|
I got shouted at by my girlfriend when I laughed at her for saying the state could never take someone's property, because people have property rights. She's not a libertarian, she just hadn't thought through the implications that your property is only your property at the state's suffrance, and that can change at any time [insert historical examples here].
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 11:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 00:59 |
|
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain ?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 11:24
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:I agree these are problems de facto to some degree but cooperative communities of people who recognise one another's rights are a fundamental cornerstone of any libertarian ideology. You're partially right, many libertarian ideologies rely on the unrealistic assumption that people will just coalesce into cooperative communities, but not all of them do. But even in the best case, where all parties are always good-intentioned (lol) you'll still wind up with unresolvable property disputes through via goofy homesteading situations QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 12:33 on Jul 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 12:24
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:In the absence of a de-facto state there is no concrete and enforceable registry of property ownership, this isn't necessarily a problem for anarcho-communists because they would argue that you shouldn't be owning things of significance anyway, but for a philosophy built on the idea of owning property, it rather does present a problem whereby if you aren't actively patrolling your land with a rifle 24/7 someone might come along and stake a claim to it and there's nothing you can do about it. oh that one's easy, we register land on a blockchain,
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 12:25
|
|
|
sweart gliwere posted:Sorry for the side-topic: Was it you or some different similarly-named poster, who had the "ask me about being a former libertarian" type thread? I'm not quite remembering an old link. It was less "ask me" and more "I'm recovering. Help me." I felt like I was coming out of a decade of brainwashing and I really had no clue how to comprehend some things that I had simply disregarded as "pfft, state" before.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 15:44
|
|
|
WillyTheNewGuy posted:If I genetically engineered a virus would it be my property? If someone was to then become infected without a receipt proving they paid for it, can I request my DRO charge the infected with theft? This is already a real thing, when Monsanto sued a farmer for using proprietary seeds that floated into their field. (Though unlike the common legend, this only happened in one specific case of reuse; Monsanto doesn't sue people whose fields randomly got seeds blown into them)
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 15:48
|
|
|
Golbez posted:This is already a real thing, when Monsanto sued a farmer for using proprietary seeds that floated into their field. (Though unlike the common legend, this only happened in one specific case of reuse; Monsanto doesn't sue people whose fields randomly got seeds blown into them) Wait, I thought in that suit, they determined the farmer had re-used old Monsanto seed and he lost the suit because of it? http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted quote:Schmeiser had an explanation. As an experiment, he'd actually sprayed Roundup on about three acres of the field that was closest to a neighbor's Roundup Ready canola. Many plants survived the spraying, showing that they contained Monsanto's resistance gene — and when Schmeiser's hired hand harvested the field, months later, he kept seed from that part of the field and used it for planting the next year.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 16:02
|
|
|
As I said - one specific case of reuse.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 18:40
|
|
i am harry posted:Groups of people who, conveniently, only ever do anything when I specifically need or want them to do those things, and never anything else and especially not what I don't like. A lot of ideology rests on a rather optimistic endgame, I don't think LIbertarians are exceptionally so on this issue. QuarkJets posted:You're partially right, many libertarian ideologies rely on the unrealistic assumption that people will just coalesce into cooperative communities, but not all of them do. But even in the best case, where all parties are always good-intentioned (lol) you'll still wind up with unresolvable property disputes through via goofy homesteading situations Any society has that kind of dispute, that's where valhalla DRO is doing the job a court would, or else you wild west some people.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:A lot of ideology rests on a rather optimistic endgame, I don't think LIbertarians are exceptionally so on this issue. Yeah, a lot of ideologues just want to sell people on the best case scenario and never care about investigating suboptimal outcomes, dismissing them as perversions that don't count and certainly didn't arise out of contradictions in their ideology. But it seem Libertarians are particularly utopia in my experience, like I don't know of many who just say that things will be slightly better, EVERYTHING will be perfect.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
The crazy thing about libertarian utopias is that they still sound super terrible to live in. Like, Molyneaux's DRO system is an undisguised 1984 dystopia, where not-government agents can show up at any time and tell you you have to get in their van right now and never talk to your spouse again, and you have to just do it or you get stripped of everything you own and exiled from society. That's his example to show how great it is. The hardcore libertarian set are so broken in their fundamental values that they don't know how to come up with a best case scenario.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 01:17
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:The crazy thing about libertarian utopias is that they still sound super terrible to live in. Like, Molyneaux's DRO system is an undisguised 1984 dystopia, where not-government agents can show up at any time and tell you you have to get in their van right now and never talk to your spouse again, and you have to just do it or you get stripped of everything you own and exiled from society. That's his example to show how great it is. The hardcore libertarian set are so broken in their fundamental values that they don't know how to come up with a best case scenario. They're selling it as "you get to be a person who orders those agents to get into their van" so from that perspective it makes sense. But then they never explain how you get to be one of those overlords beyond "You're a libertarian true believer, so naturally you will be".
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 02:40
|
|
|
You're missing the upside to that scenario. Molyneaux makes clear that as the policy-holder you can buy a rider that forces your daughter to wear an ankle bracelet and body cam at all times so you can monitor her virginity. And no one can say this is unhealthy or insane because you pay the bills damnit and money makes you right all the time! Oh and all the bad things? Well those only happen to people who do something to deserve it, like lose their job or marry the wrong person, but you as a savvy white male homeowner will never deserve it. In fact, the only reason you have any problems now is because the government is holding you back and keeping you down so it can reward the lazy and the stupid and protect the sluts from the consequences they deserve.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 03:00
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:A lot of ideology rests on a rather optimistic endgame, I don't think LIbertarians are exceptionally so on this issue. My original point was that any society with homesteading and without title laws has a much broader range of property disputes, a statement with which it seems like you now agree (if Bob has a legitimate homesteading claim on a field that you had left fallow then the only remaining resolution is to eliminate that claimant)
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 05:37
|
|
|
Also, the work on the land has to be something I culturally respect and can recognize as work otherwise you're savage and get trail of tears'd up. I wonder about the timing of libertarianism as a political movement. It has always struck me as a response among baby boomers to the draft and non-white people gaining rights, but who also didn't like Nixon.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 13:15
|
|
|
What the hell is geolibertarianism
Lightning Lord fucked around with this message at 14:08 on Jul 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 14:05
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:What the hell is geolibertarianism Man, who the gently caress knows anymore
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 14:07
|
|
QuarkJets posted:My original point was that any society with homesteading and without title laws has a much broader range of property disputes, a statement with which it seems like you now agree (if Bob has a legitimate homesteading claim on a field that you had left fallow then the only remaining resolution is to eliminate that claimant) No I think that's reading it a little too absurdly.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 14:07
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:I wonder about the timing of libertarianism as a political movement. It has always struck me as a response among baby boomers to the draft and non-white people gaining rights, but who also didn't like Nixon. Rothbard reached out to anti-war activists in the 60s so you're probably not wrong. Who What Now posted:Man, who the gently caress knows anymore Apparently it's some sort of libertarianism that is married to Georgism, also known as the idea that people should own their own stuff but land and resources should belong to everyone in a society, or at least they should receive the benefits of it's exploitation or usage. I guess it's like some weirdo pseudo-anarchist iteration of Georgism though, it should happen but not be done by a government basically I bring it up because a geolibertarian was tweeting at Chelsea Manning.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 14:12
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:Apparently it's some sort of libertarianism that is married to Georgism, also known as the idea that people should own their own stuff but land and resources should belong to everyone in a society, or at least they should receive the benefits of it's exploitation or usage. I guess it's like some weirdo pseudo-anarchist iteration of Georgism though, it should happen but not be done by a government basically There have been communities without a recognisable state that have held land in common and operated perfectly adequately.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 14:20
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:There have been communities without a recognisable state that have held land in common and operated perfectly adequately. Did they have more than 10000 persons involved?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 14:35
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:There have been communities without a recognisable state that have held land in common and operated perfectly adequately. I'm not saying it's horrible, especially in comparison to the more familiar strain of libertarianism, I just find left/progressive libertarianism to be odd. I don't fully trust that it's genuine I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 14:50
|
|
|
There have been anarchist or semi-anarchist regions like the Free Territory and Revolutionary Catalonia and (currently) Rojava, but they've had the problem of all emerging during vicious civil wars so it's hard to judge how they'd fare under "normal" conditions. This has nothing to do with free market libertarianism though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 14:58
|
|
|
I just question why left/socially progressive libertarians don't call themselves anarchists is all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 15:00
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:The crazy thing about libertarian utopias is that they still sound super terrible to live in. Like, Molyneaux's DRO system is an undisguised 1984 dystopia, where not-government agents can show up at any time and tell you you have to get in their van right now and never talk to your spouse again, and you have to just do it or you get stripped of everything you own and exiled from society. That's his example to show how great it is. The hardcore libertarian set are so broken in their fundamental values that they don't know how to come up with a best case scenario. This post reminds me that the Libertarians Wiki exists. Never made that post about the wacky ancap dystopias.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 15:13
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:I just question why left/socially progressive libertarians don't call themselves anarchists is all. A lot of people associate "anarchist" with century-old terrorists and/or the black bloc, so it's a loaded term. Not that "libertarian" isn't loaded either, but 
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 15:17
|
|
|
Golbez posted:As I said - one specific case of reuse. (also you're not supposed to replant them at all I think but whatever) It feels weird to be on Monsanto's side on that one but I totally am!
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 15:20
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:I bring it up because a geolibertarian was tweeting at Chelsea Manning. Is it @GeolibGeorge ?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 15:55
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:Is it @GeolibGeorge ? Lol, it is
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 16:08
|
|
|
DACK FAYDEN posted:Calling it "reuse" is kind of misleading, since the whole point is that the guy didn't "use" them originally - his neighbor did and he specifically selected for the ones that had blown over. Where he got in trouble was that he tried to sue Monsanto over a lawsuit he claimed they were going to bring against him, based on some real misunderstanding. If he'd just been attempting to keep the seeds from interbred plants for his whole farm or whatever, he wouldn't actually have ever been sued, it's not illegal. It's kind of a bad idea to do because all GMO traits will tend to "breed away" over time in a normal seed->crop->harvest and keep enough to reseed cycle, but no one would have ever noticed, and it'd be even harder to sue over.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:There have been communities without a recognisable state that have held land in common and operated perfectly adequately. For certain narrow definitions of "without a recognizable state," perhaps. Lightning Lord posted:I just question why left/socially progressive libertarians don't call themselves anarchists is all. In addition to what Goon Danton said, for the more historically literate anarchism is too connected with socialist traditions for the individually-minded.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 17:33
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:For certain narrow definitions of "without a recognizable state," perhaps. Not really.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:Apparently it's some sort of libertarianism that is married to Georgism, also known as the idea that people should own their own stuff but land and resources should belong to everyone in a society, or at least they should receive the benefits of it's exploitation or usage. I guess it's like some weirdo pseudo-anarchist iteration of Georgism though, it should happen but not be done by a government basically Isn't that just communism?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:No I think that's reading it a little too absurdly. No, it's what logically follows from Locke's homesteading principle, and the existence of this wider range of property disputes is why European Christians felt justified in stealing land from the Native Americans. What you're calling absurd was an actual, historical use-case
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 20:36
|
|
QuarkJets posted:No, it's what logically follows from Locke's homesteading principle, and the existence of this wider range of property disputes is why European Christians felt justified in stealing land from the Native Americans. What you're calling absurd was an actual, historical use-case The whole point about that incidence is its a collision between two radically different concepts of ownership, not me wandering on to a parcel of your farm and declaring it mine by virtue of having farmed it more recently. It was land homesteaded from terra nullis, not another's property, for theoretical purposes. Homesteading is only a vector for acquiring what is unowned.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
Absenting a central authority I really don't see what would prevent libertopia from descending into competing concepts of what property ownership is, that being, well, the point. After all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 20:45
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Absenting a central authority I really don't see what would prevent libertopia from descending into competing concepts of what property ownership is, that being, well, the point. After all. I can definitely see a commune brushing with an ancap community the wrong way in such a circumstance, but the real question is despite a different way of using land would you be prudent in concluding it was unowned. I don't think a libertarian would tell you he could homestead your communal farm with a fence around it just because the title to it wasn't held by one individual. Also, since everyone keeps forgetting, libertarians believe in a state. They are not identical to ancaps.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:The whole point about that incidence is its a collision between two radically different concepts of ownership, not me wandering on to a parcel of your farm and declaring it mine by virtue of having farmed it more recently. It was land homesteaded from terra nullis, not another's property, for theoretical purposes. If I own the title to 100 acres and just want to hunt and forage on it nobody is going to come along and set up a farm when I'm not looking; I still have own title. In libertopia this not only can happen, it's what actually happened when Locke's principles were applied in real life. The part of the plot that I'm not "using" (by whose definition?) becomes terra nullis to whoever wants to claim it Disinterested posted:I can definitely see a commune brushing with an ancap community the wrong way in such a circumstance, but the real question is despite a different way of using land would you be prudent in concluding it was unowned. I don't think a libertarian would tell you he could homestead your communal farm with a fence around it just because the title to it wasn't held by one individual. We were talking about ancaps from the start
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 20:49
|
|
QuarkJets posted:If I own the title to 100 acres and just want to hunt and forage on it nobody is going to come along and set up a farm when I'm not looking; I still have own title. In libertopia this not only can happen, it's what actually happened when Locke's principles were applied in real life. The part of the plot that I'm not "using" (by whose definition?) becomes terra nullis to whoever wants to claim it Sure, which means the argument is about that and not the homesteading principle.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 00:59 |
|
|
There's no such thing as terra nullis.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 20:57
|
|