patrick.net

indigenous says

Locke argued that an original owner is one who mixes his or her

labor with a thing and, by commingling that labor with the thing,

establishes ownership of it.'

Good for Locke, although he simply guessed at what happened long ago, before Archeology provided us with a lot of information about pre-history, and we know that all land everywhere was owned in common, then it was divided up by group consensus, then privatization happened, in that order. Lock and Hobbes and Rousseau guessed wrong about the origins of private property, using a model of somebody setting up a cabin by themselves in the woods - which is itself possible only under government since raiders and bandits would quickly kill you, and why the only people who lived by themselves were either social outcasts ("Witches" or lepers) or religious hermits with nothing worth stealing.

Somebody contests your ownership of the land. What now?

That's funny Dan, Hillary just said that Obamacare is failing because of not ENOUGH Capitalism..

9:57: Clinton is asked what is broken in Obamacare and how she would fix it. She uncomfortably claims that Obamacare is succeeding. But she says out-of-pocket costs/deductibles have gone up and prescription drug prices have gone through the roof as well (hmm… not what Americans were promised when Obama and Hillary pushed Obamacare). She says “we don’t have enough competition” and “we don’t have enough oversight” re” insurance companies. Clinton insists these are just “glitches.” And she wants to build on Obamacare’s success and fix the “glitches.” Clinton blames the increase in prescription drug prices on governors in some states that did not extend Medicaid.

I've got Trump on speed dial, should I make the call now, or wait until next November?

thunderlips11 says

Good for Locke, although he simply guessed at what happened long ago, before Archeology provided us with a lot of information about pre-history, and we know that all land everywhere was owned in common, then it was divided up by group consensus, then privatization happened, in that order. Lock and Hobbes and Rousseau guessed wrong about the origins of private property, using a model of somebody setting up a cabin by themselves in the woods - which is itself possible only under government since raiders and bandits would quickly kill you, and why the only people who lived by themselves were either social outcasts ("Witches" or lepers) or religious hermits with nothing worth stealing.

Somebody contests your ownership of the land. What now?

Keep in mind that property rights are the cornerstone of an economy. So you may fuss about this or that but at the end of the day without property rights you have N Korea.

Again, you are in evolutionary denial....I see...

Dan8267 says

people couldn't even fly.

www.youtube.com/embed/SESI19h4wDo?start=9&end=34

indigenous says

Keep in mind that property rights are the cornerstone of an economy. So you may fuss about this or that but at the end of the day without property rights you have N Korea.

Doesn't address my point about private property not being at the beginning of humanity. This is beyond debate; from Egypt to the Aztecs to the Iroquois to the Dani to the Babylonians, people settled down and farmed in common. Much of what survives from Babylon and Egypt is shit dealing with the distribution of property. Property rights gradually emerged as more privileges were given to those who were assigned slices of common land until eventually the right to transfer it to others was created.

If the 100-200k years modern man has walked the earth was a full day, private property came around just before Midnight.

The pertinent point is that, wherever private property came from, without private property the modern economy, a division of labor, and comparative advantage would not exist. So your point is a whole herd of irrelevance.

indigenous says

The pertinent point is that, wherever private property came from, without private property the modern economy, a division of labor, and comparative advantage would not exist. So your point is a whole herd of irrelevance.

You brought it up:

indigenous says

Locke argued that an original owner is one who mixes his or her

labor with a thing and, by commingling that labor with the thing,

establishes ownership of it.'

http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2829&context=fss_papers

That's not how the original owner obtained land.

thunderlips11 says

That's not how the original owner obtained land.

You would prefer Marx's ideas on this? How did that turn out?

indigenous says

Keep in mind that property rights are the cornerstone of an economy. So you may fuss about this or that but at the end of the day without property rights you have N Korea.

No one is arguing that property rights shouldn't exist. Like always, you demonstrate that you cannot distinguish between capitalism and everything else. Property rights and commerce and markets all can and do exist in other economic models that don't base distribution of wealth solely on bargaining power and then concentrate that power in the hands of the few.

Only idiots make false dichotomies like you have to choose between the system we have and North Korea as if there are zero other possibilities. Stupid, unimaginative people.

thunderlips11 says

indigenous says

Locke argued that an original owner is one who mixes his or her


labor with a thing and, by commingling that labor with the thing,


establishes ownership of it.'

http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2829&context=fss_papers

That's not how the original owner obtained land.

Correct. This is how the first land property rights were conferred.

Private property is the canary in the coal mine, that indicates the health of the economy. The more private property that is taken by the government the more poorly that economy will perform. BTW land is not the only form of private property. A person's time that gets coerced into paying taxes is also an infringement on private property.
Regulations that are now up to 22,000 pages also infringes on a persons time or private property.

indigenous says

You would prefer Marx's ideas on this? How did that turn out?

1. Neither China nor Russia implemented Marx's ideas.
2. Communism is not the only other possible economic system.
3. American's implementation of capitalism isn't the only possible implementation of it.

Keep up those false dichotomies.

Which brings up the non aggression principle. So anything taken by force is by definition government.

indigenous says

Which brings up the non aggression principle. So anything taken by force is by definition government.

So you are going on the record saying that ISIS is a government.

A thief takes things by force but is not a government. Anything that is not willing exchanged enters into either government or theft.

So what about property rights to clean air and water? The ocean and atmosphere are owned by all. So polluters are thieves.

And if the free exchange of goods and services is sanctified, then it should be legal to engage in prostitution, sell crack, and buy weapons of mass destruction, even if your name is Saddam.

indigenous says

Which brings up the non aggression principle. So anything taken by force is by definition government.

indigenous says

A thief takes things by force but is not a government. Anything that is not willing exchanged enters into either government or theft.

I love how you can continually post two or more contradictory statements and honestly believe they are all correct.

Wrong.
This is where libbies miss the boat completely.
In this existence, everything is owned by the strong.
Obama has made us weak.
We own nothing.

Dan8267 says

The ocean and atmosphere are owned by all.

Dan8267 says

So what about property rights to clean air and water? The ocean and atmosphere are owned by all. So polluters are thieves.

That is the tragedy of the commons. The oceans would be better protected if it were under private ownership.

Dan8267 says

And if the free exchange of goods and services is sanctified, then it should be legal to engage in prostitution, sell crack, and buy weapons of mass destruction, even if your name is Saddam.

Somehow you think I'm saying that all regulations should be done away with, not so.

OTOH you discount that the free market is self organizing and naturally rectifies the situation. E.G. pencils get made through international cooperation without any excess or shortage.

www.youtube.com/embed/IYO3tOqDISE

bob2356 says

I love how you can continually post two or more contradictory statements and honestly believe they are all correct.

It is always nice to hear from an admirer.

I too admire how you skip over the main points to focus on the trivial, in order to hide your ad hominem.

The main points are that government governs through force, not market forces. This definitely applies to monopolies.

indigenous says

The oceans would be better protected if it were under private ownership.

Like the cuyahoga river? That's actually the river on fire, not a fire on the bank.

bob2356 says

Like the cuyahoga river? That's actually the river on fire, not a fire on the bank.

That is an excellent example of the tragedy of the commons, i.e. no private ownership.

SoftShell says

Wrong.

This is where libbies miss the boat completely.

In this existence, everything is owned by the strong.

Obama has made us weak.

We own nothing.

Dan8267 says

The ocean and atmosphere are owned by all.

If you want to live in the Mad Max world.

www.youtube.com/embed/lkAYkfIqivc

Granted, there would be a boom in assless chaps.

indigenous says

That is the tragedy of the commons. The oceans would be better protected if it were under private ownership.

Bullshit. The tragedy of the commons isn't caused by government managing a resource by rather by the government letting selfish individuals manage the resource.

If the oceans were privatized, some asshole would deplete them for personal wealth in order to live like a king and then the rest of the world would die off, but not until the exploiter has lived a long, opulent life. Human greed is not wisdom.

"The oceans would be better protected if it were under private ownership." has got to go down as one of the stupidest things ever said on this planet.

This is Dan's ideal world.

www.youtube.com/embed/h1BQPV-iCkU

Dan8267 says

Bullshit. The tragedy of the commons isn't caused by government managing a resource by rather by the government letting selfish individuals manage the resource.

DEFINITION of 'Tragedy Of The Commons'
An economic problem in which every individual tries to reap the greatest benefit from a given resource. As the demand for the resource overwhelms the supply, every individual who consumes an additional unit directly harms others who can no longer enjoy the benefits. Generally, the resource of interest is easily available to all individuals.

Here is a video for you Dan:

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tragedy-of-the-commons.asp?header_alt=a

Dan8267 says

If the oceans were privatized, some asshole would deplete them for personal wealth in order to live like a king and then the rest of the world would die off, but not until the exploiter has lived a long, opulent life. Human greed is not wisdom.

conjecture

Dan8267 says

"The oceans would be better protected if it were under private ownership." has got to go down as one of the stupidest things ever said on this planet.

conjecture again and again

indigenous says

This is Dan's ideal world.

Only an impotent fool with no defense of his ideological bullshit resorts to Straw Man arguments.

indigenous says

Here is a video for you Dan:

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tragedy-of-the-commons.asp?header_alt=a

A video that does not support what you say, and in fact, directly contradicts your mistake just like I did.

The tragedy of the commons occurs when individuals neglect the well-being of society (or the group) in the pursuit of personal gain.

Ironman says

You're going to die anyway from Global Warming flooding your apartment.

You're a mental midget with the IQ of a butter dish whose mind is a black hole that sucks all surrounding thought into it in an infinite singularity of pure stupidity. I'm surprise you can even dress yourself. I bet you have to rub peanut butter inside your lips to remember to open your mouth to breath. I have never met, and I hope to never meet, again an idiot so pervasively, astoundingly, unyieldingly ignorant. The only purpose you serve is to be the poster boy for conservatism, the stupidest and most ignorant philosophy ever devised. Conservatives are the ISIS of America.

Gee Dan, I'm starting to sense that you are angry?

That is why I linked a video in the hopes that you would understand.

What part of the definition of the "tragedy of the commons" did you not understand?

indigenous says

Gee Dan, I'm starting to sense that you are angry?

And as usual, you have no sense of understanding.

indigenous says

What part of the definition of the "tragedy of the commons" did you not understand?

The part where you are too stupid to understand it like the rest of us.

Ok then what is the definition of the tragedy of the commons?

As usual, CIC demonstrates his inability to think at a level higher than a monkey throwing poo.

indigenous says

You would prefer Marx's ideas on this? How did that turn out?

Nothing to do with Marx. It has to do with 18th Century Philosophers guessing about how the world they lived in came about. Their guesses were wrong, unequivably.

thunderlips11 says

Nothing to do with Marx. It has to do with 18th Century Philosophers guessing about how the world they lived in came about. Their guesses were wrong, unequivably.

Irrelevant, without it the world would be N Korea

indigenous says

Irrelevant, without it the world would be N Korea

Jesus Christ, it's not irrelevant, it's the basis for their statements about the origin of private property - and YOU brought it up.

You're like the Journey song, man. "Don't stop, believin'. Despite evidence, hold on to your Austrian feelin's"

It is IRRELEVANT , the only reason anyone's standard of living is ever raised is because of private property.

The only reason the hospitals have a monopoly is because of government.

thunderlips11 says

You're like the Journey song, man. "Don't stop, believin'. Despite evidence, hold on to your Austrian feelin's"

That's good. Better than the austrian mantra of "it's true because I believe it should be true".

Projecting...

indigenous says

It is IRRELEVANT , the only reason anyone's standard of living is ever raised is because of private property.

That's the most idiotic thing you've said yet and that's a really really high bar. Many of the poorest countries in the world have private property. It's the ability to own private property within a system of laws that protect private property and enforce contract law along with a stable banking system for capital that raises the standard of living. Even then there are no guarantees.

indigenous says

Projecting...

Nope no need to project anything, you've proven this point time and time again.

bob2356 says

That's the most idiotic thing you've said yet and that's a really really high bar. Many of the poorest countries in the world have private property. It's the ability to own private property within a system of laws that protect private property and enforce contract law along with a stable banking system for capital that raises the standard of living. Even then there are no guarantees.

N Korea has a wonderful rule of law. Yes it is a number of things but private property is indispensable. E.G. China has only had private property for a couple of decades, which coincides with their expansion.

bob2356 says

Nope no need to project anything, you've proven this point time and time again.

You mutts are not nearly as erudite as you think you are.

indigenous says

E.G. China has only had private property for a couple of decades, which coincides with their expansion.

China doesn't have private property. Sorry to burst your bubble. All property in china is owned by the state and people get land usage rights. Look it up.