For my Libertarian friends - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784

Posted: September 29 2010 at 14:28

akamaisondufromage wrote:

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

The T wrote:

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

What natural resources?

If there's oil on land I've purchased than I own them.

In general though I would say nobody owns them. I take a Lockian view on that.

Just a question: how did you get to own the land? You purchased it... how did the seller get to acquire it? And if we go further back, how did the first owner acquire it? How has this been here in the US?

John Locke wrote:

]Though the earth and all inferior creatures be common to all men, yet every man has a "property" in his own "person." This nobody has any right to but himself. The "labour" of his body and the "work" of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that Nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with it, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property.

So you don't own the land? But if you dig it up the oil is yours? Or you own the land and the oil?

By the way you said the roads would be private, so the road outside my house would be owned by X and X then can charge me for using it?

And the Police would be paid for by private donations? You think that would happen?

If you own land containing resources, then they are yours.

If there exists land and resources owned by nobody, then the homesteading principle as quoted above applied.

Yes, the road outside your house would be owned by X and X would charge you for using it. Much like now the government owns the road and charges you $.18 per gallon of gas federally and on average $.272 per gallon on the state level.

Yes I think that would happen. People donate to political campaigns, and telefons, and food banks, none of which are nearly as important to them as a police force.

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Negoba

Prog Reviewer

Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210

Posted: September 29 2010 at 13:39

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

What? I have a family. We grow food on our land. That's not restricting your freedom. We're producing the food. It would not have otherwise been there.

It comes down to ideas about interdependence. I think this is a fact of life, and needs to be recognised. Not in some happy hippy dippy but simply realizing that independence is never complete. Then we get into arguing degrees again and that's useless unless we're actually hashing out a solution.

I think it comes down to you seem to think you're able to do anything there are no consequences for, while I hold that some things are wrong regardless of consequences.

Well I have my personal beliefs about morality that are probably pretty conservative on the whole. Where I differ is what I think I get to say about other's actions. The common ground we all have is basically the law of the jungle. Eat or be eaten. That's why I use it as the basis and build up from there. That doesn't change across time or culture.

1) Look it up. I'm no expert on the Anarcho-Conception.

2) Roads would be private. All public works would be made private excluding the police and courts. Their money would come from voluntary donation.

It seems impractical but having never seen it in action I guess that's just an opinion.

That's true. But since nearly every function of government can be done more efficiently by private firms, then it follows that we don't need government.

Well that's a debatable point, (though probably correct over 50% of the time.) Efficiency isn't the only measuring stick and private firms have their own problems in other areas. (Getting necessary but less profitable things done. It's not their fault, they're just not designed to do things that don't generate profit.)

There are laws against theft and aggression. No private firm can break them. You can be prosecuted for doing so.

How is a private firm prosecuted other than being held financially responsible?

The government can not.

The government can is is held financially responible all the time.

You can take the government to court, but it writes the laws and allows itself power of aggression.

I'm not sure what the qualifier means, or how it applies

I don't see what you can possible argue. It's fact.

What is a fact? By law, I am a representative of the federal government. You cannot sue me for malpractice, only the fed for providing the care. Doctors do get sued and lose under this system.

The T

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493

Posted: September 29 2010 at 13:35

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

The T wrote:

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

What natural resources?

If there's oil on land I've purchased than I own them.

In general though I would say nobody owns them. I take a Lockian view on that.

Ds most lands here get acquired through the "labour" of his body and the work of his hands? Was it like this in the early days of this country?

akamaisondufromage View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: May 16 2009
Location: Blighty
Status: Offline
Points: 6797

Posted: September 29 2010 at 13:33

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

The T wrote:

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

What natural resources?

If there's oil on land I've purchased than I own them.

In general though I would say nobody owns them. I take a Lockian view on that.

So you don't own the land? But if you dig it up the oil is yours? Or you own the land and the oil?

By the way you said the roads would be private, so the road outside my house would be owned by X and X then can charge me for using it?

And the Police would be paid for by private donations? You think that would happen?

Help me I'm falling!

Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784

Posted: September 29 2010 at 13:00

The T wrote:

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

What natural resources?

If there's oil on land I've purchased than I own them.

In general though I would say nobody owns them. I take a Lockian view on that.

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784

Posted: September 29 2010 at 12:58

Negoba wrote:

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Ok? You said any social institution resitricts freedom. Replace store with family or any social institution. Me having a family doesn't restrict your freedom.

Well I'm not part of that social structure unless we're in the same "tribe" where food is take what you need, then you having a family most definitely restricts my freedom. Your family will have more access to food than me as a single would.

What? I have a family. We grow food on our land. That's not restricting your freedom. We're producing the food. It would not have otherwise been there.

I agree. You said government stops from being able to take whatever you want. It does not do that. You just admitted that. That's the contradiction.

This is a subtle point and maybe it's a bigger deal than I think. In an absolute sense I can always do whatever I want. The only thing any social structure does is provide consequences on certain choices. When I'm discussing free anarchy as the base state, I guess there's some circularity. Contradiction? I guess at that point it's semantics.

I think it comes down to you seem to think you're able to do anything there are no consequences for, while I hold that some things are wrong regardless of consequences.

It does not. Anarcho-Capitalism works on a system of private courts to enforce contracts. Government doesn't exist. Minimal Government Libertarians require basic functions of government, but demand incredibly strict restraints such as having no power to tax.

How do these private courts differ from current civil courts? Is there any set of consequences from crime other than personal / vigilante justice? In #2, how does the small government perform even its basic functions without tax? Public works require pooled resources. If a road is being built, where does the money come from?

1) Look it up. I'm no expert on the Anarcho-Conception.

2) Roads would be private. All public works would be made private excluding the police and courts. Their money would come from voluntary donation.

I need food to live, but I can still criticize an overcooked steak. An institution being needed does not preclude the ability to do wrong.

This is actually a point I've been thinking all along (or perhaps its reverse). Inefficiency in government or even corruption in government doesn't necessarily mean we don't need government.

That's true. But since nearly every function of government can be done more efficiently by private firms, then it follows that we don't need government.

Private entities don't have legal authority to use force. If you punch me, I take you to court. If you steal from me, I take you to court. If the government steals from me, Oh well. If the government assassinates me, oh well it has the legal authority to do so.

Anyone can take anyone to court, including the state. And win. (I can give examples if you doubt me on this.)

There are laws against theft and aggression. No private firm can break them. You can be prosecuted for doing so. The government can not. You can take the government to court, but it writes the laws and allows itself power of aggression. I don't see what you can possible argue. It's fact.

I said "our society". They are the basis of American society. That's my point.

You've provided a moral point of view. I've really provided a legal system. I agree with you mostly on morals I would think, but you want morality legislated while I do not.

I actually don't know what I want for sure. I would like a system with certain characteristics, and I'm not sure the best way to create those.

Fair enough.

Yes you did:

Negoba wrote:

IMO, the libertarian position breaks down with its choice not to put the same scrutiny on the social convention of property rights that it does on other ideas

By "position" I mean the set of ideas, which is slightly different than system (a functioning governmental model). It's again semantics at that point, but again my opinion is that the distinctions separating government from other power holding institutions is blurry at best. But we disagree on that, we've established that.

You should speak more colloquially and we probably won't have these semantical problems with the difference between libertarian position and libertarian system.

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784

Posted: September 29 2010 at 12:52

Trademark wrote:

The unborn, apparently are the mother's "Property" and under a Libertarian Proper-topia she would be free to do whatever she wanted with it as a simple matter of property rights.

Nope.

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784

Posted: September 29 2010 at 12:51

Negoba wrote:

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

I agree it was a terrible decision.

I think private property rights lead us to the exact opposite conclusion.

How so? (Curious where the private property rights come in)

To be short, the case hinges on the supposed fact that the fetus is intruding upon the woman's body. However, the sexual act obviously has the consequence of pregnancy. This then to me constitutes a de facto invitation for the fetus to enter the woman's body.

Once there the woman still has a right to expell it, but there are limitations to the expulsion power. For example, if you own an airplane and invite me to come aboard, you may not kick me off of the plane while it is in flight. There was implicit in your invitation the understanding that it was not an invitation to a death wish. Since the fetus' fate is death from a mother's expulsion, abortion, then as above she does not have the right to remove the fetus.

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Negoba

Prog Reviewer

Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210

Posted: September 29 2010 at 12:38

He said "Opposite conclusion."

Have you read anything about the decision. There's a lot of double speak and evasion of the issue.

Trademark

Forum Senior Member

Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009

Posted: September 29 2010 at 12:25

^ ^In "Proper-topia" none of that Matters T, because there is no right and wrong, only profit and loss. In the free market system it doesn't matter how I got it, all that matters is making sure that I have it and you don't.

Edited by Trademark - September 29 2010 at 12:25

Padraic

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169

Posted: September 29 2010 at 12:23

The T wrote:

And if we go further back, how did the first owner acquire it?

They simply took it from people who thought it was impossible to "own" land.

At the beginning of English settlements, it quickly became apparent that the "New World" had a seemingly infinite supply of land, so much so that the King would grant tens of thousands of acres to noblemen as gifts, etc.

The T

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493

Posted: September 29 2010 at 12:17

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

What natural resources?

If there's oil on land I've purchased than I own them.

In general though I would say nobody owns them. I take a Lockian view on that.

Trademark

Forum Senior Member

Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009

Posted: September 29 2010 at 11:51

The unborn, apparently are the mother's "Property" and under a Libertarian Proper-topia she would be free to do whatever she wanted with it as a simple matter of property rights.

Negoba

Prog Reviewer

Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210

Posted: September 29 2010 at 10:02

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

I agree it was a terrible decision.

I think private property rights lead us to the exact opposite conclusion.

How so? (Curious where the private property rights come in)

Negoba

Prog Reviewer

Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210

Posted: September 29 2010 at 09:59