Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 
|
 |
|
 Author
|
Topic: Free State Project Myths (Read 19859 times)
|
|
John Edward Mercier
|
The anti-property jab is probably a reference to the “ Property is theft!” line of thought among leftist anarchists. All human rights are inherently property rights. Anyone who disbelieves in property rights is, therefore, opposed to all human rights and is not actually an anarchist. Joe Property rights are an establishment of the society... anarchists are self-governed (sovereign) and may, or may not, agree with the social establishment. Sorry, Ron. Posted at the same time. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 16, 2008, 08:31:16 am by John Edward Mercier »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
From a geo-libertarian point of view, the proper distinction would be that man created things are the real property, and non man created things, like land, are turned into property through societal agreement (not necessarily government enforced agreement).
Since land was not created by man, it isn't real property. We make it into property because that is a useful abstraction. (On a side note, I think calling land "real estate" or "real property" confuses the issue.) At a basic level, nothing was "created by man." We're standing on the chunks of an ancient supernova. We didn't make them. Things outside the realm of human interaction are brought within the realm of human interaction by homesteading. Once someone has expended labor to obtain a thing, that thing is his, and any interference with his possession and use of that thing is an act of force against him. The labor to homestead a thing is no different from the labor to turn pigments and cloth into a painted canvas, or to turn iron and other materials into an automobile. Property rights are an establishment of the society... anarchists are self-governed (sovereign) and may, or may not, agree with the social establishment. Property rights extend from the single "axiom" of self-ownership. I own me, ergo I own anything that I use "me" to obtain, unless that would interfere with someone else's self-ownership. I cannot obtain "you" or anything which you already own. I may only directly obtain (by homesteading) un-owned things. I may indirectly obtain (by trade or gift) owned things, if their owners choose to trade with me or make a gift to me. All human rights stem from self-ownership. To deny my property rights is to deny my self-ownership and, therefore, all of my human rights. A society which does not respect property rights does not respect any human rights. That society might "grant privileges" that are somewhat similar to some human rights, but it is still in violation of human rights through its lack of respect for property rights. A society that respects property rights may have methods for arbitrating the practice of homesteading, or customs related to that. I could disagree with Ron or Jeremy or anyone else here on the exact methodology that defines some piece of property (land, object, animal, etc.) as having been homesteaded by me, without fundamentally disagreeing on the nature of property rights. Rights exist in a state of "perfection," and the practical application of those rights is not always perfect. Even the Non-Aggression Principle, "sacred" though it may be to many is actually just an imperfect application of property rights. My right to myself and my property gives me a right to defend that self and other property. Theoretically, if I somehow knew that you would attack me, I would be well within my rights to use "pre-emptive self-defense." The practical reality is that a lack of methodology for accurately predicting the future means we have to come up with a compromise, in which we say that you must have been attacked, or been subject to a credible threat of attack, before your actions can be considered responsive rather than aggressive. The actual rights involved are property rights. Sometimes we generate other principles of behavior to practically apply those rights, since we (in general, even if there is the possibility of some individual exceptions) lack the technology or skills to apply them perfectly. Joe |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
JosephCHart
|
One myth my parents keep telling me... "I think youre falling into a cult"
Its extreme mindset to think that living in another state to be free but is a cult, is insane. I hope my parents wake up. I showed them the way already and they dont listen.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Denis Goddard
|
I seriously am coming to think that most of the world is brainwashed ... into thinking that government is the solution to their problems.
I think this is relatively new -- certainly the Reagan "revolution" would not have happened if that mindset had been so widespread 30 years ago.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
J’raxis 270145
|
Nah, it’s as old as the welfare state concept (ca. 1870s). That’s when the State started making people dependent on it, and everything flows from there.
I’m not even sure if I’d say the Reagan revolution was a pro-liberty thing: He had a lot of libertarian ideas on fiscal policy, but only if you ignore that he threw all the money he saved, and then some, into the military. And his social policy was quite authoritarian and anti-liberty, which is actually why I think a large part of why he got elected, as a sort of cultural-conservative counterrevolution to the 1960s.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Russell Kanning
|
one FSP Myth is true .... it is full of guys who want to debate stuph
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Denis Goddard
|
one FSP Myth is true .... it is full of guys who want to debate stuph
and guys who initiate violence on PROPER SPELLING!!!  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ron Helwig
|
From a geo-libertarian point of view, the proper distinction would be that man created things are the real property, and non man created things, like land, are turned into property through societal agreement (not necessarily government enforced agreement).
Since land was not created by man, it isn't real property. We make it into property because that is a useful abstraction. (On a side note, I think calling land "real estate" or "real property" confuses the issue.) At a basic level, nothing was "created by man." We're standing on the chunks of an ancient supernova. We didn't make them. Things outside the realm of human interaction are brought within the realm of human interaction by homesteading. Once someone has expended labor to obtain a thing, that thing is his, and any interference with his possession and use of that thing is an act of force against him. The labor to homestead a thing is no different from the labor to turn pigments and cloth into a painted canvas, or to turn iron and other materials into an automobile. ... A society that respects property rights may have methods for arbitrating the practice of homesteading, or customs related to that. I could disagree with Ron or Jeremy or anyone else here on the exact methodology that defines some piece of property (land, object, animal, etc.) as having been homesteaded by me, without fundamentally disagreeing on the nature of property rights. Rights exist in a state of "perfection," and the practical application of those rights is not always perfect. Even the Non-Aggression Principle, "sacred" though it may be to many is actually just an imperfect application of property rights. My right to myself and my property gives me a right to defend that self and other property. Theoretically, if I somehow knew that you would attack me, I would be well within my rights to use "pre-emptive self-defense." The practical reality is that a lack of methodology for accurately predicting the future means we have to come up with a compromise, in which we say that you must have been attacked, or been subject to a credible threat of attack, before your actions can be considered responsive rather than aggressive. The actual rights involved are property rights. Sometimes we generate other principles of behavior to practically apply those rights, since we (in general, even if there is the possibility of some individual exceptions) lack the technology or skills to apply them perfectly. Good answer. To extend or make better the homesteading analogy, I think it would be better to say that turning land into a farm is no different than turning iron into a lathe. The real crux of the thing that I've never been able to work out is by what right can someone claim something that is unowned? The exclamation "I was there first" may be a practical answer, but seems childish and IMHO ought to be replaced with a moral justification. * How do you know it is unowned? * What makes it right for you to make the claim? * How do you identify (to others) something that you have claimed as now being in a state of ownership? I do insist that "use" of an unowned thing is not the determining factor in the claim of ownership. The requirement that there be "mixing of labor" or some sort of productive use allows arguments against things that "the masses" don't understand to be uses such as speculation. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
B.D. Ross
|
But property rights, i.e. rights to exclude, are institutionalized threats of force, which violates the non-aggression principle. Depends on which flavor of anarchism you prefer.
The right of self-defense is an “institutionalized threat of force,” too—neither violate the Non-Aggression Principle because whereas they’re threats of force, they’re not force initiated, and thus not aggression. A property right is a real, initiated something. And threats of force qualify too. Out West, where riparian rights are more important, this used to cause large problems. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
freestatelaw.com - Get plugged in with what you need to know about New Hampshire law and legislative efforts.
|
|
|
|
B.D. Ross
|
one FSP Myth is true .... it is full of guys who want to debate stuph
This is not a terrible thing  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
freestatelaw.com - Get plugged in with what you need to know about New Hampshire law and legislative efforts.
|
|
|
|
J’raxis 270145
|
one FSP Myth is true .... it is full of guys who want to debate stuph
This is not a terrible thing As long as it’s not all that people are doing. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
B.D. Ross
|
As long as it’s not all that people are doing.
I DISAGREE!!! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
freestatelaw.com - Get plugged in with what you need to know about New Hampshire law and legislative efforts.
|
|
|
|
NHArticleTen
|
From a geo-libertarian point of view, the proper distinction would be that man created things are the real property, and non man created things, like land, are turned into property through societal agreement (not necessarily government enforced agreement).
Since land was not created by man, it isn't real property. We make it into property because that is a useful abstraction. (On a side note, I think calling land "real estate" or "real property" confuses the issue.) At a basic level, nothing was "created by man." We're standing on the chunks of an ancient supernova. We didn't make them. Things outside the realm of human interaction are brought within the realm of human interaction by homesteading. Once someone has expended labor to obtain a thing, that thing is his, and any interference with his possession and use of that thing is an act of force against him. The labor to homestead a thing is no different from the labor to turn pigments and cloth into a painted canvas, or to turn iron and other materials into an automobile. ... A society that respects property rights may have methods for arbitrating the practice of homesteading, or customs related to that. I could disagree with Ron or Jeremy or anyone else here on the exact methodology that defines some piece of property (land, object, animal, etc.) as having been homesteaded by me, without fundamentally disagreeing on the nature of property rights. Rights exist in a state of "perfection," and the practical application of those rights is not always perfect. Even the Non-Aggression Principle, "sacred" though it may be to many is actually just an imperfect application of property rights. My right to myself and my property gives me a right to defend that self and other property. Theoretically, if I somehow knew that you would attack me, I would be well within my rights to use "pre-emptive self-defense." The practical reality is that a lack of methodology for accurately predicting the future means we have to come up with a compromise, in which we say that you must have been attacked, or been subject to a credible threat of attack, before your actions can be considered responsive rather than aggressive. The actual rights involved are property rights. Sometimes we generate other principles of behavior to practically apply those rights, since we (in general, even if there is the possibility of some individual exceptions) lack the technology or skills to apply them perfectly. Good answer. To extend or make better the homesteading analogy, I think it would be better to say that turning land into a farm is no different than turning iron into a lathe. The real crux of the thing that I've never been able to work out is by what right can someone claim something that is unowned? The exclamation "I was there first" may be a practical answer, but seems childish and IMHO ought to be replaced with a moral justification. * How do you know it is unowned? * What makes it right for you to make the claim? * How do you identify (to others) something that you have claimed as now being in a state of ownership? I do insist that "use" of an unowned thing is not the determining factor in the claim of ownership. The requirement that there be "mixing of labor" or some sort of productive use allows arguments against things that "the masses" don't understand to be uses such as speculation. On another thread we discussed a body of water and how someone might come to "own" it... Feel free to browse through the thread...enjoy...lol! OK, but hasn't the first arriver harmed the second arriver in this case? Had the first person never existed, the later arriver would have been able to use the oasis when he arrived. The circumstances of nature have harmed the second arriver. If I am a better businessman than someone else, so I am able to out-compete him in the marketplace, have I harmed him? No, his own lack of ability has harmed him by rendering him unable to compete with me. Imagine that you had a tribe of people living on an island. They all suddenly get the idea of private property and rush to stake claims to every part of the island. One person is slightly late to the punch and the entire island has been appropriated. The other property owners dislike him, so they do not allow him to stay. He must leave the island or face death as a trespasser. Is this just? Or can't we say that the guy who didn't get any property was harmed, because before the land was claimed, he could access it all as he liked, and after it was claimed, he was expelled? Such is life. We don't live in some utopia, where manna rains down from heaven to succor all comers. But doesn't this type of behavior violate the NAP? After all, someone has been made worse off by the appropriation of property. Shouldn't one criterion for the appropriation of previously unowned property be that the appropriation does not harm anyone else? Would the situation change if everyone had been using the resources of the island or the oasis without needing to get permission from anybody, before somebody decided to stake a private claim? In the latter case, you could argue that everyone had a legitimate expectation of perpetual, free access to the property. I wanted to continue this insanity... Commenting on the two gentlemen coming upon some water... Is this the only water on the planet? Is either one of them going to expire if they don't get water immediately? Is one, or the other, or both of them mentally wacko to where they would poison the water so no one could use any of it? I'm sure there are other variables to be considered as well... My thought is this... If I were to claim the water and the land around it I would be doing so to secure it for myself first of all... But that second dude coming up and asking for water...I'd say "sure buddy, drink all you want...don't know if it's poisoned or not...you be the first to drink and I'll drink after I've watched you for awhile... Maybe the dude will drink some, maybe he won't... I'll just pull out my tester and test the water...if he waits for me to test it then he'd surely understand that I would need some sort of compensation for testing the water...I'd take his promise to respect my desire to keep the water clean, pure, and unpoisoned as payment for the initial testing of the water... Then I'd ask him if he would like to help me guard the water to keep it clean, pure, and unpoisoned...his payment would be all the water that he could drink, cook with, and use personally(after all, he wouldn't poison his own water unless he was crazy...and if he did poison it...he would be repelled and destroyed... He accepted so now there are two of us guarding the water... Then this hunter dude comes by and trades us some meat for some clean, pure, and unpoisoned water... So I asked the hunter if he would be willing to hunt for us in trade for clean, pure, and unpoisoned water... He accepted so now there are three of us guarding the water and two of us learning to hunt, and two of us learning to use the poison testing kit... Do I really have to go on? You guys keep going on and on like little fucking kids... Let's just repel and destroy the looters and get on with a truly productive existence... RAD Enjoy! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ron Helwig
|
On another thread we discussed a body of water and how someone might come to "own" it...
Feel free to browse through the thread...enjoy...lol!
I did browse that thread and saw practically nothing of value. There was discussion of HOW someone can make a claim, but virtually no discussion of BY WHAT RIGHT someone can make a claim that denies everyone else use of that land (or water or whatever). [at least not in as much as I read; and I did try to read most of it] That is, what makes it right for one person to make that initial claim of ownership of something? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
B.D. Ross
|
On another thread we discussed a body of water and how someone might come to "own" it...
Feel free to browse through the thread...enjoy...lol!
I did browse that thread and saw practically nothing of value. There was discussion of HOW someone can make a claim, but virtually no discussion of BY WHAT RIGHT someone can make a claim that denies everyone else use of that land (or water or whatever). [at least not in as much as I read; and I did try to read most of it] That is, what makes it right for one person to make that initial claim of ownership of something? Ahhh... it's like Pierson v. Post anew. Original possession and control of a thing is often the best way to make an initial claim of ownership--at least this is that most other people in a community will respect (actual possession itself being an oft-recognized property right in most societies). Real-property claims are more tenuous to establish community-wide because it's harder to "possess" and occupy tracts of land. Historically, the threat of a forceful defense (or eviction, depending on perspective) has been used to "possess" land. Still, I suppose this never stopped kings and queens from sending envoys across the seas to claim entire continents... all-ready inhabited territories so vast they could never be actually be defended... Ah, property... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
freestatelaw.com - Get plugged in with what you need to know about New Hampshire law and legislative efforts.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 
|
|
|
 |
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
