Which of these (if any) was unjust:
Drilling the oil beneath the school
Blocking out the sun
Attempting to steal candy from a baby
Maybe I'm confused, but I don't understand why the first would be bad. The third is mean, but the second will kill the baby.
blocking the sun is pretty bad... that'll kill us
My Blog: http://www.anarchico.net/
Production is 'anarchistic' - Ludwig von Mises
That was theft, since the school had already found and claimed the oil beneath its land. ( I am a Simpsons nerd. :( )
Of course the school itself is an institution founded on theft to begin with, a great deal of which would have been from Mr Burns, assuming his mansion is zoned for Springfield Elementary. :p He could claim it was restitution.
Knowlingly causing damage to property and human life/health is surely wrong.
Obviously robbery. That didn't turn out so well for him, though, did it? Maggie exercised her 2nd Amendment rights...
What about when Mr Burns stole and kept out of circulation the Trillion Dollar Bill printed by Truman, or whoever, to pay for his Marshall Plan? That redeems a lot of his evil in my book. :p
That was theft, since the school had already found and claimed the oil beneath its land.
Can you really claim oil to yourself without drilling it, though?
Drlling the oil beneath the school (by the way I found hilarious how the public school started spending like crazy even before the first drop of oil had been sold) was an example of "tragedy of the commons": since the ground on which the school is built is "public" everybody could have drilled into it for oil.
Blocking out the sun clearly violated the rights of the Springfield residents, since they were clearly harmed and no steps were taken into either obtaining their consent or compensating them.
Attempting to steal candy from a baby... well that's attempt theft and that's always bad since Maggie was clearly the owner of the candy and her property rights were being violated. Mind that she didn't just stand there and took it but she legitimately defended herself and her property. In some European countries she could have been persecuted for "excessive legitimate defense"!
Happy new year to you all!
Not trying to troll, honestly want to know answers:
"That was theft, since the school had already found and claimed the oil beneath its land."
What does this claim entail? Does finding the oil first mean one can justly exclude all others from its extraction? By taking a drop of oil do I have a claim to all the oil to which it was connected? By taking a clod of earth do I have a claim to all the earth to which it was connected?
"Knowlingly causing damage to property and human life/health is surely wrong."
What damage did he cause? All he did was build a large piece of metal in the sky - did anyone previously own the sky in which he build this? If so, why?
"Can you really claim oil to yourself without drilling it, though?"
Can you claim it all for yourself even if you have drilled it?
"an example of "tragedy of the commons": since the ground on which the school is built is "public" everybody could have drilled into it for oil."
If it wasn't public, would the school have the sole right of drilling? If the whole world were oil, and I was the first to extract 1 drop, would it be just for me to exclude all others from drilling oil?
"Blocking out the sun clearly violated the rights of the Springfield residents"
What rights did it violate?
As for stealing the candy - that was certainly unjust.
What makes the second wrong? You surely have never touched the sun to homestead it.
scineram: What makes the second wrong? You surely have never touched the sun to homestead it.
True, but neither had Mr. Burns. Can he take from another that which isn't even his to legally take in the first place?
Why could he not homestead unowned resources? You have no title, why can he not establish one for himself?
Right, but he didn't exactly "touch" the sun anymore than anyone else. He just built a big metal disk to block it. Does building the disk act as homesteading the sunlight? If so, does that mean he only owns just as much sunlight as his contraption can block?
scineram: What makes the second wrong?
What makes the second wrong?
We know that blocking out the sun would destroy us. And we don't want to get destroyed. So we call it "wrong", and hope that enough people jump on board to calm our fears. If everybody thinks that doing that would be "wrong", then we don't have anything to worry about. Or, if it's only most people that believe that it would be "wrong", then we'll be a strong majority!
Or, to be more charitable, we know that blocking out the sun would ruin us; and we don't want to get ruined; so we threaten to punish anybody who tries to do it, which is what being (morally) "wrong" is short-hand for, at least in ordinary discussions.
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
I. Ryan:If everybody thinks that doing that would be "wrong", then we don't have anything to worry about. Or, if it's only most people that believe that it would be "wrong", then we'll be a strong majority!
Pretty democratic of you. That's how minimum wage laws work, too, I think.
z1235: Pretty democratic of you.
Pretty democratic of you.
Doesn't being a democracy include having formal voting?
z1235: That's how minimum wage laws work, too, I think.
That's how minimum wage laws work, too, I think.
Can you explain?
I. Ryan: Tyranny of the masses. The majority might think that the minimum wage is "good" and abolishing it is "wrong" but that doesn't necessarily make it so. It's good for the people who benefit and bad for the people who get priced out of a job, which begs whether there is indeed a definitive quality to the law or if it's entirely subjective. Being curious creatures by nature, I don't know if it's possible to keep people from sticking their nose in other people's business (I know sometimes I can't resist the urge), but there are dangers to exending this quality un-impeeded into the democratic realm.
Agamentus: Tyranny of the masses.
Tyranny of the masses.
Society itself is simply a certain kind of "tyranny of the masses".
Agamentus: The majority might think that the minimum wage is "good" and abolishing it is "wrong" but that doesn't necessarily make it so.
The majority might think that the minimum wage is "good" and abolishing it is "wrong" but that doesn't necessarily make it so.
I'm aware of that; but I'm pretty sure that I'm right about the sun thing.
Agamentus: It's good for the people who benefit and bad for the people who get priced out of a job, which begs whether there is indeed a definitive quality to the law or if it's entirely subjective.
It's good for the people who benefit and bad for the people who get priced out of a job, which begs whether there is indeed a definitive quality to the law or if it's entirely subjective.
Of course it's entirely subjective; but its beauty reveals itself when we consider the harmony of interests between the social people.
Agamentus: Being curious creatures by nature, I don't know if it's possible to keep people from sticking their nose in other people's business (I know sometimes I can't resist the urge), but there are dangers to exending this quality un-impeeded into the democratic realm.
Being curious creatures by nature, I don't know if it's possible to keep people from sticking their nose in other people's business (I know sometimes I can't resist the urge), but there are dangers to exending this quality un-impeeded into the democratic realm.
Can you elaborate?
(I'm not sure where you're trying to go with that.)
I. Ryan: Can you elaborate?
Sure - What I was trying to say, with the example of minimum wage, is that people would notice that there was a group of individuals who made a comparatively pitiful wage, and if they felt a strong moral misgiving with it, they'd probably be inclined to make government do something about it. Ergo - Minimum Wage Laws.
Humans are curious creatures, but this doesn't necessarily make them smart. I agree with you on the topic of the sun and Mr. Burn's contraption, but as history has demonstrated far too many times, I'm just very wary of the "harmony of interests between the social people" when they all too often decide to act on something they don't like before fully understanding the root(s) of the problem.
Touching isn't required; use of the sun is what's required, and everyone uses the sun. Indeed the sun is often a factor of production to many people all over the world (farming, solar power, drying wet clothes, etc.).
If previous use of photons entitles you to future use of such, doesn't previous use of crude oil molecules entitle you to future use of such, as well? Apples, too?
I'm not really sure what you're saying. If you use photons continuously in production and someone comes along and prevents you from using them, it would seem to me that their action is illegitimate.
I, Ryan - I think you are correct in terms of what people would think is morally wrong, but my question was this (I should have specified): is the use of force against Burns and/or his metal disk justified? For those who hold the NAP, how does Burns' sun-blocker fit into this? Perhaps I can offer somewhat of a solution:
It seems to me that Burns technically did not commit any act of aggression in blocking out the sun. As z1235 implied, previous use of the product of the sun does not mean that one has any claim of the sun or its future product. David Sherin, you miss that the users of these photons did not produce either the photons or the sun, and had no hand at all in their production. They simply fell from the sky, and I can't see how you have a claim to the future photons just because you caught some other, similar, photons in the past.
But if Burns did not commit any aggression, what just recourse would be left to the people of Springfield (assuming they remain in the town)? To me this looks like it could be a case where competition and ostracism come into play. You'll recall that Burns created the sun-blocker so that there would be a greater scarcity of light etc., which he could supply to the Springfieldians at a cost. Now, assuming that both Burns and the people of Springfield continue to act without aggression, it seems unlikely that the latter would simply play along with Burns' plan, since they were so outraged at his actions. Rather, Burns' terrible publicity would shift the consumer's spending away from Burns and to other energy providers. In an environment with such a demand for light, Burns' desired monopoly could not possibly come about (assuming no aggression), since competitors would be able to undercut him. Thus with awful publicity and new competitors, Burns would probably be better off not building the sun-blocker at all, since the clean name of his rivals would mean that they would have to offer less to the consumer in order to make the same profit as Burns (if indeed the latter could still do enough business to survive).
Now of course if Burns did use aggression to attain a monoply position it would be an entirely different issue, and the use of force against him would be justified.
Walter Block:One way to obviate it would be to conjure up a case where this threat was anticipated. Suppose you owned some (non-ex agricultural) city property, and wanted to benefit23 from the sunlight and rain. How could you preclude the construction of the "umbrella" which would block out the sun and rain for yourself, and cooperatively, with and for your surrounding neighbors? One possibility would be to erect a very large tower, or even a stick, so high that it would render practically impossible the placing of a tarpaulin over the city24. What steps might be taken by your opponent in these very hypothetical circumstances? Well, he could25 build his umbrella with a hole in it to accommodate your stick. It would be a strange looking umbrella, but it might well still function so as to achieve its task: blocking out the sunlight and rain, and thus supporting Tullock's objection to building bridges over private highways without their owner's permission. Suppose that there were not one but several (dozens?) of large poles erected in the city, with the sole purpose of obviating the tarp monster. This would not entirely succeed, since even with an umbrella which resembled a swiss cheese, enough harm might still be done to the inhabitants of the city to render Tullock's objection a powerful one. But the defense is not without one at least one more reply. Instead of stationary sticks, it could construct them so as to rotate at the top. If so, and again on the assumption that equal technology mandates equal heights for the stick(s) and the tarp, this would not entirely reduce the offense to a rubble. It would all depend on how big the holes were in the swiss cheese relative to its total area, and whether such a "swiss" cheese could still be supported, and how much damage to the inhabitants below it would be capable of rendering
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Instead of stationary sticks, it could construct them so as to rotate at the top.
How is this in any way a more 'efficient' means for the city (toward their 'no tarp' end) then summoning a posse of potentially affected dwellers and beating the tarp-builder into a pulp in some dark alley?
Z.
Because there are no rights violations when one builds a rotating pole into the air. I could be wrong... might it he more efficient for me to rally up a posse to beat you rather than debate you?
Seriously, which arbitrator -- who would presumably want to continue doing business in same city -- would judge such action to be aggressive versus merely defensive? Profit and efficiency incentives obviously point to this being the most likely outcome.
I get it. You aren't libertarian. Ok.
The "no true scottsman" fallacy is not an argument, nor a refutation of one. It certainly gets used on this site a lot, like it is. But it's not.
It's a bad argument anyway. If you went to a private court and it ruled in the townsfolk's favor, who are you to say that Mr Burns was the defensive one? I see not how his question was "unlibertarian" at all.
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
He only cares about efficiency, he gives not a fig for peoples rights. He is unmoved by questions of justifiabilty and legality. This is me just recognizing him. His idea of efficiency is no doubt divorced from Austrian notions of subjective value, and the efficiency incentivising of the market process under minimal rights violation. He signals an objective neo- classical mixed with common sense thymological view of efficiency I merely recognise the gap in our perspectives that will keep agreement between us at bay. No true Scotsman has nothing to do with it
What if the people in the city cannot afford to build obstructions to the incoming umbrella?
The umbrella gets built?
What happens when people can't afford to live in large houses? I think they live in small houses ...
I. Ryan: Tyranny of the masses.
No, no this is a good grasp of a homesteading principle. If you think you can profit socially off of something that will destroy millions upon millions of people due to the protection of some law, you're simply delusional or too stupid to survive. You have to be acting within the scope and context that society will allow to in order to achieve a profit or exploit a resource, otherwise the land is not being used correctly and your own judgements failed you. Most if not all people simply don't have nor ever will have the power to "blot out the sun" in a profitable manner.
"David Sherin, you miss that the users of these photons did not produce either the photons or the sun, and had no hand at all in their production. They simply fell from the sky, and I can't see how you have a claim to the future photons just because you caught some other, similar, photons in the past."
They don't need to create the photons to make use of them (an oil company doesn't create the oil it drills for). The question comes down to who has a more legitimate use of the photons: someone who has been making use of them, or someone who comes along and tries to prevent other people, who have been making use of them, from using them? Essentially what you're homesteading is a relatively unobstructed view of the sun over a certain area of land. If you're a farmer requiring 40 acres and you legitimately homestead that land, anyone who attempts to block the sun over your land is infringing on your rights.
nirgrahamUK:He is unmoved by questions of justifiabilty and legality.
Quite the contrary. I was moved enough by justifiability and legality to take the case to a local arbitrator. Was my description of everyone's incentives (thus likely actions) in this scenario wrong? Finally, which is more Austrian: to let the market reflect the subjective valuations (and incentives) of its participants or to let Walter Block 'objectively' determine 'good' and 'evil'?
David Sherin:Essentially what you're homesteading is a relatively unobstructed view of the sun over a certain area of land.
Can I also legitimately stop you from building a barn on your plot next to mine, if it would obstruct my 'homesteaded' view of the forest behind it?
I would suggest Chapter 6 of Boundaries of Order for questions like this.
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
"They don't need to create the photons to make use of them (an oil company doesn't create the oil it drills for)."
I should have said production and/or extraction etc. In any case it must have been clear to you that the sun does not need human activity in order to shine upon earth (not so for oil extraction etc.).
"The question comes down to who has a more legitimate use of the photons: someone who has been making use of them, or someone who comes along and tries to prevent other people, who have been making use of them, from using them? Essentially what you're homesteading is a relatively unobstructed view of the sun over a certain area of land. If you're a farmer requiring 40 acres and you legitimately homestead that land, anyone who attempts to block the sun over your land is infringing on your rights."
Wait, so which is it:
a) Mr. Simpson has made use of certain photons and has therefore homesteaded those particular photons and no others.
b) Mr. Simpson has made use of certain photons and has therefore homesteaded ALL photons which come from the same origin (i.e. above his property on the ground).
c) Mr. Simpson has looked at the sun, and has therefore homesteaded that particular view of the sun.
If any of these is correct, explain to me how the object in question is homesteaded.
"I would suggest Chapter 6 of Boundaries of Order for questions like this."
What particular part of that chapter? I read it but didn't find an answer.
I'm pretty sure a view per se isn't something that can be homesteaded. An unobstructed view of the sun however is something that can be used as a factor of production, so it isn't the view for the sake of a view that you care about. If the barn cast a shadow big enough to affect crops you had planted, then it would be illegitimate.
"I should have said production and/or extraction etc. In any case it must have been clear to you that the sun does not need human activity in order to shine upon earth (not so for oil extraction etc.)."
It depends how you define extraction. The only way to make use of those photons in the case of the farmer is to plant crops. Crops planted by the farmer taking in light from the air are "extracting" (and in the same step, the light gets incorporated into the farmer's production process). Most things we make use of in nature are given to us and we have to transform them into something more useful to us. But these things that exist in nature don't require human activity to exist. And all these things from nature require some form of human activity to be homesteaded.
"Wait, so which is it:
If any of these is correct, explain to me how the object in question is homesteaded."
I'm not familiar with the Simpson's episode so I can't really tell how the townspeople may or may not have homesteaded a right to an unobstructed sky. But as a disclaimer, I can't give you an answer for every little possible scenario that might exist. I'm just throwing in my 2 cents.
"The only way to make use of those photons in the case of the farmer is to plant crops."
What about sunbathing?
But anyway: Imagine it was raining donuts and you sat on the ground and caught them as they fell from the sky (the origin is unknown). Now let's say someone taller than you came along and held a basket above you, thereby catching the newly falling donuts. You have the donuts you caught before, and he has the donuts he caught after placing his basket there. Do you have a rightful claim on his donuts purely because you caught the donuts that fell before them?
"I'm not familiar with the Simpson's episode"
I was just using the name as an example since you seemed to be switching between arguments and I wanted to know which one you thought was the correct one.
What about a guy that invents a gigantic vacuum cleaner to suck all of the air out of the earth's atmosphere? Have we all homesteaded oxygen or would he be perfectly within his rights to do so?