Post your comments on the debate here. Please do not post in the formal debate thread.
The formal debate can be found here.
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.
Yours sincerely,
Physiocrat
Non-existent debate is non-existent.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
I'm getting there, I'm typing it up in between learning about regression and correlation.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
I think it will be like all of the other threads about the same topic. Giles loses.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
It was an introductory statement. Giles needed to clarify his position, a longer essay is perfectly apt for this purpose.Personally, I'm quite pleased with this first post. Looking forward to the response.
Juan:Just as I thought. Instead of briefly summarizing his arguments (he has none) Giles has posted a long tirade mostly based on copy and paste. I would have thought that a debate entails some sort of dialog. I fail to see how a 3 pages manifesto can be part of a 'debate'.
it's 11 paragraphs, barely a page and a half. What illiterate backwater do you come from where a brief outline of the points to be debated is a "3 page manifesto"? If anything I thought that the introductory remark was a bit brief.
What illiterate backwater do you come from
Quite a good post by Giles in my opinion. Am anxiously awaiting the reply.
“Elections are Futures Markets in Stolen Property.” - H. L. Mencken
Spideynw: I think it will be like all of the other threads about the same topic. Giles loses.
Having read the response, I think Giles has lost. It doesn't make sense to say that in a free society people will prefer less freedom over more and will prefer to rent over ownership, the entire human history argues otherwise.
Spencer
spencer: Manorialism was a feature of agrarian peasant society. Let’s avoid using that term or even "free feudalism" in a contemporary context, considering its primitive connotations and its popular confusion with serfdom. Yes, the arrangement of the land was like that of the contemporary entrepreneurial community, or "entrecomm," but the manorial community was foreign to anything we know today, even though based on a rudimentary system of free contract and respect for person and property. If the manorial community was largely libertarian, why wasn’t it wealthy and progressive? Well, one answer is that the firm hadn’t yet developed; the unit of production was still the family. The distinction between firm and family is crucial. Firms are impersonal in the sense that they have specialized, well defined goals, recruit on the basis of ability and experience, and are single-mindedly market oriented. Families, on the other hand, have necessarily complex agendas in which, for example, recreation, marriage, or paying respects to deceased members might outrank everything else. They cannot recruit or fire except in a limited way through marriage or divorce or by recognizing extended family ties. They must accommodate old Aunt Flora and irascible Cousin John. Hence, manorial arrangements were family ventures and unbusinesslike from today’s perspective. They were only quasi-entrepreneurial. Moreover, their setting differed. There was virtually no competition, they were not linked into a global economy with all of the interlocking institutional and service support that implies, such as banking and investment, insurance, pricing system, etc., nor was there much mobility, due in great part to the primitive technology of transportation and communication. Because of their more evolved nature and the fact that they operate in an altogether different environment, entrepreneurial communities anticipate and meet the needs of their tenants in ways the medieval manor could not have dreamed of. Although the arrangement of the land is the same, we make a fundamental mistake if we attempt to understand the whole of the entrepreneurial community in terms of the medieval manor or the tribal village. I'd have much preferred the debate had been on whether "In a stateless society, the land arrangement that would predominate would be that of the entrepreneurial community." The debate could already be lost if the wording suggests or implies that statelessness must return us to primitive conditions. But I congratulate you mightily on the topic and look forward to participating in some good discussion.
Manorialism was a feature of agrarian peasant society. Let’s avoid using that term or even "free feudalism" in a contemporary context, considering its primitive connotations and its popular confusion with serfdom. Yes, the arrangement of the land was like that of the contemporary entrepreneurial community, or "entrecomm," but the manorial community was foreign to anything we know today, even though based on a rudimentary system of free contract and respect for person and property. If the manorial community was largely libertarian, why wasn’t it wealthy and progressive? Well, one answer is that the firm hadn’t yet developed; the unit of production was still the family. The distinction between firm and family is crucial. Firms are impersonal in the sense that they have specialized, well defined goals, recruit on the basis of ability and experience, and are single-mindedly market oriented. Families, on the other hand, have necessarily complex agendas in which, for example, recreation, marriage, or paying respects to deceased members might outrank everything else. They cannot recruit or fire except in a limited way through marriage or divorce or by recognizing extended family ties. They must accommodate old Aunt Flora and irascible Cousin John. Hence, manorial arrangements were family ventures and unbusinesslike from today’s perspective. They were only quasi-entrepreneurial. Moreover, their setting differed. There was virtually no competition, they were not linked into a global economy with all of the interlocking institutional and service support that implies, such as banking and investment, insurance, pricing system, etc., nor was there much mobility, due in great part to the primitive technology of transportation and communication. Because of their more evolved nature and the fact that they operate in an altogether different environment, entrepreneurial communities anticipate and meet the needs of their tenants in ways the medieval manor could not have dreamed of. Although the arrangement of the land is the same, we make a fundamental mistake if we attempt to understand the whole of the entrepreneurial community in terms of the medieval manor or the tribal village. I'd have much preferred the debate had been on whether "In a stateless society, the land arrangement that would predominate would be that of the entrepreneurial community." The debate could already be lost if the wording suggests or implies that statelessness must return us to primitive conditions. But I congratulate you mightily on the topic and look forward to participating in some good discussion.
Manorialism was a feature of agrarian peasant society. Let’s avoid using that term or even "free feudalism" in a contemporary context, considering its primitive connotations and its popular confusion with serfdom. Yes, the arrangement of the land was like that of the contemporary entrepreneurial community, or "entrecomm," but the manorial community was foreign to anything we know today, even though based on a rudimentary system of free contract and respect for person and property.
If the manorial community was largely libertarian, why wasn’t it wealthy and progressive? Well, one answer is that the firm hadn’t yet developed; the unit of production was still the family. The distinction between firm and family is crucial. Firms are impersonal in the sense that they have specialized, well defined goals, recruit on the basis of ability and experience, and are single-mindedly market oriented. Families, on the other hand, have necessarily complex agendas in which, for example, recreation, marriage, or paying respects to deceased members might outrank everything else. They cannot recruit or fire except in a limited way through marriage or divorce or by recognizing extended family ties. They must accommodate old Aunt Flora and irascible Cousin John. Hence, manorial arrangements were family ventures and unbusinesslike from today’s perspective. They were only quasi-entrepreneurial. Moreover, their setting differed. There was virtually no competition, they were not linked into a global economy with all of the interlocking institutional and service support that implies, such as banking and investment, insurance, pricing system, etc., nor was there much mobility, due in great part to the primitive technology of transportation and communication.
Because of their more evolved nature and the fact that they operate in an altogether different environment, entrepreneurial communities anticipate and meet the needs of their tenants in ways the medieval manor could not have dreamed of. Although the arrangement of the land is the same, we make a fundamental mistake if we attempt to understand the whole of the entrepreneurial community in terms of the medieval manor or the tribal village.
I'd have much preferred the debate had been on whether "In a stateless society, the land arrangement that would predominate would be that of the entrepreneurial community." The debate could already be lost if the wording suggests or implies that statelessness must return us to primitive conditions. But I congratulate you mightily on the topic and look forward to participating in some good discussion.
Juan:What illiterate backwater do you come from Haha. Well, the joke just keeps on getting better.
Why don't you stop trolling and respond to the post you quoted?
nazgulnarsil:it's 11 paragraphs, barely a page and a half. What illiterate backwater do you come from where a brief outline of the points to be debated is a "3 page manifesto"? If anything I thought that the introductory remark was a bit brief.
Political Atheists Blog
I think Marko is overestimating how much people desire freedom. Many many people prefer the paternalism of a planned community.
OTOH it's true that the alternative to manorialism is simply that people with similar interests would tend to clump together and thus overcome many of the problems of random distribution. (Amish and Mormons for example)
So far, so good, lets see what this amount to in the next exchanges.
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
nazgulnarsil: I think Marko is overestimating how much people desire freedom. Many many people prefer the paternalism of a planned community. OTOH it's true that the alternative to manorialism is simply that people with similar interests would tend to clump together and thus overcome many of the problems of random distribution. (Amish and Mormons for example)
It basically comes down to the reality that people prefer to own rather than rent. This reality is true everywhere and historically true as well. To argue that most people in a free society will choose to rent over ownership is contrary to the entire human history.
Maxliberty:It basically comes down to the reality that people prefer to own rather than rent. This reality is true everywhere and historically true as well. To argue that most people in a free society will choose to rent over ownership is contrary to the entire human history.
Although history can show us how human action has occured in the past, it can't make a definite statement about how it will occur.
Schools are labour camps.
Looking at the historical record does no good. We can roughly estimate that because people won't want to pay rent if they can instead pay once for their own land UNLESS the land entrepreneur is able to provide special services that would make this kind of arrangement desirable.
Juan:History just illustrates the point that liberty minded people won't be as stupid as to put themselves at the mercy of 'contractual' feudal overlords. On the other hand, if you assume people are naturally collectvistic and sheep-like, then a free society is not a workable option. Either way things won't lead to contractual feudalism.
Who here is talking about feudalism? The debate is over whether or not entrepreneurs who homestead large areas of land will be able to provide superior services to those who come on to those lands and pay rent.
krazy kaju:Looking at the historical record does no good. We can roughly estimate that because people won't want to pay rent if they can instead pay once for their own land UNLESS the land entrepreneur is able to provide special services that would make this kind of arrangement desirable.
The fact of the matter is, renting is generally preferable for the short term, and buying is generally preferrable for the long term. To think that a majority of the population would want to rent for the long term is laughable. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that such is the case, not for any property one can buy, whether it is land, a home, a car, or even furniture.
spydnew:The fact of the matter is, renting is generally preferable for the short term, and buying is generally preferrable for the long term.
Spideynw:The fact of the matter is, renting is generally preferable for the short term, and buying is generally preferrable for the long term. To think that a majority of the population would want to rent for the long term is laughable. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that such is the case, not for any property one can buy, whether it is land, a home, a car, or even furniture.
Giles's point is that certain positive externalities would be internalized by manors. For example, parks could attract more people to the manor's land, bringing him greater revenue. Thus, a manorial system could be superior.
All in all, I still doubt that such a system of land arrangement would become dominant. I still think that the externalities that Giles mentions could be internalized by individual home owners in different ways, like homeowner associations buying land to create a park.
krazy kaju:We can roughly estimate that because people won't want to pay rent if they can instead pay once for their own land UNLESS the land entrepreneur is able to provide special services that would make this kind of arrangement desirable.
That's what's done with condos. But often, condo sellers don't pry into the private lives of potential buyers unless they look like the '"fly by night" sort. In fact, I'd argue that you'd want someone who isn't attached too much or a couple that's childless buying in over a couple already with a child for the simple fact that they have cash flow *now* to buy. Gay couples in this case have the cash flow to pony up for the price. That's why some folks don't mind gay couples, not just because of the cash flow, but also because they invest in their properties more so than not (physical improvements and maintenance are often paid for more so by gay couples). It's sorta of a queer version of gentrification.
krazy kaju:All in all, I still doubt that such a system of land arrangement would become dominant. I still think that the externalities that Giles mentions could be internalized by individual home owners in different ways, like homeowner associations buying land to create a park.
Exactly. I don't need to rent to hire people to maintain my land. I don't need to rent to have a swimming pool or a workout gym. And it is not necessarily desirable to have a shared swimming pool or workout gym. I also do not need to rent from a landowner to get a membership to a gym with all kinds of facilities. I just find the whole idea of manoralism laughable.
eliotn: Although history can show us how human action has occured in the past, it can't make a definite statement about how it will occur.
True there is no guarantee that past human actions will be identical in the future however doesn't it make sense to start with the basis of how humans are now at this moment in predicting how humans will be tomorrow and unless there is some major change in human biology tomorrow we should anticipate that human behavior will be the same tomorrow as it is today.
Maxliberty:True there is no guarantee that past human actions will be identical in the future however doesn't it make sense to start with the basis of how humans are now at this moment in predicting how humans will be tomorrow and unless there is some major change in human biology tomorrow we should anticipate that human behavior will be the same tomorrow as it is today.
It sounds reasonable to predict human behavior based on what has happened in the past, it just isn't definite knowledge until the future occurs. Would you agree with this?
krazy kaju: Looking at the historical record does no good. We can roughly estimate that because people won't want to pay rent if they can instead pay once for their own land UNLESS the land entrepreneur is able to provide special services that would make this kind of arrangement desirable.
What the historical record tells us is that in 10,000 years of human history people have preferred to own rather than rent. Why will that suddenly change? Examining history provides lots of examples for the type of manorial society Giles envisions to be created and yet in these times people preferred to own rather than rent. When analyzing human behaviour to ignore what human behaviour has typically occurred and is occurring right now is idiotic.
eliotn: It sounds reasonable to predict human behavior based on what has happened in the past, it just isn't definite knowledge until the future occurs. Would you agree with this?
Yes, I agree, in fact that is what I said. Obviously, there can be no definite knowledge of the future until it occurs. Would you also agree that if one is predicting the human behavior in the future that the most logical place to begin is where humans have and are currently faced with similar situations as to ones anticipated in the future? There have historically been and continue to be many opportunities where Giles possible theory could have occurred and yet people consistently have preferred ownership over renting. If people have historically rejected this option while will they accept the same option tomorrow?
Maxliberty:Would you also agree that if one is predicting the human behavior in the future that the most logical place to begin is where humans have and are currently faced with similar situations as to ones anticipated in the future?
That is one of the places I would start.
Maxliberty:If people have historically rejected this option while will they accept the same option tomorrow?
It is theoretically possible, but only if many people changed their prefrences. In order to show how his ideal society could occur, Giles must show why people would change their prefrences in this way, and have a logical basis for this prediction.
eliotn:That is one of the places I would start.
Where else would you start?
Maxliberty:Where else would you start?
I would also analyze the present culture, past culture, and the things that could change it in the future, when trying to predict the value judgements that most people will have in the future.
ladyattis: That's what's done with condos. But often, condo sellers don't pry into the private lives of potential buyers unless they look like the '"fly by night" sort. In fact, I'd argue that you'd want someone who isn't attached too much or a couple that's childless buying in over a couple already with a child for the simple fact that they have cash flow *now* to buy. Gay couples in this case have the cash flow to pony up for the price. That's why some folks don't mind gay couples, not just because of the cash flow, but also because they invest in their properties more so than not (physical improvements and maintenance are often paid for more so by gay couples). It's sorta of a queer version of gentrification.
I have a theory that people who get enough sex are better adjusted to society. most social ills can be traced to an angry undersexed male (politicians, rapists).
Maxliberty:What the historical record tells us is that in 10,000 years of human history people have preferred to own rather than rent. Why will that suddenly change? Examining history provides lots of examples for the type of manorial society Giles envisions to be created and yet in these times people preferred to own rather than rent. When analyzing human behaviour to ignore what human behaviour has typically occurred and is occurring right now is idiotic.
I'm making an epistemological point, not an ideological one. I've already said before that I doubt that manorialism would become dominant in anarchist society. The point I was making was that "the historical record" is an extremely shabby way to make an argument. Historicism only produces inductive arguments which are, by definition, always invalid. There is no such thing as a valid (or sound) inductive argument. Saying that in the past 10,000 years people have preferred to own over rent doesn't mean much. All that it means is that in the past 10,000 years something gave the incentive to people to own. It doesn't mean that in the next 10,000 years people will own or that people will want to own in an anarchist society.
As I said before, I doubt that manorialism would become dominant purely on a theoretical basis - there are multiple ways beside manorial planning to plan a society and there are other ways to capture externalities besides a manorial system. Because of this, people would likely choose to take the long-term cheaper route: ownership.
What you are arguing for is that cooperative ownership of an enterprise is more efficient than capitalistic ownership of an enterprise.
The results for land size are the same. Home owners pooling together to own land (makes no sense structurally since the land comes before the homes, but let's assume they do it anyway) makes them into a cooperative land estate that rents land to the home owners. It's no longer individual ownership.
Whether or not it's a manor (which I find to be a silly term for capitalist enterprise) or a cooperative, the land market operates at a minimal scale. Competition between capitalist ownership or cooperative ownership of land will produce the best outcomes.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Maxliberty: What the historical record tells us is that in 10,000 years of human history people have preferred to own rather than rent. Why will that suddenly change? Examining history provides lots of examples for the type of manorial society Giles envisions to be created and yet in these times people preferred to own rather than rent. When analyzing human behaviour to ignore what human behaviour has typically occurred and is occurring right now is idiotic.
The historical record is that people own buildings but rent land. The American experience has obfuscated this because government has pursued an egalitarian land distribution policy to promote small land holdings and the government has acted as a landlord collecting rents (property taxes).
Stranger: krazy kaju:All in all, I still doubt that such a system of land arrangement would become dominant. I still think that the externalities that Giles mentions could be internalized by individual home owners in different ways, like homeowner associations buying land to create a park. What you are arguing for is that cooperative ownership of an enterprise is more efficient than capitalistic ownership of an enterprise. The results for land size are the same. Home owners pooling together to own land (makes no sense structurally since the land comes before the homes, but let's assume they do it anyway) makes them into a cooperative land estate that rents land to the home owners. It's no longer individual ownership. Whether or not it's a manor (which I find to be a silly term for capitalist enterprise) or a cooperative, the land market operates at a minimal scale. Competition between capitalist ownership or cooperative ownership of land will produce the best outcomes.
If we look at the way that new land is homesteaded, it is usually homesteaded by separate individuals, not by one individual who then rents it out to others. It doesn't make sense for individuals to rent if they can instead own land. Taking this into account, new land would most likely be organized via homeowner associations when it is settled. Moreover, most land today is owned by separate individuals, and I doubt that they'd sell their land and housing to a "land entrepreneur" when they could instead capture externalities by using homeowner associations - many of which already exist.
krazy kaju: If we look at the way that new land is homesteaded, it is usually homesteaded by separate individuals, not by one individual who then rents it out to others. It doesn't make sense for individuals to rent if they can instead own land. Taking this into account, new land would most likely be organized via homeowner associations when it is settled.
If we look at the way that new land is homesteaded, it is usually homesteaded by separate individuals, not by one individual who then rents it out to others. It doesn't make sense for individuals to rent if they can instead own land. Taking this into account, new land would most likely be organized via homeowner associations when it is settled.
That doesn't make an iota of sense. You went from a world of independent land owners, which would merge and subdivide their properties to create an efficient structure of indepedent land ownership, to a world of a homeowner association with absolutely no process where land ownership is substituted for home ownership.
Moreover, most land today is owned by separate individuals, and I doubt that they'd sell their land and housing to a "land entrepreneur" when they could instead capture externalities by using homeowner associations - many of which already exist.
Since you don't seem to have any idea where homeowner associations originate, here is how today's homeowner associations exist. From a starting point of individual land ownership, the value of the land as a single enterprise falls below the value of the land for urbanization. A private developer buys the land in order to destroy the farm or whatever pastoral industry there is on it and instead subdivide it into urban plots. When the government services were able to take over the management of the future neighborhood, the developers did not bother with creating an association. The streets and common structures instead went into public ownership while the developer sold the plots with or without buildings on them. However because government has become unreliable to protect the value of the neighborhood, developers are drafting up homeowner associations in which those who purchase lots are bound by contract to belong to. In fact because the management of the association is allocated based on the number of building lots, and those remain the property of the developer until the project has been completed, the HOA is nothing more than an arm of the developer until all lots have been sold.
How is that different from "manoralism" or "enterprise-community"?
Spideynw: krazy kaju:Looking at the historical record does no good. We can roughly estimate that because people won't want to pay rent if they can instead pay once for their own land UNLESS the land entrepreneur is able to provide special services that would make this kind of arrangement desirable. The fact of the matter is, renting is generally preferable for the short term, and buying is generally preferrable for the long term. To think that a majority of the population would want to rent for the long term is laughable. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that such is the case, not for any property one can buy, whether it is land, a home, a car, or even furniture.
AFAIK, Romans love and want to own land. That's evidence in your favor, Spideynw.
http://libregamewiki.org - The world's only encyclopedia on free(as in freedom) gaming.
krazy kaju:Saying that in the past 10,000 years people have preferred to own over rent doesn't mean much. All that it means is that in the past 10,000 years something gave the incentive to people to own. It doesn't mean that in the next 10,000 years people will own or that people will want to own in an anarchist society.
Yes, in the study of human bahavior actually looking at human behavior in the present and the past is a complete waste of time. Much better to do what you are attempting and just blindly extrapolate from nothing.
If human behavior can be predicted then human behavior in similar or identical situations to the predictions is completely relevant. Giles proposal has had 10,000 years of testing and it has failed. It is not a theoretical discussion.
Stranger: The historical record is that people own buildings but rent land. The American experience has obfuscated this because government has pursued an egalitarian land distribution policy to promote small land holdings and the government has acted as a landlord collecting rents (property taxes).
False, one could make a reasonable case that the entire human history is in large part a search and struggle for individual land ownership. The notion that America is unique in desire for individual land ownership is ridiculous.