The Free Talk Live BBS
Free Talk Live => The Polling Pit => Topic started by: Dylboz on August 10, 2006, 10:15:12 PM
-
In my opinion, once I claim a right for myself, it then extends to others, because I must live by the standard I set for myself, in short, the golden rule. If, as a society, we share a common tradition of respecting certain rights, then they exist for us. That is the point of political discourse, to establish what rights we are entitled to and what limitations, if any, should be put on their exercise. To my mind, a right is absolute, but once you violate someone else's rights, you've forfeited for yourself the rights you've violated, in a sense, by your action you're asserting that those rights don't exist for them or yourself. Ian was right, insofar as you'l only have the rights you claim and defend, and you extend those rights to others regardless of whether they believe in them. So, what he was getting at when he was saying to Mark that even if rights don't exist in a tangible sense, when they are violated by people who neither believe in nor respect them, it is still wrong because he, Ian, and everyone else who DOES believe in and respect them recognize the violation.
It was J.S. Mill who said, "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind." I agree. But there is a certain irony in that fact that a thoroughly individualist philosophy like libertarianism requires a community of like minded persons for it's existence. Man, I hope I can convince my wife to move to New Hampshire!
-
What about the "technocratic utilitarians" out there who believe rights are man-made and don't exist purely because they're not tangible?
-
Natural rights are rights that cannot be taken away under any circumstances whatsoever. Such as the right to free speech--no government can ever force you to hold your tongue (until they figure out some drug or medical procedure to do so) no matter how many laws they pass, they can only provide a strong incentive through physical coersion to do so...
-
I've been working on an essay about this. I don't see a way that one can say that the recognition of natural rights/self-ownership can be explained w/o religion of some sort. Animals don't recognize unalienable rights. If man is just a highly developed animal than we wouldn't have any rights that they do not. I've heard that man is different because he can reason but I can't prove that man alone has the ability to reason. Even if that's true I don't see where a biological function of the brain is any better reason to extrapolate the right to self-ownership than opposable thumbs or lungs.
I'd really like to hear what Ian thinks about it as an atheist. He's clearly principled in that he believes that a person has no right to initiate force on another person....period. I agree whole-heartedly but I can't make a rational argument to prove it based on the assumption that the world is exactly as it appears to the 5 senses and man is merely a highly developed primate. I also don't subscribe to any organized religion but recognize my "belief" that man has a right to own himself and to deny him that right is "morally wrong" is not a product of rational extrapolation of physical evidence but rather a firm conviction that is based on nothing but a religious faith in NAP/ZAP.
-
I'd say they don't exist unless you defend them. And at that point they aren't really rights but more like choices. There are two parts to this that I see:
1. You and the agressor makes decisions about your interaction. He attacks you and you kill him in self defense or allow him to kill you or are unable to defend yourself.
2. After the fact if there are other interested parties in what happened in #1 then it comes down to custom. If the community that you live in it is acceptable that if you kill someone attacking you are in the right then the community will pat you on the back or leave you alone. If it is not okay to act in self defense than they will do whatever it is that community does in those cases. The same applies if you are killed and how they usually deal with killers.
So, in summary, first you and the other person make decisions, then if those decisions affect the community and the community has a custom on how to respond to those decisions they will respond.
-
Natural rights are rights that cannot be taken away under any circumstances whatsoever. Such as the right to free speech--no government can ever force you to hold your tongue (until they figure out some drug or medical procedure to do so) no matter how many laws they pass, they can only provide a strong incentive through physical coersion to do so...
they most certainly can if you are infringing on the equal right of others...
-
Natural rights are rights that cannot be taken away under any circumstances whatsoever. Such as the right to free speech--no government can ever force you to hold your tongue (until they figure out some drug or medical procedure to do so) no matter how many laws they pass, they can only provide a strong incentive through physical coersion to do so...
they most certainly can if you are infringing on the equal right of others...
If you do not have the right to infringe on the equal rights of others than preventing you from doing so is not taking away your rights at all.
I think what he's trying to say here is that you can be imprisoned for exercising your right to free speech but that doesn't mean that you don't have the right to it. Someone choosing to physically prevent you from exercising your rights doesn't mean that the right doesn't exist.
-
If you do not have the right to infringe on the equal rights of others than preventing you from doing so is not taking away your rights at all.
I think what he's trying to say here is that you can be imprisoned for exercising your right to free speech but that doesn't mean that you don't have the right to it. Someone choosing to physically prevent you from exercising your rights doesn't mean that the right doesn't exist.
Than what is a "right"? If are prevented from speaking how can you still have the right to free speech?
-
Rights are a contrived concept that are based loosely on the Golden Rule, and dependent on human reason. If a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound? No, it creates soundwaves but with out a hum to interpret the waves, there is no "sound." Rights have come into existence becasue we as humans have the ability of abstract thought and higher order thinkng, and we endow ourselves with such rights. We hold ourselves in high regard and have some concept of self worth. Lesser animals have no concept of self worth and therefore no concept of rights, or defense of such things.
-
A right can be violated, but it cannot be taken away. The moment someone infringes on the rights of another, that person has stated that he does not accept the concept of rights. Since he does not accept rights, his own may be violated. A person can only give up their own rights, and does so through their actions.
-
What about the "technocratic utilitarians" out there who believe rights are man-made and don't exist purely because they're not tangible?
IMO, rights are man made.
What evidence is there that rights either "come from God" or are inherent to man's nature?
I think Ian had it right. The concept of rights is a noble idea, but you cannot prove that they are innate or inherent.
-
no government can ever force you to hold your tongue (until they figure out some drug or medical procedure to do so) no matter how many laws they pass, they can only provide a strong incentive through physical coersion to do so...
Sure they can...they can kill you.
They can cut out you tongue
They can gag you or put a muzzle on you.
They can burn out the part of your brain that controls language.
You don't have a right to free speech if your free speech can be stopped. Hell, I could stop you if I was motivated enough and was willing to suffer the consequences (I'm not on either count)
-
Rights are valid claims to property. In other words, all rights are property rights.
-
The concept of rights is a noble idea, but you cannot prove that they are innate or inherent.
They are man-made; I would agree with that. On the other hand, the rights guaranteed by the Constitution are innate or inherent to Americans (i.e. we were born into them) based on the political structure set up in this country, despite current attempts to thwart them. From the perspective of American citizens, this is true. If we allow them to be changed, then the "inherent" rights of American citizens will change as well. From this logical progression, I voted that rights exist only if we defend them. Let's get to defending, dammit.
Dylboz, I was totally down with what you wrote in your original post, up to and including the part about convincing your (my) wife to move to New Hampshire.
-
A right can be violated, but it cannot be taken away. The moment someone infringes on the rights of another, that person has stated that he does not accept the concept of rights. Since he does not accept rights, his own may be violated. A person can only give up their own rights, and does so through their actions.
That is just wordplay. If someone can violate your rights, in what sense do you actually have them? If I am taking your property, for example, in what sense do you have a "rihgt" to property.
-
I think this is a crucial question for Libertarians to ask and be able to answer. Rights are a human construct, and if we try to claim otherwise, we put ourselves in the undesirable position of trying to defend a belief system that's based on faith. We should be arguing for why individual freedoms and voluntary cooperation is superior to the use of force to achieve our individual goals as well as our shared goals. That's an argument that we can win on the basis of logic. Belief in innate rights is similar to a religious belief. It's an intangible thing. You may feel it in your heart and it may make sense for you to treat that as evidence, but it's irrational to expect someone else to share your belief based on a divine inspiration that you feel internally and he doesn't. Thomas Paine talked about this with respect to religion.
If we can argue and even give tangible evidence for how freedom moves every individual and the entire human race forward, then maybe they will start to feel it as well-- that yes, this is how things SHOULD be. Freedom is distinctively RIGHT and tyranny is distinctively WRONG.
-
I think it's sad that we are even in need of having this conversation. Every American should be pissed about what's going on these days. Most people, it would seem, just don't care, or don't think it affects them.
Alas...
-
Rights are valid claims to property. In other words, all rights are property rights.
^^ This is the correct answer and the one we must delve into deeper in order to be able to best defend a non-theological/non-theocratic concept of Rights. In order to define this we must also define what "property" itself is. There is no point in saying "valid claims to property" if we are not sure what property is
I'll start us off, please feel free to work off of this:
1. Upon birth the only piece of "property" I own is your self, and though someone else may have custodial status over it at that point, it still belongs to me. This is not because of another power gifting me the ownership of my body, but because I add value to the otherwise lifeless flesh and bones by being able to use it, train it, improve it, etc.
2. The method for acquiring more property is to add value to existing property through the use of your property. If all I own is my mind and body, I can use these to add value to other pieces of property. The previously non-existent added-value(AV) becomes my property. It did not exist before I added them, and thus, the creation of this value by my makes it mine. The value did not exist before I created it, and thus what you create is yours.
3. Rights come from what I can do to this AV or property of mine. It is my right to do anything to my AV or property as long as I do not destroy the AV or property of another. I can trade it for goods, services, or money; I can choose to use it for myself; or I can choose to destroy it (as long as I am only destroying my own property and AV).
4. If anyone is attempting to take, use, or destroy my property (without my consent) I have the right to defend against these actions. The original goal of the government was to help me accomplish this goal of protecting my property.
5. I can acquire more property through free (not forced) trade and barter with other property owners and thus claim the same rights over it as if I had added the value to it myself.
6. The right to free speech, like every right, comes from my right to use my property, in this case my mind and body. The rights of the press come from the rights of property owners to add value to their property (paper for example) with their thoughts, or recollections of events.
Feel free to comment, critique, or add to this post.
-
the current state of affairs appear quite orwellian (1984)
wrong is right
freedom is slavery
ignorance is strength
-
Yes, rights exist. They flow logically from the nature of man as a rational being living in a world of scarcity. Although the concept of rights can be derived and would be valid for an individual in isolation, I dont think they really matter until we move into a society. For example, Robinson Crusoe stranded on a desert island has rights as a human being. However, it doesnt really matter much, since there is no potential for violation of those rights. Once Friday washes up on shore, however, rights become vitally important in order for them to define what actions are permissible for each individual.
If we doubt the existence of rights, then we can take the counterfactual example in which we assume no rights exist. If this is the case, then Mark is correct in his assertion that there can be no wrongs. If you do not have the right to your life or to your property, then I am not committing any harm by taking them from you. Ians resistance to this idea stems from the fact that this would still be morally wrong in absolute terms, but this stance presupposes the existence of rights. In the absence of rights, then might is right, and we have Hobbess war of all against all.
The idea that rights cant exist because they can be violated is akin to saying that the law doesnt exist because it can be broken. That does not follow. Rights exist, and they enable us to define what actions are permissible in a society. Although there have been other approaches, the concept of natural rights has formed the bulk of libertarian political philosophy, and is the foundation of the non-aggression axiom. The underlying reason that the non-aggression axiom works is that it is a valid, universal, moral law it is equally applicable to all people, at all times, and in all places. It is only the conept of rights that enable us to identify unacceptable intrusions on our liberty.
-
Ian errors in his belief that because it's possible to violate a right, rights don't exist. A right refers to something to which one is entitled. Even when your rights are violated (such as when someone assaults you or steals your things) you still retain the entitlement to those things.
sms5150 is correct in the idea that rights derive from the social nature of human beings. In any social setting, a demarcation of the limits of allowable action must be set, or chaos ensues. There are other theories of rights. For example, there is the divine right of kings theory, which states that some people possess greater rights than others. There is also the "might makes right" theory, which is that whoever has the most power can set the rules. Very popular these days is the idea that rights are cumulative, i.e., that larger numbers of people can pool their rights so as to deprive minorities of their rights. (This is the basis of collectivism.)
However, for a society based on freedom, equal rights are necessary.
-
Yes, rights exist. They flow logically from the nature of man as a rational being living in a world of scarcity. Although the concept of rights can be derived and would be valid for an individual in isolation, I dont think they really matter until we move into a society. For example, Robinson Crusoe stranded on a desert island has rights as a human being. However, it doesnt really matter much, since there is no potential for violation of those rights. Once Friday washes up on shore, however, rights become vitally important in order for them to define what actions are permissible for each individual.
If we doubt the existence of rights, then we can take the counterfactual example in which we assume no rights exist. If this is the case, then Mark is correct in his assertion that there can be no wrongs. If you do not have the right to your life or to your property, then I am not committing any harm by taking them from you. Ians resistance to this idea stems from the fact that this would still be morally wrong in absolute terms, but this stance presupposes the existence of rights. In the absence of rights, then might is right, and we have Hobbess war of all against all.
The idea that rights cant exist because they can be violated is akin to saying that the law doesnt exist because it can be broken. That does not follow. Rights exist, and they enable us to define what actions are permissible in a society. Although there have been other approaches, the concept of natural rights has formed the bulk of libertarian political philosophy, and is the foundation of the non-aggression axiom. The underlying reason that the non-aggression axiom works is that it is a valid, universal, moral law it is equally applicable to all people, at all times, and in all places. It is only the conept of rights that enable us to identify unacceptable intrusions on our liberty.
this is essentially the argument laid out in Alan Dershowitz's book "Rights from Wrongs"
http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/dershowitz105.htm
-
However, for a society based on freedom, equal rights are necessary.
and privilege (private law which gives special treatment to one group) is the anti-thesis of the concept of equal freedom as it always at some point leads to the shifting of costs which by definition will violate the right of self-ownership of those excluded from the privilege via theft of our labor-based property..
-
Don't hijack my thread, rent man. Your fantasy right to free money doesn't exist, because no one else respects it! It doesn't follow that all unimproved land is our property in common. It is no one's property. That is it, end of story. Since no one owns it, then you have no claim to economic rent from it or any obligation foisted on you when someone takes ownership of it through homesteading or purchase. Get out of here now, PLEASE, there are plenty of other threads for you to ruin!
NO ONE OWNS UNCLAIMED OR UNOCCUPIED LAND! NO ONE! NOT EVERYONE AS AN EQUAL ACCESS OPPORTUNITY RIGHT, BUT JUST PLAIN OLD NO ONE!
-
did you see the word "land" anywhere in that statement?
all privilege shifts costs off of the group receiving the benefit and onto society...this is the nature of EXTERNALITIES...
-
But your theory is predicated on the silly ideas you have, you know, about how existence in 3D space and self-ownership equals ownership in common of the dirt under your feet. This is the fundamental tenant from which all your reasoning flows. It's been done to death and you're wrong. Please keep it in the other threads. I want this to be about rights for real libertarians and anarcho-capitalists, not Georgists who's logic has already been refuted, but whose thick skulls cannot be penetrated by reason!
-
I agree with sms5150... I think. According to purely natural law, might makes right. In other words, you can claim some property for as long as you can defend it. If you're alone in the jungle, your right to life is as good as your ability to defend yourself from the hungry tiger who is attempting to homestead your flesh for his dinner. Society is built upon the notion of rights as a basis for determining between right and wrong. Therefore, I voted that rights are only as good as the defense of said rights. We create them as a way to get along in a cooperative society and then society defends them. We determine as a society when to intervene based on someone's right getting violated. Without societal intervention, we revert back to natural law where might makes right.
Can someone explain the view of rights from an anarchist perspective? I get the gist that anarchism is belief in no government but at the same time they don't seem to approve of murder and theft. Does it just mean no organization is responsible for enforcing the right to be free from aggression? But they believe in free trade, so a voluntary neighborhood watch whereby they take turns looking after each others' property is acceptable, but then that's a very small and simple form of local government. It's like Libertarians believe in minimal government and Anarchists believe in really really REALLY minimal government.
-
But they believe in free trade, so a voluntary neighborhood watch whereby they take turns looking after each others' property is acceptable, but then that's a very small and simple form of local government.
From the threads I've read with the pro-anarchy crowd on the BBS, it seems that, for some reason, they don't consider it a "government" at that point. The ony reason I've really seen anyone post is because "it doesn't tax," which is actually somewhat weak since taxation is not necessary to "govern."
But I don't speak for the pro-anarchy crowd, so don't take my word for it. I could be wrong.
-
But they believe in free trade, so a voluntary neighborhood watch whereby they take turns looking after each others' property is acceptable, but then that's a very small and simple form of local government.
From the threads I've read with the pro-anarchy crowd on the BBS, it seems that, for some reason, they don't consider it a "government" at that point. The ony reason I've really seen anyone post is because "it doesn't tax," which is actually somewhat weak since taxation is not necessary to "govern."
But I don't speak for the pro-anarchy crowd, so don't take my word for it. I could be wrong.
We anarchists are in favor of competition and voluntarism. So the neighborhood watch is fine, because it's voluntary and no one has a strict monopoly on the provision of services backed by force, where participation is coerced and non-participation is punished by imprisonment, property seizure or violence. Sure, a DRO might provide a service that looks a lot like what government does now, but if they are providing that service in the context of a competeative free market with others offering similar services, and participation is voluntary, then it isn't government. Government provides services at gunpoint, and there is no option of NOT paying, even if you never use the services. If you feel you don't need the services and can take care of yourself, fine, no problem. Noo ne is goin to surveille your house with infra-red googles to see if you're growing weed, no one will bother to see if that girl leaving your house just got paid to give you a blow job or if she did it of her own free will. That joint you smoke is your own business.
Essentially, the opposition to coersion defines anarcho-capitalism. As long as a transaction is voluntary and doesn't involve fraud, it's A-OK. If you believe you have rights, you can hire a DRO to defend them. You could choose from a variety of competing businesses to defend your rights, or you could rely on yourself to do the job. If the defense of your rights runs up against another person's assertion of theirs, then your DRO's will work it out or you can voluntarily choose an arbitrator, or you can fight it out in the street (though the likely damage to 3rd party property will enevitably involve still more DRO's and would be a strong incentive to resolve your dispute peacefully without incurring further liability). Point being, individuals' rights would still exist, but the institutions protecting, defending, and resolving disputes between them wouldn't have a monopoly, but would instead compete for your business in an open market for their services.
-
or you could rely on yourself to do the job. If the defense of your rights runs up against another person's assertion of theirs, then your DRO's will work it out or you can voluntarily choose an arbitrator, or you can fight it out in the street
in otherwords no rules (voluntary or otherwise) but the law of the jungle...
if I voluntarily consent to a rule and then am judged (by whom?) to be in violation yet don't consent - it is law of the jungle time.
-
or you could rely on yourself to do the job. If the defense of your rights runs up against another person's assertion of theirs, then your DRO's will work it out or you can voluntarily choose an arbitrator, or you can fight it out in the street
in otherwords no rules (voluntary or otherwise) but the law of the jungle...
if I voluntarily consent to a rule and then am judged (by whom?) to be in violation yet don't consent - it is law of the jungle time.
You just revealed yourself for the naked statist you are. Do you really think that your economic rent funded government with it's "justified" use of force is anything but the law of the jungle? Has any state ever succeeded in justly protecting anyone's rights? Has it ever been anything other than an organized gang of murderous thugs extorting money, regardless of the justification, at gunpoint? Is there anything special about the people in government that makes them incorruptable and moraly infallible? The answer is no, and yours would be the same miserable failure they all are, despite your sophistic rhetorical diahrrea to the contrary.
At it's root, life often IS the "law of the jungle." When some one is desperate enough, they'll violate your rights, regardless of the institutions or social conventions against it, if they truly believe their potential gain is worth the risk. That is why I take my own self-defense seriously, I am responsible for myself and I don't want to be victimized. I can't just scream out "this man is violating my right to self-ownership!" and expect John Locke to pop in and save me in the name of his proviso. Protecting myself, and my rights, is ultimately my responsibility. If you read the introductory post I wrote in this thread, you'll see where I stand on the idea of rights.
Beyond the question of violence, peaceful people who respect each other's rights can have their disputes resolved by a voluntarily chosen third party or by their respective legal representatives under the DRO model. Smarter, more eloquent men have thoroughly elucidated the concept elsewhere, but you could start here:
The Stateless Society: An Examination of Alternatives (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux1.html)
Enjoy. You need a break from copying and pasting stuff into this bbs.
-
in otherwords no rules (voluntary or otherwise) but the law of the jungle...
if I voluntarily consent to a rule and then am judged (by whom?) to be in violation yet don't consent - it is law of the jungle time.
Well, law of the rain forest, maybe.
-
A right refers to something to which one is entitled. Even when your rights are violated (such as when someone assaults you or steals your things) you still retain the entitlement to those things.
You are just chaning the word right to entitlemen, but making the xact same argumentt. In what way are you entitled to somehting if you do not have it?
-
in otherwords no rules (voluntary or otherwise) but the law of the jungle...
if I voluntarily consent to a rule and then am judged (by whom?) to be in violation yet don't consent - it is law of the jungle time.
Well, law of the rain forest, maybe.
Just to clarify, BT, the explicit answer to your specific question is in the link I posted. As well as many others you might have about how Ancapistan would operate.
-
in otherwords no rules (voluntary or otherwise) but the law of the jungle...
if I voluntarily consent to a rule and then am judged (by whom?) to be in violation yet don't consent - it is law of the jungle time.
Do you think that the world does not work this way? Do "rights" magically jump out and stop people from harming you or something?
-
or you could rely on yourself to do the job. If the defense of your rights runs up against another person's assertion of theirs, then your DRO's will work it out or you can voluntarily choose an arbitrator, or you can fight it out in the street
in otherwords no rules (voluntary or otherwise) but the law of the jungle...
if I voluntarily consent to a rule and then am judged (by whom?) to be in violation yet don't consent - it is law of the jungle time.
You consent and then you don't consent? Like John Kerry?
-
Do you really think that your economic rent funded government with it's "justified" use of force is anything but the law of the jungle?
the economic rent goes to your neighbors not the government...
the government is rightfully using force to protect those individuals being excluded to their absolute right to the fruits of their labor.
-
Do you really think that your economic rent funded government with it's "justified" use of force is anything but the law of the jungle?
the economic rent goes to your neighbors not the government...
the government is rightfully using force to protect those individuals being excluded to their absolute right to the fruits of their labor.
"Pay your taxes or we'll kill you"
How wonderfully libertarian.
-
Do you really think that your economic rent funded government with it's "justified" use of force is anything but the law of the jungle?
the economic rent goes to your neighbors not the government...
the government is rightfully using force to protect those individuals being excluded to their absolute right to the fruits of their labor.
"Pay your taxes or we'll kill you"
How wonderfully libertarian.
what is the difference in a libertarian anarchy?
pay your economic rent or we will kill you?
-
the economic rent goes to your neighbors not the government...
the government is rightfully using force to protect those individuals being excluded to their absolute right to the fruits of their labor.
With a hefty handling charge, of course. Those charge with stealing the "economic rent" always manage to siphon off a good portion for themselves.
Sort of like how Tony Soprano collects his "economic rent."
-
the economic rent goes to your neighbors not the government...
the government is rightfully using force to protect those individuals being excluded to their absolute right to the fruits of their labor.
With a hefty handling charge, of course. Those charge with stealing the "economic rent" always manage to siphon off a good portion for themselves.
Sort of like how Tony Soprano collects his "economic rent."
why wouldn't people willingly share the economic rent with their neighbors if they new it would strengthen their own property rights to their labor when their neighbors shared with them?
-
Do you really think that your economic rent funded government with it's "justified" use of force is anything but the law of the jungle?
the economic rent goes to your neighbors not the government...
the government is rightfully using force to protect those individuals being excluded to their absolute right to the fruits of their labor.
"Pay your taxes or we'll kill you"
How wonderfully libertarian.
what is the difference in a libertarian anarchy?
pay your economic rent or we will kill you?
Hey, I can deal with people without having a big fat government do it for me.
Perpetually unemployed cowards like you have to hide behind the skirt of your nanny state to
do it for you.
I'll lurk, and if you come up with anything new to add, I'll be here. Or maybe I'll just keep
lurking. I'm no good at this sort of thing and your idea of discourse is like hitting people with a fish.
A really stinky fish.
After slogging through all the threads you've cluttered up, I don't see that happening anytime soon.
-
the economic rent goes to your neighbors not the government...
the government is rightfully using force to protect those individuals being excluded to their absolute right to the fruits of their labor.
With a hefty handling charge, of course. Those charge with stealing the "economic rent" always manage to siphon off a good portion for themselves.
Sort of like how Tony Soprano collects his "economic rent."
why wouldn't people willingly share the economic rent with their neighbors if they new it would strengthen their own property rights to their labor when their neighbors shared with them?
Not only is your system entirely socialist, but you assume things way out of proportion as well. I'm not going to pay someone else "economic rent" just because I could "strengthen my own property rights to my labor" by knowing that my neighbors will do the same. That's your "radical equality" worldview kicking in. You can't "strengthen" your property rights, just by knowing that your neighbor can, too.
You also can't go one sentence without throwing 3 different unecessary ideas together at once. I based, now, that you talk this way because you read too many old english-style written philosophies, such as your beloved John Locke. Now what you say, instead of coming from your brain to out of your mouth, comes from your monitor, directly to the keyboard.
Stop trying to act like you're unique and smart in some philosophically special way, your propaganda isn't working here. You're using the same method, and expecting different results. You are repetitiously repeating a message, in order to sway people's opinions. I can think of no other reason why you would sit on this particular forum, for the longest amount of wasted time.
-
why wouldn't people willingly share the economic rent with their neighbors if they new it would strengthen their own property rights to their labor when their neighbors shared with them?
Well, if you can con them into willingly handing over their money, that's one thing. Good luck with that!
In reality, it is done with guns and bloodshed.
-
Rights are simply moral propositions to which rational agents ensure their survival among similar agents. But, here is the kicker, mind and force are opposites. Morality ends where the gun begins. So, by that reasoning, rights are in part what you take as your own and what you don't take from others by force. That makes rights not a natural essence, but an epistemological one asserted in reason and protected by action.
-- Bridget
-
why wouldn't people willingly share the economic rent with their neighbors if they new it would strengthen their own property rights to their labor when their neighbors shared with them?
Well, if you can con them into willingly handing over their money, that's one thing. Good luck with that!
In reality, it is done with guns and bloodshed.
"But. but. but. If you want property you enslave me! You are a monopoly (which means you own ALL the land) and I am excluded. Now where's my check, bitch? I gotta go load up on lotto tickets and cheap booze."
--BTucker
-
why wouldn't people willingly share the economic rent with their neighbors if they new it would strengthen their own property rights to their labor when their neighbors shared with them?
Well, if you can con them into willingly handing over their money, that's one thing. Good luck with that!
In reality, it is done with guns and bloodshed.
"But. but. but. If you want property you enslave me! You are a monopoly (which means you own ALL the land) and I am excluded. Now where's my check, bitch? I gotta go load up on lotto tickets and cheap booze."
--BTucker
HA HA! :lol: You rock Santiago. Karma for that!
My turn...
Your exclusion OBLIGATES ME to demand money from you for the economic rent that derives from your enclosure of scarce and valuable land. Now hurry up with that check, Lisa Lipps is gonna be occupying 3D space at the peep show, and when I say 3D I mean THREE FUCKIN' D'S, BABY!
-
I noticed that he says in his system there will be plenty of land that is not occupied if you want to homestead, but
in no other system will land be unoccupied.
What happens if all land is occupied and people didn't have to pay for it, but are paying economic rent. Ben still has no
right to exist in any given place, but he does have money. I guess if thats what makes him happy.
So, he is selling his right to exist, and in the meantime forcing other people to do the same (the 'excluded') as they
are being paid for the land they can no longer occupy.
Life would suck bad.
-
I noticed that he says in his system there will be plenty of land that is not occupied if you want to homestead, but
in no other system will land be unoccupied.
What happens if all land is occupied and people didn't have to pay for it, but are paying economic rent. Ben still has no
right to exist in any given place, but he does have money. I guess if thats what makes him happy.
So, he is selling his right to exist, and in the meantime forcing other people to do the same (the 'excluded') as they
are being paid for the land they can no longer occupy.
Life would suck bad.
You have learned much, Asshopper, yet there is still much to learn.
:lol:
-
I noticed that he says in his system there will be plenty of land that is not occupied if you want to homestead, but
in no other system will land be unoccupied.
What happens if all land is occupied and people didn't have to pay for it, but are paying economic rent. Ben still has no
right to exist in any given place, but he does have money. I guess if thats what makes him happy.
So, he is selling his right to exist, and in the meantime forcing other people to do the same (the 'excluded') as they
are being paid for the land they can no longer occupy.
Life would suck bad.
not "plenty of land" but rather land on the margins...
the best we can do is this - no matter where anyone else chooses to exist those being excluded (whether they legally occupy land or not) will not economically disadvantage me (tax my labor).
-
I noticed that he says in his system there will be plenty of land that is not occupied if you want to homestead, but
in no other system will land be unoccupied.
What happens if all land is occupied and people didn't have to pay for it, but are paying economic rent. Ben still has no
right to exist in any given place, but he does have money. I guess if thats what makes him happy.
So, he is selling his right to exist, and in the meantime forcing other people to do the same (the 'excluded') as they
are being paid for the land they can no longer occupy.
Life would suck bad.
not "plenty of land" but rather land on the margins...
the best we can do is this - no matter where anyone else chooses to exist those being excluded (whether they legally occupy land or not) will not economically disadvantage me (tax my labor).
And do-si-do. Spin yer pardner round and round, dance aroudn the issue so you never have to give a straight answer.
-
the best we can do is this - no matter where anyone else chooses to exist those being excluded (whether they legally occupy land or not) will not economically disadvantage me (tax my labor).
No, I think I'll just shoot your tax collectors if they come on my property. As producers, my fellows and I will be far better armed than your army of hobos, and we will have the advantage of defense. I like my odds.
-
the best we can do is this - no matter where anyone else chooses to exist those being excluded (whether they legally occupy land or not) will not economically disadvantage me (tax my labor).
No, I think I'll just shoot your tax collectors if they come on my property. As producers, my fellows and I will be far better armed than your army of hobos, and we will have the advantage of defense. I like my odds.
odds are that as population continue to increase with the supply of land fixed, the "hobos" will have the numbers on their side...
-
the best we can do is this - no matter where anyone else chooses to exist those being excluded (whether they legally occupy land or not) will not economically disadvantage me (tax my labor).
No, I think I'll just shoot your tax collectors if they come on my property. As producers, my fellows and I will be far better armed than your army of hobos, and we will have the advantage of defense. I like my odds.
odds are that as population continue to increase with the supply of land fixed, the "hobos" will have the numbers on their side...
So?
-
odds are that as population continue to increase with the supply of land fixed, the "hobos" will have the numbers on their side...
So what you're advocating is the forcible redistribution of wealth by a collective body. Are you going to lead the Communist uprising yourself, or would you just be one of the asses? Er--masses?
-
odds are that as population continue to increase with the supply of land fixed, the "hobos" will have the numbers on their side...
So what you're advocating is the forcible redistribution of wealth by a collective body.
my argument actually is that the collective body forcible redistributing wealth (wealth can only occur with labor employing capital on land) are those that exclude and have a monopoly on the economic rent (landowners) at the expense of the self-ownership rights of those excluded who in paying the economic rent to the landowner collective are in essence being subjected to an illegal tax backed by the enforcement of the state.
to put it in Albert J. Nock's words:
the monopoly of economic rent is made possible when the State grants land-titles to a fraction of the population, thereby giving that fraction devices with which to levy tolls on the fruits of everyone else's labor. Since these tolls are levied in exchange for a "service" (access to valuable land) that said fraction did nothing to provide, the collection of economic rent is literally an entitlement scheme, i.e., a State-sanctioned transfer payment from those who produce to those who do not produce. In his essay, "The God's Lookout," Albert Jay Nock (author of Our Enemy, the State) explains how this particular form of welfare conflicts with the principles of laissez faire capitalism:
"This imperfect policy of non-intervention, or laissez-faire, led straight to a most hideous and dreadful economic exploitation; starvation wages, slum dwelling, killing hours, pauperism, coffin-ships, child-labour -- nothing like it had ever been seen in modern times....People began to say, perhaps naturally, if this is what state absentation comes to, let us have some State intervention.
"But the State had intervened; that was the whole trouble. The State had established one monopoly, -- the landlord's monopoly of economic rent, -- thereby shutting off great hordes of people from free access to the only source of human subsistence, and driving them into the factories to work for whatever Mr. Gradgrind and Mr. Bottles chose to give them. The land of England, while by no means nearly all actually occupied, was all legally occupied; and this State-created monopoly enabled landlords to satisfy their needs and desires with little exertion or none, but it also removed the land from competition with industry in the labour market, thus creating a huge, constant and exigent labour-surplus." [Emphasis Nock's]
this is why merely reducing the size of government is not enough...in the late 19th century we had virtually everything that most libertarians of today claim they are fighting for -- a tax and regulatory burden much lower than what we have now.
yet despite that fact, there was still an alarming rate of poverty amidst vast concentrations of wealth and privilege and as Nock pointed out, this was due not to natural causes, but to the concentrated ownership of "economic rent."
thus, to secure a truly an equally free and prosperous society, we must recognize and uphold both the exclusive right of each individual to the fruits of his or her labor, and the equal right of all individuals to the use of land as expressed via the direct and equal sharing of economic rent between neighbors in a community.
-
thus, to secure a truly an equally free and prosperous society, we must recognize and uphold both the exclusive right of each individual to the fruits of his or her labor, and the equal right of all individuals to the use of land as expressed via the direct and equal sharing of economic rent between neighbors in a community.
(definitions from dictionary.com)
socialism: n.
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved. (emphasis added)
communism: n.
A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
So, based on these definitions, how is what you just wrote not communism?
-
So, based on these definitions, how is what you just wrote not communism?
communism is based on the collective (joint) ownership of the means of production (land, labor, capital)
where you are restricted in use by having to get prior permission from all the other owners or their delegated authority.
what I argue for is private ownership of capital and the return on capital (economic profits)
the private ownership of labor and the return on labor (wages)
the private ownership of land.
the common ownership of the return on land (economic rent) as an individual righty to uphold your absolute ownership to the fruits of your labor.
-
the common ownership of the return on land (economic rent) as an individual righty to uphold your absolute ownership to the fruits of your labor.
What is the point of owning land if you get the same return on it as everyone else who works it? Isn't the "return" on land the whole draw of actually owning it? What would you get from owning the land in this case then? Not only that, but you are only entitled to what you and your employer agree upon--even in our current system. If you don't like how much you make, you can always find a new job or create your own business.
So if you convince your employer to give you every cent of profit gleaned by him or her for what you do, then you are a damn fine negotiator. On the other hand, he or she (the owner of the business) does own all of the resources and space and (most likely) spent money training you in some capacity to do your job, so why should he or she give you all of the profit from it?
Your argument makes no damned sense.
-
communism is based on the collective (joint) ownership of the means of production (land, labor, capital)
where you are restricted in use by having to get prior permission from all the other owners or their delegated authority.
what I argue for is private ownership of capital and the return on capital (economic profits)
Same thing, since the government owns the land, the government necessarily controls what is on the land.
There is no practical difference between collective ownership and individual ownership HELD collectively. Either way the gubmint controls it all.
-
communism is based on the collective (joint) ownership of the means of production (land, labor, capital)
where you are restricted in use by having to get prior permission from all the other owners or their delegated authority.
what I argue for is private ownership of capital and the return on capital (economic profits)
Same thing, since the government owns the land, the government necessarily controls what is on the land.
There is no practical difference between collective ownership and individual ownership HELD collectively. Either way the gubmint controls it all.
a collective can be run without a government (can't be too big) as all decisions would be made by consensus (everyone must agree).
in my system:
(a) individuals own their land
(b) individuals own the economic rent that results from the private enclosure of (a)
the government's sole role is to protect the absolute rights to labor products of those being excluded which is infringed upon by the landowners collection of the economic rent.
-
Actually, private ownership with public control is more of a socialist idea. I think BT is more advocating socialism than outright communism, even though he uses the term "common ownership."
His philosophy is pretty much what we have today, where you don't really own your property, but just rent it from the state, which holds it in trust of all humankind, and collects the "economic rent" on it.
Sort of socialist lite.
-
Actually, private ownership with public control is more of a socialist idea. I think BT is more advocating socialism than outright communism, even though he uses the term "common ownership."
His philosophy is pretty much what we have today, where you don't really own your property, but just rent it from the state, which holds it in trust of all humankind, and collects the "economic rent" on it.
Sort of socialist lite.
actually I am probably closer to communism as sharing economic rent is the basis of a a gift economy of communism and the smaller scale inherent on trying to run anything on consensus.
but I have no problem with money or markets (anarcho-communist believe they are inherently explotative)...without any state privilege economic interest and economic profit will disappear.
I believe that we are all inherently different in our capabilities/desires and I have no problem with legitimate authority if it is not beyond human scale. I even believe in delegated authority with the right to secede with a variety of decesion binding voting from majority to consensus depending on the situation.
if you pay land value taxes to the state then yes it is akin to the collective ownership of the economic rent rather paying your neighbors which is the common ownership of the economic rent.
-
So what you really believe in is small communes with no larger umbrella government, even though this still plants the seeds of government to grow larger as the commune grows due to childbirth, converts, etc. Got it.
So, you're a "tiny statist," which is still a statist, is it not?
-
So what you really believe in is small communes with no larger umbrella government, even though this still plants the seeds of government to grow larger as the commune grows due to childbirth, converts, etc. Got it.
So, you're a "tiny statist," which is still a statist, is it not?
small voluntary communes are fine by me...with the right of secession.
I view the state and government differently.
the state is used to empower (capitalists, bankers, and landowners) via privilege.
government excercises legitimate authority by enforcing self-ownership rights of individuals.
-
Ok. I got it now.
I was using this debate as a litmus test to accurately gauge your political beliefs, based on other users' assessments of you. Since I am new to this board, I didn't want to write you off too soon.
However, based on this: "the state is used to empower (capitalists, bankers, and landowners) via privilege.
government excercises legitimate authority by enforcing self-ownership rights of individuals"
and this: "I even believe in delegated authority with the right to secede with a variety of decesion binding voting from majority to consensus depending on the situation"
and this: "the government's sole role is to protect the absolute rights to labor products of those being excluded which is infringed upon by the landowners collection of the economic rent",
I can now confidently classify you as either a pedant (not likely), a Marxist, or a fucking moron with a thesaurus and/or easy access to a public library.
I am now no longer going to waste my time engaging you in discourse. I do this enough on a day-to-day basis on my local paper's blog comments section to want to do it here, too.
To put it in terms that have more familiarity: "Have an taxonomy, and don't let rabid terriers maliciously malign your geriatric timbre, heretofore known as 'Pipe Cleaner Fallopian.'"
-
LOL!
But, again the problem with BT's argument is that he drops context. Rights by themselves, like all mental entities, do not exist outside of our field of knowledge. They need a mind to be conceived, retained, and abstracted. Without the mind, there are no rights. And without a mind that can 'know' them, there still are no rights. So, that means rights are principles that follow from action, and action that inversely follow from principles. :)
What all the natural right worshippers [Anacapists and co] don't accept is that this is the very foundation for a civil society. Not some retarded and grossly generalized warmfuzzy. But, rather it's the evolution of though to a point where humans can exist in peace with one and other in a fashion that is the most optimal, based in causality and tempered by reason. Any other conception is categorically wrong and doomed to failure.
-- Bridget
-
Um, ok, Bridget.
But the point is still this: "Live, and let [fucking] live." Pardon the vulgarity, but you and the MotherTucker are both overcomplexifying (I think I just made up a word) the libertarian system. The point is this: if I own the land, and you are on it, respect my authority. If you leave the land, my authority no longer has weight.
Example (I'll try to put this in terms that Ben can understand): I own land, and you are dropping acid on it. I do not want people dropping acid on my land, but I respect your right to do that on your own property. So, do it there. That there could be an overpopulation on the available land is not my [fucking] problem. Buy a condo. You still own the property, or something. Whatever. To figure out how you can own some land is not my [fucking] problem. Just don't drop acid on my property, or I will remove you.
Get it?
-
No, because if you don't understand the foundation then you cannot understand the conclusions you can draw upon. Just saying, "Live Let Live" is just another way of saying, "I don't want to think about it, so just let me do what I want to do without cause or reason." Which isn't much of an argument, because by that logic you ought to "Live Let Live" Socialists to do their thing, even if it impinges on the lives of those who are too weak to stop them. And so on.
Either there is a right and a wrong, or there is nothing for us humans to stand for in this existence. You can't have "Live Let Live" if you do not accept the principles that drive one's mind to seek a path toward freedom.
-- Bridget
-
if I own the land, and you are on it, respect my authority. If you leave the land, my authority no longer has weight.
but by collecting economic rent you still do have authority over those you are excluding...
-
if I own the land, and you are on it, respect my authority. If you leave the land, my authority no longer has weight.
but by collecting economic rent you still do have authority over those you are excluding...
No he doesn't.
You are arguing in collective terms. You are only responsible for yourself.
Try it sometime.
-
I've been working on an essay about this.
Did you ever finish this essay? 'Cause I'd really like to read it. And/or any other manifestos, papers, pamplets you've written. Thanks!
-
I think rights come into existance once you claim them.
Being able to claim a right to self-ownership rides on being self-aware, because if you have no concept of self, you can't claim self-ownership because you would never think to claim it.
Ability to communicate specific meanings is also necessary, otherwise you have no way to claim it.
Positive rights like healthcare would be disqualified for violating self-ownership.
I haven't fully developed the idea yet but I'm working on it.