Re: Historical comparisons

On 8 Mar 2006 08:51:24 -0800, "William Mook"
<william.mook@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

royls@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On 7 Mar 2006 08:34:04 -0800, "William Mook"
<william.mook@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

That you think I am defending privilege says it all. LOL.

Maybe you don't realize that's what you're doing.

Especially since you pulled it out of your ass at the last minute! lol

No. I merely identified the fact when _you_ made it clear that that
was what you were doing.

But I think you do.
The blatant dishonesty of the following convinces me:

I'm calling you a socialist because you are advocating public ownership
of property over private ownership of property because in your view
private ownership is 'privileged.' Nothing dishonest about that at
all.

But that claim is just flat false, and most certainly dishonest,
because you repeatedly change what I have said, claiming that I have
said something quite different. You did it again, immediately above.
I have said repeatedly that private ownership of _natural_resources_
is not necessary for their development, and indeed impedes their
development, as well as having other deleterious economic and social
effects. I did not say "property" should be publicly owned, or
anything similar. But you have repeatedly claimed that I advocate
public ownership not just of natural resources, but of "property."

IOW, you have repeatedly lied about what I have plainly written.

You're a damned socialist or worse,

Wrong.

You are know by your commentary here - and its socialist.

That is false. Socialism is collective ownership of the means of
production (i.e., capital and natural resources). I do not and have
never advocated collective ownership of capital. Therefore my
commentary is by definition not socialist. So please stop lying about
what I have plainly written.

According to the founder of the US Libertarian Party, I'm a
libertarian.

The issue isn't what sort of cards you carry with you - the issue is
what you are saying!

That is what I meant:

http://www.lp.org/lpn/9503-essence.html

You are saying that public ownership of property
is preferred over private ownership of property because in your view
private ownership is privileged - THIS IS SOCIALIST!

I have never said any such thing. My objection is _only_ to private
property in natural resources (which is most certainly privilege), and
this position is well founded in uncontroversial facts of economics.
Libertarians who are both informed on these facts and logically
consistent are called "geolibertarians." I suggest that you enlist
the aid of Google and inform yourself, rather than continue to lie
about what I have plainly written.

socialism n. Any of various theories or systems of social organization
in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned
collectively

Now please quote the passage where I advocate collective ownership of
the capital equipment, buildings, etc. used in production and
distribution of goods.

Thought not.

I could challenge you to quote me advocating anything
socialistic, but I know you can't, so what's the point?

Your comment - pulled out of your ass - not deriving from any part of
what you have talked about previously - your comment that I am
defending privelige because I believe people have a right to own
private property - marks you off as a socialist.

That is not what you said, and it is not what I objected to. You said
people have a right not just to property, but to property in
_natural_resources_. I have advanced absolutely no objection to
private property in capital and other products of labor. To claim
that I did is simply a falsehood on your part.

You didn't say one damned thing about privilege, what it means, how its
defined, and how it impacts economic efficiency and all of that. -
NOTHING. But there it is, plain as day at the very end!

OK, I agree I did not provide all the factual background that one
might need to understand my arguments. It's hard to know just how
ignorant the other side is, and thus how much background they need.

You're asking me to defend the obvious?

I'm asking you to defend private property in natural resources,
knowing full well that you cannot.

This marks you off as a person who has socialist ideals and leanings.

<sigh> Read the definition of socialism that _you_ provided, above.
The means of production and distribution consist of capital and
natural resources. Socialism is collective ownership of such capital
and natural resources. I have never advocated collective ownership of
capital, which is sufficient to refute your claim that my comments are
socialist. I do not advocate collective ownership of natural
resources, but rather administration of their possession and use in
trust for the people by government (which is in principle the system
already in place in most advanced countries).

I didn't say that was a bad thing - I just said that's what you are

But that claim is false. Google "geolibertarian," and start reading.

It's important, William, that you inform yourself on this issue. In
fact, it's probably the most important thing you can do.

and you're arguing out of your ass.

I have refuted all your arguments

No you haven't. And even if you did, you are again dishonestly ducking
the issue. WHY THE HELL DO YOU THINK PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY
ENTAILS SOME SORT OF PRIVILEGE?

Private ownership of property in the products of labor does not entail
privilege. Private ownership of natural resources _does_, for reasons
I have already explained: if some people own the natural resources,
and others must pay them for access to those resources in order to
work and live, the former are privileged and the latter effectively
enslaved. The resource owners are privileged to demand that others
produce wealth for them, and contribute nothing to production in
return.

Privilege means only a small number of select people can engage in an
activity.

No, it means that some are given legal powers that violate others'
rights. In the antebellum South, it was not just a small number of
select people that was privileged to own others as slaves. It was a
_majority_.

If all people can freely buy and sell property in a free and
open market unconstrained by restrictive rules - how can private
property = privilege? IT CAN'T!!!

Flat wrong. Those who own natural resources are privileged, because
those who do not are obliged to work for their benefit in order to
survive; the resource owners thus obtain a share of production, in
return for no contribution whatever _to_ production. They are
therefore idle, privileged parasites.

So, you've got things screwed up in
your head on this topic, and your consistent inability to even see the
elusive obvious fact that you do- says it all.

Please understand, William: I have had this discussion before, with
people who are much, _much_ better informed on the relevant facts of
history and economics than you, and I have demolished them.

by simply identifying facts of
economics that have been known for centuries,

You have not provided support of your implied thesis that private
ownership of private property in a modern industrial society is a bad
thing.

Ah. So now instead of lying about what I have said, you claim that I
have an "implied thesis." Well, I suppose that is progress...

As you should know by now, but I will repeat, I do not and have never
said that "private ownership of private property in a modern
industrial society is a bad thing." I have said that private
ownership of _natural_resources_ is a bad thing, in any kind of
society.

You have not shown that public ownership of property and
resources is a good thing.

Natural resources. Not "property _and_ resources." Why do you always
substitute or add "property," when this discussion has from the outset
been about ownership of natural resources and _only_ natural
resources?

You have airily dismissed unfortunate facts
and market realities

I have done no such thing.

while holding fast to the brainwashing you
received at the hands of socialist tutors at your college so long ago.

I did have some socialist (and communist) professors at university. I
disagreed with them violently, sometimes at the cost of my grades, and
still do. You need to stop, right now, and think long and hard about
why that _fact_ is inconsistent with your claims about what I am
advocating.

and their logical implications.

Look, I'm open to hearing whatever evidence you have that supports your
thesis that public ownership is superior to private ownership of
property.

Now you are just lying again. I have advanced no such thesis.

However, anything you say in this regard has to answer the
findings of the two peer reviewed papers I cited from stanford and the
Cato institute.

The Stanford paper is irrelevant, the Cato paper a mixed bag of
obvious truisms and ideologically driven fallacies. If you can
identify a specific place where my comments disagree with theirs, I
will be happy to address it.

The fact that you are unaware of those facts

Look, here's a clue bub, what facts are you talking about specifically?

The economic implications of the fact that the elasticity of supply
for natural resources is zero. For one, the fact that if people have
property in the products of their labor, they will have an incentive
to produce more of them; but if they have property in natural
resources, they not only _cannot_ produce more of them, they will have
a reduced incentive to produce anything at all, rather than just sit
back and charge others rent for access to what nature provided for
free.

You're real good at taking on airs of superiority while accusing me of
defending privilege

Sorry, but my understanding of this issue _is_ superior to yours, and
you _are_ defending privilege. You may be as unaware of that fact as
you are of the fact that you are probably a _victim_ of the very
privilege you are defending. That is the evil genius of privilege.
First, it makes its victims adapt themselves to it in sheer
self-defense. Then they gradually become dependent on their
adaptations. Finally, they identify with their adaptations so
thoroughly that they are recruited as their oppressors' staunchest
defenders. That's the stage you're at.

but whenever you find yourself talking about
adjectives rather than what the adjectives refer to, understand you are
being hazy.

You mean, like you calling my arguments "socialist"?

You have repeated spoken of 'those facts' and 'their logical
implications' ad nauseum! WHAT FACTS ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? WHY DO
YOU HOLD THEM TO BE FACTS? WHAT SPECIFIC LOGICAL SEQUENCE ARE YOU
USING TO SUPPORT YOUR CONCLUSIONS?

Do you understand the implications of the fixity of supply of natural
resources identified above? It is pretty obvious, the sort of thing I
sometimes assume everyone must already know.

It seems to me you are dishonestly portraying your views and your
argument. You avoid direct discussion of an issue by bringing up other
issues to confuse it. You refer to things you don't define or support
except in the most general and fuzzy of ways.

If you think I have been unclear or elliptical, please ask for
clarification of the points you don't understand. Calling them
"socialist" doesn't count as asking for clarification.

And you draw conclusions
about things so far removed from your topic (i.e. connecting privilege
and private property) that is appears to a casual observer you pulled
it out of your ass.

I have explained repeatedly why private property in natural resources
is privilege. You simply ignore those explanations and falsely claim
that I have said that all private property is privilege.

and
dislike those implications does not affect the fact that they are
accurate.

I don't like or dislike the conclusions. What I dislike is your
dishonesty and your abject inability to carry on a rational
conversation on this subject. I gave you two peer reviewed references
one from Stanford, another from the Cato Institute, that talked about
the efficiencies of private enterprise relative and private property in
the hands of private enterprise.

YOU HAVE NOT RESPONDED USEFULLY TO ANY OF THESE VERY COGENT AND WELL
DOCUMENTED FINDINGS.

One example from the O'Driscoll and Hoskins paper at the Cato site:
they claim that Mises' statement that "no investment is safe forever"
"refutes the classical economic doctrine of economic rent," an absurd
non sequitur. They also repeatedly point to Hong Kong as a shining
exemplar of secure private property rights, carefully neglecting to
mention the fact that the only significant natural resource in HK,
land, is not privately owned at all, but leased from the public.

And the idea that you would cite Jin and Qian's Stanford paper as
supporting your position in this discussion is laughable. They
compare the outcomes of privately owned and publicly owned firms in
rural China.... _where_all_the_land_is_publicly_owned_anyway_!

You have preferred to lay back on your well worn discussion of
generalities and fuzzy thinking.

If you don't understand the fundamentals, the details will never be
informative.

In the real world private property in the hands of private enterprise
CREATES VAST WEALTH - WHICH WHEN WIDELY PRACTICED IN A FREE MARKET
BRINGS GREAT SOCIAL BENEFIT TO ALL.

Private property in the products of labor. Right. Not private
property in natural resources.

It is this fact of history, and of markets, that you elect to IGNORE
while spouting the utter bull*** you learned in school supporting an
outdated and outmoded way of looking at the world that history shows
doesn't work.

?? History shows that leasing public land rather than owning it
privately, as in Singapore and HK, doesn't work?

Care to run that one by me again?

If anyone can participate in a free and open market, giving folks the
ability to own private property in no way creates privileged castes.

Wrong again.

Not so much! lol

Giving people private property in natural resources
does.

Not of ANYONE CAN BUY AND SELL THAT RESOURCE IN A FREE AND OPEN MARKET!

Such claims are just false and absurd, as cases of highly concentrated
resource ownership like Saudi Arabia should make clear enough even for
you to understand. Everyone there is "free" to buy and sell the oil
resource. The Saud family just owns it all, and has no motive to sell
any of it except on its own terms. And why would they sell any? Just
idly owning it provides them with more unearned income than they can
possibly ever spend.

So explain to me how the Saud family is not privileged.

Thought not.

You need to explain how free access to resources in a free market
can be seen as a system of privilege.

Access to resources is not free. Those who do not own them must pay
those who do, or starve. If those who do are private individuals and
firms, they are by definition privileged to extort wealth from the
productive in return for no contribution whatsoever.

Always has, always will, by definition.

THIS IS NOT A LOGICAL ARGUMENT!!! THIS IS A STATEMENT OF SOCIALIST
FAITH!

Garbage. See above.

Look, you can say all you like that private property = privilege.

But I have never said that, have I? Can you provide a quote to that
effect? Of course you can't.

But
you have to explain it logically with well documented support. YOU
HAVEN'T! Saying that you have when you haven't is dishonest.

What part of what I explained above do you not understand?

If some people own the
opportunities, and others must pay them rent for access to those
opportunities, equality of opportunity is not even a remote
possibility.

This assumes a static unchanging system of ownership.

No, it does not.

How is this
static system of ownership maintained? Its this static system of
ownership that creates the potential for privilege.

Nope. Whoever owns the resource is privileged by definition, no
matter how they came to own it. You might as well try to claim that
slavery does not equate to privilege as long as it isn't always the
same people owning the slaves.

What about a situation where ownership varies? Where there's a free
and competitive market in private property? People who own property
and resources one day, sell them to other people who own them the next
day Here, there is no opportunity for privilege.

False. Ownership of a natural resource inherently violates the rights
of all who are thereby denied access and use, without appropriate
compensation.

Perhaps a hypothetical example will help you understand the situation
better. A private title to a natural resource is in many ways similar
to a license to steal: the owner is privileged to obtain wealth from
others by violating their rights, and need contribute nothing to them
in return.

So what if land titles were _literal_ licenses to steal? If you owned
a piece of land, you could not only charge others rent on it in return
for nothing, but could legally steal from anyone who happened to be on
it. According to your argument above, this is not privilege, because
ownership varies (people buy and sell their licenses to steal, which
vary in value according to the number and wealth of the people who are
there, much as land titles currently do). There's a free and
competitive market. People who own them one day sell them to someone
else the next.

Are you able to understand, now, that the buying and selling of
privileges -- whether slaves, licenses to steal, or land titles --
does not make them any less privileges?

And, that you think a working interest spreads risk and that's it,
shows you are shuttered in your view of things to protect your flawed
socialist paradigm.

ROTFL!! I doubt that you can even define "socialist" accurately.

You say the damndest things, but they're always in the nature of
dismissive comments about an argument you have had in your head - but
haven't shared with any of us!

OK, I plead guilty to that. I don't always explicitly state all the
premises for or the inferences in an argument, and assume people can
connect the dots themselves. If that happens, just ask me for
clarification and I will do my best. Calling my statements
"socialist" does not count as asking for clarification.

Roy, get a does of reality - just because your vaunted commie profs
wherever you went to school successfully brainwashed you - doesn't mean
those of us who weren't brainwashed are the scum of the Earth. Read
the papers I've cited and work out the logic step by step for fools
like me - and then maybe you'll convince me - or better yet, maybe
you'll actually learn something new - and change your mind to comport
with the reality of the world today.

The Stanford paper is not relevant to this discussion, as it is all
about cases where natural resources are all public anyway. The Cato
paper mixes trite and obvious statements about property rights,
markets, corruption, etc. with dubious ideological claims, and
consistently refuses to acknowledge the difference between property
rights in products of labor, which are rightly earned by those who
produce them, and property "rights" in natural resources, which are
not products of labor and therefore cannot be thus earned.

-- Roy L
.