Inquisitor:How can it be anything but unowned in the absence of a claim to it? No one gifted the resources to anyone. They are, until someone mixes their labour with them, entirely unowned.
In the absence of any other humans I have free access to the entire world.
With the addition of other humans, my individual right of access is not altogether abrogated but rather abridged to an individual equal right
WilliamB --- Firstly, you state "that's why you have to keep on moving" but I argued that you don't if you're not blocking the thoroughfare. Let's say that it takes three vagrants to block the width of the thoroughfare. The middle thoroughfare blocker settles down. Coincidentally a second settles down next to him blocking 2/3 now of thoroughfare --- still legal --- now a third vagrant settles down parallel to first two, completely blocking the path. He is the criminal. As far as three people walking in line which blocks counter-flow traffic, ---I see this violation all the time in large cities, but no one is enforcing the law.
Much more exciting is the case of the individual who is so obese that his girth blocks the thoroughfare, irregardless of whether he ambulates, or settles down in his deckchair in the middle of the public path for a good read with a copy of Rothbard's "Man, Economy, and State". If vagrancy is permitted as I have argued it is above, how do I deal with this case? I don't know, and previous philosophers never considered it, but given the widespread obesity in America, -----which has spread to the whole world, and which has been greatly exacerbated by the mollycoddleing attitutude of the Liberal foodstamp advocates who let people on foodstamps buy junkfood and meat with them, and even coffee, instead of restricting them to basic wholesome foods like whole grains, beans, fresh fruit and vegetables, (small children should have access to milk if their parents want it) --- all this assuming you agree with food stamps in the first place, which I don't (though I do agree with Hayek's call for food security as a legit. govt. function, but of course that's a values call)-----given this obesity, this problem may soon be a reality demanding clarification in political science and Austro-economic theory.
WmBGreene: Paul Grad:Just by being on the sidewalk, I am infringing on someone else's right to the same because I am physically taking up space; that's space they can't use, even if they wanted to. That is why you have to keep on moving. Paul Grad:Somewhere, someone said that three people couldn't stand shoulder to shoulder to block a public thoroughfare and would have to keep moving. But note, this would only apply to the two outer blockers, the individual in the middle would not have to move if the outer blockers moved and therefore wouldn't be preventing others from utilizing the rights inherent in a public thoroughfare. Thus, there seems to me to be an inherent right to loiter on a public sidewalk indefinitely. That was me. Sorry, what I meant to say is three people can't be walking (not standing) abreast because individuals couldn't pass going in the opposite direction. If you are just standing but excercising your other rights of freedom of speech, assembly, petitioning then you have to keep moving. Anyone can just stand in the common right of way so long as they are not infringing on any other individual's equal right to use the public right of way. Don't know much about public vagrancy laws and how it applies. Paul Grad:owning a "copyright" to an "intellectual property" (which I maintain does not actually exist --- it is actually a time-bound freehold lease of commonly owned property(i.e.language), enforced by government fiat) Exactly my position too. Language (words and letters) are part of the social commons and not to b enclosed which forces costs upon those excluded. Paul Grad:as to how they differ in contrast to property rights to an ounce of palladium one purchased legally on the free market. I think you only own the palldium to the extent that your exclusive use does not economically disadvantage anyone else. The test being "did you leave enough and as good in common for others?" Paul Grad:you have a Consitututional Right to walk, ride a bike, and probably a horse on a public thoroughfare without any kind of license, and if the gvt. owns or maintains the roads, then it must provide a parallel access for the walking/biking public (say, at the side of the freeway). However, the moving of a multi-thousand pound hunk of steel at 80mph while interacting in life and death situations with thousands of other hunks justifies the state testing the competence of the driver, his eyes, his medical history on blackouts, passing out, etc, and issuing a certification license so that the polis in the course of maintaining public safety can easily certify that this person is competent. This is not unlike requiring firecodes be complied with in tenement apt. buildings to prevent massive loss of life. The farther you get away from foot travel (skateboard, bike, horse, etc) the more that the government has an interest in exerting it's control over collectively owned property (roads and sidewalks) rather than it's more narrow constitutional role of insuring that no infringement is taking place after the fact within common right of ways that are contained within the collectively owned property.
Paul Grad:Just by being on the sidewalk, I am infringing on someone else's right to the same because I am physically taking up space; that's space they can't use, even if they wanted to.
That is why you have to keep on moving.
Paul Grad:Somewhere, someone said that three people couldn't stand shoulder to shoulder to block a public thoroughfare and would have to keep moving. But note, this would only apply to the two outer blockers, the individual in the middle would not have to move if the outer blockers moved and therefore wouldn't be preventing others from utilizing the rights inherent in a public thoroughfare. Thus, there seems to me to be an inherent right to loiter on a public sidewalk indefinitely.
That was me. Sorry, what I meant to say is three people can't be walking (not standing) abreast because individuals couldn't pass going in the opposite direction. If you are just standing but excercising your other rights of freedom of speech, assembly, petitioning then you have to keep moving. Anyone can just stand in the common right of way so long as they are not infringing on any other individual's equal right to use the public right of way.
Don't know much about public vagrancy laws and how it applies.
Paul Grad:owning a "copyright" to an "intellectual property" (which I maintain does not actually exist --- it is actually a time-bound freehold lease of commonly owned property(i.e.language), enforced by government fiat)
Exactly my position too. Language (words and letters) are part of the social commons and not to b enclosed which forces costs upon those excluded.
Paul Grad:as to how they differ in contrast to property rights to an ounce of palladium one purchased legally on the free market.
I think you only own the palldium to the extent that your exclusive use does not economically disadvantage anyone else. The test being "did you leave enough and as good in common for others?"
Paul Grad:you have a Consitututional Right to walk, ride a bike, and probably a horse on a public thoroughfare without any kind of license, and if the gvt. owns or maintains the roads, then it must provide a parallel access for the walking/biking public (say, at the side of the freeway). However, the moving of a multi-thousand pound hunk of steel at 80mph while interacting in life and death situations with thousands of other hunks justifies the state testing the competence of the driver, his eyes, his medical history on blackouts, passing out, etc, and issuing a certification license so that the polis in the course of maintaining public safety can easily certify that this person is competent. This is not unlike requiring firecodes be complied with in tenement apt. buildings to prevent massive loss of life.
The farther you get away from foot travel (skateboard, bike, horse, etc) the more that the government has an interest in exerting it's control over collectively owned property (roads and sidewalks) rather than it's more narrow constitutional role of insuring that no infringement is taking place after the fact within common right of ways that are contained within the collectively owned property.
WilliamB --- I'm glad we finally agree on something as far as copyright. I argued in a discussion on Mr. Kinsella's forum on Intellectual Property, that words, musical notes, and photons were communistically-owned assets, the only assets thus owned, and maintained that the so-called creator was actually merely an "arranger" of commonly- owned assets, but that out of a value of justice and to encourage production of ideas and art, society gave him a free-hold lease for a certain fixed time. Since then, I have come to the conclusion that an approapriate time for copyright should be set at seven years, since this, according to the Hindu Yogis, is the amount of time required for all the atoms and cells of our body to be completely replaced by new atoms and cells. Thus the original "arranger", euphemistically referred to as the creator, exists no longer, and it is high time for society to reclaim its rightful communistically-owned property, i.e. the words, notes and photons misapproapriated and arranged by the writer, musician, photographer or kineast.
WilliamB --- You say, "I think you only own the palladium to the extent that your exclusive use does not economically disadvantage anyone else. The test being "did you leave enough and as good in common for others?"
I couldn't disagree more. Of course my owning the palladium and my exclusive use of it economically disadvantages others. It restricts supply, it drives up the price for them. They may need it to make money and I hold it off the market. Its impossible to own anything and NOT disadvantage someone else, though if you're a palladium bull who has been in accumulation phase for some time, you might be very happy when others suddenly and massively buy palladium and economically disadvantage you by restricting your access to supply.
Additionally, my owning of the palladium has nothing to do with others, and thus any consideration of its effect on others. In owning it, I have merely expanded my body by expanding my estate, as far as the law is concerned.
You write "The test being "did you leave enough and as good in common for others?" Again, not only does my possession have nothing to do with others, but certainly nothing to do with "leaving enough for others". This would mean that a commodity trader could never take a long position, because he would have to worry about the morality of his order driving up prices and thus restricting access for others. All profits are at the common expense of all others, not their common good.
WmBGreene:There are two types of individual rights.1. individual exclusive rights2. individual equal rightsConfusing the two gets us in trouble. Speech, assembly, petitioning, travel are all individual equal rights.
There are two types of individual rights.
1. individual exclusive rights
2. individual equal rights
Confusing the two gets us in trouble. Speech, assembly, petitioning, travel are all individual equal rights.
Creating the distinction is what gets us into trouble. Rothbard has amply demonstrated that all rights are derivative rights of property rights, from the "right" to speech to the right to "assembly". We wholly reject positive rights.
In the absence of any other humans I have free access to the entire world.With the addition of other humans, my individual right of access is not altogether abrogated but rather abridged to an individual equal right
What "right" of access? You have the right to appropriate unowned resources, and no more than that. Ownership stems from labour-mixing. All else is unowned.
Paul, be careful not to fall in that trap. No one is harmed because one does not own the value of any given resource; they own the resource and no more than that. Profits, also, are not damaging in any way (provided they are the result of voluntary interactions and justly acquired resources.) It is Marxists who have propagated such myths.
Inquisitor: WmBGreene: There are two types of individual rights. 1. individual exclusive rights 2. individual equal rights Confusing the two gets us in trouble. Speech, assembly, petitioning, travel are all individual equal rights. Creating the distinction is what gets us into trouble. Rothbard has amply demonstrated that all rights are derivative rights of property rights, from the "right" to speech to the right to "assembly". We wholly reject positive rights. In the absence of any other humans I have free access to the entire world. With the addition of other humans, my individual right of access is not altogether abrogated but rather abridged to an individual equal right What "right" of access? You have the right to appropriate unowned resources, and no more than that. Ownership stems from labour-mixing. All else is unowned. Paul, be careful not to fall in that trap. No one is harmed because one does not own the value of any given resource; they own the resource and no more than that. Profits, also, are not damaging in any way (provided they are the result of voluntary interactions and justly acquired resources.) It is Marxists who have propagated such myths.
WmBGreene: There are two types of individual rights. 1. individual exclusive rights 2. individual equal rights Confusing the two gets us in trouble. Speech, assembly, petitioning, travel are all individual equal rights.
In the absence of any other humans I have free access to the entire world. With the addition of other humans, my individual right of access is not altogether abrogated but rather abridged to an individual equal right
Inquisitor --- I'm not sure what trap you refer to, like Joseph K. in Kafka's "The Trial". I thought I indicated that one owns only the resource (owning the oz. palladium is owning only, a simple expansion of ones estate, irregardless of anyone else's measured monetary value of the ounce). However, fhe fact that my buying this oz. has driven up the market value does harm others, albeit indirectly, unless one feels that having to pay more money for something is a positive, and having less money is a virtue, a view many of the various religious saints have shared. But my possession of it, effected for primarily non-financial reasons (I like the way it looks,etc.), doesn't bring in others at all. The old communist guilt trip. If you refer to WilliamB's trap of obfuscating the rights issue, by creating a distinction where there shouldn't be one, I am aware of it and skirting the edge of the pit. Thanks for the warning.
Inquisitor queries if I've read Rothbard/Hoppe on property rights, or Kinsella on IP.I've read Rothbard's Man Economy and State, and listened to all his lectures/videos. Also read Hayek's "Road to Serfdom (or Atleeism)". Read and commented on Kinsella's forum on IP and G.E. Morton paper. Don't really want to comment before I read all of Mises, Hayek and Rothbard key works, but sometimes can't resist. I think though that perhaps, while I could accept that the ownership rights to the oz. palladium, the IP copyright, and the Right to Free Speech or Assembly are all property rights, they could not be further distinguished. Probably has been attempted, but I haven't read on it yet. However, off the top of my head, I'd say that IP's were the right to a leasehold as described above, and the Right to Free Speech a type of Civil Right. So while simple physical ownership is a simple property right, IP and Right to Free Speech, because they are intangible, have to be delineated as other types of property rights, perhaps the cumbersome Civil-property rights, or free-hold/lease-property rights. But I would agree that basically all are property rights.
Inquisitor:We wholly reject positive rights.
We wholly reject positive rights.
Individual equal rights are negative rights.
Inquisitor:What "right" of access?
In the absence of others there are no need for the concept of rights - so I can freely access anything and everything.
With the addition of others, being able to access everything is not ended but rather the same ability is extended to all.
Now, what to do to avoid conflicts? We assign rights...in the case of everything that pre-exists human labor, we all have an individual equal right of access.
Inquisitor:having to pay more for something is inconvenient, but it is not harm (in the sense of aggression.) It's also a signal to entrepreneurs to increase supply of the good, ceteris paribus, given its higher profitability.
It is harm when occupying land is part of self existence and if all locations are legally claimed. One can't have self-ownership if someone else has a legal claim on your labor.
The supply of land is inelastic.
WmBGreene: Inquisitor:having to pay more for something is inconvenient, but it is not harm (in the sense of aggression.) It's also a signal to entrepreneurs to increase supply of the good, ceteris paribus, given its higher profitability. It is harm when occupying land is part of self existence and if all locations are legally claimed. One can't have self-ownership if someone else has a legal claim on your labor. The supply of land is inelastic.
The supply of land is inelastic, true. But in a free-market capitalist society, the law of supply and demand will virtually insure there will always be a supply on the market available to anyone with the requisite capital. If "all locations are legally claimed" then it is my problem to acquire enough capital to bribe one of these legal claimants to sell his claim or land deed to me. Under capitalism everybody gets pretty much what they want if they pursue it hard enough, and its usually something very different from their neighbors wants. WilliamB worries about "all locations are legally claimed" but his real worry should be "all currency is legally claimed (or controlled, as in the FED)" because as long as there is a true free market, any individual can strive, and probably eventually acquire enough capital to bid away one of those parcels of land. At the same time, the teenager down the street is not dreaming about land, but the chrome wheels he wants for his souped up car that the highschool girls admire so much. The cost is a grand. Now if the person who was intent on raising the capital to buy one of the "all locations legally claimed" parcels, had instead had his heart set on a set of chrome wheels too and bought a set from the local dealer , the dealer would have set the price two dollars higher for the teenager because he saw they were a hot item.Likewise, if the teenage had invested his grand in a REIT that purchased the type of land the landseeker sought, the seeker would have to accrue more capital to affect his successful bribe. The point of this being, to WilliamB, that while all of one item may be legally claimed, all of capital is not, and as long as that capital is fluid and diversified, no shortage of goods in one sector need be permanent for accrual of capital in another sector will break the stalemate of no sales after a protracted period of quiescence.
So even when supply is inelastic, capital will guarantee a supply. Another miracle of the capitalist free-market.
Inquisitor:I simply meant the trap of acquiescing to the Marxist belief that ownership is somehow harmful. Anyway, as I said before, harm can only be said to have been done if one is assumed to own the value of a good. Otherwise, yes, having to pay more for something is inconvenient, but it is not harm (in the sense of aggression.) It's also a signal to entrepreneurs to increase supply of the good, ceteris paribus, given its higher profitability.
Oh no. I certainly don't think ownership is harmful, at least not to live a fairly normal life in the modern world. No as a capitalist, I obviously feel ownership is a positive. Its capital. The Marxists have their organized religion with a vast set of false beliefs, and they ridicule anyone who even engages them in a reasonable dialogue, like the defenders of most authoritarian organized religions.
I would say that having to pay more for something can well be harm, and not merely inconvenience, as when the price of a loaf of break goes up to the level where the hobo cannot now afford it, though he could yesterday, before the food-stamp or minimum-wage induced price rise took effect. I think you also overlook the case of a commodity short squeeze where a small but powerful cartel, knowing that someone has overleveraged a significant short position, all buy in at the same time on heavy volume, driving the short into bankruptcy as his stops are hit in thin markets. This is not technically aggression, but it surely is hostile, and the losses are not merely an "inconvenience" to the distraught bear who was comfortable yesterday, but today is in huge debt.
I seem to recall a case about a dozen years back where a guy was short wheat on the last day and the market traded from $5 to $7.50, where he got stopped out, in one trade, and then went back to $5 on the next tick. This in a market that might normally move a $1 or less in a year. I think the CFTC ruled against his protest. Moral: Always get out at least several days before a contract expires.
WmBGreene:It is harm when occupying land is part of self existence and if all locations are legally claimed. One can't have self-ownership if someone else has a legal claim on your labor.
You merely have power over your body, and nothing else. You have a right to appropriate unowned resources, not a right to appropriated resources. No harm whatsoever has occured, given that the so-called commons were unowned to begin with.
And? Individuals constantly increase the capacity which land can hold by building on it (e.g. appartments etc.) The point of holding land is to make money off it. But fine, let us assume that everyone were given a right to a piece of land, and thus the earth were divided equally amongst all. Suppose they then decided to trade it, resulting in unequal holdings once more. Should this be outlawed?
Paul, I employ harm in a specific way in that it entails damage to property (in oneself or a resource.) That is why I reject its use with regard to value, which cannot be owned.
Inquisitor:You merely have power over your body, and nothing else.
It is not like your body is floating in a vacuum. We are landed animals that must interact with the world to derive our sustenance.
Inquisitor:You have a right to appropriate unowned resources, not a right to appropriated resources. No harm whatsoever has occured, given that the so-called commons were unowned to begin with.
To be a live is to appropriate resources because you must occupy a specific location at any time. If all locations are legally occupied then you must be gifted or purchase a right to "be". Therefore, under those conditions, you have no right of self-ownership as someone has a legal claim on your wages or they are gifting you the right to occupy the location they own.
Inquisitor:Individuals constantly increase the capacity which land can hold by building on it (e.g. appartments etc.)
Yes and that is called "capital" not "land".
Inquisitor:let us assume that everyone were given a right to a piece of land, and thus the earth were divided equally amongst all.
Who is suggesting that? If no one were economically harmed no matter where anyone else chose to locate, then that will suffice to uphold the absolute right of self-ownership of everyone.
WmBGreene:To be a live is to appropriate resources because you must occupy a specific location at any time. If all locations are legally occupied then you must be gifted or purchase a right to "be". Therefore, under those conditions, you have no right of self-ownership as someone has a legal claim on your wages or they are gifting you the right to occupy the location they own.
The second part does not follow from the first part. A landlord does not have a legal claim on your wages, they have a legal claim to the amount of rent you agreed to pay, therefore in competition with all other landlords.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
WmBGreene:It is not like your body is floating in a vacuum. We are landed animals that must interact with the world to derive our sustenance.
The only plausible obligation, then, that can arise in this context is of parents to provide for the child, since they are the ones who put it in its uniquely fragile state. Beyond that it is up to the individual to work and exchange goods to gain other goods, including land.
I don't see how that follows at all. They certainly have no obligation to provide you with anything other than what your entreaties manage to get out of them.
But it helps to alleviate the so-called problem of land scarcity.
Individuals such as G. A. Cohen.
BTW, on the topic of land scarcity, I recommend Skousen's Economic Logic, in which he dissects the notion of completely inelastic supply.
WmBGreene:they are owned in common as an individual equal access opportunity right.
they are owned in common as an individual equal access opportunity right.
"Owned" and "common" do not mix. To own something is be able to determine its use.
There is no right to free speech anymore than there is a right to access to sidewalks. Sidewalk owners, private and government, happen to grant access liberally. But there are no rights involved.
Peace
JonBostwick:"Owned" and "common" do not mix. To own something is be able to determine its use.
Any item or entitity can have single owners, as well as more then one owner. One would actually have to define who the owners are and what the terms of use would be. Examples for single ownership could be a piece of bread or an automobile. The owner is the sole legitimate decision maker over these items. On the other hand a golf club could own a golf course. The members of this golf club would then be the common owners of the golf course. There are many other examples for "common ownership" as well.
JonBostwick: There is no right to free speech anymore than there is a right to access to sidewalks. Sidewalk owners, private and government, happen to grant access liberally. But there are no rights involved
Torsten:The members of this golf club would then be the common owners of the golf course.
You are confusing common and collective owners. Collective ownership is a joint right. Common ownership is an individual equal right.
Collective ownership requires permission from all of the other owners (consensus) prior to use or the delegated authority. The terms and consitions of use are then dictated.
Common ownership requires no prior approval only a judgement after action has been taken as to whether some other individual's equal rights are being infringed upon.
JonBostwick:There is no right to free speech anymore than there is a right to access to sidewalks. Sidewalk owners, private and government, happen to grant access liberally. But there are no rights involved.
The rights involved are natural rights that pre-exist goverment and are the reason for governance.
The common right of way that exists within the sidewalks and roads require no prior permission to access. Government as legitimate agency is constituted to insure that this natural right is not infringed upon by any other individual.
Inquisitor:Beyond that it is up to the individual to work and exchange goods to gain other goods, including land.
"Goods" are produced via human labor. "Land" by definition is not produced by human labor and occupying it is synonomous with life itself. They can't be separated.
Inquisitor:They certainly have no obligation to provide you with anything other than what your entreaties manage to get out of them.
"Land" is not "provided" to you. To exist is to occupy land.
Inquisitor:But it helps to alleviate the so-called problem of land scarcity.
Since "land" by definition pre-exists human labor and thus is fixed in supply, I don't see how.
Stranger:A landlord does not have a legal claim on your wages, they have a legal claim to the amount of rent you agreed to pay, therefore in competition with all other landlords.
As if the exchange were voluntary? To exist I must occupy land and if all lands are legally occupied then a landowner has a claim on my wages. This is a violation of the absolute right of self-ownership.
Yes I can voluntarily negotiate with a number of landowners, but I can't not occupy land somewhere while existing. This would be like saying a prisoner is free because the warden let's him choose which cell to occupy.
Paul Grad:as long as there is a true free market, any individual can strive, and probably eventually acquire enough capital to bid away one of those parcels of land.
Paul Grad:If "all locations are legally claimed" then it is my problem to acquire enough capital to bribe one of these legal claimants to sell his claim or land deed to me.
We are born with rights as human constructs to help us avoid conflict. They do not have to be purchased or gifted.
WmBGreene:"Goods" are produced via human labor. "Land" by definition is not produced by human labor and occupying it is synonomous with life itself. They can't be separated."Land" is not "provided" to you. To exist is to occupy land.Since "land" by definition pre-exists human labor and thus is fixed in supply, I don't see how.
Land, by your definition, is also worthless. The world is full of uninhabited land. The deserts, or the antarctic, are land that are no one's.
The reason that a landlord can earn rent on his property is because he invested in land to make it productive to you, and he does this in competition with all other landlords.
He has no claim at all to your wages.
WmBGreene:"Goods" are produced via human labor. "Land" by definition is not produced by human labor and occupying it is synonomous with life itself. They can't be separated.
No, but land can be laboured upon and improved, and thus appropriated (yes, it does become a capital good, which you then own.)
You wouldn't even exist had your parents not conceived you. Hence, any obligation to provide you with land extends to them and them only.
It is so because what matters is what land is available for sale at any time. This means that the price of land is determined by marginal buyers and sellers, and accordingly its supply will shift in the same way.
Governments are never legitimate landlords.
Landlords can do anything they want to their sidewalks. They can willfully block it. They can tear them up and build a wall. Unless someone has a contract to the contrary, they have no right to access.
There is no natural right to stand anywhere you want on this earth.
Inquisitor:land can be laboured upon and improved, and thus appropriated (yes, it does become a capital good, which you then own.)
Yes and it is possible to separate improved land value as capital (the return on capital being economic interest) and unimproved land value as economic rent.
Inquisitor:You wouldn't even exist had your parents not conceived you. Hence, any obligation to provide you with land extends to them and them only.
You parents labor to create you and are joint owners (mother superior to father) until personhood is established in utero. The fetus undergoes a natural process of individuation which continues until majority status. We talk about parents "gifting one's life to the child" but the child actually moves affirmatively towards individuation as a natural process as more advanced brain function develops (sentience). So when does one achieve the absolute right of self-ownership?
Inquisitor:It is so because what matters is what land is available for sale at any time.
Rights don't have to be purchased or gifted. We are born with them as human constructs to avoid conflict.
JonBostwick:Governments are never legitimate landlords. Landlords can do anything they want to their sidewalks. They can willfully block it. They can tear them up and build a wall. Unless someone has a contract to the contrary, they have no right to access.There is no natural right to stand anywhere you want on this earth.
There is a common right of way (an individual equal natural right) contained within the sidewalks and roads that pre-exist government.
If I am the first human on earth I can go wherever I want and do whatever I want to derive my sustenance. There is no need for the concept of rights because there is no human conflict possible.
If another human appears they have the same ability as my ability is not abrogated but becomes an individual equal right as the two make up rules (rights) to avoid conflict.
You eat what you kill and exclusive use over any location is just - so long as you leave "enough and as good" to be killed or to be excluded for the others. The test being whether or not your exclusive use imposes a cost on those being excluded.
WmBGreene:There is a common right of way (an individual equal natural right) contained within the sidewalks and roads that pre-exist government.
Roads sometimes, but sidewalks, never. Dirt roads and paths are often the product of simple use, and are therefore homesteaded by travelers. Sidewalks and paved roads are the product of someone laboring to create them, and so are owned by their creators.
WmBGreene:You eat what you kill and exclusive use over any location is just - so long as you leave "enough and as good" to be killed or to be excluded for the others. The test being whether or not your exclusive use imposes a cost on those being excluded.
Exclusive use is a requirement of purposeful action, as I'm sure you know, so property rights are a necessary legal construction to protect the ability of people to act in a free manner. Exclusive use, as you've mentioned, also implies some others are prohibited from use. The challenge we face is how to decide who gets exclusive use and who does not? If allowance of human freedom is our goal, we know from Mises and others that the free market is the best choice.
When purchasing owned property, the market already forces people to pay for how many people are excluded from ownership, because price rises with demand. The fact that unowned property can be appropriated for “free” and yet exclude others from that property is irrelevant. What is relevant is the opportunity cost the property owner must pay to exclude people in inefficient ways. The market process encourages the exclusive use of property to fall into the hands of those who need it most, because there is an opportunity cost associated with doing anything else with that property. Exclusion is totally necessary, but the market directs it in a sensible manner.
Grant:Dirt roads and paths are often the product of simple use, and are therefore homesteaded by travelers.
"Homestead" is not the right word to describe. Common right of way better describes the phenomena as individual equal rights.
Grant:Sidewalks and paved roads are the product of someone laboring to create them, and so are owned by their creators.
Correct. But the common right of way pre-exists the collectively owned road bed. It is not abrogated by the physical construction of the road. This is why it is so comfounding to most libertarians.
Grant: The challenge we face is how to decide who gets exclusive use and who does not? If allowance of human freedom is our goal, we know from Mises and others that the free market is the best choice.
The challenge we face is how to decide who gets exclusive use and who does not? If allowance of human freedom is our goal, we know from Mises and others that the free market is the best choice.
I agree. But inorder not to violate the absolute right of self-ownership of those you exclude, exclusive use may require an obligation to those you exclude.
Grant:When purchasing owned property, the market already forces people to pay for how many people are excluded from ownership, because price rises with demand.
Yes. But the wrong people are being paid if you want to uphold the absolute right of self-ownership. It is the locations proximity to the labor and services of those you exclude that gives a location it's value so the economic rent should be paid to the excluded not to the excluder.
Grant:The fact that unowned property can be appropriated for “free” and yet exclude others from that property is irrelevant.
It is relevant because by definition that means no one being excluded's absolute right of self-ownership is being violated. To the extent that it is being violated is defined by the amount of economic rent that attaches to any location in a scarcity market.
Grant:Exclusion is totally necessary, but the market directs it in a sensible manner.
It would be sensible if the economic rent were required to be shared because then it would assure that all locations are being put to highest and best use. Today it isn't.
WmBGreene:Yes and it is possible to separate improved land value as capital (the return on capital being economic interest) and unimproved land value as economic rent.
Yet why should we? You keep on saying this somehow disadvantages others (by increasing scarcity, whatever.) So what? It only constitutes harm if one assumes to begin with they have some equal right to it, and specifically to its value. All they have is a right to attempt to appropriate it, no more, no less.
So when does one achieve the absolute right of self-ownership?
Hard to answer. This should provide some help though:
http://www.mises.org/story/2291
'Hoppe also argues that rights are held by rational agents — those who are "capable of communicating, discussing, arguing, and in particular, [who are] able to engage in an argumentation of normative problems". This implies that a person reaches adulthood, or "appropriates" his body and gains full ownership rights to it, when he reaches the point where he is a rational agent in this sense.'
If I am the first human on earth I can go wherever I want and do whatever I want to derive my sustenance. There is no need for the concept of rights because there is no human conflict possible.If another human appears they have the same ability as my ability is not abrogated but becomes an individual equal right as the two make up rules (rights) to avoid conflict.
I don't see how that follows. Rights to use certain passways come from actually using them. There is no "equal" right to use them. What paths you have gained easements to remain yours to use, and no more than that.
WmBGreene:Correct. But the common right of way pre-exists the collectively owned road bed. It is not abrogated by the physical construction of the road. This is why it is so comfounding to most libertarians.
What common right-of-way would exist on private property? If the road was collectively owned, then fine, the owners set the rules. If its not, its not. If a road is constructed by those collective owners, then they again set the rules. There isn't any way for the owner's idea of proper use (right of way, or whatever) to be violated unless the property rights of the road owners are violated.
WmBGreene:I agree. But inorder not to violate the absolute right of self-ownership of those you exclude, exclusive use may require an obligation to those you exclude. Grant:When purchasing owned property, the market already forces people to pay for how many people are excluded from ownership, because price rises with demand. Yes. But the wrong people are being paid if you want to uphold the absolute right of self-ownership. It is the locations proximity to the labor and services of those you exclude that gives a location it's value so the economic rent should be paid to the excluded not to the excluder.
If the owner of a piece of property does anything less than utilize it in the most socially efficient fashion, he pays for it in opportunity costs. While you are correct that he can, by rights, exclude people in a less unprofitable fashion, he pays for the ability to do so. Exclusion, as we know, is necissary, so one should not pay for making the best use of exclusion rights. Just because the owner can exclude people, does not mean his right to do so causes some sort of externalities on others. You could say (in a non-Austrian sense) that he causes an externalities when he does exclude people in a less profitable manner, but he does this by literally paying society. His loss of income means he has less of an ability to trade for the goods and services of others, so more goods and services are allocated towards the rest of the population.
I really can't imagine a society where absolute self-ownership could be guaranteed for everyone, so I can't comment much on that. Even for property owners in market anarchism, such absolute ownership would be dependent upon trade, because absolute and total self-ownership (including the right to construct a nuclear bomb) would likely require one to live without the protection of a government-esque firm. The cancellation of contracts with that firm would probably not be free in some instances.
Inquisitor:You keep on saying this somehow disadvantages others (by increasing scarcity, whatever.) So what?
It specifically economically disadvantages the excluded and thus violates their absolute right o self-ownership.
Inquisitor:It only constitutes harm if one assumes to begin with they have some equal right to it, and specifically to its value. All they have is a right to attempt to appropriate it, no more, no less.
The ability to access everything/everywhere for the first person is not abrogated with the addition of others but rather made into an equal access right because no one labored to produce what pre-exists human labor.
Inquisitor:This implies that a person reaches adulthood, or "appropriates" his body and gains full ownership rights to it, when he reaches the point where he is a rational agent in this sense.
OK, then when can he excercise his full rights to self-ownership that don't require a gift of access to land or a purchase, if you believe that we are born with rights that don't have to be purcahsed or gifted?
Do you?
Inquisitor:I don't see how that follows.
If labor is required for ownership and land by definition pre-exists human labor, then by what logic does a specific location on the surface of the earth become exclusive use and if it is by labor then exactly how much labor is required?
Inquisitor:Rights to use certain passways come from actually using them. There is no "equal" right to use them. What paths you have gained easements to remain yours to use, and no more than that.
An easement is a legal requirement to allow a specific person the right to travel across your exclusive property. What you are describing is a common right of way which is not the result of any specific individual's labor but rather any number of individuals engaged in walking over he same path.
Grant:What common right-of-way would exist on private property?
None. An easement could be a type of right of way but to specific individuals.
Grant:If the road was collectively owned, then fine, the owners set the rules. If its not, its not. If a road is constructed by those collective owners, then they again set the rules. There isn't any way for the owner's idea of proper use (right of way, or whatever) to be violated unless the property rights of the road owners are violated.
Most roads started out as paths over common land. When it can be shown that the common good is served, private land can be taken out of private use and brought back into common use for "public" purpose, so long as the private owners are compensated with market rate value.
Grant:If the owner of a piece of property does anything less than utilize it in the most socially efficient fashion, he pays for it in opportunity costs.
Actually he subjects those opportunity costs on those being excluded while economic rent continues to accumulate to the location.
Grant:Exclusion, as we know, is necissary, so one should not pay for making the best use of exclusion rights.
Why not as the value is socially created via it's proximity to the labor and services of those you exclude not created by the labor of the landowner.
Grant:I really can't imagine a society where absolute self-ownership could be guaranteed for everyone, so I can't comment much on that.
That is the fundamental tenet of libertarianism. An absolute right of self-ownership where the non-agression principles is derived from that.
No there is not! You have no right to travel on my driveway. You have no right to drive on a toll road, or any road on in a foreign nation. You have no right to walk on a footpath through my property.
You have no more "common right of way" on a sidewalk than in a hallway. You have access to some hallways and not to others, completely dependent on the choice of owner.
What you are claiming is completely imaginary.
WmBGreene:It specifically economically disadvantages the excluded and thus violates their absolute right o self-ownership.
Perhaps it might disadvantage them by making appropriation more difficult, but so what? They have no right to an easy appropriation. Self-ownership is left unscathed.
How does being able to go anywhere translate into a right to be able to go anywhere post-appropriation, unless you had been using that specific location as a path extensively in the past?
OK, then when can he excercise his full rights to self-ownership that don't require a gift of access to land or a purchase, if you believe that we are born with rights that don't have to be purcahsed or gifted.
What do you mean purchase them? He can gain property by purchasing it, but not any right to self-ownership which he already possesses.
In that article the first-use principle is evoked. That resolves the entire problem by assigning ownership over the location to the first-user. As for how much labour is to be expended, it would depend on local customs. Fencing would also be necessary in the case of land.
Indeed, but I am presuming no such thing as an "equal right to access" in the process.
WmBGreene:Most roads started out as paths over common land. When it can be shown that the common good is served, private land can be taken out of private use and brought back into common use for "public" purpose, so long as the private owners are compensated with market rate value.
Who decides what the "common good" is? Why should anyone decide that, when the market process already serves the purposes of everyone in the market? Natural roads are by definition owned, because they were created by labor of travelers. It may be hard to define what their ownership is, but they are still owned by the individuals who created and use them.
WmBGreene:Actually he subjects those opportunity costs on those being excluded while economic rent continues to accumulate to the location.
No, because the lesser amount of rent gained from inefficient usage is the opportunity cost he pays.
WmBGreene:That is the fundamental tenet of libertarianism. An absolute right of self-ownership where the non-agression principles is derived from that.
Of some forms of libertarianism I guess. You can't defend everyone's negative rights for them without coercion, violating other's rights. Taxation can be used to provide everyone with police protection, which protects against violations of self-ownership, so would that be alright? How about taxing them to defend against communist fluoridation plots? Its no different from taxing others to provide land. Freedom isn't free.
Libertarianism can't guarantee full negative rights for everyone, its just the best way we know of to protect them.
That's the Golden Rule. It all branches out from that. People would gravitate to what keeps them prosperous. You can preach what you want. People would follow what works and what keeps them happy. As their would be no Government to meddle and lie to people, people would be able to make up their own minds. People who build their lives off old Socialist principles would find themselves poor and starving. They would be shunned by the rest of society that believes in setting it's own prosperity levels independent of fingers that like cookie jars.
JonBostwick:You have no right to travel on my driveway.
A driveway contains no common right of way as it is owned exclusively.
JonBostwick:You have no right to drive on a toll road
As I have said, collective rights are superior and common rights are inferior the father away one moves from foot travel as the amount of potential harm caused to body and property is greater on roads. One can always apply for a permit to use the road as a common right of way that temporarily infringes on car travel to excercise one's common right of free speech. It is done in Washington DC all the time.
JonBostwick:You have no right to walk on a footpath through my property.
A footpath through your property has no common right of way because you own the land exclusively.
JonBostwick:You have no more "common right of way" on a sidewalk than in a hallway.
The common right of ways contained within sidewalks specifically are where we excercise our first amendment common rights (individual equal rights) of speech, assembly, petitioning.
MrJekyll: No physical coercion of person or property. That's the Golden Rule. It all branches out from that.
That's the Golden Rule. It all branches out from that.
Actually, the non-aggression principle (what you are calling "The Golden Rule" and others call the "non-agression principle" or "zero agression principle") derives from the fundamental tenet of libertarianism - the absolute right of self-ownership.