Print

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

[Tracy Saboe]

The only COMMON property rights that exist are those rights that the market hasn't figured out how to define and defend privately yet. Oil drillers have figured out methods for defining Oil wells as private property, so they should be treated as such! You would deny the driller to the right's to the FRUITS OF HIS LABOR? (Since you seem so fixated on that notion.)

You obviously didn't understand a thing you read in FME. They talked about how private ownership of aquafers (In which each land owner owns a share of the water) is based on the methods that oil drilling companies figured out to define oil property rights.

You have the book there. Read the Chapter on Water.  It's called "going with the Flow" Specifically the subheading "Groundwater" on page 114.

Tracy

[<Patrick>]

What would you call somebody who falls along the barrier between conservative and libertarian on the Nolan chart?  how about liberal and libertarian?  Naturally, the purists would write them off, after all, the purists, in their quest to have a small tent and attract a small crowd, are eager to write off anyone who isn't after the immediate implementation of the zero-aggression principle.  But what do you think?

Libertarianism is neither right nor left. So why create terms such as "Right" and "Left" libertarianism?

I think we need to have a "big tent" view of the FSP if we are to have enough people to make any progress. Such is the way of the real world.

But as far as libertarianism is concerned, it is defined by consistency in principle. We advocate liberty across the board, period. The right does not advocate total liberty and neither does the left - both call for some form of authority. Thus to say that someone is a "right libertarian" or "left libertarian" is like saying someone is an "authoritarian libertarian." That's a contradiction in terms.

But since the FSP is not a libertarian organization it does not really matter anyway. As long as we all agree to the statement of intent, what's the big deal?

[<Patrick>]

I DO think self-ownership is a right but I DON'T think we need to institute geoism to secure said right. YOU are the one who claims that we can't have self-ownership without geoism - prove it.

How can it be a universal right if you have to purchase the right to *be* somewhere inorder to exercise your faculties and thus self-ownership?

Again, this is not eighteenth century France...

All you need in modern America in order to exercise your faculties is access to the market. Everything one needs to survive is available through trade.

There is no contradiction given this context.

Look at it this way: The free market is the context in which you have the universal right to exercise your faculties. As long as we have equality under the law, everyone has the same opportunity to live and flourish in society. We do not need to grant any positive rights to land.

this is a complete contradiction...

I am glad to see that you agree with Aristotle that one should not hold contradictions in one's thinking.

How does this square with your view that the "world is paradoxical?"

[<Patrick>]

Bill's arguments about a NEED for land, really aren't in principle any different then the socialist argument that everybody NEEDS food, or everybody NEEDS medical care, or everybody NEEDS education.

So what?

Tracy

He would point out the distinction between labor-based and land-based property. But the fact remains that just because someone needs something does not mean that others are obligated to provide them with it. I don't care if I did not create the land with my labor. If I was there first I do not consider other people's need for land a claim to a positive obligation on my part.

Need does not equal entitlement - contrary to FDR there are no positive rights.

if a few landed have an entitlement to the wages of the many landless then there can be no freedom for anyone!

There is no aristocratic "landed few." Many people own land. The market for land is wide open. Look around you, we are not living in the middle ages!

[BillG]

The free market is the context in which you have the universal right to exercise your faculties.

Here is the crux of the matter folks!

a right is not "universal" if you have to purchase it from someone or someone else "gifts it" to you...it something we are all born with.

[rdeacon]

I think we need to have a "big tent" view of the FSP if we are to have enough people to make any progress. Such is the way of the real world.

But as far as libertarianism is concerned, it is defined by consistency in principle. We advocate liberty across the board, period. The right does not advocate total liberty and neither does the left - both call for some form of authority. Thus to say that someone is a "right libertarian" or "left libertarian" is like saying someone is an "authoritarian libertarian." That's a contradiction in terms.

But since the FSP is not a libertarian organization it does not really matter anyway. As long as we all agree to the statement of intent, what's the big deal?

I've always disagreed with the LP's strict view of libertarianism, it's half the reason that the party will never evolve into a major party.  "I believe in principles of freedom, but they are not the only principle that I believe in."  Somebody who says the preceeding quote would be a libertarian, but he might not fall at the tip of the diamond.  Perhaps he doesn't agree that drug legalization would benefit society, so he'd swing closer to the right.  Or perhaps he believes in a wealth tax, so he'd swing closer to the left.  Both of these people should be considered libertarian, but we, in our infinite wisdom, typically shut them out, so the guy on the left runs off to the Greens, the guy on the right runs off to the Republicans or the Constitution Party, and we find ourselves left with an Ayn Rand reading group listening to Harry Browne in a coffee shop.

[nonluddite]

I've always disagreed with the LP's strict view of libertarianism, it's half the reason that the party will never evolve into a major party.  "I believe in principles of freedom, but they are not the only principle that I believe in."  Somebody who says the preceeding quote would be a libertarian, but he might not fall at the tip of the diamond.  Perhaps he doesn't agree that drug legalization would benefit society, so he'd swing closer to the right.  Or perhaps he believes in a wealth tax, so he'd swing closer to the left.  Both of these people should be considered libertarian, but we, in our infinite wisdom, typically shut them out, so the guy on the left runs off to the Greens, the guy on the right runs off to the Republicans or the Constitution Party, and we find ourselves left with an Ayn Rand reading group listening to Harry Browne in a coffee shop.

Right, there needs to be a party (The Liberty Party?) that captures the libertarian HALF of the Nolan Chart, as opposed to the Dems and Reps that basically capture the left and right sides.  In that way you would know that your base is at least willing to listen to those Ayn Rand readers, and as a group would slowly reduce the size and scope of government.

[<Patrick>]

I've always disagreed with the LP's strict view of libertarianism, it's half the reason that the party will never evolve into a major party.  "I believe in principles of freedom, but they are not the only principle that I believe in."  Somebody who says the preceeding quote would be a libertarian, but he might not fall at the tip of the diamond.  Perhaps he doesn't agree that drug legalization would benefit society, so he'd swing closer to the right.  Or perhaps he believes in a wealth tax, so he'd swing closer to the left.  Both of these people should be considered libertarian, but we, in our infinite wisdom, typically shut them out, so the guy on the left runs off to the Greens, the guy on the right runs off to the Republicans or the Constitution Party, and we find ourselves left with an Ayn Rand reading group listening to Harry Browne in a coffee shop.

Right, there needs to be a party (The Liberty Party?) that captures the libertarian HALF of the Nolan Chart, as opposed to the Dems and Reps that basically capture the left and right sides.  In that way you would know that your base is at least willing to listen to those Ayn Rand readers, and as a group would slowly reduce the size and scope of government.

Good idea

[<Patrick>]

The free market is the context in which you have the universal right to exercise your faculties.

Here is the crux of the matter folks!

a right is not "universal" if you have to purchase it from someone or someone else "gifts it" to you...it something we are all born with.

Nobody is born with a right to own land.
If there is no unclaimed land left, tough luck.

[BillG]

The free market is the context in which you have the universal right to exercise your faculties.

Here is the crux of the matter folks!

a right is not "universal" if you have to purchase it from someone or someone else "gifts it" to you...it something we are all born with.

Nobody is born with a right to own land.
If there is no unclaimed land left, tough luck.

land meaning occupying 3D space...if you can't in order to freely excercise your facilities without having to pay for it - how can you believe in the universal right to self-ownership?

do you believe in the fundamental right to self-ownership?

[Morpheus]

so the guy on the left runs off to the Greens,

A Party which wants to bring about full-scale Socialism and the destruction of private property.

the guy on the right runs off to the Republicans or the Constitution Party

And a Party which wants to bring about full-scale Theocracy and the death of homosexuals.

They who would join, or affiliate in any way, with either Party I would say is an individual who probably was not with us on most other issues either. Good riddance.

When are you going to understand, Justin, that we accomplish nothing if we cannot even recruit people who will VOTE FOR OUR PRINCIPLES?!?!

[RhythmStar]

>vote on principles

Some folks would rather be (self) righteous and unsuccessful than otherwise.  

If you took a list of 10 high-priority DOABLE points that might be accomplished on any reasonably realistic ballot in NH in the next 10 years, I think you will find that the correlation between BillG's votes and my own with the general libertarian thrust and (especially) the stated goals of the FSP would be very, very high.  

I disagree with a lot of people on a lot of things.  However, political success DOES NOT COME for those who let disagreement rule their coalition-building efforts.  You can only win that game by finding people who will vote with you on specific issues, even if you disagree with them on the very color of the Moon.

RS

[<Patrick>]

>vote on principles

Some folks would rather be (self) righteous and unsuccessful than otherwise.  

If you took a list of 10 high-priority DOABLE points that might be accomplished on any reasonably realistic ballot in NH in the next 10 years, I think you will find that the correlation between BillG's votes and my own with the general libertarian thrust and (especially) the stated goals of the FSP would be very, very high.  

I disagree with a lot of people on a lot of things.  However, political success DOES NOT COME for those who let disagreement rule their coalition-building efforts.  You can only win that game by finding people who will vote with you on specific issues, even if you disagree with them on the very color of the Moon.

RS

FWIW I would vote for a tax shift. Getting taxes off buildings and on land only would be a step in the right direction.

[Tracy Saboe]

Here is the crux of the matter folks!

a right is not "universal" if you have to purchase it from someone or someone else "gifts it" to you...it something we are all born with.

I need FOOD to live right? The right to Life is not universal if I am forced to purchase food for it, or purccase medicle care, or purchase shelter, or whatever else, for it.

In this argument of yours land (a Place oi stand) is no more a necesity of living then food, shelter, mecicle care, or anything else. I have to purchase my right to life everytime I buy food. By your logic (Except, I forgot, you don't believe in logic, you embrace the paradoxes), people should give me food, and other things I need to survive as well.

Tracy

[Tracy Saboe]

FWIW I would vote for a tax shift. Getting taxes off buildings and on land only would be a step in the right direction.

Maybe, maybe not. Not if the government rasies taxes to compensate. -- Which I'm sure it would. 2ndly, AS I've Pointed out many times, And Bill still hasn't been able to dispute it. (see http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=46;action=display;threadid=5808
I made a long time ago) it's impossible to seperate the "developement," from the "undevelopement."

In the mean time, the taxes that are left (that monitarily might just very well be exactly the same as what they were if they increase taxes on the land part to compensate -- which you know they will -- this is government we're talking about.) have a stamp of aproval by a libertarian! You don't see how this undermines our movement of reducing government and reducing taxes?

Tracy