Free Nation Bill of Law - Natural Law

[wdmw]

You mean like this idiot, a property rights lawyer, who confuses a political agenda with having knowledge of the environment: http://heartland.org/james-m-taylor-jd

You mean because how he purports to know stuff, he can be the self nominated editor of Environment and Climate News?

Who mean how ignoramuses such as he feel the need to sway the community with bogus propaganda because he doesn't like what real science tells him?

In other words, your hero is just a dumbfuck that you idolize because he puts law above knowledge? Because he thinks he knows what's appropriate when operating with willful ignorance?

I've never heard of this person you claim is my hero and that I idolize, and it's a weak straw-man argument.  If you have something to actually say, go for it.

[FirstAscent]

You mean like this idiot, a property rights lawyer, who confuses a political agenda with having knowledge of the environment: http://heartland.org/james-m-taylor-jd

You mean because how he purports to know stuff, he can be the self nominated editor of Environment and Climate News?

Who mean how ignoramuses such as he feel the need to sway the community with bogus propaganda because he doesn't like what real science tells him?

In other words, your hero is just a dumbfuck that you idolize because he puts law above knowledge? Because he thinks he knows what's appropriate when operating with willful ignorance?

I've never heard of this person you claim is my hero and that I idolize, and it's a weak straw-man argument.  If you have something to actually say, go for it.

I didn't say you heard of him. But he's right up your alley. He's an example of the stupidity I'm fighting against, which has manifested itself in this thread by you quoting some document from your idol.

Now, back to those issues regarding property.

[FirstAscent]

Also, without rendering you exempt from answering any of my prior, as of yet unanswered questions, please define "claim", as in the process of claiming, particularly with regard to land.

[bitlancr]

wdmw, you seem to be trying to codify a set of laws based on libertarian natural rights. I think it's an error to try to do this.

The beauty and sheer elegance of libertarian natural rights principle is the fact that it can be summed up in a sentence: people are sovereign in their own body, and any property derived from it. Naturally this extends to all manner of human rights, property rights, tort law, et cetera; it's unwise of anybody to specify how that should happen - that's the job of experts in each particular field.

So to address FirstAscent's questions: I don't know. All that's important is that the natural rights principle is applied consistently - that way the rights of all involved are protected.

[FirstAscent]

The beauty and sheer elegance of libertarian natural rights principle is the fact that it can be summed up in a sentence: people are sovereign in their own body, and any property derived from it.

Please explain what the hell the bolded part actually means. In detail. Be precise. Factor in what I've said thus far if it applies to what you believe the bolded part means.

[bitlancr]

The whole point is to not be too precise, because people are fallible and the world changes. As I said, it's up to experts in the relevant field to interpret the principle and apply it consistently.

Just for the purpose of illustration though, I'll speculate on how it might be applied.

Any property you derive from your body (i.e. labour) is rightfully yours. If you take some unused land, sow seeds on it, and grow crops, those crops are rightfully yours. Furthermore, because you've transformed previously unproductive land, it could be argued that the land is now yours too (again, this is a matter of interpretation).

You are sovereign in any property that is rightfully yours. This means you can do whatever you like with it, so long as it doesn't infringe the natural rights of others. From this, we derive free trade and all associated benefits.

[crumbs]

...All that's important is that the natural rights principle is applied consistently - that way the rights of all involved are protected.

Lebensraum: ...  The Nazis supported territorial expansionism to gain Lebensraum ("living space") as being a law of nature for all healthy and vigorous peoples of superior races to displace people of inferior races; -wikip

[bitlancr]

Good job I'm referring to this natural rights principle then, isn't it....

people are sovereign in their own body, and any property derived from it.

[wdmw]

wdmw, you seem to be trying to codify a set of laws based on libertarian natural rights. I think it's an error to try to do this.

The beauty and sheer elegance of libertarian natural rights principle is the fact that it can be summed up in a sentence: people are sovereign in their own body, and any property derived from it. Naturally this extends to all manner of human rights, property rights, tort law, et cetera; it's unwise of anybody to specify how that should happen - that's the job of experts in each particular field.

So to address FirstAscent's questions: I don't know. All that's important is that the natural rights principle is applied consistently - that way the rights of all involved are protected.

To clear up, I'm trying to have a discussion about Michael Van Notten's attempt to codify natural rights into law.  I agree with your sentiment that the principle itself is what's important.  What he's done here is to start the process of interpreting and expanding upon the conclusions.

I don't think all of them are correct, but its a good effort.  In the evolution of such a code of law, precedents and rulings would build into a body of common law based on those principles.  The part I find most promising is that this would be developed competitively and non-monopolistically.  This seems like an odd middle-step.  The provision about abortion seems the strangest to me.  To quote a private message I received:

The controversy over abortion is based on the conflict between the woman's right to privacy and the unborn child's right to life.  Of course, if the unborn child is not a "person" then he has no right to life. But if he is a "person" then he does.  Only science can answer that question.

I agree with this statement.  By extrapolating the principle closer to real-life application, you lose the capacity for evolving interpretation based on scientific advancements and discovery.

[wdmw]

Also, without rendering you exempt from answering any of my prior, as of yet unanswered questions, please define "claim", as in the process of claiming, particularly with regard to land.

Oh, please.  I've made more than a worthwhile effort in engaging you in a real discussion about this.  If you're going to be intentionally obtuse and contrarian, I'm not going to continue to entertain you.

[FirstAscent]

Just for the purpose of illustration though, I'll speculate on how it might be applied.

Any property you derive from your body (i.e. labour) is rightfully yours. If you take some unused land, sow seeds on it, and grow crops, those crops are rightfully yours. Furthermore, because you've transformed previously unproductive land, it could be argued that the land is now yours too (again, this is a matter of interpretation).

Thank you for the response. Let's now consider it.

Furthermore, because you've transformed previously unproductive land, it could be argued that the land is now yours too (again, this is a matter of interpretation).

Please explain what you mean by unproductive land. Why do you think land unchanged by man is unproductive? Are you familiar with the concept of ecosystem services?

Any property you derive from your body (i.e. labour) is rightfully yours.

That's an interesting proclamation. Why do you believe this?

If you take some unused land, sow seeds on it, and grow crops, those crops are rightfully yours. Furthermore, because you've transformed previously unproductive land, it could be argued that the land is now yours too (again, this is a matter of interpretation).

Let me see if I understand this. I go out into the wild blue yonder, and find an attractive 20 acre plot. In the middle, I build a house, and I create a driveway (a path, road, whatever) from a boundary to my home. I leave the landscape on both sides of the driveway natural and untended.

Some fellow comes along and starts building a shack and tills the fields next to my driveway. Such nerve he has, for the land is mine. I tell him to leave. He refuses, on account that he says I have not claimed the land, because I'm not using it. And so I'm in a race to deflower, decimate, "improve", and "landscape" as much land around my house as I can, before others do.

Now, back to ecosystem services. Are you familiar with the concept or not?

[FirstAscent]

Also, without rendering you exempt from answering any of my prior, as of yet unanswered questions, please define "claim", as in the process of claiming, particularly with regard to land.

Oh, please.  I've made more than a worthwhile effort in engaging you in a real discussion about this.  If you're going to be intentionally obtuse and contrarian, I'm not going to continue to entertain you.

You haven't made any effort at all. All you've done is some vague hand waving, without actually addressing the real meat of the problem. The devil is in the details.

Unless you want to get precise, in order to defend what you've posted, the document clearly has problems. By not digging deeper, it's clear you can't defend it to any degree.

[bitlancr]

FirstAscent, my examples (unproductive land) are only a rough illustration of how the principle could be applied. I'm not saying that's the way it should be applied, nor do I know how it should be.

Any property you derive from your body (i.e. labour) is rightfully yours.

That's an interesting proclamation. Why do you believe this?

That seems self evident to me. Can you give any examples of when products of your labour aren't rightfully yours? If you're going to suggest employment, then that's a voluntary exchange of your labour for a salary. If you're going to suggest taxation, then that is theft and wrong under libertarian natural rights.

[FirstAscent]

FirstAscent, my examples (unproductive land) are only a rough illustration of how the principle could be applied. I'm not saying that's the way it should be applied, nor do I know how it should be.

Any property you derive from your body (i.e. labour) is rightfully yours.

That's an interesting proclamation. Why do you believe this?

That seems self evident to me. Can you give any examples of when products of your labour aren't rightfully yours? If you're going to suggest employment, then that's a voluntary exchange of your labour for a salary. If you're going to suggest taxation, then that is theft and wrong under libertarian natural rights.

So building a sand castle means all the sand is yours? Or, let's take it a step further into what you're actually implying: building a sand castle means that section of the beach is yours?

You build a dam, so that section of river is yours?

You burn down some rainforest to farm. So that land is now yours?

But really, I asked you some more questions. I need answers to those so we can discuss more intelligently these topics.

[bitlancr]

As I've said, this is all open to interpretation. What I've given you isn't a code of law, it's a principle to guide the creation of one. I believe the best way to do this is through a common law style system of private courts, arbitrators, and tribunals.

To satisfy your hunger for answers right now, I'll give you my opinions:

So building a sand castle means all the sand is yours?

Depends who owns the beach. If the answer is no-one, then yes.

Or, let's take it a step further into what you're actually implying: building a sand castle means that section of the beach is yours?

No. Common sense applies.

You build a dam, so that section of river is yours?

Interesting one. If the river isn't owned in the first place, then I'd say yes.

You burn down some rainforest to farm. So that land is now yours?

This is a more difficult one. Fire is a very indiscriminate, unproductive way to claim land. For this reason, I'd argue that the claim is illegitimate. Just my opinion.

[FirstAscent]

As I've said, this is all open to interpretation. What I've given you isn't a code of law, it's a principle to guide the creation of one. I believe the best way to do this is through a common law style system of private courts, arbitrators, and tribunals.

To satisfy your hunger for answers right now, I'll give you my opinions:

So building a sand castle means all the sand is yours?

Depends who owns the beach. If the answer is no-one, then yes.

Think hard about this one. Is the sand yours for removal? Can someone else destroy the castle? Three days later? What about when the sand castle erodes away?

Or, let's take it a step further into what you're actually implying: building a sand castle means that section of the beach is yours?

No. Common sense applies.

Common sense is the gateway to slippery slopes.

You build a dam, so that section of river is yours?

Interesting one. If the river isn't owned in the first place, then I'd say yes.

So do you own the water? Which water?

Anyway, you're still not addressing other concerns that I've mentioned. Very important concerns.

[bitlancr]

Think hard about this one. Is the sand yours for removal? Can someone else destroy the castle? Three days later? What about when the sand castle erodes away?

So are we going to flesh out the whole of libertarian case law right now? Don't think I have the time for that! Not that anyone would be going to court over sandcastles... but I'm taking your point as a metaphor.

Common sense is the gateway to slippery slopes.

Is it? Can you provide any examples or reasoning?

I have a pretty good counter-example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

Anyway, you're still not addressing other concerns that I've mentioned. Very important concerns.

Do you mean the ecosystem concerns? If someone can be proved to be damaging the environment, then they should be sued in court.

[FirstAscent]

Do you mean the ecosystem concerns? If someone can be proved to be damaging the environment, then they should be sued in court.

This is the heart of the problem. When all the neighbors are damaging the environment, they all look the other way. When all the neighbors are ignorant of what ecosystem services are, nothing gets stopped. When damages have to occur before any action is taken, it's kind of too late.

Knowledge is key.

And you have yet to address the scenario I laid out for you about the driveway and the land next to it. And I'm still wondering if you even really know what ecosystem services are.

[bitlancr]

This is the heart of the problem. When all the neighbors are damaging the environment, they all look the other way. When all the neighbors are ignorant of what ecosystem services are, nothing gets stopped. When damages have to occur before any action is taken, it's kind of too late.

Really? Where I live there seems to be a protest at every new oil drill, fracking experiment, and major infrastructure project. Hardly seems like looking the other way. Private courts would empower these people to take legal action.

Knowledge is key.

I agree. That's why we need specialised private courts making law, not career politicians.

And you have yet to address the scenario I laid out for you about the driveway and the land next to it. And I'm still wondering if you even really know what ecosystem services are.

As I said, I'm not going to simulate the development of libertarian case law. I'd recommend reading "For a New Liberty" by Rothbard, he addresses many of these concerns there.