Re: Definition of "rich"?

On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 15:14:15 +0200, peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Peter_Bj=F8rn_Perls=F8?=) wrote:

<royls@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 00:07:13 +0200, peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Peter_Bj=F8rn_Perls=F8?=) wrote:

ruetheday@xxxxxxxxxx <ruetheday@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Ever read Locke?

Ever hear of the Lockean Provison? Even Locke recognized that the
homesteading of land is only justified as long as there is "as much and
as good left for others", which in reality is never, since the quantity
of land in existence is fixed.

Through trade (exchange) there is ALWAYS something left for others.

Locke didn't say "something." He said, "as much and as good."

Again, who will you have administer and decide "how much" is "as much
and as good"?

There's never as much and as good. That's the point.

He also asked an interesting question about homesteading - "does the
first private astronaut to land on Mars get to claim the patch of
ground his ship landed on, the whole planet, or the entire uninhabited
universe?"

Only as much land as he can reasonably cover on foot or in a rover.

And this arbitrary amount is justified how, exactly?

By the homesteaders mere precense on the area.

IOW, arbitrarily, according to your whim of the moment.

First come first serve is perfectly adequate justification for me.

But it has no moral basis and is not logically defensible, as I have
already proved.

Again, you've proved nothing, but merely endlessly reiterated your idea
that people should not own what they work to improve.

Of course, you are just lying again about what I have plainly written.
You are also lying about what you have claimed is the basis of
property in natural resources. Whether people own what they work to
improve depends on what it is. If you work to improve a rented
apartment, you don't thereby get to own it. Of course, you refuse to
know any such facts, because they prove your beliefs are false.

Besides, the alternatives (collectivisation or government
intervention) are repugnant.

Only if your beliefs are false.

So, you are a friend of government power?

No, of freedom, justice and truth.

-- Roy L
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Definition of "rich"?
    ... homesteading of land is only justified as long as there is "as much and ... of land in existence is fixed. ... the ocean, do I now own the ocean or did I just waste my tomato juice?" ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Land, Labour and Capital Taxation....
    ... > Most is owned by the US government, which AFAIK still allows ... with provisions for homesteading in Alaska until 1986. ... 1934 substantially decreased the amount of land available to ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Definition of "rich"?
    ... of land in existence is fixed. ... gives off useful resources, be it grain or valuable resources; ... He also asked an interesting question about homesteading - "does the ... First come first serve is perfectly adequate justification ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Definition of "rich"?
    ... of land in existence is fixed. ... gives off useful resources, be it grain or valuable resources; ... He also asked an interesting question about homesteading - "does the ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: "Investment adviser asks if wealthy are necessary"
    ... Ah but usable land, that is land which is on the market and used, ... you are just lying and spouting logical self-contradictions again. ... Land is by definition never a result of labor. ... ignorant, lying garbage. ...
    (sci.econ)
Quantcast