I've just read an interesting article: Space junkies ask 'who owns the moon?' (http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-10024047-76.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20)
Apparently there is an "international law" that already answers the question:
QuoteThe Outer Space Treaty, the international law signed by more than 100 countries, states that the moon and other celestial bodies are the province of all mankind.
Same old crap. Of course, I am not surprised. The manking in question is still a predominantly socialist group, in their stupendous urge to boycott their own self in the name of an illusion they call "common good". So long as most people on Earth are this, excuse me for saying, STUPID, no place in space is a safe zone for liberty loving people, unless they build agorist companies who are capable of reaching farther and sooner than anyone else, including world governments.
I personally think that strong property ownership rights apply equally on Earth and anywhere in space - that is, wherever a human can be. To believe otherwise would mean being internally incosistent. I believe that the one who comes to a given place on the moon first, and marks his land, should be the rightful owner of that land. Period.
I didn't sign any Outer Space Treaty and I won't.
Indeed. They purport to be signed in the name of the people, but it's questionable how many of those people actually support that idea.
But, unfortunately, it seems rather too easy to imagine that most humans actually would agree with the sentiment of outer space being owned by all manking at once. They falsely hope that this would mean no wars outside of Earth. It also seems to be inline with the Star Trek vision of the future which I think can easily deceive people into thinking that cooperation barring competition is the way to go. It is a view which pits cooperation against competition instead of seeing competition as a form of cooperation. I know I've been in that boat myself, as a Star Trek fan.
You Can't Take the Sky From Me (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwkJPKK2mKs)
Quote from: gu3st on August 23, 2008, 08:42 AM NHFT
Apparently there is an "international law" that already answers the question:
QuoteThe Outer Space Treaty, the international law signed by more than 100 countries, states that the moon and other celestial bodies are the province of all mankind.
Since only a couple of governments, and perhaps a couple of private groups, have the resources to go to the moon if they wished, then "all mankind" is going to have a heckuva time defending their claim.
If I'm on the moon and "all mankind" is not, how are they going to stop me from mining or exploiting it in whatever way I choose?
I'm pretty sure its against the law for you to go to the Moon, Kevin. Sheesh!
Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on August 23, 2008, 03:02 PM NHFT
I'm pretty sure its against the law for you to go to the Moon, Kevin. Sheesh!
Not illegal per se, but you do need a license to leave the planet (http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/04/19/youll-need-a-license-to-leave-the-planet/).
License my a**. Meh. Why do I even bother paying any attention to these crooks and their stupidity.
I think I'm entering a yet another anger burst... I'll post what caused it in another thread.
I own the Moon.
It's mine! Stay off it!
Karma +1 for the Firefly video. I'm such a sucker for space anarchy and open rebellion to tyrannical Republics. :)
It places the moon and other celestial bodies under the same situation as Anarctica and the deep seabed.
No nation may make laws limiting their use. So if you go to the moon and want to mine, or the deep seabed and establish a colony... good to go.
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on August 23, 2008, 09:28 PM NHFT
It places the moon and other celestial bodies under the same situation as Anarctica and the deep seabed.
No nation may make laws limiting their use. So if you go to the moon and want to mine, or the deep seabed and establish a colony... good to go.
Yeah, that's all fine until the time comes when everyone wants a piece of it. That's when the real meaning of "owned by everyone" comes into play. As most of us know, "owned by everyone" is often a synonym for "owned by a government of some sort". If I were to come up with an awesome idea, become a billionaire and then found a space company capable of going to the moon, I'd rather have acres which I landed on and marked myself than "the whole moon, with the provision that everyone else can go snoop and scoop around too". No thanks.
Socialists think those kinds of "free for all" arrangements are fair for everyone, but that's because socialists seldom think things through (which is easy to conclude considering how ridiculous libertarians find their claims and theories to be just by merely following them to their logical conclusions). If it can be owned by a homesteader then it can be sold. Who am I gonna ask for my acre if I was interested in buying if everyone owned it? Nobody. I'd just go there and take it, but should there be a rush, I'd soon find myself jumping through hoops and having to follow some silly "common good" rules to do what I want. And who's gonna make the rules. I guess I'm repeating myself. The "government", yeah (or a committee or whatever they wanna call it).
Sorry, I'd rather pay a guy for my piece and then do with it whatever I please.
I shun everything that is meant to force a sacrifice of an individual for this illusion they call "common good" that they apparently see as some sort of a halo hovering over all of manking at the same time... Without individuals, there's no mankind to speak of. Therefore nobody can make a rule and say it's the rule for all mankind. It's not. Who are they (the politicians of these 100+ countries) to give the moon to the whole of manking, seriously? Did they perhaps construct it or something? I'd guess not. So they should just shut up and race us to the moon. ;)
Its placed this way because of past history.
Few, if any, can truly 'homestead' these areas... and the international community was announcing that it would no longer support 'flag planting' claims. It makes sense to move from 'flag planting' to 'utilization' to determine ownership.
It would mean that even though the US has planted a flag on the moon... if you as an individual can utilize it, the US has no sovereignty claims. No restrictions, no rents, no taxation. Of course, if you sell your goods/services back into US territorial claim then tariff would apply.
Oh, man, it would be SO nice to go to the moon and burn THAT flag.
Quote from: Pat McCotter on August 23, 2008, 10:53 AM NHFT
You Can't Take the Sky From Me (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwkJPKK2mKs)
Pat. You fucking rock.
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on August 23, 2008, 10:16 PM NHFT
Its placed this way because of past history.
Few, if any, can truly 'homestead' these areas... and the international community was announcing that it would no longer support 'flag planting' claims. It makes sense to move from 'flag planting' to 'utilization' to determine ownership.
"International community" can't decide anything just as "society" can't decide anything. I think that's the core point. So who is left to say on behalf of everyone else that homesteading is impossible or that only utilization should determine ownership and what kind of utilization applies. You can go there, mark a number of acres of land and "utilize" it by auctioning it back on Earth to people who want a piece too because of something they value about it (sentimental, future value, whatever). So it seems to me that as soon as "flag planting" happens utilization potential already exists. Yet if you say it can't be owned before it is utilized it implies that you can't begin to utilize it before you own it (have the right to it), so it's a catch 22. I know you mean who utilizes it
first, but I don't think the distinction matters.
People are so quick to judge what is what in the name of other people and then forcing that judgment on them. Rejecting that is the reason I am a voluntaryist.
Btw, this doesn't mean I advocate that US government owns the whole or part of the moon because they planted a flag. They can't claim legitimate ownership on the moon because they spent stolen money to get there.
Also, Pat, I liked the video, thanks. :) I should finish watching Firefly...
Cheers
Quote from: gu3st on August 23, 2008, 10:05 PM NHFT
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on August 23, 2008, 09:28 PM NHFT
It places the moon and other celestial bodies under the same situation as Anarctica and the deep seabed.
No nation may make laws limiting their use. So if you go to the moon and want to mine, or the deep seabed and establish a colony... good to go.
Yeah, that's all fine until the time comes when everyone wants a piece of it. That's when the real meaning of "owned by everyone" comes into play. As most of us know, "owned by everyone" is often a synonym for "owned by a government of some sort". If I were to come up with an awesome idea, become a billionaire and then found a space company capable of going to the moon, I'd rather have acres which I landed on and marked myself than "the whole moon, with the provision that everyone else can go snoop and scoop around too". No thanks.
Socialists think those kinds of "free for all" arrangements are fair for everyone, but that's because socialists seldom think things through (which is easy to conclude considering how ridiculous libertarians find their claims and theories to be just by merely following them to their logical conclusions). If it can be owned by a homesteader then it can be sold. Who am I gonna ask for my acre if I was interested in buying if everyone owned it? Nobody. I'd just go there and take it, but should there be a rush, I'd soon find myself jumping through hoops and having to follow some silly "common good" rules to do what I want. And who's gonna make the rules. I guess I'm repeating myself. The "government", yeah (or a committee or whatever they wanna call it).
Sorry, I'd rather pay a guy for my piece and then do with it whatever I please.
I shun everything that is meant to force a sacrifice of an individual for this illusion they call "common good" that they apparently see as some sort of a halo hovering over all of manking at the same time... Without individuals, there's no mankind to speak of. Therefore nobody can make a rule and say it's the rule for all mankind. It's not. Who are they (the politicians of these 100+ countries) to give the moon to the whole of manking, seriously? Did they perhaps construct it or something? I'd guess not. So they should just shut up and race us to the moon. ;)
Your sloppy use of certain terms - "common good" & "socialist" as if they were the same - makes me think you don't understand the difference between collective and common ownership. One is a joint right the other is an individual equal right.
The role of a governing body is very different in each scenario.
In collective ownership, no individual can use the property in question without getting the consent of all of the other owners (consensus) or their elected representatives.
In common ownership, the individual is free to use the property in question without having to ask anyone so long as their use does not infringe on the equal right of any individual to the same.
In a common ownership scenario, the governing body is limited in their power to only protecting the individual rights of those being infringed upon.
Likely because common 'public' property is most often governed in a collective format regardless.
Quote from: BillKauffman on August 24, 2008, 10:13 AM NHFT
The role of a governing body is very different in each scenario.
I don't want a governing body. I govern myself.
Quote from: BillKauffman on August 24, 2008, 10:13 AM NHFT
In a common ownership scenario, the governing body is limited in their power to only protecting the individual rights of those being infringed upon.
That sounds like a minarchist version of common ownership. Thing is, though, I'm not a minarchist, but a voluntaryist and an anarcho-capitalist. Therefore, again, I don't want a governing body enforcing any rules, not even such minimal ones. If I want to defend my individual liberties, including my property, I'd rather choose myself who I want to pay for that service.
So, that means I believe in neither collective ownership nor common ownership which is why I don't really care to make a distinction. To me they're socialist ideas whose benefits are an illusion. And I think we've been through that discussion in another thread (http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=14991.0). :) If you disagree, that's your right. We can agree to disagree.
Cheers
A contract would be a governing body. The text of such being the governing principle of the parties involved.
I'll give a rather simplified and not entirely correct example.
You and your sister rent an apartment. Your bedroom is collectively rented, she should seek you permission to enter. But the kitchen is commonly rented, either of you can use it as long as you do not infringe upon the other...
Quote from: John Edward MercierA contract would be a governing body. The text of such being the governing principle of the parties involved.
Alright, the "governing body" I had in mind was essentially a coercive entity, a government or any set of rules imposed by one on the others for "common good".
Quote from: John Edward MercierI'll give a rather simplified and not entirely correct example.
You and your sister rent an apartment. Your bedroom is collectively rented, she should seek you permission to enter. But the kitchen is commonly rented, either of you can use it as long as you do not infringe upon the other...
I see, but I'm not sure this is enough for me to accept collective and common ownership. In this particular case (which is actually a real life case as I do live in a rented apartment with my sister :) ), I give a portion of my own property and she gives portion of her own property in exchange of my agreeing with her that she may use what I paid for with my portion and vice versa. And there's no arbitration involved whatsoever, because this contract is essentially a voluntary quid-pro-quo agreement for ongoing exchange of property.
OK, you might call this just a rephrasal of what you're essentially pointing to, but I think there's an important distinction, at least in that talking in terms which avoid "common" and "collective" is a great way to avoid slippery slopes and traps that lead into socialism (coercing in the name of common good) while revealing underlying individualism of these relationships as they all begin with an individual and his/her own life, liberty and property. There's also no "social" without "individual". I'll have to think a little more about it though.
Thanks
I used the example because you explained your housing situation. But its very rough and not complete.
Its like the anarchy example that it can be both cooperative and competitive.
Individuals can be party to common and collective ownership without the State. Individaul is consensual, while the State is custodial. Custodial is socialism.
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on August 24, 2008, 05:21 PM NHFT
Likely because common 'public' property is most often governed in a collective format regardless.
Again, people use "public" to mean both collective and in common.
They are not the same as there is a distinction. One requires the consent of all (or their delegated representative) prior to acting, while the other only requires that individuals do not infringe on other individual's equal rights while acting.
QuoteI don't want a governing body enforcing any rules, not even such minimal ones. If I want to defend my individual liberties, including my property, I'd rather choose myself who I want to pay for that service.
Fine. But the difference between collective and in common is still the same.
Quotethat means I believe in neither collective ownership nor common ownership which is why I don't really care to make a distinction.
Fine. But there is a distinction.
QuoteTo me they're socialist ideas whose benefits are an illusion.
Socialism is the collective ownership of the means of production where the collective is most likely the state and the state may or may not be elected representatives.
In common ownership, each individual has an equal access right where the arbitrating body's sole responsibility is to insure individual rights are protected.
Bill Grennon's back?
QuoteI give a portion of my own property and she gives portion of her own property in exchange of my agreeing with her that she may use what I paid for with my portion and vice versa. And there's no arbitration involved whatsoever, because this contract is essentially a voluntary quid-pro-quo agreement for ongoing exchange of property.
And what if she infringes on your use of the kitchen which is used in common? Typically folks would come to a common agreement prior to anyone acting around the rules of use so as to not infringe. If the rules are arrived at via consensus you have just possibly change in common property (individual equal) to collective (joint) property.
Quote from: BillKaufmanSocialism is the collective ownership of the means of production where the collective is most likely the state and the state may or may not be elected representatives.
In common ownership, each individual has an equal access right where the arbitrating body's sole responsibility is to insure individual rights are protected.
I understand and agree with the distinction, but in both cases there seems to be someone in a special role, a state as you said in case of collective ownership in socialism or an "arbiter" in case of common ownership protecting equal rights. The reason I oppose this notion is that I don't believe any one of the individuals in cooperation should be the arbiter or the protector or anything more than any of the other individuals in it. If a violation happens it is the same thing as with a contract violation between two people exchanging some property. They can settle the dispute between themselves or unanimously agree to call a third party arbiter.
So I don't see much benefit in emphasizing "common" or "collective" etc, because speaking in terms of individual-to-individual relationships is much more precise and much less likely to lead to the kind of language which invites one deciding instead of another supposedly for the good of another. Maybe I'm being too extreme, but anarchies have devolved into statism we have today too many times. I think it is warranted to stay extra cautious and vigilant about such issues to avoid the usual traps.
Quote from: BillKaufmanAnd what if she infringes on your use of the kitchen which is used in common? Typically folks would come to a common agreement prior to anyone acting around the rules of use so as to not infringe. If the rules are arrived at via consensus you have just possibly change in common property (individual equal) to collective (joint) property.
If she infringes then I may have a dispute with her, that's all, since part of my property is invested in exchange for my share of the use of that kitchen, so it essentially comes down to a "not getting what I paid for" kinda thing.
And sure, if the two of us fully agree to a certain set of rules of use that's fine, as long as neither of us is the prime enforcer. That's the key point. The "common" or "collective" ownership in a free market must never involve a single enforcer, unless there is an absolute unanimous and voluntary agreement to set one as such, which you can opt out off at any time. Bottom line is, common or collective regardless, everything is looked at through a lense of an individual (his life, liberty and property) and at all times individual is in 100% control over his circumstance.
I guess I might not be so much in disagreement with you on the idea as much as just in wanting to avoid the use of "common" and "collective" so long as the idea can be described without them. They tend to lead to the legitimization of the idea of "common good" which is a term with such terribly misleading connotations in today's largely socialist world. People are using "common good" to justify doing just the opposite of it's supposed sentiment. Coerce, steal, kill.. anything goes.. so long as it's in the name of "common good". At least that's what the prevalent mentality seems to be. So I guess you can understand why I'm so vary of terms having anything to do with "common" let alone "collective".
Cheers
QuoteI understand and agree with the distinction, but in both cases there seems to be someone in a special role, a state as you said in case of collective ownership in socialism or an "arbiter" in case of common ownership protecting equal rights. The reason I oppose this notion is that I don't believe any one of the individuals in cooperation should be the arbiter or the protector or anything more than any of the other individuals in it. If a violation happens it is the same thing as with a contract violation between two people exchanging some property. They can settle the dispute between themselves or unanimously agree to call a third party arbiter.
The arbiter you refer to has a very limited role in a common property scenario - deciding infringement of individual rights. Majority rule is simply substituted for your voluntary consensus to an arbitrator for reasons of efficiency. Not saying whether that is right or wrong - just pointing out the difference.
Quote from: BillKauffman on August 25, 2008, 04:16 AM NHFT
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on August 24, 2008, 05:21 PM NHFT
Likely because common 'public' property is most often governed in a collective format regardless.
Again, people use "public" to mean both collective and in common.
They are not the same as there is a distinction. One requires the consent of all (or their delegated representative) prior to acting, while the other only requires that individuals do not infringe on other individual's equal rights while acting.
As I stated.
The Publically-owned common property (roads/lakes/parks/etc) is many times governed/managed in a collective format.
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on August 25, 2008, 12:03 PM NHFT
Quote from: BillKauffman on August 25, 2008, 04:16 AM NHFT
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on August 24, 2008, 05:21 PM NHFT
Likely because common 'public' property is most often governed in a collective format regardless.
Again, people use "public" to mean both collective and in common.
They are not the same as there is a distinction. One requires the consent of all (or their delegated representative) prior to acting, while the other only requires that individuals do not infringe on other individual's equal rights while acting.
As I stated.
The Publically-owned common property (roads/lakes/parks/etc) is many times governed/managed in a collective format.
And once again your examples of what is "publically-owned common property" like roads just shows that you don't understand the distinction.
The road itself is collectively owned as it is in most cases paid for by taxpayers while the right of way contained within is an individual, equal access, common right.
Quote from: 'BillKaufman'The road itself is collectively owned as it is in most cases paid for by taxpayers while the right of way contained within is an individual, equal access, common right.
You may be right, technically.
If you own a car, but can only drive that car on days ending in "R", while it's true, you might own it, for practical purposes, you do not since you as owner are not able to make use of it as you see fit.
It is either owned, or unowned. You can break that down as you like - I care little for definitions and laws and the like, only about the practical aspects. If someone is making use of my property and I don't have the ability to kick them off, it's not my property. I have no control over who may drive on the roads, therefore they are not my roads.
The fact that "taxpayers pay for them" means little. Taxpayers pay for the food of bureaucrats and the cell phones they use and the cars they drive but try asserting your practical claims of ownership and you'll see just how quickly anything BUT practical ability to make use matters.
QuoteI have no control over who may drive on the roads, therefore they are not my roads.
In a representative democratic republic, you vote for representatives who then make laws about how collectively owned property is to be used.
QuoteIt is either owned, or unowned.
Ownership can take many forms like:
1. individual private
2. individual common (equal)
3. collective (joint)
Quote from: 'BillKaufman'In a representative democratic republic, you vote for representatives who then make laws about how collectively owned property is to be used.
Two flaws - first, you make the assumption that this is a right, just or fair thing. It is not and I oppose it. Perhaps that's been the problem - you're trying to explain how this system works and I'm trying to explain natural law? If so, I could see the miscommunication. Basic law of physics - matter can not exist in two places at once at the same time, therefore for one person to make use of a thing, that very use must deprive someone of the ability to use it at that time. Practically speaking, it is IMPOSSIBLE for two owners with differing opinions on how to make use of some property at some moment in time to both get their way and someone WILL have their right (as owner) to make use of property infringed. In my practical view, someone who can not dispose of their property is not actually the owner of it.
Secondly, your statement implies a cause/effect relationship. If I voted, the people I voted for may or may not take office. Even assuming they did, there is NO assurance that they would ever represent me 100% of the time which means I have less control over my life than I should. Let's even take that further and suppose that the bureaucrat is totally infatuated with me and is willing to vote 100% my way... There are other people having no say.
Quote from: 'BillKaufmann'Ownership can take many forms like
I've seen you type the statement. I'm curious as to what your basis for this assessment is. The laws of physics and my observation of the universe seem to disagree.
Quoteyou make the assumption that this is a right, just or fair thing.
I made no such assumption. You did. I told you how the rules of collective property are changed. In it's purest form (consensus) each owner would have to consent. In the form that is currently used, we delegate our authority in a system of majority rule.
Quotematter can not exist in two places at once at the same time, therefore for one person to make use of a thing, that very use must deprive someone of the ability to use it at that time.
Yes, that is why you have to keep moving on a sidewalk lest you infringe on another individual's equal right of way by blocking them from getting to where they want to go.
QuotePractically speaking, it is IMPOSSIBLE for two owners with differing opinions on how to make use of some property at some moment in time to both get their way and someone WILL have their right (as owner) to make use of property infringed.
Yes and there is a very good way to compensate people for that loss where it can't be helped - it is called the market which determines the extent of the infringement.
Quotethere is NO assurance that they would ever represent me 100% of the time which means I have less control over my life than I should.
There is really no need to point out the failings of majority-rule, single district, representative democratic-republican governance. We all know the pitfalls.
Quote from: BillKauffman on August 25, 2008, 12:17 PM NHFT
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on August 25, 2008, 12:03 PM NHFT
Quote from: BillKauffman on August 25, 2008, 04:16 AM NHFT
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on August 24, 2008, 05:21 PM NHFT
Likely because common 'public' property is most often governed in a collective format regardless.
Again, people use "public" to mean both collective and in common.
They are not the same as there is a distinction. One requires the consent of all (or their delegated representative) prior to acting, while the other only requires that individuals do not infringe on other individual's equal rights while acting.
As I stated.
The Publically-owned common property (roads/lakes/parks/etc) is many times governed/managed in a collective format.
And once again your examples of what is "publically-owned common property" like roads just shows that you don't understand the distinction.
The road itself is collectively owned as it is in most cases paid for by taxpayers while the right of way contained within is an individual, equal access, common right.
So someone submitting no payment to the collective property can control through representation the use of collective property? Only local roads are even partially paid for through non-motorized use.
Quote from: 'BillKauffman'In it's purest form (consensus) each owner would have to consent. In the form that is currently used, we delegate our authority in a system of majority rule.
And what I meant by that "you assume this is right and just" is what you've stated above. I do not consent. I do not delegate my authority. The use of "we" indicates that you in fact, do consent, and given that you're questioning the very nature of it, indicating you're finding no ethical conflict with it.
Quote from: 'BillKauffman'Yes, that is why you have to keep moving on a sidewalk
I have a walkway that runs from my door to my parking lot. There is no requirement that I keep moving on it because it is MY sidewalk. Perhaps your "sidewalk" is merely a walkway unowned by me? It's very clear that the nature of paved walking paths does not demand that I keep moving. It is instead the OWNER of the paved path, or even more specifically, his willingness to use violence against me, that creates that "have". If you were to say "the sidewalk is owned by people calling themselves government" and they allow you to use it providing you don't obstruct the path, I would accept that premise. But saying that I own the sidewalk is moronic. If "the ability to control how owned property is used" is not a prerequisite for the establishment of ownership then establishing ownership at all is a useless endeavor. There's no value in owning anything if you can't use it.
Quote from: 'BillKauffman'}lest you infringe on another individual's equal right of way[/quote
The venerable "easement" which I've rejected time and time again. I'm well aware of the existence of the concept but I'm unclear exactly how one gains the ability to utilize another's property against their will. What is the basis for your claim that you may travel over a sidewalk on my land if I do not want you to tresspass upon my land? This "right of way" is something I contest the very existence of and I simply would like to know how it's established. I know that is it "enforced" by the "consensus" (which is another way of saying "people won't object if someone uses violence against you").
Quote from: 'BillKauffman'There is really no need to point out the failings of majority-rule, single district, representative democratic-republican governance. We all know the pitfalls.
Actually, I very much feel the need to point this out. The reason is that you stated in your last post, and I quote, "in it's purest form (consensus)". You seem to place value on this consensus, as if the will of anybody, or any group of people matters. I'm struggling to grok your logic - how is "democracy" which you equate to mob rule inherently flawed, yet your basis of property and "common ownership" is established by agreement of people? Does the will of those people mean something until they put that will to ballot, in which case it becomes flawed?
QuoteI do not consent. I do not delegate my authority. The use of "we" indicates that you in fact, do consent
Is vs. Ought
QuoteBut saying that I own the sidewalk is moronic.
The right of way is owned in common as an individual equal access right.
The consent is more 'custodial' than 'agent'. The democratic process considers the two equal.
I have no logically explaination as to how that can be...
Which is why I will never understand how property can be both collective and common at the same time.
If the underlying right-of-way is common, and exists beyond the road surface (which is most cases it does)... then the right-of-way outside of the road surface can not be restricted (which it is).
In fact, my private and solely owned real estate is in fact collective. But the State wishes me to feel otherwise for sake of constitutional clarity and economic feasibility.
This is getting a little confusing to be honest. What's the point anyway? BillKauffman, you seem to be persistently trying to explain how the current system works or is supposed to work, but are trying so hard to make it actually make solid sense that it almost seems like you're advocating it, but you claim you don't. And really, if you don't, then what's the point of arguing it? I don't really see the benefits of putting so much emphasis on the distinction between common and collective ownership. And as said before I don't actually see much benefit to using those terms in the first place nor implying ownership as being of one or the other form.
As Kevin says, either you own it or you don't. Everything you seem to see as "in between" and call "collective ownership" or "common ownership" is in fact nothing but exchanges of "individual ownership" - and that individual ownership and individual property is really the only kind of property that exists. Everything else just seems to confuse the issue and blur the lines of clear thought. Isn't it best for individualists (which libertarians, including voluntaryists essentially are), to just stick to "individual property" and describing various relations in those terms only, no vague terminology like "common" and "collective"?
Well, I for one, believe it is.
Cheers
Quoteeither you own it or you don't
I wish the world were as black and white - it isn't.
If you privatize the collectively owned roads there goes the common right of way which existed before either individual or collective property.
Quotendividual ownership and individual property is really the only kind of property that exists. Everything else just seems to confuse the issue and blur the lines of clear thought.
Life isn't so black and white.
But we could keep the common right-of-way, but remove the collective-based restrictions.
Quote from: BillKauffman on August 25, 2008, 07:42 PM NHFT
Life isn't so black and white.
You know, I really doubt that. If you mix black and white you get gray, but that doesn't change the blackness of black nor whiteness of white. So if I believe black to be bad and white to be good, I will naturally strive to avoid all of the blackness. I therefore see no use for the gray. Gray seems to be the state one is in when (s)he is not sure whether to judge something as "white" or "black", so gray is a state of no-judgement-made, lack of knowldge or ignoranance.
More broadly it all really seems to come down to existence. It either exists (white) as such or it doesn't (black). To say that there's a gray in between would be like saying that it exists a little and doesn't exist a little or that it is of one nature a bit and of another a bit. I think actually, fundamentally, everything really is "black" or "white", is or isn't, one or the other.. Gray is just another thing that "is" or "isn't", so gray too is either black or white in that sense. :P
"Life", which you mentioned, is just a series of experiences which you can judge as "good" or "bad". I don't know about anything in between equal in nature to either of those two value judgments.
QuoteIt either exists (white) as such or it doesn't (black)
Wave-Particle duality is the concept that light and matter
simultaneously exhibit properties of waves and of particles.
Quote from: 'BillKauffman'If you privatize the collectively owned roads there goes the common right of way
I advocate this.
Quote from: 'BillKauffman'which existed before either individual or collective property
I've asked several times in this thread for you to simply explain what establishes your notion of property. I've been clear that my understanding of the notion of property comes from the laws of physics and human nature (the need to eat, specifically). I've seen your claims, I simply don't understand your logic. You claim that "the common right of way" existed before property, therefore it must be maintained but as I reason property "appeared" the moment the first human consumed the first molecule and therefore deprived all of humanity that molecule. Property, not a "right of way" existed first, so your drawn premise is flawed unless you can explain the basis of it, which I seriously would like to know.
Libertarian thinkers have evaluated human nature for the past hundred years, but I've seen a GLARING lack of writing on the nature of property itself and the act of owning. I'm not interested in reading up on law since that is convention, which indicates nothing except some people put some words on paper at some point, but the properties of human thinking, the universe and the interaction between them that makes "property". I might even write a book (though I assure you it will be dry). If you'd humor me, I'd love an explanation (which is why I keep posting on this thread).
Quote from: 'BillKauffman'I wish the world were as black and white - it isn't.
Everything is black and white, everything else is merely excuse. I believe this to my core. I even named my blog after the fact. It's called 'Monochrome Mentality' and the tagline is the plain "Everything really is black and white".
Quote from: 'BillKauffman'Wave-Particle duality is the concept that light and matter simultaneously exhibit properties of waves and of particles.
That explains the nature of light, which may exist in a state of flux, but speaks nothing of the state of "nothing". Dark, in the optical sense, is neither matter nor energy but the lack of either and if you're breaking it down to that level, then the existance of a single bit of matter negates the absense.
Quote from: BillKauffman on August 25, 2008, 08:49 PM NHFT
QuoteIt either exists (white) as such or it doesn't (black)
Wave-Particle duality is the concept that light and matter simultaneously exhibit properties of waves and of particles.
Well, then that's just the nature of such light or matter. Now, can it be at the same waves and particles and not waves and particles? That's what I mean. Once you establish something to be such as it is can you at the same time claim that it is not such? Like, state "this fruit is an apple" and "this fruit is not really an apple" refering to the same fruit, and speak the truth in both cases?
By the same token, can individual property at the same time not be individual property? I guess you might say it could be both individual and collective or common, but if it being collective or common ends up cancelling out it being individual as well, then an individual ownership no longer applies. And since a collective is not a singular entity "it" cannot really own either, which is why it's not surprising that pursuits of non-individual ownership (collective or common regardless) tends to lead to, surprise, individual ownership - it can't be escaped, because ownership can't really exist any other way. Anything that is owned is owned by individuals, so adding a layer of vagueness like "collective" and "common" just confuses us away from that simple fact. We should have a much more precise understanding of ownership if we got rid of those and focused on individual ownership solely.
Cheers
QuoteI've asked several times in this thread for you to simply explain what establishes your notion of property
Labor as a natural extension of self-ownership.
You guys are relatively new so may not be familiar with Bill. He argues the same points incessantly for a while, very repetitively and redundantly, attempting to divert every topic that comes up into his pet topics. Then after realizing he's making no progress, he disappears for a while and comes back with a different handle. And that's amusing because his posts are so distinctive that it can hardly make any difference that he changes his handle. In fact, I remember being surprised at how long this thread had gotten and then realizing he was posting in it and it clicked. He's an open book, and not an entertaining one but rather a really poorly written tedious and repetitive book like Atlas Shrugged.
I'll pay to relocate BenTucker/Grennon/Kauffman to the moon. He'll be it's first full-time inhabitant.
Quote from: Porcupine on August 26, 2008, 09:40 AM NHFT
I'll pay to relocate BenTucker/Grennon/Kauffman to the moon. He'll be it's first full-time inhabitant.
Deja Vu (http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=10832.msg186371#msg186371)
And yes, EthanAllen was yet another of his many faces.
Quote from: 'Dalebert'You guys are relatively new so may not be familiar with Bill. He argues the same points incessantly for a while, very repetitively and redundantly, attempting to divert every topic that comes up into his pet topics.
I got this sense, but thought perhaps I was just communicating my points poorly. Thanks for the heads up.
Quote from: 'Dalebert'He's an open book, and not an entertaining one but rather a really poorly written tedious and repetitive book like Atlas Shrugged.
I've heard people say that of Atlas Shrugged. Ever read "The Far Pavillions" by m.m.kaye? I don't think any book is as tedious as that, and while I actually hate the book, for some reason it's really stuck with me and (despite my better judgement) somehow keeps creeping into my brain. :(
Thanks Dale, it did seem a bit repetitive. And I was getting a little tired of that debate anyway...
Cheers
It was a nice, peaceful few months that we were free of Georgist diatribes.
Hang in there, this episode will pass eventually.
Quote from: dalebert on August 26, 2008, 09:31 AM NHFT
a really poorly written tedious and repetitive book like Atlas Shrugged.
Why I oghta... one of these days, pow - straight to the moon!
And since you'll be the only one there, guess who'll own it? ;D
Dales right about Grennon. I liked AS all 6 times I have read it.
Quote from: William on August 29, 2008, 03:27 AM NHFT
Why I oghta... one of these days, pow - straight to the moon!
And since you'll be the only one there, guess who'll own it? ;D
He won't be the only one there. BenTucker/Grennon/Kauffmann will be up there with him so they'll have to work a "common ownership" scenario... :)