Quote:
|
Originally posted by Lurch+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lurch)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Imperialism and orginal appropriation are by and large the same thing. Armies created property rights and private landholders where none existed previously.[/b]
|
No they are not. Original appropriation happens where resources are previously unowned. Individuals have the right to homestead, mix with their labor, those resources. In other words, Indians owned land they cultivated and their hunting land. They were original owners of the resource. Imperial armies did not create property rights, they simply ignored them and stole what was not theirs. First settlers were acquiring land via trade, but of course there were cases where some settlers did not respect property rights.
Quote:
Originally posted by Lurch@
Dream society ideal is silly - it cannot exist. So no, this has nothing to do with my dream. However, it is clear that if the majority decides my right to life is no longer a right, then I no longer have that right. Any number of genocides can attest to this. Private rights are meaningless when groups can organize and expropriate those rights. History has shown 2 things that unavoidably make your ideal society impossible: people organize and groups/people are aggressive. No matter how well you perform mental acrobatics, you cannot pull a spontaneous natural law out of thin air that everyone will abide by in recognition that its in their best interests.
|
No it is not clear than you lose this right. What is clear is that your existing right is ignored. Was holocaust OK because it was in accordance with German legislation? Obviously it was not OK, and German legislation ignored them. But that does not mean they did not exist. The existence of your right to your life doesn’t depend on what is written on a piece of paper (in the constitution for example).
Private rights are not meaningless when groups can organize and expropriate those rights. Of course people are not going to be free when there is a large group of aggressors against them. That’s why more and more people should learn about property rights and respect them, so they will be able to defend themselves against aggression and live more peacefully. The mere fact this group is weaker right now does not mean we should stop striving to live in a free society.
<!--QuoteBegin-Lurch
As a point on why your system won't work economically speaking consider the following. An individual inventor comes up with an economic way to create solar power. Alas, there are no patents since there is no gov't to enforce them. He does not have access to capital unless he shares his plans with companies to demonstrate the technology. The company decides that they love the technology, but lo and behold, it turns out they actually invented it, not the inventor. The inventor is paid the grand sum of a coffee and a donut for his invention, becomes disillusioned and gives up pursuing inventions. As I understand your system, this won't happen b/c this violates the intellectual property rights of the inventor - as enforced by "NATURAL LAW", or alternatively, the army of about 1 that the inventor can afford to enforce his property rights.[/quote]
What do you mean by “in turns out they actually invented it”? If you are going to write a contract between you (as the inventor) and the company (investor), you can make sure profits are split evenly. That way you don’t end up with a coffee and donut.
I am in opposition to patents and copyrights. One of the reason is that they prevent the owners of tangible property—scarce resources—from using their own property as they see fit. You can find more reasoning
here.