national minimum wage LAWS. good or bad?

[Rassah]

He gave his employees a raise after the election (and backlash). It demonstrates his insincerity about the expenses his business incurs, one of which is wages.

So he was claiming to live in a fantasy land, where the economy was crap and he wouldn't be able to afford employees, and eventually admitted to being in the real world, where the market is doing well... What's your point? And, again, what is this supposed to show or prove about minimum wage laws? Was that the "insincerity" part? If that's your point, then that's actually an example of how a market distortion (asymmetric information, or lie in this case) only cause short-term blips on the economy, but are then forced right back into the same general economic rules. In his case, he made the value of his own jobs lower by being a douchebag, reducing the demand for the jobs he offered, and had to raise what he paid to keep his employees.

[Rassah]

A market, by definition, requires that property rights are respected. Any entity that initiates force is not a part of the market, but a distorter of it. The use of force is the distortion, fundamentally.

So you're in favor of laws, correct? Because property rights don't exist without laws.

Laws don't create rights.

What creates the right for you to say that this line is the boundary of the land you claim to own? What creates the right for you to say that the the 2 ounces of steel in some gadget you claim is yours is owned by you? Going back to first principles, where did the steel originate from, and how did it enter into a state that allows you to claim you own it?

Oh dear god, not this again! Didn't you two settle this argument with "You're a dummy! No, YOU'RE a dummy! Let's just agree to disagree" last year?

[myrkul]

Oh dear god, not this again! Didn't you two settle this argument with "You're a dummy! No, YOU'RE a dummy! Let's just agree to disagree" last year?

lol... I don't think he got to that last part. Seems he couldn't stay away.

I must just be too damn smexy for him to resist.

[Anon136]

A market, by definition, requires that property rights are respected. Any entity that initiates force is not a part of the market, but a distorter of it. The use of force is the distortion, fundamentally.

So you're in favor of laws, correct? Because property rights don't exist without laws.

bitcoin proves that this is not true. I have a property right to my bitcoins by virtue of the fact that only i know the private key despite the fact that there is no law supporting my property claim in any way.

[Rudd-O]

A market, by definition, requires that property rights are respected. Any entity that initiates force is not a part of the market, but a distorter of it. The use of force is the distortion, fundamentally.

So you're in favor of laws, correct? Because property rights don't exist without laws.

bitcoin proves that this is not true. I have a property right to my bitcoins by virtue of the fact that only i know the private key despite the fact that there is no law supporting my property claim in any way.

Actually you only own that private key because you homesteaded it or someone consensually transferred it to you. Had you fraudulently obtained it, you would possess a copy but not own it.

[myrkul]

A market, by definition, requires that property rights are respected. Any entity that initiates force is not a part of the market, but a distorter of it. The use of force is the distortion, fundamentally.

So you're in favor of laws, correct? Because property rights don't exist without laws.

bitcoin proves that this is not true. I have a property right to my bitcoins by virtue of the fact that only i know the private key despite the fact that there is no law supporting my property claim in any way.

Actually you only own that private key because you homesteaded it or someone consensually transferred it to you. Had you fraudulently obtained it, you would possess a copy but not own it.

Much like physical property... Fraudulently/forcibly obtaining it does not grant ownership.

[FirstAscent]

A market, by definition, requires that property rights are respected. Any entity that initiates force is not a part of the market, but a distorter of it. The use of force is the distortion, fundamentally.

So you're in favor of laws, correct? Because property rights don't exist without laws.

bitcoin proves that this is not true. I have a property right to my bitcoins by virtue of the fact that only i know the private key despite the fact that there is no law supporting my property claim in any way.

Actually you only own that private key because you homesteaded it or someone consensually transferred it to you. Had you fraudulently obtained it, you would possess a copy but not own it.

Much like physical property... Fraudulently/forcibly obtaining it does not grant ownership.

But assuming no back up, it denies ownership.

[Anon136]

A market, by definition, requires that property rights are respected. Any entity that initiates force is not a part of the market, but a distorter of it. The use of force is the distortion, fundamentally.

So you're in favor of laws, correct? Because property rights don't exist without laws.

bitcoin proves that this is not true. I have a property right to my bitcoins by virtue of the fact that only i know the private key despite the fact that there is no law supporting my property claim in any way.

Actually you only own that private key because you homesteaded it or someone consensually transferred it to you. Had you fraudulently obtained it, you would possess a copy but not own it.

If property rights do not exist with out law (which is what was said) and there are no laws pertaining to bitcoin (which is true) than logically one must conclude that one has a bitcoin property right. So you could make an argument saying "ok great you just proved that no one owns bitcoins but they do have access to them and thats what matters in this context" to which i would reply "this is not a particularly useful way to define the word ownership or property right"

if you wanted to revise the argument and say "except for the unusual exception, property rights don't exist without laws" i wouldn't protest.

[myrkul]

A market, by definition, requires that property rights are respected. Any entity that initiates force is not a part of the market, but a distorter of it. The use of force is the distortion, fundamentally.

So you're in favor of laws, correct? Because property rights don't exist without laws.

bitcoin proves that this is not true. I have a property right to my bitcoins by virtue of the fact that only i know the private key despite the fact that there is no law supporting my property claim in any way.

Actually you only own that private key because you homesteaded it or someone consensually transferred it to you. Had you fraudulently obtained it, you would possess a copy but not own it.

If property rights do not exist with out law (which is what was said) and there are no laws pertaining to bitcoin (which is true) than logically one must conclude that one has a bitcoin property right. So you could make an argument saying "ok great you just proved that no one owns bitcoins but they do have access to them and thats what matters in this context" to which i would reply "this is not a particularly useful way to define the word ownership or property right"

if you wanted to revise the argument and say "except for the unusual exception, property rights don't exist without laws" i wouldn't protest.

He's not disputing that you own the key. What he is disputing is your reasoning as to why.

I, on the other hand, don't really consider that data to be property, or protected by property rights, except in the sense that one would need to trespass upon your property or commit fraud to acquire it illegitimately.

[Anon136]

A market, by definition, requires that property rights are respected. Any entity that initiates force is not a part of the market, but a distorter of it. The use of force is the distortion, fundamentally.

So you're in favor of laws, correct? Because property rights don't exist without laws.

bitcoin proves that this is not true. I have a property right to my bitcoins by virtue of the fact that only i know the private key despite the fact that there is no law supporting my property claim in any way.

Actually you only own that private key because you homesteaded it or someone consensually transferred it to you. Had you fraudulently obtained it, you would possess a copy but not own it.

If property rights do not exist with out law (which is what was said) and there are no laws pertaining to bitcoin (which is true) than logically one must conclude that one has a bitcoin property right. So you could make an argument saying "ok great you just proved that no one owns bitcoins but they do have access to them and thats what matters in this context" to which i would reply "this is not a particularly useful way to define the word ownership or property right"

if you wanted to revise the argument and say "except for the unusual exception, property rights don't exist without laws" i wouldn't protest.

He's not disputing that you own the key. What he is disputing is your reasoning as to why.

I, on the other hand, don't really consider that data to be property, or protected by property rights, except in the sense that one would need to trespass upon your property or commit fraud to acquire it illegitimately.

ah well what i am interested in is the question of whether bitcoins can be "owned" in a state of pure lawlessness. I think they can and thats probably the thing about them that is most wonderful. before bitcoin the ancap model suffered circular reasoning, we proposed to use markets to establish law but markets require property with which to barter and property claims (were at the time) a function of law. Bitcoin changed all that by allowing people to have completely undeniable property claims in the complete absence of law.

as an aside i do know that this problem of circular reasoning could be overcome by having property as a product of social norm instead of law but it could take ages to solve the problem that way, bitcoin solves it right now.

[myrkul]

before bitcoin the ancap model suffered circular reasoning, we proposed to use markets to establish law but markets require property with which to barter and property claims (were at the time) a function of law.

I really hate to beat a dead horse, but laws protect property, they do not establish it. Self-ownership establishes it.

[Anon136]

before bitcoin the ancap model suffered circular reasoning, we proposed to use markets to establish law but markets require property with which to barter and property claims (were at the time) a function of law.

I really hate to beat a dead horse, but laws protect property, they do not establish it. Self-ownership establishes it.

Ok yes thats definitely true and maybe i should have been more careful with my wording. but this is a philosophical distinction. From a systems analysis standpoint "rights" are irrelevant what matters is the ability for given individuals to exercise dominion. so when i say property in this context i dont mean it in any Lockean sense i mean in the sense that certain individuals have greater and lesser capacities to dictate how objects are or are not used. Part of the confusion seems to come as a result of the fact that the english language seems to be missing an important word.

[myrkul]

when i say property in this context i dont mean it in any Lockean sense i mean in the sense that certain individuals have greater and lesser capacities to dictate how objects are or are not used.

Funny thing is, that's exactly how I mean it: You own your body because you have exclusive control on how it is used. Because you own your body, you own the products of it - the fruits of your labor.

[Anon136]

when i say property in this context i dont mean it in any Lockean sense i mean in the sense that certain individuals have greater and lesser capacities to dictate how objects are or are not used.

Funny thing is, that's exactly how I mean it: You own your body because you have exclusive control on how it is used. Because you own your body, you own the products of it - the fruits of your labor.

Ah well then lets move out of the pragmatic systems analysis realm and talk philosophy. If what you say is true and an alien brain parasite gained control over my body than this would make him the legitimate owner of my body by virtue of the fact that he was in control of its actions. In my mind this is would not constitute a legitimate property claim.

[Rassah]

Why not arrive at it by just using mutually agreed upon contracts? In a small enough society, there is no need for a legal body to oversee your market. Contracts are signed and agreed upon, and if broken, enforced by whoever has more power, or pays a third party to exhert power.

BTW, I've mentioned this before, but this whole, "There are no rights without laws!" crap stinks way too much like the "There are no morals without the bible!" crap.

[myrkul]

whether or not you own an object but whether or not you have dominion over that object.

These are the same thing.

[FirstAscent]

Why not arrive at it by just using mutually agreed upon contracts? In a small enough society, there is no need for a legal body to oversee your market. Contracts are signed and agreed upon, and if broken, enforced by whoever has more power, or pays a third party to exhert power.

Epic fail. Thank you though for putting your foot in your mouth and showing your true colors: Money and power rule all. Forget justice and truth.

[Rudd-O]

If property rights do not exist with out law (which is what was said)

"Property rights" do not exist, with or without belief in papers ("laws").

Property is a concept.  When you say "This Coke can is my property" or "I own this Coke can", what you are saying is only an abbreviated form of "I obtained this Coke can ethically, therefore I ought to be the one who decides, exclusively, what will be done with it".  That's what the concept "property" means.  Concepts do not exist -- when we speak of concepts, we can only speak of their validity or invalidity.

Of course, implicit in that sentence, is the idea that there is (not "exists", is) an unambiguous set of rational rules that allows two or more people to figure out who owns what scarce and rivalrous resource without having to resort to brute force to "decide".

There's lots of debate over what those rules might be, whether it's rules written in a certain set of Holy Papers, or rules that mandate communal ownership of stuff, or rules that mandate individual ownership, or the rule set composed of the "I will shoot you if you don't give me your stuff" (which incidentally is the ultimate rule of the Holy Papers), et cetera.  My point is not to debate what the "right" rule set is.  My point is to get you to think of property in terms of a concept rather than a magical right given or granted to you by anyone or any piece of paper.

Now, in my view, the only two rules needed to decide who owns what are homesteading and consensual transfer.  I'm not here to tell you that is the ultimate rule set and you should obey that.  But I can tell you that, deducing from these rules, if you generated or got (via consensual transfer) a private key for a Bitcoin wallet, and proceeded to generate or obtain (via consensual transfer) Bitcoins in said Bitcoin wallet, then the logical deduction is that "You own that wallet and those Bitcoins".

[Anon136]

whether or not you own an object but whether or not you have dominion over that object.

These are the same thing.

i disagree. Ownership implies legitimacy of means of acquisition. Exercising dominion over an object implies no such legitimacy. Of course in my original statement i was using these ideas interchangeably for lack of a better term and because this philosophical distinction wasnt relievent at the time.

[Anon136]

If property rights do not exist with out law (which is what was said)

"Property rights" do not exist, with or without belief in papers ("laws").

Property is a concept.  When you say "This Coke can is my property" or "I own this Coke can", what you are saying is only an abbreviated form of "I obtained this Coke can ethically, therefore I ought to be the one who decides, exclusively, what will be done with it".  That's what the concept "property" means.  Concepts do not exist -- when we speak of concepts, we can only speak of their validity or invalidity.

Of course, implicit in that sentence, is the idea that there is (not "exists", is) an unambiguous set of rational rules that allows two or more people to figure out who owns what scarce and rivalrous resource without having to resort to brute force to "decide".

There's lots of debate over what those rules might be, whether it's rules written in a certain set of Holy Papers, or rules that mandate communal ownership of stuff, or rules that mandate individual ownership, or the rule set composed of the "I will shoot you if you don't give me your stuff" (which incidentally is the ultimate rule of the Holy Papers), et cetera.  My point is not to debate what the "right" rule set is.  My point is to get you to think of property in terms of a concept rather than a magical right given or granted to you by anyone or any piece of paper.

Now, in my view, the only two rules needed to decide who owns what are homesteading and consensual transfer.  I'm not here to tell you that is the ultimate rule set and you should obey that.  But I can tell you that, deducing from these rules, if you generated or got (via consensual transfer) a private key for a Bitcoin wallet, and proceeded to generate or obtain (via consensual transfer) Bitcoins in said Bitcoin wallet, then the logical deduction is that "You own that wallet and those Bitcoins".

i totally agree with what you have written here. Sometimes it is difficult for one to be rigorous enough to phrase everything correctly so it was my mistake if i said something that implied that i do not agree with what you have written here. Technically in the earlier dialogue i wasn't interested in property rights (even though i used those words for simplicities sake) but rather a situation where multiple actors were exercising dominion over multiple separate objects (the conditions that allow a market to form).