Re: Relative Appropriation of Economic Rents

On Feb 11, 7:40 pm, r...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On 11 Feb 2007 14:21:25 -0800, "Beal" <bealrabbitsla...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

No. What is communally owned is owned by the community of those who
own it.

So then what is the difference between something that is communally
owned and something that is not owned by anyone?

That is true. But of course, this little tirade didn't start over
that comment. It started over this comment:

Roy: You again confirm that you consider everything either privately
or publicly owned.

Me: For certain assets, yes. Not all.

And of course, this sentence clearly cannot refer to any sense of the
word "asset" other than "a useful thing or quality."

Which proves you equivocated again. As I said.

It proves my meaning was clear. You don't even know what equivocation
means.

Indeed they can. And they have. I warned you from the outset what
would happen in this discussion, and it certainly has. But you
wouldn't listen.

Yes, you have a huge e-penis.

Let me know when you want to address an argument I have actually made.

You made arguments? Is that what you call that rambling nuttery?

The environmentalist sees
no difference between our inalienable rights and the "right" to clean
air.

So you are again saying that there is no such thing as a right not to
be poisoned? Check.

That depends on how you define the right not to be poisoned.

This stupidity represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the
Western Liberals' concept of rights but it plays well with the less
educated fools in the world.

It is your claim of "property rights, right or wrong" that
fundamentally misunderstands the Western liberal concept of rights.

Only one of us is trying to limit the pursuit of property...

----------------
No, I think -- in fact, I know -- that it was _you_ who first tried
to
"add to" the story, by claiming, without evidence, that your murder
victim had wandered into the desert irresponsibly
----------------

Actually you did that when you created the story. You claimed he
stumbled in, dying of thirst. If he had been responsible, you
worthless moron, he would have brought water with him or planned his
trip better so that he wouldn't be so near death before he hit the
oasis, even if it was supposed to be open to all.

You make this too easy.

----------------
I didn't try to, liar. I said it extended to everything you would
have been at liberty to do had no one else existed.
----------------

Everything? You really didn't think that through very well.

---------------
The jacket is a product of labor, though, and therefore NOT a natural
resource, liar.
---------------

I didn't call the jacket a natural resource, fucktard. If you made
even the sightest attempt to follow my argument, you would see that my
point was simply that this fundamental right to live you speak of is
not enough to justify communal ownership. The real difference, which
I was driving at in the first place, is simply your believe that
natural resources should not be owned. Damn you are dense. You just
made my point for me.

Get it you fucking idiot? It doesn't matter if the asset (a useful
thing or quality, moron) in question is necessary for survival. All
that matters, in the end, is your believe that natural resources
should not be privately owned. Following yet you pathetic kook?

----------------
<yawn> Still claiming you have to own land in order to use it,
nutbag? Have you never heard of people _renting_ land, nutbag?
----------------

No, I am claiming that using land deprives others of its use.
Removing natural resouces from the land means depriving others of
those resources. Putting a building on the land means deprivnig
others of that space. Growing food on the land means preventing
others from growing food there. Few uses of land, with the possible
exception of looking at it, have no effect on others' use of that
land. Simply walking across it can screw up someone else's use of the
land.

----------------
No, it depends on the land. Often they stay in one place for
centuries, even millennia.
----------------

Rarely, if ever. Hunter-gatherers were primarily nomadic groups. But
it doesn't really matter.

----------------
Yes, they are territorial, because in most cases their population
will
push against the land's carrying capacity, leading to land scarcity.
If they were not territorial, others would deprive them of access to
the land they need to survive. But the members of any given
hunter-gatherer society still all use the land without excluding each
other from using it. Which proves you wrong.
----------------

It proves me right. It proves that even before we had large
governments and modern law, we were staking ownership claims. Land
ownership, as much as it was possible to own anything in prehistoric
times, ahs always existed. Within tribes, humans were most certainly
communal groups. But they didn't just share the land within the
group, dummy, they typically shared everything. Communism,
_real_communism_, where the community indeed owns and shares
everything, only really works in small groups because humans are
naturally tribal animals. Much like pack animals, we operate well in
groups of around 20 - 50. But in case you weren't aware, even ten
thousand years ago there were more than 20 - 50 people on the planet
and they managed to compete for scarce resources. Those tribes
competed with each other, laid claim to areas of land, and killed
other people over those claims. Are you laughably trying to claim
that just because people get along well in tribal groups, than they
will do the same in groups of hundreds of thousands? Millions?

Even today, we share ownership of the land we own within families and
other small groups. That doesn't mean the land is somehow unowned, ya
fucking retard.

-----------------
They possessed but did not own it, like territorial animals. Right.
-----------------

The only difference is in a piece of paper. The relationship was
essentially the same. Hell, even the piece of paper means nothing
unless others respect it. You Roy, for example, could easily be
confused with algae. The only real difference is in the fact that you
have a birth certificate claiming you are a sentent being.
Effectively, however, you are still just a non-sentient mass of cells
with no real purpose other than to operate as a placeholder in the
food chain.

-----------------
I doubt that you can even provide a sensible definition of "rights."
-----------------

Indead, the term has been so terribly diluted by morons like you.

-----------------
But you didn't, and you can't just extinguish others' rights that way
in any case.
-----------------

Obviously I did not, unless that guy was suicidal. You just don't
think things through... It takes more than my just pointing at
something and saying, "mine."

-----------------
And with enough force, you could likewise exclude others from
benefiting by the sun and defend your "ownership" of it.

It is therefore YOU who are unable to distinguish between inalienable
rights and the power of the spear.


Exactly as I said.
----------------

So your logic is that I could do what, build a giant sun shield in
order to stake ownership? What is wrong with you? Are you realy this
much of a fucking moron or are you making an effort to look like a
fool?

----------------
Lie. Appropriating unowned land MEANS forcibly depriving those who
would otherwise have been at liberty to use it of their access to it.
----------------

You didn't say "appropriating unowned land." You said "appropriating
land from others." You lose, period. You lost a long time ago and
now you are just pretending you can ignore your own words.

.

Quantcast