Samson Corwell

That non-ownership of airwaves would mean anyone can use any frequency is obvious. You've called yourself an IP skeptic. I assume that your reason for this is because IP isn't tangible. If that is the case, then you should also oppose property rights in the electromagnetic spectrum. No, intellectual property and property in radio-television frequencies are not comparable. As I said above, "airwaves are definable scarce resources." We cannot stretch the electromagnetic spectrum to allow more stations. It is a finite commodity. On the other hand, IP is not. I do not prevent you or the copyright holder from enjoying your copies of The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by printing one or more myself. The. Spectrum. Isn't. Scarce. It's not tangible. Two people can broadcast on the same frequency without reality collapsing in on itself. And why is "scarcity" a criteria for property? It makes more sense to argue against property rights given scarcity than it does to argue for them. You're also unaware of channel access methods. And you totally miss the point of copyright, too. I favor open spectrum policies.

George Orwell on the meaning of the word "fascism": "Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathizers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come.". Hoppe's a fascist because his views are very illiberal. I recall him saying that people without "rational argumentation" could be enslaved. So, yeah, he's an asshole.

I think he was using "fascist" in the sense of "bully".

Not to mention Hans-Hermann Hoppe and his "Anarcho-Fascism" (which for all practical purposes is just fascism) and open advocacy of racism justified by the right of "free association". Triple H is just a wannabe Boss Hog who has dressed his favored policies up in sophistic arguments. "Oh, you say I can't run a town like this? Well I can if I own it!" Difference in name only. It would be a privately owned state like the Congo Free State. But here's what blows a here in it: children. They never agreed to the conditions of the covenant community. Whaapaaaaaang!

Gary: Let's define some terms, shall we? Yes we shall. Your terms, so you go first. "political" to Gary means _____________________________; "permissiveness" to Gary means ________________________; [i assume, that there is a "permissor" who can grant something to a "permissee" who seeks something from the "permissor"]; "pure" _____________________; "laissez-faire" ________________; "system" _________________; Then you can request some definitions. A.. "Laissez-faire" = unregulated business.

Which underlines that individual rights is not a code of morality. Next thing, "can I get away with it?" will be the only worthy standard. Actually, the question here is, if egoism is the basis for all subsidiary decisions, then why should the rights of others be given any particular consideration? You can't have anything like rights under crude egoism. Rand's may be a different story.

The example that Rand gives does involve the direct use of physical force, however, many of the examples you listed do not. It is argued that taking your wallet when you're not looking, for example, involves the indirect use of force since it would have required force or the threat of force --- which is the same thing --- if you had been looking. However, such convoluted reasoning is not very satisfying. It might have been better to say something like, "The basic political principle of my philosophy is that no man may act to deprive any other man of his life, liberty, or property," but that would have sounded too much like the Declaration of Independence. Also, the preceding sentence doesn't quite work because it doesn't contain the word "initiate" and it is important to draw a sharp distinction between someone who initiates a conflict with another person and someone who is acting in retaliation. Even still, "initiate"/"initiation" really doesn't cover it. Sounds like a poor man's copyright and I don't think it would be enforceable considering most sales don't involve contracts. You don't need property rights to make that jump however. All you need is contract. My old phone probably had some kind of agreement to not modify it in whatever way. Did I heed it? Nah. I'm not going to let a piece of paper get in the way of my tinkering. Having ventured into the FOSS movement, I have some knowledge of copyright. FOSSers make a distinction between two senses of the word "free": free like free beer and free like free speech. Gratis versus libre. They're about the latter. End-user license agreements are a combination of contract and copyright and drive most members of the movement insane. No right to modify, no right to redistribute, no right to reverse engineer. It's a hobby hacker's legal nightmare. Still not seeing it. It's a bit out there like calling fiat currency "counterfeit". And if you don't want to pay US taxes, then don't work in the US! Of course, I'm not serious, but I hope it makes my point. That's precisely what worries me. Ever heard the saying about a foolish consistency? The method that you describe that the world uses is pretty much the best way to do it. The belief held by some libertarians that one can "deduce" an entire political program from a few words is, excuse my French, a fucking joke (not that you believe it). When some of them actually employ these "chains of logic" they end up in Bedlam. Murder park, shooting someone climbing in through your apartment window to safety, starving children, shooting someone for taking a paper clip, rejection of search warrants, despotic "covenant communities". Just a handful of some of the wackier conclusions people such as Block and Rothbard have come to.

That non-ownership of airwaves would mean anyone can use any frequency is obvious. You've called yourself an IP skeptic. I assume that your reason for this is because IP isn't tangible. If that is the case, then you should also oppose property rights in the electromagnetic spectrum.

Pot calling the kettle black. I fail to see how consent plays into this matter. It's not consent that's the problem, it's endangering the child's welfare that it. Sure, maybe in some weird metaphorical way, but it's still not trespass. Nothing physical is involved. Still, why do you need to reduce everything. You can make new categories, you know. Not necessarily. You fail to fully understand the nature of criminal charges. Robbery, burglary, pick pocketing, looting, shoplifting, and embezzlement are all separate charges. You should have a damn good reason for why we should upend our legal system and rewrite in such a drastic manner. Sorry, I meant defamation. Here is what you wrote: Bold mine. Still doesn't mean they own it.

Actually, I have. You have failed to explain how a contract can handle: joint filing for bankruptcy.spousal privilege in trials.access to medical records.power of attorney.right to make funeral arrangements for deceased partner.default inheritance.hospital visitation.right to adopt step childrencustody.visitation rights in prison.right to seek compensation for death of spouse.You have little to no understanding of what you're talking about.

Rand's calling public property a "gruesome fiction" is just stupid. Creating property rights in the spectrum limits my ability to freely broadcast radio waves, so why should we do so?

The Orthodox school of Objectivism just tends to be toxic to the core, unhealthily so. The "neo" faction, such as this site, is magnitudes better.

This is probably your dumbest argument yet. Criminalizing blackmail doesn't criminalize thoughts anymore hate crime legislation does. LOL.

The problem with your ideas regarding law is that you believe many crimes be handled with other charges when they in fact can't. Trespassing cannot handle the charge of harassment. Trespass cannot handle the charge of pollution. Contract cannot handle the issue of marriage. Fraud cannot handle the charge of identity theft Property cannot handle the issue of harm. Failure to deliver cannot be handled with the charge of theft. Property rights cannot handle the issue of spam, which remains legal in some cases due to protection of free speech. The problem with your definition of force is that there is no reason for accepting your unusual usage of it. Trespass, quiet theft, breach of contract, hacking, pollution, invasions of privacy, threats, sabotage, reckless endangerment, drunk driving, speeding, automobile accidents, vandalism, and serving alcohol to minors do not involve force by any normal definition of the word. You use the term as a catch-all for everything you think should be illegal even though it clearly does not get you to your desired conclusions.

It's certainly naive to believe that what maximizes one's own welfare will line up with what is ethically right.

On personality rights: Wikipedia defines the term as "the right of an individual to control the commercial use of his or her name, image, likeness, or other unequivocal aspects of one's identity." This is exactly how I have used the term in the discussion. Since you make no effort to define your own use of "personality rights," your criticism amounts to hot air without content. On property rights in the electromagnetic spectrum: The fact that a radio frequency is not "tangible" or visible to the human eye has no bearing on our ability to assign ownership of it to a particular individual or group. Currently frequencies are temporarily licensed by the government, which is the ultimate owner. Under laissez-faire they would be in the hands of private owners--just as most lots in Manhattan are today. As Ayn Rand wrote, "The airways should be turned over to private ownership. The only way to do it now is to sell radio and television frequencies to the highest bidders (by an objectively defined, open, impartial process)--and thus put an end to the gruesome fiction of 'public property.'" On harassment: Perhaps in some liberal utopia, annoying TV commercials or pink flamingos in a neighbor's yard would constitute "harassment." Under objective law, a complainant would have to demonstrate that the alleged perpetrator used force or the threat of force against her person or her property. On emotional damage. You want some people to be able to cry for legal remedies under the rubric "emotional damage"--but not others. Yet you provide no objective criterion for determining what qualifies for legal intervention. This is law by whim. On falling apples: Unless Apple Grower John has made prior arrangements with Neighbor Bob, John may not trespass into Bob's yard to collect the fallen fruit, nor may he use threats to get Bob to return the fruit. To do so is to initiate force. "Property in humans is an abomination." What angry god handed down this commandment? Your emotional reaction to something is not the basis of law or ethics. Photon invasions? If A can establish with objective evidence that light from B's land caused bodily harm or property damage, then he has a case. This is the law today. Wikipedia defines "identity theft" as "a form of stealing someone's identity in which someone pretends to be someone else by assuming that person's identity, usually as a method to gain access to resources or obtain credit and other benefits in that person's name." This is exactly what would happen if someone fraudulently logged into another person's bank account and cleaned out his savings--as stated in my example. On defamation: If A merely states that B is a thief, A has exerted no force or threat of force against B. People are free to believe or disbelieve A. B is not entitled to a legal remedy to protect his reputation, because reputations exist only in the minds of others, and only the individual thinker may be said to have any right to what goes on in his own mind. On blackmail: If I see the mayor of the town enter a motel with a prostitute, I am free to publish that information in the newspaper. There is no force or threat of force involved. If I offer the mayor the opportunity to quash the article by paying me $1,000, there is still no force or threat of force involved. On the use of the word "coercion" to describe activities of the North Korean government: If using a word correctly makes you feel awkward, perhaps you can perform some mental exercises to reduce the unpleasantness. On the purpose of tax revenues: I am fully aware that the government does not sit on tax revenues. In my community they use the stolen loot to jail people for victimless crimes and teach children lies about American history. Disagree? Call me a "jackass" again. That will convince any intelligent reader! Your constant invocation of "force" and "fraud" is meaningless. Sure, you're against "force" and "fraud"--as you define them. The entirety of what should be criminal cannot be reduced to two simplistic words. Identity theft is not a type of fraud in my book; the victim is the person whose identity has been used, not the person on the receiving end of the deceit.

Samson, You raised a great many issues in your original post, so I'll only deal with one in this post, namely pollution. I agree with you that it stretches credibility to claim that pollution can be dealt with purely as a property rights issue. Property is most easily defined when the objects in question are compact and don't change beyond certain limited parameters. Your cellphone meets that description. It is easy to see that it is yours and no one else's. A piece of clothing is flexible but can only stretch a certain amount, so it is still easy to delineate. Even a parcel of land comes close to meeting the description, though it is sometimes difficult to determine the exact boundaries. Fluids like air and water fail to meet the above criteria. Because they are fluids, they spread far and wide. Some of the molecules that I am breathing today could very well be the same molecules that you breathed a few days ago. It has been said that nearly every breathe a person takes is likely to contain some of the same molecules that Caesar expelled in his dying breathe, "Et, tu, Brute?" I know that's a mind boggling thought, but Avogadro's number is very large. Therefore, no one can claim to own a piece of air. However, Francisco has identified the correct principle. The correct principle, in my view, is that people have a right to expect that things like air and water will not be disturbed from their natural state by which I mean that a person has a right to expect that his air will be just as clean today as it was yesterday, or at least close. This is similar to the right to an easement which is certainly a concept of property law. However, Francisco goes too far when he says that the air "is rightfully mine." No, the air doesn't belong to a particular person nor does an easement, generally. An easement is an exception to an ownership right. However, in this case, there was no property in the first place. Air is something that everyone uses. It is something that everyone has used in the past and must use in the future. It is right for everyone to use it and to be able to use it. That implies that no one has a right to modify it in such a way that it is significantly more difficult for other people to use it. It is true that the right to use something is one kind of property right. However, people don't generally have other rights to air. One person's use cannot interfere significantly with another person's use. That is different from a singular object like a cellphone where the owner has an exclusive right to use it and prevent others from using it. So, the question is, how can the government enforce everyone's right to use the air? Personally, I think torts are an unworkable solution. People can't go around suing everyone that is polluting the air. They might be able to sue a big polluter like a factory owner, but what about automobile drivers? Individually, drivers cause very little pollution, but in the aggregate, they may cause a significant amount. In cases where a large number of people are engaging in activity that in the aggregate harms the well-being of other people in a manner that could be construed as violating the rights of those people, I think it makes sense for the government to impose a broad based penalty on that behavior such as a gas tax. The penalty wouldn't immediately change people's behavior, but it would provide an inducement for them to find solutions to their problems that cause less distress for other people over time. Darrell I agree with most of what you say. The gaseous nature of air and the liquid nature of water make implementing property rights in them impractical, not to mention it's an idea that's straight out of Spaceballs. But perhaps a pollution tax might work better than a gas tax: it's more targeted so it doesn't burden the people who aren't polluting. Or maybe a cap-and-trade based solution might work instead. I think another problem with the tort "solution" is that it isn't aimed at prevention and only comes into play after damage has been done. Francisco's approach is rather frustrating given that property isn't the only topic in legal matters. Usually when people embrace property rights reductionism, they end up embracing stupid conclusions as well. Some examples: calling people who oppose IP "intellectual communists", Galambosianism, thinking child neglect should be legal, shooting "trespassers" who crawl into safety after catching onto a flagpole, etc.

Different terminology makes for different perspectives. You seem to lack a little thing called nuance.

You seem to be under the impression that government official just sit on tax revenue. They don't. It is almost always put to some use. A gas tax can't go to the "victims of pollution" because the particular victims and polluters can't realistically be pin pointed among all of the noise, which is where the gas tax comes in as the ounce of prevention. The revenue collected from it could go towards the enforcement of anti-pollution legislation or it could go towards programs searching for solutions to pollution-related issues. Rothbard's understanding of torts was just foolish (as was most of his understanding of law); I vaguely recall him putting forward the incredibly retarded idea that individual pollutants should/could be tracked back to their source. Darrell is right about torts being an impractical solution; they're not a replacement for actual law.

That's not what personality rights are. Personality rights aren't a form of intellectual property. IP extends to copyrights, patents, trademarks, mask works, databases, industrial designs, and plant breeders' rights. Personality rights are more closely linked with privacy. Pffft. No they aren't. Property rights in the EM spectrum are even less like tangible property than copyright or patents are. Two separate broadcasts, even ones of different frequencies, can occupy the same space. There are two ways to differentiate channels: amplitude modulation and frequency modulation. Me using your spectrum band is in no way like trespassing. This is where your property rights reductionism begins to show problems. Different types of property warrant different rules and it would be smart of you to heed that fact. Making too much of the spectrum proprietary would be a burden on freedom of speech. Bzzzt. Fail. Harassment is a separate and is not dealt with with trespassing charges. In another thread I asked you not to be an idiot. You said you wouldn't, but you're doing it again. A dodge. "Non-initiation of force" doesn't tell us who that apple should go to, which is what the validity of a jury ruling is dependent on. It's a great example of the indeterminacy of property rights. Not necessarily. It depends on the specifics. Property in humans is an abomination. Myriad Genetics' patents on human DNA were rightly struck down. If your property rules would forbid "trespassing" photons, then you'd be a nut. That's not what identity theft is. Educate yourself on it. I'm really getting the vibe that you have a terribly idiosyncratic and possibly distorted view of law. So fucking what? Ownership isn't necessary. If you're putting forward the claim that defamation/libel amount to trying to own people's thoughts, then just quit while you're ahead, because that is absurd on its face. And blackmail is effectively a kind of threat. Now you're just acting like a jackass. Nothing of what I said amounts this. All I said was that using the word "coercion" just feels awkward to use.

Samson, I agree with some of the issues you raised in your initial post, however when you make statements like the one above it makes me think you don't really have a good grasp of the concepts involved. In Libertarian terms, it is the initiation of force that is the issue. Both initiation and force are important in that phrase. There may be force on both sides of the equation, but it matters who started it. When you have two kids fighting on a playground, each is quick to point his finger at the other and say, "he started it!" because even children know that it matters. However, you can't say that the word "force" is irrelevant. It's the initiation of what then? Perhaps the word "force" is over used, but that is the common phraseology. Darrell Darrell,Thank you for your posts. They're both substantive and engage my points. I have read a decent amount of libertarian material, so I think I do have an alright understanding of it. Libertarian definitions of words tend to be very out of step from the rest of world and I think this is one of its major hindrances in selling it to other people. If, say, in the case of taking your wallet when you're not looking, the term "force" is being used as a synonym for "taking without permission", fine. But use those words instead, because ,ost people would not recognize it as force. It would be like me using "red" in place of "blood". Force per se isn't a problem, but calling the force that should be illegal "initiatory force" is just as bad as calling it "bad force". Even then, it isn't always force that is the problem. What force is used in hacking? Leaving a child in a hot car? Insider trading? Breach of contract? Copyright or patent infringement? Counterfeit products? Was it force that made Operation Red Dog criminal in nature? Francisco believes fractional reserve banking should be illegal, but his reasons for it aren't good at all. Now, I don't enough about FRB to say it should be illegal. Maybe it's harmful for the economy, but it definitely isn't fraudulent. "Non-initiation of force" (putting aside its emptiness) is also an incredibly crude simplification of law. It doesn't touch upon corporations versus sole proprietorships, bankruptcy, child custody, marriage, trusts, probate, restrictive covenants (I think these should be abolished entirely), personality rights, privacy, electromagnetic spectrum rights, radio jamming, warrants/subpoenas, harassment, emotional damage, restraining orders, stalking, the case of an apple falling from your neighbor's tree into your yard, rules that create property, identity theft, defamation/libel, blackmail, and many, many others. Let's look at North Korea. It's government is the most illegitimate on Earth. I'd call its monarcho-stratocratic regime despotic, fascist, murderous, and controlling. Calling it "coercive", however, just feels sort of awkward for whatever reason. (North Korea is closer to fascism than it is to socialism (a word which is just about meaningless at this point). It's got the iron of Stalinism but none of the worker-oriented stuff.) The libertarian usage of "force" (as well as "voluntary") is only common in libertarianism. You'll be hard pressed to find a non-libertarian who'd view calling trespassing an act of "force" as anything but Newspeakish.

Here we go again, another universal claim: "No one, for instance, would argue that people should be free to rape, pillage, and murder." Factually wrong (Manchuria, Korea, Darfur, Rwanda, ISIL) and ignores the simple meaning of war: to kill people and break things. Somehow it doesn't surprise me that you would quote that line out of context. I was summarizing the argument of 17th-century absolutists. The "no one" referred to other participants in that debate over the meaning of freedom. Try a dose of intellectual honesty one of these days. Ghs C'mon. Fair reading was plain enough. Don't spin it. "[F]reedom is not, as we are told, A liberty for every Man to do what he lists: (For who could be free, when every other Man’s Humour might domineer over him?) But a Liberty to dispose and order, as he lists, his Persons, Actions, Possesions, and his whole Property….” In a state of perfect freedom, people can “dispose of their Possessions and Persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the Law of Nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the Will of any other man.” The happy peg on which to hang your hat, both as historian and advocate of non-aggression. War didn't exist in the 17th century. No one of Filmer's or Locke's century, for instance, would argue that people should be free to rape, pillage, and murder the Huguenots or Catholics? You seem to grow more incoherent with each post. I don't have the patience to figure out what you are attempting to say. Whatever it is, it has no connection with the Cato Essay you quoted from. Here is the point absolutists, such as Filmer and Hobbes, were making. All government laws necessarily restrict freedom, such as the "freedom" to rob, rape, murder, and pillage. Not even the most resolute defender of freedom involved in that controversy would defend these sorts of "freedoms." Thus, when liberal constitutionalists, such as Locke, claimed that the basic purpose of law is to protect and enhance freedom, not to restrict it, they were speaking nonsense, in effect. The only society with complete freedom would be a society with no laws at all. To advocate any kind of law is to advocate some restriction on freedom. If you give this some thought, you may understand this point. I suppose anything is possible. Hint: This has nothing whatever to do with the obvious fact that some people have defended killing in some circumstances. Ghs I think Dworkin's bit about laws against murder not taking away freedom might hold relevance here.

Racketeering, conspiracy to commit crime, corporate collusion, etc. Of course, these are example that are put forward as reasonable exceptions, like how freedom of speech doesn't extend to reproducing copyrighted works without author permission. Mind explaining Wives, for one. More seriously, punishment for certain misdemeanors, i.e., community service.

Fifty Shades of Grey? We''re screwed.

Whoa, nellie. Statistically wrong and factually misleading about the rule of law. Perhaps Samson Corwell has never been called for jury duty or never sued anyone in court or been sued or given testimony or asked for it. Whoa, nellie. Statistically wrong and factually misleading about the rule of law. Perhaps Samson Corwell has never been called for jury duty or never sued anyone in court or been sued or given testimony or asked for it. No, I have been. None of that is aggressive, however.