TY!
-
-
Replying to @MorlockP
If I were to play devil's advocate, I'd say that libertarians aren't defending the common law of land (and its statutory outgrowths), but advocating a society where a freehold gives you unqualified right over that land, such that a person's freehold is their castle
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Evollaqi
That's all reasonable. But libertarianism has to start w property rights as they exist, even though imperfect, right? No Year Zero where we divide all property by 7 billion people? So if we accept that X owns land Y, shouldn't we also accept that X doesn't own mineral rights Z?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MorlockP
I think that's fair. Just to further devil though, what would the situation be if I bought a freehold unencumbered by any planning legislation, and then some time afterwards a law comes in prohibiting me from building up to my border - would such a law be legitimate?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Evollaqi
Not according to MY ethics. However, game theory says that it makes sense to proceed as if bullshit laws are "valid", because the alternative is defiance, repression, police, and death.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MorlockP
There's a difference between regarding a law as valid, and thinking you should exercise your rights under it. I agree that we should also follow unjust laws where disobeying the legal system as a whole would likely lead to a worse outcome than obeying it, but if it gives me a
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Evollaqi
My PoV is that exchanges of rights from bundle to bundle happened decades before I showed up. I specifically researched this EXACT issue before putting in a bid on property P. P included { A, B, C, D, E} The price reflected that. Price for { A, B, C } would be less I bought A...E
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
And the neighbor bought Q, R, S, T. Not E. So now he's trying to steal E from me. I paid for it he didn't. /shrug
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MorlockP
Yeah, I'm sure this issue doesn't arise in your own personal case! I just meant in circumstances other than your own, where this issue arises, I was wondering whether the right ought to be exercised. I don't think there's a clear answer!
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Evollaqi
this ties into a bigger question - do property rights dissolve over time? If something was stolen from an ancestor of mine 500 years ago, which I would have inherited perhaps 0.1% of, do I have some residual claim on that today? Versus who? Someone who bought it last week >
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like
from a guy who bought it from a buy who bought it...etc...with a good claim of title back 499.9 years? I think that at some point it becomes not just "pragmatic but immoral" but indeed "pragmatic AND moral" to treat possession as valid
-
-
Replying to @MorlockP
I think that's a really good argument. I guess the counter argument is where we've dispossessed one group of people from a land, which they're now effectively excluded from getting back. Eg Native Americans weren't just dispossessed, their dispossession in effect left them
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
economically excluded from having most of the land which would have been inherited between them. Similar situation with Israelis and Palestinians, due to legal impositions. The situation would be different were there no collectivist disenfranchisement following dispossession.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.