I went Wiki.
Property is any physical or virtual entity that is owned by an individual. An owner of property has the right to consume, sell, mortgage, transfer and exchange his or her property. Important types of property include real property (land), personal property (other physical possessions), and arguably intellectual property (rights over artistic creations, inventions, etc.). A title, or a right of ownership, is associated with property that establishes the relation between the goods/services and other individuals or groups, assuring the owner the right to dispense with the property in a manner he or she sees fit. Some philosophers assert that property rights arise from social convention. Others find origins for them in morality or natural law .
Ok , so we need ownership.
Ownership is the state or fact of exclusive rights and control over property, which may be an object, land/real estate, intellectual property (arguably) or some other kind of property. It is embodied in an ownership right also referred to as title.
Ownership is the key building block in the development of the capitalist socio-economic system. The concept of ownership has existed for thousands of years and in all cultures. Over the millennia, however, and across cultures what is considered eligible to be property and how that property is regarded culturally is very different. Ownership is the basis for many other concepts that form the foundations of ancient and modern societies such as money, trade, debt, bankruptcy, the criminality of theft and private vs. public property.
The process and mechanics of ownership are fairly complex since one can gain, transfer and lose ownership of property in a number of ways. To acquire property one can purchase it with money, trade it for other property, receive it as a gift, steal it, find it, make it or homestead it. One can transfer or lose ownership of property by selling it for money, exchanging it for other property, giving it as a gift, being robbed of it, misplacing it, or having it stripped from one's ownership through legal means such as eviction, foreclosure and seizure. Ownership is self-propagating in that if an object is owned by someone, any additional goods produced by using that object will also be owned by the same person.
Sounds good,but how about wardsip? CEO, for an example can use the property without owning such.
"We are nothing. Mankind is all. By the grace of our brothers are we allowed our lives. We exist through, by and for our brothers who are the State. Amen."
Isn't that handled via the agent-principle theory? CEOs are delegated the right to control the assets of the shareholders, though like any other employee they can be fired at will. Not sure how the current system works, though.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
What I had in mind is non-coersive (non-fiscal that is) ways to fund the public sector. Why can't goverment own things thru blind trust, and get it's budget the way any holding corporation does?
Jonatan K: What I had in mind is non-coersive (non-fiscal that is) ways to fund the public sector.
What I had in mind is non-coersive (non-fiscal that is) ways to fund the public sector.
Charity is the only method I am aware of.
Jonatan K: Why can't goverment own things thru blind trust, and get it's budget the way any holding corporation does?
Why can't goverment own things thru blind trust, and get it's budget the way any holding corporation does?
Government is not a corporation with shareholders. A citizen cannot liquidate his ownership stake in the state and join another government.
It is not indeed. Yet if you look at earlier states, you clearly find that the King had finances of his own, thoroughly mixed with taxes, yet defently owned by the King. Now, as goverment went democratic, creating the "state are us" fallacy Rothbard speaks of in his "What is State", owneship of property by goverment became equal to nepotism of some sort.
I thought that there was somthing positive in prevoius model, in which the King ( the goverment) was semi-self sustainable. Should all public sector act loke M. Bloomberg, the tariffs and taxes could be cut tremendously
It's "Anatomy of the State" of course.
You're going in circles.
Why do we have a state? I presume you feel it is necessary to have a state to.... maintain the monopoly on justice, creation, enforcement and interpretation?
If so, why would we want that entity to also be a market actor competing against businesses that do not have a monopoly on justice, but are rather subservient to the state?
Take a simple example my friend Mike used.
The Penalty is always Death
So let's go to about halfway through the post where he has a hyperbolic example of a vendor named Bob the state eventually kills because it changed the rules on how he could do business.
In your scenario, since the state would have a profit motive in order to grow (because it has to grow itself through commercial activity), and the state can fix weights and measures, regulatory costs, tax rates, fees, give grants etc it would have to either lose in the free market (and maintain justice above itself) or succeed in the free market by subverting justice.
I'm not sure where you are coming from in particular, but many of us have come to the conclusion that the state is not desirable. And hence, a state that is independent of taxes (and thus, eventually, independent of democracy - ie. who cares how the people vote, we can still pay ourselves and do what we want) is even worse.
Kings only got away with what they did because of the notion of Divine Right. That the King was morally and spiritually above all others. Once divine right was debunked, he just because a dictator.
Out of curiosity, why do you want to keep the state? Do you feel there is some aspect of it's operations which could not be provided in the free market?
liberty student: You're going in circles. Why do we have a state? I presume you feel it is necessary to have a state to.... maintain the monopoly on justice, creation, enforcement and interpretation?
liberty student: I'm not sure where you are coming from in particular, but many of us have come to the conclusion that the state is not desirable.
I'm not sure where you are coming from in particular, but many of us have come to the conclusion that the state is not desirable.
I'm sorry for not being a normative anarchist.
liberty student: In your scenario, since the state would have a profit motive in order to grow (because it has to grow itself through commercial activity), and the state can fix weights and measures, regulatory costs, tax rates, fees, give grants etc it would have to either lose in the free market (and maintain justice above itself) or succeed in the free market by subverting justice.
That's why I mentioned a) Nepotism b) Blind trust
liberty student: Kings only got away with what they did because of the notion of Divine Right. That the King was morally and spiritually above all others. Once divine right was debunked, he just because a dictator.
Sorry to mention Kings. Only reson I had was that they had explicit non-fiscal sources of income.
liberty student: Out of curiosity, why do you want to keep the state? Do you feel there is some aspect of it's operations which could not be provided in the free market?
Well, I just don't subscribe to utilitarian ethics.
Instead of apologizing for not being an anarchist, perhaps you could defend your position?
The questions I have are,
Do you feel the government does something that could not be provided in the free market?
And if so, what is it?
And even if the free market could provide it, why do you feel the state would provide it better?
Goverment provides services of a kind you mentioned before to people who consider goverment to be better provider of such services than the free market.
The best example (although 3000 years old one) is here:
Rise and Fall of Bibleic Anarchy
One can transfer or lose ownership of property by selling it for money, exchanging it for other property, giving it as a gift, being robbed of it, misplacing it, or having it stripped from one's ownership through legal means such as eviction, foreclosure and seizure.
How does my property being stolen lose me my ownership of it, I wonder?
Jonatan K:Goverment provides services of a kind you mentioned before to people who consider goverment to be better provider of such services than the free market.
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."
corpus delicti: One can transfer or lose ownership of property by selling it for money, exchanging it for other property, giving it as a gift, being robbed of it, misplacing it, or having it stripped from one's ownership through legal means such as eviction, foreclosure and seizure. How does my property being stolen lose me my ownership of it, I wonder?
We love Wiki.
Nevertheless, because ownership and usage are unseparateable (or in Wiki's definintions), it rejects the "Ragnar Danneskjold" argument made by Dr. Block in some of his lectures. He says that Ragnar can take the stolen goods, because the thief holds no right over them. But if you connect ownership and usage, thief can posses an ownership. Now, I subscrib eto the later, because
A) endosing vigilante theft doesnt' encorage law.(Russian Bolsheviks considered it fit to rob banks, bacause the money stired there was " unlawfully expropriated")
B) I buy a good from the market. But then it is found out that the good is stolen from Joe by Pit, who sold it to Bob, who sold it to Jedidyah, who sold it to Habib, who sold it to Vladimir, who soldit to me. " Danneskjold" argument calims that none but Joe owns the good, so I have no rights over it, despite the fact I bought it fair and square. I'd say that I do own the good, but it is up to Pit to amend the damage done to Joe by his act.
Then it's conflating normative with factual ownership. Just because someone controls something it does not necessarily follow they ought to be doing so.
Juan: Jonatan K:Goverment provides services of a kind you mentioned before to people who consider goverment to be better provider of such services than the free market. So, if government is 'better' than the market, why is it that government kills people who try to compete with it ? If government is better people would naturally choose it...yet they don't. Maybe you've some mystical, supernatural and divinely revealed explanation for such a curious fact...?
And I defenetly say "Hello Nozick"!
If I think goverment better than anarchy, then I value goverment more then anarchy. In given system of means I 'll choose those that I consider to lead to goverment over those that lead In my view to anarchy. Mystical enough?
Jon Irenicus: Then it's conflating normative with factual ownership. Just because someone controls something it does not necessarily follow they ought to be doing so.
Indeed. How do you decide who's right, Ragnar Danneskjold or me?
Jonatan K: Goverment provides services of a kind you mentioned before to people who consider goverment to be better provider of such services than the free market.
People also thought women shouldn't have property rights, that slaves were property and that the punishment for engaging in voluntary and consensual actions could be punished with stoning.
I don't see a point here. People think all sorts of stupid things. I'm fine with them living stupidly, so long as they don't require I have to live by their ignorance and violence.
A government necessitates violence and monopoly (or at least monopolistic behaviour).
Do you disagree with anything I have written in this post?
Why would I be "deciding" anything here? That's up to the courts involved. If the claim is too far removed from the original owner, then ownership does not revert to them. If they're alive and identifiable their property is theirs, and that is the end of it.
BTW, if it involves coercion over non-consenting third parties would you still abide by government? Because in that case I'd have to treat you no differently to any common criminal.
liberty student: Jonatan K: Goverment provides services of a kind you mentioned before to people who consider goverment to be better provider of such services than the free market. People also thought women shouldn't have property rights, that slaves were property and that the punishment for engaging in voluntary and consensual actions could be punished with stoning. I don't see a point here. People think all sorts of stupid things. I'm fine with them living stupidly, so long as they don't require I have to live by their ignorance and violence. A government necessitates violence and monopoly (or at least monopolistic behaviour). Do you disagree with anything I have written in this post?
No.
Rights theories are not my strongest subject. However, I'll give it a go.
Why would you not separate ownership and usage? It is a sincere question (In any case, if you are of the view they cannot be separated, I can see why you wonder how to fit in wardship)
Nevertheless, I'm having trouble understanding how A and B support your view.
In regards to A it seems it does all but endorse vigilantism; if ownership and usage are the same I never have to establish my claim of ownership of the property that was stolen, I can merely steal it back, i.e. become a vigilante. If, however, ownership and usage are separated I cannot just steal it back, because I would have trouble getting public support for this unless I could prove my claim of prior ownership.
In regards to B it seems you misunderstand the "Ragnar Danneskjold" or Walter Block argument. Pit has not only stolen Joe's good, Pit has also "stolen" Bob's money, because he has frauded* Bob into believing he has traded ownership of money for ownership of the good. As I recall Block's argument Bob has actually committed fraud against Jedidyah who has committed fraud against Habib etc. This does not entail that Pit should only amend damages to Joe. In fact you have a claim against Vladimir, who has a claim against Habib, who has a claim against Jediyah, who has a claim against Bob, who has a claim against Pit. The idea is to trace original ownership and have the original perpetrator pay for restitution along the "chain".
* Is that even a word? You get the idea, I hope.
Jonatan k:If I think goverment better than anarchy, then I value goverment more then anarchy.
corpus delicti: Rights theories are not my strongest subject. However, I'll give it a go. Why would you not separate ownership and usage? It is a sincere question (In any case, if you are of the view they cannot be separated, I can see why you wonder how to fit in wardship) Nevertheless, I'm having trouble understanding how A and B support your view. In regards to A it seems it does all but endorse vigilantism; if ownership and usage are the same I never have to establish my claim of ownership of the property that was stolen, I can merely steal it back, i.e. become a vigilante. If, however, ownership and usage are separated I cannot just steal it back, because I would have trouble getting public support for this unless I could prove my claim of prior ownership. In regards to B it seems you misunderstand the "Ragnar Danneskjold" or Walter Block argument. Pit has not only stolen Joe's good, Pit has also "stolen" Bob's money, because he has frauded* Bob into believing he has traded ownership of money for ownership of the good. As I recall Block's argument Bob has actually committed fraud against Jedidyah who has committed fraud against Habib etc. This does not entail that Pit should only amend damages to Joe. In fact you have a claim against Vladimir, who has a claim against Habib, who has a claim against Jediyah, who has a claim against Bob, who has a claim against Pit. The idea is to trace original ownership and have the original perpetrator pay for restitution along the "chain". * Is that even a word? You get the idea, I hope.
I'll go with your analysis of A, becuase I tried to get this separation up to concept of "Blind Trust".
B - Well,
Jon Irenicus: Indeed. How do you decide who's right, Ragnar Danneskjold or me? Why would I be "deciding" anything here? That's up to the courts involved. If the claim is too far removed from the original owner, then ownership does not revert to them. If they're alive and identifiable their property is theirs, and that is the end of it.
As "too far" is also normative (sorry, I'm oversensitive today), in my model it simplified to one level - the thief and the victim. Theft, in this system can be considered as transferral of ownership (actually, pretty close to homesteading). Now, lrt's say you started the process of homesteading, but in the middle discovered that the object of homestading already belongs to someone.The owner sues you. Well, if you can prove yp\ou didn't know about the object been owned, you return it to the owner, and that's it. But homesteading with knowledge - it is theft, and you will need to do the reparation.
BTW, many people remember the Bible saying "Eye for an Eye", while the truth is : "If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep." (Exodus 22:1
Juan: Also, I fail to see the connection between the history of a primitive and slave holding society ('sons of israel') with the libertarian theory of government and property ?
[
Try 98% lap that Dr. Block mentions in his "Introduction to Libertarianism I" in Audio Courses.
Juan:Why don't you explain it yourself, instead of invoking Block ?
Alright, the subject seens more compicated than I thought, os It'll be a while till I make it into postable form. In the process I've worked out few previously mentioned:
liberty student: Charity is the only method I am aware of.
Even charity falls under the same phenomena I mentioned. Let's say someone donated an asset to the goverment ( common practice with charity funds). Can goverment hold it and enjoy revenues? If so on what conditions? Also goverment funded on charity can gain Budget Surplus. Can it be invested? on whatg terms?
In Non-profit organisation the owner of the assets is the organisetion and the executives having "ward" status, which gives the rights to sell, buy and make chages at the asset. Can hte same model be aplied uppon goverment?
liberty student: Why do we have a state? I presume you feel it is necessary to have a state to.... maintain the monopoly on justice, creation, enforcement and interpretation?
I thought about this "we"
"But if a man says We, further information is needed to denote who the Egos are who arecomprised in this We." (Mises, "Human Action")
Who are "we"?
Jonatan K: I thought about this "we" "But if a man says We, further information is needed to denote who the Egos are who arecomprised in this We." (Mises, "Human Action") Who are "we"?
Wow, great word games. How about, "Do you feel there should be a state" and "if so, why?"
liberty student: Jonatan K: I thought about this "we" "But if a man says We, further information is needed to denote who the Egos are who arecomprised in this We." (Mises, "Human Action") Who are "we"? Wow, great word games. How about, "Do you feel there should be a state" and "if so, why?"
Alright, here you go.
I'm Israeli. We are engaged in war that started some 20 years before Israel became a state. Therefore we need a centralised military autghority to make warfare. Even if some kind of peace were negotiated, you couldn't run free economic relationship with palestinians due to exetreme Islamic fundamentalism of the later like muredering arabs trying to sell real estate Ergo, your govt-free model doesn't aply to Israel.
Oh, so you're totally irrational. OK.
liberty student: Oh, so you're totally irrational. OK.
Beg your pardon? Which part of "country in the midst of war cannot decentralize the chain of command, while unable to end war diplomaticly" fails your rationality?
Jonatan K:Beg your pardon? Which part of "country in the midst of war cannot decentralize the chain of command, while unable to end war diplomaticly" fails your rationality?
As long as (1) property rights are not respected and (2) nation states on both sides fuel ethnic and religious hatred.
The state is not needed because of the war, the war is a direct product of the state.
You can rationalize it however you want, fanaticism, religious fundamentalism, clash of cultures, midst of war etc.
The reality is, if you take murder, theft, terrorism, kidnapping, rape, destruction, racism and condense them into one institution, the state is that institution.
If you want peace, eliminate the state. And that is the catch. I've listened to a lot of debate on this topic. Many people see peace and victory as being mutually exclusive.
Alright. in anarchy there will be no murder, theft, rape and kidnaping. That is rational? I give this forum more credit.
Now, what I do see here is blunt polylogismat (1). Individual people do not reapect property rights. Figuring out why the do so, we find ignorance, or some ideological instituon (Like radical Islam) that refute property right.
As for (2), Nation, State and Goverment somehow blend into one piece. You want to tell me that the root of american anti-semitism is American Goverment?
Here's a question: does adamant refusal to believe that 2+2 = 4 "refute" it? Not really. Just because some Islamic savages live in the dark ages does not mean one must lower themselves to their base level. Are you one of those people that think you're "entitled" to have the US government protect Israel?
No, but I don't blame them for Islam either. Those "Some Islamic savages" prevent Israel implementing thins seen so logical in US or EU.
Jonatan K: Alright. in anarchy there will be no murder, theft, rape and kidnaping. That is rational? I give this forum more credit.
Your strawman is pissing in the wind. In reality, there will always be, at the very least, some probability of murder, theft, rape, & kidnapping. It is irrational, whether you are a statist or an anti-statist, to assume that those things will never occur as long as either there is or isn't a state.However, when one has a fallicious argument, I suppose you can consider it a rational (if not tactically sound) move to discredit one's opponents before they do to your argument.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
Not on a mass scale. For that sort of evil, you need organization. Unless you believe man's natural state is animal. And even then, animals usually show more dignity than some humans.
Jonatan K: Now, what I do see here is blunt polylogismat (1). Individual people do not reapect property rights. Figuring out why the do so, we find ignorance, or some ideological instituon (Like radical Islam) that refute property right.
I don't want to get into the religious or ethnic aspect of this. I think it is a cop-out to point fingers. No side is innocent in the origin, or continuation of this conflict.
Jonatan K: As for (2), Nation, State and Goverment somehow blend into one piece. You want to tell me that the root of american anti-semitism is American Goverment?
I will tell you that the root of Nazi Anti-semitism was Nazi "democratically elected" government.
liberty student: Jonatan K: Alright. in anarchy there will be no murder, theft, rape and kidnaping. That is rational? I give this forum more credit. Not on a mass scale. For that sort of evil, you need organization. Unless you believe man's natural state is animal. And even then, animals usually show more dignity than some humans.
And that organisation is goverment?
liberty student: II will tell you that the root of Nazi Anti-semitism was Nazi "democratically elected" government.
II will tell you that the root of Nazi Anti-semitism was Nazi "democratically elected" government.
You avoid the subject, unless you consider US goverment to be Nazi "democratically elected" government. I asked about anti-semitism in US, that in some mysterious way connected according to you, to US goverment. Please explain.
Jonatan K: liberty student: II will tell you that the root of Nazi Anti-semitism was Nazi "democratically elected" government. You avoid the subject, unless you consider US goverment to be Nazi "democratically elected" government. I asked about anti-semitism in US, that in some mysterious way connected according to you, to US goverment. Please explain.
I believe LS is referring to the recent Swiss study on how normal voting behavior in a democratically elected government is what provided the National Socialist Party (a.k.a The Nazi Party) in Germany the edge in attaining political (& ultimately infamous & vile) power here:http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/front/Vote_for_Hitler_normal_in_economic_context.html?siteSect=105&sid=9795885&cKey=1222879180000&ty=stYou can spin that all you want, but LS is correct.
Nitroadict: You can spin that all you want, but LS is correct.
You can spin that all you want, but LS is correct.
Let me tertrace the arguments a bit
liberty student: The reality is, if you take murder, theft, terrorism, kidnapping, rape, destruction, racism and condense them into one institution, the state is that institution.
So I asked about american anti-semitism and how the state creates it. The answer:
liberty student: Jonatan K: As for (2), Nation, State and Goverment somehow blend into one piece. You want to tell me that the root of american anti-semitism is American Goverment? I will tell you that the root of Nazi Anti-semitism was Nazi "democratically elected" government.
I just can't see how what happened in 30ies in Gernamy connected to what's going on nowadays in US (assumig that what happens today is connected to some previous events).
LS is right that today there is antisemitism in US beacuse the democracy?
LS is right that today there is antisemitism in US beacuse the democracy ?
Jonatan K: Nitroadict: You can spin that all you want, but LS is correct. Let me tertrace the arguments a bit liberty student: The reality is, if you take murder, theft, terrorism, kidnapping, rape, destruction, racism and condense them into one institution, the state is that institution. So I asked about american anti-semitism and how the state creates it. The answer: liberty student: Jonatan K: As for (2), Nation, State and Goverment somehow blend into one piece. You want to tell me that the root of american anti-semitism is American Goverment? I will tell you that the root of Nazi Anti-semitism was Nazi "democratically elected" government. I just can't see how what happened in 30ies in Gernamy connected to what's going on nowadays in US (assumig that what happens today is connected to some previous events). LS is right that today there is antisemitism in US beacuse the democracy?
Nice evade, I'm not going to repost my previous post. I said LS was correct regarding that the Nazi's were democratically elected (& by normal voting behavior), that is all. I also said nothing regarding anti-semitism, so I'm sorry I couldn't put an opinion down for your own manipulation. Stop extending what I said to other arguments made by LS ( as well as putting words in my mouth) because it's not going to work in strengthening your house of cards.