I’m not sure what you mean. If you don’t like sarcasm just skip my posts ? =] (smiley)
We’re in total agreement here.
Not so much here. Property is a very basic concept. Even if it is a form of common property, rather than individual property, it can still be considered owned.
I think that this stems from a weakness in the argumentation ethics position. What rights are partially derived from is the capacity for rational thought and action, not its actual use. The capacity for rationality is a universal element of human nature; you seem to flip between saying that “primitives” don’t act rationally and that they can’t act rationally. Just because people aren’t necessarily acting or thinking rationally doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t have rights; what’s the cut-off point? How irrational does one have to be to be considered a mere animal?
I don’t “think” you are trying to grab attention. You have admitted as much. Tis a shame, because you’re capable of so much more.
An individual with brain damage loses the ability to rationally argue. Can you drive him off his property like a “wild animal”? 2 parents die, and their pre-adolescent child inherits their property. Since you might argue that young children are not capable of rational argumentation, can you drive them off of their property and confiscate it?
Of course not. It’s rubbish. I like Stranger as much as the next guy, but this argument, as you have related it to rational argumentation, he was much broader allowing nearly for incompatible property systems, to justify violence has no merit. Shame on you for making it. Intellectually, it is rubbish and I expect you of most of the people here, to be intelligent enough to see it as such.
Rubbish. Our standards for first homesteader apply to our interactions with others, whether they recognize that principle or not. Otherwise our own rational system for understanding property claims is inconsistent and insincere.
No one is under any obligation to join the division of labour, nor does their lack of desire to do so justify violence.
Au contraire mon frere. Your interpretation of “who deserves rights” is completely arbitrary and based on your value system.
My comfort is not the issue. Your lack of principle or reason is. If land is inhabited, it is homesteaded. I suggest you review your understanding of libertarian property rights. That someone would kill you on sight, presumably as you would slaughter gays or blacks for stepping onto your property, doesn’t justify your aggression against them, any more than it would justify someone’s aggression against you for your defense of your own property.
Irrelevant blathering nonsense. Bring more game or stop wasting my time.
^^^ They are using the land first, thus they have homesteaded it. They don’t need to do anything to prove ownership to you. They are already meeting your own standard for ownership, even if they do not comprehend it. The law doesn’t change based on lack of understanding. You’re embarrassing yourself by making this argument.
Although I am sure Stranger appreciates it, because his argument was much poorer.
Don’t try to hang off my nuts son.
Sorry. Well, even a lackey of the conservatives sometimes get it right. But maybe Giles won’t let you polish his boots now.
I wanted to thank you Juan. So many people try to play the useful idiot, but really only you succeed.
My pleasure.
Actually, IIRC, Hoppe even stated in one of his lectures that dogs have a rudimentary, proto-understanding of property rights (along with the inherent mine/yours/his distinction humans make, which is inherent in those pronouns.) Nearly all animals do, and it stems from the notion of territory; the book The Territorial Imperative is good on this. So it’d be difficult to argue anyone but the most mentally disabled person cannot grasp them, and do so explicitly (not just implicitly as animals do.) Appropriation does require an act of will though, for which I think usage might suffice as the subjective component. The ability to engage in argumentation is an indicator that one is rational, but it’s not the sine qua non of rationality…
I would have thought for a 35 year old man you might have better things to do.
I’ve not admitted anything. I’ve been completely sincere in my responses. Especially in regard to Wombatron with whom I have no problem. If I’ve said something on these forums it’s because I mean it.
Believe it or not, these forums aren’t the place I turn when in need of attention.
As horrible as it is, and I wouldn’t condone such behaviour. Given that somebody is completely unable to reason and that the land is in their name, yes, somebody does have the right to homestead it.
As for the children, that’s a far more difficult scenario, although I’d take the position that somebody (a relative) can take care of the land until the children can prove their capability to do so.
Perhaps you’ve misread what I’ve been saying, I’ve been saying that once we accept that these people are not capable of rational argumentation they’re not eligible for rights. Now, let’s be honest, you may say it’s unjustified violence, but these are the same people who will fill you with poison darts once you’ve walked within 50 metres of “their” forest.
Only, that’s not what I’m arguing, I’m saying that there is a subjective element to homesteading that these people lack. They consider any territory they’ve walked through to be theirs, there’s no intersubjectively ascertainable borders to what they consider theirs. Moreover, they lack any clear conception of what is and what is not. Perhaps they have some vague idea that between one tree and another the land is owned by the tribe, but even then they have no individual property rights.
I’ve never said that, only that, these people don’t have the capacity to understand what that entails.
Not at all, this has nothing at all to do with conservatism. Please, do show me the link between my position here and my cultural values.
No, if a land is inhabited by animals (and as Jon pointed out animals may have some territorial understanding of property) it’s not homesteader. Now tell me, what the difference is. This position may make you uncomfortable, but that’s not my problem.
I wouldn’t slaughter gays or blacks for stepping on my property, it would make far too big of a mess. More seriously though, it would be disproportionate, likewise. These savages will kill you for stepping within 50 feet of what they consider to be theirs, and yet, they haven’t homesteaded it.
No, it isn’t. You’re showing the same emotional reaction as most people do to a lot of libertarian positions.
Who, precisely, is they? I thought libertarians, especially of the Austrian variety, tended to be of the opinion that only individuals can homestead property. Now, please tell me how many of these individuals have the first idea of who the land belongs to, besides “us” that is".
They don’t have to understand it, at the very least they should be able to prove who, as in which individual, has homesteaded it. They fail that.
I’d argue the best indicator.
Right, and yet, only individuals act, as such it follows that only individuals can homestead land, this seems to be missing here.
Now, as for subjective aspect, does killing one animal in 1000m squared of forest constitute homesteading? I don’t think so, and yet, I can be sure of the fact that if you were to set foot into that area and attempt to homestead the land they wouldn’t hesitate to fill you with poison darts.
I’m not entirely sold on the argumentation ethics position yet, so I don’t see how this is relevant.
This seems very vague to me, let’s say you have Tribeman X, who let’s be generous is 35 years of age, who may have the biological capacity for rational thought. Now, left in the forest do you really believe he’s ever going to exercise that capability? No, as such it doesn’t really make sense to me to say he has that capacity.
See above.
That’s why the ability to engage in rational argumentation creates a clear, objective point at which we can say people have rights.
Not necessarily. For example:
Perhaps. But perhaps not; first encounters with primitive tribes have ranged from violent to cordial. There really is no a priori reason to say that they have no rights, just because they may attack you for trying to homestead land.
Also, killing one animal in that large a region would not count as homesteading. However, if the region was used as a hunting ground, where dozens or hundreds of animals were killed every year and trails were made throughout the forest, etc., then I think that would be a valid property claim, or at least an easement of some sort.
He may indeed exercise that capacity in the forest; even the most primitive technology requires thought and planning to be put into it. And even if he didn’t use it, it still remains a fact that he has the capacity for it. Of course, if you try to talk to said tribesman, and he attacks you (or if you feel reasonably threatened), then you can defend yourself. That doesn’t mean that he doesn’t have rights, though; just that he is aggressing against you and that you have the right to stop him.
And I still don’t see how being a primitive means that one doesn’t have that ability.
Surely there’s a subjective aspect to what you would term “rational argumentation”, and where you would make the “cut-off” point.
But, which is to me more telling, surely by initiating agression against them, whatever their “primitiveness” you are violating any principles you might have decrying violence and coercion.
Thankyou, Wombatron, for highlighting this about rationality. “Rationality”, in this sense, refers to a fundamental trait of all human beings, a capacity. It does not refer to a specific level of intelligence that one must aquire in order to have rights. It’s “rationality” in a praxeological sense, I.E. the capacity to make purposeful choices. All humans have “rationality” in this sense, and this is indeed a pretext for rights. It is not, however, a pretext for creating a conservative class distinction in which we aknowledge rights for some humans while denying them for others.
LS: It appears that you’re beggining to see precisely why I so strongly disagree with these few people here (or at least you’re beggining to form the exact same disagreements). You’re making almost the exact same points that I would have, although in your own words.
I’m not your ally. I simply have enough integrity to call it as i see it. I’m not obsessed with an ideological divide and labels/groups.
I like Giles today as much as I did Monday. Nothing has changed, except he is making a poor argument. The difference between you and Giles, is that he will admit he is incorrect if a good argument is made. I have seen no such growth or humility in any of your positions in the last 10 months. You are always right, and when you’re wrong, you tuck tail and leave.
Inconsistent and arbitrary. Now you have introduced a need for an objective standard of what is and is not rational argumentation. Who decides? Who qualifies? What is the appeals process?
Right, but if the land is homesteaded by someone, by anyone already, regardless if you can clearly identify whom because their social organization is group based, doesn’t qualify your claim to take it from them. That’s arbitrary confiscation of property from people who do not recognize your claim to monopoly determination of property rights.
I’m not talking at all about comfort, why you keep trying to appeal to some subjective insecurity you think I might have isn’t a real argument. Please stop.
We clearly understand, as stranger indicated the pareto-efficiency and validity of the first homesteader having the highest claim. Who specifically homesteaded the land is irrelevant, as long as we know there is a first homesteader and our claim doesn’t have the same standing.
Not to mention, you’d probably be trying to have sex with the gays, and the blacks would be kicking your ass. [:)]
That is a completely different scenario. You are conflating what you consider to be undefined property rights with self-defense with aggression.
Not at all. You are the one who keeps trying to make appeals to emotion by bringing up my comfort level. You’re a former El Duce supporter libertarian conservative fanatic fruitcake. If you hadn’t found Ron Paul, you would be having sex with a Republican neocon in a bathroom stall right now. Thankfully you did, and your soul and ass have been saved. It’s a joke that you think anything about your faux racism, bigotry or fanatical political incorrectness bothers me.
That’s the nonsense in this argument. A group can homestead without defining a particular owner. What matters is the homesteading claim, not who made it.
No they don’t. That is your own arbitrary standard. I agree that the property position is that an individual can own property, and communal rights are confused and unworkable (within the group, not outside of the group) over time. But if a group of people have a verbal social contract the primitive equivalent of corporate ownership, you can’t claim that there is no previous homesteading claim in effect.
Unless you have also become a left-libertarian fruitcake commie who hates corporations and financial organization of individuals into larger capital investment and maintenance groups.
Because children are not capable of rational argumentation, they come into the custody of rational adults as does their property. This must be defined in their parents’ will, which must also define what happens to their property after they have been incapacitated.
Who is they? How does they fit into a legal framework of private property?
Every child is different. Who determines if the specific child is capable of rational argumentation? Can they appeal the determination?
Or do you just get a compliant judge to rule in your favour, and then you use coercive force to remove the child? I suppose you will also claim innocence if the child is hurt or killed as you drive him off his now deceased parents’ land?
Why no comment on brain damage? What about Alzheimers? Bulldoze old folks out fo their homes when they can’t remember how long to boil an egg for?
Those with the first and highest claim in the homesteading paradigm.
Whose framework? Is there only one? Do you have a monopoly on the correct framework to apply to others? Sounds very statist to me.
As long as they have a higher claim than you, how that claim is organized or diistributed is beyond your reproach. What you are talking about is trying to justify theft through semantics and legal chicanery.