tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post4870822898633232139..comments2024-03-28T09:59:13.754-07:00Comments on bionic mosquito: How Much Mixing of Labor with Land?bionic mosquitohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-46443171713282605652017-05-12T14:51:14.229-07:002017-05-12T14:51:14.229-07:00In the context of homesteading previously un-owned...In the context of homesteading previously un-owned land, yes.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-22652588721963028882017-05-12T13:55:10.444-07:002017-05-12T13:55:10.444-07:00So as long as the thief improves the land, then ne...So as long as the thief improves the land, then necessarily from that flows ownership to the thief's victims?<br /><br />A thief steals my money, puts up a fence around 100 acres and puts a dirt road through the middle of it...all with my stolen money and the thief's labor. Therefore I now have rightful ownership of that land?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-63474877618395778202017-05-12T08:04:53.936-07:002017-05-12T08:04:53.936-07:00Mike
I have not tried to work through the many po...Mike<br /><br />I have not tried to work through the many possibilities of the situation. My intent, is merely to present the case that the land is "owned" and therefore Walter's claim that anyone is free to move in is not correct. <br /><br />How / when / if justice (in the NAP sense) is delivered, is secondary to me, at least within the context of this discussion.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-16288810143061687732017-05-12T08:00:14.037-07:002017-05-12T08:00:14.037-07:00Jeff
I understand your point; let me offer the fo...Jeff<br /><br />I understand your point; let me offer the following possibility / guidelines:<br /><br />Consider the situation of a bankruptcy: a court decides, based on law and precedent, which creditor / claimant receives how much of the assets. Rarely is everyone made whole, but there is some priority order.<br /><br />In this case, the taxpayer would have a claim as would the victim of being bombed (for different reasons, obviously). How that might play out is very subjective, and beyond my intent in this discussion - as either way, the "land" would end up in private hands, with the new owner free to determine the rules (hence, "someone" owns that land). But, to your point, there is a path for all victims to recover something.<br /><br />The second condition: to achieve the distribution noted above, no further violations can be mandated: in other words, I, the one who had his wealth stolen to build the bombs, cannot be held liable for the criminal activity of the one dropping the bombs.<br /><br />Perhaps within these two points there is a reasonable framework. Thank you for pressing me further on this issue.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-44210669466253940302017-05-12T06:49:33.837-07:002017-05-12T06:49:33.837-07:00BM -
Thank you for your reply.
Upon some reflect...BM -<br /><br />Thank you for your reply.<br /><br />Upon some reflection, I think that one could make an argument in support of your position that the government is holding Yosemite et al in constructive trust for your benefit. <br /><br />In property and tort law, the courts long ago created the doctrine of constructive trusts with regard to a myriad of situations. Its application, like so much of Anglo-American law, has historically been for individual, not collective, situations. <br /><br />For example, A gives B the money to purchase Trumpacre. A tells B that he's going away on a trip around the world and will be back in 6 months. So, B buys Trumpacre and takes title in his own name. When A returns, B tells A to go pound sand and that he, B, owns Trumpacre.<br /><br />A then sues B. A's lawyer should ask, inter alia, that the court hold that B is holding Trumpacre in constructive trust for A and order B to convey the real estate to A.<br /><br />However, applying the constructive trust doctrine upon a collective basis with regard to Yellowstone et al does not easily lend itself to a satisfactory NAP result. To wit, should the government sell the land and distribute the proceeds pro rata to every person who has paid any type of federal tax? <br /><br />The progressive might agree with the constructive trust principle and argue that the government is already holding and managing public land in trust for the benefit of all of us who have paid federal taxes (along with those who have not).<br /><br />You, I am sure, have considered the proposition that the government should be forced to sell public land to the highest bidder. That prescription would not compensate you for the money the government confiscated from you in order to acquire and maintain the lands.<br /><br />Just some thoughts.<br /><br />Liberty Mike<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-71514760588364150242017-05-12T04:23:32.017-07:002017-05-12T04:23:32.017-07:00BM,
Thanks for the reply.
I will have to think ...BM,<br /><br />Thanks for the reply. <br /><br />I will have to think about this some more. I get your logic, and may even agree with it, or at least I don't have a strong argument against it. But I find the ends disagreeable. <br /><br />More than disagreeable, I find it intolerable the people harmed the most would have no claim, while the people who financed that harm - the vast majority doing so willfully - would have a claim. And all based on a technical definition of ownership.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14010513213569295642noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-1394108345957003112017-05-11T19:52:57.489-07:002017-05-11T19:52:57.489-07:00Jeff
As the refugees' property (and lives) wa...Jeff<br /><br />As the refugees' property (and lives) was destroyed, what is there to "recover"? What happens when a thief destroys your property? He pays restitution in some other form or otherwise suffers some form of punishment.<br /><br />As "the government" has no property with which to pay restitution, I say put the war criminals in prison; better, send them for trial in the country of their victims.<br /><br />The refugees "right to immigrate" does what, exactly? In the world as it is today, this just makes victims of those now involuntarily supporting refugees; in a private property world, refugees have no such right. bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-61994752505712317562017-05-11T15:45:41.680-07:002017-05-11T15:45:41.680-07:00Right of possession and disposition but no right t...Right of possession and disposition but no right to title. Like real property and property taxes.JaimeInTexashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08729407700850451849noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-75359362637917763732017-05-11T13:43:14.711-07:002017-05-11T13:43:14.711-07:00AN,
Yes, I think I misunderstood his meaning unti...AN,<br /><br />Yes, I think I misunderstood his meaning until now. Thanks.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14010513213569295642noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-87340034022734465912017-05-11T13:41:30.794-07:002017-05-11T13:41:30.794-07:00BM, I agree with you, but you missed the last poin...BM, I agree with you, but you missed the last point. Do the victims of the destruction also have a right to reclaim their property. In effect, should the refugees be allowed to come here and take back from the government what was taken from them?Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14010513213569295642noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-61121123564059947632017-05-11T12:41:55.791-07:002017-05-11T12:41:55.791-07:00Jeff
I am entitled to receiving goods stolen from...Jeff<br /><br />I am entitled to receiving goods stolen from me; as the thief spent the money to build roads and toilets in the mountains, I lay claim to the property - as my money went to develop the land.<br /><br />To the extent the thief does something destructive with that which he stole from me - whether bombing an innocent or otherwise - that's on him, not me: I have a right to reclaim my property; I have no obligation to be punished for the actions of the thief.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-58528955946253834112017-05-11T12:37:51.005-07:002017-05-11T12:37:51.005-07:00Was this the example I used? Did your thief do any...Was this the example I used? Did your thief do anything to improve the land?bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-58793002156057065372017-05-11T12:30:25.516-07:002017-05-11T12:30:25.516-07:00Patrick
The point I wanted to make is that the su...Patrick<br /><br />The point I wanted to make is that the subjective "mixing labor with land" answers nothing.<br /><br />If we want to debate the subjective until it becomes objective, this is a different matter entirely - and futile. One man's hundred yards is another man's mile.<br /><br />Custom, in the end, is the most peaceful way out - if Ted Turner can own millions of acres, why can't I via the USG as described in the post?bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-70439303339669599032017-05-11T12:13:34.286-07:002017-05-11T12:13:34.286-07:00Mike
One could go through the exercise of tracing...Mike<br /><br />One could go through the exercise of tracing title back to the first individual who mixed labor with land; I will not begin there, as I am sympathetic to Hoppe's position on this matter.<br /><br />That I am one of many shareholders does not make me any less of an owner.<br /><br />That a thief is in possession of goods stolen from me - in this case using goods stolen from me to pay for the mixing of labor with land - does not in any way make the property less "mine." <br /><br />A thief has control, use and disposition of your car. Does this make him the owner?bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-5888394820687306902017-05-11T08:30:55.817-07:002017-05-11T08:30:55.817-07:00Jeff-
You may accuse me of "splitting hairs&...Jeff-<br /><br />You may accuse me of "splitting hairs", but I'd like to draw a distinction, which I believe Rothbard is doing himself, between "libertarianism" which in and of itself is culturally moral in concept to most cultures- and an actual "system" of morality which is itself very different. (like Christianity, Islam, etc.)<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-20450502367159491602017-05-11T06:52:30.311-07:002017-05-11T06:52:30.311-07:00"the government controlled land is owned by m..."the government controlled land is owned by me"<br /><br />If a thief steals money from all the people on my street, at gun-point claims "ownership" of some untouched land, and uses threat of violence against anyone who tries to come at that untouched land...How does that transfer into my neighbors and I getting "ownership" of that land? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-62630163859497500582017-05-11T05:37:34.861-07:002017-05-11T05:37:34.861-07:00"But, more importantly, most libertarians res..."But, more importantly, most libertarians rest their case on moral principles, on a belief in the natural rights of every individual to his person or property. They therefore believe in the absolute immorality of aggressive violence, of invasion of those rights to person or property, regardless of which person or group commits such violence.<br /><br />Far from being immoral, libertarians simply apply a universal human ethic to government in the same way as almost everyone would apply such an ethic to every other person or institution in society. In particular, as I have noted earlier, libertarianism as a political philosophy dealing with the proper role of violence takes the universal ethic that most of us hold toward violence and applies it fearlessly to government."<br /><br />https://mises.org/library/myth-and-truth-about-libertarianism<br />Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14010513213569295642noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-66128341070507871032017-05-11T04:15:48.773-07:002017-05-11T04:15:48.773-07:00"If yes, what, if any, basis did you (and if ..."If yes, what, if any, basis did you (and if you haven't written on the topic) do you advance in support of the proposition that your real estate holdings include the Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Edwards AFB, Fort Bragg, Yellowstone, and Yosemite?"<br /><br />I would like to know more on this as well. It appears you are claiming some kind of collective ownership of a thief's (the government) holdings as a result of being its victim. This is not a concept that fits well with my understanding of libertarians. <br /><br />More to the point, if your extorted funds give you claim to property held by the thief, do they also render some responsibility for the destruction of property and lives the thief's war machine has wrought all over the world? Or do the others have a similar claim on government property? If it's the latter, I would say your claim is a strong argument for the refugee's "right" to immigrate.<br /><br />Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14010513213569295642noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-14201743535007408682017-05-11T04:02:16.970-07:002017-05-11T04:02:16.970-07:00I'm pretty sure Rothbard stated the very oppos...I'm pretty sure Rothbard stated the very opposite more than once. (most) Libertarians believe in the morality of natural rights from which the NAP is derived - something like that, but more strongly stated. I will find a quote if no one else posts one soon.<br /><br />w.r.t. property ownership, I think you are just equating control with ownership, because control provides the same options as would ownership if we lived in a just world. But they are distinctly different concepts. <br /><br />Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14010513213569295642noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-1731779875503970902017-05-11T03:01:52.631-07:002017-05-11T03:01:52.631-07:00"The fact is that libertarianism is not and d..."The fact is that libertarianism is not and does not pretend to be a complete moral or aesthetic theory; it is only a political theory, that is, the important subset of moral theory that deals with the proper role of violence in social life." - Rothbard, Myth and Truth about Libertarianism<br /><br />https://mises.org/library/myth-and-truth-about-libertarianismAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12216903332794678762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-30345582545771901212017-05-10T21:19:52.385-07:002017-05-10T21:19:52.385-07:00Ask, and ye shall receive:
"We will contend ...Ask, and ye shall receive:<br /><br />"We will contend that it is a man’s right to do whatever he wishes with his person; it is his right not to be molested or interfered with by violence from exercising that right. But what may be the moral or immoral ways of exercising that right is a question of personal ethics rather than of political philosophy—which is concerned solely with matters of right, and of the proper or improper exercise of physical violence in human relations. The importance of this crucial distinction cannot be overemphasized. Or, as Elisha Hurlbut concisely put it: “The exercise of a faculty [by an individual] is its only use. The manner of its exercise is one thing; that involves a question of morals. The right to its exercise is another thing."<br /><br />Then, the next page:<br /><br />"It is not the intention of this book to expound or defend at length the philosophy of natural law, or to elaborate a natural-law ethic for the personal morality of man. The intention is to set forth a social ethic of liberty, i.e., to elaborate that subset of the natural law that develops the concept of natural rights, and that deals with the proper sphere of “politics,” i.e., with violence and non-violence as modes of interpersonal relations. In short, to set forth a political philosophy of liberty. In our view the major task of “political science” or better, “political philosophy” is to construct the edifice of natural law pertinent to the political scene. That this task has been almost completely neglected in this century by political scientists is all too clear. Political science has either pursued a positivistic and scientistic “model building,” in vain imitation of the methodology and content of the physical sciences, or it has engaged in purely empirical fact-grubbing. The contemporary political scientist believes that he can avoid the necessity of moral judgments, and that he can help frame public policy without committing himself to any ethical position. And yet as soon as anyone makes any policy suggestion, however narrow or limited, an ethical judgment—sound or unsound—has willy-nilly been made.1 The difference between the political scientist and the political philosopher is that the “scientist’s” moral judgments are covert and implicit, and therefore not subject to detailed scrutiny, and hence more likely to be unsound."<br /><br />-Rothbard's The Ethics of LibertyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-6570592566345899662017-05-10T20:34:48.830-07:002017-05-10T20:34:48.830-07:00I have the same question, re. how much land can be...I have the same question, re. how much land can be said to be mixed with a man"s labor, oops how sexist of me, make that people (is that ok, or is it speciesist?).<br />One man's NAP violation is another's labor.JaimeInTexashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08729407700850451849noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-84939393703083568182017-05-10T20:28:24.655-07:002017-05-10T20:28:24.655-07:00This is a point I am trying to drive home. If PPS ...This is a point I am trying to drive home. If PPS is achieved it is not absent of pecedent conditions. Not even when the Vikings, much less Columbus, set foot in what we call the New World. Yes, much more virgin lands but not all. The musket and horses determined whose title to the land was valid, as an example.JaimeInTexashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08729407700850451849noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-74430946866937489642017-05-10T18:12:41.513-07:002017-05-10T18:12:41.513-07:00This bit, by Block:
"Ok, forget about gover...This bit, by Block:<br /><br /><br />"Ok, forget about government parks, streets, stuff like that. How about totally virgin land, never touched by humans, like in the middle of Wyoming, Alaska. This land is govt controlled, to be sure. But, according to Locke, Rothbard, Hoppe, on homesteading, no one owns it. How can you, or anyone else, own this land?"<br /><br />Block can't get around the fact that the State is a real, live, legal entity. ONLY in the absence of the State, can you have purely "virgin" land on which one could homestead. Actually, once upon a time, prior to the State, that was the case at least until the claims by first owners, and then tribes, and then tribal leaders, and then monarchs, etc. But not anymore.<br /><br />This is the same nuance that Block tends to miss and that you, BM, throw a spotlight on in your position that there is no libertarian answer to the question of borders while we live in a non-Stateless society.Dr. Weezilnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-40855259752472055262017-05-10T17:05:32.106-07:002017-05-10T17:05:32.106-07:00An Anon, in his (very good) reply to JamieinTexas ...An Anon, in his (very good) reply to JamieinTexas and Matt, from the previous post said this:<br /><br />"Rothbard knew this as evidenced by his statement that libertarianism is not a system of morality."<br /><br />I have not read this from Rothbard and would love to see a source (not that I don't believe Anon, I find it very plausible Rothbard said that).<br /><br />Block never learned that lesson from the man he learned everything else from.<br /><br />Block is a moralist. Albeit one who derives moral principles from logical propositions (which is totally backwards).<br /><br />What makes this so perverse is that his morals are explicitly based on defending things that are widely seen as immoral. Its like some kind of meta-morality where we decide the most moral way to manage immorality. Implicit in this calculation is that physical aggression is always worse than what provokes it. On this point he is completely wrong.<br /><br />As to the rest<br /><br />>stop rapefugees<br />>uphold NAP<br /><br />Pick one.<br /><br />BTW, the homesteading principle is obviously lacking (good questions on the BM). Property is simply a question of who controls it and who recognizes that control as just.Unhappy Conservative (2.0)https://www.blogger.com/profile/05647440445427537430noreply@blogger.com