[Elect G-Max]

You seem to be ignoring the need to hold property in reserve for later use.

If I bring a laptop to Starbucks and need to use the bathroom, this does not mean that any random jackass can "borrow" my laptop until I get back. You stay the goddamn hell away from my laptop, even if I'm not there.

[mikema63]

Different types of property have different time periods till loss of ownership.

For instance if someone where to try to claim ownership of a warehouse of held grain you can easily show that you are storing it for sale when there is a shortage later in the year or a drought period.

Your laptop is not at risk I assure you it would not work that way.

[lucky]

For instance if someone where to try to claim ownership of a warehouse of held grain you can easily show that you are storing it for sale when there is a shortage later in the year or a drought period.

I sure am glad we don't live in that system and I don't have to regularly explain to some bureaucrat why I'm storing my grain or why I have two cars, and so on.

Surely, if the guy objects to the looting of his warehouse, he must have *some* reason for his objections, doesn't he? So surely he's using it or planning to use it for something, otherwise he wouldn't expend energy complaining about people breaking in. What else do you want him to prove to the regulators? Would "I'm planning to swim in my grain with my family, once a year" satisfy your thirst for active usage?

Different types of property have different time periods till loss of ownership.

And those proper maximum periods of inactivity for every particular thing shall be decided by an expert team of elected economic planning officials?

[mikema63]

Common law precedent actually.

Am I being kicked out now?

[lucky]

Common law precedent actually.

Common law today doesn't put limits on how long you can own stuff without using it, so according to common law precedent, the time periods are infinite. Issue settled then?

Your preference is therefore different from common law. It would still be useful if you clarified. Is swimming in grain once a year fine usage by your version of the law, or not good enough?

[mikema63]

Swimming in grain?

My point is actually that the system would be similar, cases would be overheard with outcomes of what constitutes use or disuse of property and the time periods determined by precedent and evidence.

As for swimming in the grain once a year no of course not, if you regularly swim in a swimming pool of grain then your weird but I guess it's okay.

At least so long as I ignore the terrible health aspect to it.

[lucky]

As for swimming in the grain once a year no of course not, if you regularly swim in a swimming pool of grain then your weird but I guess it's okay.

I've seen weirder things happen in response to counter-productive regulations. It's not irrational: if a quick dip in it can save the grain from confiscation, then it's a small cost to pay.

[Nunt]

I've seen weirder things happen in response to counter-productive regulations. It's not irrational: if a quick dip in it can save the grain from confiscation, then it's a small cost to pay.

That reminds me of this:

[mikema63]

If you have a actual reason to hold grain for more than a year it's fine, the only reason you would need to justify your claim in such a way would be if you plan to keep it till it rots.

What exactly is you hypothetical guy planning to do with the grain?

[Eran]

Having read previous posts, I don't think there is a substantive disagreement over the principle of abandonment. Most people agree both that (1) property could become abandoned, and (2) that common sense can and ought to be used in determining whether that has taken place or not.

The same common sense can and ought to be used to determine the boundaries of homesteading. The key is that the resources in question (land or otherwise) are incorporated into a peaceful projects in ways that reasonably require exclusive access.

In either case it is futile to try and define the exact rules from an academic arm-chair and without access to specific facts and circumstances.

[mikema63]

Certainly, I've just given a brief outline.

Since you've been gone what do you think about the above outline and what is you opinion on using catallaxy to contrast it with historical capitalism for ease of use?

[Eran]

I think it is very useful to differentiate between historic capitalism and pure capitalism. I don't have a strong view over whether to term the former "Crony Capitalism", reserving "Capitalism" for the latter, or whether to use "Capitalism" for the former, and use either "Pure Capitalism" or Catallactics (as you have done) for the latter.

I have never before seen the term used in this context. I know of it as the subset of Praxeology, rather than as referring to a non-state version of capitalism.

[mikema63]

Well it's a temporary label to put out my intention, I remember it as originally to be a word to take the place of economics, as I forget which economist found economics a lacking term.

IIRC it means the sum of all voluntary agreements and exchanges or some such, I thought it was abetted term for what we want rather than capitalism which just means the accumulation of capital in private hands.

[Eran]

Catallactics is the study of free exchanges in the presence of money (and thus prices). It is at once narrower and broader than the kind of free-market society you describe. It is narrower, because free-market society need not use money, prices or even exchange. Free-market is consistent, for example, with a gift economy. It is broader because the study of Catallactics is consistent with some level of government interference.

Having said that, I certainly have no objection to the use of the term in contexts in which confusion is unlikely.

As stated before, I applaud any contribution to the removal of the confusion between the two systems.

[Elect G-Max]

Would "I'm planning to swim in my grain with my family, once a year" satisfy your thirst for active usage?

Swimming in grain?

Sort of like Scrooge McDuck, but with grain instead of gold coins.

[lucky]

^ Yep, that was my inspiration.

[mikema63]

Except that money represents value you've added which you have not used, it wouldn't be something you would lose property rights over.

[Decky]

Socialism and Libertarianism are apparently no so different. Under socialism the state (the avatar of the people's will as directed by there Communist party) redistributes things for the common good.

Under Libertarianism if you find something not nailed down and the current owner hasn't got the power to defend it then you can redistribute it to yourself? I think I understand.

When Libertarianism comes I'm getting a van and a crowbar and I'll start homesteading my neighbors TVs and stuff if they leave the house (after all they aren't using it are they).

[SolarCross]

Socialism and Libertarianism are apparently no so different. Under socialism the state (the avatar of the people's will as directed by there Communist party) redistributes things for the common good.

Under Libertarianism if you find something not nailed down and the current owner hasn't got the power to defend it then you can redistribute it to yourself? I think I understand.

When Libertarianism comes I'm getting a van and a crowbar and I'll start homesteading my neighbors TVs and stuff if they leave the house (after all they aren't using it are they).

What a perverse misunderstanding of Mike's proposition. If you can read and think at all clearly (apparently not the case with you) it is quite obvious that Catallaxy would consider your van and crowbar enterprise as unlawful.

Do you approve of state socialism?

[Decky]

Do you approve of state socialism?

A bit silly to phrase it as if it's yes/ no thing, however compared to capitalism, yes, yes, a thousand times yes.