Science and Technology news... :: View topic - If You Don>t Like Wealth Spread Your Way, Just Send It To Me

Guest

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 06:19:10 GMT, Publius
<m.publius@nospam.comcast.net> wrote:

[quote]"SORR Point" <Relaxing@theBeach.DownUnder.org> wrote in
news:49210703$0$4452$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au:

All are natural resources gifted free of charge by the Universe to
all Humans on Earth.

Oh? Did you keep the gift card?

The Universe as Santa Claus. Cosmology has a whole new dimension!

So where else did the coal, oil, gas, gold, land, grasslands, buffalo,
water, fish, florida beaches and the oceans come from Publius?

Where they came from is irrelevant.
[/quote]
That is the same error Karl Marx made.

[quote]What would be relevant is whether they
were given to anyone, and if so, to whom.
[/quote]
No, what would be relevant is whether they were TAKEN from anyone, and
if so, whom.

[quote]There is no evidence they were given to anyone by anyone. That means they
are unowned. And if they are unowned, then they are up for grabs, first-
come, first served, "finders, keepers."
[/quote]
Otherwise known as, "I grabbed the water source; you are now
permanently my slave."

Which might be fine for a kindergarten playground, but not so much for
reasonable adults.

-- Roy L

Guest

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:15:41 GMT, Publius
<m.publius@nospam.comcast.net> wrote:

[quote]"SORR Point" <Relaxing@theBeach.DownUnder.org> wrote in
news:49212092$0$18428$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au:

and on and on it goes ... but such is the example of selfishness and
abject greed and brutal bullies who think they own anything they can
get away with stealing from everyone else, in the playground or in the
world at large.

Er, either you have forgotten the hypothesis, or you are merely question-
begging. If they are unowned, then they cannot be "stolen."
[/quote]
Already disproved many times. Remember the fruit tree thief?

[quote]"To steal" is
to take that which belongs to another without permission.
[/quote]
No, it has already been proved many times that that is a lie.
Remember Dirty Harry at the waterhole?

[quote]By hypothesis the
goods in question do not belong to anyone (unless you can produce your gift
card, of course). So that complaint won>t work, being inapplicable.
[/quote]
They don>t belong to the thieving parasite who claims to own them,
either.

[quote]Try to pay attention to the train of argument and avoid assuming what needs
to be proved.
[/quote]
?? ROTFL!!

As they say in Japan, "It>s mirror time!"

-- Roy L

Guest

On Nov 17, 9:22 pm, "SORR Point" <Relax...@theBeach.DownUnder.org>
wrote:

[quote]Nope! Only stuff you get for free, non-taxable unpaid benefits of
simply being a US Citizen.

It>s a ssimple as the end price you end up paying for the gas in your
tank .... is lower because of how the government has set up the system
that allows you to put gas in your tank ... you didn>t achieve this,
you didn>t pay for it, the so-called free marketeers are not
responsible for it, and nor do they pay for it either .... but every
day you benefit in hard cash, and in non-cash benefits as a result of
simply being an American
[/quote]
Hm. You are quite confused. The US government has not set up any
"system"
for delivering gas to my tank. Indeed, its role in that system is
very
minor, extending only to granting drilling leases on some gummint
lands, in
much the same manner as private landowners grant leases. The gummint
did
not discover the oil, did not develop the technologies for
recovering,
refining, or utilizing it, did not build the refineries, does not
operate
them, and does not deliver any of the product to my gas tank.

That mythological understanding of markets is exceedingly common,
however.
Many economic naifs assume that the workings of an economy are the
result
of some Grand Master Plan conceived and implemented by a wise and
beneficent gummint, when gummints are actually bystanders at best,
and
saboteurs at worst. Gummints throw monkey-wrenches into economic
systems
far more often than they contribute anything of value to them.

[quote]the poor in your country pay for the rich as well because it isn>t an
equal sharing
[/quote]
Oh? Can you give an example of how the poor pay for the rich? I know
of no
such cases. Is this some kind of ideological hyperbole or metaphor?

And what is it you believe the poor and the rich should share equally?
Shouldn>t the shares in benefits produced by a system be proportionate
the
contributions to the system? Or are you a closet marxist?

[quote]And by the very fact that you live in a democracy with the rule of
law, with governments, and Laws, and Taxes, and a military machine
means that you personally benefit from that far and beyond any taxes
extracted ....
[/quote]
I guess all these free lunches appear by some kind of magic, eh?

Snipping the, rest. More complaints about past abuses, with no
suggestion
about how they might justify current abuses, i.e., how they may
justify
stealing from Tom in order to bestow goodies on Dick and Harry in
exchange
for the latter>s votes.

Publius · Guest

royls@telus.net wrote:

[quote]Er, either you have forgotten the hypothesis, or you are merely
question- begging. If they are unowned, then they cannot be "stolen."

Already disproved many times.
[/quote]
No "proof" involved (except perhaps per Royesque logic). It is simply a
question of the ordinary meaning of the word "steal":

"1: to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual
or regular practice."

---http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/steal

I.e., no property, no theft. You>ll just have to stick with the ordinary
meanings of words if you expect to communicate with others, Roy.

[quote]Remember the fruit tree thief?

No, it has already been proved many times that that is a lie.
Remember Dirty Harry at the waterhole?
[/quote]
Not clearly, no. I believe I dismissed those scenarios because they had no
bearing on the issues in question.

SORR Point · Guest

"Publius" <m.publius@nospam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9B5B4D87E5769mpubliusnospamcomcas@69.16.185.250...
[quote]royls@telus.net wrote:

Er, either you have forgotten the hypothesis, or you are merely
question- begging. If they are unowned, then they cannot be "stolen."

Already disproved many times.

No "proof" involved (except perhaps per Royesque logic). It is simply a
question of the ordinary meaning of the word "steal":

"1: to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a
habitual
or regular practice."

---http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/steal

I.e., no property, no theft. You>ll just have to stick with the ordinary
meanings of words if you expect to communicate with others, Roy.

Remember the fruit tree thief?

No, it has already been proved many times that that is a lie.
Remember Dirty Harry at the waterhole?

Not clearly, no. I believe I dismissed those scenarios because they had no
bearing on the issues in question.
[/quote]
-------------------------------------

Sean: Ooops it>s a sign things are getting more desperate when the response
rate goes down and one starts digging out word definitions to prop up a pov.
OK, I>ll play along. :)

Clearly related to prior posts, and also above:

Definitions of property on the Web:

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&rlz=1C1CHMG_enAU291&defl=en&q=define:property&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

-something owned; any tangible or intangible possession that is owned by
someone;
- place: any area set aside for a particular purpose;

Property designates those things commonly recognized as the entities in
respect of which a person or group has exclusive rights. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property

The rights or interests a person has in the thing owned; not, in the
technical sense, the thing itself. These rights include the right to
possess, to use, to encumber, to transfer and to exclude, commonly called
the "bundle of rights."
www.fdjones.com/real_estate_glossary_p.htm

Anything that has a value and is owned is termed property. It may be
tangible or intangible (incorporeal), personal or public, or common.
puritangroup.com/LinkClick.aspx

A word which can be used to describe every type of right (that is, a claim
recognised by law), interest, or thing which is legally capable of
ownership, and which has a value.
www.robertsonhyetts.com.au/legal_terms.php

REAL PROPERTY
The real property which is the subject of the inquiry. Real property
includes buildings and other fixtures and improvements located upon the
property and affixed to the land.
www.emgcorp.com/whatshot/dictionary.php

Land, from the center of the earth and extending above the surface
indefinitely, including all inherent natural attributes and any man-made
improvements of a permanent nature place thereon. For example minerals,
trees, buildings, appurtenant rights.
www.avescrow.com/eGlossary.asp

Land and any permanent fixtures on it, including buildings, trees and
minerals.
www.emtar.com/pdf/realeasteterms.htm

Land and appurtenances, including anything of a permanent nature such as
structures, trees, minerals, and the interest, benefits, and inherent rights
thereof.
www.charlestonrealestateguide.com/real-estate-r.shtml

Possession, claim to, or ownership of real estate.
www.lyon-county.org/index.asp

The combination of the tangible and intangible attributes of land and
improvements. Value-wise, it is the sum of the value of the real estate,
considered as land and structure and, for example, the tangible value
arising by reason of a favourable lease. ...
www.appleton.biz/termsnde.htm

Definitions of property rights

Rights that govern the use and ownership of a resource, such as with the use
and ownership of land. Property rights should be: well defined; freely
transferable; enforceable; and secure over the long term. ...
www.marketbasedinstruments.gov.au/tabid/162/Default.aspx

Property designates those things commonly recognized as the entities in
respect of which a person or group has exclusive rights. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property rights

A property right is the exclusive authority to determine how a resource is
used, whether that resource is owned by government or by individuals. All
economic goods have a property rights attribute. This attribute has three
broad components
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property rights (economics)

The exclusive right of possessing, enjoying, and disposing of a thing
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/property rights

SORR Point · Guest

<m.publius@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:35833569-7b2e-49f3-ace0-ece53838ba3e@d36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 17, 9:22 pm, "SORR Point" <Relax...@theBeach.DownUnder.org>
wrote:

[quote]Nope! Only stuff you get for free, non-taxable unpaid benefits of
simply being a US Citizen.

It>s a ssimple as the end price you end up paying for the gas in your
tank .... is lower because of how the government has set up the system
that allows you to put gas in your tank ... you didn>t achieve this,
you didn>t pay for it, the so-called free marketeers are not
responsible for it, and nor do they pay for it either .... but every
day you benefit in hard cash, and in non-cash benefits as a result of
simply being an American
[/quote]
Hm. You are quite confused. The US government has not set up any
"system"
for delivering gas to my tank. Indeed, its role in that system is
very
minor, extending only to granting drilling leases on some gummint
lands, in
much the same manner as private landowners grant leases. The gummint
did
not discover the oil, did not develop the technologies for
recovering,
refining, or utilizing it, did not build the refineries, does not
operate
them, and does not deliver any of the product to my gas tank.

------------------------------------------------------

Sean: No Publius, I am not confused at all. What I said was quite accurate.
But you sure do have a mental block in expanding your pov. It>s sometimes
called *stuck*

---------------------------------------------------------

That mythological understanding of markets is exceedingly common,
however.
Many economic naifs assume that the workings of an economy are the
result
of some Grand Master Plan conceived and implemented by a wise and
beneficent gummint, when gummints are actually bystanders at best,
and
saboteurs at worst. Gummints throw monkey-wrenches into economic
systems
far more often than they contribute anything of value to them.

---------------------------

Sean: Yes publius, I know this is what you believe already, nothing new
here.
----------------------------

[quote]the poor in your country pay for the rich as well because it isn>t an
equal sharing
[/quote]
Oh? Can you give an example of how the poor pay for the rich? I know
of no
such cases. Is this some kind of ideological hyperbole or metaphor?

And what is it you believe the poor and the rich should share equally?
Shouldn>t the shares in benefits produced by a system be proportionate
the
contributions to the system?
----------------------------------

Sean: You work it out, if you>re so clever. :)
----------------------------------

Or are you a closet marxist?
-----------------------------------

Sean: NO, I am simply aware of how things work in Life! Apparently you do
not want to hear it. :)

------------------------------------

[quote]And by the very fact that you live in a democracy with the rule of
law, with governments, and Laws, and Taxes, and a military machine
means that you personally benefit from that far and beyond any taxes
extracted ....
[/quote]
I guess all these free lunches appear by some kind of magic, eh?

---------------------------------------

Sean: No magic whatsoever, follows basic law as clear and direct of why an
electron orbits around a nucleus.
----------------------------------------

Snipping the, rest. More complaints about past abuses, with no
suggestion
about how they might justify current abuses, i.e., how they may
justify
stealing from Tom in order to bestow goodies on Dick and Harry in
exchange
for the latter>s votes.

-----------------------------

Sean: Snip away publius, and by all means keep projecting your own personal
shortcomings onto others. That>s how we learn .... eventually at least!
You>ll get there one day, or one long cold dark night! <smile>

Guest

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 07:26:45 GMT, Publius
<m.publius@nospam.comcast.net> wrote:

[quote]royls@telus.net wrote in news:491da645.3771447@news.telus.net:

The government does not assign titles, unless it is the seller of the
property. The seller assigns titles. The government records them.

The government grants them in the first place, because part of its
function is to administer possession and use of land.

Too broad, Roy. It is part of its function to administer only its own
lands.
[/quote]
Meaning the area of land it governs.

[quote]Administering possession and use of private lands is a merely a
latter-day usurpation many governments have arrogated to themselves (among
their numerous other usurped powers).
[/quote]
No, that is just your own false, baseless, and stupid opinion. All
governments, in all times, have administered possession and use of all
the land within their borders. Every single one. You have simply
realized that that fact of objective reality proves your beliefs are
false and evil, so you have decided not to know it.

[quote]The US Constitution, for example,
confers no power on Congress to "administer" anybody>s land.
[/quote]
<yawn> Congress is not the executive or judiciary, sunshine, and the
Constitution explicitly reserves all powers it does not assign to the
federal government to the state _governments_ or the people. As the
states were all administering possession and use of land before the
Constitution was written, that is one of the powers it delegates to
them.

[quote]State
governments may regulate land use in the interests of public health and
safety.
[/quote]
Or for pretty much any other reason.

[quote]But it may not deny all economic use, or take possession of
anyone>s land, without paying for it.
[/quote]
OK, so you agree that I am absolutely and indisputably correct that
government administers possession and use of land, notwithstanding
that in some cases it may compensate private owners for notional
"losses" resulting from its exercise of that power. Good.

[quote]Nor do governments grant titles "in the first place."
[/quote]
Yes, of course they do.

[quote]Government grants
titles only to lands it has already acquired by first possession.
[/quote]
No, that is just another lie on your part. It grants titles to all
the land over which it exercises sovereign authority, no matter how it
came to have that authority -- which was normally via military
conquest, not first possession.

[quote]In all
other cases the first settlers upon a tract of land staked claims,
[/quote]
No, that is just another lie on your part. They just started using
the land, and in most cases the land has subsequently been
appropriated by force so many times that the current title bears no
relationship to the first settlers' actions.

[quote]and when
enough people had settled in the area to justify a local government, they
created one and recorded the claims.
[/quote]
No, that is just another lie on your part. Governments are created
primarily to secure property rights, but also to secure a modus
vivendi. In many cases this has meant that private claims to own
natural resources -- e.g., watercourses -- have been voided
unilaterally to secure the rights of the rest of the community.

[quote]Newcomers staked their own claims and
likewise filed them with the county recorder. See, e.g.,

http://www.endoftheoregontrail.org/road2oregon/sa28claims.html
[/quote]
Thus forcibly dispossessing the native occupants and users of the land
-- who had forcibly dispossessed earlier inhabitants. I have already
explained how this was typically done incrementally.

[quote]You have reversed the order of precedence, Roy. Settlers come first, land
claims come next, and gummint a distant third. Even after gummint is in
place it does not "grant" any land titles.
[/quote]
??? Of course it does. You are just stupid, lying garbage, as I have
already proved on many occcasions. Here>s another proof:

http://www.landgrant.org/history.html

[quote]The settler "grants" himself
[/quote]
??? Oh? By what authority?

And you have the effrontery to demand to see notarized documents to
record gifts from nature??

ROTFL!!

You are just sad, now.

[quote]the land he settles and files the claim with the gummint.
[/quote]
By what authority does he extinguish others' rights to use the land?

[quote]The gummint>s role is
to record the filing and otherwise keep its mouth shut.
[/quote]
Perhaps in your bizarre fantasy world that bears no resemblance to
reality...

[quote]You are enamoured of this idea of government as "Great Mother, Fount of All
Wisdom and and Source of All Good."
[/quote]
Putting that sort of stupid crap in quotation marks and falsely
attributing it to me when you know I have said no such thing is just
lying -- you know: what you always do.

[quote]It is some kind of idolatry.
[/quote]
No, you just always lie about what I have plainly written.

[quote]You>re drawing no distinctions here between real property and personal
property, nor between the government>s powers over your property and the
powers of any other creditor.

LOL!!

The government is not a taxpayer>s creditor except in some trivial
legal sense. You AGREE to pay creditors. The government assigns tax
liabilities unilaterally.

In theory you have agreed to the taxes also, by voting.
[/quote]
No, that claim is of course also flat false, just like all your other
claims, as not voting has no effect on your tax liabilities.

However, when you buy real estate you _do_ agree to either pay
whatever property taxes are levied or relinquish the title, as that is
a known condition government imposes in return for granting and
securing the title.

[quote]Democracy, majority rule, etc. Right?
[/quote]
Wrong. Democracy is to secure people>s rights to a voice in decisions
that affect their rights, not to legitimize theft of the products of
their labor.

[quote]It accounts for the *origins* of title, to real property and all other
property.

No, of course it doesn>t. That is just a lie.

Oh, geez, Roy, get your head outa the sand and read the above link.
[/quote]
<yawn> Right back atcha, sunshine. Do I also have to provide links
to the thousands of other sites that record governments ignoring your
silly fantasies and assigning land titles as they please? What
fraction of the privately owned land area of North America -- let
alone of Europe, Asia, South America, or Africa -- is deeded to its
current owners on the basis of who first lived there, or on any basis
at all but forcible appropriation?

[quote]The origin of title to
products of labor is in the act of production, the origin of title to
natural resources is forcible appropriation -- which throughout
history has been just as validly overturned by forcible appropriation
-- and the origin of title to privileges is the government that
creates them.

The origin of title to the products of labor is first possession.
[/quote]
No, it isn>t. First possession is merely a convenient indicator of
who actually has the right to own them by virtue of having created
them.

[quote]Nobody
inquires and nobody cares what labor was invested in them, or whether there
was any.
[/quote]
Wrong again, as usual. If I shoot a game animal, and you happen to be
closer when it expires and thus first take possession of it, the fact
that my labor killed it trumps your claim based on first possession.

You know this. You have merely realized that it proves your belief
system is false and evil, so you have decided not to know it.

[quote]If you are in possession of them, and have not stolen them from
anyone else, then they are yours, whether they represent 1 hour of labor,
1000 hours of labor, or 0 hours of labor.
[/quote]
Nope. A product of labor by definition cannot represent 0 hours of
labor. That is just another of your attempts to smuggle in your false
conclusions on false premises.

[quote]The origin of titles to land is also first possession.
[/quote]
No, that claim is also a lie, as I have already proved to you many
times. Remember? If your claim were true, you would be able to
identify some land that is currently owned by the heirs and/or
consensual assigns of those who first possessed it.

And you can>t.

[quote]The gummint will recognize all those titles on the
same basis and enforce them the same way.
[/quote]
No, that is just self-evidently and indisputably a lie. The titles to
most land in the UK derive from royal grants of land forcibly
appropriated from its previous "owners" by the Normans after the
Battle of Hastings. The same sort of thing has happened many times,
in countries all over the world. Private land titles trace to acts of
forcible appropriation, not first possession.

[quote]Oh, maybe the government sanctifying title to lands forcibly taken
from previous users and possessors, like native peoples? Maybe like
governments routinely reassigning titles to lands they>ve conquered?
How the hell else do you think 80% of the land area of England ended
up owned by the direct descendants of William the Conqueror>s
officers?

Are you expecting me to deny that lands have been stolen?
[/quote]
No, of course not. I am expecting you to continue lying, just as you
have done from the outset.

[quote]Anything that can be stolen, has been stolen.
[/quote]
No, that is obviously just another lie. My car can be stolen, but
hasn>t been. My land, by contrast, _has_ been stolen (in fact,
"aboriginal title" to it is claimed by more than one aboriginal
group), and so has all other privately owned land. Which proves that
your "first possession principle" is nothing but a fabrication, a
rationalization concocted to justify privilege, injustice and
parasitism.

[quote]Definitely. Administering possession and use of personal property is
not inherently a function of government.

"Inherently"? I didn>t realize gummints had any "inherent" powers.
[/quote]
Yes, well, that would barely scratch the surface of the things you
don>t realize.

[quote]I thought they contingent institutions created for a specific purpose and
granted specific powers, i.e., protecting life, liberty, and property
(which concepts would have to be understood before any institution could be
designed to protect them).
[/quote]
No. Governments have typically emerged as pragmatic necessities
rather than being designed. It can take a few decades, as we>re
seeing in Somalia.

[quote]Administering possession and
use of land _is_. William the Conqueror did not take the native
English>s chattels. He took their land.

You should read the Magna Carta.
[/quote]
<yawn> You should learn that telling people to read things you
obviously haven>t read yourself is not much of an argument.

[quote]Conquering monarchs took any sort of
property to which they took a fancy --- land, cattle, horses, grain, etc.
[/quote]
No. Obviously, that is just another lie on your part. While armies
certainly have a tendency to loot, and governments to tax,
administration of possession and use of land is inherent in the nature
of government as sovereign over the area of land it governs. The only
question is, will government discharge that function in the interests
of and to secure and reconcile the equal rights of all the people, or
will it do so only in the narrow financial interests of a small,
wealthy, idle, privileged, parasitic landowning elite?

[quote]Well, of course. And only automobiles can bestow automobile rent,

There is no such thing as automobile rent. You are just showing your
ignorance of economics.

Huh? Then what keeps Hertz in business?
[/quote]
As I said, you are just proving your comprehensive ignorance of
economics. Rent in the vernacular sense that gives Hertz its revenue
is not what economists mean by rent:

http://www.economist.com/research/Economics/alphabetic.cfm?LETTER=R#rent

[quote]Calling wages rent is one of the more despicable lies. Wages and
interest are received in return for contributing the relevant factors
of production. Rent is obtained by threatening to withhold a factor
of production that would otherwise have been available.

I suppose it would be futile to point out that that is an utterly vacuous
distinction.
[/quote]
ROTFL!! It is the crux of the matter. Which is why you have to
pretend not to know it.

[quote]The landlord contributes his asset in exactly the same sense
as the factory owner and the laborer contribute theirs,
[/quote]
No, that is simply another lie on your part. Proof: If the factory
owner did not pay for its construction, there would be no factory for
the producer to use. If the laborer did not work, there would be no
labor to produce the product. But if the landowner did nothing, or
did not even exist, the land would still be there, ready to use.
Therefore, the landowner>s only function is to act as a receptacle for
the unearned share of production economists call "rent."

You have simply realized that these self-evident and indisputable
facts of objective reality prove that your whole belief system is
false and evil, and have consequently decided never to know them.

[quote]and the capitalist
and laborer will threaten to withhold their contributions also, unless
payments for them are made.
[/quote]
??? They don>t have to make any threats, liar, because they have to
_make_ their respective contributions if production is going to
happen. The laborer must work; the capitalist must provide tools, a
building, etc. By contrast, if the landowner does nothing, the
productive will then be at liberty to use the land for free.

The distinction you call "vacuous" is exactly the distinction that
makes labor and capital contributions to production, and the
depredations of a protection racket not a contribution to production.

[quote]And what would "otherwise" be the case if the
landlord did not own the land would be that someone else would own it ---
perhaps even the gummint!
[/quote]
??? No; if anyone owns it, then he _is_ the landowner. You are just
talking utter nonsense. You could with equal "logic" claim that the
depredations of a protection racketeer represent his "contribution" to
his victims' businessses, because if he did not extort the money from
them, someone else would!

[quote]But the rent would be the same.
[/quote]
Indeed. But if there were no landowner, the rent would go to the
user, the producer. It is only to reconcile the equal claims of all
prospective users to that advantage that land rent should be recovered
from its initial recipients -- land users -- for the purposes and
benefit of the public that creates it. If landowners were not
empowered to extort money from the productive, marginal land that
yields no rent -- i.e., that confers no such advantage -- would be
available to use for free.

[quote]Of course landlords capture the differential productivity of their
lands over marginal lands, given equal inputs of labor and capital. So
does the owner of a more efficient backhoe capture the additional
product resulting from using his machine over less efficient machines.

There is no such rent, because the company that produced the backhoe
can -- and is eager to -- provide as many more of them as necessary to
compete away any such rent.

That does not "compete away" the rents.
[/quote]
Yes, it does. You just don>t know what economists mean by the term,
"rent," and refuse to know how it differs fundamentally from wages and
interest.

[quote]It simply limits the period for
which they can be collected for that particular good. And by the time it is
completely "competed away," there will be an even more efficient backhoe on
the market and the rents will resume.
[/quote]
No. You just obviously know no economics. Backhoes are already about
as efficient as they are going to get, and have been for some time.
There is effectively no economic rent to be obtained by owning one
(there might be a little bit associated with brand names or patented
devices, but that>s a different issue).

[quote]No one can produce more land.

So what? Neither will there be any more paintings by Picasso. Museums will
be paying rents to exhibit them until they turn to dust. There will no more
first editions of *Moby Dick*. And their price will continue to appreciate
until there is no one left to read or prize them.
[/quote]
In some respects collectibles markets do resemble land markets. The
difference is that someone paid Picasso himself for producing his
paintings. No one paid nature for land. And it takes an ongoing
investment to preserve paintings, first editions, etc. from the
elements, insect damage, etc. Land needs no protection or maintenance
to continue as nature made it.

[quote]What does the supply of a good have to do with who is entitled to its
returns?
[/quote]
??? Everything. That should be obvious. The good>s supplier is
entitled to its returns. See above. The point is that landowners do
not supply any goods, as the land is already there, ready to use, with
no help from them or anyone else. Landowners do not supply land any
more than protection rackets supply protection. They only threaten to
_deprive_ their victims of access to what they would otherwise have
had. That is very much the point.

[quote]Economic arguments are wholly irrelevant to questions of property, rights,
entitlements, etc.
[/quote]
<yawn> You claim _all_ facts are irrelevant. But in fact, economics
is at the core of why people evolved property rights at all: they
preserve both capital and accurate incentives to produce it, to the
general benefit of all.

[quote]Economics is indifferent to ownership.
[/quote]
No, it isn>t, which is why economic results are better in places where
more land rent is recovered for public purposes.

[quote]The rents and
prices will be the same regardless of who owns them (unless they all have a
monopoly owner, i.e., the gummint).
[/quote]
Wrong again. Rent is unaffected even by monopoly ownership.

[quote]They will be determined by the market.
The questions are moral, not economic.
[/quote]
Morality does not arise ex nihilo. It is an emergent aspect of human
nature, and is thus affected by contingent facts of economics.

[quote]The question is, Who has the better
claim to those returns, the first possessor and his heirs and assigns, or
"the public"?
[/quote]
Oh, the public, definitely, as I have proved so many times.

[quote]And why should the landowner expect greater returns as a result of
increased population, improved labor and capital investment, and
government expenditures on services and infrastructure? Yet he gets
them.

With respect to population, because there will be a larger pool of bidders
for his property.
[/quote]
Wrong again. You obviously have not read "Progress and Poverty," or
you could not still be so ignorant of the relevant facts of economics.
The numer of bidders is completely irrelevant, as none will bid any
more than the economic advantage obtainable by using the land. The
reason increased population increases rents is that it pushes the
margin outward to lower-quality land. Two bidders for good land will
bid more than a million bidders for lousy land.

Of course, you do not know this fact because you have realized that it
proves your beliefs false and evil, and have consequently decided
never to know it.

[quote]The same reason the seller of an antique chest will
expect a better price at an auction if there are 1000 bidders vs. 100.
[/quote]
Wrong, as explained above. You simply know no economics.

[quote]He will not benefit, BTW, from improved labor or capital investment.
[/quote]
Actually, BTW, that claim only repeats the proof of your total
ignorance of economics. Improvements to labor and capital will both
typically increase the advantage enjoyed by those who use the better
locations, and thus their rent.

[quote]The owners of those assets will reap those returns.
[/quote]
No, they will not, as Ricardo proved nearly 200 years ago:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Rent

[quote]And of course, he has
already paid his share of any gummint services (assuming he is paying taxes
proportionate to the value of his asset, as are all other taxpayers).
[/quote]
No, he hasn>t paid his share of public expenses, because land value is
precisely the magnitude of his after-tax subsidy: the value of what
government and the community give him for doing nothing. By contrast,
the value of products of labor comes from their producers, not
government or the community.

[quote]Clear enough?
[/quote]
Oh, it>s clear that you know nothing whatever about it.

[quote]LOL! Yet the landowner gets a greater return while making no
contribution whatever. That>s kinda the point here, sunshine.

What? He is not contributing his land?
[/quote]
Correct; he isn>t. He is just threatening to stop others from using
what nature provided unless they pay him extortion money, just like a
gangster operating a protection racket threatens to prevent "his"
customers from patronizing a business. Like the market, the land is
already there, waiting to be used, with no "contribution" needed from
him or anyone else.

[quote]Oh -- it is not *his* land (it is "the public>s" land) yet he is reaping
the returns.
[/quote]
Exactly. Just as a protection racketeer does not own a business>s
customers just because he can choose to keep them away by threats of
violence.

[quote]So we>re back to establishing the basis for the public>s claim and whether
it trumps that of the current landowner.
[/quote]
What extinguished the public>s liberty to use it?

[quote]The "labor theory of value" underlies this whole nonsensical idea, i.e.,
that labor is the "true source" of all value.

Lie. It is, though, self-evidently the source of the value of its
products.

Really? What is the relationship between labor input and value output?
[/quote]
No labor in --> no product value out.

[quote]I.e., how much labor input (in some unit --- hours, ergs, etc.) is required
to produce n dollars of value?
[/quote]
There is no "unit of labor," any more than there is a unit of
groceries, sports, or beauty. As with the latter three, a more or
less arbitrary rubric can be constructed to measure the former, but
that does not mean it is anything more than an attempt to aid
understanding. E.g., you could measure labor in worker-hours or cost,
groceries in weight or price, sports in fans, contests, or revenues,
beauty in helens (one millihelen = the beauty required to launch one
ship ;^), but all of those are just measures concocted for specific
purposes.

That said, as Jevons and Wicksteed demonstrated over a century ago,
entrepreneurs will tend to increase expenditure on labor until its
marginal cost is equal to its marginal product. I.e., at the margin

labor cost in = product value out

An invalid generalization of this observed economic relationship away
from the margin is what gave rise to the fallacious Labor Theory of
Value.

[quote]That false premise leads
to the productivity of land being mis-described as "increasing the
productivity of labor."

No, that is an accurate description. The same labor obtains a greater
product on better land.

The labor is not the only contributor to the product. If there is a greater
product due to better land, then it is the land whose contribution has
increased, not that of labor.
[/quote]
The land does not "contribute" anything, any more than its owner does.
It is just used by labor. If a greater product is due to the worker>s
use of better land, is a lesser product due to his being consigned to
worse land? That would certainly argue for compensation.

And what is the objective baseline that defines how much labor
produces with no contribution from land? As there is no product
without land, does land contribute everything and labor nothing? How
can such silliness be reconciled with the fact that there is also no
product without labor, and labor therefore contributes everything?

You see? Your claims are just nonsensical.

[quote]"Labor" here is imputing to itself
improvements in production for which it cannot claim credit,
[/quote]
?? ROTFL!!

How much less, then, can the landowner, who made no contribution at
all, claim credit for them?

[quote]and then seeking to expropriate the increased returns to itself.
[/quote]
No, because the additional return due to use of more advantageous land
would go to the government and community that make the land more
advantageous, not to labor. There is no objective basis on which to
distinguish "improved" from "unimproved" production, and it is not
labor but the landowner who seeks to -- and does -- expropriate the
increased returns resulting from more advantageous conditions to which
he made no contribution.

[quote]It plays the same
sleight-of-hand with capital, i.e., pretending that the increased output
from a speedier machine has "increased the productivity of labor."
[/quote]
That is, again, completely accurate.

[quote]That
nonsense, of course, simply reveals that the labor theory of value is
embedded in the vocabulary.
[/quote]
??? Now _that_ is _really_ nonsense. How do you imagine the LTV is
"embedded in the vocabulary"?

[quote]All improvements to production become
"converted" to improvements in the productivity of labor.
[/quote]
That is simply an accurate description of reality.

[quote]Labor improves its productivity when it increases its skills, acquires
experience, improves its techniques, etc.
[/quote]
And capital investment improves labor>s productivity by providing
better tools. So? Land doesn>t do anything, and neither does the
landowner -- other than pocket a share of production in return for
zero (0) contribution to production, of course.

[quote]If those remain the same, then
its contribution to production remains the same.
[/quote]
Yes, but its productivity is not the same as its contribution to
production. If a trapper sets out his traps and gets 10 animals one
week, then sets the same traps and gets 20 animals the next week, his
contribution to production is unaltered, but his productivity has
doubled. This fact is self-evident and indisputable, but because you
have realized that it proves your beliefs are false and evil, you
refuse to know it.

[quote]Credit for increased
product due to better land or better technology or better machinery belongs
elsewhere, and so do any increased returns.
[/quote]
It>s certainly true that the increased returns resulting from the
services and infrastructure government provides and the opportunities
and amenities the community provides, which are currently extorted
from the productive by landowners in the form of rent, rightly belong
to the government and community that provide them, and not to labor --
and certainly not to landowners, who have no role at all in wealth
production other than to act as receptacles for an unearned share of
the product.

However, your claim that increased returns due to better technology or
machinery belong to those who provide them is just false. Such
increased returns, to the extent that they exceed depreciation and
interest and accentuate the advantages enjoyed by those using
supermarginal land, are simply appropriated by landowners.

[quote]Better land *does not* increase the productivity
of labor, which is fixed by whatever skills and energy the laborer
brings to the job.

Wrong again. Proof:

A solitary laborer obtains 10 bushels of vegetables from the land he
works. There is no one around working any other land, so there is no
basis of comparison on which to claim his productivity is less than 10
bushels. If it were less, how much less would it be? The question is
clearly nonsensical.

But now another laborer comes along, and takes up farming a nearby
plot that is not quite as fertile. He obtains 9 bushels with the same
effort as the first laborer.

Has the productivity of the first laborer>s work somehow declined by 1
bushel?

Please show the derivation of such a result.

First premise begs the question.
[/quote]
Nope. You have simply realized that you have been proved wrong, and
so must now find some excuse to deny the self-evident and indisputable
facts of objective reality that prove you wrong.

[quote]If there is no other laborer working any other land around, then it is
impossible to apportion the factors.
[/quote]
Nonsense. There is nowhere to apportion any part of the laborer>s
production but to him. What is he going to do, sacrifice some of his
product to the sun god, or to the earth goddess -- or to some
spurious, parasitic priest or landowner? (Not that all four haven>t
been done, of course...)

[quote]The landowner could claim that 9 of
the bushels were due to the extrordinary fertility of his hand (and that he
thus deserves 9/10 of the product),
[/quote]
?? But that is a self-evidently absurd claim. What if there is no
landowner? And if there is, how would that make any difference to
production? What contribution would the landowner have made to earn
any part of the product at all? The land is no different for his
presence, any more than it is different for the priest>s presence.
He, like the priest, just appropriates a portion of the product in
return for some spurious, superstitious mumbo-jumbo about appeasing
the rain god -- or the metaphysically equivalent principle of first
possession. Both are merely fabrications to justify extortion and
parasitism by free lunchers.

[quote]and the laborer could claim the same in his favor.
[/quote]
??? ROTFL!!!

Ah, no, actually. The laborer actually had to do the work. The land
was available just the same without the landowner even existing.

[quote]You therefore can>t claim that "his productivity" is 10 bushels.
[/quote]
It is self-evidently and indisputably 10 bushels.

[quote]Nor could the landlord claim the productivity of his land is 10 bushels.
All you can conclude is that the *product* is 10 bushels.
[/quote]
With or without any landowner. Right. So, the landowner>s
contribution to production of the 10 bushels, again, would be....?

[quote]To apportion the
factors you>ll need to put that laborer on some other lands, and bring
other laborers to this acreage.
[/quote]
How would that help? You>ll still just have amounts of production
from more unique situations. Add more laborers and land, and the
averages may change again, either up or down. You>re no closer to
identifying a baseline.

[quote]Then you>ll be able to identify the most
and least productive workers and the most and least productive lands.
[/quote]
And how would that help apportion the contributions of land and labor?
There is still no objective baseline for either.

[quote]The "productivity of labor" is what the average worker can get on
average lands
[/quote]
No, it isn>t. It>s production divided by labor input -- calculated on
the basis of either hours or cost, depending on what information is
required.

[quote]The productivity of land is the average yield with average workers.
[/quote]
No, it isn>t. Land has no productivity, as it doesn>t do anything.

[quote]If *this* worker can get more from *this* land than the average
worker, then the increased product is his.
[/quote]
No, the landowner takes it. He appropriates all production in excess
of what the same application of labor and capital will obtain on
marginal land. The Law of Rent explains why the difference in
productivity between the average worker and the worker who is
productive enough to secure (i.e., to pay the rent of) a more
advantageous site does not determine the difference in their wages.
Rather, that difference is determined by subtracting the differnce in
rent between the more productive worker>s more advantageous site and
the average worker>s less advantageous site from the difference in the
workers' productivity on their respective sites.

If the average worker would produce 1 bushel on marginal land,
produces 2 bushels on the land he actually uses, and would produce 3
bushels on the better land a superior worker uses, while the superior
worker would produce 2 bushels on marginal land, would produce 4
bushels on average land, and produces 6 bushels on the better land he
actually uses, their actual wages are 1 bushel and 2 bushels,
respectively. The average worker pays 1 bushel of the 2 he produces
in rent; the superior worker pays 4 bushels of the 6 he produces in
rent.

[quote]BTW, you will not know whether the 2nd plot is "not quite as fertile" until
you>ve put that first laborer to work on it.
[/quote]
ROTFL!! And how would anyone know which land to start farming if the
only way to determine its fertility was to farm it, stupid?

Don>t know anything about farming, either, do you?

[quote]More similar laborers arrive, taking up land of lesser and lesser
quality, until the last one is working land that only yields 1 bushel,
just enough to stay alive.

[Etc.] See above. Workers will not work lands which yield less than they
could produce on better lands.
[/quote]
??? ROTFL!!!

Sure they will, stupid, and do. The law of diminishing returns to
labor on the better lands guarantees it. That is why different grades
of land yield different amounts of rent. You obviously know nothing
whatever of land economics, or any other kind of economics other than
your silly fantasies.

You are just totally ignorant of the relevant facts. I don>t know any
clearer way to explain that to you.

[quote]They>ll become blacksmiths or buggy makers.
[/quote]
Maybe, maybe not. But they>ll still need land, and they won>t be
getting the land they could produce the most on unless they are the
users who can use it most productively, and can thus pay the most rent
for it.

[quote]Nor will landlords bother farming lands with such low productivity.
[/quote]
Landlords don>t do the farming anyway, stupid, nor do they decide what
the most productive use of "their" land is.

[quote]They>ll convert it range land, or a subdivision.
[/quote]
Nope. It will be users who do that, and who make the decision, not
the landlord.

[quote]Do you understand that your whole belief system has just been
destroyed by irrefutable logic?

Heh. That was Royesque logic. And as usual, it stumbles on its way out of
the block.
[/quote]
<yawn> I weary of repeatedly demolishing you, and especially of your
imperviousness to that fact.

[quote]The increased product on superior lands is *not*
attributable to the labor, but to the land. Yet, via this descriptive
sleight-of-hand, the increased product is nonetheless credited to
*labor* becoming more productive, even though the value of the labor
contribution remains the same as it would on marginal lands.

?? That>s what it _means_ for better land to increase the
productivity of labor.

It sure does mean that!
[/quote]
OK, so you admit that you lied when you claimed it didn>t, with such
stupid and dishonest claims as:

"Better land *does not* increase the productivity of labor,"

"The productivity of land is the average yield with average workers,"

and

"You therefore can>t claim that "his productivity" is 10 bushels."

[quote]It is a transparent hocus-pocus to give labor the
credit for the increased product when it is actually due to better land
(which these days is mainly a matter of better irrigation, better
fertilizers, better hybrids, i.e., more capital).
[/quote]
It sure is, which I guess must be why you made up and attributed to me
the notion of "giving credit" to labor for the effect on production of
the advantages government and the community provide.

[quote]They do not reflect
the productivity of labor + land, nor should they.

They are equal to the productivity of labor + marginal land, as
explained by the Law of Rent, and "should" is a funny word for you to
be using.

That is empirically false.
[/quote]
No, it is empirically true, and is not disputed by any competent
economist. You should have read the account I posted of the Quakers'
charitable efforts in India.

[quote]They reflect the productivity of labor on average land.
[/quote]
No, that is simply a bald, flat-out lie. There is not even any way to
discern what "average" land is.

[quote]If a worker cannot earn what he could on average land he>ll
find another employer, just as any other worker (unless he is a below-
average worker and other landowners won>t hire him).
[/quote]
??? ROTFL!!

What good would that do him? The landowner is still going to
appropriate all production in excess of what the same application of
labor and capital would secure on marginal land, as the Law of Rent
informs you, but you refuse to know. He has no reason to accept any
less, as the worker has to compete with those who are using the
marginal land.

You are just sooooo stupid and ignorant.

[quote]"Marginal land," BTW,
is not unproductive land. It is the least productive land anyone will be
willing to work.
[/quote]
Or the best land one need not pay rent for. Right. And your point
would be...?

[quote]Of course there is. There are also certificates of title to automobiles,
boats, aircraft,

For operator licensing, safety regulation, and insurance purposes.
Not to assign property rights.

Egads. You>re determined to hang on with teeth and claws to this
"assigment" of property rights by gummint, aren>t you?
[/quote]
Facts are stubborn things. Even more stubborn than your refusals to
know them.

[quote]You can>t imagine
titles originating anywhere but by gummint fiat, can you?
[/quote]
No, title to products of labor originates in the act of production.
Land titles originate in forcible appropriation, as there is no other
way to create them. Government is just a better forcible appropriator
than private interests.

[quote]Property rights to automobiles, etc., are "assigned" by the manufacturer
--- their first possessor ---
[/quote]
Their _manufacturer_.

[quote]to the dealer, and by the dealer to the
buyer. The State issues the title certificate, in favor of whoever the
dealer has instructed them to issue it. The State makes no decisions and
exercises no discretion regarding issuance of those certificates. And of
course they are proof of ownership. That is the only "insurance purpose"
they serve, i.e., to prove to the insurer that you are the owner of the
vehicle for which you are asking them for insurance. They>ll serve the same
purpose for a bank, if you wish to use the vehicle as collateral for a
loan, and the same purpose to a buyer, if you decide to sell the car.
Neither do they have anything whatever to do with operator licenses. You
don>t need a license to buy a car and register its title, nor a car to get
a license.
[/quote]
<yawn> Licensed operation of cabs, limousines, etc. depends on the
relevant ownership certificates being in order.

Stupid.

[quote]Titles to autos are *assigned* by their first possessors, just as are
titles to land.
[/quote]
Nope. Titles to autos arise with their manufacture, titles to land
are creations of society.

[quote]The State is merely the recorder of those titles, in both cases.
[/quote]
No, that is just a bald lie, as proved by all the land titles that
have simply been voided and reassigned by government fiat throughout
history. You even refuse to know the fact that eminent domain exists.

-- Roy L

Guest

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 04:07:16 GMT, Publius
<m.publius@nospam.comcast.net> wrote:

[quote]royls@telus.net wrote in news:49206230.10436387@news.telus.net:

No, I told you: there is no act of appropriation until others are
forcibly deprived of the resource. Occupation and use are not
possession, [. . .]

I>m afraid they are, Roy. Per ordinary dictionaries, anyway.

Nope.

Possess (v): 1 a: to have and hold as property: own b: to have as an
attribute, knowledge, or skill
2 a: to take into one>s possession b: to enter into and control firmly

OK, so that one proves you wrong.

Possession(n): 1 a: the act of having or taking into control b:
control or occupancy of property without regard to ownership c:
ownership 2: something owned, occupied, or controlled : property

---http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/possess

No support for you there, either. Possession clearly requires
_control_, not just occupation and use.

Wow! Are you now gonna re-define the word, "or"? "Having OR taking into
control,"
[/quote]
<sigh> Both of which require _CONTROL_, lying garbage.

[quote]"control OR occupancy," "owned, occupied, OR controlled"?
[/quote]
ROTFL!! Control or occupancy _of_property_ is possession of it,
stupid. Not of what _isn>t_ property.

The ONLY definition you provided that you might plausibly claim
supports your lies is the last one, and that one gives "property" as a
synonym, so the context clearly establishes the sense of "occupied" as
something like military occupation, which implies control, not mere
presence.

[quote]LOL! I knew you>d re-define something else!
[/quote]
Right back atcha, lying garbage.

[quote]What he chooses to do with something in his possession has nothing to
do whether or not he *is* in possession.

He is not in possession unless he controls. He does not control until
his control is tested. If someone else arrives and just starts using
the land, and he doesn>t or can>t do anything about it, he does not
control the land, and was thus not in possession of it.

That is false.
[/quote]
No, it is clearly true.

[quote]Nor is it what you earlier claimed, which was, "there is
no act of appropriation until others are forcibly deprived of the
resource. Occupation and use are not possession." Being unable to
prevent a trespass, and preventing one, are hardly the same thing.
[/quote]
??? Meaning...?

[quote]And neither implies anything about possession.
[/quote]
Wrong. If you can>t stop others from using it, you aren>t in
possession of it.

[quote]If I own a CD, but allow everyone who wishes to listen to it to do so,
do I not possess the CD?
[/quote]
Not if they have it under their control.

[quote]Or do I only come to possess it when someone
tries to steal it and I stop him?
[/quote]
You possess it if you purpose to stop them, and are able. That is
only known when you do it.

[quote]Give up that Newspeak dictionary, Roy! It is embarrassing you!
[/quote]
You are the one trying to put over nonsensical redefinitions.

[quote]To "possess" something one must have sufficient control of it to allow
him to derive some benefits from it. He need not have "omnipotent"
control.
[/quote]
Garbage. By that definition I "possess" the sun.

[quote]He couldn>t choose to violate or not
violate anyone>s rights, however, because there are no rights to
violate, the good in question being unowned.

Question begging. Others have rights to liberty even though the
objects upon which they want to exercise their liberty are unowned.

Yes they do.
[/quote]
OK, so you admit that you lied again.

[quote]But their right to liberty (which is their right to use
their own bodies as they see fit),
[/quote]
I>ve already proved that results in a right with no content, as is
obviously your aim: you want to redefine all rights as property
rights, so that no one will have any rights except to the extent that
they own property. Your evident goal and ideal is a world where the
dispossessed are the slaves of the propertied, and that is exactly the
kind of world your bogus "first possession principle" would create if
implemented consistently.

[quote]has no implications whatsover for anything in the "external world."
[/quote]
Wrong again. Liberty without the liberty to use the external world is
liberty without a right even to exist.

[quote]It entails no *rights* to anything in
it, or even that there be anything useful in it.
[/quote]
Disproved above.

[quote]Everyone is quite free
to exercise their liberties upon anything there might be, however,
unless that thing has become the property of someone else.
[/quote]
Which it can only do through being produced by labor.

[quote]That is the
"social constraint" on natural liberty, i.e., the constraint imposed by
existence in a setting in which there are multiple agents exercising
similar liberties. Crusoe is subject to no such constraint.
[/quote]
There can be no liberty to exinguish others' liberty, or Friday would
simply become Crusoe>s permanent slave on his arrival.

[quote]Somewhere else you argued (to the effect, I can>t recall the precise
words) that the right to one>s body, and the liberty to do with it as
one wishes, would be worthless without something for it to "act upon."
And that is quite true. But that fact entails no rights to external
things either.
[/quote]
An obvious lie.

[quote]If there is no air in the world into which you are born,
or no ground upon which to stand, your rights to your body and your
liberty to use it as you see fit will be worth very little.
[/quote]
How would that be relevant? Presumably one>s mother is surviving
somehow.

[quote]If the only
air in the world is that which someone else has brought with him, or a
natural pocket of air which someone else has discovered and taken
possession of, then your right to your body will still be worth very
little, because you will have no rights to that air.
[/quote]
No, that is clearly just false. Bottled or compressed air is a
product of labor, and can thus rightly be owned. A natural pocket of
air cannot rightly be owned or appropriated, except by being removed
before anyone else wants to use it, or by the user making just
compensation to others who would want to use it. As long as it is
still where nature placed it, all have equal rights to use it -- the
right to liberty -- and if anyone claims a right to deprive others of
it by some spurious "right" of "first possession," anyone else who
wants to use it would rightly kill them in self-defense. I already
proved that to you by the example of Dirty Harry at the waterhole.

[quote]Your rights to your automobile and your lawnmower will also be worthless
if you can get no fuel for them or if there are no roads and no grass to
mow.
[/quote]
Wrong. They might easily be turned to other purposes.

[quote]But you nonetheless have no rights that there be gas, roads, or
lawns, or to any gas, roads, or lawns others may own.
[/quote]
Right. Because being products of labor, they _can_ rightly be owned.
What nature provided for all cannot.

[quote]Your right to your
life will be worthless if you have diabetes and cannot get insulin, or
if your kidneys fail and you need a transplant.
[/quote]
Wrong. My right to life _still_ stops others from killing me with
impunity, no matter how brief my expected future lifespan.

[quote]But that fact does not
entail a right to someone else>s insulin or kidneys.
[/quote]
<sigh> The right to liberty applies to everything that is _not_
another person or a product of labor, because that is what one would
otherwise have been at liberty to use.

[quote]Needs do not entail rights.
[/quote]
Wrong. We only have rights at all because we need them to coexist
successfully in society. But it is the fact that one would otherwise
have been at liberty to use what nature provided that makes the
liberty to use it a right.

[quote]If you are going to argue for rights to any
external things, you>ll need some criterion other than "needs" (that
your liberty will be worthless, without effect, unless you have various
external things).
[/quote]
Disproved above. Rights only exist because they provide evolutionary
benefits -- specifically, each of us benefits by _others_ having
rights. Removing all practical import from rights is simply an attack
on the concept of rights, which is evidently your aim.

[quote]It is you who are question-begging. You are asserting rights to external
things *a priori*, citing no grounds for those rights assignments except
"needs," which will not cut the mustard.
[/quote]
Wrong again. Nothing _but_ needs will cut the mustard, because rights
are a product of evolution, not just of the mendacious
rationalizations for privilege and injustice that evil filth like you
have contrived.

[quote]The term we were quibbling about was "acquire." But "appropriate" is
the same as one of the meanings of "acquire" ("takes possession," but
not "gains possession"). One appropriates something when one takes
possession of it.

No, because acquisition and taking possession can be effected through
trade for products of labor, while appropriation of natural resources
is inherently forcible. Sorry I wasn>t clear enough that I was
talking about acquisition of natural resources, which can only
initially be effected by forcible appropriation.

Uh, no, Roy. The dictionary does not give different definitions of
"acquire" or "appropriate" depending upon whether that which is acquired
or appropriated is a natural object or a manmade one.
[/quote]
It doesn>t have to. The actions involved are inherently different as
a matter of objective physical fact, so the dictionary describes both.

[quote]The terms mean the same in either case.
[/quote]
An obvious lie.

[quote]Nor can "force" be employed to acquire or
appropriate any object, natural or manmade, if that object is not in
anyone>s possession.
[/quote]
Another obvious lie, as proved by the fruit tree thief, Dirty Hary at
the waterhole, the air compressing machine, etc.

[quote](And of course we don>t re-define "possession" here
to mean "preventing someone from using something by force").
[/quote]
Possession of natural resources can>t happen any other way.

[quote]I>m gonna bail on this, Roy. Quibbling over meanings of common words
("steal," "force," "acquire," "possess," "apppropriate," "argument,"
even "or") is tedious and sophomoric. Come back when you have some
substantive arguments (which might be a while, since you don>t seem to
know what an "argument" is).
[/quote]
ROTFL!!

Look in the mirror, sunshine. All you have offered is question
begging, strawmen, lies, ignorance, dishonesty, redefinitions, appeals
to emotion, and deliberate stupidity.

-- Roy L

Guest

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 01:53:53 GMT, Publius
<m.publius@nospam.comcast.net> wrote:

[quote]royls@telus.net wrote in news:492060eb.10110597@news.telus.net:

Spencer is talking about a material implication, not logical form.

Egad. Another excusion into Royesque logic.

yawn> Do I now have to teach you logic as well as economics, ethics,
history, anthropology, biology, ethics, and English?

A material implication *is* a logical form. If (premises) then
(conclusion).

But unlike a formal logical entailment, it is true not by virtue of
its form but of the relevant material facts.

Omigod.
[/quote]
<yawn> Give it a rest, $#!+-for-brains.

[quote]A "material conditional" is a *proposition* which is true in virtue of
material facts, e.g., an empirical proposition.
[/quote]
OK, so you admit that I am completely correct. Good.

[quote]A *proposition* is not an *argument*, "informal" or otherwise.
[/quote]
OK, so you admit that you lied again. Good.

[quote]Before you undertake to teach anyone logic, you>d better bone up on the
basics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument
[/quote]
<yawn>

[quote]The fact that his argument is not formally valid is
sufficient proof that he was not claiming or attempting formal
validity.

If it is not formally valid then *is is not valid*.

Wrong again, stupid. You>re just so accustomed to smuggling your
false conclusions in on your false premises that you can>t imagine an
argument based on facts of objective reality.

Consider:

'Consistent application of the "first possession" principle implies
that one can rightly deprive others, without just compensation, of
liberty and opportunity they would otherwise have had.'

You have just uttered a proposition in the form, "If P then Q." That is not
an argument, but an asserted, contingent relation between two contingent
facts, which relationship requires evidence to substantiate.
[/quote]
Correct. And that is what Spencer did. And you simply decided you
had better lie about it.

[quote]It is not a
*logical* implication. You will have an *argument* when you produce that
evidence and are able to derive, logically, the proposition you have
asserted as a conclusion from the propositions stating the evidence.
[/quote]
Wrong. A proposition that is true in virtue of material facts
typically cannot be proved as a matter of logical form. If you knew
any science, you would know that.

[quote]That is not a formally valid argument, yet it is perfectly valid.

It is not an argument at all. It is merely an unsupported statement.
[/quote]
No, it has far more factual support than your "first possession
principle," as this whole discussion has demonstrated with blinding
obviousness.

[quote]"Validity" applies to arguments, not propositions. Propositions, e.g., "If
P then Q," may be true or false; they are not valid not invalid.
[/quote]
Wrong again. Such a proposition is valid if there is a valid reason
to believe the implication holds, invalid if there isn>t.

E.g., "If I don>t get to the airport by 9, I>ll miss my flight," is a
valid material implication (assuming the facts support it -- i.e., he
has a ticket on a flight leaving sometime shortly after 9), while "If
I don>t wear my blue socks, I>ll miss my flight," is not.

[quote]And all of this has nothing at all to do with the validity of Spencer>s
argument --- and it *is* an argument he is making.
[/quote]
It has everything to do with your upward redefinition of his claim --
a species of the dishonest fallacy known as a strawman argument.

[quote]When a philosopher sets
forth some propositions and then claims, "it unavoidably follows that . .
.", and then asserts another proposition, he is making an argument, or at
least what he is inviting us to take as an argument. He is declaring that
the final proposition, the conclusion, follows logically from the premises
given.
[/quote]
But not necessarily as a matter of form. See the airport example
above.

[quote]This is funny! You wish to finesse Spencer>s invalid argument by styling it
as a material implication, which is a form of proposition, not an argument.
[/quote]
Not a _formal_ argument. See the airport example above.

[quote]Then you style a propositional form as an "informal argument" which is
invulnerable to "formal" logical fallacies, yet in which we are to assume
that the antecedent somehow supports the consequent.
[/quote]
<sigh> Does the guy have valid reason to think he needs to be at the
airport by 9, or not?

Stupid.

[quote]If Spencer had wanted to say, "If P is born into a world which contains
something X that he desires, then P has a right to X," he would have said
so, and proceeded to offer some arguments or evidence for that assertion.
Instead he is arguing that the antecedent *supports* the conclusion ("it
follows that . . .").

And it doesn>t.
[/quote]
Yes, it does.

[quote]sigh> Informal arguments can be invalidated by informal fallacies
such as strawman, red herring, appeal to authority, slippery slope
arguments, ground shifting, etc. You know: all your favorite ploys.

No. *Formal* arguments can be invalidated by informal fallacies.
[/quote]
And so can informal ones, as any high school debating coach could
inform you, if you were willing to be informed.

[quote]They are
"informal" because they point out flaws in the premises (mostly ambiguities
or lack of relevance), rather than flaws in the form of the argument.
[/quote]
So?

[quote]There are two modes of argument to which the term "validity" has any
application, deductive and inductive. There is no such thing as a "valid
informal argument."
[/quote]
<sigh> Does the guy have valid reason to get to the airport by 9 or
not? Was he using a deductive or inductive argument?

Stupid.

[quote]"Informal argument" is a euphemism for sophisms,
rabble-rousing, salesmanship, demagoguery, and propaganda.
[/quote]
ROTFL!

And your formal argument establishing that claim would be...?
..
..
..
..

Thought not.

But thanks for the demonstration of sophism, rabble-rousing,
salesmanship, demagoguery and propaganda.

[quote]Teaching logic indeed.
[/quote]
In vain, obviously.

-- Roy L

SORR Point · Guest

OMG Roy ... this is getting just way too weird, and yet I already thought it
had gone way past Pluto, but now we>re in outer space on a 2008 Space
Odyssey but HAL is now named Publius.

Me thinks he may be spending too much time in the PUB <smile>

<royls@telus.net> wrote in message news:4924ad0b.173785@news.telus.net...
[quote]On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 07:26:45 GMT, Publius
m.publius@nospam.comcast.net> wrote:

royls@telus.net wrote in news:491da645.3771447@news.telus.net:
[/quote]

Guest

On Tue,


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com