The government versus freedom problem

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Cyrus: How can you own something and not own the use of it? Think real estate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ownership = rights of posession, use, diposition and contract.

I don't get it.

[/ QUOTE ]

...Have you ever heard of the rule of 'adverse possesion' in regards to property rights?

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
You essentially argued that rights are derived from a social contract... that they are therefore NOT natural ("humans declared these rights"). I think that argument is going to run into some problems... traditionally these rights are merely asserted as natural and inalienable (something I have a problem with, but at least it's hard to argue against in the same way religious faith is hard to argue against).

[/ QUOTE ]
Humanity has legislated itself almost since the beginning ("-grunt- you no take this meat, we all split -grunt-") and it has done mostly by invoking various myths that the legislating was done by "others", i.e the gods. The legislators feared the intelligence of the others, or themselves they did not want to accept things as they were.

In some luminous instance in History, humans have recognized the transparent lie of it all and acknowledged that they and they alone are (and have always been) master of their social arrangements.

Even when humans proclaim axiomatically some "rights" to be "unalienable", they are saying the same thing again : "We proclaim those rights to unalienable!"

Which means (ye gads! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] ) that SheetWise is right.

[ QUOTE ]
"Humans declared these rights." What humans? Are they dead now? Why do I have to listen to them?

[/ QUOTE ]
Someone is legislating right now, as we speak. What are you doing about it, if you care so much? (If you don't, stop bothering us --and your congressman!)

Or, someone legislated a couple of days ago. Or, before he died, a couple of centuries ago. It makes no difference. As the people change, the society changes (and the society changes with every person born or dying). Different people can choose to legislate differently, to keep or discard previously legislated rules. ("Legislate" is code for all the arranging of the various aspects of the social order.)

This, of course, applies to a democracy, western, Greco-Roman style. In such a regime, the citizens freely determine their society's rules. It's a regime that tends towards autonomy. And it's a totally opposite concept to the Judaeo-Christian model, which stands for heteronomy and human obedience to "eternal", godly dictats.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
So there is simply no one in the whole of the US who can't afford to pay for garbage collections?

[/ QUOTE ]
There are some people who can't afford to pay the fines for not having garbage collected.

In Portland, the collectors were required to take properly sorted recycle containers for free. The balance was paid for by the size of the container you requested. The State ran the landfill and didn't charge the collectors for depositing sorted recycled.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
You've done that... you essentially argued that rights are derived from a social contract... that they are therefore NOT natural ("humans declared these rights"). I think that argument is going to run into some problems...

[/ QUOTE ]
If a declaration is a contract, who's the other party? Can't a person, or group of people, simply declare their intentions and the beliefs they intend to proceed by without creating a contract?

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So there is simply no one in the whole of the US who can't afford to pay for garbage collections?

[/ QUOTE ]
There are some people who can't afford to pay the fines for not having garbage collected.

In Portland, the collectors were required to take properly sorted recycle containers for free. The balance was paid for by the size of the container you requested. The State ran the landfill and didn't charge the collectors for depositing sorted recycled.

[/ QUOTE ]

If they don't pay non collection fines, then what happens?

Here they just take it all, very little is ever sorted, and people who can, pay for those who can't.

Mack

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
If they don't pay non collection fines, then what happens?

[/ QUOTE ]
Ignoring civil fines will eventually end up in warrants, and eventually you will end up in jail. Easier to just pay the trash collector. The state has socialized the collection somewhat -- almost all trash can be sorted for recycle, and there are other easy ways to dispose of garbage. Because the collectors have to pick up recycle for free, they obviously have to recover those costs from their paying clients. The program did a lot to improve recycling -- it was over half of the pickup. Both the containers provided and the trucks used were designed so that the materials stayed sorted, and were dumped sorted.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
...Have you ever heard of the rule of 'adverse possesion' in regards to property rights?

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you saying that a statute of limitations negates my ownership? I may see it as a part of my right to contract.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Fundamentally, my problem with the libertarian argument is twofold. Asserting ABSOLUTE property rights tends to blow up in edge cases. You spoke of property rights "diluting" (I think that's the word you used) over time as the memories of past unpunished crimes fade away. I think that's a very reasonable way to view what happens. It seems quite wrong to punish someone for the crimes of his great-grandfather. Unfortunately, this dilution seems to me to be irreconcilably at odds with the notion of absolute property rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it is. I have to think about this some more.

Perhaps there is an "uncertainty principle" at work. The right itself is absolute, so it cannot be diluted, but the probability that you have a property right in these cases becomes diluted over time. The rate of the dilution would depend on the specifics of the case, which would have to be observed or investigated. Obviously, someone that has pursued no action over a long period of time would have a lower probability of retaining his property rights than someone that had been vigorously engaged.

SIDE NOTE: "uncertainty principle" is not a perect metaphor here since observation and investigation of the facts of the particular case should not affect the findings (other than to refine the accuracy of the findings - they wouldn't have an effect on the actual rightful owner), but you get the idea.

Likewise, it may be that the victim of a property rights violation has his damages diluted over time.

This dilution could also apply to cases of adverse possession. Since property must be maintained and defended for the owner to retain a right in it, the probability that a squatter has obtained a property right in land increases over time. If the owner discovers and takes action against the squatter after he's been there for a week, his probability of retaining his property right is extremely high. If the squatter is in place for thirty years before the "owner" takes action, the probability is significantly lower. At some point the right moves from one to the other. It may be difficult (or impossible) to precisely determine when that moment is, but through investigation of the circumstances one should be able to refine the probabilty quite a bit.

This same idea could be applied to the situation where property is inherited. As I previously mentioned, an heir might not have a property right in his inheritance instantaneously (though he would have control of that property), it may develop over time as it becomes clear that the property is not in dispute and as the heir maintains and defends that property. The probability of the heir having a property right would "concentrate" over time. In some cases, it could go to (actually, it's more proper to say it approaches) 100% instantaneously (e.g. a man inherits his ancestral home which he has already been inhabiting).

[ QUOTE ]
Lest you characterize this as another edge case, the commoditization of unskilled labor characteristic of a laisse-faire economy has a very similar (if less graphic) effect. As supply of labor rises and wages drop, the distinction between working for cash and working for nothing blurs. Am I that different from a slave if my labor is essentially worthless? Even if the free market will eventually right itself, and my labor will eventually have value, is it just for a society to "enslave" some of its members thusly even for a short-term period?

[/ QUOTE ]

If your labor is worthless, why would you labor? If the wage you can command is below your "worthless threshold" then you would not be working for that wage. You're not a slave because you can't be forced to labor. You can set your threshold wherever you want.

You're not entitled to a paycheck, or an arbitrary wage rate. Forcing someone else to pay a "fair" rate is just as aggressively enslaving as forcing someone to work for below their own valuation of their labor.

[ QUOTE ]
Finally, I wanted to ask you about children. Say I'm driving with my 4-year-old son. He takes off his seatbelt. Do I have an obligation to put it back on? Do I have an obligation to provide food for him? If so, why?

[/ QUOTE ]

I want to be very careful with this one as it will easily slide into an abortion debate, which I will not participate in. I assume (or hope) this is why you chose to explicitly state a four-year-old in your example.

By becoming a parent, you put the offspring in a helpless position. From there, you have an obligation to care for the offspring until it can be self-sufficient. I won't get into the debate of *when* you "become a parent" though. Not now, at least.

[ QUOTE ]
My parents (the only family I have in NO) will be ok. They both lost their houses, but they have already started their lives again in other cities. Neither of them is under the illusion that it will be "business as usual" in NO any time soon.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good for them, I wish them well. My in-laws are the hardcore, entrenched New Orleans types; I'm sure you know what I'm talking about. Luckily, my father-in-law is no dummy; he bought a townhouse in Baton Rouge the day after the storm, and leased office space the next day to get his law practice back up and running as soon as possible. My mother-in-law and sister-in-law seem to be in denial, though, and they think they'll just spray a little X-14 here and there to kill the mold and everything will be back to normal.

[Bjorn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Finally, I wanted to ask you about children. Say I'm driving with my 4-year-old son. He takes off his seatbelt. Do I have an obligation to put it back on? Do I have an obligation to provide food for him? If so, why?

[/ QUOTE ]

I want to be very careful with this one as it will easily slide into an abortion debate, which I will not participate in. I assume (or hope) this is why you chose to explicitly state a four-year-old in your example.

By becoming a parent, you put the offspring in a helpless position. From there, you have an obligation to care for the offspring until it can be self-sufficient. I won't get into the debate of *when* you "become a parent" though. Not now, at least.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't this imply that children (to what exact age is open for debate) does in fact NOT own their own body (or being which i think is a better term).

And that would by extenstion mean that as each person gets to the level of adulthood required to be self suficient he/she would always be heavily indebtet to his/her parents and/or all the other people that have suplied you with food, clothing, protection, shelter and all the other things needed to survive up til that point?

Hence beeing abslutly free will be an illusion. (And to most people not very desirable.)

/Bjorn

[Bjorn]

[ QUOTE ]
The founders were quick to notice though -- that if I don't want to give up my rights, that third party will have to take it up with my Creator. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

The arrangement had nothing to do with a Creator -- it had everything to do with ensuring that no man or govenment was the source of rights. You don't have the power to not give what you don't have the power to give.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I think you have it backwards. If someone TAKES away a right given to you by a third party (such as your creator) and assuming you yourself are unwilling or incabable to stop me yourself it is then up to that third party to stop me. (Or perhaps retake those rights.)

Put in another way, while you might not have the power to not give what you don't have the power to give, you might very well have the power to take it.

/Bjorn