 Poll
|
| Question: |
The Statement of Intent recognizes "the protection of ... property"; does this protection thus extend to land? Should such definitions (either way) be made explicit by the Board of Directors?
| Yes, land falls within individual property rights, and the FSP should make this clear |
   77 (55.8%) |
| Yes, land falls within individual property rights, but the FSP should remain neutral |
43 (31.2%) |
| No, land does not fall within individual property rights, and the FSP should make this clear |
5 (3.6%) |
| No, land does not fall within individual property rights, but the FSP should remain neutral |
13 (9.4%) |
|
|
| Total Voters: 130 |
|
 Author
|
Topic: Is land "property" in SOI? (Read 50738 times)
|
|
sonio
|
It's not that simple to answer because you limit your choices too much. Wendell likes to pretend that he is giving you a purely hypothetical question, when he is actually baiting you because the only answer anyone can come to is the one he wants to hear. He forgets there is always choice and therein, his argument becomes meaningless. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
It is sobering to reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence. – Charles A. Beard
|
|
|
|
WendellBerry
|
It's not that simple to answer because you limit your choices too much. Wendell likes to pretend that he is giving you a purely hypothetical question, when he is actually baiting you because the only answer anyone can come to is the one he wants to hear. He forgets there is always choice and therein, his argument becomes meaningless. Just to be clear. I didn't originate this poll. Someone else did. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
justinapeterswv
Guest
|
Basically, all that "right" implies is the idea that you, and others (your government/friends/neighbours/etc) who are willing to help you, can do whatever is necessary to protect your "rights" to life, liberty, and property (your typical "natural rights") What does a right to self-ownership mean then in this context? "self-ownership", the idea that you and you alone have interest and authority over your own body, would fit under your natural rights to liberty (your right to do as you see fit with your own body), life (your right to not be denied life/body by the aggression of others), and property (as your body is your sole property, justly acquired) and therefore you would be morally permitted to do whatever is necessary to protect these rights. Maybe that explains it, maybe not. If all land is privately owned, where can one stand to exercise the right of self-ownership that doesn't have to be gifted or purchased? Either: 1. we are not born with rights - they are purchased or gifted. Or 2. the right of exclusive use of land has to be limited in some way (see Jason's thread on property not being absolute). you are not born with the ownership of property you are born with the "right" to justly acquire property, the only property you are born with is your body we are born with the right of self-ownership and ownership of the results of our labor is the natural extension of that right. so property rights are the result of mixing one's labor with the external world to produce capital. you can't *produce* via your labor that which pre-exists your labor. exactly, phrased differently, but exactly So which is it? Either: 1. we are not born with rights - they are purchased or gifted. Or 2. the right of exclusive use of land has to be limited in some way. It's not that simple to answer because you limit your choices too much. To respond to #1: You are born with the rights to life, liberty, and property, but the property you are "born with" is limited to your body. To respond to #2: The right of exclusive use of land is limited to that land which you have justly/morally acquired. So yes, it is limited in "some way" If all of #2 is legally occupied (all locations on the dry surface of the earth), then where can you *be* that doesn't require a gift or purchase (justly/morally acquired) that negates our right that we are born with? Nowhere, they are limited, you only have the "right" to acquire property through effort/gift/purchase, you do not have a natural claim to any piece of land |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
justinapeterswv
Guest
|
It's not that simple to answer because you limit your choices too much. Wendell likes to pretend that he is giving you a purely hypothetical question, when he is actually baiting you because the only answer anyone can come to is the one he wants to hear. He forgets there is always choice and therein, his argument becomes meaningless. lol, yeah I noticed, i don't mind biting on occasion though |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
WendellBerry
|
Nowhere, they are limited, you only have the "right" to acquire property through effort/gift/purchase, you do not have a natural claim to any piece of land Do you see the absurdity of then having the fundamental tenet of libertarianism the absolute right of self-ownership? For those that don't own they have no right to be anywhere. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
justinapeterswv
Guest
|
Nowhere, they are limited, you only have the "right" to acquire property through effort/gift/purchase, you do not have a natural claim to any piece of land Do you see the absurdity of then having the fundamental tenet of libertarianism the absolute right of self-ownership? For those that don't own they have no right to be anywhere. The right of self ownership does not imply that you have the right to claim property owned by others; it simply claims that you have the right to keep, and dispose of at your will, any product of your life and labor (your property). Aggression (you trying to take someone else's owned property and therefor infringe upon their rights) is not permitted under strict, textbook Libertarianism. There is no "absurdity" in saying that you have the right of ownership to the products (i.e. property) of your life and labor and then stating that you also have the right to keep those products (i.e. property) safe from the aggression of others (your suggestion that people have a general claim of ownership to property prior to producing any labor, which is necessary to getting anything beyond a gift, whereas a gift is someone else's right to dispose of their property/product as they see fit). Also, land and property are not interchangeable terms. Property includes all material and non-material products of your life and labor, whereas land is strictly ground on the earth. As far as ground on the earth goes, there is only a limited supply of ground to go around, so you must pay a higher price (through money, labor, effort, "the product of your life and labor") to have a just claim to such property. It is like diamonds in a world market. Nobody would claim that everybody has the right to own diamonds, but nobody would argue that everyone has the right to own diamonds. Simply, there are only so many diamonds to go around. But, of course, you would say that the people that DO own diamonds have not only the right to do so, but also the right to keep thieves, swindlers and cheats from taking their diamonds. Simply because not every person can own a specific type of property, such as land or diamonds (because of its limited supply), it does not mean that not all people have the right to own property. Right and actual ownership are not the same. Simply because you have the right to something does not mean that others are obliged to provide you with that something. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
WendellBerry
|
The right of self ownership does not imply that you have the right to claim property owned by others; it simply claims that you have the right to keep, and dispose of at your will, any product of your life and labor (your property). Then the right of self and the right of "property" (a location) external to self - which our bodies all must occupy simultaneously while *being* - are fundamentally at odds if all locations on the dry-surface of the earth are legally occupied. I am sorry but there is no way around this fact and thus libertarianism itself is illogically derived... A right is either something we are born with or not. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
justinapeterswv
Guest
|
The right of self ownership does not imply that you have the right to claim property owned by others; it simply claims that you have the right to keep, and dispose of at your will, any product of your life and labor (your property). Then the right of self and the right of "property" (a location) external to self - which our bodies all must occupy simultaneously while *being* - are fundamentally at odds if all locations on the dry-surface of the earth are legally occupied. I am sorry but there is no way around this fact and thus libertarianism itself is illogically derived... A right is either something we are born with or not. property is not necessarily land, you keep going back to land, property is NOT always land the right to something does not require actually possessing it. i have the right to own whatever i choose to go out and justly acquire. this does not mean that you have to give me a Porsche and a mansion, just that you cannot take them from me without my permission. your attempting to debunk Libertarianism based upon an illogical argument. your premises are fouled and you do not understand the idea of "right" or "property" or "Libertarianism" if you think that since there is not enough of something for everyone then nobody has a right to that something. There isn't enough of virtually anything for everybody, but everybody has the right to own these things. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
WendellBerry
|
The right of self ownership does not imply that you have the right to claim property owned by others; it simply claims that you have the right to keep, and dispose of at your will, any product of your life and labor (your property). Then the right of self and the right of "property" (a location) external to self - which our bodies all must occupy simultaneously while *being* - are fundamentally at odds if all locations on the dry-surface of the earth are legally occupied. I am sorry but there is no way around this fact and thus libertarianism itself is illogically derived... A right is either something we are born with or not. property is not necessarily land, you keep going back to land, property is NOT always land the right to something does not require actually possessing it. The right of self-ownership as the fundamental tenet of libertarianism actually has to mean occupying a location that isn't gifted or purchased. Since it would be impossible to achieve this, then simply sharing the economic rent upholds the tenet. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
justinapeterswv
Guest
|
The right of self ownership does not imply that you have the right to claim property owned by others; it simply claims that you have the right to keep, and dispose of at your will, any product of your life and labor (your property). Then the right of self and the right of "property" (a location) external to self - which our bodies all must occupy simultaneously while *being* - are fundamentally at odds if all locations on the dry-surface of the earth are legally occupied. I am sorry but there is no way around this fact and thus libertarianism itself is illogically derived... A right is either something we are born with or not. property is not necessarily land, you keep going back to land, property is NOT always land the right to something does not require actually possessing it. The right of self-ownership as the fundamental tenet of libertarianism actually has to mean occupying a location that isn't gifted or purchased. Since it would be impossible to achieve this, then simply sharing the economic rent upholds the tenet. "Occupation" and "Possession" are not synonyms. Even if you were going to grant your idea, which is arguable in my opinion, still, these two ideas are very much different. Possession implies that you have exclusive rights to such land, whereas occupation implies that you simply are, well just that, occupying a space. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
WendellBerry
|
The right of self ownership does not imply that you have the right to claim property owned by others; it simply claims that you have the right to keep, and dispose of at your will, any product of your life and labor (your property). Then the right of self and the right of "property" (a location) external to self - which our bodies all must occupy simultaneously while *being* - are fundamentally at odds if all locations on the dry-surface of the earth are legally occupied. I am sorry but there is no way around this fact and thus libertarianism itself is illogically derived... A right is either something we are born with or not. property is not necessarily land, you keep going back to land, property is NOT always land the right to something does not require actually possessing it. The right of self-ownership as the fundamental tenet of libertarianism actually has to mean occupying a location that isn't gifted or purchased. Since it would be impossible to achieve this, then simply sharing the economic rent upholds the tenet. "Occupation" and "Possession" are not synonyms. Even if you were going to grant your idea, which is arguable in my opinion, still, these two ideas are very much different. Possession implies that you have exclusive rights to such land, whereas occupation implies that you simply are, well just that, occupying a space. I agree... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BagOfEyebrows
|
The right of self ownership does not imply that you have the right to claim property owned by others; it simply claims that you have the right to keep, and dispose of at your will, any product of your life and labor (your property). Then the right of self and the right of "property" (a location) external to self - which our bodies all must occupy simultaneously while *being* - are fundamentally at odds if all locations on the dry-surface of the earth are legally occupied. I am sorry but there is no way around this fact and thus libertarianism itself is illogically derived... A right is either something we are born with or not. property is not necessarily land, you keep going back to land, property is NOT always land the right to something does not require actually possessing it. The right of self-ownership as the fundamental tenet of libertarianism actually has to mean occupying a location that isn't gifted or purchased. Since it would be impossible to achieve this, then simply sharing the economic rent upholds the tenet. this is what will keep happening when philosophies start with rights - go read Bastiat - everything begins with an understand of the universal laws we are all born with/knowing. Replace any mentions of God with laws/principles, and it will make more sense to your kind of mind (one of 'reason') |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
adirondeau
|
Nowhere, they are limited, you only have the "right" to acquire property through effort/gift/purchase, you do not have a natural claim to any piece of land Do you see the absurdity of then having the fundamental tenet of libertarianism the absolute right of self-ownership? For those that don't own they have no right to be anywhere. That's correct, now get off my lawn... Your STILL a socialist... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you do what you have always done, you'll get what you've always got...
A man's mind stretched to an new idea never goes back to its original dimension...
|
|
|
|
adirondeau
|
The right of self ownership does not imply that you have the right to claim property owned by others; it simply claims that you have the right to keep, and dispose of at your will, any product of your life and labor (your property). Then the right of self and the right of "property" (a location) external to self - which our bodies all must occupy simultaneously while *being* - are fundamentally at odds if all locations on the dry-surface of the earth are legally occupied. I am sorry but there is no way around this fact and thus libertarianism itself is illogically derived... A right is either something we are born with or not. property is not necessarily land, you keep going back to land, property is NOT always land the right to something does not require actually possessing it. i have the right to own whatever i choose to go out and justly acquire. this does not mean that you have to give me a Porsche and a mansion, just that you cannot take them from me without my permission. your attempting to debunk Libertarianism based upon an illogical argument. your premises are fouled and you do not understand the idea of "right" or "property" or "Libertarianism" if you think that since there is not enough of something for everyone then nobody has a right to that something. There isn't enough of virtually anything for everybody, but everybody has the right to own these things. Hence the AMERICAN DREAM... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you do what you have always done, you'll get what you've always got...
A man's mind stretched to an new idea never goes back to its original dimension...
|
|
|
|
 |
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
