7 ms·

So, nobody's got a valid claim. How come one guy who didn't build the farm can pay another guy who didn't build the farm and suddenly own it. Neither of them ha

by wnight 15y ago

So, nobody's got a valid claim. How come one guy who didn't build the farm can pay another guy who didn't build the farm and suddenly own it. Neither of them have any more claim to it than anyone else. If you think about it you can see why private ownership of resources is ridiculous. Unless you bought my share from me, fairly, why should I recognize your ownership claim? The only answer, of course, is the non-libertarian one: force. If you pay the biggest guy around for something he'll beat up anyone who wants a share of the payment and legitimize your claim because to prevent a run on his now-valuable right to sell everything, he has to crack down on theft. It's a scam no matter how you slice it.

lotharbot 15y ago
> So, nobody's got a valid claim. Under the previous guy's reasoning, that if you go back in time far enough "you'll find a corpse" and that this makes the property claim illegitimate, this is true. It's not reasoning I agree with, but I thought it was worth pointing out that if one accepts his reasoning, it contradicts his prior point that the Soviet people deserved compensation. > If you think about it you can see why private ownership of resources is ridiculous. I've thought about it and I think private ownership is perfectly reasonable in most cases. It's true that in the past, faction A took land or materials from faction B, who took them from faction C, and it's turtles all the way down. But within the context of faction A, I am the legitimate owner of certain items, and you are the legitimate owner of certain items, many of which we either created ourselves or received in exchange for other things we created. Since we have to start somewhere, "I am the present owner, and I paid for this in a legally binding manner" is as good a starting point as any. Trying to account for whether my ancestors paid for your share, or even how many shares we're entitled to based on the size of our family trees, is a waste of time.
- asciilifeform 15y ago
  it contradicts his prior point that the Soviet people deserved compensation. My point was that a better concept of legitimacy would define it as flowing out of how you use the property, rather than how you came to own it. The notion of land as a resource which belongs collectively to all of mankind is not a new one, and more than one internally-consistent philosophical system includes it.
  - lotharbot 15y ago
    > a better concept of legitimacy would define it as flowing out of how you use the property Why, then, do you argue that the Soviet people's loss of the property was not adequately compensated? If legitimacy is based on usage rather than how ownership occurred, why do you complain about how ownership came about? The statement that privatization is theft is a direct comment on the process of ownership transition! One can certainly make an internally consistent philosophical system based on public or communal ownership. I just don't think you've presented one.
- wnight 15y ago
  > But within the context of faction A, I am the legitimate owner of certain items Yes, and within the context of A' I'm also the owner of your stuff. I see no reason except your force of arms for staying in context A, especially after how you legitimized the theft from B and C. > Since we have to start somewhere, "I am the present owner, and I paid for this in a legally binding manner" is as good a starting point as any We already did start somewhere, this is umpteen thefts later. I see no reason to stop before umpteen plus one. > Trying to account for whether my ancestors paid for your share, or even how many shares we're entitled to based on the size of our family trees, is a waste of time. Exactly, and that's why private ownership of limited resources is ridiculous. If you own that land it's by depriving someone else, if you rent it from the collective your rent compensates others for the lost opportunity cost. All ownership comes down to force of arms. When picking someone to legitimize your claims of possession instead of picking a strongman, pick everyone.
  - lotharbot 15y ago
    > within the context of A' I'm also the owner of your stuff. But I don't live in context A'. I live in context A (which I was born into). If you want to transition to A', you're going to need force of arms sufficient to overcome those of us who'll shoot back in defense of A. Good luck with that. > this is umpteen thefts later. I see no reason to stop Because theft is bad. I didn't participate in any of the umpteen previous thefts. I can't untangle them or reverse them, but I see no reason to add to the mess. > if you rent it from the collective If I use any "rivalrous" good, my use deprives someone else. Whether it's land or food, if I'm using it you're not. If that's your criteria for determining that something belongs to the collective, then I can never acquire the means by which to pay rent to the collective. Even my labor is rivalrous and therefore falls under the same objection -- if I choose to use it for one purpose, I deprive you of the ability to use my labor for another purpose. It seems to me that "use deprives someone else" is a poor choice counterargument to private ownership. > When picking someone to legitimize your claims of possession ... pick everyone You mean everyone you didn't kill with force of arms when trying to transition to A', right? Why not actually include a true "everyone", by allowing people to voluntarily live under whatever system they choose? If you want to be a collectivist, go find or start a collective and donate all your stuff to it, and join with others who voluntarily agree to it. It can be done without using force of arms offensively. Whatever force of arms was used to steal in the past, leave that in the past.

by wnight 15y ago

lotharbot 15y ago

> So, nobody's got a valid claim. Under the previous guy's reasoning, that if you go back in time far enough "you'll find a corpse" and that this makes the property claim illegitimate, this is true. It's not reasoning I agree with, but I thought it was worth pointing out that if one accepts his reasoning, it contradicts his prior point that the Soviet people deserved compensation. > If you think about it you can see why private ownership of resources is ridiculous. I've thought about it and I think private ownership is perfectly reasonable in most cases. It's true that in the past, faction A took land or materials from faction B, who took them from faction C, and it's turtles all the way down. But within the context of faction A, I am the legitimate owner of certain items, and you are the legitimate owner of certain items, many of which we either created ourselves or received in exchange for other things we created. Since we have to start somewhere, "I am the present owner, and I paid for this in a legally binding manner" is as good a starting point as any. Trying to account for whether my ancestors paid for your share, or even how many shares we're entitled to based on the size of our family trees, is a waste of time.

asciilifeform 15y ago
it contradicts his prior point that the Soviet people deserved compensation. My point was that a better concept of legitimacy would define it as flowing out of how you use the property, rather than how you came to own it. The notion of land as a resource which belongs collectively to all of mankind is not a new one, and more than one internally-consistent philosophical system includes it.
- lotharbot 15y ago
  > a better concept of legitimacy would define it as flowing out of how you use the property Why, then, do you argue that the Soviet people's loss of the property was not adequately compensated? If legitimacy is based on usage rather than how ownership occurred, why do you complain about how ownership came about? The statement that privatization is theft is a direct comment on the process of ownership transition! One can certainly make an internally consistent philosophical system based on public or communal ownership. I just don't think you've presented one.
wnight 15y ago
> But within the context of faction A, I am the legitimate owner of certain items Yes, and within the context of A' I'm also the owner of your stuff. I see no reason except your force of arms for staying in context A, especially after how you legitimized the theft from B and C. > Since we have to start somewhere, "I am the present owner, and I paid for this in a legally binding manner" is as good a starting point as any We already did start somewhere, this is umpteen thefts later. I see no reason to stop before umpteen plus one. > Trying to account for whether my ancestors paid for your share, or even how many shares we're entitled to based on the size of our family trees, is a waste of time. Exactly, and that's why private ownership of limited resources is ridiculous. If you own that land it's by depriving someone else, if you rent it from the collective your rent compensates others for the lost opportunity cost. All ownership comes down to force of arms. When picking someone to legitimize your claims of possession instead of picking a strongman, pick everyone.
- lotharbot 15y ago
  > within the context of A' I'm also the owner of your stuff. But I don't live in context A'. I live in context A (which I was born into). If you want to transition to A', you're going to need force of arms sufficient to overcome those of us who'll shoot back in defense of A. Good luck with that. > this is umpteen thefts later. I see no reason to stop Because theft is bad. I didn't participate in any of the umpteen previous thefts. I can't untangle them or reverse them, but I see no reason to add to the mess. > if you rent it from the collective If I use any "rivalrous" good, my use deprives someone else. Whether it's land or food, if I'm using it you're not. If that's your criteria for determining that something belongs to the collective, then I can never acquire the means by which to pay rent to the collective. Even my labor is rivalrous and therefore falls under the same objection -- if I choose to use it for one purpose, I deprive you of the ability to use my labor for another purpose. It seems to me that "use deprives someone else" is a poor choice counterargument to private ownership. > When picking someone to legitimize your claims of possession ... pick everyone You mean everyone you didn't kill with force of arms when trying to transition to A', right? Why not actually include a true "everyone", by allowing people to voluntarily live under whatever system they choose? If you want to be a collectivist, go find or start a collective and donate all your stuff to it, and join with others who voluntarily agree to it. It can be done without using force of arms offensively. Whatever force of arms was used to steal in the past, leave that in the past.