Political Theory

Re: A Trespassing Scenario

WmBGreene — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 21:45:28 GMT

JonBostwick:
I dont see how that's a problem

Why does that not suprise me?

Re: A Trespassing Scenario

Bostwick — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 07:30:42 GMT

WmBGreene:
The point is that the landless are being infringed upon by having to pay economic rent to the landowners which violates their absolute right of self-ownership.

Oh. I dont see how thats a problem.

Re: A Trespassing Scenario

Parsidius — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 20:32:21 GMT

DBratton:

Inquisitor:
No, that'd be murder. At most the owner could force the individual to pay for the flight, out of present wealth or future earnings.

I agree you could settle out of his present assets; but to attach future earnings is slavery isn't it?

No, because legally he has a debt to pay to those against whom he trespassed. This trespassing debt is not really different from any other debt one is obligated to pay.

Re: A Trespassing Scenario

WmBGreene — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 14:00:26 GMT

JonBostwick:
No, pretty good at reading words though.

Since when does the word "land" mean the word "dwelling"?

JonBostwick:
Because of capital people will not need to steal LAND in order to exist

My argument is that to exist IS TO occupy land somewhere and that the vision of libertarians IS TO bring everything into a private property framework.

JonBostwick:
they will be able to trade for CAPITAL.

A right does not have to be gifted or purchased. We are born with them as humans.

JonBostwick:
Voluntary relationships makes your central planning unended. (What a suprise!)

It is not voluntary to occupy some location while existing. They are one in the same.

JonBostwick:
How unfair that someone should have to work in order to exist, right?

There is no "work" in order to exist. To exist is to occupy a location somewhere. There is only working to continue to exist.

I involuntarily labor to freely breathe the air to continue to exist. I labor to drink water which freely exists in nature to continue to exist. If I do not have free access to the earth then I don't have the means to feed myself without paying atribute to someone else.

JonBostwick:
This fictional person has the same obligation as everyone else, he must find a way to support himself without infringing on others.

The point is that the landless are being infringed upon by having to pay economic rent to the landowners which violates their absolute right of self-ownership.

JonBostwick:
Can they take land in order to provide themselves with laborless income?

You mean like a landowner does? In the system I advocate there would be no purchase price for land.

Re: A Trespassing Scenario

Bostwick — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 05:18:14 GMT

WmBGreene:
JonBostwick:
You said land, but you meant dwelling.

Really? Are you a mind reader?

No, pretty good at reading words though.

WmBGreene:
If all lands are currently legally occupied then where can he stand in which he doesn't have his absolute right of self-ownership violated by having to pay someone or having it gifted to him?

Your question, besides you trying to use it justify something completely unrelated, does not hold up because of it will never happen. Because of capital people will not need to steal LAND in order to exist, they will be able to trade for CAPITAL. Voluntary relationships makes your central planning unended. (What a suprise!)

How unfair that someone should have to work in order to exist, right? Oh wait, thats what humans have always done. A human can live in the wilderness and exploit the land to support himself(good luck) or he can rent a dwelling in a city and work for his neighbors(and have them work for him). If the entire world is urban, it simply removes his first option. But since this is not the result of a crime, only the collective choices of peaceful people, he is owed nothing. This fictional person has the same obligation as everyone else, he must find a way to support himself without infringing on others.

P.S. What about the right to exist of people unable to exist on their own? Invalids for example. Are they allowed to exist at the expense of others, that is, by stealing? Can they take land in order to provide themselves with laborless income?

Re: A Trespassing Scenario

Inquisitor — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 14:51:30 GMT

WmBGreene:
Any "developing" of land by human labor creates capital not land. By definition land pre-exists human labor.

Are you hoping this might become true by repeating it over and over? So what if land pre-exists labour, what has this to do with anything?

Yes. Subjecting others to economic rent is interfering with their right of self-ownership.

Not at all. It is the duty of the parents to provide a location. Once this has been done it is purely up to the individual how to make use of it.

After land is transformed into capital via labor it can not be subject to a tax without violating the absolute right of self-ownership of the owner.

The individual isn't receiving their labour's worth - they are receiving more than this. Why should it not be taxed, by Georgist logic?

Re: A Trespassing Scenario

WmBGreene — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 11:31:48 GMT

JonBostwick:
You said land, but you meant dwelling.

Really? Are you a mind reader?

JonBostwick:
But he does not have to stand on land. He could live on a house boat. He could live in an apartment. He could live in a basement.

A boat, an apartment, and a basement are capital - not land.

JonBostwick:
As soon as a child demonstrates he is able to support himself(eg earn a living and buy a place to live) then his existence no longer depends on the charity of his parents.

So in other words, a right of self-ownership has to be purchased?

Re: A Trespassing Scenario

Bostwick — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 08:05:01 GMT

WmBGreene:
JonBostwick:
all dwellings are not occupied and never will be.

I said if all lands were legally occupied. "Dwellings" having been constructed via human labor are capital not land.
JonBostwick:
The self-ownership rights of babies are really threatened these days.

Then when exactly do you get to excercise the absolute right of self-ownership that doesn't have to be purcahsed or gifted?

You said land, but you meant dwelling. You are talking about a person lacking a right to "stand" somewhere. But he does not have to stand on land. He could live on a house boat. He could live in an apartment. He could live in a basement.

You get to exercise your "absolute right of self-ownership" when you are able to. As soon as a child demonstrates he is able to support himself(eg earn a living and buy a place to live) then his existence no longer depends on the charity of his parents. As you probably know, even though babies are not property, they depend on others to continue living.

Re: A Trespassing Scenario

WmBGreene — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 03:44:53 GMT

Inquisitor:
territory can be expanded by developing land

Any "developing" of land by human labor creates capital not land. By definition land pre-exists human labor.

Inquisitor:
In a sense, never. It is always bound up with an obligation of others not to interfere with it.

Yes. Subjecting others to economic rent is interfering with their right of self-ownership.

Inquisitor:
What about taxing the rest of market transactions, like I mentioned?

After land is transformed into capital via labor it can not be subject to a tax without violating the absolute right of self-ownership of the owner.

Re: A Trespassing Scenario

Inquisitor — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 03:21:33 GMT

WmBGreene:
If labor went into producing them, then they are capital not land.

And I have given sources as to why this distinction is ultimately irrelevant. Your entire objection falls to pieces once one realizes that territory can be expanded by developing land, and in fact it is an argument against your very position.

Is it a fact that to be alive as a human one has to occupy a location somewhere?

Yes.

Is a right an obligation that someone is to provide, be gifted or have to purchase?

A right of one person can be a voluntarily-entered upon duty by another to provide them with something, yes.

When exactly does one have a right to self-ownership that isn't obliged, gifted or purcahsed?

In a sense, never. It is always bound up with an obligation of others not to interfere with it.

What about taxing the rest of market transactions, like I mentioned?

Re: A Trespassing Scenario

WmBGreene — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 01:05:20 GMT

Inquisitor:
Since you seem to believe all non-labour based income should be taxed, you ought to tax all market transactions. Many involve prices above the labour that went into their production.

If labor went into producing them, then they are capital not land.

Inquisitor:
It does not follow from the fact that one occupies a location that they have a right to it.

Is it a fact that to be alive as a human one has to occupy a location somewhere?

Inquisitor:
your parents are obliged to provide you with a location once they bring you into existence.

Is a right an obligation that someone is to provide, be gifted or have to purchase?

When exactly does one have a right to self-ownership that isn't obliged, gifted or purcahsed?

Re: A Trespassing Scenario

WmBGreene — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 00:27:27 GMT

JonBostwick:
all dwellings are not occupied and never will be.

I said if all lands were legally occupied. "Dwellings" having been constructed via human labor are capital not land.

JonBostwick:
The self-ownership rights of babies are really threatened these days.

Then when exactly do you get to excercise the absolute right of self-ownership that doesn't have to be purcahsed or gifted?

Re: A Trespassing Scenario

Bostwick — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 22:10:39 GMT

WmBGreene:
JonBostwick:
Just because a person is born does mean he is entitled to steal someone else's land.

If all lands are currently legally occupied then where can he stand in which he doesn't have his absolute right of self-ownership violated by having to pay someone or having it gifted to him?

I'm not trying to blow your mind, but all dwellings are not occupied and never will be.

Oh yeah. The self-ownership rights of babies are really threatened these days. Those damn parents, always charging rent.

I give in, you win. A new born is allowed to move into whatever home he wishes. Happy?

Edit: woops, I see I had a typo before.

Re: A Trespassing Scenario

WalterEC — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 21:17:07 GMT

I believe I was picturing this scenario in a different light. The picture in my mind was of a stowaway on a private plane. I would still contend, with my image of the situation, that the stowaway's intentions can never be fully known. You also could not be expected to believe the stowaway's explanation for the accidental boarding. This would make it necessary to detain the person in some way within the confines of the plane. (ie; tie him to a chair)

Re: A Trespassing Scenario

Inquisitor — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 15:35:12 GMT

Because this is beginning to bore me, I will just point out:

-Creation is not what entitles one to property and the Lockean proviso is pure, unsubstantiated fiction (reliant on theological presuppositions.) Self-ownership is only justifiable on the grounds in the article I provided. One does not own 'value' in anything. Austrianism does not directly use Locke's homesteading theories, but rather modified versions of them. See Hoppe (Economics and Ethics of Private Property, A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism), Long, de Jasay and others on this.

http://www.mises.org/story/2291

http://www.anti-state.com/article.php?article_id=312 (the Objective Links part of this article goes into the current Austrian theory of homesteading)

-Since you seem to believe all non-labour based income should be taxed, you ought to tax all market transactions. Many involve prices above the labour that went into their production.

-It does not follow from the fact that one occupies a location that they have a right to it. I could simply switch the words 'gifted' to 'obliged to provide'. Thus, your parents are obliged to provide you with a location once they bring you into existence. Thus from a 'gift' it becomes a 'duty', which is the other side of the coin of most rights.

-Private ownership extends the availability of space, it does not diminish it. Per Skousen, land supply is not entirely inelastic. The distinction between capital and land is iffy, per Fetter. It is not some incontrovertible fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Fetter#Land_as_capital