tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post8926252436123892589..comments2024-03-28T09:59:13.754-07:00Comments on bionic mosquito: Give Me Liberty or Give Me Property Rights!bionic mosquitohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comBlogger27125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-20960111716532636542018-08-17T23:13:06.758-07:002018-08-17T23:13:06.758-07:00Thanks Woody -- I agree 100% that people are being...Thanks Woody -- I agree 100% that people are being tightly encircled with laws and taxes. That is the fundamental problem, laws that criminalize peaceful behavior and taxation (government theft). My guess is that abolishing taxes by privatizing everything would restore 99% of freedom and property rights. I recall a proposal for a minimal government funded by a three percent sales tax, one percent each for local, state, and federal. There would be no money for the enforcement of bad wars and laws. Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12738638729805525220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-72171969462700477862018-08-17T10:46:01.645-07:002018-08-17T10:46:01.645-07:00@Rick: "The problem of "encirclement&quo...@Rick: "The problem of "encirclement" does not exist and never will ... The real problem with home ownership is the property tax on home owners ..."<br />Sounds like encirclement to me.<br /><br />The encirclement issue is a thought experiment to demonstrate an issue that needs to be solved. In real life (because of public roads and such), encirclement is usually not this extreme. Encirclement can consist of simply imposing laws and taxes with which you disagree. You are "encircled" by an undesirable and costly circumstance.<br /><br />There are many cases where the liberty-minded are absolutely and completely encircled. There is, for example, no known libertarian culture or nation on earth: we are completely encircled by nation-states with absolutely no place in which to escape - is this not encirclement?<br /><br />One of our purposes here is to codify and define such a culture.Woody Barretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07174366266746908252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-83160048036408462562018-08-15T16:26:57.552-07:002018-08-15T16:26:57.552-07:00The problem of "encirclement" does not e...The problem of "encirclement" does not exist and never will. No one would buy a piece of property that he could not legally access and no one would be able to sell such a property. The real problem with home ownership is the property tax on home owners. More and more people are being taxed out of their own home. Home owners are being forced to pay for protection and other services that they don't want. The only solution is to abolish the property tax on homes. Clearly, all taxation is a violation of the NAP. A small sales tax of one or two percent might not be enough to man the barricades, but taxing a person's home certainly is.<br />Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12738638729805525220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-29139079460276912262018-08-14T09:02:53.513-07:002018-08-14T09:02:53.513-07:00ATL/BM,
This article might be related to the qu...ATL/BM, <br /><br />This article might be related to the question of tradition and good culture with regard to liberty. Don't know exactly how it ties in with FvD's perspective, but there's a connection:<br /><br /><a href="https://www.firstthings.com/article/2014/10/taking-the-long-way" rel="nofollow">Taking the Long Way (to freedom)</a><br /><br />-Sag.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-7958149939191627322018-08-14T06:39:49.696-07:002018-08-14T06:39:49.696-07:00I agree, FvD's piece was interesting and thoug...I agree, FvD's piece was interesting and thought provoking. I also believe that dismissing his view out of hand just makes libertarians sound like kooks to most people.<br /><br />Ultimately, culture and tradition will solve / govern this issue - even if the cultural and traditional application is a violation of pure NAP; it is a requirement for liberty, one that too many libertarians fail to accept or recognize.<br />bionic mosquitohttp://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-76813370543805911482018-08-14T06:32:51.940-07:002018-08-14T06:32:51.940-07:00ATL, I am not concerned about a threat to the NAP;...ATL, I am not concerned about a threat to the NAP; I continue to struggle with the conditions - social, cultural, religious, etc. - that might be necessary in order to transform the NAP into meaningful liberty.<br /><br />I see FvD's piece as putting to the fore a question in this regard. How will the question be answered? As you said, "Good culture, custom, and tradition are still needed."<br /><br />How many libertarians disagree with this? Enough to make the philosophy kooky to most people. We can’t just say “tough luck, in a libertarian world your neighbors can turn your home into a prison,” and be expected to be taken seriously.<br /><br />So…now what?<br /><br /><br />bionic mosquitohttp://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-71884026031097616262018-08-14T06:25:40.278-07:002018-08-14T06:25:40.278-07:00Woody, the entire topic is even more complex: many...Woody, the entire topic is even more complex: many received early funding from these same spook agencies. And once you become a multi-billionaire and want to protect this position, it is pretty easy to forget the ideals you might have held in the dorm-room.bionic mosquitohttp://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-77462762089377434192018-08-14T06:23:19.246-07:002018-08-14T06:23:19.246-07:00Jeff, I agree fully regarding the NAP; as I have w...Jeff, I agree fully regarding the NAP; as I have written often, it is wonderful in its simplicity, but it doesn't answer every question, does not define itself, etc.<br /><br />And as it doesn't answer everything, does it come up short on the question of achieving liberty? Certainly, different types of societies would answer these questions differently; I (and presumably FvD) are addressing these issues within the context of a Western society, broadly defined.<br /><br />I think FvD raises a provocative point; as I mentioned in my post, I am not sure what to do with it beyond suggesting that culture and tradition would answer the question, and violators of this generally accepted culture and tradition would face consequences *even if their violation of culture and tradition were not violations of the NAP.*<br />bionic mosquitohttp://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-80234463398383155382018-08-13T15:30:56.646-07:002018-08-13T15:30:56.646-07:00According to Kinsella, the FvD piece was included ...According to Kinsella, the FvD piece was included because it was “interesting” and “provocative” though Kinsella himself disagreed with it. As for Hoppe, he had no part in the work and to my knowledge has not commented on FvD, but I’d be surprised (and a little disappointed) to learn he is any more forgiving of FvD’s errors than I’ve been. FvD is undeniably brilliant – no argument from me on that score – but he is mistaken with regards to his view that NAP-friendly hostile encirclement reveals a conflict between freedom and property. Would love to hear a response to my argument if anybody has one?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02417331313154273493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-28539785683568956692018-08-13T09:21:10.622-07:002018-08-13T09:21:10.622-07:00"Is it to secure private property – that is, ..."Is it to secure private property – that is, to apply the non-aggression principle to perfection – or is it to secure freedom?" - BM<br /><br />What is freedom if not a social order based on mutual respect for peacefully acquired property? I would say that rather than property requiring a proviso for "freedom," as Frank would have it, the case can be better made that it is all the various forms of freedom that require the proviso of property.<br /><br />Freedom of movement? Sure, so long as you have consent of property owners, or it is a cultural norm that you can expect that consent. Freedom of speech? Sure, so long as you have consent from the property owner to say what you want. Freedom of opportunity? Great, nothing makes the positions of the rich and poor more transitory than the free market. Just make sure you respect property rights on the way to the top. Freedom from cultural restraint? Yeah you deviants can have your's too, so long as you respect property rights, but we don't have to accept your presence in our businesses or our homes. Freedom of religion? Of course, so long as... you get the point.<br /><br />Encirclement is an issue for the libertarian world, but it's not like the statist world doesn't have much worse issues. A libertarian world will not be Utopia. Not all problems will be solved. People will still need to be decent to one another. Good culture, custom, and tradition are still needed.<br /><br />Encircling someone is not a very decent thing to do unless this person deserves it. Like Spooner mentioned, this is a perfect libertarian solution to the bad neighbor problem. Bob Murphy has also talked about this method of "imprisonment" where someone is confined on their own property because no one will allow them on theirs, or a private prison will take them in for a fee.<br /><br />Imagine a world where criminals or your sexually deviant exhibitionist neighbors are granted an easement to travel across your property everyday, because no one else would let them, and for whatever reason, a judge determined that you drew the short straw. Instead of having orgies on their lawn, they might occasionally have them on yours. Does that sound like freedom?<br /><br />It is an interesting question, but I don't think it threatens the validity or integrity of the NAP. The NAP is freedom, but the NAP, as you've discussed, also means the freedom to choose your own law. Who knows? Perhaps the law associations of the future will have this "freedom of movement" caveat. This would still be in accord with the NAP.A Texas Libertarianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02980539931923054404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-73523048654621100102018-08-13T07:56:55.015-07:002018-08-13T07:56:55.015-07:00If these social media companies were private entit...If these social media companies were private entities who were acting individually and independently, then it might fall in the purview of this article. Unfortunately, there seems to be evidence now that (the US) government has put some pressure on them to "'quell rebellions' and adopt a 'mission statement' expressing their commitment to 'prevent the fomenting of discord.'".<br /><br />https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/11/01/goog-n01.html<br />Woody Barretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07174366266746908252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-7776123698507669192018-08-13T00:01:49.661-07:002018-08-13T00:01:49.661-07:00BM: "where is the line?"
Its a gordian ...BM: "where is the line?"<br /><br />Its a gordian knot. But it is in fact already solved by the western democracies: Functionaries who are in their functional capacity not subject to the same laws as citizens. However as citizens they are subject to that same law.<br /><br />In a sense, it was the solving of this problem that is one -if not the- main advantage the west took over all other cultures.Rienhttp://overbeterleven.nlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-46619524020047578072018-08-12T21:02:11.460-07:002018-08-12T21:02:11.460-07:00BM, I'm glad you did write your post. It gave ...BM, I'm glad you did write your post. It gave me a chance to think through the various contradictions more fully than I have in the past. <br /><br />I agree tradition, culture and common practice are necessary accompaniments to the NAP. Human needs, desires and actions are more complex than any fixed set of rules can encompass. But I would much rather see those things defined in terms of accompaniments than additions or exceptions to the NAP itself. <br /><br />The NAP represents a closed set of logical arguments, and should not be opened to include what are clearly contradictions to those rules. The application of positive rights may be valid under very specific situations within a given society, but they should never be integrated into the natural rights defined by the NAP. Such integration would not be valid for all types of societies that could exist under the NAP, and it's not for us to decide how others should live.<br /> Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14010513213569295642noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-15395782640532653562018-08-12T13:51:41.329-07:002018-08-12T13:51:41.329-07:00Jeff Bell: 'I'm not saying property values...Jeff Bell: 'I'm not saying property values should be something addressed by the NAP or even be the presumed objective of freedom.'<br /><br />Exactly. Property values, specifically preserving them, should be the objective of security. Property in areas with good security is worth much more than comparable property in areas with poor security. Once the purpose of security is so clarified, once its mission is reworked to preserving property values, it immediately ceases to be an instrument of class power. Projects like Prohibition or the War on Drugs become unthinkable. And nothing has destroyed urban property values so much as the ruling political classes drug warfare project - and by design. Nor has anything so infringed on individual rights. Under the drug warfare project government goons have kidnapped tens of millions and interned millions and millions in government rape cages - at a cost of trillions to the 'customers' forced to pay for it. Such a situation could never arise where the performance of a security service is measured by the degree to which it preserves property values. Victorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12985538497409080098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-70389504802538139592018-08-12T11:54:01.678-07:002018-08-12T11:54:01.678-07:00Property makes for a reasonably concrete way of pl...Property makes for a reasonably concrete way of placing a limit on a definition, with this I agree.<br /><br />Sadly... life is, it seems, messier than this.bionic mosquitohttp://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-81707812796006827112018-08-12T11:52:54.489-07:002018-08-12T11:52:54.489-07:00Jeff, I avoided writing about FvD's piece for ...Jeff, I avoided writing about FvD's piece for many months, due to the many things that I could not get my mind around. Not having really solved any of this, I decided to write it out anyway, hoping that in the act of writing (and getting feedback) something's would clear up for me.<br /><br />Your point is well taken, and one that I struggled (and still struggle) with: where is the line? How many cans of worms will now be opened?<br /><br />I fall back on my fail-safe (acceptable to some, considered a cop-out on my part by many): tradition, culture, common practice. Without considering these, the NAP is a useless theory.bionic mosquitohttp://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-42824493724110606372018-08-12T11:49:19.422-07:002018-08-12T11:49:19.422-07:00Clinton, thank you for this. There are also examp...Clinton, thank you for this. There are also examples from medieval Europe of less-than-complete private property rights - albeit, stronger rights than we hold today.<br /><br />Perhaps these traditional cultures figured out that the thinnest of thin was not workable if one wanted to maintain a relatively free society.bionic mosquitohttp://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-53956844311900401242018-08-12T11:47:43.820-07:002018-08-12T11:47:43.820-07:00Kinsella, the editor of this volume in which I fin...Kinsella, the editor of this volume in which I find this piece by FvD, and Hoppe, the object of admiration for this volume, really had a dastardly deed in mind: let's publish this piece by FvD merely so he can be ridiculed, nothing more.<br /><br />I have struggles agreeing with FvD on this subject, yet I understand what he presents the issue. I also do not believe Kinsella included this piece just so FvD could be mocked.<br /><br />I do not suggest that Kinsella (or Hoppe) agree with everything written by every author included herein, but come on - they didn't include... oh... anything from Paul Kaufman, just as one example.bionic mosquitohttp://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-16483344314213444372018-08-12T11:43:52.052-07:002018-08-12T11:43:52.052-07:00" It is not a problem of "possession&quo..." It is not a problem of "possession", but a problem of "use"."<br /><br />Maybe. Or maybe it takes a little of the Golden Rule to make the Silver Rule workable.bionic mosquitohttp://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-25653603861638853902018-08-12T08:12:14.896-07:002018-08-12T08:12:14.896-07:00The right want to use government to infringe indiv...The right want to use government to infringe individual rights. The left want to use government to infringe property rights. Freedom is the absence of both such infringements. Victorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12985538497409080098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-68620720003271590082018-08-12T00:19:23.682-07:002018-08-12T00:19:23.682-07:00Oh, btw, does anybody here see any parallels with ...Oh, btw, does anybody here see any parallels with the recent blocking of Alex Jones?<br /><br />The internet as public space?Rienhttp://overbeterleven.nlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-50338105006225326862018-08-12T00:12:37.222-07:002018-08-12T00:12:37.222-07:00I may have been wrong, but I was always under the ...I may have been wrong, but I was always under the implicit assumption that property was a result of trying to define freedom. I.e. that libertarians preferred freedom but ran into problems when trying to define what freedom is. Which was 'solved' by defining freedom as property rights.<br /><br />Of course it was not solved, as freedom is a mental construct without true representation in the outside world (unless one wants to define nihilism as freedom - which is imo the ultimate conclusion if we try to pin down freedom), and hence the 'conflict' between property rights and freedom.<br /><br />As a side note, it is imo the attempt to try to pin down freedom that leads Curt Doolittle to say that libertarianism is no more that trying to get a free ride. Which in this article can be seen if we view the freedom of movement from the other perspective, the perspective of the landowner that is 'forced' to allow other people access over his property. Rienhttp://overbeterleven.nlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-63391493730770837092018-08-11T14:50:43.013-07:002018-08-11T14:50:43.013-07:00Libertarian theory is founded on property rights, ...Libertarian theory is founded on property rights, not freedom. There is no reason IMO to equate the two other than to show their differences and highlight the limitations of ideals like the NAP.<br /><br />The free movement proviso, could be incorporated into the definition of property. In fact, until I read your post I thought the easement rules had already been worked out. I have a vague memory of reading a long list of rules addressing the issue.<br /><br />Either way, it's less of a real world problem than many equivalent situations that are also not addressed by the NAP or the definition of property. We are after all talking about the subjective value of property being altered by the actions of others with their own property. <br /><br />For example, a lot of wealthy people moving into an area with less wealthy people (like Silicone Valley, San Fransisco, etc.) can impoverish those people even while their relative property values rise. Many will be forced to sell if they wish to remain solvent. Is that not also a limitation on their freedom?<br /><br />I'm not saying property values should be something addressed by the NAP or even by the presumed objective of freedom. But why is the encirclement problem as defined in the OP a concern when this is not? <br />Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14010513213569295642noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-84434205103551501292018-08-11T09:57:07.049-07:002018-08-11T09:57:07.049-07:00In one of Richard Epstein's books, he cites a ...In one of Richard Epstein's books, he cites a study of the Penobscot Tribe which lived in pre-colonization New England. Their culture provided exclusion property rights during the summer growing season, but free access to all during the winter hunting season. Also, I believe the ancient Scottish common law allowed trespass upon private property, but held the trespasser liable for any damage done to the property. These seem to be examples of traditional cultures giving priority to freedom of movement over exclusive property rights. clintharris46@gmail.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03156642273801557171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-57410067381370367492018-08-11T09:28:25.976-07:002018-08-11T09:28:25.976-07:00Kinsella: “...the problem of enclosing others’ est...Kinsella: “...the problem of enclosing others’ estates … is a problem since antiquity… [O]ne would think that one would want to be aware of and analyze these practical solutions which were found by people trying to find a just solution to an apparently conflict of property rights. Why we think we would be any better at it than them, I don’t know, assuming their attempt to solve the problem was not based on any non-libertarian premises or rationales. In short, maybe we can learn something from history?” [Kinsella goes on to provide several possible solutions to hostile encirclement that are perfectly reasonable and NAP friendly.]<br /><br />Rothbard: “...suppose that one man is [encircled by property owners and they won’t] allow him on their property. Well, then, the only reply is that this is his own proper assumption of risk. Any attempt to break that voluntary [encirclement] by physical coercion is illegitimate aggression against the [encirclers’] rights. This fellow had better find some friends, or at least purchase allies, as quickly as possible.”<br /><br />Hoppe gives life to Murray’s view [and this is heavily paraphrased]: “What of the man who has been encircled? He assumed a risk in buying/homesteading the property, and if he has now been encircled, tough luck! If a property owner becomes encircled, why not ask *what’s wrong with him* rather than asking me to irrationally experience sad emotions for some bozo that I know nothing about that got himself into such a situation? *Why is it that no property owner will allow him an easement?* What are the details? Is it possible that this man is so intolerably unpleasant that he deserves no other treatment?” <br /><br />What’s BM always saying about details? Maybe the bozo has regular lawn orgies but owns the land and was there prior to a good Christian community growing up around him – how could one rid the neighborhood of this menace without aggressing against him -- without being anti-Christ-like (i.e., using physical force to make a property owner allow the bozo to pass through so he can continue his orgies)? NAP-friendly hostile encirclement plus a no cost, one-time/one-way easement for the bozo to gtfo is but one of many options for a libertarian order to non-aggressively deal with this.<br /><br />Kinsella poses questions regarding hostile encirclement that culture Statists who fallaciously call themselves libertarians will have a tough time answering: “...imagine the donut [shaped land] is owned by 100 people. Cross[ing] any of their tracts gets [the landowner in the donut hole] in or out. Which one does he have an easement over? … [Or, imagine that] I want to fly to Jupiter. I can build a rocket, but I don’t own enough land to place it on. I need a 100 acre tract to use as a takeoff pad. No one will sell me their land. Do I have a rocketpad easement on someone’s [anyone’s?] property? Otherwise, they’re trapping me here on earth...”<br /><br />Which of the non-aggressing property owners minding their own business will get the barrel of a gun shoved down his throat? And who gets to make this decision?<br /><br />Maybe the Statists are correct: maybe (as FvD so emotionally and desperately wants us to believe) there are indeed “cases where there is a conflict between” freedom and property. But this hostile encirclement issue certainly isn’t such a case -- it’s just another in a long line of “strenuous but unsuccessful attempts to undermine property rights by exception.”Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02417331313154273493noreply@blogger.com