Quote from: myrkul on May 20, 2013, 05:24:56 PM

Quote from: Alpaca John on May 20, 2013, 04:36:10 PM

I don't hold communist views, thank you.

Oh, but you do. You want all land held in common. Georgeism is just eco-communism.

Hmm, if you put it like that I guess I do hold some communist views. I do think capital should be privately owned though, so I'm far from a communist. I think a balance of power is probably best.

Capital property: liberal (individual ownership)
Property of land: social (public ownership)
Intellectual property: anarchy (information should be free)

Quote

Quote from: Alpaca John on May 20, 2013, 04:36:10 PM

If we're gonna privatize the seas, are we gonna stop the fish from swimming to each others parts of it? If not, you might as well catch all the fish in your area, your 'neighbours' fish will come swim to you, and you'll just catch that the next day. And why do you think the rainforrests are being cut down right now? Its because that's the profitable thing to do. It will make you more money to tear it down and grow or build something else. And why does global change deserve a whole other conversation? The whole point of the tragedy of the commons is that it's supposed to be bigger than any individual.

Sorry, but all of this seems to me like the tragedy of the commons 101.

Well, first: Sea plots would likely be much larger, entire "fishing grounds," for just that reason. It's much harder, and much more disruptive, to fence off the seas.
Second: The rainforests are being cut down now because politicians are cheaper to buy than private landowners.
Third: Global climate change deserves it's own conversation because it is a much more complex subject.

1. Ok. Lets for a second pretend I think this is a good and realistic idea. How are we gonna decide who gets to have the North Sea. I'd like to have it? Can I just claim it? I call North Sea! Just like that?
2. So apparently it's more profitable to cut that shit down, right? Apparently cutting it down will make you more money than leaving it in tact! Why else would anyone want to bribe a politician? They're not gonna bribe him to do something that will lose them money? It's clearly more profitable for any individual to cut down the rainforrest, while it is potentially devastating for humanity. Be honest for a second: how is this NOT a tradegy of the commons?
3. Ok lets "hypothetically" presume for a second that it is indeed the burning of fossil fuels that ruins the environment. Would that mean it qualifies as a tragedy of the commons, and thus requires regulation?

Quote

Quote from: Alpaca John on May 20, 2013, 04:36:10 PM

Well, all land seems to be taken by now.

And anyone born after 2140 will have to earn their bitcoins by providing a service to the community. In fact, that's the only way to get them now.

Yes, but anybody can choose to not use bitcoin, or make another cryptocurrency. Plus, nobody just claimed bitcoin. People put actual time and effort in making them. That's the difference.

You cannot choose to not use land, or make new land. Nobody actually ever made the land most people own nowadays. It was claimed/stolen from the public domain, almost certainly by using violence.

Let me ask you something. Are you either a white American or a white Canadian? If you really believe what you say, you should probably move back to Europe. Because your ancestors clearly stole a shitload of land from the Natives. Using violence. Either that or they bought it from someone who did. In any way, according to your own ideology, you shouldn't be there, since you got it unrightfully, no? At the very, very least you should be ok with the Natives taking it back violently. You can't seriously think you can just take land (or anything else) using violence, or buy it from someone who did, and afterwards denounce everybody else from using violence because it's morally wrong.

Just to be clear: I'm arguing that this isn't only true for Americans. Almost certainly ALL land was violently claimed at some point in history. So, those who own it now still don't rightfully own it; it did not start out rightfully.

Quote

Quote from: Alpaca John on May 20, 2013, 04:36:10 PM

I honestly don't see how privately owning land would bring peace.

Let me explain. If land is owned by nobody, anyone can come and take it at any time. I could justifiably force you off your land. I'd say that's "strife." If land is owned by "everybody" and some organization is going to come around and collect rent, they'll have to force me to pay, because I won't want to. That also qualifies as "strife." On the other hand, if someone wants to buy my land, they need only offer me enough money to convince me to sell it. Voluntarily. Peacefully.

You must see what is wrong with that first sentence yourself. For the rest: the peace you speak of is like the peace slave-owners liked to have. There might not be any fighting but there's not exactly freedom either.

Quote

Quote from: Alpaca John on May 20, 2013, 04:36:10 PM

There are absolutely arguments to be held against democracy, but I don't think these are it.

Well, any other result means that the majority has enforced their will on the minority. That's just might makes right. So when you say "WE THE PEOPLE," what you actually mean is "WE THE STRONGEST."

WE THE MAJORITY would be a better way to put it, yeah. But I also think that a true democracy can only function if the rights of the minority are protected, much like the constitution seeks to do.

edit: In fact, I take this back. We the people is just right, if you take the social contract and popular sovereignty into account, along with the constitutional process in a democratic republic.

Quote

Quote from: Alpaca John on May 20, 2013, 04:36:10 PM

I don't think imposing yours on others provides any more freedom or peace than them imposing theirs on yours.

I'm not imposing my views on anyone. Merely resisting their attempts to impose theirs on me.

Right. But if I don't believe land can be anybodies private property, you'll probably still violently get rid of me if I step on the land you call 'yours'. Where's my freedom to believe what I want to believe, and act accordingly? You are imposing your views on me, namely, the believe that land can be private property.

Like I said, there are different worldviews, and different conceptions of freedom that are all perfectly coherent. And every ideology thinks it proposes the one and only true version (just like religions by the way).