Print

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

[memenode]

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

[BillKauffman]

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.

[John Edward Mercier]

Likely because common 'public' property is most often governed in a collective format regardless.

[memenode]

The role of a governing body is very different in each scenario.

I don't want a governing body. I govern myself.

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. If you disagree, that's your right. We can agree to disagree.

Cheers

[John Edward Mercier]

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...

[memenode]

A 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".

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...

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

[John Edward Mercier]

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.

[BillKauffman]

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.

[BillKauffman]

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.

Fine. But the difference between collective and in common is still the same.

that 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.

To 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.

[error]

Bill Grennon's back?

[BillKauffman]

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.

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.

[memenode]

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.

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.

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.

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

[Porcupine_in_MA]

Bill Grennon's back?

Looks like it.

[BillKauffman]

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.

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.

[John Edward Mercier]

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.