In the absence of any other humans I have free access to the entire world.
With the addition of other humans, my individual right of access is not altogether abrogated but rather abridged to an individual equal right
WilliamB — Firstly, you state “that’s why you have to keep on moving” but I argued that you don’t if you’re not blocking the thoroughfare. Let’s say that it takes three vagrants to block the width of the thoroughfare. The middle thoroughfare blocker settles down. Coincidentally a second settles down next to him blocking 2/3 now of thoroughfare — still legal — now a third vagrant settles down parallel to first two, completely blocking the path. He is the criminal. As far as three people walking in line which blocks counter-flow traffic, —I see this violation all the time in large cities, but no one is enforcing the law.
Much more exciting is the case of the individual who is so obese that his girth blocks the thoroughfare, irregardless of whether he ambulates, or settles down in his deckchair in the middle of the public path for a good read with a copy of Rothbard’s “Man, Economy, and State”. If vagrancy is permitted as I have argued it is above, how do I deal with this case? I don’t know, and previous philosophers never considered it, but given the widespread obesity in America, -----which has spread to the whole world, and which has been greatly exacerbated by the mollycoddleing attitutude of the Liberal foodstamp advocates who let people on foodstamps buy junkfood and meat with them, and even coffee, instead of restricting them to basic wholesome foods like whole grains, beans, fresh fruit and vegetables, (small children should have access to milk if their parents want it) — all this assuming you agree with food stamps in the first place, which I don’t (though I do agree with Hayek’s call for food security as a legit. govt. function, but of course that’s a values call)-----given this obesity, this problem may soon be a reality demanding clarification in political science and Austro-economic theory.
WilliamB — I’m glad we finally agree on something as far as copyright. I argued in a discussion on Mr. Kinsella’s forum on Intellectual Property, that words, musical notes, and photons were communistically-owned assets, the only assets thus owned, and maintained that the so-called creator was actually merely an “arranger” of commonly- owned assets, but that out of a value of justice and to encourage production of ideas and art, society gave him a free-hold lease for a certain fixed time. Since then, I have come to the conclusion that an approapriate time for copyright should be set at seven years, since this, according to the Hindu Yogis, is the amount of time required for all the atoms and cells of our body to be completely replaced by new atoms and cells. Thus the original “arranger”, euphemistically referred to as the creator, exists no longer, and it is high time for society to reclaim its rightful communistically-owned property, i.e. the words, notes and photons misapproapriated and arranged by the writer, musician, photographer or kineast.
WilliamB — You say, "I think you only own the palladium to the extent that your exclusive use does not economically disadvantage anyone else. The test being “did you leave enough and as good in common for others?”
I couldn’t disagree more. Of course my owning the palladium and my exclusive use of it economically disadvantages others. It restricts supply, it drives up the price for them. They may need it to make money and I hold it off the market. Its impossible to own anything and NOT disadvantage someone else, though if you’re a palladium bull who has been in accumulation phase for some time, you might be very happy when others suddenly and massively buy palladium and economically disadvantage you by restricting your access to supply.
Additionally, my owning of the palladium has nothing to do with others, and thus any consideration of its effect on others. In owning it, I have merely expanded my body by expanding my estate, as far as the law is concerned.
You write "The test being “did you leave enough and as good in common for others?” Again, not only does my possession have nothing to do with others, but certainly nothing to do with “leaving enough for others”. This would mean that a commodity trader could never take a long position, because he would have to worry about the morality of his order driving up prices and thus restricting access for others. All profits are at the common expense of all others, not their common good.
Creating the distinction is what gets us into trouble. Rothbard has amply demonstrated that all rights are derivative rights of property rights, from the “right” to speech to the right to “assembly”. We wholly reject positive rights.
What “right” of access? You have the right to appropriate unowned resources, and no more than that. Ownership stems from labour-mixing. All else is unowned.
Paul, be careful not to fall in that trap. No one is harmed because one does not own the value of any given resource; they own the resource and no more than that. Profits, also, are not damaging in any way (provided they are the result of voluntary interactions and justly acquired resources.) It is Marxists who have propagated such myths.
Inquisitor — I’m not sure what trap you refer to, like Joseph K. in Kafka’s “The Trial”. I thought I indicated that one owns only the resource (owning the oz. palladium is owning only, a simple expansion of ones estate, irregardless of anyone else’s measured monetary value of the ounce). However, fhe fact that my buying this oz. has driven up the market value does harm others, albeit indirectly, unless one feels that having to pay more money for something is a positive, and having less money is a virtue, a view many of the various religious saints have shared. But my possession of it, effected for primarily non-financial reasons (I like the way it looks,etc.), doesn’t bring in others at all. The old communist guilt trip. If you refer to WilliamB’s trap of obfuscating the rights issue, by creating a distinction where there shouldn’t be one, I am aware of it and skirting the edge of the pit. Thanks for the warning.
Inquisitor queries if I’ve read Rothbard/Hoppe on property rights, or Kinsella on IP.I’ve read Rothbard’s Man Economy and State, and listened to all his lectures/videos. Also read Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom (or Atleeism)”. Read and commented on Kinsella’s forum on IP and G.E. Morton paper. Don’t really want to comment before I read all of Mises, Hayek and Rothbard key works, but sometimes can’t resist. I think though that perhaps, while I could accept that the ownership rights to the oz. palladium, the IP copyright, and the Right to Free Speech or Assembly are all property rights, they could not be further distinguished. Probably has been attempted, but I haven’t read on it yet. However, off the top of my head, I’d say that IP’s were the right to a leasehold as described above, and the Right to Free Speech a type of Civil Right. So while simple physical ownership is a simple property right, IP and Right to Free Speech, because they are intangible, have to be delineated as other types of property rights, perhaps the cumbersome Civil-property rights, or free-hold/lease-property rights. But I would agree that basically all are property rights.
I simply meant the trap of acquiescing to the Marxist belief that ownership is somehow harmful. Anyway, as I said before, harm can only be said to have been done if one is assumed to own the value of a good. Otherwise, yes, having to pay more for something is inconvenient, but it is not harm (in the sense of aggression.) It’s also a signal to entrepreneurs to increase supply of the good, ceteris paribus, given its higher profitability.
Individual equal rights are negative rights.
In the absence of others there are no need for the concept of rights - so I can freely access anything and everything.
With the addition of others, being able to access everything is not ended but rather the same ability is extended to all.
Now, what to do to avoid conflicts? We assign rights…in the case of everything that pre-exists human labor, we all have an individual equal right of access.
It is harm when occupying land is part of self existence and if all locations are legally claimed. One can’t have self-ownership if someone else has a legal claim on your labor.
The supply of land is inelastic.
The supply of land is inelastic, true. But in a free-market capitalist society, the law of supply and demand will virtually insure there will always be a supply on the market available to anyone with the requisite capital. If “all locations are legally claimed” then it is my problem to acquire enough capital to bribe one of these legal claimants to sell his claim or land deed to me. Under capitalism everybody gets pretty much what they want if they pursue it hard enough, and its usually something very different from their neighbors wants. WilliamB worries about “all locations are legally claimed” but his real worry should be “all currency is legally claimed (or controlled, as in the FED)” because as long as there is a true free market, any individual can strive, and probably eventually acquire enough capital to bid away one of those parcels of land. At the same time, the teenager down the street is not dreaming about land, but the chrome wheels he wants for his souped up car that the highschool girls admire so much. The cost is a grand. Now if the person who was intent on raising the capital to buy one of the “all locations legally claimed” parcels, had instead had his heart set on a set of chrome wheels too and bought a set from the local dealer , the dealer would have set the price two dollars higher for the teenager because he saw they were a hot item.Likewise, if the teenage had invested his grand in a REIT that purchased the type of land the landseeker sought, the seeker would have to accrue more capital to affect his successful bribe. The point of this being, to WilliamB, that while all of one item may be legally claimed, all of capital is not, and as long as that capital is fluid and diversified, no shortage of goods in one sector need be permanent for accrual of capital in another sector will break the stalemate of no sales after a protracted period of quiescence.
So even when supply is inelastic, capital will guarantee a supply. Another miracle of the capitalist free-market.
Oh no. I certainly don’t think ownership is harmful, at least not to live a fairly normal life in the modern world. No as a capitalist, I obviously feel ownership is a positive. Its capital. The Marxists have their organized religion with a vast set of false beliefs, and they ridicule anyone who even engages them in a reasonable dialogue, like the defenders of most authoritarian organized religions.
I would say that having to pay more for something can well be harm, and not merely inconvenience, as when the price of a loaf of break goes up to the level where the hobo cannot now afford it, though he could yesterday, before the food-stamp or minimum-wage induced price rise took effect. I think you also overlook the case of a commodity short squeeze where a small but powerful cartel, knowing that someone has overleveraged a significant short position, all buy in at the same time on heavy volume, driving the short into bankruptcy as his stops are hit in thin markets. This is not technically aggression, but it surely is hostile, and the losses are not merely an “inconvenience” to the distraught bear who was comfortable yesterday, but today is in huge debt.
I seem to recall a case about a dozen years back where a guy was short wheat on the last day and the market traded from $5 to $7.50, where he got stopped out, in one trade, and then went back to $5 on the next tick. This in a market that might normally move a $1 or less in a year. I think the CFTC ruled against his protest. Moral: Always get out at least several days before a contract expires.
You merely have power over your body, and nothing else. You have a right to appropriate unowned resources, not a right to appropriated resources. No harm whatsoever has occured, given that the so-called commons were unowned to begin with.
And? Individuals constantly increase the capacity which land can hold by building on it (e.g. appartments etc.) The point of holding land is to make money off it. But fine, let us assume that everyone were given a right to a piece of land, and thus the earth were divided equally amongst all. Suppose they then decided to trade it, resulting in unequal holdings once more. Should this be outlawed?
Paul, I employ harm in a specific way in that it entails damage to property (in oneself or a resource.) That is why I reject its use with regard to value, which cannot be owned.
It is not like your body is floating in a vacuum. We are landed animals that must interact with the world to derive our sustenance.
To be a live is to appropriate resources because you must occupy a specific location at any time. If all locations are legally occupied then you must be gifted or purchase a right to “be”. Therefore, under those conditions, you have no right of self-ownership as someone has a legal claim on your wages or they are gifting you the right to occupy the location they own.
Yes and that is called “capital” not “land”.
Who is suggesting that? If no one were economically harmed no matter where anyone else chose to locate, then that will suffice to uphold the absolute right of self-ownership of everyone.
The second part does not follow from the first part. A landlord does not have a legal claim on your wages, they have a legal claim to the amount of rent you agreed to pay, therefore in competition with all other landlords.
The only plausible obligation, then, that can arise in this context is of parents to provide for the child, since they are the ones who put it in its uniquely fragile state. Beyond that it is up to the individual to work and exchange goods to gain other goods, including land.
I don’t see how that follows at all. They certainly have no obligation to provide you with anything other than what your entreaties manage to get out of them.
But it helps to alleviate the so-called problem of land scarcity.
Individuals such as G. A. Cohen.
BTW, on the topic of land scarcity, I recommend Skousen’s Economic Logic, in which he dissects the notion of completely inelastic supply.
“Owned” and “common” do not mix. To own something is be able to determine its use.
There is no right to free speech anymore than there is a right to access to sidewalks. Sidewalk owners, private and government, happen to grant access liberally. But there are no rights involved.
Any item or entitity can have single owners, as well as more then one owner. One would actually have to define who the owners are and what the terms of use would be. Examples for single ownership could be a piece of bread or an automobile. The owner is the sole legitimate decision maker over these items. On the other hand a golf club could own a golf course. The members of this golf club would then be the common owners of the golf course. There are many other examples for “common ownership” as well.
… Or take the example of of ones bedroom. Well I don’t think the SPLC is entitled to sent one of their activitist their to give you a speech on what you ought to do in your bedroom… Other examples can be given as well. On the contrary, what you write in a book that you publish and that you pay for ought to be your own business.
You are confusing common and collective owners. Collective ownership is a joint right. Common ownership is an individual equal right.
Collective ownership requires permission from all of the other owners (consensus) prior to use or the delegated authority. The terms and consitions of use are then dictated.
Common ownership requires no prior approval only a judgement after action has been taken as to whether some other individual’s equal rights are being infringed upon.
The rights involved are natural rights that pre-exist goverment and are the reason for governance.
The common right of way that exists within the sidewalks and roads require no prior permission to access. Government as legitimate agency is constituted to insure that this natural right is not infringed upon by any other individual.
“Goods” are produced via human labor. “Land” by definition is not produced by human labor and occupying it is synonomous with life itself. They can’t be separated.
“Land” is not “provided” to you. To exist is to occupy land.
Since “land” by definition pre-exists human labor and thus is fixed in supply, I don’t see how.