A Solution to the discrimination argument

[NotThatCreative]

In a very general sense, yes. But rearrange all we want, land is still land; we neither create it nor destroy it, nor transform it into anything else.

It can't include land -- we don't manufacture land. We discover it, map it, survey it, assign it, but we can't make it, nor can we destroy it.

Land reclamation: process of creating new land, dry land on the seabed -UNESCO

We can and do create land. We can and do create tunnels. We can and do remove land (flattening of hills, for example). We can and do remove and use petroleum (a substance we change before use, as you're well aware) and coal.

Not arbitrary at all: the fruit of one's labor is that which was produced by that labor. A car, a paint gun, a baby blanket -- those are all fruits of someone's labor. Land isn't.

The land we see all around us was produced by a person's labor. Many persons, in fact. The trees were cut down, or the hills were flattened, or the tunnel was blasted. We can also create hills, we plant trees, we create lakes and ponds. The entirety of Central Park, for example, was man-made. It is produced by labor. It is the fruit of someone's labor. I ask again about a farmers' plot. How is that not the fruit of a person's labor?

 

[Kulindahr]

But in no case will people be uniformly moral, even in a very narrow sense. If 90% are moral, 10% may still do grave harm to others. Hence laws are needed to deal with the 10%. And with so many people being so moral, it may be decided that even more laws are needed because a super majority would share some moral positions.

If there were a society with 90% moral people, they wouldn't even need police! Crimes would be stopped in their tracks! Heck, you might not even need any laws, at that point.

In the case of a less moral people - let's say 55%, there may be fewer laws because the moral - while a majority - may not have the numbers needed to pass laws to contend with the other 45%.

That one would need laws, and most likely, police -- but not many.
See, in a moral society, everyone would be like the guy in a video posted here: actively intervening on behalf of anyone getting mistreated. All those 55% would be the sort who would wrestle the wacked-out kid with the gun to the ground, so he wouldn't shoot anyone else; they'd be the sort who at the law school dashed to their car to get their guns to stop the shooter -- though in a moral society, when that shooter walked into the law school and fired his first shot, he would have been immediately confronted with a dozen or more people calmly asking him to surrender or be taken down.

And in a model in which the very moral are a minority - let's say 25% - they are very unlikely to have much impact on laws, because the immoral majority will wants not want to be constrained.

That figure would be more than enough to transform a society. Acting constantly to confront the immoral, to intervene when the weak are attacked, would waken others up and change the whole place.

All of life, from the most simple organisms to the most complex is about a struggle over resources. Thus will it ever be. There is physical force and economic force. Whether you enslave a minority through whips and beatings or by denying them access to normal social interaction and commerce, you're still using force.

If we can justly say no one is permitted to enslave others by force, it's not too far a jump to say one cannot enslave them through economic force.

(Incidentally, Paul has some very funny ideas about private property when it comes to abortion and same sex marriage, but I don't wish to distract from your thread's subject, and will try to keep those points in the other thread.)

Paul, though, isn't saying anything about enslavement, except that the Civil Rights Act effectively enslaves business owners. Given his definition of private property, which is held by most people in the country, he's correct. But it isn't surprising for an immoral position to arise from an immoral foundation. If we changed the system to a CotW, he'd have no ground to stand on, because though his hypothetical owner of the lunch counter would hold the land, the ultimate owner would be all the people who want to walk in as customers.

In fact for a sharp edge to it, a provision for businesses could be written so that any wronged customer immediately becomes a special prosecutor acting for the CotW, the nearest twelve customers or bystanders could be snagged for jury duty, someone in the neighborhood know for fairness called as judge, and court held right there.
Or that might be too subject to abuses... but I like the notion of certain bigoted store owners I know being confronted by the Korean they just tried to throw out as a prosecutor, other customers as the jury (also witnesses), and the Presbyterian minister down the street being summoned as a judge....

 

[Kulindahr]

^^

Although you wrote "it isn't", I think we're saying essentially the same thing: there is no such thing as race, as a biological matter. Am I mistaken in thinking we agree on this?

There is a construct called race that essentially amounts to a categorization of people based on some visual cues that generally have something to do with ancestry, but even that is subjective. Perhaps you disagreed with me on that.

Right -- biologically, there's no such thing as race. I caught a TV interview with some genetics guy who said you could take a thousand random samples from around the globe and label them only with randomly-selected numbers, and there would be no way to sort homo sapiens negro from homo sapiens orientale from any of the others, because there's not enough difference to even find, let alone add that extra word at the end -- we're all homo sapiens, and that's it.

As for that category, any time we hear someone use the word "race" in reference to humans, we should inquire as to the causes of their bigotry, and explain that the scientists tell us you could take the DNA from six different children of six different skin shades and not be able to tell the difference. In fact genetically, there's more difference between a white brother and sister than between either of them and the corresponding gender who happen to be dark or brown or whatever.

 

[MercuryJones]

If there were a society with 90% moral people, they wouldn't even need police! Crimes would be stopped in their tracks! Heck, you might not even need any laws, at that point.

I must disagree. As little as 10% may cause real grief for others, and a means to contain, correct and possibly eliminate them must be available. Furthermore, even among moral people there will be sincere disagreements, and an agreed upon process and standards is useful.

Paul, though, isn't saying anything about enslavement, except that the Civil Rights Act effectively enslaves business owners. Given his definition of private property, which is held by most people in the country, he's correct.

Even in Paul's definition, business owners aren't enslaved. They make a choice, which is not a feature of slavery. A business owner who must comply with laws in order to operate a business is no more enslaved than someone who works at McDonalds for wages.

But I maintain that business owners, unless prevented by law, have the power to make functional second class citizens, and event slaves, of minorities, as surely as if they used physical force to do so.

We are all in competition for resources, because that is what life is. Whether the matter is not being allowed to let a group sit at the lunch counter in the store you own, or whether you are not allowed to buy a 12 year old girl as a slave, we are just haggling over where the lines are drawn in division of resource.

Many cultures have achieved a pretty optimal balance that allows individuals and groups to invest resources to their own benefit, but to do they must make some modest concessions that allow others stability and opportunity for others as well. As measured by most standards, these are the most successful models we have. And I don't believe we'll achieve a better one, because fantasy models - from absolute Libertarianism to absolute Communism - are not flexible or practical enough for real world success.

 

[Kulindahr]

Land reclamation: process of creating new land, dry land on the seabed -UNESCO

We can and do create land. We can and do create tunnels. We can and do remove land (flattening of hills, for example). We can and do remove and use petroleum (a substance we change before use, as you're well aware) and coal.

The land we see all around us was produced by a person's labor.

If the land I see around me was created by labor, if we can make land, then as it was created the earth's circumference got larger. If land can be created, then there's no population problem; we just create land so the earth will hold more people.

Unless we can do that, UNESCO is full of crap -- we can't create land, we can only alter it.

Too bad -- it would be nice to solve the population problem that way.

 

[Kulindahr]

I must disagree. As little as 10% may cause real grief for others, and a means to contain, correct and possibly eliminate them must be available. Furthermore, even among moral people there will be sincere disagreements, and an agreed upon process and standards is useful.

A moral people is the "means to contain, correct and possibly eliminate them". A moral people will not stand back and allow others to be harmed, or their property.

Even in Paul's definition, business owners aren't enslaved. They make a choice, which is not a feature of slavery. A business owner who must comply with laws in order to operate a business is no more enslaved than someone who works at McDonalds for wages.

That's no choice at all, any more than me telling you you're free to vote, you just have to vote Socialist.

A worker can choose MacDonalds, Home Depot, or a variety of businesses. That's freedom. A businessman has to deal with the monopoly provider if he's to have a business, and then do as told -- that's slavery.

 

[MercuryJones]

A moral people is the "means to contain, correct and possibly eliminate them". A moral people will not stand back and allow others to be harmed, or their property.

Oh Kuli. Stop. You know no matter how wonderful everyone else is, someone can - undetected for a time - cause real damage. Even if the law doesn't stop them, it must be brought to bear when the crime is known.

And although this is a lovely, lovely fantasy, like communism it has only modest real world application.

That's no choice at all, any more than me telling you you're free to vote, you just have to vote Socialist.

A worker can choose MacDonalds, Home Depot, or a variety of businesses. That's freedom. A businessman has to deal with the monopoly provider if he's to have a business, and then do as told -- that's slavery.

Again, no. There are many ways to make a living, and owning a business is just one, a is McDonalds. If you don't like the demands of the one, you have other options.

But a group of people arbitrarily denied access to the normal range of services and commerce has little to no choice. He or she is denied equality by economic forces, as surely as if he or she were denied equality by physical force.

 

[NotThatCreative]

If the land I see around me was created by labor, if we can make land, then as it was created the earth's circumference got larger. If land can be created, then there's no population problem; we just create land so the earth will hold more people.

Unless we can do that, UNESCO is full of crap -- we can't create land, we can only alter it.

Too bad -- it would be nice to solve the population problem that way.

75% of the earth's surface is ocean. Well-known figure. Creating land is not the same thing as making the earth bigger. That's the argument I would expect to hear from someone who has not yet completed their elementary education. Not from you. Your entire argument here rests on rejecting a United Nations definition and assuming that there's a population problem. Between you and the UN, I'm going to go with the UN. And there isn't a population problem (though there will eventually be one). Your entire case for this is dependent on your arbitrary lines/standards/definitions.

The UN says we can create land. We have done so. You may not like it, but that's reality. I see no reason to disbelieve the UN based on your statement that they're "full of crap". Sorry, you as an individual don't get to claim more credibility than the UN. Doesn't work that way.

And your line between the altering that is truly all we do to manufacture things and the altering that goes on with land (like tunnels, flattening of hills, clear-cutting and planting of forests, etcetera) is arbitrary. You say gas (as the end-product of petroleum) is the fruit of a person's labor. I assume the "clean coal" we use is as well? Where do you draw the line between "creating" and "altering"? And why draw the line there?

 

[MercuryJones]

I can hardly believe I'm about to wade into this, but:

There is nothing we create. Nothing. We are only transforming existing material or making it available.

Whether you produce milk by using cows as wonderful machines that convert plant material into milk, or use machines to retrieve oil which you sell, or make previously inaccessible land available, you're still just rearranging the existing material.

I don't know who here I'm even agreeing with, other than physics.

 

[NotThatCreative]

^ I made that point a few posts ago.

it's clear all we're doing with everything is rearranging it.

His response was that there's still somehow a difference. An arbitrary line that I asked him to explain in my most recent post, which he hasn't had the chance yet to respond to.

 

[Kulindahr]

Oh Kuli. Stop. You know no matter how wonderful everyone else is, someone can - undetected for a time - cause real damage. Even if the law doesn't stop them, it must be brought to bear when the crime is known.

And although this is a lovely, lovely fantasy, like communism it has only modest real world application.

It has lots of real-world application: when criminals know that people who don't like crime are going to step forward and stop it, when bigots know that people will face them down over their bigotry, right there in public, the price of crime and bigotry will be high enough the rates will drop drastically.

Again, no. There are many ways to make a living, and owning a business is just one, a is McDonalds. If you don't like the demands of the one, you have other options.

But a group of people arbitrarily denied access to the normal range of services and commerce has little to no choice. He or she is denied equality by economic forces, as surely as if he or she were denied equality by physical force.

You dodged the issue.

I'll repeat: if a man wants to be a businessman, you don't want him to have freedom. A businessman has to deal with the monopoly provider if he's to have a business, and then do as told -- that's slavery.

 

[MercuryJones]

Kul, you and I simply disagree on what constitutes slavery.

As always, thanks for a thoughtful and respectful exchange.

 

[Kulindahr]

75% of the earth's surface is ocean. Well-known figure. Creating land is not the same thing as making the earth bigger. That's the argument I would expect to hear from someone who has not yet completed their elementary education. Not from you. Your entire argument here rests on rejecting a United Nations definition and assuming that there's a population problem. Between you and the UN, I'm going to go with the UN. And there isn't a population problem (though there will eventually be one). Your entire case for this is dependent on your arbitrary lines/standards/definitions.

The UN says we can create land. We have done so. You may not like it, but that's reality. I see no reason to disbelieve the UN based on your statement that they're "full of crap". Sorry, you as an individual don't get to claim more credibility than the UN. Doesn't work that way.

And your line between the altering that is truly all we do to manufacture things and the altering that goes on with land (like tunnels, flattening of hills, clear-cutting and planting of forests, etcetera) is arbitrary. You say gas (as the end-product of petroleum) is the fruit of a person's labor. I assume the "clean coal" we use is as well? Where do you draw the line between "creating" and "altering"? And why draw the line there?

Are you really that dense?

What's under the ocean? Land. It's land covered with water, but it's still land. Flood a valley, and you don't destroy land, you merely submerge it. The ocean is nothing but water sitting on top of land. All of the earth's surface is land; the only distinction is that some is covered by water and some is dry.

To create land would mean increasing the surface area of the planet. Call it "surface" if you want; the fact remains that we don't create it.

And stop changing the subject: this isn't about trees, or tunnels, or leveling or terracing, it's about LAND. If I have a square kilometer, it doesn't matter what I do to it, it's still the same square kilometer. I can't turn it into 1.1 square kilometers, nor did I make it to begin with. In order to have a square kilometer, I have to start with a square kilometer; in order to have more, I have to add some already existing land; I can't manufacture it.

 

[Kulindahr]

I can hardly believe I'm about to wade into this, but:

There is nothing we create. Nothing. We are only transforming existing material or making it available.

Whether you produce milk by using cows as wonderful machines that convert plant material into milk, or use machines to retrieve oil which you sell, or make previously inaccessible land available, you're still just rearranging the existing material.

I don't know who here I'm even agreeing with, other than physics.

Use the word "manufacture", then.

We manufacture houses, rain coats, bicycles, condoms, matches -- they didn't exist before. Yes, they're made of raw materials, which we didn't create -- which is why those raw materials count as land does, and fees should go to the CotW and be paid out as dividends.

Now the cow is an interesting situation. We don't manufacture a cow, we raise it. It's not exactly a natural resource, like oil. It's somewhat similar to trees: a naturally occurring thing we make use of. I'll tentatively venture that the fee for use of such living things is part of the land rent, though perhaps there ought to be an added fee for depleting resources, e.g. taking nutrients from the soil without restoring them (though in the case of cows, the restoring is itself a bit of a natural process).

The root difference between land and goods is that you can rearrange land all you want, and it's still land. Level it, pave it, flood it, terrace it, plant it, the end result is still land.

 

[bankside]

I must have missed the argument for anarchy. Could you point out where it was advanced????

Not by you, but I wanted to say something on the subject because no matter how you base a system of property, someone will want to tax it for something, and taxation is also better when it is wedded to some kind of intellectual justification instead of just ad hoc. "Providing an alternative to anarchy" usually does it for me.

So you're talking about a complete overhaul of the entire planet, radical changes in all our systems of governance, economics, everything, as I read this.

Plan away.

Yeah, actually, sometimes the philosophical underpinnings of systems of government are hatched out of everyday conversation. Just a bit of history, and you can see many projects to completely overhaul entire systems of governance. Many of them paid off.

Let the planning continue.

And on that point, I will try an end run around property and propose other grounds for regulation of discrimination. No one seems to object to regulation of a mine that, as a result of its processing of ore, would otherwise be pumping arsenic-laden dust into the atmosphere. No one expects individuals to document evidence of personal loss of lung functioning and then present a claim to the mine for damages, etc.

Or, more to the point, even when the consumer has ample opportunity to examine a manufacturer's product, but chooses not to, and is prepared to purchase a poorly-designed children's toy containing exposed ingestible lead, either through ignorance or indifference, no one objects to a government regulation to prevent that.

Both of those are examples of transactions with negative externalities. My right to not inhale arsenic dust trumps your right to mine ore as you might prefer. My right to not live in a society of idiots means I can prevent you from selling lead toys to a family, and I can deprive a careless parent of the right to buy that toy, and I might even be obliged to the child to intervene, though that is a separate question.

But governments can and should intervene when your property, or your otherwise-agreeable private transactions, create harm to those who are not party to the transaction. In some limited cases they can intervene to prevent harm even to a willing party to a transaction.

Within that framework, there may be a duty to intervene in cases of discrimination, regardless of it occurring on privately owned property (if such a thing can exist) or on leasehold property.

 

[Kulindahr]

Not by you, but I wanted to say something on the subject because no matter how you base a system of property, someone will want to tax it for something, and taxation is also better when it is wedded to some kind of intellectual justification instead of just ad hoc. "Providing an alternative to anarchy" usually does it for me.

Gotcha.
Ad hoc systems are nothing but a temporary suspension of anarchy, a form of anarchy calcified for a time.

Yeah, actually, sometimes the philosophical underpinnings of systems of government are hatched out of everyday conversation. Just a bit of history, and you can see many projects to completely overhaul entire systems of governance. Many of them paid off.

Let the planning continue.

And on that point, I will try an end run around property and propose other grounds for regulation of discrimination. No one seems to object to regulation of a mine that, as a result of its processing of ore, would otherwise be pumping arsenic-laden dust into the atmosphere. No one expects individuals to document evidence of personal loss of lung functioning and then present a claim to the mine for damages, etc.

Or, more to the point, even when the consumer has ample opportunity to examine a manufacturer's product, but chooses not to, and is prepared to purchase a poorly-designed children's toy containing exposed ingestible lead, either through ignorance or indifference, no one objects to a government regulation to prevent that.

Actually, I object to both of those. Outfits such as Underwriters Laboratories could handle those just fine. I wouldn't object to government establishing such organizations then turning them loose, though. In fact there are some outfits of that nature; I'd hand 'regulating' their areas over to them, to be done just like UL does: the manufacturers pay the labs a fee to test and approve their products. For items from overseas, they'd be tested at the point of import, and the cost be added to the product if approved -- and the shipment confiscated if not.

Both of those are examples of transactions with negative externalities. My right to not inhale arsenic dust trumps your right to mine ore as you might prefer. My right to not live in a society of idiots means I can prevent you from selling lead toys to a family, and I can deprive a careless parent of the right to buy that toy, and I might even be obliged to the child to intervene, though that is a separate question.

Under a CotW, the basic land use contract/deed could include all the provisions for mines, as a pre-emptive move against chemical trespass. Lead in toys would be a matter for the certifying labs -- though in their absence, a toy with lead paint without clear prominent warning labels would, in my view, constitute a form of assault.

But that's getting away more than a little from discrimination, and from land.

But governments can and should intervene when your property, or your otherwise-agreeable private transactions, create harm to those who are not party to the transaction. In some limited cases they can intervene to prevent harm even to a willing party to a transaction.

Within that framework, there may be a duty to intervene in cases of discrimination, regardless of it occurring on privately owned property (if such a thing can exist) or on leasehold property.

That's an interesting one for a transition period: if private-CotW property sat side by side with private-adhoc, you'd effectively have two different systems of law running side by side. That wouldn't be too much of a problem so long as (1) it didn't go on for decades and (2) the rules weren't too disparate.

 

[NotThatCreative]

Are you really that dense?

What's under the ocean? Land. It's land covered with water, but it's still land. Flood a valley, and you don't destroy land, you merely submerge it. The ocean is nothing but water sitting on top of land. All of the earth's surface is land; the only distinction is that some is covered by water and some is dry.

To create land would mean increasing the surface area of the planet. Call it "surface" if you want; the fact remains that we don't create it.

And stop changing the subject: this isn't about trees, or tunnels, or leveling or terracing, it's about LAND. If I have a square kilometer, it doesn't matter what I do to it, it's still the same square kilometer. I can't turn it into 1.1 square kilometers, nor did I make it to begin with. In order to have a square kilometer, I have to start with a square kilometer; in order to have more, I have to add some already existing land; I can't manufacture it.

Use the word surface instead of land if that's what you mean. You really need to stop changing the definitions of words whenever it suits you. It's not about land for you, it's about the surface of the earth. Those are two different conversations, and you can't expect everyone to understand that you're using the wrong word. If you're going to use the word land, then tunnels, leveling, terracing, etcetera all matter. So does land reclamation. For the word surface they do not. I'm sorry you find the English language such a burden on your philosophizing.

I could continue to ask questions about what you put in what category. Such as What about clean coal? Where does that fit in your scheme of "manufactured" versus "rearranged"? But, really, if your entire philosophy on this is dependent on this notion that we can't make the earth itself larger, then it isn't worth my time. A discussion that involves land is. An entire theory based on the premise "we don't create or enlarge planets" and concluding with "therefore no private property" (private property, of course, not being confused with personal property) isn't. I'm bowing out now.

 

[Kulindahr]

Use the word surface instead of land if that's what you mean. You really need to stop changing the definitions of words whenever it suits you. It's not about land for you, it's about the surface of the earth. Those are two different conversations, and you can't expect everyone to understand that you're using the wrong word. If you're going to use the word land, then tunnels, leveling, terracing, etcetera all matter. So does land reclamation. For the word surface they do not. I'm sorry you find the English language such a burden on your philosophizing.

I could continue to ask questions about what you put in what category. Such as What about clean coal? Where does that fit in your scheme of "manufactured" versus "rearranged"? But, really, if your entire philosophy on this is dependent on this notion that we can't make the earth itself larger, then it isn't worth my time. A discussion that involves land is. An entire theory based on the premise "we don't create or enlarge planets" and concluding with "therefore no private property" (private property, of course, not being confused with personal property) isn't. I'm bowing out now.

I'm using the word land properly. My dad was in real estate, and had a friend who was a surveyor. When they talked about a piece of property with a river through it, they didn't say "The land and the river bottom, too", or if it had a pond and they said "the land" they weren't excluding the pond. When I went to the county maps office and asked about some lots which have fallen under the ocean thanks to a retreating shoreline, they still said "Johnson's land", not "Johnson's ocean bottom". When I talked with a ranger about a reservoir that had filled a valley, he used the phrase "the land down there" to refer to the bottom.

As for your questions there, I answered them.

As for "no private property", I never said any such thing. There's no such thing, really, under the present system, but the concept many people have of what there supposedly is gives Rand Paul a foundation for discrimination. I'm proposing a rational base for land ownership and pointing out that it would accomplish a lot of things people think are good -- specifically, countering the claims of people like Paul to be able to discriminate.

If you support the present system, you have no real grounds for arguing with him. Without any actual definition of what private property is, you have no grounds to stand on to criticize him, because with his definition, he's entirely correct. Say he's wrong all you want, but the only grounds you have is that if enough people don't like something, they can add a patch onto an ad hoc system, and that's no foundation at all.

But look at the question of people and property rationally, and the only grounds for having land ownership is that we all own it together, because we can't manufacture any more, and that means if we don't own it together, there's no right to it at all. And if we all own it together, then discrimination (and quite an array of other things) goes out the window.

If you bow out of a discussion when you find that your narrow definition of a word is what is meant, you've got a problem. The whole point is that we don't create -- to try a different term -- real estate, and that has a bearing on our concept of property. You've been working all along to try to say that the premise is false, and when you find out you just misunderstood the premise, you leave?