New Hampshire Underground

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Please log in on the special "login" page, not on any of these normal pages. Thank you, The Procrastinating Management

"Let them march all they want, as long as they pay their taxes."  --Alexander Haig

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down

Author Topic: Property ownership on the moon  (Read 4446 times)

BillKauffman

  • Resister
  • ***
  • Karma: 6
  • Posts: 464
Re: Property ownership on the moon
« Reply #30 on: August 25, 2008, 01:17 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.
Logged

K. Darien Freeheart

  • Majorly Manchkin!
  • Freedom Fighter
  • *****
  • Karma: 435
  • Posts: 1729
  • Peace Fanatic
    • K. Darien Freeheart's Facebook
Re: Property ownership on the moon
« Reply #31 on: August 25, 2008, 02:20 PM NHFT »

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.
Logged

BillKauffman

  • Resister
  • ***
  • Karma: 6
  • Posts: 464
Re: Property ownership on the moon
« Reply #32 on: August 25, 2008, 02:36 PM NHFT »

Quote
I 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.

Quote
It is either owned, or unowned.

Ownership can take many forms like:

1. individual private
2. individual common (equal)
3. collective (joint)
Logged

K. Darien Freeheart

  • Majorly Manchkin!
  • Freedom Fighter
  • *****
  • Karma: 435
  • Posts: 1729
  • Peace Fanatic
    • K. Darien Freeheart's Facebook
Re: Property ownership on the moon
« Reply #33 on: August 25, 2008, 02:51 PM NHFT »

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.
Logged

BillKauffman

  • Resister
  • ***
  • Karma: 6
  • Posts: 464
Re: Property ownership on the moon
« Reply #34 on: August 25, 2008, 03:17 PM NHFT »

Quote
you 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.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
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.

There is really no need to point out the failings of majority-rule, single district, representative democratic-republican governance. We all know the pitfalls.
Logged

John Edward Mercier

  • Revolutionary
  • ******
  • Karma: 1040
  • Posts: 2269
Re: Property ownership on the moon
« Reply #35 on: August 25, 2008, 03:33 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.
Logged

K. Darien Freeheart

  • Majorly Manchkin!
  • Freedom Fighter
  • *****
  • Karma: 435
  • Posts: 1729
  • Peace Fanatic
    • K. Darien Freeheart's Facebook
Re: Property ownership on the moon
« Reply #36 on: August 25, 2008, 03:45 PM NHFT »

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?
Logged

BillKauffman

  • Resister
  • ***
  • Karma: 6
  • Posts: 464
Re: Property ownership on the moon
« Reply #37 on: August 25, 2008, 04:08 PM NHFT »

Quote
I do not consent. I do not delegate my authority. The use of "we" indicates that you in fact, do consent

Is vs. Ought

Quote
But saying that I own the sidewalk is moronic.

The right of way is owned in common as an individual equal access right.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2008, 04:29 PM NHFT by BillKauffman »
Logged

John Edward Mercier

  • Revolutionary
  • ******
  • Karma: 1040
  • Posts: 2269
Re: Property ownership on the moon
« Reply #38 on: August 25, 2008, 04:15 PM NHFT »

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.


Logged

memenode

  • Mischievous
  • **
  • Karma: 31
  • Posts: 288
  • Web publisher with a mission.
    • DoublePlusHuman
Re: Property ownership on the moon
« Reply #39 on: August 25, 2008, 07:27 PM NHFT »

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
Logged

BillKauffman

  • Resister
  • ***
  • Karma: 6
  • Posts: 464
Re: Property ownership on the moon
« Reply #40 on: August 25, 2008, 08:42 PM NHFT »

Quote
either 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.

Quote
ndividual 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.

Logged

John Edward Mercier

  • Revolutionary
  • ******
  • Karma: 1040
  • Posts: 2269
Re: Property ownership on the moon
« Reply #41 on: August 25, 2008, 08:59 PM NHFT »

But we could keep the common right-of-way, but remove the collective-based restrictions.
Logged

memenode

  • Mischievous
  • **
  • Karma: 31
  • Posts: 288
  • Web publisher with a mission.
    • DoublePlusHuman
Re: Property ownership on the moon
« Reply #42 on: August 25, 2008, 09:29 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.

« Last Edit: August 25, 2008, 09:33 PM NHFT by gu3st »
Logged

BillKauffman

  • Resister
  • ***
  • Karma: 6
  • Posts: 464
Re: Property ownership on the moon
« Reply #43 on: August 25, 2008, 09:49 PM NHFT »

Quote
It 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.
Logged

K. Darien Freeheart

  • Majorly Manchkin!
  • Freedom Fighter
  • *****
  • Karma: 435
  • Posts: 1729
  • Peace Fanatic
    • K. Darien Freeheart's Facebook
Re: Property ownership on the moon
« Reply #44 on: August 25, 2008, 10:08 PM NHFT »

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.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up