Re: Definition of "rich"?

Just Cocky <just@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 16:37:23 +0200, peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Peter
Bjørn Perlsø) wrote:

<royls@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 08:06:08 +0200, peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Peter_Bj=F8rn_Perls=F8?=) wrote:

sinister <sinister@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

If there's no right to access natural resources, why is there a right to
control natural resources?

First come, first served.

Nope. Wrong. That principle presupposes someone doing the serving,
who _chooses_ to thus allocate the benefits he is providing. Even
aside from its total irrelevance to the real world -- there is no plot
of land anywhere on earth whose current possession can be traced
through purely consensual transactions to a first-comer -- the evil
and idiotic notion that being first to discover, claim, or use a
natural resource confers any sort of property right in it is easily
refuted:

A man stumbles into an oasis from the desert, dying of thirst. He
rushes to the water and is about to drink, when he hears a revolver
being cocked behind his ear. A quiet, raspy voice intones, "Uh uh. I
know what you're thinkin'. 'Is he going to charge me six years' labor
for a sip of water, or only five?' And to tell the truth, in all this
excitement I haven't quite totalled up the rent myself. But bein' as
it's 44 miles to the next waterhole, which might as well be the other
side of the world, and I'd as soon run your sorry *** _clean_off_ my
land, you've got to ask yourself a question: 'Do I feel _thirsty_
today?' Well, do ya, _slave_?"

-- Roy L

1) That's a typically socialist way of portraying property rights, but
you don't have anyone fooled.

2) You haven't refuted anything. The person who is the first to claim a
piece of land/resource/whatever, gets to have it and exploit it as he
sees fit. It's called "homesteading". (BTW, whats your alternative?
government land grants, with nice fat taxations following? Has it
occurred to you that that's merely slavery in another, albeit more
popular, form?)


Personally, I don't see any moral justification for "first come, first
serve". As such, if a second person arrives with bigger guns and
expels the first, that's just ok. As such, in an organized society
with some form of Government, the use of force to manage natural
resources can certainly be delegated to a Government, including
collection of monopoly use taxes.

Just in case anyone is wondering, I am most definitely a libertarian.
I just don't think that the right to property can be extended to
natural resources on a moral basis. I do however think it is a good
idea to have a pseudo-right to monopoly use of natural resources
subject to specific conditions and limitations, on utilitarian
grounds.

Well, I disagree. With anything government comes waste, favoritism,
populism and nepotism.

--
regards, Peter Bjørn Perlsø
http://haxor.dk
http://liberterran.org
http://haxor.dk/fanaticism/
.