Political Crossfire Forums

[Roy L]

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: The ownership of the atmosphere and oceans is very much in question:

It quite simply is not. :lol:

You quite simply are wrong. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

The Kyoto Accord, emission rights trading, endangered species laws, international fishing quotas, etc. all prove that there are active questions concerning to what extent the oceans and atmosphere can and should be privatized.

Of course, there is not going to be one owner of the oceans or atmosphere, any more than there is one owner of the land. But that does not mean there is no ownership issue, any more than it does in the case of land.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: What personal insults? I simply pointed out, in a way I hoped might occasion some amusement, that your insulting, personal accusation that RTD was motivated by envy was logically and morally indistinguishable from similar accusations the antebellum slave owners hurled at abolitionists.

The personal insult is the false accusation that my argument is somehow similar to arguments in support of slave ownership, which is a straw man argument. There is a world of difference between owning other human beings and owning a piece of real estate.

The only possible motivation I can see for disingenuous arguments of this character is to try to instigate envy in the promotion of your preferred social scheme.

[Roy L]

cap'n queasy wrote:
Like I said acquiring property by force of arms is considered criminal behavior by modern society, which uses trade to acquire property rather than force of arms.
<sigh> Same as with slaves. Long before emancipation, importation of newly captured slaves to the USA was banned. No amount of trade can justify a property right based on nothing but forcible violation of people's rights.
Quote:
So, how property was acquired in the past, before the transition to our modern conception of what is legal and what is criminal is of historical interest only, and irrelevant to the argument.
Hehe. Well, that's awfully convenient for the current owners of the stolen stuff, isn't it?
Quote:
Therefore trying to compare past violence to acquire property to the method of acquistion in use today is another logical fallacy on your part. It's a logically faulty appeal to an unrelated item, a screedy appeal to emotion rather than logic.
Garbage. The additional logical fallacy is on your part: you are trying to change the subject, and pretend that the fact that people will engage in trade in unjust privileges can somehow sanctify the existence of those privileges. Well, it can't. The fact that people buy and sell taxi medallions, sugar quotas, etc. (not to mention stolen goods) is in no way an argument for the preservation of such unjust privileges, and the case is exactly the same with private land titles.

Case closed.
Quote:
If I tried to come and take your property by force, which is what you are advocating here,
Garbage. Would it be "taking property by force" for government to abolish taxi medallions, sugar quotas, etc.? The property in question is nothing but a government-created privilege in the first place. Like a land title.
Quote: it would be just as criminal as forcing some one to be your "property" by force of arms. Not if that property was itself nothing but a privilege of violating others' rights.
Quote:
After all, slaves don't stay around because someone paid some money for them, they stay because physical force is employed to compel them to stay and work. And what is it that keeps others from using "your" land unless they pay you for it, hmmmm?

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: The Kyoto Accord, emission rights trading, endangered species laws, international fishing quotas, etc. all prove that there are active questions concerning to what extent the oceans and atmosphere can and should be privatized.


This is yet another straw man argument. None of those accords are concerned with the private individual ownership of the atmosphere or the ocean.

Trying to equate the individual right to own a parcel of real estate with an imaginary argument in support of the private ownership of the atmosphere or the ocean is clearly a strawman argument.

And, if you in fact support emission rights trading, you have no business trying to attack the right to own real estate by the individual because you are in essence claiming the atmosphere can be owned by a specific entity and the right to pollute it can be purchased from that entity.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: Not if that property was itself nothing but a privilege of violating others' rights.


The problem you have that this is clearly a non-factual supposition. No one has a right to use private property they do not own, they acquire permission for the privilege of use from the owner. Ownership of said property is what confers the status of a right to use. Lack of ownership of said property means use of it is a privilege granted by the owner, and not a right.

You clearly do not have the right to live in my house, which I own, unless I allow you the privilege of using it, for whatever reason.

You are trying to imply I do not have a right to own real estate because it violates another's right to use it. They have no right to use it unless they buy the property, which anyone is free to do.

Property ownership by individuals violates no rights at whatsoever. Simply because I own a property in no way violates your right to also own property. Anyone else still has the same rights I do, so there is no injustice there. It is a ridiculous argument and the fact that the only arguments that can be used to support it are straw men, or other logical fallacies, clearly illustrates that fact.

[Roy L]

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: What personal insults? I simply pointed out, in a way I hoped might occasion some amusement, that your insulting, personal accusation that RTD was motivated by envy was logically and morally indistinguishable from similar accusations the antebellum slave owners hurled at abolitionists.

The personal insult is the false accusation that my argument is somehow similar to arguments in support of slave ownership, which is a straw man argument.
??? That is neither a false accusation nor a strawman. It is an indisputable fact: your false and insulting personal accusation that RTD's objections to privilege and injustice were motivated only by envy for their beneficiaries was not merely similar to but logically indistinguishable from the identical accusation slave owners hurled at abolitionists. That is just a fact. Deal with it. If you don't like having the fallacious, dishonest and insulting character of your "arguments" identified, you should stick to more honorable debating tactics. Simple.
Quote:
There is a world of difference between owning other human beings and owning a piece of real estate.
Sure. Just as there is a world of difference between owning a piano and owning a baloney sandwich. So what? In either case, an insulting personal accusation that any objection to the legal institution of owning them must be motivated by envy for those who do is just as outrageous, fallacious and dishonest.
Quote:
The only possible motivation I can see for disingenuous arguments of this character

??? What?!? That's rich. You resort to personal insults and casting aspersions on RTD's motives (and evidently find nothing questionable in such tactics), and now you accuse ME of disingenuous arguments? Incredible.
Quote: is to try to instigate envy in the promotion of your preferred social scheme. So, your view is that there has never been a genuine protest against privilege and injustice, but only self-seeking by those who are envious of their beneficiaries?

Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that....

[Roy L]

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: The Kyoto Accord, emission rights trading, endangered species laws, international fishing quotas, etc. all prove that there are active questions concerning to what extent the oceans and atmosphere can and should be privatized.


This is yet another straw man argument. ??? No, it is not.
What part of the above argues against something you didn't say?

I'm waiting.

Quote: None of those accords are concerned with the private individual ownership of the atmosphere or the ocean.
They are concerned with property in rights to use -- very like the case of land, in fact. You might not be aware of the fact, but your "private individual ownership" of land is not absolute private ownership at all. It's just a right to use, exclude others, etc. under certain conditions set by government -- including that you keep the taxes current.
Quote: Trying to equate the individual right to own a parcel of real estate with an imaginary argument in support of the private ownership of the atmosphere or the ocean is clearly a strawman argument.
Garbage. You need to look up the difference between "strawman" and "analogy."
Quote: And, if you in fact support emission rights trading, you have no business trying to attack the right to own real estate by the individual because you are in essence claiming the atmosphere can be owned by a specific entity and the right to pollute it can be purchased from that entity. I don't support emission rights trading. That is very much the point. They are an unjust property right in the earth's atmosphere, the exact thing you claimed was not in question.

[David]

Somebody has to own something before it can be stolen.

Roy L wrote:
Funny, I could have sworn I just heard a slave owner say,
"Yoah entiah ahgument is based on covetin' somethin' y'all do not own, when y'all should be concerned with how you can legally acquiah yoah own nig... uh, slaves."



I take it from that quote that you are of the belief that slaves were owned only in the South.I hate to burst your bubble but there were Northern slave owners as well.Why to further burst any attempt to reinflate that ballon I'll let you in on a little secret,There were even *gasp* freed men that owned slaves.Funny how Lincoln is his Emancipation Proclamation only freed the southern slaves.Very few southerners were rich enough to own slaves to begin with so slave owners were in the minority.

[Roy L]

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: Not if that property was itself nothing but a privilege of violating others' rights.

The problem you have that this is clearly a non-factual supposition.
Wrong. It is fact. A land title is nothing but a government-issued privilege of violating other people's rights to use that land.
Quote:
No one has a right to use private property they do not own, they acquire permission for the privilege of use from the owner.
The legitimacy of that ownership is exactly what is in question. Why would I need to pay some greedy, idle parasite for his "permission" to use what nature provided free of charge? What gives him the right to stop me?
Quote: Ownership of said property is what confers the status of a right to use.
Wrong. The atmosphere is not private property, and everyone has a right to use it. Likewise the oceans. At one time, no land was privately owned, and everyone had a right to go about upon the land, using it as he wished. That is what the right of liberty means, and the only thing it can mean. What happened to that right of liberty? Such a mystery....

To you, that is.

Quote: Lack of ownership of said property means use of it is a privilege granted by the owner, and not a right.
Absolute bollocks. See above re the atmosphere and oceans. At one time everyone had a right to use all land, because none of it was privately owned. What extinguished that right, hmmm? Take your time.
Quote: You clearly do not have the right to live in my house, which I own, unless I allow you the privilege of using it, for whatever reason.
A house is not land. Stop trying to change the subject.
Quote: You are trying to imply I do not have a right to own real estate because it violates another's right to use it. By George, he's got it!
Quote:
They have no right to use it unless they buy the property, which anyone is free to do. "Oh, Lawsa mighty, massa, you mean ah's free to buy mah freedom? Thank you, massa, thank you! But ... where's ah gonna gets de money, massa....?"

Sorry, but you don't seem quite clear on the concept, here: rights to life and liberty are something that people have even without having to pay an owner for them.

At one time everyone had a right to use all land without having to buy it or pay rent to any soi-disant "landowner": a right to liberty. You need to explain how that right could rightly have been extinguished.

Quote: Property ownership by individuals violates no rights at whatsoever.

Then please explain how it happens that at one time, everyone had the right to use all the land, and now they have to pay a landowner before they can use it.

I'm waiting.
Quote: Simply because I own a property in no way violates your right to also own property. Strawman. Likewise, simply because you own a slave in no way violates my right to also own a slave. Simply because you own a taxi medallion in no way violates my right to also own a taxi medallion. So?

You don't seem to understand whose rights are being violated by private land ownership, and how. You don't seem able to comprehend that my objection to taxi medallions, as to slaves and land titles, is not that I don't own one, but that no one should. Just as the antebellum slave owners claimed the abolitionists were merely envious, and that the problem would be solved if they could only get some slaves of their own, you assume that there is nothing wrong with landowning, and our objections to it would disappear if only we owned some.

Do you also think that there are no arguments against taxi medallions based on justice and human rights, and the only reason anyone ever objects to them is that they don't own one?

Quote: Anyone else still has the same rights I do, so there is no injustice there. ?? So, in your mind, "people all having the same rights as you do" is when you have a right to demand that other people pay you for access to what nature provided for free, and they have a "right" to pay you for doing nothing...?

Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that....
Quote:
It is a ridiculous argument and the fact that the only arguments that can be used to support it are straw men, or other logical fallacies, clearly illustrates that fact. The argument is self-evidently very, very far from ridiculous, as you know perfectly well -- just as you know perfectly well that the arguments we have made are neither strawmen nor other logical fallacies.

[Roy L]

David wrote: Somebody has to own something before it can be stolen.
Sorry, but that claim is flat false, and we have already disproved it many times.

You do not own your right to vote (because you are not allowed to buy or sell it). But that right can be stolen from you by fraudulent registration processes, etc. Similarly, no one owns the atmosphere, but if someone were to compress and store so much of it that breath became short, they would have stolen it from all the people of the world -- especially those living at high altitudes.

Please don't have me banned for proving you wrong.
Quote: Roy L wrote:
Funny, I could have sworn I just heard a slave owner say,
"Yoah entiah ahgument is based on covetin' somethin' y'all do not own, when y'all should be concerned with how you can legally acquiah yoah own nig... uh, slaves."



I take it from that quote that you are of the belief that slaves were owned only in the South. No, I am well aware that slavery was virtually universally accepted before the 17th C.
Quote: I hate to burst your bubble but there were Northern slave owners as well. I certainly did not mean to imply that the Confederate states were the only places where slavery was ever legal.
Quote: Why to further burst any attempt to reinflate that ballon I'll let you in on a little secret,There were even *gasp* freed men that owned slaves. Indeed there were. Slaves were "free" to buy their freedom from their owners, just as the landless are "free" to buy land from its owners. Quote:
Funny how Lincoln is his Emancipation Proclamation only freed the southern slaves. Damned interferin' Yankee!

[MplsBison]

RueTheDay wrote:

Can someone own the atmosphere? How about the ocean?

Yes.

It is possible.


However, the amount of money it would take to enforce the ownership of either would be an absurd, impractical amount.

No such investment could ever turn a profit, therefore any incentive to own those things is negated.

Quote: How would they come to acquire such ownership?

Buy it from the owner.

[Roy L]

tman_ndsu08 wrote: RueTheDay wrote:
Can someone own the atmosphere? How about the ocean?

Yes.

However, the amount of money it would take to enforce the ownership of either would be an absurd, impractical amount.
Right. Because people would never tolerate such absurd, tyrannical claims to private property in a vital natural resource, and would resist them by force.
Quote:
Quote: How would they come to acquire such ownership?

Buy it from the owner.

??? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

If only I could find it in my heart to believe you are not perfectly serious....

[RueTheDay]

cap'n queasy wrote: You have yet to prove that ownership of private property is is in any way injustice.

By claiming private ownership of land, once all land has become owned, you are denying everyone born subsequently the space to even exist.

Quote:
Clearly it is injustice to violate the right of the individual to own private property.

Clearly schmearly. You have asserted that absolute, eternal right to private property over and over, but have not provided even the slightest hint of a logical defense for it. What gives you the right to say "this here land, that I did not create, is exclusively mine and if anyone else tries to use it I'll kill them"? <<crickets>>

[RueTheDay]

cap'n queasy wrote: Property ownership by individuals violates no rights at whatsoever.

In the case of land, which was not created by any human action, exists in fixed supply, and is required for a person to even exist, your claim of private ownership most certainly does violate the rights of all others who would have otherwise been able to freely use the land.

[MplsBison]

Roy L wrote: Because people would never tolerate such absurd, tyrannical claims to private property in a vital natural resource, and would resist them by force.

They wouldn't even need to use force.

There literally wouldn't be enough enforcers to go 'round and make sure people weren't using it without paying for it.

Quote:

???


I'm not sure I know what you want me to say.

The only way I know how to aquire something is to find someone who's got one and buy it from him.

[MplsBison]

RueTheDay wrote:
and is required for a person to even exist,

What about rent?

IE, you pay me a monthly user fee to live on a peice of my land.

You don't own it, yet you exist on it.


Seems reasonable to me.

And about 3 billion other people.

[Roy L]

tman_ndsu08 wrote: RueTheDay wrote:
and is required for a person to even exist,

What about rent?

IE, you pay me a monthly user fee to live on a peice of my land.

You don't own it, yet you exist on it.

Seems reasonable to me.

Well, sure it does! You get to collect money for doing nothing. Sounds fine. Doesn't take a genius to be in favor of getting something for nothing.

What you haven't quite explained, though, is HIS reason for going along with the arrangement... :rofl:

Just keep feeding me straight lines, that's all I ask.

[MplsBison]

Roy L wrote:

What you haven't quite explained, though, is his reason for going along with the arrangement

Because he wants to exist?

Got me, he agreed to it. I didn't make him pay me rent.


That's all that matters.

[Roy L]

tman_ndsu08 wrote: Roy L wrote: Because people would never tolerate such absurd, tyrannical claims to private property in a vital natural resource, and would resist them by force.

They wouldn't even need to use force.
Oh, yes they would. History proves beyond any doubt that when rent seekers get the privilege of exacting rents from the productive in return for nothing, the only way they will EVER give up that privilege is when it is removed by force.
Quote:
There literally wouldn't be enough enforcers to go 'round and make sure people weren't using it without paying for it. Sure there would. There are enough to make sure people don't use land without paying for it, aren't there? In fact, given the routine invasions of privacy now established to facilitate the "wars" on drugs and terror, it would be a trivial matter to enforce payment of air rents.

No, the practical problem with owning the atmosphere is only that unlike the case of owning land, the atrocious injustice of such a privilege is too glaringly obvious ever to be tolerated.
Quote:
The only way I know how to aquire something is to find someone who's got one and buy it from him.
?? And you never give a thought to how he must ultimately have acquired it? The idea of "production" being somehow too outlandish to consider?

I never cease to be amazed at how some people are able to prevent themselves from knowing the most self-evident and indisputable facts of objective reality.

[Roy L]

tman_ndsu08 wrote: Roy L wrote:

What you haven't quite explained, though, is his reason for going along with the arrangement

Because he wants to exist?
That's only a reason to pay if there is no alternative. Those who don't believe others have a right to make such outrageous exactions, who don't believe their right to life is something they must pay rent to someone else for, will resist such demands by force. The victims of such crimes are of course entirely justified in killing the perpetrators. Indeed, history shows it is necessary periodically to make an example of the most brazen of the rent-seeking parasites, in order to discourage others from pursuing such evil schemes.
Quote:
Got me, he agreed to it. I didn't make him pay me rent. ?? Of course you did. Don't be silly.

However, evil rent-seeking parasites do always tell themselves (and everyone else they can compel to listen) that their particular method of obtaining something for nothing is a matter of purely voluntary trade.