Talking Politics

[Giardiasis]

Hang on a minute, the homesteading principle conviently left out that people already owned the land? The homesteading principle applies to unclaimed land. So how can it conviently leave out people that don’t exist?

Assuming you’re correct that Locke was only familiar with agriculture, so what? That doesn’t invalidate the homesteading principle.

 

[tigersnake]

Hang on a minute, the homesteading principle conviently left out that people already owned the land? The homesteading principle applies to unclaimed land. So how can it conviently leave out people that don’t exist?

Assuming you’re correct that Locke was only familiar with agriculture, so what? That doesn’t invalidate the homesteading principle.

exhibit a. American First Nations? Australian Aborigines? But yes you are correct, according to Locke they didn't exist, which was the point I was trying to make. And Locke was only familiar with European modes of agriculture, which was also a point I was making. So yes, correct again.

Let me guess, that wasn't real agriculture or land ownership so it doesn't count?

 

[Giardiasis]

exhibit a. American First Nations? Australian Aborigines? But yes you are correct, according to Locke they didn't exist, which was the point I was trying to make. And Locke was only familiar with European modes of agriculture, which was also a point I was making. So yes, correct again.

Let me guess, that wasn't real agriculture or land ownership so it doesn't count?

Let me get this straight, are you appealing to the homesteading principle to invalidate the homesteading principle? On what basis did the america’s First Nations and Australian aboriginals hold land ownership rights if not through first appropriation by mixing their labour with the land?

Correct about what? I conceded the claim that Locke was only familiar with European agriculture (although I don’t know if that’s true or not, seems unlikely) as it is beside the point. In what possible way does your claim invalidate the homesteading principle?

 

[tigersnake]

Let me get this straight, are you appealing to the homesteading principle to invalidate the homesteading principle? On what basis did the america’s First Nations and Australian aboriginals hold land ownership rights if not through first appropriation by mixing their labour with the land?

Correct about what? I conceded the claim that Locke was only familiar with European agriculture (although I don’t know if that’s true or not, seems unlikely) as it is beside the point. In what possible way does your claim invalidate the homesteading principle?

fist nations owned, managed, improved and farmed the land.

The homesteading principle:

unowned land, see where I'm going with this? no? thought so, forget it.

 

[Giardiasis]

fist nations owned, managed, improved and farmed the land.

The homesteading principle:

unowned land, see where I'm going with this? no? thought so, forget it.

You don’t even know where you’re going with this, you have again appealed to the homesteading principle to invalidate it. Logical fallacies are your speciality but this one takes the cake.

 

[Brodders17]

US unemployment at its lowest since 2000. DJT continues to deliver.

That DJT really showed Putin. (except the bit where he said 'would' instead of 'wouldn't"- easy mistake to make.)

 

[tigerman]

Apart from a few hiccups unemployment in the USA has been going down since August 2009 when it was 9.90%

Trump is the master of spin.

https://www.macrotrends.net/1316/us-national-unemployment-rate

 

[KnightersRevenge]

You don’t even know where you’re going with this, you have again appealed to the homesteading principle to invalidate it. Logical fallacies are your speciality but this one takes the cake.

You know that you consistently miss-apply logical fallacies, right? Like, all the time. TS's point is pretty clear. The homesteading principle (if I'm reading youse right) applies to "unowned" or "unoccupied" land. Hence it doesn't apply, almost anywhere, almost ever. (There is no fallacious reasoning there Gia.) There will always be a previous "owner". So it can't be applied to the Americas, it can't be applied to most of Australia, it can't be applied to most of Europe. Hence why you get so much push back when you force every discussion on economics into your niche area. An area so niche as to be almost pointless, because it is almost impossible to find any time in the history of modern humans in which it could possibly be applied.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Yes but you need to get down to some pretty deep philosophical fundamentals in order to understand the arguments that I’m putting forth. Like what are the episomological foundations of economics? If you don’t have an appreciation of this then we have no chance of getting anywhere. I’m making arguments that accept that economic knowledge comes from a priori reasoning, but you flat out reject that and claim only empirical knowledge is valid. Hence in order to make statements such as private property leads to greater prosperity than socialism this idea needs to be flushed out before any progress can be made. It is not an argument that can made in bite sized paragraphs for people that deny the validity of a priori knowledge.

Having said all that, I actually have addressed your questions regarding how to determine property ownership. It comes from first use and mixing one’s labour with land - I.e Locke’s homesteading principle.

Fair enough. I am sure it would be interesting to delve deeper into areas like this but to my way of thinking you end up with panels of high minded gents discussing what unicorn tastes like. I don't think I deny that a priori knowledge can exist only that I don't consider it equal to empirical knowledge. It might be interesting to build castles in the air (love that song - Don McLean was probably a genius) based on a priori knowledge but empirically that endeavour will fail.

 

[Giardiasis]

You know that you consistently miss-apply logical fallacies, right? Like, all the time. TS's point is pretty clear. The homesteading principle (if I'm reading youse right) applies to "unowned" or "unoccupied" land. Hence it doesn't apply, almost anywhere, almost ever. (There is no fallacious reasoning there Gia.) There will always be a previous "owner". So it can't be applied to the Americas, it can't be applied to most of Australia, it can't be applied to most of Europe. Hence why you get so much push back when you force every discussion on economics into your niche area. An area so niche as to be almost pointless, because it is almost impossible to find any time in the history of modern humans in which it could possibly be applied.

That’s not true for two reasons. 1. all land has at one time been unoccupied and 2. land can be abandoned. Every time you make the claim there was a previous owner (such as Aboriginals in Australia) what are you appealing to if not the homesteading principle? How is it that they came to own land?

The homesteading principle is the best way to peacefully assign property ownership outside one’s own body, that applies to both the americas and Australia. If applied during colonisation it wouldn’t have allowed for the expansion of British and American hagemony through conquest.

 

[Giardiasis]

Fair enough. I am sure it would be interesting to delve deeper into areas like this but to my way of thinking you end up with panels of high minded gents discussing what unicorn tastes like. I don't think I deny that a priori knowledge can exist only that I don't consider it equal to empirical knowledge. It might be interesting to build castles in the air (love that song - Don McLean was probably a genius) based on a priori knowledge but empirically that endeavour will fail.

You are misapplying a priori knowledge to the sphere of physical science with your castle analogy. A priori knowledge in the sphere of economics tells you things like minimum wage fixing leads to less employment or economic calculation is impossible without money prices (pretty useful things to know unlike your unicorn nonsense). Empirical knowledge in the sphere of economics in no way invalidates these claims and it is because there is no constant with which human action follows unlike inert objects like rocks or water. All empirical knowledge can tell you is what was true for a particular slice of history based on the contingent circumstances of that particular point in time, no universal laws can be deduced from it.

A priori knowledge in economics is tremendously useful, it is just not an easy concept for people that don’t take the time to read about it to understand it. If you are really interested then surely you can tell that PRE posts won’t cut the mustard.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

That’s not true for two reasons. 1. all land has at one time been unoccupied and 2. land can be abandoned. Every time you make the claim there was a previous owner (such as Aboriginals in Australia) what are you appealing to if not the homesteading principle? How is it that they came to own land?

1. Not sure I agree. Not for the purposes of this discussion. This discussion only makes sense in the era of "modern humans". Humans with tools and at least basic agricultural practices. These groups have occupied most of the useable land. 2. Who declares it abandoned? Many nomadic peoples may leave land for years at a timer. But they do return. This argument feels like it presupposes that those people already agree to your terms re ownership. They may not.

The homesteading principle is the best way to peacefully assign property ownership outside one’s own body, that applies to both the americas and Australia. If applied during colonisation it wouldn’t have allowed for the expansion of British and American hagemony through conquest.

Hence it wouldn't have allowed it at all. So this discussion is moot surely?

 

[Giardiasis]

1. Not sure I agree. Not for the purposes of this discussion. This discussion only makes sense in the era of "modern humans". Humans with tools and at least basic agricultural practices. These groups have occupied most of the useable land. 2. Who declares it abandoned? Many nomadic peoples may leave land for years at a timer. But they do return. This argument feels like it presupposes that those people already agree to your terms re ownership. They may not.

1. Sure but just because there might be little in the way of unoccupied land this doesn’t mean the homesteading principle becomes invald. It is still useful to determine who the correct owner is because people don’t live forever. E.g. someone was the first owner of a parcel of land and then had that land stolen from them which was subsequently sold to someone else. Well that first owner has rights as long as they are alive but if they do not leave a benefactor then clearly the land belongs to the 3rd party. This is the situation I think applies to Australia and the America’s in the majority of cases.

2. There is certainly an element of arbitrariness to determine that, which is what common law attempts to answer. The is no objective answer to that question is it one determined by an assessment of the circumstances of each case in respect to previous rulings on such matters. People on the wrong side of the ruling can either accept the peaceful solution or favour violence to resolve the dispute.

Hence it wouldn't have allowed it at all. So this discussion is moot surely?

You’ve lost me here. Can you rephrase?

 

[DavidSSS]

Australian aborigines did not have a property relationship with the land as we apply it in western society. There's was a custodial relationship. In some senses they owned the land but not to the extent that they could sell it - it was theirs to look after not to own. This doesn't mean it can't be stolen by claiming property rights, as it denies the custodial relationship, since private property exists to deny others access to that property.

As for your "a priori" or supposed deductive knowledge, your deductions are contestable. Minimum wage fixing leads to less employment? Not necessarily, this is a hypothesis. The hypothesis assumes that since lower wages lead to lower production costs, therefore more labour is affordable. But it ignores that, no matter how cheap a product, there must be income to create demand. Supply side economics is so one sided, you need to look at both sides. In a capitalist economy setting too high a minimum wage may reduce employment, but too low wages depress demand and reduce employment.

You need to read wider, Austrian fundamentalist economics is a very limited diet.

DS

 

[bullus_hit]

Australian aborigines did not have a property relationship with the land as we apply it in western society. There's was a custodial relationship. In some senses they owned the land but not to the extent that they could sell it - it was theirs to look after not to own. This doesn't mean it can't be stolen by claiming property rights, as it denies the custodial relationship, since private property exists to deny others access to that property.

As for your "a priori" or supposed deductive knowledge, your deductions are contestable. Minimum wage fixing leads to less employment? Not necessarily, this is a hypothesis. The hypothesis assumes that since lower wages lead to lower production costs, therefore more labour is affordable. But it ignores that, no matter how cheap a product, there must be income to create demand. Supply side economics is so one sided, you need to look at both sides. In a capitalist economy setting too high a minimum wage may reduce employment, but too low wages depress demand and reduce employment.

You need to read wider, Austrian fundamentalist economics is a very limited diet.

DS

Excellent post, the advocates of slave labour might disagree but fortunately those days are over (sort of).

 

[KnightersRevenge]

You are misapplying a priori knowledge to the sphere of physical science with your castle analogy. A priori knowledge in the sphere of economics tells you things like minimum wage fixing leads to less employment or economic calculation is impossible without money prices (pretty useful things to know unlike your unicorn nonsense). Empirical knowledge in the sphere of economics in no way invalidates these claims and it is because there is no constant with which human action follows unlike inert objects like rocks or water. All empirical knowledge can tell you is what was true for a particular slice of history based on the contingent circumstances of that particular point in time, no universal laws can be deduced from it.

A priori knowledge in economics is tremendously useful, it is just not an easy concept for people that don’t take the time to read about it to understand it. If you are really interested then surely you can tell that PRE posts won’t cut the mustard.

Have some fun Gia. Let your hair down. Don wasn't singing about actual castles (probably swanky New York apartments). I am sure you are right about economists relying on non-empirical methods. I am also sure that I don't trust their confidence. I am sure that there are scores of economists advising right wing governments that reducing corporate tax increases wages and encourages employment.

 

[Giardiasis]

Australian aborigines did not have a property relationship with the land as we apply it in western society. There's was a custodial relationship. In some senses they owned the land but not to the extent that they could sell it - it was theirs to look after not to own. This doesn't mean it can't be stolen by claiming property rights, as it denies the custodial relationship, since private property exists to deny others access to that property.

As for your "a priori" or supposed deductive knowledge, your deductions are contestable. Minimum wage fixing leads to less employment? Not necessarily, this is a hypothesis. The hypothesis assumes that since lower wages lead to lower production costs, therefore more labour is affordable. But it ignores that, no matter how cheap a product, there must be income to create demand. Supply side economics is so one sided, you need to look at both sides. In a capitalist economy setting too high a minimum wage may reduce employment, but too low wages depress demand and reduce employment.

You need to read wider, Austrian fundamentalist economics is a very limited diet.

DS

Yes it is one of the major reasons why they never developed past a hand to mouth existence. In regards to not owning the land well I’d certainly challenge that, Aboriginal culture was not without tribal warfare over land and resource access. I think the homesteading principle could be used to demonstrate valid private property rights regardless of whether land ownership was looked at differently by the locals. In terms of how the colonists viewed their actions in acquiring land I think assuming it was unclaimed land was a mistake and many locals suffered private property rights violations as a result.

It is not a hypothesis, that is the methodology of empirical science. It is a logically deduced universal law derived from the human action axiom (I.e. human action is purposeful behaviour). Your demand argument is nonsense, demand doesn’t need income, demand is limitless. Fixing wages above where it would naturally be can only make activities that can’t afford those costs unprofitable. Hence resources don’t go to where they are most demanded by consumers. Only the market knows where to set the minimum wage, and it is most likely zero as people would be prepared to be paid nothing to receive experience in return such as students. Fixing the minimum wage above the natural rate doesn’t generate income, it just makes people whose labour is not worth the minimum rate unemployed and denies young people from obtaining important skills they could use later in life.

You need to read wider, Keynesian claptrap economics is complete garbage.

 

[tigersnake]

You don’t even know where you’re going with this, you have again appealed to the homesteading principle to invalidate it. Logical fallacies are your speciality but this one takes the cake.

I dunno how much clearer I can be, the principle is based on a false premise, being that the land was unowned and unused. I don't actually expect you to be able to get your head around that most basic of basic facts though, because it messes with your fundamentalism.

 

[bullus_hit]

I dunno how much clearer I can be, the principle is based on a false premise, being that the land was unowned and unused. I don't actually expect you to be able to get your head around that most basic of basic facts though, because it messes with your fundamentalism.

From a white-anglo colonial perspective it makes perfect sense. Speaking of twisted radicals who belong to the libertarian cult, check this nut out.

“I, Nathan Larson, hereby announce my candidacy as a quasi-neoreactionary libertarian in Virginia’s 10th congressional district election, 2018,“ he writes on his campaign page.

“As representative, my main agenda will be (1) stopping the war on drugs, (2) protecting gun ownership rights, and (3) putting an end to US involvement in foreign wars arising from our country’s alliance with Israel. I will also restore (4) benevolent white supremacy, (5) private borders, (6) patriarchy, (7) freedom of speech, (8) freedom from age restrictions, (9) suicide rights, (10) jury trial rights, (11) discrimination rights, and (12) free trade.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/nathan-larson-white-supremacist-paedophile-pedophile-virginia-10th-district-congress-campaign-run-a8380796.html

 

[Giardiasis]

I dunno how much clearer I can be, the principle is based on a false premise, being that the land was unowned and unused. I don't actually expect you to be able to get your head around that most basic of basic facts though, because it messes with your fundamentalism.

You are incorrectly accusing the homesteading principle of validating colonisation. It doesn’t validate colonisation it invalidates it. The homesteading principle applied in this case demonstrates that the property rights of the locals were violated by colonisation. You still haven’t said what you were appealing to when you claimed that aboriginals had property rights, without realising it you were appealing to the homesteading principle.