What to do with BenTucker?

Leave him be, he represents valuable opposition

11 (28.2%)

Don't respond to his posts, because it gets us nowhere

9 (23.1%)

Put him on ignore, to reduce the signal-to-noise ratio

7 (17.9%)

Make his life miserable, God knows he's done it to us

4 (10.3%)

Petition Ian and Mark to ban him, he is basically a spammer

3 (7.7%)

Hunt him down and kill him, he's compelled us to labor for our existence for too damn long!!

5 (12.8%)

Total Members Voted: 13

[BenTucker]

You are not allowing "privilege," simply because to enact war is to violate the fundamental human/rational tenet: choice.

there is no choice that you have as an individual via privilege to violate the absolute right to self-ownership of those you exclude.

If you would fore my tribe/community/family to follow your rules, then you are imposing your government on me.  It's just not anarchy anymore.  SOMEBODY had to grant you exclusive authority of force, but it wasn't me, so for you to use it on me is just as much of a raw deal as any other system of government.

it is not a question of government or not as in anarchy the exclusive use of land beyond Locke's proviso forces an obligation on those you exclude that compels them to labor for what is their very existence - to exist is to occupy land.

it is whether or not the use of force is justified and thus rightful.

in your case it is not and in my case it is as it is defensive in nature (exclusion is acting) and protecting the absolute right of self-ownership of the excluded.

"If authority must be legitimate, doesn't that mean that I must recognize it as a viable authority?"

you have to see that in anarchy you are using force against those being excluded and therefore it is nt a question of government or not but the just use of defensive force.

[BenTucker]

This user is currently ignored.

 

'bout time!

what took you so long?

[Brian Wolf]

You are not allowing "privilege," simply because to enact war is to violate the fundamental human/rational tenet: choice.

there is no choice that you have as an individual via privilege to violate the absolute right to self-ownership of those you exclude.

If you would fore my tribe/community/family to follow your rules, then you are imposing your government on me.  It's just not anarchy anymore.  SOMEBODY had to grant you exclusive authority of force, but it wasn't me, so for you to use it on me is just as much of a raw deal as any other system of government.

it is not a question of government or not as in anarchy the exclusive use of land beyond Locke's proviso forces an obligation on those you exclude that compels them to labor for what is their very existence - to exist is to occupy land.

it is whether or not the use of force is justified and thus rightful.

in your case it is not and in my case it is as it is defensive in nature (exclusion is acting) and protecting the absolute right of self-ownership of the excluded.

"If authority must be legitimate, doesn't that mean that I must recognize it as a viable authority?"

you have to see that in anarchy you are using force against those being excluded and therefore it is nt a question of government or not but the just use of defensive force.

As you said, to exist is to occupy land. In the absence of a government there would be plenty of land for you to exist upon. There would be plenty of land for Gandhi to exist upon. He wouldn't be forcing you to not occupy some other piece of land, he would just insist that you not try to occupy the same land that he is on, or try to charge him for the 'privilege' of existing on that land.

If he took way more land than what he could possibly use to the point that you had no land to exist on, then he might be using a type of "exclusionary force", otherwise, he is just existing peacefully on his own territory.

[gandhi2]

force is neither good nor bad - it depends on what ends it serves.

Machiavelli was wrong.  And so are you.

As you said, to exist is to occupy land. In the absence of a government there would be plenty of land for you to exist upon. There would be plenty of land for Gandhi to exist upon. He wouldn't be forcing you to not occupy some other piece of land, he would just insist that you not try to occupy the same land that he is on, or try to charge him for the 'privilege' of existing on that land.

Oh, but no!  Ben is trying to declare that there could possibly be some time when there WOULDN'T be plenty of land!!  For a brilliant(if I might humbly state) refutation of the Dante's Inferno Earth Scenario, check this post:
http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=10831.msg176125#msg176125

Now, let's examine Ben's wonky universe, like a scene from La Comedie Divina, teeming with masses of bodies.  The average human weight is about 165lb, or 76.56kg.  Taken from a scientist, yet an informal source, the average density of the body is about 0.001kg/cm^3.  There are further studies that confirm a similar value for average human volume, done by automobile manufacturers for the purpose of interior auto space using air displacement measurement.  The volume comes out to around 76,560 cubic centimeters.  Written like that, it looks kind of big.  But convert it to cubic kilometers:

76,560 cm^3 * (1 m^3/(100cm * 100cm * 100cm)) = 76,560/1,000,000 = 0.07656 m^3
0.07656 m^3 * (1 km^3/(1000m * 1000m * 1000m)) = 0.07656/1,000,000,000 = 0.00000000007656 cubic kilometers

Even if we limit the height of the volume to a mere 100 meters this amounts to 1.94e17, that is 194,539,054,336,468,129, or 194 quadrillions humans!  To be appropriately condescending, that's enough people at an average height of 1.8m to stretch from the sun to Pluto 60,000 times, 37 light YEARS of length.  This population would take over 794 years to reach at PGR of 2.19%!!

If he took way more land than what he could possibly use to the point that you had no land to exist on, then he might be using a type of "exclusionary force", otherwise, he is just existing peacefully on his own territory.

Yes, and I will admit that first-use homesteading, as well as law of usufruct, are naturally occurring phenomena.  Even if somebody did try to do this, it wouldn't last more than a twentieth of a part of his lifetime before he would be compelled by selfish needs to revert to what he could feasibly use.

[BenTucker]

As you said, to exist is to occupy land. In the absence of a government there would be plenty of land for you to exist upon. There would be plenty of land for Gandhi to exist upon.

how do you know - would there be no economic rent attached to land in say NYC?

He wouldn't be forcing you to not occupy some other piece of land, he would just insist that you not try to occupy the same land that he is on, or try to charge him for the 'privilege' of existing on that land.

would he be forcing those being excluded to labor for that which is what defines existence?

in other wirds, will the land he locates on have any UNIMPROVED land value?

If he took way more land than what he could possibly use to the point that you had no land to exist on, then he might be using a type of "exclusionary force", otherwise, he is just existing peacefully on his own territory.

it is not a question of whether or not I have land to exist on but whether or not I have the right to exist on the land without having to pay for it or have it gifted?

[BenTucker]

Ben is trying to declare that there could possibly be some time when there WOULDN'T be plenty of land!!

no - land with no UNIMPROVED land value (economic rent) attached to it which defines the extent of the self-ownership infringement of those being excluded...

[gandhi2]

it is not a question of whether or not I have land to exist on but whether or not I have the right to exist on the land without having to pay for it or have it gifted?

And that's just it.  You don't have the right to exist on THIS land, THIS earth, as this property is not inherent to existence in general.  The Plutonians have just as much right as you do.  The Kenyans have just as much rights as the Americans: None.  You have to earn it.  You have to labor for it.  You have to eat food, drink water, find a hovel, in order to live.  Everybody has ample opportunity to do the same.  We've been over this many, many times.

no - land with no UNIMPROVED land value (economic rent) attached to it which defines the extent of the self-ownership infringement of those being excluded...

Then why does it matter?  There's plenty of UNIMPROVED land to go around for everybody.  The only problem is that big guns(in the form of government), are cornering off large sections for whichever they want.  Because they have the biggest guns, and people are willing to allow a free pass for them, the natural laws of homesteading and usufruct are being blocked.  Remove the big guns, and the natural order of things is stabilized.  Naturally, without force, you will get your damned ideal world....it will only take a bit more time for it to happen.  BLM, National Parks, military owned, city owned, state owned....the actual private land is not all that much.

[aquabanianskakid]

Funny. Hey Cyro that is the same thing I see when he posts.

[gandhi2]

Funny. Hey Cyro that is the same thing I see when he posts.

Curiosity inevitably kills the cat.

[aquabanianskakid]

No not really, I can tell what he is babbling on about just by reading your responses.

[BenTucker]

And that's just it.  You don't have the right to exist on THIS land, THIS earth, as this property is not inherent to existence in general.

now we final get the truth...

You have to earn it.  You have to labor for it.

so a right needs to be purchased or gifted?

You have to eat food, drink water, find a hovel, in order to live.

we've been over this many times...you need sustenance to CONTINUE to live

occupying land defines our very existence - you can't exist without occupying land *somewhere*

The only problem is that big guns(in the form of government), are cornering off large sections for whichever they want.

and is this keeping the land of say NYC from having any economic rent attached to it?

[aquabanianskakid]

Wow I can bitchslap him even when I have him on ignore.

[gandhi2]

now we final get the truth...

What do you mean finally?  I already stated this before: Existing in any specific location is not a right that anybody has.  Why?  Because to claim that it is would be a violation of all the other rights which are more fundamental.  You cannot have two rights which are in direct conflict.  Rights are only properties, and just as a metal compound can't be both magnetic and non=magnetic, humans cannot have two rights which are in direct contradiction to each other.  First-use homesteading can be a right.  But to state that you have equal right to come and use a previously occupied territory is a direct contradiction to first-use homesteading rights.  The Earth was not given to man in kind...it was given to whoever got there first.

so a right needs to be purchased or gifted?

I just got through saying...this is NOT a right that anybody has, anymore than eating CORN is a right.  If you must violate any others right to choice so that they could eat corn, then it can be no right.  Existing on land CAN be a right, so long as a) you have first-use homesteading claim, b) you purchase the land from somebody with first-use claim, c) you do not exercise force to remove another's first-use homesteading claim.  The reason why you have legitimate reason to kill forceful intruders is that they are violating your first-use claim, the labor which you took to find and cultivate the place.

occupying land defines our very existence - you can't exist without occupying land *somewhere*

No, it doesn't.  Godammit, Ben, this gets nowhere!  I'm not arguing this.  I'm arguing that it doesn't have to be somewhere ON THIS EARTH, ON DRY LAND, UNDER WATER, WHEREVER!! There are many places you could exist that aren't land....hell, even some that are capable of life!.  Sure you can exist without land.  Suppose there is a bubble of water in space, and within this water, life develops, we get intelligent beings from the water, who eventually leave and kind of float around it, with all the necessary oxygen, water, and food(from the water bubble) that they need to survive!  Hurray!  Reductum ad absurdo...or however it's spelled.  Suppose there are other humans that have naturally developed on some planet like Earth 5,000 light years away.  Obviously, they are existing, and obviously they are not living on the land as you defined it!  It's NOT central to our existence....only the existence which you are willing to use force to maintain.

and is this keeping the land of say NYC from having any economic rent attached to it?

Absolutely.  Because it's nobody's birthright to live in New York, to enjoy the benefits of large city life, unless they agree to that communities social contract.  If I want to secede from amidst the urban jungle, then I MUST be allowed to.  Granted, it wouldn't be wise, because without paying taxes, I couldn't partake of all the benefits...which are TANGIBLE, IMPROVED LAND value benefits.  Everything must be accounted for...it is a mathematical impossibility that the sum of the parts can be greater than the whole.

[Taors]

Wow I can bitchslap him even when I have him on ignore.

Isn't it wonderful?

[BenTucker]

to state that you have equal right to come and use a previously occupied territory is a direct contradiction to first-use homesteading rights.

and exclusive use beyond Locke's proviso violates the right of self-ownership...

If you must violate any others right to choice so that they could eat corn occupy land inorder to have a right of self-ownership, then it can be no right. 

I fixed it...

Suppose there is...

an infinite amount of inhabitable land of equal quality everywhere with travel between having zero costs - then exclusive use of land without any obligations on those you exclude make sense because you will NEVER have any economic rent attach to any specific locations and thus everyone's right of self-ownership will be intact.

alas we don't live in tooth fairy land!

Because it's nobody's birthright to live in New York, to enjoy the benefits of large city life, unless they agree to that communities social contract.

no - because in their subjective opinion today the cost interms of the economic rent they have to pay don't outweigh the benefits. but unless you are saying that the cities are going to naturally depopulate there will always be economic rent to pay.