Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[BillG]

Person Y, if she is smart, says in reply to X: "I have the one thing you don't have and can never have being alone  on this island, the ability to be your sexual partner. I am willing to trade it to you for half the island."

See how easily the free market solves all these problems?

Now THIS would be the best possible outcome!

I think it is called "economic scarcity rent"...

Bill, can you explain how ESR would apply to this thought experiment?

Come on, haven't landlords been known to do the same thing...sex in exchange for exclusive use?

what is the difference here beside the medium of exchange?

[<Patrick>]

Person Y, if she is smart, says in reply to X: "I have the one thing you don't have and can never have being alone  on this island, the ability to be your sexual partner. I am willing to trade it to you for half the island."

See how easily the free market solves all these problems?

Now THIS would be the best possible outcome!

I think it is called "economic scarcity rent"...

Bill, can you explain how ESR would apply to this thought experiment?

Come on, haven't landlords been known to do the same thing...sex in exchange for exclusive use?

what is the difference here beside the medium of exchange?

You misunderstand. I am seriously asking you to show how ESR applies to this situation.

[Mike Lorrey]

What Bill doesn't seem to realize is that his assertion can be taken both ways: that the woman's self-ownership is an economic scarcity, part of which she must pay to the other inhabitant in sexual favors, i.e. a sex slave, according to Georgist principles....

[BillG]

What Bill doesn't seem to realize is that his assertion can be taken both ways: that the woman's self-ownership is an economic scarcity, part of which she must pay to the other inhabitant in sexual favors, i.e. a sex slave, according to Georgist principles....

well according to the premise of the thread - the land is scarce.

[RhythmStar]

If there is enough food and water to sustain 2, then the firstcomer is morally bound to share the island.  If there is not, then the newcomer is morally bound to seek the next island.  Neither has a claim sufficient to sentence the other to death.

By what code of morality?

By the theory that all individuals are equally endowed with individual rights.  If either individual denies the right of the other to live, then they essentially deny their own humanity and thus their own rights.  

The firstcomer has the right to the portion of the island they use directly, but the claim on the rest does not trump the newcomer's right to live.

OTOH, the newcomer has no right to force the firstcomer to accept a situation that would mean the death of the firstcomer.  So, if insufficient resources exist on the island to sustain both, then the newcomer must agree to take his (or her) chances on finding another spot (there could be no way to know if there were others).  

When selfishness is elevated to a religion, can there be compassion, or any inalienable rights?

RS

[Mike Lorrey]

What Bill doesn't seem to realize is that his assertion can be taken both ways: that the woman's self-ownership is an economic scarcity, part of which she must pay to the other inhabitant in sexual favors, i.e. a sex slave, according to Georgist principles....

well according to the premise of the thread - the land is scarce.

Not as scarce as the poontang. The guy can't guard the whole island. THe girl just has to cross her legs.

Besides, the land is easily divisible. Are you planning on cutting her vagina in half???

[<Patrick>]

If there is enough food and water to sustain 2, then the firstcomer is morally bound to share the island.  If there is not, then the newcomer is morally bound to seek the next island.  Neither has a claim sufficient to sentence the other to death.

By what code of morality?

By the theory that all individuals are equally endowed with individual rights.  If either individual denies the right of the other to live, then they essentially deny their own humanity and thus their own rights.  

The firstcomer has the right to the portion of the island they use directly, but the claim on the rest does not trump the newcomer's right to live.

OTOH, the newcomer has no right to force the firstcomer to accept a situation that would mean the death of the firstcomer.  So, if insufficient resources exist on the island to sustain both, then the newcomer must agree to take his (or her) chances on finding another spot (there could be no way to know if there were others).  

When selfishness is elevated to a religion, can there be compassion, or any inalienable rights?

RS

What is the basis for your belief in inalienable rights?

[<Patrick>]

When selfishness is elevated to a religion, can there be compassion, or any inalienable rights?

Sure compassion is possible, indeed, it is a virtue in the proper context. There is no dichotomy between self-interest and benevolence. Its usually in one's self-interest to be nice to people.

But I don't see how rights can be an intrinsic part of human nature. I think rights are concepts that require a social context to be valid--principles that define the best way for humans to coexist.

[BillG]

What Bill doesn't seem to realize is that his assertion can be taken both ways: that the woman's self-ownership is an economic scarcity, part of which she must pay to the other inhabitant in sexual favors, i.e. a sex slave, according to Georgist principles....

well according to the premise of the thread - the land is scarce.

Not as scarce as the poontang. The guy can't guard the whole island. THe girl just has to cross her legs.

Besides, the land is easily divisible. Are you planning on cutting her vagina in half???

presumably "man" (should I say a "few" men of a certain sexual orientation?)can live without "poontang" but not without access to land or in other words actually *being* somewhere as in 3 dimensional space (location)

[Terry 1956]

If there is enough food and water to sustain 2, then the firstcomer is morally bound to share the island.  If there is not, then the newcomer is morally bound to seek the next island.  Neither has a claim sufficient to sentence the other to death.

By what code of morality?

what code of morality allows firstcomer to their claim?

law of the jungle?

                                                                             
  They only have first claim if they are using it or have put work into it.

[Terry 1956]

I would need to know what is the reason for leaving Haiti in this hypothetical...

What difference does that make?

If person Y has access to as good and as much land as is needed on Haiti then her mission can be inferred to be one of conquest...

Very well. No, the newcomer is not just going out to take away people's land. He is fleeing from the current civil war going on in Haiti.

It is my observation that we are all born equally free therefore the natural world is to be shared equally. So I am with RS...

the real moral problem occurs when there is no place to go (no other island)...

Ok. Let's assume that there is nowhere else to go. This island is all there is. Now what?

The way I see it, they have two choices. Either resort to violence or work out a peaceful resolution.

                                                                           
  Although a peaceful resolution might not be a just resolution, it would be a good idea to take that into account if they ever come into contact with others. Also if it is a just as well as a temporary resolution it has a  better chance of cutting down on future violence.

[LeopardPM]

However, I note that, without a 3rd-party arbiter such as the State, then there is no land title per se.

all the state does in regards to title is 'enforce' or 'protect' it. the 'it' being private property, thus, a property owner appeals to the state to protect his land (title) from others.  Without the state, the 'title' still exists by nature of the first person 'claiming' it - and instead of resorting to the state for protection, this person must provide for it himself.

There is no need for a 3rd party arbitrater, the claim of the first wolf to a particular region by peeing on the boundry is sufficient, the second wolf can either respect that claim, make a plea against the claim, or immorally try to usurp the first wolf's claim.  as it is in nature, so be it in man... (I know THAT statement WILL be used against me at a later date, so I do not necessarily stand by it in all cases, I am not thinking univerally right now...)

wishing a woman would migrate to his island,
michael

[<Patrick>]

Let's put the idea of economic scarcity in the simplest terms possible:

"Person X" lives on a tiny island by himself with his imaginary friend, Wilson. The entire island is about one square acre and contains but a single fruit bearing tree which he lives off.

"Person Y," a refugee from Haiti in a raft, washes up on the shore one day.

"This land is mine!" Person X calls out to Person Y, "Go and find your own goddamned island!"

"No!" Cries Person Y, "You did not create this island. It is as much mine as it is yours. You must share this island equally with me. Do I not have a right to exist? How can I exist if I cannot exist somewhere?"

"Go to hell!" replies Person X, "You didn't create it either. I have no positive moral obligation to allow you on this island. I was here first so why should I care about what you need? Why is it my problem? Go away."

So who is right?

The person who has a gun or other means to secure and defend his posession of the island.

But what if they both have a gun? Then do you think it would be wise to resort to violence?

[<Patrick>]

If there is enough food and water to sustain 2, then the firstcomer is morally bound to share the island.  If there is not, then the newcomer is morally bound to seek the next island.  Neither has a claim sufficient to sentence the other to death.

By what code of morality?

what code of morality allows firstcomer to their claim?

law of the jungle?

                                                                             
  They only have first claim if they are using it or have put work into it.

He is using it but he has not mixed his labor with it. He just lives there.

[Top Dollar]

The person who has a gun or other means to secure and defend his posession of the island.

But what if they both have a gun? Then do you think it would be wise to resort to violence?

If they both have guns than it would be a matter of which one is more adept at using one.  They may also come to a mutual agreement, but it is hard to see how any agreement would leave the current resident of the island better off than before the newcomer arrived.  The two together may be able to exchange skills to achieve a higher standard of living for both.