You claim to have read Ayn Rand. Do you remember how Galt's Gulch was financed?
Printable View
Incorrect.
No, it isn't.
You don't know what the landowner needs or desires (other than food/water/shelter). Everything else is a subjective value judgement-even and especially your claims about property.
Yes, some things that cannot be owned-like IP-is immoral. Land, airspace, and other property is perfectly moral and, sorry-a matter of rational self-interest and practicality, not greed. Until there is a super-abundance of material things and land, your fantasy of abolishing private property will remain a fantasy. No property-less society has ever lasted a significant amount of time.
Oh, really? Whom do you claim has no right to access and use the natural resources required to sustain life? And in just what, exactly, would a right to life consist in the absence of a right to access and use what nature provides?
That is not property; it is forcible animal possession. Possession obtained by nothing but force is just as validly overturned by force.Quote:
It's for whomever can claim it.
Nonsense. It just indisputably isn't. Self-ownership is ownership of the self, not the land, the sea, the sky, the moon, the sun, the planets or the stars.Quote:
It is an extension of self-ownership.
I understand them perfectly. Their arguments are simply not logically defensible. Every philosopher of any competence who has addressed the problem of property in land has recognized that it is logically and morally defective. Some have pretended to have found a rationalization for it. None has in fact succeeded in doing so. Locke, for example, resorts to a notion of "mixing one's labor with land," a patent physical impossibility and nothing but an uninformative and misleading metaphor. There are products of labor and land unaltered by labor. There is no such thing as a "mixture" of land and labor, and never can be.Quote:
You clearly don't understand Locke or any other Natural Rights philosophers. Go do some reading.
Not true at all. Every society has had private ownership of property. The most applicable to us would the the native Americans. Many try to say they didn't. That is just another lie fed to you my a crappy educational system. Indians invaded the lands of other tribes ALL THE TIME and wiped them out to take that land for themselves. Sure the wandering tribes didn't have "land" but its because they were nomadic, NOT because they had some egalitarian system of communal ownership. But they all had personal possessions. But its kinda hard to claim land permanently you don't settle on. And every tribe that didn't travel regularly (i.e. all tribes but the plains tribes) did actually have personal land rights. Your house was yours. The plot of land it was on was yours. Everything in your housing structure was yours. This was even the case with the tribes that lived in larger family dwellings. The land technically was in possession of the family elder(s) who dispersed it amongst the family. It was closer to inheritance laws today than anything else. And this pattern repeats world wide. For 100% percet of human history there has been private land owning it just got into larger and larger plots of land as the ages progressed to the modern era.
Wrong. I know the inherent character of what he does as landowner. As labor earns (deserves) its product, and land is not a product of labor, it is impossible that he could deserve ownership of the land. And as tenants live just fine without owning land, I know that he does not need it. Landowning is therefore an expression of greed just as surely as raping is an expression of lust.
Nope. The facts are self-evident and indisputable. There is no basis for claims of property in land other than brute force. And as already explained, an advantage obtained by force is not property, and is just as validly overturned by force.Quote:
Everything else is a subjective value judgement-even and especially your claims about property.
The landowner privatizes what is rightly in the public domain just as the IP holder does.Quote:
Yes, some things that cannot be owned-like IP-is immoral.
And slaves, where slavery is sanctioned by law....?Quote:
Land, airspace, and other property is perfectly moral
Sorry, but that is a blatant question begging fallacy.
Bull$#!+. Hong Kong has not had any private ownership of land for over 160 years, and it has been eminently rational and practical.Quote:
and, sorry-a matter of rational self-interest and practicality, not greed.
You again choose deliberately to lie about what I have plainly written. I have never proposed abolishing private property. You know that. Of course you do. You just decided you had better deliberately lie about it.Quote:
Until there is a super-abundance of material things and land, your fantasy of abolishing private property will remain a fantasy.
<sigh> You know that I do not propose a property-less society, so you can stop lying. There was no such thing, not even such a concept, as property in land for 99% of the human species's history. That seems a more significant amount of time than the few thousand years since some evil genius concocted the notion of claiming what nature provided as his own, and found fools gullible enough to believe him.Quote:
No property-less society has ever lasted a significant amount of time.
Nor should the consumer.
Garbage. You could with equal "logic" claim the producer is only punished insofar as they choose to be.Quote:
And teh consumer is only "punished" insofar as they choose to be, for the most part anyway.
Production and consumption are just two sides of the same economic coin. You can't tax one without taxing the other, except to the extent that production is exported and consumption imported.
You are trying to change the subject, because you have no arguments and you know it.
The subject is private property IN LAND, not private property per se. I have stated this many times.
That was forcible animal possession, not property, and it was tribal and communal, not private.Quote:
The most applicable to us would the the native Americans. Many try to say they didn't. That is just another lie fed to you my a crappy educational system. Indians invaded the lands of other tribes ALL THE TIME and wiped them out to take that land for themselves.
Wrong again. Not all were nomadic. But none had private landowning.Quote:
Sure the wandering tribes didn't have "land" but its because they were nomadic, NOT because they had some egalitarian system of communal ownership.
Which were products of labor. Not land. This is stated clearly in the post to which you purport to be responding. Try reading it.Quote:
But they all had personal possessions.
European colonial powers did so routinely.Quote:
But its kinda hard to claim land permanently you don't settle on.
None had private property in land.Quote:
And every tribe that didn't travel regularly (i.e. all tribes but the plains tribes) did actually have personal land rights.
A house is not land. Please try not to be so dishonest.Quote:
Your house was yours.
No, that is a flat-out lie. You had temporary use of the land while your house was sitting on it. You had NO CLAIM WHATEVER to the land once you were no longer using it as a place to hold up your house.Quote:
The plot of land it was on was yours.
Nope. Only the products of labor. Try reading the post to which you purport to be responding.Quote:
Everything in your housing structure was yours.
Flat false. It was only temporary occupancy and use, not ownership, and was dissolved as soon as the land was vacated.Quote:
This was even the case with the tribes that lived in larger family dwellings. The land technically was in possession of the family elder(s) who dispersed it amongst the family.
Garbage. There was no ownership interest in the land. None. It was simply administration of temporary possession and use.Quote:
It was closer to inheritance laws today than anything else.
The pattern of no private landowning. Right.Quote:
And this pattern repeats world wide.
No, that is a flat-out lie.Quote:
For 100% percet of human history there has been private land owning
Complete garbage. You clearly know nothing whatever of land tenure traditions or the origin of property in land.Quote:
it just got into larger and larger plots of land as the ages progressed to the modern era.