tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post5042899231829803999..comments2024-03-28T05:21:23.190-05:00Comments on Althouse: "The great thing about America, is that once you own property, you own it."Ann Althousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comBlogger75125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-55092636402658235582007-12-19T10:32:00.000-06:002007-12-19T10:32:00.000-06:00The proletarian revolution never happened in Engla...<I>The proletarian revolution never happened in England and Germany (as Marx predicted) because England and Germany reformed themselves. That was the power of nineteenth century liberalism with its christian roots, pariliamentary goverhnment and underlying political philosophy.</I><BR/><BR/>Actually, although there were some reforms in the late nineteenth century that were initiated by a few industrialists, most of the gains made by working people were achieved through great sacrifice, personal risk, and in the face of violent suppression, often with the backing of the government. It took the revolutionary collapse in Russia and the slaughter of World War I for the lot of the working class to really change for the better in the middle of the 20th Century as the ruling classes realized without extreme social concessions (e.g., recognizing trade unions and worker rights, implementing social welfare and public housing programs and increased democratization), they might go the same way as Russia. Of course, some countries (e.g. Germany, Italy and Spain) took a different tack and responded to the communist threat by implementing fascist regimes, that at least in the case of Germany, ended up worse than the disease they sought to cure.Freder Fredersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01498410102809290399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-44940913647289177012007-12-19T10:04:00.000-06:002007-12-19T10:04:00.000-06:00In the Old West, it was fences. In some eras, ther...<I>In the Old West, it was fences. <BR/>In some eras, there were landmarks alone. <BR/>Today, we use property lines.</I><BR/><BR/>Pogo, in this country, the government platted almost the entire country once we got over the Appalachian Mountains, the land was divided along grids (sections and townships). The fences were set along the gridlines established by the government, not the other way around.Freder Fredersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01498410102809290399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-40738550373560067912007-12-19T09:53:00.000-06:002007-12-19T09:53:00.000-06:00I take it you go through the process of getting an...<I>I take it you go through the process of getting an environmental impact statement before you go to the bathroom?</I><BR/><BR/>Actually, the government (assuming you are hooked up to a municipal sewer system) has already taken care of this for you and secured the necessary treatment and discharge permits for your waste. It is one of the many conveniences and necessities of modern life that libertarians seem to forget when they fantasize about their society without government interference. <BR/><BR/>Even if you are not hooked up to a municipal sewer system, government regulations require setbacks and treatment standards for septic systems and other individual treatment systems to try and ensure that your neighbor, or you, don't contaminate ground and surface waters.<BR/><BR/>I think that is a very good thing.Freder Fredersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01498410102809290399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-81348195309070664432007-12-19T01:16:00.000-06:002007-12-19T01:16:00.000-06:00our property regime began in the mass confiscation...<I> our property regime began in the mass confiscation by the government of land which naturally belongs to everyone equally, including those yet to be born.... It's one of those self-evident things. You know, like that "all" men are created "equal," and that they are endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.</I><BR/><BR/>Perspective: native "savages" were considered subhuman. We've evolved since then, but judging the past by today's values is not reasonable.Fenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16734571593963330215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-91068522743049574662007-12-18T19:47:00.000-06:002007-12-18T19:47:00.000-06:00Estelle: You think you know somebody after 25 year...Estelle: You think you know somebody after 25 years. And then one day, Israeli Intelligence comes to the door. <BR/>Anna: "Israeli Intelligence". <BR/>Estelle: Last Tuesday. That's why I've gotta sell the house. It turns out, Carlos was Hitler's pool man. <BR/>(The Money Pit, 1986)Trooper Yorkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01978703998566102194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-75660012825540575702007-12-18T19:39:00.000-06:002007-12-18T19:39:00.000-06:00"There is no right to pollute. That should not be ..."There is no right to pollute. That should not be a controversial statement."<BR/><BR/>I take it you go through the process of getting an environmental impact statement before you go to the bathroom?<BR/><BR/>Seriously, while there should not be a blanket right to pollute, the process of being alive creates pollution. If you're serious about that statement, and the statement about the "land owning us", I worry for the future.Civilishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05069223524986553508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-22395943902906548072007-12-18T18:07:00.000-06:002007-12-18T18:07:00.000-06:00Alpha: there is no right to pollute--OK--perhaps ...Alpha: there is no right to pollute--OK--perhaps so; but that right has to be balanced with right to use my property as I choose--the one right does not cancel the other; the rights compete, and it up to society, the government, or some other body to solve the competing claims.Roger J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/12639676792043324100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-78940741834885408722007-12-18T17:40:00.000-06:002007-12-18T17:40:00.000-06:00It was taught in zoning class that people don't ow...It was taught in zoning class that people don't own property but rights to property. <BR/><BR/>It has also be said that we don't own the land, the land owns us. The land's been here a long time and we are all relatively transient. <BR/><BR/>In my experience, the more adamant the property rights advocate, the more they seem to claim a right to pollute. There is no right to pollute. That should not be a controversial statement.AlphaLiberalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08711124490821422066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-89396546514607631112007-12-18T17:39:00.000-06:002007-12-18T17:39:00.000-06:00Freder: I do take except to your assertion that t...Freder: I do take except to your assertion that the founders would not have recognize that (at least theoretically) the right to property is an a priori right--In fact, it is just that right (along with life and liberty) why the state of nature that preexisted government is not a good thing--Hobbes was more pessimistic than was Locke (life being nasty poor brutish and short in the state of nature whereas Locke viewed it somewhat more gentilely: a state of liberty but not license.<BR/><BR/>As to your point about excesses: most assuredly there were excesses committed in the name of God, country, rights and all of that. And in many respects, Marx was on target when he wrote in the mid 19th century--capitalism was not pretty--what Marx failed to comprehend that capitalism and liberalism, for all its excesses was also capable of reform--Christians ended the slave trade; capitalists made the parliamentary reforms that ultimately ended child labor--in fact it was liberalism as a political philosophy that reformed the excesses of unfettered 19th century capitalism. The proletarian revolution never happened in England and Germany (as Marx predicted) because England and Germany reformed themselves. That was the power of nineteenth century liberalism with its christian roots, pariliamentary goverhnment and underlying political philosophy. All of this, of course, IM not so humble ORoger J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/12639676792043324100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-74300796418438211802007-12-18T17:25:00.000-06:002007-12-18T17:25:00.000-06:00John Locke explores the right to property and expl...John Locke explores the right to property and explains why it is an individual right--Its also why Locke described it in the second treatise as the fundamental right of live libery and property which Jefferson paraphrased, substituting pursuit of happiness for property. <BR/><BR/>As to untrammeled property rights, I don't think that Locke, or Hobbes for that matter, would have objected to restrictions or regulations on property rights as a proper role of government should the people ascribe and cede that right to government--rather like owning cars--an unstricted right, except government may, people permitting, let government issue administrative restrictions on the right to own and drive cars. <BR/><BR/>With respect to Freder's question about knowing where rights begin and end: those are the administrative devices necessary when humans give up the right to judge in their case and assign it to a government in order to regulate such conflicts as might arise (in Hobbes' worst case).<BR/><BR/>Freder is, in my opinon, arguing the state of nature--which both Hobbes and Locke decried and used the excesses of the state of nature to specify the need for the social contract. <BR/><BR/>We would all do well to understand the political writing of seventeenth century Emgland to understand the roots of our prevailing political philosophy: King James, Hobbes, Locke, Harrington, Sydney and many others of the epoch are the source of the founders political philosophy. Even to include the English fear of standing armies resulting from Cromwell's new model army and the nasty experience with the Lord Protector.<BR/><BR/>Good thread, and it's always worthwhile to walk thru these arguments. Thanks to all for excellent commentary.Roger J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/12639676792043324100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-81019937931785728972007-12-18T16:53:00.000-06:002007-12-18T16:53:00.000-06:00John, I have read some of Nock's stuff. Much is qu...John, I have read some of Nock's stuff. Much is quite good, some veers into anarcho-utopianism. Regardless, I have always enjoyed his distaste for the State, large or small. <BR/><BR/>I am unsure however that "all men are created equal" was ever coupled with or can coexist at all with "the underlying value of the land itself belongs to everyone in society equally".<BR/><BR/>The former permits competition, the latter is the origin of the tragedy of the commons.<BR/><BR/>It raisesKCFleminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00124201866124646626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-82120018561698833012007-12-18T16:46:00.000-06:002007-12-18T16:46:00.000-06:00Pogo,It's one of those self-evident things. You k...Pogo,<BR/><BR/>It's one of those self-evident things. You know, like that "all" men are created "equal," and that they are endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.<BR/><BR/>You'll have to trust me on Nock, unless of course you bother to read him yourself.John Kindleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13897832130417651667noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-26358760911521471932007-12-18T16:26:00.000-06:002007-12-18T16:26:00.000-06:00land which naturally belongs to everyone equally,I...<I>land which naturally belongs to everyone equally,</I><BR/><BR/>I do not agree with this basic premise.<BR/>Why "naturally"?<BR/>Why "all of us"?<BR/>Why "equally"<BR/><BR/>Sounds more like Rousseau than Nock.KCFleminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00124201866124646626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-70305727205210469882007-12-18T16:24:00.000-06:002007-12-18T16:24:00.000-06:00In the Old West, it was fences. In some eras, ther...In the Old West, it was fences. <BR/>In some eras, there were landmarks alone. <BR/>Today, we use property lines.<BR/><BR/>We find the goverment the <I>most feasible and least violent</I> means to that end, but <I>not the origin of the lines</I>, and certainly not the only means.<BR/><BR/>Yours is a <I>post hoc ergo propter hoc</I> fallacy.KCFleminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00124201866124646626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-49840884342050461002007-12-18T16:22:00.000-06:002007-12-18T16:22:00.000-06:00Freder is right in the sense that our property reg...Freder is right in the sense that our property regime began in the mass confiscation by the government of land which naturally belongs to everyone equally, including those yet to be born. It then sold off for a price title to what did not naturally belong to it, and those who presently hold it through a long succession of titles have no more of a natural right to it than the government originally did. What people have a natural right to is the fruits of their labor, including improvements made to land, and what they receive through voluntary exchange with others. Some form of title or usufruct is therefore necessary so that people can securely enjoy the fruits of their improvements to and labor on the land, but the underlying value of the land itself still belongs to everyone in society equally. From this concept came Henry George's proposal for a "Single Tax" on the unimproved value of land, to the exclusion of all other taxes.<BR/><BR/>The Founding Fathers, including George Washington, were heavily involved in land speculation, and one of their main gripes with the British Crown and a major instigator of the American Revolution was the stop that the Crown had put to land speculation west of a line that the Crown drew. George Washington had hoped to make a bundle by laying claim to large swathes of land (which as someone who was politically connected he could presumably get dirt cheap), putting up no trespassing signs, and then eventually selling it off at monopoly prices.<BR/><BR/>See the libertarian classic Our Enemy, the State by Albert Jay Nock for further illumination of this fundamental aspect of American history. See Thomas Paine's essay Agrarian Justice for the Cliffs Notes version.<BR/><BR/>And now consider the poor young sucker embarking on his life in the 21st century. It may be fair and just to charge him rent for the building in which he lives which someone else built, but it's not fair and just to charge him out his presumably meager earnings rent for the piece of land upon which he stands and sleeps. Maybe after ten years of paying rent for something that was his to begin with he somehow has scraped up enough for a downpayment on a house, and now he can look forward to thirty years of paying principal and interest to get back a piece of what was taken from him before he was even born.John Kindleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13897832130417651667noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-80061489955172239792007-12-18T16:11:00.000-06:002007-12-18T16:11:00.000-06:00Bullshit. Government makes it more feasible and le...<I>Bullshit. Government makes it more feasible and less violent, not possible in the first place.</I><BR/><BR/>Tell me Pogo, how do you know where your property ends and your neighbor's begins?Freder Fredersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01498410102809290399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-29933779685843760412007-12-18T15:39:00.000-06:002007-12-18T15:39:00.000-06:00All Freder's 'freedom' does is leave you free to o...All Freder's 'freedom' does is leave you free to obey.<BR/><BR/><I>Without government, there can be no right to property</I><BR/>Bullshit. Government makes it more feasible and less violent, not possible in the first place.<BR/><BR/>Start at first base: <BR/>Do you own your own body?<BR/>Yes or no?<BR/>Do you need the government a priori to grant that right, or does it exist only by their suffrance?<BR/><BR/><I> suppose Pogo, that you also don't believe that the government should regulate who can call themselves a doctor.</I><BR/>We have a computer doctor in town. No regulations against that. We have Rug Doctor too.KCFleminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00124201866124646626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-66069716524776044992007-12-18T15:33:00.000-06:002007-12-18T15:33:00.000-06:00The right to property is felt to exist prior to an...<I>The right to property is felt to exist prior to any government.</I><BR/><BR/>This of course is nonsense, and of course not what the founders believed at all. Without government, there can be no right to property other than what you can defend by brute force, which reduces to what you can carry on your person. Heck, without government, you wouldn't even know what property you owned, or if you even owned it.<BR/><BR/>I suppose Pogo, that you also don't believe that the government should regulate who can call themselves a doctor.Freder Fredersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01498410102809290399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-58221215406061555292007-12-18T15:16:00.000-06:002007-12-18T15:16:00.000-06:00You know, of course, that the original phrase was ...You know, of course, that the original phrase was <A HREF="http://reformed.net/cp/knight/2002/1210.html" REL="nofollow">life, liberty and property</A> and Jefferson mixed it up with the more poetic but unfortunately vaguer "pursuit of happiness".<BR/><BR/>I think this thread illustrates really well the difference between the statists and the (classical) liberals.<BR/><BR/>Statists seem to believe that the state can take all your production and yet you're still "free". I guess that's true, in the sense that you're freed from any worries about what to do with your money.blakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05430444326700437630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-42437582201348246062007-12-18T14:22:00.000-06:002007-12-18T14:22:00.000-06:00To claim that your 40 acres and a mule is some div...<I>To claim that your 40 acres and a mule is some divine right that exists outside of the government</I><BR/><BR/>Clearly you are taking this issue to a higher philisophical level. Considering that the Indians didn't have a concept of property rights it's hard to make the case we stole their land. Our 'taking' their land is really no different than the tribal wars they fought amongst themselves when one side happened to enroach a little too much. For the Indians, thier land encompassed as much as they wanted until some other tribe (or the Europeans) kicked them out. <BR/><BR/>Oh and its not my divine right to own property but my wallet and means to pay for it.Hoosier Daddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12872965118921894534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-22040187226538310812007-12-18T14:16:00.001-06:002007-12-18T14:16:00.001-06:00The simple fact isThat is a common but deletirious...<I>The simple fact is</I><BR/>That is a common but deletirious interpretation, and the Founders disagree. The right to property is felt to exist prior to any government. You share the distressing leftist view that all rights essentially are granted at the suffrance the state.<BR/><BR/>While you may find agreement with Cass Sunstein and Karl Marx, you will be opposed to George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, or James Madison. I favor the latter.KCFleminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00124201866124646626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-73209243057886607202007-12-18T14:16:00.000-06:002007-12-18T14:16:00.000-06:00Logic and common sense has left THE PLANET!GOD SAV...Logic and common sense has left THE PLANET!<BR/><BR/>GOD SAVE THE AL.Joaquinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08498096020863312606noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-84310986604800502522007-12-18T14:03:00.000-06:002007-12-18T14:03:00.000-06:00We're talking about private property ownership Fre...<I>We're talking about private property ownership Freder, not wars of national conquest.</I><BR/><BR/>Look at the headline. I was merely pointing out that the sentiment in the headline is not true in all cases. <BR/><BR/>We are not talking about private property, we are talking about eminent domain, the concept of private property, where the ownership of land comes from in the first place. <BR/><BR/>The simple fact is, except for a very few people in this country, our claim to this country is because a bunch of Europeans showed up around 500 years ago and decided God wanted them to have these two continents, never mind the people who happened to be here at the time. To claim that your 40 acres and a mule is some divine right that exists outside of the government that platted the land and then practically gave it away (after either buying it from the French, capturing it in war from the Mexicans, or booting the British off it, and then displacing the Indians living on it) is to ignore the largesse, hard work, and efforts of the government.Freder Fredersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01498410102809290399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-34402542689016911712007-12-18T14:00:00.000-06:002007-12-18T14:00:00.000-06:00Pretty good.But with that definition, your points ...Pretty good.<BR/><BR/>But with that definition, your points don't make any sense at all.KCFleminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00124201866124646626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-12099254985562545602007-12-18T13:53:00.000-06:002007-12-18T13:53:00.000-06:00Again, define "economic freedom". I don't think it...<I>Again, define "economic freedom". I don't think it means what you think it means</I><BR/><BR/>As astoundingly cogent and well thought out as your arguments are Pogo, I would define economic freedom as the right to own and keep property without arbitrary confiscation by either government or private entitities (which of course requires a reasonably competent, non-corrupt, impartial, and functioning justice system--both criminal and civil). Freedom of contract and impartial enforcement of contracts. No use of coercive labor including debt-labor. No criminalization of unpaid debt or the ability to transfer debt to third parties.Freder Fredersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01498410102809290399noreply@blogger.com