Socialists are Crazy Sometimes

[Fox McCloud]

Ok, I'm looking for a little ammo to back up the "Libertarian" cause here.

In essence, keep in mind you're dealing with a socialist, who's hinted at having communist ideals. Oh, I might also mention he's an stubborn "Greenie" and total-pro environmentalist (to the extreme of government intervention), and also pro-global warming.

Anyway, we often argue over policies...one he most recently attacked me on is that the the US' freedom has caused death, destruction, lack of resources, and lack of food/oil/water/etc. to other nations.

Either way, I defined freedom as the ability to do whatever you wanted, so long as it wouldn't harm another individual....then he came up with this situation,

But what if you do something that you are not aware is hurting others? Should you still pay the price? [For example]Overusing resources. The farmers in Southern Queensland syphon water off the Darling river to water their farms. But downstream the farmers in NSW get barely a quarter of what they need. At the same time the farmers in Victoria bore holes in the ground to lower the water table, and pump salty water into the Murray river to get rid of it. Thus lowering the productivity of the farms in South Australia, 50 kms west.

.

I asked him for more specific details (as things are usually far more technical than just "x" and "y"), but he said he wanted it to be a "moral question" of how far I was willing to take freedom.

Therefore, I wanted your opinion on the Libertarian, minarchist, teeny-government way of handingling this...both in a legsilative/judicial mindset and his "Moral" mindset.

I wish to be careful of choosing my words (and thus why I'm asking your guys' help for "ammo"), as this guy is a staunch socialist who's been leaning that way for years.

 

[clouds]

If it's a moral question, what right would he have to limit one's productivity for the sake of another's?

If the farmer knows his occupation well enough he will discover he needs to sell the farm or find other means of living. There are more choices than this, I know. Perhaps he could change crops, find other means of irrigating, and so on. It's definitely not the right of the government to shut down one farm for another. It may sound cruel but you need to be innovative if you are going to compete.

 

[Zavoi]

This is a rather strange situation, but one would hardly expect an entire philosophy to come crashing down on account of it. Nevertheless, we need to devise some way of handling it.

One thing to remember about property in land is that it is not simply a parceling of the land among different owners - owning land comes with a right to use that land. So, either the farmers in Southern Queensland have homesteaded the right to use water from the Darling River at a certain rate, or these farmers acquired this right by purchasing it from the previous owners.

In any case, dumping salt into the river and damaging others is certainly something that the government should punish. The actual water in the river is not your property until you remove it from the river, so it's the same as if you had dumped salt directly onto a farmer's crops.

Again, there's no need to introduce a huge government regulatory bureaucracy: it can be handled by civil liability alone.

 

[angelatc]

Uh, hello? Socialism caused the death of 6 million jews and 5 million other "undesirables" in WWII alone.

http://freedomspeace.blogspot.com/2005/04/impoverishment-and-death-by-socialism.html

US freedom hasn't caused any of the things he cited. Governments, the very type he wants to expand, are responsible for those things.

I just had an interesting cab ride. The driver came here from the Czech Republic. When they were socialist, he had an exclusive food distribution deal with the government. It didn't matter that the people couldn't afford food, because the government paid him for it. He was far better off than most of the people, and nobody was allowed to compete with him.

Guess how long his business lasted after capitalism moved in? Answer - less than 2 years.

 

[clouds]

my friend from serbia said serbia was even worse off when it was socialist than communist.

 

[Kludge]

Lol... I love how you call it "pro-Global Warming"... I'ma use that one from now on.

Anyways, property rights are key here. Whoever owns the land has the right to the water of the river while it's on his property.... If they ADD something to the water and it's carried over to someone else's land, then it's aggression and as such, immoral.

Here's how the river model would work if you're curious.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------River
^ ____________^___________ ^ ___________^
House A __House B___ Evil corporation_____House C

Hypotheticals because I'm bored and have no life:

1. House A builds a dam. House B, C and Evil corporation have no water. Sucks to be them, this is moral.

2. House A dumps it's... "waste" into the water. Dumping/polluting is immoral.

3. House A sets up a sprinkler using a pump and the river's water and then sprays House B's house.... Maybe immoral *shrug* that's one for the Supreme Court =P

4. Evil Corporation uses all the water in an effort to bottle and sell it. This isn't immoral.

 

[Fox McCloud]

thanks kludge--that really helped out a few things.

My mind was also bogged down last night do to a lot of stress (way before this argument).

 

[Zavoi]

1. House A builds a dam. House B, C and Evil corporation have no water. Sucks to be them, this is moral.

Would you say this even if B, C, and Evil were there first?

2. House A dumps it's... "waste" into the water. Dumping/polluting is immoral.

Agreed.

3. House A sets up a sprinkler using a pump and the river's water and then sprays House B's house.... Maybe immoral *shrug* that's one for the Supreme Court =P

4. Evil Corporation uses all the water in an effort to bottle and sell it. This isn't immoral.

Again, the same objection as with #1.

 

[nate895]

Uh, hello? Socialism caused the death of 6 million jews and 5 million other "undesirables" in WWII alone.

http://freedomspeace.blogspot.com/2005/04/impoverishment-and-death-by-socialism.html

US freedom hasn't caused any of the things he cited. Governments, the very type he wants to expand, are responsible for those things.

I just had an interesting cab ride. The driver came here from the Czech Republic. When they were socialist, he had an exclusive food distribution deal with the government. It didn't matter that the people couldn't afford food, because the government paid him for it. He was far better off than most of the people, and nobody was allowed to compete with him.

Guess how long his business lasted after capitalism moved in? Answer - less than 2 years.

Then add in the communist figures and we're up to hundreds of millions.

 

[Kludge]

Would you say this even if B, C, and Evil were there first?

Absolutely. They own the land, however, the river is a flowing resource, owned by whoever's land its currently on.

This could apply to air as well. If a company requires air for some part of their production process, they own the air while it's on your land (I believe the "air" your own is proportionate to your property size, as a narrowing cone of ownership as it goes higher [or lower]) and can do whatever they want with it. If a company wanted to suck all the oxygen out of the air, I believe they have a right to do that.

While it's not practical, I can't imagine an alternative you could reasonably argue moral.

 

[Fox McCloud]

Absolutely. They own the land, however, the river is a flowing resource, owned by whoever's land its currently on.

This could apply to air as well. If a company requires air for some part of their production process, they own the air while it's on your land (I believe the "air" your own is proportionate to your property size, as a narrowing cone of ownership as it goes higher [or lower]) and can do whatever they want with it. If a company wanted to suck all the oxygen out of the air, I believe they have a right to do that.

While it's not practical, I can't imagine an alternative you could reasonably argue moral.

*chuckles* I think you could probably come up with a better allegory than that, but, still, your point is made very clear.

They better have tanks the size of several small countries to do it. XD

*holds up finger* You've given me an excellent idea for a capitalistic venture "Fresh Country Air to your City Home" *chuckles* it'd never work, but hey...who knows?

 

[Zavoi]

Absolutely. They own the land, however, the river is a flowing resource, owned by whoever's land its currently on.

This could apply to air as well. If a company requires air for some part of their production process, they own the air while it's on your land (I believe the "air" your own is proportionate to your property size, as a narrowing cone of ownership as it goes higher [or lower]) and can do whatever they want with it. If a company wanted to suck all the oxygen out of the air, I believe they have a right to do that.

While it's not practical, I can't imagine an alternative you could reasonably argue moral.

By this reasoning, you would also have no right to the light entering your property, and your neighbors would be within their rights to build skyscrapers around you and block the sun from reaching your property. After all, light is also a flowing resource, just like water.

When you try to assume that ownership of land is a clearly defined concept, and that every point in space can be associated unambiguously with one single "owner", then you arrive at the strange conclusion that one property owner can block the light or water passing through their property without regard for the person who is actually using the light or water. What we speak of as "ownership" of a piece of land is actually a collection of rights concerning that land, such as the right to be on it, the right to dig and farm it, and so on. However, not all the rights associated with a piece of land are necessarily held by the same individual. For example, if Acme Power Company wants to set up power lines over Alice's property, then they can purchase from Alice the right (also known as an easement) to set up the power lines. If Alice later sells her property to Bob, then Bob can't force Acme to remove the power lines, even though he never agreed to let them put them there, because Acme still owns the easement that they purchased from Alice, and neither Alice nor Bob can extinguish the easement unless they buy it back from Acme.

Easements can be homesteaded by use on previously unowned land. That is, suppose that Farmer Joe sets up a farm in an uninhabited area. By cultivating the land, he homesteads an easement to cultivate the land by "mixing his labor" with the land. Or if I set up a noisy airport in the middle of nowhere, then I have homesteaded an easement to produce a certain amount of noise over the surrounding area. If other people later come to the area, then they cannot contest my right to produce this noise, but I cannot contest their right to inhabit the area, since my ownership of that land only extends to the noise easement.

(In my opinion, the right to create new easements is the only right that must be exclusively vested in the "owner" of the land, and this right cannot itself be homesteaded. On this point I disagree with Murray Rothbard, who believes that planting grass on uninhabited land will make you the owner of the land, even if you leave and the grass dies. But this is largely beside the point.)

Now suppose that Farmer Joe sets up a farm in an uninhabited area at the mouth of a river. By using water from the river, he homesteads an easement over the upstream parts of the river that entitles him to use a certain amount of water from the river, and so he is within his rights to prevent newcomers from taking action that would conflict with this easement (although Joe would not have any other rights over this part of the river, such as fishing and navigation rights). So if Acme Power Company wanted to build a hydroelectric dam upstream from Farmer Joe, they would need to get him to agree first.

This concludes my dissertation on land ownership. Most of this is a restatement of Rothbard's ideas set forth in "The Ethics of Liberty", but as I mentioned I disagree with him on some points.

 

[CaveDog]

See: Lockean proviso.

 

[Kludge]

By this reasoning, you would also have no right to the light entering your property, and your neighbors would be within their rights to build skyscrapers around you and block the sun from reaching your property. After all, light is also a flowing resource, just like water.

Exactly!

When you try to assume that ownership of land is a clearly defined concept, and that every point in space can be associated unambiguously with one single "owner", then you arrive at the strange conclusion that one property owner can block the light or water passing through their property without regard for the person who is actually using the light or water. What we speak of as "ownership" of a piece of land is actually a collection of rights concerning that land, such as the right to be on it, the right to dig and farm it, and so on. However, not all the rights associated with a piece of land are necessarily held by the same individual. For example, if Acme Power Company wants to set up power lines over Alice's property, then they can purchase from Alice the right (also known as an easement) to set up the power lines. If Alice later sells her property to Bob, then Bob can't force Acme to remove the power lines, even though he never agreed to let them put them there, because Acme still owns the easement that they purchased from Alice, and neither Alice nor Bob can extinguish the easement unless they buy it back from Acme.

True, because the land Alice sold Bob didn't include the land sold to Acme Power Company (which should - MUST be spelled out in the contract).

I'm happy APC PAID for Alice's land instead of it being taken through eminent domain! =)

(In my opinion, the right to create new easements is the only right that must be exclusively vested in the "owner" of the land, and this right cannot itself be homesteaded. On this point I disagree with Murray Rothbard, who believes that planting grass on uninhabited land will make you the owner of the land, even if you leave and the grass dies. But this is largely beside the point.)

(This would assume that the public, or, "The State" owns the land by default then? Since all land appears to be currently "owned", I'd only argue the planter owns the grass, though he stole water from the land as well as sunlight.)

Now suppose that Farmer Joe sets up a farm in an uninhabited area at the mouth of a river. By using water from the river, he homesteads an easement over the upstream parts of the river that entitles him to use a certain amount of water from the river, and so he is within his rights to prevent newcomers from taking action that would conflict with this easement (although Joe would not have any other rights over this part of the river, such as fishing and navigation rights). So if Acme Power Company wanted to build a hydroelectric dam upstream from Farmer Joe, they would need to get him to agree first.

I disagree, but I suppose ultimately, I'm unable to back up my reasoning except by reiterating that I personally believe you only *absolutely* own land, and by land, I mean artificial boundaries). You also own all resources that are on your land. You own as much water, air, sunlight etc. as is on your land at the time of collection. I would totally support the global capture and sales of oxygen, and in fact, would be awed at the entrepreneur's courage and Americanism: A true patriot.

This concludes my dissertation on land ownership. Most of this is a restatement of Rothbard's ideas set forth in "The Ethics of Liberty", but as I mentioned I disagree with him on some points.

Rothbard>Greenspan>Dog Poo>bernanke

 

[AceNZ]

Anyway, we often argue over policies...one he most recently attacked me on is that the the US' freedom has caused death, destruction, lack of resources, and lack of food/oil/water/etc. to other nations.

It's not freedom in the US that has caused death and destruction. It's the US pursuit of altruistic (foreign aid, etc) and socialistic goals that has been the problem. If it's good for the group, it's OK to damage individuals (or entire other countries).

Overusing resources. The farmers in Southern Queensland syphon water off the Darling river to water their farms. But downstream the farmers in NSW get barely a quarter of what they need. At the same time the farmers in Victoria bore holes in the ground to lower the water table, and pump salty water into the Murray river to get rid of it. Thus lowering the productivity of the farms in South Australia, 50 kms west.

The problem with the scenario above is that there's no ownership, and hence no responsibility.

In a true Capitalist / minimal government society, someone would own the river and the water table -- not the government. People wanting to use water from the river or the water table, or dump things into it, would need to negotiate with the owner for specific terms, limits, conditions, price, etc. It would be in the owner's best interest to optimize use of the water, minimize pollution, etc, in order to maximize earnings.

 

[Mr.mark]

whenever i talk to hard headed people i usually make them watch "Overview of America" on youtube. Watch that video and send it to your friend, i know it will answer alot of questions!