FTL_Ian's Personal Attacks on CNHT

[CNHT]

right of self-ownership.

What does it mean to have the right to self-ownership? Define what a "right" is and what "self-ownership" is please.

Lex don't waste your time arguing with a socialist.

[FrankChodorov]

right of self-ownership.

What does it mean to have the right to self-ownership? Define what a "right" is and what "self-ownership" is please.

A right is the power or liberty to which one is justly entitled or a thing to which one has a just claim.

Self-ownership is the condition where an individual has the exclusive moral or legal right to control his or her own body and life

[FrankChodorov]

right of self-ownership.

What does it mean to have the right to self-ownership? Define what a "right" is and what "self-ownership" is please.

Lex don't waste your time arguing with a socialist.

a socialist generally believes in the collective ownership of the factors of production (land, labor, capital) where access is based on group rights.

#1 - I believe in individual rights to labor and capital that are absolute...
#2 - I believe in individual rights to use, exclusion, possession, and transferability of land a spart of the natural commons.

#3 - I believe that inorder to protect the absolute right to #1 that #2 is conditional upon retaining the last bundled right of ownership - economic rent - as an individual equal access opportunity right that must be shared equally and directly amongst neighbors within a community.

where exactly do I argue for the collective ownership of anything?

[CNHT]

where exactly do I argue for the collective ownership of anything?

The water, the land, the sun, the air, but wait, yes I know, no one really OWNS that stuff and we all have an equal right to access it, but you would take it one step further and TAX it.. just like the UN..if someone were using too much of it. By what authority would you have to determine who is 'using too much' or not?

That is what scares me, especially when you include natural resources found on PRIVATE LAND.

So if someone starts a business like mine, but they happen to be smarter, luckier, and make more money, does that mean they are depriving me of making more money and should be made to pay a tax to compensate for my lack? We all have the equal right to work and make money don't we?

Wriggle your way out of that one. 

[FrankChodorov]

The water, the land, the sun, the air, but wait, yes I know, no one really OWNS that stuff and we all have an equal right to access it

yes someone really OWNS it - we all do concurrently as an individual equal access opportunity right only conditional by insuring any individual's use/access does not infringe on the equal rights of all other individuals to the same use/access.

this is what ownership in common means...the state is only the public trustee with a fiduciary to protect the health of the common asset and equal access to it as an individual right.

this is basic negative liberty stuff Jane...

you would take it one step further and TAX it

no - read my words very carefully Jane.

to the extent that an individual IS infringing on the equal access opportunity rights of someone else IS DETERMINED by the amount of economic rent that location commands in the market place.

therefore the involuntary payment (a tax) of the economic rent from those being excluded to the excluder is UNJUST because it infringes by way of economically harming them.

By what authority would you have to determine who is 'using too much' or not?

the authority is the market system for access to scarce resources - that determines the economic rent.

it is then the RIGHTFUL duty of the state to use force if necessary to prohibit this infringement by making the excluders pay the excluded rather than the other way around.

if someone starts a business like mine, but they happen to be smarter, luckier, and make more money, does that mean they are depriving me of making more money and should be made to pay a tax to compensate for my lack? We all have the equal right to work and make money don't we?

your business is the fruit of your labor and thus private property.

the natural commons are not the result of human labor and the economic rent (like the unimproved land value) is the result of your neighbors labor not the labor of the landowner.

we have an equal access right to locate somewhere inwhich to freely excercise our right of self-ownership inorder to attempt to sustain our lives...because it is impractical to allow access to that free space for everyone as all inhabitable lands are for the most part legally claimed, then we MUST provide the  equivalent of equal access - an equal access right to the return on land ownership...the ECONOMIC RENT

Wriggle your way out of that one

you keep misrepresenting me and I'll keep wrigglin...

[CNHT]

the authority is the market system for access to scarce resources - that determines the economic rent.
it is then the RIGHTFUL duty of the state to use force if necessary to prohibit this infringement by making the excluders pay the excluded rather than the other way around.

And that is exactly what scares me, words like economic rent and 'duty of the state', of which no mention is made in the Constitution.

[FTL_Ian]

Jane, you still haven't explained your idea of how socialism will take over a land with no coercive government. 

Also, you continued to attack me for having my "head in the sand", that the UN was "ahead" of me, and once again pointed out how much more well read you are.  (I thought you were done responding to me?)

You may know everything about the UN, but it appears you know next to nothing about true Liberty and the ineffectiveness of government.  If you did, you'd understand that border controls will increase the police state, and do nothing to stem the flow of immigrants.

[tracysaboe]

Ok, I haven't posted in this thread yet and I don't hold either argument against anybody.

But it is very clear that there are two camps of libertarianism - those minarchist/utilitarians (I dont know of an official name) that believe that government should restrict free international trade and borders with the intent of stopping globalism and global politics and trade from ruling the nation. I say utilitarian because this would lead to a lag in technology and progress, so its adherents are usually more the type of person who would like to live off the land or in a small community.

The other camp is the anarcho-capitalists that believe the government, if it should exist, should not have this power, and that we should live in a large, borderless political-economic community.

Both are valid forms of libertarianism. And realize that in a true libertarian society, a government, should it exist, would prevent peoples lives from being ruled by foreign corporations (hopefully).

Personally I think that the fear of "global socialism" and globalism is blown far out of proportion. Our government WILL lead us directly into global socialism if we shoot for a total free market.  A libertarian government, in theory, would not. Therein lies the difference - we don't have a libertarian government. Thus, the fear is not unfounded, but PLEASE remember that we are all fighting for the same end, and when we achieve it, this debate will be of little importance.

Just to be clear. Free trade is very different from freedom of movement. That is something that we all agree on. Everybody here is for complete unfettered free trade.

2ndly: This isn't a minarchist/anarchist debate. As I've stated their are minarchist who are for some sort of boarder control and their are minarchists for complete open boarders. There are even anarchists for boarder control because in a private property regime to don't have right to travel unless you get permission from the owner. Well untill we abolish government the "owner" is the collective taxpayer so restricting immigration in favor of the people already living their makes sense -- at least until we get government abolished completely. And their are other anarchists who think that boarder control gives government more power and that it's moving the opposit direction.

So I'd prefer not to have either side discredited just because "he's an anarchist" or just because "he's a minarchist."

Tracy

[Atlas]

A right is a moral principle defining and sanctioning man's freedom of action in a social context. -- Ayn Rand
Essentially, rights don't require permission for the exercising thereof.

[Atlas]

Jane, you still haven't explained your idea of how socialism will take over a land with no coercive government. 

Also, you continued to attack me for having my "head in the sand", that the UN was "ahead" of me, and once again pointed out how much more well read you are.  (I thought you were done responding to me?)

You may know everything about the UN, but it appears you know next to nothing about true Liberty and the ineffectiveness of government.  If you did, you'd understand that border controls will increase the police state, and do nothing to stem the flow of immigrants.

Yeah, border controls further the national id card. We sure could use some more freedom lovers from other countries.  They would probably be the most tireless activists.

[FrankChodorov]

A right is a moral principle defining and sanctioning man's freedom of action in a social context. -- Ayn Rand
Essentially, rights don't require permission for the exercising thereof.

and neither do they have to be purchased or gifted...

"There is only one fundamental right (all others are its consequences or corollaries): a man's right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action--which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life?Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life." -- Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, pp. 321-2

just as the right to oneself implies the right to the fruit of one's labor (i.e., the right to property), the right to the fruit of one's labor implies the right to labor, and the right to labor implies the right to labor -- somewhere.

[CNHT]

Jane, you still haven't explained your idea of how socialism will take over a land with no coercive government. 

It's not my idea -- it's the UNs and there are almost 200 countries already following their directives! Why do you choose to ignore that??? And believe me the UN *IS* coercive, as you would see if you had read their strategies for 'compliance' with their numerous 'goals' or even just spent some time in a profession as a teacher, where they tend to hit the hardest. But since you refuse to educate yourself, you will remain unaware.

Also, you continued to attack me for having my "head in the sand", that the UN was "ahead" of me, and once again pointed out how much more well read you are.  (I thought you were done responding to me?)

Because you act like the threat does not exist...and it does...it is very much a threat. There is ALWAYS going to be SOMEONE who will impose 'government' upon you, so the only safe thing is to have one of your own that is as limited as possible and respects individual liberties as much as possible. Head in the sand refers to the fact that simply ignoring a threat will not make it go away, UNFORTUNATELY!

You may know everything about the UN, but it appears you know next to nothing about true Liberty and the ineffectiveness of government. 

That does not make sense. What you want is 100% liberty which is fine, but just wanting it and doing nothing to get it bears no resemblance to reality! Every hear the expression, 'freedom is not free?! Simply denying that the above condition exists isn't going to suddenlly 'make' liberty!! LOL

Socialism is of course ineffective for liberty, but it is a goal that those far more powerful than we have in store for everyone..and much of it is in place already.

If you did, you'd understand that border controls will increase the police state, and do nothing to stem the flow of immigrants.

You are taking a reactionary stance to something that doesn't even affect you, just for the 'sake' of opposing gov't even when it makes no sense. You have chosen to live in the US so therefore being a citizen does not make it a police state for just requiring others to become citizens. It may be a police state for other reasons, of course, but right now I am talking about the threat from other governments, not just our own. Can you think beyond that? Some things depend on others....and cant' be thought of in a vaccuum. Which is why as a talk show host, I wish you would read up on world affairs.

We are not merely talking about border controls and what they will do or not do. We are talking about what the open borders are currently a symptom of...but you can't seem to look beyond our own country and your hatred for it! If you don't have some organization of a country you WILL, believe me you WILL have some other government that is worse, and perhaps all encompassing and no place to go, since as I said, the earth has borders. (Unless you have some way of leaving it go elsewhere....)

Get the flowers out of your hair and stop singing Kumbaya, will ya? Geesh.  It's getting tiresome.....and some of  your listeners think so too.

[DC]

A right is the power or liberty to which one is justly entitled or a thing to which one has a just claim.

Self-ownership is the condition where an individual has the exclusive moral or legal right to control his or her own body and life

So you are born with rights you say and they are absolute. You are born with the right of self ownership. Then you will have to let you four year old prostitute themselves or you would be infringing on their right of self ownership.

we have an equal access right to locate somewhere inwhich to freely excercise our right of self-ownership inorder to attempt to sustain our lives...because it is impractical to allow access to that free space for everyone as all inhabitable lands are for the most part legally claimed, then we MUST provide the  equivalent of equal access - an equal access right to the return on land ownership...the ECONOMIC RENT

So you want to open the borders and let the billions of people flood in and we have to pay them because they were excluded. Sounds like a dumbass plan that would end in disaster.

[FrankChodorov]

the authority is the market system for access to scarce resources - that determines the economic rent.
it is then the RIGHTFUL duty of the state to use force if necessary to prohibit this infringement by making the excluders pay the excluded rather than the other way around.

And that is exactly what scares me, words like economic rent and 'duty of the state', of which no mention is made in the Constitution.

economic rent is a naturally occuring phenomena as two or more people compete for access to limited resources...it occurs even in an anarchy

the state is the public trustee (not owner) with a fiduciary duty to protect the integrity of the common assets itself for our posterity and to insure that all individuals have an equal access opportunity right that is not being infringed upon.

to the extent that individual rights ARE being infringed upon is determined by the amount of economic rent that naturally attaches to the enclosure in question.

the public trustee has a fiduciary duty to protect the interest of everyone who has an individual right to access/use the common asset.

do you want me to show you exactly where it says our water is owned in common (10+ acres and all groundwater) in NH with the state as the public trustee?

[CNHT]

A right is the power or liberty to which one is justly entitled or a thing to which one has a just claim.
Self-ownership is the condition where an individual has the exclusive moral or legal right to control his or her own body and life

So you are born with rights you say and they are absolute. You are born with the right of self ownership. Then you will have to let you four year old prostitute themselves or you would be infringing on their right of self ownership.

Yup, that's what the UN says in the Rights of the Child treaty ? mom and dad have no right to hamper their sexual choices, or determine with whom they may associate! My principal once told me we could not talk to a 5  year old about her lack of modesty because he 'did not want her to question her sexuality'.......  She was aged 5. This was his 'UN' training. The child was a free target for every sexual predator in the 'hood.

we have an equal access right to locate somewhere inwhich to freely excercise our right of self-ownership inorder to attempt to sustain our lives...because it is impractical to allow access to that free space for everyone as all inhabitable lands are for the most part legally claimed, then we MUST provide the  equivalent of equal access - an equal access right to the return on land ownership...the ECONOMIC RENT

]
So you want to open the borders and let the billions of people flood in and we have to pay them because they were excluded. Sounds like a dumbass plan that would end in disaster.

Yep you better start paying your 'economic rent' to me because if you won't share with me, the state will get ya, cuz I wanna squat on your property.