right of self-ownership

[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).

[JonM]

If you spontaneously sprung into being fully functional and able to care for yourself, your premise would have merit.

Last time I checked, that wasn't how we got here.

[FrankChodorov]

If you spontaneously sprung into being fully functional and able to care for yourself, your premise would have merit.

Last time I checked, that wasn't how we got here.

yes, parents have a positive obligation to provide food, clothing, housing which are all the result of human labor so strictly private property...and as such as part of the housing component they have to be purchasing land (not created by any human labor) but the question remains...

exactly when does a person get to excercise their absolute right of self-ownership - emancipation?

and then does that have to include a place to stand that doesn't require a payment (rent or buy) or be gifted??

[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.

[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).

[JonM]

That question is only salient if you have no where to stand, and no way to obtain somewhere to stand.  As the world exists now, that isn't an issue.

[FrankChodorov]

That question is only salient if you have no where to stand, and no way to obtain somewhere to stand.  As the world exists now, that isn't an issue.

in other words a place to stand is to be gifted or purchased...

but how does this square with a right to self-ownership?

[JonM]

I require oxygen in order to survive.  One might say my right to self-ownership includes the right to an air supply.  Square that with living someplace where oxygen is not native to the environment, like say, a space station or some future lunar colony.

[FrankChodorov]

I require oxygen in order to survive.  One might say my right to self-ownership includes the right to an air supply.  Square that with living someplace where oxygen is not native to the environment, like say, a space station or some future lunar colony.

yes we all have an equal access opportunity right to use the air in the sky as both a source and a sink for our continued existence...the source is not a problem as we are well below Locke's proviso (private enclosure is just so long as enough and as good is left in common for all others)

but the use of the sky as a sink has seriously gone way past Locke's proviso and the resulting negative externalities (pollution) is violating all of our absolute right to our labor products (wages) and thus right of self-ownership.

the oxygen provide in space can only be provide by human labor - thus it is strictly private property.

[JonM]

Every bit of dirt we stand upon was stolen from someone who was there first.  The world is not perfect, and I doubt it will become perfect within my life time.  You can spend eternity trying to convince people they have a right to stand somewhere, but until people are told they can't stand anywhere, they can't buy a place to stand, they can't be gifted a place to stand, and they have to figure out how to hover if they want to live, then your argument lacks traction.

I'm not moving to New Hampshire to philosophize on the ideal nature of human existence.  I'm moving there to help create the best society we can practically create.

[FrankChodorov]

Every bit of dirt we stand upon was stolen from someone who was there first.  The world is not perfect, and I doubt it will become perfect within my life time.  You can spend eternity trying to convince people they have a right to stand somewhere, but until people are told they can't stand anywhere, they can't buy a place to stand, they can't be gifted a place to stand, and they have to figure out how to hover if they want to live, then your argument lacks traction.

I'm not moving to New Hampshire to philosophize on the ideal nature of human existence.  I'm moving there to help create the best society we can practically create.

so much for standing on fundamental principles, huh?

then could you please denounce right here and now for all of NHFree to see that you either don't believe in the right to self-ownership - as in not having to be purchased or gifted - as the fundamental philosophical principle of:

-classical liberalism
-libertarianism
-anarcho-capitalism
-the Free State Project

or you believe that you can somehow seperate being alive and occupying 3D space...

[JonM]

I believe in the right of self-ownership.  I've told you many times before, I don't believe in YOUR view of what the right to self-ownership entails.

I believe my view of self-ownership includes the responsibility to take care of myself.  In the world I live in, that includes purchasing or renting a parcel of 3D space to occupy.  In that I have the ability to do such a thing, I don't have a philosophical issue with having to do it.  If I were the type of person who wanted everything in life given to me, perhaps I would feel otherwise.

I don't care as much about being pure in philosophy as I do about being free in reality.

[FrankChodorov]

I don't care as much about being pure in philosophy as I do about being free in reality.

I am sorry to inform you John but simple logic dictates that your "freedom" to occupy a location without any duty (dues) to others can only come at the expense of those you exclude's freedom.

the system I advocate allows the greatest amount of equal freedom for the greatest number of people because no matter where anyone else chooses to locate no one is economically harmed...in other words - their absolute right to the fruits of their labor are protected - hence the right of self-ownership itself is protected.

[FrankChodorov]

Frank, does your system actually guarantee everyone a piece of land to stand on? I thought all that it guaranteed was a periodic check for one's share of the land tax revenue.  ???

theoretical yes but practically no because it would be impossible to administer and continually divide up the land as it is all of varying quality over locations.

better to use the subjective market to determine the return on land (economic rent) for each specific location as the equivalent of landownership and then share it directly and equally between neighbors in a community.

so it won't matter where anyone else chooses to locate - no one will be economically harmed and it will be the closes approximation to living in a perfect state of nature (individual access to the whole world).

[JonM]

I don't care as much about being pure in philosophy as I do about being free in reality.

I am sorry to inform you John but simple logic dictates that your "freedom" to occupy a location without any duty (dues) to others can only come at the expense of those you exclude's freedom.

the system I advocate allows the greatest amount of equal freedom for the greatest number of people because no matter where anyone else chooses to locate no one is economically harmed...in other words - their absolute right to the fruits of their labor are protected - hence the right of self-ownership itself is protected.

First, my name has never been John.

Perhaps I'm not smart enough to figure out how my renting a 3rd story apartment is harming anyone else.  Your entire philosophy requires one to accept certain suppositions you posit as facts.  I do not accept your suppositions as fact, and therefore your philosophy is meaningless to me.  I bet you get that a lot.