Should a free society allow for the viewing of child pornography?

[nibbler491]

Giles, please stop referring to your “plethora” of reasons as to why the state drives property values down as “eminent domain, etc.” It would seem to me that the only thing you have been able to come up with is eminent domain, and are just putting the et cetera to make it look like you have more. Please post all of your reasons, or at least a large majority of them.

Furthermore, your argument that eminent domain has any noticable impact on property values is incredibly weak. 80% of the people in this country don’t even know what eminent domain is, and there’s no way that it is factoring in to ANYONE’s decision to purchase land.

As has been said multiple times, but needs restating as you don’t seem to understand it, even if it’s true that property values would be higher in a free market, then rent would go up at the same amount. So your claim that rent would be more preferable in a free society is totally bunk. In addition to that, that claim defies all common sense, and is absurd on its face. Paying rent is like throwing your money into a furnace, you keep paying and paying, and when you finally move out…you have nothing to show for it. Home ownership, on the other hand, is an actual investment…it’s just like paying rent, except you are actually getting an asset in return. There is no reason for rent to be preferable in a free society.

As for proof that the state actually drives property values UP:

It is well known fact that the state created the housing bubble that just recently burst by limiting what land could be used to build houses on. This, of course, artificially limited the supply which in turn, artificially raised the price. Additionally, zoning codes obviously drives prices up as well.

[hayekianxyz]

@Juan

@MacFall

@GilesStratton

And yet you haven’t met the objection that there is no incentive for people to own their own land.

You are the very first person I have EVER met who would prefer to rent over own their home.

I’d bet 5 cents that Giles would prefer to “own a community”…

Only so I could refuse entry to leftist scum like you.

[MacFall]

@Juan

@MacFall

@GilesStratton

And yet you haven’t met the objection that there is no incentive for people to own their own land.

You are the very first person I have EVER met who would prefer to rent over own their home.

I’d bet 5 cents that Giles would prefer to “own a community”…

No bet.

[Brainpolice]

Why not?

I’ve explained why to you in great detail already. It is physically, logically and practically impossible for an entire community to be homesteaded or voluntarily traded for by a single person, particularly given the pre-existance of a whole slew of individual occupants of the community who have their own homes and their own buisinesses. In the absence of the unanimous consent of literally everyone in the community to uniformly yield (either sell or just give up) their property to this single person, this single person’s claim to own the entire community is not legitimate according to any libertarian property rights theory. In short, your idea blatantly rubs up against other people’s property rights and inherently begs the question about how you intend to transfer property titles. To simply disregaurd everyone else’s property rights in this way cannot be reconciled with any consistant application of property rights.

It’s called the division of labour. Individuals don’t homestead the assets of an entire company, yet, they exist.

The division of labor /= an individual homesteading an entire community. That’s quite an absurd conflation.

And why is this?

Because not only is an entire community much larger, but it currently has individual occupants with their own property rights to take into consideration! You can’t just disregaurd their property rights in favor of some monarch.

And what’s the incentive for this?

Your own fundamental economic well-being and survival!

So now common sense beats economic theory?

False equivocation. I’m not argueing against economic theory, and you’re not presenting economic theory.

Yes and you can only classify what I advocate as a monopoly if you use the incorrect neoclassical definition.

Actually what you advocate functionally would even match the Austrian definition of a monopoly.

Not really, since in this case the ownership of land would be a business.

Ownership of land, in libertarianism, has a specific criteria, it is not a free-for-all buisiness in and of itself.

So what? It’s more difficult not impossible. In any case, I fail to see how ownership of a community would be more expensive than ownership of an airline or nuclear power plant.

A city includes all of the infrastructure within it. A nuclear power plant or airline would exist WITHIN a city. Don’t be dense.

Actually the effect of the state’s monopoly of land has had the same effect on the enteprise on owning land as it has had on the private production of defense.

Your ignorance and motivate to disagree is astounding. The state makes it harder for an individual to own a buisiness. That is a fact, backed up by free market economics. How you manage to conclude the opposite of what libertarians tend to conclude from the exact same principles is bizzare.

And? The point is that is essentially wouldn’t have any effect on the price.**

**

I don’t give a shit about the price! Why do you keep returning to property VALUES when I’m talking about PROPERTY RIGHTS.

[Brainpolice]

@GilesStratton

@Juan

@MacFall

@GilesStratton

And yet you haven’t met the objection that there is no incentive for people to own their own land.

You are the very first person I have EVER met who would prefer to rent over own their home.

I’d bet 5 cents that Giles would prefer to “own a community”…

Only so I could refuse entry to leftist scum like you.

It’s funny that you choose to unleash the anti-left rhetoric on Juan, who doesn’t identify as a left-libertarian.

[hayekianxyz]

@nibbler491

Giles, please stop referring to your “plethora” of reasons as to why the state drives property values down as “eminent domain, etc.” It would seem to me that the only thing you have been able to come up with is eminent domain, and are just putting the et cetera to make it look like you have more. Please post all of your reasons, or at least a large majority of them.

Not once have I used the word plethora.

And I’ve mentioned the fact that the state’s monopoly on land means it can forbid certain discriminatory practises in regard to land that makes it less valuable to the owner.

@nibbler491

Furthermore, your argument that eminent domain has any noticable impact on property values is incredibly weak. 80% of the people in this country don’t even know what eminent domain is, and there’s no way that it is factoring in to ANYONE’s decision to purchase land.

That’s an entirely arbitrary number. In any case that doesn’t mean that entrepreneurs don’t take it into account. The fact is this: eminent domain increases uncertainty regarding property rights, hence value goes down.

@nibbler491

As has been said multiple times, but needs restating as you don’t seem to understand it, even if it’s true that property values would be higher in a free market, then rent would go up at the same amount. So your claim that rent would be more preferable in a free society is totally bunk

And? Rent might yes, but so would property values. Keep in mind, I’m talking about land, not “property” in the sense you’re using it. So whilst the rent would go up, so would the value of my house.

@nibbler491

In addition to that, that claim defies all common sense, and is absurd on its face.

So you’re another person who thinks economic theory is inferior to common sense?

@nibbler491

Paying rent is like throwing your money into a furnace, you keep paying and paying, and when you finally move out…you have nothing to show for it.

Yes, you have your house. Just, not the land it’s built on. In any case, you’re ignoring this slightly important thing called time preferance.

@nibbler491

It is well known fact that the state created the housing bubble that just recently burst by limiting what land could be used to build houses on. This, of course, artificially limited the supply which in turn, artificially raised the price. Additionally, zoning codes obviously drives prices up as well.

It also made houses easier to purchase, so what?

[hayekianxyz]

@Brainpolice

It’s funny that you choose to unleash the anti-left rhetoric on Juan, who doesn’t identify as a left-libertarian.

You’d be removed from the community too, don’t worry.

[hayekianxyz]

@Brainpolice

I’ve explained why to you in great detail already. It is physically, logically and practically impossible for an entire community to be homesteaded or voluntarily traded for by a single person, particularly given the pre-existance of a whole slew of individual occupants of the community who have their own homes and their own buisinesses.

You mean like all those resorts that currently exist that are privately owner, and are often as big as communities?

And why is it impossible? One individual merely has to raise enough capital to purchase large quantaties of land, it’s not different from one individual raising large amounts of capital to start up any other type of buisness.

@Brainpolice

In the absence of the unanimous consent of literally everyone in the community to uniformly yield (either sell or just give up) their property to this single person, this single person’s claim to own the entire community is not legitimate according to any libertarian property rights theory.

And you’ve assumed the point in contention, that people wouldn’t want to rent the land.

@Brainpolice

In short, your idea blatantly rubs up against other people’s property rights and inherently begs the question about how you intend to transfer property titles. To simply disregaurd everyone else’s property rights in this way cannot be reconciled with any consistant application of property rights.

Since when have I? I’ve assumed voluntary transfer of property titles to one individual or group of individuals who have raised enough money to purchase it.

@Brainpolice

The division of labor /= an individual homesteading an entire community. That’s quite an absurd conflation.

Not unless you see an individual owning a whole company has nothing to do with the division of labour.

@Brainpolice

Because not only is an entire community much larger, but it currently has individual occupants with their own property rights to take into consideration! You can’t just disregaurd their property rights in favor of some monarch.

Only, I’m not. So what if it’s bigger? Where’s the arbitrary line drawn?

@Brainpolice

Your own fundamental economic well-being and survival!

Yes and how does renting not accomodate for this?

@Brainpolice

False equivocation. I’m not argueing against economic theory, and you’re not presenting economic theory.

So what am I presenting?

@Brainpolice

Actually what you advocate functionally would even match the Austrian definition of a monopoly.

No, the Austrian defintion is lack of free entry, which nowhere have I advocated (the opposite in fact, since I’ve used the word entreprenuer).

@Brainpolice

Ownership of land, in libertarianism, has a specific criteria, it is not a free-for-all buisiness in and of itself.

Actually, land is no different to any other form of property in libertarianism.

@Brainpolice

A city includes all of the infrastructure within it. A nuclear power plant or airline would exist WITHIN a city. Don’t be dense.

And? The owner of the city wouldn’t have to buy the entire airline. It costs considerably more to start an airline than it would to buy all the land within a community.

Actually, the solution of this “problem” is the same thing as the rest, that the airline would rent the space they use. That is assuming that they would operate within the communities that we’re discussing, which I would doubt since the noise pollution they create would bring property prices down.

@Brainpolice

Your ignorance and motivate to disagree is astounding. The state makes it harder for an individual to own a buisiness. That is a fact, backed up by free market economics. How you manage to conclude the opposite of what libertarians tend to conclude from the exact same principles is bizzare.

I’ve just said that the enterprise of the community is more difficult because of the state and that it is analogous to that of the private production of defense, perhaps you misread me.

@Brainpolice

I don’t give a shit about the price! Why do you keep returning to property VALUES when I’m talking about PROPERTY RIGHTS.

Because this is an economic discussion, perhaps? Stop shifting the goal posts.

[Juan]

@Archduke of Stratton

The fact is this: eminent domain increases uncertainty regarding property rights, hence value goes down.

Isn’t eminent domain used by developers and other big business with political connections…? Just asking…

[hayekianxyz]

@Juan the Libertine

@Archduke of Stratton

The fact is this: eminent domain increases uncertainty regarding property rights, hence value goes down.

Isn’t eminent domain used by developers and other big business with political connections…? Just asking…

Yes, and?

[Juan]

@GilesStratton

Yes, it’s necessarily true that the free market is the most efficient means of satisying the demands of the consumers. But this doesn’t mean it produces cheaper things, no.

No ? You don’t see that cheaper, more efficient, and customer satisfaction are all sides of the same coin, so to speak ?

@GilesStratton

@Juan

Actually you can’t prove [land] would be more expensive

Actually, I’ve substantiated my claims that it would be.

No you have not.

There’s no praxeological reason for land to be more expensive.
There’s no praxeological reason for the majority of people to become tenants.

You didn’t even manage to write things that make sense. Again, please explain what you meant by this :

These terms set by the landlords are what stops the value of your property to decrease. Which is a danger that a renter isn’t exposed to.

[hayekianxyz]

@Juan

No ? You don’t see that cheaper, more efficient, and customer satisfaction are all sides of the same coin, so to speak ?

Not necessarily no. I mean, yes, consumers will always prefer cheaper goods all other things being equal. But if the price of a good has been pushed below the free market price, then to say that doing so best meets consumer demand is wrong. It means that there’s a poor allocation of resources. This is what I’m saying in regrds to houses.

@Juan

There’s no praxeological reason for land to be more expensive.
There’s no praxeological reason for the majority of people to become tenants.

We’ve been over this, even if you choose to ignore it.

@Juan

You didn’t even manage to write things that make sense. Again, please explain what you meant by this :

These terms set by the landlords are what stops the value of your property to decrease. Which is a danger that a renter isn’t exposed to.

How pedantic of you.

I mean that if you live in a community in which everybody owns their own land and nothing else you’re exposed to a great deal of risk that you’re not if a single entrepreneur owns all the land and rents it out. Since you and the entrepeneur have the same incentives. Consider this, you buy a house that is valued very highly. Then coke dealers move in on one side of the house, a very noise rock band moves in on the other and across the street a local gang moves in. What do you think will happen to the value of you house? On the other hand, if a single entrepeneur owns all the land he won’t let these people into the community, since, they will bring the value of the community down.

Also, there’s the free rider problem. Imagine that everybody in the community has insurance except one person. The price of your insurance goes up, this won’t be the case in a community in which the owner can stipulate that all home owners must have some form of insurace.

[Eduard_Gabriel_Munte]

GilesStratton, how exactly should a company compete for capital when an uniform law is already enforced in the same “jurisdiction”? I know, this is similar to what David Friedman said, but it sounds like a recipe for conflict or voluntarily-funded democracy. And we’re not even sure this “voluntarily-funded” won’t turn into “lets make an uniform law to tax everybody since we (a majority) pay anyway”.

The nice thing about anarcho-capitalism is that it results in a minimal set of rules. That’s what makes it a free society. I’m not sure why someone would strive for motion in the opposite direction. Of course, you may take two stances: advocate some rules (conservatism, communitarianism), or simply think that totally free societies are not possible. The latter is highly unlikely, since most anarcho-capitalism theories do posit or assume some sort of mechanism that prevents mob rule from taking over.

[hayekianxyz]

@Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu

GilesStratton, how exactly should a company compete for capital when an uniform law is already enforced in the same “jurisdiction”?

They compete for capital with other companies who own other feudal like land arrangements. I wish people would read some of the literature on this. In any case it’s similar to malls.

@Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu

I know, this is similar to what David Friedman said, but it sounds like a recipe for conflict or voluntarily-funded democracy.

It would be more like monarchy, only, people would have a choice as to which “monarch” they would live under. And if one of these “monarchs” governed their territory badly, they’d go out of buisness. And this is exactly where the distinction lies. And the whole problem with democracy is that it isn’t funded voluntary, so how you could object to this is beyond me.

@Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu

And we’re not even sure this “voluntarily-funded” won’t turn into “lets make an uniform law to tax everybody since we (a majority) pay anyway”.

Well presumably, everybody would have to pay anyway. It’s called rent.

@Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu

The nice thing about anarcho-capitalism is that it results in a minimal set of rules

Nonsense, this is a left libertarian fallacy.

@Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu

That’s what makes it a free society.

No, the lack of coercion does that.

[Brainpolice]

They compete for capital with other companies who own other feudal like land arrangements. I wish people would read some of the literature on this. In any case it’s similar to malls.

Didn’t you just side-step his objection, which is that the scenario is predicated on a uniform law already being there, and hence is NOT free competition.

It would be more like monarchy, only, people would have a choice as to which “monarch” they would live under. And if one of these “monarchs” governed their territory badly, they’d go out of buisness. And this is exactly where the distinction lies. And the whole problem with democracy is that it isn’t funded voluntary, so how you could object to this is beyond me.

The problem is that this is conceptually incoherant. A monarchy by definition is not something that is purely chosen. There is no such thing as a free choice between monarchs, the very fact that it is monarchs being chosen from means that the context is not fully free. We currently can also choose between democratic states, but that doesn’t make us free. Furthermore, monarchy does not differ from democracy when it comes to the fundamentals of a state, I.E. it too is not funded purely voluntarily and it too is predicated on an illegitimate territorial monopoly. It is nonsensical to try to make the distinction you are making because switching to a libertarian theoretical context cannot logically lead us back to an authoritarian institution or framework. What people keep objecting to is the monarchy part, which inherently is predicated on a breach of the libertarian context.

Well presumably, everybody would have to pay anyway. It’s called rent.

The institutionalization of this rent as a uniform law for the entire community irrespective of the individual IS taxation. In this way, a feudal land arrangement is the perfect pretext for taxation and a state’s territorial claim.

Nonsense, this is a left libertarian fallacy.

Are you really going to go there? His premise has nothing directly to do with left-libertarianism. It is hardly the case that his premise is exclusively left-libertarian. Even Walter Block seems to hold a similar view in many regaurds. Your understanding of left-libertarianism is so bad that you’ve ended up accusing people who are in fact not left-libertarians of being left-libertarians.

[Brainpolice]

@GilesStratton

@Juan the Libertine

@Archduke of Stratton

The fact is this: eminent domain increases uncertainty regarding property rights, hence value goes down.

Isn’t eminent domain used by developers and other big business with political connections…? Just asking…

Yes, and?

And the point is that this indicates that the function of eminent domain is special privileges to a small group of people, I.E. it increases heirarchy. In turn, removing eminent domain has the function of lessening heirarchy. Why you can’t see this or refuse to aknowlege it, that state laws of this sort buttress private concentrations of power and hence the removal of such laws implies a comparatively less concentrated structure, is beyond me.

[Juan]

@GilesStratton

Consider this, you buy a house that is valued very highly. Then coke dealers move in on one side of the house, a very noise rock band moves in on the other and across the street a local gang moves in.

In a free society there are no criminal coke dealers(drugs would be ‘legal’ anyway) or gangs, and noise would be dealt with by PDAs I hope. The idea that if you buy an expensive house you’ll be living in a place that resembles a slum is outright silly and shows how far fetched your ideas are.

What do you think will happen to the value of you house ?

You got it backwards eh ? If in a given area houses are valued highly that means the place is ‘exclusive’. I’ll assume that in a free society people who have money to buy expensive houses made their money honestly which means they are good at business and generally successful. I don’t see how successful entrepreneurs can be undesirable neighbors…

Also, there’s the free rider problem.

I thought the myth of the free rider had been debunked ages ago ?

[1billion]

Tough question, for one parents do sometimes do that stuff to their kids, but it is rare, although the media might seem to insinuate that it is not. Children are usually if not always tricked into performing these acts, but in a free society the people must be allowed to be free and in my mind a child is free to not get exploited.

[hayekianxyz]

@Juan

@GilesStratton

Consider this, you buy a house that is valued very highly. Then coke dealers move in on one side of the house, a very noise rock band moves in on the other and across the street a local gang moves in.

In a free society there are no criminal coke dealers(drugs would be ‘legal’ anyway) or gangs, and noise would be dealt with by PDAs I hope. The idea that if you buy an expensive house you’ll be living in a place that resembles a slum is outright silly and shows how far fetched your ideas are.

What do you think will happen to the value of you house ?

You got it backwards eh ? If in a given area houses are valued highly that means the place is ‘exclusive’. I’ll assume that in a free society people who have money to buy expensive houses made their money honestly which means they are good at business and generally successful. I don’t see how successful entrepreneurs can be undesirable neighbors…

Also, there’s the free rider problem.

I thought the myth of the free rider had been debunked ages ago ?

I created another topic about this discussion, I’ll reply there.

[liberty_student]

@Jon Irenicus

It won’t be banned. Parents concerned by it will just have to monitor their kids.

Yeah, like that will work. Parents raising and protecting their children.

Oh great Jon, how pray tell can they do that without the state to guide and instruct them? Do you really believe the family came before the state?