orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (01/21/85)
> > A Response to Ken Montgomery's query: > > from me: tim sevener: > > "As I was walking that ribbon of highway > > I saw a sign said , "No trespassing" > > But the other side of the sign said nothing > > That sign was made for you and me" Woody Guthrie > > Why should land not be subject to the same inviolateness as any > other kind of property? > > Ken Montgomery "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" > ...!{ihnp4,allegra,seismo!ut-sally}!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working] > kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA [for Arpanauts only] Earlier I pointed out how naked FORCE had been used to claim the Indians territory (they had no concept of "owning" land, merely staked out territories). The same thing took place in the expansionist days of the Roman Republic. The aristocracy took control of large portions of Italy and other conquered territories as part of their participation in Roman wars of expansion. The aristocracy's large estates ("latifundia") were often unproductive. But what did it matter? The aristocracy had plenty to live off from their control of the land. Moreover they displaced the smaller Roman farmers and replaced their labor with that of slaves. The smaller Roman farmers were often more productive in their use of the land. But they were excluded from working the land because it was "owned" by the Roman aristocracy. The same thing that occurred in Rome is a common problem in many Third World countries. The Somoza family owned 70% of all the land in Nicaragua before the Sandinista Revolution. In this case and many others in which a landed aristocracy owns most of the land, much of the land goes idle. It is left idle both for the enjoyment of the aristocracy, and because there is little incentive to make it productive. The aristocracy is guaranteed a portion of their sharecroppers income anyway. While the peasants would often be glad and have been proven to work very hard to make the land productive if they were given the chance, they are excluded from making the land productive by the claims of private ownership. Some Economists who study development have examined successful cases of development- the US, Japan, and other countries. They have concluded that land reform, or the distribution of land to a number of small farmers rather than concentration of ownership by an elite has been a pivotal factor in successful development. They conclude that agriculture is critical to successful development -it is the base for industry rather than the other way around. It should also be noted that both the US and Japan have done the opposite of countries such as Ethiopia: rather than penalizing agriculture they have provided price supports and subsidies, extension services and other aid to make agriculture profitable for the small producer. This conclusion supports neither Libertarianism nor collective socialism. For it suggests that some limits to property are vital to people's well-being: so long as a few people (like the Somozas) monopolize onwership that productivity will lag, and people will be mired in poverty and hungry. Thus some intrusion on property rights, implicit in land reform, is good. On the other hand, it shows that many small farmers actually owning their land are more productive than large collective farms. This is in line with the notion that people are motivated by their self-interest to work harder. The critical factor here is the DISTRIBUTION of wealth and the means of production. Just saying that all property rights are absolutely sacred (and somehow "fair") seems indefensible to me. Did not the kings claim that they in some sense "owned" all the land in their realm? Is this then a case of Libertarianism? If not, why not? If some corporation or individual comes to control (or group of corporations and individuals) most of the economy what does the freedom of property mean to the vast majority who own nothing? THIS is the problem for Libertarianism: it is the problem I have already raised with case of industrial monopoly. It is the problem posed by saying property rights are absolutely sacred without considering the justification or original source of such rights, nor their consequences. tim sevener whuxl!orb
wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (02/07/85)
> In this case and many others in which a landed > aristocracy owns most of the land, much of the land goes idle. It is left > idle both for the enjoyment of the aristocracy, and because there is little > incentive to make it productive. The thing is, it is BETTER for land to be left "idle" and "unproductive". Then the natural processes and growth may continue unimpeded and undamaged by interference from humanity; light use, like individual hunting for subsistence (as the Amerinds did), will not damage it, and fits in with the other natural predation. Why do we feel compelled to upset this situation? Because we have enough people to feed that we find it "necessary" to engage in unnatural practices like agriculture, dam and road building, etc. All of these degrade and harm the land and the environment in general. What all this arguing about social organizations, libertarianism vs. anarchism vs. socialism vs. whatever, and trying to find fault with this or that system, is ignoring is that the cause of all the problems is simply excessive people. Without excessive population, the whole concept of "government" and "social order" is moot. There is never any need for government if you live out your life without coming into contact with or interacting with other people, because the "problems" (which governmental systems have been created to solve) that have been artificially created by having large numbers of people forced into contact with each other never arise in the first place. All these "solutions" which net.politics is debating are for "problems" which we have created ourselves, and which will vanish if this mass of humanity were to vanish, and be replaced by a dispersed group of human beings which are of limited enough numbers that will fit into the natural environment without damaging it. The only reasons I have ever seen for there being more human beings than there are grizzly bears or blue whales or any other creature at the top of its food chain have been religious ("go forth and multiply" divine orders) and self-aggrandizing ("I want a lot of sons to carry on my family name and support me and give me power and strength"). I don't find those reasons valid or defensible. Note that this does NOT mean that humans have to live a subsistence hunter-gatherer existence, and have the classical "nasty, brutish, & short" lives of primitive peoples. Ther is no reason why we cannot devote our technology to devising automated support systems, using non-damaging sources of power like geothermal energy, robotic repair and maintenance, and underground systems of production and distribution (coupled with airborne), that will provide each member of such a limited human population with a life of luxury and ease, which they may spend in artistic effort, scientific research, or contemplating their navel, as they choose. (See some of the Well-World books of Jack Chalker for a description of the thought-controlled Markovian planetary computers which supported his fictionalized race of beings who had such an existence.) I find nothing outlandish in this as a "racial goal"; it requires a fundamental change in our present value system, in which we seem to ostensibly ascribe some arbitrary high "value" to human lives, and verbally claim that it is good that people are alive or living longer, while at the same time devoting effort to kill off this or that group of people. This is merely hypocrisy, of course. Any amount of people over a certain level have not only no value, but negative values. (That level seems to me to be about 100,000; arguments about this being too restrictive a gene pool are easily countered by keeping extensive gene banks (or sperm & ova banks).) I've done my part in this; I've been sterilized and have no children. If we merely redirected the wasted efforts we now are expending on useless nonsense, we could achieve this (I would call it Paradise) in a few generations. This does not preclude the concomittant expansion and dispersion of humanity throughout space, either. Will Martin
cliff@unmvax.UUCP (02/09/85)
> What all this arguing about social organizations, libertarianism vs. > anarchism vs. socialism vs. whatever, and trying to find fault with > this or that system, is ignoring is that the cause of all the problems > is simply excessive people. I do agree that large populations do have special problems and that many problems are exacerbated by large populations, but there is still a significant amount of harm done by groups of people's desire to prevent practices that they personally dislike. This has occurred throughout history in large and small communities. I guess there is nothing that compares to the self-righteous feeling that people get when they think they are acting for the good of everyone. Hey! let's force people to subsidize medical care...Now let's prevent people from doing things that we consider unhealthy, because the burden of this subsidized medical care is too great... > Without excessive population, the whole concept of "government" and > "social order" is moot. There is never any need for government if > you live out your life without coming into contact with or interacting > with other people, because the "problems" (which governmental systems have > been created to solve) that have been artificially > created by having large numbers of people forced into contact with > each other never arise in the first place. All these "solutions" which > net.politics is debating are for "problems" which we have created > ourselves, and which will vanish if this mass of humanity were to > vanish, and be replaced by a dispersed group of human beings which > are of limited enough numbers that will fit into the natural > environment without damaging it. I like the idea of smaller populations, but I am not sure that it would prevent people from trying to force others into submission. Can you provide examples of how a smaller population would cut down on the persecution of individuals through victimless crime laws? I am not saying you are wrong, I just don't see how it directly applies. > The only reasons I have ever seen for there being more human beings than > there are grizzly bears or blue whales or any other creature at the > top of its food chain have been religious ("go forth and multiply" > divine orders) and self-aggrandizing ("I want a lot of sons to carry on > my family name and support me and give me power and strength"). I don't > find those reasons valid or defensible. I don't like these reasons either, I am glad that you aren't suggesting legislation preventing procreation for either of those reasons. I like the idea of trying to lead a good example a lot better. > Note that this does NOT mean that humans have to live a subsistence > hunter-gatherer existence, and have the classical "nasty, brutish, & short" > lives of primitive peoples. Ther is no reason why we cannot devote > our technology to devising automated support systems, using non-damaging > sources of power like geothermal energy, robotic repair and maintenance, and > underground systems of production and distribution (coupled with airborne), > that will provide each member of such a limited human population with a > life of luxury and ease, which they may spend in artistic effort, > scientific research, or contemplating their navel, as they choose. Good show! I too am for such an existence. > I find nothing outlandish in this as a "racial goal"; it requires > a fundamental change in our present value system, in which we seem > to ostensibly ascribe some arbitrary high "value" to human lives, > and verbally claim that it is good that people are alive or living > longer, while at the same time devoting effort to kill off this or > that group of people. This is merely hypocrisy, of course. Any > amount of people over a certain level have not only no value, but > negative values. (That level seems to me to be about 100,000; arguments > about this being too restrictive a gene pool are easily countered by > keeping extensive gene banks (or sperm & ova banks).) I believe it an admirable goal, and since you don't appear to desire force or threat of force to meet such a goal I must admit I think it is a good idea. I don't know about 100,000 as a particular number, but I do think I thinned human population would help many global problems immediately and maybe everything else would work itself out. > I've done my part in this; I've been sterilized and have no children. I too am sterilized (I had a vasectomy--standing in front of a terminal screen filled with @'s would have taken too long :-) and I have no children. I don't know what age you decided to go for the big S, but I started thinking about it when I was 16. I fought like hell when I was 18 to find someone that would perform the operation and after I convinced a doctor and waited the 6 month cooling off period I was 19 years old. I haven't regretted the decision. There are enough people out there without me bringing more into the world. I still intend to be a parent, but I don't need to boost my ego by making sure the kid has my genes. Setting an example is better than force any day. > If we merely redirected the wasted efforts we now are expending on > useless nonsense, we could achieve this (I would call it Paradise) > in a few generations. This does not preclude the concomittant > expansion and dispersion of humanity throughout space, either. Sounds good to me. > Will Martin --Cliff
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (02/11/85)
> The thing is, it is BETTER for land to be left "idle" and "unproductive". > Then the natural processes and growth may continue unimpeded and > undamaged by interference from humanity; ... > Will Martin I think Will has invented a new meaning for the term, "property rights"... --JoSH