Immigrants make you richer.

[cronus]

It is. You claim that there is some fundamental natural right to property, yet all it really comes down to is who has the bigger guns. It's the same as always, Seth. You profess principles but it always comes down to those with the most guns wins.

I've got no issue with Seth on that point personally....

[pErvinalia]

Either do I, given it's the truth. The problem is he professes some higher principles and pretends that it isn't the case.

[Seth]

It is. You claim that there is some fundamental natural right to property, yet all it really comes down to is who has the bigger guns. It's the same as always, Seth. You profess principles but it always comes down to those with the most guns wins.

Well, it depends on which discussion we're having. Right now you're conflating two different debates.

And no, it doesn't come down to guns, it comes down to personal responsibility and accountability. I keep saying it and you keep ignoring it: you cannot visit the sins of the father on the sons and grandsons. Reason tells us that there has to be an end to this sort of ancestral guilt-tripping you're espousing, otherwise the world will be forever in intractable conflict over the ownership of property because someone, somewhere can always make some sort of thin-reed assertion that one person's ancestors stole something from someone else's ancestors.

The results of that are easily seen in places like the Balkans, where generational claims to territory have lead to bloodshed and war for nearly a thousand years.

Persons of intelligence who have the capacity to reason reject this kind of ignorant argument and deal with today, leaving yesterday's yesterday to history.

The logical end to one's claim on property is one's death. That's been recognized by every civilized society for rather a long time. I didn't make up the statement "Land is for the living," it's a basic principle of the laws of real property.

[rainbow]

The logical end to one's claim on property is one's death. That's been recognized by every civilized society for rather a long time. I didn't make up the statement "Land is for the living," it's a basic principle of the laws of real property.

...so on one's death the property revert to who exactly?
Perhaps the person with the greatest firepower?

I don't think you've thought this through.

[laklak]

It is. You claim that there is some fundamental natural right to property, yet all it really comes down to is who has the bigger guns. It's the same as always, Seth. You profess principles but it always comes down to those with the most guns wins.

What's the difference in that and exactly how it operates in every society today? If someone breaks into your home to steal your property you call the coppers, who show up with guns. If you don't pay your taxes, which your government has decided is now their property, they'll show up with warrants and revenue agents and guns. In Soviet Russia, all infrastructure belonged to the state, who protected it with....guns. The only difference is Seth (and I) believe we have a right to defend our own property, with guns, rather than waiting for a societal agent to do so on our behalf.

ALL property "rights" are based, in the final analysis, on force.

[Blind groper]

Laklak

With you and Seth, it all boils down in the end to your "rights". You might as well say that you carry guns and use them because God says you can. While human rights are very important, they are also arbitrary and changeable. No other country in the whole world is stupid enough to suggest that carrying a gun is a human right. The United Nations Charter of Human Rights clearly does not. That 'right' to carry guns is uniquely a piece of American idiocy.

I am all for sensible human rights, and the best guide is that put together by the United Nations. But above all else, I am a pragmatist. The use of guns by citizenry carries consequences.

One consequence is murder. Among the 24 richest nations, there is a clear cut correlation between number of guns carried by citizens and murder rate. The USA has the highest gun ownership, and the highest murder rate, by far. Finland is next, by both measures. And as gun ownership drops, so does murder rate. Till we get to Japan that has the lowest gun ownership and the lowest murder rate.

The only major exception to this rule is Switzerland, which has high gun ownership and low murder rate. But the Swiss pay in another way. They have the highest suicide rate in Western Europe. And those suicides are mostly by bullet.

So, if you forget the "right" to carry guns, which is believed only in 1 out of 195 nations, and get real, meaning practical, then the stupidity becomes very, very clear. Dropping that idiotic "right" would save lives by the thousands.

Bear in mind that the USA has 100,000 people wounded by bullet each year, and 12,000 murdered by bullet each year. 1 in 50 Americans receive a bullet some time in their lifetimes. And all for an unbelievably stupid and totally arbitrary "right" to have guns. Duh!!

[laklak]

Yes, but we've decided that toll is worth it. Whether others believe that is immaterial.

It doesn't change the fact that property rights, however defined, are based on the threat of violence.

[Blind groper]

To Seth

On voluntary taxation.
I appreciate what you are saying, and in an ideal world it would be fine. But this is not an ideal world, and there is absolutely no way people will pay voluntarily what is required. Just take a look at the enormous lengths various people and organisations go to, to avoid paying taxes.

I am a blood donor, and giving blood is the equivalent of a voluntary tax. It actually helps the donor health wise, since blood donors have been found to suffer less from heart disease, even taking socio-economic factors into account. You can call this a reward for giving blood. Despite all that, the hospitals never can get enough blood. Voluntary donations are never enough. Taxes would be exactly the same.

Nor is the idea of withholding taxes to control government policy in any way practical. The problem is that regardless of what government decides, there will always be those who disagree. Not only that, but government runs many policies at once, and every person will disagree with some of them. If they could withhold tax in protest, then everyone would be withholding tax and governments would have no funds at all. That is not a terribly practical approach.

On historic land claims.

There must be a line drawn. When persons, governments, or other organisations steal land off people or tribes, that is an evil act. Restoring land to the original owners must be seen as a good deed, to redress an old injustice.

But practically speaking, an arbitrary decision must be made as to what restoration is right and proper, and what will simply be disruptive. In my country, the government, in its wisdom, set the date 1840 as the line in the sand.

Any land stolen off the Maori people after 1840 must be compensated. The NZ government has been doing this now for some decades, working through the legal intricacies and trying to discover the truth of land seizures, and avoid false claims. It takes time, and costs money, but slowly we are compensating the tribes that were the original victims.

Now, where you draw the line will vary from place to place. But a line must be drawn.

[Hermit]

Now, where you draw the line will vary from place to place. But a line must be drawn.

Yes, and this is Seth's line: Property stolen through violence of your ancestors becomes yours when the particular people it has been stolen from have died. In fact, property can be stolen without the involvement of violence, then become validly yours if the individual you stole it from does nothing about having his property invaded and alienated. Lolbertardianism is all red in tooth and claw. Seth disguises that fact by calling robbery - whether it involves violence or not - "adverse possession". By adopting that line he has already rejected your argument before you even articulated it.

[pErvinalia]

It is. You claim that there is some fundamental natural right to property, yet all it really comes down to is who has the bigger guns. It's the same as always, Seth. You profess principles but it always comes down to those with the most guns wins.

What's the difference in that and exactly how it operates in every society today? If someone breaks into your home to steal your property you call the coppers, who show up with guns. If you don't pay your taxes, which your government has decided is now their property, they'll show up with warrants and revenue agents and guns. In Soviet Russia, all infrastructure belonged to the state, who protected it with....guns. The only difference is Seth (and I) believe we have a right to defend our own property, with guns, rather than waiting for a societal agent to do so on our behalf.

ALL property "rights" are based, in the final analysis, on force.

Yeah, I've already addressed this. I agree. The problem is that Seth pretends there's some higher natural right that should be sacrosanct. But when one pushes him to the logical limits of his "philosophy" it always comes back to what suits him best - i.e. he's the\ privileged one now with the guns, so that's what it falls back to.

[Seth]

The logical end to one's claim on property is one's death. That's been recognized by every civilized society for rather a long time. I didn't make up the statement "Land is for the living," it's a basic principle of the laws of real property.

...so on one's death the property revert to who exactly?
Perhaps the person with the greatest firepower?

I don't think you've thought this through.

Fundamentally to the person who can take and hold possession without initiating force or fraud.

[Seth]

Laklak

With you and Seth, it all boils down in the end to your "rights".

Yes, it does.

You might as well say that you carry guns and use them because God says you can.

Okay. God says I can.

While human rights are very important, they are also arbitrary and changeable.

Maybe your rights are arbitrary and changeable, but mine are inherent, natural and unalienable.

No other country in the whole world is stupid enough to suggest that carrying a gun is a human right.

No, no other country is smart enough or ethical enough to do so because every other country realizes that an armed citizenry is a serious impediment to governmental tyranny.

The United Nations Charter of Human Rights clearly does not.

Who gives a flying fuck what the UN thinks? Not me.

That 'right' to carry guns is uniquely a piece of American idiocy.

Actually, it's a universal human right that is disparaged and denied by most governments, which makes them despotic tyrannies by definition.

I am all for sensible human rights, and the best guide is that put together by the United Nations. But above all else, I am a pragmatist. The use of guns by citizenry carries consequences.

Indeed. And the forbidding of the possession of guns by the citizenry carries consequences too, consequences which historically are orders of magnitude more harmful and horrific than anything produced by an armed citizenry.

One consequence is murder. Among the 24 richest nations, there is a clear cut correlation between number of guns carried by citizens and murder rate. The USA has the highest gun ownership, and the highest murder rate, by far. Finland is next, by both measures. And as gun ownership drops, so does murder rate. Till we get to Japan that has the lowest gun ownership and the lowest murder rate.

And as the gun ownership drops, the ease and simplicity of tyrannical despotism and genocide soars.

The only major exception to this rule is Switzerland, which has high gun ownership and low murder rate. But the Swiss pay in another way. They have the highest suicide rate in Western Europe. And those suicides are mostly by bullet.

So what? Suicide is an inherent, natural and civil right. Interfering with suicide is immoral and unethical and constitutes torture and slavery.

So, if you forget the "right" to carry guns, which is believed only in 1 out of 195 nations, and get real, meaning practical, then the stupidity becomes very, very clear. Dropping that idiotic "right" would save lives by the thousands.

No, it would, according to the historical record, cause the loss of countless millions of lives, as has already been the case in disarmed nations like the USSR, China and Cambodia...to the tune of 100 million lives lost to despotism that could not be resisted because the populace had been disarmed.

Bear in mind that the USA has 100,000 people wounded by bullet each year, and 12,000 murdered by bullet each year. 1 in 50 Americans receive a bullet some time in their lifetimes. And all for an unbelievably stupid and totally arbitrary "right" to have guns. Duh!!

A small price to pay for liberty and the ability to put down tyrants and criminals.

[Seth]

To Seth

On voluntary taxation.
I appreciate what you are saying, and in an ideal world it would be fine. But this is not an ideal world, and there is absolutely no way people will pay voluntarily what is required. Just take a look at the enormous lengths various people and organisations go to, to avoid paying taxes.

If they don't want to pay for a program, then why should the program exist? Does the citizenry exist to serve the desires of the legislature or does the legislature exist to serve the desires of the citizenry?

I am a blood donor, and giving blood is the equivalent of a voluntary tax. It actually helps the donor health wise, since blood donors have been found to suffer less from heart disease, even taking socio-economic factors into account. You can call this a reward for giving blood. Despite all that, the hospitals never can get enough blood. Voluntary donations are never enough. Taxes would be exactly the same.

You're a blood donor because your natural instincts for charity, altruism and rational self-interest persuade you to donate blood on the principle that it's good for society to have a supply of blood which YOU may someday have to take advantage of. The government doesn't force you to sit there and have a pint taken once a month because IT thinks it's a good thing to have a blood supply, it leaves it up to the citizenry to act rationally. Taxes should be the same.

Nor is the idea of withholding taxes to control government policy in any way practical. The problem is that regardless of what government decides, there will always be those who disagree. Not only that, but government runs many policies at once, and every person will disagree with some of them. If they could withhold tax in protest, then everyone would be withholding tax and governments would have no funds at all. That is not a terribly practical approach.

It's a great approach and constitutes the most essential form of democratic decision making by the body politic there is. A free market solution to government funding automatically allocates money to those things the populace, as a group, want funded. And if they don't want it funded, why should it be funded?

On historic land claims.

There must be a line drawn.

Indeed.

When persons, governments, or other organisations steal land off people or tribes, that is an evil act. Restoring land to the original owners must be seen as a good deed, to redress an old injustice.

Why? Nobody alive today is the victim of that evil deed, so why do they deserve to be compensated for something they did not suffer by people who have done no wrong?

But practically speaking, an arbitrary decision must be made as to what restoration is right and proper, and what will simply be disruptive. In my country, the government, in its wisdom, set the date 1840 as the line in the sand.

And I set the death of the involved parties as the line in the sand. Your date is just as arbitrary as any other date, like 1456 BCE.

Any land stolen off the Maori people after 1840 must be compensated. The NZ government has been doing this now for some decades, working through the legal intricacies and trying to discover the truth of land seizures, and avoid false claims. It takes time, and costs money, but slowly we are compensating the tribes that were the original victims.

"Tribes" cannot be victims. Only individuals can be victims and only individuals who are victims have any claim for compensation for being victimized.

If "tribes" are victims, then I claim compensation because I am a member of the "tribe" homo sapien sapien.

Now, where you draw the line will vary from place to place. But a line must be drawn.

That's what I've been saying. The only difference is that you want to pick some arbitrary point in time that applies to everyone, whereas I pick the obvious and rational demarcation point of the death of the involved parties.

[Seth]

Now, where you draw the line will vary from place to place. But a line must be drawn.

Yes, and this is Seth's line: Property stolen through violence of your ancestors becomes yours when the particular people it has been stolen from have died. In fact, property can be stolen without the involvement of violence, then become validly yours if the individual you stole it from does nothing about having his property invaded and alienated.

The metric is force OR fraud, and yes, you snooze, you lose. Why should it be otherwise? Were it as you suggest, you yourself would own nothing because somebody, somewhere in time, other than you, owned everything you have by virtue of owning the land and the resources from which everything you have is created.

This is of course nonsensical, and as BG puts it, a line must be drawn somewhere. I suggest a perfectly logical, rational and natural, and easily identifiable point in time when one's ownership of property ceases to exist, and that is at the moment of one's death, when one is neither capable of defending that claim or enjoying it. Please explain the rational basis behind your notions of property ownership.

Lolbertardianism is all red in tooth and claw. Seth disguises that fact by calling robbery - whether it involves violence or not - "adverse possession". By adopting that line he has already rejected your argument before you even articulated it.

It's not robbery unless the "victim" says it's robbery. The logical conclusion is that if the "victim" doesn't make the claim of being robbed, he was not robbed, but rather he voluntarily forfeited title to the property through disinterest or inaction.

[Blind groper]

I am not sure how much I want to carry on this argument. When I was in it before, I found myself in a head butting exercise, where the idea that having guns was good was accepted by a kind of blind faith, and any contrary argument was rejected before it was even read.

But the idea that not having guns leads to tyranny is clearly bullshit. Numerous nations today are free (except for the 'freedom to bear arms') without guns.

Nor did tyranny arrive in China, the USSR, and other places due to a lack of guns. Generally the populace either welcomed in the new tyrants with open arms, or were complacent about it. After all, a peasant in Russia was hardly worse off under the commissars than he was under the Czar. Deepest poverty both ways.

In China, the communist take over was done with the massive support of the peasants, who were the majority of the nation. It certainly did not happen because the peasants lacked guns.

On setting a 'line in the sand'.

Her ein NZ, the date 1840 was set because that was when a treaty was signed between the British crown and the Maori tribes. Any land taken after that date was in contravention of the treaty.

Seth,
We regard many organisations as 'bodies' in their own right. The word 'corporation' means just that. A tribe can also be regarded as a body. If a tribe has land stolen off it, the death of individual members does not alter the fact that the tribe still exists.

Where we set the 'line in the sand' should not be fixed, but established according to the merits of the case.