Socialism is the ideal way to go. Change my Mind - Page 15 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

As either the transitional stage to communism or legitimate socio-economic ends in its own right.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15004974
Rich wrote:Private property and national property are not moral they are practical.

Private property in the fruits of one's labor is moral because it does not deprive anyone of anything they would otherwise have, but taking it from its producer -- violating that right -- would deprive him of something he would otherwise have.
How could an individual or any subset of human beings ever become the moral owner of scarce natural resources? I agree with the left that western settlers had no right to own the lands they conquered. Where I disagree is that I don't consider the so called indigenous peoples had any right to won the lands either. Native people constantly fought each other and protected their lands against racial outsiders with ferocious terror.

Right. There is no rightful ownership of land any more than of slaves.
Note in principle an individual would be entitled to own property that they had created without the use of scarce natural resources, just by their own labour, but in reality everything we create and have created is dependant on the possession and consumption of scare natural resources.

No, a lot of natural resources are not scarce. Our ancestors survived for millions of years by using abundant natural resources whose extraction violated no one's rights.
If I have no right to own land, then I have no right own the Wheat that was grown on it.

Not so. You can own a fish you pull from the ocean without owning the ocean.
If I have no right to consume scare easily accessible Iron resources, then I have no right to own the tool I made from that Iron.

Not quite. You have a right to use resources that no one else wants to use, and to own the fruits of your labor thereon, as our ancestors did for millions of years. You can also gain a right to use resources that others want to use -- like land -- by making just compensation to the community of those whom you deprive of them.
Land and Capital are fungible.

Irrelevant.
Its quite funny when you look at what lefties are actually saying: "Blut und Boden." The modern left are pure Nazis! Its just that their Nazi hate is directed against Whites, Infidels and Gentiles.

IMO it is directed against anyone of merit, in proportion to their merit.
Non absolute Private property combined with wealth transfers, public spending and regulations can produce a system that it is in the interests of the overwhelming majority to buy into. One can accept the system without having to believe in its fairness.

What's wrong with pursuing fairness (justice), knowing that it is in the interest of all but those who seek to inflict injustice on others?
#15004975
SolarCross wrote:I have a bill of sale from the seller.

That only yields a valid claim of ownership if bills of sale trace back to the manufacturer in an unbroken chain of consensual transactions. What if there was never any manufacturer? Where is the bill of sale that records the consensual transfer to landowners of my liberty right to use land? If one gains valid property in land by claiming it, why can one not also claim ownership of the oceans, the atmosphere, the sun, the alphabet, the number 63, etc. simply by claiming them?
B0ycey wrote:Although I'm sure his answer will be tickling each other with rapiers whilst in the cosplay of wigs and 18th century dress in order to let the Gods decide who owns what.

That sounds more like VS.
Last edited by Truth To Power on 16 May 2019 00:20, edited 1 time in total.
#15004977
Truth To Power wrote:No; although the Saxon landowners were certainly dispossessed in favor of Normans, the Normans also imposed feudal landlordism over areas that had previously been village commons where each household had a right to use a portion of the land. In many cases the nominal Saxon "owners" had not disturbed the village commons they formally owned, and had not reduced the free yeomanry living on "their" land to feudal serfdom as the Normans subsequently did.

Citation please. I am not taking any history lessons from someone who believes that the Normans conquored the Celts in 1066 when the Saxons had wiped out the celts in England 600 years before. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

The literal idiots on this forum, I am embarrassed to waste my time with it. :roll:
#15004980
SolarCross wrote:Citation please.

www.englisc-gateway.com/bbs/page/articl ... nquest-r17
I am not taking any history lessons from someone who believes that Normans conquored the Celts

<sigh> I did not say they conquered the Celts, but that the system of village commons used in England at the time was traditionally Celtic. It had been in use throughout Celtic Europe, and in other areas (like Saxony) and by non-Celtic peoples.
Saxons had wiped out the celts in England 600 years before.

Wrong again. The Saxons did not wipe out the Celts, they conquered them; and the Saxons had also used the system of village commons before they migrated to Britain.
The literal idiots on this forum, I am embarrassed to waste my time with it. :roll:

I know just how you feel....
#15004987
Truth To Power wrote:http://www.englisc-gateway.com/bbs/page/articles/_/english-directory/england-before-the-norman-conquest-r17

<sigh> I did not say they conquered the Celts, but that the system of village commons used in England at the time was traditionally Celtic. It had been in use throughout Celtic Europe, and in other areas (like Saxony) and by non-Celtic peoples.

Jesus. You google up a link after the fact, don't read it, and then paste it up and hope I don't read it. Ridiculous.

Truth To Power wrote:Wrong again. The Saxons did not wipe out the Celts, they conquered them; and the Saxons had also used the system of village commons before they migrated to Britain.

I know just how you feel....

They did wipe out the celts or rather the Britons. Genetic studies show that the saxons were completely genetically identical to the Frisians of what is now called the netherlands and shared not a jot with any celtic people. Demonstrating that whatever happened to the celts the saxons completely replaced them. Moreover they have basically nothing in common culturally. And this stuff about village commons is not celtic. Commons continue to exist until the present day. The ONLY purpose of the commons is grassland feed for herds. Your absurd ahistorical ideological murder of history is a fucking lame joke. Shut up and stop pretending you know anything.

----------

I don't know where you are from but England is my country and you don't get to make up shit about my country for your stupid ideological fantasies. Murder your own countries history and leave mine out of it.

--------

Fucking pigs.
#15005023
Truth To Power wrote:No, it is a direct application of the definition of exploitation YOU gave: taking advantage of an imbalance of power that places others in an inferior position.

Huh?? How could it? The baker has possession of the bread he baked because he produced it, and that is what enables him to "exploit" his customers by taking advantage of the "imbalance of power" and their "inferior position."

OK, so you do claim that the baker is exploiting his customers because he created both the bakery and the bread, and is thus in a position to sell them food they would not otherwise have; but (inexplicably, in my estimation) you refuse to admit that the protection racket that deprived the people of their liberty to buy flour and make bread themselves in the first place has anything to do with the bread shortage and consequent high price that enable the baker to "exploit" his customers. Thank you for so eloquently exemplifying the willful refusal to know indisputable facts that I identified as characteristic of socialists.


If you are going to insist that your strawman is what I was really arguing, then we are done.
#15005118
SolarCross wrote:Jesus. You google up a link after the fact, don't read it, and then paste it up and hope I don't read it. Ridiculous.

Were you under an erroneous impression that such fabrications on your part about what I did could be considered arguments?
They did wipe out the celts or rather the Britons.

Nope.
Genetic studies show that the saxons were completely genetically identical to the Frisians of what is now called the netherlands and shared not a jot with any celtic people.

Uh, but that doesn't even mention the British.

You are just sad, now.
Demonstrating that whatever happened to the celts the saxons completely replaced them.

No, demonstrating that you are no better at genetics than at all your other made-up $#!+.
Moreover they have basically nothing in common culturally.

Citation?
And this stuff about village commons is not celtic.

It is not known where or when or how the commons system originated, but it was normal among the Celts, who were among the early settled peoples of Northern Europe.
Commons continue to exist until the present day.

But almost all were enclosed -- i.e., appropriated -- by thieving, murdering landowners like the Normans.
The ONLY purpose of the commons is grassland feed for herds.

<sigh> You claim I hoped you wouldn't read my source -- and then proceed not to read it.
Your absurd ahistorical ideological murder of history is a fucking lame joke.

I have provided a source. You have not.
Shut up and stop pretending you know anything.

Good advice. Please take it.

In any case, this has wandered far off topic, and I suspect that is a deliberate deflection tactic on your part. The point was that law is often not an expression of social mores at all, but simply imposed by force. That is still true even if the Normans were invaders from Mars and the Saxons ate the Celts.
I don't know where you are from but England is my country and you don't get to make up shit about my country for your stupid ideological fantasies. Murder your own countries history and leave mine out of it.

I have provided a source. You have not.
Fucking pigs.

Disgraceful.
#15005165
SolarCross wrote:Right so you are still worshiping Comrade Hitler as a literal god on earth.

Do you really imagine you accomplish anything with such absurdities but to heap disgrace upon yourself?
We are discussing a specific part of the state of nature called human civilisation.

Civilization is generally considered different from the state of nature.
In human civilisation people make property claims because they need to resolve who has authority over the matter and material of their life. It is a fine art resolving the rightness of a property claim but there is a general criteria which is universal:

A property claim is rightful where it is obtained through the consent of a rightful owner.

That much is true enough. But:
A property claim is rightful where it comes from original appropriation.

Is clearly false. Appropriation is just another term for theft. There is not a land title anywhere in the world that can be shown to be based on original appropriation, and there never has been -- not that it would be valid even if it were. How does appropriating a natural resource like land, the earth's atmosphere, the sun, etc. as one's private property delete everyone else's liberty right to use and benefit from it? The Lockean rationalization for obtaining property rights in natural resources through initial appropriation has been shown to be invalid at least three different ways:
1. No actual land title is based on it;
2. The notion of "mixing" labor with land is physically impossible, nothing but a misleading metaphor; and
3. It is mathematically impossible to leave as much and as good for the next claimant, because by that criterion the final increment cannot be appropriated; but that means the next-to-last increment can't be appropriated either, nor the one before that, etc. It all unzips right back to the first claimant.
A property claim is rightful where it is the first made on an abandoned property.

Again, this is extremely dubious. "Finders keepers, losers weepers" is fine for children, but adults have a more nuanced view of the rightful disposition of items whose rightful owners or property status are unknown. If you dig up a pre-Columbian artwork in the Nevada desert, you don't get to just take it as your property: it is part of the community's heritage. Similar rules apply to salvage of antiquities at sea, etc. Right of salvage is sometimes allowed, but not always.
#15005306
Pants-of-dog wrote:Do you think that people should be allowed to own land in common and let anyone in their community live anywhere they want on the common land?

Of course. Though if you build walls on the land it isn't common anymore it's private. Walls are a far more severe enclosure than fences, fences especially low fences can be scaled quite easily. Caravans are a halfway house because they are walls / enclosures that can potentially move out of the way, just like the cattle that the commons are for.

The commons are basically the rural equivalent of a city public square or park. It is a space that may or may not be privately owned but has right of way conventions on it which means whoever owns it (be it a government or private persons) can't rightfully exclude others from certain uses of it such as grazing amimals, gathering firewood or just traveling across.

There is a commons by me actually. I drive over it in my 4x4 as a short cut. Mostly it is used by the local farmers for grazing sheep and cows. I don't think I could get away with living on it even in a tent. A caravan would definitely get me in trouble. That doesn't worry me because unlike @Truth To Power I prefer to live in a house.
#15005312
SolarCross wrote:Of course. ....

The commons are basically the rural equivalent of a city public square or park. It is a space that may or may not be privately owned but has right of way conventions on it which means whoever owns it (be it a government or private persons) can't rightfully exclude others from certain uses of it such as grazing amimals, gathering firewood or just traveling across.


But we can currently stop people from living there.

Do you support that?
#15005321
Pants-of-dog wrote:But we can currently stop people from living there.

Do you support that?

That depends how you live there. Commons land becomes private by the act of building on it. If you live there without even a tent to block the right of way of others then you are good, but that means no toilet facilites, no electricity and nothing to keep the rain off you head more elaborate than a hat. It isn't much of a life. Which actually is fine because the commons isn't for living in no more than a city park is. Even the cattle are not supposed to camp there permanently.
Last edited by SolarCross on 17 May 2019 16:37, edited 1 time in total.
#15005323
SolarCross wrote:@Truth To Power
I think we should sort out one or two of your myths about the commons.

You still haven't given any sources for your claims, while I have.
Firstly may I ask if you actually want to live on common land?

That depends on what the options are. I don't have any trouble using a common sun, but if I had the option of owning it and charging everyone else the market rent for sunlight -- i.e., everything they have or ever will have -- that would obviously be more to my advantage. I do think it's better all around that we all have the right to use the sun, and if anyone wanted to exclude others from using it, they would have to compensate them. I wouldn't have any objection to paying the community the market rent for what I take from it by my exclusive tenure on the land I exclude others from.
#15005324
SolarCross wrote:That depends how you live there. Commons land becomes private by the act of building on it.


Not necessarily. If homeless people set up a tent in a park, does it become their private property?

If you live there without even a tent to block the right of way of others then you are good, but that means no toilet facilites, no electicity and nothing to keep the rain off you head more elaborate than a hat. It isn't much of a life. Which actually is fine because the commons isn't for living in no more than a city park is. Even the cattle are not supposed to camp there permanently.


And so you support this act of not allowing people to live there?

More importantly, do you think this paradigm of not allowing people to live on common land and forcing everyone to live on private property is universal?
#15005325
Truth To Power wrote:That depends on what the options are. I don't have any trouble using a common sun, but if I had the option of owning it and charging everyone else the market rent for sunlight -- i.e., everything they have or ever will have -- that would obviously be more to my advantage. I do think it's better all around that we all have the right to use the sun, and if anyone wanted to exclude others from using it, they would have to compensate them. I wouldn't have any objection to paying the community the market rent for what I take from it by my exclusive tenure on the land I exclude others from.

I don't believe anyone does that. Are you insane? Fact is if you build on common land you make it private land by that act. Walls are enclosures and a house is nothing if it is not a bunch of walls enclosing a space. The commons is open land by definition.
#15005329
SolarCross wrote:Of course. Though if you build walls on the land it isn't common anymore it's private.

How does building a wall remove others' liberty rights to use what nature provided for all?
the cattle that the commons are for.

That may be the convention you are accustomed to, but historically, commons were used for many things, including crops on a rotating basis.
The commons are basically the rural equivalent of a city public square or park. It is a space that may or may not be privately owned

By definition, a common is not privately owned.
but has right of way conventions on it which means whoever owns it (be it a government or private persons) can't rightfully exclude others from certain uses of it such as grazing amimals, gathering firewood or just traveling across.

That may be a recent legal interpretation, but it is not relevant to the fact that enclosure of land as private property forcibly strips people of their rights to liberty and gives them to the landowner as his private property.
unlike @Truth To Power I prefer to live in a house.

Just can't resist makin' $#!+ up, can you?
#15005333
Pants-of-dog wrote:Not necessarily. If homeless people set up a tent in a park, does it become their private property?

Tents are easily taken down and moved. They do however block right of way while they are up. It is a grey area but the longer the tents remain there the more private they become.

Pants-of-dog wrote:And so you support this act of not allowing people to live there?

The only common I care about is the one next to my house. I am part of the local community so I would have a say on what uses that land is put to same as the local farmers. Personally I would not object to a temporary camp providing the campers cleaned up after themselves. The local farmers might be more demanding because they keep sheep and cows on the common. I wouldn't even worry about a caravan being sited there because the land is extremely hilly and not suitable at all for caravans due to the lack flat gradients.

Pants-of-dog wrote:More importantly, do you think this paradigm of not allowing people to live on common land and forcing everyone to live on private property is universal?

The reality is everyone wants to live on private property nobody (including yourself and @Truth To Power) wants to live on common land because:
1. You can't build there without making it private land.
2. People like to live in houses more than they like living out in the open.
#15005336
SolarCross wrote:The reality is everyone wants to live on private property

The people of Hong Kong and Singapore somehow missed that memo.
nobody (including yourself and @Truth To Power) wants to live on common land because:
1. You can't build there without making it private land.

But that is clearly just factually incorrect, as Hong Kong proves. The land there has been built on extensively, yet it is all still public.
2. People like to live in houses more than they like living out in the open.

Were you under an erroneous impression that that could somehow be relevant to the issue of appropriation of land as private property?
  • 1
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 21

I never claimed he did. I'll accept that as you[…]

That video by Colion Noir is absolutely outstandin[…]

I already talked about how bad that site is whe[…]

EU-BREXIT

@Kaiserschmarrn In truth, I don't give a fuck[…]