Economics Questions

Re: The production of security as a form of original appropriation and the consequences for future land homesteading

hayekianxyz — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 02:45:28 GMT

Brainpolice:

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.

Aww.

By the way, you seem to awfully keen to avoid this debate. So I'll ask again (in fact, I'll ask until I get an answer), how about it?

Re: The production of security as a form of original appropriation and the consequences for future land homesteading

hayekianxyz — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 02:43:15 GMT

liberty student:
So you're saying that even if they have a homesteading claim, but can't recognize or articulate it, that is sufficient reason to take the resource from them? What if the failure to comprehend them is yours?

Of course, if they can't comprehend the notion of a particular piece of property being theirs as opposed to some vague around perhaps between log X, tree Y and rock Z then they can't be said to have fulfilled the subjective aspect of homesteading, and hence can't be said to own the land. Moreover, it's impossible to recognize any individual owner, and since only individuals can own property only individuals can homestead it.

liberty student:
Obviously, I agree with you on this. But as presented, the notion is that primitive people can have their territory confiscated, if there is a higher efficiency to be found under different ownership. Did I misunderstand that?

Perhaps that's Stranger's argument, not mine. My arguments is that the land is free to be homestead since these individuals can't be said to have homesteaded. Now, once again, let me reiterate that this has to be decided on a case to case basis as opposed to making sweeping generalizations. There are tribes who are clearly more advanced and have a sound concept of property rights and there are those that lack that capacity almost completely.

liberty student:
What about a couple? Husband and wife team?

No, they can't homestead property. They can jointly own it, but that's only it has been homesteaded. Since it takes action to homestead land and only individuals act.

liberty student:
The former is incorrect. I has everything to do with voluntary and participatory legal structures, which may not be your own. What I consider to be the most important part of libertarianism, is the freedom of law and security. You (and some others) seem to focus on the freedom to provide security, but not so much on diversity of law and legal systems.

Yes, there will be different systems of law to cater to different individuals, which is quite besides the point since there will need to be some basic principles.

liberty student:
The latter, is also incorrect. When you ride over the hill on your burro, and survey a valley full of fruit orchards and tiny lakes, with a scattering of grass skirted people on that land, how do you know if they homesteaded the land? Removed rocks. Planted the trees. Irrigated the land. Removed foliage?

If there's a subjective aspect to it, if that's lacking, then I haven't homesteaded it.

liberty student:
Taking land in use by others, even if you think it is not well used, barely used etc is not as simple as making an argument for your superior need, use or superiority of person (ability to argue more rationally).

My argument has nothing to do with that, it has to do with the fact that it can't be said to be owned.

Re: The production of security as a form of original appropriation and the consequences for future land homesteading

Stranger — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 01:08:54 GMT

I don't have a position on spousal co-ownership or communes. You're the one trying to hijack the thread.

Re: The production of security as a form of original appropriation and the consequences for future land homesteading

liberty student — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 00:52:44 GMT

Sadly, your unwillingness to debate your positions is rendering this entire discussion irrelevant. I'm done. Bon chance.

Re: The production of security as a form of original appropriation and the consequences for future land homesteading

Stranger — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 21:27:52 GMT

liberty student:

Care to comment on spousal co-ownership and how that differs from a commune of 3, 5 or 50 people co-owning land?

No because that's irrelevant.

Re: The production of security as a form of original appropriation and the consequences for future land homesteading

liberty student — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 21:14:00 GMT

Care to comment on spousal co-ownership and how that differs from a commune of 3, 5 or 50 people co-owning land?

Stranger:

I'm not making any argument about what is homesteading. As I pointed out right at the beginning, homesteading is inapplicable to most of the world's non-private property. It's by trying to fit homesteading into situations it is meaningless that your argument runs in circles.

We can come back to this later. There are a lot of other ways to deconstruct your position.

Re: The production of security as a form of original appropriation and the consequences for future land homesteading

Stranger — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 19:57:09 GMT

I'm not making any argument about what is homesteading. As I pointed out right at the beginning, homesteading is inapplicable to most of the world's non-private property. It's by trying to fit homesteading into situations it is meaningless that your argument runs in circles.

Re: The production of security as a form of original appropriation and the consequences for future land homesteading

liberty student — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 18:29:46 GMT

Stranger:
The topic is what to do with property that is outside of the legal system and tied up in hegemonic bonds.

But that is not correct. It's outside YOUR preferred legal system. You're presuming that there is a monopoly on law and only you can interpret what that law is.

Stranger:
The problems of inheritance and consent of the disabled are already solved in the current legal system without the state's involvement.

In the current legal system where? In the UK? Canada? India? Congo? Singapore? What year? 2008? 2045? 1872? When?

You have not made a solid argument on that topic either as the current system is a state monopoly of law creation, interpretation and enforcement.

I don't really feel a burning need to break down how inheritance and consent are handled ,it's not particularly interesting to me, except that you were making an argument that is based upon a completely arbitrary nature to define what is theft, and what is homesteading. The capacity for rational argumenatation.

Re: The production of security as a form of original appropriation and the consequences for future land homesteading

Stranger — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 17:57:54 GMT

Nitroadict:

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?

I don't know why you are going through so many loops. The problems of inheritance and consent of the disabled are already solved in the current legal system without the state's involvement.

This isn't what the thread is about. The topic is what to do with property that is outside of the legal system and tied up in hegemonic bonds.

Re: The production of security as a form of original appropriation and the consequences for future land homesteading

liberty student — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 17:41:49 GMT

GilesStratton:
But not this one, I think you're missing my point. The point remains there is no single individual who has homesteaded the land, the form of social organization isn't the point. The point is that there is a lack of conscious homesteading, these individuals merely use much in the same way as animals. Moreover, whilst there may be some vague notion of property, it doesn't follow that these individuals have any clear notion of what exactly is their property and what isn't.

So you're saying that even if they have a homesteading claim, but can't recognize or articulate it, that is sufficient reason to take the resource from them? What if the failure to comprehend them is yours?

GilesStratton:
No, I'm not. What I'm saying is that these individuals will make claims to territory when they clearly do not own it. For example a forest that they've once killed an animal in a forest and now they claim to be owners of that forest. The fact remains they can't specify what they own and what they don't. As such the whole thing is very vaguely defined.

Obviously, I agree with you on this. But as presented, the notion is that primitive people can have their territory confiscated, if there is a higher efficiency to be found under different ownership. Did I misunderstand that?

GilesStratton:
No, individuals can homestead. And individuals only.

What about a couple? Husband and wife team?

GilesStratton:
This has nothing to do with corporations. Where it is made explicit. Moreover, in a corporations individuals have already homesteaded the required capital, which clearly isn't the case here.

The former is incorrect. I has everything to do with voluntary and participatory legal structures, which may not be your own. What I consider to be the most important part of libertarianism, is the freedom of law and security. You (and some others) seem to focus on the freedom to provide security, but not so much on diversity of law and legal systems.

The latter, is also incorrect. When you ride over the hill on your burro, and survey a valley full of fruit orchards and tiny lakes, with a scattering of grass skirted people on that land, how do you know if they homesteaded the land? Removed rocks. Planted the trees. Irrigated the land. Removed foliage?

Taking land in use by others, even if you think it is not well used, barely used etc is not as simple as making an argument for your superior need, use or superiority of person (ability to argue more rationally).

Re: The production of security as a form of original appropriation and the consequences for future land homesteading

hayekianxyz — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 13:29:55 GMT

wombatron:

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.

You don't need communal property to make this argument. It's far simpler to say that either:

The property is still unowned, or,
The first individual to clear the path homesteaded it and allowed others to make improvements to the land.

Communal rights don't exist, only individual rights do.

wombatron:
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.

But I haven't claimed otherwise, in fact, I've agreed with you in saying that it would need to be settled in regard to each scenario. Which it would, since cooperation is far cheaper than conflict.

wombatron:
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.

Yes, but that's quite besides the point. I'll agree with you that these primitives understand property rights. Easements? Not a chance.

wombatron:
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.

You make a very convincing argument, as such I'll grant you this point.

Re: The production of security as a form of original appropriation and the consequences for future land homesteading

hayekianxyz — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 13:23:57 GMT

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.

Stop trying to find allies BP, this is very petty.

Re: The production of security as a form of original appropriation and the consequences for future land homesteading

hayekianxyz — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 13:23:11 GMT

liberty student:

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?

I concede this point.

liberty student:
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.

But not this one, I think you're missing my point. The point remains there is no single individual who has homesteaded the land, the form of social organization isn't the point. The point is that there is a lack of conscious homesteading, these individuals merely use much in the same way as animals. Moreover, whilst there may be some vague notion of property, it doesn't follow that these individuals have any clear notion of what exactly is their property and what isn't.

liberty student:
That is a completely different scenario. You are conflating what you consider to be undefined property rights with self-defense with aggression.

No, I'm not. What I'm saying is that these individuals will make claims to territory when they clearly do not own it. For example a forest that they've once killed an animal in a forest and now they claim to be owners of that forest. The fact remains they can't specify what they own and what they don't. As such the whole thing is very vaguely defined.

liberty student:
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

No, individuals can homestead. And individuals only.

liberty student:
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.

This has nothing to do with corporations. Where it is made explicit. Moreover, in a corporations individuals have already homesteaded the required capital, which clearly isn't the case here.

Re: The production of security as a form of original appropriation and the consequences for future land homesteading

Nitroadict — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 05:48:38 GMT

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.

Re: The production of security as a form of original appropriation and the consequences for future land homesteading

Stranger — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 05:24:51 GMT

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?