How does that even follow? And how does it follow that if the courts award damages in money that the value is what was owned? All value is, is the subjective estimation of the item in the minds of individuals. How can this be owned? If it can be, why not say competition is destructive of property rights? BTW, I had changed the sentence you quoted, made it more precise.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Yeah, and it answers the question precisely. I've already explained what it is - the relevant technological unit, as determined by industry experts in the particular field. If you would stop trying to spin the entire theory of anarchism out of your head and take the time to read the article maybe things would make more sense to you.
Are you dense? Just summarize it! Tell me YOUR UNDERSTANDING! I can't even find that string of words in most of Rothbards stuff. I looked at it in the Air Pollution bit, and he wouldn't go into it.
Jon Irenicus:Yeah, and it answers the question precisely. I've already explained what it is - the relevant technological unit, as determined by industry experts in the particular field.
I see, and who decides who "industry experts" are, and why, again, should I listen to them? I can tell you that, in general, I have a fairly dim view of those who claim to be "experts".
Jon Irenicus:How does that even follow? And how does it follow that if the courts award damages in money that the value is what was owned? All value is, is the subjective estimation of the item in the minds of individuals. How can this be owned? If it can be, why not say competition is destructive of property rights? BTW, I had changed the sentence you quoted, made it more precise.
Actually, there is some semi-objective measure of value, namely that which the object would go for on the market. Your bike tire may have been blessed by the pope, and priceless to you, but the only damages you could reasonably get if I slashed it are what you could get such a thing for on the market. They do not grant the item; that item is gone, and may or may not be currently available on the market. Further, they give you damages based on the market, average value, of the object. It is just an estimate of the value, as measured in currency, you lost. It is the value you lost, because you would be entitled to the money, even if you still had the slashed tire. You are entitled to the value difference, as determined by the market, between the slashed and unslashed tire.
If it were the object, and not the value, that was owned, if you still had the slashed tire how did you lose anything? All the material of the tire is still in your possession. So what did you lose, that you should be compensated for?
Why are you losing your patience? It is bad enough I have to explain things step by step to you because you're too damn lazy to educate yourself - you have little leeway in this regard. I already explained my understanding. The RTU allows the homesteader to know what level of input is necessary in transforming the land to come to own it - what is required will vary locally and according to industry - and yes, it will be determined by industry experts that both courts, insurers and their clients are willing to consult, after which time it will be pretty much standard knowledge what is required, locally. I really do not see what is hard to understand regarding experts - people hire them all the time (one relies on them after all to determine the level of damages &c.) I know it is intolerable to suggest a level of indeterminacy from the POV of armchair theorists to most modern ethicists; they'd rather put everything in a straightjacket - but being an Aristotelian, I don't care.
It is the value you lost, because you would be entitled to the money, even if you still had the slashed tire. You are entitled to the value difference, as determined by the market, between the slashed and unslashed tire.
Yeah, the average market value serving as a measure of what is necessary to restore you to your prior position. You're not regaining the value, though. Value is purely subjective in a sense.
For loss of the use of the item due to damage done to it, and restore you to your former position - i.e. that of owning the item. You do not and cannot own the subjective mental states of other agents. I do not see what is difficult to comprehend in this.
Jon Irenicus:For loss of the use of the item due to damage done to it, and restore you to your former position - i.e. that of owning the item. You do not and cannot own the subjective mental states of other agents. I do not see what is difficult to comprehend in this.
I see utility as one of the factors in valuation. The value has decreased because the utility has decreased. I finally found something relatively clear and straghtforward on this, and Rothbard takes the position that property is not really a thing, but a means. As a means, it has a value, determined in large part by its utility in reaching your ends. It seems to me that Rothbard is agreeing with me. I will expand on this in another response.
Jon Irenicus:Why are you losing your patience? It is bad enough I have to explain things step by step to you because you're too damn lazy to educate yourself - you have little leeway in this regard. I already explained my understanding. The RTU allows the homesteader to know what level of input is necessary in transforming the land to come to own it - what is required will vary locally and according to industry - and yes, it will be determined by industry experts that both courts, insurers and their clients are willing to consult, after which time it will be pretty much standard knowledge what is required, locally. I really do not see what is hard to understand regarding experts - people hire them all the time (one relies on them after all to determine the level of damages &c.) I know it is intolerable to suggest a level of indeterminacy from the POV of armchair theorists to most modern ethicists; they'd rather put everything in a straightjacket - but being an Aristotelian, I don't care.
Okay, so the RTU is related to how much of something you need to achieve a particular end, since property is, per Rothbard, a means. I don't see how this actually differs from what I'm saying. I've said, I would not deny you the rights to enough land that you use to support yourself, either because you have a home, or a workshop, or a farm on it. Everyone needs means for their ends, and land can indeed be a means, in that sense. However, I think that we need to define what is a legitimate end such that you can rightfully deny use to others.
As you say, these things need to be industrial in some sort; you need to create value from your use of land for it to be a means. If you just claim and then rent or sell it, you create nothing, you just take the preexisting value as is and force someone else to pay you for something you claimed just because you got there first.
JCFolsom: If it were the object, and not the value, that was owned, if you still had the slashed tire how did you lose anything? All the material of the tire is still in your possession. So what did you lose, that you should be compensated for?
How did you lose anything? It's pretty obvious. You used to have a funtional tire blessed by the pope, now you have a practically worthless slashed tire. That's what you are owed compensation for.
Note also that if you only own the prevailing market value of the object and not the object itself I don't see how you could object to someone handing you prevailing cash value of your car (for example) and driving off with it without your consent. After all, it's the value you owned, not the object itself. Matters get even worse if you hold that you have a right to a specific market value. And worse still if you ground ownership in subjective value.
Yours in liberty,Geoffrey Allan Plauché, Ph.D.Adjunct Instructor, Buena Vista UniversityWebmaster, LibertarianStandard.comFounder / Executive Editor, Prometheusreview.com
Geoffrey Allan Plauche:Note also that if you only own the prevailing market value of the object and not the object itself I don't see how you could object to someone handing you prevailing cash value of your car (for example) and driving off with it without your consent. After all, it's the value you owned, not the object itself. Matters get even worse if you hold that you have a right to a specific market value. And worse still if you ground ownership in subjective value.
Side track. Theory of land ownership, pleez. What is the minimal requirement for homesteading a piece of land?
He would agree that physical goods/services have utility towards servicing certain ends, and this is why they have value. This is uncontroversial. What is controversial is to say one owns the value in the minds of other agents. Market value is more than just value to me. It is the average of all values of all agents bidding on the market. On the one hand, value to me is a terrible standard for compensation; not only can value fluctuate, but it is impossible to measure it aside from what prices I've been willing to pay in the past. On the other hand, average market value is what resides in the heads of market agents in sum. Neither will suffice.
Yep, the right to property is predicated on the fact that agents need to appropriate scarce resources to serve their various ends (they will appropriate something if and only if they value it.) You're confusing market value for subjective value to the individual. Anyway, I could not understand where you were getting at, hence I brought in more precise arguments.
Yeah, mere claims will not suffice. What the homesteading the RTU means is that an objective link between the resource and the appropriator now exists. If it remains entirely unused and is abandoned following appropriation, the claim can be undone - the objective link between the appropriator and the resource vanishes. If, on the other hand, the agent is merely, for instance, storing the resource until it becomes more profitable to use it, it counts as being used. Ownership on this account is based on the first claim to be established by homesteading (the RTU), and not usage alone (which is merely what creates the objective link.)
Jon Irenicus:Yeah, mere claims will not suffice. What the homesteading the RTU means is that an objective link between the resource and the appropriator now exists. If it remains entirely unused and is abandoned following appropriation, the claim can be undone. If, on the other hand, the agent is merely, for instance, storing the resource until it becomes more profitable to use it, it counts as being used. Ownership on this account is based on the first claim to be established by homesteading (the RTU), and not usage alone, which is what creates the objective link.
Storage? I don't see why that would count as being used. Is there a time limit?
In any case, many folks here aren't talking about claiming a bit of a mine you can't get to just yet, but you're working on it. No, they want to let things lie permanently untouched, for ducks or just for *** and giggles. Or they want to claim it and hold it until it is profitable to sell or rent, rather than use it. Any of these cases is illegitimate. It is homesteading land not as a means but as an end.
I think, to clarify, that another difference between myself and others here is that even if someone you gained the land legitimately from its previous occupant, if you did so merely to leave it idle, that others should be able to claim it for their uses as well. Kind of a use it or lose it principle.
JCFolsom: I mean, what do you have to do to land before you can claim it?
Why do you insist that something must be done before you can claim or homestead land?
Well presumably if you're paying for it to be stored and guarded so that it may be employed in future usage (e.g. brought to be sold on supermarket shelves), that does not indicate any abandonment on part of the owner. Or if you leave your car in a car parking lot for a couple of days whilst you're abroad. All these things. I don't think any of these is sufficient to connote abandonment. On the other hand, leaving a field to go wild for years on end and forgetting about its very existence might be sufficient to undo the objective link between appropriator and resource.
Jon Irenicus:Well presumably if you're paying for it to be stored and guarded so that it may be employed in future usage (e.g. brought to be sold on supermarket shelves), that does not indicate any abandonment on part of the owner. Or if you leave your car in a car parking lot for a couple of days whilst you're abroad. All these things. I don't think any of these is sufficient to connote abandonment.
Well, now, I'm only thinking of land here. Property proper (tee hee), such as things that could go on a shelf or a car, are not in the same category, from my perspective.
Jon Irenicus:On the other hand, leaving a field to go wild for years on end and forgetting about its very existence might be sufficient to undo the objective link between appropriator and resource.
Well, but as you say, you really need to do something with the land at first to establish ownership anyway. I tend to disagree that just because you can defend something means you have a right to it. Because land is a commons, it could be rightly said that land must be allocated for those who would put it to productive use as a priority over those who would use it for any other purpose.
Of course, this makes it sound governmental. Old habits die hard. Say rather that communities will favor the claims of the one who wants to farm the land over the claims of the one who would make him rent it, or leave it fallow, or store it, whatever that means in terms of land. I do think that the industry experts, as it were, for the RTUs would protect the claims of those who left fields fallow in a crop rotation.
It has nothing to do with it being a commons (everything is unowned before transformed) and everything to do with establishing an objective link to it. You're right that mere claims and paying for defence will do nothing to establish the claim, until this link has been created. What will be required will depend on what is to be done to the land in question, for what purpose it is to be put to.
Jon Irenicus: It has nothing to do with it being a commons (everything is unowned before transformed) and everything to do with establishing an objective link to it. You're right that mere claims and paying for defence will do nothing to establish the claim, until this link has been created. What will be required will depend on what is to be done to the land in question, for what purpose it is to be put to.
I am no longer convinced that we effectively disagree, and am therefore not sure what to argue about here. Was this all a matter of varying definition (this seems to happen a lot, to me anyway, around here)?
Jon Irenicus:Yes, which is why I think it is a benefit to familiarize oneself with the basic materials before engaging in debates on the topic (or any topic on this forum, for that matter), to avoid misconceptions. I draw upon Rothbard's The Ethics of Liberty and his article I mentioned, den Uyl and Rasmussen's Liberty and Nature (this is more advanced reading, but well worth it for its depth and breadth), as well as Kinsella's How we come to own ourselves (where he summarizes Hoppe's contributions.) The point is that they help clarify topics in lesser or greater depth, and provide a common framework to work with - it isn't about appeals to authority.
Well, see, but that ain't just my problem. If this is correct, I think (maybe I am mistaken) that anarcho-capitalists have a lot more in common with anarcho-socialists than the two sides tend to make it seem. There are some minor "policy" disputes that are probably there, but I think that the break between the two major camps of anarchists is more because of people buying the left-right illusions of the modern day, combined with the influences of different statists (Randians and Marxists, for instance) that infect the vocabulary and persona of each side.
It's almost like they did it on purpose...