -- not the fish or the pond itself,
per se. Under capitalism, all the owners of the parts of the bank would
probably be thought of as having joint or partial ownership of the pond
itself. Of course, there is the theoretical possibility of someone using a
helicopter to fly a boat into the middle of the pond so that he could fish
and then be airlifted out with his fish. To be honest, that situation does
not seem to come up very much.
>
>> >Same is true for an oil-field. Or for water.
>> >
>>
>> Are you talking about a common resource that all have access to? Or are
you
>> talking about something that runs accross only my property?
>
>Both.
>
>> What about a manmade lake?
>
>It's yours.
>
>> What about a stream that runs only accross my property?
>
>Can't happen, as the land is not your property. You are againassuming
>that a result changes a factor. You can only own what you hold or
>invested labor in (or traded or whatever).
>
Okay what if it runs through my house. Supposing I build a house somewhere.
How close to my house may one build their house without violating NOF? Can
they build theirs so that their front door is my backdoor? Can they build
it so that their house so that their window sill touches mine?
>> What
>> about where I have eRPO over land from one point on a river all the way
down
>> to the ocean?
>
>In that case people might jump over your land, or enter the river
>through the ocean without ever touching your garden.
>
But how would they have pRPO to it (unless they were actually there on the
river) so that they could complain if I, say, damned it up?
>> >We will meet this again when we talk about intelectual property.
>> >
>>
>> I doubt we will talk much about that
>
>Ok.
>
>> >THEN it becomes really important.
>> >
>> >For the stick/whistle example it is rather meaningless, but I insist on
>> >that we make this difference, so that we don't forget it.
>> >
>>
>> Fine -- Locke quite easily makes the distinction.
>
>I hope so.
>
>That's interesting.
>
>For one thing you doubt that there is such a dictinction. Then you say
>Locke made such a distinction.
>
I do not have trouble making a distinction between the stick and the whistle
and that one owns the whistle because of the labor they have comingled with
the stick -- that is 100% Locke. It is the idea that one own the whistle
but not the wood the wistle is composed of that Locke and I both fail to
understand.
>> >As long as COP doesn't exist, no.
>> >
>> >But if COP with all its subsets existed, the following situation could
>> >come up (and property rights would collide):
>> >
>> >1. Somebody builds a garden on your land.
>> >
>>
>> I thought we decided they couldn;t do that. If you build a garden over
my
>> garden then aren;t you violating NOF?
>
>They are. But the above refered to building a garden on owned land that
>you have given up.
>
Well, most capitalists would agree with that. Most capitalists will allow
you to take someones couch out of their trash and use it. If the previous
owner comes to reclaim it, most capitalists would say "finders keepers" and
let the current owners keep the couch. At last I think Locke, Nozick, Adam
Smith would agree to this -- I think I would.
>> >2. Somebody owns a book that contains a story you wrote.
>>
>> If you agree to not have eRPO to the story when you buy the book and I
agree
>> to reliquish my eRPO, then where's the conflict?
>
>_IF_
>
One might argue that such an agreement is implicit in the sellign of a book.
The value of the book is what is printed on the page -- not the binding, etc
(usually). I think it fair to say that if one writes stories and makes
books that allow one to read these story easily for sale to others, that
they intend to profit off of their story and that that is why they labored
to write it in the first place. If you then go and sell the story, then you
are profitting from their labor. At some point though one might reasonably
cnclude that someone else would have come up with the story on their own,
and that is when the copywrite expires on it. So, it is implicit in the
sellign of the book (to some extent) that the sellers have the rights to
profit from the story and that the buyers are only buying the right to read
the story -- to have it for themselves.
>> >3. Somebody builds a house and thus owns the land he built the house on
>> >and someone else tries to dig for oil under the house.
>> >
>>
>> I thought that owning the land under capitalism just means the surface.
>
>So I thought. However, I can't come to the surface conclusion without
>definitions.
>
Well, you did not comingle your labor with what is beneath the surface
(assuming it is sufficiently far down). Remeber the point is to show that
the capitalist notion of property requires the initiation of force. As far
as I know, capitalists limit ownership to the surface (to one extent or
another). They do this enough so that there would be a legitimate dispute
among capitalists over who has access to the oil (that in most cases would
be resolved by saying that whoever can get it can have it). What you would
have to show here is that there is no dispute among capitalists and that the
resolution violates NOF. That is, you would have to show this if you wanted
to show that the capitalist notion of ownership violated NOF in this way.
>> >I might make up more examples, if required.
>> >
>>
>> Please do.
>
>4. Somebody drops a whistle on your garden (for whatever reason).
>
I have a right to the garden -- he has the right to the whistle. It depends
on what exactly happens, usually as long as he does not damage my garden he
may come get his whistle. This is how it is handled usually in a capitalist
society by the police (if they were involved). To claim his whistle would
be a violation of NOF, and to trample my garden to get the whistle would als
o be a violation of NOF. If he dropped the whistle on purpose, then that
alone might violate NOF. In any case, the graden owner has not generally
gained any RPO to the whistle.
>5. Somebody uses a whistle to play a song of yours.
>
"Song of mine"? This is hardly a question of the whistle versus the song.
It is a question of whether or not I have eRPO to the profitting from the
song. If they are infringing on my right to do so (if I even have such a
right) then they are violating NOF. Otherwise they are not. The song
writer has not gained RPO to the whistle. This is how it is handled in a
capitalist society.
>6. Somebody uses his whistle in your house.
>
How did they get into my house without violating NOF? I must have invited
them. Some reasonable assumptions about the behavior of a person and the
conditions under which he may remain on my property may certainly be made
even if I just say "Hey come one over!" In any case, if I say to quit
blowing that whistle while you are in my house, then it would be a violation
of NOF for you to blow your whistle AND stay in my house. I have not gained
RPO to the whistle.
>> >Whatever. Anything we make up about what to do to own something through
>> >comingling labour with it, is a definition!
>> >
>> >We could say that you have to build a wall around land to own it, or
>> >draw a line (like in the Rome legend, which is exactly about our
>> >problem), or whatever.
>> >
>> >The result is that we can't implement such a thing without forcing
>> >people to accept a definition of how work needs to be comingled with the
>> >object in order to own it.
>>
>> I thought you said that I might comingle my labor with something and come
to
>> have eRPO over it by NOF.
>
>Yes.
>
>> Here you seem to be saying that there is no way
>> to have such a result since we must define what is necessary for eRPO
>> through the comingling of labor.
>
>Yes, for anything other than holding it or investing labor in it
>directly we need to do that.
>
What if I trade something I have labored for with something else someone
else has labored for? And please note that in saying "Yes" to both
questions you have just stated literally that both a proposition and its
negation are true. That is why your responses are not always consistent and
I must often ask you the same question repeatedly.
>Planting a garden makes the land yours, building a fence around it
>doesn't. For the second we'd need a definition stating that investing
>work in an area around land also makes the land within thet area yours.
>
Well, if you have labored to increase the value of land, then haven't you
comingled your labor with it?
>> Didn;t you say I had eRPO over the
>> whistle? Do you understand why I am asking you this question again?
>
>No. As I stick to my answer.
>
>But I notice that you are starting to repeat another question as well.
>
>My answer will always be "no".
>
>> >You see how important the question whether you do own the land or just
>> >the production suddenly becomes?
>>
>> No. This point has been discussed and resolved this way in laissez fair
>> capitalism.
>
>Yes, but the surface idea is a definition.
>
Nope -- it is based on what one has comingled their labor with. You have
not comingled your labor with the oil deposite beneath the surface, but you
have comingled your labor with the surface itself. The definition follows
from NOF.
>> How would this show that we lose the capitalist notion of
>> ownership?
>
>Seems that capitalists need the surface idea. At least that's what you
>said above.
They adhere to the surface idea as an ad hoc position. I think that it
follows from NOF. If you can show something different then, we capitalists
will change our tune.
>
>> >They do not have RPO to the land, just to the house and garden on it. By
>> >changing the status of the land to "owned" you would have to implement a
>> >definition in the system.
>>
>> I thought you said earlier they have RPO to the land just like the
whistle?
>
>Yes, like the whistle. That means they own the garden and the house, not
>the land itself.
>
Whatever that means... I do not understand the distinction between owning
the garden (which consists partially of the land) outright while not owning
the land and owning both. Neither does locke. However, we do understand
the difference between land and the garden. In fact we do not understand
the first one as it seems incoherent to us. All of that stuff you were
saying about how you might lose ownership of the land is just an issue of
JOT, as far as we are concerned -- there is still no doubt of your exclusive
right to the land while you have ownership of the garden. If you have this
exclusive right to the land then we say "you own the land". In fact, any
time we say "own" we mean "have exclusive right to". It seems like we would
have a society of rich and poor -- a regular capitalist society maybe like
colonial America in principle (except no slavery, higher technology, most of
the lanbd is owned, etc) -- with this Lockean idea that an object comes
originally to be owned because someone comingled their labor with it.
>> This is what you kept saying that you had answered over and over again
that
>> you had answered -- the land is no different than the whistle.
>
>That's what I answered, that is correct.
>
>I insisted, and continue to insist, that the production (garden/whistle)
>will be yours in both cases, but the object (land/stick) will not.
>
If I have exclusive rights to it, then how is it not "mine"?
>> >So you do agree that capitalists would usually consider such rights as
>> >these of the land owner?
>>
>> I am saying that no one would consider that one owns the deposite far
>> beneath the surface simply because they bought a plot of land over it.
All
>> their land gives them the right to do is drill form there. If someone
>> drilled so that they went under the surface of their property, but close
>> enough to the surface, then I suppose they would be tresspassing.
Barring
>> this type of thing, they could also drill to a point under the other
>> person's land probably (all things being equal).
>
>Ok.
>
>And that's the difference to land ownership here. When you own the land,
>nobody could drill under it.
>
I do not think that is true in a capitalist world.
Well what if the fence I have built increases the value of the land inside.
Whereas before the land inside was just neutral land. Now one could collect
livestock in it and use the land for grazing. they could not do that before
because the livestock would run or wander off. Now the land may be used
more effectively. Suppose the fence encompasses so much are that this
argument I just made basically fails (as the fenced in area include all of
America, for instance -- you would have to work just as hard to get a
"herded" cow as a wild cow in this example). Then the fenced in land is not
any more valuable (at least in this sense).
Suppose that the fenced in are is realtively small. Then if the cattle were
all herded into the area, one would merely walk up and take one (instead of
having to find and hunt one down). This fenced ion area has far more
utilitarian value than the area just outside of the fence. You labored to
make the fence specifically for this purpose and the fencecan only really be
used for this purpose. It would seem you have comingled your labor with the
land inside the fence in the latter case since the fence itself is useless
(just like the whistle would be without the wood it is composed of).
>> >That would be a definition! Why not one meter below the ground water? Or
>> >ten centimeters above it? Be careful!
>>
>> Not really. The ground water is a common resource that all have access
to.
>
>Certainly.
>
>> If I pollute the ground water then I am infringing on my neighbors pRPO
to
>> it (assuming he has drilled a well and all -- if he hasn't then it would
not
>> be an issue).
>
>Agreed.
>
But, this is purely a capitalist notion of property still.
Adrian
Dagmar Alpen
: Adrian <dur...@mindspring.com> wrote:
:> Please. I doubt that particular statement is generally even said by
:> mathematicians. Suppose x(x-2)=0 and x-1>0. thenthe result of the second
:> inequality changes the possible factors for the first equation. This is an
:> illustration of how imprecise your statement is and why it is meaningless.
:> I am not going to argue this any further...
: Hello?
: You have _two_ formulas.
: You show that the result of another calculation can influence a factor
: of one calculation.
: My statement was that the result of an calculatiion cannot change a
: factor in this calculation.
: And this means that you effectively didn't argue the point above.
I think you both are confusing the term "factor" in the mathematical sense
with the term "factor" as it is used in production theory. A factor in the
mathematical sense is a number (or, more abstractly, an element of a group
or a semigroup) that enters a multiplication.
"Factor" in production theory means some input that is used to produce
something else. Factors are typically either physical objects, like a lump
of metal or a sack of grain or some machinery, or the amount of time a human
works to produce the final result, or some land the product is grown on.
Formulas how the different factors enter into the final result can be estimated
(hence you get "production functions"), but they typically look more
complicated
than simple additions and multiplications, and they don't tell you anything
about how, if at all, the factors change during the time of production.
For instance, suppose you spent a summer planting and harvesting a field.
The factors are your time, some seeds, and your field.
Come fall, you will reap a sack of grain from it. After that
- your time will be gone
- your seeds will be gone
-the field will look just the same to the eye, but will be a tad less fertile
next year unless you do something about it
-you have a sack of grain that previously didn't exist.
I'd say the factors have changed during production, wouldn't you?
Now the rule of ownership Adrian seems to propose is: If anything is produced
and one of the factors happens to be my labor, than I own that thing.
[This can easily be extended to: Things produced by joint labor are owned
by the people who produced them, in the proportion of the labor involved.]
This works without obvious clashes as long as all other factors save for labor
are previously unowned. But what if you commingle your labor with something
that is already owned by someone else? Does this mean if I own the stick and
you make a whistle from it, I automatically lose my property? Also, does
_any_ labor suffice, or does it have to add some value (however defined) to
the object?
I think the problem can be resolved if we add another rule: If I find anything
that is not previously owned, then _and only then_ I become the owner of it
if I so decide. But that would be an axiom like NOF; I don't see how it's
deducible from NOF.
Dagmar
Andrew J. Brehm
> Andrew J. Brehm <ajb...@sundance.netneurotic.de> wrote:
> I think you both are confusing the term "factor" in the mathematical sense
> with the term "factor" as it is used in production theory.
We were actually refering to mathematics.
> A factor in the mathematical sense is a number (or, more abstractly, an
> element of a group or a semigroup) that enters a multiplication.
I believe this is how I used it in
3 * 4 = 12
> "Factor" in production theory means some input that is used to produce
> something else. Factors are typically either physical objects, like a lump
> of metal or a sack of grain or some machinery, or the amount of time a
> human works to produce the final result, or some land the product is grown
> on.
>
> Formulas how the different factors enter into the final result can be
> estimated (hence you get "production functions"), but they typically look
> more complicated than simple additions and multiplications, and they don't
> tell you anything about how, if at all, the factors change during the time
> of production.
>
> For instance, suppose you spent a summer planting and harvesting a field.
> The factors are your time, some seeds, and your field.
>
> Come fall, you will reap a sack of grain from it. After that
>
> - your time will be gone
>
> - your seeds will be gone
>
> -the field will look just the same to the eye, but will be a tad less
> fertile next year unless you do something about it
>
> -you have a sack of grain that previously didn't exist.
>
> I'd say the factors have changed during production, wouldn't you?
Well, they siezed to exist.
But this is not the way in which they are used in analysis, and we have
been analysing the concept.
> Now the rule of ownership Adrian seems to propose is: If anything is
> produced and one of the factors happens to be my labor, than I own that
> thing.
>
> [This can easily be extended to: Things produced by joint labor are owned
> by the people who produced them, in the proportion of the labor involved.]
>
> This works without obvious clashes as long as all other factors save for
> labor are previously unowned. But what if you commingle your labor with
> something that is already owned by someone else? Does this mean if I own
> the stick and you make a whistle from it, I automatically lose my
> property? Also, does _any_ labor suffice, or does it have to add some
> value (however defined) to the object?
In my theory you wouldn't be able to own a pure stick after you put it
down somewhere.
> I think the problem can be resolved if we add another rule: If I find
> anything that is not previously owned, then _and only then_ I become the
> owner of it if I so decide. But that would be an axiom like NOF; I don't
> see how it's deducible from NOF.
You are correct, it isn't. It is basically proposition 001.
Dagmar Alpen
:> Andrew J. Brehm <ajb...@sundance.netneurotic.de> wrote:
:> I think you both are confusing the term "factor" in the mathematical sense
:> with the term "factor" as it is used in production theory.
: We were actually refering to mathematics.
That is, you were talking about owning numbers?
:> A factor in the mathematical sense is a number (or, more abstractly, an
:> element of a group or a semigroup) that enters a multiplication.
: I believe this is how I used it in
: 3 * 4 = 12
Yes. But that doesn't have anything to do with owning land.
[...]
:>
:> I'd say the factors have changed during production, wouldn't you?
: Well, they siezed to exist.
With exception to the land, yes. Now if you have the equation
3 * 4 = 12
and you (rightly, I think, but I'm no philosopher) conclude that the number 3
still exists after being multiplied and still has the same mathematical
properties, but the factors that enter into the production of goods normally
vanish or get changed, that indicates to me that that particular equation
just isn't a very good model of the process of production.
And it was ownership of _production factors_ like land or labor (and the fruit
thereof) our tribe has to decide about.
: But this is not the way in which they are used in analysis,
By "analysis", do you mean "the theory of continuously differentiable functions
in R^n or C^n"?
: and we have
: been analysing the concept.
:
No, "analysing the
concept" is not the same as "doing analysis".
[remainder agreeingly snipped]
Dagmar
Andrew J. Brehm
> Andrew J. Brehm <ajb...@sundance.netneurotic.de> wrote: : Dagmar Alpen
> <el5...@uni-hamburg.de> wrote:
>
> :> Andrew J. Brehm <ajb...@sundance.netneurotic.de> wrote:
>
> :> I think you both are confusing the term "factor" in the mathematical
> :> sense with the term "factor" as it is used in production theory.
>
> : We were actually refering to mathematics.
>
> That is, you were talking about owning numbers?
Aeh, no.
>
> :> A factor in the mathematical sense is a number (or, more abstractly, an
> :> element of a group or a semigroup) that enters a multiplication.
>
> : I believe this is how I used it in
>
> : 3 * 4 = 12
>
> Yes. But that doesn't have anything to do with owning land.
That is correct.
> :> I'd say the factors have changed during production, wouldn't you?
>
> : Well, they siezed to exist.
>
> With exception to the land, yes. Now if you have the equation
>
> 3 * 4 = 12
>
> and you (rightly, I think, but I'm no philosopher) conclude that the
> number 3 still exists after being multiplied and still has the same
> mathematical properties, but the factors that enter into the production of
> goods normally vanish or get changed, that indicates to me that that
> particular equation just isn't a very good model of the process of
> production.
But the formula wasn't about the process of production. It was about how
something can be owned.
> And it was ownership of _production factors_ like land or labor (and the
> fruit thereof) our tribe has to decide about.
Yes, that's why I thought about whether something can become owned and
how.
> : But this is not the way in which they are used in analysis,
>
> By "analysis", do you mean "the theory of continuously differentiable
> functions in R^n or C^n"?
More general.
> : and we have been analysing the concept.
>
>
> No, "analysing the concept" is not the same as "doing analysis".
And?
adrian...@hotmail.com
Dagmar Alpen <el5...@uni-hamburg.de> wrote:
>
> I think the problem can be resolved if we add another rule: If I find anything
> that is not previously owned, then _and only then_ I become the owner of it
> if I so decide. But that would be an axiom like NOF; I don't see how it's
> deducible from NOF.
>
> Dagmar
>
>
Why do you think that this rule could not be derived from NOF? You must
prove this statement in order to be able to use it to show that the
capitalist notion of ownership requires the initiation of force.
Furthermore, the issue was not whether or not one might gain ownership of
someone else's object, though, that is an interesting question. The question
was, given that there is no ownership of anything, how is it that objects
could become owned? So, in particular, if someone owns something already,
then I have satisfied my burden of showing that ownership need not require
the intiation of force (i.e. violate NOF). The whole issue is does
capitalism _necessarily_ violate NOF? It is on such grounds that one can
justify either rejecting it for socialism or modifying it to allow for
welfare of one sort or another.
Adrian
Andrew J. Brehm wrote in message
>> >the fence) without violating NOF.
>> >
>> >They could also similarly build fences around all the other land.
>> >Building a fence can't be enough to own land. It makes you own the
>> >fence, tho.
>> >
>>
>> Why? I am not necessarily disagreeing with you, but how can you show
that I
>> am not comingling my labor with the land contained within? With that
fence
>> around it, the land inside is more valuable. I have labored to make a
fence
>> and that labor has increased the value of the otherwise unowned land. Is
my
>> labor not comingled with it? If not, then how has its value increased?
>
>think that the land is now less usable. A fence around land is not the
>same as a garden on the land.
>
Some one else might think you have devalued the stick by wittling away some
of the wood for the whistle. In terms of fire wood, your whistle is less
valuable than the stick originally was.
>For example, it is completely impossible to walk the land your garden is
>on without violating NOF. On the other hand, walking within the land you
>have built a fence around is no violation of force. Whether you see this
>land as worth more than before is irrelevant, I think.
It is impossible to walk on the garden since you might trample it and
destroy the labor I have comingled with it. That is why it is a violation
of NOF. Or maybe it is possible to walk on the garden. What if you are
really carefull not to trample any of the plants by stepping between the
rows? But then I am risking you accidentally stepping on a plant or doing
it on purpose. Should I have to trust that you will not? In general should
I have to trust that you will not harm me until you have, in any context?
More specifically, what contexts do I have to trust you and do I not and how
much? If I build a fence and am worried about you building a house there
that I will have to move later, to what extent can I take measures to
prevent you from doing so without violating NOF? Can I remove you? What if
I am worried that letting you hang around might be a risk to my life and
health as you might sneak up behind me and murder me for my fence or the
land within?
>
>> >> Suppose also that I removed several trees to
>> >> make it grassy field.
>> >
>> >That the trees are yours.
>> >
>>
>> In this case I would probably almost surely disagree with you. Clearing
the
>> land generally makes it more valuable. In fact, you have to usually pay
a
>> lot for that type of service. Not only that but such a thing constitutes
>> direct labor on the and itself (unlike possibly the fence -- depending on
>> how big an area the fence encloses).
>
>Probably. However, making something more valuable is not the grounds for
>our NOF concept of property.
>
That is correct -- the issue is whether or not my labor is comingled with
it. If the only event that has occurred is that I have labored on it and it
is more valuable after that event than it was before, then I can only
conclude that it is becuase my labor is now comingled with it.
>The grounds is that noone is allowed to use force to access your
>"property".
>
>In the case of an ex-forest, someone might have wanted to walk the
>forest, you destroyed it, and decreased the value of the land in his
>eyes. If he wasn't allowed to walk the land, not destroying anything you
>accomplished, you'd have introduced a definition which we couldn't
>accept.
>
Would you reject ownership in the whistle now since I wanted to use it as
firewood and in my eyes you have devalued it by wittling away the wood?
Incidentally, who says that labor is valuable? All we have been saying so
far is that one need only comingle their labor with something to own it. (I
have to confess, though, it would seem that generally the object would have
to increase in value in some sense for that to happen)
>> >Certainly. But this is all "suppose". Generally, a ranch would not fit
>> >into this. A ranch is an abstract word defining a defined space. It is
>> >not natural in the sense of being reducable to NOF.
>> >
>>
>> I guess. I am merely showing how one might come to be wealthy and/or
gain
>> eRPO to large expanes of land.
>
>And I do believe you.
>
>> >But this is not neccessarily true for a ranch. This could have happened
>> >a year ago, and this year the land might no longer be used.
>> >
>>
>> It need not be necessarily true. It only need be possible.
>
>Ok.
>
>> I will be the
>> fist to say that property has come to be owned in many an unjust manner
over
>> the millenia. It may even be the case that on particular situations my
>> favorite laissez capitalists have made errors in judgment. The question
>> here is whether or not the principles on which they base their judgment
are
>> consistent with NOF. So whether or not they may have violated NOF on one
>> case or another is sort of irrelevant to the issue of whether or not
their
>> basis for making that judgment was violating NOF. In any case, if it is
>> merely _possible_ for someone to own a ranch justly under NOF, then I
have
>> sufficiently made my point (about ranches at least).
>
>Ok.
>
>> >The contradition only exists when you ignore my formula, which you
>> >effectively do.
>>
>> Do I have eRPO to the whistle? If so, I have eRPO to the wood that the
>> whistle is composed of.
>
>Yes, but as you know, I make a differene here.
>
Let me put it this way. Whereas I did not have eRPO to the wood before, I
do now. This change in the status of the wood seems very relevant to
capitalistic notions of ownership.
>> >Yes.
>> >
>>
>> I have eRPO to the _land_? Are you sure?
>
>Yes.
>
>> >You constantly repeat that you don't understand the difference I see
>> >between ownership and RPO. You seem to notice that I see a difference,
>> >however.
>> >
>> >Since this is so, you would by now have noticed that I said that
>> >ownership of land cannot be reduced to NOF while RPO can.
>>
>> You have? A couple times I think you have said that one could never have
>> eRPO to things that one might otherwise have eRPO to (possibly because of
>> the physical objects involved or some other reasoning). Again, I do not
>> know of ownership that means anything else other than eRPO. Please
explain
>> what additional meaning ownership has that is not reducible to eRPO to
the
>> thing that is owned. All of the examples you have given COP, CIP, and
CRP
>> boil down as far as I can tell to eRPO to the things in question --
>> exclusive rights to the idea, resource, or physical object.
>
>Maybe the difference is that exclusive rights depend on a person,
>ownership does not?
>
>If you died and noone was there to inherit your property, your exclusive
>rights would automatically have gone. However, ownership might still
>exist (as for books that only become public domain 70 years after the
>death of an author).
>
>Also, if someone came to our island and owned a slave (for whatever
>reason), "ownership" would give him the right to keep that slave on our
>island, because noone, not even the slave himself, could take his
>"property" away from him.
>
>His exclusive rights to the slave, however, would automatically vanish.
>
>I believe that having exclusive rights to something requires other
>people that you are different to in this regards, while ownership does
>not.
>
My point is that this is not the precise way of thinking about wonership and
that ownership really amounts to eRPO. I also contend that modulo some
details, this notion matches up exactly to capitalism. In other words, I am
not sure exactly how much land you get by building the house -- the land
under the house, the land under and a foot around the perimeter, the land 10
feet arounfd the perimeter, etc. But, basically you own the land (in what I
claim to tbe the capitalist sense of eRPO)
>> >> Why? I disagree. Can you prove me wrong?
>> >
>> >Prove you wrong about a definition? No.
>> >
>>
>> I would like just some explanation of your defintion. How does it differ
>> from eRPO? You have said that you can have eRPO of the whistle but not
>> ownership. Ownership would mean that you own not only the labor but also
>> the wood (according to you). Of course that point is part of what is
being
>> disputed here. You say that this distinction is something we will need
>> later for intellectual property and natural resources. If you wish to
make
>> a distindtion then do so by articulating the precise difference in terms
>> that do not involve the word "ownership".
>
>I did. I used the formula.
How does that distinguish between ownership and eRPO? You said, you have no
ownership of the land but you do have eRPO? If this is the distinction,
then you are defining ownership directly so that your point is made. Now
you need to show that this contrived definition matches up to what we
generally think of as capitalism. As far as I can see, even the greediest
capitalist onely cares about eRPO -- not that contrived notion of ownership.
For instnce if he gets to have eRPO over the product then he would gladly
trade his ownership of the wood for eRPO to your land. In fact you can have
all the ownership you want. I just want the eRPO.
>
>> Is ownership eRPO to the wood,
>> while eRPO to the whistle is just eRPO to the labor or product? How is
it
>> that one could have eRPO to the product but not to the wood if the
product
>> is partially composed of the wood?
>
>Oh, you would have RPO to the wood, as noone could take it from you
>without also taking your labor from you.
>
>> >Because they can't get the status owned. It is completely impossible to
>> >hold a fishbank or invest work in it (other than breeding it yourself).
>>
>> We are talking about the _bank_ of a body of water, right?
>
>I used
>
>fishbank = some water with fishes in it
>
>as my definition for "fishbank".
>
>> So? We are talking about "owning" the product versus owning the
>> constituents of the product. You are saying something like I can own the
>> product because I own the work, but in owning the product I do not own
the
>> object.
>
>Exactly.
>
>> All capitalists want to do is own the product.
>
>In that case my notion would be rather capiatlist, wouldn't it?
>
>> They do not want to
>> own a bunch of sticks scatter through the woods, they want the house.
They
>> do not want the oil under the ground, they want the barrels of it in the
>> hanger. They want the product not the object. If they had exclusive
rights
>> to the oil under the ground they would still drill for it and make it
into
>> oil in the barrels. The only reason a capitalist would ever even be
>> interested in the object is because of the product they might make out of
>> it. You would find you had no customers if you tried to sell oil rights
>> that said that they had the right to the oil as long as it remained under
>> ground in the deposite.
>
>Probably.
>
>> >No. But I can doubt your results. If you cann this own, what I call RPO.
>> >Ok.
>>
>> So the question might be what is the natural notion of "own". What does
a
>> capitalist want -- your version of ownership or just my version of eRPO?
>> Would a capitalist choose, I wonder, to live in a world with your
ownership
>> or my eRPO? Which would he stand to profit the most from (assuming he
>> starts with nothing)? (Those are rhetorical questions.)
>
>(I realized that.)
>
;-)
>> >In that case it doesn't affect land at all, because noone could possibly
>> >take it anyway.
>> >
>>
>> Yeah they can. They can prevent me from having acess to the land.
>
>Good point. They could build a fence around it.
>
>> >People could settle there, of course.
>> >
>>
>> That would prevent me from having access to the land that they have
settled
>> on. they might also be profitting from my own labor if I cleared that
land
>> and leveled it (and then they conveniently build a house on it).
>
>If they build a house on it, yes.
>
>> >> How would he remove the work from the stick if he did not have RPO to
the
>> >> whistle?
>> >
>> >He can't.
>> >
>> >> I'll say it is impossible unless he gets me to agree to it. All
>> >> "ownership" means to me is that I have eRPO. Why is that not the
case?
>> >
>> >It is.
>> >
>>
>> I thought you were saying it wasn't. You were saying that we must define
>> ownership to mean something else if we are to have any kind of a
capitalist
>> notion. And I believe this is the whole point of this entire thread to
see
>> whether or not capitalism requires the initiation of force.
>
>I thought we agreed that our minimum capitalism does not?
>
Well, there seems to be some sort of question as to whether it matches up to
laissez fair capitalism. If we agree that it does match up, then I am done.
My contention is that capitalism does nto require the initiation of force.
By that I mean consistent capitalism (pure capitalism -- laissez fair
capitalism). The other versions are not pure -- they have results and
distributions of wealth contrived by the government. The fact that they
were contrived is exactly where the initiation of force came in.
>> >Can't happen, as the land is not your property. You are againassuming
>> >that a result changes a factor. You can only own what you hold or
>> >invested labor in (or traded or whatever).
>>
>> Okay what if it runs through my house. Supposing I build a house
somewhere.
>> How close to my house may one build their house without violating NOF?
Can
>> they build theirs so that their front door is my backdoor? Can they
build
>> it so that their house so that their window sill touches mine?
>
>Very close. Probably not. Probably.
>
>There is no way to define how far away a new house must stand from an
>old house.
>
>If he built his house next to your door he would destroy the labor you
>invested in the door by taking its purpose from it.
>
>He could build his house next to your window, because the purpose of the
>window is to look through it, what you can continue to do after his
>house is there. You just won't see much. However, you didn't have the
>right to your view before.
>
Well, so the point here is that the issue of how close he can build his
house is really one for lawyers. The political/philosophical question is
whether or not you really have eRPO to the land. In a sense one might
simply say, "Okay Mr. Brainiac, I want the exclusive right to a large
expanse of open land -- it is my life long dream. Tell me what I have to do
to realize it." Probably there is a way for him to get a large expanse if
he can get an expanse at all through some complicated set of transactions.
Incidentally, with the fish banks, as absurd as it seems to have a pond
whose bank is just one long dock, it is an issue of the principle. If that
is absurd, it is only so because we decided it was not a violation of NOF to
build the docks so that they were touching. If we are offended enough by
this result then we would be forced to conslude that you might actually get
eRPO to a little land on either side of your construction. In any case, I
am not kidding that I think it would (in many cases at least) be quite legal
in America to be airlifted into the middle of a private pond without having
ever tresspassed.
>> >In that case people might jump over your land, or enter the river
>> >through the ocean without ever touching your garden.
>>
>> But how would they have pRPO to it (unless they were actually there on
the
>> river) so that they could complain if I, say, damned it up?
>
>You wouldn't be able to build a damn while somebody is using the water,
>I think. If anyone built anything he can use to use the water (e.g. a
>dock), you would destroy his labor in it by stopping the flow.
>
Well, right -- recall that I have eRPO to all the land surrounding the
river. As long as no one is actually on the river at this point, then I
could even prevent access to the river by building sufficient obstructions
at the mouth and over the top, etc...
>I think it's comparable to the door issue.
>
>At the end, I think, we would end up making up laws about how far away a
>house must stand from another, and what to do about rivers and such.
>
Right -- it would be more a matter for lawyers to work the details out
rather than political philosophers.
>> >> Fine -- Locke quite easily makes the distinction.
>> >
>> >I hope so.
>> >
>> >That's interesting.
>> >
>> >For one thing you doubt that there is such a dictinction. Then you say
>> >Locke made such a distinction.
>>
>> I do not have trouble making a distinction between the stick and the
whistle
>> and that one owns the whistle because of the labor they have comingled
with
>> the stick -- that is 100% Locke. It is the idea that one own the whistle
>> but not the wood the wistle is composed of that Locke and I both fail to
>> understand.
>
>Maybe it was my idea and they never thought about it? For me, the
>whistle consists of two components, a stick and labor. The stick was
>never owned by anyone (except for you when you had in in your hands
>making a whistle out of it), and this can't have changed, imo.
>
Well, that is only because you have a contrived notion of ownership (or so I
would claim).
>The labor, however, was owned by you and makes the whistle unavailable
>to others, thus exclusive.
>
That is what I mean by "ownership" -- unavailable to others. I claim this
is not contrived because it is directly linked to the utility to me -- to my
desires. The link to practical utility and the desires for ownership of
others for your version of "ownership" is not clear.
>> >They are. But the above refered to building a garden on owned land that
>> >you have given up.
>>
>> Well, most capitalists would agree with that. Most capitalists will
allow
>> you to take someones couch out of their trash and use it. If the
previous
>> owner comes to reclaim it, most capitalists would say "finders keepers"
and
>> let the current owners keep the couch. At last I think Locke, Nozick,
Adam
>> Smith would agree to this -- I think I would.
>
>So we seem to agree here?
>
Maybe -- if you are talking about truly disposed of objects. The previous
owner cannot stake a claim to it after they have disposed of it (all things
being equal).
>> One might argue that such an agreement is implicit in the sellign of a
book.
>> The value of the book is what is printed on the page -- not the binding,
etc
>> (usually).
>
>Yes.
>
>> I think it fair to say that if one writes stories and makes
>> books that allow one to read these story easily for sale to others, that
>> they intend to profit off of their story and that that is why they
labored
>> to write it in the first place.
>
>That's exactly the difference.
>
>We concluded that nobody could take your work from you, because this
>would be using force against you, not the other way around.
>
>Thus making profit of your work without taking it away would be
>absolutely legal.
>
>Nobody is using force against you when they simply "steal" your idea.
>You don't lose the idea as you would loose other work they might take
>(aka the work invested in the whistle).
>
>This is, I believe, where the difference becomes important.
>
>If you have exclusive rights to a whistle, nobody can take it from you.
>Same as if you own it.
>
>Also, your exclusive rights to an idea make sure nobody can take it
>_from_ you. They do not make sure that nobody can copy the idea, which
>is effectively what "stealing" an idea is.
>
>The profit you can make by applying an idea to an object is not yours.
>
>If you _owned_ the idea, that would be different, I think.
>
But if they sell the book then their customers will not buy it from you
(since they already have it). What if there is a frenzy to buy the book and
then the first person I sell it to says, "Hey yall, I'll make a bunch of
copies. C'mon!" Had he not done that then I would have profitted much more
form my labor. If building the house to close to mine violates NOF because
it renders my labor ineffective and the same is true about trampling the
garden, then how is this any different? Yuo are rendering my labor
ineffective by distributing my story. There are several cases in which it
would not render my labor ineffective -- if say the story or the writing
weren't that valuable for instance except to me on a personal level (as with
the hews groups). Or if the market is already saturated or whatever. The
point, as always, though is that there are cases in which it will render my
labor in effective to me and that is in principle the same as the whistle.
>> If you then go and sell the story, then you
>> are profitting from their labor.
>
>Absoutely. But at no point does NOF say that you can't do that. Only
>doing harm to someone while doing this would be illegitimate.
>
That is correct -- if you are affecting my bottom line by making my work
less valuable this way then you (may be) harming me and stealing my labor so
that I may not profit from it. I am saying all this by the way with a grain
of salt. I am not terribly sure that "Intellectual Property" consistently
fits into a libertarian or capitlaist view.
>> At some point though one might reasonably
>> cnclude that someone else would have come up with the story on their own,
>> and that is when the copywrite expires on it.
>
>That would a definition. 70 years, I think. However, it is not
>reduceable to NOF.
>
Well, if it truly fits in here, it would be like the distance between
houses. There is some correct answer that is consistent with NOF that we
will leave for the lawyers to figure out. Any more than this amount of time
and it would violate NOF on the other memebers of the tribe. Any less than
this amount of time and it would violate NOF on the writer.
>> So, it is implicit in the
>> sellign of the book (to some extent) that the sellers have the rights to
>> profit from the story and that the buyers are only buying the right to
read
>> the story -- to have it for themselves.
>
>"force" means that you are doing something to somebody. Stealing an idea
>is not force. It could only be defined as force.
>
Well, as I said earlier, I doubt that it is even an issue, unless the one
"stealing" the idea is cutting into the profits of the writer. You have to
have a victim of the violation for the violation to be a violation of NOF.
You have to actually harm someone. Well, the only time we are interested
int eh copywrite is when real property (wealth) is at stake.
>> >> Here you seem to be saying that there is no way
>> >> to have such a result since we must define what is necessary for eRPO
>> >> through the comingling of labor.
>> >
>> >Yes, for anything other than holding it or investing labor in it
>> >directly we need to do that.
>> >
>>
>> What if I trade something I have labored for with something else someone
>> else has labored for? And please note that in saying "Yes" to both
>> questions you have just stated literally that both a proposition and its
>> negation are true. That is why your responses are not always consistent
and
>> I must often ask you the same question repeatedly.
>
>You will have notice that I answered "yes, for anything other...", thus
>defining what the "yes" means. I see no contradiction here. It would be
>different when I just saidn "yes", tho.
>
>> >Planting a garden makes the land yours, building a fence around it
>> >doesn't. For the second we'd need a definition stating that investing
>> >work in an area around land also makes the land within thet area yours.
>>
>> Well, if you have labored to increase the value of land, then haven't you
>> comingled your labor with it?
>
>I don't think so, as worth is subjective and would have to be defined.
>
What if everyone agrees that you have changed the value? What if I take an
iron bar and strain real hard to bend it in vain -- did I comingle my labor
with it? If not, why is that different from the whistle?
>> >> No. This point has been discussed and resolved this way in laissez
fair
>> >> capitalism.
>> >
>> >Yes, but the surface idea is a definition.
>>
>> Nope -- it is based on what one has comingled their labor with. You have
>> not comingled your labor with the oil deposite beneath the surface, but
you
>> have comingled your labor with the surface itself. The definition
follows
>> from NOF.
>
>How deep would that go? The roots of whatever you planted there?
>
How close can I build my house to someone else? It is for the lawyers to
decide.
>> >That's what I answered, that is correct.
>> >
>> >I insisted, and continue to insist, that the production (garden/whistle)
>> >will be yours in both cases, but the object (land/stick) will not.
>>
>> If I have exclusive rights to it, then how is it not "mine"?
>
>I might have exclusive rights to something I rented. It's still not
>mine.
>
In this case you do not have exclusive rights to it. You cannot sell it,
for instance. What you have gained is a partial _temporary_ right to the
object. Because the right is temporary, we generally retain the word
"ownership" for the landlord. However, the landlord does not have eRPO to
the object either. And in fact, an unrented house is generally more
valuable than a rented one since the rights to the property are completely
yours in the unrented one as opposed to the liability of a tenant in the
latter case.
>> >And that's the difference to land ownership here. When you own the land,
>> >nobody could drill under it.
>>
>> I do not think that is true in a capitalist world.
>
>Ok.
>
>> >By building a fence? No. You would only own the fence and have RPO over
>> >the land beneath in (not within it). That's the difference.
>>
>> Well what if the fence I have built increases the value of the land
inside.
>
>Maybe it does, yes, denending on what you want to do with the land.
>
>> Whereas before the land inside was just neutral land. Now one could
collect
>> livestock in it and use the land for grazing. they could not do that
before
>> because the livestock would run or wander off. Now the land may be used
>> more effectively. Suppose the fence encompasses so much are that this
>> argument I just made basically fails (as the fenced in area include all
of
>> America, for instance -- you would have to work just as hard to get a
>> "herded" cow as a wild cow in this example). Then the fenced in land is
not
>> any more valuable (at least in this sense).
>
>Ok.
>
>> Suppose that the fenced in are is realtively small. Then if the cattle
were
>> all herded into the area, one would merely walk up and take one (instead
of
>> having to find and hunt one down). This fenced ion area has far more
>> utilitarian value than the area just outside of the fence. You labored
to
>> make the fence specifically for this purpose and the fencecan only really
be
>> used for this purpose. It would seem you have comingled your labor with
the
>> land inside the fence in the latter case since the fence itself is
useless
>> (just like the whistle would be without the wood it is composed of).
>
>It's more like having comingled your labor with the herd. I guess people
>couldn't hunt within your fence, but still walk there and plant a garden
>or so. Of course, I wouldn't know whether you would be responsible if
>your herd destroyed his garden. Do you own the herd (aka you are
>responsible for it), or do you just have exclusive rights to it (aka
>noone else may use it)?
>
Well, it would seem natural to say that if I am responsible for it (remember
that no matter what I have eRPO to it here), then I have the right under NOF
to make people not build gardens on the pasture. Not only that but what if
they are interfering with the grazing land in doing that so that my herd
starves or at least is not as fat?
Andrew J. Brehm
> The whole issue is does
> capitalism _necessarily_ violate NOF?
And I think our conclusion was that it does _not_ neccessarily require
force, if we take the capitalist ownership approach you described.
(But I still insist on this difference we have discussed!)
> It is on such grounds that one can
> justify either rejecting it for socialism or modifying it to allow for
> welfare of one sort or another.
Within a NOF system that is correct.
Andrew J. Brehm
> Andrew J. Brehm wrote in message
> >In that case anyone could breed their cattle there (if they jump it over
> >the fence) without violating NOF.
> >
> >They could also similarly build fences around all the other land.
> >Building a fence can't be enough to own land. It makes you own the
> >fence, tho.
> >
>
> Why? I am not necessarily disagreeing with you, but how can you show that I
> am not comingling my labor with the land contained within? With that fence
> around it, the land inside is more valuable. I have labored to make a fence
> and that labor has increased the value of the otherwise unowned land. Is my
> labor not comingled with it? If not, then how has its value increased?
The value of the land has increased in your eyes. Someone else might
think that the land is now less usable. A fence around land is not the
same as a garden on the land.
For example, it is completely impossible to walk the land your garden is
on without violating NOF. On the other hand, walking within the land you
have built a fence around is no violation of force. Whether you see this
land as worth more than before is irrelevant, I think.
> >> Suppose also that I removed several trees to
> >> make it grassy field.
> >
> >That the trees are yours.
> >
>
> In this case I would probably almost surely disagree with you. Clearing the
> land generally makes it more valuable. In fact, you have to usually pay a
> lot for that type of service. Not only that but such a thing constitutes
> direct labor on the and itself (unlike possibly the fence -- depending on
> how big an area the fence encloses).
Probably. However, making something more valuable is not the grounds for
our NOF concept of property.
The grounds is that noone is allowed to use force to access your
"property".
In the case of an ex-forest, someone might have wanted to walk the
forest, you destroyed it, and decreased the value of the land in his
eyes. If he wasn't allowed to walk the land, not destroying anything you
accomplished, you'd have introduced a definition which we couldn't
accept.
> >Certainly. But this is all "suppose". Generally, a ranch would not fit
> >into this. A ranch is an abstract word defining a defined space. It is
> >not natural in the sense of being reducable to NOF.
> >
>
> I guess. I am merely showing how one might come to be wealthy and/or gain
> eRPO to large expanes of land.
And I do believe you.
> >But this is not neccessarily true for a ranch. This could have happened
> >a year ago, and this year the land might no longer be used.
> >
>
> It need not be necessarily true. It only need be possible.
Ok.
> I will be the
> fist to say that property has come to be owned in many an unjust manner over
> the millenia. It may even be the case that on particular situations my
> favorite laissez capitalists have made errors in judgment. The question
> here is whether or not the principles on which they base their judgment are
> consistent with NOF. So whether or not they may have violated NOF on one
> case or another is sort of irrelevant to the issue of whether or not their
> basis for making that judgment was violating NOF. In any case, if it is
> merely _possible_ for someone to own a ranch justly under NOF, then I have
> sufficiently made my point (about ranches at least).
Ok.
> >The contradition only exists when you ignore my formula, which you
> >effectively do.
>
> Do I have eRPO to the whistle? If so, I have eRPO to the wood that the
> whistle is composed of.
Yes, but as you know, I make a differene here.
> >Yes.
> >
>
> I have eRPO to the _land_? Are you sure?
Yes.
> >You constantly repeat that you don't understand the difference I see
> >between ownership and RPO. You seem to notice that I see a difference,
> >however.
> >
> >Since this is so, you would by now have noticed that I said that
> >ownership of land cannot be reduced to NOF while RPO can.
>
> You have? A couple times I think you have said that one could never have
> eRPO to things that one might otherwise have eRPO to (possibly because of
> the physical objects involved or some other reasoning). Again, I do not
> know of ownership that means anything else other than eRPO. Please explain
> what additional meaning ownership has that is not reducible to eRPO to the
> thing that is owned. All of the examples you have given COP, CIP, and CRP
> boil down as far as I can tell to eRPO to the things in question --
> exclusive rights to the idea, resource, or physical object.
Maybe the difference is that exclusive rights depend on a person,
ownership does not?
If you died and noone was there to inherit your property, your exclusive
rights would automatically have gone. However, ownership might still
exist (as for books that only become public domain 70 years after the
death of an author).
Also, if someone came to our island and owned a slave (for whatever
reason), "ownership" would give him the right to keep that slave on our
island, because noone, not even the slave himself, could take his
"property" away from him.
His exclusive rights to the slave, however, would automatically vanish.
I believe that having exclusive rights to something requires other
people that you are different to in this regards, while ownership does
not.
> >> Why? I disagree. Can you prove me wrong?
> >
> >Prove you wrong about a definition? No.
> >
>
> I would like just some explanation of your defintion. How does it differ
> from eRPO? You have said that you can have eRPO of the whistle but not
> ownership. Ownership would mean that you own not only the labor but also
> the wood (according to you). Of course that point is part of what is being
> disputed here. You say that this distinction is something we will need
> later for intellectual property and natural resources. If you wish to make
> a distindtion then do so by articulating the precise difference in terms
> that do not involve the word "ownership".
I did. I used the formula.
> Is ownership eRPO to the wood,
> while eRPO to the whistle is just eRPO to the labor or product? How is it
> that one could have eRPO to the product but not to the wood if the product
> is partially composed of the wood?
Oh, you would have RPO to the wood, as noone could take it from you
without also taking your labor from you.
> >Because they can't get the status owned. It is completely impossible to
> >hold a fishbank or invest work in it (other than breeding it yourself).
>
> We are talking about the _bank_ of a body of water, right?
I used
fishbank = some water with fishes in it
as my definition for "fishbank".
> So? We are talking about "owning" the product versus owning the
> constituents of the product. You are saying something like I can own the
> product because I own the work, but in owning the product I do not own the
> object.
Exactly.
> All capitalists want to do is own the product.
In that case my notion would be rather capiatlist, wouldn't it?
> They do not want to
> own a bunch of sticks scatter through the woods, they want the house. They
> do not want the oil under the ground, they want the barrels of it in the
> hanger. They want the product not the object. If they had exclusive rights
> to the oil under the ground they would still drill for it and make it into
> oil in the barrels. The only reason a capitalist would ever even be
> interested in the object is because of the product they might make out of
> it. You would find you had no customers if you tried to sell oil rights
> that said that they had the right to the oil as long as it remained under
> ground in the deposite.
Probably.
> >No. But I can doubt your results. If you cann this own, what I call RPO.
> >Ok.
>
> So the question might be what is the natural notion of "own". What does a
> capitalist want -- your version of ownership or just my version of eRPO?
> Would a capitalist choose, I wonder, to live in a world with your ownership
> or my eRPO? Which would he stand to profit the most from (assuming he
> starts with nothing)? (Those are rhetorical questions.)
(I realized that.)
> >In that case it doesn't affect land at all, because noone could possibly
> >take it anyway.
> >
>
> Yeah they can. They can prevent me from having acess to the land.
Good point. They could build a fence around it.
> >People could settle there, of course.
> >
>
> That would prevent me from having access to the land that they have settled
> on. they might also be profitting from my own labor if I cleared that land
> and leveled it (and then they conveniently build a house on it).
If they build a house on it, yes.
> >> How would he remove the work from the stick if he did not have RPO to the
> >> whistle?
> >
> >He can't.
> >
> >> I'll say it is impossible unless he gets me to agree to it. All
> >> "ownership" means to me is that I have eRPO. Why is that not the case?
> >
> >It is.
> >
>
> I thought you were saying it wasn't. You were saying that we must define
> ownership to mean something else if we are to have any kind of a capitalist
> notion. And I believe this is the whole point of this entire thread to see
> whether or not capitalism requires the initiation of force.
I thought we agreed that our minimum capitalism does not?
> >Can't happen, as the land is not your property. You are againassuming
> >that a result changes a factor. You can only own what you hold or
> >invested labor in (or traded or whatever).
>
> Okay what if it runs through my house. Supposing I build a house somewhere.
> How close to my house may one build their house without violating NOF? Can
> they build theirs so that their front door is my backdoor? Can they build
> it so that their house so that their window sill touches mine?
Very close. Probably not. Probably.
There is no way to define how far away a new house must stand from an
old house.
If he built his house next to your door he would destroy the labor you
invested in the door by taking its purpose from it.
He could build his house next to your window, because the purpose of the
window is to look through it, what you can continue to do after his
house is there. You just won't see much. However, you didn't have the
right to your view before.
> >In that case people might jump over your land, or enter the river
> >through the ocean without ever touching your garden.
>
> But how would they have pRPO to it (unless they were actually there on the
> river) so that they could complain if I, say, damned it up?
You wouldn't be able to build a damn while somebody is using the water,
I think. If anyone built anything he can use to use the water (e.g. a
dock), you would destroy his labor in it by stopping the flow.
I think it's comparable to the door issue.
At the end, I think, we would end up making up laws about how far away a
house must stand from another, and what to do about rivers and such.
> >> Fine -- Locke quite easily makes the distinction.
> >
> >I hope so.
> >
> >That's interesting.
> >
> >For one thing you doubt that there is such a dictinction. Then you say
> >Locke made such a distinction.
>
> I do not have trouble making a distinction between the stick and the whistle
> and that one owns the whistle because of the labor they have comingled with
> the stick -- that is 100% Locke. It is the idea that one own the whistle
> but not the wood the wistle is composed of that Locke and I both fail to
> understand.
Maybe it was my idea and they never thought about it? For me, the
whistle consists of two components, a stick and labor. The stick was
never owned by anyone (except for you when you had in in your hands
making a whistle out of it), and this can't have changed, imo.
The labor, however, was owned by you and makes the whistle unavailable
to others, thus exclusive.
> >They are. But the above refered to building a garden on owned land that
> >you have given up.
>
> Well, most capitalists would agree with that. Most capitalists will allow
> you to take someones couch out of their trash and use it. If the previous
> owner comes to reclaim it, most capitalists would say "finders keepers" and
> let the current owners keep the couch. At last I think Locke, Nozick, Adam
> Smith would agree to this -- I think I would.
So we seem to agree here?
> One might argue that such an agreement is implicit in the sellign of a book.
> The value of the book is what is printed on the page -- not the binding, etc
> (usually).
Yes.
> I think it fair to say that if one writes stories and makes
> books that allow one to read these story easily for sale to others, that
> they intend to profit off of their story and that that is why they labored
> to write it in the first place.
That's exactly the difference.
We concluded that nobody could take your work from you, because this
would be using force against you, not the other way around.
Thus making profit of your work without taking it away would be
absolutely legal.
Nobody is using force against you when they simply "steal" your idea.
You don't lose the idea as you would loose other work they might take
(aka the work invested in the whistle).
This is, I believe, where the difference becomes important.
If you have exclusive rights to a whistle, nobody can take it from you.
Same as if you own it.
Also, your exclusive rights to an idea make sure nobody can take it
_from_ you. They do not make sure that nobody can copy the idea, which
is effectively what "stealing" an idea is.
The profit you can make by applying an idea to an object is not yours.
If you _owned_ the idea, that would be different, I think.
> If you then go and sell the story, then you
> are profitting from their labor.
Absoutely. But at no point does NOF say that you can't do that. Only
doing harm to someone while doing this would be illegitimate.
> At some point though one might reasonably
> cnclude that someone else would have come up with the story on their own,
> and that is when the copywrite expires on it.
That would a definition. 70 years, I think. However, it is not
reduceable to NOF.
> So, it is implicit in the
> sellign of the book (to some extent) that the sellers have the rights to
> profit from the story and that the buyers are only buying the right to read
> the story -- to have it for themselves.
"force" means that you are doing something to somebody. Stealing an idea
is not force. It could only be defined as force.
> >> Here you seem to be saying that there is no way
> >> to have such a result since we must define what is necessary for eRPO
> >> through the comingling of labor.
> >
> >Yes, for anything other than holding it or investing labor in it
> >directly we need to do that.
> >
>
> What if I trade something I have labored for with something else someone
> else has labored for? And please note that in saying "Yes" to both
> questions you have just stated literally that both a proposition and its
> negation are true. That is why your responses are not always consistent and
> I must often ask you the same question repeatedly.
You will have notice that I answered "yes, for anything other...", thus
defining what the "yes" means. I see no contradiction here. It would be
different when I just saidn "yes", tho.
> >Planting a garden makes the land yours, building a fence around it
> >doesn't. For the second we'd need a definition stating that investing
> >work in an area around land also makes the land within thet area yours.
>
> Well, if you have labored to increase the value of land, then haven't you
> comingled your labor with it?
I don't think so, as worth is subjective and would have to be defined.
> >> No. This point has been discussed and resolved this way in laissez fair
> >> capitalism.
> >
> >Yes, but the surface idea is a definition.
>
> Nope -- it is based on what one has comingled their labor with. You have
> not comingled your labor with the oil deposite beneath the surface, but you
> have comingled your labor with the surface itself. The definition follows
> from NOF.
How deep would that go? The roots of whatever you planted there?
> >That's what I answered, that is correct.
> >
> >I insisted, and continue to insist, that the production (garden/whistle)
> >will be yours in both cases, but the object (land/stick) will not.
>
> If I have exclusive rights to it, then how is it not "mine"?
I might have exclusive rights to something I rented. It's still not
mine.
> >And that's the difference to land ownership here. When you own the land,
> >nobody could drill under it.
>
> I do not think that is true in a capitalist world.
Ok.
> >By building a fence? No. You would only own the fence and have RPO over
> >the land beneath in (not within it). That's the difference.
>
> Well what if the fence I have built increases the value of the land inside.
Maybe it does, yes, denending on what you want to do with the land.
> Whereas before the land inside was just neutral land. Now one could collect
> livestock in it and use the land for grazing. they could not do that before
> because the livestock would run or wander off. Now the land may be used
> more effectively. Suppose the fence encompasses so much are that this
> argument I just made basically fails (as the fenced in area include all of
> America, for instance -- you would have to work just as hard to get a
> "herded" cow as a wild cow in this example). Then the fenced in land is not
> any more valuable (at least in this sense).
Ok.
> Suppose that the fenced in are is realtively small. Then if the cattle were
> all herded into the area, one would merely walk up and take one (instead of
> having to find and hunt one down). This fenced ion area has far more
> utilitarian value than the area just outside of the fence. You labored to
> make the fence specifically for this purpose and the fencecan only really be
> used for this purpose. It would seem you have comingled your labor with the
> land inside the fence in the latter case since the fence itself is useless
> (just like the whistle would be without the wood it is composed of).
It's more like having comingled your labor with the herd. I guess people
couldn't hunt within your fence, but still walk there and plant a garden
or so. Of course, I wouldn't know whether you would be responsible if
your herd destroyed his garden. Do you own the herd (aka you are
responsible for it), or do you just have exclusive rights to it (aka
noone else may use it)?
Dagmar Alpen
: In article <7g1mck$lr7$1...@rzsun02.rrz.uni-hamburg.de>,
: Dagmar Alpen <el5...@uni-hamburg.de> wrote:
:>
:> I think the problem can be resolved if we add another rule: If I find anything
:> that is not previously owned, then _and only then_ I become the owner of it
:> if I so decide. But that would be an axiom like NOF; I don't see how it's
:> deducible from NOF.
:>
:> Dagmar
:>
:>
: Why do you think that this rule could not be derived from NOF? You must
: prove this statement in order to be able to use it to show that the
: capitalist notion of ownership requires the initiation of force.
No, if a statement cannot be derived from another, it doesn't mean the
two contradict each other. What you seem to be aiming at is something
like "In any society that has agreed to NOF, capitalist ownership will
evolve", and you seem to think that any other possible conclusion would
be "In any society that has agreed to NOF, there'll be no property".
I think that our tribe *may* well arrive at a an agreement like our modern
property law --- but that that is by no means necessary. They *may* as
well agree to some kind of socialism, or to some hybrid between socialism
and capitalism --- as in, a plot of land is owned by a group of people
collectively, but not by outsiders --- if they all agree to this, what
should keep them from it?
They may not build a society you or I would want to live in, but they
will build a society they'll want to live in.
: Furthermore, the issue was not whether or not one might gain ownership of
: someone else's object, though, that is an interesting question.
Well, as soon as someone dies, the tribe will be faced with this question.
The question
: was, given that there is no ownership of anything, how is it that objects
: could become owned?
If we really take NOF seriously, only the the joint agreement of the entire
tribe that the thing should be owned by a particular group or person would
suffice.
So, in particular, if someone owns something already,
: then I have satisfied my burden of showing that ownership need not require
: the intiation of force (i.e. violate NOF).
No, we've temporarily put aside the question of whether ownership can be
derived from NOF without the additional assumption that the whole tribe agrees
to it.
The whole issue is does
: capitalism _necessarily_ violate NOF?
No, I don't think it necessarily violates NOF.
It is on such grounds that one can
: justify either rejecting it for socialism or modifying it to allow for
: welfare of one sort or another.
I don't think socialism necessarily violates NOF, either. It's just not
very likely to evolve.
Dagmar
Dagmar Alpen
: Dagmar Alpen <el5...@uni-hamburg.de> wrote:
[...]
:>
:> With exception to the land, yes. Now if you have the equation
:>
:> 3 * 4 = 12
:>
:> and you (rightly, I think, but I'm no philosopher) conclude that the
:> number 3 still exists after being multiplied and still has the same
:> mathematical properties, but the factors that enter into the production of
:> goods normally vanish or get changed, that indicates to me that that
:> particular equation just isn't a very good model of the process of
:> production.
: But the formula wasn't about the process of production. It was about how
: something can be owned.
:
Yes. But Adrian tried to justify ownership by stating that he owned things
in which he had commingled his labor, like planting a garden on some piece
of land. That is, he said he must be able to own the products of his labor,
hence production processes enter the picture. You said the factors involved
didn't change during production --- which is true for mathematical factors
entering a multiplication, but not for production factors entering a
production process.
[...]
: More general.
:> : and we have been analysing the concept.
:>
:>
:> No, "analysing the concept" is not the same as "doing analysis".
: And?
:
And that means that you cannot just take any old mathematical term and take
it as a picture for whatever you chose.
Dagmar
Andrew J. Brehm
> Andrew J. Brehm <ajb...@sundance.netneurotic.de> wrote:
> : But the formula wasn't about the process of production. It was about how
> : something can be owned.
> :
> Yes. But Adrian tried to justify ownership by stating that he owned things
> in which he had commingled his labor, like planting a garden on some piece
> of land. That is, he said he must be able to own the products of his labor,
> hence production processes enter the picture. You said the factors involved
> didn't change during production --- which is true for mathematical factors
> entering a multiplication, but not for production factors entering a
> production process.
For me, a whistle consists of a stick and labor. That is enough to make
it mathematical.
> : More general.
>
> :> : and we have been analysing the concept.
> :>
> :>
> :> No, "analysing the concept" is not the same as "doing analysis".
>
> : And?
> :
>
> And that means that you cannot just take any old mathematical term and take
> it as a picture for whatever you chose.
The fact that you can apply this idea of yours to the problem does not
contradic and disprove that I cannot apply my formula.
Andrew J. Brehm
> Andrew J. Brehm wrote in message
> >The value of the land has increased in your eyes. Someone else might
> >think that the land is now less usable. A fence around land is not the
> >same as a garden on the land.
> >
>
> Some one else might think you have devalued the stick by wittling away some
> of the wood for the whistle. In terms of fire wood, your whistle is less
> valuable than the stick originally was.
Probably. It's becoming more difficult, I guess.
> >For example, it is completely impossible to walk the land your garden is
> >on without violating NOF. On the other hand, walking within the land you
> >have built a fence around is no violation of force. Whether you see this
> >land as worth more than before is irrelevant, I think.
>
> It is impossible to walk on the garden since you might trample it and
> destroy the labor I have comingled with it.
That is if the fence is around your garden.
> That is why it is a violation
> of NOF. Or maybe it is possible to walk on the garden. What if you are
> really carefull not to trample any of the plants by stepping between the
> rows? But then I am risking you accidentally stepping on a plant or doing
> it on purpose. Should I have to trust that you will not? In general should
> I have to trust that you will not harm me until you have, in any context?
That's a difficult question that would probably be regulated by law.
Does somebody who risks violating NOF violate NOF?
A once read a liberal motto stating
"Your right to swing your fist ends when it hits my nose."
A friend of mine (A californian Libertarian) gave me this version of it:
"Your right to stop me swinging my fist begins when it would hit your
nose."
I think we might want to apply these here.
Basically, A's right to walk wherever he wants ends when he destroys B's
work (aka the garden). However, B's right to stop him walking wherever
he wants would only then begin, WHEN A would destroy B's work.
> More specifically, what contexts do I have to trust you and do I not and how
> much? If I build a fence and am worried about you building a house there
> that I will have to move later, to what extent can I take measures to
> prevent you from doing so without violating NOF? Can I remove you? What if
> I am worried that letting you hang around might be a risk to my life and
> health as you might sneak up behind me and murder me for my fence or the
> land within?
You can assume that other people are dangerous, but you cannot reduce
new rights to it, as it only as an assumption of yours. If your
assumption was wrong, all the derived theorem's would be wrong.
> >Probably. However, making something more valuable is not the grounds for
> >our NOF concept of property.
>
> That is correct -- the issue is whether or not my labor is comingled with
> it. If the only event that has occurred is that I have labored on it and it
> is more valuable after that event than it was before, then I can only
> conclude that it is becuase my labor is now comingled with it.
You might have comingled your labor with something else to make it more
valuable.
You commingle your labor with some land around a field and thus make the
field more valuable.
You might burn down a forest, thus making another forest more valuable
because woods gets rare.
And you might kill all gazelles in this half of the island making the
gazelles on the othe rhalf more valuable.
> >The grounds is that noone is allowed to use force to access your
> >"property".
> >
> >In the case of an ex-forest, someone might have wanted to walk the
> >forest, you destroyed it, and decreased the value of the land in his
> >eyes. If he wasn't allowed to walk the land, not destroying anything you
> >accomplished, you'd have introduced a definition which we couldn't
> >accept.
>
> Would you reject ownership in the whistle now since I wanted to use it as
> firewood and in my eyes you have devalued it by wittling away the wood?
No. I agree with the idea that a whistle is worth more than a stick.
> Incidentally, who says that labor is valuable? All we have been saying so
> far is that one need only comingle their labor with something to own it. (I
> have to confess, though, it would seem that generally the object would have
> to increase in value in some sense for that to happen)
I wouldn't say labor is valuable. Labor can increase and decrease the
worth of an object. In fact, I don't even know what "valuable" is. What
authority defines what something is worth? Couldn't the only such
authority be a market of some kind or another? And couldn't a market
decide against you if it just happens?
In any way, we shouldn't use "valu" as a term describing property.
> >> Do I have eRPO to the whistle? If so, I have eRPO to the wood that the
> >> whistle is composed of.
> >
> >Yes, but as you know, I make a differene here.
> >
>
> Let me put it this way. Whereas I did not have eRPO to the wood before, I
> do now. This change in the status of the wood seems very relevant to
> capitalistic notions of ownership.
Ok.
> >Maybe the difference is that exclusive rights depend on a person,
> >ownership does not?
> >
> >If you died and noone was there to inherit your property, your exclusive
> >rights would automatically have gone. However, ownership might still
> >exist (as for books that only become public domain 70 years after the
> >death of an author).
> >
> >Also, if someone came to our island and owned a slave (for whatever
> >reason), "ownership" would give him the right to keep that slave on our
> >island, because noone, not even the slave himself, could take his
> >"property" away from him.
> >
> >His exclusive rights to the slave, however, would automatically vanish.
> >
> >I believe that having exclusive rights to something requires other
> >people that you are different to in this regards, while ownership does
> >not.
>
> My point is that this is not the precise way of thinking about wonership and
> that ownership really amounts to eRPO. I also contend that modulo some
> details, this notion matches up exactly to capitalism. In other words, I am
> not sure exactly how much land you get by building the house -- the land
> under the house, the land under and a foot around the perimeter, the land 10
> feet arounfd the perimeter, etc. But, basically you own the land (in what I
> claim to tbe the capitalist sense of eRPO)
Ok.
However, any rule like "a foot around the perimeter" would involve
force, as it would have to be forced upon people.
> >I thought we agreed that our minimum capitalism does not?
>
> Well, there seems to be some sort of question as to whether it matches up to
> laissez fair capitalism. If we agree that it does match up, then I am done.
> My contention is that capitalism does nto require the initiation of force.
> By that I mean consistent capitalism (pure capitalism -- laissez fair
> capitalism). The other versions are not pure -- they have results and
> distributions of wealth contrived by the government. The fact that they
> were contrived is exactly where the initiation of force came in.
In that case we would also have proven that socialism (aka the pure form
of it) does also not neccessarily require force, as our tribe could
simply decide not to sell things but give them away according to needs.
In either way, all we have to avoid is a government telling them to use
either methode.
Interesting points.
> >You wouldn't be able to build a damn while somebody is using the water,
> >I think. If anyone built anything he can use to use the water (e.g. a
> >dock), you would destroy his labor in it by stopping the flow.
>
> Well, right -- recall that I have eRPO to all the land surrounding the
> river. As long as no one is actually on the river at this point, then I
> could even prevent access to the river by building sufficient obstructions
> at the mouth and over the top, etc...
Probably.
> >I think it's comparable to the door issue.
> >
> >At the end, I think, we would end up making up laws about how far away a
> >house must stand from another, and what to do about rivers and such.
> >
>
> Right -- it would be more a matter for lawyers to work the details out
> rather than political philosophers.
But on what grounds would be define/derive the details?
> >Maybe it was my idea and they never thought about it? For me, the
> >whistle consists of two components, a stick and labor. The stick was
> >never owned by anyone (except for you when you had in in your hands
> >making a whistle out of it), and this can't have changed, imo.
>
> Well, that is only because you have a contrived notion of ownership (or so I
> would claim).
Actually, I believe, in European law there is such (or similar) a
difference.
> >The labor, however, was owned by you and makes the whistle unavailable
> >to others, thus exclusive.
>
> That is what I mean by "ownership" -- unavailable to others. I claim this
> is not contrived because it is directly linked to the utility to me -- to my
> desires. The link to practical utility and the desires for ownership of
> others for your version of "ownership" is not clear.
If A, B, C, and D are our "people" in the system S, the the difference
would be the following:
eRPO(A) is defined as "anything that cannot be used by B, C, and D"
ownership(A) is defined as "anything that can be used by A"
I think this is a somewhat correct function of how I understood it.
Of course, in most cases this would be the same. Differences might occur
tho.
> >So we seem to agree here?
>
> Maybe -- if you are talking about truly disposed of objects. The previous
> owner cannot stake a claim to it after they have disposed of it (all things
> being equal).
Ok.
> >That's exactly the difference.
> >
> >We concluded that nobody could take your work from you, because this
> >would be using force against you, not the other way around.
> >
> >Thus making profit of your work without taking it away would be
> >absolutely legal.
> >
> >Nobody is using force against you when they simply "steal" your idea.
> >You don't lose the idea as you would loose other work they might take
> >(aka the work invested in the whistle).
> >
> >This is, I believe, where the difference becomes important.
> >
> >If you have exclusive rights to a whistle, nobody can take it from you.
> >Same as if you own it.
> >
> >Also, your exclusive rights to an idea make sure nobody can take it
> >_from_ you. They do not make sure that nobody can copy the idea, which
> >is effectively what "stealing" an idea is.
> >
> >The profit you can make by applying an idea to an object is not yours.
> >
> >If you _owned_ the idea, that would be different, I think.
> >
>
> But if they sell the book then their customers will not buy it from you
> (since they already have it).
Sure.
> What if there is a frenzy to buy the book and
> then the first person I sell it to says, "Hey yall, I'll make a bunch of
> copies. C'mon!"
Possible.
> Had he not done that then I would have profitted much more
> form my labor.
Sure. But remember, we didn't use the idea of "value" to get our notion
of eRPO. Our eRPO is based on the fact that when you use something,
noone else can use it. This wouldn't be true for an idea or a book's
story.
> If building the house to close to mine violates NOF because
> it renders my labor ineffective and the same is true about trampling the
> garden, then how is this any different?
I think in the garden case it renders your labor inneffective, and in
the book case it renders the value of your labor inneffective.
> Yuo are rendering my labor
> ineffective by distributing my story. There are several cases in which it
> would not render my labor ineffective -- if say the story or the writing
> weren't that valuable for instance except to me on a personal level (as with
> the hews groups). Or if the market is already saturated or whatever. The
> point, as always, though is that there are cases in which it will render my
> labor in effective to me and that is in principle the same as the whistle.
But I doubt that you can reduce this notion to NOF. Nobody is using
force to copy this book. In fact you would have to use force to make
people stop copying your book.
> >Absoutely. But at no point does NOF say that you can't do that. Only
> >doing harm to someone while doing this would be illegitimate.
>
> That is correct -- if you are affecting my bottom line by making my work
> less valuable this way then you (may be) harming me
> and stealing my labor so
> that I may not profit from it.
Oh, it isn't stealing, actually. You still have the labor afterwards.
It's just that it isn't worth as much on the market anymore.
> I am saying all this by the way with a grain
> of salt. I am not terribly sure that "Intellectual Property" consistently
> fits into a libertarian or capitlaist view.
I guess there are many opinions about this.
> >> At some point though one might reasonably
> >> cnclude that someone else would have come up with the story on their own,
> >> and that is when the copywrite expires on it.
> >
> >That would a definition. 70 years, I think. However, it is not
> >reduceable to NOF.
>
> Well, if it truly fits in here, it would be like the distance between
> houses. There is some correct answer that is consistent with NOF that we
> will leave for the lawyers to figure out. Any more than this amount of time
> and it would violate NOF on the other memebers of the tribe. Any less than
> this amount of time and it would violate NOF on the writer.
Maybe we find some lawyers to help us here. :-)
> >"force" means that you are doing something to somebody. Stealing an idea
> >is not force. It could only be defined as force.
>
> Well, as I said earlier, I doubt that it is even an issue, unless the one
> "stealing" the idea is cutting into the profits of the writer. You have to
> have a victim of the violation for the violation to be a violation of NOF.
> You have to actually harm someone. Well, the only time we are interested
> int eh copywrite is when real property (wealth) is at stake.
Ok.
> >> Well, if you have labored to increase the value of land, then haven't you
> >> comingled your labor with it?
> >
> >I don't think so, as worth is subjective and would have to be defined.
> >
>
> What if everyone agrees that you have changed the value? What if I take an
> iron bar and strain real hard to bend it in vain -- did I comingle my labor
> with it? If not, why is that different from the whistle?
If everyone agrees on something, it is never a violation of NOF. So this
point is meaningless.
If _everybody_ agress that the tribe kills all blond citizens, killing
them would also not be a violation of NOF.
"everybody agreeing" (EA) is some kind of zero here.
EA(x)=true; no matter what x is.
> >How deep would that go? The roots of whatever you planted there?
>
> How close can I build my house to someone else? It is for the lawyers to
> decide.
Ok.
> >I might have exclusive rights to something I rented. It's still not
> >mine.
>
> In this case you do not have exclusive rights to it. You cannot sell it,
> for instance. What you have gained is a partial _temporary_ right to the
> object. Because the right is temporary, we generally retain the word
> "ownership" for the landlord. However, the landlord does not have eRPO to
> the object either. And in fact, an unrented house is generally more
> valuable than a rented one since the rights to the property are completely
> yours in the unrented one as opposed to the liability of a tenant in the
> latter case.
You do see a difference now? The landlord does have ownership, but not
exclusive rights?
> >It's more like having comingled your labor with the herd. I guess people
> >couldn't hunt within your fence, but still walk there and plant a garden
> >or so. Of course, I wouldn't know whether you would be responsible if
> >your herd destroyed his garden. Do you own the herd (aka you are
> >responsible for it), or do you just have exclusive rights to it (aka
> >noone else may use it)?
>
> Well, it would seem natural to say that if I am responsible for it (remember
> that no matter what I have eRPO to it here), then I have the right under NOF
> to make people not build gardens on the pasture. Not only that but what if
> they are interfering with the grazing land in doing that so that my herd
> starves or at least is not as fat?
I don't know. On the one hand they would be destroying the purpose of
your labor (aka making the gazelles more valuable), but on the other
hand, they aren't profiting from it (if they don't care for the
gazelles).
Adrian
Dagmar Alpen wrote in message <7g4nfa$cif$1...@rzsun02.rrz.uni-hamburg.de>...
>adrian...@hotmail.com wrote:
>: In article <7g1mck$lr7$1...@rzsun02.rrz.uni-hamburg.de>,
>: Dagmar Alpen <el5...@uni-hamburg.de> wrote:
>
>:>
>:> I think the problem can be resolved if we add another rule: If I find
anything
>:> that is not previously owned, then _and only then_ I become the owner of
it
>:> if I so decide. But that would be an axiom like NOF; I don't see how
it's
>:> deducible from NOF.
>:>
>:> Dagmar
>:>
>:>
>
>: Why do you think that this rule could not be derived from NOF? You must
>: prove this statement in order to be able to use it to show that the
>: capitalist notion of ownership requires the initiation of force.
>
>No, if a statement cannot be derived from another, it doesn't mean the
>two contradict each other. What you seem to be aiming at is something
>like "In any society that has agreed to NOF, capitalist ownership will
>evolve", and you seem to think that any other possible conclusion would
>be "In any society that has agreed to NOF, there'll be no property".
>
No. The issue was does capitalism require the initiation of force? That is
what the main motivation for this thread by Andrew was (I think). In any
case, I think you are mistaken about what I think "ownership" means. In
particular, you are assuming that "ownership" is a status that is agreed
upon by a group of people -- that society gives ownreship rights for
instance. On this point you are mistaken (I do nto mean that). And with
regard to this threadm the whole question of ownership -- or any moral right
to anything -- is supposed to reduce to NOF and the rules of logic _by
construction_.
>I think that our tribe *may* well arrive at a an agreement like our modern
>property law --- but that that is by no means necessary. They *may* as
>well agree to some kind of socialism, or to some hybrid between socialism
>and capitalism --- as in, a plot of land is owned by a group of people
>collectively, but not by outsiders --- if they all agree to this, what
>should keep them from it?
>
If they all unanimously agree to it, then there can be no violation of NOF.
If one of them disagrees to it then they must violate NOF to force him to
comply anyway. That is the only measuring stick in this thread -- NOF and
the rules of logic.
>They may not build a society you or I would want to live in, but they
>will build a society they'll want to live in.
>
>: Furthermore, the issue was not whether or not one might gain ownership of
>: someone else's object, though, that is an interesting question.
>
>Well, as soon as someone dies, the tribe will be faced with this question.
>
>
The real question is whether or not a notion of property that is more or
less consistent with laissez fair capitalism _must necessarily_ violate NOF.
Furthermore, any notion of ownership that is not consistent with the _unique
system_ derivable from NOF will be inconsistent with NOF. In your case of
voluntary socialism and supposing that we have derived a capitalistic notion
of ownership, then the fact is that the tribe is capitalist. Just because
they each give their property to the group, that does not mean that we now
have a socialistic notion of ownership since in such a case we would say
that they each own a share -- just like stockholders in a corporation. To
have a socialistic notion of ownership, then we must either have no
ownership or only ever group ownership. As soon as we have private
ownership, that is capitalism and the are merely voluntarily associating and
collaborating as is possible and quite frequently happens in capitalism.
>
> The question
>: was, given that there is no ownership of anything, how is it that objects
>: could become owned?
>
>If we really take NOF seriously, only the the joint agreement of the entire
>tribe that the thing should be owned by a particular group or person would
>suffice.
>
Why is that? If I have possession of something would it not require force
to take it from me no matter who agreed to it (assuming I resist)? If that
is the case, then barring any previous right of anyone's to the object, who
ever wishes to take it is initiating force and violating NOF -- it has
nothing to do with any agreement except for the lack of my own.
>
> So, in particular, if someone owns something already,
>: then I have satisfied my burden of showing that ownership need not
require
>: the intiation of force (i.e. violate NOF).
>
>No, we've temporarily put aside the question of whether ownership can be
>derived from NOF without the additional assumption that the whole tribe
agrees
>to it.
Only you have done so. I doubt that is internally consistent.
>
> The whole issue is does
>: capitalism _necessarily_ violate NOF?
>
>No, I don't think it necessarily violates NOF.
>
> It is on such grounds that one can
>: justify either rejecting it for socialism or modifying it to allow for
>: welfare of one sort or another.
>
>I don't think socialism necessarily violates NOF, either. It's just not
>very likely to evolve.
>
I think for the purposes of this thread, one cannot be a socialist
capitalist, for instance. Not both notions of ownership can be true as they
must contradict each other. If you have a different notion of "socialist"
and "capitalist", then it probably does not agree with mine and Andrew's.
Furthermore, at least one of mine and Andrew's definitions _derives_ from
NOF, so that the other of our definitions is not even permissible by NOF.
Try formulating what it means to "own" something precisely and without
making any assumptions about the nature of ethics or the particular
situation or .... I think you will see right away what is required for
capitalism and why either that derives from NOF or it is incompatible with
it.
>Dagmar
Adrian
Adrian
Andrew J. Brehm wrote in message
>Adrian <dur...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> Andrew J. Brehm wrote in message
>> >The value of the land has increased in your eyes. Someone else might
>> >think that the land is now less usable. A fence around land is not the
>> >same as a garden on the land.
>> >
>>
>> Some one else might think you have devalued the stick by wittling away
some
>> of the wood for the whistle. In terms of fire wood, your whistle is less
>> valuable than the stick originally was.
>
>Probably. It's becoming more difficult, I guess.
>
I think we might have to question the whole idea that one gets ownership or
eRPO based on the comingling of labor.
>> >For example, it is completely impossible to walk the land your garden is
>> >on without violating NOF. On the other hand, walking within the land you
>> >have built a fence around is no violation of force. Whether you see this
>> >land as worth more than before is irrelevant, I think.
>>
>> It is impossible to walk on the garden since you might trample it and
>> destroy the labor I have comingled with it.
>
>That is if the fence is around your garden.
>
Or even if a fence is not around it. You might trample it either way.
>> That is why it is a violation
>> of NOF. Or maybe it is possible to walk on the garden. What if you are
>> really carefull not to trample any of the plants by stepping between the
>> rows? But then I am risking you accidentally stepping on a plant or
doing
>> it on purpose. Should I have to trust that you will not? In general
should
>> I have to trust that you will not harm me until you have, in any context?
>
>That's a difficult question that would probably be regulated by law.
>
>Does somebody who risks violating NOF violate NOF?
>
>A once read a liberal motto stating
>
>"Your right to swing your fist ends when it hits my nose."
>
>A friend of mine (A californian Libertarian) gave me this version of it:
>
>"Your right to stop me swinging my fist begins when it would hit your
>nose."
>
>I think we might want to apply these here.
>
>Basically, A's right to walk wherever he wants ends when he destroys B's
>work (aka the garden). However, B's right to stop him walking wherever
>he wants would only then begin, WHEN A would destroy B's work.
>
What if the damage is irreparable? I think that the concept here is
"imminent peril" or the direct endangerment of myself or my property. You
may not harm me or directly endanger me, but you may engage in otherwise
risky behavior. It is this way that I have a choice to be exposed to the
danger or not. When you walk through my garden I have no choice to act in a
way to be safer -- I must simply accept your endangering my garden. I am
not sure if this is a rule set in stone or not, but it seems to be pretty
good for a lot of cases.
>> More specifically, what contexts do I have to trust you and do I not and
how
>> much? If I build a fence and am worried about you building a house there
>> that I will have to move later, to what extent can I take measures to
>> prevent you from doing so without violating NOF? Can I remove you? What
if
>> I am worried that letting you hang around might be a risk to my life and
>> health as you might sneak up behind me and murder me for my fence or the
>> land within?
>
>You can assume that other people are dangerous, but you cannot reduce
>new rights to it, as it only as an assumption of yours. If your
>assumption was wrong, all the derived theorem's would be wrong.
>
I have the right to defend myself against your aggression under NOF.
Suppose you swing your fist at me. I can only assume it will hit me all the
way until the point at which it actually does. Then I would (according to
what you are saying) be able to stop that while it is happenning. However,
I would not be able to take measures to keep you from hitting me again,
since that would require me to assume something that was not analytically
derived from NOF. I think there may be a flaw in the logical coherence of
this position.
>> >Probably. However, making something more valuable is not the grounds for
>> >our NOF concept of property.
>>
>> That is correct -- the issue is whether or not my labor is comingled with
>> it. If the only event that has occurred is that I have labored on it and
it
>> is more valuable after that event than it was before, then I can only
>> conclude that it is becuase my labor is now comingled with it.
>
>You might have comingled your labor with something else to make it more
>valuable.
>
>You commingle your labor with some land around a field and thus make the
>field more valuable.
>
>You might burn down a forest, thus making another forest more valuable
>because woods gets rare.
>
>And you might kill all gazelles in this half of the island making the
>gazelles on the othe rhalf more valuable.
>
So maybe we will have to question the whole idea of what it means to
comingle one's labor with something. Why have I comingled my labor with a
stick if I carve it into a whistle? Could it have to do with this anarchist
version of no ownership -- one only has a right to something they are using?
>> >The grounds is that noone is allowed to use force to access your
>> >"property".
>> >
>> >In the case of an ex-forest, someone might have wanted to walk the
>> >forest, you destroyed it, and decreased the value of the land in his
>> >eyes. If he wasn't allowed to walk the land, not destroying anything you
>> >accomplished, you'd have introduced a definition which we couldn't
>> >accept.
>>
>> Would you reject ownership in the whistle now since I wanted to use it as
>> firewood and in my eyes you have devalued it by wittling away the wood?
>
>No. I agree with the idea that a whistle is worth more than a stick.
>
I disagree. In firewood terms it clearly isn't.
>> Incidentally, who says that labor is valuable? All we have been saying
so
>> far is that one need only comingle their labor with something to own it.
(I
>> have to confess, though, it would seem that generally the object would
have
>> to increase in value in some sense for that to happen)
>
>I wouldn't say labor is valuable. Labor can increase and decrease the
>worth of an object. In fact, I don't even know what "valuable" is. What
>authority defines what something is worth? Couldn't the only such
>authority be a market of some kind or another? And couldn't a market
>decide against you if it just happens?
>
>In any way, we shouldn't use "valu" as a term describing property.
>
Well, I only used it since it seemed intuitive that if I labor to make a
piece of land valuable to me and that most anyone would agree that it has
more utility, then I must have comingled my labor with that land.
Not if it is the precise quantitative answer to the dilemma. In other
words, 1000 miles around the perimeter is too far by NOF and no distance at
all around the perimeter is too close by NOF. Therefore, there exists x
such that 1000>x>0 where "x miles/feet/etc around the perimeter" does not
violate NOF.
>> >I thought we agreed that our minimum capitalism does not?
>>
>> Well, there seems to be some sort of question as to whether it matches up
to
>> laissez fair capitalism. If we agree that it does match up, then I am
done.
>> My contention is that capitalism does nto require the initiation of
force.
>> By that I mean consistent capitalism (pure capitalism -- laissez fair
>> capitalism). The other versions are not pure -- they have results and
>> distributions of wealth contrived by the government. The fact that they
>> were contrived is exactly where the initiation of force came in.
>
>In that case we would also have proven that socialism (aka the pure form
>of it) does also not neccessarily require force, as our tribe could
>simply decide not to sell things but give them away according to needs.
>In either way, all we have to avoid is a government telling them to use
>either methode.
>
Not really. If they volunteer their objects in this way, then they are
still volunteering _their_ private property. The difference is that under
socilaism, they do not even have the right to "choose" socialism - -they are
compelled to. Under capitalism, they may choose to interact as if they were
socialist, but the actual rights are based on capitalism. Collaboration
with a "to each according to his needs, from each according to his means"
attitude happens all the time -- insurance for instance. With any given
risk class, each pay the same premiums regularly and the claims are paid
according to those that experience them (according to need).
Based on NOF. In other words it is his job to figure out what x actually is
in that above example of the house and the perimeter.
>> >Maybe it was my idea and they never thought about it? For me, the
>> >whistle consists of two components, a stick and labor. The stick was
>> >never owned by anyone (except for you when you had in in your hands
>> >making a whistle out of it), and this can't have changed, imo.
>>
>> Well, that is only because you have a contrived notion of ownership (or
so I
>> would claim).
>
>Actually, I believe, in European law there is such (or similar) a
>difference.
I would claim then that European law entails a contrived notion of
ownership.
>
>> >The labor, however, was owned by you and makes the whistle unavailable
>> >to others, thus exclusive.
>>
>> That is what I mean by "ownership" -- unavailable to others. I claim
this
>> is not contrived because it is directly linked to the utility to me -- to
my
>> desires. The link to practical utility and the desires for ownership of
>> others for your version of "ownership" is not clear.
>
>If A, B, C, and D are our "people" in the system S, the the difference
>would be the following:
>
>eRPO(A) is defined as "anything that cannot be used by B, C, and D"
>
>ownership(A) is defined as "anything that can be used by A"
>
>I think this is a somewhat correct function of how I understood it.
>
>Of course, in most cases this would be the same. Differences might occur
>tho.
>
So because I can breath I own the air? I own everything unless someone can
get eRPO to it? I would say that you have practically assumed socialism
with that definition. Why would I try to own anything if I already do?
What has utility for me is eRPO in your above examples. That is exactly why
I dislike your definition of "own" -- no one strives for it according to
you.
I want to use it to profit. Someone else is preventing me from doing that.
If we are taking the idea that I own my labor then maybe I have exclusive
rights to when and where the story may be told or written. Basically, they
can only have that one copy of it in this case.
>> If building the house to close to mine violates NOF because
>> it renders my labor ineffective and the same is true about trampling the
>> garden, then how is this any different?
>
>I think in the garden case it renders your labor inneffective, and in
>the book case it renders the value of your labor inneffective.
>
It is whether or not it renders it ineffective to me -- whether or no it
alienates me from my labor. The idea is supopsed to be like physically
taking a physical object from me.
>> Yuo are rendering my labor
>> ineffective by distributing my story. There are several cases in which
it
>> would not render my labor ineffective -- if say the story or the writing
>> weren't that valuable for instance except to me on a personal level (as
with
>> the hews groups). Or if the market is already saturated or whatever.
The
>> point, as always, though is that there are cases in which it will render
my
>> labor in effective to me and that is in principle the same as the
whistle.
>
>But I doubt that you can reduce this notion to NOF. Nobody is using
>force to copy this book. In fact you would have to use force to make
>people stop copying your book.
>
"Nobody is using force to [pick up this whistle]. In fact you would have to
use force to make people [give you the whistle after you set it down]."
>> >Absoutely. But at no point does NOF say that you can't do that. Only
>> >doing harm to someone while doing this would be illegitimate.
>>
>> That is correct -- if you are affecting my bottom line by making my work
>> less valuable this way then you (may be) harming me
>> and stealing my labor so
>> that I may not profit from it.
>
>Oh, it isn't stealing, actually. You still have the labor afterwards.
>It's just that it isn't worth as much on the market anymore.
>
No -- those people that have the copy did not pay you for it. They have
access to your story without your consent.
>> I am saying all this by the way with a grain
>> of salt. I am not terribly sure that "Intellectual Property"
consistently
>> fits into a libertarian or capitlaist view.
>
>I guess there are many opinions about this.
>
Just playing devil's advocate right at the moment.
>> >> At some point though one might reasonably
>> >> cnclude that someone else would have come up with the story on their
own,
>> >> and that is when the copywrite expires on it.
>> >
>> >That would a definition. 70 years, I think. However, it is not
>> >reduceable to NOF.
>>
>> Well, if it truly fits in here, it would be like the distance between
>> houses. There is some correct answer that is consistent with NOF that we
>> will leave for the lawyers to figure out. Any more than this amount of
time
>> and it would violate NOF on the other memebers of the tribe. Any less
than
>> this amount of time and it would violate NOF on the writer.
>
>Maybe we find some lawyers to help us here. :-)
>
Wait a minute, let me get my gun... ;-)
>> >"force" means that you are doing something to somebody. Stealing an idea
>> >is not force. It could only be defined as force.
>>
>> Well, as I said earlier, I doubt that it is even an issue, unless the one
>> "stealing" the idea is cutting into the profits of the writer. You have
to
>> have a victim of the violation for the violation to be a violation of
NOF.
>> You have to actually harm someone. Well, the only time we are interested
>> int eh copywrite is when real property (wealth) is at stake.
>
>Ok.
>
>> >> Well, if you have labored to increase the value of land, then haven't
you
>> >> comingled your labor with it?
>> >
>> >I don't think so, as worth is subjective and would have to be defined.
>> >
>>
>> What if everyone agrees that you have changed the value? What if I take
an
>> iron bar and strain real hard to bend it in vain -- did I comingle my
labor
>> with it? If not, why is that different from the whistle?
>
>If everyone agrees on something, it is never a violation of NOF. So this
>point is meaningless.
No -- they agree that you have changed the value -- not that you own it or
have a right to it. For instance without exception everyone wants to
possess it whereas they did not before.
>
>If _everybody_ agress that the tribe kills all blond citizens, killing
>them would also not be a violation of NOF.
>
Correct (assuming that even the blond ones agree to it). However if everyie
agrees that all blond citizens ought to die, but the blond citizens do not
agree to be killed, then it may still violate NOF to kill them.
>"everybody agreeing" (EA) is some kind of zero here.
>
>EA(x)=true; no matter what x is.
>
Then EA is called a tautology -- it maybe is more like "1"
>> >How deep would that go? The roots of whatever you planted there?
>>
>> How close can I build my house to someone else? It is for the lawyers to
>> decide.
>
>Ok.
>
>> >I might have exclusive rights to something I rented. It's still not
>> >mine.
>>
>> In this case you do not have exclusive rights to it. You cannot sell it,
>> for instance. What you have gained is a partial _temporary_ right to the
>> object. Because the right is temporary, we generally retain the word
>> "ownership" for the landlord. However, the landlord does not have eRPO
to
>> the object either. And in fact, an unrented house is generally more
>> valuable than a rented one since the rights to the property are
completely
>> yours in the unrented one as opposed to the liability of a tenant in the
>> latter case.
>
>You do see a difference now? The landlord does have ownership, but not
>exclusive rights?
Neither have exclusive rights and neither have true ownership. The landlord
has a liability in the renters and that liability is ultimately backed by
the property. So both have partial ownership of the property strictly
speaking. If you denied me access and refused to reimburse me the rent I
payed, I might be able to get a lawyer and to put a lein on your house. I
cannot imagine it coming to that, but supposing that the house is all that
the landlord owns in the world, then that house is precisely where redress
will be sought by the tenants.
In any case, the owner has the rights to the land he is renting. He enters
into an agreement to give you partial rights temporarily. Ultimately you
either have the moral right to seek redress from him by simply taking you
rpart of his house, or you don't. Either way, either he owns it and has
full rights to it or you both own it, each having partial rights,
technically speaking.
>
>> >It's more like having comingled your labor with the herd. I guess people
>> >couldn't hunt within your fence, but still walk there and plant a garden
>> >or so. Of course, I wouldn't know whether you would be responsible if
>> >your herd destroyed his garden. Do you own the herd (aka you are
>> >responsible for it), or do you just have exclusive rights to it (aka
>> >noone else may use it)?
>>
>> Well, it would seem natural to say that if I am responsible for it
(remember
>> that no matter what I have eRPO to it here), then I have the right under
NOF
>> to make people not build gardens on the pasture. Not only that but what
if
>> they are interfering with the grazing land in doing that so that my herd
>> starves or at least is not as fat?
>
>I don't know. On the one hand they would be destroying the purpose of
>your labor (aka making the gazelles more valuable), but on the other
>hand, they aren't profiting from it (if they don't care for the
>gazelles).
>
>
>
>
>--
>Fan of Woody Allen
>Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza
Adrian
Dagmar Alpen
: Dagmar Alpen wrote in message <7g4nfa$cif$1...@rzsun02.rrz.uni-hamburg.de>...
[...]
:>
:>No, if a statement cannot be derived from another, it doesn't mean the
:>two contradict each other. What you seem to be aiming at is something
:>like "In any society that has agreed to NOF, capitalist ownership will
:>evolve", and you seem to think that any other possible conclusion would
:>be "In any society that has agreed to NOF, there'll be no property".
:>
: No. The issue was does capitalism require the initiation of force?
That question is logically equivalent to "Can there be a society that has
agreed to NOF and allows for (individual) property?" which in turn is
equivalent to "Is it true that in any society that has agreed to NOF,
there can be no (individual) property".
That is
: what the main motivation for this thread by Andrew was (I think). In any
: case, I think you are mistaken about what I think "ownership" means.
Than what do you think "ownership" means?
In
: particular, you are assuming that "ownership" is a status that is agreed
: upon by a group of people -- that society gives ownreship rights for
: instance.
I am very sure that ownership is a status that is agreed upon by a group of
people. You just stated that you don't think so, so now I know that you
don't think so.
:>I think that our tribe *may* well arrive at a an agreement like our modern
:>property law --- but that that is by no means necessary. They *may* as
:>well agree to some kind of socialism, or to some hybrid between socialism
:>and capitalism --- as in, a plot of land is owned by a group of people
:>collectively, but not by outsiders --- if they all agree to this, what
:>should keep them from it?
:>
: If they all unanimously agree to it, then there can be no violation of NOF.
: If one of them disagrees to it then they must violate NOF to force him to
: comply anyway.
No. They don't _have_ to *do* anything. They have to _choose_ between violating
NOF and not getting the property rules they like.
[...]
: Furthermore, any notion of ownership that is not consistent with the _unique
: system_ derivable from NOF will be inconsistent with NOF.
What makes you so sure there is a _unique_ system derivable from NOF?
:>
:>If we really take NOF seriously, only the the joint agreement of the entire
:>tribe that the thing should be owned by a particular group or person would
:>suffice.
:>
: Why is that? If I have possession of something would it not require force
: to take it from me no matter who agreed to it (assuming I resist)?
You are assuming that taking the possession in the first place does not
violate NOF. But suppose tribe member A takes something that tribe member
B wants unowned, and B says so and A takes it anyway --- isn't that force?
It's surely done against B's will.
The only way to make sure this does not occur is requiring that if A wants
to take something and B wants it unowned, then A cannot take it. Because the
initial state would be that nothing on the island be owned by anybody.
But this amounts to the whole tribe, every single person, agreeing to A's
ownership.
: Only you have done so. I doubt that is internally consistent.
Why?
: Try formulating what it means to "own" something precisely and without
: making any assumptions about the nature of ethics or the particular
: situation or ....
It isn't possible to talk about the meaning of "ownership" without talking
about ethics, since it is, inherently, an ethical concept.
Ownership implies, first and foremost, an obligation. If A owns something,
that means that everyone else is obliged to treat the owned object in a
certain way (for instance, keep out of owned land if they don't have the
explicit permission of the owner). And if they don't treat that object in
the required way, that is considered force.
Now full ownership in the modern sense (but note that this has only been
around since the Romans, so it is far from self-evident) implies four rights
of the owner:
1. The right to decide what xe does with xyr property;
2. the right to decide what others do with xyr property;
3. the right to sell or give away the property, thus making it pass into
the property of another person;
4. the right to chose who inherits the property after the owner's death.
And these rights imply that others have to respect the decisions based on
them, thus making it force to act against them.
Note also that most societies limit the rights 1.-4. in some ways. My country
and some states of the US limit the ways you can will your property, and
everywhere right 1. ends if you use the property to harm someone else.
This is not due to the intervention of some evil government, but caused
by the facts that our law stems from a time when families were more important
than individuals and that there are just a lot of ways to use property in
a harmful way.
These limits vary considerably, which makes it counterintuitive to me that
there should only be one possible system evolve. But then, the implementation
of our actual legal systems was anything but forceless, so that may not
be such a good example.
I think you will see right away what is required for
: capitalism and why either that derives from NOF or it is incompatible with
: it.
No, I'm still failing to see it. Can you elaborate?
Dagmar
Adrian
Dagmar Alpen wrote in message <7g74qb$8sq$1...@rzsun02.rrz.uni-hamburg.de>...
>Adrian <dur...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>: Dagmar Alpen wrote in message
<7g4nfa$cif$1...@rzsun02.rrz.uni-hamburg.de>...
>
>[...]
>
>:>
>:>No, if a statement cannot be derived from another, it doesn't mean the
>:>two contradict each other. What you seem to be aiming at is something
>:>like "In any society that has agreed to NOF, capitalist ownership will
>:>evolve", and you seem to think that any other possible conclusion would
>:>be "In any society that has agreed to NOF, there'll be no property".
>:>
>
>: No. The issue was does capitalism require the initiation of force?
>
>That question is logically equivalent to "Can there be a society that has
>agreed to NOF and allows for (individual) property?" which in turn is
>equivalent to "Is it true that in any society that has agreed to NOF,
>there can be no (individual) property".
>
That there can be such a society is technically speaking not necessary much
like it need not be the case that there be four sided triangles for the
statement "if a triangle has for sides, then its angles sum to 360 degrees"
to be true. But I would more or less agree with your assesment.
> That is
>: what the main motivation for this thread by Andrew was (I think). In any
>: case, I think you are mistaken about what I think "ownership" means.
>
>Than what do you think "ownership" means?
>
I think ownership means that one has the right to the object they own.
> In
>: particular, you are assuming that "ownership" is a status that is agreed
>: upon by a group of people -- that society gives ownreship rights for
>: instance.
>
>I am very sure that ownership is a status that is agreed upon by a group of
>people. You just stated that you don't think so, so now I know that you
>don't think so.
>
>
>:>I think that our tribe *may* well arrive at a an agreement like our
modern
>:>property law --- but that that is by no means necessary. They *may* as
>:>well agree to some kind of socialism, or to some hybrid between socialism
>:>and capitalism --- as in, a plot of land is owned by a group of people
>:>collectively, but not by outsiders --- if they all agree to this, what
>:>should keep them from it?
>:>
>
>: If they all unanimously agree to it, then there can be no violation of
NOF.
>: If one of them disagrees to it then they must violate NOF to force him to
>: comply anyway.
>
>No. They don't _have_ to *do* anything. They have to _choose_ between
violating
>NOF and not getting the property rules they like.
>
Well, choosing is doing something, but I do not have them doing anything
anyway. I merely said that if they do establish socialism and if one of
them disagrees with it, then they must have violated NOF. If this one
dissenter just goes and starts using something and the collective decides
they need it, then who must use force to have teh object in question?
>[...]
>
>: Furthermore, any notion of ownership that is not consistent with the
_unique
>: system_ derivable from NOF will be inconsistent with NOF.
>
>What makes you so sure there is a _unique_ system derivable from NOF?
>
Whatever is permissible taken altogether is the "system." If there is some
other system that includes possibilities that are not permissible in the
first system, then that new system is not consistent with NOF. If there is
another system in which things are not permissible that are permissible in
the original system, then it follows that one must initiate force within the
context of the original system in order to enforce the new system. Then,
the new system is not consistent with NOF. If this original system allows
for private property, then it is a capitalist system. It cannot also be a
socialist system in the context of this thread as I have already argued.
>:>
>:>If we really take NOF seriously, only the the joint agreement of the
entire
>:>tribe that the thing should be owned by a particular group or person
would
>:>suffice.
>:>
>
>: Why is that? If I have possession of something would it not require
force
>: to take it from me no matter who agreed to it (assuming I resist)?
>
>You are assuming that taking the possession in the first place does not
>violate NOF. But suppose tribe member A takes something that tribe member
>B wants unowned, and B says so and A takes it anyway --- isn't that force?
>It's surely done against B's will.
>
Nope
>The only way to make sure this does not occur is requiring that if A wants
>to take something and B wants it unowned, then A cannot take it. Because
the
>initial state would be that nothing on the island be owned by anybody.
>
>But this amounts to the whole tribe, every single person, agreeing to A's
>ownership.
>
>
>: Only you have done so. I doubt that is internally consistent.
>
>Why?
>
>
>: Try formulating what it means to "own" something precisely and without
>: making any assumptions about the nature of ethics or the particular
>: situation or ....
>
>It isn't possible to talk about the meaning of "ownership" without talking
>about ethics, since it is, inherently, an ethical concept.
>
If ownership is an inherently ethical concept, then isn't saying that it
requires the mutual agreement of others an argument ad populum?
>Ownership implies, first and foremost, an obligation. If A owns something,
>that means that everyone else is obliged to treat the owned object in a
>certain way (for instance, keep out of owned land if they don't have the
>explicit permission of the owner). And if they don't treat that object in
>the required way, that is considered force.
>
>Now full ownership in the modern sense (but note that this has only been
>around since the Romans, so it is far from self-evident) implies four
rights
>of the owner:
>
>1. The right to decide what xe does with xyr property;
>
>2. the right to decide what others do with xyr property;
>
>3. the right to sell or give away the property, thus making it pass into
> the property of another person;
>
>4. the right to chose who inherits the property after the owner's death.
>
Such a concept does not exist among nomadic peoples? I am fairly certain
that it existed for instance among the greeks.
>And these rights imply that others have to respect the decisions based on
>them, thus making it force to act against them.
>
>Note also that most societies limit the rights 1.-4. in some ways. My
country
>and some states of the US limit the ways you can will your property, and
>everywhere right 1. ends if you use the property to harm someone else.
>This is not due to the intervention of some evil government, but caused
>by the facts that our law stems from a time when families were more
important
>than individuals and that there are just a lot of ways to use property in
>a harmful way.
>
>These limits vary considerably, which makes it counterintuitive to me that
>there should only be one possible system evolve. But then, the
implementation
>of our actual legal systems was anything but forceless, so that may not
>be such a good example.
>
Indeed. I believe my point is in fact that whenever two systems existing in
reality disagree, then force must be initiated by at least one of them.
>
>
> I think you will see right away what is required for
>: capitalism and why either that derives from NOF or it is incompatible
with
>: it.
>
>
>No, I'm still failing to see it. Can you elaborate?
>
I call a system where all voluntarily agree to be socialist a capitalist
system if they could choose not to be socialist since their actual rights to
property are private ones even if they wish to share their private property
as if that property were public. If they cannot choose not to be socilaist,
then the system is not consistent with capitalism. In general, either one
may chose to hold their property privately or they may not choose. If they
cannot choose then they definitely do not hold the property privately. If
they choose not to hold the property privately, they still do -- they just
allow others to have or use their property. If a system allows for property
to be privately held this way then it is capitalist. Otherwise, it is
something else inconsistent with capitalism.
>Dagmar
>
Adrian