Re: Relative Appropriation of Economic Rents

On 16 Feb 2007 09:26:59 -0800, "Beal" <bealrabbitslayer@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

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?

The community can sell what it owns, but no one has a right to sell
what no one owns.

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.

It means using a word in two different senses while pretending to
speak of one sense. Your senses of "asset" were clearly different,
but you are still pretending they weren't.

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.

Same as other rights: not to be deprived by others of what you would
have had if they had not existed. In this case, natural, unpoisoned
air.

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...

That would be me. So you again confirm that you support property in
human beings, AKA slavery. Check.

----------------
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.

Liar. No amount of responsible planning on his part could account for
all chances and contingencies. Maybe he was attacked and robbed of
his supplies. Maybe he was unlucky and his GPS packed it in. Maybe
any sort of mischance placed him at your mercy. The point is, once he
was at your mercy, you decided you had a right to murder him if he
declined to be your slave. That is the telling point: your "moral"
principle that it is rightful to appropriate what nature provides
permits you to murder those who do not give you whatever you demand,
in return for nothing whatever.

Look up about 15 lines. You are again attempting to rationalize your
violation of an innocent man's rights, in fact your murder of him, for
not "agreeing" to be your slave. You are trying to blame your victim
for the fact that you claim the right to murder him if he does not
serve you for life in return for you not stopping him from using what
he would have had free access to had you never existed.

You make this too easy.

See above. You are just digging yourself in deeper and deeper.

----------------
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.

Oh, but I did. Very much better than you, for one.

---------------
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.

<yawn> This is what you said, lying filth:

"If I made a jacket with my own hands and then refused to give it to a
man who stumbled in to my camp in the arctic, by your logic I violated
his right to life."

But I have of course repeatedly informed you that rightful property
rights are based on creation of new products by labor, not on private
appropriation of natural resources that no one produced. So you were
lying when you claimed that my logic implied it is a violation of his
right to life to withhold the jacket from him.

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.

But it is enough to invalidate private appropriation of what nature
provided to all, which is the point.

I have repeatedly told you that I do not advocate communal ownership
of natural resources. You of course ignore my clear statements of my
position, and claim I advocate the exact opposite, refusing to abandon
your false claims or to stop lying about what I have stated as clearly
as I know how, and which others have had no difficulty understanding.

The real difference, which
I was driving at in the first place, is simply your believe that
natural resources should not be owned.

Then why did you lie, claiming that my logic applied just as well to a
jacket you made as to a natural resource no one made?

Get it you fucking idiot? It doesn't matter if the asset (a useful
thing or quality, moron) in question is necessary for survival.

It doesn't matter in principle if the resource in question is
necessary to survival: you still have no right to appropriate it from
others because then you are violating their rights to liberty, though
not their rights to life.

All
that matters, in the end, is your believe that natural resources
should not be privately owned. Following yet you pathetic kook?

<yawn> I refer you again to YOUR claim that MY logic applied as well
to a jacket as to natural resources.

----------------
<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.

Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. It depends on the 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.

All true. But those are not the only possible uses.

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.

Only if their use involves much more than walking across it.

----------------
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.

Right, because I have already proved you wrong.

----------------
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.

Nope. There are numerous quotes from native peoples showing that they
considered private ownership of land inconceivable.

Land
ownership, as much as it was possible to own anything in prehistoric
times, ahs always existed.

No. Use is not ownership. Possession is not ownership.
Territoriality is not ownership.

Within tribes, humans were most certainly
communal groups. But they didn't just share the land within the
group, dummy, they typically shared everything.

Flat false. Except for very primitive tribes, there were almost
always significant individual differences in wealth. They just
weren't based on some people owning what nature gave equally to all.

-----------------
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.

Bingo. Ownership is when you don't have to defend possession
yourself, because others in the community respect your title and will
enforce it on your behalf.

-----------------
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."

Oh? That's apparently what you claimed gave you a right to enslave
and murder others.

-----------------
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?

No, just do the same thing you claimed a right to do at the waterhole,
but on a larger scale: kill those who do not give you what you demand
in return for you not depriving them of access to what nature
provided.

----------------
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."

I said appropriating unowned land _WAS_ appropriating it from others,
liar, and I explained why, as you can clearly see above.

You are now just trying to weasel and quibble, because you know you
have been comprehensively refuted.

You lose, period. You lost a long time ago and
now you are just pretending you can ignore your own words.

ROTFL!! I have demolished and humiliated you, and you know it. And
so does everyone else reading this.

And the worst of it is, I knew it was going to happen, just as it
always does, and I even warned you. But you wouldn't listen.

-- Roy L
.

Loading