The Founding Principles of Libertarianism Taken to Reductio

[Avatar]

The ownership of land is not absolute and the landowner is not sovereign.

That last is a good point. If you own it, why can't your laws be enforced on it?

Anyway, I saw an article that made me think of this land ownership thing today:

Residents bemoan new status

Sylvester Nyong, a Nigerian farmer and father of 10 living on the Bakassi peninsula, woke up in a foreign country on Tuesday, after Nigeria formally handed over the once-disputed territory to Cameroon.

--A

[Cail]

Your ipod isn't yours because it was produced with raw materials taken from the Earth; the Earth that no one can lay claim to, and therefore has no right to mine for those raw materials.

[Avatar]

Exactly. Nothing is anybody's. Or rather, nothing should be anybody's.

But it's way way too late for that now.

--A

[Marv]

and therefore has no right to mine for those raw materials.

I've never said that and you know it, Cail. The use of land, including mining it's resources is perfectly acceptable as long as you compensate the rest of society for denying it's use to them through tax.

If a major oil company believes it can use an untapped oil field more efficiently than person A then they would undoubtably be willing to compensate me, and everyone else, to a far greater extent than person A. They would be willing to pay a much higher tax.

[Cail]

Says you. You think that no one has a right to own property, then you gerrymander a way to exploit the property. If no one can own property, then no one can limit it's use, and no one has the authority to levy tax on it. What if I don't accept the tax as just compensation? What gives anyone the right to levy a tax?

[Marv]

Says you. You think that no one has a right to own property .

I don't understand how it is a right. Where does this right come from? You, or your ancestors found that land first? What if i can extract better use from it? What if i need it to survive? Once all of the world's land is owned, there would be no space available for a newborn person to even stand. They would need permission from others just to exist; they would be enslaved.

Most people will argue to the effect that man owns himself and thus owns the fruits of his labor. Fine. Land is not the fruit of anyone's labor, it is something that has always existed, independent of human action. What therefore, makes a particular piece yours.

then you gerrymander a way to exploit the property

Not at all. Land provides us with all we need to thrive but if i am to use a parcel of land exclusively then it is fair to compensate those who could also make use of that land.

AND in the case of non-renewable, extractive resources, there is a similar situation to land. Geolibertarian philosophy requires a similar payment (severance tax) be paid as well.

If no one can own property, then no one can limit it's use, and no one has the authority to levy tax on it. What if I don't accept the tax as just compensation? What gives anyone the right to levy a tax?

If I make improvements to a plot of land those improvements are the fruit of my labor. Yet, I am denying everyone else the use of that land. This presents a problem. The practical solution is for the user to provide compensation to the people who are being denied the lands use(everyone else).

Cail, you seem to to be under the mistaken impression that I'm attempting to replace one set of rights based philosophy with another-I'm not. I see the absurdity in deriving all human behaviour and interaction down to a simple set of axioms and governing principles. The point is that ethics, politics, economics, and anything else that involves relationships between humans is going to be complex and trying to deduce truth from simple aphorisms like "you own yourself" and "never initiate force" simply does not work. *I have contradicted this last statement, to an axtent with earlier posts at this forum. I flirted with the libertarian philosophy when i first started thinking about politics seriously, but I have since seen the error of my ways*

"The first man who, having enclosed a piece of land, thought of saying, 'This is mine', and found people simple enough to believe him, was the true founder of civil society. How many crimes, wars, murders; how much misery and horror mankind would have been spared, if someone had pulled up the stakes and filled in the ditch, and shouted to his fellow-men: `Beware of listening to this imposter; you are lost if you forget that the fruits of the earth belong to everyone and that the earth itself belongs to no one.'"
--Jean-Jacques Rousseau

[/quote]

[Cail]

I don't understand how it is a right. Where does this right come from? You, or your ancestors found that land first? What if i can extract better use from it? What if i need it to survive? Once all of the world's land is owned, there would be no space available for a newborn person to even stand. They would need permission from others just to exist; they would be enslaved.

Where does any right come from? And your enslavement argument is preposterous. One doesn't need to own property to be free.

Most people will argue to the effect that man owns himself and thus owns the fruits of his labor. Fine. Land is not the fruit of anyone's labor, it is something that has always existed, independent of human action. What therefore, makes a particular piece yours.

Purchasing it from a recognized authority. The authority being the government, which by some odd contradiction, you find acceptable. Individuals can't own property yet governments can define borders and regulate land use. You still haven't explained how you can have that paticular cake and eat it too.

Not at all. Land provides us with all we need to thrive but if i am to use a parcel of land exclusively then it is fair to compensate those who could also make use of that land.

So what is different about the current situation? I make property tax payments on my land.

If no one can own property, then no one can limit it's use, and no one has the authority to levy tax on it. What if I don't accept the tax as just compensation? What gives anyone the right to levy a tax?

If I make improvements to a plot of land those improvements are the fruit of my labor. Yet, I am denying everyone else the use of that land. This presents a problem. The practical solution is for the user to provide compensation to the people who are being denied the lands use(everyone else).

Tazz, you didn't answer the question, and you're ignoring the fact that people already pay property tax.

You're starting out with a somewhat valid starting point....That land ownership, by and large, began with people taking land at the end of a spear. But you're ignoring that that's the way most (if not all) national boundaries and governments were created as well. Moreover, you seem to be stuck on the idea that somehow you're a slave if you don't own land. That's absurd. Then you think that the government somehow has the right to levy taxes and regulate the use of land that it doesn't own.

It just doesn't add up man.

[hierachy]

...I'm not even going to bother. Call me when you get a clue.

[Cail]

And you can call me when you can defend national borders in one breath and deny individual property ownership with the next.

[hierachy]

And you can call me when you can defend national borders in one breath and deny individual property ownership with the next.

Why would I want to do that? I believe the right to own property is an absolute.

Ps. My comment wasn't directed at you.

[Cail]

Whoops.....I thought that was a u-turn in what you've said before.

[hierachy]

I really shouldn't be posting in this forum right now anyway. I am in far too of an antagonistic mood. I'll come back later.

[Marv]

I really shouldn't be posting in this forum right now anyway. I am in far too of an antagonistic mood. I'll come back later.

True. Maybe when you actually have something to say i'll call you.

And you can call me when you can defend national borders in one breath and deny individual property ownership with the next.

1. We've been over this. I live in the real world where national borders and governments already exist. Geolibertarianism is a way of pragmatically implementing what I've been talking about short of destroying everything and starting again. (BTW geolibertarians DO believe in private property)

On top which it is economically more efficient. Don't take my word for it; Mill, Locke, Adam Smith, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Winston Churchill were all in favour of a single tax.

2. The thread is not about how a political theory might work in practice be it Goergism or Libertarianism. It is about showing the arbitrary nature of rights based Libertarianism. How does "claiming" ownership of something unowned confer actual ownership? What is the scope and limit of the claim - could the first person to land on the shores of North America have "claimed" ownership of the entire continent?

So far nobody has provided a logically coherent justification for the initial acquisition of a property right in unowned land, so the Georgism position stands.

[Marv]

Cail, if you tell me that ownership of land derives simply from being able to enforce your claim by defending it(your position, I think), I would say that's a truism. My only obligation is then to convince you that my way is more efficient. If you tell me that anyone has a legitimate right to exclude others from a parcel of land then i strongly disagree.

[Cail]

1. We've been over this. I live in the real world where national borders and governments already exist. Geolibertarianism is a way of pragmatically implementing what I've been talking about short of destroying everything and starting again. (BTW geolibertarians DO believe in private property)

Then you've just voided your entire argument Tazz. Private property lines already exist too. You may recall a major shakeup in governments and national borders in 1991 when the Berlin Wall came down. The land my house sits on was demarcated prior to 1991, so by your logic, the property line around my home has more validity than Germany's national border. I live in the real world in which anyone can purchase any piece of property. As James said, private land ownersip is an absolute right, and for you to make an exemption for governments and nations is not only inconsistent, it's illogical.

2. The thread is not about how a political theory might work in practice be it Goergism or Libertarianism. It is about showing the arbitrary nature of rights based Libertarianism. How does "claiming" ownership of something unowned confer actual ownership? What is the scope and limit of the claim - could the first person to land on the shores of North America have "claimed" ownership of the entire continent?

Waitaminit....I thought you were living in the real world where national boundaries were valid.

So far nobody has provided a logically coherent justification for the initial acquisition of a property right in unowned land, so the Georgism position stands.

Sure we have, you just choose not to accept it, even though you endorse governmental control of said land and you endorse the idea that someone can take raw materials from a piece of land they don't own and profit from the sale of it.

In the real world, I couldn't care less who owned the land before I did. I know that I purchased the land legally in accordance with the practices of my government, and that makes it mine.

[Marv]

1. We've been over this. I live in the real world where national borders and governments already exist. Geolibertarianism is a way of pragmatically implementing what I've been talking about short of destroying everything and starting again. (BTW geolibertarians DO believe in private property)

Then you've just voided your entire argument Tazz. Private property lines already exist too. You may recall a major shakeup in governments and national borders in 1991 when the Berlin Wall came down. The land my house sits on was demarcated prior to 1991, so by your logic, the property line around my home has more validity than Germany's national border.

When have I ever made an argument for increments of validity?

As James said, private land ownersip is an absolute right

**So, your right to land is derived simply by your existance? What happens when all the land is owned? Anyone born in to a world when there is no more good land would be deprived of that right. Given that libertarians base their belief on a right to land from the idea that land ownership is a derivative of freedom when that right is denied we are no longer free?**

and for you to make an exemption for governments and nations is not only inconsistent, it's illogical.

Again, we've been over this. Government would have no authority to dictate when, how, or by whom land itself is used; it would only have the authority to ensure the rent of land goes to everyone on an equal basis, since all individuals have an equal right to the use of land.

2. The thread is not about how a political theory might work in practice be it Goergism or Libertarianism. It is about showing the arbitrary nature of rights based Libertarianism. How does "claiming" ownership of something unowned confer actual ownership? What is the scope and limit of the claim - could the first person to land on the shores of North America have "claimed" ownership of the entire continent?

Waitaminit....I thought you were living in the real world where national boundaries were valid.

What point are you making because mine was clear. If I loudly claim ownership of all currently unoccupied land is it therefore mine? Do I have to be in sight of it? Do I have to be standing on it? Do I need to be able to defend it?

So far nobody has provided a logically coherent justification for the initial acquisition of a property right in unowned land, so the Georgism position stands.

Sure we have, you just choose not to accept it.

When? And where?

you endorse the idea that someone can take raw materials from a piece of land they don't own and profit from the sale of it.

The first person that extracts the resource should pay a separation tax. This is part of the overall geolibertarian approach. Once it has been transformed into a product, it can be traded and sold freely like any other product with no taxes. This is because the land continues to generate an economic rent while the product that was produced from the raw materials does not.

In the real world, I couldn't care less who owned the land before I did. I know that I purchased the land legally in accordance with the practices of my government, and that makes it mine.

Cail, your clearly not a libertarian. Indeed, you have questioned in this thread from where rights are derived.

Where does any right come from?

A rights based libertarian would already have their own arbitrary definition.

[Avatar]

Interesting posts folks. I'm watching, but I don't have the time or energy to sort out my thoughts on this right now. Soon as I get a chance though...

--A

[Marv]

Malik,

Your obviously intent on making our disagreements personal. Given that, I would ask you to justify your beliefs or keep your mouth shut.

If you actually think there is no justification for personal property, then by all means PM me and I'll give you my address to where you can mail me all your stuff.

Complete BS.

1. When or where did I say that all private property was unjustified? Most private property can be logically justified. Property rights in land cannot. It stems from nothing. It is not a derivitive of freedom. Therefore, the right to private property is not ABSOLUTE.

2. How does what you've said justify property rights in land as an absolute right?

If C thinks an agreement between A and B is negatively affecting him, then there are legal courses of action which can be taken. There is no collapse of the "superstructure" just because someone decides to sue.

Implicit and explicit contracts are being made all the time. Am I to sue every time one of them 'negatively' affects me? Where do we draw the line? I would suggest the wherever it is drawn would be arbitrary.

Don't you think there is anything at all to which you are entitled by virtue of being an individual?

I think a logical argument can be made for the right to own the product of your own labor or the right to sell your labor at a market determined price.

[Cail]

Maybe Tazz, but I think you are ignoring logic and arguing an indefensible point. Good for you, but there's no point in continuing this discussion if you acknowledge the legitimacy of governments and national borders in one breath and deny personal land rights in the next.

[Marv]

Maybe Tazz, but I think you are ignoring logic and arguing an indefensible point. Good for you, but there's no point in continuing this discussion if you acknowledge the legitimacy of governments and national borders in one breath and deny personal land rights in the next.

Firstly, the legitimacy of government has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. Secondly, I believe that freedom of movement and the economy are essential for liberty. And thirdly, this is The Close is it not? Where we discuss philosophy, ethics and rights? Not a place to discuss the economics and practical implimentation of georgism.

However, I respect your position, Cail. As far as i can make out you dont believe in absolute rights. The way things are works for you and in your opinion has been pretty succesful. If I had started a thread suggesting Georgism as a more efficient alternative then I would be expected to convince you of that.

Libertarians and objectivists believe in certain freeborn rights. The ABSOLUTE right to private property. The ABSOLUTE right to freedom of contract. Whether, as Malik asserts, these are not the founding principles of Libertariansim is moot. They are a significant part of the philosophy and they cannot be defended logically.

Thus far the two members of this forum that have most in common with the Libertarian position(Malik and James) have not even attempted to refute my position.