File spoon-archives/anarchy-list.archive/anarchy-list_2003/anarchy-list.0307, message 106


Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 12:39:22 +0100
From: Iain McKay <iain.mckay-AT-zetnet.co.uk>
Subject: Re: land (was Re: owned vs. free market)


hello all

Joacim Persson wrote: 
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003, Iain McKay wrote:
> > Which shows the lack of reality of Joacim. He seems to forget that
> > someone else can and does "rig up a border and control traffic across
> > it", namely the property owner.
> 
> You are constantly yapping about real estate, and then extending problems
> specific to that to property in general. I haven't talked specifically
> about real estate. That's your scarecrow, not mine.

Sorry, no. We need space to live. Real estate is important for the
simple
reason that we cannot float. If we do not have the ground under our feet
available to us, how can we be free?

That Joacim is trying to change the subject says it all.

> I have debated real estate issues with anarcho-capitalists (i.e. people
> actually calling themselves that, not just being branded as such by morons
> like you), and I can't say I agree with some of the views that some or
> perhaps all of them are expressing regarding what can be owned and what
> can't.

so you are *not* an "anarcho"-capitalist? Interesting, so what you
are? You seem to go out your way to defend capitalism and private 
property. It seemed an honest conclusion to draw.

And really, calling me a "moron" suggests you dislike being questioned
on your assertions. It's not very convincing...
 
> In order for land owners to block others path, /all/ land must be owned, or
> land be owned in a way that there are no freely accessible roads.

not at all. If I put a fence round something and guard it, then I can
block others acrossing it. That seems obvious.
 
> The funny part is that if we have /only/ the two principles:
> 1. All land must have an owner.
> 2. The owner controls traffic across his land.
> Then it is possible that a land owner cannot reach his land at all, i.e.
> not own it. =)

Not at all. They own their little bit of land, the other bits of land
are owned by other people. They don't let people across. Its annoying,
but its not a violation of ownership. 

Really Joacim, if you cannot do better than that, I'm going to have to
just give up on you. You obviously have no interested in rational
debate.
 
> People (in pre-state days) solved this problem by deciding for a third
> principle, modifying the two previous, the first one in particular:
> 3. Some land must be set off for public roads, so all land is reachable to all.

public roads? Really? You *are* joking? How is that going to work in a
privatised system? The public does not exist, after all, in capitalist
ideology.

And I should point out that this is applicable in pre-capitalist days.
The capitalist ideal is privatised roads. Don't you read Rothbard or
Friedman?

> But there was also a consesus (pre-state days again) that anyone may travel
> (by foot or horse) across any land, as long as crops growing on it aren't
> ruined.

but that implied common use rights, which were attacked by the rising 
capitalist class. And guess what? They used the state to attack these
common consensus, these common rights, in favour of capitalist property
rights.

You really cannot have it both ways. Yes, common rights existed. But
before the state destroyed them in favour of bourgeois rights and rule.

 This is still the law today here; included in "the rights of
> common" amongst other things like limited camping, picking wild berries
> etc. Hunting and fishing was also part of the rights of common in the
> middle ages, and is still consensus in some parts of the country,
> regardless of what the formal laws states.

all of which would be destroyed by a privatised system. make your mind
up.
Either you have private property or you have use rights. You cannot have
both. As "anarcho"-capitalists continually point out.

Iain



   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005