Types of ownership

[FirstAscent]

I can dig under you as long as I don't cave you in.

Oh really? And did you do a soil test of the land underneath my property? To whom did you go to to get a report on the existing network of tunnels and underground infrastructure underneath my property?

As for moving air particles, water molecules, etc. That's where things get a little more subtle. I'm sure FirstAscent will love that since he's always raving about how complex reality is. Let him try this out for size. You homestead usage rights based on who was there first.

Then according to what you propose, 5 billion people were using the Earth's atmosphere prior to you, and since they established rights to it prior to you, you must forfeit any use of it yourself. Clearly, you're stating that you can't engage in activity that will modify that which others have already established use of, and since emission of carbon dioxide generally travels as far as another continent within a week, and can be anywhere in the world within a few months, you therefore cannot engage in any polluting activity due to not establishing first use.

If nobody else is using the river, you can damn it up. If someone else has been fishing there and suddenly you cut off river, that's interfering on with his rights.

I despise dams. They destroy ecosystems above and below where they are sited. So tell me, how do you know someone's been fishing there before you? They might not be fishing in the spot you investigated the moment you checked, but that doesn't mean they don't fish there. Prior usage can mean a lot of things.

You sure are big about prior usage. And I know you're big about morality. If you wish to discuss this from the perspective of morality (which I'm all for), then you're going to have to factor in future usage as well. Understand? Prior and future usage.

I'll be happy to discuss with you at anytime the moral basis of your arguments.

[NghtRppr]

Oh really? And did you do a soil test of the land underneath my property? To whom did you go to to get a report on the existing network of tunnels and underground infrastructure underneath my property?

The market will sort that out. I can give you some suggestions but I can't predict how people will voluntary decide to tackle the problem, especially with all the different technologies available. You know they can find oil and minerals without digging, right? Mapping tunnels would be easy. Perhaps there would be some private agency to register those kinds of structures. Call before you dig.

Then according to what you propose, 5 billion people were using the Earth's atmosphere prior to you, and since they established rights to it prior to you, you must forfeit any use of it yourself.

Usage rights are not total. You were using it to breathe, therefore I can't make it unbreathable. If you spit in the ocean, the ocean doesn't become yours.

So tell me, how do you know someone's been fishing there before you?

That's yet another issue for the market to sort out.

They might not be fishing in the spot you investigated the moment you checked, but that doesn't mean they don't fish there. Prior usage can mean a lot of things.

There would need to be some kind of evidence, otherwise, anyone could say they had been fishing there when they hadn't really. Some sort of witnesses, etc. There will still be courts to settle things that aren't perfectly obvious.

If you wish to discuss this from the perspective of morality (which I'm all for), then you're going to have to factor in future usage as well.

Why?

[FirstAscent]

Oh really? And did you do a soil test of the land underneath my property? To whom did you go to to get a report on the existing network of tunnels and underground infrastructure underneath my property?

The market will sort that out.

The market will just sort it out?

Perhaps there would be some private agency to register those kinds of structures. Call before you dig.

Voluntary, no doubt? In your world, I am under no obligations to disclose what I've done. Gosh, in your world, maybe I have vast infrastructure already underneath your property. What happens when you start tunneling underneath your property and your house caves in?

Then according to what you propose, 5 billion people were using the Earth's atmosphere prior to you, and since they established rights to it prior to you, you must forfeit any use of it yourself.

Usage rights are not total. You were using it to breathe, therefore I can't make it unbreathable. If you spit in the ocean, the ocean doesn't become yours.

Again, your lack of thinking things through becomes evident. I wasn't just using the atmosphere to breathe. It regulates climate, sea level, weather systems, biology, the production of food, water supplies, and other things.

Agreed that if I spit in the ocean, it does not become mine. Please tell me, how much damage and exploitation must I do to claim the ocean as mine. As I understand your viewpoint, the more I use, abuse and exploit, the more I can establish my claim on something if I was there first.

So tell me, how do you know someone's been fishing there before you?

That's yet another issue for the market to sort out.

The market will just sort it out?

They might not be fishing in the spot you investigated the moment you checked, but that doesn't mean they don't fish there. Prior usage can mean a lot of things.

There would need to be some kind of evidence, otherwise, anyone could say they had been fishing there when they hadn't really. Some sort of witnesses, etc. There will still be courts to settle things that aren't perfectly obvious.

So you're an expert on forensics now? In all honesty, more people than you know depend on the ecosystems of the river or creek than you know, even if they have not personally left their mark there.

If you wish to discuss this from the perspective of morality (which I'm all for), then you're going to have to factor in future usage as well.

Why?

Because the future exists.

[NghtRppr]

What happens when you start tunneling underneath your property and your house caves in?

Whether the cave below your property is a man made cave or one made by an underground river is irrelevant. You'll need to do some kind of checking, either way.

I wasn't just using the atmosphere to breathe. It regulates climate, sea level, weather systems, biology, the production of food, water supplies, and other things.

Then all you need to do is show that what I'm doing is violating your rights.

Please tell me, how much damage and exploitation must I do to claim the ocean as mine. As I understand your viewpoint, the more I use, abuse and exploit, the more I can establish my claim on something if I was there first.

You don't have to damage it. In fact, pollution is usually a result of people that don't have a long term interest in the property.

In all honesty, more people than you know depend on the ecosystems of the river or creek than you know, even if they have not personally left their mark there.

There must be some witnesses. Something that can provide evidence to their claims or do you think these people are doing it secretly, in the middle of the night without ever leaving any kind trace?

Because the future exists.

And? Why don't you present a complete argument with some kind of thesis, some backing claims and perhaps draw some sort of logical conclusion? This piecemeal business smacks of intellectual laziness.

[FirstAscent]

Then all you need to do is show that what I'm doing is violating your rights.

You just don't get it, do you? It may be the case that your pollution output is not violating my rights significantly. After all, the pollutants you emit into the atmosphere are over another continent within a week. Collectively, though, you and your ilk are polluting. By what metric should your output be factored?

Please tell me, how much damage and exploitation must I do to claim the ocean as mine. As I understand your viewpoint, the more I use, abuse and exploit, the more I can establish my claim on something if I was there first.

You don't have to damage it. In fact, pollution is usually a result of people that don't have a long term interest in the property.

Confusing pollution with other types of local ecosystem damage, again, are you?

In all honesty, more people than you know depend on the ecosystems of the river or creek than you know, even if they have not personally left their mark there.

There must be some witnesses. Something that can provide evidence to their claims or do you think these people are doing it secretly, in the middle of the night without ever leaving any kind trace?

Not even close to what I said. Reread what I said.

Because the future exists.

And? Why don't you present a complete argument with some kind of thesis, some backing claims and perhaps draw some sort of logical conclusion? This piecemeal business smacks of intellectual laziness.

And nothing. I thought I was having a discussion with someone who could grasp concepts. Tell me, when did you decide the future was of no consequence? Was that about the time you decided consequences aren't relevant? Try to wrap your head around this: consequences are everything, as they lie in the future, and that's where you'll be spending the rest of your life.

[NghtRppr]

You just don't get it, do you? It may be the case that your pollution output is not violating my rights significantly. After all, the pollutants you emit into the atmosphere are over another continent within a week. Collectively, though, you and your ilk are polluting. By what metric should your output be factored?

Let's say that you're tied up in a large tank with water up to your neck. Me and 9 other people start adding 1 cup of water at a time. Eventually the water goes up over your mouth and nose and you die. Am I liable for 1/10th of a murder? No, I'm liable for the whole thing even though I only contributed to it and there's no way to prove it was me that poured in the final cup of water that killed you.

The rest of your post is pointless garbage so there's nothing else to address. Notice how every time you put forth an argument like you just did above it gets demolished, is that why you're so hesitant? Is that why you like to play it aloof? I think it is.

[FirstAscent]

You just don't get it, do you? It may be the case that your pollution output is not violating my rights significantly. After all, the pollutants you emit into the atmosphere are over another continent within a week. Collectively, though, you and your ilk are polluting. By what metric should your output be factored?

Let's say that you're tied up in a large tank with water up to your neck. Me and 9 other people start adding 1 cup of water at a time. Eventually the water goes up over your mouth and nose and you die. Am I liable for 1/10th of a murder? No, I'm liable for the whole thing even though I only contributed to it and there's no way to prove it was me that poured in the final cup of water that killed you.

That's more contrived than anything else on this board, fails to address the kidnapping aspect, fails to address the accomplices' role in the event, and is really out there as far as trying to argue against regulation of those who pollute. I asked you by what metric your pollution output should factor into all pollution emitted. Is the above supposed to be an answer to that?

The rest of your post is pointless garbage so there's nothing else to address. Notice how every time you put forth an argument like you just did above it gets demolished, is that why you're so hesitant? Is that why you like to play it aloof? I think it is.

I'm failing to see where you have demolished my post - where is it? As for my post being garbage, it's not clear to me how cause and effect has been thrown into the garbage can.

[Explodicle]

This argument reminds me of the Lockean Proviso.
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockean_proviso

IMHO you own yourself and the things you create. No one labored to create land, so land belongs to everyone equally. "Property is theft!"
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft!

... But like bitcoin2cash said, this has been argued to death, in this case for over 100 years. At this point actions speak louder than words. The battle for tax-free land is over, but cryptocurrency presents the opportunity to eliminate taxes (and thus restore full ownership) of almost all other goods. Hooray!

[TiagoTiago]

You just don't get it, do you? It may be the case that your pollution output is not violating my rights significantly. After all, the pollutants you emit into the atmosphere are over another continent within a week. Collectively, though, you and your ilk are polluting. By what metric should your output be factored?

Let's say that you're tied up in a large tank with water up to your neck. Me and 9 other people start adding 1 cup of water at a time. Eventually the water goes up over your mouth and nose and you die. Am I liable for 1/10th of a murder? No, I'm liable for the whole thing even though I only contributed to it and there's no way to prove it was me that poured in the final cup of water that killed you.

That's more contrived than anything else on this board, fails to address the kidnapping aspect, fails to address the accomplices' role in the event, and is ...

...

What if instead of being kidnapped, the drowner just tripped and fell into some sort of well with waterproof walls and instead of being tied up they just got a foot stuck into some dent at the bottom when they fell?

[NghtRppr]

You just don't get it, do you? It may be the case that your pollution output is not violating my rights significantly. After all, the pollutants you emit into the atmosphere are over another continent within a week. Collectively, though, you and your ilk are polluting. By what metric should your output be factored?

Let's say that you're tied up in a large tank with water up to your neck. Me and 9 other people start adding 1 cup of water at a time. Eventually the water goes up over your mouth and nose and you die. Am I liable for 1/10th of a murder? No, I'm liable for the whole thing even though I only contributed to it and there's no way to prove it was me that poured in the final cup of water that killed you.

That's more contrived than anything else on this board, fails to address the kidnapping aspect, fails to address the accomplices' role in the event, and is ...

...

What if instead of being kidnapped, the drowner just tripped and fell into some sort of well with waterproof walls and as instead of being tied up they just got a foot stuck into some dent at the bottom when they fell?

That's a possibility but the how and why of it are ultimately irrelevant. It's simply a thought experiment meant to illustrate how one person can do something alone and not cause harm. Let's say that the water evaporates at the same rate water is being added. But, if many people contribute then real damage is being caused.

[FirstAscent]

You just don't get it, do you? It may be the case that your pollution output is not violating my rights significantly. After all, the pollutants you emit into the atmosphere are over another continent within a week. Collectively, though, you and your ilk are polluting. By what metric should your output be factored?

Let's say that you're tied up in a large tank with water up to your neck. Me and 9 other people start adding 1 cup of water at a time. Eventually the water goes up over your mouth and nose and you die. Am I liable for 1/10th of a murder? No, I'm liable for the whole thing even though I only contributed to it and there's no way to prove it was me that poured in the final cup of water that killed you.

That's more contrived than anything else on this board, fails to address the kidnapping aspect, fails to address the accomplices' role in the event, and is ...

...

What if instead of being kidnapped, the drowner just tripped and fell into some sort of well with waterproof walls and as instead of being tied up they just got a foot stuck into some dent at the bottom when they fell?

That's a possibility but the how and why of it are ultimately irrelevant. It's simply a thought experiment meant to illustrate how one person can do something alone and not cause harm. Let's say that the water evaporates at the same rate water is being added. But, if many people contribute then real damage is being caused.

As a thought experiment, your water tank/well falls woefully short of modeling reality. There's nothing wrong with thought experiments that analogize well. Feel free to improve your water tank/well thought experiment, and I might accept it.

[NghtRppr]

That's a possibility but the how and why of it are ultimately irrelevant. It's simply a thought experiment meant to illustrate how one person can do something alone and not cause harm. Let's say that the water evaporates at the same rate water is being added. But, if many people contribute then real damage is being caused.

As a thought experiment, your water tank/well falls woefully short of modeling reality. There's nothing wrong with thought experiments that analogize well. Feel free to improve your water tank/well thought experiment, and I might accept it.

Irrelevant. If you can explain to me how it fails to capture the essence of one person doing something that's benign yet when joined by others causes real damage then do so.

[FirstAscent]

That's a possibility but the how and why of it are ultimately irrelevant. It's simply a thought experiment meant to illustrate how one person can do something alone and not cause harm. Let's say that the water evaporates at the same rate water is being added. But, if many people contribute then real damage is being caused.

As a thought experiment, your water tank/well falls woefully short of modeling reality. There's nothing wrong with thought experiments that analogize well. Feel free to improve your water tank/well thought experiment, and I might accept it.

Irrelevant. If you can explain to me how it fails to capture the essence of one person doing something that's benign yet when joined by others causes real damage then do so.

Funny. The only reason I delay explaining such things is to prolong how foolish you look. Seriously. You will get the explanation, but I do enjoy giving you the opportunity to refine and improve your position, because I know you won't. Now watch as you commence to come back with a retort claiming I have nothing and am only bluffing, while you act all smug that I have nothing.

I'm giving you a second chance here. I'll even help you out with some hints. How many people should be in the well, and how many should not be in the well?

[NghtRppr]

That's a possibility but the how and why of it are ultimately irrelevant. It's simply a thought experiment meant to illustrate how one person can do something alone and not cause harm. Let's say that the water evaporates at the same rate water is being added. But, if many people contribute then real damage is being caused.

As a thought experiment, your water tank/well falls woefully short of modeling reality. There's nothing wrong with thought experiments that analogize well. Feel free to improve your water tank/well thought experiment, and I might accept it.

Irrelevant. If you can explain to me how it fails to capture the essence of one person doing something that's benign yet when joined by others causes real damage then do so.

Funny. The only reason I delay explaining such things is to prolong how foolish you look. Seriously. You will get the explanation, but I do enjoy giving you the opportunity to refine and improve your position, because I know you won't. Now watch as you commence to come back with a retort claiming I have nothing and am only bluffing, while you act all smug that I have nothing.

I'll giving you a second chance here. I'll even help you out with some hints. How many people should be in the well, and how many should not be in the well?

Your post is exactly the kind of smug bullshit that makes the politics section such a miserable place. It's fine if you think I'm wrong, disagree with me, whatever, but to do so in such a matter-of-fact, smug and arrogant way is why I don't enjoy talking to you or AyeYo. Why can't we have a spirit of openness and coming together with these debates? Why does every post you make have to stroke your own ego and score "points" as if anything we say on these forums actually matters? It would be nice if, even if our differences our irreconcilable, we could understand each other and agree to disagree. Instead I get only this air of superiority.

[FirstAscent]

That's a possibility but the how and why of it are ultimately irrelevant. It's simply a thought experiment meant to illustrate how one person can do something alone and not cause harm. Let's say that the water evaporates at the same rate water is being added. But, if many people contribute then real damage is being caused.

As a thought experiment, your water tank/well falls woefully short of modeling reality. There's nothing wrong with thought experiments that analogize well. Feel free to improve your water tank/well thought experiment, and I might accept it.

Irrelevant. If you can explain to me how it fails to capture the essence of one person doing something that's benign yet when joined by others causes real damage then do so.

Funny. The only reason I delay explaining such things is to prolong how foolish you look. Seriously. You will get the explanation, but I do enjoy giving you the opportunity to refine and improve your position, because I know you won't. Now watch as you commence to come back with a retort claiming I have nothing and am only bluffing, while you act all smug that I have nothing.

I'll giving you a second chance here. I'll even help you out with some hints. How many people should be in the well, and how many should not be in the well?

Your post is exactly the kind of smug bullshit that makes the politics section such a miserable place. It's fine if you think I'm wrong, disagree with me, whatever, but to do so in such a matter-of-fact, smug and arrogant way is why I don't enjoy talking to you or AyeYo. Why can't we have a spirit of openness and coming together with these debates? Why does every post you make have to stroke your own ego and score "points" as if anything we say on these forums actually matters? It would be nice if, even if our differences our irreconcilable, we could understand each other and agree to disagree. Instead I get only this air of superiority.

I'll ask you again. Please improve your analogy. I've given you a big hint in my last post in the form of a question that should get you thinking. You're the one presenting an argument to me. I think it's weak. Fix it.

And on a side note: I've recommended books and reading material to you, and you told me flat out that you wanted me to explain in my own terms the relevant statistics, facts and arguments. I have done so in the past. Then you told me in no uncertain terms that you'll never come around to my point of view based on my arguments, but you would read books if I recommended them to you. I then did so, for the second time. And did you read any of them? No, you didn't. You then made some excuse that you had no interest in reading such material. Don't make me dig for the posts, but I will if necessary. And you have the gall to complain about what I patiently try explaining to you in numerous and different ways?

[FirstAscent]

bitcoin2cash,

Once again, regarding the water tank/well, how many people should be in the well, and how many should not be in the well?

[NghtRppr]

That's a possibility but the how and why of it are ultimately irrelevant. It's simply a thought experiment meant to illustrate how one person can do something alone and not cause harm. Let's say that the water evaporates at the same rate water is being added. But, if many people contribute then real damage is being caused.

As a thought experiment, your water tank/well falls woefully short of modeling reality. There's nothing wrong with thought experiments that analogize well. Feel free to improve your water tank/well thought experiment, and I might accept it.

Irrelevant. If you can explain to me how it fails to capture the essence of one person doing something that's benign yet when joined by others causes real damage then do so.

Funny. The only reason I delay explaining such things is to prolong how foolish you look. Seriously. You will get the explanation, but I do enjoy giving you the opportunity to refine and improve your position, because I know you won't. Now watch as you commence to come back with a retort claiming I have nothing and am only bluffing, while you act all smug that I have nothing.

I'll giving you a second chance here. I'll even help you out with some hints. How many people should be in the well, and how many should not be in the well?

Your post is exactly the kind of smug bullshit that makes the politics section such a miserable place. It's fine if you think I'm wrong, disagree with me, whatever, but to do so in such a matter-of-fact, smug and arrogant way is why I don't enjoy talking to you or AyeYo. Why can't we have a spirit of openness and coming together with these debates? Why does every post you make have to stroke your own ego and score "points" as if anything we say on these forums actually matters? It would be nice if, even if our differences our irreconcilable, we could understand each other and agree to disagree. Instead I get only this air of superiority.

I'll ask you again. Please improve your analogy. I've given you a big hint in my last post in the form of a question that should get you thinking. You're the one presenting an argument to me. I think it's weak. Fix it.

And on a side note: I've recommended books and reading material to you, and you told me flat out that you wanted me to explain in my own terms the relevant statistics, facts and arguments. I have done so in the past. Then you told me in no uncertain terms that you'll never come around to my point of view based on my arguments, but you would read books if I recommended them to you. I then did so, for the second time. And did you read any of them? No, you didn't. You then made some excuse that you had no interest in reading such material. Don't make me dig for the posts, but I will if necessary. And you have the gall to complain about what I patiently try explaining to you in numerous and different ways?

I have an excellent memory. You've only recommended one book by E.O. Wilson which I had already listened to on audible.com before you suggested it and you linked me to a bunch of quotes on a blog, which I did read.

[FirstAscent]

I have an excellent memory. You've only recommended one book by E.O. Wilson which I had already listened to on audible.com before you suggested it and you linked me to a bunch of quotes on a blog, which I did read.

We have discussed plenty of books in the past. Furthermore, after recommending Wilson to you, you said that you weren't interested in any more book recommendations, despite asking me for them prior to my Wilson recommendation. And based on your various arguments, it appears that nothing Wilson said matters to you. No surprise there.

Now, does the following question give you pause for thought regarding your water tank/well analogy? How many people should be in the well, and how many should not be in the well?

[NghtRppr]

I have an excellent memory. You've only recommended one book by E.O. Wilson which I had already listened to on audible.com before you suggested it and you linked me to a bunch of quotes on a blog, which I did read.

We have discussed plenty of books in the past. Furthermore, after recommending Wilson to you, you said that you weren't interested in any more book recommendations, despite asking me for them prior to my Wilson recommendation. And based on your various arguments, it appears that nothing Wilson said matters to you. No surprise there.

Now, does the following question give you pause for thought regarding your water tank/well analogy? How many people should be in the well, and how many should not be in the well?

No, I did not. I said that if all your recommendations were going to be arguments from consequences that they wouldn't do any good since I'm not a utilitarian.

As for your question, can you be a little bit less vague?

[FirstAscent]

As for your question, can you be a little bit less vague?

Yes. I can be a little less vague. But if I choose to be less vague, then I'm demonstrating that you're not able to think it through. That's not good for you, is it? My point is, you had (and still have) the opportunity to build up and refine an analogy that more accurately models the scenario we're arguing. It's very important to get the analogy right, if you want it to be illustrative.

You do nothing for your arguments when your analogies are poor models. It would be to your credit to get the analogy correct. You've chosen to put me in the well, and keep yourself and your friends outside the well. I'm suggesting you reevaluate that choice.