Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 ... 10   Go Down

Author Topic: Why Privatize Utilites? Shouldn't the People Own Them?  (Read 29780 times)

Garthnak

  • FSP Participant
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 52
  • Small "L" llamatarian
Re:Why Privatize Utilites? Shouldn't the People Own Them?
« Reply #45 on: November 21, 2003, 10:35:40 pm »

Garthnak,
I'm not sure seeing it first applies any longer.  Few, if any of us acquired the land we own by virtue of seeing it first.  These days, our land is purchased by our money, which is the product of our labors.
Yes, but the original owner had to "see it first".  You buy the land with your money from someone who bought it with money, from someone who bought it with money, from someone who bought it with money (....etc....) from someone who saw it first.  Thus you don't actually gain any more legitimacy.  It's just as if you purchased something that was stolen - you still don't own it, it belongs to the original owner.  (note that I am not implying land is "stolen", it is merely an analogy; there is no original owner of land)
Logged

LeopardPM

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2248
Re:Why Privatize Utilites? Shouldn't the People Own Them?
« Reply #46 on: November 22, 2003, 08:16:35 am »

Garthnak,
Isn't every good traceable back to land?  Trees = wood = chair
So are you saying that even though I made the chair, from wood I bought, which was once a tree, which grew all by itself without any help from man, on land with cannot be owned - that I should not be able to claim total ownership over that chair?

In regards to the 'kindergarten philosophy' of who saw it first:
This stems from two things: (1) ownership of ones body, ie: selfownership (2) and the fact that two bodies cannot habit the same 3-D space at the same time.  So, if I have a right to self-ownership, and I occupy a 3-D space 'unowned' by anyone else, then I must own that space merely because I was the first there.  By extension, this must then be applied to 'initial' land ownership.

Supposed a land were unowned.  I go into this land and sit down.  I then own the parcel I am sitting on - and it is wrong for someone to try and sit on me because that is an initiation of force.  It is not kindergarten, it is selfownership.

michael
Logged
nothing to say...

BillG

  • Guest
Re:Why Privatize Utilites? Shouldn't the People Own Them?
« Reply #47 on: November 22, 2003, 10:47:29 am »

Quote
Isn't every good traceable back to land?  Trees = wood = chair
So are you saying that even though I made the chair, from wood I bought, which was once a tree, which grew all by itself without any help from man, on land with cannot be owned - that I should not be able to claim total ownership over that chair?

strawman - as soon as labor is applied to the land to make a product (chair) it becomes he property of the person who made it.
No matter how much labor applied man can not make the matter which makes up our material world. End of story no matter how many little "dutch boys" you trot out.

Quote
I then own the parcel I am sitting on - and it is wrong for someone to try and sit on me because that is an initiation of force.

by the logic of first use you would only own wherever your foot prints are nothing more better yet what is under your butt wherever you are sitting now...is this getting absurd or what?
Logged

LeopardPM

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2248
Re:Why Privatize Utilites? Shouldn't the People Own Them?
« Reply #48 on: November 22, 2003, 11:05:51 am »

Quote
Isn't every good traceable back to land?  Trees = wood = chair
So are you saying that even though I made the chair, from wood I bought, which was once a tree, which grew all by itself without any help from man, on land with cannot be owned - that I should not be able to claim total ownership over that chair?

strawman - as soon as labor is applied to the land to make a product (chair) it becomes he property of the person who made it.
No matter how much labor applied man can not make the matter which makes up our material world. End of story no matter how many little "dutch boys" you trot out.
Ok BillG, so as soon as I apply labor to land, THEN it is mine (unless someone else owns it before me)?  stick with this labor/land discussion and please don't bring up the rest of your circular arguments.  if you agree that labor applied to wood = property (property which is totally owned and not taxable), then the same must be true for all matter in the universe, as you say because man cannot make matter in the first place...
The knots you tie yourself into and try to tie me - I ain't going there...

Quote
Quote
I then own the parcel I am sitting on - and it is wrong for someone to try and sit on me because that is an initiation of force.

by the logic of first use you would only own wherever your foot prints are nothing more better yet what is under your butt wherever you are sitting now...is this getting absurd or what?
um, I was using that as an example of how being the first in a given space is related to selfownership - obviously that space is extended to include other space which was unowned at the time you 'owned' it with yourself.  This is not a hard concept.  You cannot, from the earth, claim ownership of mars - if you travel to mars, then you can start to claim property rights - your physical presence is required.
Logged
nothing to say...

BillG

  • Guest
Re:Why Privatize Utilites? Shouldn't the People Own Them?
« Reply #49 on: November 22, 2003, 12:22:21 pm »

Quote
Ok BillG, so as soon as I apply labor to land, THEN it is mine

No it isn't. Whatever you produce *from* the land is yours but not the land itself because you do not produce it. Land exists prior to any labor and no amount of labor will produce land (as in matter)...a chair does not exist prior to labor.

why is this so hard to see other than the fallacies of your argument come tumbling down like the deck of cards it is built on?

Quote
your physical presence is required

is it "continually" required?

because in order to occupy 3D space you actually have to be *there* as in occupying...

your example of having someone "sit on you" suggests that it is...
« Last Edit: November 22, 2003, 12:25:07 pm by BillG (not Gates) »
Logged

LeopardPM

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2248
Re:Why Privatize Utilites? Shouldn't the People Own Them?
« Reply #50 on: November 22, 2003, 02:39:53 pm »

Quote
Ok BillG, so as soon as I apply labor to land, THEN it is mine

No it isn't. Whatever you produce *from* the land is yours but not the land itself because you do not produce it. Land exists prior to any labor and no amount of labor will produce land (as in matter)...a chair does not exist prior to labor.

and around we go - I will not get back on your dizzying ride...

Quote
Quote
your physical presence is required

is it "continually" required?

because in order to occupy 3D space you actually have to be *there* as in occupying...

your example of having someone "sit on you" suggests that it is...
I am showing how property rights are DERIVED from selfownership.  Man has created organizations (usually government) which recognize certain rights in order to help protect these.  Without government or some organization, then, yes, you would have to continually protect any and all of your property from the desires of others which means physical presense - thru government we do not need to expend such vast quantities of energy in defence - and this protection extends to property where your body 'has been' in regards to land, ie: the entirety of your lands title.  Even in an AnCap society, the need to define and clarify 'property rights' would be possible without government (so they contend) - but either way, the need is there.
Logged
nothing to say...

<Patrick>

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 911
  • Radical Capitalist
    • Ayn Rand Institute
Re:Why Privatize Utilites? Shouldn't the People Own Them?
« Reply #51 on: November 22, 2003, 02:59:00 pm »

     
Quote
If this was applied to capitalism, then the first person to every build a building would be the ONLY one EVER allowed to build ANY buildings ever again, throughout the history of the society.  This goes for the wheel, grown food, bow and arrow, and even the discovery of fire.

     I think there is a big difference between an idea such as the wheel, and physical matter, such as land. An idea can be duplicated and shared by as many people as can learn it. Land is land. It can't be treated in the same way as an idea.

Quote
It is not kindergarten, it is selfownership

     Thank you.

Quote
The precise philosophical and moral basis for your view is "I saw it first!  Mine!"  That's kindergarten ethics.

     You can belittle my ideas and call them whatever you want. I still think if I find something first I should own it. Why should I pay someone else for their permission to keep it? What's in it for me?

     The only argument they can possibly give me is that if I don't, they'll force me, and there are more of them than me. This is the argument of a thug.

   
I suppose that "I don't care if you were there first! Give me some!  I'll bash your teeth in if you don't share it with me!" is the more refined view?

 
« Last Edit: November 22, 2003, 03:04:54 pm by New Intellectual »
Logged
"I came here to say that I do not recognize anyone’s right to one minute of my life.  Nor to any part of my energy.  Nor to any achievement of mine… I wished to come here and say that I am a man who does not exist for others."
-Ayn Rand
http://www.aynrand.org
http://capitalism.org

BillG

  • Guest
Re:Why Privatize Utilites? Shouldn't the People Own Them?
« Reply #52 on: November 22, 2003, 03:27:16 pm »

Quote
I think there is a big difference between an idea such as the wheel, and physical matter, such as land. An idea can be duplicated and shared by as many people as can learn it. Land is land. It can't be treated in the same way as an idea

yet when we point out all the ways land shouldn't be treated like labor-based property or capital as a commodity we are called every name in the book!

This is a double standard...

Quote
Why should I pay someone else for their permission to keep it?

Because it was a gift for all to be used equally and without access to land you are advocating a system in direct violation of the basic tenet of libertarianism...self-ownership.

we have the right to life therefore to *be*. As such, inorder to *be* we have to *be* somewhere. Because all land is claimed it is required that we have to pay a "rent" to *be* somewhere which ends up coming from the fruits of our labor. And what is exchanged from the landowner for the "tax" on our labor?

NOTHING

and why?

Because the landowner does not *produce* the land OR the value that naturally attaches to locations from outside forces (population increases, public infrastructure investments, neighbors improving their property).

A non-voluntary tax for no service rendered is called one thing in my book...

SLAVERY

 
« Last Edit: November 22, 2003, 03:29:15 pm by BillG (not Gates) »
Logged

<Patrick>

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 911
  • Radical Capitalist
    • Ayn Rand Institute
Re:Why Privatize Utilites? Shouldn't the People Own Them?
« Reply #53 on: November 22, 2003, 03:28:19 pm »

Quote
And what if someone totally seperately comes from another land (say, for example, a tribe from Africa who mirculously created seafaring ships), undertakes the perilous voyage to Iceland and "discovers" it themselves.  Have they also not "earned" the same right to that land? You're "I got here first" theory still doesn't seem to show why 'first discovery' implies _ownership_.

     Garthnak, this is a very interesting idea.

      I would say that if the Vikings got there before the Africans, and were already living there when the newcomers arrived, then they would have to say:

"Sorry guys. We were here first, and all the land is already claimed."    

     However...since this is a hypothetical example, let's also say the Vikings who occupy Iceland when the Africans arrive are mostly benevolent, rational people who allow the Africans to trade with them, and buy or rent land from them as well. Over time land would be owned by a mixture of people decended from both groups.

     As long as the newcomers are willing to respect the fact that someone else is already living there, and the land is already claimed, they can still gain from peacefull trade and interaction with the preexisting population.    
     
Logged
"I came here to say that I do not recognize anyone’s right to one minute of my life.  Nor to any part of my energy.  Nor to any achievement of mine… I wished to come here and say that I am a man who does not exist for others."
-Ayn Rand
http://www.aynrand.org
http://capitalism.org

<Patrick>

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 911
  • Radical Capitalist
    • Ayn Rand Institute
Re:Why Privatize Utilites? Shouldn't the People Own Them?
« Reply #54 on: November 22, 2003, 03:41:27 pm »

Quote
Because it was a gift for all to be used equally

From whom? This is quite a statement to make.

     I see no basis for calling nature a "gift." All we can know about nature is that it exists and that it's here.

Quote
yet when we point out all the ways land shouldn't be treated like labor-based property or capital as a commodity we are called every name in the book!

     I agree that there is a big difference between land and labor based capital. It's just that I don't belive it follows from these differences that land cannot be owned outright without taxation.

Quote
we have the right to life therefore to *be*. As such, inorder to *be* we have to *be* somewhere

     I will repeat this yet again: Your need of land to live does not give you the right to demand a share of land already occupied by others. Need is not a valid claim.
Logged
"I came here to say that I do not recognize anyone’s right to one minute of my life.  Nor to any part of my energy.  Nor to any achievement of mine… I wished to come here and say that I am a man who does not exist for others."
-Ayn Rand
http://www.aynrand.org
http://capitalism.org

BillG

  • Guest
Re:Why Privatize Utilites? Shouldn't the People Own Them?
« Reply #55 on: November 22, 2003, 04:02:24 pm »

Quote
I will repeat this yet again: Your need of land to live does not give you the right to demand a share of land already occupied by others. Need is not a valid claim

You conveniently left off the other half of the argument...

We are not demanding "a share of land" we are demanding the  'economic scarcity rent"" be returned to the rightful owners otherwise you have a system that promotes slavery which is antithetical to libertarianism because inorder to *be somewhere* you have to pay (forced) the entiltled who provides NO service in exchange.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2003, 04:04:50 pm by BillG (not Gates) »
Logged

Kyle

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 328
  • I'm a llama!
Re:Why Privatize Utilites? Shouldn't the People Own Them?
« Reply #56 on: November 22, 2003, 05:20:30 pm »

Quote
I will repeat this yet again: Your need of land to live does not give you the right to demand a share of land already occupied by others. Need is not a valid claim

You conveniently left off the other half of the argument...

We are not demanding "a share of land" we are demanding the  'economic scarcity rent"" be returned to the rightful owners otherwise you have a system that promotes slavery which is antithetical to libertarianism because inorder to *be somewhere* you have to pay (forced) the entiltled who provides NO service in exchange.
Don't they provide residency?  Seems like a fair transaction to me.
Logged

BillG

  • Guest
Re:Why Privatize Utilites? Shouldn't the People Own Them?
« Reply #57 on: November 22, 2003, 05:36:06 pm »

Quote
Don't they provide residency?  Seems like a fair transaction to me.

no - we are not talking about buildings which are labor-based property. We are talking strictly about land...
Logged

underwater

  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 257
  • A Normal Geolibertarian
Re:Why Privatize Utilites? Shouldn't the People Own Them?
« Reply #58 on: November 22, 2003, 05:46:25 pm »

Quote
I will repeat this yet again: Your need of land to live does not give you the right to demand a share of land already occupied by others. Need is not a valid claim

You conveniently left off the other half of the argument...

We are not demanding "a share of land" we are demanding the  'economic scarcity rent"" be returned to the rightful owners otherwise you have a system that promotes slavery which is antithetical to libertarianism because inorder to *be somewhere* you have to pay (forced) the entiltled who provides NO service in exchange.
Don't they provide residency?  Seems like a fair transaction to me.

Ah, yes, and so did the Kings of old. Kyle, I am entirely convinced that you would have been a Tory during the Revolutionary War. Why should man bow to kings, dukes, and barons? Because they saw land first? They are not owners, they are slave masters - and you are their apologist. You need to square your Objectivist philosophy that rightly champions creation and productivity with the implicit threat of force (backed by government) that enforces the "ownership" of land area.
Logged
- I will only vote for people that live in my local community and that are willing to meet with me to discuss the issues.
- I will only pay a tax (preferably a LVT) that is levied by my local community and spent on local infrastructure improvements and security.
- To me, FedGov does not exist.

Sc0ttiej

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 77
  • It's time
Re:Why Privatize Utilites? Shouldn't the People Own Them?
« Reply #59 on: November 22, 2003, 05:46:40 pm »

I have something to throw into the mix.  How does that fact that this continent was basically stolen from the natives who lived here factor in?  It's kind of a moot point 400 years later, but it seems that prospering from injustices done by this evil government, goes against this property rights argument.  I guess you could say that propery is only yours if you can defend it against agressors, but something still doesn't sound right.  If someone either takes a piece of property by force or coerses the owner, using whisky,  into selling it for pennies on the dollar, isn't that still a form of theft or fraud?  And by buying the property from this thief, aren't you condoning the fraud?  And does buying said stolen propery really give you ownership?  Does the fact that the original owners are dead make a difference?  Like I said before, probably a moot point but I think it still raises interesting questions.  Does the end justify the means?
« Last Edit: November 22, 2003, 05:48:48 pm by Sc0ttiej »
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 ... 10   Go Up
 

anything