right of self-ownership

[tracysaboe]

HEY! Alan, I think you've figured it out.

Bill is really some master yogi who believes that perception is what defines existence. He believes his economic Scarcity rent concept exists because he believes it does -- and he's trying to use his Shambala powers to push his perceptions into everybody elses perception.

OK, I'll shut up now.

Tracy

[FrankChodorov]

Where the hell do you get this arbitrary $10,000/year tax bill from?

from the city of Concord.

[FrankChodorov]

if one take as a basic premise that a right is universal to human beings and therefore does not need to be purchased (rent or bought) or gifted then the only question remaining as to whether the right of self-ownership includes a place to stand without having to pay or be gifted is whether or not a place to stand is a condition of human existence or one in the same as human existence (to be alive is to occupying 3D space touching the ground someplace).

and therefore.....
Conditions, again. One does not logically follow the other. It is merely a leap of faith.
A right exists. Period. No conditions. Self-ownership has nothing to do with your coveted place to stand, along with your attached conditions.

the salient question that you keep dodging Alan is whether or not occupying 3D space is a condition of self (human existence) or synonomous with self (one in the same).

How am I dodging? I have stated that we all take up space beginning with birth.
It is a condition of human existence, as we all take up space. I'm not sure what you mean by the difference between 'condition of self' and 'synonomous with self'

so you believe occupying space in order to humanly exist is not a "need" to be fullfilled inorder for continued existence like food, water, clothing, shelter?

[FrankChodorov]

is really some master yogi who believes that perception is what defines existence. He believes his economic Scarcity rent concept exists because he believes it does -- and he's trying to use his Shambala powers to push his perceptions into everybody elses perception.

it is you I believe who thinks it is possible to exist without occupying 3D space inwhich one does not touch the landed surface of the earth...

is that still true?

[JonM]

is really some master yogi who believes that perception is what defines existence. He believes his economic Scarcity rent concept exists because he believes it does -- and he's trying to use his Shambala powers to push his perceptions into everybody elses perception.

it is you I believe who thinks it is possible to exist without occupying 3D space inwhich one does not touch the landed surface of the earth...

is that still true?

Build a boat.

[tracysaboe]

Build a boat.

I don't know how many times people over on the FSP forum tried to ask him.

"What if I dug up a patch of earth a mile deep and a square mile wide, and used labor to put that patch into the ocean -- or perhaps use it to extend the amount of land and essentially create more land. This extra space was completely "Created" by my labor. And not just pre-existing. Do I still owe economic scarcity rent?"

Nobody ever did get a straight answer from him.

You guys have fun.

Tracy

[sandm000]

I think this FrankChodorov is the same guy as RalphBorsodi from the fsp forums looks like the same argument to me
He always argue that people do not have a right to exist without paying others for the privelege.

[FrankChodorov]

This extra space was completely "Created" by my labor

can you please explain to me how you can create "extra space" aka 3 dimensional space from your labor?

I thought you were trained as a physicist?

as I have said the entire material universe that pre-exists human labor is not unowned - it is all owned in common.

What if I dug up a patch of earth a mile deep and a square mile wide, and used labor to put that patch into the ocean -- or perhaps use it to extend the amount of land and essentially create more land

everything that you create via your labor is "improved land value" and thus private property.

you do not create the dirt from your labor...if dirt were scarce it would have an economic rent attached to it.

where you put the dirt in the ocean to create an island is a fixed point in 3D space...have you left "enough and as good 3D spaces in the ocean [land] in common for others"?

if no - then the 3D location that you have put your dirt owes economic rent.
if yes - then you are free to homestead the ocean in the same that you have...just as people are free to homestead land were they invidually own the bundled right of:

1. use
2. possession
3. exclusion
4. transferability

but the economic rent (when it appears beyond Locke's "enough and as good" proviso) is owned in common as an INDIVIDUAL equal access right

[FrankChodorov]

is really some master yogi who believes that perception is what defines existence. He believes his economic Scarcity rent concept exists because he believes it does -- and he's trying to use his Shambala powers to push his perceptions into everybody elses perception.

it is you I believe who thinks it is possible to exist without occupying 3D space inwhich one does not touch the landed surface of the earth...

is that still true?

Build a boat.

the boat you build is via your labor and thus private property.

the 3 dimensional space you occupy in the ocean at any one time is common property.

if you leave "enough and as good in common for others" (Locke's proviso) then you are free to homestead that space because you are not economically disadvantaging anyone else.

if you have no then the 3D space you are occupying will have economic rent attached to it and you are required to share that economic rent with those you are excluding to uphold their absolute right to their labor product and hence self-ownership.

[FrankChodorov]

He always argue that people do not have a right to exist without paying others for the privelege.

I believe I am arguing against that and my opponents are making that argument.

if the landowners keep the economic rent then the landowners are free and the excluded are enslaved.

in my system the landowners pay the economic rent and both have their absolute rights to their labor products protected.

did you catch that?

it is called a koan or a paradox...

the key to understanding it is that the landowenr contributes no labor towards creating the economic rent:

1. they don't produce the land via their labor (it pre-exists labor)
2. they don't create the economic rent via their labor - it is unimproved land value.
3. there would be no actual purchase price to the land

so where does it come from if not out of the landowner's pocket?

it is called "value from obligation" that is part of natural law...

the mere fact that we must have exclusive use over a specific territory - beyond Locke's proviso (enough and as good) - creates as situation were a legal and monetary obligation is forced upon those being excluded as they compete for access to scarce locations.

[AlanM]

if one take as a basic premise that a right is universal to human beings and therefore does not need to be purchased (rent or bought) or gifted then the only question remaining as to whether the right of self-ownership includes a place to stand without having to pay or be gifted is whether or not a place to stand is a condition of human existence or one in the same as human existence (to be alive is to occupying 3D space touching the ground someplace).

and therefore.....
Conditions, again. One does not logically follow the other. It is merely a leap of faith.
A right exists. Period. No conditions. Self-ownership has nothing to do with your coveted place to stand, along with your attached conditions.

the salient question that you keep dodging Alan is whether or not occupying 3D space is a condition of self (human existence) or synonomous with self (one in the same).

How am I dodging? I have stated that we all take up space beginning with birth.
It is a condition of human existence, as we all take up space. I'm not sure what you mean by the difference between 'condition of self' and 'synonomous with self'

so you believe occupying space in order to humanly exist is not a "need" to be fullfilled inorder for continued existence like food, water, clothing, shelter?

You need to learn to read, Frank. Where you get some of your ideas about what people say is beyond me. Where have I said that? I have said that at birth we occupy space, and continue to occupy space throughout our lives. It is a simple matter of physics, not philosophy. Is it a need, or a condition? It is a fact, call it what you will. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

[FrankChodorov]

I have said that at birth we occupy space, and continue to occupy space throughout our lives. It is a simple matter of physics, not philosophy

fine...then if inhabitable land is for all intent and purpose legally occupied and to exist means to occupy 3D space *somewhere* then where can I go to excercise my right of self-ownership that does not require a payment or gift to someone?

and if there is no place - how can I have a right to self-ownership as the fundamental tenet of libertarianism if we are born with rights?

[AlanM]

fine...then if inhabitable land is for all intent and purpose legally occupied and to exist means to occupy 3D space *somewhere* then where can I go to excercise my right of self-ownership that does not require a payment or gift to someone?

No where.

and if there is no place - how can I have a right to self-ownership as the fundamental tenet of libertarianism if we are born with rights?

As usual it all comes down to definitions. I don't believe self-ownership REQUIRES a space to exist that is not gifted or paid for. You do. You are the one placing conditions on self-ownership, not I. Self-ownership exists, pure and simple. It is up to each individual to exercise the right. It cannot be taken from us, it can merely be relinquished.

[BaRbArIaN]

What if nobody else agrees with your "natural law of obligation" there Frank?   That makes you a ranting loon without any basis in reality.   

[FrankChodorov]

I don't believe self-ownership REQUIRES a space to exist that is not gifted or paid for.

how about a RIGHT of self-ownership?

is a universal right then something we are born with that does not require a payment or a gift to another human being?