Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  Activism: how far would you go?
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 12   Go Down

Author Topic: Activism: how far would you go?  (Read 33965 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

BenTucker

  • Guest
Re: Activism: how far would you go?
« Reply #60 on: February 06, 2006, 04:22:06 PM »

Quote
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!

Logged

fisher

  • Guest
Re: Activism: how far would you go?
« Reply #61 on: February 06, 2006, 04:35:59 PM »

of human beings.
The fact that they left that out of the original cracks me up.
Logged

bonerjoe

  • Guest
Re: Activism: how far would you go?
« Reply #62 on: February 06, 2006, 07:54:57 PM »

Aha.
Logged

JetlagQ

  • Take it up with my DRO...
  • FTL Creative Team
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 126
  • ...I love Mises to pieces
    • View Profile
    • Black and Gold
Re: Activism: how far would you go?
« Reply #63 on: February 06, 2006, 10:08:27 PM »

Dear Ben Tucker,

Quote
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
Logged
There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him.

BenTucker

  • Guest
Re: Activism: how far would you go?
« Reply #64 on: February 06, 2006, 10:31:40 PM »

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Logged

JetlagQ

  • Take it up with my DRO...
  • FTL Creative Team
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 126
  • ...I love Mises to pieces
    • View Profile
    • Black and Gold
Re: Activism: how far would you go?
« Reply #65 on: February 06, 2006, 10:54:03 PM »

Quote
Georgism posits that the profits from non-labor based property (such as land) should accrue communally.

Quote
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?

Quote
Profit is the only reason people would want to "own" land

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
Therefore the only land owner will be by the state (trustee of the community)

Quote
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?
« Last Edit: February 06, 2006, 11:15:36 PM by JetlagQ »
Logged
There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him.

BenTucker

  • Guest
Re: Activism: how far would you go?
« Reply #66 on: February 06, 2006, 11:21:55 PM »

Quote
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?

Quote
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?

Quote
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.
Logged

JetlagQ

  • Take it up with my DRO...
  • FTL Creative Team
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 126
  • ...I love Mises to pieces
    • View Profile
    • Black and Gold
Re: Activism: how far would you go?
« Reply #67 on: February 06, 2006, 11:35:59 PM »

Quote
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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
the state is required to support this collective or common right, but it is not required if there is private ownership.

Quote
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.

Quote
collective right and common right are opposite...

I'm going to have to thing about that for a while.

Quote
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.


Logged
There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him.

BenTucker

  • Guest
Re: Activism: how far would you go?
« Reply #68 on: February 06, 2006, 11:50:29 PM »

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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."
« Last Edit: February 07, 2006, 12:41:49 AM by BenTucker »
Logged

bonerjoe

  • Guest
Re: Activism: how far would you go?
« Reply #69 on: February 07, 2006, 09:12:51 AM »

Is he back again?
Logged

eukreign

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1615
    • View Profile
Re: Activism: how far would you go?
« Reply #70 on: February 07, 2006, 10:03:50 AM »

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.
Logged

BenTucker

  • Guest
Re: Activism: how far would you go?
« Reply #71 on: February 07, 2006, 10:20:37 AM »

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.
Logged

ladyattis

  • Guest
Re: Activism: how far would you go?
« Reply #72 on: February 07, 2006, 10:59:17 AM »

Lien...

Quote
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
« Last Edit: February 07, 2006, 11:01:21 AM by ladyattis »
Logged

BenTucker

  • Guest
Re: Activism: how far would you go?
« Reply #73 on: February 07, 2006, 11:55:14 AM »

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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"
« Last Edit: February 07, 2006, 11:59:54 AM by BenTucker »
Logged

eukreign

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1615
    • View Profile
Re: Activism: how far would you go?
« Reply #74 on: February 07, 2006, 12:00:44 PM »

Quote
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.

Quote
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:
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 12   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  Activism: how far would you go?

// ]]>

Page created in 0.021 seconds with 32 queries.