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
| |-+  The Show
| | |-+  Geolibertarianism
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down

Author Topic: Geolibertarianism  (Read 21677 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Richard Garner

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 303
    • View Profile
Re: Geolibertarianism
« Reply #30 on: April 18, 2009, 02:17:11 PM »

What you described is Mutalism, not geoanarchism (or geolibertarianism.)

Mutualism is a form of market socialism under which goods are produced by worker-owned firms and sold on a labour-for-labour basis, using labour notes. The mutualist movement was started by a group of co-operativists in Lyon, where Proudhon discovered them, and took the name for his own position. Modern variants suggest that, instead of using labour notes, "mutual banking" should be instituted that will ensure capital is attainable at zero, or nearabouts, rate of interest, encouraging competition, so that prices fall to their labour cost of production.

I don't see how what I said was geolibertarianism bears any similarity to what to mutualism as described above.
Logged

Santiago Johimbe

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 294
  • ....by the river now. Hey! Where are my nachos?
    • View Profile
Re: Geolibertarianism
« Reply #31 on: April 18, 2009, 07:38:16 PM »

What you described is Mutalism, not geoanarchism (or geolibertarianism.)

Mutualism is a form of market socialism under which goods are produced by worker-owned firms and sold on a labour-for-labour basis, using labour notes. The mutualist movement was started by a group of co-operativists in Lyon, where Proudhon discovered them, and took the name for his own position. Modern variants suggest that, instead of using labour notes, "mutual banking" should be instituted that will ensure capital is attainable at zero, or nearabouts, rate of interest, encouraging competition, so that prices fall to their labour cost of production.

I don't see how what I said was geolibertarianism bears any similarity to what to mutualism as described above.

Sounds like a great way to avoid creating wealth, nearly a zero-sum game, with the state-corporate managers raking in the greatest
amount of goodies (all for the public good, of course!)
Logged

Richard Garner

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 303
    • View Profile
Re: Geolibertarianism
« Reply #32 on: April 19, 2009, 06:33:01 AM »

What you described is Mutalism, not geoanarchism (or geolibertarianism.)

Mutualism is a form of market socialism under which goods are produced by worker-owned firms and sold on a labour-for-labour basis, using labour notes. The mutualist movement was started by a group of co-operativists in Lyon, where Proudhon discovered them, and took the name for his own position. Modern variants suggest that, instead of using labour notes, "mutual banking" should be instituted that will ensure capital is attainable at zero, or nearabouts, rate of interest, encouraging competition, so that prices fall to their labour cost of production.

I don't see how what I said was geolibertarianism bears any similarity to what to mutualism as described above.

Sounds like

What does? Mutualism, or geolibertarianism?

Quote
a great way to avoid creating wealth, nearly a zero-sum game,

If all land is appropriated then, the theory goes, Anybody that doesn't have any land cannot excercise his or her rights without violating the rights of others. Since this means his rights and those of others are incompossible, and hence involve a contradiction, and contradictions can't exist, that means either his rights to do anything can't exist, or those property rights of others can't exist. A geolibertarian would basically say that you are advocating that some people can have no rights at all, whilst others do, or that people don't start off with a fully equal set of rights.

Quote
with the state-corporate managers raking in the greatest amount of goodies (all for the public good, of course!)

Which, mutualism or geolibertarianism? Mutualism is anarcho-capitalism with mutual banks. I can't see how that would involve "state-corporate managers." Geolibertarianism is, as I said, the idea that those who appopriate more land than others owe compensation to those that are left with less land as a result. That needed involve a state at all, anymore than the collection of any debt entails a state. Private protection agencies can collect it.
Logged

ziggy_encaoua

  • Guest
Re: Geolibertarianism
« Reply #33 on: April 19, 2009, 07:06:40 AM »

Quote
What does? Mutualism, or geolibertarianism?

We need Jock here to describe all that  :wink:
Logged

YixilTesiphon

  • FTL AMPlifier Silver
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4284
    • View Profile
Re: Geolibertarianism
« Reply #34 on: April 19, 2009, 10:42:58 AM »

If you don't own the space you occupy you don't own yourself. As the libertarian ethical system is derived from the axiom of self-ownership, there's absolutely nothing libertarian about Geolibertarianism.

So if I take a pair of rocket pants to Juipiter, since I'm the only one on Jupiter, do I own all of jupiter? Do I own 1 metre radius around my body? 10 metres?

Or do i just own whatever proportion of the population is, so if there were 2 people on jupiter, I would on half, etc.

Self ownership is no kind of proof or support for land ownership.

I have not heard one decent explanation for how land ownership.

Sure, trading your wealth for land is logically consistent with self ownership, but that assumes there is some logical manner for land to be owned in the first place.

All I've heard is finders-keepers, and people who think no land can be owned, only some sort of using rights.

Although finders-keepers is arbitrary as shit, I'll go with it till I come across a better way of dealing with land ownership.



If you can make Jupiter useful, you own Jupiter, yes.
Logged
And their kids were hippie chicks - all hypocrites.

Alex Libman

  • Guest
Re: Geolibertarianism
« Reply #35 on: April 19, 2009, 11:19:07 AM »

If all land is appropriated [...]

That cannot possibly happen.  There is no end in sight to human ingenuity of using existing resources more efficiently to provide greater value to more people, and there is no end in sight to how huge the universe is and all the resources contained therein.  (If we do reach a cosmic limit a billion years from now, I will adjust my philosophy accordingly.)


If you can make Jupiter useful, you own Jupiter, yes.

There are lots of gas giants in the universe, but I doubt that our Jupiter can ever be owned by one person.  It is very valuable, not for its size but for its location in the solar system that is the core of the human civilization.  Wealth is infinitely more difficult to centralize with capitalism than socialism / communism.  Stalin had de facto control over roughly 1/6 of Planet Earth, but the fraction of the world economy controlled by one capitalist billionaire / corporation is minuscule, in spite of the fact that the richest people disproportionately benefit from government violence (i.e. intellectual property).

Logged

Richard Garner

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 303
    • View Profile
Re: Geolibertarianism
« Reply #36 on: April 19, 2009, 11:54:25 AM »

If all land is appropriated [...]

That cannot possibly happen.  There is no end in sight to human ingenuity of using existing resources more efficiently to provide greater value to more people, and there is no end in sight to how huge the universe is and all the resources contained therein.  (If we do reach a cosmic limit a billion years from now, I will adjust my philosophy accordingly.)

So your advice to somebody born without any land, and thus incapable of excercising their rights without violating the rights of others, is to leave Earth?
Logged

Alex Libman

  • Guest
Re: Geolibertarianism
« Reply #37 on: April 19, 2009, 12:22:37 PM »

Not necessarily.  Homesteading on this planet still has tremendous possibilities: floating seasteads, underwater seasteads, under the ground, in the sky, privatization of government-owned land, polar regions, deserts, etc, etc, etc.

And buying land becomes cheaper as more of it becomes available.  Supply and demand.

And what's wrong with renting?  Or staying in hotels?  Or moving in with mom, now that she can afford a bigger house?  Or living in your nuclear-powered flying RV?  Progress can make the cost of living space remarkably low.

But, yeah, there's a big universe out there outside this planet, and living in space has its advantages: 3D cities mean you can get anywhere in seconds.  Private ships mean total privacy: no one can listen in or get close to you without you knowing it.  Moving millions of tons millions of miles is very easy without gravity getting in your way.  Comfortable space stations can be built closer to the sun where solar panels work far better than here on earth.  Etc, etc, etc.

And etc.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2009, 12:33:05 PM by Richard IV »
Logged

BonerJoe

  • Guest
Re: Geolibertarianism
« Reply #38 on: April 19, 2009, 12:26:32 PM »

Fuck this thread.
Logged

ziggy_encaoua

  • Guest
Re: Geolibertarianism
« Reply #39 on: April 19, 2009, 12:42:29 PM »

Logged

fatcat

  • Guest
Re: Geolibertarianism
« Reply #40 on: April 19, 2009, 04:27:17 PM »

This is the same dodgy, arbitrary ground intellectual property rights stand on.

No.  We're talking about homesteading property from nature, which is finite.  You can't xerox an asteroid!

But apparently you class the act of "homesteading" some sort of wealth creation.

Here's why its as unfounded as IP.

If another person goes to the same asteroid and goes through whatever process, we still have one asteroid, but now there is a dispute over ownership, as both have done the same process, that has not involved actively

If it truly is some objective act of property creation/valuation/ownership, then you shouldn't be able to steal it by doing the same process. Just as if I make a chair, you can make a chair, and we can both have chairs, likewise I can have a computer program, you can copy it, and we both have them. I can

Now obviously theres some confusion in this issue because the "making = owning" model of ownership, requires raw materials in the first place, but one does not prove the other.

Just as me making a copy of someones song doesn't steal the original song, conversely, if what you say is correct, 2 people should be able to go to one asteroid, and do the act of wealth creation, and both should own the wealth and neither should have to steal from the other.

Obviously thats a contradictory state, and this goes to the core of your fallacy, because simply claiming an asteroid to be yours  has no more basis than claiming a piece of information to be yours, and that if anyone else makes use of it, then its theft.

You did it first, so its yours? Lead me through it.

Claiming something is yours ----> missing step -----> ownership.

You need to find some other basis other than "wealth creation = ownership", because its not true wealth creation.

Just because the market values it doesn't mean its an act of wealth creation.

Mining an asteroid for ore could be classed as wealth creation, as you are bringing wealth into the economy (refined materials), but simply standing on an asteroid for X number of years doesn't do anything that not standing on an asteroid does, its purely based on historical president that going somewhere first gives you some sort of claim.

And to be clear, I don't think there is currently any reasoned answer to how planets and such can be owned in any objective sense.

I'll go with finders-keepers purely from practicality, but I won't pretend its anything that utterly arbitrary, and thereby any other system of ownership is just as arbitrary and based on practicality.

There can be internally consistent logics within devised systems of ownership, but untill there is a non arbitrary method of owning the matter we need to make other forms of wealth for, it will just be "because i said so".
Logged

Alex Libman

  • Guest
Re: Geolibertarianism
« Reply #41 on: April 19, 2009, 10:30:03 PM »

But apparently you class the act of "homesteading" some sort of wealth creation.

Yes.  One takes something that isn't used and makes it usable.


Here's why its as unfounded as IP.

A brief off-topic clarification: I'm not saying that intellectual property doesn't exist, I'm saying that it doesn't justify violence over people who benefit from copying or imitating it, and that it can be enforced without centralized government force (see this thread).

For example, I can prove that I wrote a little DOS game in 1990s because numerous Web-sites that archive posts from old Fidonet-like networks retain that evidence.  If someone else makes money by claiming those games were written by them, I may be able to get an intellectual property industry group to blacklist them until they pay me restitution.  I may be able to sell the ownership of that game to someone else, in which case that third party would be able to obtain value from that claim.  Since it is intellectual in nature, and it has a value that can be transferred, it is thus "intellectual property".


If another person goes to the same asteroid and goes through whatever process, we still have one asteroid, but now there is a dispute over ownership [...]

If I've used the homestead claiming process correctly, then there won't be much of a dispute - I can prove that I did it first.  Sorry, in real life there's no silver medal for finishing second.  There is, however, the possibility of buying the asteroid from me if it is worth more to you, presumably because you are more capable of making it useful and profitable.  Property eventually flows to those who can make the best use of it.

The money I make in profit from this discovery, analysis, and sale is my reward for taking a risk and getting there first, and your encouragement to try harder / smarter next time.  Profit motive is the driving force of all exploration, and all other things that push the human civilization forward.


If it truly is some objective act of property creation/valuation/ownership, then you shouldn't be able to steal it by doing the same process. Just as if I make a chair, you can make a chair, and we can both have chairs, likewise I can have a computer program, you can copy it, and we both have them.

If you watch a skilled fisherman catch fish, you may learn a thing or two.  He can't sue you for using his methods, but the fish he caught himself are nonetheless his.  Good luck with your next fish, asteroid, or whatever else - but this one is mine because I got it first.


Just as me making a copy of someones song doesn't steal the original song, conversely, if what you say is correct, 2 people should be able to go to one asteroid, and do the act of wealth creation, and both should own the wealth and neither should have to steal from the other.

You fail to recognize that time has tremendous value.  I need a fish now, a month from now I may die of starvation!  The race to get to the best asteroids first is what would encourage people to get off their Earthly butts and go mine asteroids!

If I could travel back in time 1000 years, I could take over the world in one generation thanks to my knowledge of history, geography, military technology, engineering, management, economics, and so on.  I could be more powerful than any king that ever lived, I could have a million concubines and a whole skyscraper of gold!  And yet in the modern world this knowledge would hardly elevate me above mediocrity.  (I elevate above mediocrity through knowledge that wouldn't have been very useful 1000 years ago.)

« Last Edit: April 19, 2009, 10:34:35 PM by Richard IV »
Logged

fatcat

  • Guest
Re: Geolibertarianism
« Reply #42 on: April 21, 2009, 09:50:19 AM »


If it truly is some objective act of property creation/valuation/ownership, then you shouldn't be able to steal it by doing the same process. Just as if I make a chair, you can make a chair, and we can both have chairs, likewise I can have a computer program, you can copy it, and we both have them.

If you watch a skilled fisherman catch fish, you may learn a thing or two.  He can't sue you for using his methods, but the fish he caught himself are nonetheless his.  Good luck with your next fish, asteroid, or whatever else - but this one is mine because I got it first.

here's the point.

If you are actually generating wealth, as apposed to just saying somethings yours, then there should be something that wasn't there before.

Just as in the case of IP, stealing would have to involve removing property from a person, not just making a copy, in the case of wealth generation, something needs to be made that wasn't there before.

If you by "homesteading" an asteroid, you actually made another asteroid, then yes, I would think it fair to say you own the new asteroid that was created.

Your argument is still arbitrary.

Wealth is a subjective property. What if I think I'm some shaman, and anything I bless automatically becomes a healing source, and thus extremely valuable.

I bless the ocean, thus making wealth, where there was none. I would now like to charge anyone $100 to travel or otherwise use the ocean.

What counts as "wealth" is purely in peoples head, so it can never be a standard for becoming owner of previously unowned land, as there would be no legitimate owner in any dispute.

I think how you homesteaded an asteroid didn't create any wealth, you do, you think you own the asteroid, I think you don't.

Neither of us is objectively right or wrong, as the property of wealth we are disputing is merely a subjective judgement, thus there could never be any sort of judicial system for such land disputes, except if you just went with, what do the majority of people think, which is clearly bogus.

Just as I can think you are beautiful or ugly, it does not make you either. The only thing that can be said to be true is that I percieve you to be beautiful or ugly.

It works fine as a system for things people are willing to trade things with on another.

Voluntary interaction is axiomatic enough to exist without other supporting concepts. You make some penecillin from mold, I make a knife from metal, I trade you the knife for penicillin.

Now how we got those materials to make those things, I don't think there is an objective manner of deciding; however through the act of trade, we are both agreeing that each now owns what was traded.

Logged

Santiago Johimbe

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 294
  • ....by the river now. Hey! Where are my nachos?
    • View Profile
Re: Geolibertarianism
« Reply #43 on: April 21, 2009, 11:41:09 AM »

If all land is appropriated [...]

That cannot possibly happen.  There is no end in sight to human ingenuity of using existing resources more efficiently to provide greater value to more people, and there is no end in sight to how huge the universe is and all the resources contained therein.  (If we do reach a cosmic limit a billion years from now, I will adjust my philosophy accordingly.)

So your advice to somebody born without any land, and thus incapable of excercising their rights without violating the rights of others, is to leave Earth?

While I know the purpose of the above response is just a petty, mean snipe at the poster, I think it's actually a good idea.
Large numbers of people leaving Earth has long been a popular idea for getting all our eggs out of one basket, among the more
forward thinking people, anyway.
Logged

Alex Libman

  • Guest
Re: Geolibertarianism
« Reply #44 on: April 21, 2009, 12:56:03 PM »

If you are actually generating wealth, as apposed to just saying somethings yours, then there should be something that wasn't there before.

As I've already explained, the mere act of homesteading creates value.  By getting there and proving that the homesteaded property is mine (i.e. no one got there before me), I've made it more accessible to the people who didn't get there before me, but may now be interested in buying it.  I've made an effort to bring this property into the human economy, and my ownership of it is my reward.

There is a reason why no one else got there before me.  If it was ignorance, then my reward is for pursuit, analysis, and application of knowledge.  If it was laziness, then my reward is for my willingness and diligence.  If it was cowardice, then my reward is for courage (or rational risk management, which is a very important skill).  If it was lack of funds, then my reward is built upon virtues that were applied to earn the funds I have invested in this venture.  If it was lack of credit, then my reward is for my ability to prove my creditworthiness, which too can only come from virtue.  Etc.

And even the ignorant lazy cowards get some trickle-down benefits from me getting that property: if the asteroid I homestead is rich in silicon, the price of their next video game system will probably go down as the result.

Most important of all, free market capitalism encourages all those virtues in others, while the system you advocate discourages them!  My system leads to growth of civilization, your system leads to its stagnation or decline!  To me, an atheist whose only hope against mortality is scientific progress, my system represents life and your system represents death!


I bless the ocean, thus making wealth, where there was none. I would now like to charge anyone $100 to travel or otherwise use the ocean.

What special claim to the ocean do you have?  Who would buy an ocean from you, knowing that their claim to it would hardly be more legitimate than yours?  (And, as information technology advances, scams become ever more difficult to get away with.)  If you were to build a seastead, however, your claim to the immediate area could be legitimate.

In the "wild west", land homesteading rights were recognized by the overwhelming majority of the population because the overwhelming majority of the population benefited from that system, as would be the case with whatever standard the free market develops for homesteading asteroids.  I cannot predict all the details of what it should take to claim property as homestead and what should be required to challenge that claim - in a free society, natural law is a living science that will evolve as it is needed.

For example, could you convince a jury of 12 randomly-selected reputable individuals (i.e. not retards / altruists) that you are the one who brought the whole ocean into the human economy?  If you could that would be a spectacular fluke, and subsequent legal challenges would reverse it.


What counts as "wealth" is purely in peoples head, so it can never be a standard for becoming owner of previously unowned land, as there would be no legitimate owner in any dispute.

The humanity wasn't created with an instruction manual on how to live rightly, we had to evolve from primordial goo and figure it out for ourselves.  We've made many huge mistakes along the way: "divine right" of governments, wars, failure to recognize the property rights of more primitive cultures (or fairly document the exchange of land for trinkets), colonization, altruism, democracy, and so on.  But that doesn't mean we can't be civilized and recognize the natural human right to property going forward.

At a certain point, advances in information technology make property rights very easy to manage.  All information about claims of ownership must be in public domain (i.e. "open source" evidence), anyone should be able to challenge it, etc.  When one human being obtains property from an other through violence or fraud, it is within the best interest of all property owners to bring the thief to justice (i.e. restoration and restitution).  When a human being obtains resources that no other human being has a legitimate claim to - the homesteader is now the owner.

Furthermore, ownership must be specific - a government cannot own resources for the benefit of its "citizens" because subjugation to it is imposed without individual consent.  A newborn baby or an elephant don't have the right to property, the prerequisite to that is the ability to reason, to recognize the rights of others, and thus to be able to take responsibility for one's actions.  Since human brains are individual, so is the capacity for ownership.  You can own specific shares in a specific corporation, but you cannot own "citizenship" in a government: you didn't choose to get it and you can't sell / trade it.  (Getting rid of citizenship is a very limited and complicated process that requires a lot of bureaucrat butt-kissing - you can transfer from one massa to an other if the two are friends, but you are still a slave.)

And you can't claim benefits of ownership without being responsible for its liabilities.  How would you feel if someone were to punish you for a horrendous crime "your government" has committed, as it does on perpetual basis? 

What purpose do unowned resources hold?  They only bring benefit to individuals looking to stash their liabilities (ex. toxic waste) with impunity, so that when it damages someone else there's no owner to take responsibility.  Unowned resources are a hazard to everyone! 


I think how you homesteaded an asteroid didn't create any wealth, you do, you think you own the asteroid, I think you don't.  Neither of us is objectively right or wrong [...]

No, I'm sorry, but you are objectively wrong.

The basis of objectivity is empirical science (to the capacity that human minds are capable of at the time), and that leads us to recognize that the basis of morality for living beings is evolution (often personified as Nature or God or various gods), and evolution decides what is right or wrong on the basis of competitive advantage.  Within complex societies (and no known society is more complex than the integrated global human society), competitive advantage involves a tremendous degree of cooperation between its members, which is the basis of natural human rights.

For reasons I have explained above, a society that recognizes private property will do much better than a society that doesn't, and countless examples throughout history prove that beyond any reasonable doubt.  (Human nature is not constant, true, but if communists are claiming that they can change human nature to fit their ideas then the burden of proof is on them.)  This includes the right to claim as your own the property that came to be a part of the human economy as the result of your actions.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2009, 01:46:15 PM by Alex Libman »
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  The Show
| | |-+  Geolibertarianism

// ]]>

Page created in 0.025 seconds with 33 queries.