Pages: 1 [2] 3 
|
 |
|
 Author
|
Topic: More debate on collective land owning was: Man arrested for public gardening (Read 4352 times)
|
|
ggeezz
|
Government (men and women willing to aggress against their neighbors) cannot own anything in the same way a thief doesn't own the things he buys with stolen money.
"Public" land is either owned by everyone or by no one. Either way, Jesse was totally in the right by using "his" land or by homesteading unowned land.
People use the term "public" to mean: 1. collectively owned as a joint right or 2. owned in common as an individual equal right They are not the same... This is actually a different case. The land is owned by the government. If we had a Monarchy you could say the land is owned by the King. Since we're a Representative Democracy some people say the land is "public." You could argue with the use of the term public, but that's what the land is considered to be. No, the land is owned collectively or jointly and we have delegated our authority over it's use to our elected representatives. How is that not the same thing? Are you asking me what the difference is between common ownership and collective or joint ownership? No. I'm asking what the difference is between having property privately owned by the government and property that is collectively owned but the government has authority over its use. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
WendellBerry
|
Government (men and women willing to aggress against their neighbors) cannot own anything in the same way a thief doesn't own the things he buys with stolen money.
"Public" land is either owned by everyone or by no one. Either way, Jesse was totally in the right by using "his" land or by homesteading unowned land.
People use the term "public" to mean: 1. collectively owned as a joint right or 2. owned in common as an individual equal right They are not the same... This is actually a different case. The land is owned by the government. If we had a Monarchy you could say the land is owned by the King. Since we're a Representative Democracy some people say the land is "public." You could argue with the use of the term public, but that's what the land is considered to be. No, the land is owned collectively or jointly and we have delegated our authority over it's use to our elected representatives. How is that not the same thing? Are you asking me what the difference is between common ownership and collective or joint ownership? No. I'm asking what the difference is between having property privately owned by the government and property that is collectively owned but the government has authority over its use. The government doesn't own anything privately. We own it collectively and the elected representatives as our delegated authority decides on the terms and conditions of individual use. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MK
|
This disagreement makes me want to ask:
What percentage of my life (including my property) should I be allowed to own?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The Gun you have Pointed at me is Awfully Distracting. Please put it down and then I'll listen.
|
|
|
|
ggeezz
|
The government doesn't own anything privately. We own it collectively and the elected representatives as our delegated authority decides on the terms and conditions of individual use.
What I asked is what is the difference between the two. When you own land, you get to decide what happens to it, and you reap any profits from its use, or decide to let someone else have those profits. I don't see any difference, |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
WendellBerry
|
The government doesn't own anything privately. We own it collectively and the elected representatives as our delegated authority decides on the terms and conditions of individual use.
What I asked is what is the difference between the two. When you own land, you get to decide what happens to it, and you reap any profits from its use, or decide to let someone else have those profits. I don't see any difference, True collective or joint ownership would require FULL consensus from all of the other owners prior to anyone using. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
WendellBerry
|
This disagreement makes me want to ask:
What percentage of my life (including my property) should I be allowed to own?
The more important question is what property that I own potential infringes upon other's individual equal rights? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ggeezz
|
The government doesn't own anything privately. We own it collectively and the elected representatives as our delegated authority decides on the terms and conditions of individual use.
What I asked is what is the difference between the two. When you own land, you get to decide what happens to it, and you reap any profits from its use, or decide to let someone else have those profits. I don't see any difference, True collective or joint ownership would require FULL consensus from all of the other owners prior to anyone using. I didn't ask what the difference was between true collective ownership and government/public property. I asked what the difference was between government-managed collective property and government owned private property. Sometimes you're hard to talk to. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
WendellBerry
|
Sometimes you're hard to talk to. Sometimes you're hard to understand. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ggeezz
|
Sometimes you're hard to talk to. Sometimes you're hard to understand. I'm sorry about that, but I thought I was being clear. If I wasn't clear, perhaps you could point out where I went wrong so I could avoid that in the future. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
WendellBerry
|
Sometimes you're hard to talk to. Sometimes you're hard to understand. I'm sorry about that, but I thought I was being clear. If I wasn't clear, perhaps you could point out where I went wrong so I could avoid that in the future. There is no such thing as "government owned private property"...if it is owned by the government then it is collective. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ggeezz
|
Sometimes you're hard to talk to. Sometimes you're hard to understand. I'm sorry about that, but I thought I was being clear. If I wasn't clear, perhaps you could point out where I went wrong so I could avoid that in the future. There is no such thing as "government owned private property"...if it is owned by the government then it is collective. There's a difference between something not existing and something being indefinable or incomprehensible. When you said that I'm hard to understand, I took it to mean you meant the latter. If the government can be described as a corporation in which we all have equal voting shares (and I think that's a correct description), then land owned by the government is "government owned private property." That is, there's no difference between government owned land and land owned by a corporation in which all citizens have equal voting shares. And that's my understanding of how the government views its own property. Do you disagree that that is how the government views its property or how it should view its property? Or do you think I'm speaking nonsense? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
WendellBerry
|
Sometimes you're hard to talk to. Sometimes you're hard to understand. I'm sorry about that, but I thought I was being clear. If I wasn't clear, perhaps you could point out where I went wrong so I could avoid that in the future. There is no such thing as "government owned private property"...if it is owned by the government then it is collective. There's a difference between something not existing and something being indefinable or incomprehensible. When you said that I'm hard to understand, I took it to mean you meant the latter. If the government can be described as a corporation in which we all have equal voting shares (and I think that's a correct description), then land owned by the government is "government owned private property." That is, there's no difference between government owned land and land owned by a corporation in which all citizens have equal voting shares. And that's my understanding of how the government views its own property. Do you disagree that that is how the government views its property or how it should view its property? Or do you think I'm speaking nonsense? Most corporations don't have equal voting shares. Your votes are based on the number of shares you own. Joint or collective ownership is based on 1 man/1 vote. Typically that means you need consensus for all decisions or the rules set-up prior have some sort of deviation from that ideal (majority rule, etc). Common ownership is completely different...it is individual equal ownership. Private ownership is individual control. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Alex Free Market
|
First appropriation is beset with any number of problems.
Suppose he decides to drill a well and start a bottling plant on the site which lowers the underground water table below a number of homeowners' drilled wells. Has he violated anyone's rights?
How is that any more problematic than if he had a private well on his property and did the exact same thing? Or did just about anything with his land where the issue of competing liberty interests might arise. The answer as to whether he is infringing on anyones rights, remains the same, regardless of whether he is using homesteaded land, or traditionally "bought and paid for" private land which has long since passed the first possession phase of original acquisition. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 04, 2009, 08:23:45 pm by Alex Free Market »
|
Logged
|
It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. - James Madison, The Federalist No. 62
|
|
|
|
WendellBerry
|
First appropriation is beset with any number of problems.
Suppose he decides to drill a well and start a bottling plant on the site which lowers the underground water table below a number of homeowners' drilled wells. Has he violated anyone's rights?
How is that any more problematic than if he had a private well on his property and did the exact same thing? Or did just about anything with his land where the issue of competing liberty interests might arise. The answer as to whether he is infringing on anyones rights, remains the same, regardless of whether he is using homesteaded land, or traditionally "bought and paid for" private land which has long since passed the first possession phase of original acquisition. So in the case of groundwater - is he violating anyone's rights? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Alex Free Market
|
Was Cory digging for groundwater?
We seemed to have jumped from a conversation of the question of whether he should be digging holes in the ground for purposes of planting, on town controlled land, into a discussion on something he wasn't doing at all. If what he is doing is violating others rights, then obviously he can't do it.
If we want to start a thread on the topic of natural resources and how that ties in with the boundaries and contours of property rights, I'm sure everyone would be glad to chime in on that discussion.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 05, 2009, 11:46:27 am by Alex Free Market »
|
Logged
|
It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. - James Madison, The Federalist No. 62
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 
|
|
|
 |
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
