You are coming back to utilize this property. If I come into the woods with excess growth and a shack that looks deserted then by the homesteading principle if I labor to modernize the shack, it passes into my hands. On a deserted island, all resources I utilize are mine. Basic Crusoe economics.
But the other options are useful to better understand the ethical system you are proposing. That is why under closer examination, Danny started playing word games like “what is Tom?” “what is a cabin?” “what is property?” “what is ownership?” “what are words?” “Who am I?”
Ok, not quite but you get my point.
The other options help us understand the ethical framework you are coming from. Does Tom own the cabin? If he owns it, then woudln’t Klemm’s situation necessitate restitution? And wouldn’t Tom also be able to forego the collection of restitution?
The reason why people frame lifeboats so narrowly, is that they are meant to avoid context because context will allow a rational analysis. Without context, we’re stuck only with emotionalism. Unfortunately for the lifeboaters, life is not devoid of context.
The false dichotomy is that rights are absolute or not. Rights are negative or not is the question you should be asking.
The whole point of the cabin scenario is to create emotionally compelling heart tugger in an attempt to justify the statement, The ends justify the means. My contention is no that matter how moral the ends may be, they do not erase the immorality of the means. They may be compared and contrasted, but not enhanced or diminished simply due to their difference.
Which is physically possible. Klemm breaking in is not about property, it is about physics.
Yes. But again. It’s still Tom’s property. It is not about property. Klemm breaks into Tom’s cabin. Property rights merely state who the owner is - and it’s Tom. What don’t you understand about that? Tom can thereby help Klemm out. Klemm is in some freakin’ serious trouble dude. And Tom’s a good guy. Why do you need to coerce Tom to do what he will freely do?
It is Tom’s property, but this doesn’t stop Klemm from breaking in cause of physics. Klemm breaking in has nothing to do with property rights other than who’s cabin he broke into. What’s so difficult?
And no it’s not a false dichotomy. Libertarians are about liberty. Statist are about coercion. It’s that simple.
There are no physics. In the lifeboat, physics have not been included. So forget about gravity too.
This is ground control to Major Tom
Klemm is really breaking in
And your cabin will never be the same
Life’s without physics today!
So when I come back to the island you thought deserted, and find you in my house…
Me: What the hell are you doing in my house?!?
You: It’s my house. You obviously weren’t using it, so I homesteaded it. I’ve already started modernizing it! Check out the roof. I patched the hole!
Me: Oh for Pete’s sake! I’ve been gone for three days! The bread I left on the window sill isn’t even stale yet!
Well I’ve never seen Rothbard state anything other than proportionality. So shooting a kid who steals is an inquiry of repercussions and has nothing to do with property rights.
Well somebody on another’s property doesn’t mean that person gave up their liberty. The intruder still has free-will and the property owner can’t coerce them. That’s basic. This all depends on context of course. The intruder has opened the door to inquiries of repercussion by coming onto the owners property, but if the intruder just came over to borrow milk good neighbors don’t coerce and throw out restitution towards each other. The property owner may with a smile give the neighbor some milk.
Once again, this attempt to divorce the issue from the question of property rights and reduce it to a “punishment” issue is nonsensical. The entire point is that one’s theory of property rights determines whether or not such a scenario is legitimate. In this particular case, the “maximalist” theory of property rights that implicitly says that “so long as it’s my property, I can use violence as I please” is shown to fail on the grounds that it justifies clear violations of the right to life and liberty. The entire point is that property rights does not justify the behavior of the guy who shoots the kid over a gumball.
This has everything to do with property rights in the sense that it has implications with respect to how property rights are defined and understood. It begs an important question over the extent that property rights could be said to justify the decisions of a given owner in a given circumstance. A “proportionality” theory, while it is generally put foreward in the context of “punishment”, inherently functions as a constraint on property rights - it makes them non-absolute in the sense that it implies that the fact that you legitimately own property does not justify literally whatever you decide to do on your property.
The fundamental question at hand is not a question of “punishment”, it’s a question of what’s legitimate in the first place. From my perspective, the decision-making power that property rights grants someone is not absolute in the sense that it is constrained by the rights of others, and claims of decision-making power or justifications for one’s actions via appeal to property rights that happen to simultaneously violate the rights of others are incoherant and illegitimate. I think the issue results from a general lack of balance in one’s conception of property rights.
lol
I was wondering what if Klemm was picked up by aliens and they pushed him out of the spacecraft. As he fell, he plopped right in through Tom’s cabin roof. The aliens have gave notice they will not be coming back so we can’t go after them. Could Klemm be allowed to homestead Tom’s cabin cause it wasn’t really him breaking into the cabin. It was an act of alien gods that put him there.[:P]
I am stunned that more people can’t see this because it’s so damn obvious.
The state also frames every argument without context, as a lifeboat, whenever they want to validate a power grab. Particularly in the drum beat for war.
No it’s very sensible to me. You said the kid was shot. That’s about repercussions. Do you even know what repercussions are?
Once again, “violence as I please” is a question of repercussions. It’s already been noted who’s property. Now it’s a question of what can somebody do as an act of repercussion for somebody coming onto their property.
If you believe in a particular repercussion you might conclude that. Has nothing to do with whom’s property the intruder is on.
No it does not. It’s an inquiry of repercussion. It’s about how much proportionality or reaction the guy can have back upon the kid. It has nothing to do with who’s store it is. That’s already known. It’s the store owners.
It’s understood it’s the store owners property. How far the store owner can go in repercussions for any potential violation of his/her property is an inquiry of repercussions.
Very good. Now you’re thinking about what kind of repercussions are valid. Not about the property, but about the actual act upon the potential criminal. See this thread for a good discussion on an inquiry of repercussions.
hear hear!!![Y]
Are you purposefully missing the point or what? The question at hand is not about reprecussions, the question at hand is whether or not “property rights” grants legitimate decision-making power to do such a thing in the first place. You keep trying to sidestep the fundamental issue.
The process of defining precisely what the scope of decision-making power that “property rights” grants is to pursue a more fundamental ethical question about what property rights are in the first place. Stop trying to ignore the ethical question and reduce it to a legal question.
You’re missing the point completely. I’m not talking about the question of who owns what! I’m talking about the question of what scope of decision-making power is justified once who owns what has already been established. You’ve apparently been misunderstanding what I’m talking about.
The scope of decision-making power of the owner is an inquiry of defining property rights in the first place. I don’t define “property rights” as merely establishing who is the owner of something, I also define it as establishing the power that ownership grants. You keep argueing under the pretense that property rights are already defined in the scenario when they are not; the entire point of the scenario is as an illustration to help us define the scope and function of property rights.
You seem to be conflating property rights with a legal question that already assumes the legitimacy of ownership, and argueing as if property rights are already consistently established and therefore the question shifts to a legal question. But to define property rights as the default of whoever happens to own what completely skips the ethical question over what justifies a property claim and what scope of decision-making power a property claim can grant.
It has nothing to do with property rights. We’ve established that it is my gumball and that the kid has violated my property rights by taking it. What are up for debate is either the repercussions for said violation, as wilderness has repeatedly said, or the amount of force I may use to defend my rights. You are correct, I may not justifiably shoot him. Shooting him is not a property right. It’s either an excessive action to protect that right or an excessive repercussion to a violation of that right. Either way, the fact that the shooting is not justified in no way diminishes the absoluteness of my property right.
I’m sorry, this is absolutely retarded. What’s at question is DEFINING PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE, and this does not merely mean establishing who is the owner of something, it means specifying the scope of decision-making power that owning property grants. The fact of the matter is that such scenarios are relevant to the more fundamental question of defining property rights in the first place, and you guys are approaching this matter in a way that completely sidesteps this and assumes that property rights have already been justified. My entire point is that a theory of property rights must specify an answer to such questions in the first place (I.E. by precisely defining the scope of decision-making power that ownership grants), or it is not a reasonable theory of property rights.
No, are you?
“legitimate decision-making power” about what? To what in the first place? Who’s property it is or what repercussions are possible upon a criminal?
No I don’t. I think you do.
Who’s cabin is it? If you say it’s Tom’s and you answer it’s Tom’s, then you’ve also answered who’s property it is. What does this have to do with a kid being shoot? Nothing, cause that’s about repercussions.
Oh, so it is Tom’s cabin or the store owners store…lol the store owners store…lol too funny.
And that’s an inquiry into repercussions. See that link I gave you. Some people think society should have some say. Others bound previously established rules. Others still say it is all up to the property owner only. Some say the family can be involved. Some include a mixture of all of these. But by inquiring about this, we are therefore reasoning repercussions none-the-less.
Its an absolute transfer of property rights from the seller of the gumball to the buyer of the gumball.
I’m lovein’ it when certain people break apart like this. It’s so funny. I see a potential new view on the horizon with you Brainpolice. You’re crackin’ already.
Neither. I have already explained this to you ad nauseum and you still don’t get it.
Once again, “property rights” is not reduced to only a question about who’s property it is, it involves a specification of what decision-making power owning property justifies.
My entire point is that a sound theory of property rights already answers that question - it is not separable from the question of what it is justified for an owner to do. To claim a property right is to claim legitimate decision-making power. To define a property right is to specify precisely what that decision-making power is and/or what its scope is.
It’s an inquiry into rights theory! Any question of justifying decision-making power is an inquiry into rights theory!
Let me give you an obvious example about what I’m talking about that has nothing, even indirectly, to do with “reprocussions”: the question of whether or not you can enslave and torture someone because they happen to be in your home at the moment. In this scenario, noone has violated your property rights, they have not broken into your home, they are a guest that you invited in and proceeded to enslave and torture - it is not a question of reprecussions, it is a question of whether or not your ownership of your house justifies an infringement on the liberty of an occupant of your home. This is what I’ve been talking about the whole time - the more fundamental question about the scope of decision-making power granted by property rights. It is nonsensical to conflate that with the legal issue of reprecussions or punishments.
The question I am pursueing is NOT “what can an owner do once someone has violated their property rights”, the question I am pursueing is “what legitimate power does property rights grant the owner in the first place, prior to any infringments” - that is, defining what an owner’s property rights are in the first place!
I’ve already explained to you ad nauseum and you still don’t get it. and?
And the specific decision-making power we are inquiring about is ta-da: repercussions Yeap you’ve guessed it folks.
And, yeap, you guessed it, that decision-making power we are inquiring upon are: repercussions.
Not property rights, but I know Estoppel stipulates there’s a such thing as “rights of punishment”, but I’m not too sure about repercussions yet. I’m still open on the issue of inquiry of repercussions.