hfavr@mtuxo.UUCP (a.reed) (11/23/85)
In an earlier posting I outlined the Propertarian argument as follows: A RIGHT to do something is the condition of not being subject to (morally or politically) legitimate coercion in consequence of having done it. OWNERSHIP is simply the right to use or trade the owned entity in any way that does not invade, or threaten to invade, the person or property of another. ...<comment on termination of ownership>... FREEDOM is the right to do anything one can physically do, as long as this does not invade, or threaten to invade, the person or property of another. Under this definition, freedom implies the right to use or trade any thing that was never owned by anyone else: since no one else has ever owned it, using it cannot possibly be an invasion of another individual's person or property in and of itself. But having the right to use it in any way that does not invade, or threaten to invade, the person or property of another, means OWNING it. Thus, the above definitions of freedom and of ownership imply that freedom subsumes the right to establish ownership over any previously unowned object. ...<comments on creation of wealth and value>... To which carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) replied as follows: > Let me clarify what I am asking with an example. Migrating down from > the Bering Straits, Running Dog comes across a tract of virgin land, > previously unused by humans. He clears and tills 100 acres and grows > corn. Running Dog has read some "libertarian" writings and now, to > the consternation of the tribal council, declares that he and he > alone possesses the moral rights of ownership to the 100 acres; that > is, he claims to possess the *moral* right to use, profit from, sell, > or give away the land, and no one else has the right to do so without > his consent. The tribal elders don't buy it. Who is right and why? > If there is insufficient information to answer the question, what > further information is required? The case is important because all > natural resources that people need to survive were at one time or > still are in the same position as the 100 acres. > I don't think Adam's article contains an answer to this question, but > if it does I would appreciate someone stating it explicitly. OK, I left the definition of property implicit in the last article. So: A person's PROPERTY is the ensemble of things over which the person exercises ownership. Now once RD begins to use the previously unowned land, as is his right as a free person under the above definition of freedom, he is thereby exercising ownership over it. At this point it becomes his property, with implications stated in the definitions of freedom and ownership above. (For a consideration of the *moral* issues, see the discussion of wealth and value creation in my original article.) I still expect Carnes to disagree at the level of definitions. Adam Reed (npois!adam)
laura@l5.uucp (Laura Creighton) (11/24/85)
From Richard Carnes: Let me clarify what I am asking with an example. Migrating down from the Bering Straits, Running Dog comes across a tract of virgin land, previously unused by humans. He clears and tills 100 acres and grows corn. Running Dog has read some "libertarian" writings and now, to the consternation of the tribal council, declares that he and he alone possesses the moral rights of ownership to the 100 acres; that is, he claims to possess the *moral* right to use, profit from, sell, or give away the land, and no one else has the right to do so without his consent. The tribal elders don't buy it. Who is right and why? If there is insufficient information to answer the question, what further information is required? The case is important because all natural resources that people need to survive were at one time or still are in the same position as the 100 acres. There is a problem with this example. 100 acres is an awful lot of land. Assuming that Running Dog ended up on the prarie (where tilling the land is not the problem it could be) having the seed grain for 100 acres of corn is problematical. Did he buy it? With *whose* property? It is also necessary to know exactly what is the claim of the tribal elders. Nobody has owned land before, so nobody can own land now? The reply to that is that nobody has made such wealth as corn fields before. Nobody has used the land this way before, and made it so valuable. We don't want to participate in the agrarian revolution, and keep our old ways of hunting and gathering? Fine, but Running Dog, not being a slave, should be free to persue the farming way of life. We supported and fed you while you were doing no hunting, just planting and keeping the animals from eating your corn. Now you owe us a share. (Hmm. The venture capitalists are getting uppity :-) ) If this is the case, then I think that the elders have a claim to some of the corn. The question is -- whose idea was it to grow corn? If the council decided to and assigned this task to Running Dog then the council has a very strong claim (but next year RD can plant his own corn field). If Running Dog approached the elders and got approval for his plan then the case of the elders is still strong, but since Running Dog can claim the idea that transformed the land into corn fields, his claim is also strong. If Running Dog did his farming as a spare time project then his claim is very strong and the elders is weaker -- it was only after he became successful that the elders want a piece of the action. Or are the elders claiming that all members of the tribe are slaves of the tribe as a whole and that Running Dog should be worked to the bone and exploited for the sake of the good of the tribe? If this is the case, then Running Dog is probably going to lose his land -- slave holders are not known for respecting the rights of their slaves. When he gets a chance, it is time to escape from the tribe first and build a farm second. -- Laura Creighton sun!l5!laura (that is ell-five, not fifteen) l5!laura@lll-crg.arpa
carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (11/26/85)
Adam Reed writes: >OK, I left the definition of property implicit in the last article. So: >A person's PROPERTY is the ensemble of things over which the person >exercises ownership. Now once [Running Dog] >begins to use the previously unowned >land, as is his right as a free person under the above definition of >freedom, he is thereby exercising ownership over it. At this point it >becomes his property, with implications stated in the definitions of >freedom and ownership above. (For a consideration of the *moral* issues, >see the discussion of wealth and value creation in my original article.) This argument seems to beg an important question: whether the land in question was unowned previous to RD's cultivation of it. My story postulated that the land was previously *unused*, not that it was unowned. For clarity, I will further postulate that the land was discovered by Running Dog -- no one had known previously of its existence. >OWNERSHIP is simply the right to use or trade the owned entity in any way >that does not invade, or threaten to invade, the person or property of >another. >A person's PROPERTY is the ensemble of things over which the person >exercises ownership. These two definitions are mutually circular, i.e., they include each other in their definitions, and therefore tell us nothing except the relation between the two concepts. If we put the two definitions together, we have (condensed): OWNERSHIP is the right to use an entity in any way that does not invade the aggregate of things over which another person exercises OWNERSHIP. This may be a true statement, but it obviously doesn't tell us what "ownership" means, so we still don't know what the term means. I think the terms "own" and "ownership" are the main source of the confusion. If so, Adam (or anyone) can clear up the confusion by restating the argument without using the term "own" or its derivatives, and without using terms like "property" that include an "own-term" in their definition, and instead substituting terms that explicate the meanings of the "own-terms." I'm requesting this so that we can clarify the logical structure of the argument, which I confess I don't understand: i.e., exactly which premises lead through what steps of reasoning to which conclusions. I think the Propertarian argument will run into serious trouble if this is attempted, but let's see. -- Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (11/30/85)
>From Richard Carnes: > > Let me clarify what I am asking with an example. Migrating down from > the Bering Straits, Running Dog comes across a tract of virgin land, > previously unused by humans. He clears and tills 100 acres and grows > corn. Running Dog has read some "libertarian" writings and now, to > the consternation of the tribal council, declares that he and he > alone possesses the moral rights of ownership to the 100 acres; that > is, he claims to possess the *moral* right to use, profit from, sell, > or give away the land, and no one else has the right to do so without > his consent. The tribal elders don't buy it. Who is right and why? > If there is insufficient information to answer the question, what > further information is required? The case is important because all > natural resources that people need to survive were at one time or > still are in the same position as the 100 acres. > >There is a problem with this example. 100 acres is an awful lot of > ..... > >We don't want to participate in the agrarian revolution, and keep our old >ways of hunting and gathering? Fine, but Running Dog, not being a slave, >should be free to persue the farming way of life. > >-- >Laura Creighton Surely not if his tilling of 100 acres has damaged the ecology for the hunters and gatherers? This is far from an academic example, because it is precisely the conversion of land to farmland (and other "wealth- producing") activities that is likely to destroy us all. The original habitats of an enormous number of species are destroyed by our "Running Dog" behaviour. Is Brazil entitled to allow the Amazonian forests to be destroyed because they are in its territory? They have the power, because we currently have a quasi-libertarian approach to international affairs, but I strongly deny that they have a right to do so. Even under the libertarian principles of allowing conversion of land to private ownership, there is a prior condition that the land is not being used. Did Running Dog enquire of the bears, birds, deer, and other people whether they might have been using the land before he started up his plow? If you answer that the wildlife are not people, and therefore need not be consulted, how far are you from denying that Amerindians are people, in order to justify Homesteading? The Running Dog example is a fine one, that clearly illustrates the fallacy of the propertarian approach to ownership. Ownership is not an all-or-none thing. One has no right to absolute ownership of anything, but has rights to do with one's property only those things that are not damaging to the rest of society. Unfortunately, it is often hard to determine when damage is likely to occur, so the limits of these "rights" are hard to determine in practice. But practical considerations demand that such limits must exist. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
laura@l5.uucp (Laura Creighton) (12/02/85)
In article <1739@dciem.UUCP> mmt@dciem.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes: > >Surely not if his tilling of 100 acres has damaged the ecology for the >hunters and gatherers? This is far from an academic example, because >it is precisely the conversion of land to farmland (and other "wealth- >producing") activities that is likely to destroy us all. The original >habitats of an enormous number of species are destroyed by our >"Running Dog" behaviour. Is Brazil entitled to allow the Amazonian >forests to be destroyed because they are in its territory? They have >the power, because we currently have a quasi-libertarian approach to >international affairs, but I strongly deny that they have a right to >do so. The original question propsed that the farmland that Running Dog tilled was unused. Are you serious in claiming that it is the conversion of land to farmland that is likely to destroy us all? Do you have any idea of the life expectancy of pre-agrarian societies? If the people in Brazil want to knock down the Amazonian forests to improve their lives, I'm all for it. -- Laura Creighton sun!l5!laura (that is ell-five, not fifteen) l5!laura@lll-crg.arpa
mwm@ucbopal.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (I'll be mellow when I'm dead) Meyer) (12/02/85)
In article <1739@dciem.UUCP> mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) writes: >Even under the libertarian principles of allowing conversion of land >to private ownership, there is a prior condition that the land is not >being used. Did Running Dog enquire of the bears, birds, deer, and >other people whether they might have been using the land before he >started up his plow? If you answer that the wildlife are not people, and >therefore need not be consulted, how far are you from denying that >Amerindians are people, in order to justify Homesteading? Even without the propertarian principles allowing conversion of land to private ownership, the question of asking the flora&fauna (you didn't mention any fauna, Martin!) about re-arranging the ecology of the land is immaterial. The reasoning behind this is that Humanity, as a race, has the same rights to modify the ecology as any other race. For a concrete example, if humanity decided - by democratic vote - to dam a river to make a reservoir, we'd have as much right to make that attempt as a collection of beavers. Of course, if you can get the flora&fauna of a region to sign a mutual, verifiable :-) freeze on ecology-changing, I'd probably vote for signing it. But under those conditions, I'd be willing to grant "person"-hood to those flora&fauna, so they'd get as much say as any other group of "person"'s. <mike
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (12/03/85)
>In article <1739@dciem.UUCP> mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) writes: >>Even under the libertarian principles of allowing conversion of land >>to private ownership, there is a prior condition that the land is not >>being used. Did Running Dog enquire of the bears, birds, deer, and >>other people whether they might have been using the land before he >>started up his plow? If you answer that the wildlife are not people, and >>therefore need not be consulted, how far are you from denying that >>Amerindians are people, in order to justify Homesteading? > >Even without the propertarian principles allowing conversion of land to >private ownership, the question of asking the flora&fauna (you didn't >mention any fauna, Martin!) about re-arranging the ecology of the land is >immaterial. The reasoning behind this is that Humanity, as a race, has the >same rights to modify the ecology as any other race. > >For a concrete example, if humanity decided - by democratic vote - to dam a >river to make a reservoir, we'd have as much right to make that attempt as a >collection of beavers. Oh, so you DO accept the principle that "might makes right," do you? Ever hear of "noblesse oblige?" Sure, we have as much right to re-arrange the ecology as does any other species, but there has been lots of talk about conepts such as "rationality" as opposed to force (I don't buy those arguments, but they seem to apply in this case). The beavers build dams in some kind of equilibrium with the rest of the ecology: their dams are small compared to ours, and they do it because that's what beavers do. Perhaps we also build dams because that's what humans do (i.e. grow numerous and destroy). We have more control (so we think), and more power. With power SHOULD come responsibility to use that power fairly. We steal the land from the indigenous population, claiming it to be unused (you didn't answer the question about Amerinds and Homesteading, although the rationale is the same as in the Running Dog example -- the land was unused because no humans were using it) and then we make it unusable for the original population by changing its characteristics. We also make it unusable by fellow "humans", by claiming it as property. By what morality does might make right? It is antithetic to everything I read from Liber- Propertarians, yet seems to lie at the foundation of their philosophy. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (12/05/85)
>The original question propsed that the farmland that Running Dog tilled was >unused. Are you serious in claiming that it is the conversion of land >to farmland that is likely to destroy us all? Do you have any idea of the >life expectancy of pre-agrarian societies? If the people in Brazil want to >knock down the Amazonian forests to improve their lives, I'm all for it. >-- >Laura Creighton "Unused" is a relative term. It depends on who is doing the defining. Running Dog's land was not unused by hunters or the prey of hunters, or by other animals. And, yes, I am serious in suggesting "that it is the conversion of land to farmland that is likely to destroy us all." Let me explain. Obviously, farming provides the opportunity for more and better food, and allows the community to include people whose activities are not food acquisition. It permits all the developments of civilization, and without it, life is indeed "nasty, brutish, and short." So far, so good. If that were all there was to it, then clearly there could be no complaints. But that isn't all there is to it. The increase in food supply permits an increase in population. The increased population demands an increase in the farmed area, ... , until suddenly there is no more land to be farmed. OK, technology allows improved yields, so the population continues to increase, but against an increasingly inelastic frontier. Furthermore, this agricultural technology is energy-intensive, and can be fuelled (at present) only by burning fossil fuel, which dumps enormous quantities of CO2 into the air (if all the readily available coal and oil is burned, as it probably will be in 2-300 years, the CO2 in the air will be increased tenfold). When there is a reduction in energy supplies, there is pressure on resources, which leads to fights over the possession of those resources. Also, agriculture will become less productive because (i) plants grown in high CO2 tend to be more luxuriant but less nutritious than normal plants (at CO2 levels up to twice the pre-industrial levels), and (ii) there will be less energy to provide fertilizers and to move the machinery, and all the other energy uses that go into modern agriculture. If, (what a big IF), we can substantially reduce our population without all-out war within the lifetime of most of those now living, we may yet survive. But if we continue to burn fossil fuel, there will be less land (ocean transgression) and much of that land will be less productive, and what the productive land produces will be less valuable as nutrition. The pressure on land resources will mount even further, and you know what? They stopped making land a while back! Now for a completely different line of argument. Agriculture depends on viable plants. Most high-yield agriculture is based on cloned strains, so that the entire crop is vulnerable to the same stresses. Too much destruction of the wild habitat to make farmland means the loss of the genetic variability in the ancestral stock. Rescue operations that are now being done to save wild seeds cannot work in the long term, because even in deep freeze the seeds both lose their viability and tend to produce distorted plants if kept too long. Similarly with animal species. Loss of habitat causes the extinction of huge numbers of species. It is estimated that the extinctions of this century parallel in extent the great extinctions of the geological record. Does this not worry you? Do Libertarian principles over-ride these considerations? These extinctions are almost entirely caused by conversion of wild habitat to farmland. And we may kill ourselves thereby, when we lose our beautifully engineered crops to some mutated virus and we no longer have any resistant strains to work with. As for Brazil, destruction of the Amazonian forests is not a matter for them alone. Those forests make a substantial part of our oxygen, and absorb a substantial amount of CO2. Even without all the rest of it, it is conceivable (but unlikely) that Brazil's policies BY THEMSELVES could kill many of us, simply by conversion of the forest to (relatively unproductive) farmland. Even in Libertaria, do they have that right? Does my neighbour have the right to commit suicide by blowing himself up with a bomb that destroys my house? I can't sue him afterwards, and we won't be able to get Brazil to restore the rain forest, either, if it does turn out to be an ecological disaster. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
mwm@ucbopal.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (I'll be mellow when I'm dead) Meyer) (12/07/85)
In article <1740@dciem.UUCP> mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) writes: >> == mwm@ucbopal (me) >>The reasoning behind this is that Humanity, as a race, has the >>same rights to modify the ecology as any other race. > >Oh, so you DO accept the principle that "might makes right," do you? No, I am not a statist. I DO accept the principle that "ability makes right; until it interferes with another persons rights." That's nothing more than a restatement of what I call use-right, a weaker version of the propertarian use/ownership equivalence. Now, I believe that animals are *not* persons. Therefore, there isn't any problem with using them to make the lifes of persons more pleasant, etc. Should the basic assumption prove to be wrong for some species (other higher primates & cetaceans, mayhap?) I'll grant them the same rights as other persons. I even said as much in the original article. >Ever hear of "noblesse oblige?" > >Sure, we have as much right to re-arrange the ecology as does any other >species, but there has been lots of talk about conepts such as "rationality" >as opposed to force. Matter of fact, I have. The ability to build large dams doesn't mean we should. Rationality comes in deciding whether to build a dam. Only persons have a say in that decision - after all, we don't get a say in how animals alter the ecology, why should they get a say in how we alter it? The welfare of animals may enter into that decision, but how much it does is up to us, not them. >The beavers build dams in some kind of equilibrium >with the rest of the ecology: And our's aren't? Our dams make larger changes in the ecology, and take a little longer to reach a semi-stable ecology. The result is still as much an equilibrium as the beaver dam. >you didn't answer >the question about Amerinds and Homesteading, although the rationale >is the same as in the Running Dog example -- the land was unused because >no humans were using it I didn't answer the question because I considered the answer obvious, and you had it right. However, since you choose to build an insulting straw man, I'll answer it now. (This also means the quality of your posting has dropped enormously. Why does this happen at the same time it happens to Carnes?) If any persons - Amerinds being persons - were using the property before running dog fenced it off, and his fencing it off interfered with that use, their rights have been violated, and that fencing it off was wrong. Unlike statists, I think this is true even if RD is a representative of the state, and the state has ordered him to do it "for the common good." >By what morality does might make right? It is antithetic to everything >I read from Liber- Propertarians, yet seems to lie at the foundation of >their philosophy. Martin, you sound like LKK. If you don't think might makes right, then how do you defend the state using might to collect taxes from people who don't think the amount and/or use of the collected money is right? If you don't defend it, but think that it's wrong, welcome yourself to the ranks of the libertarians. Or you could just remain a statist, and let "might makes right" be not merely at the foundation of your philosophy, but the material it is woven from. <mike