Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 ... 22   Go Down

Author Topic: Can geo-libertarianism even be called libertarianism?  (Read 73521 times)

BillG

  • Guest
Re:Can geo-libertarianism even be called libertarianism?
« Reply #15 on: December 05, 2003, 02:51:06 pm »

Quote
C'mon, Bill, they let you back in -- why not play nice?

can't we poke a little fun too? I mean Michael refuses to refer to me as a Geo-Libertartian...calling me a Georgists instead...

Quote
if you are bringing more children into this world than you can provide for, in terms of water, food, clothing, shelter or "space," that is your problem, not mine

Quote
precisely the same as do food, drink, shelter, clothing and a degree of freedom from noxious gasses


Once again - and again - you are confounding the difference between labor-based property and title-based property. Parents do not "provide" you with air except in AnCap's crappy dystopic fiction where they have to buy it outright for you or rent it...and if you don't have the money "oh well, some people will have to die" all in the name of "freedom" for the entitled few though!

Quote
I would suggest that producing children does not create any obligation on one's neighbors, only upon oneself

as long as your "entitlement" to the commons does not interfere with anyone else's rights which is definitely NOT the case with regards to land and more clearly NOT with regards to air...
« Last Edit: December 05, 2003, 02:52:02 pm by BillG (not Gates) »
Logged

JRedwine

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 46
Re:Can geo-libertarianism even be called libertarianism?
« Reply #16 on: December 05, 2003, 02:51:23 pm »

Quote
There is no such thing as "right to life" in this context.  In this, it's an empty political phrase.  It's a phrase taken from the anti-abortion movement, and it has meaning there, but that's not the subject here.

From the FSP's FAQ:

"Anyone who can agree to the clause in the Statement of Intent which says that you should support the creation of a society in which the maximum role of civil government is the protection of citizens' rights to life, liberty, and property. In essence, this includes everyone who wants to cut the size and scope of government by about two-thirds or more. ...

Where that says "rights to life" it means protection from unjust death at the hands of others.  That relates to "initiation of force" not self-ownership.  As I understand it.

Besides which, you might want to take a good look at that word "property."  A citizen's right to property doesn't mean everyone shares it.
:)
Logged

BillG

  • Guest
Re:Can geo-libertarianism even be called libertarianism?
« Reply #17 on: December 05, 2003, 03:07:35 pm »

Quote
There is no such thing as "right to life" in this context.  In this, it's an empty political phrase.  It's a phrase taken from the anti-abortion movement, and it has meaning there, but that's not the subject here.

From the FSP's FAQ:

"Anyone who can agree to the clause in the Statement of Intent which says that you should support the creation of a society in which the maximum role of civil government is the protection of citizens' rights to life, liberty, and property. In essence, this includes everyone who wants to cut the size and scope of government by about two-thirds or more. ...

Where that says "rights to life" it means protection from unjust death at the hands of others.  That relates to "initiation of force" not self-ownership.  As I understand it.

Besides which, you might want to take a good look at that word "property."  A citizen's right to property doesn't mean everyone shares it.
:)


You mean like someone denying you access to air to breath?

The point is that classical liberals (like Thomas Jefferson) documented a distinct difference between property you "produced" via your own labor and property that you are "entitled to possess" because it pre-exists human labor...

from the FSP FAQ:
"People of this disposition may go by many names: "classical liberals" (not the same as modern liberals at all, but followers of Thomas Jefferson and similar thinkers), libertarians, paleoconservatives, constitutionalists, voluntarists, etc., etc."

Thomas Jefferson:
"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of [landed] property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.  Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as common stock for man to labour and live on.  If, for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be furnished to those excluded from the appropriation.  If we do not the fundamental right to labour the earth returns to the unemployed" (Thomas Jefferson, The Republic of Letters, p. 390).

« Last Edit: December 05, 2003, 03:14:16 pm by BillG (not Gates) »
Logged

JRedwine

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 46
Re:Can geo-libertarianism even be called libertarianism?
« Reply #18 on: December 05, 2003, 03:22:03 pm »

Once again - and again - you are confounding the difference between labor-based property and title-based property. ...

And you continue to confuse, or avoid, the difference between terrain and "land."

If it's urban land, somebody built houses and office buildings on it, and paved it, to make a city.  Their own effort to do that is what makes income from it possible.  There's no income from it as merely terrain.

If it's agricultural land, somebody cleared and cultivated it, to make a farm.  Again, that's what allows income.

And similarly for industrial parks, mines, and so on.  

The only "common land" is the general terrain.  It's worth nothing.  It has no economic value.  You would tax something that has no value.

What you're actually advocating is to steal the fruits of somebody else's labor.  All this "land" where people live and work was built up by labor.  It isn't just terrain.

Okay, let's say you can have the value of the "land" -- minus the buildings, minus the roads, minus the electric power lines, minus the water pipes, minus the cultivation, minus all the development of any kind.  And what have you got?  Scenery, that's all.  There's no economic value.
Logged

JRedwine

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 46
Re:Can geo-libertarianism even be called libertarianism?
« Reply #19 on: December 05, 2003, 03:27:40 pm »

You mean like someone denying you access to air to breath?

If you're having trouble breathing call 911.

Quote
The point is that classical liberals (like Thomas Jefferson) documented a distinct difference between property ...

So what?  By the way, the word is not "documented" it's "opined."
Logged

BillG

  • Guest
Re:Can geo-libertarianism even be called libertarianism?
« Reply #20 on: December 05, 2003, 03:33:17 pm »

how do you account for the unimprove "terrain" next to me in the form of a building lot with undisturbed forest on it fetching a price of 100K this past year then?

what has the owner of that land contributed via his (or hired) labor towards the value going from 50K when he bought it 7 years ago to 100K this year - ZERO, NADA, NOTHING, ZIPPO.

and where does this value come from?

his surrounding community and neighbors as they contribute their labor to improving their property and new people occupying *space*, plus public infrastructure investments...
Logged

<Patrick>

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 911
  • Radical Capitalist
    • Ayn Rand Institute
Re:Can geo-libertarianism even be called libertarianism?
« Reply #21 on: December 05, 2003, 04:39:11 pm »

Quote
what has the owner of that land contributed via his (or hired) labor towards the value going from 50K when he bought it 7 years ago to 100K this year - ZERO, NADA, NOTHING, ZIPPO.

and where does this value come from?

his surrounding community and neighbors as they contribute their labor to improving their property and new people occupying *space*, plus public infrastructure investments...

You're talking about positive externalities here, right?

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:Can geo-libertarianism even be called libertarianism?
« Reply #22 on: December 05, 2003, 04:49:55 pm »


     I will repeat my previous question:

     Do you recognize the difference between a positive right (a right TO something) and a negative right (the right to be LEFT ALONE)?

     The NAP/ZAP is a principle of negative right. We have the right NOT to be attacked or robbed, ect.

     A "right to a place to stand" sounds to me like a positive right. You're saying we all have a common right TO things pre-existing in nature like land, air, minerals, ect.

     

     


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

Herself

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1959
  • Western Science *is* *so* wonderful!
Re:Can geo-libertarianism even be called libertarianism?
« Reply #23 on: December 05, 2003, 04:53:05 pm »

Bill, once again, you make it plain that what you really object to is growth.  You hate it that some things are desirable and that price reflects desirability.

 Â    So what, a man invested (fancy word for "gambled") $50K and doubled his money in seven years; of course, he was out $50K for that long, too.  He didn't take anything from you.  In fact, for seven years, he did you a favor, by preserving a bit of woods.
 Â    In most cases (as I have pointed out in the past), having neighbors is a minus for real-estate value; not having them is a plus.  So don't claim that you and the other Jukes and Kalikaks (q.v.) helped run up the price by breeding like maggots.  And there must have been a road there, or you would never have been able to get all of you stuff there.
 Â    Yes, Bill, prices go up over time.  Shock, horror.  Some of this is due to inflation: in most cases, it takes more FRNs now to buy the same anything it did seven years ago.  Relative prices do vary; a Chevy's-worth of white bread might stay constant over seven years but their relationship to, oh, tanks of air may not be same.  So, too, housing; and one factor driving up the cost of building lots is that more people are able to buy them.
 Â    It's true, the rich are getting richer, but so are the middle class; and if we did not have a government deeply invested in maintaining hordes of dependent poor,* the poor would be getting richer, too; even as it is, America is one of the few places where you'll see fat poor people.
 Â    Who knows, perhaps they're eating their own surplus population, going Swift one better -- but it's more likely that, in any other country (except, perhaps, Canada), those "poor" people would be middle class.

 Â    "Geo-lib" ideals of forcible egalitarianism are anathema to libertarianism.  Jefferson's notions were based on a small, predominantly agricultural population and vast, seemingly nearly limitless lands.  Technological advance has rewritten the cultural matrix.  There is no "commons."  Good riddance; the last, wretched vestige of a hardscrabble tribalism, tossed on the pyre along with notions of chief, kings and superstition, to crumble into the nothingness that was always at its heart.

 Â    What's mine is mine.  You can't have any -- starve in the ditch if you won't work, never learned to dumpster-dive and begging doesn't fill your belly.  It won't mean any more for the rest of us: this isn't a zero-sum game.  Don't you dare claim your need constitutes a claim on others!  The lazy and improvident starve only themselves and their own familes.

 Â    --Herself
« Last Edit: April 09, 2005, 06:47:23 am by Herself »
Logged
Civilization in the United States ended by 1913.

BillG

  • Guest
Re:Can geo-libertarianism even be called libertarianism?
« Reply #24 on: December 05, 2003, 04:53:40 pm »

yes, we have a right not to be excluded from the use of the commons...
Logged

<Patrick>

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 911
  • Radical Capitalist
    • Ayn Rand Institute
Re:Can geo-libertarianism even be called libertarianism?
« Reply #25 on: December 05, 2003, 04:55:39 pm »

Quote
The point is that classical liberals (like Thomas Jefferson) documented a distinct difference between property you "produced" via your own labor and property that you are "entitled to possess" because it pre-exists human labor...

     Bill, you are aware that an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, right?

     Are you trying to make people feel guilt or glory by association here?

     If JEFFERSON said it, it MUST be true, who are you to argue with JEFFERSON...
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:Can geo-libertarianism even be called libertarianism?
« Reply #26 on: December 05, 2003, 04:57:21 pm »

Quote
yes, we have a right not to be excluded from the use of the commons...

So then you contend that this is a negative right, right?
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:Can geo-libertarianism even be called libertarianism?
« Reply #27 on: December 05, 2003, 04:58:58 pm »

I am simply pointing out that the premise of the title of this thread is wrong as stated by the goals of the FSP...
Logged

<Patrick>

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 911
  • Radical Capitalist
    • Ayn Rand Institute
Re:Can geo-libertarianism even be called libertarianism?
« Reply #28 on: December 05, 2003, 04:59:15 pm »


Can't post anymore today...

     Have to go to work to make money to pay my EVIL landlord rent.

     It's ok, though. When we run out of cheap oil, and the bullets start flying, he will be shot in the streets and I will get to live here rent-free.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
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:Can geo-libertarianism even be called libertarianism?
« Reply #29 on: December 05, 2003, 05:00:21 pm »

Quote
I am simply pointing out that the premise of the title of this thread is wrong as stated by the goals of the FSP...

Please explain.....
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
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 ... 22   Go Up
 

anything