People who are party to an evil can be brought to the bar of extralegal justice.

[anthonybpugh]

extralegal remedies sounds like a euphemism for vigilante justice.

Does it really matter if the lynch mob is wearing white sheets versus black robes?

of course. 

[Russell Kanning]

wow ... an entire thread by people I have on ignore ... a new record

[John Edward Mercier]

Theory of value and property
Locke uses the word property in both broad and narrow senses. In a broad sense, it covers a wide range of human interests and aspirations; more narrowly, it refers to material goods. He argues that property is a natural right and it is derived from labor.
Locke believed that ownership of property is created by the application of labor. In addition, property precedes government and government cannot "dispose of the estates of the subjects arbitrarily." Karl Marx later critiqued Locke's theory of property in his social theory.

Locke believed that real estate was a commonality entered in to privatization through the application of labor upon it. So locking one's house would make sense, since your house is derived from your labor or a derivative there of.
Property lines are not natural... nor are they based on the application of labor.

Most of the adverse possession statutes are directly derived from this rational in the application of labor (use).
Though I directly temper the input of each philosopher in that they were men of their times.
Though I understand Proudhon's suggestion that children and women are property through the tradition of sir names. I doubt a rational arguement could be made for such.
And though I understand Locke's natural rights arguement... the fall back of 'Creator' to justify that only humans have 'souls' and thus natural rights... not all things that have them innately... I also find hard to rational, in that I can make no proof of such a divine Creator's existence other than faith.

Smith was explaining the rational for privatization... it still holds true today, but is many times referenced as the 'tragedy of the commons'.

This balance between naturally common and exlusively private is the basis for society.

[anthonybpugh]

wow ... an entire thread by people I have on ignore ... a new record

wow.  Like I could really give a shit. 

[BillKauffman]

wow ... an entire thread by people I have on ignore ... a new record

wow.  Like I could really give a shit. 

Did you labor to create that?

[anthonybpugh]

wow ... an entire thread by people I have on ignore ... a new record

wow.  Like I could really give a shit. 

Did you labor to create that?

No. Labor is valuable and I wouldn't waste anything of value on Kanning. 

[Keyser Soce]

extralegal remedies sounds like a euphemism for vigilante justice.   You are talking about being consistent with the greatest legal and philosophical minds but then suggest extralegal justice?  You'll have a legal system that allows for extralegal measures?  Don't like how the legal system works, just take that SOB out back and give him some street justice. 

It also sounds like you are suggesting collective guilt as well as collective punishment.  Seems like a rationale to have a great Libertarian Witch Hunt where we can purge society of all the statist fools out there. 

It's either justice or it's not, vigilante is irrelevant.

"Legal positivism, and those that ascribe to it, are a bane to morality and ethics,

...morality precedes legality.  Morality does not flow from legality.  Once that fact is accepted, the matter becomes quite clear."

QFT

[David]

This is all good and well, but how to get from here to there, that is the question.  The answer, it isn't going to happen.  The minority never purges the majority.  The rest is just mental masturbation.  It feels good to fantasize of finding a way to prosecute those who harm others, but the reality is far from the fantasy.  You may feel like you are in the majority, because maybe you identify with the opposition party out of power.  But the GOP is only angry at the govt' right now because they do not control it, it will change when they regain power, just as it does for the dems.  They will use you till you are no longer useful, then like the good authoritarians they are, they will denounce you as kooks and pretend not to know you.  Ron Paul anyone?

[John Edward Mercier]

Adverse possession can be a decent doctrine, I think, if narrowly construed.  It follows the Lockean necessity of use.

Though I take exception to the way mutualists view rent as being a sufficient criterion for abandonment, such that a homeowner loses his house and all contents contained therein, in the blink of an eye after he rents his home.

I would ascribe that by renting your home and possessions that I have entered a verbal and implied, if not written, contract... whereby I have admitted the property to be yours.

[BillKauffman]

Adverse possession can be a decent doctrine, I think, if narrowly construed.  It follows the Lockean necessity of use.

Though I take exception to the way mutualists view rent as being a sufficient criterion for abandonment, such that a homeowner loses his house and all contents contained therein, in the blink of an eye after he rents his home.

I would ascribe that by renting your home and possessions that I have entered a verbal and implied, if not written, contract... whereby I have admitted the property to be yours.

In mutualism there would be no absentee landowning and thus no landlordism itself.

[zackbass]

Adverse possession can be a decent doctrine, I think, if narrowly construed.  It follows the Lockean necessity of use.

Nope.  Never.  What's mine is mine.  You have no right to tell me how or when or whether to "use" it.  Maybe I'm just not ready yet, it's nobody else's business.

Easy "Adverse Possession" is a major reason Muslim societies are so poor.

The Dutch create land every day.  They OWN it.

[zackbass]

Adverse possession can be a decent doctrine, I think, if narrowly construed.  It follows the Lockean necessity of use.

Though I take exception to the way mutualists view rent as being a sufficient criterion for abandonment, such that a homeowner loses his house and all contents contained therein, in the blink of an eye after he rents his home.

I would ascribe that by renting your home and possessions that I have entered a verbal and implied, if not written, contract... whereby I have admitted the property to be yours.

In mutualism there would be no absentee landowning and thus no landlordism itself.

Thanks.  An excellent argument against mutualism.  Won't let anyone own more than one car or house.  Screw that, I want to drive my red car and expect to see my blue car there when I check back.

[BillKauffman]

The Dutch create land every day.  They OWN it.

The don't create locations. Locations pre-exist human labor.

[BillKauffman]

Adverse possession can be a decent doctrine, I think, if narrowly construed.  It follows the Lockean necessity of use.

Though I take exception to the way mutualists view rent as being a sufficient criterion for abandonment, such that a homeowner loses his house and all contents contained therein, in the blink of an eye after he rents his home.

I would ascribe that by renting your home and possessions that I have entered a verbal and implied, if not written, contract... whereby I have admitted the property to be yours.

In mutualism there would be no absentee landowning and thus no landlordism itself.

Thanks.  An excellent argument against mutualism.  Won't let anyone own more than one car or house.  Screw that, I want to drive my red car and expect to see my blue car there when I check back.

Cars are personal possessions.

[zackbass]

Nope.  Never.  What's mine is mine.  You have no right to tell me how or when or whether to "use" it.  Maybe I'm just not ready yet, it's nobody else's business.

It is not yours when you specifically choose to abandon it, which is your right as a property owner.   

Fine, if I SPECIFICALLY abandon it.
But that is not what adverse possession is about.  It's about someone taking over land notoriously and hostilely:

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/real_estate/adverse_possession.html
"the person claiming ownership through adverse possession must show that its possession is actual, open, notorious, exclusive, hostile"

And adverse possession doctrine most definitely covers the case of abandonment, which is what I advocated when it stated previously that it should be narrowly construed.

Nope sorry see above.  If that were what it meant I would have no objection.

If  I choose not to "use" my land for 50 years, waiting until I am ready to play with it or look at it some more, or finally to sell it now that the market is improved, or ready to give it away to a friend or relative, it is immoral for someone to claim that he has been squatting on it for the last 20 years and has more right to it than I have.  That is THEFT.