How is economics relevant to the progression of all matter in the universe? Say you figured out how to "own" all of the matter in the universe, where do you go from there?
TelfordUS: How is economics relevant to the progression of all matter in the universe? Say you figured out how to "own" all of the matter in the universe, where do you go from there?
It is not possible to own all of the matter in the universe because self-ownership is unalienable, thus, you cannot own other humans.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Daniel Muffinburg: It is not possible to own all of the matter in the universe because self-ownership is unalienable, thus, you cannot own other humans.
Not if all "other humans" are dead.
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
Daniel Muffinburg: TelfordUS: How is economics relevant to the progression of all matter in the universe? Say you figured out how to "own" all of the matter in the universe, where do you go from there? It is not possible to own all of the matter in the universe because self-ownership is unalienable, thus, you cannot own other humans.
Not if self-ownership is given up (i.e: Death; loss of the decision process)
Besides, I can own their bodies (matter) even if i can't own their thought process (intangible potential energy)
I. Ryan: Daniel Muffinburg: It is not possible to own all of the matter in the universe because self-ownership is unalienable, thus, you cannot own other humans. Not if all "other humans" are dead.
I know.
TelfordUS: Daniel Muffinburg: TelfordUS: How is economics relevant to the progression of all matter in the universe? Say you figured out how to "own" all of the matter in the universe, where do you go from there? It is not possible to own all of the matter in the universe because self-ownership is unalienable, thus, you cannot own other humans. Not if self-ownership is given up (i.e: Death; loss of the decision process) Besides, I can own their bodies (matter) even if i can't own their thought process (intangible potential energy)
Since we're suppossing ridiculous scenarios, I suppose you have a point.
The only economics that would apply then would be temporal - in other words, how do you value the use of your own time? Since the renewal rate for all other resources is faster than you can use them up then they are, in practice, infinite - and thus, not scarce.
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. -- River Tam
I aim to misbehave. -- Malcolm Reynolds
Aster_Lacnala: The only economics that would apply then would be temporal - in other words, how do you value the use of your own time? Since the renewal rate for all other resources is faster than you can use them up then they are, in practice, infinite - and thus, not scarce.
Is all the matter in the universe finite, or is there a continuous creation of matter?
Without human action, there is no economics.
Matter and resources aren't the same thing. The amount of matter is finite, but we don't "use up" matter when we use a resource. We simply change the form of it. A resource is a specific configuration of matter. Since there is no reason to believe the processes that brought about the current configurations will stop just because there is only one person left, then you can assume that eventually any resource you change the form of will be renewed.
Aster_Lacnala: Matter and resources aren't the same thing. The amount of matter is finite, but we don't "use up" matter when we use a resource. We simply change the form of it. A resource is a specific configuration of matter. Since there is no reason to believe the processes that brought about the current configurations will stop just because there is only one person left, then you can assume that eventually any resource you change the form of will be renewed.
I know I know I know. But say I owned all the matter that exist this instance, will there be more matter created in the universe tomorrow?
Giant_Joe: Without human action, there is no economics.
Not if you include aliens.
But would you agree that economics without human action is just physics?
TelfordUS: Giant_Joe: Without human action, there is no economics. Not if you include aliens. But would you agree that economics without human action is just physics?
That's like asking what chemistry is without chemicals. What are you trying to get at?
If we are going on the premise that someone owns all matter, then we have at least and at most (exactly) one person - be it human, alien, whatever.
Will more matter be created? There's no telling. I suppose that depends on the theory you adopt. As a Christian, I would say that for God to fulfil the promises He has made there has to be more than one person. So He might make more... in which case you no longer own all the matter. But would He take the matter you do own and reform it to make more people, or would He simply create more matter? That's a choice we can't predict. Some version of this would probably hold for any theistic religion.
OTOH, if you are a deist, and God, of the sort the Bible describes, doesn't exist - instead He is simply a creator, and then doesn't touch the creation, then there would be no change in the universe. Here we can certainly say no new matter will be created.
Lastly, if the atheists are correct, and there is no personal God (ie, everything is natural forces) then there is the question of what nature those forces take, and how broad you are defining 'universe'. If you don't adopt multiverse theory, and the universe is singular, then the initial event which created the universe may or may not happen again, so there is simply no telling. OTOH, if multiverse theory is true, then new universes - new matter - is always created... but you don't own it, because you only own this universe. If you expand your scenario to say you own the whole multiverse, though, then under this scenario, yes, new matter would be created, and it is entirely possible (and likely) new people would be as well, eventually. Probably after you die, though.
Aster_Lacnala: Lastly, if the atheists are correct, and there is no personal God (ie, everything is natural forces) then there is the question of what nature those forces take, and how broad you are defining 'universe'. If you don't adopt multiverse theory, and the universe is singular, then the initial event which created the universe may or may not happen again, so there is simply no telling. OTOH, if multiverse theory is true, then new universes - new matter - is always created... but you don't own it, because you only own this universe. If you expand your scenario to say you own the whole multiverse, though, then under this scenario, yes, new matter would be created, and it is entirely possible (and likely) new people would be as well, eventually. Probably after you die, though.
That doesn't necessarily mean matter is always created in different universes of the multiverse. They are just probabilities of our universe, what could've happened instead of what has happened here.
But if you did have all the matter in the universe at your disposal, would that make you God? Does control over matter make you a God, or does it require you to create matter?
I suppose that would depend on your definition of God. By my definition, even creating matter doesn't make you God. But owning all the matter in the universe and controlling it are two different things. Control implies taking action upon something, which requires a given level of technology. But you can homestead something without the technology to control it. For example, I don't have the technology - or even an idea of how to build it - to create a scoop to harvest matter from a sun. But I can conceive of a way to homestead it, by building a sphere of solar panels around it and harvesting all the energy it produces.
Aster_Lacnala: I suppose that would depend on your definition of God. By my definition, even creating matter doesn't make you God. But owning all the matter in the universe and controlling it are two different things. Control implies taking action upon something, which requires a given level of technology. But you can homestead something without the technology to control it. For example, I don't have the technology - or even an idea of how to build it - to create a scoop to harvest matter from a sun. But I can conceive of a way to homestead it, by building a sphere of solar panels around it and harvesting all the energy it produces.
A good point. My view of God is similar to a Sims World player; you don't control the minds of your people, but you can giveth and taketh and create and destroy their world.
As an addendum to this discussion...
Suppose you owned all matter that actually existed except for that constituting other people's bodies. If you have the right to evict people from your property, can you evict those you don't own? Where would they go? If they refuse to leave your property, do you have the right to defend your property by force?
"where do you go from there"
Jokes aside, the real question is where do you go from here. We are either dead or so incalculatedly depended upon you that you can deem us slaves.
I guess the question could be, granting that we are still alive, do we own something that you want i.e. are free will to love you or cherish you, etc. Think of yourself like a god wanting something of free will to love it. The free will is the only thing that is inalienable, or that we own, thus we may trade for it (economics still apply).
It also may be true that you own all matter but don’t have the facilities to transform it (say to cultivate beautiful roses) and thus we may again trade services. Though the latter, it could be assumed that you force us—yet still, you would be unaware of the our abilities
Read until you have something to write...Write until you have nothing to write...when you have nothing to write, read...read until you have something to write...Jeremiah
Aster_Lacnala: As an addendum to this discussion... Suppose you owned all matter that actually existed except for that constituting other people's bodies. If you have the right to evict people from your property, can you evict those you don't own? Where would they go? If they refuse to leave your property, do you have the right to defend your property by force?
I suppose evicting wouldn't be a word within your vocabulary, given that it is absurd to believe you can evict someone to somewhere if you own all the somewheres. Maybe replace it with transfer?
Jeremiah Dyke: "where do you go from there" Jokes aside, the real question is where do you go from here. We are either dead or so incalculatedly depended upon you that you can deem us slaves. I guess the question could be, granting that we are still alive, do we own something that you want i.e. are free will to love you or cherish you, etc. Think of yourself like a god wanting something of free will to love it. The free will is the only thing that is inalienable, or that we own, thus we may trade for it (economics still apply). It also may be true that you own all matter but don’t have the facilities to transform it (say to cultivate beautiful roses) and thus we may again trade services. Though the latter, it could be assumed that you force us—yet still, you would be unaware of the our abilities
If i can't own everyone's free will, then i would trade their free will with renting some of my matter (you can live on my farm if you only think about plowing fields, etc).
But my point is that anarcho-capitalist centers around one's free will and their personal gain through action and interaction, but the actual wealth of matter does not include the potential energy of someone else's thought. How could I efficiently obtain free will, given that I "own" and can exploit all matter to my needs?
I'm not sure that this is possible. Even if you contracted someone's free will, how would you enforce it if they broke the contract?
As far as my scenario goes, it is not my concern that they have nowhere to go. I'm not evicting them somewhere, I'm simply evicting them. Where they choose to go is not my concern, so long as it isn't on my property. If they remain on my property, I can legally use force against them, as they are trespassing.
Aster_Lacnala: I'm not sure that this is possible. Even if you contracted someone's free will, how would you enforce it if they broke the contract? As far as my scenario goes, it is not my concern that they have nowhere to go. I'm not evicting them somewhere, I'm simply evicting them. Where they choose to go is not my concern, so long as it isn't on my property. If they remain on my property, I can legally use force against them, as they are trespassing.
But if you own everything in existence, isn't the universe your "property"? If they leave one area of your property and reside in another area, that's just transferring. In this case, if you were to evict this person, he'd be floating in space with no possessions.
Exactly. It is death by vacuum or death by me.
Aster_Lacnala: Exactly. It is death by vacuum or death by me.
Is that a "godly" ultimatum?
Aster_Lacnala:Exactly. It is death by vacuum or death by me.
No, that is the only legal options if I a) owned all matter except them in the universe and b) chose to evict them from my property.
Aster_Lacnala:No, that is the only legal options if I a) owned all matter except them in the universe and b) chose to evict them from my property.
You cant own it all, an embargo is an act of war. You must allow for passage in designated areas.
Is that a positive obligation?
Aster_Lacnala: Is that a positive obligation?
Winner!
Aster_Lacnala:Is that a positive obligation?
Perhaps, but perhaps you could take the negative stance that you aren't going to shoot people that cross your grass? That seems way more dangerous to me than making a fenced alley way.
Truthfully?
IF there are no positive obligations and...
IF you are allowed to deny access to your property, whether it be your lawn or the universe and...
IF you are allowed to use force to counter someone else's initiation of force, such as trespassing...
THEN there is nothing illegal about shooting someone who happens to step onto your lawn.
To say you have to give them time to comply, or an adequate warning, or whatever, is to say a positive obligation exists. Now, I happen to believe this, but I think positive rights exist. Anybody who doesn't, however, cannot hold that it is illegal to use lethal force immediately on trespassers.
However, I don't wish to debate the issue of positive rights here - I already derailed the thread enough. ;)
Aster_Lacnala: Truthfully? IF there are no positive obligations and... IF you are allowed to deny access to your property, whether it be your lawn or the universe and... IF you are allowed to use force to counter someone else's initiation of force, such as trespassing... THEN there is nothing illegal about shooting someone who happens to step onto your lawn. To say you have to give them time to comply, or an adequate warning, or whatever, is to say a positive obligation exists. Now, I happen to believe this, but I think positive rights exist. Anybody who doesn't, however, cannot hold that it is illegal to use lethal force immediately on trespassers. However, I don't wish to debate the issue of positive rights here - I already derailed the thread enough. ;)
When one creates an embargo you initiate aggression.
This is not an embargo. I'm not refusing to trade with them. I'm simply refusing to let them trespass.
Moreover, an embargo is not initiation of aggression. A blockade might be, but not an embargo.
Aster_Lacnala: This is not an embargo. I'm not refusing to trade with them. I'm simply refusing to let them trespass. Moreover, an embargo is not initiation of aggression. A blockade might be, but not an embargo.
I agree, embargoes don't seem aggressive... but what if your embargo included basic necessities like food or water and you were the only supplier?
An embargo is not simply disallowing trade from you, its disallowing by force others from trading. If you were asleep and that night all your neighbors sold their houses and the government sold the square of road in front of your house and they erected a 200 foot tall electrified fence around your house, my claim is this is initiation of aggression.
Well, if you define an embargo as using force to prevent others from trading, then of course an embargo is an initiation of force. You just defined it that way. However, that definition is debatable. Further, I would not say that refusal to allow someone on your property is an embargo, since you aren't stopping them from trading their property with others - you simply aren't allowing them access to your own.
Now, I have already said in another thread that I don't consider it inherently immoral to violate someone else's rights, and I think there are moral arguments in favor of trespassing when one has been completely blocked off like this. But I don't see it as initiation of aggression to keep people off your property. And in the situation we are describing, under a law system that bases all legal decisions on property rights, it would be legal to evict people into space.
Of course its not immoral you've defined it that way. I'm right your wrong. Is that an accurate summary?
You misread me. I am saying that in a legal system based on the NAP, refusal to allow someone on your property, even if it entraps them, is not illegal, because is not initiation of aggression. It is, however, immoral. In this case, trespass is illegal, but it is not immoral. It is not always immoral to initiate aggression.
However, since people seem to think morality is subjective, this whole thread looks only at the legality of things under the NAP. Therefore, in the situation I described, the only legal option is death by vacuum.
Aster_Lacnala: You misread me. I am saying that in a legal system based on the NAP, refusal to allow someone on your property, even if it entraps them, is not illegal, because is not initiation of aggression. It is, however, immoral. In this case, trespass is illegal, but it is not immoral. It is not always immoral to initiate aggression. However, since people seem to think morality is subjective, this whole thread looks only at the legality of things under the NAP. Therefore, in the situation I described, the only legal option is death by vacuum.
And my contention was that entrapment by property is initiation of aggression.