Rotten bait is rotten.
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."
GilesStratton:No, I wouldn't say so. My point is simply that there is a subjective aspect to homesteading,
We're in total agreement here.
GilesStratton:if people aren't aware of the concept of property it doesn't make any sense to say that they own it. In which case if they try to force you off land that you've homestead it's perfectly acceptable to retaliate.
Not so much here. Property is a very basic concept. Even if it is a form of common property, rather than individual property, it can still be considered owned.
GilesStratton:Much in the same way that if elephants happened to use a piece of land that you desire for grazing and you homesteaded it, you'd be entitled to remove them. The point is that if you give rights to people that cannot be included in the division of labour, because of lack of the capability to argue rationally then rights should be given to animals as well.
I think that this stems from a weakness in the argumentation ethics position. What rights are partially derived from is the capacity for rational thought and action, not its actual use. The capacity for rationality is a universal element of human nature; you seem to flip between saying that "primitives" don't act rationally and that they can't act rationally. Just because people aren't necessarily acting or thinking rationally doesn't mean that they shouldn't have rights; what's the cut-off point? How irrational does one have to be to be considered a mere animal?
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
GilesStratton: liberty student:Yeah and it's tiresome. You're capable of more, but the attention desparate avatars and posts become old fast. For every great post, you have two more that are rubbish. At one point, you're drowning yourself out. No, tiresome is this analysis. I couldn't care if you think I'm trying to grab attention or whatever else. My response to Wombatron was sincere.
liberty student:Yeah and it's tiresome. You're capable of more, but the attention desparate avatars and posts become old fast. For every great post, you have two more that are rubbish. At one point, you're drowning yourself out.
No, tiresome is this analysis. I couldn't care if you think I'm trying to grab attention or whatever else. My response to Wombatron was sincere.
I don't "think" you are trying to grab attention. You have admitted as much. Tis a shame, because you're capable of so much more.
GilesStratton: liberty student:Who are "most libertarians"? Try the majority of people on these forums. If you really think that those who are not capable of rational argumentation are capable of rights you've got some rethinking to do.
liberty student:Who are "most libertarians"?
Try the majority of people on these forums. If you really think that those who are not capable of rational argumentation are capable of rights you've got some rethinking to do.
An individual with brain damage loses the ability to rationally argue. Can you drive him off his property like a "wild animal"? 2 parents die, and their pre-adolescent child inherits their property. Since you might argue that young children are not capable of rational argumentation, can you drive them off of their property and confiscate it?
Of course not. It's rubbish. I like Stranger as much as the next guy, but this argument, as you have related it to rational argumentation, he was much broader allowing nearly for incompatible property systems, to justify violence has no merit. Shame on you for making it. Intellectually, it is rubbish and I expect you of most of the people here, to be intelligent enough to see it as such.
GilesStratton:If you have no idea of the concept of property then you can't own property, it's that simple.
Rubbish. Our standards for first homesteader apply to our interactions with others, whether they recognize that principle or not. Otherwise our own rational system for understanding property claims is inconsistent and insincere.
GilesStratton:The fact of the matter is that if they have the ability to reason and wish to join the division of labour they'll find a way.
No one is under any obligation to join the division of labour, nor does their lack of desire to do so justify violence.
GilesStratton:This has nothing to do with values and even less to do with conservatism.
Au contraire mon frere. Your interpretation of "who deserves rights" is completely arbitrary and based on your value system.
GilesStratton:You may not feel comfortable with the idea we have the right to homestead land that hasn't yet been homesteaded but is inhabitated by people who will kill you on sight and have no idea about the concept of property or rights, but that's not my issue.
My comfort is not the issue. Your lack of principle or reason is. If land is inhabited, it is homesteaded. I suggest you review your understanding of libertarian property rights. That someone would kill you on sight, presumably as you would slaughter gays or blacks for stepping onto your property, doesn't justify your aggression against them, any more than it would justify someone's aggression against you for your defense of your own property.
GilesStratton:Libertarianism is full of issues that very few people would feel comfortable with, such as Rothbard's proposal that parents have the right to abandon their child. I, for one, find that wrong, and feel the parents have a positive obligation as a result of their own action. Most "Rothbardians" on the other hand accept that.
Irrelevant blathering nonsense. Bring more game or stop wasting my time.
GilesStratton:If land hasn't been homesteaded, and there is a subjective aspect to homesteading that is clearly missing here, I can do it. If some primitives wish to keep using the land their going to have to fight me for it or else prove that they own it legitimately.
^^^ They are using the land first, thus they have homesteaded it. They don't need to do anything to prove ownership to you. They are already meeting your own standard for ownership, even if they do not comprehend it. The law doesn't change based on lack of understanding. You're embarrassing yourself by making this argument.
Although I am sure Stranger appreciates it, because his argument was much poorer.
Juan: libery student:The notion of driving the "primitive" off like wild animals is quite frankly, ridiculous. Not only primitives will be driven off. We libertarians will also get rid of homosexuals, drug users, people who drink more than a glass of wine per day (for the sake of consistency I hope), heretics (libertarianism requires revealed religion), niggers, asians and any other sub-standard human beings, and so on and so forth.Why not drive off the deaf or mute? Right. They will be dealt with, too, don't worry.
libery student:The notion of driving the "primitive" off like wild animals is quite frankly, ridiculous.
Why not drive off the deaf or mute?
Don't try to hang off my nuts son.
Juan:Sorry. Well, even a lackey of the conservatives sometimes get it right. But maybe Giles won't let you polish his boots now.
I wanted to thank you Juan. So many people try to play the useful idiot, but really only you succeed.
What "primitives" are you talking about? To my knowledge, the fact is that EVERYONE has some concept of property. It's something intuitively learned from childhood. The basic concepts of "mine" and "yours" is universally understood. The fact is that everyone does, to one degree or another, possess them, and most people simultaneously do not have a fully comprehensive understanding of them.
Actually, IIRC, Hoppe even stated in one of his lectures that dogs have a rudimentary, proto-understanding of property rights (along with the inherent mine/yours/his distinction humans make, which is inherent in those pronouns.) Nearly all animals do, and it stems from the notion of territory; the book The Territorial Imperative is good on this. So it'd be difficult to argue anyone but the most mentally disabled person cannot grasp them, and do so explicitly (not just implicitly as animals do.) Appropriation does require an act of will though, for which I think usage might suffice as the subjective component. The ability to engage in argumentation is an indicator that one is rational, but it's not the sine qua non of rationality...
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Juan:They undermine the conservative principles of a market society. They should be banned in the name of economic efficiency.
I would have thought for a 35 year old man you might have better things to do.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
liberty student:I don't "think" you are trying to grab attention. You have admitted as much. Tis a shame, because you're capable of so much more.
I've not admitted anything. I've been completely sincere in my responses. Especially in regard to Wombatron with whom I have no problem. If I've said something on these forums it's because I mean it.
Believe it or not, these forums aren't the place I turn when in need of attention.
liberty student:An individual with brain damage loses the ability to rationally argue. Can you drive him off his property like a "wild animal"? 2 parents die, and their pre-adolescent child inherits their property. Since you might argue that young children are not capable of rational argumentation, can you drive them off of their property and confiscate it?
As horrible as it is, and I wouldn't condone such behaviour. Given that somebody is completely unable to reason and that the land is in their name, yes, somebody does have the right to homestead it.
As for the children, that's a far more difficult scenario, although I'd take the position that somebody (a relative) can take care of the land until the children can prove their capability to do so.
liberty student:Of course not. It's rubbish. I like Stranger as much as the next guy, but this argument, as you have related it to rational argumentation, he was much broader allowing nearly for incompatible property systems, to justify violence has no merit. Shame on you for making it. Intellectually, it is rubbish and I expect you of most of the people here, to be intelligent enough to see it as such.
Perhaps you've misread what I've been saying, I've been saying that once we accept that these people are not capable of rational argumentation they're not eligible for rights. Now, let's be honest, you may say it's unjustified violence, but these are the same people who will fill you with poison darts once you've walked within 50 metres of "their" forest.
liberty student:Rubbish. Our standards for first homesteader apply to our interactions with others, whether they recognize that principle or not. Otherwise our own rational system for understanding property claims is inconsistent and insincere.
Only, that's not what I'm arguing, I'm saying that there is a subjective element to homesteading that these people lack. They consider any territory they've walked through to be theirs, there's no intersubjectively ascertainable borders to what they consider theirs. Moreover, they lack any clear conception of what is and what is not. Perhaps they have some vague idea that between one tree and another the land is owned by the tribe, but even then they have no individual property rights.
liberty student:No one is under any obligation to join the division of labour, nor does their lack of desire to do so justify violence.
I've never said that, only that, these people don't have the capacity to understand what that entails.
liberty student:Au contraire mon frere. Your interpretation of "who deserves rights" is completely arbitrary and based on your value system.
Not at all, this has nothing at all to do with conservatism. Please, do show me the link between my position here and my cultural values.
liberty student:My comfort is not the issue. Your lack of principle or reason is. If land is inhabited, it is homesteaded. I suggest you review your understanding of libertarian property rights. That someone would kill you on sight, presumably as you would slaughter gays or blacks for stepping onto your property, doesn't justify your aggression against them, any more than it would justify someone's aggression against you for your defense of your own property.
No, if a land is inhabited by animals (and as Jon pointed out animals may have some territorial understanding of property) it's not homesteader. Now tell me, what the difference is. This position may make you uncomfortable, but that's not my problem.
I wouldn't slaughter gays or blacks for stepping on my property, it would make far too big of a mess. More seriously though, it would be disproportionate, likewise. These savages will kill you for stepping within 50 feet of what they consider to be theirs, and yet, they haven't homesteaded it.
liberty student:Irrelevant blathering nonsense. Bring more game or stop wasting my time.
No, it isn't. You're showing the same emotional reaction as most people do to a lot of libertarian positions.
liberty student:They are using the land first, thus they have homesteaded it.
Who, precisely, is they? I thought libertarians, especially of the Austrian variety, tended to be of the opinion that only individuals can homestead property. Now, please tell me how many of these individuals have the first idea of who the land belongs to, besides "us" that is".
liberty student:hey don't need to do anything to prove ownership to you. They are already meeting your own standard for ownership, even if they do not comprehend it.
They don't have to understand it, at the very least they should be able to prove who, as in which individual, has homesteaded it. They fail that.
Jon Irenicus:The ability to engage in argumentation is an indicator that one is rational, but it's not the sine qua non of rationality...
I'd argue the best indicator.
wombatron:Not so much here. Property is a very basic concept. Even if it is a form of common property, rather than individual property, it can still be considered owned.
Right, and yet, only individuals act, as such it follows that only individuals can homestead land, this seems to be missing here.
Now, as for subjective aspect, does killing one animal in 1000m squared of forest constitute homesteading? I don't think so, and yet, I can be sure of the fact that if you were to set foot into that area and attempt to homestead the land they wouldn't hesitate to fill you with poison darts.
wombatron:I think that this stems from a weakness in the argumentation ethics position.
I'm not entirely sold on the argumentation ethics position yet, so I don't see how this is relevant.
wombatron:What rights are partially derived from is the capacity for rational thought and action, not its actual use.
This seems very vague to me, let's say you have Tribeman X, who let's be generous is 35 years of age, who may have the biological capacity for rational thought. Now, left in the forest do you really believe he's ever going to exercise that capability? No, as such it doesn't really make sense to me to say he has that capacity.
wombatron:The capacity for rationality is a universal element of human nature; you seem to flip between saying that "primitives" don't act rationally and that they can't act rationally.
See above.
wombatron:How irrational does one have to be to be considered a mere animal?
That's why the ability to engage in rational argumentation creates a clear, objective point at which we can say people have rights.
GilesStratton:Right, and yet, only individuals act, as such it follows that only individuals can homestead land, this seems to be missing here.
Not necessarily. For example:
Roderick Long:Consider a village near a lake. It is common for the villagers to walk down to the lake to go fishing. In the early days of the community it's hard to get to the lake because of all the bushes and fallen branches in the way. But over time, the way is cleared and a path forms�not through any centrally coordinated effort, but simply as a result of all the individuals walking that way day after day. The cleared path is the product of labor�not any individual's labor, but of all of them together. If one villager decided to take advantage of the now-created path by setting up a gate and charging tolls, he would be violating the collective property right that the villagers together have earned.
The cleared path is the product of labor�not any individual's labor, but of all of them together. If one villager decided to take advantage of the now-created path by setting up a gate and charging tolls, he would be violating the collective property right that the villagers together have earned.
(see here and here for more)
GilesStratton:Now, as for subjective aspect, does killing one animal in 1000m squared of forest constitute homesteading? I don't think so, and yet, I can be sure of the fact that if you were to set foot into that area and attempt to homestead the land they wouldn't hesitate to fill you with poison darts.
Perhaps. But perhaps not; first encounters with primitive tribes have ranged from violent to cordial. There really is no a priori reason to say that they have no rights, just because they may attack you for trying to homestead land.
Also, killing one animal in that large a region would not count as homesteading. However, if the region was used as a hunting ground, where dozens or hundreds of animals were killed every year and trails were made throughout the forest, etc., then I think that would be a valid property claim, or at least an easement of some sort.
GilesStratton:This seems very vague to me, let's say you have Tribeman X, who let's be generous is 35 years of age, who may have the biological capacity for rational thought. Now, left in the forest do you really believe he's ever going to exercise that capability? No, as such it doesn't really make sense to me to say he has that capacity.
He may indeed exercise that capacity in the forest; even the most primitive technology requires thought and planning to be put into it. And even if he didn't use it, it still remains a fact that he has the capacity for it. Of course, if you try to talk to said tribesman, and he attacks you (or if you feel reasonably threatened), then you can defend yourself. That doesn't mean that he doesn't have rights, though; just that he is aggressing against you and that you have the right to stop him.
GilesStratton:That's why the ability to engage in rational argumentation creates a clear, objective point at which we can say people have rights.
And I still don't see how being a primitive means that one doesn't have that ability.
GilesStratton: That's why the ability to engage in rational argumentation creates a clear, objective point at which we can say people have rights.
Surely there's a subjective aspect to what you would term "rational argumentation", and where you would make the "cut-off" point.
But, which is to me more telling, surely by initiating agression against them, whatever their "primitiveness" you are violating any principles you might have decrying violence and coercion.
The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.
wombatron: GilesStratton:No, I wouldn't say so. My point is simply that there is a subjective aspect to homesteading, We're in total agreement here. GilesStratton:if people aren't aware of the concept of property it doesn't make any sense to say that they own it. In which case if they try to force you off land that you've homestead it's perfectly acceptable to retaliate. Not so much here. Property is a very basic concept. Even if it is a form of common property, rather than individual property, it can still be considered owned. GilesStratton:Much in the same way that if elephants happened to use a piece of land that you desire for grazing and you homesteaded it, you'd be entitled to remove them. The point is that if you give rights to people that cannot be included in the division of labour, because of lack of the capability to argue rationally then rights should be given to animals as well. I think that this stems from a weakness in the argumentation ethics position. What rights are partially derived from is the capacity for rational thought and action, not its actual use. The capacity for rationality is a universal element of human nature; you seem to flip between saying that "primitives" don't act rationally and that they can't act rationally. Just because people aren't necessarily acting or thinking rationally doesn't mean that they shouldn't have rights; what's the cut-off point? How irrational does one have to be to be considered a mere animal?
Thankyou, Wombatron, for highlighting this about rationality. "Rationality", in this sense, refers to a fundamental trait of all human beings, a capacity. It does not refer to a specific level of intelligence that one must aquire in order to have rights. It's "rationality" in a praxeological sense, I.E. the capacity to make purposeful choices. All humans have "rationality" in this sense, and this is indeed a pretext for rights. It is not, however, a pretext for creating a conservative class distinction in which we aknowledge rights for some humans while denying them for others.
liberty student: GilesStratton: liberty student:Yeah and it's tiresome. You're capable of more, but the attention desparate avatars and posts become old fast. For every great post, you have two more that are rubbish. At one point, you're drowning yourself out. No, tiresome is this analysis. I couldn't care if you think I'm trying to grab attention or whatever else. My response to Wombatron was sincere. I don't "think" you are trying to grab attention. You have admitted as much. Tis a shame, because you're capable of so much more. GilesStratton: liberty student:Who are "most libertarians"? Try the majority of people on these forums. If you really think that those who are not capable of rational argumentation are capable of rights you've got some rethinking to do. An individual with brain damage loses the ability to rationally argue. Can you drive him off his property like a "wild animal"? 2 parents die, and their pre-adolescent child inherits their property. Since you might argue that young children are not capable of rational argumentation, can you drive them off of their property and confiscate it? Of course not. It's rubbish. I like Stranger as much as the next guy, but this argument, as you have related it to rational argumentation, he was much broader allowing nearly for incompatible property systems, to justify violence has no merit. Shame on you for making it. Intellectually, it is rubbish and I expect you of most of the people here, to be intelligent enough to see it as such. GilesStratton:If you have no idea of the concept of property then you can't own property, it's that simple. Rubbish. Our standards for first homesteader apply to our interactions with others, whether they recognize that principle or not. Otherwise our own rational system for understanding property claims is inconsistent and insincere. GilesStratton:The fact of the matter is that if they have the ability to reason and wish to join the division of labour they'll find a way. No one is under any obligation to join the division of labour, nor does their lack of desire to do so justify violence. GilesStratton:This has nothing to do with values and even less to do with conservatism. Au contraire mon frere. Your interpretation of "who deserves rights" is completely arbitrary and based on your value system. GilesStratton:You may not feel comfortable with the idea we have the right to homestead land that hasn't yet been homesteaded but is inhabitated by people who will kill you on sight and have no idea about the concept of property or rights, but that's not my issue. My comfort is not the issue. Your lack of principle or reason is. If land is inhabited, it is homesteaded. I suggest you review your understanding of libertarian property rights. That someone would kill you on sight, presumably as you would slaughter gays or blacks for stepping onto your property, doesn't justify your aggression against them, any more than it would justify someone's aggression against you for your defense of your own property. GilesStratton:Libertarianism is full of issues that very few people would feel comfortable with, such as Rothbard's proposal that parents have the right to abandon their child. I, for one, find that wrong, and feel the parents have a positive obligation as a result of their own action. Most "Rothbardians" on the other hand accept that. Irrelevant blathering nonsense. Bring more game or stop wasting my time. GilesStratton:If land hasn't been homesteaded, and there is a subjective aspect to homesteading that is clearly missing here, I can do it. If some primitives wish to keep using the land their going to have to fight me for it or else prove that they own it legitimately. ^^^ They are using the land first, thus they have homesteaded it. They don't need to do anything to prove ownership to you. They are already meeting your own standard for ownership, even if they do not comprehend it. The law doesn't change based on lack of understanding. You're embarrassing yourself by making this argument. Although I am sure Stranger appreciates it, because his argument was much poorer.
LS: It appears that you're beggining to see precisely why I so strongly disagree with these few people here (or at least you're beggining to form the exact same disagreements). You're making almost the exact same points that I would have, although in your own words.
Brainpolice:LS: It appears that you're beggining to see precisely why I so strongly disagree with these few people here (or at least you're beggining to form the exact same disagreements). You're making almost the exact same points that I would have, although in your own words.
I'm not your ally. I simply have enough integrity to call it as i see it. I'm not obsessed with an ideological divide and labels/groups.
I like Giles today as much as I did Monday. Nothing has changed, except he is making a poor argument. The difference between you and Giles, is that he will admit he is incorrect if a good argument is made. I have seen no such growth or humility in any of your positions in the last 10 months. You are always right, and when you're wrong, you tuck tail and leave.
GilesStratton: As horrible as it is, and I wouldn't condone such behaviour. Given that somebody is completely unable to reason and that the land is in their name, yes, somebody does have the right to homestead it. As for the children, that's a far more difficult scenario, although I'd take the position that somebody (a relative) can take care of the land until the children can prove their capability to do so.
Inconsistent and arbitrary. Now you have introduced a need for an objective standard of what is and is not rational argumentation. Who decides? Who qualifies? What is the appeals process?
GilesStratton:Only, that's not what I'm arguing, I'm saying that there is a subjective element to homesteading that these people lack. They consider any territory they've walked through to be theirs, there's no intersubjectively ascertainable borders to what they consider theirs. Moreover, they lack any clear conception of what is and what is not. Perhaps they have some vague idea that between one tree and another the land is owned by the tribe, but even then they have no individual property rights.
Right, but if the land is homesteaded by someone, by anyone already, regardless if you can clearly identify whom because their social organization is group based, doesn't qualify your claim to take it from them. That's arbitrary confiscation of property from people who do not recognize your claim to monopoly determination of property rights.
GilesStratton:No, if a land is inhabited by animals (and as Jon pointed out animals may have some territorial understanding of property) it's not homesteader. Now tell me, what the difference is. This position may make you uncomfortable, but that's not my problem.
I'm not talking at all about comfort, why you keep trying to appeal to some subjective insecurity you think I might have isn't a real argument. Please stop.
We clearly understand, as stranger indicated the pareto-efficiency and validity of the first homesteader having the highest claim. Who specifically homesteaded the land is irrelevant, as long as we know there is a first homesteader and our claim doesn't have the same standing.
GilesStratton:I wouldn't slaughter gays or blacks for stepping on my property, it would make far too big of a mess.
Not to mention, you'd probably be trying to have sex with the gays, and the blacks would be kicking your ass.
GilesStratton:More seriously though, it would be disproportionate, likewise. These savages will kill you for stepping within 50 feet of what they consider to be theirs, and yet, they haven't homesteaded it.
That is a completely different scenario. You are conflating what you consider to be undefined property rights with self-defense with aggression.
GilesStratton:No, it isn't. You're showing the same emotional reaction as most people do to a lot of libertarian positions.
Not at all. You are the one who keeps trying to make appeals to emotion by bringing up my comfort level. You're a former El Duce supporter libertarian conservative fanatic fruitcake. If you hadn't found Ron Paul, you would be having sex with a Republican neocon in a bathroom stall right now. Thankfully you did, and your soul and ass have been saved. It's a joke that you think anything about your faux racism, bigotry or fanatical political incorrectness bothers me.
GilesStratton:Who, precisely, is they? I thought libertarians, especially of the Austrian variety, tended to be of the opinion that only individuals can homestead property. Now, please tell me how many of these individuals have the first idea of who the land belongs to, besides "us" that is".
That's the nonsense in this argument. A group can homestead without defining a particular owner. What matters is the homesteading claim, not who made it.
GilesStratton:They don't have to understand it, at the very least they should be able to prove who, as in which individual, has homesteaded it. They fail that.
No they don't. That is your own arbitrary standard. I agree that the property position is that an individual can own property, and communal rights are confused and unworkable (within the group, not outside of the group) over time. But if a group of people have a verbal social contract the primitive equivalent of corporate ownership, you can't claim that there is no previous homesteading claim in effect.
Unless you have also become a left-libertarian fruitcake commie who hates corporations and financial organization of individuals into larger capital investment and maintenance groups.
liberty student: An individual with brain damage loses the ability to rationally argue. Can you drive him off his property like a "wild animal"? 2 parents die, and their pre-adolescent child inherits their property. Since you might argue that young children are not capable of rational argumentation, can you drive them off of their property and confiscate it?
Because children are not capable of rational argumentation, they come into the custody of rational adults as does their property. This must be defined in their parents' will, which must also define what happens to their property after they have been incapacitated.
liberty student: ^^^ They are using the land first, thus they have homesteaded it. They don't need to do anything to prove ownership to you. They are already meeting your own standard for ownership, even if they do not comprehend it. The law doesn't change based on lack of understanding. You're embarrassing yourself by making this argument.
Who is they? How does they fit into a legal framework of private property?
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Stranger:Because children are not capable of rational argumentation, they come into the custody of rational adults as does their property. This must be defined in their parents' will, which must also define what happens to their property after they have been incapacitated.
Every child is different. Who determines if the specific child is capable of rational argumentation? Can they appeal the determination?
Or do you just get a compliant judge to rule in your favour, and then you use coercive force to remove the child? I suppose you will also claim innocence if the child is hurt or killed as you drive him off his now deceased parents' land?
Why no comment on brain damage? What about Alzheimers? Bulldoze old folks out fo their homes when they can't remember how long to boil an egg for?
Stranger:Who is they?
Those with the first and highest claim in the homesteading paradigm.
Stranger:How does they fit into a legal framework of private property?
Whose framework? Is there only one? Do you have a monopoly on the correct framework to apply to others? Sounds very statist to me.
As long as they have a higher claim than you, how that claim is organized or diistributed is beyond your reproach. What you are talking about is trying to justify theft through semantics and legal chicanery.
liberty student: Brainpolice:LS: It appears that you're beggining to see precisely why I so strongly disagree with these few people here (or at least you're beggining to form the exact same disagreements). You're making almost the exact same points that I would have, although in your own words. I'm not your ally. I simply have enough integrity to call it as i see it. I'm not obsessed with an ideological divide and labels/groups. I like Giles today as much as I did Monday. Nothing has changed, except he is making a poor argument. The difference between you and Giles, is that he will admit he is incorrect if a good argument is made. I have seen no such growth or humility in any of your positions in the last 10 months. You are always right, and when you're wrong, you tuck tail and leave.
I never meant to imply that you're my ally. I just pointed out that you were actually making the exact same arguments that I've been making against Giles for months. That you go out of your way to remain hostile to me when I point this out just shows to me that you have an irrational axe to grind. Indeed, if I was directly making the same arguments to Giles, I'm convinced you would have jumped in to nitpick my arguments due to this motivation, despite the fact that we're actually in agreement on this. But, oh well, you just decided to be an asshole again.
As for your statement about the difference between me and Giles, are you kidding? He has yet to admit he is incorrect and is insisting on the same premises he has been insisting on all along. Furthermore, I've never "tuck tail and leave" upon being wrong - because I was not wrong. I end up having to repeat myself ad nauseum to some of you people because you don't seem to comprehend my argument. And then you have the gaul to make the exact same argument as me while still going out of your way to disassociate yourself from me. Well, guess what Liberty Student? BRAINPOLICE ALREADY MADE THOSE POINTS MONTHS AGO HERE, AND YOU WERE DEFIANT AND DEFENDING THE OTHER SIDE OF THE DEBATE IN THAT CONTEXT. Definitely some bad psychology and hypocrisy going on here.
Hypocrisy? Yes, hypocrisy. When I make more or less the exact same arguments, all one sees is nitpicking, devil's advocacy and opposition from you. It's "the loony left" when I make the arguments. Then you make what amounts to the exact same points, and suddenly it's somehow supposed to be different - a matter of "integrity". Actually it is you who seems too preoccupied with labels or terms here, as when I make a perfectly radical libertarian argument and phrase it in "leftish" terminology, you start frothing at the mouth and nitpicking, and yet you will turn around and make the exact same arguments as if it's somehow different. Clearly the terminology is a stumbling block for you, or you wouldn't have such widely contrasting attitudes when the exact same thing is phrased differently or categorized under a different label.
liberty student: Every child is different. Who determines if the specific child is capable of rational argumentation? Can they appeal the determination? Or do you just get a compliant judge to rule in your favour, and then you use coercive force to remove the child? I suppose you will also claim innocence if the child is hurt or killed as you drive him off his now deceased parents' land? Why no comment on brain damage? What about Alzheimers? Bulldoze old folks out fo their homes when they can't remember how long to boil an egg for?
You seem to be unaware of how the legal process works. Of course a child would be helpless against someone taking their property, and so would an old person with alzheimer's. How will it be determined who their property belongs to? In most cases only one claimant will take control and there will be no disputes. (At least this is how things work in my family.) If there is a dispute it will be between two people exercising rational faculties, the incapacitated person being obviously unable to pronounce an opinion outside of a written will, and so in real terms the property rights of the incapacitated person have ended. What's being contested are the property rights of the still rational.
liberty student: Stranger:Who is they? Those with the first and highest claim in the homesteading paradigm. Stranger:How does they fit into a legal framework of private property? Whose framework? Is there only one? Do you have a monopoly on the correct framework to apply to others? Sounds very statist to me. As long as they have a higher claim than you, how that claim is organized or diistributed is beyond your reproach. What you are talking about is trying to justify theft through semantics and legal chicanery.
You did not answer the question. There is no such thing as a they in the theory of appropriation. Only individuals can appropriate scarce goods. What you are calling they may be a tribe of slaves and their warlords, in which case stating that the slaves have homesteaded the land is moot - they are not exercising any property rights over it and have no control over their supposed property. You are the only one who sees private property there, and since you are not involved in the legal process involving that property, your opinion is immaterial.
Stranger:You seem to be unaware of how the legal process works.
Yeah, I am unaware of how the legal system works. Is this the current, statist legal monopoly we're going to use as a framework now?
Stranger:Of course a child would be helpless against someone taking their property, and so would an old person with alzheimer's.
Why? Even small children have an understanding of property (mine, yours) that precedes rational argumenatation. Again, you have described a situation where it may be easy, or even legal under the current paradigm to steal, what you haven't provided is an ethical framework that justifies it.
Stranger:You did not answer the question. There is no such thing as a they in the theory of appropriation.
I answered both questions, separately so they could be answered clearly and precisely. As to "no they" in the theory of appropriation, then that theory sucks, because it doesn't include collective ownership.
Stranger:Only individuals can appropriate scarce goods.
Nonsense.
Stranger:What you are calling they may be a tribe of slaves and their warlords, in which case stating that the slaves have homesteaded the land is moot - they are not exercising any property rights over it and have no control over their supposed property.
They have already established a homesteading claim, who specifically holds that claim within the group is moot. And further, they specifics of their claim (how it is organized, passed on, sold, managed, adjudicated) is irrelevant, because you do not dictate the social or legal norms for every group you come across.
Simply, if you believe in the homesteading principle, then you must stand down when you encounter someone with a higher claim than your own, not proceed with naked aggression, when by the same standard you would claim for your own homesteaded property the group in question has satisfied.
Put it simply Stranger, you come across land, and there are people farming it. A lot of people. Say one every 50 metres or so. How do you know who owns what? Are any of them obligated to explain to you where ownership begins and ends? Does it really matter if they are all employees of a land holder, or they are all individual landholders themselves?
And further, while I loathe communes and socialism, if they have peacefully and voluntarily organized as a social corporation with a verbal contract, they can act as a group, with a group claim (representing a myriad of title holders) over a single parcel of property.
Regardless of your dislike or mental inhibitions to such an arrangement (and I can somewhat sympathize) you still cannot get past the base reality that they hold the highest claim via homesteading, either collectively or individually. You still do not have the best claim no matter how they are organized.
Stranger:You are the only one who sees private property there, and since you are not involved in the legal process involving that property, your opinion is immaterial.
Actually, the real issue is that you see only a monopoly on the following;
.If you have enough guns, you can certainly behave like the state, and enforce monopoly law on others. But that's not libertarianism. That's no improvement over the existing social order.
The problems with communal ownership are internal, not external. It's inevitable that someone within the ownership collective will be unhappy about how their share of the property is returned to them or not, used or not, maintained or not, passed on or not. And I see no easy forms to address this, although the corporate model gives us some indication of how it can be done contractually.
I'm also not fond of the commune folk who won't recognize my own right, outside the collective to own private property.
But neither of those situations are approached in this discussion. Again, it's not whether or not the ownership structure meets your standards. You're dead in your tracks, as soon as the higher claim via homesteading is revealed. After that point, you can play all sorts of legal shenanigans to convince a 3rd party that the person or group with the higher claim, is an animal and not a human.
I find the entire argument, ironically made by folks with (I believe) a prefence for religion, that we start off as animals, become humans, and then depending upon whether or not we get certain types of disease, injury or age related breakdown, we revert back into animals again. It is interesting that for the purpose of attaining and controlling property, we believe that man can be transmuted into animal and back again, perhaps in a temporary fit of madness, animal and man, man and animal over and over again, gaining and losing rights not on who they are, but strictly on their capacity to think as arbitrarily judged by their peers.
Brainpolice:I never meant to imply that you're my ally.
Good. Then please be quiet. The adults are discussing right now.
liberty student: Put it simply Stranger, you come across land, and there are people farming it. A lot of people. Say one every 50 metres or so. How do you know who owns what? Are any of them obligated to explain to you where ownership begins and ends? Does it really matter if they are all employees of a land holder, or they are all individual landholders themselves?
It matters whether their bonds to the landlords are hegemonic, in which case it is in their interest and your interest to relieve them of these bonds. If you approach them with your persuasive arguments stating that they are in fact the legitimate homesteaders of the land, their response will be shut the hell up and help us with these guys.
If you intervene to liberate the land, then you have become as much of a homesteader as they were.
liberty student: Regardless of your dislike or mental inhibitions to such an arrangement (and I can somewhat sympathize) you still cannot get past the base reality that they hold the highest claim via homesteading, either collectively or individually. You still do not have the best claim no matter how they are organized.
That is immaterial.
Stranger:That is immaterial.
In your argument, it actually might be. Seems to me that you are applying an abitrary scale to the ability to rationally argue. Perhaps based on that, he who is most rational, or most capable of rational argument should get the property title, regardless of who has the first or original claim on it. A meritocracy of the mind so to speak. Because that is how this discussion started out. We follow the homesteading principle. Until we don't follow it because we want land someone else isn't using to what we consider to be the highest efficiency. Then we prove they are lesser humans by their inability to articulate, different social organization, incompatible language, religion or legal systems. So now it's ok to drive them off like wild animals.
I don't think you have satisfied your own standard for property ownership with this argument, let alone anyone elses. If you abandon homesteading, you might be able to. But I can't see how you can be consistent and embracing homesteading where the first claim is always highest (and for good reason).
liberty student:In your argument, it actually might be.
My argument regards the material consequences of a system of free arbitration and security. In such a system, the "homesteading principle" as traditionally defined applies only to resources that are not in use by anyone. It does not apply to resources that are in use by people outside of the system of free arbitration and security. A different principle, based upon the same proscription of pareto efficiency, must be devised for such a situation, as homesteading is materially irrelevant here.
Stranger, I appreciate your playing along. I need an answer to this scenario. Because this discussion is personal for me and I haven't seen my questions about the monopoly of the methodology for determination of rights loss answered.
My step father's heart stopped for about 12 minutes 2 years ago. He suffered massive brain trauma. Was confined to a hospital bed, wearing only a diaper, incapable of more than screaming, crying and soiling himself. He couldn't see or stand. He didn't respond to basic stimulus you would expect from a cat or dog.
Finally, our legendary health care system got him transferred to a rehab facility. It's now 6th months later, and they begin working with him and my mother for over a year. He's able to handle a spoon (badly). He can walk short distances unassisted. Some of his vision returned. He can speak, very poorly. His ability to articulate speech is poor, his speech itself is as intelligent, witty and profound as ever. He's a legendary joke teller at family gatherings and hasn't lost the wit behind that reputation. His memory is excellent, and his powers of observation and rational though are as strong as ever.
On the surface, he seems badly handi-capped but there is definitely a rational mind still there.
During his broken man phase where he was merely a vessel of spasmodic behaviour and pain is that when you would have sought to confiscate his property leaving him no home to return to? Would you have confiscated the property he had accumulated (savings) that allowed him to receive care?
I need to know when you determine people cannot learn to argue rationally (even understand your language) or when they are beyond all hope. Do they determine that? Their family? Their lawyer, doctor? Who decides when you can pull the boots off a man who isn't dead yet, and proudly proclaim you came by them honestly?
This is a real scenario. I'd appreciate a sincere answer for how this would be handled in the system you propose. Hopefully it is a method we can all get behind. Because if there is one thing about libertarianism over socialism and the state, is that the individual never gets force fed to the good of the many or the powerful. And when one is weak, but not dead, he is susceptible to healthy people with suspect agendas exercising power over him.
Stop wasting my time.
Stranger: Stop wasting my time.
You're wasting your time. Now let me know if you still feel you can divvy up the loot based upon who has the rational means to defend themselves.
Like I said, this was a true scenario, not some lifeboat fantasy. Do you have the guts, assuredness and conviction to apply your ideas to real world situations, or just fantasize about tribal primitives running around in grass skirts?
Stranger: You seem to be unaware of how the legal process works. Of course a child would be helpless against someone taking their property, and so would an old person with alzheimer's. How will it be determined who their property belongs to? In most cases only one claimant will take control and there will be no disputes. (At least this is how things work in my family.) If there is a dispute it will be between two people exercising rational faculties, the incapacitated person being obviously unable to pronounce an opinion outside of a written will, and so in real terms the property rights of the incapacitated person have ended. What's being contested are the property rights of the still rational.
Doesn't apply. Try again. Rights can't be conditional upon having an advocate for them. Not to mention that a temporary loss of rational facility can't justify a permanent loss of property.
liberty student: Rights can't be conditional upon having an advocate for them.
And yet they are. For real.
Stranger: liberty student: Rights can't be conditional upon having an advocate for them. And yet they are. For real.
So that is where we have arrived? If you see someone who cannot advocate their own property rights, even if you know that property belongs to them, you feel this is sufficient ethical and legal basis to take their property? But if their son or daughter, neighbor or padre was there, you would not be able to?
So much for the rights of the individual hunh? Remind me never to spend time alone with you. One konk on the head with a brass candlestick holder, and you'll be three blocks down the street, whistling as you rifle through my wallet.
liberty student: Doesn't apply. Try again. Rights can't be conditional upon having an advocate for them. Not to mention that a temporary loss of rational facility can't justify a permanent loss of property.
Isn't that why one creates a Will or a sort of contract regarding their property in the event of their incapacitation and/or death, so as to plan ahead in the possible event that they are not capable of rational thought? To prevent said loss of property and/or wealth in the event of the loss of rational facility?
"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
Nitroadict: Isn't that why one creates a Will or a sort of contract regarding their property in the event of their incapacitation and/or death, so as to plan ahead in the possible event that they are not capable of rational thought? To prevent said loss of property and/or wealth in the event of the loss of rational facility?
I've already said that. It seems not to matter.
Nitroadict:Isn't that why one creates a Will or a sort of contract regarding their property in the event of their incapacitation and/or death, so as to plan ahead in the possible event that they are not capable of rational thought? To prevent said loss of property and/or wealth in the event of the loss of rational facility?
Sure. But are our rights contingent upon having a will? If I die tonight in my sleep without a will, does that mean that the property my will would have allocated is now back in the wild, ready to be homesteaded? What good is a will without someone to execute it? Recognize it?
If I (as a single parent) will my property to my only child who might be 7 years old, the rationale here is that a full fledged adult can come and take that property from the child who cannot rationally argue to keep it.
Do we only have rights when we are kept by someone else?
I understand that thieves and scoundrels don't worry about this. But Stranger is proposing a framework where people in a weakened state can be legally stolen from, even if they recover their health later. The disposition of their property becomes contingent upon paperwork.
liberty student: If I (as a single parent) will my property to my only child who might be 7 years old, the rationale here is that a full fledged adult can come and take that property from the child who cannot rationally argue to keep it.
Who would stop him?
Stranger: liberty student: If I (as a single parent) will my property to my only child who might be 7 years old, the rationale here is that a full fledged adult can come and take that property from the child who cannot rationally argue to keep it. Who would stop him?
A detailed arrangement via formentioned will wherein services of a PDA (or perhaps more acurratley, a Private Property Defender, or a more specific service along the lines of Property of Youth Defenses) are payed for accordingly until the child reaches a certain age (which may or may not be designated in the will, but let's assume that this age is 16 - 18) ?Obviously, not every individual may consider or plan for such a contingency, but neither should we assume, as LS mentions, that rights are dependent on the existence of a will (when one is in aforementioned weakened state that may imply temporary reduced rational faculties), as this would clearly leave behind those who do not a family, which could be caretakers in the case of the child you mention, Stranger, & others who do not wish to prepare one or were unable to (i.e. you may decide to put off writing a possible will until next week, when crossing the street, a car manages to skid into your person & you die). This would obviously be a great moment for a Statist to drop by & remark "the state, lol", but obviously, this is not a valid solution. Perhaps there would some sort of agreements in communities regarding the status of property of the deceased? Perhaps a certain amount of time can be placed upon property of the deceased (to allow descendants to claim), & if such time passes, the property is considered free-game? This, however, doesn't solve the issue of those who have temporarily reduced rational faculties (TRF). Perhaps the limitations of current cognitive science prevent a solution from being either attainable or easily attainable? I'd imagine a good deal of science would be involved in determining whether one is rationally capable of upholding their rights in a given weakened state such as trauma, amnesia, etc.