Political Crossfire Forums

[LostSoul3412]

Revenant wrote: It's usually civil in here.

How long have you been here again? :lol:

[thefranzkafkafront]

RueTheDay wrote: Why in the hell was Roy banned? He was bending over backwards not to flame people, despite being flamed himself. I think some people on here need to grow some seriously thicker skins.

He was trolling a mod, never a good idea, and by 'bending over backwards' you mean trying his hardest to piss people off while walking within and inch of the rules.

[bob.appleyard]

tman_ndsu08 wrote: Roy L wrote: But "own" how?

He bought it from the previous owner.

Okay, how did the previous owner come to own it? And the one before it etc etc ... how did the land become privately owned in the first place?

[MplsBison]

bob.appleyard wrote:

how did the land become privately owned in the first place?

Got me.

The most information that I can possibly from the current owner is how the owner before him aquired it. Anything before that is up in the air.


Frankly, I don't care much to know. If we're both willing to trade for it, that's good enough for me.

[thefranzkafkafront]

bob.appleyard wrote: tman_ndsu08 wrote: Roy L wrote: But "own" how?

He bought it from the previous owner.

Okay, how did the previous owner come to own it? And the one before it etc etc ... how did the land become privately owned in the first place?

Utilisation.

[RueTheDay]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Why in the hell was Roy banned? He was bending over backwards not to flame people, despite being flamed himself. I think some people on here need to grow some seriously thicker skins.

He was trolling a mod, never a good idea, and by 'bending over backwards' you mean trying his hardest to piss people off while walking within and inch of the rules.

Does "trolling a mod" mean "posting an opinion that differs from that of a mod"?

Seriously, moderators (on all message boards) walk a fine line between being neutral outside monitors and participants in a debate. Some might even say that it's impossible to play both roles, that it's like referees playing football.

[RueTheDay]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: bob.appleyard wrote: tman_ndsu08 wrote: Roy L wrote: But "own" how?

He bought it from the previous owner.

Okay, how did the previous owner come to own it? And the one before it etc etc ... how did the land become privately owned in the first place?

Utilisation.

How does "utilisation" confer exclusive ownership? When a car thief drives off in your car, he is certainly "utilising" it. Does that make him the owner?

[cap'n queasy]

How does labor confer ownership? Do the guys who built the car own it?

No. They certainly don't, in fact their individual role in production is relatively minor.

The company who bought the materials, supplied the production line, and hired those guys to put them together owns it, until it is sold. The average group of two or three laborers certainly couldn't just start building cars in their garage without materials and proper tools. And if they could they should go into the auto industry themselves. The thing is pretty soon they are going to see that two or three guys can't possibly build the cars by themselves, manage the business, and sell enough cars to keep up with demand. Somehow, I don't think building and selling two or three cars a week, if they could even do that, is going to cut it.

If they can do it, more power to them. What do they need to work for the Ford motor company for?

You might as well just say ownership can't possibly exist. It's just as valid of a statement.

[RueTheDay]

cap'n queasy wrote: How does labor confer ownership? Do the guys who built the car own it?

It's not that "labor confers ownership", it's that the product in question was the result of an action by a human. Thus, had the action not taken place, the product would not exist. Thus, by claiming ownership of the product that resulted from human action, the person is not denying the use of the product to anyone else. You can't deny the use of something that would not have existed in the first place.

I don't think you even understand the argument you are attempting (and failing) to criticize.

Quote:
No. They certainly don't, in fact their individual role in production is relatively minor.

The company who bought the materials, supplied the production line, and hired those guys to put them together owns it, until it is sold.

That is just because of the way our system of joint production is organized.

There is no reason why a syndicalist system could not exist whereby the workers directly owned the product of their labor. Perhaps such a system would be inefficient, perhaps it would not.

You are confusing custom and positive law with some sort of absolute cosmic view of right and wrong whereby the system you advocate is the only "right one".

Quote:
The average group of two or three laborers certainly couldn't just start building cars in their garage without materials and proper tools. And if they could they should go into the auto industry themselves. The thing is pretty soon they are going to see that two or three guys can't possibly build the cars by themselves, manage the business, and sell enough cars to keep up with demand. Somehow, I don't think building and selling two or three cars a week, if they could even do that, is going to cut it.

If they can do it, more power to them. What do they need to work for the Ford motor company for?

Why is it that laborers supply their labor to the owners of capital who then own the final product rather than the owners of capital supplying their capital to laborers with the laborers owning the final product? Largely custom and legal tradition.

Quote:
You might as well just say ownership can't possibly exist. It's just as valid of a statement.

Ownership is a social construct. It exists because society has created it as a mechanism for handling scarcity and providing the proper incentives. In certain cases it works well, in other cases not so well. You want to base it on some sort of "natural right" to property which does not exist and never has existed.

[Howe]

Wow! That was alot of talk trying to distinguish surface and subsurface rights. For your information, it was a wasted exercise.

Land ownership includes the bundle of both surface and subsurface rights. These various rights may be separated, but they still exist.

You are arguing why one rightfully exists and not the other.... based on some notion that ownership of subsurface resources should belong to nobody until they are produced.

That is poppycock. Here's a few things to take into account:

First, to get to the subsurface, varying degrees of damage must be done to the surface, some very severe.

Second, when you pony up your dough on a piece of land, the value lies in its various potential uses - not just existing uses. That's why people invest in mineral interests.

To take away any scheme that recognizes private investment in subsurface land rights would be a grave mistake, unless you advocate living like a cave man or having the government own all the resources instead.

[thefranzkafkafront]

RueTheDay wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: bob.appleyard wrote: tman_ndsu08 wrote: Roy L wrote: But "own" how?

He bought it from the previous owner.

Okay, how did the previous owner come to own it? And the one before it etc etc ... how did the land become privately owned in the first place?

Utilisation.

How does "utilisation" confer exclusive ownership? When a car thief drives off in your car, he is certainly "utilising" it. Does that make him the owner?

No becuase hes engaged in a non-contractural transfer of property from another party.

By defintion you cannot thieve propety and justly own it.

[Free Thinkr]

Howe wrote: Wow! That was alot of talk trying to distinguish surface and subsurface rights. For your information, it was a wasted exercise.

Land ownership includes the bundle of both surface and subsurface rights. These various rights may be separated, but they still exist.
Okay.

Quote: You are arguing why one rightfully exists and not the other.... based on some notion that ownership of subsurface resources should belong to nobody until they are produced.
Uh, no. Bra, you are lost. I suggest re-reading the thread.

[Atlas Bergeron]

Ragnar Danneskjold wrote: 1. Gun Rights

LP supports all gun rights, With Zero Gun Control

2. Smoking Bans

LP Supports the right of Bars to choose weather or not their patrons can smoke in their establishments

3.Wealth Redistribution

LP Is agianst everything that relates to Wealth Redistribution

4.Property Rights

Propery Is Sacred, and not to be regulated by any goverment

5. Taxes

Taxes Must be eliminated as much as possible, some oppose all taxes

6. Socialized Medicine.

Against In regards to 4 and 5, some libertarians support something commonly known as Georgism which says that the only tax of the land should be called the Land Value Tax. This would cover both four and five.

[Howe]

Free Thinkr wrote: Howe wrote: Wow! That was alot of talk trying to distinguish surface and subsurface rights. For your information, it was a wasted exercise.

Land ownership includes the bundle of both surface and subsurface rights. These various rights may be separated, but they still exist.
Okay.

Quote: You are arguing why one rightfully exists and not the other.... based on some notion that ownership of subsurface resources should belong to nobody until they are produced.
Uh, no. Bra, you are lost. I suggest re-reading the thread.

I admit there came a point when reading turned to a more brisk browsing. But I'm not going back.

[MplsBison]

RueTheDay wrote:

It's not that "labor confers ownership", it's that the product in question was the result of an action by a human. Thus, had the action not taken place, the product would not exist. Thus, by claiming ownership of the product that resulted from human action, the person is not denying the use of the product to anyone else. You can't deny the use of something that would not have existed in the first place.


What is a "human action" and why does such a thing cause matter to take on a distinguished quality?

IE, why does such a thing cause a toaster to have a different quality than some metal plates, screws, wire, plastic casings, etc.?


If it just so happened that one day a bolt of lightning struck a tree, that tree fell over, and so on, and the end result was a toaster and no human had done any "human actions" that led to the end result of the toaster, would that toaster still have the distinguished quality that differentiates it from the metal plates, screws, wire, plastic casings, etc.?

Quote:

There is no reason why a syndicalist system could not exist whereby the workers directly owned the product of their labor. Perhaps such a system would be inefficient, perhaps it would not.

There is no reason why any system could nto exist whereby materials are turned into produced goods.

As long as the system took the materials and turned them into the produced good, the system could be said to "work".


Through evolution and trial and error, the capitalistic system is the one that has been found to work the best.

That says nothing about "fair", "just", or "right". It only says that the capititalistic system will take the most materials and turn them into the most produced goods in a given time.

Quote:

Why is it that laborers supply their labor to the owners of capital who then own the final product rather than the owners of capital supplying their capital to laborers with the laborers owning the final product? Largely custom and legal tradition.

Correct.

Either system potentially works. Simply, the capititalistic system works better than the labor owned system (or whatever you call it) when you define "better" as producing more goods in a given time.

Quote:

It exists because society has created it as a mechanism for handling scarcity and providing the proper incentives. In certain cases it works well, in other cases not so well. You want to base it on some sort of "natural right" to property which does not exist and never has existed.

I agree with everything you said here.

I don't believe in natural rights. I believe in what people can do and what people can't do.


That said, we've figured out a way that works good for us and will continue to work good for us.

And I can't think of a good reason to change it.

[RueTheDay]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: RueTheDay wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: bob.appleyard wrote: tman_ndsu08 wrote: Roy L wrote: But "own" how?

He bought it from the previous owner.

Okay, how did the previous owner come to own it? And the one before it etc etc ... how did the land become privately owned in the first place?

Utilisation.

How does "utilisation" confer exclusive ownership? When a car thief drives off in your car, he is certainly "utilising" it. Does that make him the owner?

No becuase hes engaged in a non-contractural transfer of property from another party.

By defintion you cannot thieve propety and justly own it.

Virtually all land titles in existence today were transferred by "non-contractual" (i.e., coercive) means at some point in their history. You can't attempt to base property rights on voluntary transfer and then ignore actual history.

[RueTheDay]

tman_ndsu08 wrote: RueTheDay wrote:

It's not that "labor confers ownership", it's that the product in question was the result of an action by a human. Thus, had the action not taken place, the product would not exist. Thus, by claiming ownership of the product that resulted from human action, the person is not denying the use of the product to anyone else. You can't deny the use of something that would not have existed in the first place.


What is a "human action" and why does such a thing cause matter to take on a distinguished quality?

IE, why does such a thing cause a toaster to have a different quality than some metal plates, screws, wire, plastic casings, etc.?

A toaster isn't different than screws, wires, casings, etc. All are products of human action. It is different than iron ore deposits in the wild, which are not products of human action.

Quote:
If it just so happened that one day a bolt of lightning struck a tree, that tree fell over, and so on, and the end result was a toaster and no human had done any "human actions" that led to the end result of the toaster, would that toaster still have the distinguished quality that differentiates it from the metal plates, screws, wire, plastic casings, etc.?

:lol: Lightning striking a tree does not make a toaster. Let me know when you want to have a serious conversation.

Quote:
Quote:

There is no reason why a syndicalist system could not exist whereby the workers directly owned the product of their labor. Perhaps such a system would be inefficient, perhaps it would not.

There is no reason why any system could nto exist whereby materials are turned into produced goods.

As long as the system took the materials and turned them into the produced good, the system could be said to "work".

Right.

Quote:
Through evolution and trial and error, the capitalistic system is the one that has been found to work the best.

I don't really disagree with that, but it doesn't mean that the evolutionary process has stopped either. The system that we have now certainly is not a pure laissez faire capitalist system. It is a mixed economy. Would you therefore say that the mixed economy is the one that has evolved through trial and error and found to work best?

Quote:
That says nothing about "fair", "just", or "right". It only says that the capititalistic system will take the most materials and turn them into the most produced goods in a given time.

Right. Except it's not pure capitalism.

Quote:
Quote:

Why is it that laborers supply their labor to the owners of capital who then own the final product rather than the owners of capital supplying their capital to laborers with the laborers owning the final product? Largely custom and legal tradition.

Correct.

Either system potentially works. Simply, the capititalistic system works better than the labor owned system (or whatever you call it) when you define "better" as producing more goods in a given time.

Same comments as above.

Quote:
Quote:

It exists because society has created it as a mechanism for handling scarcity and providing the proper incentives. In certain cases it works well, in other cases not so well. You want to base it on some sort of "natural right" to property which does not exist and never has existed.

I agree with everything you said here.

I don't believe in natural rights. I believe in what people can do and what people can't do.

Ok, no disagreement there.

Quote:
That said, we've figured out a way that works good for us and will continue to work good for us.

And I can't think of a good reason to change it.

Evolution is a response to a changing environment. There's no reason why an economy wouldn't evolve as demographics and technology change.

[thefranzkafkafront]

RueTheDay wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: RueTheDay wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: bob.appleyard wrote: tman_ndsu08 wrote: Roy L wrote: But "own" how?

He bought it from the previous owner.

Okay, how did the previous owner come to own it? And the one before it etc etc ... how did the land become privately owned in the first place?

Utilisation.

How does "utilisation" confer exclusive ownership? When a car thief drives off in your car, he is certainly "utilising" it. Does that make him the owner?

No becuase hes engaged in a non-contractural transfer of property from another party.

By defintion you cannot thieve propety and justly own it.

Virtually all land titles in existence today were transferred by "non-contractual" (i.e., coercive) means at some point in their history. You can't attempt to base property rights on voluntary transfer and then ignore actual history.

Well other than the fact i know you can't support that i'll entertain that for a second.

Now yes prehaps this is true, irregarless, dose the fact that the majority are now transfered by completely justified methods not render this impossible.

You can't pass the moral implications of theft from owner to owner.

[MplsBison]

RueTheDay wrote:

A toaster isn't different than screws, wires, casings, etc. All are products of human action. It is different than iron ore deposits in the wild, which are not products of human action.

Fine.

What is a "human action" and why does such a thing cause matter to take on a distinguished quality?

Iron atoms are iron atoms regardless if they're part of an iron ore or part of a toaster.

Quote:
Lightning striking a tree does not make a toaster.

Ok...

If it just so happened that one day [insert arbitrary chain of events whereby unprocessed materials get transferred into processed goods without any human interaction]. Would the [insert processed good] still have the distinguished quality?

Keep in mind that I can go as arbitrary as you like. I was just trying to give an example.

Quote:
Through evolution and trial and error, the capitalistic system is the one that has been found to work the best.

I don't really disagree with that, but it doesn't mean that the evolutionary process has stopped either. The system that we have now certainly is not a pure laissez faire capitalist system. It is a mixed economy. Would you therefore say that the mixed economy is the one that has evolved through trial and error and found to work best?[/quote]

I would say the capitalist portion of the "mixed" economy is the only part that is actually doing any work.

The rest is meaningless and harmful regulation.

Quote:

Evolution is a response to a changing environment. There's no reason why an economy wouldn't evolve as demographics and technology change.

I think if any change can be detected at our sluggish rate of change, it would most decidly be in the more capitalist direction. I don't think there's any way you can deny that with so many eastern european countries going from communism and socialism to capitalism.

[MplsBison]

RueTheDay wrote:

A toaster isn't different than screws, wires, casings, etc. All are products of human action. It is different than iron ore deposits in the wild, which are not products of human action.

Fine.

What is a "human action" and why does such a thing cause matter to take on a distinguished quality?

Iron atoms are iron atoms regardless if they're part of an iron ore or part of a toaster.

Quote:
Lightning striking a tree does not make a toaster.

Ok...

If it just so happened that one day [insert arbitrary chain of events whereby unprocessed materials get transferred into processed goods without any human interaction]. Would the [insert processed good] still have the distinguished quality?

Keep in mind that I can go as arbitrary as you like. I was just trying to give an example.

Quote:
Through evolution and trial and error, the capitalistic system is the one that has been found to work the best.

I don't really disagree with that, but it doesn't mean that the evolutionary process has stopped either. The system that we have now certainly is not a pure laissez faire capitalist system. It is a mixed economy. Would you therefore say that the mixed economy is the one that has evolved through trial and error and found to work best?[/quote]

I would say the capitalist portion of the "mixed" economy is the only part that is actually doing any work.

The rest is meaningless and harmful regulation.

Quote:

Evolution is a response to a changing environment. There's no reason why an economy wouldn't evolve as demographics and technology change.

I think if any change can be detected at our sluggish rate of change, it would most decidly be in the more capitalist direction. I don't think there's any way you can deny that with so many eastern european countries going from communism and socialism to capitalism.