Re: Wages, Inflation and Social Security

From: Socialism is a Mental Disease (root_at_localhost.)
Date: 01/21/05 

Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 01:51:59 GMT

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:59:03 GMT, New Dark Ages
<nda@ignorance.is.bliss.invalid> wrote:
>
>root@localhost. wrote...
>> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 18:09:34 GMT, New Dark Ages
>> <nda@ignorance.is.bliss.invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> >root@localhost. wrote...
>> >> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 06:32:17 GMT, New Dark Ages
>> >> <nda@ignorance.is.bliss.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >root@localhost. wrote...
>> >> >> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 04:06:39 GMT, New Dark Ages
>> >> >> <nda@ignorance.is.bliss.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >root@localhost. wrote...
>> >> >> >> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 15:48:44 GMT, New Dark Ages
>> >> >> >> <nda@ignorance.is.bliss.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> It remains for you. For me, it doesn't. For me it's a matter of first
>> >> >> >> >> principles, namely, that I have the following rights: life, liberty
>> >> >> >> >> and property.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Well, you're certainly entitled to your little ideology.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> It's not an entitlement, it's a right.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Heck, maybe we agree. How do you define "property" and "liberty" ?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Property (strong sense): whatever one creates and does not relinquish
>> >> >> control of. Derives from the Principle of Self-ownership.
>> >> >
>> >> >What's the "Principle of Self-ownership" ? The idea that we're the
>> >> >property of ourselves?
>> >>
>> >> Yes, the very simple idea that we have full control of ourselves at
>> >> all times.
>> >>
>> >> >> Property (weak sense): whatever one controls exclusively through the
>> >> >> threat of use of force.
>> >> >
>> >> >Land ownership is immoral, then? (Natural resource, controlled
>> >> >exclusively through the [threat of the] use of force?
>> >>
>> >> To be immoral, it would have to violate some principle. For the life
>> >> of me, I cannot think of one it would.
>> >
>> >You don't have any principles about when it is moral or immoral to
>> >use force--i.e., it's always moral to use force? Particularly when
>> >you're using it to exclude others from something that isn't yours in
>> >the first place, by your own definitions?
>>
>> The problem is that it isn't theirs either. Why should it be immoral
>> to exclude others if others have no moral claim to what I am holding?
>> That's why I don't think there is a clear philosophical principle on
>> which to stand for moral guidance here.
>
>When is it moral to use force? Force is what's being used to exclude
>others from natural resources.
>

In retaliation and anytime there is a genuine dispute for which no
other remedy is available. These are the two cases for which I don't
find it immoral to use force.

>> >Why don't you just say you don't HAVE any principles! Or, that you
>> >abandon them for personal gain (which is the same thing as saying you
>> >don't have any).
>>
>> Because I *DO* have principles. They simply say nothing about
>> ownership of natural resources.
>
>But there can't be any ownership of natural resources, by your own
>definitions. It's not property, and you didn't claim inherent rights
>to 'life, liberty, property, and all non-property I can forcibly
>exlude others from.'
>

If you have 100% control over a piece of land, you are the de facto
owner, are you not?

>
>Is it moral or immoral for you to kill me if I try to cross that
>piece of land to get to the river without paying your toll? Why, or
>why not?
>

If no agreement is found, I believe it is not immoral to engage in war
to resolve the issue. 

-- 
"A society that robs an individual of the product of his
effort... is... a mob held together by institutionalized
gang rule." -- Ayn Rand

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Relative Appropriation of Economic Rents
    ... Same as other rights: not to be deprived by others of what you would ... appropriation of natural resources that no one produced. ... I have repeatedly told you that I do not advocate communal ownership ... Still claiming you have to own land in order to use it, ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Relative Appropriation of Economic Rents
    ... natural resources should not be owned. ... Still claiming you have to own land in order to use it, ... we were staking ownership claims. ... Communism, ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Historical comparisons
    ... :>:privately owned in Singapore and HK, ... land in Singapore. ... Which contradicts your claim, above, that lack of private ... ownership of natural resources means stagnation and collapse. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: LVT: more arguments against
    ... > They aren't natural resources any more. ... A lost tribe knows nothing of gold. ... the surface of some tribal land. ... The other plan is to sneak back to the secret location, ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Definition of "rich"?
    ... control natural resources? ... A man stumbles into an oasis from the desert, dying of thirst. ... rushes to the water and is about to drink, ... land, you've got to ask yourself a question: ...
    (sci.econ)