[SueDeNîmes]

Then it's hardly homesteading, is it? Homesteading, OTOH, is an historical and biological anomaly - a preDarwinian guess at a state of nature - and by now all but impossible for most people unless they want to subsist in isolation. Legitimacy and property are matters of social convention, not Libertarian assertion.

Not quite. First, homesteading happens all the time, though not necessary homesteading of the surface of the Earth. For example, early in the 20th century, companies started homesteading radio frequencies (until the FCC confiscated all property rights in radio frequencies).

That hardly contradicts what I said, does it?

Mineral exploration and oceanic exploitation are other forms of homesteading still going on.

They are not. Companies seeking to exploit mineral and oceanic resources must apply for exploration, drilling etc licenses, the terms of which typically involve royalties and tax payable to the local sovereign people - ie the resource's rightful owners - and meeting their environmental, safety etc standards. North Sea operators, for example, have different obligations in the British and Norwegian sectors, and the division of the British sector in the event of Scottish devolution is under ongoing negotiation. IIRC, the US is unique in that an individual's surface estate confers mineral rights, but that still precludes homesteading.

As for property rights today, we should distinguish between land and portable objects. Land gets all the attention because it is tangible, and because historically it was the most economically-significant resource. That is no longer the case!

Measured by value, land is a small (and diminishing) fraction of the total wealth of society. Thus even if land ownership is somehow uncertain, the overall pattern of ownership is progressively clearer.

As for land, the libertarian approach is simplicity itself - the land should go to the person showing the best title to it. Normally, that would be the person currently owning the land, but that is only a presumption. If you can show a better claim, the land can be yours.

Some examples include:
1. The land was confiscated from you by government eminent domain action, and transferred to its current owner
2. You are a Palestinian refugee whose return to his land was prohibited by the Israeli government which later transferred ownership to another person
3. You are a tenant farmer whose family worked the land for generations, even though the formal title belongs to an aristocratic family


Even if I accept your point about ownership being a matter of social convention, the current convention is far from clear. In most ways, people who own a home and the community around them accept their claim for title.

I'd dispute that the Libertarian approach to land ownership is "simplicity itself" if it were relevant. Just ownership does not derive from homesteading in anything but Libertarian say-so. A sovereign peoples' right to enforce rules is no more initiation of aggression than a private property owner's, so long as people are free to leave.

People would stop paying taxes if it wasn't for the threat of being arrested by gun-wielding police agents.

They wouldn't and don't since they could vote them away. A party proposing any such thing wouldn't even retain its deposit outside the US and struggles to get 1% of the popular vote there. I could dodge tax by restricting myself to cash transactions, otherwise tax plus fines will eventually be garnished from wages or bank accounts and I'll never even glimpse "gun-wielding police agents." But like most folks, I pay them anyway because I value universal healthcare, education etc, and am only one accident or illness away from need of the safety net.

Rape isn't considered legitimate, even by the rapist, in today's western society. But in many societies, a husband was considered legitimised in forcing his wife to have sex. In those societies, husbands who used force to have sex with their wives didn't consider themselves initiating force. Much like government today, they considered it within their rights to do so. Does that make their action any less aggressive, any less of a rape?

No but since it's the same question-beg (it assumes its unfounded conclusion taxation -> rape), so what?

Saying "much like government today" is also dead wrong since it's "government today" that not only countermands a husband's right to rape, but prohibits his destituting her if she refuses - a right Libertarians would legitimise.

To the substance, is it your claim that taxing (or prohibiting the consumption of Marijuana, or any other instance of government regulation) doesn't constitute an initiation of force?

No, I'm saying a sovereign peoples' right to enforce rules is no more initiation of force than an employer's, a landlord's or a golf club's, so long as people are free to leave. Saying "any other instance of government regulation" - like saying "any other instance of employment terms" - could mean anything.

To make things simpler, consider a scenario in which a mining company finds valuable resources under an uninhabited land in the Australian Outback. The Australian government demands they pay taxes. The company refuses, and Australian agents come and arrest the people.

In what possible sense is that not an initiation of force?

Oh it's initiation of force alright. It's theft by the mining company upon the resource's rightful owners, who are as entitled to charge for its use as landlords are for land use.

[Eran]

Companies seeking to exploit mineral and oceanic resources must apply for exploration, drilling etc licenses, the terms of which typically involve royalties and tax payable to the local sovereign people - i.e. the resource's rightful owners - and meeting their environmental, safety etc standards.

When talking about oceanic resources, what "local people" do you have in mind? How about the Australian Outback? And what makes them the resource's "rightful owners"?

My point wasn't that homesteading allowed under current government law, but that there are many potentially-valuable resources that are, by libertarian legal standards, still unowned and consequently subject to homesteading.

A sovereign peoples' right to enforce rules is no more initiation of aggression than a private property owner's, so long as people are free to leave.

What gives a sovereign people (actually, the government ruling over those people) any right over resources that haven't been developed, touched or often even discovered of the land that they happen to have conquered?

Either you state outright that in your mind, possessing military force is a justification for setting rules, or else come up with a different standard for when a person (or a group of people) possess such rights.

I have offered my criterion, namely having an objective, interpersonally-ascertainable link to the resource through homesteading or just acquisition. In cases of uncertainty, reasonable people can judge amongst competing claims for title.

What do you offer? Anything government says?

They wouldn't and don't since they could vote them away.

Individual people would stop paying taxes if it wasn't for the threat of being arrested by gun-wielding police agents. No individual person can vote taxes away. Each of us is being threatened by violence if we don't give some of our property to the government.

That such ongoing threat and extortion is approved by the majority of the population doesn't take away from the fact that it is aggression.

If the majority authorised the systematic rape of female members of a minority, your argument for justifying taxation would still apply, wouldn't it?

I could dodge tax by restricting myself to cash transactions, otherwise tax plus fines will eventually be garnished from wages or bank accounts and I'll never even glimpse "gun-wielding police agents."

If you tried to set up a business while avoiding both paying taxes and depositing your money in banks (to avoid it being garnished), you would see agents coming to your door fairly quickly.

But like most folks, I pay them anyway because I value universal healthcare, education etc, and am only one accident or illness away from need of the safety net.

If a majority were willing to pay taxes willingly, we wouldn't call them "taxes". We would call them "voluntary contributions to the government's treasury".

Saying "much like government today" is also dead wrong since it's "government today" that not only countermands a husband's right to rape, but prohibits his destituting her if she refuses - a right Libertarians would legitimise.

Let me try again, though I realise my logic escapes you.

Each of your arguments in favour of not viewing taxes as aggression could equally apply to justify the rape of 14-year-old brides by their husbands if such practice was (as it historically was) viewed as legal by government authority.

In other words, all you are offering is the morally-relativistic argument that "taxes aren't aggression because most people approve of them". But then most people approved of rape, murder, human sacrifice, genocide and every other form of atrocity known to humanity. Your argument doesn't distinguish between taxes and any of the above.

NOTE - I am not suggesting you are not distinguishing between them, or that there is no distinction. Merely that your argument in support of taxation could equally apply to support any of the above.

No, I'm saying a sovereign peoples' right to enforce rules is no more initiation of force than an employer's, a landlord's or a golf club's, so long as people are free to leave. Saying "any other instance of government regulation" - like saying "any other instance of employment terms" - could mean anything.

A landlord derives his right for rent from having purchased and/or developed the land. In other words, through peaceful means. The government (or even the people) have only one claim upon the land they control - the fact that they control it. Militarily. There is no other link that can justify that claim.

And here is the core difference between libertarianism and statism. Property and sovereignty claims within libertarianism are always and exclusively based on past peaceful actions. Sovereignty claims under statism are always based on conquest and military force.

It's theft by the mining company upon the resource's rightful owners, who are as entitled to charge for its use as landlords are for land use.

In my scenario, the iron ores are found in land not occupied by any human being, and miles away from any land occupied by any human being. With that in mind, who are the "rightful owners" of that ore, and what makes them "rightful owners"?

[SueDeNîmes]

Companies seeking to exploit mineral and oceanic resources must apply for exploration, drilling etc licenses, the terms of which typically involve royalties and tax payable to the local sovereign people - i.e. the resource's rightful owners - and meeting their environmental, safety etc standards.

When talking about oceanic resources, what "local people" do you have in mind? How about the Australian Outback?

Oceanic resources - already explained with examples and edited out by you. Australian outback - the Australian people (or people of the local province, depending how the Australian people allot mineral rights), obviously.

And what makes them the resource's "rightful owners"?

What makes ExxonMobil its rightful owners?

My point wasn't that homesteading allowed under current government law, but that there are many potentially-valuable resources that are, by libertarian legal standards, still unowned and consequently subject to homesteading.

Exactly as I said then : just ownership does not derive from homesteading in anything but Libertarian say-so.

What gives a sovereign people (actually, the government ruling over those people) any right over resources that haven't been developed, touched or often even discovered of the land that they happen to have conquered?

Either you state outright that in your mind, possessing military force is a justification for setting rules, or else come up with a different standard for when a person (or a group of people) possess such rights.

I have offered my criterion, namely having an objective, interpersonally-ascertainable link to the resource through homesteading or just acquisition. In cases of uncertainty, reasonable people can judge amongst competing claims for title.

What do you offer? Anything government says?

No, the fact that "an objective, interpersonally-ascertainable link to the resource through homesteading" would result in a horribly inequitable distribution of resources and power that people would - and did - physically fight. Beyond that, exactly what you say : just acquisition where reasonable people can judge amongst competing claims for title.

Individual people would stop paying taxes if it wasn't for the threat of being arrested by gun-wielding police agents. No individual person can vote taxes away. Each of us is being threatened by violence if we don't give some of our property to the government.

That such ongoing threat and extortion is approved by the majority of the population doesn't take away from the fact that it is aggression.

Yeah it does if "individual people" who don't like it are free to leave. No more so than when "individual people" don't like a private entity's rules.

If you tried to set up a business while avoiding both paying taxes and depositing your money in banks (to avoid it being garnished), you would see agents coming to your door fairly quickly.

Nope, people get away with it for years then retire. Typically the same people who don't pay for private services when they can get away with it

If a majority were willing to pay taxes willingly, we wouldn't call them "taxes". We would call them "voluntary contributions to the government's treasury".

Bit of a mouthful, but OK.

If the majority authorised the systematic rape of female members of a minority, your argument for justifying taxation would still apply, wouldn't it?

Let me try again, though I realise my logic escapes you.

Each of your arguments in favour of not viewing taxes as aggression could equally apply to justify the rape of 14-year-old brides by their husbands if such practice was (as it historically was) viewed as legal by government authority.

In other words, all you are offering is the morally-relativistic argument that "taxes aren't aggression because most people approve of them". But then most people approved of rape, murder, human sacrifice, genocide and every other form of atrocity known to humanity. Your argument doesn't distinguish between taxes and any of the above.

Indeed it does. Whereas taxation is an explicit condition of citizenship, rape (involuntary sex) cannot, by definition, be an explicit condition of voluntary cohabitation (marriage, citizenship or any other). The idea of genocide etc as an explicit condition of citizenship is similarly self-refuting nonsense.

NOTE - I am not suggesting you are not distinguishing between them, or that there is no distinction. Merely that your argument in support of taxation could equally apply to support any of the above.

Then I'm afraid logic simply escapes you and I've addressed this in the bit you've edited out. The idea that I have to "offer" anything in refutation of the taxation->rape analogy is question-begging (assuming your conclusion). Hardly any human activity has universal approval or consent, but that doesn't make them all equivalent to some majoritarian justification of rape. See above.

A landlord derives his right for rent from having purchased and/or developed the land. In other words, through peaceful means. The government (or even the people) have only one claim upon the land they control - the fact that they control it. Militarily. There is no other link that can justify that claim.

And here is the core difference between libertarianism and statism. Property and sovereignty claims within libertarianism are always and exclusively based on past peaceful actions. Sovereignty claims under statism are always based on conquest and military force.

See above.

In my scenario, the iron ores are found in land not occupied by any human being, and miles away from any land occupied by any human being. With that in mind, who are the "rightful owners" of that ore, and what makes them "rightful owners"?

See above. Or the bits of previous posts you've (probably repeatedly) edited out.

[SueDeNîmes]

And thats America, ffs - keep govment out of medicade damit !!1! -

Yes, there are a lot of less-than-bright people in America. So it's probably going to be easier to influence one of the factions of the Ruling Party, as Ron Paul is doing, rather than expect big gains from a so-called third party.

Thinking about this, having lived in the US and elsewhere..

There are no more stupid Americans than there are stupid people per capita anywhere else with upwards of a few million humans. What America has in conspicuous abundance is propaganda specifically targeting the stupid. "KEEP GOVMENT OUT OF MEDICADE DAMIT!1!" is funny because it's true. The unfortunate doofus with his sign reveals what they don't want him to know : that it's not about liberty for Americans, but getting some Americans others disdain to vote against their own interests.

[AFAIK]

I haven't been following this thread but I don't see how anyone can reach the conclusion that a state monopoly on criminal-justice services is less prone to injustice than a free market would be.

Currently if an American police officer breaks into someones house and steals their property a court will rule that the stolen goods are inadmissible as evidence because the cop didn't have a warrant. The officer of the law is not charged with breaking-and-entering, theft or burglary.

The UK is currently allows those accused of crimes to be extradited even if there is minimal evidence. Julian Assange is facing extradition for questioning, something that could easily be performed without the state kidnapping him beforehand.

Do I need to bring laws regarding sedition and "national security"?

[Eran]

Australian outback - the Australian people (or people of the local province, depending how the Australian people allot mineral rights), obviously.

By what right? These people aren't "local" in the geographic sense - they live hundreds of miles away.

What makes ExxonMobil its rightful owners?

The fact that they went through the expense, trouble and risk of exploring and finding a natural resource which, before them, nobody else bothered with

No, the fact that "an objective, interpersonally-ascertainable link to the resource through homesteading" would result in a horribly inequitable distribution of resources and power that people would - and did - physically fight.

How do you know, when such a social policy has never been tried?

Whereas taxation is an explicit condition of citizenship, rape (involuntary sex) cannot, by definition, be an explicit condition of voluntary cohabitation (marriage, citizenship or any other).

In the past, and today in other countries, agreeing to satisfy the sexual demands of one's husband is an explicit condition of marriage. Does that make it, in your mind, anything other than rape?

Then I'm afraid logic simply escapes you and I've addressed this in the bit you've edited out. The idea that I have to "offer" anything in refutation of the taxation->rape analogy is question-begging (assuming your conclusion). Hardly any human activity has universal approval or consent, but that doesn't make them all equivalent to some majoritarian justification of rape. See above.

In normal, every day interaction between members of society, we implicitly accept the norm that people may not use force to take other people's property, or assault them.

Our moral intuition tells us that going into another person's house with a gun and demanding money is generally wrong, as is forcing a woman to have sex against her will.

With that in mind, it is upon those who want to justify such acts to come up with a compelling reason why an exception should be made.

I am still at a loss as to which reason you suggest for making an exception for government taxes (or regulations, for that matter), beyond "that's what most people want".

[Rothbardian]

Actually, I listened to a lecture from an anthropologist at Yale and this was the subject. He said that you won't find anyone doubting anarchism amongst anthropologists because it's an every day thing for them. Apparently over half of the world's population lives in effective anarchy (the government that claims to encompass them is either to weak or too apathetic to have any real presence) yet in most of these places you never hear about anything wild going on because they are so peaceful. People naturally get together and form voluntary associations to fit their needs.

[SueDeNîmes]

Australian outback - the Australian people (or people of the local province, depending how the Australian people allot mineral rights), obviously.

By what right? These people aren't "local" in the geographic sense - they live hundreds of miles away.

So ? Most sovereign territories extend more than a few hundred miles in at least one direction.

What makes ExxonMobil its rightful owners?

The fact that they went through the expense, trouble and risk of exploring and finding a natural resource which, before them, nobody else bothered with

That still doesn't make them the rightful owners in anything but Libertarian say-so. It certainly isn't a justification by common moral perception. You, I or any other individual going to all the "trouble and expense" we're capable of won't enable us to homestead mineral wealth in the Autralian outback without the capital behind ExxonMobil.

No, the fact that "an objective, interpersonally-ascertainable link to the resource through homesteading" would result in a horribly inequitable distribution of resources and power that people would - and did - physically fight.

How do you know, when such a social policy has never been tried?

By doing the simple thought experiment you invoke : You or me armed with shovels vs ExxonMobil trying to exploit some vital resource in the Australian outback (or the North Sea or wherever) with subsequent control thereof.

Whereas taxation is an explicit condition of citizenship, rape (involuntary sex) cannot, by definition, be an explicit condition of voluntary cohabitation (marriage, citizenship or any other).

In the past, and today in other countries, agreeing to satisfy the sexual demands of one's husband is an explicit condition of marriage. Does that make it, in your mind, anything other than rape?

Not if she's free to leave. Does the same obligation by threat of destitution by the property owner make it, in your mind, anything other than rape?

In normal, every day interaction between members of society, we implicitly accept the norm that people may not use force to take other people's property, or assault them.

So long as property use observes the law of the land, yes. Otherwise, no.

Our moral intuition tells us that going into another person's house with a gun and demanding money is generally wrong, as is forcing a woman to have sex against her will.

With that in mind, it is upon those who want to justify such acts to come up with a compelling reason why an exception should be made.

Which they have in the case of taxation while making exceptions to property rights so as to outlaw involuntary sex by threat of destitution - ie the same criteria : voluntarism.

I am still at a loss as to which reason you suggest for making an exception for government taxes (or regulations, for that matter), beyond "that's what most people want".

Because taxes are dues for citizenship which anyone is free to relinquish. I am still at a loss as to why this is equivalent to rape, which is distinguished from plain old sex by one party not being free not to participate

[SueDeNîmes]

Our moral intuition tells us that going into another person's house with a gun and demanding money is generally wrong, as is forcing a woman to have sex against her will.

With that in mind, it is upon those who want to justify ..(etc)

Ha ha ... nearly!

More like sending a series a of reminders, followed by a summons or subpoena, followed by a visit from an unarmed tax official, followed by - worst case - a visit from unarmed police or bailifs against whom the rugged individualist Libertarian would have to initiate 'actual physical invasion' while going about their lawful duties.

During the entire time our rugged individualist is free to go and negotiate with rugged individualist warlords (who actually enter houses demanding money with guns) in any of the world's anarchic shitholes.

[Eran]

So ? Most sovereign territories extend more than a few hundred miles in at least one direction.

Rules of sovereignty is precisely what I am challenging.

Please explain why either the Sydney government or aboriginal tribes living miles away have any moral claims for minerals buried under land they never visited, and which they never bothered extracting themselves.

You, I or any other individual going to all the "trouble and expense" we're capable of won't enable us to homestead mineral wealth in the Australian outback without the capital behind ExxonMobile.

Actually, many mining operations start out small. But that is beside the point. Those minerals would have continued to be unavailable to humanity if it weren't for the effort of the mining company (in which you are, of course, welcome to buy as many shares as you wish).

By doing the simple thought experiment you invoke : You or me armed with shovels vs ExxonMobil trying to exploit some vital resource in the Australian outback (or the North Sea or wherever) with subsequent control thereof.

In centuries past, homesteading was typically done by individuals, be it during the rush to the west, or the gold rush. Early pioneers in homesteading radio waves were also small operators.

More often than not, what distinguishes homesteaders is their vision and willingness to take risk, rather than their wealth.

Not if she's free to leave. Does the same obligation by threat of destitution by the property owner make it, in your mind, anything other than rape?

Why would any person face threat of destitution, relieved only by the good will of one other person? In a normal society, that is never the case, except in those cases when that other person enjoys monopoly rights of oppression given by government.

Which they have in the case of taxation while making exceptions to property rights so as to outlaw involuntary sex by threat of destitution - ie the same criteria : voluntarism.

Let me address this mythical "threat of destitution" once and for all. Let's say person A is an employee of B. Your concern is that A may face oppression by virtue of the threat of destitution associated with being fired from his job (or perhaps driven from B's land).

This "power" of B should really be understood quite differently - as the benefit A gains from cooperating with B. The worse A is off without B's cooperation, the greater the demonstration of the benefit that A in particular, and workers in general, gain from their cooperation with capitalists.

People on the left often talk about taking the means of production away from capitalists and into the control of the workers. That is obviously something that, with enough fire-power, you can do. Once.

But if a worker-run society is really viable, there is no need for such expropriation. Unlike feudal days, when scarce land was the most valuable means of production, today's society sees means of production continually recycled. At all levels - machines, production lines, companies and entire industries are being replaced - destroyed and re-created - all the time.

No crucial resource is monopolized. If capitalist-entrepreneurs are able to start new companies all the time, and if workers really don't derive significant value from capitalists, why don't worker-entrepreneurs start their own, worker-controlled companies?

More like sending a series a of reminders, followed by a summons or subpoena, followed by a visit from an unarmed tax official, followed by - worst case - a visit from unarmed police or bailifs against whom the rugged individualist Libertarian would have to initiate 'actual physical invasion' while going about their lawful duties.

Yes, it certainly is true that tax-collection tends to be done peacefully. After all, that saves a lot of resentment and cost. The same, btw, isn't true when it comes to enforcing drug laws. There, militarised police knocking down your front door and shooting your dog may well be the first warning you ever get.

However, the peaceful nature of the exchange does nothing to justify the operation. The Mafia often sends its agents to give you a "peaceful" warning at first.

Finally, let's stop with this "you are free to leave" nonsense. True, in capitalist countries I am free to leave. But why should I have to? If I justly own my house, my land, by what right does the government condition my staying on my land on paying taxes and otherwise obeying its rules?

[lucky]

Early pioneers in homesteading radio waves were also small operators.

I googled "homesteading radio waves" and I only came across two results. Clearly not a commonly used term.

In any case, I assume that you're talking about claiming an exclusive right to emitting an electromagnetic wave at a certain frequency range.

Weren't you anti-intellectual-property, with the idea that you can't claim an exclusive right to a concept like printing words on paper in a specific sequence? What's with your support now for claiming an exclusive right to waving an electron a given number of times per second?

[mum]

Lucky to stop further embarrassing yourself you should retract your last post, or rephrase it. Or do much more research on radio transmission.

[Eran]

Weren't you anti-intellectual-property, with the idea that you can't claim an exclusive right to a concept like printing words on paper in a specific sequence? What's with your support now for claiming an exclusive right to waving an electron a given number of times per second?

I am anti-IP. The right to use electromagnetic waves is geographic, not intellectual. It is the right to use a given frequency within a limited area.

[lucky]

I am anti-IP. The right to use electromagnetic waves is geographic, not intellectual. It is the right to use a given frequency within a limited area.

I'm sure you realize that "frequency" is an idea, not a thing. How about the right to speaking with a certain voice frequency?

[Eran]

No, it is the right to broadcast in a given frequency in a specific geographic area. Because of interference, two people cannot both use the same frequency in the same place. Thus the first person to do so excludes others from doing the same.

It isn't an idea - it is the use of a limited physical resource, namely the ability of radio waves to transmit information in a given area and on a given frequency without interference.

[lucky]

No, it is the right to broadcast in a given frequency in a specific geographic area. Because of interference, two people cannot both use the same frequency in the same place. Thus the first person to do so excludes others from doing the same.

It isn't an idea - it is the use of a limited physical resource, namely the ability of radio waves to transmit information in a given area and on a given frequency without interference.

That's physically false. Radio waves, even at same frequency, easily pass through each other without disrupting each other. It can be thought of as simply detecting an oscillating electric charge from a distance rather than as waves going through space. It is quite possible to separate one broadcast from the other by using a directional antenna. It's only if you're using the widespread more primitive non-directional receivers that you get interference.

A radio frequency is not a physical resource. It's the concept of moving an electric charge up and down a specific number of times a second. Jumping up and down on your bed could also in theory be used for communication at a distance, and other people having sex in vicinity could interfere with such communication.

Besides, there is no such thing as "broadcasting in a specific geographic area". Local radio broadcasts can be heard on the Moon, you just need a bigger, or a directional, antenna.

The interference you're talking about is similar to how you'd get a visual interference when looking at somebody when there was somebody else standing elsewhere, if your eyes didn't use appropriate technology (lenses) to aim the detectors more accurately. It's the same kind of signal reception actually.

Incidentally, would you say that if you're communicating at huge distance with a buddy using hand signals, it's OK to ban anybody from interfering by erecting a house obstructing the view in the middle?

If you're OK with banning an activity because of mere "interference" caused to somebody else's activity, then again I don't see why the same thing doesn't apply to any other activity. Everything interferes with everything else. That's how physics works.

If you play a movie at the same time I play a movie, you're interfering with the flow of customers into my movie theater, by deflecting some of them into your theater.

[Eran]

Radio waves, even at same frequency, easily pass through each other without disrupting each other.

If you broadcast a radio signal in a given frequency, and another station then attempts to broadcast in the same frequency, listeners wouldn't be able to tune to your broadcast because of the interference from the second station.

Radio broadcast technology didn't allow for directional antennas. In the context of homesteading of radio frequency, we are talking about early 20th century technology, so of-course receivers were primitive and non-directional.

A radio frequency is not a physical resource.

In this context, it is. Just as one can homestead the right to emit loud noises. If an airport is built on a site remote from residential neighbourhoods, it acquires the right to make noise that later residents cannot legitimately prohibit. Conversely, if the residential neighbourhood preceded the airport, the same noise emission would be impermissible.

Another example of "non-physical" homesteading is the common-law right to light. Your neighbour cannot erect a high fence that would block sun-light from your windows if your windows were there first.

Besides, there is no such thing as "broadcasting in a specific geographic area". Local radio broadcasts can be heard on the Moon, you just need a bigger, or a directional, antenna.

This is an excellent illustration of why questions of property rights have to be considered in context. In the context of early 20th-century radio broadcasting, the range of a station was limited. It would make sense to award a station the rights to a given frequency in the San Francisco Bay Area, without it necessarily implying that it can prohibit a Los Angeles station from using the same frequency, even if advanced instruments could, at a later point in time, detect the broadcast from the moon.

Incidentally, would you say that if you're communicating at huge distance with a buddy using hand signals, it's OK to ban anybody from interfering by erecting a house obstructing the view in the middle?

Quite possibly. The communication using hand signals would have to be ongoing and part of a reasonable project. Again, these are not questions to be decided by a computer, but by wise, well-informed and contemporaneous arbitrators, consulting the practices as they emerge within the community.

If you're OK with banning an activity because of mere "interference" caused to somebody else's activity, then again I don't see why the same thing doesn't apply to any other activity. Everything interferes with everything else. That's how physics works.

"Interference" doesn't mean merely being detectable, but materially subtracting from the ability of others to enjoy the benefits of their prior activities.

While in principle, you can detect my kitchen conversation from your home across the street, those level of sound do not materially detract from your ability to enjoy your own house. If I play loud music in the middle of the night, that changes.

If you play a movie at the same time I play a movie, you're interfering with the flow of customers into my movie theatre, by deflecting some of them into your theatre.

You have no property rights in the flow of customers. Customers come to your theatre because they choose to, as self-owners. So just because I tempted them away, your property rights aren't violated. If, on the other hand, I threaten them with an assault, or place a bus on your parking lot, I am guilty.

[SueDeNîmes]

So ? Most sovereign territories extend more than a few hundred miles in at least one direction.

Rules of sovereignty is precisely what I am challenging.

So the geographical quibble was irrelevant.

Please explain why either the Sydney government or aboriginal tribes living miles away have any moral claims for minerals buried under land they never visited, and which they never bothered extracting themselves.

Please explain why ExxonMobil has any superior moral claim.

You, I or any other individual going to all the "trouble and expense" we're capable of won't enable us to homestead mineral wealth in the Australian outback without the capital behind ExxonMobile.

Actually, many mining operations start out small. But that is beside the point. Those minerals would have continued to be unavailable to humanity if it weren't for the effort of the mining company (in which you are, of course, welcome to buy as many shares as you wish).

Any idiot with a shovel might sweat blood with effort. A successful effort would require capital of ExxonMobil proportions. A highly debatable moral case could be made around effort, but that needn't support ExxonMobil's claim. The idea that capital should confer ownership of natural resources doesn't even sound like a moral argument.

Not if she's free to leave. Does the same obligation by threat of destitution by the property owner make it, in your mind, anything other than rape?

Why would any person face threat of destitution, relieved only by the good will of one other person?

Because that typically male person per your example owns her home. Obviously.

In a normal society, that is never the case, except in those cases when that other person enjoys monopoly rights of oppression given by government.

On the contrary, that is often the case in "normal society" and typically the case in the patriarchal societies you invoked - unless gov't accords her rights superseding the husband's property rights. The question remains why Libertarians think said property rights make it "in your mind anything other than rape" ..?

Let me address this mythical "threat of destitution" once and for all. Let's say person A is an employee of B. Your concern is that A may face oppression by virtue of the threat of destitution associated with being fired from his job (or perhaps driven from B's land).

This "power" of B should really be understood quite differently - as the benefit A gains from cooperating with B. The worse A is off without B's cooperation, the greater the demonstration of the benefit that A in particular, and workers in general, gain from their cooperation with capitalists.

...I'm still waiting for the bit where the threat of destitution is revealed "once and for all" as mythical. We have instead the assertion that whatever condition the threat enforces must be understood as cooperation. Pipe down and pay yer tax then.

People on the left often talk about taking the means of production away from capitalists and into the control of the workers. That is obviously something that, with enough fire-power, you can do. Once.

But if a worker-run society is really viable, there is no need for such expropriation. Unlike feudal days, when scarce land was the most valuable means of production, today's society sees means of production continually recycled. At all levels - machines, production lines, companies and entire industries are being replaced - destroyed and re-created - all the time.

No crucial resource is monopolized. If capitalist-entrepreneurs are able to start new companies all the time, and if workers really don't derive significant value from capitalists, why don't worker-entrepreneurs start their own, worker-controlled companies?

But we weren't talking about any of that.

More like sending a series a of reminders, followed by a summons or subpoena, followed by a visit from an unarmed tax official, followed by - worst case - a visit from unarmed police or bailifs against whom the rugged individualist Libertarian would have to initiate 'actual physical invasion' while going about their lawful duties.

Yes, it certainly is true that tax-collection tends to be done peacefully. After all, that saves a lot of resentment and cost. The same, btw, isn't true when it comes to enforcing drug laws. There, militarised police knocking down your front door and shooting your dog may well be the first warning you ever get.

However, the peaceful nature of the exchange does nothing to justify the operation. The Mafia often sends its agents to give you a "peaceful" warning at first.

which remains nothing like "sending a series a of reminders, followed by a summons or subpoena, followed by a visit from an unarmed tax official, followed by - worst case - a visit from unarmed police or bailifs against whom the rugged individualist Libertarian would have to initiate 'actual physical invasion' while going about their lawful duties."

Finally, let's stop with this "you are free to leave" nonsense. True, in capitalist countries I am free to leave.

Then it isn't nonsense.

But why should I have to?

You don't have to.

If I justly own my house, my land, by what right does the government condition my staying on my land on paying taxes and otherwise obeying its rules?

Because "just ownership" means peaceful cooperation with the law of the land granting your property. I know Libertarians think it should be otherwise but that's just more assertion of private authority most us don't want or even consider possible.

[Nunt]

I'm sure you realize that "frequency" is an idea, not a thing. How about the right to speaking with a certain voice frequency?

How is frequency an idea and not a thing? The right to emit a radio frequency means the right to emit energy currents that oscillate at a particular at a particular frequency. This is a very real physical phenomenon. At low frequencies you can transmit sound over distances at very high frequencies you can kill people (gamma rays). This doesn't sound like 'just' an idea to me.

[lucky]

How is frequency an idea and not a thing? The right to emit a radio frequency means the right to emit energy currents that oscillate at a particular at a particular frequency. This is a very real physical phenomenon.

A radio wave is a physical thing - it consists of photons. The right to emit a radio wave of a given frequency is conceptual. What's owned here is not a specific wave or a specific photon, but the right to create one from scratch, and only if it has a certain property.

If you extend this to visible spectrum: it's like the difference between a green object or a green light beam, and the concept of the color green itself. It's like owning an exclusive right to painting things green, or shining a green light.

Or similarly, it's like the difference between owning a book containing a novel, and owning the novel itself, or the right to publish a book containing that novel.

Now, don't get me wrong. I am fully in favor of private ownership of radio frequencies (as I am of copyright).

I was just pointing out how Eran continuously ties himself in a knot with his abstract arguments. He uses an argument against IP such as copyrights, abstracted away from analyzing real world consequences. And yet when the same argument would suggest a policy obviously bad, in the case of radio, he ditches that same line of reasoning and uses a different one, that better suits his desired outcome.