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
| | |-+  why aren't you an anarchist?
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6   Go Down

Author Topic: why aren't you an anarchist?  (Read 20162 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

BenTucker

  • Guest
Re: why aren't you an anarchist?
« Reply #30 on: February 20, 2006, 06:20:21 AM »

Quote
How, though, can you define "improved"?

has any labor been applied?

Quote
who is to draw the arbitrary line?

the market...

Quote
Is mowing my lawn enough to claim ownership of the lawn because I have improved it?

not because you have "improved it" but because you have mixed your labor with it - I don't know...is walking the perimeter of NH enough to claim ownership of NH?

Quote
If labor is your measurement of ownership, then how much labor do I have to exert before it's okay to kick people off of my lawn?

who is going to do the kicking?
Logged

sfliberty

  • Guest
Re: why aren't you an anarchist?
« Reply #31 on: February 20, 2006, 11:27:14 AM »

It's easier to justify a monopoly than to be consistant?
Yes.  I'm pretty close, but I just don't have the time or will to research all this stuff about private courts and private law.  So for now, no, i'm not an anarchist.  So no, when arguing with one of you guys (anarchists), I can't justify government at all and will end up aggreeing with you.  But, when I'm talking to a "Libertarian" (small government sort), I wouldn't be able to show how things would be better without a government.  The only argument I would have would be "Government is force".  And that isn't really even enough for me.  So basically, it's a lack of research, and a lack of time to do the research.
Logged

Laetitia

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3952
  • ...
    • View Profile
Re: why aren't you an anarchist?
« Reply #32 on: February 20, 2006, 11:32:20 AM »

I have to applaud you for finally saying something that makes sense. I still disagree with you in both principle & application, but it does make sense.

do you think I am a collectivist?

if not, do you think my views fall within libertarianism?
I do think you are a collectivist, though I'm still thinking about exactly how to explain the why.

Sometimes it's easy to say a person is or is not a Libertarian. (Harry Browne - YES; Hillary Clinton - NOT; George Bush - NOT) But then you have Ron Paul, who is technically a Republican. There are lots of independents who agree with with anywhere from 50-90% of the Libertarian platform, but are put off by purists who will shout down anyone who doesn't agree 100%.

I think that many of your views do fall within libertarianism. I just don't think your view on property rights and land is one of them. There is merit to the economic rents and land being common property, but it is a system that would only work in a utopian vacuum. Again, though, I'm still thinking about this one. The explanation of private property I use with my children doesn't apply, so I'm thinking through a grown-up version.
Logged
Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of experience comes from bad judgment.

BenTucker

  • Guest
Re: why aren't you an anarchist?
« Reply #33 on: February 20, 2006, 12:00:38 PM »

Quote
I do think you are a collectivist, though I'm still thinking about exactly how to explain the why.

do you agree that collectivism is based on group rights and ownership is common is based on individual rights?

in other words, in a collectivist system in order to access/use the collective property you must ask each of the individual owners in the collective permission and they must each give their consent to your use (consensus) PRIOR to access/use and they can dictate they manner and extent of use.

and if this collectivist system has formed a state as the delegated authority then you must get permission from them first PRIOR to use...

whereas ownership in common you need not ask ANYONE prior to use and are only judged afterwards whether or not your use infringes on any other INDIVIDUALS equal access right...

and that the sole LEGITIMATE role of the state is to protect the INDIVIDUAL rights of those who are being infringed upon...

do you not see & acknowledge the material difference between collective and common ownership?

Quote
I just don't think your view on property rights and land is one of them. There is merit to the economic rents and land being common property

how can you pass judgement on whether I am a collectivist or not when you keep misrepresenting my position?

my view on property rights is that only absolute property rights to LABOR can be the logical extension of ownership right to yourself - as the fundamental tenet of libertarianism.

do you agree or disagree?

yes, philosophically all land as part of the natural commons starts out as common property but that it is LEGITIMATE and JUST that private individuals enclose the commons "so long as they leave enough and as good in common for others" (Locke's proviso) so that we bring land under cultivation and the surplus can sustain many, many more people then if we had remained as wandering, nomadic tribes of hunters and gatherers.

so up until Locke's proviso - the bundled private property rights to land ownership of use, possession, exclusion, transferability are LEGITIMATE and JUST but with the appearance of the economic rent, which ONLY occurs beyond Locke's proviso, the economic rent - and only the economic rent - needs to remain owned in common so as to uphold the ABSOLUTE property rights we all possess to our labor as the logical extension of our ABSOLUTE right of self-ownership.
Logged

Laetitia

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3952
  • ...
    • View Profile
Re: why aren't you an anarchist?
« Reply #34 on: February 20, 2006, 01:15:54 PM »

I'm going to skip over the fancy talk, and go straight into my simple thoughts (and gut feeling) about my views on property rights. I'm not trying to prove yours wrong. I understand that you are very firm in your views; I am just as firm (though less wordy) about mine.

On my property, I choose to build a house. I want to live in this house for the rest of my life, so I build a quality, beautiful house. I want to pass it down to my children. It is mine, I can do that.

If the community owns all property, I lease the use of the property. Whether it is 10, 20 or 50 years, it is leased access. If I build a house, there is no guarantee I can live in it more than 10 years, let alone pass it on to my family. Why would I put so much of my efforts into this house? If it is too nice, someone else in the community can wait for my lease to be up, outbid me and take my house.  You have used Hong Kong as an example of leased property before. I think this is misleading. They have more economic freedom than we do in the U.S. because of lower taxes & regulatory interference. We don't have any way to measure how much more prosperous they could be if individuals could own the rights to the land on which the buildings stand.

If someone else owns property, and I improve it, then those improvements are theirs. That is why my clients employ me; to provide extra value to their property. I am paid for the value I add. I take that payment with me to use as I see fit to purchase & improve my own property.

If own property, I am free to do as I choose with it. If I choose to improve it, those improvements are also mine.

If I own the property, but there are restrictions on what I can build or what improvements I can make, beyond what would be harmful to my neighbors, then do I really own the property?

I see our current county/state property tax system to be a form of the type of mutualist society you promote. My property taxes are what I pay the state in order to retain the privilege of use of my own land. If I make the land more valuable through improvements, I am charged more in property taxes if I want to stay on the land. If someone comes along who will pay the state more money for use of my land, then the state (through courts/eminent domain) can take my land for less than the value (labor & resources) I have put into it.

The basic difference I can see between your version and the version above is that you substitute "ownership in common" for "state/county".
Logged
Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of experience comes from bad judgment.

ladyattis

  • Guest
Re: why aren't you an anarchist?
« Reply #35 on: February 20, 2006, 01:16:27 PM »

Ben, two words: FUCK OFF. Also, no one has rights. If I had rights then I would have some magical FARCE[FORCE] to use them at will. Or it would be ingrained at birth as part of my 'instincts' or memory. Yet they are not, thus rights are extrinsic, aka CAUSAL, principles of human action. Get your head out of that apriorism shite, m'kay? I'm just laughing at your circular reasoning, Ben, you're very much like a fundie religious nut that keeps saying, "BUT THE BOOK SAYS THIS!!!" LAWL!


-- Bridget is Ben's pwnerer... o/~ Hey n00b, I really like going to pwn you, n00b! o/~ ^^;
Logged

ladyattis

  • Guest
Re: why aren't you an anarchist?
« Reply #36 on: February 20, 2006, 01:19:07 PM »

Joy gets gold star for breaking down interpretation of mutualism and comparing to FDR's New Deal Govt of Today. :)

Also, I would point out that our government is more modelled from Italian facism if you examine the alphabet soup 'corporations' developed under FDR's New Deal. And as such it's not the minarchy that the Constitution speaks of.


Also, why am I not an anarchist? Three simple words: Causality versus Duty.


-- Bridget
« Last Edit: February 20, 2006, 01:20:42 PM by ladyattis »
Logged

BenTucker

  • Guest
Re: why aren't you an anarchist?
« Reply #37 on: February 20, 2006, 02:03:33 PM »

Quote
If the community owns all property, I lease the use of the property

the community doesn't "own all property" only the return on land called economic rent...

Quote
Why would I put so much of my efforts into this house?

because when and if you sell it you will be rewarded for your efforts and it is nice to live in it...

Quote
do I really own the property?

a landlord sometimes hires a rent collector does that mean the rent collector owns the property?

Quote
The basic difference I can see between your version and the version above is that you substitute "ownership in common" for "state/county"

except if the state as delegated authority of the whole keeps and spends the economic rent as tax receipts then the economic rent is not owned in common but rather is owned collectively.

Joy-

I appreciate your efforts but you still have not respond to my central thesis which is that if you as the landowner collect the economic rent rather than share it equally amongst your neighbors (and they with you) then it can only be done so at the expense of the absolute rights to the fruits of the labor of those you are excluding by your title backed by the state...

the reason why is because the collection of the economic rent by you (immediately from someone you are renting to and in the future from a buyer of your property) becomes a legal and monetary obligation that can only be satisfied via their wages.
Logged

BenTucker

  • Guest
Re: why aren't you an anarchist?
« Reply #38 on: February 20, 2006, 02:04:58 PM »

no one has rights.

I don't discuss issues with people whose word can't be trusted.

bye-bye!
« Last Edit: February 20, 2006, 02:13:31 PM by BenTucker »
Logged

ladyattis

  • Guest
Re: why aren't you an anarchist?
« Reply #39 on: February 20, 2006, 02:12:07 PM »

no one has rights.

I don't discuss issues with people who word can't be trusted.

bye-bye!

what word? I didn't make a promise to you, child. So, say your bye bye elsewhere.

-- Bridget sk00ls Ben, the Commie, Tucker again.
Logged

Laetitia

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3952
  • ...
    • View Profile
Re: why aren't you an anarchist?
« Reply #41 on: February 20, 2006, 02:19:24 PM »

no one has rights.

I don't discuss issues with people who word can't be trusted.

bye-bye!

That's a shame, since Bridget is the only person to have stayed with you on your topic through several boards simultaneously, for days on end.
Logged
Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of experience comes from bad judgment.

ladyattis

  • Guest
Re: why aren't you an anarchist?
« Reply #42 on: February 20, 2006, 02:21:19 PM »



what word?

http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=4954.msg87300#msg87300

Not a word, and it's online. Also, it's not a promise. You probably think when a friend says he'll be back in five minutes that he'll literally be back in 4 minutes and 59 seconds, eh? LOL! Ben Tucker == n00b!

Furthermore, not all statements are binding. Saying it will be my last post does not infer that I will abide by those terms. It means it will be my last post for you. Especially anything constructive because your reasoning is as circular as a tire that goes round and round. You can never provide axioms that are not contestable. You can never produce conclusions based on empirical facts. You can never make your argument stick to any moral theory. And you never attempt to refute anyone's claims. You only repeat what you believe and not defend it or affirm it with parallel argumentation. That is why it was my last post with regard to any constructive argumentation.



-- Bridget
« Last Edit: February 20, 2006, 02:24:00 PM by ladyattis »
Logged

BenTucker

  • Guest
Re: why aren't you an anarchist?
« Reply #43 on: February 20, 2006, 02:26:29 PM »

no one has rights.

I don't discuss issues with people who word can't be trusted.

bye-bye!

That's a shame, since Bridget is the only person to have stayed with you on your topic through several boards simultaneously, for days on end.

a shame?

I think she must get off on harassing people...
Logged

ladyattis

  • Guest
Re: why aren't you an anarchist?
« Reply #44 on: February 20, 2006, 02:30:28 PM »

I harass idiots like you that won't produce a non-circular argument.

Here is your argument as follows. Everyone is equally free because they must be [NO REASON GIVEN]. Since everyone is equally free land must be equally used [NO REASON GIVEN]. Since land is equally used, no one is paying anything [Wrong since economic rent is lost permanent in the cycle, period and end of story]. And since land is equally used everyone is equally free [Wrong again since you assert everyone must be equally free in the first place. You cannot end your argument with your initial premise. You must find a new transformative conclusion that synthesizes the first two premises to a final non-circular conclusion.]

So when you produce something that isn't like this, then we'll talk. Also, when you stop spouting natural law bullshit, which was refuted a century before our time, then we'll be on the same page.

Until then, enjoy getting barbs in your jockey shorts, bub.

-- Bridget
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  why aren't you an anarchist?

// ]]>

Page created in 0.024 seconds with 31 queries.