The Free Talk Live BBS
Free Talk Live => General => Topic started by: vanguardist on February 03, 2006, 07:31:27 PM
-
One thing that I am curious is how far people are willing to go to promote liberty and be an activist against government crimes (or do I repeat myself?).
Some people prefer to be monkeywrenchers and demonstrators, others like to work within the system (politics, blogging, academics, etc.), and yet others want to simply go underground and avoid taxes and all licenses and registrations.
Fortunately, those who want liberty span the entire spectrum: from full-time intellectuals to full-time activists. So, as an open-ended question, what's your particular balance between fighting for freedom from home or from jail? :o
-
I'm willing to go to jail as long as I can afford it. >>
Until I have a bit of money as backup, I'll mostly be doing outreach and non-illegal protest, and possibly a bit of underground stuff if i don't think i'll get caught.
-
I educate myself as much as possible.
I engage people in discussions about the origin of their liberty -- like, does liberty derive from the benevolence of government and are you really free when government doesn't give you a choice?
I engage people in discussions about the extent of their knowledge and understanding of the federal constitution. I always ask them if they believe their rights are given to them from the constitution.
I engage people in discussions about money, the federal reserve, the liberty dollar, fiat money, commodity-backed money, etc.
I am working on making tons of flyers about jury nullification to hand out to passers-by in front of the courthouse downtown.
That's just a bit of what I do.
-
When I get a solid foundation down for myself I'll be willing to get arrested if needed; however, I think that I'm more useful out of jail. I'm excited about gettting to New Hampshire because there will be more than one or two people to take part in a protest that you might get arrested in. The more the merrier, and the more the less likely you will actually get arrested. And even if you do end up getting arrested, there are more people left to get attention to the matter and work their a**** off to get you out.
-
1. Keep myself on as sound an intellectual footing as I can through research and constant questioning.
2. Try to live as consistently as I can according to my principles.
3. Without prosteletizing (which turns people off) share my views and freedom-related solutions when I think it appropriate.
4. ???
5. Freedom!
Step 4 is where I am having some problems. Recently I have been thinking about how far to go with this.
some things I would do:
1. Let them know that we are onto them. When offered a receipt for payment of licenses, fines or taxes, refuse and say "I never take a receipt for money that is stolen from me."
2. Someone recommended stamping money. I like that. Stamp it with "This money is not backed by anything" etc.
3. Stage occasional shows of non-compliance.
4. Write letters to editors
5. Take communication classes - like Michael Cloud's
6. Don't concentrate only on nagging about what's wrong. People want solutions. They think in positives, not negatives. Concentrate on positive free-market solutions.
7. Find people who disagree with you and hone your skills against them.
When it comes down to it I think we have to be willing to pay for our liberty.
-
I like this thread. It made me think. I had a long answer written out, then canceled it. I'm still figuring out how far I will go. I still haven't decided what I want to accomplish and what is reasonable to expect. So far, I'm willing to put time and effort into learning these things, and possibly to move to New Hampshire for the Free State Project.
What I have done so far is to start reaching out for the first time in my life to fellow Libertarians and actually paying attention to politics. I had given up a long time ago, thinking things were so f***ed up that there was no point in trying and that nobody cared about the truth or the Constitution anymore. I learned that that isn't true, and I'm willing to throw in and see if I can make a difference.
So far, everything I'm doing is "safe" and within the system. I'm the Activities Chair for my local LP (I'm throwing my first event this Wednesday). I helped out the LP at a Junior Statesman event and the FSP at a convention. I'm an AMPlifier (YAY FTL!). I joined the NRA. I'm working on some other ideas, especially on how to fight Eminent Domain here in California.
Here's the ad for my first thing (it's in the Bay Area of CA) :) :
*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:**:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_
February Gathering
All Santa Clara county Libertarians are cordially invited to meet on Wednesday, February 8th at 7pm at:
Bakers Square
165 Los Gatos-Saratoga Ave.
Los Gatos, CA 95030
408-354-4733
If you've always wanted to get involved but weren't quite sure how, come out and have some pie with us! This is a casual meeting with a semi-formal agenda. You can bring up any topic that concerns you. You can find out more about various projects and committees that are forming. We are a friendly bunch!
* If you missed the county convention dinner in January, this is your opportunity to meet the new officers of your Executive Committee. Let us know what you would like to see happen in the coming year.
* If you plan on attending the state convention in February but are not yet a delegate, please come out and let us know that you would like to be on the LPSCC roster.
* We will be gathering signatures for 2006 LP statewide and local candidates. If you are interested in running, now is the time to announce your intentions and to help us to help you.
Hope to see you there -
Lois Garcia
Activities Chair
Libertarian Party of Santa Clara County (http://www.sc.ca.lp.org/)
Phones: 1-408-243-2711, 1-877-872-3007<b/>
Post Office Box 60171, Sunnyvale CA 94088-0171
>
-
Not very. The problem with libertarians is that they're concerned with their individual rights, and a natural progression of that -or even the origin of it- is to be concerned for their person in general.
That means getting arrested is a rather unpleasant prospect for us, whereas the libbies have no problem breaking into the president of a university's office at night and chaining themselves to the desk. After all, the ugliest forest- it wasn't even really a forest- was going to be cut down for a parking lot! (It happened at my school!)
-
I value my liberty too much to go to jail, even if it were for advancing freedom. Causes that use illegal activities often turn people off. Look at animal rights activists. Recently they threatened to harm all Oxford university students because a lad at the uni tested things on animals.
I think legal methods of advancing liberty are still acceptable. To me, libertarians should both influence the ruling political class and society at large towards embracing liberty.
-
Causes that use illegal activities often turn people off.
I couldn't believe how many of the people I told about the arrest of Michael Badnarik and David Cobb you see, I had to tell them about it because they sure as hell never heard anything of it on the major media thought they got what they deserved because they were undertaking civil disobedience. Most of them saw it as a publicity stunt. That event was not only a capper in my recognition that the major media really is bought and sold, but also a capper in my recognition that the majority of people really are sheeple.
I think legal methods of advancing liberty are still acceptable.
But they keep tightening the noose raising the requirements to participate in presidential debates, raising the requirements to appear on ballots, creating "free speech zones," threatening bloggers with libel and slander, etc. How far does it need to go before you'll recognize that it's too late to work within the system to change it?
-
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
-
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
[casually checks his pocket watch and resumes polishing gunmetal]
-
I think it's literally suicide to go and directly confront the government with force at this time. Best to try and play their game for awhile.
-
I agree. That said, however, I support any and all activity that antagonizes the government. Burn flags, shoot up, hide guns, don't pay taxes, hire people without social security [sic]. Those are legitimate activities and should be honored and praised.
-
There is a certain escalation of force that you got to go through. The tactics you use just depends on the political environment.
As far as getting arrested. You should avoid arrest unless it serves your political purpose. You get arrested only when it makes the government look like jack boot thugs and you as a heroic martyr for truth justice and the American way.
-
How many laws and or regulations do each of us break or skirt around every week? Is anyone on this BBS able to say with absolute certainty that he or she hasn't broken any? Our government has put so many caveats on our daily activities at all levels, that it's hard to say.
I'm not saying we should go out and start throwing rocks with politcal messages through govt. office buildings, or initiate force.
But I think we have to be willing to openly break the law, when the law is a flat-out violation of constitutionally protected rights.
The homeowners in condemnation/eminent domain cases should sit on their front steps and wait to be dragged from their property and arrested.
Badnarik was right to walk into the barricades outside the presidential debate and be arrested.
Doctors who assist patients end their suffering either by prescribing pills they know to be for the purpose of an overdose or administering a higher dose of morphine by injection do so knowing that they are in danger of arrest AND losing their license to practice their profession, yet they choose to do what is right for their patient.
I'm not sure exactly how far I would go, or exactly where to begin. I do know that as my children get older and are more self-reliant, I will be willing to step farther. America's founders started with arguments over the pub table, letters to newspapers, pamphlets and books. It wasn't until they began to act openly that things began to change.
-
People, if you're going to do something stupid...at least make sure the cameras are rolling. :-D
-
I think that in NH, we could have a nice TV crew to document things as they happen. Sort of how we have videos of Dada talking to the cops about his gun; videos of the flag and social security flags, and things like airport protests and the $1 manicure. Everything should be documented to make it a governmental ridicule show.
-
constitutionally protected rights.
As Badnarik rightly points out, there are no "Constitutional rights." The Bill of Rights grants nothing to us, only enumerates a handful of the rights we have whether or not they are written down. An amendment could be passed (legitimately or not, as history has shown us on more than one occasion) that, for example, repeals the Second Amendment. This would not deprive us of our right to keep and bear arms. It would only signal the government's refusal to recognize our right. If that were to happen, we must continue to exercise the right, regardless of their recognition of it. The same goes for any right, including those not enumerated in the Constitution.
-
I think that in NH, we could have a nice TV crew to document things as they happen. Sort of how we have videos of Dada talking to the cops about his gun; videos of the flag and social security flags, and things like airport protests and the $1 manicure. Everything should be documented to make it a governmental ridicule show.
Howabout getting people elected to office who will actually not be scared to vote what they believe in? All of the above is just masturbation.
-
Yeah that too. But change must come from both inside and outside. I support government monkeywrenchers as well as political change. All I'm saying is that if you're going to make an activist show, that you let people get it on video.
-
The press stopped coming.
Now what?
-
As Badnarik rightly points out, there are no "Constitutional rights." The Bill of Rights grants nothing to us, only enumerates a handful of the rights we have whether or not they are written down. An amendment could be passed (legitimately or not, as history has shown us on more than one occasion) that, for example, repeals the Second Amendment. This would not deprive us of our right to keep and bear arms. It would only signal the government's refusal to recognize our right. If that were to happen, we must continue to exercise the right, regardless of their recognition of it. The same goes for any right, including those not enumerated in the Constitution.
Point taken. How about "natural rights, which the constitution was supposedly written to protect"?
-
Heh. I meant our own liberty press. I would love to be a part of the FreedomTV media outlet in New Hampshire. The Internet is a good way to spread freedom. Fuck the traditional media. They barely care. Start your own. It's easy and cheap.
-
But who watches but libertarians that should be in NH anyways?
-
Good point. And as I said before, we should try to foster an environment of freedom. NH is pretty small in population. If the FSP is a success, then that's a pretty good base. These are long-term goals. When are you moving?
-
Starting around 1765 The Sons of Liberty responded to the stamp act by:
1. Publishing articles to gain support for their views and to agitate the populus against the government.
2. confiscating and burning the stamp paper.
3. Infiltrating law enforcement and militia.
4. making public declarations of intent to disobey.
5. refusing to collect the tax.
6. beheading and burning government officials publicly in effigy.
7. destroying the homes of government officials.
8. threatening tax collectors to the point where they resigned their posts or refused to collect the taxes.
9. reducing the authority and safety of the royal governors so much that many were forced into hiding.
So on a scale of 1-9, how far would each of you go?
-
Starting around 1765 The Sons of Liberty responded to the stamp act by:
1. Publishing articles to gain support for their views and to agitate the populus against the government.
2. confiscating and burning the stamp paper.
3. Infiltrating law enforcement and militia.
4. making public declarations of intent to disobey.
5. refusing to collect the tax.
6. beheading and burning government officials publicly in effigy.
7. destroying the homes of government officials.
8. threatening tax collectors to the point where they resigned their posts or refused to collect the taxes.
9. reducing the authority and safety of the royal governors so much that many were forced into hiding.
So on a scale of 1-9, how far would each of you go?
Well, my favorite number is twelve, so ...
-
9 Publishing articles to gain support for their views and to agitate the populus against the government.
9 confiscating and burning the stamp paper.
5 Infiltrating law enforcement and militia.
9 making public declarations of intent to disobey.
5 refusing to collect the tax.
8 beheading and burning government officials publicly in effigy.
7 destroying the homes of government officials.
8 threatening tax collectors to the point where they resigned their posts or refused to collect the taxes.
8 reducing the authority and safety of the royal governors so much that many were forced into hiding.
Might seem odd that i'm more willing to kill them than to destroy homes, but once you've put the "fear of god" in the politicians' collective heads, it becomes less and less troubling for me. Thus, i'd be more likely to skin and quarter them because, well, how many politicians are going to wanna piss you off after that?
My system is probably opposite of most. I'd be less likely to challenge authority than I would be to just shoot it. Civil disobedience just amounts to annoying those in power, and telling them who to go after first.
-
So on a scale of 1-9, how far would each of you go?
And, how would you answer your question?
-
One thing that I am curious is how far people are willing to go to promote liberty and be an activist against government crimes (or do I repeat myself?).
Some people prefer to be monkeywrenchers and demonstrators, others like to work within the system (politics, blogging, academics, etc.), and yet others want to simply go underground and avoid taxes and all licenses and registrations.
Fortunately, those who want liberty span the entire spectrum: from full-time intellectuals to full-time activists. So, as an open-ended question, what's your particular balance between fighting for freedom from home or from jail? :o
I think you really need to do all three. If that means going to jail, then go to jail.
-
9 Publishing articles to gain support for their views and to agitate the populus against the government.
9 confiscating and burning the stamp paper.
5 Infiltrating law enforcement and militia.
9 making public declarations of intent to disobey.
5 refusing to collect the tax.
8 beheading and burning government officials publicly in effigy.
7 destroying the homes of government officials.
8 threatening tax collectors to the point where they resigned their posts or refused to collect the taxes.
8 reducing the authority and safety of the royal governors so much that many were forced into hiding.
Might seem odd that i'm more willing to kill them than to destroy homes, but once you've put the "fear of god" in the politicians' collective heads, it becomes less and less troubling for me. Thus, i'd be more likely to skin and quarter them because, well, how many politicians are going to wanna piss you off after that?
My system is probably opposite of most. I'd be less likely to challenge authority than I would be to just shoot it. Civil disobedience just amounts to annoying those in power, and telling them who to go after first.
As we know from the government the threat of force is useless unless credible. That said, it is important to understand that any sort of general violence or anything that is not perceived by the general population as just will earn you the reputation of a madman. Pro-freedom movements learned long ago that such acts only galvanize the public against them. To succeed it is important that we maintain the moral high ground. This doesnt mean we should be victims or not defend ourselves or not commit acts of social disobedience - it just means that if we want to get people on our side, we need to make sure that they are afraid of the government, not us.
-
So on a scale of 1-9, how far would each of you go?
And, how would you answer your question?
Sad to say right now I'd probably only go up to about 6. I'm not sure if anything more would have public support yet. If we don't have some general support or sympathy and can't generate it, we should probably either move to NH and then secede or just leave the country altogether. Anything else would be a losing battle. It would mean that the rest of the USA doesnt want to be free and no amount of fighting will change that.
Each individual needs to be clear on their motives - a desparate attempt to protect their personal property and liberty - or the start of of a revolution.
-
I just mean to say that i'm willing to do the "small stuff" and the "big stuff" - middle ground is much more difficult for me. I would, of course, not do anything violent without good enough cause.
-
Would you kill federal agents if they were trying to capture you?
-
I think it's literally suicide to go and directly confront the government with force at this time. Best to try and play their game for awhile.
Give me liberty, or give me death!
-
Depends on the circumstances.
Of course the government has little to zero legitimacy, but i'm willing to work within the system as long as I think the system is somewhat reasonable to give me a fair chance. If the feds are chasing me down for being a thought criminal, i'm going down in a "blaze of glory". But not always.
For example, I had my first cop encounter last night, and I decided it would be best to work within the system instead of stabbing the guy. Probably a better choice. I'm not in jail nor am i being sought out by the SWAT team, nor was i punished. The guy was a fucking douche though.
-
Would you kill federal agents if they were trying to capture you?
That would not be my preference. To some extent it depends on the circumstances. Why are they trying to capture me? If I thought I could help show government more for what it is by being arrested, I'd probably let them carry me off.
-
Sad to say right now I'd probably only go up to about 6. I'm not sure if anything more would have public support yet. If we don't have some general support or sympathy and can't generate it, we should probably either move to NH and then secede or just leave the country altogether. Anything else would be a losing battle. It would mean that the rest of the USA doesnt want to be free and no amount of fighting will change that.
Each individual needs to be clear on their motives - a desparate attempt to protect their personal property and liberty - or the start of of a revolution.
Much of the rest of the USA does NOT want to be free. Republicrats agree with freedom either economic OR social/morality issues. Agreeing with principles of liberty on 20% of issues is meaningless if you're willing to use government to enforce the other 80%, whether you're left or right. From what I understand, it was only a very small percentage of colonists who seriously supported the freedom movement that was the American Revolution. So what support or sympathy do you need to see in order to act?
And, if ya'll do decide to move, where would you go if not NH? Which country? Somewhere among the EU nations? Big Brother England? France? The economic freedom index is wonderful, but Singapore and Indonesia execute for drug possession. Australia, NZ & Canada are struggling under massive social programs. Hong Kong has been raising tax rates, and is now subject to China, which is not known for Free Speech.
Is going to another country really better than working for change here?
-
Would you kill federal agents if they were trying to capture you?
Are we talking about agents who identify themselves as such and hand me the warrant? Because if they're from a secret division of an agency operating without a warrant, how do I know they're arresting me, and not just trying to kill or rob me? What uniforms do the secret police wear?
-
Slavery works only because the slaves cooperate with their masters. Working within the "system" is cooperating with your masters.
-
Slavery works only because the slaves cooperate with their masters. Working within the "system" is cooperating with your masters.
The problem is that you need a critical mass of rebels, and it's hard to obtain. If you don't get the mass, then you're hurting yourself for nothing.
-
Slavery works only because the slaves cooperate with their masters. Working within the "system" is cooperating with your masters.
The problem is that you need a critical mass of rebels, and it's hard to obtain. If you don't get the mass, then you're hurting yourself for nothing.
Would a rape victim just lie there, waiting for a group of people to come to the resuce, and allow their rapist to have their way or would a rape victim fight tooth and nail until the bitter end?
I don't know about this hypothetical rape victim, but I'd prefer to chance death to escape than to live knowing that someone had their way with me and I didn't fight back and allowed it to continue.
I'd be hurting myself more by not taking my own personal initiative for liberty. Like someone previously said: give me liberty or death -- that's what I want. Not live and be raped. Liberty or death.
-
Slavery works only because the slaves cooperate with their masters. Working within the "system" is cooperating with your masters.
The problem is that you need a critical mass of rebels, and it's hard to obtain. If you don't get the mass, then you're hurting yourself for nothing.
that is why the FSP is doomed...they need to be able to incorporate the left libertarians to broaden the movement and I am not talking about social freedom side of the equation.
I am talking about the economic liberty side of the equation...
-
Slavery works only because the slaves cooperate with their masters. Working within the "system" is cooperating with your masters.
The problem is that you need a critical mass of rebels, and it's hard to obtain. If you don't get the mass, then you're hurting yourself for nothing.
that is why the FSP is doomed...they need to be able to incorporate the left libertarians to broaden the movement and I am not talking about social freedom side of the equation.
I am talking about the economic liberty side of the equation...
What are you talking about? We should recruit ACLU members? I've already recruit 2 local ACLU members as Friends of the FSP. They get monthly newsletters. Hopefully, they will share with others. I also talked with a lady from Planned Parenthood in Buffalo and she supported the idea.
-
Slavery works only because the slaves cooperate with their masters. Working within the "system" is cooperating with your masters.
The problem is that you need a critical mass of rebels, and it's hard to obtain. If you don't get the mass, then you're hurting yourself for nothing.
that is why the FSP is doomed...they need to be able to incorporate the left libertarians to broaden the movement and I am not talking about social freedom side of the equation.
I am talking about the economic liberty side of the equation...
What are you talking about? We should recruit ACLU members? I've already recruit 2 local ACLU members as Friends of the FSP. They get monthly newsletters. Hopefully, they will share with others. I also talked with a lady from Planned Parenthood in Buffalo and she supported the idea.
no those are from the social freedom side of the equation...I am specifically referring to the individualist anarchist tradition - the mutualists and georgists.
-
no those are from the social freedom side of the equation...I am specifically referring to the individualist anarchist tradition - the mutualists and georgists.
Not the georgists again. At least you included the mutualists this time. I followed the wikipedia recommended links at the bottom of the page, starting with Georgist. The choices become less & less attractive.
Georgist ---> Mutualist.
Mutualist ---> Socialist Economics.
Socialist Economics ---> Feminist Economics, Labour Economics, Marxist Economics.
-
no those are from the social freedom side of the equation...I am specifically referring to the individualist anarchist tradition - the mutualists and georgists.
I agree that the main for of taxation should be a very low tax on all land, housing, and buildings. However, I have not found an georgist that did not annoy me to death with their theories. If a georgist wants to create a free-market socialist system inside NH, I encourage them to do so.
Where do you suggest we look to find georgists that are libertarians on social issues and will not use force to apply their georgist theories on economic issues?
-
no those are from the social freedom side of the equation...I am specifically referring to the individualist anarchist tradition - the mutualists and georgists.
I agree that the main for of taxation should be a very low tax on all land, housing, and buildings. However, I have not found an georgist that did not annoy me to death with their theories. If a georgist wants to create a free-market socialist system inside NH, I encourage them to do so.
Where do you suggest we look to find georgists that are libertarians on social issues and will not use force to apply their georgist theories on economic issues?
the claim they are making is that our current land tenure system is using force today (titles backed by the state) where the economic rent is forceably extracted from those being excluded - immediately for tenants and in the future for buyers.
-
no those are from the social freedom side of the equation...I am specifically referring to the individualist anarchist tradition - the mutualists and georgists.
Not the georgists again. At least you included the mutualists this time. I followed the wikipedia recommended links at the bottom of the page, starting with Georgist. The choices become less & less attractive.
Georgist ---> Mutualist.
Mutualist ---> Socialist Economics.
Socialist Economics ---> Feminist Economics, Labour Economics, Marxist Economics.
well that is a utterly banal approach to a very important subject...
-
no those are from the social freedom side of the equation...I am specifically referring to the individualist anarchist tradition - the mutualists and georgists.
I agree that the main for of taxation should be a very low tax on all land, housing, and buildings. However, I have not found an georgist that did not annoy me to death with their theories. If a georgist wants to create a free-market socialist system inside NH, I encourage them to do so.
Where do you suggest we look to find georgists that are libertarians on social issues and will not use force to apply their georgist theories on economic issues?
the claim they are making is that our current land tenure system is using force today (titles backed by the state) where the economic rent is forceably extracted from those being excluded - immediately for tenants and in the future for buyers.
So, do you know or anywhere to find lots of people very similar to the ones I posted about?
-
no those are from the social freedom side of the equation...I am specifically referring to the individualist anarchist tradition - the mutualists and georgists.
Not the georgists again. At least you included the mutualists this time. I followed the wikipedia recommended links at the bottom of the page, starting with Georgist. The choices become less & less attractive.
Georgist ---> Mutualist.
Mutualist ---> Socialist Economics.
Socialist Economics ---> Feminist Economics, Labour Economics, Marxist Economics.
well that is a utterly banal approach to a very important subject...
I could talk around it in an infinite spiral if you like. If the Georgist approach works for you, great. Set up your own system with like minded individuals - just don't expect me to agree that your mutual social club has any rights to my property.
-
no those are from the social freedom side of the equation...I am specifically referring to the individualist anarchist tradition - the mutualists and georgists.
Not the georgists again. At least you included the mutualists this time. I followed the wikipedia recommended links at the bottom of the page, starting with Georgist. The choices become less & less attractive.
Georgist ---> Mutualist.
Mutualist ---> Socialist Economics.
Socialist Economics ---> Feminist Economics, Labour Economics, Marxist Economics.
well that is a utterly banal approach to a very important subject...
I could talk around it in an infinite spiral if you like. If the Georgist approach works for you, great. Set up your own system with like minded individuals - just don't expect me to agree that your mutual social club has any rights to my property.
your rights to your landed property include a legal and monetary claim (backed by the state to enforce your title) on the wages of those you are excluding - how exactly is that libertarian?
-
your rights to your landed property include a legal and monetary claim (backed by the state to enforce your title) on the wages of those you are excluding - how exactly is that libertarian?
This is the same collectivist - excuse me - common property argument you use elsewhere to say property is theft. If anyone wants to read through the very l-o-n-g diatribe anything I type will inspire, feel free to pop over to BenTucker's "Property is Theft" thread.
-
OK, so you claim that the FSP is doomed if we do not recruit very pro-freedom georgist and I ask you where they are and then nothing. Is the FSP doomed because we are not recruiting people that do not exist?
-
OK, so you claim that the FSP is doomed if we do not recruit very pro-freedom georgist and I ask you where they are and then nothing. Is the FSP doomed because we are not recruiting people that do not exist?
I am saying if you took this approach (along with a similar critique of corporations) you could build a bridge to the anti-authoritarian left on economic issues who then could be convinced to give up on using the state's force to thieve labor-based property...
-
OK, so you claim that the FSP is doomed if we do not recruit very pro-freedom georgist and I ask you where they are and then nothing. Is the FSP doomed because we are not recruiting people that do not exist?
I am saying if you took this approach (along with a similar critique of corporations) you could build a bridge to the anti-authoritarian left on economic issues who then could be convinced to give up on using the state's force to thieve labor-based property...
OK. Where is a large pool of these easy to convert people?
-
your rights to your landed property include a legal and monetary claim (backed by the state to enforce your title) on the wages of those you are excluding - how exactly is that libertarian?
This is the same collectivist - excuse me - common property argument you use elsewhere to say property is theft. If anyone wants to read through the very l-o-n-g diatribe anything I type will inspire, feel free to pop over to BenTucker's "Property is Theft" thread.
Proudhon wrote:
1. property is liberty
2. property is theft
and then explained the differences between the meaning of term "property" in his use as an individualist anarchist.
Benjamin Tucker was a follower of Proudhon...
-
OK, so you claim that the FSP is doomed if we do not recruit very pro-freedom georgist and I ask you where they are and then nothing. Is the FSP doomed because we are not recruiting people that do not exist?
I am saying if you took this approach (along with a similar critique of corporations) you could build a bridge to the anti-authoritarian left on economic issues who then could be convinced to give up on using the state's force to thieve labor-based property...
OK. Where is a large pool of these easy to convert people?
nothing is easy but it is the only viable option to succeed.
-
OK, so you claim that the FSP is doomed if we do not recruit very pro-freedom georgist and I ask you where they are and then nothing. Is the FSP doomed because we are not recruiting people that do not exist?
I am saying if you took this approach (along with a similar critique of corporations) you could build a bridge to the anti-authoritarian left on economic issues who then could be convinced to give up on using the state's force to thieve labor-based property...
OK. Where is a large pool of these easy to convert people?
nothing is easy but it is the only viable option to succeed.
I am doing everything I can to find people and tell them of the FSP.
I am spreading the message on Myspace, on anarchist websites, and others.
I plan to work 8 Warped Tours, the most popular traveling music festival for young people, in 2006 and will try to organize others to work 40 more Warped Tours.
I am creating state vs state PDFs that compare NH to other states.
I don't think people like you are talking about are alive. However, if they are, I will try to reach them. Instead of talking about how freedom is doomed, you could find a way to make it not doomed.
-
Just because the FSP is doomed does not mean freedom is doomed :lol:
-
I don't think people like you are talking about are alive. However, if they are, I will try to reach them. Instead of talking about how freedom is doomed, you could find a way to make it not doomed.
that is very simple...
the FSP just has to modify it's SOI from:
"I hereby state my solemn intent to move to the state of New Hampshire. Once there, I will exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of civil government is the protection of life, liberty, and property."
to:
"I hereby state my solemn intent to move to the state of New Hampshire. Once there, I will exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of civil government is the protection of life, liberty, and labor-based property of human beings.
that's it!
-
of human beings.
The fact that they left that out of the original cracks me up.
-
Aha.
-
Dear Ben Tucker,
I don't think people like you are talking about are alive. However, if they are, I will try to reach them. Instead of talking about how freedom is doomed, you could find a way to make it not doomed.
that is very simple...
the FSP just has to modify it's SOI from:
"I hereby state my solemn intent to move to the state of New Hampshire. Once there, I will exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of civil government is the protection of life, liberty, and property."
to:
"I hereby state my solemn intent to move to the state of New Hampshire. Once there, I will exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of civil government is the protection of life, liberty, and labor-based property of human beings.
that's it!
I think that everyone is jumping on you because they are thinking:
1. Georgism posits that the profits from non-labor based property (such as land) should accrue communally.
2. Profit is the only reason people would want to "own" land
3. Therefore the only land owner will be by the state (trustee of the community)
4. By utilitarian argument, in times of scarcity (population explosion, polution etc), these resources will have to be allocated by their owner
5. Which is then the state
6. Most libertarians here don't have much use for the state
-
Georgism posits that the profits from non-labor based property (such as land) should accrue communally.
no, georgism posits that inorder to uphold the absolute property rights of those being excluded the economic rent (unimproved land values) must remain owned in common as an individual right.
Profit is the only reason people would want to "own" land
how do you explain the fact that in Hong Kong no one owns their land yet they are consistently at the top of the WSJ's economic freedom index?
people want to be secure in their labor-based property.
Therefore the only land owner will be by the state (trustee of the community)
land ownership is a bundle of rights (use, possession, exclusion, transferability, economic rent) none of which the state has ownership of...
the economic rent remains owned in common as an individual right (not unlike freedom of speech)
if the state collects the money and spends it rather than insuring that it is returned directly and in equal amounts amongst the members of the community then they have conflated a common right for a collective right.
-
Georgism posits that the profits from non-labor based property (such as land) should accrue communally.
no, georgism posits that inorder to uphold the absolute property rights of those being excluded the economic rent (unimproved land values) must remain owned in common as an individual right.
Can you really uphold the absolute property rights of those being excluded the economic rent when you've said those people dont have such rights?
Profit is the only reason people would want to "own" land
how do you explain the fact that in Hong Kong no one owns their land yet they are consistently at the top of the WSJ's economic freedom index?
The index is a composite of many factors. They would do even better with true ownership. There would be greater incentive than there already is to improve the land.
people want to be secure in their labor-based property.
True but if I accrue a bunch of labor-based property, and I'd like to trade it for land, I am not free to do so.
Therefore the only land owner will be by the state (trustee of the community)
land ownership is a bundle of rights (use, possession, exclusion, transferability, economic rent) none of which the state has ownership of...
the economic rent remains owned in common as an individual right (not unlike freedom of speech)
if the state collects the money and spends it rather than insuring that it is returned directly and in equal amounts amongst the members of the community then they have conflated a common right for a collective right.
Also, could you not apply this theory of property to anything unimproved? Say a rock. If I carve a statue from it, have I not denied the rest of the community of the use of the rock? Should I not have to pay them for that, even accepting that the labor in it is mine? Isn't this the same as the LTV promoted by Marx?
-
Can you really uphold the absolute property rights of those being excluded the economic rent when you've said those people dont have such rights?
huh?
which people don't which rights?
the excluders or the excluded?
True but if I accrue a bunch of labor-based property, and I'd like to trade it for land, I am not free to do so.
where did you get that crrazy idea?
the state is required to support this collective or common right, but it is not required if there is private ownership.
who are you kidding?
a landlord and a corporation are just legal extentions of the state...
if the tenant does not pay the economic rent portion of their lease payment who is going to enforce the contract?
collective right and common right are opposite...
it is not the use of force that is troubling but rather the unjust use of force as all dominion over territory is enforced.
in this case we are protecting the absolute labor-based property rights of the excluded from having a legal and monetary obligation FORCED upon them.
-
Can you really uphold the absolute property rights of those being excluded the economic rent when you've said those people dont have such rights?
huh?
which people don't which rights?
the excluders or the excluded?
It seemed like you were saying nobody has any individual rights to own the land. So that would be nobody having rights to own the land.
True but if I accrue a bunch of labor-based property, and I'd like to trade it for land, I am not free to do so.
where did you get that crrazy idea?
I thought that there couldnt be private ownership of land. I cant trade my labor-based property for land if I can't own land can I?
And yes sometimes I get crazy ideas. You're not the first to mention it.
the state is required to support this collective or common right, but it is not required if there is private ownership.
who are you kidding?
a landlord and a corporation are just legal extentions of the state...
if the tenant does not pay the economic rent portion of their lease payment who is going to enforce the contract?
I think you have a point with a corporation but a landlord? I'm actually a landlord. Does that make me an extension of the state? I thought I was a person. As an anarcho-capitalist I'm afraid I might have to overthrow myself now. And I can enforce my rental contract through a DRO.
collective right and common right are opposite...
I'm going to have to thing about that for a while.
it is not the use of force that is troubling but rather the unjust use of force as all dominion over territory is enforced.
in this case we are protecting the absolute labor-based property rights of the excluded from having a legal and monetary obligation FORCED upon them.
Force is never troubling. Unless its coming from the other guy :D.
Since I look at land like any other property, I don't see that distinction. And property is most helpful from the utilitarian argument when there is value. Labor doesnt on its own create value. Need and desire mixed with scarcity create value.
-
It seemed like you were saying nobody has any individual rights to own the land. So that would be nobody having rights to own the land.
I thought that there couldnt be private ownership of land. I cant trade my labor-based property for land if I can't own land can I?
ownerhip of land is a bundle of rights (use, possession, exclusion, transferability, economic rent)
in the sytem I advocate - only the economic rent remains owned in common as an individual equal access right whereas all other bundled rights are individually retained.
I'm actually a landlord. Does that make me an extension of the state?
where do you think the term landlord came from?
do you have a title from the state?
if the tenant refuses to pay the economic rent portion of the lease payment who will enforce the contract?
http://www.tpaine.org/landgov.htm
excerpt:
"Within the territory he controls, a landlord collects taxes (which he calls by the euphemism of "rent"), makes laws (which he calls by the euphemism of "lease conditions"); and restricts immigration (by choosing which "tenants" he will allow to live or work within his territory).
In addition, some landlords have their own security guards to defend their territory, just as city and state levels of government have their own police, or a national level of government has its own military. Some landlords also have their own arbitration process, just as other levels of government have their own court systems."
-
Is he back again?
-
Georgism is slavery plain and simple.
Lets say I purchased a plot of land and started to grow my own food on it becoming totally self sufficient. I no longer need to hold a job so I quit my job and enjoy my land. BenTuckers group of thugs come marching over to me demanding that I go back to work so that I can pay the property taxes. If I do not get a job to pay the tax I lose my land. So I have to work in order to live because I cannot live without land. Slavery.
-
Georgism is slavery plain and simple.
Lets say I purchased a plot of land and started to grow my own food on it becoming totally self sufficient. I no longer need to hold a job so I quit my job and enjoy my land. BenTuckers group of thugs come marching over to me demanding that I go back to work so that I can pay the property taxes. If I do not get a job to pay the tax I lose my land. So I have to work in order to live because I cannot live without land. Slavery.
wrong...a simple lien is placed on the appreciating unimproved land value (economic rent).
the lien is then deposited in a non-profit "land bank"
the land bank issues pro-rata "rent vouchers" as a citizens dividend to all members of the community which trades as local currency.
-
Lien...
In U.S. law, lien is the broadest term for any sort of charge or encumbrance against an item of property that secures the payment of a debt or performance of some other obligation.
Liens can be consensual or non-consensual. Consensual liens are imposed by a contract between the creditor and the debtor. These liens include:
mortgages;
car loans;
security interests;
chattel mortgages
Non-consensual liens typically arise by statute or by the operation of the common law. These laws give a creditor the right to impose a lien on an item of real property or a chattel by the existence of the relationship of creditor and debtor. These liens include:
tax liens, imposed to secure payment of a tax;
attorney's liens, against funds and documents to secure payment of fees;
mechanic's liens, which secure payment for work done on property or land;
judgment liens, imposed to secure payment of a judgment
maritime liens, imposed on ships by admiralty law.
Liens are also "perfected" or "unperfected." Perfected liens are those liens for which a creditor has established a priority right in the encumbered property with respect to third party creditors. Perfection is generally accomplished by taking steps required by law to give third party creditors notice of the lien. The fact that an item of property is in the hands of the creditor usually constitutes perfection. Where the property remains in the hands of the debtor, some further step must be taken, like recording a notice of the security interest with the appropriate office.
Perfecting a lien is an important part of the task of protecting the secured creditor's interest in the property. A perfected lien is valid against bona fide purchasers of property, and even against a trustee in bankruptcy; an unperfected lien may not be.
I posted the whole wiki-article for the sake of this argument as source material.
I bolded and underlined two key factors in a lien. First, it asserts an ECUMBERANCE on any given property be it a house, car, and etc which you paid for in a loan. What loan does eukreign pay in his scenerio of being self-sufficient? Second, the concept of a lien asserts an OBLIGATION. What obligation has eukreign agreed to within his scenerio? With that being said, your argument is that there are natural rights, which there are none if you can get your head out of Immanuel Kant's sphincter for five seconds. And that one of those 'natural rights' is the freedom of absolute mobility. What gave you that idea? I mean, think about it. I am never free to move about as I wish and do as I wish for the simple fact that others can easily impede me. Rights are moral ought-bes or could-bes, not ARE-bes [Mmmm....arbees....DAMNIT!]. Because of that fact, rights are about improving the rights of those that acknowledge them for themselves AND others. So, what benefit do I get from georgism? None, for the simple fact that a State must exist to impose your lien and thus you are imposing force. Mind you, I'm not an anarchist, but to me the State's job is not to enforce liens by popular consensus.
If you cannot provide a case for natural rights and specifically your formulation of natural rights, then your whole argument fails on start.
So, Bennie, can you produce a refutation of Causality Vs Duty by Ayn Rand? If not, then retract the claim, k?
-- Bridget
-
the concept of a lien asserts an OBLIGATION. What obligation has eukreign agreed to within his scenerio?
a persons exclusive use of a particular location via a title IMPOSES a legal and monetary OBLIGATION on those being excluded violating their absolute rights to labor and thus to self-ownership.
What loan does eukreign pay in his scenerio of being self-sufficient?
the socially created economic rent is then made equally available to all members of a community in the form of a non-interest bearing "loan" that does not have to be repaid.
I mean, think about it. I am never free to move about as I wish and do as I wish for the simple fact that others can easily impede me.
in a state of nature there would be "perfect freedom".
in my system no one would be economically disadvantaged no matter where anyone else located (which means by reason you will be excluded since two people can not stand in the same location at the same time) - a state of "equal liberty" the next best thing to "perfect freedom"
-
the concept of a lien asserts an OBLIGATION. What obligation has eukreign agreed to within his scenerio?
a persons exclusive use of a particular location via a title IMPOSES a legal and monetary OBLIGATION on those being excluded violating their absolute rights to labor and thus to self-ownership.
The excluded have no right to my land. They also have a choice, they can buy/homestead land and then not be excluded. Instead you want to rob other people to pay for those too lazy to buy their own property. Take your socialism and shove it up your ass buddy.
What loan does eukreign pay in his scenerio of being self-sufficient?
the socially created economic rent is then made equally available to all members of a community in the form of a non-interest bearing "loan" that does not have to be repaid.
A loan that doesn't have to be repaid... Wow! I need to get one of those! :lol:
-
a persons exclusive use of a particular location via a title IMPOSES a legal and monetary OBLIGATION on those being excluded violating their absolute rights to labor and thus to self-ownership..
Your exclusive use of the carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen atoms in your body excludes my right to perform labor using said atoms. Thus, you have an obligation to compensate me and everyone else in the world.
-
The excluded have no right to my land
the excluders have no right to my wages.
there are only two choices here that pays - excluders or excluded...
in the case of a lien on the unimproved land value (economic rent) the excluder never "pays" anything they just don't get to collect wages from the excluded (a tax not in name but in deed)...
They also have a choice, they can buy/homestead land and then not be excluded
the price they pay includes the economic rent capitalized at the point of sale to the seller (excluder)
a right of self-ownership and to labor products does not have to be gifted or purchased.
Take your socialism...
socialism is generally thought of as the collective owner of the means of production (land, labor, capital)
collective ownership is the opposite of ownership in common.
all I am suggesting that one aspect of a bundle of 5 ownership rights in land remain owned in common as an individual right shared directly between neighbors in order to protect the self-ownership and labor rights of all.
-
a persons exclusive use of a particular location via a title IMPOSES a legal and monetary OBLIGATION on those being excluded violating their absolute rights to labor and thus to self-ownership..
Your exclusive use of the carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen atoms in your body excludes my right to perform labor using said atoms. Thus, you have an obligation to compensate me and everyone else in the world.
the salient question my friend is do any of those carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen atoms have any economic rent attached to them?
the answer is clearly no because my use of said atoms leaves enough and as good in common for others (Locke's proviso)...
-
the salient question my friend is do any of those carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen atoms have any economic rent attached to them?
the answer is clearly no because my use of said atoms leaves enough and as good in common for others...
Then why doesn't my use of a plot of land leave enough for others? When you get right down to it, the supply of atoms in the universe is just as finite as the supply of land in the universe.
What if I were to venture out into deep, deep space and use a gigantic space vacuum to suck up a bunch of galaxies and dark matter and compress it into a super-duper-massive black hole? Once a black hole is created, there is no known way of releasing the matter contained within it. I would thus be excluding everyone in the universe from the use of those elementary particles. Do I owe "economic rent" to every human and other sentient life form in the universe?
-
Then why doesn't my use of a plot of land leave enough for others? When you get right down to it, the supply of atoms in the universe is just as finite as the supply of land in the universe.
because land is highly variable in quality across the surface whereas as far as I know an atom of hydrogen is the same on earth as it is on the moon.
-
The excluded have no right to my land
the excluders have no right to my wages.
I don't want your wages. You CHOSE to give them to me instead of buying/homesteading land.
-
The excluded have no right to my land
the excluders have no right to my wages.
I don't want your wages. You CHOSE to give them to me instead of buying/homesteading land.
you mean like a prisoner having a choice of which cell to occupy is freedom?
don't you realize that in buying land the price you pay includes all the economic rent paid at once to the seller?
and prior to the excluder selling, the exclusive use restricts the supply available for purchase and effects the price upwards as populations increase?
-
you mean like a prisoner having a choice of which cell to occupy is freedom?
I'm sorry but that's a moronic analogy. Living on your own land is not prison, choosing to have someone else to provide you with shelter and upkeep of the shelter/land is also not prison, it's a luxury.
-
you mean like a prisoner having a choice of which cell to occupy is freedom?
I'm sorry but that's a moronic analogy. Living on your own land is not prison, choosing to have someone else to provide you with shelter and upkeep of the shelter/land is also not prison, it's a luxury.
you missed the point - no one "volunteers" their wages because all land is legally claimed although not all occupied...there is no choice in the matter.
-
you missed the point - no one "volunteers" their wages because all land is legally claimed although not all occupied...there is no choice in the matter.
Most of the land is claimed by government. Get rid of government and we will have plenty of land to go around, there is enough land in the US for all of us to have our 100 acre lots.
-
NH is perfect place for BenTucker to purchase "property". Since he believes his "ownership" of the common land excludes someone else, he can contribute the appropriate amount to the NH coffers, for the benefit of those disadvantaged. Isn't NH the state where the governor set up the "Tax Me More" fund?
-
you missed the point - no one "volunteers" their wages because all land is legally claimed although not all occupied...there is no choice in the matter.
Most of the land is claimed by government. Get rid of government and we will have plenty of land to go around, there is enough land in the US for all of us to have our 100 acre lots.
are they all of equal quality so no one is economically disadvantaged?
-
NH is perfect place for BenTucker to purchase "property". Since he believes his "ownership" of the common land excludes someone else, he can contribute the appropriate amount to the NH coffers, for the benefit of those disadvantaged. Isn't NH the state where the governor set up the "Tax Me More" fund?
if the economic rent is collected and then spent by the state rather than shared directly between neighbors then it is NOT owned in common but instead collectively.
I am not a collectivist.
-
Isn't NH the state where the governor set up the "Tax Me More" fund?
Benson said he did.
http://www.politicsnh.com/archives/pindell/2003/march/3_07.shtml
and the form is here:
http://www.politicsnh.com/archives/pindell/2003/march/taxmemore.pdf
But I contacted Benson's office to have an official form sent to me, so I could give benson my $.02, and they told me it wasn't real, and Benson is a big liar.
-
the concept of a lien asserts an OBLIGATION. What obligation has eukreign agreed to within his scenerio?
a persons exclusive use of a particular location via a title IMPOSES a legal and monetary OBLIGATION on those being excluded violating their absolute rights to labor and thus to self-ownership.
What obligation do I impose on you if I exclude you from anything? Say, a genetic female, and the only one left alive. You and all the other genetic males have to make a choice. Either YOU OWN HER BODY IN COMMON, being that she is scarce, being the only female left on Earth, or you accept the reality that her body cannot be owned by anyone but her since she is the current occupier. According to your logic, this is the same issue as with land. The occupation of a finite domain/resource/X, which according to you should be or will be shared equally among everyone. So, by that logic, in my scenerio it is moral, according to YOUR ARGUMENT, for all male to have their share of the single sole female left on Earth even if she resists and protests.
The same can be said for a homesteader that resists and protests your lien. Your lien is force, get over it. You yield to the collective. I yield to the individual. Thus, comes the crux. Either you accept that individuals are the prime cause of all acts on their own, and thus are sovereign. Or you accept that the society is the prime cause of all acts, thus it is the only sovereign and all individuals are its subordinates. Which will it be, Benny?
What loan does eukreign pay in his scenerio of being self-sufficient?
the socially created economic rent is then made equally available to all members of a community in the form of a non-interest bearing "loan" that does not have to be repaid.
Then why do you impose a lien on eukreign's hypothetical homestead that is self-sufficient?
I mean, think about it. I am never free to move about as I wish and do as I wish for the simple fact that others can easily impede me.
in a state of nature there would be "perfect freedom".
There is nothing in Nature that is conceptual. There are only concretes. Percepts are also not found in Nature, they are the resultant of concretes as well.
in my system no one would be economically disadvantaged no matter where anyone else located (which means by reason you will be excluded since two people can not stand in the same location at the same time) - a state of "equal liberty" the next best thing to "perfect freedom"
There is no equality in liberty. Liberty is the state of being free of obligations, period and end of story. It's like saying we're all equally pregnant, yet that doesn't follow either. Males can't get preggers, so should women pay for all men to get uteruses to be equally preggers? :lol: Or how about we're all equally white/black/yellow? Wanna look like MJ? LOL. See, equality in liberty leads to logical and moral absurdities. Thus, your whole argument is false. Thanks for trying, but you're like a BRANDENDROID left in your own logic loop that you will not accept its refutation.
-- Bridget
-
You and all the other genetic males have to make a choice. Either YOU OWN HER BODY IN COMMON, being that she is scarce, being the only female left on Earth, or you accept the reality that her body cannot be owned by anyone but her since she is the current occupier.
So, if I kill her, I can own her former body since it is no loger occupied?
easy enough.
-
You and all the other genetic males have to make a choice. Either YOU OWN HER BODY IN COMMON, being that she is scarce, being the only female left on Earth, or you accept the reality that her body cannot be owned by anyone but her since she is the current occupier.
So, if I kill her, I can own her former body since it is no loger occupied?
easy enough.
If you can. That's if the other males don't kill you first for her. :shock:
-- Bridget
-
What obligation do I impose on you if I exclude you from anything?
if all lands are legally claimed (exclusive) and inorder to exist I must occupy land then I must pay someone to stand somewhere.
Your lien is force, get over it.
force is neither good nor bad but has to be measured against the ends it serves - all dominion over territory is based on force therefore it is a just use of force to overcome a forced obligation from the excluders (theft of their wages as private property and denial of their self-ownership)...
There is nothing in Nature that is conceptual
the first human being was literally born into a perfect state of nature
Liberty is the state of being free of obligations, period and end of story
and equal liberty is the state of having the greatest possible amount of liberty (maximal) for the greatest number of people.
-
What obligation do I impose on you if I exclude you from anything?
if all lands are legally claimed (exclusive) and inorder to exist I must occupy land then I must pay someone to stand somewhere.
And? What is the problem with that? What right do you have to stand on what is not yours? Again, prove natural rights are existent in Nature or retract claims okay? It's that simple.
Your lien is force, get over it.
force is neither good nor bad but has to be measured against the ends it serves - all dominion over territory is based on force therefore it is a just use of force to overcome a forced obligation from the excluders (theft of their wages as private property and denial of their self-ownership)...
Yet, Libertarianism is prefaced on the non-initiation of force, which means. If you leave me be, I leave you be. And we freely cohabitate as we wish, lest we live apart. Freedom of association and all that jazz. By your logic, any restaurant that charges you for the food you eat, has excluded you from self-ownership. Yet, you know you are trading for that food. When I rent my apartment, I am not renting the space, I am renting the time to use that space. Which also includes the time to the manager/owner of that property, especially in the form of space maintainance. That means she gives me services plus time to use a given space. Are you saying that is not a valid service or payment? If so, provide a reason that it is not and not more fallacious natural law theory. Try causality, not duty for your principle of the argument. What optimal causality requires the owner of my apartment to give me the space freely?
There is nothing in Nature that is conceptual
the first human being was literally born into a perfect state of nature
That doesn't follow. The first human born was literally born. One cannot infer the other. One can only infer this. If P then Q. If first human is born, that is the first human. The first human is born. Therefore, that is the first human. You cannot infer perfect state of nature because it does not intrinsically exist. Even Hume and other GeoLibs acknowledge this fact.
Liberty is the state of being free of obligations, period and end of story
and equal liberty is the state of having the greatest possible amount of liberty (maximal) for the greatest number of people.
[/quote
Nope, there is no equal liberty. I am not equal to you. As I am not equal to the Sun. And the Sun is not equal to the Galaxy...And so on. Do you understand or are you smoking more natural rights hash again?
I ask you again to provide proof that natural rights exist, which is the core of your argument. If you cannot provide proof of natural rights as an existent in Nature, then retract the claim. NOW.
-- Bridget
-
What is the problem with that?
then I must pay a tribute to someone else simply by existing and thus no self-ownership is possible.
Libertarianism is prefaced on the non-initiation of force
and I am telling you in the natural world all dominion over a territory is either initiate or upheld by force.
beyond a certain point exclusive use forces a legal and monetary obligation on others.
By your logic, any restaurant that charges you for the food you eat, has excluded you from self-ownership.
in your example - food is labor-based property and outside of the scope of my inquiry.
When I rent my apartment, I am not renting the space, I am renting the time to use that space
and while you are "renting the time to use the space" you are also defacto either legally or physically occupying the space denying others the ability to occupy that same space.
That means she gives me services plus time to use a given space. Are you saying that is not a valid service or payment? If so, provide a reason that it is not
service presumes labor and outside the scope of my inquiry as it is labor-based property.
The first human born was literally born. One cannot infer the other. One can only infer this. If P then Q
fine...if the first person is born then there is no other human around thus only the natural world to interact with in a perfect state of freedom (sans any other humans).
I am not equal to you
I am suggesting we will then have equal opportunity access to nature's benefits...nothing more nothing less.
-
Say, a genetic female, and the only one left alive. You and all the other genetic males have to make a choice. Either YOU OWN HER BODY IN COMMON, being that she is scarce, being the only female left on Earth, or you accept the reality that her body cannot be owned by anyone but her since she is the current occupier.
The smart thing to do in this situation is be the one to get her pregnant first.
-
What is the problem with that?
then I must pay a tribute to someone else simply by existing and thus no self-ownership is possible.
So, you don't accept that where you rent a home from is someone that is providing a service? LOL, whatever n00b.
Libertarianism is prefaced on the non-initiation of force
and I am telling you in the natural world all dominion over a territory is either initiate or upheld by force.
Only force to defend, not initiated force.
beyond a certain point exclusive use forces a legal and monetary obligation on others.
I have no obligation to any other human being. If want to walk away from all that I do, I can. Simple as that. Idiots like you don't acknowledge that fact.
By your logic, any restaurant that charges you for the food you eat, has excluded you from self-ownership.
in your example - food is labor-based property and outside of the scope of my inquiry.
Nope, food is property like land, no different, and as such it comes under the same equal access clause.
When I rent my apartment, I am not renting the space, I am renting the time to use that space
and while you are "renting the time to use the space" you are also defacto either legally or physically occupying the space denying others the ability to occupy that same space.
And it is my right to exclude you from my place. I paid for it. Are you saying you own my body? If so, what army you got to back that up, pal?
That means she gives me services plus time to use a given space. Are you saying that is not a valid service or payment? If so, provide a reason that it is not
service presumes labor and outside the scope of my inquiry as it is labor-based property.
Idiot, all property is the same, sorry. Take your bundle of rights theory and natural rights theory, and stuff it up your arse. You must prove that these theories stand in Nature before asserting them. You don't get it, do you?
The first human born was literally born. One cannot infer the other. One can only infer this. If P then Q
fine...if the first person is born then there is no other human around thus only the natural world to interact with in a perfect state of freedom (sans any other humans).
No, there is no perfect state of freedom. No state of nature. And etc. The first human couldn't live forever. The first human couldn't eat everything. And the first human could not occupy all spaces and all times. Ergo, your logical FAILS for two reasons. One, you have not asserted what is perfect. Two, you have not applied those qualities to the argument. When you produce the definition of perfect freedom, then you can discuss further, but until then you are blowing smoke up our asses.
I am not equal to you
I am suggesting we will then have equal opportunity access to nature's benefits...nothing more nothing less.
I don't have equal access to be pregnant. I don't have equal access to fly an airplane. I don't have equal access to all knowledge in the world. I don't hav equal access to all places and times since I am temporally and spatially limited. Your argument is BULL since you assert intrinsic rights that do not exist apart of human interaction aka MORAL THEORY.
Provide proof, THEN we discuss how that proof validates your theory. NOT YOUR THEORY THEN MAYBE PROOF. You're like a Christian fundie that says Jesus exists because the Bible says so. Even after I ask you how do you know the Bible is true. The same is for Georgism. How do you know Georgism is true? PROOF? EVIDENCE? FALSIFICATION OF OTHER THEORIES?
-- Bridget
-
you don't accept that where you rent a home from is someone that is providing a service?
a lease payment is made up of two factors
1. access to the capital (labor-based property)
2. access to the specific location as measured by economic rent (law-based property)
Only force to defend, not initiated force
the legal and monetary obligation (economic rent) is forced upon those being excluded beyond a certain point (Locke's Proviso)
I have no obligation to any other human being
the simple fact that you occupy a space means someone else can't - if that was all that were required to live and people only owned the space they occupied there would be no economic rent until every inch of earth were covered and one more were added...
And it is my right to exclude you from my place.
yes and that right also includes an obligation not to allow your exclusive use force a legal and monetary obligation on those you are excluding.
you have not asserted what is perfect.
no other humans...
I don't have equal access to be pregnant. I don't have equal access to fly an airplane. I don't have equal access to all knowledge in the world. I don't hav equal access to all places and times since I am temporally and spatially limited.
you do have an equal access opportunity right to the air in the sky...
-
Say, a genetic female, and the only one left alive. You and all the other genetic males have to make a choice. Either YOU OWN HER BODY IN COMMON, being that she is scarce, being the only female left on Earth, or you accept the reality that her body cannot be owned by anyone but her since she is the current occupier.
The smart thing to do in this situation is be the one to get her pregnant first.
That's only half of it. The other is killing off the competition.
-
Say, a genetic female, and the only one left alive. You and all the other genetic males have to make a choice. Either YOU OWN HER BODY IN COMMON, being that she is scarce, being the only female left on Earth, or you accept the reality that her body cannot be owned by anyone but her since she is the current occupier.
The smart thing to do in this situation is be the one to get her pregnant first.
That's only half of it. The other is killing off the competition.
Well, if you can manage to sneak in early... on the other hand, everyone else is going to have the same idea and she'll get raped to death. Really you need some sort of bunker to hide her in...
-
Well, if you can manage to sneak in early... on the other hand, everyone else is going to have the same idea and she'll get raped to death. Really you need some sort of bunker to hide her in...
You're having too much fun with this... :)
-
Well, if you can manage to sneak in early... on the other hand, everyone else is going to have the same idea and she'll get raped to death. Really you need some sort of bunker to hide her in...
You're having too much fun with this... :)
You are probably quite correct ^-^
-
you don't accept that where you rent a home from is someone that is providing a service?
a lease payment is made up of two factors
1. access to the capital (labor-based property)
2. access to the specific location as measured by economic rent (law-based property)
Nope and nope. Rent here is not controlled, n00b. Only in the big socialist cities do they regulate rent. And oddly, when rent is regulated the safety of rented properties reduce.
Only force to defend, not initiated force
the legal and monetary obligation (economic rent) is forced upon those being excluded beyond a certain point (Locke's Proviso)
Nope, if I maintain myself I am not putting any obligation on anyone. You just can't come onto the land E.G. MY RIGHT TO PROPERTY AND PRIVACY.
I have no obligation to any other human being
the simple fact that you occupy a space means someone else can't - if that was all that were required to live and people only owned the space they occupied there would be no economic rent until every inch of earth were covered and one more were added...
Nope and nope. I have no obligation to pay anyone to occupy a space. Also, what means do you attempt to assert that occupation tax? A gun? Go ahead and try, you'll have a Shay's Rebellion part 2 in your own lifetime.
And it is my right to exclude you from my place.
yes and that right also includes an obligation not to allow your exclusive use force a legal and monetary obligation on those you are excluding.
I am not using any legal force but my right to privacy. Are you asserting I have no specific right to privacy? Try reading Amendment Four of the US Constitution. You don't have a right to encroach on my privacy without Due Process. Got it, child?
you have not asserted what is perfect.
no other humans...
No, provide a quality of perfection that we all can agree upon. Don't you notice that none of us agree for many reasons? First, many of us, particularly ME, don't agree with the terminology used. Second, others don't agree on the interpretation of capital as labor-based only. Third, a few just find the fact that Georgism requires governmental force to operate just plain daffy[Those being the anarcho-capitalists]. Three independent qualms, and three you HAVE NOT REFUTED. You're being like a fundie christian that has been refuted on ID. So, can you prove your claim that we have natural rights? PROVE OR SHUTUP.
I don't have equal access to be pregnant. I don't have equal access to fly an airplane. I don't have equal access to all knowledge in the world. I don't hav equal access to all places and times since I am temporally and spatially limited.
you do have an equal access opportunity right to the air in the sky...
Nope and nope. There are no rights intrinsic. Rights are MORAL WOULD-BEs, COULD-BEs, and OUGHT-BEs, NOT WILL-BEs and MUST-BEs.
Again read Rand's speech on Causality versus Duty in moral theory. Please prove your theory before asserting the conclusion of your theory. Do you get it or are you also a Christian/Muslim/Jew/Hindu/Buddhist/Tree-Hugger/Et-Al? Don't you know assumptionism FAILS?
-- Bridget
-
Rent here is not controlled
one price - two factors.
You just can't come onto the land
your exclusion creates the obligation.
I have no obligation to pay anyone to occupy a space
and what gives you the right backed by the state to have a legal claim on someone else's wages?
what means do you attempt to assert that occupation tax
the same means you will use when a tenant refuses to pay the economic rent portion of his rent...
I am not using any legal force but my right to privacy
great then you should have no problem with a lien to protect me against your claim to my wages which violates my privacy.
provide a quality of perfection that we all can agree upon
perfect freedom in a state of nature means there is no other human in existence and thus (you should be glad to hear) no need for the concept of rights
First, many of us, particularly ME, don't agree with the terminology used. Second, others don't agree on the interpretation of capital as labor-based only. Third, a few just find the fact that Georgism requires governmental force to operate just plain daffy[Those being the anarcho-capitalists].
what is trully daffy is that you (and apparently other ancaps) don't see that law-based property is based on government force.
-
Rent here is not controlled
one price - two factors.
Name those factors and reference source material for those factors.
You just can't come onto the land
your exclusion creates the obligation.
Nope, because you are not paying to be excluded. You just find somewhere else to stand. Jackass.
I have no obligation to pay anyone to occupy a space
and what gives you the right backed by the state to have a legal claim on someone else's wages?
I am not claiming anyone's wages for buying land and excluding you from it. What wages am I accruing for living on my own property and not renting it out. Also, those that do rent out properties do you know they provide services? Maybe you ought to study the history of house/space renting. You'll find it has more to do with quality control over services such as safety and etc. Without private ownership of land and its rent, there would be no demand for quality. Who will put down the powerlines, waterlines, gaslines, etc? The government? LOL.
what means do you attempt to assert that occupation tax
the same means you will use when a tenant refuses to pay the economic rent portion of his rent...
I already refuted your claim that a rentee is being punished. A rentee pays for services and time only in rent. Nothing else. You don't pay taxes, technically. And you don't pay for the preferences of the land owner. You just pay for the time and services of the rental property. Just like when you rent a car. You don't own the car, you own the time for the car and the service maintainance package with the car. Nothing more and nothing less. Same goes for housing rentals.
I am not using any legal force but my right to privacy
great then you should have no problem with a lien to protect me against your claim to my wages which violates my privacy.
Again liens are obligations to pay for something that I don't own. I own my property, thus you keep your lien off my property...OR ELSE, GOT IT KING TUCKER?
provide a quality of perfection that we all can agree upon
perfect freedom in a state of nature means there is no other human in existence and thus (you should be glad to hear) no need for the concept of rights
Nope. Non-human animals can have concepts if they are able to produce memories, namely the primates exhibit this trait. So your argument is a farce yet again.
First, many of us, particularly ME, don't agree with the terminology used. Second, others don't agree on the interpretation of capital as labor-based only. Third, a few just find the fact that Georgism requires governmental force to operate just plain daffy[Those being the anarcho-capitalists].
what is trully daffy is that you (and apparently other ancaps) don't see that law-based property is based on government force.
What law am I asserting? I just said you can't be on the land. I can use private security or just my own self with a shotgun. What law am I enacting?
Again, prove natural rights are intrinsic or STFU.
-- Bridget
-
I figured out BenTucker's angle. He's using reason to destroy reason. He's reasoning himself into absurdity -- yes, it's possible, and he's your proof.
The thing I see him overlooking is this: when one claims ownership of a piece of land, sure he might be excluding others from using it (I can't believe that's even an argument, but whatever), but he is pretty much excluding himself from owning another piece of land; he has to stay on that plot of land he has claimed, build whatever structures he wanted to build, and basically invest all his time and resources into that land -- enough so that he doesn't have time or resources to go out and claim any other land.
So, while nobody else may get a chance to claim the land that hypothetical person claimed, that person also won't get a chance to claim anything else before everyone else claims it.
Oh, sure, he can rent out the structures he built on that land and bring in profit from his labor (oh heavens no!) and then go about acquiring more land to build on, rent out, etc. But what's so wrong with that scenario? Without that person acquiring that land and producing something with it from his labor, he'd have nothing to rent out, and nobody would have a place to rent -- there would be NOTHING...except for some unused land. Woopdeefuckingdoo. At least nobody's excluded, right?
I'm not even going ask any more questions of you, BenTucker, nor do I want a response. Everything you write is absurd.
-
the point is that you can't have equal liberty for the greatest number of people when you make property rights to land absolute because the mere fact that exclusive use of a specific location forces a legal and monetary obligation on others (immediately for tenants and in the future for a buyer) which then denies those being excluded their absolute property right to their labor.
-
the point is that you can't have equal liberty for the greatest number of people...
Again there is no equal liberty. It's like saying we're liberally fat or partially pregnant. It doesn't follow and it implies an obligation that not one being or living thing is beholden. Also, it smacks of Stuart Mill and John Benthem, which of course means it's a utilitarian argument, which is bullshit from the get go.
when you make property rights to land absolute because the mere fact that exclusive use of a specific location forces a legal and monetary obligation on others (immediately for tenants and in the future for a buyer) which then denies those being excluded their absolute property right to their labor.
Bull and shit, kiddo. Land owners pay for the land and maintain it to keep tennets on it. If you don't think that occurs then you probably never rented in your life. I've had sewer problems, loss of heat, noisy neighbors, et al and guess what? THE LAND OWNER RESOLVED THOSE ISSUES AND IN FACT PAID TO RESOLVE THEM. Wow! How amazing, such an evil evil land lady I got that she fixes my fancets for free! Or checks on why a couple is fighting? Geeeeeeeeeeee, she should just shutup and pay me to live there, LOL!
Do you get it now or is your head so far up some Utilitarian/Marxist/Hegalian/Rationalizing-philosopher-wannabe's asshole to understand what is being said? Or do you just enjoy the smell of so much bullshit, Benny?
-- Bridget
-
there is no equal liberty
correct - not in the current land tenure system anyway...
It doesn't follow
if you don't use reasoning skills...
it implies an obligation that not one being or living thing is beholden
the obligation only appears when economic rent attaches to locations...
Land owners pay for the land and maintain it to keep tennets on it. If you don't think that occurs then you probably never rented in your life.
the purchase price for land is capitalized economic rent
I've had sewer problems, loss of heat, noisy neighbors, et al and guess what? THE LAND OWNER RESOLVED THOSE ISSUES AND IN FACT PAID TO RESOLVE THEM.
all improved land values via labor...whereas I am referring to unimproved values.
-
there is no equal liberty
correct - not in the current land tenure system anyway...
There is no equal liberty since it is a floating abstraction of two divergent concepts. Equality and Liberty. Equality means there is a sameness in quality or quantity between two things/beings. Liberty means there is a freedom to do things[positive or negative liberty]. There cannot be sameness in the freedom to do things since people do different things, want different things, and such. Your equality is like that of the short story Harrison Bergeron. You want to enforce equality because you feel the greatest good to the greatest number is morally substantiable without proving it. Thus, your whole argument yet again FAILS.
It doesn't follow
if you don't use reasoning skills...
Then prove that it does follow. Remember, you made the positive claim, therefore it is your job to prove it. And I will point out that you never have refuted any single argument made here by me or anyone else. You just keep spouting the same lines without qualitification. As such, you showing your claim of reasoning skills. I've explained why there cannot be equal liberty. I explained why land owners do not owe you anything. And I explained why private land ownership is superior in every way. You have not knocked down a single point. Thus, I can just regard you as defeated and akin to a Communist or a Fundie Christian.
it implies an obligation that not one being or living thing is beholden
the obligation only appears when economic rent attaches to locations...
Nope, try again. You say it does, but you do not show HOW IT DOES. SHOW HOW IT DOES!!!!!! DO NOT DECLARE IT DOES! Do you get it? It's not hard. It's like this: If P then Q. P, therefore Q. Got it or are you brain dead?
Land owners pay for the land and maintain it to keep tennets on it. If you don't think that occurs then you probably never rented in your life.
the purchase price for land is capitalized economic rent
No more bullshit lines. Provide a qualification of your claims, N-O-W.
I've had sewer problems, loss of heat, noisy neighbors, et al and guess what? THE LAND OWNER RESOLVED THOSE ISSUES AND IN FACT PAID TO RESOLVE THEM.
all improved land values via labor...whereas I am referring to unimproved values.
And you keep spouting lines that do not prove anything. First, explain your proposition. Second, explain how each point of the proposition follows from atleast two key viewpoints; moral and economic. Third, refute my counter-points without silly one liners which do not qualify how I am wrong or why I am wrong. Got it?
-- Bridget is getting tired of GeoLib-Fundies which cannot prove a fraking thing.
-
Here is my argument as follows.
1. Moral obligations do not intrinsically exist since humans do not have pre-existent knowledge of concepts and of Nature in general. Thus, we're are left with one possible course for all moral acts; Causality.
2. Because morality is prefaced on causality, in the form of acts with consequences, no one person owes another person anything than what they promised to fulfill.
3. Since promises in this view are extrinsic, meaning I derive them through external acts of my own will and that of others participating, they do not become inherited[sp?] by others without qualification(Or to take a phrase from the Bible: The sins of the fathers shall NOT be visited upon the sons.).
4. Because of this form of moral causality, and non-intrinsic inheritability of promises, all economic activities follow in similar form; being that no one is owed anything and no one owes anything to others.
5. When I control or own land, I am doing so of my own free will and thus I maintain the property as I see fit. No one is deprived of anything by one owning a parcel, even in a land starved nation since morality is causal.
6. And as such, economics is causal in turn. An individual can realize that the maintainance of a land property is non-arbitrary so long as the maintainance is for the good of the owner. Thus, a land owner will be driven to make the land useful for the maximal number of people simply because of the need to sustain one's own life[e.g. you got to eat and such, DUH].
7. From that land ownership betters society as a whole since it is labor[CAUSALITY] driven. Each person owns land to make something on that land and they maintain it to their maximal necessity[a businessman keeping the parking lot clean, and keeping prices low for customers. Or a home owner mowing the lawn, inviting the neighbors for BBQ, and such.].
8. Thus, no one owes anyone else land, or use of land intrinsically since the use of land IS LABOR[CAUSALITY] DRIVEN. Land does not stay fallow unless there is no viable use of the land, period and end of story.
9. And since I started my moral principle from that of no one person owing another anything, and vice versa, to say that anyone owes anything to anyone else is flawed since all actions of economic expansions are derived from labor[physical and mental]. Thus, your argument needs to the inverse of mine, and if it is, you must prove it is viable over mine. Because, remember, mine is not the mainstay of modern economic or moral life either. Yours is as fringe as mine. It's just mine can easily follow the current mainstay but without the need of governmental interference.
-- Bridget
-
no one owes anyone else land, or use of land intrinsically since the use of land IS LABOR[CAUSALITY] DRIVEN
but the creation of land itself is not and there is the rub...
therefore there is a blatant contradiction between (1) the notion that everyone has an equal right to "be" left alone and (2) the notion that everyone does not have an equal right to be -- "somewhere."
what makes this such a laughable contradiction is the fact that the very act of being alive isn't possible in the first place without access to land...you literally can't have one without the other.
Thus, to assert that those without land-titles have no right to land ("no one owes anyone else land") is to assert that an entire subset of the human population has no actual right to life itself.
-
There cannot be sameness in the freedom to do things since people do different things, want different things, and such
but we all derive our sustenance from the earth and we all need a place to stand inorder to exist...
I explained why private land ownership is superior in every way.
I agree except for the economic rent which must remain owned in common to assure equal liberty.
-
no one owes anyone else land, or use of land intrinsically since the use of land IS LABOR[CAUSALITY] DRIVEN
but the creation of land itself is not and there is the rub...
Nope, because land is valued by what one can do with it. For example, Pennsylvania, before the invention of the automobile or combustion engines that use petrol, vast tracks of land where oil seeped into the soil was useless save for a specific use of oil in other products. But before the combustion engine and the automobile, such tracks of land were worthless since it was farming and other industries that produced goods and services. So, land value is based on use aka labor. So your complaint is worthless.
therefore there is a blatant contradiction between (1) the notion that everyone has an equal right to "be" left alone and (2) the notion that everyone does not have an equal right to be -- "somewhere."
Nope, because no one has any rights. I never stated anyone had rights. Thus, your argument here is a non-sequitor.
what makes this such a laughable contradiction is the fact that the very act of being alive isn't possible in the first place without access to land...you literally can't have one without the other.
Nope, because you do not have rights. Rights come from the exercise of force. I can kill you and you can kill me, but we both don't want to die. So we make rules, aka morals, and codify them, aka rights and laws, thus we don't both die because of blantent stupidity. So again, Causality is the primacy of all moral functions as it is the primacy of epistemological functions.
Thus, to assert that those without land-titles have no right to land ("no one owes anyone else land") is to assert that an entire subset of the human population has no actual right to life itself.
Because there are no rights intrinsically. You assert that I am stating rights. I never stated as such. So again, you fail to see the point. You want rights but you cannot tell me how you derive them. I can tell you how to derive rights from my view of moral theory very easily[Hint: CAUSALITY].
-- Bridget pwns the n00b again...
-
There cannot be sameness in the freedom to do things since people do different things, want different things, and such
but we all derive our sustenance from the earth and we all need a place to stand inorder to exist...
To exist, yes, that is why we derive causality of our actions. But to live alone or in a group without moral theory[implicit] is impossible. Unless you want to live in the Hyborean Age of Conan....(BY CROM!)
I explained why private land ownership is superior in every way.
I agree except for the economic rent which must remain owned in common to assure equal liberty.
There is no economic rent since there are no rights intrinsically. You are appending extrinsic[causal] variables to human nature[nominal(intrinsic) essences].
-- Bridget
-
land is valued by what one can do with it...land value is based on use aka labor
yes land is subjectively valued but it has inherent value exclusive of any labor expended on it because literally inorder to exist one must occupy space.
and beyond a certain point and by it's very nature the exclusive use forces a legal and monetary obligation called "economic rent" (or the unimproved land value) upon others
-
land is valued by what one can do with it...land value is based on use aka labor
yes land is subjectively valued but it has inherent value exclusive of any labor expended on it because literally inorder to exist one must occupy space.
No duh.
and beyond a certain point and by it's very nature the exclusive use forces a legal and monetary obligation called "economic rent" (or the unimproved land value) upon others
Wrong, because again you are not being harmed by simply having to pay for housing rent. I hate to burst your bubble, but you keep going in circles. You haven't proven a damn thing. So, please consider critically what you are stating, because I honestly don't think you know what you're talking about.
-- Bridget
-
you are not being harmed by simply having to pay for housing rent
what do you call it when you are forced to pay for merely existing?
-
Get a room, you two. :lol:
-
the point is that you can't have equal liberty for the greatest number of people when you make property rights to land absolute because the mere fact that exclusive use of a specific location forces a legal and monetary obligation on others (immediately for tenants and in the future for a buyer) which then denies those being excluded their absolute property right to their labor.
Define "equal liberty."
According to your "logic," when I am created, I am not free, because I am now occupying space and excluding the use of that space from everyone else, and therefore I owe everyone else "economic rent" for my body to occupy space; I am indebted (chained) to everyone else.
According to you "logic," when others are created, I am not free, because they are now occupying space and excluding the use of that space from me, and therefore they owe me "economc rent" for their bodies to occupy space; they are indebted (chained) to me.
According to your "logic," the only way for me to be free would be to not exist, because then I won't be obigated to owe anyone else for my occupying space; zero chance of being indebted (chained) to everyone else.
According to your "logic," the only way for others to be free would be for them to not exist, because then they won't be obligated to owe me for their occupying space; zero chance of being indebted (chained) to me.
According to your "logic," occupying space is an unavoidable violation of "equality" -- owing everyone for your use of space is your only "remedy," but is in fact slavery.
Either one has a right to occupy space and has a duty to respect everyone else's right to occupy space and vice versa (equality in regard to rights of freedom) or one has no right to occupy space (because one owes everyone else for the use of space) and has no duty to respect everyone's non-existent right to occupy space and vice versa (equality in regard to being a slave to everyone else).
I will tell you this: I don't owe anybody a goddamn thing and nobody owes me a goddamn thing (unless there was a contract or agreement entered into voluntarily). To think otherwise is a childish notion.
-
you are not being harmed by simply having to pay for housing rent
what do you call it when you are forced to pay for merely existing?
So cupcakes fall from the sky to feed you and keep you alive without your ever having to lift a finger?
-
you are not being harmed by simply having to pay for housing rent
what do you call it when you are forced to pay for merely existing?
So cupcakes fall from the sky to feed you and keep you alive without your ever having to lift a finger?
no...one only has an equal access/use opportunity right to the natural commons as a negative right so long as one is not infringing upon the equal access opportunity rights of everyone else.
you then must attempt to sustain yourself or be gifted or purchase your sustenance from others.
requiring that cup cakes (made from labor) be provide is a positive right which I do not support.
-
Define "equal liberty."
no matter where anyone else has exclusive privileged rights of access to specific locations - no one can be economically disadvantaged.
Either one has a right to occupy space and has a duty to respect everyone else's right to occupy space and vice versa (equality in regard to rights of freedom) or one has no right to occupy space (because one owes everyone else for the use of space) and has no duty to respect everyone's non-existent right to occupy space and vice versa (equality in regard to being a slave to everyone else).
if everyone shares the economic rent directly and freely then we will have created the greatest amount of equal freedom for the greatest number of people.
remember if you pay out $5K in dues to your neighbors and they inturn pay you $4K in dividends - along with having individual ownership rights which include:
1. use
2. possession
3. exclusion
4. transferability
you therefore have an 80% homestead exemption on the economic rent.
at the same time a tenant would pay zero dues for acccess to land and receive $4K
-
Define "equal liberty."
no matter where anyone else has exclusive privileged rights of access to specific locations - no one can be economically disadvantaged.
Everyone is economically disadvantaged. Think of a time when anyone was a master in all trades? I can't. So, a chair maker should be equal to an inventor; an inventor to a guard? And so on? No, it does not follow that anyone has any equality in economic power or prowess. Some are better than others, other wise we would not need to depend on others to produce goods for us. Whether it's a farmer, doctor, or factory laborer, we can not do everything on our own.
if everyone shares the economic rent directly and freely then we will have created the greatest amount of equal freedom for the greatest number of people.
Nope, because one owes something one is not free. Your freedom is conditional because of the claim of intrinsic rights and intrinsic obligations. I don't owe you or anyone anything other than what I have contracted. Since I have not contracted with you, Benny, I don't owe you squat.
remember if you pay out $5K in dues to your neighbors and they inturn pay you $4K in dividends - along with having individual ownership rights which include:
1. use
2. possession
3. exclusion
4. transferability
you therefore have an 80% homestead exemption on the economic rent.
Nope, you claim one owes others something. And you have not proven the debt. You only prove that you are very good at circular reasoning and unable to refute my arguments.
at the same time a tenant would pay zero dues for acccess to land and receive $4K
Socialism never works, kiddo. So, what army are you going to use to impress these anti-concepts upon us? Remember, we all know how to use weapons. And we all are very willing to use them in defense of our life and liberty. Interfere with ours, expect reprisal intellectually[as I have done] and physically[as would happen if you attempted your acts by force].
So again, PROVE THAT HUMANS HAVE INTRINSIC RIGHTS. Do you get it? Prove, do not declare an argument automatically proven without qualification. By the way, I have stated this for probably the fifth time. And the other four times you have not qualified how one has intrinsic rights, which your argument is prefaced upon. Or do you even know how argumentation occurs?
-- Bridget
-
QUIT IT YOU TWO.
Bitchslaps for both of you until you stop.
-
you are not being harmed by simply having to pay for housing rent
what do you call it when you are forced to pay for merely existing?
So cupcakes fall from the sky to feed you and keep you alive without your ever having to lift a finger?
no...one only has an equal access/use opportunity right to the natural commons as a negative right so long as one is not infringing upon the equal access opportunity rights of everyone else.
you then must attempt to sustain yourself or be gifted or purchase your sustenance from others.
requiring that cup cakes (made from labor) be provide is a positive right which I do not support.
What is an equal access right?
If I own a plot of land, by right, I answer to nobody but myself when it comes to the use of that land. By that same right, by the fact that I own that plot of land, anyone and everyone else must answer to me when it comes to the use of that land. Likewise, I answer to anyone else who owns something, but they need not answer to me or anyone else when it comes to employing what they own.
Either you own something and you are master and sovereign of it (in which case, you own it 100% and nobody can tell you what to do with it), or you share ownership of it (in which case, ownership would have to be divided, you cannot share ownership and disclude other owners from the decisions made for the property), or you do not own it at all (in which case, you cannot tell the owner(s) what to do with that property -- you do not have that right).
I have a right to use my property (the things I own) as I please. Why?
Because I have a right to own things. Why?
Because I have a right to exchange and contract for things. Why?
Because I have a right to choose whether I produce labor or not with which to exchange. Why?
Because I own my own body. You don't own it, because you are not me, and you never will be me, so you never will own my body or anything else that I produce with my labor, unless I voluntarily exchange the product of my labor with you.
Ownership of property is derived from labor and freedom of choice. I chose to exchange labor for money. I chose to exchange money for land. I can then choose to do whatever the fuck I want to with my land, such as choosing to relinquish my ownership and rights to that land by exchanging it for ownership and rights to other property, like money. I wouldn't be able to engage in these transactions if it weren't for my choice to exchange labor. And rightfully so. Why would I receive something for something I didn't do? I didn't commit the crime, I won't receive the punishment. I didn't do the work, I won't receive the compensation. I committed the crime, I recieve the punishment. I did the work, I receive the compensation.
Logic. Reason. Think. But please, PLEASE, be sure to explain.
-
QUIT IT YOU TWO.
Bitchslaps for both of you until you stop.
OMG! How sad. :(
-
You too.
-
Everyone is economically disadvantaged. Think of a time when anyone was a master in all trades? I can't. So, a chair maker should be equal to an inventor; an inventor to a guard? And so on? No, it does not follow that anyone has any equality in economic power or prowess. Some are better than others, other wise we would not need to depend on others to produce goods for us. Whether it's a farmer, doctor, or factory laborer, we can not do everything on our own.
I am referring to UNimproved land value on law-based property whereas you are referring to labor-based property.
Socialism never works, kiddo
socialism is generally the collective ownership of the means of production (land, labor, capital) whereas I am arguing for one aspect of land ownership (economic rent) to remain owned in common as an individual right inorder to insure people not owe "anyone anything other than what they have contracted for" and since there is no choice as to whether or not to occupy space inorder to exist & all land is legally occupied the contract between those that exclude and those being excluded is not valid.
-
BenDover...
TomPaineintheass...
SHUT UP.
-
Because I own my own body
I agree...but the current form of land tenure violates this right because if you do not have a legal right to be somewhere then you don't have a legal right to exist because existing by definition means occupying space somewhere.
you never will own my body or anything else that I produce with my labor
you don't produce the economic rent with your labor that is why it is called the UNimproved land value...it is socially created when two or more people naturally compete for access to something that we all need to exist - a specific location to occupy.
I chose to exchange labor for money. I chose to exchange money for land. I can then choose to do whatever...I want to with my land, such as choosing to relinquish my ownership and rights to that land by exchanging it for ownership and rights to other property, like money.
but you can't choose not to occupy any space inorder to exist and if all land is legally occupied then you have no choice but to pay someone to occupy what is needed to exist and it can only be paid out of your labor violating your absolute property rights to your labor.
but if the excluder pays the economic rent (unimproved land value) of which they contribute no labor towards creating as it is socially created then can you tell me exactly where their labor-based property rights are being violated while the excluded's labor based property rights are being upheld?
remember in the system that I advocate - the sharing of economic rent directly and evenly between neighbors - there would be NO PURCHASE PRICE to land.
-
SHUT UP.
don't you believe that everyone has an equal access opportunity right to express themselves so long as they are not infringing on the equal access opportunity rights of others (an individual common right to freedom of speech)?
-
Because I own my own body
I agree...but the current form of land tenure violates this right because if you do not have a legal right to be somewhere then you don't have a legal right to exist because existing by definition means occupying space somewhere.
If you don't have a legal right to land, you can't exist.
If you don't have a legal right to food, you can't exist (you'll die).
You are advocating that first statement, while rejecting the second. How is that consistent?
but you can't choose not to occupy any space inorder to exist and if all land is legally occupied then you have no choice but to pay someone to occupy what is needed to exist and it can only be paid out of your labor violating your absolute property rights to your labor.
You also can't choose to not eat food. If all the food is being eaten, you have no choice but to pay someone for food, which violates your right to life.
don't you believe that everyone has an equal access opportunity right to express themselves so long as they are not infringing on the equal access opportunity rights of others (an individual common right to freedom of speech)?
BonerJoe wasn't trying to violate your right to free speech. He was telling you to shut up. I agree with him.
I doubt you've convinced a single person on this board that what you believe is logically consistent, much less desirable. It's pretty clear that you are immune to reason. Really the only reason I respond to you is that exposure to such a fucked-up viewpoint as yours allows me to collect my thoughts on the issue and cement my knowledge of my own beliefs. That, and because it's entertaining as hell.
-
SHUT UP.
don't you believe that everyone has an equal access opportunity right to express themselves so long as they are not infringing on the equal access opportunity rights of others (an individual common right to freedom of speech)?
I'm sure bonerjoe does believe in free expression. He very thoughtfully takes time to add his opinions to most everything expressed here.
Surely you don't feel that his free expression infringes on your equal access opportunity to exercise your individual common right to fredom of speech? That would be a very sad state of affairs indeed.
-
If you don't have a legal right to land, you can't exist.
If you don't have a legal right to food, you can't exist (you'll die).
You are advocating that first statement, while rejecting the second. How is that consistent?
one involves labor (food) the other doesn't (land).
If all the food is being eaten, you have no choice but to pay someone for food, which violates your right to life.
if you have access to land you can grow your own food with your own labor
It's pretty clear that you are immune to reason
are the above answers not based on reason - if not why not?
can you please logically explain to me how you can have the right to self-ownership but not the right to stand somewhere to excercise that right to exist?
-
He very thoughtfully takes time to add his opinions to most everything expressed here.
I am sure it is a thoughtful use of his time but what he says in my opinion is inane...don't you think?
-
YOU PEOPLE MAKE MY BRAIN OUCHIE.
-
SHUT UP.
don't you believe that everyone has an equal access opportunity right to express themselves so long as they are not infringing on the equal access opportunity rights of others (an individual common right to freedom of speech)?
Nope, it's not a common right. If I want to be published, I do what my editors says. But according to you, man must be enslaved to society and must abide by its rule. So, again PROVE that this is so. I've asked countless times for you to prove your points. Provide evidence such as real world examples, economic theory, and some such. And I agree with Boner about shutting up because it seems you're fucking stupid and unable to answer my questions. You dodge questions, sir, and thus show your lack of moral character.
-- Bridget
-
it's not a common right
in a public forum if someone else has the floor to speak I have no right to infringe upon that person's individual freedom of speech right (a common right) by shouting them down - in essence this is similar to two people can not stand in the same place at the same time else one is aggressing upon the other - it then is a justified use of force for the state to remove me for infringing upon the individual common rights of another.
-
in a public forum if someone else has the floor to speak I have no right to infringe upon that person's individual freedom of speech right (a common right) by shouting them down
Nope, it's not intrinsic. You decide to let the person speak because it's a matter of courtesy [AN OUGHT-BE, BUT NOT WILL-BE] or for other reasons. I could easily have a shotgun and blow your head off in public so I can be like Ash out of Evil Dead. *Groovy* What magical force, or rather rationalizing FARCE, do you have to stop me? An army? What if the other people think you're ass, and kill you before I do? You see, your argument hinges on rights being intrinsic, but you have not proven as such. So again...PROVE YOU HAVE RIGHTS INTRINSICALLY, IT IS NOT HARD FOR YOU TO FORMULATE A PROOF IF YOU TRY, BUT I DOUBT YOU WILL SINCE YOU DO NOT HAVE THE INTELLECTUAL FORTITUDE TO THINK OUT YOUR BOX.
in essence this is similar to two people can not stand in the same place at the same time else one is aggressing upon the other
One could kill the other. What will your rights do then? In fact that is the reigning paradigm for the world at large. He who has the biggest stick or can buy the biggest stick wins. What you can't get over is the fact that your silly rights theory is fucked without rational beings and EGOISM, which would lead to private land ownership since it is rational for individuals to maintain their own parcel/space/domain rather than demanding others to do it for them through a ransom you call economic rent.
it then is a justified use of force for the state to remove me for infringing upon the individual common rights of another.
Say who? Henry George? God? The Easter Bunny? What you don't get yet again is that rights do not come with your birth, they come with you assertion of force physical and mental. You have to assert the power[force] to have a right. If I never speak privately or publically, I never have used the freedom of speech right. Or if I never own any personal property, I may never use the freedom from unlawful searches and seizures. And if I do not live with other human beings, I will never assert any right what-so-ever throughout my life time. Because of that, rights are social rules and moral ought-bes, are dependent on two simple coefficients: the people that agree to abide by them and their means to detect the improvement of their lives with rights.
Also, the fact that you cherry pick quotes that have nothing to do with the debate, which is what proof do you have that you have rights intrinsic to your person as you have mass intrinsic to being made of matter, proves yet again you either do not know what you are talking about or are not unlike a muslim cleric that keeps saying, "But Muhhamed said..." over and over without any logical or rational conclusion or premises to lead you out of your forest of rationalizations.
As such, this will be my last post with you, Ben, since you cannot refute my argument at any front. You are an idealoge[sp?] and a tit!
-- Bridget
-
this will be my last post with you
bye-bye
-
this will be my last post with you
bye-bye
Dumbass troll.
-- Bridget
-
in a public forum if someone else has the floor to speak I have no right to infringe upon that person's individual freedom of speech right (a common right) by shouting them down - in essence this is similar to two people can not stand in the same place at the same time else one is aggressing upon the other - it then is a justified use of force for the state to remove me for infringing upon the individual common rights of another.
Are you still going on about this individual common rights bullshit?
There is no such thing as a "public forum" - you're always on private property. If you're on your own property, you can say whatever the hell you want and tell others who are on your property to shut up. If you're on someone else's private property, they can say whatever the hell they want and tell anyone else who is on their property - including you - to shut up.
-
I own myself, so I am always on my private property.
-
I own myself, so I am always on my private property.
well said.
-
(http://img226.imageshack.us/img226/3909/pthenq9fg.jpg)
That one is for Benny!
-- Bridget
-
There is no such thing as a "public forum" - you're always on private property
exactly the problem I have been describing...
if there weren't any "public space" (I prefer natural commons) then there literally is no place to stand without having to pay someone to exist violating your absolute right to your labor and thus there can be no right of self-ownership, no right to freedom of speech, etc.
I would call that a fuedal dystopia...
whereas the system I advocate for - since there is no purchase price to land and the economic rent is not the result of the labors of the land owner (unimproved land value) property rights to labor are absolute for ALL and the right of self-ownership is upheld for ALL...in other words equal liberty for the greatest number of people.
so rather than sharing the economic rent with your neighbors (and they with you), a simple lien is placed on your land value which becomes the collateral for backing a local currency which is distributed equally amongst community members in the form of a citizens dividend.
-
That one is for Benny!
bye-bye...don't let the door hit you in the arse!
-
whereas the system I advocate for - since there is no purchase price to land and the economic rent is not the result of the labors of the land owner (unimproved land value) property rights to labor are absolute for ALL and the right of self-ownership is upheld for ALL...in other words equal liberty for the greatest number of people.
The system you are advocating is called communism. It does not work.
-
whereas the system I advocate for - since there is no purchase price to land and the economic rent is not the result of the labors of the land owner (unimproved land value) property rights to labor are absolute for ALL and the right of self-ownership is upheld for ALL...in other words equal liberty for the greatest number of people.
The system you are advocating is called communism. It does not work.
communism/socialism is generally thought to be the collective ownership of the means of production - land, labor, capital.
the system I am calling for is the logical extension of classical liberals' recognition of individual rights shared in common.
collectivism is based on group rights which requires permission to access/use collective property from all the other owners PRIOR to use...
individual rights shared in common has no such restrictions but only a judgement after access/use as to whether an individual's use violates the equal access/use rights of another.
-
absolute right to your labor
What could this be?
-
absolute right to your labor
What could this be?
untaxed...
then of course we can talk about the Labor Theory of Value if you want to!
-
I will put a killer satellite into orbit, and melt the polar ice cap with a laser beam, if my ransom demand is not met.
One Million Dollars.
-
I will put a killer satellite into orbit, and melt the polar ice cap with a laser beam, if my ransom demand is not met.
One Million Dollars.
But ice actually takes up more volume than water, so melting the ice cap wouldn't cause flooding.
-
I will put a killer satellite into orbit, and melt the polar ice cap with a laser beam, if my ransom demand is not met.
One Million Dollars.
But ice actually takes up more volume than water, so melting the ice cap wouldn't cause flooding.
They're on land and not already in the water...so it probably would.
-
That one is for Benny!
bye-bye...don't let the door hit you in the arse!
Course, you hate it that you cannot validate your claims with any proof. :P So, how about some evidence that you have rights intrinsically, hmmm? Any? Come on, trollboy. Learn how to debate properly!
-- Bridget wins since Benny Boy cannot prove his case.
-
I will put a killer satellite into orbit, and melt the polar ice cap with a laser beam, if my ransom demand is not met.
One Million Dollars.
But ice actually takes up more volume than water, so melting the ice cap wouldn't cause flooding.
They're on land and not already in the water...so it probably would.
the bigger problem maybe the effect on thermohaline circulation...
-
how about some evidence
how about honoring your word?
bye-bye!
-
how about some evidence
how about honoring your word?
bye-bye!
How about you make me?
-- Bridget puts poor poor Benny on iggy for no intellectual backbone of providing proof for his claims.
-
absolute right to your labor
What could this be?
untaxed...
then of course we can talk about the Labor Theory of Value if you want to!
Let's do.
-
absolute right to your labor
What could this be?
untaxed...
then of course we can talk about the Labor Theory of Value if you want to!
Let's do.
first you understand that labor wages would not be taxed right?
-
Why are you using the term 'would'?
-
Why are you using the term 'would'?
you understand that wages are not taxed -- right?
-
Are you refering to your utopian or the current reality?
-
Are you refering to your utopian or the current reality?
mine...
-
Ok.
-
I wasn't sure where to post this but I am fond of this thread and I'd like to get it back on topic.
Ideas for protesting police cameras:
1. Stage mock fights in front of them. Pretend weapons, things that look like drug deals etc - this will turn their new "tool" against them as they either begin to ignore it or, taking the staged "incidents" seriously, waste their time rushing about to resolve the non-existent issues.
2. Follow off-duties around photographing their every public moment like paparazzi and posting the least flattering examples to media/websites etc.
3. Someone else brought up destroying a camera in effigy.
4. Stand in front of them (this may require tall people or people on stilts) I know it sounds silly but might get some nice press - what are they going to do - tell you you cant stand in a public place?
5. Have signs within sight of cameras - something with police state slogans on it.
6. mount cameras across the street from police offices with a sign to the police - feel safer?
7. Insist on having public access to the cameras inside the police station.
8. Creative use of glare or light conditions, rendering the cameras useless.
This approach eschews anything that would actually damage the cameras such as spraypaint/vasoline, duct tape, long distance rifle shots or other such vandalism and would be an early step in the protest.
These are just off the top of my head - anyone else have any others?
-
Yeah, to get back on track. Never realized how long this thread was.
How far would I go? The furthest I would go would involve exercising my 2nd Amendment rights.
-
I will put a killer satellite into orbit, and melt the polar ice cap with a laser beam, if my ransom demand is not met.
One Million Dollars.
One Billion Dollars
-
I will put a killer satellite into orbit, and melt the polar ice cap with a laser beam, if my ransom demand is not met.
One Million Dollars.
One Billion Dollars
One Trillion Stalkers.