Colbert polling higher than Ron Paul

baraka · October 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

How can I or you "claim ownership" to the seas?

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?

farfromglorified wrote:

How can you "own" a bird or deer?

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?

Farfromglorified wrote:

Charge you with what?

Your bees just provided a service for me by pollinating my garden, did they not?

Farfromglorified wrote:

Why? Because of poop and pollinization?

Yes among other things...........

Farfromglorified wrote:

"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.

Farfromglorified wrote:

You certainly could.

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?

Farfromglorified wrote:

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.

baraka · October 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

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.

farfromglorified · October 2007

baraka wrote:

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.

farfromglorified · October 2007

baraka wrote:

It's slavery, ffg.

Please define slavery before we continue.

baraka · October 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

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?

baraka · October 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

Please define slavery before we continue.

For this discussion, this will do:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery

baraka · October 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

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.

farfromglorified · October 2007

baraka wrote:

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.

farfromglorified · October 2007

baraka wrote:

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 what if your fish poops on my house?

farfromglorified · October 2007

baraka wrote:

For this discussion, this will do:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery

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?

Yoyoyo · October 2007

gue_barium wrote:

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.

Colbert polling higher than Ron Paul

Comments

Categories