Comments on: The relation between the non-aggression principle and property rights: a response to Division by Zer0

By: Elwood P. Dowd

Elwood P. Dowd — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 22:14:14 +0000

Pope Kinsella
What are you talking about? Have you even read my posts? I have not switched my discussion at all. You are once again raising the issue of heresy, any difference in the minutia of Church Doctrine constitutes a rejection of all Holy Scripture. I have never rejected, at any point, Lockean homesteading, I have discussed the basis of Lockean homesteading and the confusion engendered by yours and others blind faith in the Gospel of Libertarianism.
“Seems to me you are now switching to a discussion of what counts as to first use.” No, that has been my discussion from the beginning, it is my opinion that defining property rights as being based on first use, and at the same time holding the question of what constitutes “use” as heretical, as you do, is dishonest. You cannot understand property rights by starting in the middle, you must have an understanding of your initial conditions to proceed rationally rather than simply by faith.

The Heretic and Poor Lost Soul, Sy Akhplart

By: Stephan Kinsella

Stephan Kinsella — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 21:10:56 +0000

Ahh, the blindness of faith. You do not understand the phrase “defined as unused”? How about the phrase “tract of natural ‘virginal’ countryside”? Just exactly what is the first use of this particular untouched piece of land that converted it from unowned to owned? Do you maybe ascribe to the communist view that we all use gravity and gravity is a property of the entire earth therefor we all own all of the earth?

Seems to me you are now switching to a discussion of what counts as to first use. Not to the idea that some things are unused, and then become appropriate. Is your objection to Lockean homesteading really that it is meaningless to say some things are at one point unused, unappropriated, then at some later time, due to human action, they are appropriated? Really?

By: Rudd-O

Rudd-O — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 18:30:00 +0000

Yup, the whole post is the intro to the epiphany which would be the last two paragraphs. Thanks for your attention, Stephan.

Did you know that you are the *only* person who I have seen convince Stefan Molyneux that he was mistaken about something to the extent of leading him in a 180 degree turn?

It’s not because Stef is arrogant or stubborn — he is not, it’s usually the case that people who disagree with Stef are the ones who are wrong, and very amateurishly or pettily so. It’s that Stef is almost all the time correct on what he speaks about, and the people who disagree with him just present specious arguments or insults.

In contrast with that, you are the only person I’ve ever seen be so compellingly right (remember the intellectual podcast with you and him and I think Wendy McElroy?) and presenting a case so watertight, with so much intellectual closure and consistency with observable reality, that Stef just… changed his mind completely after the cast.

I had read your book Against Intellectual Property before, so I sorta expected to listen to that cast and see some lively debate between you and Stef (who until that point believed in Ayn Rand’s theory of property, thus intellectual monopolies as well). There was NO DEBATE, LITERALLY. Everyone listened to you make your very simple, very straightforward points, Stef asked you a couple of questions (politely but clearly disagreeing), you answered them, that was it. No one got angry, no one got defensive.

That’s the power of simple, correct ideas. You are the man. Respect for that.

By: Stephan Kinsella

Stephan Kinsella — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 12:33:04 +0000

Rudd-o–very nice post, and thanks for the nice words. You said you had an epiphany–in your post you mentioned several things–what part in particular were you referring to as your epiphany? The stuff in the last paragraph, I assume?

BTW I like your phrase “monopolies of the mind” on your site, and added it to my list of synonyms for IP here http://c4sif.org/2011/01/intellectual-poverty/

By: Rudd-O

Rudd-O — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 03:57:56 +0000

My thoughts on the matter:

http://rudd-o.com/en/archives/on-property-marxism-anarcho-communism-anarcho-capitalism-statism-and-the-social-contract

By: Elwood P. Dowd

Elwood P. Dowd — Mon, 10 Oct 2011 18:29:50 +0000

Pope Kinsella
Ahh, the blindness of faith. You do not understand the phrase “defined as unused”? How about the phrase “tract of natural ‘virginal’ countryside”? Just exactly what is the first use of this particular untouched piece of land that converted it from unowned to owned? Do you maybe ascribe to the communist view that we all use gravity and gravity is a property of the entire earth therefor we all own all of the earth?
“This makes no sense. Unowned land is acquired by first use. Then it’s no longer unused. I cannot even understand this bizarre objection.” This is so stupid it actually made me laugh out loud. Apparently you see no contradiction in saying that land that has never been used, has been used. As objectivist fools love to say, you believe in A and not-A at the same time.
The Heretic and Poor Lost Soul, Sy Akhplart

By: Stephan Kinsella

Stephan Kinsella — Mon, 10 Oct 2011 17:52:17 +0000

First, the “tract of natural ‘virginal’ countryside” that you reference in your example, how did the owner acquire title to this land in the first place? If unowned land can ONLY be acquired by “first use” how did this land, that you have defined as unused, become someones property in the first place? Your example requires something other than first use as a basis for property rights.

This makes no sense. Unowned land is acquired by first use. Then it’s no longer unused. I cannot even understand this bizarre objection. No one else can object to A’s homesteading an unowned resource precisely because they are not the owner.

See de Jasay on this, in the references and links here http://blog.mises.org/9611/down-with-the-lockean-proviso/ and also http://blog.mises.org/archives/006992.asp, and notes 19 and 24 to http://mises.org/daily/3660#note19

By: Elwood P. Dowd

Elwood P. Dowd — Mon, 10 Oct 2011 16:52:32 +0000

Graham
Good question, it points right at the general confusion regarding property rights in the Church of Libertarianism. The question of what constitutes “use” in regards to property rights is generally glossed over. First, the “tract of natural ‘virginal’ countryside” that you reference in your example, how did the owner acquire title to this land in the first place? If unowned land can ONLY be acquired by “first use” how did this land, that you have defined as unused, become someones property in the first place? Your example requires something other than first use as a basis for property rights. The confusion over “use” has been made worse by Pope Kinsellas sloppy and confused discussion of “scarcity” as a prerequisite for property rights. This is compounded by the conflating of “economic value” and property in most explanations. That something has no economic value (money price) does not prevent it from possibly being property. Property rights are about conflicting uses, where different uses do not conflict, or where conflicting uses are not possible there is no question of property rights. To finally answer your question, “use” as employed in the principle of “first use” as a basis for property rights means ONLY use which conflicts with someone else’s use. Standing and gazing across a tract of untouched land with awe and reverence does not convey any property rights BECAUSE it does not conflict with anyone else’s similar use.
The Heretic and Poor Lost Soul, Sy Akhplart

By: Graham O'Connor

Graham O'Connor — Mon, 10 Oct 2011 05:06:12 +0000

“20 years later, does he still have the right to exclude others from using it?”
This says nothing about the value that is being gained by the owner. Perhaps the land is being kept as a tract of natural ‘virginal’ countryside, to be enjoyed by the owner whenever they like. To someone else this may appear to be abandoned. Does the concept of ‘use’ involve constantly manually altering the land in some way?

By: Peter Surda

Peter Surda — Sat, 08 Oct 2011 12:43:55 +0000

Stephan,

that’s the book I mean, although I read it before you made your post.

Wildberry,

again you are mixing several unrelated things and present double entendres, except you don’t expect your posts to be treated as a comedy.

By: Inquisitor

Inquisitor — Sat, 08 Oct 2011 01:08:53 +0000

It is a form of appropriation of other persons. Not legitimate. However, that is why libertarians are focused on self-ownership, to de-legitimise slavery. If you mean to say that the very nature of one’s control over one’s body entails this, fair enough, but that’s precisely what Hoppe argues through his own arguments on self-ownership.

By: Wildberry

Wildberry — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 19:45:09 +0000

Dear Peter and Stephan show:

If Mises “merely says that other considerations might be relevant”, then I suppose it is reasonable to raise them here. Problem?

As to Cordato, no I have not, but I just downloaded it and will take a look.

In the meantime, given your familarity and expertise in the area, Mr. Kinsella, wish to drop the essential pearl of wisdom? I have never seen a comment from you on the issue of externalities. Did I just miss it? You seem to have written on everything else.

By: Stephan Kinsella

Stephan Kinsella — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 17:51:54 +0000

I doubt he has read Cordato, but others may want to–I assume you are referring to this stuff by Kirzner and Cordato: http://blog.mises.org/16570/cordato-and-kirzner-on-intellectual-property/

By: Peter Surda

Peter Surda — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 17:25:46 +0000

Wildberry,

Mises’ insights refute the praxeological justification for IP, he merely says that other considerations might be relevant. It is a sad that demagogues misrepresent his words. If nothing else, this should be proof enough of invalidity of your approach. Have you read Cordato yet?

By: Stephan Kinsella

Stephan Kinsella — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 17:07:20 +0000

No one has yet presented a sincere, coherent, principled case for IP, much less mises, you gadfly twit.

By: Wildberry

Wildberry — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 16:59:52 +0000

Yes, and Mises’s insights on the resulting external economies bolsters the argument for IP.

I’m sure you meant to mention that.

By: Thursday

Thursday — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 16:53:05 +0000

Oh, I was replying to nate-m’s criticism, not to your article, Mr. Kinsella.

I thought the article was laid out pretty well I agree that it would simply take far too much digital ink to actually go through the entire calculation problem in addition to all the other issues you addressed… I often run into the problem myself trying to explain such views via conversation.

By: Virginia Llorca

Virginia Llorca — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 03:40:27 +0000

I apologize for pointing an accusing finger at anyone specifically. It just seems that sometimes my comments get by and sometimes they do not. I shouldn’t get caught in your spam filter as I am properly registered. And, honestly, Mr. Kinsella, and I say this in my most respectful tone, I did not know you were one of the powers. I thought you were just a prolific commentator. I’m not much good at research unless it involves goldfish and grizzly bears.

By: Elwood P. Dowd

Elwood P. Dowd — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 02:39:32 +0000

Peter
“The question you should be asking is: who has the right to prosecute the squatter for his crime? ”
No, I don’t care who has the right to prosecute at this time, you have completely missed (or ignored) my point. You say yourself that what the squatter is doing is a crime, how do you legitimize title to property that you obtained through a criminal act? That is entirely my point, you can’t. The issues you bring up speak only to the various ways that the two parties prove their respective positions to be correct. The squatter claims the property was already abandoned when he squatted on it, the nominal owner tries to show that was not true. The legitimate justification for adverse possession as a way to acquire ownership of property is based on showing that the property had already been abandoned BEFORE the squatter moved in. That the facts might be in dispute is true of all methods of acquiring property, not just adverse possession.

The Heretic and Poor Lost Soul, Sy Akhplart

By: Elwood P. Dowd

Elwood P. Dowd — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 02:30:31 +0000

Inquisitor
Really? You actually believe that slavery is a legitimate form of property? That people have and sometimes still are enslaved does not make slavery a property right, it is still a violent criminal activity. Just as murder is still not permissible even though it sometimes happens. Please pull your head out and take a deep cleansing breathe.

The Heretic and Poor Lost Soul, Sy Akhplart