- Sharkie
- Feb 4, 2013
-
by Fluffdaddy
|
In the list of things that are important in the world, "competing theories of initial property acquisition that make more sense that [sic] the first-user principle" falls way, way, way below things like keeping people alive, healthy, well fed, and cared for. I'd say making sure everyone in their community has a decent pair of shoes is at least twelve spots higher on the list of problems people should address than anything involving the phrase "the first-user principle."
So property rights are important enough I guess, but those other things come first.
p.s. also your writing is very bad, and tedious, and unclear. Take time to remove stilted phrases like "The reader should be disabused of the notion that," because they make you sound like you're aping a nineteenth century blowhard.
Sharkie fucked around with this message at 10:42 on Oct 9, 2015
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2015 10:39
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2024 14:45
|
|
- Sharkie
- Feb 4, 2013
-
by Fluffdaddy
|
And it makes intuitive and logical sense to most people to give the earlier user precedence over a later user.
Define "use." Also do Native Americans have an intuitive and logical claim to US territory?
I'd also like to see a rebuttal to this:
In fact, civilization as we know it did not emerge as per your market-fantasy, because states pre-date markets. The earliest states relied on labor levies for community projects (irrigation in particular) & taxes of grain to fund armies, organized on a massive scale. Ownership of the dominant means of production, land, was based on inherited titles maintained with military force. Abstract & universal property rights did not exist, if you could defend something, you owned it, regardless of which chronological user you were. The false dichotomy you're trying to set up between 'First vs. Nth User' doesn't work, and your first-user-principle it is both ahistorical (it doesn't describe real property) and immoral (It ignores benefit).
Sharkie fucked around with this message at 15:36 on Oct 9, 2015
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2015 15:33
|
|
- Sharkie
- Feb 4, 2013
-
by Fluffdaddy
|
Well let's see what one of them big thinkers from libertarian-land had to say on the subject:
Jrod define use. Do you agree with Rand here?
Also I have just now conceived of a brand new type of property right. You haven't conceived of this new right yet and are not using it, but I am. It's a bit complex, but you have no claim on my time so I don't have to explain it to you. Just rest assured that I now own your heartbeats and eyeballs. I'll accept 2 US cents per heartbeat and a lump sum payment of 700,000 dollars per eyeball. Be advised I have the right to use force to protect my property from theft.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2015 16:08
|
|
- Sharkie
- Feb 4, 2013
-
by Fluffdaddy
|
your understanding of the commons and of the slaughter of the buffalo seems flawed, op
Yeah, I'd like to see his explanation of how the Native Americans managed not to almost totally exterminate the buffalo despite the fact that they didn't have any sort of system for recognizing them as privately owned capital. I say "like to see" because I don't actually expect a response; he will ignore this issue like he's ignored so many others.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2015 00:48
|
|
- Sharkie
- Feb 4, 2013
-
by Fluffdaddy
|
It is entirely reasonable and moral for the person who finds an apple, and already has sufficient nutrition to sustain his own life, to share the food with a person who is starving. Such an act would be virtuous and worthy of praise.
But he still has the right to NOT do such a thing. And people of good will who witness him acting callously towards human suffering can choose to disassociate from that person.
This is a tired point that's been brought up before, even in this very thread, but I'm drinking coffee and killing time before I start my day so I'll bring it up anyways:
Says who?
I say people who need food have the right to take food from a person that has plenty. It's axiomatic. There. Now I've made a claim that rests on a foundation that is equally as solid as yours (despite the fact I used 1/20 the number of words). Jrode do you understand how you can't objectively prove me wrong, and what this says about the nature of rights?
I would seriously be loving impressed if you can point to a single piece of American property that wasn't stolen.
I think you'll find that just because a contract was written in a language not spoken by one of the parties, signed at the barrel of a gun, and later broken by the people who wrote it, doesn't mean it's not totally valid 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2015 16:19
|
|
- Sharkie
- Feb 4, 2013
-
by Fluffdaddy
|
Jrod how much do you cost? Not your labor, you.
Let me know, I won't be in the market forever.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2015 01:49
|
|
- Sharkie
- Feb 4, 2013
-
by Fluffdaddy
|
Does anyone have any experience setting up a kickstarter?
I'm thinking rewards along the lines of
$50 - Jrode cleans your garage.
$500 - One nonvital organ.
edit: I just realized kickstarter may have rules about this sort of thing, but fortunately Jrod is ideologically compelled to help me write several extremely lengthy emails to them in support of my right to crowdsource funds to buy him.
Sharkie fucked around with this message at 02:13 on Oct 11, 2015
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2015 02:11
|
|
- Sharkie
- Feb 4, 2013
-
by Fluffdaddy
|
Define "oppression". There's no reason to respond to a post like this but it makes a clear point nonetheless. You know the libertarian ideology fairly well by now after all that I've posted. You obviously cannot think that any libertarian would support a fascist police state. Remember the loving non-aggression principle I remind you of every other post?! It is literally the starting point of libertarian ethics. Have you ever heard of a fascist police state that doesn't aggress against people?
A discussion in a waste of time if you are not arguing in good faith. You state something you know is not true because you are hell bent on impugning the character of libertarians. You think we all just have a secret desire to oppress people and are using this high-minded rhetoric as a license to do it.
This is not a good faith debate tactic.
I promise I am arguing in good faith when I asked you how much you're worth. At least give me a range to work with.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2015 08:53
|
|
- Sharkie
- Feb 4, 2013
-
by Fluffdaddy
|
Jrod please prove that starving people don't have the right to take food from people that have plenty.
If you haven't read it the article itself is so much worse. For example, in this theoretical society if your spouse decided to murder you (Which is determined because his insurance lapsed) then the 'police' would come and forcibly relocate you to prevent you from being murdered. If you decided you wanted to maybe not be forcibly relocated against your will then you would be dropped from DRO coverage and would starve to death. Fun times.
I'm morbidly curious about the sudden fixation on women having children out of wedlock that appears at the end. I'd love to hear more about how DROs can prevent whor women from having illegitimate kids by ostracizing them and depriving them of all food and safety until they die.
Sharkie fucked around with this message at 09:08 on Oct 11, 2015
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2015 09:01
|
|
- Sharkie
- Feb 4, 2013
-
by Fluffdaddy
|
doublepost
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2015 09:07
|
|
- Sharkie
- Feb 4, 2013
-
by Fluffdaddy
|
You skirt the issue of taking a stand on which rules are best for society by stating that since all property rights are arbitrary, you know "whatever society democratically decides" should rule the day.
I doubt you would take the same stand if the majority decided that it was right and proper to enslave some minority and force them to work hard labor for no wages. So obviously majority rule is no standard by which principled ethics ought to be determined.
The first user principle is not arbitrary because it is derived logically from a previous moral principle, which is that of individual self-ownership. Let's term it "body-ownership" since "self" can be misleading to some people. What we are referring to here is that people should have the right to control over their own physical bodies.
Whether or not you quibble over the use of "property right" as applied to peoples right to control their bodies, the claims are the same. I (as should everyone) should have the right to control my body as I see fit unless my actions aggress against another persons body or property (leaving aside our differences about what constitutes just property titles external to our bodies). Therefore, what I choose to eat or ingest should be up to me and me alone. When I go to sleep and get up in the morning should be my determination. When or if I exercise, who I decide to date or have sex with, are all things that individuals should have the final say on.
Do you agree with this so far?
Do you accept the principle that people ought to have the final say in the use of their physical bodies so long as they don't harm others?
If you do NOT accept self-ownership, then your moral theory has some very serious problems that you have to account for. There would be no principled reason to oppose slavery or rape or murder. Sure you could try and make a utilitarian case for why it would be a net negative for society to permit these things, but it is easy to imagine situations where utilitarians could argue for such violations of human rights. Maybe slavery was found to be incredibly efficient in certain circumstances? What if an economist could demonstrate that a certain level of enslavement of physically gifted individuals would slightly raise the GDP if they were forced to work in certain jobs without pay?
Or imagine a eugenicist arguing that it was okay to murder all mentally handicapped persons because they don't contribute much to society from a productivity standpoint, they require a huge amount of care for their entire lives and they "contaminate" the gene pool if they reproduce by passing along so-called "inferior" genes to future generations.
These are obviously morally repugnant views but still there are a million ways to construct a utilitarian justification for their implementation.
If you give up on the right of self-ownership, then what are you left to fall back on if a consequentialist has a stronger case in a given situation? I am quite sure that you didn't decide that murder is wrong because you studied the utilitarian effects and long term consequences for society for killing different groups of people some might consider "undesirable". Like most decent people, I assume that your view is that people have certain rights as human beings that ought to be respected, which includes not being murdered, raped or enslaved.
This conception of "Natural Rights" had a great deal of influence on the founding of the United States and the drafting of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. It animated most abolitionists who fought to end slavery and grant equal rights to blacks in the United States.
Whether or not these rights exist in nature, or are mere practical constructions of man is not as important as you think it is. We argue for certain ethical rules for civilized society based on our reason, the coherence of our arguments and the nature of man. Pretty much all religious and spiritual traditions teach that there is something inherently immoral about the taking of an innocent life. There has been a long-standing acknowledgment of the principle of self-ownership throughout the centuries.
I hope you do agree with me that people should have the right to control their own bodies and not have force used against their bodies.
So when determining how people are to acquire legitimate property outside of their physical bodies, the reason the libertarian principle of "original appropriation" makes the most sense is that there exists a tangible link between a person's ownership over his or her physical body and the external object that is brought into ownership. By plucking an untouched object out of nature and transforming it for your use, to further the attainment of your goals, you have thus imprinted your "self", which you own if you believe in self-ownership, onto a material object. Like a sculptor who carves a statue or a painter who paints a picture, the object that is transformed has an impression of you in it. So in what sense could any other person have a better claim over the use of such a scarce resource that the one who initially transformed it? Until he or she voluntarily gives it up in a contractual exchange of course.
Now, collective ownership is not impermissible in a libertarian society. Individuals can freely contract with a group of others to enter into a partnership over the ownership of a piece of land, or a factory. There is nothing wrong with this. But someone had to originally have a claim on whatever property they are considering making into a collective. And that person, or people, who originally homesteaded the property must voluntarily enter into a contractual partnership to have a collective ownership. A group of people cannot simply decide that they ought to own part of some land and force the original owner to vacate the land they homesteaded.
If you do accept people's right to universal control over their physical bodies so long as they don't hurt others, and you don't have to accept the phrase "ownership" to accept this general idea, then you ought to accept the notion that property rights in external objects should be in some way linked to this antecedent principle which hopefully has been agreed to.
So original appropriation is not just as defensible as any other system of property acquisition, it is much more defensible because it logically follows the acknowledgment of self-ownership which most people actually DO accept.
How much are you worth? Remember, not your labor, you.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2015 08:35
|
|
- Sharkie
- Feb 4, 2013
-
by Fluffdaddy
|
I'm not violating the principle of non aggression with this post, that being said: Jrod if your next post doesn't quote this post and respond with "I'm a big ole stinky butthole and I'm dumb and I copypaste racist screeds to fulfill my pathetic fantasies of being an intellectual" then you will have entered into a contract with me, the terms of which are that I own all of your possessions, in exchange for my posting a positive response to one of your posts. This is a valid contract which you are free to enter into, or to refuse to enter into.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2015 06:49
|
|
- Sharkie
- Feb 4, 2013
-
by Fluffdaddy
|
Thank you for entering into a contract with me, Jrod.
In the first place, as I'm sure you are now aware, the "factories to the factory owners" phrase was a typo and I meant to write "factories to the factory workers". Given the context of the quote, and the fact that I mentioned its relationship to Marxist rhetoric, you probably could have assumed that it was a typo.
Syndicalism is a second best option for returning public property to private ownership. In the absence of proof of who held the original just property claims, the closest standard by which individuals could be considered to have homesteaded the land are the government employees and/or individual contractors who worked on the lands. Assuming the original homesteaders or their descendants cannot be found, dividing the land up among the individuals who worked on the lands is a second best option.
Some public lands might be simply made open to individual homesteading. That is, the State declares the lands unowned and announces a date by which individuals can travel and homestead the land by building homes, farms, etc. What the State should NOT be permitted to do in my view is to sell the land or to choose arbitrarily which people to grant property titles to. If the State cannot legitimately own property, then they cannot legitimately sell that which they don't own.
Your objection to the homesteading principle vis a vis the Native Americans strikes me as odd. There is no question that early European settlers disregarded any legitimate property rights of the native peoples, repeatedly broke treaties they signed with them and proceeded to wipe out vast numbers in a genocide while herding the rest of them onto State appointed reservations as if they were livestock, dehumanizing them.
The narrative you are bending over backwards to create is that the homestead principle is some elitist European idea that was designed to allow white people to colonize and steal land and resources from darker skinned people.
The genocide of the American Indians ran contrary to every tenet of Enlightenment-Era liberalism and Natural Rights Theory. The legacy of white supremacy and patriarchy unfortunately carried over into the new world, despite the pretty words written into the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
You are wrong to believe that Native Americans had no concept of private property or that it wasn't possible to reasonably respect the rights that they did have.
There is one thing that is clear though. Not even the most liberal and generous notion of property rights conceivable would grant the American Indians exclusive control over the entire continent of North America. Yet this seems to be what you are implying. Are you suggesting that European settlers had no right to step onto the beaches of Plymouth, Massachusetts because they were trespassing on the property of the native peoples?!
Let's suppose that the American Indians did have either a concept of private property that granted them "ownership" over the entire continent or they didn't recognize private property rights at all. Stipulating that this is true, I would say that they had an incorrect understanding of property rights, which we are not bound to respect.
However, the crucial point that must be made is that the early European colonists indeed DID steal an enormous amount of land from the native peoples according to libertarian property rights theory and, more fundamentally, the theory of Natural Rights and the non-aggression principle.
Superior ideas should win out. And I contend that the first user principle of original appropriation is the only coherent theory of private property rights that exists.
None of us can undo the atrocities committed by people in the past. The best we can do is provide a consistent theoretical framework for understanding what constitutes just property and which constitutes stolen property. This of course means that some of us will be the unfair beneficiaries of past theft that cannot be proven or completely overturned. There isn't any perfect solution to this problem no matter what ideology you subscribe to.
Some past land theft can be proven. Whether it is to provide reparations to descendants of black slaves or descendants of Native Americans who were murdered, libertarian justice would compel us to provide restitution for past damages if sufficient evidence is provided.
It is patently unfair to criticize libertarianism for not having a perfect solution to a difficult problem when no competing ideology has any better of a solution.
Is it any more "just" to take money ad hoc from white people, whether they or their ancestors had anything to do with slavery and give it to black people, whether or not their ancestors were enslaved? Furthermore, is it "just" to kick tons of European-Americans out of their homes and give them to descendants of Native Americans even if there is not the slightest evidence that the redistributed property belonged to their ancestors?
The best we can hope to do is reallocate stolen goods and property to their rightful owners, to the extent that it can be proven, and sustain a coherent system of property rights based on original appropriation into the future. The further into the future we get with genuine equality of rights and property rights based on libertarian theory, the less important property theft in the distant past will matter.
So you believe Native Americans have a claim to some of North America, and that the descendants of slaves are due reparations, right? Except you keep falling back on the question of "proof" for things you admit happened. What kind of proof are you talking about here? Would genealogical evidence that a person is descended from a slave be sufficient proof to entitle them to reparations? How about a treaty signed with a Native American tribe?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2015 07:33
|
|
- Sharkie
- Feb 4, 2013
-
by Fluffdaddy
|
The writing tips seem like an evasion. You can avoid the issue we are discussing and be condescending at the same time! It's a win-win.
I did want to mention that I don't copy and paste at all. Unless I clearly attribute something and put it in quotes, which I don't do often. I don't want people to think that because I write a lot of words, I am copying them from somewhere else. That is not the case.
So you believe Native Americans have a claim to some of North America, and that the descendants of slaves are due reparations, right? What kind of proof for things you admit happened would you accept? Would genealogical evidence that a person is descended from a slave be sufficient proof to entitle them to reparations? How about a treaty signed with a Native American tribe?
Or is it that you think these things theoretically should happen, but in practice can't happen because of...reasons.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2015 09:39
|
|
- Sharkie
- Feb 4, 2013
-
by Fluffdaddy
|
gently caress you and get the gently caress off of my thread. I don't have any goddamn patience for your loving poo poo anymore.
You are the coward. You wouldn't dare speak to me that way in person but, surrounded by 25 of your like-minded internet buddies and made anonymous by your IP address you act like a tough guy.
Jrod would trying to prevent someone from using a service or a space (say like a website) they have legally contracted to use be considered a form of violence?
We know the locations of certain southern plantations where Africans were enslaved and forced to work. Many of them still stand today. Libertarian justice would have granted the freed slaves a plot of land on the plantation they were forced to work once they were emancipated. The plantation owner would have to forfeit his property.
Since this obviously DIDN'T happen, genealogical evidence can be used to determine whose descendants are still alive and, when they are located, a plot of land should be granted to them in my view. Or a cash settlement can be reached with the current occupant of the land.
It may be harder to determine property rights claims for Native Americans but certainly treaties broken by the US government would be taken into account. Land that certain tribes were promised but were reneged on should certainly be regarded as stolen land to be given to descendants of the Native Americans who lived there.
I know how many of you like to call me a racist, but I don't know many racists who would take a view like this. Justice should be served and there can be no statute of limitations on justice.
Ok cool, I'm legit glad you support reparations for the descendants of slaves and for reverting large chunks of American land back to Native American control, that's something we can agree on.
But the descendants of slaves should also be recompensed for the forced labor, right? I honestly think you'd agree.
Sharkie fucked around with this message at 11:52 on Oct 15, 2015
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2015 11:49
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2024 14:45
|
|
- Sharkie
- Feb 4, 2013
-
by Fluffdaddy
|
Jrod are you ever really angry at yourself for profiting from coercion and state violence?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2015 14:01
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2015 10:39
