Political Theory

Re: Mr Burns

Scrooge McDuck — Sat, 01 Jan 2011 07:52:11 GMT

I just wanted to post this quote from Mr. Burns, I love it except for the appeal to nationalism/patriotism in the beginning:

"If you can take advantage of a situation in some way, it's your duty as an American to do it. Why should the race always be to the swift, or the Jumble to the quick-witted? Should they be allowed to win merely because of the gifts God gave them? Well I say, 'Cheating is the gift man gives himself.'"

Re: Mr Burns

David Sherin — Fri, 31 Dec 2010 07:15:29 GMT

"What about sunbathing?"

Well if he's sunbathing, it doesn't matter if he's a farmer or not. The only way a farmer, as a farmer, can make use of photons is to plant crops.

"But anyway: Imagine it was raining donuts and you sat on the ground and caught them as they fell from the sky (the origin is unknown). Now let's say someone taller than you came along and held a basket above you, thereby catching the newly falling donuts. You have the donuts you caught before, and he has the donuts he caught after placing his basket there. Do you have a rightful claim on his donuts purely because you caught the donuts that fell before them?"

I would probably say that the guy sitting there first has a better claim to the ones falling towards him than the tall guy. I don't spend too much time worrying about scenarios like this though. Perhaps a better question is who owns the land the guy is sitting on.

Re: Mr Burns

Mtn Dew — Fri, 31 Dec 2010 06:35:08 GMT

What about a guy that invents a gigantic vacuum cleaner to suck all of the air out of the earth's atmosphere? Have we all homesteaded oxygen or would he be perfectly within his rights to do so?

Re: Mr Burns

Aristippus — Fri, 31 Dec 2010 06:14:12 GMT

"The only way to make use of those photons in the case of the farmer is to plant crops."

What about sunbathing?

But anyway: Imagine it was raining donuts and you sat on the ground and caught them as they fell from the sky (the origin is unknown). Now let's say someone taller than you came along and held a basket above you, thereby catching the newly falling donuts. You have the donuts you caught before, and he has the donuts he caught after placing his basket there. Do you have a rightful claim on his donuts purely because you caught the donuts that fell before them?

"I'm not familiar with the Simpson's episode"

I was just using the name as an example since you seemed to be switching between arguments and I wanted to know which one you thought was the correct one.

Re: Mr Burns

David Sherin — Fri, 31 Dec 2010 06:06:07 GMT

"I should have said production and/or extraction etc. In any case it must have been clear to you that the sun does not need human activity in order to shine upon earth (not so for oil extraction etc.)."

It depends how you define extraction. The only way to make use of those photons in the case of the farmer is to plant crops. Crops planted by the farmer taking in light from the air are "extracting" (and in the same step, the light gets incorporated into the farmer's production process). Most things we make use of in nature are given to us and we have to transform them into something more useful to us. But these things that exist in nature don't require human activity to exist. And all these things from nature require some form of human activity to be homesteaded.

"Wait, so which is it:

a) Mr. Simpson has made use of certain photons and has therefore homesteaded those particular photons and no others.

b) Mr. Simpson has made use of certain photons and has therefore homesteaded ALL photons which come from the same origin (i.e. above his property on the ground).

c) Mr. Simpson has looked at the sun, and has therefore homesteaded that particular view of the sun.

If any of these is correct, explain to me how the object in question is homesteaded."

I'm not familiar with the Simpson's episode so I can't really tell how the townspeople may or may not have homesteaded a right to an unobstructed sky. But as a disclaimer, I can't give you an answer for every little possible scenario that might exist. I'm just throwing in my 2 cents.

Re: Mr Burns

David Sherin — Fri, 31 Dec 2010 05:53:35 GMT

I'm pretty sure a view per se isn't something that can be homesteaded. An unobstructed view of the sun however is something that can be used as a factor of production, so it isn't the view for the sake of a view that you care about. If the barn cast a shadow big enough to affect crops you had planted, then it would be illegitimate.

Re: Mr Burns

Aristippus — Fri, 31 Dec 2010 05:33:19 GMT

"They don't need to create the photons to make use of them (an oil company doesn't create the oil it drills for)."

I should have said production and/or extraction etc. In any case it must have been clear to you that the sun does not need human activity in order to shine upon earth (not so for oil extraction etc.).

"The question comes down to who has a more legitimate use of the photons: someone who has been making use of them, or someone who comes along and tries to prevent other people, who have been making use of them, from using them? Essentially what you're homesteading is a relatively unobstructed view of the sun over a certain area of land. If you're a farmer requiring 40 acres and you legitimately homestead that land, anyone who attempts to block the sun over your land is infringing on your rights."

Wait, so which is it:

a) Mr. Simpson has made use of certain photons and has therefore homesteaded those particular photons and no others.

b) Mr. Simpson has made use of certain photons and has therefore homesteaded ALL photons which come from the same origin (i.e. above his property on the ground).

c) Mr. Simpson has looked at the sun, and has therefore homesteaded that particular view of the sun.

If any of these is correct, explain to me how the object in question is homesteaded.

"I would suggest Chapter 6 of Boundaries of Order for questions like this."

What particular part of that chapter? I read it but didn't find an answer.

Re: Mr Burns

Jeremiah Dyke — Fri, 31 Dec 2010 05:14:52 GMT

I would suggest Chapter 6 of Boundaries of Order for questions like this.

Re: Mr Burns

z1235 — Fri, 31 Dec 2010 05:04:59 GMT

David Sherin:
Essentially what you're homesteading is a relatively unobstructed view of the sun over a certain area of land.

Can I also legitimately stop you from building a barn on your plot next to mine, if it would obstruct my 'homesteaded' view of the forest behind it?

Re: Mr Burns

z1235 — Fri, 31 Dec 2010 04:53:18 GMT

nirgrahamUK:
He is unmoved by questions of justifiabilty and legality.

Quite the contrary. I was moved enough by justifiability and legality to take the case to a local arbitrator. Was my description of everyone's incentives (thus likely actions) in this scenario wrong? Finally, which is more Austrian: to let the market reflect the subjective valuations (and incentives) of its participants or to let Walter Block 'objectively' determine 'good' and 'evil'?

Re: Mr Burns

David Sherin — Fri, 31 Dec 2010 04:42:54 GMT

"David Sherin, you miss that the users of these photons did not produce either the photons or the sun, and had no hand at all in their production. They simply fell from the sky, and I can't see how you have a claim to the future photons just because you caught some other, similar, photons in the past."

They don't need to create the photons to make use of them (an oil company doesn't create the oil it drills for). The question comes down to who has a more legitimate use of the photons: someone who has been making use of them, or someone who comes along and tries to prevent other people, who have been making use of them, from using them? Essentially what you're homesteading is a relatively unobstructed view of the sun over a certain area of land. If you're a farmer requiring 40 acres and you legitimately homestead that land, anyone who attempts to block the sun over your land is infringing on your rights.

Re: Mr Burns

William — Fri, 31 Dec 2010 03:23:10 GMT

I. Ryan: Tyranny of the masses.

No, no this is a good grasp of a homesteading principle. If you think you can profit socially off of something that will destroy millions upon millions of people due to the protection of some law, you're simply delusional or too stupid to survive. You have to be acting within the scope and context that society will allow to in order to achieve a profit or exploit a resource, otherwise the land is not being used correctly and your own judgements failed you. Most if not all people simply don't have nor ever will have the power to "blot out the sun" in a profitable manner.

Re: Mr Burns

nirgrahamUK — Fri, 31 Dec 2010 03:16:17 GMT

The umbrella gets built?

What happens when people can't afford to live in large houses? I think they live in small houses ...

Re: Mr Burns

scineram — Fri, 31 Dec 2010 03:11:19 GMT

What if the people in the city cannot afford to build obstructions to the incoming umbrella?

Re: Mr Burns

nirgrahamUK — Fri, 31 Dec 2010 03:00:32 GMT

He only cares about efficiency, he gives not a fig for peoples rights. He is unmoved by questions of justifiabilty and legality. This is me just recognizing him. His idea of efficiency is no doubt divorced from Austrian notions of subjective value, and the efficiency incentivising of the market process under minimal rights violation. He signals an objective neo- classical mixed with common sense thymological view of efficiency I merely recognise the gap in our perspectives that will keep agreement between us at bay. No true Scotsman has nothing to do with it