Wal-Mart Is Right

[FrankChodorov]

Intellectual thought (property?) existed pre-copyright protection. If copyrights were to be discontinued, intelectual thoughts/writings would still continue to exist. (They existed pre-copyright) Therefore, one is not dependent on the other. Copyrights and patents are merely Gov granted monopolies.

same is true of land.

ever heard of "land patents"?

Before there were "land patents" (Gov granted monopoly) there was private property. Property was controlled by defending it. It would continue to exist without Gov granted monopoly.

and even in the absence of the state (anarchy) economic rent collected by the landowner is a tax (forced) on the wages of those being excluded.

Fact of life.
Your solution grants another type of monopoly, be it by Gov, or some other "authority" over the individual. Your perceived "unfairness" of the situation leads you to wish to control others property. Your solution is all about control, nothing more.

your system grants landowners "authority" over the individual - what is the difference?

they both use taxation (economic rent) collection backed by force to establish dominion over their territory
they both have a set of rules to be obeyed within that dominion

[AlanM]

your system grants landowners "authority" over the individual - what is the difference?

they both use taxation (economic rent) collection backed by force to establish dominion over their territory
they both have a set of rules to be obeyed within that dominion

So you admit that they are both coercive in some way, and you think your way is fairer. I disagree. My way requires no outside controlling element. Yours does. I'll take my way.

[FrankChodorov]

your system grants landowners "authority" over the individual - what is the difference?

they both use taxation (economic rent) collection backed by force to establish dominion over their territory
they both have a set of rules to be obeyed within that dominion

So you admit that they are both coercive in some way, and you think your way is fairer. I disagree. My way requires no outside controlling element. Yours does. I'll take my way.

your way violates the property rights we all have to our labor product (wages) and hence sacrifices the very principle you claim to defend (self-ownership)

my way is the original classical liberal ideal (laissez-faire meant shift taxation off labor/capital and onto those who enclose the natural commons) and it does not!

[AlanM]

your system grants landowners "authority" over the individual - what is the difference?

they both use taxation (economic rent) collection backed by force to establish dominion over their territory
they both have a set of rules to be obeyed within that dominion

So you admit that they are both coercive in some way, and you think your way is fairer. I disagree. My way requires no outside controlling element. Yours does. I'll take my way.

your way violates the property rights we all have to our labor product (wages) and hence sacrifices the very principle you claim to defend (self-ownership)

my way is the original classical liberal ideal (laissez-faire meant shift taxation off labor/capital and onto those who enclose the natural commons) and it does not!

No. I say everyone pays there way in this life. You say everyone gets paid. That is the difference.

[Russell Kanning]

But how many benefits do we really see, going from small government to no government?

In early Pennsylvania they had small government .... and chose no government for a few years. They must have seen some benefit.
I also want no government. Should I have that choice? We should not all have to agree.

[FrankChodorov]

your system grants landowners "authority" over the individual - what is the difference?

they both use taxation (economic rent) collection backed by force to establish dominion over their territory
they both have a set of rules to be obeyed within that dominion

So you admit that they are both coercive in some way, and you think your way is fairer. I disagree. My way requires no outside controlling element. Yours does. I'll take my way.

your way violates the property rights we all have to our labor product (wages) and hence sacrifices the very principle you claim to defend (self-ownership)

my way is the original classical liberal ideal (laissez-faire meant shift taxation off labor/capital and onto those who enclose the natural commons) and it does not!

No. I say everyone pays there way in this life. You say everyone gets paid. That is the difference.

what you really mean is that the privileged/entitled live off of the labors of those being excluded.

you can't have it both ways Alan.

either a right to self-ownership is something you are born with that does not have to be purchased or gifted or it is a privilege that you pay someone else for...

which is it?

[AlanM]

your system grants landowners "authority" over the individual - what is the difference?

they both use taxation (economic rent) collection backed by force to establish dominion over their territory
they both have a set of rules to be obeyed within that dominion

So you admit that they are both coercive in some way, and you think your way is fairer. I disagree. My way requires no outside controlling element. Yours does. I'll take my way.

your way violates the property rights we all have to our labor product (wages) and hence sacrifices the very principle you claim to defend (self-ownership)

my way is the original classical liberal ideal (laissez-faire meant shift taxation off labor/capital and onto those who enclose the natural commons) and it does not!

No. I say everyone pays there way in this life. You say everyone gets paid. That is the difference.

what you really mean is that the privileged/entitled live off of the labors of those being excluded.

you can't have it both ways Alan.

either a right to self-ownership is something you are born with that does not have to be purchased or gifted or it is a privilege that you pay someone else for...

which is it?

It is your definition of self-ownership that is the basis of disagreement. When you are born, you are nurtured by your parents until you are ready to care for yourself. They give you your much vaunted 'place to stand'. You then find your own place. You earn it.

[AlanM]

Bill, your ideas remind me of a similar argument called 'original sin'. I don't agree with that any more than I agree with you. They both involve things that were done by people before I existed. In your case, you are saying they (landowners) owe me because they owned land before I existed. I'm sorry, but that has no basis in reality.

[FrankChodorov]

Bill, your ideas remind me of a similar argument called 'original sin'. I don't agree with that any more than I agree with you. They both involve things that were done by people before I existed. In your case, you are saying they (landowners) owe me because they owned land before I existed. I'm sorry, but that has no basis in reality.

I can assure you Alan that what is being done by some people (landowners) against other people (landless) is VERY real indeed as the theft of their wages and thus property rights and self-ownership is occuring right in front of our eyes no matter if you choose to not see it...

but please stop pretending that libertarians believe in the right of self-ownership...because it is a BIG lie!

[AlanM]

Bill, your ideas remind me of a similar argument called 'original sin'. I don't agree with that any more than I agree with you. They both involve things that were done by people before I existed. In your case, you are saying they (landowners) owe me because they owned land before I existed. I'm sorry, but that has no basis in reality.

I can assure you Alan that what is being done by some people (landowners) against other people (landless) is VERY real indeed as the theft of their wages and thus property rights and self-ownership is occuring right in front of our eyes no matter if you choose to not see it...

but please stop pretending that libertarians believe in the right of self-ownership...because it is a BIG lie!

You define self-ownership to suit your own theories, then you call us liars. What a hypocrite.

[FrankChodorov]

You define self-ownership to suit your own theories, then you call us liars. What a hypocrite.

fine - we will use your definition then...

how would you define the "right of self-ownership"?

here are a few to get you started:

"The property rights that each citizen has in himself are the foundation of a free society." -- James Bovard, Freedom In Chains, p. 86

"Libertarianism begins with self ownership." -- David Bergland, Libertarianism In One Lesson, p. 35

"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

[tracysaboe]

ever heard of "land patents"?

If you don't understand that a Land Patent is a completely different thing from a patent for an invention, you're really a moron.

Beware of NewSpeak.

Tracy

[FrankChodorov]

ever heard of "land patents"?

If you don't understand that a Land Patent is a completely different thing from a patent for an invention, you're really a moron.

are you claiming the word "patent" not being used consistently then?

sometimes the NH Grants (fee simple titles) which are now greater Vermont were called "land patents"

let's go to the dictionary then - shall we?

pat?ent    n.

1.
a. A grant made by a government that confers upon the creator of an invention the sole right to make, use, and sell that invention for a set period of time.
b. Letters patent.
c. An invention protected by such a grant.
 
2.
a. A grant made by a government that confers on an individual fee-simple title to public lands.
b. The official document of such a grant.
c. The land so granted.

[Russell Kanning]

I was in Walmart the other day buying really cheap stuff ...... a little girl was driving down the aisle on a tiny bike, with a huge grin on her face. These are my people. This is my store.

[tracysaboe]

ever heard of "land patents"?

If you don't understand that a Land Patent is a completely different thing from a patent for an invention, you're really a moron.

are you claiming the word "patent" not being used consistently then?

sometimes the NH Grants (fee simple titles) which are now greater Vermont were called "land patents"

let's go to the dictionary then - shall we?

pat?ent    n.

1.
a. A grant made by a government that confers upon the creator of an invention the sole right to make, use, and sell that invention for a set period of time.
b. Letters patent.
c. An invention protected by such a grant.
 
2.
a. A grant made by a government that confers on an individual fee-simple title to public lands.
b. The official document of such a grant.
c. The land so granted.

Exactly. They're too completely different deffinitions that use the same word.

In other words, they're different.

Land Patents are wrong too. But homesteading is the proper libertarian method of claiming property -- not government fiat, hense you're insistance are equating homesteading w/ Government grants of prviliage is, in a word, dumb,

I'd be more patient but we've had this confersation 10s of times.

Go fly a kite.

TRAcy