Inside the Cold, Calculating Libertarian Mind

Quote from Danman114 : I read it. You said the North Pacific Rail fails (accurate, that happened a couple times actually), and then you said it was acquired by the Great Northern. That happened in 19-f'ing-70. Are you kidding me with that? Because the railways eventually merged almost 100 years later, your going to negate the fact that a private railway was established via buying very small bankrupt lines (mostly near cities), negotiating peacefully with property owners, and with little if any government muscle? Please.

Great, except that you're just plain wrong. By most of a century.

Quote : wiki [wikipedia.org]With 1901 and the start of the new century, James Hill now had control of both the Great Northern Railway, and the Northern Pacific (which he had obtained with the help of his friend J. P. Morgan, when that railroad went bankrupt in the depression of the mid-1890s).

You're talking about a robber baron like any other, ruthlessly amassing fortune by "railroading" other people- including but not limited to advocating and profiting from the seizure and sale of land to which other inhabitants had equal, if not better, claim. Their misery becomes his profit. This is your Libertarian saint?

Quote from Danman114 : No, conflicts largely started when one government was larger than the other. Sure there were cultural problems, but we wouldn't be here today if cooperation wasn't more common than not.

Nonsense, we wouldn't be here today if our ancestors has lost.

Conflicts are constant, and in no way intrinsic to government. In fact, government, by providing a structured alternative to violence, avoids a good deal of the violence that would otherwise be born of chaos.

Quote from Danman114 : Ski, I bought 11 gallons of gas two days ago for roughly $44 dollars. Did I engage in 1 or 2 in your myopic example? Or did I acquire scarce resources via peaceful trade, that happens more often than many care to admit.

Number 2. Actually a great, complex web of number 2- and given the resource in question, that should be obvious.

There is oil in the ground, no person discernibly entitled to a greater share than another. A powerful person or alliance arbitrarily claims ownership. They simply pronounce it so. If they have the force to defend the claim, they can keep it. (An ongoing conflict in many oil-rich countries.) The strong individual or alliance, having arbitrarily claimed the resource- effectively robbing others of the opportunity to dispose of the resource, then sell or grant "rights" to that resource to some developer or another. Again, note that the forceful claimants are selling/giving away a manufactured "right" which exists in no way beyond will and force. Those developers, in turn, suck the muck out of the ground, process it, and sell it back to you.

What we see is no different than the biggest ape seizing the fruit tree. King of the mountain, so to speak. The lions that drink first at the watering hole.

You, however, seem to think that somewhere in this chain of events, which are born solely of seizure and force, that there must be a moment of magic in which that which is claimed becomes "rightfully" owned. Where does that happen? There is no negotiation with all interested parties, and there damn sure isn't unanimity. It's force. Oh noes- you are part of the problem!

Quote from Danman114 : So a third party (maybe private police or insurance company) might be nice. Fair. But I was talking disagreements, which are far more common. Surely you agree not every disagreement leads to violence, only 'conflicts' which exist with or without a giant government.

It doesn't just lead to violence, it also starts with violence. Violence underlies everything.

At the core, any bilateral conflict is just two animals making claim to the same resource. Cooperation, negotiation and all of the civilization that we layer on top are attempts to get what we need or want while reducing the cost of conflict. When those efforts fail to deliver what we need or want at a lower cost, we necessarily fall right back to the prospect of violence. At that point, under threat of force, both parties know the risk and potential cost. Either one party will, under threat of force, abandon the claim, or violence will be realized. To the victor the spoils, provided he is healthy enough to enjoy the resource.

Note that alliances and order structures- rules, law, order government at any level- are simply negotiation in bulk. Rather than negotiating each and every interaction at an individual level, we pre-negotiate claims and enforce them through the threat of violence. Don't kill. Don't steal. The first to arrive at a four-way stop has the right of way.

The cost reduction is immeasurable. You want to blame govenment for violence, but the truth is that government greatly reduces the kind of costly, chaotic violence that we can see in the state of nature.

Quote from Danman114 : So in your eyes the word 'own' doesn't exist absent a government authority? Does it get zapped from your brain too? Or is there just a yearning for government so you can own again? Absent government, is there no trade (because 'again' it doesn't seem to be in your world of no government).

If you want to use the word "government" in the sense of people that reside in a capital, that would sound pretty silly. But if you understand that government is simply a power structure by which actions are governed and pre-negotiated rules are enforced, then yes, outside of such a structure the word "own" ceases to have meaning. With no one to recognize the created right of possession, the word has no meaning.

Outside of such a structure, there are just animals claiming resources. Outside such a structure you can no more "own" a piece of land than a bear can "own" his territory. Just as the other so-called "natural rights" don't exist outside of a power structure that recognizes and enforces such agreements.

Quote from Danman114 : It sucks... I guess that's one way of putting genocide by government another tribe claiming the same resource. As far as rights, I have a hard time thinking they are not observable. Can you not watch someone express themselves one way or another?

FTFY.

You've been down this road before. No, rights are not observable. Actions are observable.

We're pretty clever for animals, but animals nonetheless.

Quote from skiman : Great, except that you're just plain wrong. By most of a century. You're talking about a robber baron like any other, ruthlessly amassing fortune by "railroading" other people- including but not limited to advocating and profiting from the seizure and sale of land to which other inhabitants had equal, if not better, claim. Their misery becomes his profit. This is your Libertarian saint?

You'd have to read further down your WIKI source to see how much 'control' Hill had of the Northern Pacific line. Truth is, he never owned more than a small piece of it, and he was subject to an attempted force out by another party who tried to buy a majority of the shares. In the end, the lines worked together for some years (as most do), but he never had total or even majority ownership in it. They would merge in 1970's and become 1. As for seizing land, I'm not sure where you're getting that from. I think the land he acquired was almost entirely w/o the help of the Feds. He may have encouraged homesteading around it, but I have no evidence that that land was already claimed. (And I haven't referenced him as a saint, but I take note of your comment)

Quote from skiman : Nonsense, we wouldn't be here today if our ancestors has lost.

So it's 'them or us', huh? You don't believe that the settlers and natives could live together in peace? They had it coming?

Quote from skiman : Conflicts are constant, and in no way intrinsic to government. In fact, government, by providing a structured alternative to violence, avoids a good deal of the violence that would otherwise be born of chaos.

Conflicts are a reality of life. Government makes them larger, more brutal and violent, and more likely to affect people who have no business in the conflict (innocent civilians). In short, they turn conflict in to war and, sometimes, genocide.

Quote from skiman : Number 2. Actually a great, complex web of number 2- and given the resource in question, that should be obvious. There is oil in the ground, no person discernibly entitled to a greater share than another. A powerful person or alliance arbitrarily claims ownership. They simply pronounce it so. If they have the force to defend the claim, they can keep it. (An ongoing conflict in many oil-rich countries.) The strong individual or alliance, having arbitrarily claimed the resource- effectively robbing others of the opportunity to dispose of the resource, then sell or grant "rights" to that resource to some developer or another. Again, note that the forceful claimants are selling/giving away a manufactured "right" which exists in no way beyond will and force. Those developers, in turn, suck the muck out of the ground, process it, and sell it back to you.

Is there a particular author/economist that spouts this sort of stuff? Or do you come up with it yourself? Are you of the opinion that you, sitting at a keyboard have some sort of equal claim to the oil buried underneath an Exxon pump? Is every consumption of a resource robbing you from it's use? I also have a difficult time envisioning defending yourself (or your property) as threatening force against everyone else who isn't necessarily even aware of your existence.

I object to the notion that homesteading is something 'arbitrary'. There is plenty of literature on the topic that soundly reasons it's existence and the benefits of it. I would say your claim of oil you don't know exists in places you've never been is far more arbitrary than a person who has bought (or homesteaded ) the land, built machines to extract, and then shipped it to refineries.

Quote from skiman : It doesn't just lead to violence, it also starts with violence. Violence underlies everything. At the core, any bilateral conflict is just two animals making claim to the same resource. Cooperation, negotiation and all of the civilization that we layer on top are attempts to get what we need or want while reducing the cost of conflict. When those efforts fail to deliver what we need or want at a lower cost, we necessarily fall right back to the prospect of violence. At that point, under threat of force, both parties know the risk and potential cost. Either one party will, under threat of force, abandon the claim, or violence will be realized. To the victor the spoils, provided he is healthy enough to enjoy the resource. Note that alliances and order structures- rules, law, order government at any level- are simply negotiation in bulk. Rather than negotiating each and every interaction at an individual level, we pre-negotiate claims and enforce them through the threat of violence. Don't kill. Don't steal. The first to arrive at a four-way stop has the right of way. The cost reduction is immeasurable. You want to blame govenment for violence, but the truth is that government greatly reduces the kind of costly, chaotic violence that we can see in the state of nature.

Here is the problem with comparing human beings to animals outside a bio/scientific sense. It minimizes our abilities to reason and be social with others of our own species. We are not animals that instinctively kill others, otherwise no one would feel comfortable walking down the street.

And I don't 'blame government' for violence. I understand that violence between people happens. I credit government for war, genocide, and deaths far greater than any private civilian skirmish would ever yield. (Which is why I advocate as small a government as humanly possible)

Quote from skiman : If you want to use the word "government" in the sense of people that reside in a capital, that would sound pretty silly. But if you understand that government is simply a power structure by which actions are governed and pre-negotiated rules are enforced, then yes, outside of such a structure the word "own" ceases to have meaning. With no one to recognize the created right of possession, the word has no meaning. Outside of such a structure, there are just animals claiming resources. Outside such a structure you can no more "own" a piece of land than a bear can "own" his territory. Just as the other so-called "natural rights" don't exist outside of a power structure that recognizes and enforces such agreements.

Can bears reason and negotiate with each other?

What about the Parent/Child relationship absent government. If there is no legal framework dictating the responsibilities of a parent to a child, would you think the relationship would lose all meaning if, say they were on a deserted island? Or do you think, part of the nature of a human being is hard wired the desire to claim ownership over one's offspring, and to take care of that child?

Quote from Danman114 : You'd have to read further down your WIKI source to see how much 'control' Hill had of the Northern Pacific line. Truth is, he never owned more than a small piece of it, and he was subject to an attempted force out by another party who tried to buy a majority of the shares. In the end, the lines worked together for some years (as most do), but he never had total or even majority ownership in it. They would merge in 1970's and become 1. As for seizing land, I'm not sure where you're getting that from. I think the land he acquired was almost entirely w/o the help of the Feds. He may have encouraged homesteading around it, but I have no evidence that that land was already claimed. (And I haven't referenced him as a saint, but I take note of your comment)

Dan, this is about as honest as claiming that a mafia front business can be a Libertarian success. Sure, the companies are legally separate entities, but if money and control are vested in the same person with strategy and asset interchange, it's the same business. If the left hand steals to benefit the body, the right hand, being part of the same entity is just as guilty.

Quote : More [wikipedia.org] The Northern Securities Company was an important United States railroad trust formed in 1902 by E. H. Harriman, James J. Hill, J.P. Morgan, J. D. Rockefeller, and their associates. The company controlled the Northern Pacific Railway, Great Northern Railway, Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad, and other associated lines. The company was sued in 1902 under the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 by President Theodore Roosevelt, one of the first anti-trust cases filed against corporate interests instead of labor.[1]

Quote from Danman114 : So it's 'them or us', huh? You don't believe that the settlers and natives could live together in peace? They had it coming?

I didn't say anything remotely like that. I was simply pointing out your error in reasoning. We are not here through the magic of cooperation. We are here because our ancestors conquered this place and captured these resources. Whether through outright violence or through less costly contests, we are here for one reason: our ancestors competed for and won what they needed to win.

Quote from Danman114 : Conflicts are a reality of life. Government makes them larger, more brutal and violent, and more likely to affect people who have no business in the conflict (innocent civilians). In short, they turn conflict in to war and, sometimes, genocide.

Larger, but far less common. It's this stability that allows us to have and use resources with any more certainty than the other animals.

Quote from Danman114 : Is there a particular author/economist that spouts this sort of stuff? Or do you come up with it yourself? Are you of the opinion that you, sitting at a keyboard have some sort of equal claim to the oil buried underneath an Exxon pump? Is every consumption of a resource robbing you from it's use? I also have a difficult time envisioning defending yourself (or your property) as threatening force against everyone else who isn't necessarily even aware of your existence.

No, in the moment, this is all me. It doesn't mean other people haven't had the same or similar thoughts before. They are, after all, secured by reason alone. I doubt Jeremy Bentham had much cause to comment on an oil economy, but he certainly recognized the absurdity of proposed "natural rights" and the nature of resource distribution.

Feel free to explain how oil transitions from being a resource to which we all may make equal claim, to someone's rightful property.

Quote from Danman114 : I object to the notion that homesteading is something 'arbitrary'. There is plenty of literature on the topic that soundly reasons it's existence and the benefits of it. I would say your claim of oil you don't know exists in places you've never been is far more arbitrary than a person who has bought (or homesteaded ) the land, built machines to extract, and then shipped it to refineries.

"Indian land, free to settlers!"

That's a great freaking deal (as long as one is not an Indian." This is you rightful ownership?

I reject as utterly absurd the idea that your desire to put a structure on a piece of land creates some metaphysical state of rightful ownership that is somehow greater than my desire to maintain the land as open space.

If you disagree, I'm sure you won't mind if I build myself a fine cabin on your lawn. I'm sure you'll agree that the land is then rightfully mine.

Quote from Danman114 : Here is the problem with comparing human beings to animals outside a bio/scientific sense. It minimizes our abilities to reason and be social with others of our own species. We are not animals that instinctively kill others, otherwise no one would feel comfortable walking down the street.

That's not a "problem" at all. Animals of all kinds have myriad ways of settling conflicts- some more painful than others. You've simply chosen to circularly assert that some of our techniques differentiate us in a fundamental way. Our behavior is circumstantially dictated by basic cost/benefit analyses. There are instances in which one might fight/kill, and other instances in which might one might pursue another tactic. I, for example, settle most disputes with an exotic dance, rapid head bobbing and a flourish of plumage. (Yeah, they got served.)

Aside from being both circular and arbitrary, it's not a factually accurate distinction. There are many other animals that have complex social behavior and are capable of complex communication. Some animals are even demonstrably self aware.

It's not enough to claim that we are different from other animals. All species are "different" from other species. You can't simply say that we have some sort of special, magical natural rights because we're "different."

Quote from Danman114 : And I don't 'blame government' for violence. I understand that violence between people happens. I credit government for war, genocide, and deaths far greater than any private civilian skirmish would ever yield. (Which is why I advocate as small a government as humanly possible)

It's just people in conflict with people. The scale is all that changes.

If I kill you, it's Danocide. If my family kills your family to claim a better watering hole, it's nature. If my tribe kills your tribe to capture better grazing land, it's tribalism. If it's one race killing another for perceived inferiority (which is a particularly human habit, the "inferior" animals have the decency to kill for survival rather than with contrived purpose) it's genocide.

These things are not new or unique to government. The scale is larger, but the killing is rarer (adjusting for population density and resource distribution). The cost is lower because there are less expensive ways to settle most disputes. If you think urban life is violent now, try to imagine 8 million people crammed into NYC without the benefit of law and order.

Quote from Danman114 : Can bears reason and negotiate with each other?

They can, to some extent. That is to say, they have ways of establishing boundaries that are less costly than brawling.

Though, again, what you're trying to do is to say that different techniques or tactics make us different in some fundamental way. Being (as far as we can tell) the smartest animal doesn't make us fundamentally different anymore than being the biggest animal makes whales fundamentally different.

Yes, we can reason, but it's that ability that allows us to define and enforce rights, rather than an indication that those rights must exist and belong to us because we think ourselves special.

Quote from Danman114 : What about the Parent/Child relationship absent government. If there is no legal framework dictating the responsibilities of a parent to a child, would you think the relationship would lose all meaning if, say they were on a deserted island? Or do you think, part of the nature of a human being is hard wired the desire to claim ownership over one's offspring, and to take care of that child?

Dude, that makes us about as special as every other mammal on the planet.

Quote from skiman : Dan, this is about as honest as claiming that a mafia front business can be a Libertarian success. Sure, the companies are legally separate entities, but if money and control are vested in the same person with strategy and asset interchange, it's the same business. If the left hand steals to benefit the body, the right hand, being part of the same entity is just as guilty.

So because his rail later joins with other rails (as was common), it negates is privately built rail that came into existence via negotiating and buying other failed lines?

OK.

Quote from skiman : I didn't say anything remotely like that. I was simply pointing out your error in reasoning. We are not here through the magic of cooperation. We are here because our ancestors conquered this place and captured these resources. Whether through outright violence or through less costly contests, we are here for one reason: our ancestors competed for and won what they needed to win.

You said, "We wouldn't be here if our ancestors had lost". I think it makes a giant leap in assuming that doing what we did was unavoidable, and it makes a dangerous assumption that life would be somehow worst off had all those people not been killed. Sure, life would be different, but whether it would be worse or better cannot be determined.

Quote from skiman : Larger, but far less common. It's this stability that allows us to have and use resources with any more certainty than the other animals.

Far less common? Are you serious? When was the last year the US hasn't bombed some country? How many years of murders in Detroit, DC, NYC, Miami, and any 5 others US cities do you need to equal 1 atom bomb dropped on Japan?

Far less common? It's constant. Just because it's not in your neighborhood doesn't mean it's not happening.

Quote from skiman : Feel free to explain how oil transitions from being a resource to which we all may make equal claim, to someone's rightful property.

First off, not every claim is 'equal'. You claiming Iranian oil from you home in the US is not equally valid to the person living on top of that soil. Second, I'd say it's the same process for every other natural resource. Why would it be vastly different from lumber, hydro-electricity, coal, etc.?

Quote from skiman : "Indian land, free to settlers!" That's a great freaking deal (as long as one is not an Indian." This is you rightful ownership? I reject as utterly absurd the idea that your desire to put a structure on a piece of land creates some metaphysical state of rightful ownership that is somehow greater than my desire to maintain the land as open space. If you disagree, I'm sure you won't mind if I build myself a fine cabin on your lawn. I'm sure you'll agree that the land is then rightfully mine.

Do you have a link that says he stole it from a tribe or used government to confiscate it? Because all that is an ad, and it doesn't say how he acquired it.

Quote from skiman : That's not a "problem" at all. Animals of all kinds have myriad ways of settling conflicts- some more painful than others. You've simply chosen to circularly assert that some of our techniques differentiate us in a fundamental way. Our behavior is circumstantially dictated by basic cost/benefit analyses. There are instances in which one might fight/kill, and other instances in which might one might pursue another tactic. I, for example, settle most disputes with an exotic dance, rapid head bobbing and a flourish of plumage. (Yeah, they got served.) Aside from being both circular and arbitrary, it's not a factually accurate distinction. There are many other animals that have complex social behavior and are capable of complex communication. Some animals are even demonstrably self aware. It's not enough to claim that we are different from other animals. All species are "different" from other species. You can't simply say that we have some sort of special, magical natural rights because we're "different."

It's not circular logic, its simply a fact. There is no other animal capable of reason to the degree a human is, and as a result they are not social in the same manner. If you disagree, post an example. Species have different attributes, sure, but sighting a dolphin's squeak or a monkey picking up a rock vastly misses the point while at the same time siting evidence to support they don't possess the same unique abilities humans do.

Quote from skiman : It's just people in conflict with people. The scale is all that changes. If I kill you, it's Danocide. If my family kills your family to claim a better watering hole, it's nature. If my tribe kills your tribe to capture better grazing land, it's tribalism. If it's one race killing another for perceived inferiority (which is a particularly human habit, the "inferior" animals have the decency to kill for survival rather than with contrived purpose) it's genocide. These things are not new or unique to government. The scale is larger, but the killing is rarer (adjusting for population density and resource distribution). The cost is lower because there are less expensive ways to settle most disputes. If you think urban life is violent now, try to imagine 8 million people crammed into NYC without the benefit of law and order.

Not only scale (which is a bad thing), but propensity. If you or I want something, the typical person will realize that cooperating to achieve it is the best and fairest manner (the savage that simply takes is certainly in the minority). If a government wants something, it takes it via force one way or another. Further, if citizen A isn't affected by the government wanting it he is less likely to care (or may even support it if the government makes the person fear what will happen if the government doesn't get it).

Quote from skiman : They can, to some extent. That is to say, they have ways of establishing boundaries that are less costly than brawling. Though, again, what you're trying to do is to say that different techniques or tactics make us different in some fundamental way. Being (as far as we can tell) the smartest animal doesn't make us fundamentally different anymore than being the biggest animal makes whales fundamentally different. Yes, we can reason, but it's that ability that allows us to define and enforce rights, rather than an indication that those rights must exist and belong to us because we think ourselves special.

If you used the word "recognize and observe" instead "define and enforce" we'd be in agreement. The difference between humans and animals is that when we kill eachother, everyone recognizes either: That person had it coming or the murderer is in the wrong. We don't see murder (and for that matter, other crime) occur and think, "That's his nature, let's just move on." There is a reason we can observe this, and that is where we come to recognize natural rights.

Quote from skiman : Dude, that makes us about as special as every other mammal on the planet.

So why would our natural attachment to an offspring be that vastly different to justly acquired property?

Quote from Danman114 : So because his rail later joins with other rails (as was common), it negates is privately built rail that came into existence via negotiating and buying other failed lines? OK.

At this point you've twisted yourself around so far that you've lost sight of the original discussion.

• In summary, I said that it is nearly impossible to do large scale projects spanning many "sovereign domains" while absolutely respecting the rightsholders/sovereigns of those domains.
• You, again, contested that it was natural, better, etc. and cited the Great Northern Railway as an example: "1 private railway (Great Northern Railway) from the great lakes that went to the Pacific."
• I called bullshit on that example. The process did not respect other claimants to the route (directly taking/receiving and selling/giving acknowledged "Indian" land, and building the entire business on the crest of a wave of conquest). The entity known as Great Northern Railway was cobbled together from other lines which were land grant lines. That's how it managed to reach from Minnesota to the Pacific.

Do you see the problem? You want to tout GNR as a Libertarian model, when the reality is that the route you tout is simple seized by force.

We're not still talking about this because I'm obsesses with the history of railways. We're still talking about this because you refused, even when presented with evidence, to acknowledge that this bit of Libertarian mythology is pure fantasy. The rail didn't reach from Minnesota to the Pacific by negotiating its way across multiple stakeholders. It was "railroaded." Myth, busted.

Quote from Danman114 : You said, "We wouldn't be here if our ancestors had lost". I think it makes a giant leap in assuming that doing what we did was unavoidable, and it makes a dangerous assumption that life would be somehow worst off had all those people not been killed. Sure, life would be different, but whether it would be worse or better cannot be determined.

It doesn't assume that what we did was unavoidable. It doesn't actually assume anything. It acknowledges that the actions of our ancestors were successful in attaining what they wanted and responsible for our presence here today and for shaping the world as we know it.

We are "here" because our ancestors won. They got what they needed and here we are as a result- regardless of how else they might have gotten what they needed or what other alternative futures might have been created.

Like evolution, it doesn't mean that it was the only way to get from one point to some other point, but looking back from a later date to the former we can see the course quite clearly.

Quote from Danman114 : Far less common? Are you serious? When was the last year the US hasn't bombed some country? How many years of murders in Detroit, DC, NYC, Miami, and any 5 others US cities do you need to equal 1 atom bomb dropped on Japan? Far less common? It's constant. Just because it's not in your neighborhood doesn't mean it's not happening.

And if this level of violence occurs in spite of all of the structured alternatives to violence- law, order and enforcement- what do you imagine would occur without these alternatives in place?

Remember, people already have the option of "negotiating" as well as legal recourse when those negotiations fail to resolve disputed claims.

How can you even imagine that taking away the alternative of legal recourse would reduce the number of times that people resort to direct violence? Absurd, no?

We drop bombs to stop a civil war, to stop a genocide, to end a global war. Government isn't inventing violence, it just seeks to control and reduce such costly disruption. That's one of the reasons humans negotiated to a state of order, remember. We invented and abide by government because it is better than the alternative anarchy. We were not forced out of the state of nature, but climbed out quite voluntarily.

Quote from Danman114 : First off, not every claim is 'equal'. You claiming Iranian oil from you home in the US is not equally valid to the person living on top of that soil. Second, I'd say it's the same process for every other natural resource. Why would it be vastly different from lumber, hydro-electricity, coal, etc.?

I think you're missing the point. You've simply reiterated our current system for acknowledging rights rather than explaining how a "rightful" claim or ownership status is created.

The first human being comes into existence; what can he or she rightfully claim. The second human being comes into existence; what can he or she rightfully claim? And so on. How does a state of what you call "rightful" ownership come to exist.

Of course, the truth is that rightful ownership is cut from the same fictional fabrication as the concept of natural rights. We use the idea because it's convenient, but it's not an objectively real condition. It's just our attempt to mitigate the cost and chaos of the state of nature.

Quote from Danman114 : Do you have a link that says he stole it from a tribe or used government to confiscate it? Because all that is an ad, and it doesn't say how he acquired it.

Does it really matter? Either way, it was not acquired by negotiating with those parties who might by thought of as rights holders under even our contemporary scheme. The land was claimed, seized, and ultimately defended by force and threat of force. As it always has been.

FWIW, I'm pretty sure it was land grand land, so a bit of both.

Quote from Danman114 : It's not circular logic, its simply a fact. There is no other animal capable of reason to the degree a human is, and as a result they are not social in the same manner. If you disagree, post an example. Species have different attributes, sure, but sighting a dolphin's squeak or a monkey picking up a rock vastly misses the point while at the same time siting evidence to support they don't possess the same unique abilities humans do.

It is circular and arbitrary. You make the assumption that man is special and endowed with natural rights to which other animals are not entitle. To justify that assumption you point to the fact that these natural rights pop into existence because the species is better at reasoning than other species. You say, in short, that man has natural rights because we are better thinkers.

It would be quite as silly to say that natural rights pop into existence as a result of a species being the fastest climber, the best digger, or the strongest swimmer.

Worse, the arbitrary nature of such a pronouncement can be (and has been) problematic in a practical sense.

If greater natural rights come with greater reason, do some men have more natural rights than others?

Cannot other men claim, with equal certainty, that natural rights- even humanity itself- come only with superior reason and white skin?

See the problem? You've made an arbitrary pronouncement, and will circularly support it by pointing out facts or perceived facts. Those facts don't actually support the arbitrary claim.

Quote from Danman114 : Not only scale (which is a bad thing), but propensity. If you or I want something, the typical person will realize that cooperating to achieve it is the best and fairest manner (the savage that simply takes is certainly in the minority). If a government wants something, it takes it via force one way or another. Further, if citizen A isn't affected by the government wanting it he is less likely to care (or may even support it if the government makes the person fear what will happen if the government doesn't get it).

See above. The creation and enforcement of law provides an additional layer of recourse beyond negotiation-- another layer between dispute and violence.

Quote from Danman114 : If you used the word "recognize and observe" instead "define and enforce" we'd be in agreement. The difference between humans and animals is that when we kill eachother, everyone recognizes either: That person had it coming or the murderer is in the wrong. We don't see murder (and for that matter, other crime) occur and think, "That's his nature, let's just move on." There is a reason we can observe this, and that is where we come to recognize natural rights.

So if I agreed with you we'd be in agreement. Fair point, but these words are different for a reason.

The fact of the matter is that prior to interaction there is nothing to recognize. There is nothing to observe in the individual. There is action, and no evidence that any action is prohibited or that any status is protected. It is only after interaction that such characterizations would be observable. Rights are very much created through negotiation and derive all value from enforceability, and it is only after interaction that one would be able to see if such a system was negotiated.

That is to say, either the two humans would try to kill one another, or they would work out a relationship based on the cost of force. Just like every animal. One might be submissive to the other. They might further interact. They might go their separate ways. They might fight.

One animal killing another is neither right nor wrong, but chaos is costly and those costs are something which all animals try to mitigate in their various fashions. It becomes "wrong" only within a system of rights that dictates that such behavior is wrong. It is rule-breaking.

Quote from Danman114 : So why would our natural attachment to an offspring be that vastly different to justly acquired property?

I don't see how this follows from the previous exchange.

The drive to propagate our genes (including rearing, within our reproductive strategy) is born of the same impetus as our desire to claim and collect resources: survival of the individual and of the species.

Quote from skiman : [*]I called bullshit on that example. The process did not respect other claimants to the route (directly taking/receiving and selling/giving acknowledged "Indian" land, and building the entire business on the crest of a wave of conquest). The entity known as Great Northern Railway was cobbled together from other lines which were land grant lines. That's how it managed to reach from Minnesota to the Pacific.[/LIST] Do you see the problem? You want to tout GNR as a Libertarian model, when the reality is that the route you tout is simple seized by force. [/INDENT] We're not still talking about this because I'm obsesses with the history of railways. We're still talking about this because you refused, even when presented with evidence, to acknowledge that this bit of Libertarian mythology is pure fantasy. The rail didn't reach from Minnesota to the Pacific by negotiating its way across multiple stakeholders. It was "railroaded." Myth, busted.

You called BS because you found a flyer that said the word's "Indian Land". The problem is, it doesn't say how it was acquired from the Indians, or even if the railroad owns the lands. The HOW is very important, as there are just and unjust means of acquiring the land.

On the Wiki page you got it from it says: "The Great Northern was the only privately funded, and successfully built, transcontinental railroad in United States history. No federal land grants were used during its construction, unlike every other transcontinental railroad; according to Hill, his railway was built "without any government aid, even the right of way, through hundreds of miles of public lands, being paid for in cash"." Everything here seems to allude to the rail being built under just circumstances.

Now, a fair criticism is "Well, a small part of that line was acquired by purchasing a bankrupt railroad. That RR had received land grants and possibly subsidies from the government before it failed." It's true the GNR didn't operate in a vacuum from the government, and it did have competitors that were government subsidized. I think it's a rather small criticism considering the overall size of the line compared to the tiny portion that was bought at auction, and what I think is more important is the fact that nearly all the lines in this area (save the Great Northern) that were built with federal land grants and federal subsidy failed during the panics of the late 1800's. It would seem the story should be about how unstable federal involvement is in the RR industry, and how the more stable process is to be "built in stages, slowly to create profitable lines, before extending the road further into the undeveloped Western territories"

Quote from skiman : It doesn't assume that what we did was unavoidable. It doesn't actually assume anything. It acknowledges that the actions of our ancestors were successful in attaining what they wanted and responsible for our presence here today and for shaping the world as we know it. We are "here" because our ancestors won. They got what they needed and here we are as a result- regardless of how else they might have gotten what they needed or what other alternative futures might have been created. Like evolution, it doesn't mean that it was the only way to get from one point to some other point, but looking back from a later date to the former we can see the course quite clearly.

And Germany is the way it is today because of the Holocaust. Should people use that horrible time in that nation's period as any sort of justification to say, "Well, We wouldn't be here if our ancestors hadn't done what they done."

History happened. We can either look at it and say, "All of that death and destruction was a mistake that should never happen again" or "Thank goodness we did that killing, because now I have so much stuff."

Quote from skiman : And if this level of violence occurs in spite of all of the structured alternatives to violence- law, order and enforcement- what do you imagine would occur without these alternatives in place? Remember, people already have the option of "negotiating" as well as legal recourse when those negotiations fail to resolve disputed claims. How can you even imagine that taking away the alternative of legal recourse would reduce the number of times that people resort to direct violence? Absurd, no? We drop bombs to stop a civil war, to stop a genocide, to end a global war. Government isn't inventing violence, it just seeks to control and reduce such costly disruption. That's one of the reasons humans negotiated to a state of order, remember. We invented and abide by government because it is better than the alternative anarchy. We were not forced out of the state of nature, but climbed out quite voluntarily.

I think it's a mistake to equate law & order with government, who routinely has zero regard for it. It use to be, when two nations went to war, there were battle fields, and the idea of destroying towns and killing civilians was considered horrific. Today, they are disregarded. Our own government defines a civilian as a terrorist if they are killed unless of course they later find proof they weren't a terrorist.

As for alternatives, I'd imagine there would be small fights at best, and between professional soldiers. This notion of dropping atom bombs on civilians would be gone as any small state that expressed a willingness to do so would immediately be ostracized from the rest of civilization.

Quote from skiman : I think you're missing the point. You've simply reiterated our current system for acknowledging rights rather than explaining how a "rightful" claim or ownership status is created. The first human being comes into existence; what can he or she rightfully claim. The second human being comes into existence; what can he or she rightfully claim? And so on. How does a state of what you call "rightful" ownership come to exist. Of course, the truth is that rightful ownership is cut from the same fictional fabrication as the concept of natural rights. We use the idea because it's convenient, but it's not an objectively real condition. It's just our attempt to mitigate the cost and chaos of the state of nature.

The first human comes into existence and claims what they can. The second human comes, and they can cooperate and negotiate with the original settler, or find their own space and resources. Here's a pretty good article [mises.org]that modernizes the idea of homesteading in a fun way.

Quote from skiman : Does it really matter? Either way, it was not acquired by negotiating with those parties who might by thought of as rights holders under even our contemporary scheme. The land was claimed, seized, and ultimately defended by force and threat of force. As it always has been. FWIW, I'm pretty sure it was land grand land, so a bit of both.

Yes it matters. The WIKI states pretty clearly, the railway was built "without any government aid, even the right of way, through hundreds of miles of public lands, being paid for in cash". Makes me think he paid cash for the land, which is certainly a just method of transferring ownership.

Quote from skiman : It is circular and arbitrary. You make the assumption that man is special and endowed with natural rights to which other animals are not entitle. To justify that assumption you point to the fact that these natural rights pop into existence because the species is better at reasoning than other species. You say, in short, that man has natural rights because we are better thinkers. It would be quite as silly to say that natural rights pop into existence as a result of a species being the fastest climber, the best digger, or the strongest swimmer. Worse, the arbitrary nature of such a pronouncement can be (and has been) problematic in a practical sense. If greater natural rights come with greater reason, do some men have more natural rights than others? Cannot other men claim, with equal certainty, that natural rights- even humanity itself- come only with superior reason and white skin? See the problem? You've made an arbitrary pronouncement, and will circularly support it by pointing out facts or perceived facts. Those facts don't actually support the arbitrary claim.

The difference from one normal human to another normal human isn't remotely close to the difference from one normal human to an animal, and I suspect you know this, so I won't waste time expanding further.

It's also not arbitrary to confer rights upon those who have the cognitive senses humans do rather than physical traits because what we are talking about is the exercise of those cognitive senses. Arbitrary would be saying every animal has rights because it has a heartbeat, or a brain, or claws, or whatever you fancy, with out having a logical flow from those characteristics to natural rights.

Quote from skiman : That is to say, either the two humans would try to kill one another, or they would work out a relationship based on the cost of force. Just like every animal. One might be submissive to the other. They might further interact. They might go their separate ways. They might fight. One animal killing another is neither right nor wrong, but chaos is costly and those costs are something which all animals try to mitigate in their various fashions. It becomes "wrong" only within a system of rights that dictates that such behavior is wrong. It is rule-breaking.

Do all animals mitigate this as humans have tended to do? I don't think so. In fact, many animals have to kill others for basic survival. Only a sociopath would attribute the same characteristic on a human being, because killing is not in their nature. When you see one human attack or kill another, normal human's see a problem and not "Well, that's what they do." The idea that every interaction is somehow an equal mix of "Do I work together, work by myself, or kill him." (which who haven't said explicitly, but you seem to give equal play to) is ridiculous.

Quote from Danman114 : You called BS because you found a flyer that said the word's "Indian Land". The problem is, it doesn't say how it was acquired from the Indians, or even if the railroad owns the lands. The HOW is very important, as there are just and unjust means of acquiring the land. On the Wiki page you got it from it says: "The Great Northern was the only privately funded, and successfully built, transcontinental railroad in United States history. No federal land grants were used during its construction, unlike every other transcontinental railroad; according to Hill, his railway was built "without any government aid, even the right of way, through hundreds of miles of public lands, being paid for in cash"." Everything here seems to allude to the rail being built under just circumstances.

No, I called BS in the same way I would if you had told me that the rail path was leveled with teams of unicorns harnessed to solid gold plows. Anyone with at bit of sense is going to reflexively reject the idea that someone built a railway from Minnesota to the Pacific by negotiating with all interested parties across the route. It's absurd even on its face.

It a simple matter to collect the facts to prove the point. The flyer simply illustrates the point- which is precisely what I said when I included it.

Quote from Danman114 : Now, a fair criticism is "Well, a small part of that line was acquired by purchasing a bankrupt railroad. That RR had received land grants and possibly subsidies from the government before it failed." It's true the GNR didn't operate in a vacuum from the government, and it did have competitors that were government subsidized. I think it's a rather small criticism considering the overall size of the line compared to the tiny portion that was bought at auction, and what I think is more important is the fact that nearly all the lines in this area (save the Great Northern) that were built with federal land grants and federal subsidy failed during the panics of the late 1800's. It would seem the story should be about how unstable federal involvement is in the RR industry, and how the more stable process is to be "built in stages, slowly to create profitable lines, before extending the road further into the undeveloped Western territories"

A small part of it?
The very route that you are celebrating was freaking land grant.
I'm sure that as a devotee of Libertarian mythology you would like the story to be about something else- anything else- but the facts are what they are. But hey, all it takes to build the route is a little libertarian elbow grease and a grant for 47 million acres of land.

You're incredibly wrong about this. You've been presented with the facts of the matter. While I can discuss differences of opinion, I won't waste my on a discussion in which one party can't acknowledge the basic facts of the matter.

Just admit- even just to yourself- that the claim you were promoting is Stossel-quality nonsense so that we can stop wasting time.

It's blasphemy, of a sort, but it'll only hurt for a second. Say ten Hail Mises, work the rosary and feel better.

Quote from Danman114 : And Germany is the way it is today because of the Holocaust. Should people use that horrible time in that nation's period as any sort of justification to say, "Well, We wouldn't be here if our ancestors hadn't done what they done."

The Germans would almost certainly be there, but Germany would, no doubt, be a little different.

Remember, as I explained at length, it's not a justification.

Quote from Danman114 : History happened. We can either look at it and say, "All of that death and destruction was a mistake that should never happen again" or "Thank goodness we did that killing, because now I have so much stuff."

As before, it is the wealth and security won by our ancestors that allows us the luxury of looking back on their relative barbarism with judgement and disdain. Our distance from the state of nature allows us this "enlightened" perspective.

Quote from Danman114 : I think it's a mistake to equate law & order with government, who routinely has zero regard for it. It use to be, when two nations went to war, there were battle fields, and the idea of destroying towns and killing civilians was considered horrific. Today, they are disregarded. Our own government defines a civilian as a terrorist if they are killed unless of course they later find proof they weren't a terrorist.

You are, again, historically off base, turning to a convenient fiction. Sacking a village? Rape, plunder, ruin, enslavement? Any of these ringing a bell. The scourge of war was quite brutal throughout most of history, with humans exhibiting a savagery perhaps more brutal that the other animals. Brutality and terror were simply tools of the trade.

It's quite an innovation to negotiate toward a respect for the lives of enemies. The chivalric code was an innovation. Today we have the Geneva convention, created and negotiated in international cooperation, which has gone a long way toward "civilizing" warfare.

Now not only are there rules of engagement that offer protection to both non-combatants and combatants, but there is an international community that tries to enforce these standards against rogue actors.

Quote from Danman114 : As for alternatives, I'd imagine there would be small fights at best, and between professional soldiers. This notion of dropping atom bombs on civilians would be gone as any small state that expressed a willingness to do so would immediately be ostracized from the rest of civilization.

This is a total fantasy, Dan. Do you suppose that you could point to any point in history during which "noble" rules of engagement were the order of the day?

Surely there is something between the (proposed) sapien-neandrathal genocide, the slaughter of the Canaanites, the enslavement of the Jews, the destruction of the Carthagenians, the Mongol hordes, the annihilation of the Pueblos, our own dirty business with the Native Americans and...

On second thought, history was utterly freaking brutal, with a deep, rich history of wholesale slaughter and outright genocide.

Wake up, man. You have ideas about how the world would be without government, but even a cursory look at history should be enough to dispel these fantasies. Humans, at every stage of history, with every size of "government" have been brutal killers, often eager to exterminate every last man, woman, and child of the dreaded "other."

It is only recently, again with the luxury of hard-won stability, that we have created a system of law and enforcement (alternative to the chaos of nature) that is sophisticated enough to affect behavior on a global scale. Genocide, rather than being par for the course, is something which now deserves a name, and something we discourage. If you appreciate that perspective, give government a hug.

Quote from Danman114 : The first human comes into existence and claims what they can. The second human comes, and they can cooperate and negotiate with the original settler, or find their own space and resources. Here's a pretty good article [mises.org]that modernizes the idea of homesteading in a fun way.

That is a stupid article. Ugh.

Not only does it perpetuate the arbitrary standard of "owning" something by making use of that thing, it tries to use tailgating and sunbathing as a model for how this self-organization takes place, without making the obvious concession that the more scarce a resource, the greater the need, the more probable a violent outcome. Though people surely do come to blows over something as trivial as a parade spot, most of the time it's simply not worth the cost.

As for your own answer above, note that everything having been "claimed" by the first human, the second has nothing with which to negotiate. The best #2 may hope for is to take resources from #1 and hope that abundance is a shield against costly violence or that he can overcome #1.

Extrapolate this over a growing population and finite resources and the problem should be obvious.

Quote from Danman114 : Yes it matters. The WIKI states pretty clearly, the railway was built "without any government aid, even the right of way, through hundreds of miles of public lands, being paid for in cash". Makes me think he paid cash for the land, which is certainly a just method of transferring ownership.

Sure, just like if I pay some other party $10 for the rights to your property, then obviously I'm the rightful owner. Tough luck for you though.

I laid out, numerically, the sequence of events through which this land came to be Hill's. I believe I've even used this example before.

As regards the "settlement" of the Northwest, there is very little that might be considered honorable. Just fantastic amounts of swindling, fraud, perjury, bribery and outright theft. If you don't know the history of the Robber Barons, you should absolutely read about the period. It's fascinating, if for no other reason, to see the rank corruption produced by the race to exploit the resources of a new-to-whites continent.

Quote from Danman114 : The difference from one normal human to another normal human isn't remotely close to the difference from one normal human to an animal, and I suspect you know this, so I won't waste time expanding further.

Yet you've once again neglected to explain how this "difference" matters.

Quote from Danman114 : It's also not arbitrary to confer rights upon those who have the cognitive senses humans do rather than physical traits because what we are talking about is the exercise of those cognitive senses. Arbitrary would be saying every animal has rights because it has a heartbeat, or a brain, or claws, or whatever you fancy, with out having a logical flow from those characteristics to natural rights.

Well, that's mighty convenient for you. As long as you keep following this circular path you can pretend not to notice that it boils down to "because I said so."

Which, of course, is the same problem Locke had. He really wanted certain values to be respected, but couldn't manage to demonstrate that such right existed in nature. They were not, despite popular repetition, self evident.

Quote from Danman114 : Do all animals mitigate this as humans have tended to do? I don't think so. In fact, many animals have to kill others for basic survival. Only a sociopath would attribute the same characteristic on a human being, because killing is not in their nature. When you see one human attack or kill another, normal human's see a problem and not "Well, that's what they do." The idea that every interaction is somehow an equal mix of "Do I work together, work by myself, or kill him." (which who haven't said explicitly, but you seem to give equal play to) is ridiculous.

You have no sense of perspective. Now, with the benefit of law and enforcement, we have lovely alternatives to violence, and it seems unnecessarily cruel because it usually is both unnecessary and cruel.

That's nothing to do with being human, and everything to do with the state of society to which we've negotiated.

Humans of different times and place, as I mentioned above, had a much more casual relationship with violence. Killing, raping and burning used to be little more than a good days work to be recounted around campfires while comrades in arms swapped gory details.

History makes it clear that those things you think of as inherently human aren't inherent at all, but rather the product of millenia of ongoing negotiations ceding individual, animal sovereignty in exchange for the relative security of structured society.

Quote from skiman : No, I called BS in the same way I would if you had told me that the rail path was leveled with teams of unicorns harnessed to solid gold plows. Anyone with at bit of sense is going to reflexively reject the idea that someone built a railway from Minnesota to the Pacific by negotiating with all interested parties across the route. It's absurd even on its face. It a simple matter to collect the facts to prove the point. The flyer simply illustrates the point- which is precisely what I said when I included it.

So in selecting your evidence, you choosing an advertisement that contains little relevant information over historical record? OK.

Do you also disagree with: "When he was looking for the best path for one of his tracks to take, he went on horseback and scouted it personally"? How about the fact that it didn't go bankrupt when the State subsided rails all did? Is that Unicorns and pixie dust to you?

Quote from skiman : A small part of it? The very route that you are celebrating was freaking land grant. I'm sure that as a devotee of Libertarian mythology you would like the story to be about something else- anything else- but the facts are what they are. But hey, all it takes to build the route is a little libertarian elbow grease and a grant for 47 million acres of land. You're incredibly wrong about this. You've been presented with the facts of the matter. While I can discuss differences of opinion, I won't waste my on a discussion in which one party can't acknowledge the basic facts of the matter. Just admit- even just to yourself- that the claim you were promoting is Stossel-quality nonsense so that we can stop wasting time. It's blasphemy, of a sort, but it'll only hurt for a second. Say ten Hail Mises, work the rosary and feel better.

I acknowledged that it was a fair criticism regarding, what? less than 10% of his line? I still see it as better evidence of the failure of state subsidies as those are what went bankrupt. The reality is, it's not possible to know what course of action Hill would have taken had that line not gone bankrupt. Just out of curiosity, do acknowledge the failure of State involvement in all of the bankrupt lines? Or do you blame the market for that too?

Quote from skiman : As before, it is the wealth and security won by our ancestors that allows us the luxury of looking back on their relative barbarism with judgement and disdain. Our distance from the state of nature allows us this "enlightened" perspective.

And here is where we ultimately differ. I don't see this distance as the result of government, but rather the development of the market economy, with improvements being made over time and savings being used to make capital investments. There are plenty of examples of governments being in place, yet failing miserable to lift their people out of poverty, while neighboring countries experience successes brought by peaceful trade and investment.

Quote from skiman : You are, again, historically off base, turning to a convenient fiction. Sacking a village? Rape, plunder, ruin, enslavement? Any of these ringing a bell. The scourge of war was quite brutal throughout most of history, with humans exhibiting a savagery perhaps more brutal that the other animals. Brutality and terror were simply tools of the trade. It's quite an innovation to negotiate toward a respect for the lives of enemies. The chivalric code was an innovation. Today we have the Geneva convention, created and negotiated in international cooperation, which has gone a long way toward "civilizing" warfare. Now not only are there rules of engagement that offer protection to both non-combatants and combatants, but there is an international community that tries to enforce these standards against rogue actors.

Ahh. Good to know we stopped bombing cities. Oh wait. You don't think it's a little utopian to expect a government engaging in the mass slaughter of individuals in a foreign nation to stop, and say, "Wait, we can't do this or that, that's against the Geneva Convention." You're kidding yourself.

Quote from skiman : This is a total fantasy, Dan. Do you suppose that you could point to any point in history during which "noble" rules of engagement were the order of the day? Surely there is something between the (proposed) sapien-neandrathal genocide, the slaughter of the Canaanites, the enslavement of the Jews, the destruction of the Carthagenians, the Mongol hordes, the annihilation of the Pueblos, our own dirty business with the Native Americans and... On second thought, history was utterly freaking brutal, with a deep, rich history of wholesale slaughter and outright genocide. Wake up, man. You have ideas about how the world would be without government, but even a cursory look at history should be enough to dispel these fantasies. Humans, at every stage of history, with every size of "government" have been brutal killers, often eager to exterminate every last man, woman, and child of the dreaded "other." It is only recently, again with the luxury of hard-won stability, that we have created a system of law and enforcement (alternative to the chaos of nature) that is sophisticated enough to affect behavior on a global scale. Genocide, rather than being par for the course, is something which now deserves a name, and something we discourage. If you appreciate that perspective, give government a hug.

I never said history didn't involve violence, that'd be ridiculous. You reference 'stability', but is that really the case? When was the last time the US government wasn't bombing someone? Do you consider it 'stable' because you aren't being bombed?

Quote from skiman : That is a stupid article. Ugh. Not only does it perpetuate the arbitrary standard of "owning" something by making use of that thing, it tries to use tailgating and sunbathing as a model for how this self-organization takes place, without making the obvious concession that the more scarce a resource, the greater the need, the more probable a violent outcome. Though people surely do come to blows over something as trivial as a parade spot, most of the time it's simply not worth the cost. As for your own answer above, note that everything having been "claimed" by the first human, the second has nothing with which to negotiate. The best #2 may hope for is to take resources from #1 and hope that abundance is a shield against costly violence or that he can overcome #1. Extrapolate this over a growing population and finite resources and the problem should be obvious.

You seem to be dismissing a lot of things as 'arbitrary' when there is actually quite a bit of supporting literature and reasoned argument that supports it. As for 'coming to blows' over a parade spot, I think the most obvious answer to such a thing is, "Well, is that the norm or when that happens does everyone see it and say WTH is wrong with those people?"

Well, the article addresses what happens if an individual claims obviously ridiculous amounts, so I don't really feel the need to address that. The reality is, if you live in a society where everything is already rightfully claimed, then to justly acquire wealth you have to trade your services for it. For example, when I was born I came into the world with nothing. Over the years I built skills and was supported by my family. Then I went out and got employed, and now I am able to purchase goods from others willing to sell.

Quote from skiman : Sure, just like if I pay some other party $10 for the rights to your property, then obviously I'm the rightful owner. Tough luck for you though. I laid out, numerically, the sequence of events through which this land came to be Hill's. I believe I've even used this example before. As regards the "settlement" of the Northwest, there is very little that might be considered honorable. Just fantastic amounts of swindling, fraud, perjury, bribery and outright theft. If you don't know the history of the Robber Barons, you should absolutely read about the period. It's fascinating, if for no other reason, to see the rank corruption produced by the race to exploit the resources of a new-to-whites continent.

Look, if you have a cite that says he stole land, let's see it. The idea that I should blindly accept criticism of a guy (who I don't know) because they don't understand how it is they did what they did is ridiculous. I've read a bit here and there about the 'Robber Baron' period. Basically, it seems to me to break down into two areas, those who largely got wealth out of government subsidy (bad) and those who got wealthy by providing a better product at a lower price (good).

Quote from skiman : Yet you've once again neglected to explain how this "difference" matters. Well, that's mighty convenient for you. As long as you keep following this circular path you can pretend not to notice that it boils down to "because I said so." Which, of course, is the same problem Locke had. He really wanted certain values to be respected, but couldn't manage to demonstrate that such right existed in nature. They were not, despite popular repetition, self evident.

It matters in our treatment of humans and animals. If a human kills an animal or vice versus, we don't come to the conclusion that that human or animal is bad or evil because we accept that it is in the nature of man to kill and eat animals for sustenance, and that it is in the nature of some animals to kill humans (either out of fear/aggression or for sustenance). So when we walk around understanding the nature of our surroundings, we understand that a fellow human is someone we should socialize and cooperate with, while animals may be understandably dangerous. If we treated animals in the same matter that we treat humans, we'd be forced to come to the conclusion that they are evil, and all deserve punishment for what they do to either other members of their own species, or other species. If we treated humans as we do animals, we wouldn't come to the understanding that we can socialize and reason with them. Their aggressive actions would be assumed to be in their nature, and violence would be the rule, rather than the exception.

Quote from skiman : You have no sense of perspective. Now, with the benefit of law and enforcement, we have lovely alternatives to violence, and it seems unnecessarily cruel because it usually is both unnecessary and cruel. That's nothing to do with being human, and everything to do with the state of society to which we've negotiated. Humans of different times and place, as I mentioned above, had a much more casual relationship with violence. Killing, raping and burning used to be little more than a good days work to be recounted around campfires while comrades in arms swapped gory details. History makes it clear that those things you think of as inherently human aren't inherent at all, but rather the product of millenia of ongoing negotiations ceding individual, animal sovereignty in exchange for the relative security of structured society.

Why haven't animals similarly reached a place we have, if we are so much alike?

Quote from Danman114 : So in selecting your evidence, you choosing an advertisement that contains little relevant information over historical record? OK.

Not evidence, Dan. Illustration. Just like I said when I posted it. Just like I said in the post above.

You've been provided with links to historical accounts. The internet has many more to offer.

Quote from Danman114 : Do you also disagree with: "When he was looking for the best path for one of his tracks to take, he went on horseback and scouted it personally"? How about the fact that it didn't go bankrupt when the State subsided rails all did? Is that Unicorns and pixie dust to you?

It's probably an exaggeration, but is at least plausible. Why? How is that relevant?

Quote from Danman114 : I acknowledged that it was a fair criticism regarding, what? less than 10% of his line? I still see it as better evidence of the failure of state subsidies as those are what went bankrupt. The reality is, it's not possible to know what course of action Hill would have taken had that line not gone bankrupt. Just out of curiosity, do acknowledge the failure of State involvement in all of the bankrupt lines? Or do you blame the market for that too?

It's not limited to 10%. Basically the entire railroad boom was built on land grant or otherwise preferential allocation of resources. You want to say that he negotiated across interested parties to build the rail. It's just not true. Hill himself might have acquired pieces by purchase rather than grant, but it's still not negotiating across interested parties. It's buying cheap rights, that are cheap because they were given in the first place, and they could be given because they were stolen from yet more interested parties.

Like I've said before, buying stolen merchandise from a fence does not confer even a semblance of legitimacy. Even if one wants to believe in some metaphysical state of ownership, the original "owner" is simply out of luck, robbed of value by force and threat of force. And that doesn't even get into the left-hand, right-hand relationships. The left hand selling granted assets to "independently finance" right-hand acquisitions does not make the success of the right hand any less dependent upon the grants.

New frontiers are the border between chaos and civilization. The process is ugly, but this is what settling these new frontiers looks like. If it's this nasty in a frontier setting, try to imagine it today. Just try to imagine negotiating a practical cross-country rail like without government intervention.

You want to blame the state for trying to encourage development, rather than the scam artists who ripped them off? I suppose we can fault the state for naivete, and individual members of that body for susceptibility to corruption. Like a huge, huge number of other interested parties, the state was victimized by shady mofos. That time and that industry was a godawful mess of scammers looking to exploit new opportunity and very little to hold them in check. It was not very far removed from a state of nature. Competing rail lines were quite literally going to war with one another, attacking, destroying and killing like feuding tribes.

Quote from Danman114 : And here is where we ultimately differ. I don't see this distance as the result of government, but rather the development of the market economy, with improvements being made over time and savings being used to make capital investments. There are plenty of examples of governments being in place, yet failing miserable to lift their people out of poverty, while neighboring countries experience successes brought by peaceful trade and investment.

Ever wonder why there are no government-less market-based societies? It doesn't even work as a hypothetical proposition.

The market economy doesn't succeed without government. Without a body of law to establish your rights, and a government to enforce those rights, there is nothing to protect your rights except you own force. Even if you can defend your rights against most customers, competition can be, quite literally cutthroat.

Quote from Danman114 : Ahh. Good to know we stopped bombing cities. Oh wait. You don't think it's a little utopian to expect a government engaging in the mass slaughter of individuals in a foreign nation to stop, and say, "Wait, we can't do this or that, that's against the Geneva Convention." You're kidding yourself.

Rules are imperfectly enforced, but if you expect anyone to believe that a lack of rules and a lack of enforcement yields better outcomes, kidding oneself is an understatement.

Quote from Danman114 : I never said history didn't involve violence, that'd be ridiculous. You reference 'stability', but is that really the case? When was the last time the US government wasn't bombing someone? Do you consider it 'stable' because you aren't being bombed?

We are part of the most powerful tribe on the planet. We could have conquered this continent quite easily, and maybe the rest of the world. Yet we have not expanded our borders in such a fashion in 150 years. Governments have become sophisticated enough to favor stability over expansion. We have rules and can enforce rules and trade our way to what we need at lower costs. Societies of nations ally with one another to enforce stability against rogue actors. The cost of conquest is much, much higher. Instead of one bully picking off a weaker neighbor, bullies must be prepared to face the force of the rest of the world that desires stability. Ask Germany or Japan how that works.

Compare this international resistance to chaos against the constant state of war- of open conquest - for most of human history.

Quote from Danman114 : You seem to be dismissing a lot of things as 'arbitrary' when there is actually quite a bit of supporting literature and reasoned argument that supports it. As for 'coming to blows' over a parade spot, I think the most obvious answer to such a thing is, "Well, is that the norm or when that happens does everyone see it and say WTH is wrong with those people?"

You're still invited to present a reasoned argument for the creation of a state of "rightful" ownership, but I'm not holding my breath.

As I said before, one can argue that a system of ownership is beneficial, but not that ownership exists objectively as a metaphysical state- as a natural right.

I can't simply make use of a resource to which you may make claim, and then magically pronounce that I have established some objective ownership of that resource. Not without the intervention of Libertarian Jesus to pronounce my ownership rightful?

Quote from Danman114 : Well, the article addresses what happens if an individual claims obviously ridiculous amounts, so I don't really feel the need to address that. The reality is, if you live in a society where everything is already rightfully claimed, then to justly acquire wealth you have to trade your services for it. For example, when I was born I came into the world with nothing. Over the years I built skills and was supported by my family. Then I went out and got employed, and now I am able to purchase goods from others willing to sell.

Oh, good. I hope Libertarian Jesus has defined somewhere what is and is not a ridiculous amount to claim, and hopefully some sort of sliding scale that reacts to a growing population. (And you say it's not arbitrary)

Quote from Danman114 : Look, if you have a cite that says he stole land, let's see it. The idea that I should blindly accept criticism of a guy (who I don't know) because they don't understand how it is they did what they did is ridiculous. I've read a bit here and there about the 'Robber Baron' period. Basically, it seems to me to break down into two areas, those who largely got wealth out of government subsidy (bad) and those who got wealthy by providing a better product at a lower price (good).

There are too many pronouns in that second sentence for me to sort it out. Whether Hill actually stole the land or whether he simply capitalized upon such theft is immaterial to the fact that what he built is not an example of negotiating across interested parties. I provided a numerical outline of events, as well as links to sources describing such acquisitions. And it helps if you know that history of the period and just assume that most of the impressive shit that happened was built on a foundation of of shady dealing.

Keeping in mind that for linkable material we're restricted to the internet, here's a book available on Google books for free. Hill starts on Page 338 and this particular bit of history starts on page 357 [google.com]
Starting, for example with Hill's first railroad: The St. Paul and Pacific. That railroad built on land grant land. => government swindled and defrauded => financial trouble bailed out by Dutch investors and put into receivership==>Receiver does nothing and drives the company into bankruptcy--> hill swoops in to buy the company dirt cheap.

Allegedly, Hill colluded with the receiver who, in exchange for tanking the company, would get 1/5 interest after the buyout.

But again, nefarious dealings aside, it cannot be argued that Hills railroad interests were built on land not attained through negotiation with interested parties, but on land granted by the government and passed between government after seizure from the indigenous peoples. Eminent domain x100.

Quote from Danman114 : It matters in our treatment of humans and animals. If a human kills an animal or vice versus, we don't come to the conclusion that that human or animal is bad or evil because we accept that it is in the nature of man to kill and eat animals for sustenance, and that it is in the nature of some animals to kill humans (either out of fear/aggression or for sustenance). So when we walk around understanding the nature of our surroundings, we understand that a fellow human is someone we should socialize and cooperate with, while animals may be understandably dangerous. If we treated animals in the same matter that we treat humans, we'd be forced to come to the conclusion that they are evil, and all deserve punishment for what they do to either other members of their own species, or other species. If we treated humans as we do animals, we wouldn't come to the understanding that we can socialize and reason with them. Their aggressive actions would be assumed to be in their nature, and violence would be the rule, rather than the exception.

What? Rather, exactly like other animals, we strive to identify those individuals with whom we can peacefully coexist and those individuals with whom we should not.

We do this in a number of direct and indirect ways- again just like other animals.

Quote from Danman114 : Why haven't animals similarly reached a place we have, if we are so much alike?

Not sure what you mean here. Different animals live differently.

If you're speaking of social complexity and cooperation, we're still middle of the pack.

Quote from skiman : Not evidence, Dan. Illustration. Just like I said when I posted it. Just like I said in the post above. You've been provided with links to historical accounts. The internet has many more to offer. It's probably an exaggeration, but is at least plausible. Why? How is that relevant?

You seem to disregard much of what's been posted, like " No federal land grants were used during its construction, unlike every other transcontinental railroad", So I was just seeing what you were disregarding, and what was acceptable.

Quote from skiman : It's not limited to 10%. Basically the entire railroad boom was built on land grant or otherwise preferential allocation of resources. You want to say that he negotiated across interested parties to build the rail. It's just not true. Hill himself might have acquired pieces by purchase rather than grant, but it's still not negotiating across interested parties. It's buying cheap rights, that are cheap because they were given in the first place, and they could be given because they were stolen from yet more interested parties. Like I've said before, buying stolen merchandise from a fence does not confer even a semblance of legitimacy. Even if one wants to believe in some metaphysical state of ownership, the original "owner" is simply out of luck, robbed of value by force and threat of force. And that doesn't even get into the left-hand, right-hand relationships. The left hand selling granted assets to "independently finance" right-hand acquisitions does not make the success of the right hand any less dependent upon the grants. New frontiers are the border between chaos and civilization. The process is ugly, but this is what settling these new frontiers looks like. If it's this nasty in a frontier setting, try to imagine it today. Just try to imagine negotiating a practical cross-country rail like without government intervention.

I agree that the means in which Hill's first railroad was established was probably heavily political, which is probably why it failed. I agree, the small bit of rail that Hill had originally purchased and profited from isn't the ideal libertarian case, as it was originally granted via political means. At some point though, you do have to recognize that one crime in the history of the property doesn't invalidate all future transactions with it. For example, is every business started on American soil similarly tainted today? I'm inclined to say no, unless there is some claimant that can prove in a court of law that they are the proper owner of a property (which I think would be near impossible to do).

Quote from skiman : Ever wonder why there are no government-less market-based societies? It doesn't even work as a hypothetical proposition. The market economy doesn't succeed without government. Without a body of law to establish your rights, and a government to enforce those rights, there is nothing to protect your rights except you own force. Even if you can defend your rights against most customers, competition can be, quite literally cutthroat.

Again, I don't necessarily advocate no government. I think it's perfectly fine to have a body that enforces property rights. As far as government-less market based societies, I think the internet is a very good starting point. Granted the government is grasping at it left and right (as is its nature), but it has largely started out with out any central planner, and commerce, cooperation, and communication has been very successful.

Quote from skiman : You're still invited to present a reasoned argument for the creation of a state of "rightful" ownership, but I'm not holding my breath.

Do you honestly think the concept of ownership is government created concept, or simply the first government recognized its existence when it was established?

Quote from skiman : Oh, good. I hope Libertarian Jesus has defined somewhere what is and is not a ridiculous amount to claim, and hopefully some sort of sliding scale that reacts to a growing population. (And you say it's not arbitrary)

No, not libertarian Jesus, society in cooperation with one another.

Quote from skiman : There are too many pronouns in that second sentence for me to sort it out. Whether Hill actually stole the land or whether he simply capitalized upon such theft is immaterial to the fact that what he built is not an example of negotiating across interested parties. I provided a numerical outline of events, as well as links to sources describing such acquisitions. And it helps if you know that history of the period and just assume that most of the impressive shit that happened was built on a foundation of of shady dealing. Keeping in mind that for linkable material we're restricted to the internet, here's a book available on Google books for free. Hill starts on Page 338 and this particular bit of history starts on page 357 [google.com] Starting, for example with Hill's first railroad: The St. Paul and Pacific. That railroad built on land grant land. => government swindled and defrauded => financial trouble bailed out by Dutch investors and put into receivership==>Receiver does nothing and drives the company into bankruptcy--> hill swoops in to buy the company dirt cheap. Allegedly, Hill colluded with the receiver who, in exchange for tanking the company, would get 1/5 interest after the buyout. But again, nefarious dealings aside, it cannot be argued that Hills railroad interests were built on land not attained through negotiation with interested parties, but on land granted by the government and passed between government after seizure from the indigenous peoples. Eminent domain x100.

That's a pretty funny chapter. I guess I'm not surprised a Marxist socialist muckraker who makes his living writing books trying to tear down the wealthy would write a chapter on Hill, I just wish he didn't spend so much space describing the crimes of the American Fur Trade Company, and then concluding it with saying, "This is environment Hill was dealing with" before going on to quote some sourpuss trying to sue him, as if the guys testimony was fact. (he was found not guilty in every case) Seriously, when I see articles where one guy is calling the cops because some other guy sold him bad weed or whatever, I think it's a dumb as you can get. The idea that a case like this would make it to the US Supreme Court 100 years ago? Unreal.

As far as this meaning he got federal land grants when virtually every other source I've read says he didn't is suspicious. I wonder if he the land grants he says he got were simply the Federal government recognizing his claim to purchased or unclaimed land out west. (I imagine much of the land that he looked at was completely uninhabited way back then)

Quote from skiman : What? Rather, exactly like other animals, we strive to identify those individuals with whom we can peacefully coexist and those individuals with whom we should not. We do this in a number of direct and indirect ways- again just like other animals. Not sure what you mean here. Different animals live differently. If you're speaking of social complexity and cooperation, we're still middle of the pack.

As much as you'd like it, we are not like animals. In virtually every important regard we are held to a higher standard. I'm not talking 'social complexity', I'm talking the ability to reason, communicate in advanced ways, and be social with one another.

Quote from Danman114 : You seem to disregard much of what's been posted, like " No federal land grants were used during its construction, unlike every other transcontinental railroad", So I was just seeing what you were disregarding, and what was acceptable.

I don't disregard it. I simply understand it to be a useless half-truth. A statement being, perhaps, linguistically accurate while being meaningfully incorrect isn't a worthwhile consideration. Useful in a legal inquest, but not in a pursuit of truth.

One legal entity not directly receiving land grants does not necessarily mean- and in this case absolutely does not mean- that Hills output was not fueled by land grant. Quite the opposite.

Quote from Danman114 : I agree that the means in which Hill's first railroad was established was probably heavily political, which is probably why it failed. I agree, the small bit of rail that Hill had originally purchased and profited from isn't the ideal libertarian case, as it was originally granted via political means.

What? It didn't fail. This is what I've been telling you all along. This is how Hill built his "empire." This shady deal became the Great Northern Railway.

More [wikipedia.org]

Quote : On May 23, 1879, the key investors in the railroad formed a new company, the Saint Paul, Minneapolis, and Manitoba Railway (StPM&M), to take over the assets of the SP&P.[19] It did so in June 1879, bringing an end to the existence of the St. Paul and Pacific.[19] On September 18, 1889, Hill changed the name of the Minneapolis and St. Cloud Railway (a railroad which existed primarily on paper, but which held very extensive land grants throughout the Midwest and Pacific Northwest) to the Great Northern Railway.[20] On February 1, 1890, he transferred ownership of the StPM&M, Montana Central Railway, and other rail systems he owned to the Great Northern.[20]

Quote from Danman114 : At some point though, you do have to recognize that one crime in the history of the property doesn't invalidate all future transactions with it. For example, is every business started on American soil similarly tainted today? I'm inclined to say no, unless there is some claimant that can prove in a court of law that they are the proper owner of a property (which I think would be near impossible to do).

At what point? When does the benefactor of ill-gotten gains magically transform into a rightful owner in some objective, metaphysical sense?

You understand the nature of the question, yes? You espoused a worldview in which ownership is something real, "rightful" - some objective state beyond a defended claim. I am asking, as I have many times, for you to describe how such a real state comes to exist.

I, on the other hand, have been telling you that ownership is a concept that we created and embrace simply as a tool to manage resources. We like it because it reduces the cost of chaos.

Quote from Danman114 : Again, I don't necessarily advocate no government. I think it's perfectly fine to have a body that enforces property rights. As far as government-less market based societies, I think the internet is a very good starting point. Granted the government is grasping at it left and right (as is its nature), but it has largely started out with out any central planner, and commerce, cooperation, and communication has been very successful.

First of all, the internet isn't a society. It's a tool- resource -within a society no different than roads, rails, mail service etc. It's just another way to connect people. The rules that govern that interaction are created and enforced by the same government that facilitates interaction so many other ways.

And, of course, there is no shortage of irony in lauding a system that exists expressly as an outgrowth of government innovation and which ties people together across a vast physical infrastructure created through eminent domain- nationwide connectivity itself being born of government vision and funded by the public.

Quote from Danman114 : Do you honestly think the concept of ownership is government created concept, or simply the first government recognized its existence when it was established?

I didn't say the concept was created by the government. I said that the concept only has meaning within a society (which necessarily has some form of government).

An individual can think that he or she "owns" something (he or she claims something) but without a society to observe and enforce claims the concept of ownership is no more meaningful than any other claim in a state of nature.

Quote from Danman114 : No, not libertarian Jesus, society in cooperation with one another.

Okay, so your're getting close. Explore this idea further. If society is involved in the ongoing process of negotiating what is and is not too much for an individual to claim, then ownership is:
A) An arbitrary concept meaningful only to the degree to which it is observed by others
B) An objectively real condition that exists in nature, which should remain inviolable.

Quote from Danman114 : As much as you'd like it, we are not like animals. In virtually every important regard we are held to a higher standard. I'm not talking 'social complexity', I'm talking the ability to reason, communicate in advanced ways, and be social with one another.

What you may accurately say is that we are not like the other animals- in the same sense that no other type of animal is just like any other, and that all types are "not like the other animals." They all have strengths and weaknesses and ways of living that help them to succeed in a chaotic world.

However, when you say "we are not like animals," you are simply begging the question, as if repetition constitutes argument. Remember, you are supposed to be making an argument in support of your larger claim, that somehow evident in the way we live (as compared to other animals) is proof of the existence of real, intrinsic natural rights.

Deeming the smartest, fastest, hairiest tallest, longest-lived, or most social of all the animals are observations that may be made about various species. Where, in such observation, is evidence of these allegedly intrinsic "natural rights?"

Now, again, with fair warning, you are just courting futility, I challenge you to actually make such an argument. Succeed and you will catapult yourself to the top of the canon.

Quote from skiman : What? It didn't fail. This is what I've been telling you all along. This is how Hill built his "empire." This shady deal became the Great Northern Railway. More [wikipedia.org]

The SP&P went bankrupt in 1860, 1873 (as a subsidiary of the Northern Pacific), and was in receivership when the State of Minnesota was threatening to seize the railroads at the time Hill purchased it (that part is in the book you linked). It was certainly a very troubled and mismanaged rail.

Quote from skiman : At what point? When does the benefactor of ill-gotten gains magically transform into a rightful owner in some objective, metaphysical sense? You understand the nature of the question, yes? You espoused a worldview in which ownership is something real, "rightful" - some objective state beyond a defended claim. I am asking, as I have many times, for you to describe how such a real state comes to exist.

It would be similar to any other form of property that was taken illegally. If the owner can be found (or their heir), and they can prove the land is rightfully theirs, then the land should be returned. Realistically, this is impossible, as the Native Americans kept no written record of ownership to my knowledge, and it would probably be impossible to prove ownership.

Also to take into consideration is that more likely than not, land across the US probably had no rightful owner. The Native American population was at most probably 20 million (I think that's high, but whatever) and they didn't live on vast farms. Odds are a very small portion of the land was 'owned', while the rest was simply in a state of nature waiting to be owned.

Quote from skiman : I, on the other hand, have been telling you that ownership is a concept that we created and embrace simply as a tool to manage resources. We like it because it reduces the cost of chaos.

Who, when, and where was it created?

Quote from skiman : First of all, the internet isn't a society. It's a tool- resource -within a society no different than roads, rails, mail service etc. It's just another way to connect people. The rules that govern that interaction are created and enforced by the same government that facilitates interaction so many other ways. And, of course, there is no shortage of irony in lauding a system that exists expressly as an outgrowth of government innovation and which ties people together across a vast physical infrastructure created through eminent domain- nationwide connectivity itself being born of government vision and funded by the public.

Internet is more of a laizzez-fair economy than society I guess. And yes, the government made the first network of a few supercomputers. The private market made Facebook, Amazon, iTunes, Slickdeals, the mouse, GUI's, and every wonderful thing about the internet that everyone takes for granted. Can you imagine where it'd be if the government still ran it?

Quote from skiman : I didn't say the concept was created by the government. I said that the concept only has meaning within a society (which necessarily has some form of government). An individual can think that he or she "owns" something (he or she claims something) but without a society to observe and enforce claims the concept of ownership is no more meaningful than any other claim in a state of nature.

Exactly why does there have to be a government put in place for ownership to exist? Why not simple a person by himself, or two people?

Quote from skiman : Okay, so your're getting close. Explore this idea further. If society is involved in the ongoing process of negotiating what is and is not too much for an individual to claim, then ownership is: A) An arbitrary concept meaningful only to the degree to which it is observed by others B) An objectively real condition that exists in nature, which should remain inviolable.

It's not as arbitrary as you might think. When it comes to unowned land, it's what a person mixes his labor with and claims as his. A person can't simply claim the moon by looking at it, nor can they claim land they have never seen or belongs to someone else.

It does get more complicated than the author of that article would like to admit when it comes to temporary homesteading claims on public lands (not unowned) to view a parade. In these instances there are laws established by the government that owns the land, or at the very least societal norms that are in place.

Quote from skiman : What you may accurately say is that we are not like the other animals- in the same sense that no other type of animal is just like any other, and that all types are "not like the other animals." They all have strengths and weaknesses and ways of living that help them to succeed in a chaotic world. However, when you say "we are not like animals," you are simply begging the question, as if repetition constitutes argument. Remember, you are supposed to be making an argument in support of your larger claim, that somehow evident in the way we live (as compared to other animals) is proof of the existence of real, intrinsic natural rights. Deeming the smartest, fastest, hairiest tallest, longest-lived, or most social of all the animals are observations that may be made about various species. Where, in such observation, is evidence of these allegedly intrinsic "natural rights?" Now, again, with fair warning, you are just courting futility, I challenge you to actually make such an argument. Succeed and you will catapult yourself to the top of the canon.

Name 1 species capable of having the following:
Reason at a human level
Language skills at a human level
Social skills at a human level
The ability to produce and use goods at a human level
Cooperate with one another and nature to the degree humans do

Quote from Danman114 : It would be similar to any other form of property that was taken illegally. If the owner can be found (or their heir), and they can prove the land is rightfully theirs, then the land should be returned. Realistically, this is impossible, as the Native Americans kept no written record of ownership to my knowledge, and it would probably be impossible to prove ownership.

Note that you've just given approval to conquests like the one we are discussing. There is nothing illegal about such seizure, as predator and prey are not bound under a common system of law. It's as I keep explaining, it sucks to be outside a negotiated framework of rights.

In addition, you seem to have now put forth a definition of "ownership" that is contingent upon written records. So have you abandoned the idea that ownership is a real concept that exists in nature as a condition beyond a defensible claim? You should, but if you haven't you'll need to reconcile these positions.

Quote from Danman114 : Also to take into consideration is that more likely than not, land across the US probably had no rightful owner. The Native American population was at most probably 20 million (I think that's high, but whatever) and they didn't live on vast farms. Odds are a very small portion of the land was 'owned', while the rest was simply in a state of nature waiting to be owned.

Because of the magic sliding scale of what a person may or may not own, as defined by society, yet intrinsic to natural claims, for some species.

^^Again, you're position isn't even consistent unto itself. You have work to do.

Quote from Danman114 : Who, when, and where was it created?

As before, the ownership concept is created by societies- some societies- as a means of fostering stability and staving off costly chaos. For example, people wanting to hunt, farm, or gather effectively may claim and defend specific territories. These boundaries become substantial when competitors observe such division. "You stay on yours, I stay on mine." Respect for such boundaries allows both to prosper, meaning that there is value in respecting such boundaries. Chaos is reduced. More time eating, less time fighting to eat.

It's a process that is extrapolated to the present day, in which we have reached progressively greater levels of stability by negotiating sophisticated systems for resource allocation, as well as low-cost mechanisms for enforcement.

A deed doesn't change the underlying truth of a defensible claim, it just formats the claim to take advantage of low-cost organizational enforcement of claims.

Quote from Danman114 : Internet is more of a laizzez-fair economy than society I guess. And yes, the government made the first network of a few supercomputers. The private market made Facebook, Amazon, iTunes, Slickdeals, the mouse, GUI's, and every wonderful thing about the internet that everyone takes for granted. Can you imagine where it'd be if the government still ran it?

And it wouldn't exist at all without the government. That's the point, yes? I don''t believe that anyone has argued the virtue of government-only model, least of all me. I simply pointed out the virtual necessity of such large organizing forces to accomplish big jobs- such as a practical highway system, transcontinental rail lines, our telecom networks etc.

Traversing numerous and varied interests requires a degree of collective will and collective force. It's necessary. The bigger the project, the more miniscule the chance of unanimous action through voluntary participation. Feudalism blows.

Quote from Danman114 : Exactly why does there have to be a government put in place for ownership to exist? Why not simple a person by himself, or two people?

Two people are not enough. Remember, you only enjoy the ownership designation to the degree that others respect that designation. There must be, at least, a third party to facilitate enforcement. Without a consequence beyond claim and direct defense of claim it's back to the state of nature. And with the establishment of enforceability, you have a simple, nascent government.

And obviously, the more the better, with population forming a buffer against easy, lopsided alliances. Ideally the population base is large enough that the bulk of the enforcement power is remote enough from any given individual that they do not benefit directly from a violation of your claims.

Quote from Danman114 : It's not as arbitrary as you might think. When it comes to unowned land, it's what a person mixes his labor with and claims as his. A person can't simply claim the moon by looking at it, nor can they claim land they have never seen or belongs to someone else.

So you say. Again and again. I can appreciate that as an argument for how things should be. But it's simply not an argument for how things are in a state of nature.

You've caught on to part of this with your realization that what may be "rightfully" claimed is that which is recognized by society. Continue that evolution of thought and understand that ownership isn't a natural concept, but rather an advantageous social tool.

That is to say, ownership is not intrinsically established via the addition of labor. The natural state of existence isn't alchemically transmuted by work. The only way that labor can establish ownership is if a society sets that standard. You see- a should be, rather than an is?

Quote from Danman114 : It does get more complicated than the author of that article would like to admit when it comes to temporary homesteading claims on public lands (not unowned) to view a parade. In these instances there are laws established by the government that owns the land, or at the very least societal norms that are in place.

True. We have negotiated such a deeply layered and sophisticated web for coexisting with minimal friction that people forget it's even there.

Quote from Danman114 : Name 1 species capable of having the following: Reason at a human level Language skills at a human level Social skills at a human level The ability to produce and use goods at a human level Cooperate with one another and nature to the degree humans do

Again, it's irrelevant whether or not humans have this skills exclusively or in greater measure than other animals. You are simply pointing out a characteristic of humanity.

This is not, in any way, an argument. It goes no distance to supporting the claim of natural rights.

As before, it's quite as arbitrary as suggesting that cheetahs have natural rights by virtue of being the fastest animal on land. Sure, it's a true fact, but it in no way supports the claim that this fact somehow points to a natural right to X.

The Lockean dilemma is that he claims the existence of natural rights intrinsic to humanity- a set of features to which man is exclusively and naturally entitled- but he cannot establish a basis for such a claim either through observation or through strength of reason. It's born of his presupposition that man is God's special project. We have to have these features, because that is what would make us special and distinct from the other animals.

It's pure, circular nonsense when you get right down to it. With a little bit of thinking we can better understand and explain how we do what we do. It's not magic or mystery, but it is a pretty damn impressive accomplishment.

Quote from skiman : Note that you've just given approval to conquests like the one we are discussing. There is nothing illegal about such seizure, as predator and prey are not bound under a common system of law. It's as I keep explaining, it sucks to be outside a negotiated framework of rights. In addition, you seem to have now put forth a definition of "ownership" that is contingent upon written records. So have you abandoned the idea that ownership is a real concept that exists in nature as a condition beyond a defensible claim? You should, but if you haven't you'll need to reconcile these positions.

I have not given approval to any sort of conquest. I am detailing how property ownership would continue if a good was taken from a person, and no heir is there to claim ownership. I still think the original takers of the property should be punished for the crimes they commit.

And I don't believe you need written records, that is simply an example of one manner in which they would prove to be the rightful owner of a land. I'm sure there might be many other instances of evidence that could be used.

Do you really think that if something is stolen, and can't be returned to the rightful owner, then nothing can ever possess rightful ownership of the good again?

Quote from skiman : Because of the magic sliding scale of what a person may or may not own, as defined by society, yet intrinsic to natural claims, for some species. ^^Again, you're position isn't even consistent unto itself. You have work to do.

Not sure where you get sliding scales from homesteading...

Quote from skiman : As before, the ownership concept is created by societies- some societies- as a means of fostering stability and staving off costly chaos. For example, people wanting to hunt, farm, or gather effectively may claim and defend specific territories. These boundaries become substantial when competitors observe such division. "You stay on yours, I stay on mine." Respect for such boundaries allows both to prosper, meaning that there is value in respecting such boundaries. Chaos is reduced. More time eating, less time fighting to eat.

You said before, an individual can claim something, but without society to observe it or enforce it, it's not meaningful. Here you expand on the importance of respect for one another's property as a means of society functioning. I'm more inclined to say that ownership starts with the individual, then as individuals interact, the importance of the claims to ownership becomes evident.

If you are alone on a deserted island, and you fashion a hammer, blade, and construct a hut, you obviously don't see the need to make any sort of official claim of ownership (which would be silly for one person to do), but that doesn't mean that there isn't property and an owner. In reality, every concept of ownership is present except a foreign party to challenge who is the rightful owner. Once other parties step onto the scene (forming 'society' in a general sense) is when the importance of ownership is seen in its ability to prevent conflict of scarce resources.

Quote from skiman : And it wouldn't exist at all without the government. That's the point, yes? I don''t believe that anyone has argued the virtue of government-only model, least of all me. I simply pointed out the virtual necessity of such large organizing forces to accomplish big jobs- such as a practical highway system, transcontinental rail lines, our telecom networks etc. Traversing numerous and varied interests requires a degree of collective will and collective force. It's necessary. The bigger the project, the more miniscule the chance of unanimous action through voluntary participation. Feudalism blows.

I don't think it's possible to state what would or wouldn't exist had government not first subsidized it. Personally, I think it's far fetched to assume that companies like Xerox, IBM, etc wouldn't have ventured into networking had the government not first done it themselves. And I don't think it's coincidence that the privatization of the internet coincided largely with it's explosive growth.

There was a time when people thought no private company could possible compete with the post office, yet thanks to a loophole in the law, Fed Ex and UPS do so in areas where it is legal for them to.

To quote Rothbard:

If the government and only the government had had a monopoly of the shoe manufacturing and retailing business, how would most of the public treat the libertarian who now came along to advocate that the government get out of the shoe business and throw it open to private enterprise? He would undoubtedly be treated as follows: people would cry, “How could you? You are opposed to the public, and to poor people, wearing shoes! And who would supply shoes to the public if the government got out of the business? Tell us that! Be constructive! It’s easy to be negative and smart-alecky about government; but tell us who would supply shoes? Which people? How many shoe stores would be available in each city and town? How would the shoe firms be capitalized? How many brands would there be? What material would they use? What lasts? What would be the pricing arrangements for shoes? Wouldn’t regulation of the shoe industry be needed to see to it that the product is sound?

Quote from skiman : Two people are not enough. Remember, you only enjoy the ownership designation to the degree that others respect that designation. There must be, at least, a third party to facilitate enforcement. Without a consequence beyond claim and direct defense of claim it's back to the state of nature. And with the establishment of enforceability, you have a simple, nascent government.

I disagree that you need other people to enforce or recognize ownership. Ownership becomes important as a basis for structuring the allocation of scarce resources among people, but that doesn't mean it disappears if a person is by himself, or alone with another on an island.

Quote from skiman : Continue that evolution of thought and understand that ownership isn't a natural concept, but rather an advantageous social tool.

Why are the two mutually exclusive?

Quote from skiman : Again, it's irrelevant whether or not humans have this skills exclusively or in greater measure than other animals. You are simply pointing out a characteristic of humanity. This is not, in any way, an argument. It goes no distance to supporting the claim of natural rights. As before, it's quite as arbitrary as suggesting that cheetahs have natural rights by virtue of being the fastest animal on land. Sure, it's a true fact, but it in no way supports the claim that this fact somehow points to a natural right to X.

What natural right would you say a cheetah has based on it's natural virtue of being a fast land animal?

It's not irrelevant, it's actually the core of where natural rights come from, ie the nature of man and his surroundings.