|
WendellBerry
|
The fruits of people's labor -- whether in homesteading a cave or building a skyscraper -- can be transferred on a voluntary basis, but widespread tolerance for their re-appropriation through violence makes advanced levels of civilization impossible. A building is the fruit of someone's labor and thus is called "capital". A cave is not the fruit of anyone's labor and thus is called "land" |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
antistate1190
|
The fruits of people's labor -- whether in homesteading a cave or building a skyscraper -- can be transferred on a voluntary basis, but widespread tolerance for their re-appropriation through violence makes advanced levels of civilization impossible. A building is the fruit of someone's labor and thus is called "capital". A cave is not the fruit of anyone's labor and thus is called "land" So how would you define property rights? In your perfect society what would property rights be like? Give me a detailed description. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
WendellBerry
|
The fruits of people's labor -- whether in homesteading a cave or building a skyscraper -- can be transferred on a voluntary basis, but widespread tolerance for their re-appropriation through violence makes advanced levels of civilization impossible. A building is the fruit of someone's labor and thus is called "capital". A cave is not the fruit of anyone's labor and thus is called "land" So how would you define property rights? In your perfect society what would property rights be like? Give me a detailed description. There would be labor-based property and law-based property. Law-based property rights based on privilege require an obligation to those you exclude. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
B.D. Ross
|
I think your system has a competitive disadvantage.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Alex Libman
Guest
|
Why would that society be more rational and free than that of indigenous peoples? |
I don't have anything against "indigenous peoples", what exactly do you mean? Its certainly nothing natural. |
Please oh please tell me you're not really that illiterate... Please tell me you don't actually think that the philosophical concept of nature (ex. Natural Law, or physics being a " natural science") always has something to do with primitivism and trees and people walking around in loincloths... And if governance is to maintain private property, rather than require extreme efforts of the individual to claim natural territorial ownership... then obviously it must exist. |
A centralized coercive government is not needed to enforce Property Rights any more than it is needed to enforce mathematics. Justice must be documented on the basis of evidence and open inquiry. Monopolies only benefit secrecy and error. A cave is not the fruit of anyone's labor and thus is called "land" |
Which is useless just by itself. A cave on the 5th planet of some solar system 20 light-years away has no value to anyone on Earth, or at least not yet. Natural resources must be brought into the economy in order to be useful - someone must attain access to them first! Law-based property rights based on privilege require an obligation to those you exclude. |
Which form do I fill out to claim obligations from hot college girls who exclude me from their vaginas?  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
RichW
|
Which form do I fill out to claim obligations from hot college girls who exclude me from their vaginas? A copy can be found in section 303(r) 1-4 of the Fairness in Accessing Erogenous Zones Act of 2009. I wish they processed claims faster. I am owed a ton of money. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"... it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds...." ~ Samuel Adams
|
|
|
|
John Edward Mercier
|
Your not being excluded based on law... your being excluded based on nature.
Ever read the constitutions of Native Nations.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
John Edward Mercier
|
I think your system has a competitive disadvantage.
Its the system we currently use. Its why my property taxes go to cover education... and in return, hopefully I get something for those taxes. But alas, I think I may be getting shafted. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
John Edward Mercier
|
The fruits of people's labor -- whether in homesteading a cave or building a skyscraper -- can be transferred on a voluntary basis, but widespread tolerance for their re-appropriation through violence makes advanced levels of civilization impossible. A building is the fruit of someone's labor and thus is called "capital". A cave is not the fruit of anyone's labor and thus is called "land" So how would you define property rights? In your perfect society what would property rights be like? Give me a detailed description. Mutualists would be something like this... The land is & shall remain the common property, but the improvements made thereon and in possession of, are the exclusive & indefeasible property of the individual(s) respectively who made or may rightfully be in possession of them. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
WendellBerry
|
Natural resources must be brought into the economy in order to be useful - someone must attain access to them first! To exist as a human being on this earth you de facto occupy a location - they are one in the same. Your axiomatic premise starts out "everything in the natural world that pre-exists human labor is unowned" until labor is applied to discover or mixed with to become "capital". My axiomatic premise is "everything in the natural world that pre-exists human labor starts out owned in common" as an individual equal access/use opportunity right. From your premise you can not construct a world where all land is privately owned and everyone has their absolute right of self-ownership intact. From my premise you can...it is the only premise that will work. Which form do I fill out to claim obligations from hot college girls who exclude me a human being with the absolute right of self-ownership is not "capital" nor are they "land" |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
antistate1190
|
Natural resources must be brought into the economy in order to be useful - someone must attain access to them first! To exist as a human being on this earth you de facto occupy a location - they are one in the same. Your axiomatic premise starts out "everything in the natural world that pre-exists human labor is unowned" until labor is applied to discover or mixed with to become "capital". My axiomatic premise is "everything in the natural world that pre-exists human labor starts out owned in common" as an individual equal access/use opportunity right. From your premise you can not construct a world where all land is privately owned and everyone has their absolute right of self-ownership intact. From my premise you can...it is the only premise that will work. Which form do I fill out to claim obligations from hot college girls who exclude me a human being with the absolute right of self-ownership is not "capital" nor are they "land" If it's MY private property, if I was the one there first and if I was the one who worked all the land then it's mine. I have every right to charge people who use it. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
WendellBerry
|
Natural resources must be brought into the economy in order to be useful - someone must attain access to them first! To exist as a human being on this earth you de facto occupy a location - they are one in the same. Your axiomatic premise starts out "everything in the natural world that pre-exists human labor is unowned" until labor is applied to discover or mixed with to become "capital". My axiomatic premise is "everything in the natural world that pre-exists human labor starts out owned in common" as an individual equal access/use opportunity right. From your premise you can not construct a world where all land is privately owned and everyone has their absolute right of self-ownership intact. From my premise you can...it is the only premise that will work. Which form do I fill out to claim obligations from hot college girls who exclude me a human being with the absolute right of self-ownership is not "capital" nor are they "land" If it's MY private property, if I was the one there first and if I was the one who worked all the land then it's mine. I have every right to charge people who use it. You think you are describing something new to me after being on this forum for 6 plus years? You can't create a society where everyone has their absolute right of self-ownership upheld when all land is privately owned. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
John Edward Mercier
|
Natural resources must be brought into the economy in order to be useful - someone must attain access to them first! To exist as a human being on this earth you de facto occupy a location - they are one in the same. Your axiomatic premise starts out "everything in the natural world that pre-exists human labor is unowned" until labor is applied to discover or mixed with to become "capital". My axiomatic premise is "everything in the natural world that pre-exists human labor starts out owned in common" as an individual equal access/use opportunity right. From your premise you can not construct a world where all land is privately owned and everyone has their absolute right of self-ownership intact. From my premise you can...it is the only premise that will work. Which form do I fill out to claim obligations from hot college girls who exclude me a human being with the absolute right of self-ownership is not "capital" nor are they "land" If it's MY private property, if I was the one there first and if I was the one who worked all the land then it's mine. I have every right to charge people who use it. The Natives would be more than willing to agree with you. Others will most likely want you hung by the neck until dead. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
antistate1190
|
Natural resources must be brought into the economy in order to be useful - someone must attain access to them first! To exist as a human being on this earth you de facto occupy a location - they are one in the same. Your axiomatic premise starts out "everything in the natural world that pre-exists human labor is unowned" until labor is applied to discover or mixed with to become "capital". My axiomatic premise is "everything in the natural world that pre-exists human labor starts out owned in common" as an individual equal access/use opportunity right. From your premise you can not construct a world where all land is privately owned and everyone has their absolute right of self-ownership intact. From my premise you can...it is the only premise that will work. Which form do I fill out to claim obligations from hot college girls who exclude me a human being with the absolute right of self-ownership is not "capital" nor are they "land" If it's MY private property, if I was the one there first and if I was the one who worked all the land then it's mine. I have every right to charge people who use it. You think you are describing something new to me after being on this forum for 6 plus years? You can't create a society where everyone has their absolute right of self-ownership upheld when all land is privately owned. Why not? What's wrong with total private ownership? Making everything commons would destroy individualist liberty. Private property is the foundation of freedom. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
antistate1190
|
Natural resources must be brought into the economy in order to be useful - someone must attain access to them first! To exist as a human being on this earth you de facto occupy a location - they are one in the same. Your axiomatic premise starts out "everything in the natural world that pre-exists human labor is unowned" until labor is applied to discover or mixed with to become "capital". My axiomatic premise is "everything in the natural world that pre-exists human labor starts out owned in common" as an individual equal access/use opportunity right. From your premise you can not construct a world where all land is privately owned and everyone has their absolute right of self-ownership intact. From my premise you can...it is the only premise that will work. Which form do I fill out to claim obligations from hot college girls who exclude me a human being with the absolute right of self-ownership is not "capital" nor are they "land" If it's MY private property, if I was the one there first and if I was the one who worked all the land then it's mine. I have every right to charge people who use it. The Natives would be more than willing to agree with you. Others will most likely want you hung by the neck until dead. The natives had no concept of property rights. Most of their lands were held in common meaning people were slaves to the community. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
265014 Posts in 21194 Topics by 34921 Members / Latest Member: BethShnibss
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
Author
