right of self-ownership

[FrankChodorov]

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

what is there to disagree about?

economic rent attaches to all locations as two or more people naturally compete for access under conditions of scarcity.

where do you specifically disagree?

that the material world (in this case land) is not in fixed quantities in it's natural state?
that two or more people can occupy the same exact location at the same time?

[BaRbArIaN]

what is there to disagree about?

economic rent attaches to all locations as two or more people naturally compete for access under conditions of scarcity.

Statement without proof.    Who says that economic rent means what you say it means?    Government contract?  Social (i.e. unenforcable) contract?   Just "obvious" from the initial conditions?    Hardly.

where do you specifically disagree?

that the material world (in this case land) is not in fixed quantities in it's natural state?
that two or more people can occupy the same exact location at the same time?

Land is certainly in fixed quantity, the surface area of our planet at least.  Though infinite if you consider the universe at large.   Whether everyone is entitled to socialistic payments for the "harm" of not having an equal piece of everything is another matter altogether, that is what you need to justify.   Do we pay others "economic rent" for using our common air?  No.    Of course by its nature air isn't easy to stake off and use exclusively.   Land is, then people get involved, first by ownership by unopposed occupation, then later by defense of said occupation from those that wish to usurp it (leading to the development of tribes then states).

[tracysaboe]

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

That was a very good propagandist way to completely ignore the question.

Good for you.

Tracy

[tracysaboe]

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?

The Right of self ownership does not include the right to own the 3-D space needed to excersize your self-ownership rights in.  It doesn't include that anymore then it includes the right to Eat and Drink so you can stay alive to excercise your self ownership rights.

But we've had this exact conversation before Bill.  If you're going to argue for georgism at lease come up with some new arguments that we haven't heard over and over over the last 3 years.

Tracy

[FrankChodorov]

Do we pay others "economic rent" for using our common air?  No.   

that is because we leave "enough and as good in common for others" when we use it.

now we also have an inalienable, individual equal access opportunity right to use the sky as a sink to sustain ourselves and we have gone beyond Locke's proviso for that so we should be charging to pollute and collect the economic rent and return it directly and equally to the owners otherwise the negative externalities (the flip side of economic rent) are nothing more than a tax on out wages and thus violate our absolute right of self-ownership.

just as the landowner collecting the economic rent is...

[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?

The Right of self ownership does not include the right to own the 3-D space needed to excersize your self-ownership rights in.  It doesn't include that anymore then it includes the right to Eat and Drink so you can stay alive to excercise your self ownership rights.

so you obviously voted that human existence (self) can be seperated from occupying 3D space...meaning are not one in the same - right?

eating and drinking are "needs" that have to be fullfilled to continue to exist whereas occupying 3D space is synonomous with existing - one in the same.

eating and drinking require positive action to engage in whereas to exist is to occupy 3D space...

do you not recognize the difference

[tracysaboe]

Well, you exist in the 3-D space of your mothers womb before you're born.

After you're born you exist in the 3-D space your parents provide for you.

Both spaces are owned by your mother and parents respectively. Not you. Now, I'm prolife and as such I would argue that because your parents forced you into existence with-out your concent (for lack of a better phrase), they have an obligation to care for you untill your emancipated. But that's a debate for another time.

Once you've reach an age where you're compentant to care for yourselve and you leave the 3-d space your parents provided you. It's up to you to find that provision for yourself. The same is true of food, shelter and water.

You don't have a right to steal from others who have peacefully homesteaded their property just because you exist.

Tracy

[FrankChodorov]

Well, you exist in the 3-D space of your mothers womb before you're born.

yes, your parents create you via their labor and during in utero gestation the potential human life begins the lifelong process of ASSERTING their independence...we talk about parents "gifting" the child's life to them but it really is a continual seperation process where human life differentiates themself from their guardian...

After you're born you exist in the 3-D space your parents provide for you.

yes, parents have a positive obligation to provide your sustenance until emancipation and that includes food, clothing & shelter...

but the question that you continue to avoid is whether or not food, clothing, shelter (all produced via human labor) is materially different than human existence/occupying 3D space as the former are necessary material to continue to exist whereas the later IS existing...

parents produce those items via their labor (or voluntarily trade for them) but no human can produce 3D space via their labor.

they have an obligation to care for you untill your emancipated

I agree

Once you've reach an age where you're compentant to care for yourselve and you leave the 3-d space your parents provided you. It's up to you to find that provision for yourself

then you can't claim a right of self-ownership because a right doesn't have to be purchased or gifted.

do you agree a right doesn't need to be purchased or gifted?

The same is true of food, shelter and water.

food and shelter are provided via people's labor...(although food does grow and roam wild)

in NH the surface water over 20 acres and the groundwater is owned in common - freely accessible so long as you don't infringe on anyone else's equal right to the same.

You don't have a right to steal from others who have peacefully homesteaded their property just because you exist.

if you are concerned with protecting the absolute rights to labor then the right to enclose the natural commons for exclusive private use has to be conditional on sharing the economic rent.

[tracysaboe]

First of all YOU KNOW and have known for years, that I've never believed in the Labor theory of ownership.  It is niehter nessessary nor sufficient for ownership.

So why do you keep bringing it up?

Creating a 3-D space to live in is not any different then needing the food or water to continue living after emancipation.

Tracy

[FrankChodorov]

Creating a 3-D space to live in is not any different then needing the food or water to continue living after emancipation.

you don't "create a 3-D space to live in" the 3-D space is already there as it pre-exists human labor.

human existence MEANS occupying 3-D space...

whereas after emancipation you have to take positive action to ATTEMPT to sustain your life via food or water (although both food and water are found in their natural state in nature)...

the problem is that while your parents are providing shelter for thye child - the shelter necessarily includes access to land.

[tracysaboe]

Creating a 3-D space to live in is not any different then needing the food or water to continue living after emancipation.

you don't "create a 3-D space to live in" the 3-D space is already there as it pre-exists human labor.

human existence MEANS occupying 3-D space...

whereas after emancipation you have to take positive action to ATTEMPT to sustain your life via food or water (although both food and water are found in their natural state in nature)...

the problem is that while your parents are providing shelter for thye child - the shelter necessarily includes access to land.

Purchasing it. Exploring and finding it. Creation. Whatever.

You need to learn about how to debate the concepts instead of just poking holes with semantics Bill.

Tracy

[FrankChodorov]

Creating a 3-D space to live in is not any different then needing the food or water to continue living after emancipation.

you don't "create a 3-D space to live in" the 3-D space is already there as it pre-exists human labor.

human existence MEANS occupying 3-D space...

whereas after emancipation you have to take positive action to ATTEMPT to sustain your life via food or water (although both food and water are found in their natural state in nature)...

the problem is that while your parents are providing shelter for thye child - the shelter necessarily includes access to land.

Purchasing it. Exploring and finding it. Creation. Whatever.

purchasing it (after emancipation) means you have no right of self-ownership unless you believe a right needs to be purchased or gifted - is that true?

you don't "explore and find it" as existing MEANS humans are occupying 3-D space...

"creation"...3-D space is not created!

"whatever"...is that how you "debate the concepts"?

[Lex]

Why aren't "rights" purchased?

If you want to have a "right" from harm then you either have to purchase a gun yourself, pay taxes and hope to get protection from the government, or purchase protection from a private company.

Same goes for land.

[FrankChodorov]

ever heard of the concept "negative liberty"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty

"The philosophical concept of negative liberty refers to an individual's liberty from being subjected to the authority of others. In this negative sense, one is considered free to the extent to which no person interferes with his or her activity. According to Thomas Hobbes, for example, "a free man is he that... is not hindered to do what he hath the will to do."

The distinction between negative liberty and positive liberty was drawn by Isaiah Berlin in his lecture entitled "Two Concepts of Liberty." According to Berlin, this distinction is deeply embedded in the political tradition: the notion of negative liberty being associated most strongly with the classical British political philosophers (e.g. Locke, Hobbes, Smith, and Mill) and positive liberty with continental European thinkers such as Hegel, Rousseau, Herder, and Marx."