Originally posted by SleepyguyI'm never much interested in an ad hominem argument; if the facts presented in the paper are true (which seems beyond much doubt) what group hosted the paper is pretty irrelevant. What "theories" presented in the paper do you find questionable?
Were you under the impression that Locke was "historically" right?
I thought it generally understood Locke's Treatise on Civil Government was more of an exercise in reason than an accurate portrayal of man's early history. I never thought of Locke's "State of Nature" as being "historical", but more a handy device allowing him to discuss and lay a found ...[text shortened]... ady to chuck property rights based on the theories represented in the linked paper?
Originally posted by spruce112358That is a silly and grotesque simplification.
But most have had the right to a particular piece of land for their personal use.
Once you have a farm and a hovel to store extra food in -- you have the beginning of human territoriality. You also sow the seeds of specialization, which leads to increased technology, which leads -- ultimately -- to Forums on chess websites.
The hunter-gatherer thi ...[text shortened]... we are beyond thoughts of our bellies is due to private ownership of land and territoriality.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI'm sympathetic to the sentiment in the last paragraph -- it sounds great. How can anyone be against land reform?
Collective ownership of productive agricultural land by hunter-gatherers assumes a certain maximum population density in which there is little need for competition i.e. the natural state. Civilized humanity supports a much higher population but requires some model of land ownership I think. The land you need to earn your living cannot be taken from ...[text shortened]... he economic machine and occasionally makes it stop working entirely until it's cleaned out.
But you have to avoid unintended consequences. The first is that you have made it impossible for anyone to sell their land. Who would buy it, since if they already have some and they got more, there is a risk that it would be taken away if they don't use it adequately themselves in the nebulous view of some collective?
This means that each person gets bound permanently to his little patch of land. He can't sell -- so he can't move. So we go back to serfdom. Whups! I know that's not what you are advocating -- but you see how tricky it is to meddle in economics?
Embrace the Force, ATYLuke. Let The Free Market Force Flow Through You...
Originally posted by spruce112358Yes, I can see now. Taxing absentee land ownership will lead directly to serfdom. 🙄
I'm sympathetic to the sentiment in the last paragraph -- it sounds great. How can anyone be against land reform?
But you have to avoid unintended consequences. The first is that you have made it impossible for anyone to sell their land. Who would buy it, since if they already have some and they got more, there is a risk that it would be taken away i ...[text shortened]... in economics?
Embrace the Force, ATYLuke. Let The Free Market Force Flow Through You...
Originally posted by SleepyguyLockean property rights are dependent on unlimited access to unworked, unowned resources for everybody. When that assumption is not true (e.g. land), "property rights" become warped and twisted into something completely different.
Were you under the impression that Locke was "historically" right?
I thought it generally understood Locke's Treatise on Civil Government was more of an exercise in reason than an accurate portrayal of man's early history. I never thought of Locke's "State of Nature" as being "historical", but more a handy device allowing him to discuss and lay a found ...[text shortened]... ady to chuck property rights based on the theories represented in the linked paper?
Originally posted by AThousandYoungGathering is gathering from the wild, not harvesting crops. Competition came from pastoralists and farmers -- eg. the various San peoples came under pressure from Khoi-Khoi pastoralists (cattlemen) who in turn were pressurised by Xhosa farmers. The San roamed freely but it's not true to say they owned the land in any meaningful sense. They did revere the land that nourished them but the idea of alienating portions of it for profit was not in their way of thinking.
Yes. They sow, move on, come back and reap via gathering.
Once upon a time they didn't have to compete with civilized man. They could do that.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI agree we need tax reform -- but not by raising more taxes. Just repeal the mortgage interest deduction and the depreciation of rental properties.
Yes, I can see now. Taxing absentee land ownership will lead directly to serfdom. 🙄
The problem is not that taxes are too low -- it is that the tax code as currently written provides a lot of distorted incentives that prevent the free market system from working as it should. The price of that inefficiency must be paid -- and it comes back to you in 30 year mortgages because house prices are inflated by landlords who buy homes as a tax write-off. The government has made real-estate part of wealth-generating strategy when, given upkeep and property taxes, homes should be a cost, not an asset.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageCompetition came from pastoralists and farmers -- eg. the various San peoples came under pressure from Khoi-Khoi pastoralists (cattlemen) who in turn were pressurised by Xhosa farmers.
Gathering is gathering from the wild, not harvesting crops. Competition came from pastoralists and farmers -- eg. the various San peoples came under pressure from Khoi-Khoi pastoralists (cattlemen) who in turn were pressurised by Xhosa farmers. The San roamed freely but it's not true to say they owned the land in any meaningful sense. They did revere ...[text shortened]... hed them but the idea of alienating portions of it for profit was not in their way of thinking.
How did the San respond to this pressure?
Originally posted by spruce112358I'll let you lawyer accountant munchkins deal with the specifics...
I agree we need tax reform -- but not by raising more taxes. Just repeal the mortgage interest deduction and the depreciation of rental properties.
The problem is not that taxes are too low -- it is that the tax code as currently written provides a lot of distorted incentives that prevent the free market system from working as it should. The price of ...[text shortened]... generating strategy when, given upkeep and property taxes, homes should be a cost, not an asset.
Originally posted by no1marauderhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinelese_people
Does evidence that individual ownership of land didn't exist in our natural state i.e hunter gatherer bands severely damage to Locke's claim that we have a natural right to appropriate it (subject to the Lockean proviso of course)? Consider:
A natural right must be something that all humans want
or need as part of being human and som ...[text shortened]... roperty collectively.218
http://www.usbig.net/papers/206-Widerquist-Stone%20Age--Oct-09.pdf
The Sentinelese (also Sentineli, Senteneli, Sentenelese, North Sentinel Islanders) are one of the Andamanese indigenous peoples of the Andaman Islands, located in the Bay of Bengal. They inhabit North Sentinel Island which lies westward off the southern tip of the Great Andaman archipelago. They are noted for vigorously resisting attempts at contact by outsiders. The Sentinelese maintain an essentially hunter-gatherer society, obtaining their subsistence through hunting, fishing, and collecting wild plants; there is no evidence of either agricultural practices or use of fire technology.
as long as we're emulating the aborigines ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinelese_people
On March 29, 1970, a research party of Indian anthropologists, which included T.N. Pandit,[6] found themselves cornered on the reef flats between North Sentinel and Constance Island. An eyewitness recorded the following from his vantage point on a boat lying off the beach:
Quite a few discarded their weapons and gestured to us to throw the fish. The women came out of the shade to watch our antics...A few men came and picked up the fish. They appeared to be gratified, but there did not seem to be much softening to their hostile attitude...They all began shouting some incomprehensible words. We shouted back and gestured to indicate that we wanted to be friends. The tension did not ease. At this moment, a strange thing happened — a woman paired off with a warrior and sat on the sand in a passionate embrace. This act was being repeated by other women, each claiming a warrior for herself, a sort of community mating, as it were. Thus did the militant group diminish. This continued for quite some time and when the tempo of this frenzied dance of desire abated, the couples retired into the shade of the jungle. However, some warriors were still on guard. We got close to the shore and threw some more fish which were immediately retrieved by a few youngsters. It was well past noon and we headed back to the ship...[7]