The train of "logic" they use to support it is so convoluted that its baffling they can post it without rolling their own eyes.

For the second time since I started posting here, I'm agreeing with Copernicus.

Lets not make it a trend, eh?

I was the one who brought up this issue, I didn't really define my postion on it (because I don't have it defined clearly at all to myself) but I would not go so far to say that a house would be considered abandonded if not lived in.

I think my example of the 9K acres, 8k of which are never used, and some dude is out walking around in the 'wilderness' (some of which happens to be this 8k of land) and doesn't see anyone around and sets up a camp. 6 months go by and he hasn't seen a sole. He builds a little log cabin. He's fishing and hunting for food. 5 years go by.... he's still there and no one has come by to question his legitimacy of being there. 10 years go by.....


The way I put it was that I think it would be (highly) unreasonable for the 'landowner' to roll up on him one day and demand that he vacate at gunpoint.

I do not have a postion on what would be correct in this case. Also, I am not an ACist based on 'natural rights'. I can most clearly identify myself as a Rule Utilitarian (I actually came across another moral label about 6 months ago that seemed to fit me better, but when I searced for it again I could not find it). So, although I identify myself as an ACist, I do not do so out of a belief of natural rights.

And I haven't seen anyone in this thread take any kind of firm stance against the person who has some paper title to the land. I just see some people asserting there is 0% grey area and a few others questioning weather or not this is (or should be) so. And 'natural rights exist because they exist and I say so' is not a convincing argument to me. Neither is 'property rights are a natural extention of natural rights' as the natural rights exist because they exist does not convince me.

LOL is that supposed to be significant in a thread that's a clarian call to anti-statists such as ACers to rant against the oppression of the state? I was pointing out that anti-statists conviently forget laws related to civil matters and that remedies to grievences via the civil process. Again you can basically file a complaint against anyone/any entity you want to in the USA.

I'm over 40 and have never filed a civil suit in my life. (I have had plenty of 'disputes' though).

How many civil suits have you filed?

I have also never had one filed against me, you?

I've never been arrested, one non sequiter deserves another.

Well, neither would I. Again, I admitted that my example is not a very good one, since no circumstances were given--I think there could be some such cases, but not all.

In general, I would tend to agree.

Again, I think these cases would be highly dedpendent on specific circumstances; I don't think there is any airtight rule that can help us out.

I certainly disagree with you here, but I don't think it's all that relevant to this topic (natural rights people and rule utilitarians both believe in more or less the same set of property rights, they just have different moral foundations for them, no?)

Well, I for one think there's a lot of grey area. It's just hard to take a firm stance on anything since the cases are so situational--but I would pretty much agree with your example, and I definitely disagree with those claiming that there are no cases of abandonment.

I can't speak for others, but I definitely have arguments for natural rights. But this certainly isn't the thread for them (such a cpomplex issue really deserves its own thread), and I don't think any of this is relevant to abandonment.

If you are talking about unimproved land, this doesn't seem to even meet the Lockean requirements for property in the first place. Doesn't it need to have some human-added value? I don't see how anyone can claim they have a natural property right to unimproved land.

(Note that I don't believe in the Lockean definition of property, or any sort of of natural property right, but this is how I've heard ACists justify property.)

which is, of course, ridiculous. IF there are ANY "natural rights", property most certainly isnt one of them.

Just to clarify the standard libertarian position: there is only ONE "natural right", and it is the right of self-ownership. Any subsequent rights that may nor may not exist (the big one being the right to property) must be derivable in some way from the right of self-ownership.
So if the right to property isn't ultimately derivable from the right of self-ownership, then it isn't a right, period (and if the right to own property can't be derived, I don't know what other subset of "rights" could even be considered).

We get it; you have no respect for other people or their property and would rape and pillage except for the Almighty State keeping you in line and you project this view of yourself onto everyone else.

Can "force and / or fraud" benefit a positive cause?

Sure. I can rob an old lady and donate the money I steal to Easter Seals or March of Dimes.

I'll do you one better. I could kill you and give your organs to orphans.

Or I could use force to prevent you from polluting the arctic ocean. Oh wait, not silly enough.

Under a system of private ownership, polluting the Arctic Ocean would constitute aggression, and the use of (some amount of) force is a justifiable response. As opposed to the Tragedy of the Commons/moral hazard problem we have now.

Tragedy of the commons is a catchphrase. Many of the most pristine areas in our country are public land. And many of the most polluted and vile are private land. And vice versa. Throwing around catch phrases accomplishes nothing.

And regardless, your point is moot. I'd still consider using force if someone was polluting the arctic but owned it privately. Just because someone "owns" a portion of the planet doesn't give them a pass (from me) to destroy it for future generations.

Ours were plenty silly. The person asking the question was setting a tarp, pvn and I decided to spring it for him. Yes there are plenty of things that you could do that are initiating force that might have "positive" outcomes or that you could do with positive intentions. Like forcing me not to pollute or carving up your corpse. By "silly" did you mean "self-serving?"

I haven't been following the thread very closely recently - do you mean a system of private ownership, whereby there is no government? Or just that someone owns....the Arctic Ocean, privately?

Come on now, you are chastising about using catch phrases (which, btw, tragedy of the commons is not) but you are going to use lame anecdotes?
We know you'd consider it. We would rather you justify it. I would kill 100 people to save my daughter or blah blah blah some other kind of emotional, visceral reaction, but I dont know that I can justify it.

Either - doesn't matter.

In other words, you claim some oblique form of ownership over whatever you want. That's not pathological at all.

Also, there is huge incentive for private owners to destroy their own capital resources imo

If I'm understanding correctly, I'm partial to Bill's thinking here.

If some guy...buys the arctic ocean (wtf, why is this the example, this is insane...) than it is his, and he can do what he wants with it, as long as it isn't effecting others. Just like I should be able to do what I want with my property if it isn't effecting others.

I'm still waiting for the guy who supports throwing me in jail for giving you a haircut even though I'm unlicensed.


Or the guy who says I should go to jail for paying you an hourly rate you agreed to with me.


Or the guy who says he wants to throw me in jail for using a painkiller without a presciption. Or maybe for selling you a painkiller you need even though I'm not a doctor.

Or the guy who says he wants to throw me in jail for homeschooling my kids and circumventing the teacher's union.

Where are those guys?

natedogg