Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Land, Libertarianism and Nags

Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2010 7:36:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Nags recently defended the ownership of land acquired not through homestead or trade but as purchase from the government.[1] I contend that his is a truly unlibertarian position.

Nags, defend youself!

[1] http://www.debate.org...
"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
6/21/2010 7:39:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/21/2010 7:36:59 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Nags recently defended the ownership of land acquired not through homestead or trade but as purchase from the government.[1] I contend that his is a truly unlibertarian position.

Nags, defend youself!

[1] http://www.debate.org...

Hey, you could DEBATE THIS in an actual DEBATE!
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.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2010 8:33:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/21/2010 7:39:45 PM, mongoose wrote:
Hey, you could DEBATE THIS in an actual DEBATE!

Reasoning is too cool... no, wait - smart... no, hm, oh! - chicken to do that.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 9:35:29 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Just saw this.

Is Reasoning aware that there must be no owner for one to homestead? Reasoning, your Dad is the owner. Ergo, the drifters can't homestead.

In anticipation of your special pleading argument a la: Well, yeah, my Dad owns it, but the government enforces it.

So what? Your Dad would still own the land regardless of whether or not the government existed. He could hire a private security team to defend his property.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 9:37:33 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Also,

deontological libertarianism (ie. Rothbard) =/= libertarianism as a whole

I'm a consequentialist libertarian (ie. Friedman, Hayek, Mises), not a deontological one.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 9:42:47 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/21/2010 7:39:45 PM, mongoose wrote:
Hey, you could DEBATE THIS in an actual DEBATE!

Nags doesn't like to debate.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 9:47:53 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/22/2010 9:44:25 AM, Nags wrote:
At 6/22/2010 9:42:47 AM, theLwerd wrote:
Reasoning doesn't like to debate.

Fixed that for you.

I have 46 debates.

I know, but when I ask you to debate you always say that you don't like formal debating and you prefer debating informally in the forums. I wasn't judging you - I was quoting you.
President of DDO
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 9:53:48 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/22/2010 9:47:53 AM, theLwerd wrote:
I know, but when I ask you to debate you always say that you don't like formal debating and you prefer debating informally in the forums. I wasn't judging you - I was quoting you.

Probably because it was on topics that didn't interest me too much.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 12:50:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/22/2010 12:48:05 PM, feverish wrote:
At 6/22/2010 9:42:47 AM, theLwerd wrote:

Nags doesn't like to debate if he thinks he might not win.

Fixed that for you :)

Actually, Nags has taken a number of debates in which victory was far from secured.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 1:41:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/22/2010 12:50:50 PM, mongeese wrote:

Actually, Nags has taken a number of debates in which victory was far from secured.

Okay, perhaps I am being too hard on him. Fact is though, when I tried to get him to defend statements he had made by debating me, he put it off several times and then told me similar to what Lwerd quoted him as saying. He also said that although he felt he was correct, he "knew" I would win the debate and therefore didn't see the point of doing it.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 2:58:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/22/2010 12:50:50 PM, mongeese wrote:
Actually, Nags has taken a number of debates in which victory was far from secured.

Like wut?

Nags - The topics Nags were the border fence, racial profiling (in terms of terrorism) and torture. You said you'd have time in April but eh. It's summer :p

"Ehh. I don't really like the debating on this site. I prefer the forums or profiles or messages." -- Nags 3 months ago according to my profile comments.

See! I was just quoting you tis all.
President of DDO
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 3:02:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/22/2010 2:58:08 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 6/22/2010 12:50:50 PM, mongeese wrote:
Actually, Nags has taken a number of debates in which victory was far from secured.

Like wut?

http://www.debate.org...
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 4:00:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/22/2010 3:02:46 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 6/22/2010 2:58:08 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 6/22/2010 12:50:50 PM, mongeese wrote:
Actually, Nags has taken a number of debates in which victory was far from secured.

Like wut?

http://www.debate.org...

And which of those (aside from his debate with you) did you think Nags had a poor chance of winning?
President of DDO
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 4:15:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/22/2010 9:35:29 AM, Nags wrote:
Just saw this.

Is Reasoning aware that there must be no owner for one to homestead? Reasoning, your Dad is the owner. Ergo, the drifters can't homestead.

But he doesn't justly own it, having acquired it neither by homesteading himself nor purchasing it from someone who has a simlar just claim to it. The seller had no rightful claim; nor had anyone else, ergo, it is unowned virgin land.

At 6/22/2010 9:37:33 AM, Nags wrote:
Also,

deontological libertarianism (ie. Rothbard) =/= libertarianism as a whole

I'm a consequentialist libertarian (ie. Friedman, Hayek, Mises), not a deontological one.

Most consequentialist libertarians, including the two that you mentioned, agree with Rothbard on the homesteading principle.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 7:19:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/22/2010 4:00:01 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 6/22/2010 3:02:46 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 6/22/2010 2:58:08 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 6/22/2010 12:50:50 PM, mongeese wrote:
Actually, Nags has taken a number of debates in which victory was far from secured.

Like wut?

http://www.debate.org...

And which of those (aside from his debate with you) did you think Nags had a poor chance of winning?

The one with MTGandP, especially, but all of them carried a considerable risk of loss, especially given the fact that he lost them.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 7:31:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/22/2010 1:41:18 PM, feverish wrote:
Okay, perhaps I am being too hard on him. Fact is though, when I tried to get him to defend statements he had made by debating me, he put it off several times and then told me similar to what Lwerd quoted him as saying. He also said that although he felt he was correct, he "knew" I would win the debate and therefore didn't see the point of doing it.

I wouldn't take the debate because you couldn't put forth a resolution that I could possibly win on.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 7:32:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/22/2010 2:58:08 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Like wut?

Nags - The topics Nags were the border fence, racial profiling (in terms of terrorism) and torture. You said you'd have time in April but eh. It's summer :p

"Ehh. I don't really like the debating on this site. I prefer the forums or profiles or messages." -- Nags 3 months ago according to my profile comments.

See! I was just quoting you tis all.

And I said these topics don't interest me. The time I have spent reading or researching any of those above topics is probably below 60 minutes. Again, not interesting.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 7:35:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/22/2010 4:15:54 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
But he doesn't justly own it, having acquired it neither by homesteading himself nor purchasing it from someone who has a simlar just claim to it. The seller had no rightful claim; nor had anyone else, ergo, it is unowned virgin land.

Reasoning's father acquired it from his mother. The mother acquired it via a trade. The father simply owns the land through inheritance.

Most consequentialist libertarians, including the two that you mentioned, agree with Rothbard on the homesteading principle.

I agree with the homesteading principle as well. However, it must be pointed out that homesteading only applies for property that is unowned. Reasoning's father owns the property, therefore no one can justly homestead.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 7:40:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/22/2010 7:35:14 PM, Nags wrote:
At 6/22/2010 4:15:54 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
But he doesn't justly own it, having acquired it neither by homesteading himself nor purchasing it from someone who has a simlar just claim to it. The seller had no rightful claim; nor had anyone else, ergo, it is unowned virgin land.

Reasoning's father acquired it from his mother. The mother acquired it via a trade. The father simply owns the land through inheritance.

If Reasoning's grandmother acquired it from someone who justly owned it, I'm sure he wouldn't have any problem with the current situation.

Most consequentialist libertarians, including the two that you mentioned, agree with Rothbard on the homesteading principle.

I agree with the homesteading principle as well. However, it must be pointed out that homesteading only applies for property that is unowned. Reasoning's father owns the property, therefore no one can justly homestead.

It depends on whether he justly owns the property. We'll have to ask Reasoning.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 7:48:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/22/2010 7:35:14 PM, Nags wrote:
The mother acquired it via a trade.

And if the government sold someone property rights to the moon, would that also be legitimate?
"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
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 7:52:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/22/2010 7:40:48 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
If Reasoning's grandmother acquired it from someone who justly owned it, I'm sure he wouldn't have any problem with the current situation.

I hope Reasoning and you both realize that the government owns all land in the United States and its' territories. So this logic doesn't work -- because no one in the US justly owns anything by this logic.

It depends on whether he justly owns the property. We'll have to ask Reasoning.

Right.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 7:53:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/22/2010 7:48:57 PM, Reasoning wrote:
And if the government sold someone property rights to the moon, would that also be legitimate?

As far as I know, the moon is not human. Thus, it can not own.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 7:54:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/22/2010 7:32:37 PM, Nags wrote:
At 6/22/2010 2:58:08 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Like wut?

Nags - The topics Nags were the border fence, racial profiling (in terms of terrorism) and torture. You said you'd have time in April but eh. It's summer :p

"Ehh. I don't really like the debating on this site. I prefer the forums or profiles or messages." -- Nags 3 months ago according to my profile comments.

See! I was just quoting you tis all.

And I said these topics don't interest me. The time I have spent reading or researching any of those above topics is probably below 60 minutes. Again, not interesting.

*60 minutes this year, that is. Not interesting, at all. Likewise, I wouldn't debate spiderman vs. batman because (a) I'm not really interested and (b) I'm not all that knowledgeable on the subject.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 7:54:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/22/2010 7:52:41 PM, Nags wrote:
At 6/22/2010 7:40:48 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
If Reasoning's grandmother acquired it from someone who justly owned it, I'm sure he wouldn't have any problem with the current situation.

I hope Reasoning and you both realize that the government owns all land in the United States and its' territories.

Do you support this, though? Do you think the government has the right to own all this land by mere declaration?
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 7:56:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/22/2010 7:53:10 PM, Nags wrote:
At 6/22/2010 7:48:57 PM, Reasoning wrote:
And if the government sold someone property rights to the moon, would that also be legitimate?

As far as I know, the moon is not human. Thus, it can not own.

Oh, nevermind. Grammar issue.

I'd say no, that is not legitimate.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 7:57:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/22/2010 7:54:54 PM, mongeese wrote:
Do you support this, though? Do you think the government has the right to own all this land by mere declaration?

No, of course not. However, the point of this discussion is pointless if justified ownership can not include the government. Because the government essentially owns everything, at least according to the law.