Re: Definition of "rich"?

On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 16:37:23 +0200, peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Peter_Bj=F8rn_Perls=F8?=) 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_?"

1) That's a typically socialist way of portraying property rights,

Liar. Calling freedom, justice, and respect for human rights
"socialist" is a typically feudalist way of portraying any consistent
defense of the human rights to life, liberty and property in the
products of one's labor.

but you don't have anyone fooled.

You're right. I don't have anyone fooled. What I wrote is so plain
and clear that none could possibly misunderstand it.

But you certainly have _yourself_ fooled.

2) You haven't refuted anything.

Yes, of course I have. I have refuted your belief system by the
method of reductio ad absurdum: I have proved that the principles you
espouse imply an absurd and untenable conclusion.

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.

No, of course he doesn't. Why on earth would he? You might as well
claim that the first person to count up to each number gets to own it,
and charge other people rent if they want to use it. It's absurd.

It's called "homesteading".

No, it's called "violating others' rights."

(BTW, whats your alternative?

Those who wish to deprive others of natural resources should pay the
market rent of such resources to the community of those they deprive
of them.

government land grants, with nice fat taxations following?

Government administers possession and use of land in any case. That's
what government _is_. A homestead is nothing but a government-issued
land title granted under certain government-specified conditions. It
would be better if government administered possession and use of land
in the interest of all the people, to secure the rights of all the
people, rather than violating everyone's rights for the unearned
benefit of a small, wealthy, idle, privileged minority.

Has it
occurred to you that that's merely slavery in another, albeit more
popular, form?

No, because it very obviously isn't. Recovering the publicly created
rent of natural resources for the purposes and benefit of the public
that creates it is self-evident justice, and has historically resulted
in marked increases in freedom and prosperity every single time it has
been tried. It has been the fiscal foundation of most great
civilizations, and its abandonment has destroyed more civilizations
and economies than any other cause.

-- Roy L
.

Quantcast