Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 
|
 |
|
 Author
|
Topic: Free State Project Myths (Read 19941 times)
|
|
NHArticleTen
|
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? At this point in the history of the planet I'm not sure you could EVER be SURE of INITIAL ownership or the claim thereof. I think a lot of it has to do with perceived and perhaps "real" value with respect to human beings and the ecosystem. In the example of supply of water, the "highest" value of the water would be to keep human beings and the ecosystem alive. Someone claiming "ownership" of the water with the intent and purpose of keeping it clean and defending it's cleanliness would, in using the Non-Aggression Principle, have a "higher" claim to "ownership/protecting/defending" the clean supply of water...than would someone intent on poisoning it(and then perhaps "purifying" small amounts of it as people came by to purchase it). Obviously, in the final analysis, it's impossible to "own" "specific" molecules of water since it travels around the world in the air, land, and sea. Perhaps, as we revolutionize the world as we know it, we can do a much better job than was done in the past. We've got a lot of targets and threats to neutralize. Go figure... Enjoy! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
dalebert
|
one FSP Myth is true .... it is full of guys who want to debate stuph
and guys who initiate violence on PROPER SPELLING!!!  Yay! I've started a trend! I have Friday doing it and now Russell. I feel powerful.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
NHArticleTen
|
one FSP Myth is true .... it is full of guys who want to debate stuph
and guys who initiate violence on PROPER SPELLING!!! Yay! I've started a trend! I have Friday doing it and now Russell. I feel powerful. you saw what happened over at the ftlbbs... ENJOY! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
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. Simply "being there" isn't a claim of ownership. To homestead something, some amount of labor must be invested in it. That could be as simple as saying,"I now claim X." * 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? Indeed. These are where the practical application of homesteading within a social construct comes into play. If I homestead a few acres, and I have to go on a trip before I can build my dream house, so I leave a detailed description of the boundaries with you, but then a third party comes along and sees this patch of land, decides to build his own house there, and is sitting pretty when I return from my trip, what claim do I have against him? I certainly can't claim that he stole my land, because he had no way of knowing it was mine. Leaving a note with you, miles away, certainly didn't give him notice. If I, instead, put up signs on trees near the edge of the land, and indicated that I own land near these trees, as well as giving contact information to get in touch with you to find out the exact boundaries, then I would have a claim, because he knew there was land in the area that was not owned, and it was his responsibility to make sure he was not trespassing by contacting you and finding out exactly what the boundaries of the claim were. A property right is a real, initiated something. And threats of force qualify too. Mind translating that to English? 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? If someone has invested labor, however small, in an unowned object, that object becomes his, by virtue of the fact that taking it would be the theft of his labor and, therefore, initiated force. The moral right is his self-ownership, in that any theft of that item becomes a theft of the labor he used to homestead it. A discussion could be had of exactly to what extent one's labor can "spread." I could stand here and say, "I own the planet Mars," but I think most folks would agree that such a statement does not constitute enough labor to claim an entire planet. On the other hand, if I build a rocket and flew to Mars, whereupon I defined a few hundred acres on the surface of Mars as mine, it would be obviously be impossible that my labor in flying to Mars and delineating a specific claim was not sufficient to make a claim of a mere few hundred acres. Somewhere in between the extremes is a point at which the labor expended, the proximity to use, and the magnitude of the claim balance between reasonable and unreasonable. That's a rather amorphous description, which is not to say that there is not a specific "line" between the two, but merely to admit that I do not have the ability to describe that line, on a micro level. On a macro level, it's rather easy to see which gross portions of the continuum of possible claims fall on which side of the line. It's only when you get to small details which are very close to that balance point, that defining it becomes linguistically challenging. 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..
|
|
|
|
Russell Kanning
|
Yay! I've started a trend! I have Friday doing it and now Russell. I feel powerful. but if you get full of yourself, we can bring you down again. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ron Helwig
|
That is, what makes it right for one person to make that initial claim of ownership of something? If someone has invested labor, however small, in an unowned object, that object becomes his, by virtue of the fact that taking it would be the theft of his labor and, therefore, initiated force. The moral right is his self-ownership, in that any theft of that item becomes a theft of the labor he used to homestead it. I guess I have no significant problem recognizing that once "mixed with labor", the resource becomes owned. Maybe a better way to phrase the question is "what gives someone the right to mix their labor with an unowned resource?" I am unsatisfied with the merely practical answer of "because I saw it first, I can mix my labor". To be more precise, everyone has the same right (whatever that is) to use an unowned resource. For example, anyone can freely walk over some unowned land; likewise, anyone can drink from an unowned stream. By claiming the land or stream as property, you are now denying everyone the unfettered access they previously had. Without some sort of moral basis for the claim, this leads to the lefty-nuts making a credible claim of "property is theft". |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
I guess I have no significant problem recognizing that once "mixed with labor", the resource becomes owned. Maybe a better way to phrase the question is "what gives someone the right to mix their labor with an unowned resource?"
I am unsatisfied with the merely practical answer of "because I saw it first, I can mix my labor". To be more precise, everyone has the same right (whatever that is) to use an unowned resource. For example, anyone can freely walk over some unowned land; likewise, anyone can drink from an unowned stream. By claiming the land or stream as property, you are now denying everyone the unfettered access they previously had. Without some sort of moral basis for the claim, this leads to the lefty-nuts making a credible claim of "property is theft". Something unowned cannot be stolen. There's no one to steal it from. Before governments got involved and started making a mess of things, it was typical to claim certain areas specifically for general use. For example, that patch of woods near town where folks went to collect medicinal herbs wasn't unowned but, rather, was owned by a group who claimed it on behalf of themselves and their posterity, so that it might usable as it was. Just because something is owned by one or more individuals does not mean that they necessarily have to deny access to others. 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..
|
|
|
|
NHArticleTen
|
That is, what makes it right for one person to make that initial claim of ownership of something? If someone has invested labor, however small, in an unowned object, that object becomes his, by virtue of the fact that taking it would be the theft of his labor and, therefore, initiated force. The moral right is his self-ownership, in that any theft of that item becomes a theft of the labor he used to homestead it. I guess I have no significant problem recognizing that once "mixed with labor", the resource becomes owned. Maybe a better way to phrase the question is "what gives someone the right to mix their labor with an unowned resource?" I am unsatisfied with the merely practical answer of "because I saw it first, I can mix my labor". To be more precise, everyone has the same right (whatever that is) to use an unowned resource. For example, anyone can freely walk over some unowned land; likewise, anyone can drink from an unowned stream. By claiming the land or stream as property, you are now denying everyone the unfettered access they previously had. Without some sort of moral basis for the claim, this leads to the lefty-nuts making a credible claim of "property is theft". "Everyone" does NOT have the same "right" to use an "unowned" resource... One who stands at the water's edge ready to defend and keep the water pure has more "right" of ownership than does the person who poisons the water for whatever purpose... The same goes for a match...or gasoline...or hydrogen...or atomic energy... This is why ownership is important and preferable to the false premise of "communal property" which everyone uses...and which some abuse...and which few actually take good care of... When I see an arsonist pouring gasoline and getting ready to strike a match I rightfully, morally, and justifiably take primary ownership and possession of the matches and control of the "loose" gasoline to remedy a potential disaster...I might just send the arsonist away...or hold them for the property owner's disposition...or I might just repel and destroy them...totally at my disgression... Stewardship is important with respect to the resources we depend on for existence... I hope this doesn't serve to "muddy" the waters...pun intended... Perhaps this may help to enlighten you... Enjoy! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ron Helwig
|
"Everyone" does NOT have the same "right" to use an "unowned" resource...
why not? One who stands at the water's edge ready to defend and keep the water pure has more "right" of ownership than does the person who poisons the water for whatever purpose...
When I see an arsonist pouring gasoline and getting ready to strike a match I rightfully, morally, and justifiably take primary ownership and possession of the matches and control of the "loose" gasoline to remedy a potential disaster...I might just send the arsonist away...or hold them for the property owner's disposition...or I might just repel and destroy them...totally at my disgression...
Stewardship is important with respect to the resources we depend on for existence...
This sounds very dangerous to me. You seem to be implying that ownership, or perhaps even just the initial claim of ownership, requires that the resource being claimed gets used productively. That's the top of a very slippery slope (and a problem with the whole "mixing labor" argument - thank you for reminding me). Who decides what 'productive' means? Your answer seems to imply that someone other than the person making the claim can make that determination. What if I'm poisoning the water to kill off existing fish or plant species, thus making it ready for new plants and animals that are more suited to productive uses? What if I'm burning down an old barn to make room for a new one? Stewardship is a good thing, but I don't find it necessary for ownership. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
This sounds very dangerous to me. You seem to be implying that ownership, or perhaps even just the initial claim of ownership, requires that the resource being claimed gets used productively. That's the top of a very slippery slope (and a problem with the whole "mixing labor" argument - thank you for reminding me).
Who decides what 'productive' means? Your answer seems to imply that someone other than the person making the claim can make that determination.
What if I'm poisoning the water to kill off existing fish or plant species, thus making it ready for new plants and animals that are more suited to productive uses? What if I'm burning down an old barn to make room for a new one?
Stewardship is a good thing, but I don't find it necessary for ownership. At least part of what Rob was saying referred to currently-owned property - saying that he might stop the arsonist and hold him for the property owner to deal with. Intended use could be a societal consideration for settling competing claims. If you and I both claim a piece of property, and neither of us can prove that his claim was the first one, an arbitrator might inquire into the intended use of the property as part of the process of settling the dispute. 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..
|
|
|
|
dalebert
|
Joe is touching on what this all ultimately comes down to. Property rights are absolute in principle, at least in the context of opposing slavery, because to steal from someone is to enslave them for their labor retroactively. The application of property rights in reality, just like any abstraction expressed in reality, will inevitably be fuzzy at times. Ultimately the reality is that people will disagree as to what constitutes a claim on property. Depending on how contentious it becomes, there is the potential for violence. Most people would prefer to concede a minor point rather than risk death (I said "most", Rob  ). Fortunately, in most cases voluntary arbitration is a practical free market answer for avoiding violence. Real notions of what constitutes property will tend to get refined in that organic process of dispute resolution. I do think that one's willingness for risk will to a large extent be in proportion to just how hard they worked for something as opposed to how much they're trying to get something for nothing and simply be exploitive. And that makes sense to me. If someone is essentially trying to make a slave of me, eventually that popular slogan becomes a lot more likely to come to bare- "Live Free or Die". |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
I do think that one's willingness for risk will to a large extent be in proportion to just how hard they worked for something as opposed to how much they're trying to get something for nothing and simply be exploitive. And that makes sense to me. If someone is essentially trying to make a slave of me, eventually that popular slogan becomes a lot more likely to come to bare- "Live Free or Die". Indeed. That goes for any situation of aggression, not just thievery. Spitting on my shoe is, technically, an aggressive act. I'm not likely to drop hammer on someone for that. Walk up to me and stab me in the arm, and fatal lead poisoning is a likely result. 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..
|
|
|
|
John Edward Mercier
|
The Lefties are claiming undeveloped land is unowned. Thus a person that decides to leave a portion of their property treed has disowned it. While a person that cuts it down and lays sod has not... sounds urbanite to me.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
B.D. Ross
|
A property right is a real, initiated something. And threats of force qualify too. Mind translating that to English? Sure. I didn't see that question hiding in there. It was in the context of the NAP and how a property right could be aggressive. Another poster, just a few posts up, commented on a scenario like I was imagining, where people might have use rights to a common water source, but then someone might claim an exclusive interfering possessory right. I had stated that the claimed property right could be a threat and would qualify as aggression. In response, someone said that wasn't the case because threats didn't qualify as initiated aggression. I think it was all cleared up. Point is, property rights aren't imaginary things and threats can be aggressive. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
It was in the context of the NAP and how a property right could be aggressive. Another poster, just a few posts up, commented on a scenario like I was imagining, where people might have use rights to a common water source, but then someone might claim an exclusive interfering possessory right. I had stated that the claimed property right could be a threat and would qualify as aggression. In response, someone said that wasn't the case because threats didn't qualify as initiated aggression. I think it was all cleared up. Point is, property rights aren't imaginary things and threats can be aggressive. Of course property rights aren't imaginary. That's tautological. Threats certainly can be aggressive. But an "initiated something" is a rather nonsensical phrase. What is being initiated, and against whom? An unowned thing does not have moral standing - it's merely a thing. You can't initiate action against something which is not a moral actor. 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..
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 
|
|
|
 |
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
