Yes, in discussing liablity, he contrasts the robotic applicaion of t”the rules” with relevant considerations of the facts, including whether something is or not “common knowledge among the parties.”

I didn’t connect Rothbard and NAP to the “strict liability” theory in torts, which is exactly what it is. This theory has very limited application, like statatory rape or dangerous activities, and is not the general rule in assigning liability for very good reasons.

I will definately read more of him.

Take care,
WB

Peter Surda September 26, 2011 at 9:25 am

I seem to have trouble understanding you.

and this:

Peter Surda October 1, 2011 at 1:41 am

You’re a liar…

I’m going with the first one.

Apparently, there is no possible way for market participants to differentiate between a football that someone is bouncing on his head and one that burst weeks ago and he chucked into the sea.

Market does not act. People act.

The ball is either gripped tightly or it, well, just must be up for grabs – no other rules are possible!

This is the consequence of the rule you presented and we are considering. Again, it is hypothetically possible to construct other rules in a consistent manner. But nobody is presenting such a position.

My last answer was in fact me giving up, life is too short – I feel like I’m asking a perfectly simple and obvious question yet am answered like I’m speaking in tongues.

I answered all your questions. If you don’t like my answers, I would prefer you addressed me directly rather than presenting accusations to others.

Neither Peter or Stephan want to say what their positon is.

On the contrary, I have exactly specified what my position is.

It appears that Peter and Stephan have convinced themselves that in fact it is not worth answering,

I have answered all questions.

Surda says he doesn’t agree with this, but fails to explain why.

I specifically list the open questions.

You’re a liar but that’s an already generally known fact.

I read the Van Dun article you linked. All I can say is that I think he NAILS IT!!

I tried to find something he says that I object to, and I have to say he resonates with me, and has brilliantly and clearly expressed the difficulty I have had accepting the Kinsella (and Block) position on Rothbard and NAP.

Reading that article was a very satisfying experience. Thank you for the push.
WB

These animals ensure that you have satisfied the current rules of homesteading, i.e., permanent use. Ingenious! I wonder if you need cattle or prairie dogs or coyotes will do? Their hides are very rare fashion accessories. And what about ostriches, will they do?

This is clearly not true. I explained that to homestead is to permanently transform a good into a good that is not nature-given. Letting a few of your animals wander around on land does not transform the land through human action. Your emphasis on “a few” only implies there is no transforming at all. The land is still wild. Another actor could not come along and notice that the land has been transformed into a product of human action, because it hasn’t. You have not transformed the land, you just let your animals wander around on it.

What you have noticed is governments making mere decrees of ownership. A verbal decree is certainly not an act of homesteading, and at most you have witnessed a farmer or some other individual “buying” a big plot of land from a government that does not rightfully own it because they never homesteaded it (and many times never even touched it) and no one can sell land they don’t rightfully own.

It is not homesteading that lead to this, which I agree is a travesty. Rather, it is the disrespect for homesteading illustrated by the fact some government drew lines on a map and proclaimed everything inside the lines their own, and then “sold” big chunks of this land to people who also have no claim of ownership even though their claims are backed by the presiding legal system. In fact, complaining about this suggests you think homesteading *is* legitimate, i.e. if you transformed some of that land yourself you *would* own it, no matter what the government or the buyers of “government property” have to say about it.

I’ll check this out, thanks. I think Van Dun gets it…

Don’t dispair on the silver (or gold). Given enough time, your holdings will look brilliant!

http://mises.org/journals/jls/18_2/18_2_2.pdf

This is exactly it. Apparently, there is no possible way for market participants to differentiate between a football that someone is bouncing on his head and one that burst weeks ago and he chucked into the sea. The ball is either gripped tightly or it, well, just must be up for grabs – no other rules are possible! More insanity.

No, not speaking in tongues. I admire your ability to cut to the core of the matter, but truth is you are not going to get a confession, and it is not because the simple meaning of “are you guilty?” can’t be made to be understood.

Thank you for remindig me of Van Dun. You have strong support for your views, just not here.

If you have a chance to read Patry, especially his treatment of metaphor, let me know. He dispenses handily the arguments of “natrual rights” in the context of copyrights, but has broader applicability to the general issue of argumentation as it “exists” on this site, at least in the realm of IP.

Cheers,

Kid Salami says:

if you don’t see why this is worth answering then that is an answer in itself.

Then Kinsella asks:

How can you engage in normative argumentative justification that there are no norms?

Then Surda says:

It’s more like stamina and speed makes right: you have an advantage if you can carry more, and if you can snatch stuff that others perhaps unintentionally let loose.

And Kinsella agree and adds:

Exactly. Except that this way of talking is saying there IS no right; that “right” is meaningless or irrelevant. “might makes right” means this too.

It appears that Peter and Stephan have convinced themselves that in fact it is not worth answering, and give each other a pass to the essential question Kid is posing:

if we agree that both theories are essenitally the same except they have a single parameter which very different in each case (short v long), then I still don’t see the basis on which you can deny my claim that you are aggressing against me by saying you have done this “homestead” thing on the land that I want to walk on.

Surda says he doesn’t agree with this, but fails to explain why. I know why.

Asking what “abandonment” means is no different than asking what “possession” and/or “ownership” means. Block makes a stab at this by saying abandonment doesn’t arise until there is “notice”.

Neither Peter or Stephan want to say what their positon is. It is better to just stick with “you own sometig when you homestead it” and not get tied down by addressing the situations where this is clearly inadequate as a comprehensive theory of property rights.

To put it more poetically, they see the edge of the cliff and refuse to cross over it, or if you prefer more homey imagry, Kid places a cattle gate before the cattle, and they stop short because they recognized a trap when they see one.

This leaves the discussion with the false dichotomy of 1) the homesteading rule or; 2) might makes right (that is, if you can grab and go, the faster you are, the longer you can run, and the more you can carry means you “own” more stuff; i.e. just another way to describe “might”)

When you define the universe as containing only this or that, and you construct both to suite your conclusion, it is not really much of a debate.

Exactly. Except that this way of talking is saying there IS no right; that “right” is meaningless or irrelevant. “might makes right” means this too.

And such an interaction involves certain normative assumptions that, I would argue, are inconsistent with a pure-possession approach, that is, with a non-property approach.

in a way, I agree. I do not think that anyone would seriously aim for a model based on this (assuming, of course, it’s defined consistently. Inconsistents we see a lot). But purely from scientific point of view, I’ll pretend that Kid is serious. I’m not sure why he’s doing it though, he knows it leads to conclusions he disagrees with.

A possession-only approach is basically non-normative; mights-makes-right.

it’s more like stamina and speed makes right: you have an advantage if you can carry more, and if you can snatch stuff that others perhaps unintentionally let loose.

Not sure this is right. To “define” something, to try to justify an approach, requires the advocate of that position to do it in the context of an argumentation: a civilized interpersonal discourse. And such an interaction involves certain normative assumptions that, I would argue, are inconsistent with a pure-possession approach, that is, with a non-property approach. A possession-only approach is basically non-normative; mights-makes-right. How can you engage in normative argumentative justification that there are no norms?