Pages: 1 2 [3] 
|
 |
|
 Author
|
Topic: BooBerry! Have your guesses at the ready! (Read 7265 times)
|
|
WendellBerry
|
In fact, you've made it clear in prior posts you do hold those items as your own. Now, in order to get your philosophy to fit in neat with those -do nots-, you'll have to 'intellectualize' it with some 'reason', which will lead you right to 'exceptions', of which there are NONE, and that will be you and Jason's eternal dilema. Actually both Jason and I look at some aspects of exclusive use in what is not produced by human labor but pre-exists it results in an initiation of force upon others and thus using purely defensive force via governance (which is the reason governance is constituted in the first place - to give up on an arbitrary use of force) is a rightful and just act. Since he himself is a christian, I am assuming his interpretation fits within christian teachings. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BagOfEyebrows
|
In fact, you've made it clear in prior posts you do hold those items as your own. Now, in order to get your philosophy to fit in neat with those -do nots-, you'll have to 'intellectualize' it with some 'reason', which will lead you right to 'exceptions', of which there are NONE, and that will be you and Jason's eternal dilema. Actually both Jason and I look at some aspects of exclusive use in what is not produced by human labor but pre-exists it results in an initiation of force upon others and thus using purely defensive force via governance (which is the reason governance is constituted in the first place - to give up on an arbitrary use of force) is a rightful and just act. Since he himself is a christian, I am assuming his interpretation fits within christian teachings. I know you put that last sentence in just to rile me up, lol. He's not Christian - he does not subscribe to the 10 Commandments, and the 10C's are what Jesus Christ was demonstrating 'in action' via his lifetime. It's all cool, though - you and he both, no matter how you want to word it or fumble with it and misinterpret it, and manipulate it, are composed of those 10C's, and it's up to both of you to make peace with that. You already know it. You don't even deny it. You just try to wiggle out of it, because it's uncomfortable to grasp when your animal instincts want to be the dominant factor in all you do. It really is a struggle - but kinda a cool one, because of how it all transpires and plays out, person to person. Kinda a playful rumble with oneself. Intellectual masterbation. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
WendellBerry
|
One can choose to operate based on faith, reason or both.
Via the use of reason, Jason and I have both come to the same conclusion.
You can't have absolute rights to property that is not produced via labor AND the absolute right of self-ownership.
It is logically impossible.
So you go right ahead and continue to deny what is logical and believing in faith.
We shall temper any faith we may have with reason.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ggeezz
|
You can't have absolute rights to property that is not produced via labor AND the absolute right of self-ownership.
It is logically impossible.
But can you have the absolute right of self-ownership without absolute rights to property? Regardless, it seems to me that the system you propose will definitely infringe on the right of self-ownership. It doesn't make sense to take away property rights to preserve self-ownership, and then take away self-ownership. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
WendellBerry
|
You can't have absolute rights to property that is not produced via labor AND the absolute right of self-ownership.
It is logically impossible.
But can you have the absolute right of self-ownership without absolute rights to property? Regardless, it seems to me that the system you propose will definitely infringe on the right of self-ownership. It doesn't make sense to take away property rights to preserve self-ownership, and then take away self-ownership. Yes, but here is the conundrum... The only way to monetize the economic rent is via the landowner's labor to capitalize on the locations economic advantage. But it is the economic rent that by definition is the unimproved locational value having nothing to do with the landowner's labor. This is a paradox for most and is what is referred to in geoist circles as "seeing the cat". If you can "see the cat" then you will understand that requiring an obligation to those you exclude in exchange for backing the exclusive right to a location with force is the closest we can come to a system of EQUAL liberty where everyone's right to self-ownership is preserved. Most here just don't get it because to use logic in such a way to challenge a tightly held belief creates too much cognitive dissonance. I darest say that you ALMOST get it. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ggeezz
|
Most here just don't get it because to use logic in such a way to challenge a tightly held belief creates too much cognitive dissonance.
I darest say that you ALMOST get it.
I think it's ironic that you say that when you won't pursue the discussion with me over in the other thread.
But it is the economic rent that by definition is the unimproved locational value having nothing to do with the landowner's labor.
Here's the problem with your argument. A landowner can own more than one piece of land. The unimproved locational value may very well be bolstered by this landowners labor on other property. Furthermore, a landowner could have an agreement with nearby landowners such that they all labor on property in an area, so they will all benefit. What your definitions actually mean is that the landowner's labor on that specific piece of property do not directly affect the unimproved value of the land. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BagOfEyebrows
|
One can choose to operate based on faith, reason or both.
Via the use of reason, Jason and I have both come to the same conclusion.
You can't have absolute rights to property that is not produced via labor AND the absolute right of self-ownership.
It is logically impossible.
So you go right ahead and continue to deny what is logical and believing in faith.
We shall temper any faith we may have with reason.
I'm not actually talking about faith here - or religion. I am talking about principles. Some call them God's Laws. It doesn't require faith in God to agree with/abide by/uphold oneself to those principle (for some, it just goes that way, as the two become intwined.) So, faith aside, one can look at the principles 'within' the 10 Commandments and recognize them quite easily as the designators of 'good character', peaceful composure, and kind. Some might even take it a step further, as my dad did with us children, and cite them as 'extremely logical.' And my father was an atheist. He died pretty certain (if not absolute) that there was no God - Almost every parent out there, upon raising their children, no matter if they recognize it or not, teach their children those same principles. We also, as parents, teach our children the peaceful philosophy that Jesus Christ really 'brought home', of non-agression, as well as how to abide by those ten commandments and he detailed the numerous other aspects/questions about them by living them and then dying for them. To follow that code of principles is the only way 'reason' can derive solid conclusions or 'create' a solid foundation that has a good chance towards peace and liberty, and most of all, happiness - be it for designing a government, being in a relationship, work, play, life... etc. So, forget 'faith', WendellBerry... that isn't at all what I'm talking about here. These are solid principles. They are our core. The funny thing is, you initially said how you do agree to them... yet, your tone gets harsher as your struggle gets stronger to defend the unprincipled system that, deep inside, you know conflicts with those principles. You would force the Amish to 'obey' your new laws. Man's laws - not God's (or what some refer to as God's Laws, and others just cite as common sense.) And this occurs in and with your philosophy because you start with those 'rights' or, specifically, 'that right' to self ownership - see, I've told you a few times already, I don't start my thinking process with 'rights, and that's not the right word for what comes after the principles and philosophy (when I figure out the word for it, I will let you know) - and I'm not a libertarian, a Libertarian, nor any other political designation, so you can take those words you know will cause people to rally around them in defense of them without knowing the full scope of what you are actually proposing as the 'solution', which is unprincipled, illogical and, to put it bluntly - unsustainable. Chaos continues under your (and Jason's) political 'theories.' Temper your faith with that, Cowboy. And brand Jason while you're at it. You two can be each others property and pay economic rent to each other for the rest of your lives if you want. In your own little community. Of slaves to self ownership and 'reason' instead of being the principled, responsible, joyful, compassionate people you both are born to be. Your choice, your world. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
B.D. Ross
|
You can't have absolute rights to property that is not produced via labor AND the absolute right of self-ownership.
It is logically impossible.
But can you have the absolute right of self-ownership without absolute rights to property? Regardless, it seems to me that the system you propose will definitely infringe on the right of self-ownership. It doesn't make sense to take away property rights to preserve self-ownership, and then take away self-ownership. [1a.] The only way to monetize the economic rent is via the landowner's labor to capitalize on the locations economic advantage. [1b.] But it is the economic rent that by definition is the unimproved locational value having nothing to do with the landowner's labor. [2.] This is a paradox for most and is what is referred to in geoist circles as "seeing the cat". [3.] If you can "see the cat" then you will understand that requiring an obligation to those you exclude in exchange for backing the exclusive right to a location with force is the closest we can come to a system of EQUAL liberty where everyone's right to self-ownership is preserved. The "paradox" between 1a and 1b is no paradox at all: it's a simple failure of geoists to understand the distinction between economic rent and and market valueation. Economic rent is the share of revenues allocated to a landowner from a productive activity. "Unimproved locational value" is determined by market forces: how much money could others generate with this land? (And with that formulation, the tax-theft is fairly plain to see.) Point is, the terms are not equivalent in any way. Also, do note the discussion of the "landowner's labor" in 1a. It is not the case that an actual, real-life "strawman argument" actually comes up on these boards, but this is actually a good example of one. Under the very classical economic theory you're espousing, the "landowner's labor" is a wage--and not a rent at all. In that old classical theory, it is not assumed that the landowner labors at all. But to invent a paradox by assuming the landowner is laboring is to newly conjure something (that doesn't make sense within the theory itself) solely that it can be contradicted. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
JasonPSorens
|
I have a very, very kind Aunt who has made it clear she wouldn't mind being forced to pay for others food, health care, education, and be forced to recycle and be forced to pay for abortions, wars, and the funding of anything 'leaders' think might be that 'common good.' That's a contradiction in terms. How can anyone agree to be forced to do anything? See how the Golden Rule is inherently libertarian? No one can will the use of force universally. Don't worry, I'm not going to write a book about my heresies until after the revolution. Until then, solidarity. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Audio signature (MP3) "Experience has shown that it is difficult, if not impossible, for a populous state to be run by good laws." --Aristotle, The Politics
|
|
|
|
BagOfEyebrows
|
You can't have absolute rights to property that is not produced via labor AND the absolute right of self-ownership.
It is logically impossible.
But can you have the absolute right of self-ownership without absolute rights to property? Regardless, it seems to me that the system you propose will definitely infringe on the right of self-ownership. It doesn't make sense to take away property rights to preserve self-ownership, and then take away self-ownership. [1a.] The only way to monetize the economic rent is via the landowner's labor to capitalize on the locations economic advantage. [1b.] But it is the economic rent that by definition is the unimproved locational value having nothing to do with the landowner's labor. [2.] This is a paradox for most and is what is referred to in geoist circles as "seeing the cat". [3.] If you can "see the cat" then you will understand that requiring an obligation to those you exclude in exchange for backing the exclusive right to a location with force is the closest we can come to a system of EQUAL liberty where everyone's right to self-ownership is preserved. The "paradox" between 1a and 1b is no paradox at all: it's a simple failure of geoists to understand the distinction between economic rent and and market valueation. Economic rent is the share of revenues allocated to a landowner from a productive activity. "Unimproved locational value" is determined by market forces: how much money could others generate with this land? (And with that formulation, the tax-theft is fairly plain to see.) Point is, the terms are not equivalent in any way. Also, do note the discussion of the "landowner's labor" in 1a. It is not the case that an actual, real-life "strawman argument" actually comes up on these boards, but this is actually a good example of one. Under the very classical economic theory you're espousing, the "landowner's labor" is a wage--and not a rent at all. In that old classical theory, it is not assumed that the landowner labors at all. But to invent a paradox by assuming the landowner is laboring is to newly conjure something (that doesn't make sense within the theory itself) solely that it can be contradicted. When do I get to meet you, B.D. Ross? I get the impression we'd have a baffling (to us both) but amusing time, seeing as we agree and yet simultaneously disagree on so much. Sometime in mid or late May at a Taproom Tuesday? I'm well behaved. Just ask WendellBerry.  I'd love to have an offline discussion with you. About law. And order. Especially after my night tonight, when unbeknownst to me, I was sitting for over an hour, actually learning quite a lot, and having a great time, in front of shelves full of books of New Hampshire state legistlation and local statutes (*GROAN*) Books and books full of 'laws', and then there's those other law books... you know the ones, right? Those other laws that aren't in the state or town books? Books and books and words and words... and you think I'm long winded? HEH. I got nothing on the laws of man... volumes upon volumes of intellectual babble! Pretty please... can we meet one day? We should hook up and talk about it. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
WendellBerry
|
You would force the Amish to 'obey' your new laws. The Amish are initiating force. I am only justly using defensive force to uphold self-ownership of those excluded. you start with those 'rights' or, specifically, 'that right' to self ownership The non-aggression principle (no initiation of force or fraud - your no lying, cheating, stealing or killing) is derived from self-ownership. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
WendellBerry
|
it's a simple failure of geoists to understand the distinction between economic rent and and market valueation. Economic rent is the share of revenues allocated to a landowner from a productive activity. "Unimproved locational value" is determined by market forces: how much money could others generate with this land? (And with that formulation, the tax-theft is fairly plain to see.) Point is, the terms are not equivalent in any way. Economic rent and unimproved locational value are one in the same. Under the very classical economic theory you're espousing, the "landowner's labor" is a wage--and not a rent at all. If a locational owner on a busy corner in NYC works 10 hours a day he will have access to many, many people to buy his product. If the same owner, locates on a corner in a sleepy town in Central PA and works the same 10 hours he will have access to far, far fewer people. The main difference is the unimproved locational value - far greater in NYC than Central PA. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BagOfEyebrows
|
I have a very, very kind Aunt who has made it clear she wouldn't mind being forced to pay for others food, health care, education, and be forced to recycle and be forced to pay for abortions, wars, and the funding of anything 'leaders' think might be that 'common good.' That's a contradiction in terms. How can anyone agree to be forced to do anything? See how the Golden Rule is inherently libertarian? No one can will the use of force universally. Don't worry, I'm not going to write a book about my heresies until after the revolution. Until then, solidarity. There's no contradiction to it - she said "sometimes we have to be forced to do the right thing." To which I replied "Who gets to determine what is right, though, and by what set of principles should 'right' be determined?" She grew up with the same set of principles as me. My reply just had her pause and then become very quiet. She and I talk often - she has agreed with me on quite a bit. Nobody around her was pointing out the conflicts with the principles she knows well. I give her concretes, absolute and let her see certain things with her own eyes. She's very bright - an intellectual. Very well read. Very well schooled. Very compassionate. Very 'everything good.' But, because she is so kind and compassionate, and because she trusted her education was teaching her 100% facts - and that all data, and all history, and all explanations were valid, the conclusion she came to was, by proxy, as flawed as the system that 'taught' her. As flawed as the system she now works in and for. Thankfully, she still questions things. She is open to hearing and seeing all sides. I have hope. And... awww man, what do you mean you aren't going to compose an alternate form of government book based on 'do unto others' ? I wanted that comedy gold!  I'm deleting the four huge paragraphs I just wrote that followed that above sentence - I'll conclude this post by just saying my solidarity to the Free State Project and your first years of writing about what you envisioned is and will always be absolute. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
B.D. Ross
|
When do I get to meet you, B.D. Ross?
I get the impression we'd have a baffling (to us both) but amusing time, seeing as we agree and yet simultaneously disagree on so much.
Sometime in mid or late May at a Taproom Tuesday?
I don't live in NH. I need to run up there at least once in the summer. I'm going to try to fit a Taproom Tuesday in. Economic rent and unimproved locational value are one in the same.
No. They are not. You can repeat that in thread after thread. But it hasn't been making this incrementally more true each time it's written. The former is a revenue stream over time. The latter is a valuation at a point in time. Clearly they are "not one in the same". The only saving possibility is they are equal after accounting for intertemporal choice. Good luck demonstrating this! (Hint: you can't!) Point is, these separate concepts are being conflated unjustifiably. Why? Because rent, under the classical theory, obviously belongs to the landowner. But under a labor theory of value, a landowner did not have valid claim to the "unimproved locational value"--so that could be rightfully confiscated by the community. Except that "unimproved locational value" does not represent any actual source of funds that can be taxed continually. Instead, the concepts of economic rent and "unimproved locational value" are inappropriately conflated so there is a source of money--the landowner's return--to confiscate. Under the very classical economic theory you're espousing, the "landowner's labor" is a wage--and not a rent at all. If a locational owner on a busy corner in NYC works 10 hours a day he will have access to many, many people to buy his product. If the same owner, locates on a corner in a sleepy town in Central PA and works the same 10 hours he will have access to far, far fewer people. The main difference is the unimproved locational value - far greater in NYC than Central PA. ... that doesn't really address the issue. You know, this whole discussion is nothing new, right? Again, that's setting up an absurd result. I wouldn't suggest that selling hotdogs on a Sleepytown, PA streetcorner is a prudent business move. No more than I would suggest mining for bituminous coal in NYC. In the situation offered, one cannot complain that PA is less productive than NYC--productivity at a given location is activity-dependent. I don't think the free market would result in the given scenario (and if so, it would likely be remedied in short order). Here's an un-novel idea--let's let the market decide which productive activities to pursue and where!  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BagOfEyebrows
|
When do I get to meet you, B.D. Ross?
I get the impression we'd have a baffling (to us both) but amusing time, seeing as we agree and yet simultaneously disagree on so much.
Sometime in mid or late May at a Taproom Tuesday?
I don't live in NH. I need to run up there at least once in the summer. I'm going to try to fit a Taproom Tuesday in. Let me know when you do! I very, very, very much look forward to meetin' ya! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 
|
|
|
 |
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
