Gyroscopic Investing

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote:

Kshartle wrote: 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.

Kshartle,

Really?  It's that simple?  Legitimate property owners will be able to assert their rights and others won't?  I'm asking what even establlishes the RIGHT in the first place?  What if I plant a flag and think I "own" some Florida beach front property, but only stay down there half the year?  Nobody will squat on my land?  Is it still my land?  Was it ever my land just cuz I planted a flag there?  Will it be when I return?



If property is filled with Barbarians, I probably wouldn't try to steal it, but that's a strategic survival decision, not a moral one.  If land is occupied by a poor farmer in a small home, and me and a few buddies want to make a quick buck, we could come and claim it. 

Or if a nomadic tribe uses hunting land on a periodic basis, but my weapons are better, I might try to move onto that land, start a farm,  and kill those people when they try to reclaim their land.



Kshartle... I'm asking you, and let's make this simple, if various groups of settlers discover a continent all at the same time with NO nomadic population, how are land ownership rights established and legitimate?  Please lay this out for me like I'm a 5 year old.

moda0306 wrote: 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.

He most certainly is not saying that. Registering with an ilegitimate property recording company and putting up signs is not is not much of an assertion of property rights. It's a pretty feeble attempt.

Kshartle wrote:

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.

Ok this is huge.... THANKS!!  Sorry it took so long to get to this point. 


What does it mean to "be able to assert property rights."  Like you have to be able to defend it?  Show that you're using the land effectively?  Produce a deed from a property recording company?  Build a fence?

What I'm taking from this discussion is that we own whatever we can get away with owning without someone else whacking us and taking it. That explains Kshartle's barbarians-and-farmland example, that explains doodle's bear cave example, it explains "asserting your property rights", and so on and so forth. The entire notion of property is intimately bound up with the concept of defense because without the ability to defend something you claim as your property, anyone or anything can just take it from you--up to and including your own body (which is just about the only thing we can all agree on people having a natural right to own).

This is true if we're all sitting on hills with rifles, or if we have a violent property monopolist called government that has promulgated elaborate rules regarding who can have what, or if we have voluntary property registration companies who employ arbitrators backed up by armed men to help resolve disputes. We all own the things we can get away with owning without harm befalling us as a result of our claimed ownership.

moda0306 wrote: Kshartle... I'm asking you, and let's make this simple, if various groups of settlers discover a continent all at the same time with NO nomadic population, how are land ownership rights established and legitimate?  Please lay this out for me like I'm a 5 year old.

They will either negotiate out the division of the desireable land or fight over it.  At some point they will be asserting their rights of ownership and will be the owners.

This was tech's response to whether legitimate ownership of the lake has taken place:

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.

This involves having a property registration company (whether they're well-known or not seems irrelevant... who's to say they have authority over land?).  It also involves posting it visibly around the lake, which makes my comment/questions valid.

This discussion is like world war one trench warfare....

Persuasion has failed..Kshartle believes he has a right to property, I don't think he does. He wants to turn my favorite hunting grounds into a corn field. Violence ensues....it's the history of the world. Who is right? I guess that depends on who wins the war and gets to write the history books.

Pointedstick wrote: The entire notion of property is intimately bound up with the concept of defense because without the ability to defend something you claim as your property, anyone or anything can just take it from you--up to and including your own body (which is just about the only thing we can all agree on people having a natural right to own).

This is absolutely correct. If we have the right to own property we have to be able to assert that right which includes defense of it. This is not a problem. Practically every person wants property rights defended. We don't need to rely exclusively on ourselves. We have all other property owners which is basically everyone to help us against the theives.

The government is the biggest violator by far of property rights. It is NOT the defender. It is the VIOLATOR.

To say that property is legitimately yours only if you can defend it is to make irrelevant the concepts of "rights" to begin with, and essentially means "might makes right."  This means if a woman can't defend her sovereign body, then a man can rape her without violating her "rights."

Rights actually have a moral dimension to them... in fact, it seems to me that it's the only dimension for the most part.  Yes, we have to defend them if we can, but the rights are supposed to be "natural" in a moral sense.

The federal government can "assert its claim" over vast amounts of lands, but Kshartle and tech assert the government to not be the legitimate owner of it.

So either we have rights or we don't, but you can't only have rights if you can defend them, unless you are to say that none of us have rights against our government because we have no means to defend them.

doodle wrote: This discussion is like world war one trench warfare....

Persuasion has failed..Kshartle believes he has a right to property, I don't think he does. He wants to turn my favorite hunting grounds into a corn field. Violence ensues....it's the history of the world. Who is right? I guess that depends on who wins the war and gets to write the history books.

You are in the wrong if it's my property. You might succeed in stealing it from me though. History books have nothing to do with it.

To say that a right requires the ability to defend it in the first place is circular logic.  That means I have no moral claim to anything, unless I can take it, in which case I can take it.


You have to ESTABLISH a right before you defend it.  If not, does my old, disabled aunt not have a right to her home?  Does my nephew not have a right to his life just because he's too scrawny to kill an attacker?


What's the purpose of rights if they can be removed from us by having them violated?

Kshartle wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: The entire notion of property is intimately bound up with the concept of defense because without the ability to defend something you claim as your property, anyone or anything can just take it from you--up to and including your own body (which is just about the only thing we can all agree on people having a natural right to own).

This is absolutely correct. If we have the right to own property we have to be able to assert that right which includes defense of it. This is not a problem. Practically every person wants property rights defended. We don't need to rely exclusively on ourselves. We have all other property owners which is basically everyone to help us against the theives.

The government is the biggest violator by far of property rights. It is NOT the defender. It is the VIOLATOR.

All of those property owners band together to create an institution which enforces their property rights. They are smart about it too because they create a flag and other songs and holidays to go along with it as well as elections of representatives so that all of the people feel like they are a part of this big club. Then they name their big institution government! yay, Kshartle we are back to square one again!

Kshartle wrote:

doodle wrote: This discussion is like world war one trench warfare....

Persuasion has failed..Kshartle believes he has a right to property, I don't think he does. He wants to turn my favorite hunting grounds into a corn field. Violence ensues....it's the history of the world. Who is right? I guess that depends on who wins the war and gets to write the history books.

You are in the wrong if it's my property. You might succeed in stealing it from me though. History books have nothing to do with it.

But if you weren't able to "assert your claim," then it wasn't yours, or am I misinterpreting "assert your claim?"

I feel like I've kicked down all 4 pillars to a structure but it continues to stand because of all the hot air still inside.



JK fellas... we must be speaking different languages at this point.  I'm really not trying to be obtuse.

doodle,

Let's try to pretend they can do this without a third party that we might call government.  Let's keep this on an individual basis... though I totally agree with what you're saying, these "property recording companies" sure sound an awful lot like a government to me.

Kshartle wrote:

doodle wrote: This discussion is like world war one trench warfare....

Persuasion has failed..Kshartle believes he has a right to property, I don't think he does. He wants to turn my favorite hunting grounds into a corn field. Violence ensues....it's the history of the world. Who is right? I guess that depends on who wins the war and gets to write the history books.

You are in the wrong if it's my property. You might succeed in stealing it from me though. History books have nothing to do with it.

Why is it your property? Cause you say so? Well, I say it's not your damn property.

You can give me every reason in the world why you think it's your property, if I don't speak your language or buy into your particular philosophy I don't give a crap what comes out of your mouth. Are you going to force me to believe your philosophy now? I thought you were anti force?

moda0306 wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

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.

Ok this is huge.... THANKS!!  Sorry it took so long to get to this point. 


What does it mean to "be able to assert property rights."  Like you have to be able to defend it?  Show that you're using the land effectively?  Produce a deed from a property recording company?  Build a fence?

Yeah stuff like that. Stuff that legitimizes your ownership. Stuff other people can recognize. You're trying to get others to recognize that it's your property. That is the goal. If there were no other people you would just have everything. Since there are other people there has to be critera by which they recognize your legitimate ownership of property. Some might not recognize so you have to be able to assert it. If others recognize it they will help you assert it. They will help solve your problem and will not appreciate the people who don't recognize it. We don't want to live with thieves. We all know that is bad. We don't need a law against stealing even though the government has been nice enough to write them. Off course the point is it doesn't apply to them. 

doodle wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: The entire notion of property is intimately bound up with the concept of defense because without the ability to defend something you claim as your property, anyone or anything can just take it from you--up to and including your own body (which is just about the only thing we can all agree on people having a natural right to own).

This is absolutely correct. If we have the right to own property we have to be able to assert that right which includes defense of it. This is not a problem. Practically every person wants property rights defended. We don't need to rely exclusively on ourselves. We have all other property owners which is basically everyone to help us against the theives.

The government is the biggest violator by far of property rights. It is NOT the defender. It is the VIOLATOR.

All of those property owners band together to create an institution which enforces their property rights. They are smart about it too because they create a flag and other songs and holidays to go along with it as well as elections of representatives so that all of the people feel like they are a part of this big club. Then they name their big institution government! yay, Kshartle we are back to square one again!

People have tried to use governments to solve the problem of property rights. It's a terrible failure. Look at the dissparity of property ownership. Thanks government!

moda0306 wrote: To say that property is legitimately yours only if you can defend it is to make irrelevant the concepts of "rights" to begin with, and essentially means "might makes right."  This means if a woman can't defend her sovereign body, then a man can rape her without violating her "rights."

Rights actually have a moral dimension to them... in fact, it seems to me that it's the only dimension for the most part.  Yes, we have to defend them if we can, but the rights are supposed to be "natural" in a moral sense.

Lemmee bust out some Harry Browne here. He says in How I Found Freedom In An Unfree World that you can assert your rights and claim the morality of X and Y until the cows come home, but in the end, it's all just a theory if you can't actually make something happen. If a man wants to rape a women, it's not that she has no rights… it's that her rights are irrelevant. A good .38 would serve her far better than all the words ever written on the subject. Being angry about how unfair it is and how her rights are being violated isn't going to stop the attack.

So yes, this is all a fancy way of saying that might makes right. That's just human history in a nutshell. I don't like to talk about rights much because it;s blindingly obvious that they're just ex-post-facto rationalizations. In the real world, rights are basically irrelevant. People and institutions routinely do to one another exactly as much as they can get away with without incurring damage to themselves. And sometimes more, if they miscalculate.

Kshartle,

Which one???!!!

Being able to defend property, and showng people you own it are FAR different things.

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote:

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

Ok this is huge.... THANKS!!  Sorry it took so long to get to this point. 


What does it mean to "be able to assert property rights."  Like you have to be able to defend it?  Show that you're using the land effectively?  Produce a deed from a property recording company?  Build a fence?

Yeah stuff like that. Stuff that legitimizes your ownership. Stuff other people can recognize. You're trying to get others to recognize that it's your property. That is the goal. If there were no other people you would just have everything. Since there are other people there has to be critera by which they recognize your legitimate ownership of property. Some might not recognize so you have to be able to assert it. If others recognize it they will help you assert it. They will help solve your problem and will not appreciate the people who don't recognize it. We don't want to live with thieves. We all know that is bad. We don't need a law against stealing even though the government has been nice enough to write them. Off course the point is it doesn't apply to them. 

Oh I get it, we all have to play by the Kshartle handbook in order for this to work. Ok king Kshartle, please dictate the rules by which property is legitimately owned....and if I disagree then what happens to me? Are you just going to speak persuasive gibbrish at me until my head explodes?

Since there are other people there has to be critera by which they recognize your legitimate ownership of property. Some might not recognize so you have to be able to assert it. If others recognize it they will help you assert it.

In other words, you are saying that government force is illigitimate, but mob rule is perfectly ok?

doodle wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

doodle wrote: This discussion is like world war one trench warfare....

Persuasion has failed..Kshartle believes he has a right to property, I don't think he does. He wants to turn my favorite hunting grounds into a corn field. Violence ensues....it's the history of the world. Who is right? I guess that depends on who wins the war and gets to write the history books.

You are in the wrong if it's my property. You might succeed in stealing it from me though. History books have nothing to do with it.

Why is it your property? Cause you say so? Well, I say it's not your damn property.

You can give me every reason in the world why you think it's your property, if I don't speak your language or buy into your particular philosophy I don't give a crap what comes out of your mouth. Are you going to force me to believe your philosophy now? I thought you were anti force?

I have explained over and over where property rights come from, why they exist, why we have a right to defend them etc etc.

There are bunch of fallacious arguments above but I'm tired of pointing these out.

If you don't think people have a right to property then explain why. Just saying I'm wrong or coming up with ridiculous scenarios or creating strawmen is extremely lame.

If you think you can go around stealing people's property then please do it and report back how well it worked out for you.

PS,

HB was saying rights are irrelevant in terms of personal decisions... I don't think he meant it as a moral code statement.


It seems a bit ridiculous to me to try to come up with this unnatural moral concept that guides us on how to treat one another and this idea that we're not just bugs to be killed and used, only to say....

If you can lose it, you never had a right to it.

I'd like to think that we're talking about a moral concept that may or may not be defendible or 100% realistic in a dangerous world to expect them to be respected, but it's an ideal that is not dependent on whether someone is strong enough to kill his attacker.  In that case, my nephew doesn't have the right to life against anyone who can kill him.

By this logic, the federal government has "right" to all lands in the world because it can assert its claim to get it.

Pointedstick wrote:

moda0306 wrote: To say that property is legitimately yours only if you can defend it is to make irrelevant the concepts of "rights" to begin with, and essentially means "might makes right."  This means if a woman can't defend her sovereign body, then a man can rape her without violating her "rights."

Rights actually have a moral dimension to them... in fact, it seems to me that it's the only dimension for the most part.  Yes, we have to defend them if we can, but the rights are supposed to be "natural" in a moral sense.

Lemmee bust out some Harry Browne here. He says in How I Found Freedom In An Unfree World that you can assert your rights and claim the morality of X and Y until the cows come home, but in the end, it's all just a theory if you can't actually make something happen. If a man wants to rape a women, it's not that she has no rights… it's that her rights are irrelevant. A good .38 would serve her far better than all the words ever written on the subject. Being angry about how unfair it is and how her rights are being violated isn't going to stop the attack.

So yes, this is all a fancy way of saying that might makes right. That's just human history in a nutshell. I don't like to talk about rights much because it;s blindingly obvious that they're just ex-post-facto rationalizations. In the real world, rights are basically irrelevant. People and institutions routinely do to one another exactly as much as they can get away with without incurring damage to themselves. And sometimes more, if they miscalculate.

Or......right makes might. If you are the rightful owner of property you will find all kinds of people interested in helping you assert that right. If you are a woman you don't have to worry too much about rape because all kinds of people are interested in you not being raped.

What world do some of you live in? You need to move to the places I've lived that aren't filled with human animals that roam around acting like wild beasts.

doodle wrote: Oh I get it, we all have to play by the Kshartle handbook in order for this to work. Ok king Kshartle, please dictate the rules by which property is legitimately owned....and if I disagree then what happens to me? Are you just going to speak persuasive gibbrish at me until my head explodes?

Stuff like this doesn't merit a legitimate response.