Why Should We Care About Property Rights?

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > The Goodmine > Why Should We Care About Property Rights?

bitterandtwisted: Sep 4, 2006

jrodefeld posted:

But those who wish to overturn existing property rights must have the burden of proof on them to prove just ownership and the farther back in history the alleged theft took place the harder it is to prove it. The exception to this is property owned by the State. State property is inherently illegitimate because a "state" cannot homestead land. Only individuals can do that. States violate property rights and, even if the original owners whose land was stolen by the State cannot be identified, the property must still (according to libertarian theory) be transferred to private hands.

The only just way to do this, in my view, is to follow the principle of syndicalism. If no original owner (or descendant) can be identified as having homesteaded the land when it was seized by the State, then the second most just way to allocate the property into private hands is to grant it to the workers who work the land. The factories to the factory owners, the farms to the farmers, the State function buildings to the workers employed there, etc.

Since these people have worked on these lands, which are stolen, they have in theory homesteaded some legitimate claim to ownership if a previous just owner cannot be identified.

What constitutes 'homesteading'?
Many members of my family are/were tenant farmers, including my dad. They work the land, but don't own it (though they do own the livestock). The Laird owns it. He inherited it. His family owned it for a couple centuries. He has never done anything resembling work on the land. Who is the 'homesteader', the Laird or my dad?
It's estimated that half of my country's land is owned by fewer than 500 individuals. Some are old money, some are foreign tycoons who live abroad. Are they homesteaders? If they are, what are they doing that the state doesn't in publicly owned land?

E: to the best of my knowledge, that Laird's ancestor's bought the land from a previous family, who were given it by the King a few centuries earlier, so I guess that's the point it was illegitimately seized? I don't know who owned it before, but we're talking late medieval times here and the land has been settled since prehistoric times so the very concept of there even being an original homesteader let alone finding their descendants is ridiculous.

On the subject of human and property rights being the same:
In my country, we have the right to walk through land we don't own. So long as they don't cause any damage, the Laird can't stop hill walkers from going on a hiking trip on his land. Is this not a conflict between freedom of movement and the right to do what you want with your land? Which right should win out and why?

bitterandtwisted fucked around with this message at 11:47 on Oct 10, 2015

# ¿ Oct 10, 2015 11:40

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 10:51

bitterandtwisted: Sep 4, 2006

Jrod, how do you envisage homesteading working in perfect conditions? What is the limit of how much land you can claim? As much as you personally can work? If you employ a dozen people to work a farm too big to work by yourself, is that still homesteading? Is there a limit to how big an organisation can be to be considered a homesteader?

Say we've just landed on a newly discovered planet, Eden Prime. It's beautiful, lush, with space for all and no government or indigenous population currently claims it. How is the land divvied up? Is the end state:
a) we all live in an agrarian society, each of us claiming no more land than we can personally farm
b) CEO of BastardCorp stripmines the whole planet and becomes richer than God

# ¿ Oct 11, 2015 10:14

bitterandtwisted: Sep 4, 2006

quote:

People can discover the most effective medicine by relying on agencies that review drugs and procedures for safety, and recommend to consumers which they ought to choose. The difference is that these agencies would compete freely on the market and they would advise people rather than threaten them with violence if they choose to purchase an unapproved medical service. This prevents the power of monopoly influence over any single agency, since none have the power to violently prevent consumers from making their own decisions.

My first thought was "what makes these guys less corrupt than the FDA," then I thought about how they might be funded and now I can't see how they could be anything but corrupt.

These agencies run full clinical trials and then a bottle in a pharmacy gets an "approved by quackco.ltd" sticker right? Where does the money come from? Who pays for this if not the taxpayer?

# ¿ Feb 2, 2016 18:41

bitterandtwisted: Sep 4, 2006

jrodefeld posted:

I've already addressed this but because you lack reading comprehension, I'll rephrase it.

If someone knowingly sells a medical product or service that they know is useless and they don't tell the consumer, they are committing fraud. This would be illegal in a libertarian society. If someone sells someone something that causes serious harm and the risks are not explained and consented to, they have committed a crime and should accept full liability for their actions.

People trying to sell poison as medicine would quickly and clearly be prosecuted and put out of business under a libertarian legal order.

However, alternative and experimental treatments and procedures where both the consumer and the provider are open and honest with each other (no fraud) and voluntarily consent to a transaction, they should be left alone. Regardless of your personal view of homeopathy and acupuncture, consumers are generally not harmed by either and the information about the efficacy or lack thereof is abundant enough for the consumer to make an informed decision about whether or not they should purchase the service or product offered.

How would you determine they were knowingly selling a product or service they know is useless with no FDA? The evidence would have to come from your advisory panels, right? They're the ones doing the clinical trials after all. Questions:
Is it mandatory to get approval from one of these?
Can anyone set themselves up as an advisory panel?
If one of their approved drugs was killing people, wouldn't they have a massive incentive to falsify future trials?
How are these panels funded? This is probably the most important one and unless you can answer it there's no way you can compare the likelyhood of corruption compared to a government agency.
Even if these panels were somehow honest, is there any reason someone can't market radium water as an 'experimental' or 'alternative' treatment?

# ¿ Feb 2, 2016 21:08

bitterandtwisted: Sep 4, 2006

jrodefeld posted:

Like I said earlier though, it is true that market economies closer to libertarianism have less general income inequality than do more Statist societies.

You'd probably get a better reception here if you at least tried to back up claims like this with evidence. Give it a try.

Which market economies have the lowest income inequality levels?
Which market economies do you consider closest to libertarianism?

Rank your top ten

# ¿ Feb 10, 2016 10:31

bitterandtwisted: Sep 4, 2006

jrodefeld posted:

Politicians brag about the number of people on the doll and never about the number of people they help gain their independence and the ability to sustain a middle class living without outside assistance.

Like loving who? What politician brags about the number of people on the dole as if it's a good thing?

My country's politicians have spent years going after the disabled, putting them though tests to prove they're not *really* disabled and driving some to suicide all in the name of breaking the 'trap' of benefits.

# ¿ Feb 11, 2016 12:59

bitterandtwisted: Sep 4, 2006

jrod, what's your opinions on climate change, bitcoins and the fluoridation of water?

# ¿ Feb 11, 2016 13:19

bitterandtwisted: Sep 4, 2006

jrod if you were trapped in a burning car and I offered to save you in exchange for all your worldly possessions, would that be a voluntary economic contract?

# ¿ Feb 11, 2016 15:24

bitterandtwisted: Sep 4, 2006

jrodefeld posted:

Let me cite another common "lifeboat" scenario that is thrown against the libertarian position. If a poor person is starving and steals a loaf of bread from a store, is he or she committing an act of unjustified aggression?

For the libertarian, the store-owner would have the right to sue for restitution. If a store-owner was so petty as to make a Federal case about a starving person stealing a $3 loaf of bread to keep from starving, there are all sorts of social pressures that come to bear even where the law doesn't tread.

Even if we recognize the legal right of people to behave in ways that we might find morally objectionable, that hardly means we need to remain silent on the issue. Decent behavior is encouraged through ostracism, social pressure, persuasion and, for some people, religious, ethical and spiritual teachings.

more like
Black teenager gets caught stealing bread in Libertopia. Owner shoots him dead, says he was just defending his property against a dangerous criminal and libertarians hail him as a hero.

# ¿ Feb 12, 2016 16:13

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 10:51

bitterandtwisted: Sep 4, 2006

jrod posted:

Even if we recognize the legal right of people to behave in ways that we might find morally objectionable, that hardly means we need to remain silent on the issue. Decent behavior is encouraged through ostracism, social pressure, persuasion and, for some people, religious, ethical and spiritual teachings.

We're all upset about Mr. Burns' plan to, uh, block out our sun. It is time for decisive action. I have here a polite but firm letter to Mr. Burns' underlings, who with some cajoling, will pass it along to him or at least give him the gist of it.

# ¿ Feb 12, 2016 16:19

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > The Goodmine > Why Should We Care About Property Rights?