Even if I catch it in a body of water you claim ownership to, the seas, for example? The privatization of oceanic resources suggests that 'territories' of ocean will have to be established, which means the end of the centuries-old convention of non-sovereignty of the seas.
I'm talking about the natural wildlife on said property, ie birds, deer, etc. Do you 'own' them? And if a flock of birds on your property that you 'own' fly over my property and poop all over my property, can I sue you for property damage? And how can I determine who's birds they belong to? How about if a bunch of bees from your property fly over and pollinate my gardens, can you charge me?
Wherever property ends, baraka. This isn't that complicated.
Oh, but it is very complicated! Total privatization of the earth is a fantasy and ridiculous. The atmosphere, the seas, wildlife, and innumerable ecological services both known and undiscovered, are now and will forever be the 'common property' of mankind, not to mention the other species of the earth. You say we can privatize the Earth, so can we conceivably 'privatize' the atmosphere, and with it the hydrological cycle? If so, then who is liable things such as El Nino? If I own a 'piece' of the atmosphere, is this a defined space, or is it the migrating clouds and molecules within? Do you see this slippery slope?
Ah, I'm getting behind in my work. I'll be back later. I'm sure you will have much more for me.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Yes, you do. For example, right now, somewhere in India, a woman is working 16 hours per day making something you or me might buy. She's working there in squalid conditions, but doing so willingly. Why is this wrong?
Why does one move their operations overseas? Is it perhaps due to the cheap labor among other things?
Most likely, yes.
And, you say it is ridiculous to assume sweatshops will open up here, then you say they will most likely open up here?????????
Sorry for not being more clear. I'm saying that the labor force as a whole will not suddenly return to 1864 standards if you eliminate regulations. Yes, sweatshops would certainly open. But they would represent a small part of the operating market in this country, not the norm.
No, it doesn't. It holds them, the same way someone else held them until the government took hold of them.
Definitely!
"You got to know when to hold em, got to know when to fold 'em..."
Actually, much of America was a monetary purchase. The National Park system, in part, was through buying out private ownership on parts of those lands. I don't really want to argue semantics, though. I don't like the word "ownership" in the sense that the Earth itself is absolutely without ownership, ever and always.
Even if I catch it in a body of water you claim ownership to, the seas, for example?
How can I or you "claim ownership" to the seas?
The privatization of oceanic resources suggests that 'territories' of ocean will have to be established, which means the end of the centuries-old convention of non-sovereignty of the seas.
Umm...the privatization of the land you own, at some point, suggested that the "territories" of land had to be established, which meant the end of the centuries-old convention of non-sovereignty of the land.
I'm talking about the natural wildlife on said property, ie birds, deer, etc. Do you 'own' them?
How can you "own" a bird or deer?
And if a flock of birds on your property that you 'own' fly over my property and poop all over my property, can I sue you for property damage?
You can try.
And how can I determine who's birds they belong to?
DNA, most likely.
How about if a bunch of bees from your property fly over and pollinate my gardens, can you charge me?
Charge you with what?
Oh, but it is very complicated! Total privatization of the earth is a fantasy and ridiculous.
Why? Because of poop and pollinization?
The atmosphere, the seas, wildlife, and innumerable ecological services both known and undiscovered, are now and will forever be the 'common property' of mankind, not to mention the other species of the earth.
"Common property" makes no sense. Property is exclusionary. There's no such thing as "common property". "Common property" is simply organized possession.
You say we can privatize the Earth, so can we conceivably 'privatize' the atmosphere, and with it the hydrological cycle?
You certainly could.
If so, then who is liable things such as El Nino?
Nature.
If I own a 'piece' of the atmosphere, is this a defined space, or is it the migrating clouds and molecules within?
How could you "own" a piece of the atmosphere by either standard?
Do you see this slippery slope?
There is no slippery slope here. There are just questions you are asking.
Actually, much of America was a monetary purchase.
Most definitely, yes.
The National Park system, in part, was through buying out private ownership on parts of those lands.
Some of it, sure.
I don't really want to argue semantics, though. I don't like the word "ownership" in the sense that the Earth itself is absolutely without ownership, ever and always.
Yes, you do. For example, right now, somewhere in India, a woman is working 16 hours per day making something you or me might buy. She's working there in squalid conditions, but doing so willingly. Why is this wrong?
So you are saying that when posed with the choice of either earning nothing or working in inhumane conditions to earn a little in an attempt to feed their family, since the individual 'choses' the latter there is no moral dilemma even though this is considered slave labor? Are you saying that libertarianism allows one to sell himself into slavery? There was a time in history that one could do just that to pay off debts. There is no moral dilemma here? I'm reminded of the 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' farside cartoon. Come on now, make up your mind, it's one or the other!
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
So you are saying that when posed with the choice of either earning nothing or working in inhumane conditions to earn a little in an attempt to feed their family, since the individual 'choses' the latter there is no moral dilemma even though this is considered slave labor?
There is no moral dilemma in the absence of actual slavery, baraka.
Let me ask you this: at some point many millenia ago, a man or a woman chose between the horribly dangerous task of continued hunting and gathering and the back-breaking work of farming in order to feed his or her family. Do you see a similar "moral dilemma" in that?
Are you saying that libertarianism allows one to sell himself into slavery?
Sure! If that's what you want to do, I doubt any Libertarian would want to prevent you from selling yourself into slavery.
There was a time in history that one could do just that to pay off debts. There is no moral dilemma here?
Not for a third party, no.
I'm reminded of the 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' farside cartoon. Come on now, make up your mind, it's one or the other!
There are many "damed if you do, damned if you don't" choices in life. Often, they are preceeded by "glorified if you do, damned if you don't" choices.
Let's see if we can flesh this out a bit....how is your sweatshop laborer "damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't"???
I don't know that's what I'm asking. You're the one claiming we can privatize the Earth. The birds and deer fall under the Earth category, does it not?
"Common property" makes no sense. Property is exclusionary. There's no such thing as "common property". "Common property" is simply organized possession.
But it makes perfect sense compared the attempt to privatize everything on Earth.
Really, then why would Nature be held accountable? If someone 'owns' the atmosphere, then their property has cause some damage and they should be held accountable according to your philosophy. Silly, huh?
How could you "own" a piece of the atmosphere by either standard?
You just stated that atmosphere ownership is a possibility. You also said everything on Earth can be privatized. The atmosphere is part of the Earth. The argument is yours, ffg? I'm not suggesting privatization of everything on the Earth. You are.
Slippery slope, indeed.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
There is no moral dilemma in the absence of actual slavery, baraka.
Let me ask you this: at some point many millenia ago, a man or a woman chose between the horribly dangerous task of continued hunting and gathering and the back-breaking work of farming in order to feed his or her family. Do you see a similar "moral dilemma" in that?
Sure! If that's what you want to do, I doubt any Libertarian would want to prevent you from selling yourself into slavery.
Not for a third party, no.
There are many "damed if you do, damned if you don't" choices in life. Often, they are preceeded by "glorified if you do, damned if you don't" choices.
Let's see if we can flesh this out a bit....how is your sweatshop laborer "damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't"???
It's slavery, ffg. Slavery in a potential society where there are no options for the ones without 'property' & capital due to the unregulated, unchecked free market. Again, we see the results of this in third world countries. Do you really see advancement in society with this system?
What about the problem of children, whom libertarian ideology treats like adults? Do you support the abolition of compulsory education and all child-specific laws?
If you give me the choice between murdering me by burning me at the stake or a quick gunshot to the head, I'll probably chose the gunshot, because it might be less painful. That doesn't mean that the latter is morally correct, just because I was forced to make a choice.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I don't know that's what I'm asking. You're the one claiming we can privatize the Earth. The seas fall under the Earth category, does it not?
I don't know that's what I'm asking. You're the one claiming we can privatize the Earth. The birds and deer fall under the Earth category, does it not?
They most definitely do. But you're still thinking of things in terms of an "ownership" that has absolutely no meaning, other than a personal or governmental fiat.
Ownership, true ownership, arises from labor. When you create a limited consumable, you, by the nature of your actions and the recognition of others around you, own it. You did not create the sea. You likely did not create the wildlife. You cannot take ownership of these things. You can take possession of these things and defend them, as we are used to seeing, but you do not own them.
Your bees just provided a service for me by pollinating my garden, did they not?
Hehe...by your governmental logic wherein something can provide you a service that you didn't agree to, yes, I suppose you would be indebted to me for my bees.
But it makes perfect sense compared the attempt to privatize everything on Earth.
"Common property" makes no sense as a concept. You and I cannot own something together unless we collaborated on its creation, agreed to the terms of the ownership and the use of the property.
Really, then why would Nature be held accountable? If someone 'owns' the atmosphere, then their property has cause some damage and they should be held accountable according to your philosophy. Silly, huh?
You're not attempting to grasp the philosophy, baraka. You're simply taking the concepts that exist in your mind about ownership and property and trying not to consider my words or concepts. That's why you're getting silly answers -- you're asking questions that make absolutely no sense in my mind.
You just stated that atmosphere ownership is a possibility. You also said everything on Earth can be privatized. The atmosphere is part of the Earth. The argument is yours, ffg? I'm not suggesting privatization of everything on the Earth. You are.
Everything on Earth can be privatized by its use and by the recognition of all that a used resource has a value that an unused resource does not. The piece of atmosphere floating around you is an unused resource. The slice of ocean next to you is an unused resource. The space of land on the other side of you is an unused resource. When one applies those things, the products from them can and most definitely should be owned.
They most definitely do. But you're still thinking of things in terms of an "ownership" that has absolutely no meaning, other than a personal or governmental fiat.
Ownership, true ownership, arises from labor. When you create a limited consumable, you, by the nature of your actions and the recognition of others around you, own it. You did not create the sea. You likely did not create the wildlife. You cannot take ownership of these things. You can take possession of these things and defend them, as we are used to seeing, but you do not own them.
Hehe...by your governmental logic wherein something can provide you a service that you didn't agree to, yes, I suppose you would be indebted to me for my bees.
"Common property" makes no sense as a concept. You and I cannot own something together unless we collaborated on its creation, agreed to the terms of the ownership and the use of the property.
You're not attempting to grasp the philosophy, baraka. You're simply taking the concepts that exist in your mind about ownership and property and trying not to consider my words or concepts. That's why you're getting silly answers -- you're asking questions that make absolutely no sense in my mind.
Everything on Earth can be privatized by its use and by the recognition of all that a used resource has a value that an unused resource does not. The piece of atmosphere floating around you is an unused resource. The slice ocean next to you is an unused resource. The space of land on the other side of you is an unused resource. When one applies those things, the products from them can and most definitely should be owned.
Didn't you just argue that universal 'commons' such as the atmosphere and the oceans are to be carved up and sold to the highest bidder? Didn't you just argue that 'common property' makes no sense? You argue that everything on Earth can be privatized, everything. You say no one created the seas (well unless we want to inject God into this discussion, but let's not go there), so who has the right to own them? How does the 'owner' make his claim? When you suggest privatization of the earth, you can't dismiss these arguments. When you suggest privatization of the Earth, expect these silly questions. As silly as they are, they are relevant. The libertarian way to correct 'wrongs' is legal compensation, the courts, correct? So can I sue you if the birds on your property that you claim rights to damages my property? What am I missing here, ffg? What part of the philosophy am I not grasping?
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Everything on Earth can be privatized by its use and by the recognition of all that a used resource has a value that an unused resource does not. The piece of atmosphere floating around you is an unused resource. The slice of ocean next to you is an unused resource. The space of land on the other side of you is an unused resource. When one applies those things, the products from them can and most definitely should be owned.
I have no problem with ownership of a fish caught from the sea. It's the ownership of the sea that I take issue with.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Didn't you just argue that universal 'commons' such as the atmosphere and the oceans are to be carved up and sold to the highest bidder?
They already are, except the price is zero. Every breath you take represents a cut out of these so-called "commons". Every flight through them. Every fishnet. The list goes on and on.
Didn't you just argue that 'common property' makes no sense?
Yes. It makes absolutely no sense.
You argue that everything on Earth can be privatized, everything. You say no one created the seas (well unless we want to inject God into this discussion, but let's not go there), so who has the right to own them?
You do. I do. Everyone who uses them does.
How does the 'owner' make his claim?
By using a part of them and offering the products to others at his or her chosen price, of course.
When you suggest privatization of the earth, you can't dismiss these arguments.
I don't -- I'm responding to this, no?
When you suggest privatization of the Earth, expect these silly questions. As silly as they are, they are relevant. The libertarian way to correct 'wrongs' is legal compensation, the courts, correct?
Sure.
So can I sue you if the birds on your property that you claim rights to damages my property?
You can sue me for anything, baraka. Whether or not you have any right to claim damages would completely depend on the legal structures in place. In the event that I own birds, and those birds somehow damage your property, you would likely need to demonstrate a few things to collect damages:
1) That the birds that damaged your property were in fact my birds.
2) That you own your property.
3) That a person who owns birds is liable for the actions of those birds.
What am I missing here, ffg? What part of the philosophy am I not grasping?
You're waiting for me to tell you how much of the ocean you get. You're waiting for me to show you a deed, and to give you a distribution plan. You're looking for the legislative path. Yet all you need to look to in order to understand what I'm saying is the resource in question and what can be done with it to give it a value greater than it holds today and who can do it.
No one owns the things you speak of. They are not "commons". They just are. There is no need to create a system of ownership for any of them because, until recent times, they were largely non-rival and unimproved. Those days are quickly disappearing.
Ok. So, slavery is "is a term used to refer to a condition in which a person chooses a job but only within a coerced set of choices". Therefore, we're both slaves, right?
I'm thinking in terms of the actual state of affairs in the country now. Paul is adamantly against the way our foreign policy is being used, yet, if he and a boatload of other likeminded folks were to assume their seats in Washington, DC in '08, they would have to presumedly extricate not only US troops from Iraq, but many contracts in the billions of dollars that are invested in that effort both home and abroad.
No need to presume anything, they would honor the contracts and accept them as a sign of failure of the previous administration. That's what governments do for the first term, blame their predessessors.
Comments
Even if I catch it in a body of water you claim ownership to, the seas, for example? The privatization of oceanic resources suggests that 'territories' of ocean will have to be established, which means the end of the centuries-old convention of non-sovereignty of the seas.
I'm talking about the natural wildlife on said property, ie birds, deer, etc. Do you 'own' them? And if a flock of birds on your property that you 'own' fly over my property and poop all over my property, can I sue you for property damage? And how can I determine who's birds they belong to? How about if a bunch of bees from your property fly over and pollinate my gardens, can you charge me?
Oh, but it is very complicated! Total privatization of the earth is a fantasy and ridiculous. The atmosphere, the seas, wildlife, and innumerable ecological services both known and undiscovered, are now and will forever be the 'common property' of mankind, not to mention the other species of the earth. You say we can privatize the Earth, so can we conceivably 'privatize' the atmosphere, and with it the hydrological cycle? If so, then who is liable things such as El Nino? If I own a 'piece' of the atmosphere, is this a defined space, or is it the migrating clouds and molecules within? Do you see this slippery slope?
Ah, I'm getting behind in my work. I'll be back later. I'm sure you will have much more for me.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Yes, you do. For example, right now, somewhere in India, a woman is working 16 hours per day making something you or me might buy. She's working there in squalid conditions, but doing so willingly. Why is this wrong?
Most likely, yes.
Sorry for not being more clear. I'm saying that the labor force as a whole will not suddenly return to 1864 standards if you eliminate regulations. Yes, sweatshops would certainly open. But they would represent a small part of the operating market in this country, not the norm.
No, it doesn't. It holds them, the same way someone else held them until the government took hold of them.
Definitely!
"You got to know when to hold em, got to know when to fold 'em..."
Actually, much of America was a monetary purchase. The National Park system, in part, was through buying out private ownership on parts of those lands. I don't really want to argue semantics, though. I don't like the word "ownership" in the sense that the Earth itself is absolutely without ownership, ever and always.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
How can I or you "claim ownership" to the seas?
Umm...the privatization of the land you own, at some point, suggested that the "territories" of land had to be established, which meant the end of the centuries-old convention of non-sovereignty of the land.
How can you "own" a bird or deer?
You can try.
DNA, most likely.
Charge you with what?
Why? Because of poop and pollinization?
"Common property" makes no sense. Property is exclusionary. There's no such thing as "common property". "Common property" is simply organized possession.
You certainly could.
Nature.
How could you "own" a piece of the atmosphere by either standard?
There is no slippery slope here. There are just questions you are asking.
Most definitely, yes.
Some of it, sure.
Why?
Humans are just another species of animal on the planet.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Yes, and....?
What does the fact that humans are just another species of animal have to do with this?
So you are saying that when posed with the choice of either earning nothing or working in inhumane conditions to earn a little in an attempt to feed their family, since the individual 'choses' the latter there is no moral dilemma even though this is considered slave labor? Are you saying that libertarianism allows one to sell himself into slavery? There was a time in history that one could do just that to pay off debts. There is no moral dilemma here? I'm reminded of the 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' farside cartoon. Come on now, make up your mind, it's one or the other!
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
There is no moral dilemma in the absence of actual slavery, baraka.
Let me ask you this: at some point many millenia ago, a man or a woman chose between the horribly dangerous task of continued hunting and gathering and the back-breaking work of farming in order to feed his or her family. Do you see a similar "moral dilemma" in that?
Sure! If that's what you want to do, I doubt any Libertarian would want to prevent you from selling yourself into slavery.
Not for a third party, no.
There are many "damed if you do, damned if you don't" choices in life. Often, they are preceeded by "glorified if you do, damned if you don't" choices.
Let's see if we can flesh this out a bit....how is your sweatshop laborer "damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't"???
I don't know that's what I'm asking. You're the one claiming we can privatize the Earth. The birds and deer fall under the Earth category, does it not?
Your bees just provided a service for me by pollinating my garden, did they not?
Yes among other things...........
But it makes perfect sense compared the attempt to privatize everything on Earth.
Really, then why would Nature be held accountable? If someone 'owns' the atmosphere, then their property has cause some damage and they should be held accountable according to your philosophy. Silly, huh?
You just stated that atmosphere ownership is a possibility. You also said everything on Earth can be privatized. The atmosphere is part of the Earth. The argument is yours, ffg? I'm not suggesting privatization of everything on the Earth. You are.
Slippery slope, indeed.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
It's slavery, ffg. Slavery in a potential society where there are no options for the ones without 'property' & capital due to the unregulated, unchecked free market. Again, we see the results of this in third world countries. Do you really see advancement in society with this system?
What about the problem of children, whom libertarian ideology treats like adults? Do you support the abolition of compulsory education and all child-specific laws?
If you give me the choice between murdering me by burning me at the stake or a quick gunshot to the head, I'll probably chose the gunshot, because it might be less painful. That doesn't mean that the latter is morally correct, just because I was forced to make a choice.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
They most definitely do. But you're still thinking of things in terms of an "ownership" that has absolutely no meaning, other than a personal or governmental fiat.
Ownership, true ownership, arises from labor. When you create a limited consumable, you, by the nature of your actions and the recognition of others around you, own it. You did not create the sea. You likely did not create the wildlife. You cannot take ownership of these things. You can take possession of these things and defend them, as we are used to seeing, but you do not own them.
Hehe...by your governmental logic wherein something can provide you a service that you didn't agree to, yes, I suppose you would be indebted to me for my bees.
"Common property" makes no sense as a concept. You and I cannot own something together unless we collaborated on its creation, agreed to the terms of the ownership and the use of the property.
You're not attempting to grasp the philosophy, baraka. You're simply taking the concepts that exist in your mind about ownership and property and trying not to consider my words or concepts. That's why you're getting silly answers -- you're asking questions that make absolutely no sense in my mind.
Everything on Earth can be privatized by its use and by the recognition of all that a used resource has a value that an unused resource does not. The piece of atmosphere floating around you is an unused resource. The slice of ocean next to you is an unused resource. The space of land on the other side of you is an unused resource. When one applies those things, the products from them can and most definitely should be owned.
Please define slavery before we continue.
Didn't you just argue that universal 'commons' such as the atmosphere and the oceans are to be carved up and sold to the highest bidder? Didn't you just argue that 'common property' makes no sense? You argue that everything on Earth can be privatized, everything. You say no one created the seas (well unless we want to inject God into this discussion, but let's not go there), so who has the right to own them? How does the 'owner' make his claim? When you suggest privatization of the earth, you can't dismiss these arguments. When you suggest privatization of the Earth, expect these silly questions. As silly as they are, they are relevant. The libertarian way to correct 'wrongs' is legal compensation, the courts, correct? So can I sue you if the birds on your property that you claim rights to damages my property? What am I missing here, ffg? What part of the philosophy am I not grasping?
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
For this discussion, this will do:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I have no problem with ownership of a fish caught from the sea. It's the ownership of the sea that I take issue with.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
They already are, except the price is zero. Every breath you take represents a cut out of these so-called "commons". Every flight through them. Every fishnet. The list goes on and on.
Yes. It makes absolutely no sense.
You do. I do. Everyone who uses them does.
By using a part of them and offering the products to others at his or her chosen price, of course.
I don't -- I'm responding to this, no?
Sure.
You can sue me for anything, baraka. Whether or not you have any right to claim damages would completely depend on the legal structures in place. In the event that I own birds, and those birds somehow damage your property, you would likely need to demonstrate a few things to collect damages:
1) That the birds that damaged your property were in fact my birds.
2) That you own your property.
3) That a person who owns birds is liable for the actions of those birds.
You're waiting for me to tell you how much of the ocean you get. You're waiting for me to show you a deed, and to give you a distribution plan. You're looking for the legislative path. Yet all you need to look to in order to understand what I'm saying is the resource in question and what can be done with it to give it a value greater than it holds today and who can do it.
No one owns the things you speak of. They are not "commons". They just are. There is no need to create a system of ownership for any of them because, until recent times, they were largely non-rival and unimproved. Those days are quickly disappearing.
But what if your fish poops on my house?
Ok. So, slavery is "is a term used to refer to a condition in which a person chooses a job but only within a coerced set of choices". Therefore, we're both slaves, right?
No need to presume anything, they would honor the contracts and accept them as a sign of failure of the previous administration. That's what governments do for the first term, blame their predessessors.
You got to spend it all