Political Theory

Re: Libertarian Paradox

Grant — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 21:02:43 GMT

WmBGreene:
Grant:
Natural roads are by definition owned, because they were created by labor of travelers. It may be hard to define what their ownership is, but they are still owned by the individuals who created and use them.

It is not hard to define. It is called "owned in common as an individual equal right".

Individuals who do not use and did not help create the road should have no ownership of it. So the owners are the creators of the road, a rather difficult thing to define. Otherwise, how can you define exclusive use? Indians and Chinese should not have any claim to ownership over a path made by Native Americans, for example. I agree there is a common right of way and all that, but that comes from the creator's (and thus owner's) use of the road. The right of way in England is different than the United States because of the customs of the people who homesteaded the roads. The roads are owned by many, many people, but are still owned (and I appologize if this is what you ment by "owned in common").

WmBGreene:
Grant:
You can't defend everyone's negative rights for them without coercion, violating other's rights.
You actually can by requiring an obligation to share the economic rent that results from exclusive use of land in a scarcity market because the landowner's rights remain intact as they contribute no labor towards the creation of the economic rent. It by definition is unimproved land value.

Example: Robinson Curuso is living alone on a desert island, obvilious to everything else around him. He is discovered by a fisherman, and a Georgian governor travels to his island to collect rent due. How is this not coercive?

Re: Libertarian Paradox

Inquisitor — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:48:24 GMT

WmBGreene:
It can and has to be objectively measured inorder for eminent domain to be justified.

Just because eminent domain requires it to be justified, does not mean it can be justified, or even measured. How is it to be measured?

Re: Libertarian Paradox

WmBGreene — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 03:39:32 GMT

Grant:
Who decides what the "common good" is?

It can and has to be objectively measured inorder for eminent domain to be justified.

Grant:
Natural roads are by definition owned, because they were created by labor of travelers. It may be hard to define what their ownership is, but they are still owned by the individuals who created and use them.

It is not hard to define. It is called "owned in common as an individual equal right".

Grant:
You can't defend everyone's negative rights for them without coercion, violating other's rights.

You actually can by requiring an obligation to share the economic rent that results from exclusive use of land in a scarcity market because the landowner's rights remain intact as they contribute no labor towards the creation of the economic rent. It by definition is unimproved land value.

Re: Libertarian Paradox

WmBGreene — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 03:32:51 GMT

MrJekyll:
We are animals and we will fight for territory; sometimes winning and sometimes loosing. That fight might be with tooth and nail (guns and bombs) or with gold in hand (purchases and sales). There is no such thing as a "Natural Right".

We are different than other animals because we have the ability to reason as sapient beings and we all have the human capacity to act equally moral as judged in being equal in the eyes of the law.

Re: Libertarian Paradox

WmBGreene — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 03:28:35 GMT

MrJekyll:
No physical coercion of person or property.

That's the Golden Rule. It all branches out from that.

Actually, the non-aggression principle (what you are calling "The Golden Rule" and others call the "non-agression principle" or "zero agression principle") derives from the fundamental tenet of libertarianism - the absolute right of self-ownership.

Re: Libertarian Paradox

WmBGreene — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 03:22:14 GMT

JonBostwick:
You have no right to travel on my driveway.

A driveway contains no common right of way as it is owned exclusively.

JonBostwick:
You have no right to drive on a toll road

As I have said, collective rights are superior and common rights are inferior the father away one moves from foot travel as the amount of potential harm caused to body and property is greater on roads. One can always apply for a permit to use the road as a common right of way that temporarily infringes on car travel to excercise one's common right of free speech. It is done in Washington DC all the time.

JonBostwick:
You have no right to walk on a footpath through my property.

A footpath through your property has no common right of way because you own the land exclusively.

JonBostwick:
You have no more "common right of way" on a sidewalk than in a hallway.

The common right of ways contained within sidewalks specifically are where we excercise our first amendment common rights (individual equal rights) of speech, assembly, petitioning.

Re: Libertarian Paradox

MrJekyll — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 23:09:28 GMT

We are animals and we will fight for territory; sometimes winning and sometimes loosing. That fight might be with tooth and nail (guns and bombs) or with gold in hand (purchases and sales). There is no such thing as a "Natural Right". Mother Nature is not a Socialist Ideological Entity Manipulating Lifeforms In Fractional Superiority (SIEMLIFS).

Adapt or Die

Re: Libertarian Paradox

MrJekyll — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 22:54:59 GMT

anarcho-capitalist society:

No physical coercion of person or property.

That's the Golden Rule. It all branches out from that. People would gravitate to what keeps them prosperous. You can preach what you want. People would follow what works and what keeps them happy. As their would be no Government to meddle and lie to people, people would be able to make up their own minds. People who build their lives off old Socialist principles would find themselves poor and starving. They would be shunned by the rest of society that believes in setting it's own prosperity levels independent of fingers that like cookie jars.

Re: Libertarian Paradox

Grant — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 13:23:03 GMT

WmBGreene:
Most roads started out as paths over common land. When it can be shown that the common good is served, private land can be taken out of private use and brought back into common use for "public" purpose, so long as the private owners are compensated with market rate value.

Who decides what the "common good" is? Why should anyone decide that, when the market process already serves the purposes of everyone in the market? Natural roads are by definition owned, because they were created by labor of travelers. It may be hard to define what their ownership is, but they are still owned by the individuals who created and use them.

WmBGreene:
Actually he subjects those opportunity costs on those being excluded while economic rent continues to accumulate to the location.

No, because the lesser amount of rent gained from inefficient usage is the opportunity cost he pays.

WmBGreene:
That is the fundamental tenet of libertarianism. An absolute right of self-ownership where the non-agression principles is derived from that.

Of some forms of libertarianism I guess. You can't defend everyone's negative rights for them without coercion, violating other's rights. Taxation can be used to provide everyone with police protection, which protects against violations of self-ownership, so would that be alright? How about taxing them to defend against communist fluoridation plots? Its no different from taxing others to provide land. Freedom isn't free.

Libertarianism can't guarantee full negative rights for everyone, its just the best way we know of to protect them.

Re: Libertarian Paradox

Inquisitor — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 06:39:21 GMT

WmBGreene:
It specifically economically disadvantages the excluded and thus violates their absolute right o self-ownership.

Perhaps it might disadvantage them by making appropriation more difficult, but so what? They have no right to an easy appropriation. Self-ownership is left unscathed.

The ability to access everything/everywhere for the first person is not abrogated with the addition of others but rather made into an equal access right because no one labored to produce what pre-exists human labor.

How does being able to go anywhere translate into a right to be able to go anywhere post-appropriation, unless you had been using that specific location as a path extensively in the past?

OK, then when can he excercise his full rights to self-ownership that don't require a gift of access to land or a purchase, if you believe that we are born with rights that don't have to be purcahsed or gifted.

What do you mean purchase them? He can gain property by purchasing it, but not any right to self-ownership which he already possesses.

If labor is required for ownership and land by definition pre-exists human labor, then by what logic does a specific location on the surface of the earth become exclusive use and if it is by labor then exactly how much labor is required?

In that article the first-use principle is evoked. That resolves the entire problem by assigning ownership over the location to the first-user. As for how much labour is to be expended, it would depend on local customs. Fencing would also be necessary in the case of land.

An easement is a legal requirement to allow a specific person the right to travel across your exclusive property. What you are describing is a common right of way which is not the result of any specific individual's labor but rather any number of individuals engaged in walking over he same path.

Indeed, but I am presuming no such thing as an "equal right to access" in the process.

Re: Libertarian Paradox

Bostwick — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 05:30:57 GMT

WmBGreene:
There is a common right of way (an individual equal natural right) contained within the sidewalks and roads that pre-exist government.

No there is not! You have no right to travel on my driveway. You have no right to drive on a toll road, or any road on in a foreign nation. You have no right to walk on a footpath through my property.

You have no more "common right of way" on a sidewalk than in a hallway. You have access to some hallways and not to others, completely dependent on the choice of owner.

What you are claiming is completely imaginary.

Re: Libertarian Paradox

WmBGreene — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 04:44:26 GMT

Grant:
What common right-of-way would exist on private property?

None. An easement could be a type of right of way but to specific individuals.

Grant:
If the road was collectively owned, then fine, the owners set the rules. If its not, its not. If a road is constructed by those collective owners, then they again set the rules. There isn't any way for the owner's idea of proper use (right of way, or whatever) to be violated unless the property rights of the road owners are violated.

Most roads started out as paths over common land. When it can be shown that the common good is served, private land can be taken out of private use and brought back into common use for "public" purpose, so long as the private owners are compensated with market rate value.

Grant:
If the owner of a piece of property does anything less than utilize it in the most socially efficient fashion, he pays for it in opportunity costs.

Actually he subjects those opportunity costs on those being excluded while economic rent continues to accumulate to the location.

Grant:
Exclusion, as we know, is necissary, so one should not pay for making the best use of exclusion rights.

Why not as the value is socially created via it's proximity to the labor and services of those you exclude not created by the labor of the landowner.

Grant:
I really can't imagine a society where absolute self-ownership could be guaranteed for everyone, so I can't comment much on that.

That is the fundamental tenet of libertarianism. An absolute right of self-ownership where the non-agression principles is derived from that.

Re: Libertarian Paradox

WmBGreene — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 04:20:07 GMT

Inquisitor:
You keep on saying this somehow disadvantages others (by increasing scarcity, whatever.) So what?

It specifically economically disadvantages the excluded and thus violates their absolute right o self-ownership.

Inquisitor:
It only constitutes harm if one assumes to begin with they have some equal right to it, and specifically to its value. All they have is a right to attempt to appropriate it, no more, no less.

The ability to access everything/everywhere for the first person is not abrogated with the addition of others but rather made into an equal access right because no one labored to produce what pre-exists human labor.

Inquisitor:
This implies that a person reaches adulthood, or "appropriates" his body and gains full ownership rights to it, when he reaches the point where he is a rational agent in this sense.

OK, then when can he excercise his full rights to self-ownership that don't require a gift of access to land or a purchase, if you believe that we are born with rights that don't have to be purcahsed or gifted?

Do you?

Inquisitor:
I don't see how that follows.

If labor is required for ownership and land by definition pre-exists human labor, then by what logic does a specific location on the surface of the earth become exclusive use and if it is by labor then exactly how much labor is required?

Inquisitor:
Rights to use certain passways come from actually using them. There is no "equal" right to use them. What paths you have gained easements to remain yours to use, and no more than that.

An easement is a legal requirement to allow a specific person the right to travel across your exclusive property. What you are describing is a common right of way which is not the result of any specific individual's labor but rather any number of individuals engaged in walking over he same path.

Re: Libertarian Paradox

Grant — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 02:57:33 GMT

WmBGreene:
Correct. But the common right of way pre-exists the collectively owned road bed. It is not abrogated by the physical construction of the road. This is why it is so comfounding to most libertarians.

What common right-of-way would exist on private property? If the road was collectively owned, then fine, the owners set the rules. If its not, its not. If a road is constructed by those collective owners, then they again set the rules. There isn't any way for the owner's idea of proper use (right of way, or whatever) to be violated unless the property rights of the road owners are violated.

WmBGreene:
I agree. But inorder not to violate the absolute right of self-ownership of those you exclude, exclusive use may require an obligation to those you exclude.

Grant:
When purchasing owned property, the market already forces people to pay for how many people are excluded from ownership, because price rises with demand.

Yes. But the wrong people are being paid if you want to uphold the absolute right of self-ownership. It is the locations proximity to the labor and services of those you exclude that gives a location it's value so the economic rent should be paid to the excluded not to the excluder.

If the owner of a piece of property does anything less than utilize it in the most socially efficient fashion, he pays for it in opportunity costs. While you are correct that he can, by rights, exclude people in a less unprofitable fashion, he pays for the ability to do so. Exclusion, as we know, is necissary, so one should not pay for making the best use of exclusion rights. Just because the owner can exclude people, does not mean his right to do so causes some sort of externalities on others. You could say (in a non-Austrian sense) that he causes an externalities when he does exclude people in a less profitable manner, but he does this by literally paying society. His loss of income means he has less of an ability to trade for the goods and services of others, so more goods and services are allocated towards the rest of the population.

I really can't imagine a society where absolute self-ownership could be guaranteed for everyone, so I can't comment much on that. Even for property owners in market anarchism, such absolute ownership would be dependent upon trade, because absolute and total self-ownership (including the right to construct a nuclear bomb) would likely require one to live without the protection of a government-esque firm. The cancellation of contracts with that firm would probably not be free in some instances.

Re: Libertarian Paradox

Inquisitor — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 02:53:43 GMT

WmBGreene:
Yes and it is possible to separate improved land value as capital (the return on capital being economic interest) and unimproved land value as economic rent.

Yet why should we? You keep on saying this somehow disadvantages others (by increasing scarcity, whatever.) So what? It only constitutes harm if one assumes to begin with they have some equal right to it, and specifically to its value. All they have is a right to attempt to appropriate it, no more, no less.

So when does one achieve the absolute right of self-ownership?

Hard to answer. This should provide some help though:

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

'Hoppe also argues that rights are held by rational agents — those who are "capable of communicating, discussing, arguing, and in particular, [who are] able to engage in an argumentation of normative problems". This implies that a person reaches adulthood, or "appropriates" his body and gains full ownership rights to it, when he reaches the point where he is a rational agent in this sense.'

If I am the first human on earth I can go wherever I want and do whatever I want to derive my sustenance. There is no need for the concept of rights because there is no human conflict possible.
If another human appears they have the same ability as my ability is not abrogated but becomes an individual equal right as the two make up rules (rights) to avoid conflict.

I don't see how that follows. Rights to use certain passways come from actually using them. There is no "equal" right to use them. What paths you have gained easements to remain yours to use, and no more than that.