Gyroscopic Investing

doodle wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

doodle wrote: 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?

Ok I see what you were getting at. It's a subject change to why do you humans have the right of ownership but animals don't and if it's because we are smarter then shouldn't smarter people have rights of ownership above dumber people.

Do I have it correct? I don't want to type anymore if I don't understand your question correctly.

Perhaps if you think that this is the case (some people have the right to claim ownership but others don't) you can make your case. If it's true we won't be able to dissprove it.

I've made the case for why humans have the right to own their lives and property and defend both. If you disagree then please state why.

Animals don't have property rights. Do we need to go here?

doodle wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: 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.

Nope. No force involved. Defending is not force. He didn't use the property, didn't wall it off, didn't employ anyone else to help assert his rights, did nothing except say I found a plot of land, I own it, and leave. Coming back two years later and trying to kick off the rightful owner is something you can try, but good luck. Tech or whoever is asserting their ownership rights is the rightful owner.

doodle wrote: 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.

Yes, exactly. "Rights" are human constructs that have no power or value if not backed up with might. It's always been this way and always will be.

Kshartle wrote: Nope. No force involved. Defending is not force. He didn't use the property, didn't wall it off, didn't employ anyone else to help assert his rights, did nothing except say I found a plot of land, I own it, and leave. Coming back two years later and trying to kick off the rightful owner is something you can try, but good luck. Tech or whoever is asserting their ownership rights is the rightful owner.

So essentially, words don't mean jack unless you're willing to back them up with action. This all sounds a lot like "might makes right" to me. This is pretty much what Harry Browne argued. Your "rights" are exactly what you can guarantee for yourself through your own capabilities and power.

Pointedstick wrote:

Kshartle wrote: Nope. No force involved. Defending is not force. He didn't use the property, didn't wall it off, didn't employ anyone else to help assert his rights, did nothing except say I found a plot of land, I own it, and leave. Coming back two years later and trying to kick off the rightful owner is something you can try, but good luck. Tech or whoever is asserting their ownership rights is the rightful owner.

So essentially, words don't mean jack unless you're willing to back them up with action. This all sounds a lot like "might makes right" to me. This is pretty much what Harry Browne argued. Your "rights" are exactly what you can guarantee for yourself through your own capabilities and power.

Yes words don't mean jack on their own. If they are legitimate words people will recognize their legitimacy and they will help you assert your rights. If you can by your words convince others to recognize your rights and defend them then they have value. That's a lot better than sitting on top of your property with a gun.

Pointedstick wrote:

Kshartle wrote: Nope. No force involved. Defending is not force. He didn't use the property, didn't wall it off, didn't employ anyone else to help assert his rights, did nothing except say I found a plot of land, I own it, and leave. Coming back two years later and trying to kick off the rightful owner is something you can try, but good luck. Tech or whoever is asserting their ownership rights is the rightful owner.

So essentially, words don't mean jack unless you're willing to back them up with action. This all sounds a lot like "might makes right" to me. This is pretty much what Harry Browne argued. Your "rights" are exactly what you can guarantee for yourself through your own capabilities and power.

It's not "might makes right". It's more like "right makes might". If you are the rightful owner of property other property owners are not going to want your property violated. Everyone who owns property will want property rights to be respected. Since everyone owns property everyone will want this. People will be in the business of securing these rights.

Does that make sense?

Please understand when I say everyone I cannot mean every single person everywhere. Obviously there are psychopaths, etc.

Kshartle wrote:

doodle wrote:

Kshartle wrote: 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?

Ok I see what you were getting at. It's a subject change to why do you humans have the right of ownership but animals don't and if it's because we are smarter then shouldn't smarter people have rights of ownership above dumber people.

Do I have it correct? I don't want to type anymore if I don't understand your question correctly.

Perhaps if you think that this is the case (some people have the right to claim ownership but others don't) you can make your case. If it's true we won't be able to dissprove it.

I've made the case for why humans have the right to own their lives and property and defend both. If you disagree then please state why.

Animals don't have property rights. Do we need to go here?

Last I checked humans were animals....

Anyways disregarding semantics for a second, is it not force that makes your assertion that other animals don't have property rights legitimate? If you wander into a cave and a bear is sleeping there, I think it will be pretty clear whose property that cave is. You can argue with the bear if you like, but I don't think you will win that one. And vice versa if you were in a cave and the bear wandered in, he might just eat you while you were explaining to him that the cave legitimately belonged to you as your property.

Property rights in all cases involve force. Therefore, it is absurd to condemn force while at the same time praising property rights. The latter does not exist without the former in the real world...it only exists as a beautiful concept in your mind!

TennPaGa wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

doodle wrote: 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?

Have you registered it with a well-known property registration company and posted that fact so it is visible to me when I'm about to encroach?

If so, then yes; otherwise, probably not.

Why not just post? Because anyone can post anything as being their property; having a reputable company listing it as yours adds credence if you and I get into a legal dispute about it.

Kshartle wrote:

Pointedstick wrote:

Kshartle wrote: Nope. No force involved. Defending is not force. He didn't use the property, didn't wall it off, didn't employ anyone else to help assert his rights, did nothing except say I found a plot of land, I own it, and leave. Coming back two years later and trying to kick off the rightful owner is something you can try, but good luck. Tech or whoever is asserting their ownership rights is the rightful owner.

So essentially, words don't mean jack unless you're willing to back them up with action. This all sounds a lot like "might makes right" to me. This is pretty much what Harry Browne argued. Your "rights" are exactly what you can guarantee for yourself through your own capabilities and power.

It's not "might makes right". It's more like "right makes might". If you are the rightful owner of property other property owners are not going to want your property violated. Everyone who owns property will want property rights to be respected. Since everyone owns property everyone will want this. People will be in the business of securing these rights.

Does that make sense?

Please understand when I say everyone I cannot mean every single person everywhere. Obviously there are psychopaths, etc.

Everyone wants property rights respected right? Do you know anyone who thinks that everyone should just be able to take everything they want whenver they want from everyone else? Obviously this is complete nonsense. Imagine if humans actually behaved like this.

Everyone would have to agree that no one owned anything. This is just so ridiculous I don't know where to begin. This is the kind of crap the goverment causes.

Kshartle wrote:

Kshartle wrote: It's not "might makes right". It's more like "right makes might". If you are the rightful owner of property other property owners are not going to want your property violated. Everyone who owns property will want property rights to be respected. Since everyone owns property everyone will want this. People will be in the business of securing these rights.

Does that make sense?

Please understand when I say everyone I cannot mean every single person everywhere. Obviously there are psychopaths, etc.

Everyone wants property rights respected right? Do you know anyone who thinks that everyone should just be able to take everything they want whenver they want from everyone else? Obviously this is complete nonsense. Imagine if humans actually behaved like this.

Everyone would have to agree that no one owned anything. This is just so ridiculous I don't know where to begin. This is the kind of crap the goverment causes.

Everyone who owns property wants property rights respected. And by the way, diffrent tribes steal and plunder and kill each other all the time. Remember the anthropological evidence I have cited ad nauseum? 25 percent of males died violent deaths in early agricultural societies. Earth to Kshartle, we are violent and dangerous creatures....look at our history....any evidence of peaceful existence since the beginning of the agricultural revolution and the concept of property?

doodle wrote: Property rights in all cases involve force. Therefore, it is absurd to condemn force while at the same time praising property rights. The latter does not exist without the former in the real world...it only exists as a beautiful concept in your mind!

No they don't this is false. It's not force when you when you shoot the chainsaw wielding maniac coming at you. It's violence. If you think it's force ok but you have to see the difference between what the maniac is doing and what you are doing.

doodle wrote:

Kshartle wrote: Everyone wants property rights respected right? Do you know anyone who thinks that everyone should just be able to take everything they want whenver they want from everyone else? Obviously this is complete nonsense. Imagine if humans actually behaved like this.

Everyone would have to agree that no one owned anything. This is just so ridiculous I don't know where to begin. This is the kind of crap the goverment causes.

Everyone who owns property wants property rights respected. And by the way, diffrent tribes steal and plunder and kill each other all the time. Remember the anthropological evidence I have cited ad nauseum? 25 percent of males died violent deaths in early agricultural societies. Earth to Kshartle, we are violent and dangerous creatures....look at our history....any evidence of peaceful existence since the beginning of the agricultural revolution and the concept of property?

I don't understand what you're trying to say. What is your point? I'm happy to listen to any argument you want to put forward but I'm not sure what it is.

Kshartle, I think you're confusing people with your definition of force that doesn't seem to include defensive violence. You're trying to define the term "force" as a subset of what most people think of it as: a synonym for "violent, coercive action". You're trying to make a morally neutral term (one can say, "violence can be justified") into a morally weighted one (when you say, "force is only illegitimate, aggressive violence").

Can we agree to use "force" as a synonym for "violence" rather than "violence, excepting defense?"

Pointedstick wrote: Kshartle, I think you're confusing people with your definition of force that doesn't seem to include defensive violence. You're trying to define the term "force" as a subset of what most people think of it as: a synonym for "violent, coercive action". You're trying to make a morally neutral term (one can say, "violence can be justified") into a morally weighted one (when you say, "force is only illegitimate, aggressive violence").

Can we agree to use "force" as a synonym for "violence" rather than "violence, excepting defense?"

I can agree to using force as a synonym for violence but maybe it would be easier to just say violence then. I don't think they are synonyms however.

Webster's defines force as "violence, compulsion, or constraint exerted upon or against a person or thing"

Can you use a word to define itself? Anyway they are close enough so it doesn't matter to me.

What word would you like to use for illigitimate use of violence or the threat of it to complem behavior or take property etc? Violence that is not defense of one's self or one's property or of another person and their property? Do you recognize there is a difference?

Pointedstick wrote: Kshartle, I think you're confusing people with your definition of force that doesn't seem to include defensive violence.

Definately not trying to be confusing. When I say force I am always referring to coercive violence or the threat thereof.

We really need to answer the following question, with the assumption that we agree on the general principal of the ideal of individual sovereignty if we existed in a vacuum:

"In what cases are property rights a natural extension of our individual sovereignty?"


It seems that tech is saying that we need to discover it, register it with a property management company, and properly post that it's our property (though he recently claimed that you had to develop the land from its natural state).

Kshartle seems to be saying that as long as you find land and state that you own it, you legitimately own it and you can force others to leave.


These seem completely unnatural, unattached to individual sovereignty, and arbitrary, and therefore are essentially illegitimate uses of force.

How about these definitions:

- If I am the first animal to find land, I own it.

- If I am the first person to set foot on land, I own it.

- If I plant my family's flag somewhere, I own land in a 40 mile radius.

- If I build a fence around it, I own it.

- If I completely reform land of it's original ecological state, I own it.

- If I build a structure, I own everthing in a 10 acre radius.

- If my tribe has hunted on land for decades, we own it.


Or how about this one:

- You can't truly own vast amounts of land or resources as a natural extension of your individual sovereignty, and any attempt to do so is essentially an illegitimate use of force upon others.  You own your body, you own your skills and strengths, you might even legitimately own a dwelling and some tools.  Beyond that, if you're trying to take ownership of something, it's a combination of greed, convenience, and coercive force.


I bet if we asked 10 die-hard libertarians what they deem to be the legitimate threshhold of taking ownership of resources and land as property, you'd get 7 or 8 different answers.  What is right?  Because if I'm going to live in a Free Society*, I want to know the difference between discovering some new property of my own, and trespassing on someone else's and risk being shot.  I want to know if the power plant I'm building on a property legitimizes my ownership of it, or the fact that I'm spitting out massive amounts of externalities to other property owners by upsetting an ecosystem they value is DElegitimizing my ownership of it.  I want to know who has a better claim to land... me because I settle it, or the Indians that used to hunt on it because they had for centuries.

See the problems here folks?  These are social engineering decisions that involve an arbiter that I may not view as legitimate.  I'm not saying I have the answer, but I'm almost positive that anyone who thinks they have all the answers is pretty much dead wrong.

moda0306 wrote: It seems that tech is saying that we need to discover it, register it with a property management company, and properly post that it's our property.

Kshartle seems to be saying that as long as you find land and state that you own it, you legitimately own it and you can force others to leave.


These seem completely unnatural, unattached to individual sovereignty, and arbitrary, and therefore are essentially illegitimate uses of force.

That is a amazing mischaracterization of what I have said. as long as you find it and state you own it? You have to exercise your property rights. That doesn't mean shooting people who set foot on it this is nuts. How the heck can you find land that other people are on and force them to leave and think that's property rights? I have not said this you are really stretching.

moda0306 wrote: We really need to answer the following question, with the assumption that we agree on the general principal of the ideal of individual sovereignty if we existed in a vacuum:

"In what cases are property rights a natural extension of our individual sovereignty?"


It seems that tech is saying that we need to discover it, register it with a property management company, and properly post that it's our property (though he recently claimed that you had to develop the land from its natural state).

Please provide a link to my saying that.

moda0306 wrote:
Kshartle seems to be saying that as long as you find land and state that you own it, you legitimately own it and you can force others to leave.


These seem completely unnatural, unattached to individual sovereignty, and arbitrary, and therefore are essentially illegitimate uses of force.

How about these definitions:

- If I am the first animal to find land, I own it.

- If I am the first person to set foot on land, I own it.

- If I plant my family's flag somewhere, I own land in a 40 mile radius.

- If I build a fence around it, I own it.

- If I completely reform land of it's original ecological state, I own it.

- If I build a structure, I own everthing in a 10 acre radius.

- If my tribe has hunted on land for decades, we own it.


Or how about this one:

- You can't truly own vast amounts of land or resources as a natural extension of your individual sovereignty, and any attempt to do so is essentially an illegitimate use of force upon others.  You own your body, you own your skills and strengths, you might even legitimately own a dwelling and some tools.  Beyond that, if you're trying to take ownership of something, it's a combination of greed, convenience, and coercive force.

Even if you get all of that "vast holding" by voluntary trade with others? I'm afraid I don't see the logic in that.

moda0306 wrote:
I bet if we asked 10 die-hard libertarians what they deem to be the legitimate threshhold of taking ownership of resources and land as property, you'd get 7 or 8 different answers. 

I doubt that very much. Any libertarian would say that you own whatever you create or acquire by gift or trade.

moda0306 wrote:
What is right?  Because if I'm going to live in a Free Society*, I want to know the difference between discovering some new property of my own, and trespassing on someone else's and risk being shot.  I want to know if the power plant I'm building on a property legitimizes my ownership of it, or the fact that I'm spitting out massive amounts of externalities to other property owners by upsetting an ecosystem they value is DElegitimizing my ownership of it.  I want to know who has a better claim to land... me because I settle it, or the Indians that used to hunt on it because they had for centuries.

See the problems here folks?  These are social engineering decisions that involve an arbiter that I may not view as legitimate.  I'm not saying I have the answer, but I'm almost positive that anyone who thinks they have all the answers is pretty much dead wrong.

You cannot spit out toxins in a libertarian society. For that, you need a government to prevent others from protecting themselves.

moda0306 wrote: I bet if we asked 10 die-hard libertarians what they deem to be the legitimate threshhold of taking ownership of resources and land as property, you'd get 7 or 8 different answers.  What is right?  Because if I'm going to live in a Free Society*, I want to know the difference between discovering some new property of my own, and trespassing on someone else's and risk being shot.  I want to know if the power plant I'm building on a property legitimizes my ownership of it, or the fact that I'm spitting out massive amounts of externalities to other property owners by upsetting an ecosystem they value is DElegitimizing my ownership of it.  I want to know who has a better claim to land... me because I settle it, or the Indians that used to hunt on it because they had for centuries.

See the problems here folks?  These are social engineering decisions that involve an arbiter that I may not view as legitimate.  I'm not saying I have the answer, but I'm almost positive that anyone who thinks they have all the answers is pretty much dead wrong.

You not having the answer and being certain others don't is not an argument. Can you see that?

Some of us have explained why humans have claim over their life and the effects of their actions, some of which is their property. If they have the right to their life and their property then they must have the right to defend it, it cannot exist any other way.

If you disagree then please state why. Then we can maybe learn if we're wrong.

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: It seems that tech is saying that we need to discover it, register it with a property management company, and properly post that it's our property.

Kshartle seems to be saying that as long as you find land and state that you own it, you legitimately own it and you can force others to leave.


These seem completely unnatural, unattached to individual sovereignty, and arbitrary, and therefore are essentially illegitimate uses of force.

That is a amazing mischaracterization of what I have said. as long as you find it and state you own it? You have to exercise your property rights. That doesn't mean shooting people who set foot on it this is nuts. How the heck can you find land that other people are on and force them to leave and think that's property rights? I have not said this you are really stretching.

Sorry, I meant force others to leave if they happen upon it after you, not if they're already there.  Didn't mean to mischaracterize.

moda0306 wrote: I want to know the difference between discovering some new property of my own, and trespassing on someone else's and risk being shot. 

I can't believe you don't understand the difference. Can you point out similarities?

Who are these people shooting people for walking on their property? Who does this and how do they get away with it?!?!?!

moda0306 wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: It seems that tech is saying that we need to discover it, register it with a property management company, and properly post that it's our property.

Kshartle seems to be saying that as long as you find land and state that you own it, you legitimately own it and you can force others to leave.


These seem completely unnatural, unattached to individual sovereignty, and arbitrary, and therefore are essentially illegitimate uses of force.

That is a amazing mischaracterization of what I have said. as long as you find it and state you own it? You have to exercise your property rights. That doesn't mean shooting people who set foot on it this is nuts. How the heck can you find land that other people are on and force them to leave and think that's property rights? I have not said this you are really stretching.

Sorry, I meant force others to leave if they happen upon it after you, not if they're already there.  Didn't mean to mischaracterize.

Ohhh I misunderstood. Anyone can try to do whatever they want. The point is if they are not legitimate property owners they won't be able to assert their rights. People aren't going to try to own property that they can't assert their rights on.

If you see luscious farmland but know the area is filled with barbarians or whatever you will not attempt to own it even if it's completely unowned. This is a problem that people everywhere will solve because we don't want nice farmland to go unused.

We live in a world where property rights are trampled because of government. We live in a crazy world and it's screwed up the way we see reality. Almost everyone is trapped in the matrix. They look at laws and assume they exist like gravity exists. They have no idea what would happen without them or what is really happening.

tech,

I'm searching now... I was under the impression earlier that you thought anything someone discovered and developed from its original state was then "their property."


Kshartle,

There is a difference.  However, just because land is unoccupied, how do you figure that you own it, and acre after acre around it?  What if its occupied part of the year by nobadic tribes that hunt on it?

And we don't have random shootings now, but property disputes have long history of violent conflict.


I know my not having an answer for something doesn't mean you don't either, but I laid out my logic, but you two are doubting around the fact that you can't come up with a legitimate, logically consistent measure for whether land is owned by someone vs someone else. 

Tech is saying that if I "discover" a lake, put up some signs around it, and register it with some property recording company (that should have no legitimate authority whatsoever as to who owns what just because they say they do), they own the lake.

What about Lake Superior?

Why a property recording company?

How many signs?  What color?  What language?  What kind of up keep?  How far apart?  Can I shoot "trespassers?"



Can someone else back me up here?  Who's going crazy? 

Libertarian666 wrote:- You can't truly own vast amounts of land or resources as a natural extension of your individual sovereignty, and any attempt to do so is essentially an illegitimate use of force upon others.  You own your body, you own your skills and strengths, you might even legitimately own a dwelling and some tools.  Beyond that, if you're trying to take ownership of something, it's a combination of greed, convenience, and coercive force.

Even if you get all of that "vast holding" by voluntary trade with others? I'm afraid I don't see the logic in that.

[/quote]

There's a reason you don't see it. It's very difficult to see what doesn't exist.

Moda if people don't have a right to their property can you please explain why? I don't think wishing it to be true is sufficient proof. Do you have any proof for why people don't have a right to their property?

moda0306 wrote: There is a difference.  However, just because land is unoccupied, how do you figure that you own it, and acre after acre around it?  What if its occupied part of the year by nobadic tribes that hunt on it?

You don't just own it because it's unoccupied. You have to be able to assert proerty rights.