NationStates Jolt Archive

For the record..
It is nothing like that..

chances are you would be "doing better" in the US.

Most of the people posting here would "do better" in the US.. but.. but you must be able shut-down/slow-down your concience.. or pledge total ignorance.

The only people "doing better" in EU is the bottom 15 or maybe 20%.. (these are general averages.. specific situations may difer.. for example the medical fieldd/jobs)

I'm not so sure. I read a while back that the top 10% of US households account for about 45% of the total income in the US, compared to about 30% in france. Given relative sizes of the economies ($12.6tr, and $2.04tr respectively) and population sizes, that would indicate that the lower 90% of the US population recieves about $24,400 per capita compared to france's $26,600. I grant that this is just a rough and ready estimate done mostly in my head and doesn't account for all sorts of things, but income is disproportionately skewed to the high end in the US, so its not beyond the realm of possibility.

The US is a great place if you live somewhere like the tri-state or the bay area, where people are on average better off than europe, but large parts of it are pretty dire. Something you won't see in france, germany or the UK for the most part.

So, people only work to provide themselves with housing?

Thats part of it. Most people work to survive, i.e. housing, food, etc. If you just give people what they need, wheres the incentive to work?

if housing is a right, what would be the incentive to work exactly? Isn't this basically asking for the economy suffer?

Well, you could say the same about health care or food, which the US doles out to its indigents.

Ironically, the US must be one of the few places where working people are denied healthcare while it is a right for the welfare types.

The economy is still here.

Of course, my preferred option would be for the government to get out of the healthcare business altogether. That said, the US will have a single payer system within the next few years. It is inevitable.

Thats part of it. Most people work to survive, i.e. housing, food, etc. If you just give people what they need, wheres the incentive to work?

Well, food, clothes etc are not going to be free, so I guess there is the incentive for you.

The US is a great place if you live somewhere like the tri-state or the bay area, where people are on average better off than europe, but large parts of it are pretty dire. true.


Something you won't see in france, germany or the UK for the most part.I dont have first hand info about Germany.. but France and UK do have "innercities"

income is disproportionately skewed to the high end in the US.
true.

I dont have first hand info about Germany.. but France and UK do have "innercities"


No doubt. Urban blight, it's the new black. (Including germany). What I meant was they don't have the huge swaths of rural blight like large areas of the US.

What are the respective bases of their approaches? If any of them contain a right that imposes an obligation, it fails to constitute a natural right (because in so doing it must violate another natural right), and can only be considered a contractual right.

Hobbes said that in a state of nature a man has a right to everything, even another's body. This will lead to a war of all against all. People will then get together and limit their rights out of self interest and give power to some authoritative body. This body will have absolute power. Hobbes denied people the right to rebel if they thought the ruler(s) were violating this contract.

Locke had the basic rights of life, liberty, and estate. Locke limited property rights if they infringed on the rights of others, in his view. If your owning something denies others the means to live then that is the same as trying to kill them in his view. If you offer wage labor to them, enough to live on, then you are fine. He denied atheism and suicide as acepptable practices under natural rights.

Rawls was a Kantian. His social contract theory was just a tool to help people realize what actual deontology they should follow. His rights are equal liberties to all so long as it is compatible with the same libertiess for others social and economic inequalities result from fair equal oppotrunity, and benefit the least well off.

The Capability Approach is a conceptual framework developed by Amartya Sen for evaluating social states in terms of human well-being (welfare). It emphasizes functional capabilities ("substantial freedoms", such as the ability to live to old age, engage in economic transactions, or participate in political activities); these are construed in terms of the substantive freedoms people have reason to value, instead of utility (happiness, desire-fulfilment or choice) or access to resources (income, commodities, assets). Poverty is understood as capability-deprivation. It is noteworthy that the emphasis is not only on how human beings actually function but on their having the capability, which is a practical choice, to function in important ways if they so wish. Someone could be deprived of such capabilities in many ways, e.g. by ignorance, government oppression, lack of financial resources, or false consciousness.

Last, natural rights are universal rights that are seen as inherent in the nature of people, and not contingent on human actions or beliefs. What exactly these rights are is debatable. I fail to see why a right that imposes obligations on others is invalidated.

Hobbes said that in a state of nature a man has a right to everything, even another's body.
He wouldn't be wrong really. One could initiate force, the other would retaliate and engage in self-defence. Nothing controversial about this, so far.

This will lead to a war of all against all. People will then get together and limit their rights out of self interest and give power to some authoritative body. This body will have absolute power. Hobbes denied people the right to rebel if they thought the ruler(s) were violating this contract.Yes, this is very true of history at large. Except that people will still rebel anyway, because non-recognition of the right does not negate it. A libertarian would couple his initial position with the non-aggression axiom to avoid the war against all (and the body with absolute power), which would automatically vitiate any rights that must rely on force to exist (e.g. a man saying he has a right to a child - the only way he could achieve this is by compelling a woman, which would be an initiation of force, therefore illegitimate).

Out of curiosity, did Hobbes outline the form of absolute government he'd support? His theory could be used to justify anything from fascism to absolute monarchy to a parliamentary democracy.

Last, natural rights are universal rights that are seen as inherent in the nature of people, and not contingent on human actions or beliefs. What exactly these rights are is debatable. I fail to see why a right that imposes obligations on others is invalidated.
The varying views seem to all begin at the same point. Their differences are from the fact that they assume a social contract of sorts. If you follow Hobbes to the point that he says people will voluntarily limit their rights, one can arrive from there at the Lockean and Rawlsian propositions (all limitations on rights and rights creating obligations will be contingent on the contract).

So it would appear all these divergent theories begin at the same point. The question is simply whether or not people will contract to limit/extend their rights, or not (for instance, the non-aggression axiom). That part is subjective, I agree.

The situation is a bit complex. Our Constitution clearly says (poorly translated from french by myself): "every human being who, because of physical or mental health state, age, or economical conditions, can't find a job is entitled to receive from the community decent means of existence". It's behind the social help system, but for now, it was not considered binding in court against the state.

With the mediatic show about homeless people organised by associations this winter, 5 months before the elections, the government is trying to do something - or at least to appear as doing something. As it's a right-wing government who once again decided to lower taxes on the wealthy and therefore is unable to build massively social houses, who strictly refuse to apply the law from 1945 allowing the government to claim unused houses to house the homeless, they need another way. They will make housing right legally binding. That's great (we, the PCF, are asking for it since long) but... far from enough.

First, let's see what's inside the law, what the conditions are, and so on. Starting a trial in France is much cheaper than in USA, but it's not free either. And you need to give your address... something homeless people don't have. So a theorically binding right can be made nearly void with such conditions. But let's see.

The other point is WHO will be bound. Will it be the national state, who will have to pay a fine ? And if then, how will they pay it, with the current government proposals and actions of lowering taxes on corporations and on the wealthiest ? Or will it be, as they are speaking about, the mayors ? But, which mayor ? The one they chose ? The one of their latest house ? The one of their legal address, if they give the address or a relative or friend as a legal address ?

And then you reach the problem of the huge disproportion between cities. Some cities (like Neuilly) are very rich, full with very rich people. Those cities have very few problem with homeless people, and earn a lot of money. Other cities are much poorer, with a lot of unemployed. Those cities have very real problems, and very few money to address them. Would they be fined, while the rich cities are not ? In France, there is a law forcing all cities above a certain size to build at least 20% of social housing. But the rich right-wing cities, like Neuilly (where Nicolas Sarkozy, vice prime-minister and candidate to the presidential election was mayor for long), do not respect this law (Neuilly has around 1% of social housing). Will those cities who break the law be protected (because very few homeless are in them), while cities who do build social housing, but being poor cities, they can't build enough, be fined ?

I'm afraid that's what this government will try to do... as always, using a real problem and real suffering as an excuse to make things even worse for the poor, and even better for their wealthy friends...

No, you're using a by-product (since the shade was not intentionally created). Myseneum has addressed this below anyway.Why would it matter whether or not the shade was intentionally created?

Because it is by his labour that they were produced. They could not have arised otherwise. If you own yourself, you necessarily own your actions, which are your labour. Keep in mind that product-creation means transformation of a resource (to simplify things, assume it is unowned rather than in your title), which cannot be done but by your labour. To deny one the product of their labour would be, for example, to deny a sculptor of his sculpture.Certainly. I can see how somebody would own their actions, but one's actions are not equal to the product of one's actions.

A positive right is simply that - a statement to the effect that you may do something. You may ask what limits me then. The right of another to oppose me in self-defence. A natural right is nothing more than this. What then of negative rights you may ask? Nothing. They are simply there to limit government. You cannot formulate most positive rights into a negative without imposing an obligation on someone else. For instance, to say "I have the right not to be killed" imposes an obligation on another party not to kill me. In reality, this is unenforceable (except by means of social contract). The "right to life" means I may defend myself againt someone's aggression against my body, and therefore is not restrictive. It is the consequence of my self-defence that will deter the would-be aggressor ; I may fail in so doing, of course. I may also delegate my right to self-defence to someone more able in exercising it for me.That's an interesting way of framing rights, though what it all boils down to is that you believe that might makes right.

To clarify something, in a society based on the non-aggression axiom the right to aggress is voluntarily surrendered. If someone violates this, they have in effect initiated force, thereby provoking the aggrieved's right to self-defence. Furthermore, by virtue of their action they demonstrate that they reject the nonuse of force, and therefore may not protest against its retaliatory use.Seems fair.

And herein creeps in the problem. This is essentially no different to one asserting they have a right to property because they got there first. Do you honestly think another party is simply going to acquiesce to this?To tell the first person that they have to stop using it violates their right to use. I think a reasonable compromise could be reached where both parties get to use the item.

Then the individual is compelled to accept the majority's decision (unless they agree to it), or alternatively leave the society. The community is in effect asserting an ownership right of sorts. This is precisely why I said that the only legitimate collectivist society is one that can arise from an individual agreeing to limit their claim to the product of their labour, and restricting themselves to self-ownership.The community is doing so to prevent conflict, which is in the self-interest of its members.

Self-contained positive rights (i.e. which do not impose obligations) are not. You can do something even if it isn't recognised as a right. Not exercising the right does not constitute non-existence. Negative rights, on the other hand, are necessarily the result of a Social Contract. The right to housing, as could be recognised by France, is a negative right reformulated into the proposition that I have the right to a house. It can only arise via a social contract, i.e. by someone's agreement to provide this house.But my point is that simply because I'm capable of doing something doesn't mean that I have the right to.

But they are using the resource constantly. Why must they give up its use?They don't have to. They just have to let the new person use it.

Yes, it does. But, if use implied ownership, then ownership would be constantly changing as the property was used.

If I own a house and rent it out to another, I do not surrender my ownership because another is using my house. I still retain title.Which is why ownership is a violation of usage rights.

No. Once I have ownership, no one has any rights to my property. They may have privileges - such as my allowing them to use the property to some end - but they have no rights to it.Yes, because that's what ownership rights say, but we haven't established whether or not ownership rights are moral.

As I said, the level of improvement may have to be set by agreement between parties. But, barring such an agreement, I would have to say that the simplest of improvements would suffice. If no consensus could be reached, then I would hold that the mere movig of rocks from under one's sleeping bag would constitute improvement. Of course, only for that 6' x 3' area.

So, in your example, if the community was in agreement that the land was not improved by whatever labor was performed, then, by their agreement, the land was not improved and thus no ownership conferred.Exactly. Do you realize what you've now admitted?:

1) Property rights are socially determined, and if a community never says that somebody has improved something, then it can not have property rights without violating anybody's rights.

2) Property can't be a natural right, because it requires the determination of others as to whether or not somebody has improved something.

3) Use is a natural right, because someone is fully capable of using something alone on a deserted island.

And this is why property rights are an initiation of force - they violate the natural right of use.

The mere existance of the house implies improvement and title to it and the land upon which it sits resides with the party who built or bought the house and land. Property rights are already established.Really? So if you pay a construction worker to build a house, they have the right to the house?

No, you're not.

You are taking advantage of a by-product of another's acts. You are not causing the shade through any positive act of your own. Thus, you are using the shade, not the body blocking the sun's rays.I am fully capable of using something without any positive act of my own. If I am at the beach with a friend, who brings a beach umbrella, and the friend puts up the beach umbrella, am I not using the umbrella when I sit under it as a shade provider?

Further, you do not own the shade by your use of it. Should the person using the hammock choose to get up and walk off, the shade would disappear and you would have no recourse to require that person to return and provide the shade that you were using.I did not state that I owned the shade, it was simply an example of it being possible to use someone else's body without their consent but without violating their rights. Of course if he walked away and I tried forcing him, that would violate his rights, which is why I said he was asleep, to make it easier to confer this.

Fruits of one's labor.But again, the right of somebody to labor is separate from the right to the product of their labor. If this wasn't the case, then the widget factory worker would have the right to the widgets, and the construction worker would have the right to the house.

You were saying that I was wrong about the decline in violent crime, and it turns out I linked to a source that indicates that you are quite wrong.You showed a correlation between crime rates and incarceration rates. Correlation does not imply causation.

Thats part of it. Most people work to survive, i.e. housing, food, etc. If you just give people what they need, wheres the incentive to work?Why do you do anything? Do you enjoy some of the things that you do? There's your incentive - enjoyment.

Thats part of it. Most people work to survive, i.e. housing, food, etc. If you just give people what they need, wheres the incentive to work?

Spectacularly untrue. If you live off welfare you don't have a very enjoyable time at all.

If people worked to survive we'd all stop working after we got enough money to satisfy the first rung of Maslow's hierarchy.

Dis donc- il n'y a personne ici qui est vraiment Francais. Personne comprend tous qu'on dit. Tous vous etes pas dans un lieu de dit tout ca...

Dis donc- il n'y a personne ici qui est vraiment Francais. Personne comprend tous qu'on dit. Tous vous etes pas dans un lieu de dit tout ca...
babelfish?

He wouldn't be wrong really. One could initiate force, the other would retaliate and engage in self-defence. Nothing controversial about this, so far.

Saying every man has a right to everything, even another's body is tantamount to saying men have no rights. What use are property rights when there is no exclusion?

Yes, this is very true of history at large. Except that people will still rebel anyway, because non-recognition of the right does not negate it. A libertarian would couple his initial position with the non-aggression axiom to avoid the war against all (and the body with absolute power), which would automatically vitiate any rights that must rely on force to exist (e.g. a man saying he has a right to a child - the only way he could achieve this is by compelling a woman, which would be an initiation of force, therefore illegitimate).

Out of curiosity, did Hobbes outline the form of absolute government he'd support? His theory could be used to justify anything from fascism to absolute monarchy to a parliamentary democracy.

Eh, I'm just stating his views. Hobbes thought absolute monarchy was the best form of government. He considered representative democracy but didn't think it would work.

The varying views seem to all begin at the same point. Their differences are from the fact that they assume a social contract of sorts. If you follow Hobbes to the point that he says people will voluntarily limit their rights, one can arrive from there at the Lockean and Rawlsian propositions (all limitations on rights and rights creating obligations will be contingent on the contract).

So it would appear all these divergent theories begin at the same point. The question is simply whether or not people will contract to limit/extend their rights, or not (for instance, the non-aggression axiom). That part is subjective, I agree.

Hobbes thought in a state of nature everyone has a right to everything and thus nothing. Locke starts out with humanity being God's property and following his wishes. Rawls used the social contract as a tool to describe what Kantian deontology shouuld be followed. Its secondary to his thoughts. Ronald Dworkin, a follower of Rawls, uses a hypothetical insurance market instead. Sen sees that everyone should be given the tools to follow their goals, limited by society's resources, as axiomatic. No social contract is necessary in his thought. Very different starting points.

LOL at this plan.

It is going to crash and burn. If you don't believe me, just look at the attempts of the CHA in Chicago to do basically the same thing in the 1950s. In the end the city ended up with Cabrini-Green, the most dangerous neighborhood in the entire country.

If you've ever seen the film "Hardball," that was supposed to have taken place in Cabrini Green. Let's just say that before they tore it down a few years back, you didn't want to get lost there.:sniper:

Saying every man has a right to everything, even another's body is tantamount to saying men have no rights. What use are property rights when there is no exclusion?
Ah, I misread you - I read a right to do anything. Hobbe's concept of natural rights is pretty much animalistic I suppose, before the creation of the governmental body.

Why would it matter whether or not the shade was intentionally created?
You can only claim ownership to it if you intentionally created it. It's neither part of the body nor even the product of its labour.

Certainly. I can see how somebody would own their actions, but one's actions are not equal to the product of one's actions.
The argument is that once your actions have been mixed with the resources, they are inseparable.

That's an interesting way of framing rights, though what it all boils down to is that you believe that might makes right.
Coupled with the non-aggression axiom, no, since it eliminates the use of force as a legitimate means in a society. Without it though, it is precisely the concept of might makes right.

To tell the first person that they have to stop using it violates their right to use. I think a reasonable compromise could be reached where both parties get to use the item.
Assuming reasonable individuals, perhaps. If the first person refuses to cease usage, the other party could argue their rights to usage are being violated incidentally.


The community is doing so to prevent conflict, which is in the self-interest of its members.
The explicit purpose of ownership rights is to prevent conflict over resources. ;) Whether they are communal or individual in nature is a matter for the individuals involved to decide. It would make good sense for a collectivist society to establish a communal property right for its members, in order that it may prevent conflict legitimately.

But my point is that simply because I'm capable of doing something doesn't mean that I have the right to.
I realised something fallacious in my apprehension of the argument I used, so I will drop this for now until I've gone through it again. Expect it in a future debate though. :D

Really? So if you pay a construction worker to build a house, they have the right to the house?
You are offering something in exchange for their services in this case though. They provide you the product of their labour for whatever good you offer them. Therefore, ownership transfers.

Dis donc- il n'y a personne ici qui est vraiment Francais.

Je suis français et Kilobugya aussi.

If there any Scottish people here I'd be interested to hear their comments on the similar laws in Scotland.

Ah, I misread you - I read a right to do anything. Hobbe's concept of natural rights is pretty much animalistic I suppose, before the creation of the governmental body.

A right to do anything is basically the same as saying we have no rights. If you have the right to self-ownership and I have the right to own you too then the only way to settle the matter is force. If you have the right to live and I have the right to kill you then in what meaningful sense do we have any rights at all? That is my point.

Hobbes opinion of human nature is pretty pessimistic, but its less so than most people realize. In Hobbes opinion the main reason people will attack each other is lack of trust. I'll attack you before you can attack me.

You can only claim ownership to it if you intentionally created it. It's neither part of the body nor even the product of its labour.I wasn't claiming ownership of the shade or your body, I was simply stating that I was using both things.

The argument is that once your actions have been mixed with the resources, they are inseparable.They can be separated, though. If you dig an irrigation ditch to "improve" the land, the ditch can be filled in, bringing the land back to the way it was.
Even still, one's labor is separate from the product of one's labor.

Coupled with the non-aggression axiom, no, since it eliminates the use of force as a legitimate means in a society. Without it though, it is precisely the concept of might makes right.So why should the mighty believe in the non-aggression axiom?

Assuming reasonable individuals, perhaps. If the first person refuses to cease usage, the other party could argue their rights to usage are being violated incidentally.It's entirely possible for two people to use the same thing in separate ways. Person A might want to grow sunflowers because they like to look at the pretty sunflowers. Person B might enjoy eating sunflower seeds. Person's B's use, (if done properly) does not interfere with Person A's, and so Person A has no reason to prevent Person B's use.

The explicit purpose of ownership rights is to prevent conflict over resources. ;) Yes, by stating that one person or group of people has a more valid claim over the resources than other people, which isn't true.

Whether they are communal or individual in nature is a matter for the individuals involved to decide. It would make good sense for a collectivist society to establish a communal property right for its members, in order that it may prevent conflict legitimately.It can legitimately prevent conflict without ownership rights.

I realised something fallacious in my apprehension of the argument I used, so I will drop this for now until I've gone through it again. Expect it in a future debate though. :DFair enough. :) You might want to go back through the "Libertarianism" thread, or whichever one it was. (The one where we were debating with BAAWAKnights and Vittos the City Sacker asked you whether or not his conception of BAAWAKnights' argument was wrong or not.) A similar argument is raised there. The thread is long though, so you may not.

You are offering something in exchange for their services in this case though. They provide you the product of their labour for whatever good you offer them. Therefore, ownership transfers.They offer you their labor itself for whatever good you offer them.

Legal right to housing, good idea. However, I know the wrong way to implement it:

Build large blocks of low-cost housing, and house homeless people there, the same way you helped the immigrants.

Well, it kinda kept the immigrants poor and ignorant.

Legal right to housing, good idea. However, I know the wrong way to implement it:

Build large blocks of low-cost housing, and house homeless people there, the same way you helped the immigrants.

Well, it kinda kept the immigrants poor and ignorant.

This isn't really directed at you, it's more of a general comment.

I always find it funny when people say that immigrants refuse to assimilate and point to the riots as proof of this. I always thought they were doing the most French thing possible in that situation by taking to the streets against unfair government policies.

I'm saying that by creating blocks of low-cost housing for immigrants, the French government created the conditions for these people to form ghettoes and not assimilate.

The US government did diddly squat to help the immigrants survive here, so the immigrants had to assimilate. And guess what? The US doesn't have the problem with unruly immigrants that the Europeans do!

They can be separated, though. If you dig an irrigation ditch to "improve" the land, the ditch can be filled in, bringing the land back to the way it was.
In which case again you laboured to bring the land to a new state of affairs (even if it were filled up, it'd only resemble the status quo ante, but never be restored to it), and again this labour is mixed with the property inextricably. Improvement is not a necessary qualifier - just transformation into the product.

Even still, one's labor is separate from the product of one's labor.
The latter cannot be brought about without the former.

So why should the mighty believe in the non-aggression axiom?
I never said they should - a libertarian would though, and so would anyone else who claimed they had the right not to be aggressed, and did so consistently (ie realised if it applies to them as a human, it applies to all humans).

It's entirely possible for two people to use the same thing in separate ways. Person A might want to grow sunflowers because they like to look at the pretty sunflowers. Person B might enjoy eating sunflower seeds. Person's B's use, (if done properly) does not interfere with Person A's, and so Person A has no reason to prevent Person B's use.
These are situations in which use does not conflict. I am referring to those where it does - for example, a single hammer that is required by two individuals who must decide who gets to make use.

Yes, by stating that one person or group of people has a more valid claim over the resources than other people, which isn't true.
If the validity of a claim cannot be established, on what basis does it decide (like I said, "first come, first served" is the establishment of a valid basis for the claim)? It must still deal with the fact that conflict in use may arise, and find a way around this. Also, keep something in mind - it is establishing how the resource may be disposed of. This is an inherent feature of a property right.

Fair enough. :) You might want to go back through the "Libertarianism" thread, or whichever one it was. (The one where we were debating with BAAWAKnights and Vittos the City Sacker asked you whether or not his conception of BAAWAKnights' argument was wrong or not.) A similar argument is raised there. The thread is long though, so you may not.
I've seen it. BAAWA did not fully elaborate the argument though, and I doubt it was given an adequate defence, so I am going to examine it personally.

They offer you their labor itself for whatever good you offer them.
They are providing you with their services at a fee, yes. It is this fee that purchases ownership of the end-product (you are buying the labour that produces the product, and thus the product belongs to you). Their labour is their property, and therefore theirs to dispose of as they wish, including selling it.

Chirac has stated that one of his priorities for 2007 will be to introduce a law granting homeless people a legal right to housing. A first bill should be discussed in Parliament quite soon.

If they actually do this, it would be an excellent thing in my opinion. But I'll remain a little sceptical until I see how it actually goes, what possible clauses and restrictions there'll be, and so on.

More information here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6227237.stm) and here (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/news/france.html).

Agreed. Access to shelter, food and health care should be basic human rights...

Agreed. Access to shelter, food and health care should be basic human rights...

Agreed, ill send the message to the house, doctor and farmer fairies immediatly!!!

In which case again you laboured to bring the land to a new state of affairs (even if it were filled up, it'd only resemble the status quo ante, but never be restored to it), and again this labour is mixed with the property inextricably. Improvement is not a necessary qualifier - just transformation into the product.Ah, I see. So then any amount of labor at all is acceptable? How much land does my labor get me? I mean, if I dig a 1 meter by 1 meter hole, would my labor just get me the hole, or would it get me some of the land surrounding it?

The latter cannot be brought about without the former.True, but they are separate.

I never said they should - a libertarian would though, and so would anyone else who claimed they had the right not to be aggressed, and did so consistently (ie realised if it applies to them as a human, it applies to all humans).Fair enough.

These are situations in which use does not conflict. I am referring to those where it does - for example, a single hammer that is required by two individuals who must decide who gets to make use.There's no reason they couldn't share the hammer. They have to sleep sometime, while one is sleeping the other can use it, at the very least.

If the validity of a claim cannot be established, on what basis does it decide (like I said, "first come, first served" is the establishment of a valid basis for the claim)?It isn't so much that the validity can't be established, the validity of exclusive use can't be. Both people have an equal right to use, the only difference is that the first person who uses it decides how it is used, and the next can also decide as long as that use doesn't interfere with the first use.

It must still deal with the fact that conflict in use may arise, and find a way around this. Also, keep something in mind - it is establishing how the resource may be disposed of. This is an inherent feature of a property right.I agree. I don't oppose all of the features of property rights, only some of them.

I've seen it. BAAWA did not fully elaborate the argument though, and I doubt it was given an adequate defence, so I am going to examine it personally.Sounds reasonable.

They are providing you with their services at a fee, yes. It is this fee that purchases ownership of the end-product (you are buying the labour that produces the product, and thus the product belongs to you). Their labour is their property, and therefore theirs to dispose of as they wish, including selling it.Certainly, this is what I'm trying to say, that you can purchase someone's labor, but there isn't any inherent right to the product of one's labor. Otherwise, the construction worker could say that their labor was purchased, but not the house.

Ah, I see. So then any amount of labor at all is acceptable? How much land does my labor get me? I mean, if I dig a 1 meter by 1 meter hole, would my labor just get me the hole, or would it get me some of the land surrounding it?
I would imagine you'd get some area around it too, in order to access it and use it.


True, but they are separate.
You own the product given that you own the labour that produced it (from its unowned form).

I agree. I don't oppose all of the features of property rights, only some of them.
What I think is the case is that you oppose unrestricted individual property rights, but not property itself as a notion. This is why I keep on stressing that individuals, if they so desired, could limit their right to property in order to reap whatever fruits such a system produced (or simply delegate this right to the community, in which case it decides on what basis usage can legitimately take place, I suppose usually by democratic vote). The right to property must begin somewhere, and communities, given that they do not exist separately from their constituent members, can only derive this right by it being delegated to them.

Certainly, this is what I'm trying to say, that you can purchase someone's labor, but there isn't any inherent right to the product of one's labor. Otherwise, the construction worker could say that their labor was purchased, but not the house.
You're missing something ; the homesteading principle applies only to unowned resources. If the resources being transformed are owned (by the purchaser of the house), you cannot appropriate them, only transform them on behalf of the owner. It is the process of the transformation you are charging for and selling. It is as though the owner of the house themself were the one performing the labour (since they have bought it). Since they own this labour, and the resources transformed, they own its product. That is the basis of it.

Lack of support for a minimum wage, joy in the erosion of labour rights and social welfare, a for-profit healthcare system, the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world, and an absolute lack of sympathy for the most destitute among you...THAT is why the US is so fucked up.

Yeah...

That must be it...

Of what use is a minimum wage? Aside from being an anchor on start-ups. Why should anyone be paid more than what their labor is worth?

As for labor rights, care to point out which are being eroded? Thanx.

Social welfare is not authorized by the US Constitution and that is the supreme law of the land. Social welfare is for charities and individuals, not the force of law. There is no authorization for the US government to take money from one individual just to give it to another.

Our healthcare is doing quite nicely. A for-profit sstem ensures that people are given incentive to improve the quality, services and technology of the system.

Our incarceration rate is irrelevant. If you commit a crime, you go to jail. Stop committing crimes and you won't go to jail. Simple solution.

And lastly, as noted above with soclal welfare, domestic welfare is not authorized by the Constitution. So, any that we provide is more than should be provided.

But of course, our lack of sympathy must be why we are the largest donor of aid in the world. US aid in 2004 was $19.7B (by the way, Israel was 9th on the list of recipients - 6.53% of the total top ten aid packages; so much for Israel being some major recipient).

The entire EU aid amount is $8.7B. The entire European Union is only 44% of what the US gives.
-- http://www.oecd.org/countrylist/0,2578,en_2649_34447_1783495_1_1_1_1,00.html

Who seems most sympathetic?

Meh, you miss the point. Anyone can make stupid statements about a country and declare "and THAT is why *insert nation* is so * up". So go back, and ask the poster I quoted the same question about France, hmmm?

Let's see, where would a citizen be more likely to think their situation is least "rosey?"

Let's try this;

19.4% of the EU is below poverty - 64.7 million people.
http://www.socialinclusion.ie/poverty.html#current

In the US, 12.6% is below poverty - 36.6 million.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/poverty05/table5.html

It seems less "rosey" in Europe.

Dis donc- il n'y a personne ici qui est vraiment Francais. Personne comprend tous qu'on dit. Tous vous etes pas dans un lieu de dit tout ca...

J’ai allé of lycée français pour 8 années. Je ne suis pas français mai je sais com ils son.

Which is why ownership is a violation of usage rights.

If there were such a thing as "usage rights," then you may have a point. One only has a right to "use" that which one owns. If I own something, no one else has a right to use it. I may allow them to use it, but they have no right.

For example, no one has a right to walk in your front door and start using your bedroom as a flop. You have a say in the matter because it's your house.

Yes, because that's what ownership rights say, but we haven't established whether or not ownership rights are moral.

I have. They are. What are your reasons to say they are not?

Exactly. Do you realize what you've now admitted?:

Yes, I do. All I have added is a consideration for the Social Contract in which some rights are delegated to the society in return for services or protections. The right is retained by the individual, but some level of utilization is transferred to the Society.

1) Property rights are socially determined, and if a community never says that somebody has improved something, then it can not have property rights without violating anybody's rights.

No, they're not. The individuals making up the community may, via the Social Contract, agree to what level certain rights may be exercised, but, as I said earlier, the right of ownership would devolve to that 6' x 3' area you cleared out under your sleeping bag. As long as no one already owned the property.

2) Property can't be a natural right, because it requires the determination of others as to whether or not somebody has improved something.

Not neccessarily. In a community, as a part of the agreement to live in that community, the members may have to come to such an agreement such that order is maintained in the community. So, the natural right to property has been delegated, to some extent, to the chosen Society in return for the services and protections of that Society. However, in the even that the Society fails in providing those services or protections, all rights revert in full to the individual.

3) Use is a natural right, because someone is fully capable of using something alone on a deserted island.

Only because they have made the item their property first.

And this is why property rights are an initiation of force - they violate the natural right of use.

If there is a natural right of use. There is not. A "right" to use is dependent upon owning the property first. One may not use a thing unless one owns a thing or is given permission by the owner.

Really? So if you pay a construction worker to build a house, they have the right to the house?

No. They have transferred their right to the house through the medium of financial consideration. The worker has the right to his labor and may exchange it for some agreed upon medium of exchange. At that point, the worker no longer owns that part of his labor which he has exchanged. It belongs to the purchaser. If used to build a house, the house belongs to the purchaser, not the laborer.

I am fully capable of using something without any positive act of my own. If I am at the beach with a friend, who brings a beach umbrella, and the friend puts up the beach umbrella, am I not using the umbrella when I sit under it as a shade provider?

You may be taking advantage of it, but you derive no possession. Your friend can take his umbrella and place it elsewhere. Or, rip it to shreds such that no one can use it. You'd have no say in the matter. If you did via "right of use" you could prevent your friend from moving or destroying the umbrella. Or, just putting the thing away. You'd have no moral power to stop him.

I did not state that I owned the shade, it was simply an example of it being possible to use someone else's body without their consent but without violating their rights. Of course if he walked away and I tried forcing him, that would violate his rights, which is why I said he was asleep, to make it easier to confer this.

What you are using is the shade, not the body. The body happens to make the shade.

But again, the right of somebody to labor is separate from the right to the product of their labor. If this wasn't the case, then the widget factory worker would have the right to the widgets, and the construction worker would have the right to the house.

Nope. Because the worker has transferred his rights to the fruits of his labor through an accepted exchange of property; the employer's money for the worker's labor.

So, the worker has no right to the widgets he makes.

Let's see, where would a citizen be more likely to think their situation is least "rosey?"

Let's try this;

19.4% of the EU is below poverty - 64.7 million people.
http://www.socialinclusion.ie/poverty.html#current

In the US, 12.6% is below poverty - 36.6 million.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/poverty05/table5.html

It seems less "rosey" in Europe.
To bring your attention to something: the EU is roughly 1.5 larger than the US in terms of population. That said, it would still have a higher amount of poverty. This is hardly surprising - the USA is not a capitalist country in the least. It follows a keynesial model, just like EU countries.

To bring your attention to something: the EU is roughly 1.5 larger than the US in terms of population. That said, it would still have a higher amount of poverty.

Which is why I provided the percentage figures, too. That obviates actual population numbers.

This is hardly surprising - the USA is not a capitalist country in the least. It follows a keynesial model, just like EU countries.

Well, not being an economist, I haven't a clue what a "keynesial model" is. Well, I could do a Google on it, but I don't know that I would get all that good of a grasp on what was being said. I'm a Computer Scientist/Physicist/AeroEngineer...

But, that aside, I think the US is, at least, more capitalist than EU countries. We don't have quite so much government interference as Europe. Or, so it seems to me on this side of the pond.

Let's see, where would a citizen be more likely to think their situation is least "rosey?"

Let's try this;

19.4% of the EU is below poverty - 64.7 million people.
http://www.socialinclusion.ie/poverty.html#current

In the US, 12.6% is below poverty - 36.6 million.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/poverty05/table5.html

It seems less "rosey" in Europe.

Of course, it depends on how you measure poverty. The OECD measures it as those who makes less than half of the median income, and from which you get these figures.

Australia 8.62
Austria 7.98
Canada 10.28
Czech Republic 3.76
Denmark 4.96
Finland 6.43
France 6.04
Germany 8.00
Greece 10.78
Hungary 7.50
Ireland 11.91
Italy 11.53
Japan 13.50
Luxembourg 4.52
Mexico 16.34
Netherlands 5.93
New Zealand 9.49
Norway 5.99
Poland 8.58
Portugal 9.57
Spain 10.66
Sweden 5.14
Switzerland 5.81
Turkey 12.71
United Kingdom 8.68
United States 13.72

http://www.oecd.org/LongAbstract/0,2546,en_2825_497118_35445298_1_1_1_1,00.html

And if you look at the CIA World Factbook. However, I don't know how the CIA measures poverty.

United States 12%

France 6.5%

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html

edit: Also, that link you posted regarding EU poverty seems to be an Irish government site talking about Irish poverty, not EU poverty as a whole.

Which is why I provided the percentage figures, too. That obviates actual population numbers.
Alright.

Well, not being an economist, I haven't a clue what a "keynesial model" is. Well, I could do a Google on it, but I don't know that I would get all that good of a grasp on what was being said. I'm a Computer Scientist/Physicist/AeroEngineer...

It's an economic model where the government intervenes to correct market "failures" and stimulate economic activity. Europe and the USA use it, to varying models. Rothbard called it "corporatist".

But, that aside, I think the US is, at least, more capitalist than EU countries. We don't have quite so much government interference as Europe. Or, so it seems to me on this side of the pond.
Think again. The US is comparitively non-interventionist, but this is simply a matter of degree. It's not far behind the EU countries at all.

It's an economic model where the government intervenes to correct market "failures" and stimulate economic activity. Europe and the USA use it, to varying models. Rothbard called it "corporatist".

Think again. The US is comparitively non-interventionist, but this is simply a matter of degree. It's not far behind the EU countries at all.

Hmm. Well, I guess I had a basic grasp on the concept and didn't know it.

Perhaps it is a matter of degree, but, as I said, the US is not as bad as the EU.

As far as the basic model goes, I would prefer that US companies sink or swim on their own merit and the government keep its nose out, attending to its own affairs ( US Const: Article I, Section 8), instead.

But, I think I'm outvoted...

crazy.

I would imagine you'd get some area around it too, in order to access it and use it.How much area? if you can't say for sure, how might it be decided?

You own the product given that you own the labour that produced it (from its unowned form). So then does the cleaning lady give up her right to the clean house when you pay her to clean?

What I think is the case is that you oppose unrestricted individual property rights, but not property itself as a notion. This is why I keep on stressing that individuals, if they so desired, could limit their right to property in order to reap whatever fruits such a system produced (or simply delegate this right to the community, in which case it decides on what basis usage can legitimately take place, I suppose usually by democratic vote). The right to property must begin somewhere, and communities, given that they do not exist separately from their constituent members, can only derive this right by it being delegated to them.It's certainly a matter of consistency for me - why would I allow ownership of X but not Y? Better to throw out the concept entirely.

You're missing something ; the homesteading principle applies only to unowned resources. If the resources being transformed are owned (by the purchaser of the house), you cannot appropriate them, only transform them on behalf of the owner. It is the process of the transformation you are charging for and selling. It is as though the owner of the house themself were the one performing the labour (since they have bought it). Since they own this labour, and the resources transformed, they own its product. That is the basis of it.Ah, I see.

Of what use is a minimum wage? Aside from being an anchor on start-ups. Why should anyone be paid more than what their labor is worth?There's that whole "right to life" thing...

If there were such a thing as "usage rights," then you may have a point. One only has a right to "use" that which one owns. If I own something, no one else has a right to use it. I may allow them to use it, but they have no right.There is a such thing as usage rights, it is ownership that doesn't exist, except as part of a social contract.

For example, no one has a right to walk in your front door and start using your bedroom as a flop. You have a say in the matter because it's your house.I have a say in the matter because I use the house.

I have. They are. What are your reasons to say they are not?They were set up for the convenience of the rich and powerful to justify their being rich and powerful without any logical basis.

Yes, I do. All I have added is a consideration for the Social Contract in which some rights are delegated to the society in return for services or protections. The right is retained by the individual, but some level of utilization is transferred to the Society.But if the society never says that anyone improves something, what right can be retained by the individual, since there is no ownership?

No, they're not. The individuals making up the community may, via the Social Contract, agree to what level certain rights may be exercised, but, as I said earlier, the right of ownership would devolve to that 6' x 3' area you cleared out under your sleeping bag. As long as no one already owned the property.This is different than your qualifier of "improving" the property. What if nobody else thinks that you've improved it?

Not neccessarily. In a community, as a part of the agreement to live in that community, the members may have to come to such an agreement such that order is maintained in the community. So, the natural right to property has been delegated, to some extent, to the chosen Society in return for the services and protections of that Society. However, in the even that the Society fails in providing those services or protections, all rights revert in full to the individual.But again, if the community doesn't grant property rights, how can there be a natural right to property?

Only because they have made the item their property first.

If there is a natural right of use. There is not. A "right" to use is dependent upon owning the property first. One may not use a thing unless one owns a thing or is given permission by the owner.How can you possibly "improve" something without using it first?

No. They have transferred their right to the house through the medium of financial consideration. The worker has the right to his labor and may exchange it for some agreed upon medium of exchange. At that point, the worker no longer owns that part of his labor which he has exchanged. It belongs to the purchaser. If used to build a house, the house belongs to the purchaser, not the laborer.Certainly, because the product of labor is separate from the labor. The worker sells his labor.

You may be taking advantage of it, but you derive no possession. Your friend can take his umbrella and place it elsewhere. Or, rip it to shreds such that no one can use it. You'd have no say in the matter. If you did via "right of use" you could prevent your friend from moving or destroying the umbrella. Or, just putting the thing away. You'd have no moral power to stop him.I don't need to possess it to use it.

What you are using is the shade, not the body. The body happens to make the shade.How can I use the shade without the thing that makes the shade?

How much area? if you can't say for sure, how might it be decided?
Enough area to actually access it I'd think. I'll have a look in the future to see what Austrian theorists have written on the matter.


So then does the cleaning lady give up her right to the clean house when you pay her to clean?
What right to it? As I have already said, homesteading only applies to unowned resources. What I said for the construction of the house applies to this as well.

It's certainly a matter of consistency for me - why would I allow ownership of X but not Y? Better to throw out the concept entirely.

If it suits you, I suppose.

Enough area to actually access it I'd think. I'll have a look in the future to see what Austrian theorists have written on the matter.Fair enough.

What right to it? As I have already said, homesteading only applies to unowned resources. What I said for the construction of the house applies to this as well.Her right to the product of her labor, of course.

Her right to the product of her labor, of course.
When she transforms unowned resources into the product, in accordance with the homesteading principle, then she may claim it as rightfully hers. As with the construction question though, she is transforming an owned resource by selling the labour to its owner (and therefore the labour belongs properly to that owner) - no difference.

It is the process of the transformation you are charging for and selling. It is as though the owner of the house themself were the one performing the labour (since they have bought it). Since they own this labour, and the resources transformed, they own its product. That is the basis of it.So then when I go to see a band in concert, it's as though I'm performing the music?

When she transforms unowned resources into the product, in accordance with the homesteading principle, then she may claim it as rightfully hers. As with the construction question though, she is transforming an owned resource by selling the labour to its owner (and therefore the labour belongs properly to that owner) - no difference.What does the cleaning lady produce?

So then when I go to see a band in concert, it's as though I'm performing the music?
Weak analogy. No product but the music is being produced in this instance via use of one's voice and instruments, which is being sold directly to the consumers. The band owns all resources being used, or at least rents them. In this case it is like selling any other product - the product is exchanged for something its producer believes is of higher value (in this case money yielded by ticket sales).

What does the cleaning lady produce?
Cleanliness. Which she has sold. As I have repeatedly stated, mixing one's labour with owned resources (the house in this case) is not homesteading - the resources must be unowned. What is so hard to understand?

Yeah...

But of course, our lack of sympathy must be why we are the largest donor of aid in the world. US aid in 2004 was $19.7B (by the way, Israel was 9th on the list of recipients - 6.53% of the total top ten aid packages; so much for Israel being some major recipient).

The entire EU aid amount is $8.7B. The entire European Union is only 44% of what the US gives.
-- http://www.oecd.org/countrylist/0,2578,en_2649_34447_1783495_1_1_1_1,00.html

Who seems most sympathetic?

The EU itself gives 44% of what the US gives. But Many of the individual countries that are part of the EU give large sums as well.
$8.7B by the EU
an extra $8.4B by france
an extra $7.8 by the UK
Hell! the Netherlands with a population of what 12million give $4B

Weak analogy. No product but the music is being produced in this instance via use of one's voice and instruments, which is being sold directly to the consumers. The band owns all resources being used, or at least rents them. In this case it is like selling any other product - the product is exchanged for something its producer believes is of higher value (in this case money yielded by ticket sales).Fair enough. So then when I pay the band for the performance, I'm allowed to record the performance, right?

Cleanliness. Which she has sold. As I have repeatedly stated, mixing one's labour with owned resources (the house in this case) is not homesteading - the resources must be unowned. What is so hard to understand?No, I understand this, I simply don't think that she produces anything, she simply labors. The same with any service industry job.

Also, since Myneseum didn't answer, and I was going to ask you anyway...
What about the right to self-ownership means that you have the right to touch things that aren't yourself? In this case, unowned resources.

Fair enough. So then when I pay the band for the performance, I'm allowed to record the performance, right?
That depends on the contract you form with the seller. It could be written on your ticket that you may not record, or else the seller will not provide the good. If you violate this term, you have breached your word. If, on the other hand, it is not part of the contract, you have the right to, sure. Property can also be given on contractually-agreed-upon conditions set by the seller ; for instance, you may record something on the condition that you do not sell it.

No, I understand this, I simply don't think that she produces anything, she simply labors. The same with any service industry job.
Alright. The renumeration is for her labour. Else, she wouldn't sell it.

Also, since Myneseum didn't answer, and I was going to ask you anyway...
What about the right to self-ownership means that you have the right to touch things that aren't yourself? In this case, unowned resources.
You could. What of it?

That depends on the contract you form with the seller. It could be written on your ticket that you may not record, or else the seller will not provide the good. If you violate this term, you have breached your word. If, on the other hand, it is not part of the contract, you have the right to, sure. Property can also be given on contractually-agreed-upon conditions set by the seller ; for instance, you may record something on the condition that you do not sell it.What if the band doesn't want anyone to record the show, but neglects to mention it, thinking that the reason people are paying them is to see the show? Do they have to exert their right to the product of their labor?

Alright. The renumeration is for her labour. Else, she wouldn't sell it.Good. I'll be coming back to this later. :)

You could. What of it?Well, I was just thinking about how those hardcore environmentalists are always saying that humans don't have the right to do whatever it is that we want to the resources of the earth, and I was thinking that they're right. Why do we have the right to touch anything? And so I thought of your axiom of self-ownership, but self-ownership, even if universally applied, only talks about humans. It says nothing about what we can or can't do to natural resources.

What if the band doesn't want anyone to record the show, but neglects to mention it, thinking that the reason people are paying them is to see the show? Do they have to exert their right to the product of their labor?

That would be, in my opinion, the same thing as abandoning real property. If they don't make their wishes known, they lose the right to tell others not to record it.

Well, I was just thinking about how those hardcore environmentalists are always saying that humans don't have the right to do whatever it is that we want to the resources of the earth, and I was thinking that they're right.

Except that they're wrong.

It says nothing about what we can or can't do to natural resources.

Once you own it, you can do what you want to it, as long as the rights of others are not infringed.

That would be, in my opinion, the same thing as abandoning real property. If they don't make their wishes known, they lose the right to tell others not to record it.Is there a set process for abandoning property compared to simply vacating it with the intent of coming back?

Except that they're wrong.Perhaps.

Once you own it, you can do what you want to it, as long as the rights of others are not infringed.Yes, but isn't ownership of these resources established after you've mixed your labor with them? If you never have the right to mix your labor with them, you never have the right to own them.

What if the band doesn't want anyone to record the show, but neglects to mention it, thinking that the reason people are paying them is to see the show? Do they have to exert their right to the product of their labor?
In this case it'd be up to a court to decide on the basis of the evidence presented by both sides. The band would have a compelling case though, given that it is the owner of its product.

Well, I was just thinking about how those hardcore environmentalists are always saying that humans don't have the right to do whatever it is that we want to the resources of the earth, and I was thinking that they're right. Why do we have the right to touch anything?
I reject this - but let's entertain the notion for the sake of argument. My question is, how will they survive without touching anything? Even your usage rights would come in conflict with the resources in this situation.

And so I thought of your axiom of self-ownership, but self-ownership, even if universally applied, only talks about humans. It says nothing about what we can or can't do to natural resources.
It refers to humans due to reasons of moral consistency. A human cannot make a claim for itself, but not recognise it in other humans ; but it can with regard to an animal or a plant or anything of such nature (especially given how some animals will kill you for food). Furthermore, humans can wilfully claim rights. Animals cannot - even less so natural resources. The self-ownership axiom treats natural resources as unowned objects. As far as I am concerned, that is all they are.

In this case it'd be up to a court to decide on the basis of the evidence presented by both sides. The band would have a compelling case though, given that it is the owner of its product.So then it could be argued that unless there is a specific contract which says the band will give up the right to its product, the band retains the product of its labor, and you only pay for its labor, right?

I reject this - but let's entertain the notion for the sake of argument. My question is, how will they survive without touching anything? Even your usage rights would come in conflict with the resources in this situation.Good question.

It refers to humans due to reasons of moral consistency. A human cannot make a claim for itself, but not recognise it in other humans ; but it can with regard to an animal or a plant or anything of such nature (especially given how some animals will kill you for food). Furthermore, humans can wilfully claim rights. Animals cannot - even less so natural resources. The self-ownership axiom treats natural resources as unowned objects. As far as I am concerned, that is all they are.Certainly, but is there something within the self-ownership axiom itself that says that natural resources are undeserving of rights? Or is there a separate type of thing where a right has to be willfully claimed in order to be a right?

So then it could be argued that unless there is a specific contract which says the band will give up the right to its product, the band retains the product of its labor, and you only pay for its labor, right?
The form of property right involved is a copyright. You have a right to a particular physical product, but not to reproduce it. This would come through contractual agreements between seller and buyer. Assuming a lack of a copyright, the band might argue when buying a ticket it is implicit that you enter such an arrangement. The court may say that the band made a stupid contract by not establishing copyright clauses, and had fully sold over its product (which realistically speaking, is just what it did). These specifics are what a legal system is used for.

Certainly, but is there something within the self-ownership axiom itself that says that natural resources are undeserving of rights?
No, not really. It's the moral consistency argument that obligates you in an ethical sense to respect rights. By claiming a right you must recognise it in other humans. Now if a lion were to claim a right it'd be under no such ethical obligation to recognise it in you.

Or is there a separate type of thing where a right has to be willfully claimed in order to be a right?
Some rights theorists assert that a right must be claimed before one can evoke it. To me this makes some sense.

The form of property right involved is a copyright. You have a right to a particular physical product, but not to reproduce it. This would come through contractual agreements between seller and buyer. Assuming a lack of a copyright, the band might argue when buying a ticket it is implicit that you enter such an arrangement. The court may say that the band made a stupid contract by not establishing copyright clauses, and had fully sold over its product (which realistically speaking, is just what it did). These specifics are what a legal system is used for. Ah. So then it's typically argued that when you purchase the labor of a construction worker, the implicit agreement is that the construction worker will give up the rights to the house, even if that isn't mentioned in the agreement itself.


No, not really. It's the moral consistency argument that obligates you in an ethical sense to respect rights. By claiming a right you must recognise it in other humans. Now if a lion were to claim a right it'd be under no such ethical obligation to recognise it in you.

Some rights theorists assert that a right must be claimed before one can evoke it. To me this makes some sense.All right, but wouldn't this be, at least, a separate axiom? I don't see any way for it to be proved. If it is an axiom, how might it be worded?

Ah. So then it's typically argued that when you purchase the labor of a construction worker, the implicit agreement is that the construction worker will give up the rights to the house, even if that isn't mentioned in the agreement itself.
I've already cleared this one up. Construction workers transform resources owned by others. They cannot homestead them, since homesteading refers to unowned resources. In this case it is their labour you're purchasing. The band members homestead resources they own to create their product.

All right, but wouldn't this be, at least, a separate axiom? I don't see any way for it to be proved. If it is an axiom, how might it be worded?
Vittos posted it in the thread on breeding homosexuality. It's a quote by Dr Hoppe. Ask him to repost it if you like. It explains the logic behind claiming rights as an act of will. It has nothing specifically to do with the right to self-ownership; it's a general statement as to how rights are asserted.

I've already cleared this one up. Construction workers transform resources owned by others. They cannot homestead them, since homesteading refers to unowned resources. In this case it is their labour you're purchasing. The band members homestead resources they own to create their product.Oh, I realize the difference now. I wasn't arguing that they were homesteading the resources, but...well, explaining my thought process doesn't matter.

Vittos posted it in the thread on breeding homosexuality. It's a quote by Dr Hoppe. Ask him to repost it if you like. It explains the logic behind claiming rights as an act of will. It has nothing specifically to do with the right to self-ownership; it's a general statement as to how rights are asserted.Oh, that. Well, I'll step back for a minute. You said "The self-ownership axiom treats natural resources as unowned objects." So it does speak to natural resources? It would seem to me that it would only refer to humans.

Oh, I realize the difference now. I wasn't arguing that they were homesteading the resources, but...well, explaining my thought process doesn't matter.
No problem. You helped me clarify some things in my head too that were a bit fuzzy earlier. :)

Oh, that. Well, I'll step back for a minute. You said "The self-ownership axiom treats natural resources as unowned objects." So it does speak to natural resources? It would seem to me that it would only refer to humans.
Only when it comes to appropriating them (to form the "product of one's labour"). Otherwise you're right. The axiom itself makes no mention of it, no.

No problem. You helped me clarify some things in my head too that were a bit fuzzy earlier. :)Good. It clarified a couple of things for me, too.

Only when it comes to appropriating them (to form the "product of one's labour"). Otherwise you're right. The axiom itself makes no mention of it, no.So is the only line that self-ownership means that you have the right to the product of your labor? Or does it say that you may mix your labor with unowned resources? I would think the latter would be an extension of the axiom, and not the axiom itself.

So is the only line that self-ownership means that you have the right to the product of your labor? Or does it say that you may mix your labor with unowned resources? I would think the latter would be an extension of the axiom, and not the axiom itself.
A right to yourself and by extension your labour, and by extension a right to anything unowned you mix your labour with (ergo the product of your labour). The axiom itself is simply the initial premise of self-ownership, the rest are its consequences.

I'm wondering what made center-right Chirac make this choice. Is it a vain attempt to stave off a change of leadership in the coming election with a move to the left?

I'm wondering what made center-right Chirac make this choice. Is it a vain attempt to stave off a change of leadership in the coming election with a move to the left?
Vote-mongering, of course. So I suppose so.

A right to yourself and by extension your labour, and by extension a right to anything unowned you mix your labour with (ergo the product of your labour). The axiom itself is simply the initial premise of self-ownership, the rest are its consequences.Ah, I see. So there isn't anything within the axiom itself that says you can touch something that's unowned, it's only assumed because of the "product of your labor".
So then I suppose I'll have to go back to your definition of where rights come from...

You said that rights come from the ability to claim them, as VtCS had said in the other thread. He said that what you needed to do was will "This is mine." I don't think he noticed, but I asked if it wouldn't be necessary for the person claiming the right to express that will? So would it? How would we know that they were claiming the right otherwise?

Vote-mongering, of course. So I suppose so.

Not vote-mongering. I'll be very surprised if he stands for re-election. More likely he's looking for a positive image in the history books.

Also, I think he's trying to remind people that he disagrees with the neoliberal line Sarkozy has adopted for their party. This way Chirac can portray himself as a defender of "le modèle social français" against the "Anglo-Saxon" model proned by Sarkozy.

Chirac has stated that one of his priorities for 2007 will be to introduce a law granting homeless people a legal right to housing. A first bill should be discussed in Parliament quite soon.

If they actually do this, it would be an excellent thing in my opinion. But I'll remain a little sceptical until I see how it actually goes, what possible clauses and restrictions there'll be, and so on.

More information here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6227237.stm) and here (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/news/france.html).

As long as they can actually do it, I see no problem.

Also, I think he's trying to remind people that he disagrees with the neoliberal line Sarkozy has adopted for their party. This way Chirac can portray himself as a defender of "le modèle social français" against the "Anglo-Saxon" model proned by Sarkozy.

If Sarko comes out against this and Ségo comes out for it (and I'm sure she will) that could hurt Sarko in the polls. Could that be part of Chirac's motivation?

If Sarko comes out against this and Ségo comes out for it (and I'm sure she will) that could hurt Sarko in the polls. Could that be part of Chirac's motivation?

It could be. Chirac dislikes Sarko on both a personal and a political level.

You said that rights come from the ability to claim them, as VtCS had said in the other thread.
I didn't quite say that. It does seem rational to me though. The more typical position is that you have the right merely by virtue of being human, sort of like what Jocabia has been arguing I believe.

He said that what you needed to do was will "This is mine." I don't think he noticed, but I asked if it wouldn't be necessary for the person claiming the right to express that will? So would it? How would we know that they were claiming the right otherwise?
It would be. Dr Hoppe offers an explanation of how it's done. I can't really say much more on it until I've read further into it though, so perhaps try TGing Vittos or asking him again in the thread?

I didn't quite say that. It does seem rational to me though. The more typical position is that you have the right merely by virtue of being human, sort of like what Jocabia has been arguing I believe.Well, which is it? :) Do humans have rights only when we claim them, or do we have them simply for being human?

It would be. Dr Hoppe offers an explanation of how it's done. I can't really say much more on it until I've read further into it though, so perhaps try TGing Vittos or asking him again in the thread?Ah, I thought so.

Well, which is it? :) Do humans have rights only when we claim them, or do we have them simply for being human?

everything that exists has a 'right' to exist. species has nothing to do with it.
this quibble seems to be over the defining of what a 'right' IS.

reality prevents neither the rise nor fall of anything
nor requires anything to exist or not exist

a moral implication doesn't require being claimed
but everything that exists does so anyway, by the 'act' of existing.

and no, there isn't a corrisponding 'right' to unexist anything, only a wrong.

what doesn't exist, is a moral right for governments to make people homeless by denying them what nature does not; the dust beneath their feet and materials from which shelter can be constructed; neither by making the land have to be all about little green pieces of paper, nor by destroying anything not built to some arbitrary, however well intended, standard.

=^^=
.../\...

Well, which is it? :) Do humans have rights only when we claim them, or do we have them simply for being human?
Haven't quite decided yet really. Not until I've given the argument my full consideration. As I said though, claiming a right (and thereby recognising it in other humans) does seem to have a certain logic to it.

everything that exists has a 'right' to exist. species has nothing to do with it.
this quibble seems to be over the defining of what a 'right' IS.

reality prevents neither the rise nor fall of anything
nor requires anything to exist or not exist

a moral implication doesn't require being claimed
but everything that exists does so anyway, by the 'act' of existing.

and no, there isn't a corrisponding 'right' to unexist anything, only a wrong.

what doesn't exist, is a moral right for governments to make people homeless by denying them what nature does not; the dust beneath their feet and materials from which shelter can be constructed; neither by making the land have to be all about little green pieces of paper, nor by destroying anything not built to some arbitrary, however well intended, standard.

=^^=
.../\...If everything has a right to exist, then don't the materials that you are modifying to create your shelter also have a right to exist?

Haven't quite decided yet really. Not until I've given the argument my full consideration. As I said though, claiming a right (and thereby recognising it in other humans) does seem to have a certain logic to it.Oh, sure. :)

Anyway, I will say that I believe that humans have rights by the virtue of being human.

babelfish?

French...

J’ai allé of lycée français pour 8 années. Je ne suis pas français mai je sais com ils son.

C'est plus que les autres... Vous avez le droit de parle de le gouvernement Francais, mais je crois que les autres ici n'avez pas ce droit-vous etes en d'accord avec moi?

C'est plus que les autres... Vous avez le droit de parle de le gouvernement Francais, mais je crois que les autres ici n'avez pas ce droit-vous etes en d'accord avec moi?
Mais pourquoi non? Ils parlent frequemment du gouvernement des Etats-Unis, et aussi des autres pays europeens. On n'a pas le droit? Quelle hypocrisie!