The problems with property rights/contract based solutions


Recommended Posts

no claims were made about the efficiency of government cops in stopping crime or recovering losses. That is an issue for another thread

I think law enforcement is part of the same conversation, and it involves George Smith's remark on another thread: "To advocate any kind of law is to advocate some restriction on freedom." Whether we're talking about bank robbery (50% of perps identified) or internet crime (near total law enforcement failure and massive financial losses), property rights are only as good as the society in which you live.

Liberty entails the right to do wrong and get away with most of it. Half of all murders go unsolved, unless you're living in Central America or Africa, where criminal investigation is especially weak. [Laissez Faire Law, p.218]

I understand that you're arguing what would be morally right in an ideal sense, although I disagree with that as well. What's morally right is liberty, not property -- but let's leave that aside for the moment.

In the relatively peaceful and prosperous United States, your property is subject to taxation and regulation Fox v Standard Oil (1935), Nordlinger v Hahn (1992), Euclid v Amber Realty (1926) -- and cops have no obligation to protect you from harm Castle Rock v Gonzales (2005), Warren v District of Columbia (1981).

In other words, you own nothing free and clear, not even your physical safety.

ED-AS676_1taxin_D_20140914191805.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Liberty entails the right to do wrong and get away with most of it. Half of all murders go unsolved, unless you're living in Central America or Africa, where criminal investigation is especially weak. [Laissez Faire Law, p.218]

I understand that you're arguing what would be morally right in an ideal sense, although I disagree with that as well. What's morally right is liberty, not property -- but let's leave that aside for the moment.

It bothers me that you seem to think it is a good thing if at least some people get away with murder.

By the way, the clearance rate for murders is much higher in some areas. Where I was living in Colorado, the clearance rate was 70-80% according to a guy I know who is a recently retired police officer.

Darrell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, just as I'm force to keep off your land. There is force on both sides of the equation, so whether or not force is being used is entirely irrelevant.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, the clearance rate for murders is much higher in some areas. Where I was living in Colorado, the clearance rate was 70-80% according to a guy I know who is a recently retired police officer.

Darrell

Darrell, what do you mean by "clearance rate?"

Acquittals? Unsolved?

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, the clearance rate for murders is much higher in some areas. Where I was living in Colorado, the clearance rate was 70-80% according to a guy I know who is a recently retired police officer.

Darrell

Darrell, what do you mean by "clearance rate?"

Acquittals? Unsolved?

A...

I mean the percentage solved --- the police caught the perp.

Actually, I think the rate was probably even higher in my county.

Darrell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It bothers me that you seem to think it is a good thing if at least some people get away with murder.

That's because you never had to kill anyone. Men don't have abortions. Civilians don't fight wars or patrol urban jungles.

Are abortions murder?

Should the people that started a war get away with it?

Should police get away with murder?

Killing someone in self defense is not murder. Killing someone that is endangering other people isn't murder either.

Murder is the unjustified or insufficiently justified killing of another person. Murder is killing with malice or for personal gain.

Darrell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a better example: property rights are the solution to pollution, just add torts. Again, it doesn't seem like this originates in the idea of property itself. Holding polluters liable for the damage they do isn't some radically new idea. Indeed, it's kind of what people opposed to industrial pollution have been trying to achieve all along. It's not that property rights haven't been enforced this whole time. They have been. It's just that a new thing would be added to this of what is considered a property crime. This route is also what is given to handle the pollution of rivers, lakes, oceans, and so forth, the belief seeming to be that privatizing something is the only way to hold someone responsible for damaging it. (Privatization is one "solution" I've seen offered to the tragedy of the commons, but that's like saying you've "solved" the problem of a patient's pain by killing them out of mercy. No patient, no pain, no problem!)

The same principle applies to pollution. If I have bought land in a locality that at time of purchase enjoys an atmosphere of low particulate matter, I am entitled to continue to enjoy that level of clean air. However, if a power plant relocates to my neighborhood and begins expelling enormous quantities of coal smoke into the air I breathe, then it has forced ("cause of motion or change") an alteration in what is rightfully mine against my wishes.

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 breath a person takes is likely to contain some of the same molecules that Caesar expelled in his dying breath, "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

Edited by Darrell Hougen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, just as I'm force to keep off your land. There is force on both sides of the equation, so whether or not force is being used is entirely irrelevant.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The same principle applies to pollution. If I have bought land in a locality that at time of purchase enjoys an atmosphere of low particulate matter, I am entitled to continue to enjoy that level of clean air. However, if a power plant relocates to my neighborhood and begins expelling enormous quantities of coal smoke into the air I breathe, then it has forced ("cause of motion or change") an alteration in what is rightfully mine against my wishes.

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.

In fact, my position is that a property owner has a right to expect that the air (or water) within his property remain relatively in the same condition as it was at the time of the owner's acquisition--which is little different from what you state in the first sentence above. Now if a person cannot say air "is rightfully mine," he would have no moral or legal power to hold air apart from general use or resell it to someone else. The entire industry of manufacturing oxygen tanks would have to be shut down as they are created by taking in large quantities of air from the atmosphere, compressing it, purifying it, and holding it in cylinders for sale.

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

How does the tax work? Do the revenues collected from polluters go to the victims of pollution? Or do the revenue collectors simply keep the tax?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"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.

"Non-initiation of force" doesn't touch upon corporations versus sole proprietorships, bankruptcy, child custody, marriage, trusts, and probate because those areas do not relate to criminal law.

Personality rights: Name, image and signature should not be used deceitfully to deprive people of their property, which is fraud. Some libertarians would say images are copyrightable, but I acknowledge that I am an intellectual property skeptic.

Electromagnetic spectrum rights are forms of property just like real estate and can be defended the same way.

Warrants/subpoenas may or may not be legitimate depending on the particulars of the case.

Harassment: If a bothersome person keeps knocking on your door when you've asked him to leave--that's trespass. Call the cops.

Emotional damage: I'm emotionally hurt that you reject my ideas on this forum. Therefore, you owe me $10,000. That kind of emotional damage?

Restraining orders: Perfectly legitimate in response to a threat, which, like violence, constrains a person and makes him act in a way contrary to what he would do otherwise.

Stalking: There is nothing immoral about following a person on public thoroughfares. On the other hand, if there is a clear intent to do harm, that is a threat (see above).

The case of an apple falling from your neighbor's tree into your yard: If you can show damages and convince a jury, sue him.

Rules that create property: Good for all of us.

Identity theft: You clean out my bank account, you owe me.

Defamation/libel, blackmail: You do not own what other people think of you. Selling or offering for sale the withholding of information is not immoral.

"Coercion /kˈɜrʃən/ is the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner by use of intimidation or threats or some other form of pressure or force." (Wikipedia)

Perhaps you think that folks in North Korea are all acting according to their own individual preferences and that government exerts no force or threat of force on them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francisco,

I think you should give up this enterprise of declaiming law, especially the "criminal law" as you see it. The matter boils down to a central question. Should there be a class of men called government who adjudicate and enforce the law, or not? If so, your opinion of justice is just that -- a personal opinion, one among many, unless you intend to govern and think you can get away with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personality rights: Name, image and signature should not be used deceitfully to deprive people of their property, which is fraud.

That's not what personality rights are.

Some libertarians would say images are copyrightable, but I acknowledge that I am an intellectual property skeptic.

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.

Electromagnetic spectrum rights are forms of property just like real estate and can be defended the same way.

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.

Harassment: If a bothersome person keeps knocking on your door when you've asked him to leave--that's trespass. Call the cops.

Bzzzt. Fail. Harassment is a separate and is not dealt with with trespassing charges.

Emotional damage: I'm emotionally hurt that you reject my ideas on this forum. Therefore, you owe me $10,000. That kind of emotional damage?

In another thread I asked you not to be an idiot. You said you wouldn't, but you're doing it again.

The case of an apple falling from your neighbor's tree into your yard: If you can show damages and convince a jury, sue him.

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.

Rules that create property: Good for all of us.

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.

Identity theft: You clean out my bank account, you owe me.

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.

Defamation/libel, blackmail: You do not own what other people think of you. Selling or offering for sale the withholding of information is not immoral.

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.

Perhaps you think that folks in North Korea are all acting according to their own individual preferences and that government exerts no force or threat of force on them?

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do the revenues collected from polluters go to the victims of pollution? Or do the revenue collectors simply keep the tax?

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fact, my position is that a property owner has a right to expect that the air (or water) within his property remain relatively in the same condition as it was at the time of the owner's acquisition--which is little different from what you state in the first sentence above.

Different terminology makes for different perspectives.

Now if a person cannot say air "is rightfully mine," he would have no moral or legal power to hold air apart from general use or resell it to someone else. The entire industry of manufacturing oxygen tanks would have to be shut down as they are created by taking in large quantities of air from the atmosphere, compressing it, purifying it, and holding it in cylinders for sale.

You seem to lack a little thing called nuance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should the people that started a war get away with it?

Pentagon: US ground troops may join Iraqis in combat against Isis

The US defense secretary told senators on Tuesday that America is “at war” with the Islamic State (Isis), while the senior US military officer suggested US ground troops might directly join Iraqis in combat... Hagel stopped short of saying Isis poses an imminent threat to the US, something intelligence agencies consider unlikely in the near term and a typical, if fungible, threshold for launching a war. Hagel instead called Isis “an immediate threat to American citizens in Iraq”, many of whom Obama has sent there in response to Isis, “and our interests in the Middle East”, with the prospect of domestic attacks against the US left as a hypothetical.

Rationality imposes the burden of evidence and an unencumbered commitment to discover and verify the pertinent facts. In the absence of conclusive evidence, the crush of exigency impels us to weigh scraps of data and make reasonable estimates and inferences. Bush and Blair turned this upside down, inventing and twisting scraps of lies at their leisure to cover up their covert purpose for invading Iraq (oil supplies for Israel, suppression of militant Arab resistance).

[COGIGG, p.152]

Obama Orders Boots on the Ground!

We're at war. We're putting boots on the ground. We're not waiting around for the host nation's government to get its affairs in order, or for a regional coalition to commit first. The president has apparently overcome his reluctance to use the military, his worries about a commitment to intervene without an exit strategy, and his usual reluctance to acknowledge (even implicitly) that his administration was wrong when it assured us that there was nothing much for us to worry about. Of course, the enemy the president has boldly and unhesitatingly sent our troops to fight is the Ebola virus [in Liberia]. Aren't there other parts of the U.S government suited to carry on this fight?... Surely an administration committed to smart power would have developed the civilian capabilities to fight a virus without deploying 3,000 troops?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a better example: property rights are the solution to pollution, just add torts. Again, it doesn't seem like this originates in the idea of property itself. Holding polluters liable for the damage they do isn't some radically new idea. Indeed, it's kind of what people opposed to industrial pollution have been trying to achieve all along. It's not that property rights haven't been enforced this whole time. They have been. It's just that a new thing would be added to this of what is considered a property crime. This route is also what is given to handle the pollution of rivers, lakes, oceans, and so forth, the belief seeming to be that privatizing something is the only way to hold someone responsible for damaging it. (Privatization is one "solution" I've seen offered to the tragedy of the commons, but that's like saying you've "solved" the problem of a patient's pain by killing them out of mercy. No patient, no pain, no problem!)

The same principle applies to pollution. If I have bought land in a locality that at time of purchase enjoys an atmosphere of low particulate matter, I am entitled to continue to enjoy that level of clean air. However, if a power plant relocates to my neighborhood and begins expelling enormous quantities of coal smoke into the air I breathe, then it has forced ("cause of motion or change") an alteration in what is rightfully mine against my wishes.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Harassment encompasses more than that and it can be tacked onto trespassing as an offense. It is a separate charge.

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.

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Harassment encompasses more than that and it can be tacked onto trespassing as an offense. It is a separate charge.

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.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have defined "force" and provided instances of it that should be prohibited under an objective system of law. I have also shown why a system of 100% private property, including self-ownership, would lead to the removal of many so-called crimes from the legal code.

To respond by calling it "simplistic" or "bizarre" or "awkward" or "jackass" is not a logical refutation.

And no one said that in a case of identity theft the victim was not the person whose identity had been used. The example I gave of a looted bank account ("You clean out my bank account, you owe me.") clearly treated the legitimate owner of the account as the victim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have defined "force" and provided instances of it that should be prohibited under an objective system of law. I have also shown why a system of 100% private property, including self-ownership, would lead to the removal of many so-called crimes from the legal code.

To respond by calling it "simplistic" or "bizarre" or "awkward" or "jackass" is not a logical refutation.

And no one said that in a case of identity theft the victim was not the person whose identity had been used. The example I gave of a looted bank account ("You clean out my bank account, you owe me.") clearly treated the legitimate owner of the account as the victim.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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

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.

LOL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.'"

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If one person threatens another or acts in a way that suggests intent to do violence, that is a valid basis for legal intervention. However, harassment is often defined as any behavior one finds disagreeable. If a man in a public place puts a hot dog between his legs and smiles at a woman (the basis of an actual sexual harassment lawsuit), she may be offended but she is not entitled to collect any damages or legally force the man to change his behavior.

Regarding pollution, I have already used the example of a homeowner and a coal-burning power plant. The homeowner is entitled to air quality on his property of approximately the same condition as at time of acquisition. He may take the offending power plant to court and, if successful, force it to cease and desist expelling coal smoke and to compensate the homeowner for previous violations of his property rights. You have provided no reason why this remedy should be regarded as insufficient.

On marriage: You have given no reason why a couple cannot write, sign and be legally bound to follow the terms of a marriage contract.

On identity theft: You have given no reason why prosecuting a man for fraudulently presenting himself as the owner of a bank account or other assets is insufficient to deal with the problem of identity theft.

"Property cannot handle the issue of harm." What kind of harm? Broken arm? Broken window? Injured pride?

"Failure to deliver cannot be handled with the charge of theft." True, it's breach of contract.

Spam? It is trespass. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trespass_to_chattels

On the definition of force: Mine comes from Merriam-Webster. If you prefer another definition, help yourself. Of course, you are also free to attempt to prove that the referenced definition is "not normal." http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/force

On serving alcohol to minors: I have already explained elsewhere how children cannot give consent to drink, have sex, etc. because they are below the age of consent. Therefore, certain interactions with them may be regarded as involuntary and thus an act of force.

On automobile speed, intoxication and accidents: adjudication of disputes would depend on the terms imposed by the owners of the road and the drivers that use it.

Vandalism is an act of force because it constrains the owner's use of his property. If the owner of a house does not want swastikas spray-painted on the side, the vandal has forced a change in property on the owner.

On sabotage: The above applies.

On catch-alls. Yes, "right-violation" is a good term to use for all cases in which one person's actions with regard to another should be prohibited by law.

On blackmail: No one claimed that laws against blackmail criminalized thought. I never even used the term "criminalize thought." Fallacy of the strawman.

On the airwaves: The government has already assigned property in radio-TV frequencies: the government owns it all and licenses certain frequencies on a limited basis. If you think you currently have a right to broadcast anytime, anywhere, build a large transmitter and start transmitting on the same frequency as an FCC-licensed station. We'll see how long you last. http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/south/2014/05/14/enforcement-against-pirate-radio-hurts-underserved-communities-advocates-say/3p7CuAZhPMhBbcUWafTETL/story.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now