Total Posts:47|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Libertarianism and Redistribution

Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2010 6:45:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Libertarians generally see themselves as the most ardent opponents of redistribution. I maintain, however, that they are incorrect and should not only embrace it but they should do so enthusiastically. In fact, you cannot truly be a libertarian and oppose redistribution.

Libertarianism is a theory of justice. It is the theory that one rightfully owns the fruits of one's labor and that the use of violence or the threat thereof, unless perhaps in extreme circumstances, is immoral. Libertarianism says that the criminal should have to compensate the victim as much as possible, ideally returning things to the way that they would have been had he not wronged them in the first place. Because of this libertarianism, properly understood and applied to the real world, results in the largest redistribution "project" the world has ever seen. This is just another way in which libertarianism can be seen in the socialist tradition.

Libertarian redistribution, however, differs in almost all respects from statist redistribution. The statist seeks redistribution for the sake of redistributionnot for the sake of justice, of righting a past wrong, of restoring to the victim that which was stolen from him. The statist redistributes wealth through the creation of monopolies, he enactment of regulations, the confiscation of property via eminent domain, or the transfer of resources acquired via taxation.

In this way the statist seeks to shift wealth from the laborer to his/her politically favored elite.

Libertarianism however advocates rectificatory redistribution. To return the land to the cultivator, the mine to the miner and the product to the producer. For Lo! Massive injustice lies at the root of much of the contemporary distribution of wealth and as libertarians we strive to return the stolen goods back to the rightful owners, the laborers hat produced them.

I will conclude with a related quote from Rothbard:

"One of the tragic aspects of the emancipation of the serfs in Russia in 1861 was that while the serfs gained their personal freedom, the land—their means of production and of life, their land was retained under the ownership of their feudal masters. The land should have gone to the serfs themselves, for under the homestead principle they had tilled the land and deserved its title. Furthermore, the serfs were entitled to a host of reparations from their masters for the centuries of oppression and exploitation. The fact that the land remained in the hands of the lords paved the way inexorably for the Bolshevik Revolution, since the revolution that had freed the serfs remained unfinished.

The same is true of the abolition of slavery in the United States. The slaves gained their freedom, it is true, but the land, the plantations that they had tilled and therefore deserved to own under the homestead principle, remained in the hands of their former masters. Furthermore, no reparations were granted the slaves for their oppression out of the hides of their masters. Hence the abolition of slavery remained unfinished, and the seeds of a new revolt have remained to intensify to the present day. Hence, the great importance of the shift in Negro demands from greater welfare handouts to "reparations", reparations for the years of slavery and exploitation and for the failure to grant the Negroes their land, the failure to heed the Radical abolitionist's call for "40 acres and a mule" to the former slaves. In many cases, moreover, the old plantations and the heirs and descendants of the former slaves can be identified, and the reparations can become highly specific indeed." - Murray Rothbard
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2010 6:48:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
1. All ex-slaves and ex-surfs are dead.
2. Why should a man who owned no slaves have to pay more taxes due to these larger handouts to descendants of ex-slaves?
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2010 6:52:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/23/2010 6:48:21 PM, mongeese wrote:
1. All ex-slaves and ex-surfs (sic) are dead.

But their heirs are not. Furthermore, those are far fro the only examples.

"Land monopoly is far more widespread in the modern world than most people—especially most Americans—believe. In the undeveloped world, especially in Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America, feudal landholding is a crucial social and economic problem—with or without quasi-serf impositions on the persons of the peasantry." - Murray Rothbard

2. Why should a man who owned no slaves have to pay more taxes due to these larger handouts to descendants of ex-slaves?

I never knew that I advocated taxation.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2010 6:54:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/23/2010 6:52:17 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 3/23/2010 6:48:21 PM, mongeese wrote:
2. Why should a man who owned no slaves have to pay more taxes due to these larger handouts to descendants of ex-slaves?

I never knew that I advocated taxation.

Then how will these handouts come about?
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2010 6:56:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/23/2010 6:45:41 PM, Reasoning wrote:

Libertarianism however advocates rectificatory redistribution. To return the land to the cultivator, the mine to the miner and the product to the producer.

no they don't

For Lo! Massive injustice lies at the root of much of the contemporary distribution of wealth and as libertarians we strive to return the stolen goods back to the rightful owners, the laborers hat produced them.

You don't think inequalities might arise again.

They would.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2010 6:57:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/23/2010 6:54:35 PM, mongeese wrote:
Then how will these handouts come about?

Handout: Food, clothing, or money given to the needy.[1]

I never mentioned a "handout". Perhaps you should read my article again.

[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2010 7:00:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/23/2010 6:56:02 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 3/23/2010 6:45:41 PM, Reasoning wrote:

Libertarianism however advocates rectificatory redistribution. To return the land to the cultivator, the mine to the miner and the product to the producer.

no they don't

Yes, they do. See Tucker, Rothbard, Hess, etc.

For Lo! Massive injustice lies at the root of much of the contemporary distribution of wealth and as libertarians we strive to return the stolen goods back to the rightful owners, the laborers hat produced them.

You don't think inequalities might arise again.

They would.

The statist seeks redistribution to fix inequalities. The liberatarian seeks redistribution to exact justice.

"While unfettered competition obviously will not create mathematical equality, it will make it much harder for vast disparities of wealth to persist than at present. The state props up the power elite, using the threat of aggression to shift wealth to the politically favored. Removing the privileges of the power elite will lead, through the operation of the market, to the widespread dispersion of wealth members of the power elite are able to retain at present in virtue of the protection they receive from the political order." - Gary Chartier
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2010 7:08:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
///Libertarianism is a theory of justice. It is the theory that one rightfully owns the fruits of one's labor and that the use of violence or the threat thereof, unless perhaps in extreme circumstances, is immoral. Libertarianism says that the criminal should have to compensate the victim as much as possible, ideally returning things to the way that they would have been had he not wronged them in the first place. Because of this libertarianism, properly understood and applied to the real world, results in the largest redistribution "project" the world has ever seen. This is just another way in which libertarianism can be seen in the socialist tradition.///

There's a difference between making a criminal pay reparations and taking from those who did nothing and giving it to those who don't deserve it.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2010 7:21:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Also, the principle of homesteading typically doesn't apply to property that has an owner.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2010 8:18:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
There is no violation of an heir's rights if they do not receive property. There is violation of the rights of the one who did own it if they do not get to bequeath as their last living act, but that has already happened, and can never be rectified in any sense, the best solution being promising not to take things from those who labour with them now and homestead in the future. No one's rights are violated this way (the past violations are not rectified, but since those people are dead they CANNOT be rectified), whereas the people who have in fact homesteaded or purchased something NOW with no other living owner of that something do have rights. And yes, inheriting something and actually laboring with it afterward, is in effect homesteading insofar as no one else who rightly owns it lives and you were not responsible for that fact.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2010 8:20:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/23/2010 8:18:21 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
There is no violation of an heir's rights if they do not receive property.

If I steal your house and then you die and your son, who it is well known was on good terms with you, demands the house back, I have no obligation to return it to him?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2010 8:32:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/23/2010 8:20:58 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 3/23/2010 8:18:21 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
There is no violation of an heir's rights if they do not receive property.

If I steal your house and then you die and your son, who it is well known was on good terms with you, demands the house back, I have no obligation to return it to him?

Nope. You have no right to it, you are a thief, and should be eliminated by the government if there is a legitimate government and I have arranged appropriately with its reasonable requirements for being protected (if there isn't, any stray fellow has the right to shoot you), but my son has no special right to it at that point-- any stray party has a right to homestead it, assuming they are not like you thieves without any rights. Of course, my son who is on good terms with me has an incidental advantage in likelihood to know of the fine homesteading opportunity, but he has no advantage in terms of rights.

Now, if I'm still alive you can of course make recompense to my satisfaction (which probably includes restoring the house to me) to restore your rights, but I can't see how that would work if I'm dead.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2010 8:43:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/23/2010 8:32:43 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Nope. You have no right to it, you are a thief, and should be eliminated by the government if there is a legitimate government and I have arranged appropriately with its reasonable requirements for being protected (if there isn't, any stray fellow has the right to shoot you), but my son has no special right to it at that point-- any stray party has a right to homestead it, assuming they are not like you thieves without any rights. Of course, my son who is on good terms with me has an incidental advantage in likelihood to know of the fine homesteading opportunity, but he has no advantage in terms of rights.

Now, if I'm still alive you can of course make recompense to my satisfaction (which probably includes restoring the house to me) to restore your rights, but I can't see how that would work if I'm dead.

That is an untenable position. Surely when you die you could transfer rightful ownership of the property to your heir just as you could with any other piece of your property or do you oppose inheritance now as well? The fact that there is currently a criminal in possession of your rightful property does not change the fact that it is yours and that you have the right to bequeath it to whom you wish.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2010 9:06:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/23/2010 8:43:04 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 3/23/2010 8:32:43 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Nope. You have no right to it, you are a thief, and should be eliminated by the government if there is a legitimate government and I have arranged appropriately with its reasonable requirements for being protected (if there isn't, any stray fellow has the right to shoot you), but my son has no special right to it at that point-- any stray party has a right to homestead it, assuming they are not like you thieves without any rights. Of course, my son who is on good terms with me has an incidental advantage in likelihood to know of the fine homesteading opportunity, but he has no advantage in terms of rights.

Now, if I'm still alive you can of course make recompense to my satisfaction (which probably includes restoring the house to me) to restore your rights, but I can't see how that would work if I'm dead.

That is an untenable position. Surely when you die you could transfer rightful ownership of the property to your heir just as you could with any other piece of your property
You could transfer possession, but I don't see how it can be meaningful to transfer a "right" that ceases to exist long before they take possession of it. It's sort like a candle. As a candle is flickering out, it can light the next candle. But if it's already extinguished ain't no fire the next candle can get out of it

or do you oppose inheritance now as well?
I'm really kind of conflicted on the whole issue. The dead do not have rights. Their rights as a living human permit them to transfer property while living. But I can't see how ignoring them after they are dead in any way infringes upon that. Certainly, if no one else's rights are infringed by it such can be respected, but it certainly shouldn't take priority over people who are currently living and currently laboring with property if those people (the people with the property now, NOT the parents or grandparents of the people of the property now) are not guilty of violating anyone's rights themselves.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2010 3:16:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/23/2010 9:06:22 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
You could transfer possession, but I don't see how it can be meaningful to transfer a "right" that ceases to exist long before they take possession of it. It's sort like a candle. As a candle is flickering out, it can light the next candle. But if it's already extinguished ain't no fire the next candle can get out of it

If someone steals your watch, do you still have the right to the watch? That is, should the thief return the watch to you because it is rightfully yours? If so then why can't you sell your right to the watch on the market or transfer the right to whoever you wish?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2010 3:38:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
RR, if a man leaves his son his house in a will, does the son have more of a right to the house than Obama after the man dies?
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2010 5:06:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I don't like Redistribution at all.

Make your own money, spend your own money.

This idea of Redistribution seems dumb to me.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2010 5:18:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Personally, I think that transferring your ownership of something through a will (a sort of contract) - as a living action - is something which definitely ought to be allowed; in fact, inheritances are a sort of glorified, guaranteed gift. It's up to the recipient to use that gift in a constructive manner. The problem comes when someone dies without having made a binding will; dying intestate, I think is the term? In that case, the first idea that comes to mind, in lack of the deceased's on-paper intentions, is to go the free market route and auction everything off to the highest bidder. Where the money would go, though, is an interesting question.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2010 5:22:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/24/2010 5:18:16 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Personally, I think that transferring your ownership of something through a will (a sort of contract) - as a living action - is something which definitely ought to be allowed; in fact, inheritances are a sort of glorified, guaranteed gift. It's up to the recipient to use that gift in a constructive manner. The problem comes when someone dies without having made a binding will; dying intestate, I think is the term? In that case, the first idea that comes to mind, in lack of the deceased's on-paper intentions, is to go the free market route and auction everything off to the highest bidder. Where the money would go, though, is an interesting question.

To auction it of presupposes an owner of the property to be able to. :P You might have a basis on 'unclaimed goods' sort of thing though.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2010 5:27:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/24/2010 5:22:27 PM, Puck wrote:
At 3/24/2010 5:18:16 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Personally, I think that transferring your ownership of something through a will (a sort of contract) - as a living action - is something which definitely ought to be allowed; in fact, inheritances are a sort of glorified, guaranteed gift. It's up to the recipient to use that gift in a constructive manner. The problem comes when someone dies without having made a binding will; dying intestate, I think is the term? In that case, the first idea that comes to mind, in lack of the deceased's on-paper intentions, is to go the free market route and auction everything off to the highest bidder. Where the money would go, though, is an interesting question.

To auction it of presupposes an owner of the property to be able to. :P

Yeah, that's why I said that it's an interesting question as to whom the money would go to.

You might have a basis on 'unclaimed goods' sort of thing though.

Probably a curious proposition, but would it be fair to say that, if the property didn't rightfully belong to anyone (and hence was "unclaimed"), looting/"first come first serve" would be a legitimate means of distribution? Just a thought.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2010 5:40:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I agree that If Jim stole Joe's watch and bequeathed it to his son who bequeathed it to his, who bequeathed it to his.

And Joe left in his will "all that is Rightfully his" to his son, and he to his.

That If Joe's Grandson went to court with the proof of the theft, and the proof of his
"right" to the watch, then Joe's Grandson deserves to get the watch.

The problem is With "Reparations" for victims of Slavery (that is the THEFT of labor and lives) it's not so straightforward.

For who pays and who recieves? And what exactly is it that is Repaired?

In a perfect world, (like that of the watch scenario) the profits of the theft would have had a clear line to a specific individual(s); and those profits would be clearly calculable. This is not the case.

For I would imagine in many cases the slave owner, or that person he left the profits to, went broke at some time and did not pass on that profit to someone else. Should The Great grandson of a slaveholder, who was not bequeathed any illicit profit from his ancestors be forced to "repair" the damages he had nothing to do with and Gained Nothing from; Surely not.

So who's to pay? Only those who it can be demonstrated was bequeathed Illicit gains? And who are they to pay? those whom are the descendants of the specific individuals their ancestors harmed, and split the illicit profits among all those they harmed??

Or it to be that those who Provably inherited illicit gains pay to a fund for all those demonstrably of Slave origins, with each recipient getting as much a share from the general fund as it can be show they are Percentwise descended from Slaves?

Or, understanding these problems, would you rather have it such that THE STATE pays, those who are held to be 'African American' generally. So essentially Everyone is forced to pay. But then surely some people who did not gain; such as Japanese Folk, recent immigrants, descendants of poor whites, descendants of slave-owners who themselves gained no illicit profit, etc.; would end up paying for such reparations.

Don't those people then harmed by the state for such measures have the right to reparations themselves? For why is the state stealing their property for something that had naught to do with them?

Instead, I would suggest that having the state ensure that there is always some provision of funds for basic needs (especially educational) to ensure the poor are not denied the ability to participate in society due to the chance circumstance of their Birth is a fairer, and more practical, and sustainable system.

I think your Idea of giving the mine to the miner, and the like would not be a one case shot, but rather require a constant state of Revolution, such that whenever things are deemed by Rothbard unequal to the point that the Miner no longer has the mine, Revolution! is to be afoot.

What a commie :p

Forget that some dude owns the mine! The Miners own the mine!

NO the Miners own their labor, and their property. Whether or not they own the mine is a matter of whether it's their property, if they just agreed to work on it; that is MINE it (you know, like be a miner) then they don't own the mine, they just agreed to work for the guy who does.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2010 5:43:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/24/2010 5:27:16 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

Probably a curious proposition, but would it be fair to say that, if the property didn't rightfully belong to anyone (and hence was "unclaimed"), looting/"first come first serve" would be a legitimate means of distribution? Just a thought.

Kinda equivocating on distribution, but yeah. Of course the looter would need to be aware first of the status of what is being looted (property or not) - which means if it's public knowledge the chances it will be there to loot anyway diminishing returns over time.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2010 5:50:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I would like to begin by thanking the esteemed mattodstrom for his well though out post. I truly appreciate it.

At 3/24/2010 5:40:16 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
I agree that If Jim stole Joe's watch and bequeathed it to his son who bequeathed it to his, who bequeathed it to his.

And Joe left in his will "all that is Rightfully his" to his son, and he to his.

That If Joe's Grandson went to court with the proof of the theft, and the proof of his
"right" to the watch, then Joe's Grandson deserves to get the watch.

Agreed.

The problem is With "Reparations" for victims of Slavery (that is the THEFT of labor and lives) it's not so straightforward.

For who pays and who recieves? And what exactly is it that is Repaired?

In a perfect world, (like that of the watch scenario) the profits of the theft would have had a clear line to a specific individual(s); and those profits would be clearly calculable. This is not the case.

For I would imagine in many cases the slave owner, or that person he left the profits to, went broke at some time and did not pass on that profit to someone else. Should The Great grandson of a slaveholder, who was not bequeathed any illicit profit from his ancestors be forced to "repair" the damages he had nothing to do with and Gained Nothing from; Surely not.

Agreed. The son is not responsible for the crimes of the father and surely the great grandson is no more guilty.

So who's to pay? Only those who it can be demonstrated was bequeathed Illicit gains? And who are they to pay? those whom are the descendants of the specific individuals their ancestors harmed, and split the illicit profits among all those they harmed??

The land on which the slaves worked was rightfully theirs. The land now then belongs to the descendants of the slaves.

Or, understanding these problems, would you rather have it such that THE STATE pays, those who are held to be 'African American' generally.

Of course not. Only those ho can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are the rightful heirs of a slave who worked a plot of land have the right to take possession of it.

Instead, I would suggest that having the state ensure that there is always some provision of funds for basic needs (especially educational) to ensure the poor are not denied the ability to participate in society due to the chance circumstance of their Birth is a fairer, and more practical, and sustainable system.

Unfortunately, the state can only provide such services through the use of theft.

NO the Miners own their labor, and their property. Whether or not they own the mine is a matter of whether it's their property, if they just agreed to work on it; that is MINE it (you know, like be a miner) then they don't own the mine, they just agreed to work for the guy who does.

And if the guy who hires them and claims to own the mine obtained the mine by a grant of government privilege then he really doesn't own the mine and instead the miners do because they are the ones who labored upon it.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2010 7:25:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/24/2010 3:16:40 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 3/23/2010 9:06:22 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
You could transfer possession, but I don't see how it can be meaningful to transfer a "right" that ceases to exist long before they take possession of it. It's sort like a candle. As a candle is flickering out, it can light the next candle. But if it's already extinguished ain't no fire the next candle can get out of it

If someone steals your watch, do you still have the right to the watch? That is, should the thief return the watch to you because it is rightfully yours? If so then why can't you sell your right to the watch on the market or transfer the right to whoever you wish?

Ignoratio elenchi. You can, while you are alive. This post did not approach the issue.

RR, if a man leaves his son his house in a will, does the son have more of a right to the house than Obama after the man dies?
If the son claims it immediately, maybe, that's the being conflicted I mentioned.

After many years, probably not (except insofar as it is true that Barack Obama does not have any rights, but that's a somewhat differet issue).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2010 7:36:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/24/2010 5:50:23 PM, Reasoning wrote:
NO the Miners own their labor, and their property. Whether or not they own the mine is a matter of whether it's their property, if they just agreed to work on it; that is MINE it (you know, like be a miner) then they don't own the mine, they just agreed to work for the guy who does.

And if the guy who hires them and claims to own the mine obtained the mine by a grant of government privilege then he really doesn't own the mine and instead the miners do because they are the ones who labored upon it.

No. He HIRED the miners. They sold their labor to the mine owner for a wage. They entered with a mutual agreement. The mine owner never put up the mine as part of the agreement. You are arguing for communism.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2010 9:29:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I agree that If you made it... it's yours. UNLESS you made it in an agreement with someone else, or if you made it with someone else's stuff.

Now how "My stuff" is differentiated from "your stuff" is, often, ultimately by Declaration; by force.

This land is my land, it is not your land. I need it for myself or my family. I will fight for it. GO AWAY or you'll be sorry.

This is how such things are initially decided.

Is this "right", perhaps not, but it IS how such things come to be.

Even with your idea that the land belongs to the man who tills it... Who decides who gets to till it? what if we both want to? Well I'm gonna make sure you don't and I do, because it's good land and I need it for my family.

This is ultimately the nature of Property rights. When you take something in hand to labor upon, be it to make a tool or to till land. You're taking the thing as yours what's to say it is... Just You.

From here I think we can get somewhere, trade and whatnot allows for people to get things they like more, AND so long as everyone is Ensured to have SOMETHING (*cough*namely Education*cough*) people can work/trade for things they want more. Now might some people still be forgotten by the cruel hand of FORCE (in that Property rights are ultimately/initially determined by declaration)??? yes. that's why I would be for Forcefully ensuring people aren't left to starve in the streets.

Any man who's family was starving would (if necessary) steal from a bakery to feed them.
Similarly, if I couldn't pay for it, I'd steal bandages and Peroxide from a pharmacy to treat my hypothetical child's gaping wound, and probably (if necessary) threaten the lives of Medical practitioners to sew him up.

Property rights break down when people are in dire need... NOBODY CARES about them anymore.

But if instead of ensuring opportunity to engage and a chance to prosper, and providing basic Human requirements, you decide that Property rights are simply not valid and that continual Revolution and Redistribution is Necessary for whenever things get concentrated... All you have is continual war.

This stops if you just provide some level of basic needs for all, and give people a chance to engage.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2010 7:36:55 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/24/2010 7:25:34 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 3/24/2010 3:16:40 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 3/23/2010 9:06:22 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
You could transfer possession, but I don't see how it can be meaningful to transfer a "right" that ceases to exist long before they take possession of it. It's sort like a candle. As a candle is flickering out, it can light the next candle. But if it's already extinguished ain't no fire the next candle can get out of it

If someone steals your watch, do you still have the right to the watch? That is, should the thief return the watch to you because it is rightfully yours? If so then why can't you sell your right to the watch on the market or transfer the right to whoever you wish?

Ignoratio elenchi. You can, while you are alive. This post did not approach the issue.

Sure it did. Property that has been stolen from you is still your property just like property that has not been stolen from you. If you can bequeath one you can bequeath the other.

RR, if a man leaves his son his house in a will, does the son have more of a right to the house than Obama after the man dies?
If the son claims it immediately, maybe, that's the being conflicted I mentioned.

Why would he need to claim it immediately?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2010 7:39:07 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/24/2010 7:36:57 PM, mongoose wrote:
No. He HIRED the miners. They sold their labor to the mine owner for a wage. They entered with a mutual agreement. The mine owner never put up the mine as part of the agreement.

If I put a gun to your head and tell you to work for me at low wages was that a mutual agreement?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2010 3:10:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/25/2010 7:39:07 AM, Reasoning wrote:
At 3/24/2010 7:36:57 PM, mongoose wrote:
No. He HIRED the miners. They sold their labor to the mine owner for a wage. They entered with a mutual agreement. The mine owner never put up the mine as part of the agreement.

If I put a gun to your head and tell you to work for me at low wages was that a mutual agreement?

No. Explain the relevance.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2010 4:20:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Sure it did. Property that has been stolen from you is still your property just like property that has not been stolen from you.

But dead people are not owners just like living people.

Why would he need to claim it immediately?
So that the property doesn't become "abandoned" by means of life abandoning the owner before the transfer can take place.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.