Poll - When will the FED taper?

[Kshartle]

First, you have to determine that it is rightfully "your property."

You haven't done that yet.

And "banding together" certainly is ok, as long as the force you're about to dish out is legitimate, but if history is any indication, force usually comes about as a result of a lack of agreement on what is "legitimate."

So you're essentially making a HUGE assumption (or set of assumptions) in your utopia.  And it's the same assumption that every government, group, agency, or individual makes... "my use of force is legitimate because of (insert convenient, circular-logic premise here)."

Are we even in the same conversation? What utopia are you talking about? What use of force are you talking about?

He asked how a town would defend itself against Ghengis Kahn or barbarians or something? Does the town not have a right to defend itself? The only way it doesn't is if people don't have a claim on their own life or the effects of their actions. Someone else would have to have a higher claim. How can that be true? How can it be true that one person has claim over someone else? Why would they have claim but others don't? It falls apart at the slightest touch.

Defending yourself and your property is not the use of force and is always and forever legitimate. If you own your life and property then you have to be able to defend it or your ownership has no meaning.

[moda0306]

Kshartle,

Defending your body is probably very agreeably legitimate.

Defending "your property" assumes agreement and legitimacy of what is "your property," or whether property is a natural extension of individual sovereignty.

Please explain to me how one comes about "owning property" in a legitimate manner, when our whole world started out as a bunch of ecosystems that were relatively untouched by human modification.

[moda0306]

I just really don't understand this hand-waving on private property.  Even if we can agree that individual sovereignty is morally sound, how does that extend to manipulating the world around us in very unnatural ways, and shooting trespassers.

If you want us to accept your version of society, you have to explain this, because your "right" to own property could very well conflict with my "right" to roam the world as I see fit, or my "right" to freely hunt on natural woodland, or my "right" to fish in a lake.

Please provide me a framework describing what fundamentally connects vast amounts of property to one soveriegn individual, because if you have a "right" to defend "your property," that leaves me dead if I accidentally cross the wrong border.


That, or maybe we should just agree that many forms of private property are very, very far reaching and unnatural AND fundamentally disconnected from our individual sovereignty, and are just a convenient form of force that we inflict upon others.

[Libertarian666]

I just really don't understand this hand-waving on private property.  Even if we can agree that individual sovereignty is morally sound, how does that extend to manipulating the world around us in very unnatural ways, and shooting trespassers.

If you want us to accept your version of society, you have to explain this, because your "right" to own property could very well conflict with my "right" to roam the world as I see fit, or my "right" to freely hunt on natural woodland, or my "right" to fish in a lake.

Please provide me a framework describing what fundamentally connects vast amounts of property to one soveriegn individual, because if you have a "right" to defend "your property," that leaves me dead if I accidentally cross the wrong border.


That, or maybe we should just agree that many forms of private property are very, very far reaching and unnatural AND fundamentally disconnected from our individual sovereignty, and are just a convenient form of force that we inflict upon others.

Here's the framework.

Your private property consists of the following:
1. Things you create by yourself (e.g., works of art, inventions)
2. Things you create with someone else (same as above but with an agreement to share)
3. Things you purchase from someone else via a voluntary transaction.
4. Things that someone else gives you voluntarily.

What are "things?" They are either physical objects (food, guitars, etc.) or title to something not easily carried around (e.g., a car title, a share of stock).

It is also possible to "appropriate" unowned property from nature, e.g., if you are the first person to discover an island. This can be ignored as being so unusual as to be irrelevant for real-world discussions.

That's it. Any questions?

[doodle]

I just really don't understand this hand-waving on private property.  Even if we can agree that individual sovereignty is morally sound, how does that extend to manipulating the world around us in very unnatural ways, and shooting trespassers.

If you want us to accept your version of society, you have to explain this, because your "right" to own property could very well conflict with my "right" to roam the world as I see fit, or my "right" to freely hunt on natural woodland, or my "right" to fish in a lake.

Please provide me a framework describing what fundamentally connects vast amounts of property to one soveriegn individual, because if you have a "right" to defend "your property," that leaves me dead if I accidentally cross the wrong border.


That, or maybe we should just agree that many forms of private property are very, very far reaching and unnatural AND fundamentally disconnected from our individual sovereignty, and are just a convenient form of force that we inflict upon others.

Here's the framework.

Your private property consists of the following:
1. Things you create by yourself (e.g., works of art, inventions)
2. Things you create with someone else (same as above but with an agreement to share)
3. Things you purchase from someone else via a voluntary transaction.
4. Things that someone else gives you voluntarily.

What are "things?" They are either physical objects (food, guitars, etc.) or title to something not easily carried around (e.g., a car title, a share of stock).

It is also possible to "appropriate" unowned property from nature, e.g., if you are the first person to discover an island. This can be ignored as being so unusual as to be irrelevant for real-world discussions.

That's it. Any questions?

So can I walk up to the lake next to your house and start pulling out all the big fat juicy fish? You didn't create them and (according to the fishes perspective at least) you don't own them either.

[Pointedstick]

It is also possible to "appropriate" unowned property from nature, e.g., if you are the first person to discover an island. This can be ignored as being so unusual as to be irrelevant for real-world discussions.

That's it. Any questions?

I think it is actually very relevant because it is the mechanism by which all land and natural resources come to be transacted under the terms of points 3 and 4. Somebody had to appropriate it from a state of nature first.

[Kshartle]

I just really don't understand this hand-waving on private property.  Even if we can agree that individual sovereignty is morally sound, how does that extend to manipulating the world around us in very unnatural ways, and shooting trespassers.

If you want us to accept your version of society, you have to explain this, because your "right" to own property could very well conflict with my "right" to roam the world as I see fit, or my "right" to freely hunt on natural woodland, or my "right" to fish in a lake.

Please provide me a framework describing what fundamentally connects vast amounts of property to one soveriegn individual, because if you have a "right" to defend "your property," that leaves me dead if I accidentally cross the wrong border.


That, or maybe we should just agree that many forms of private property are very, very far reaching and unnatural AND fundamentally disconnected from our individual sovereignty, and are just a convenient form of force that we inflict upon others.

Here's the framework.

Your private property consists of the following:
1. Things you create by yourself (e.g., works of art, inventions)
2. Things you create with someone else (same as above but with an agreement to share)
3. Things you purchase from someone else via a voluntary transaction.
4. Things that someone else gives you voluntarily.

What are "things?" They are either physical objects (food, guitars, etc.) or title to something not easily carried around (e.g., a car title, a share of stock).

It is also possible to "appropriate" unowned property from nature, e.g., if you are the first person to discover an island. This can be ignored as being so unusual as to be irrelevant for real-world discussions.

That's it. Any questions?

You can build a fence around your property and shoot people who stumble onto it. You can shoot people who take an apple of your apple cart also. You can do these things and say they are legitimate defense of your property and point out that this proves problamatic to the concept of property, but this is not the case. We all understand the concept of proportionality when it comes to responding to a violation of our rights/property. People do not consider it legitimate to use deadly force unless you are in fear of losing your life.

People who shoot other people for stumbling onto their land or taking an apple from the cart will get what is coming to them. They will own the effects of their actions. It will be self-correcting. To the extent it isn't now is because government prohibts, by use of force, the market from correcting this behavior.

This is not a problem we would have absent government. With government it is a problem. It has no problem compelling people to shoot and kill to defend it's property everywhere, even though you can't threaten the life of the government.

[Libertarian666]

It is also possible to "appropriate" unowned property from nature, e.g., if you are the first person to discover an island. This can be ignored as being so unusual as to be irrelevant for real-world discussions.

That's it. Any questions?

I think it is actually very relevant because it is the mechanism by which all land and natural resources come to be transacted under the terms of points 3 and 4. Somebody had to appropriate it from a state of nature first.

Yes, but that was so far in the past in most cases that it is impossible to sort out who "should" have it, so all you get is an endless argument.

[Pointedstick]

Yes, but that was so far in the past in most cases that it is impossible to sort out who "should" have it, so all you get is an endless argument.

If we're talking about the current allocation of resources, I agree with you. Can't undo what's been done. But when we're talking about a hypothetical allocation of resources for the purpose of discussing the concept, I think it's very relevant.

[Kshartle]

I just really don't understand this hand-waving on private property.  Even if we can agree that individual sovereignty is morally sound, how does that extend to manipulating the world around us in very unnatural ways, and shooting trespassers.

If you want us to accept your version of society, you have to explain this, because your "right" to own property could very well conflict with my "right" to roam the world as I see fit, or my "right" to freely hunt on natural woodland, or my "right" to fish in a lake.

Please provide me a framework describing what fundamentally connects vast amounts of property to one soveriegn individual, because if you have a "right" to defend "your property," that leaves me dead if I accidentally cross the wrong border.


That, or maybe we should just agree that many forms of private property are very, very far reaching and unnatural AND fundamentally disconnected from our individual sovereignty, and are just a convenient form of force that we inflict upon others.

Here's the framework.

Your private property consists of the following:
1. Things you create by yourself (e.g., works of art, inventions)
2. Things you create with someone else (same as above but with an agreement to share)
3. Things you purchase from someone else via a voluntary transaction.
4. Things that someone else gives you voluntarily.

What are "things?" They are either physical objects (food, guitars, etc.) or title to something not easily carried around (e.g., a car title, a share of stock).

It is also possible to "appropriate" unowned property from nature, e.g., if you are the first person to discover an island. This can be ignored as being so unusual as to be irrelevant for real-world discussions.

That's it. Any questions?

So can I walk up to the lake next to your house and start pulling out all the big fat juicy fish? You didn't create them and (according to the fishes perspective at least) you don't own them either.

Someone will own the lake if Tech doesn't. Everything will be owned that can be owned. No one will own the moon for example, but every car will be owned. Steal the cars or fish at your peril.

The problem of the commons as I think this refers to only comes about because the government uses force to prevent people from owning certain things (parks as an example). When no one owns it the resources are wasted, everyone has an incentive to take without replenishing, pollute, etc. Ownership of the park or lake solves these problems. The owner will find solutions to them and business will be created to help solve his problems.

[Kshartle]

because if you have a "right" to defend "your property," that leaves me dead if I accidentally cross the wrong border.

This is called an argument from adverse consequences or appeal to fear. It's saying an opponent must be wrong, because if he is right, then bad things would ensue. For example: God must exist, because a godless society would be lawless and dangerous. Or: the defendant in a murder trial must be found guilty, because otherwise husbands will be encouraged to murder their wives.

The right to defend property does not mean people have a right to shoot people that cross over their property. Anyone confused about this will learn very quickly that they are wrong and we need not worry about it.

I'm not pointing out that it's a fallacious argument to be mean, but to demonstrate simply that it's a false argument against the concept of the right to defend property, which is the only logical conclusion you can come to if you do in fact have a right to own property. Now of course you have a right to ownership because you own the effects of your actions.

Like you own your argument because you made it. You are responsible for your argument. If you rob a bank and shoot someone you own the responsibility for your theft and your the shooting.

If you whittle a bow and arrows out of tree you own the bow and arrows.

[doodle]

Here's the framework.

Your private property consists of the following:
1. Things you create by yourself (e.g., works of art, inventions)
2. Things you create with someone else (same as above but with an agreement to share)
3. Things you purchase from someone else via a voluntary transaction.
4. Things that someone else gives you voluntarily.

What are "things?" They are either physical objects (food, guitars, etc.) or title to something not easily carried around (e.g., a car title, a share of stock).

It is also possible to "appropriate" unowned property from nature, e.g., if you are the first person to discover an island. This can be ignored as being so unusual as to be irrelevant for real-world discussions.

That's it. Any questions?

So can I walk up to the lake next to your house and start pulling out all the big fat juicy fish? You didn't create them and (according to the fishes perspective at least) you don't own them either.

Someone will own the lake if Tech doesn't. Everything will be owned that can be owned. No one will own the moon for example, but every car will be owned. Steal the cars or fish at your peril.

The problem of the commons as I think this refers to only comes about because the government uses force to prevent people from owning certain things (parks as an example). When no one owns it the resources are wasted, everyone has an incentive to take without replenishing, pollute, etc. Ownership of the park or lake solves these problems. The owner will find solutions to them and business will be created to help solve his problems.

Who decides who gets to own that lake and the fish in it? And how is it determined that one persons claim is more legitimate than another's? And once that claim is determined, whose authority is going to back it up?

[Kshartle]

So can I walk up to the lake next to your house and start pulling out all the big fat juicy fish? You didn't create them and (according to the fishes perspective at least) you don't own them either.

Someone will own the lake if Tech doesn't. Everything will be owned that can be owned. No one will own the moon for example, but every car will be owned. Steal the cars or fish at your peril.

The problem of the commons as I think this refers to only comes about because the government uses force to prevent people from owning certain things (parks as an example). When no one owns it the resources are wasted, everyone has an incentive to take without replenishing, pollute, etc. Ownership of the park or lake solves these problems. The owner will find solutions to them and business will be created to help solve his problems.

Who decides who gets to own that lake and the fish in it? And how is it determined that one persons claim is more legitimate than another's? And once that claim is determined, whose authority is going to back it up?

It's not that anyone in particular "gets" to own it. They do own it. If it was discovered un-owned then the first one to claim ownership owns it. If they buy it from the previous owner they now own it.

The question of how they defend their ownership is a problem they have to solve. Other people will come up with all kinds of solutions to solve these problems, no need to worry about it, although thinking of solutions would be a good mental exercise.

How you do not solve the problem of ownership is by having a government. The government lays claim to everything within it's borders, everyones life, time and property if it wants. It violates the right of ownership with every single action it takes.

[Pointedstick]

It's not that anyone in particular "gets" to own it. They do own it. If it was discovered un-owned then the first one to claim ownership owns it. If they buy it from the previous owner they now own it.

Is there a size limit to this principle? If I am a space explorer and I find an uninhabited planet, can I claim the entire thing as my own? And given that on my own property I  should get to choose who can use force and for what purpose, wouldn't that make me a government?

[doodle]

Someone will own the lake if Tech doesn't. Everything will be owned that can be owned. No one will own the moon for example, but every car will be owned. Steal the cars or fish at your peril.

The problem of the commons as I think this refers to only comes about because the government uses force to prevent people from owning certain things (parks as an example). When no one owns it the resources are wasted, everyone has an incentive to take without replenishing, pollute, etc. Ownership of the park or lake solves these problems. The owner will find solutions to them and business will be created to help solve his problems.

Who decides who gets to own that lake and the fish in it? And how is it determined that one persons claim is more legitimate than another's? And once that claim is determined, whose authority is going to back it up?

It's not that anyone in particular "gets" to own it. They do own it. If it was discovered un-owned then the first one to claim ownership owns it. If they buy it from the previous owner they now own it.

The question of how they defend their ownership is a problem they have to solve. Other people will come up with all kinds of solutions to solve these problems, no need to worry about it, although thinking of solutions would be a good mental exercise.

How you do not solve the problem of ownership is by having a government. The government lays claim to everything within it's borders, everyones life, time and property if it wants. It violates the right of ownership with every single action it takes.

Funny, it seems like the most popular and expedient way that humans have historically chosen to solve the problem of ownership is by creating a socially santioned government to enforce property rights among citizens because lacking that we live in a world where might equals right. so actually, empirically speaking, government seems to be THE preferred solution to the problem of ownership.

[Libertarian666]

It's not that anyone in particular "gets" to own it. They do own it. If it was discovered un-owned then the first one to claim ownership owns it. If they buy it from the previous owner they now own it.

Is there a size limit to this principle? If I am a space explorer and I find an uninhabited planet, can I claim the entire thing as my own? And given that on my own property I  should get to choose who can use force and for what purpose, wouldn't that make me a government?

What relevance does that have to the real world? And to think that some people claim that Austrians aren't paying attention to reality!

[Pointedstick]

What relevance does that have to the real world? And to think that some people claim that Austrians aren't paying attention to reality!

I thought we were trying to define the boundaries of the First Appropriation Principle, not tie it to reality (we do that later). If my question seems ridiculous, does that mean the answer is no? If so, why? That implies some kind of size limit to how much unowned property can be appropriated by a first appropriator. How do we arrive at it? And if the answer is yes, then doesn't that make me the government of the planet?

[Kshartle]

It's not that anyone in particular "gets" to own it. They do own it. If it was discovered un-owned then the first one to claim ownership owns it. If they buy it from the previous owner they now own it.

Is there a size limit to this principle? If I am a space explorer and I find an uninhabited planet, can I claim the entire thing as my own? And given that on my own property I  should get to choose who can use force and for what purpose, wouldn't that make me a government?

Yes PS, you can own whatever planet you manage to land on :):)

You can have the whole thing!!!!!!

But seriously what do you think it would take to get to another planet for the purpose of ownership? It would be a massive endevour by many many different people and businesses. They would most certainly own it.

Think of a mining company that engineered a landing on an asteriod to extract minerals. Of course they own it. They created the value through their actions and use of their property.

You don't get to choose to use force on your own property. Using force is not legitimate. You are certainly not acting like a government when you defend your property.

[doodle]

What relevance does that have to the real world? And to think that some people claim that Austrians aren't paying attention to reality!

I thought we were trying to define the limits it the construct the first appropriation principle, not tie it to reality (we do that later). If my question seems ridiculous, does that mean the answer is no? If so, why? That implies some kind of size limit to how much unowned property can be appropriated. How do we arrive at it? And if the answer is yes, then doesn't that make me the government of the planet?

And what about if there are aliens living there but they are kind of hairy and savage? Do they have original ownership rights? Or do they not have rights because they aren't human?

[Kshartle]

Who decides who gets to own that lake and the fish in it? And how is it determined that one persons claim is more legitimate than another's? And once that claim is determined, whose authority is going to back it up?

It's not that anyone in particular "gets" to own it. They do own it. If it was discovered un-owned then the first one to claim ownership owns it. If they buy it from the previous owner they now own it.

So I find a lake, claim it as mine, and disappear for 2 years.

I come back and find that Libertarian666 has been fishing in that lake all the while I've been gone.

Do I have right to compensation from Libertarian666 for the fish he stole from me?

You haven't exercised your right of owneship in any way. How did you claim it as your property and expect that claim to be valid if you do nothing to assert it.

No you have no right because you have no ownership.

[Kshartle]

What relevance does that have to the real world? And to think that some people claim that Austrians aren't paying attention to reality!

I thought we were trying to define the limits it the construct the first appropriation principle, not tie it to reality (we do that later). If my question seems ridiculous, does that mean the answer is no? If so, why? That implies some kind of size limit to how much unowned property can be appropriated. How do we arrive at it? And if the answer is yes, then doesn't that make me the government of the planet?

And what about if there are aliens living there but they are kind of hairy and savage? Do they have original ownership rights? Or do they not have rights because they aren't human?

Alright this is argument by question. It's tiring. If you disagree then actually make a point. Just asking exhausting ridiculous questions to keep extracting more is not worthy of people's time. If you don't agree with something then explain why. Just trying to bury someone with questions like this isn't cool.

[Pointedstick]

But seriously what do you think it would take to get to another planet for the purpose of ownership? It would a massive endevour by many many different people and businesses. They would most certainly own it.

Think of a mining company that engineered a landing on an asteriod to extract minerals. Of course they own it. They created the value through their actions and use of their property.

Your asteroid mining example makes sense to me because they are actually adding value and doing something with the asteroid. I doubt many here would dispute that the hypothetical asteroid mining company has a legitimate ownership claim to the asteroid (right guys?).

In my example, say I find the planet but decide I don't really have anything I want to do with the planet yet. Could I blanket it with self-replicating mines that detonate if anyone not me sets foot on it?

In other words, can I appropriate unowned property and then entirely remove it from the commons not by adding value to it through my labor and ingenuity for the purpose of producing more and better goods, but rather simply by fencing it off and making trespassing lethal? That's what moda and doodle are objecting to: the idea that it is either moral or acceptable according to the First Appropriation Principle to appropriate unowned property and then just keep it from others simply because you happened to get there first.

But I think you could grudgingly get them to accept that first appropriation for the purpose of production is okay.

[doodle]

I thought we were trying to define the limits it the construct the first appropriation principle, not tie it to reality (we do that later). If my question seems ridiculous, does that mean the answer is no? If so, why? That implies some kind of size limit to how much unowned property can be appropriated. How do we arrive at it? And if the answer is yes, then doesn't that make me the government of the planet?

And what about if there are aliens living there but they are kind of hairy and savage? Do they have original ownership rights? Or do they not have rights because they aren't human?

Alright this is argument by question. It's tiring. If you disagree then actually make a point. Just asking exhausting ridiculous questions to keep extracting more is not worthy of people's time. If you don't agree with something then explain why. Just trying to bury someone with questions like this isn't cool.

My point is that why do humans get to be the only ones with property rights? How come animals don't have a place at the table? Could it possibly be that it's because we are the most powerful creatures alive and can exert our force over the animal kingdom? If its the case that force is wrong, why do humans think its right to forcefully remove weaker or less intelligent animals from a property or kill them? If it is okay, what about weaker and less capable "savage" humans?

[Kshartle]

But seriously what do you think it would take to get to another planet for the purpose of ownership? It would a massive endevour by many many different people and businesses. They would most certainly own it.

Think of a mining company that engineered a landing on an asteriod to extract minerals. Of course they own it. They created the value through their actions and use of their property.

Your asteroid mining example makes sense to me because they are actually adding value and doing something with the asteroid. I doubt many here would dispute that the hypothetical asteroid mining company has a legitimate ownership claim to the asteroid (right guys?).

In my example, say I find the planet but decide I don't really have anything I want to do with the planet yet. Could I blanket it with self-replicating mines that detonate if anyone not me sets foot on it?

In other words, can I appropriate unowned property and then entirely remove it from the commons not by adding value to it through my labor and ingenuity for the purpose of producing more and better goods, but rather simply by fencing it off and making trespassing lethal? That's what moda and doodle are objecting to: the idea that it is either moral or acceptable according to the First Appropriation Principle to appropriate unowned property and then just keep it from others simply because you happened to get there first.

You can blanket it with whatever you want. What would stop you?

Yes, you can find unowned property and fence it off and claim to own it and attempt to assert your ownership rights. I think the problem you guys are concerned with is that valuable property will go unused because the owner will choose not to use it. This is not reality. People will do what's in their self-interest. If they go to the trouble of claiming ownership it will only be because they want to exercise the benefits of it. If they aren't able to utilize it someone who can will pay them for the right. This happens about 10 billion times a day every day.

[doodle]

But seriously what do you think it would take to get to another planet for the purpose of ownership? It would a massive endevour by many many different people and businesses. They would most certainly own it.

Think of a mining company that engineered a landing on an asteriod to extract minerals. Of course they own it. They created the value through their actions and use of their property.

Your asteroid mining example makes sense to me because they are actually adding value and doing something with the asteroid. I doubt many here would dispute that the hypothetical asteroid mining company has a legitimate ownership claim to the asteroid (right guys?).

In my example, say I find the planet but decide I don't really have anything I want to do with the planet yet. Could I blanket it with self-replicating mines that detonate if anyone not me sets foot on it?

In other words, can I appropriate unowned property and then entirely remove it from the commons not by adding value to it through my labor and ingenuity for the purpose of producing more and better goods, but rather simply by fencing it off and making trespassing lethal? That's what moda and doodle are objecting to: the idea that it is either moral or acceptable according to the First Appropriation Principle to appropriate unowned property and then just keep it from others simply because you happened to get there first.

You can blanket it with whatever you want. What would stop you?

Yes, you can find unowned property and fence it off and claim to own it and attempt to assert your ownership rights. I think the problem you guys are concerned with is that valuable property will go unused because the owner will choose not to use it. This is not reality. People will do what's in their self-interest. If they go to the trouble of claiming ownership it will only be because they want to exercise the benefits of it. If they aren't able to utilize it someone who can will pay them for the right. This happens about 10 billion times a day every day.

So in other words, it's not a right unless I can assert it through force. If that's the case, then a right essentially boils down to might.