Quote from: Alpaca John on May 20, 2013, 07:48:05 PM

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)

I have bad news for you. Land is "capital property."

Quote from: Alpaca John on May 20, 2013, 07:48:05 PM

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?

Have you ever fished the north sea?
First appropriation requires use. Can't just "call" it.

Quote from: Alpaca John on May 20, 2013, 07:48:05 PM

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?

Oh, I agree with you that it is. But if you owned a large portion of a rainforest, would you sell it cheaply, or get as much as you could for it? And if your neighbors did the same, would it still be profitable to cut it all down?

Quote from: Alpaca John on May 20, 2013, 07:48:05 PM

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?

The answer to the tragedy of the commons is not regulations. The answer to the tragedy of the commons is to internalize the externalities. By private ownership.

Quote from: Alpaca John on May 20, 2013, 07:48:05 PM

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.

Do you think homesteading is as simple as saying "that's mine," or drawing a line on a map? No, that's how governments claim land. A homesteader works his land, or at the very least marks it out somehow. To say nothing of actually getting there, which can be a lot of work, as well.

Quote from: Alpaca John on May 20, 2013, 07:48:05 PM

Quote

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.

So, you own your mother? And your sister? "Your" can be used to establish relationship without implying ownership. If land is not owned by anyone, that is to say your rightful claim to be there is not recognized by society, when I come in and kick you out, you have no recourse. That sucks pretty hardcore. And I don't see how my having land makes you a slave.

Quote from: Alpaca John on May 20, 2013, 07:48:05 PM

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.

How are the rights of the minority respected by majority rule? If you want the rights of the minority to be respected, you must have a proportionally representative system. Like capitalism.

Quote from: Alpaca John on May 20, 2013, 07:48:05 PM

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't be anybodies private property, you'll probably still violently get rid of me if I step on the land you call 'yours'.

Well, that depends. If you're just visiting, there's no need to be rude to visitors. If you decide you'd like to live there rent free, though, you'll find that rather tough with my boot up your ass.