Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


2046 last won the day on July 15

2046 had the most liked content!

About 2046

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

7806 profile views
  1. Indeed. This is probably the main reason for the misapplication. For us, property is not taken from a common stock. Property is produced. From the point of view of a production theory of property, there can be no metaphysically given forms of property. If an activity transforms some aspect of nature into property (production), there can be no forms of property, resources, wealth until such an action accomplishes the result. Picking an apple from a tree should not be judged in terms of apples taken from the community-of-owned-apples but in terms of the action which transformed the tree into property. We are already off to a wrong start, and begging the entire question at hand, if we ask whether property is taken from a metaphysically given stock that is already communistically owned. Property, wealth, resources, are not metaphysically given. Land, EM waves, air, water, space etc. as the technological unit are not beings given in rerum natura, ie., existing out there in the world independently and apart from human cognition and effort. All property, wealth, and resources are essentially related to intellectual and physical efforts of individual human beings.
  2. Of course this disease happened by witchcraft, what other justification could there be? Well there you go, folks. The appeal to ignorance and non sequiturs get cashed out in terms of special pleading for the real motivation: gotta keep them foreigners outta here. At first it was the usual arguments: they'll vote wrong, they'll have the wrong culture, they might be murderers. Now we have "because we need communism in the air." There's only one spectrum this argument is on, and with that, you get to go in the ignore list for low IQ. Have a great day.
  3. Yeah, so sure, it could happen that the situation is reversed and the radio station comes along second. In that case I question whether there is actually an easement. Why? Because the radio broadcaster isn't using the other non-broadcaster's property for some specified purpose. He isn't using it at all. So rather than being granted an easement, I think the "McGill complaint" would just simply be dismissed for lack of any liability for harm or damage. The broadcaster just isn't infringing on the non-broadcaster. The Swigian McGill complainer just might as well be enjoining the entire human race as everyone and everything emits radiation. All the time. There's no easement here, the claim is just wrong. And dumb. But sure, whatever, call it an easement for now. I guess the main point here is, at no point does "therefore the ether is viewed as public property" follow from that. Nor at any point does "radio frequencies should be public property" follow.
  4. Yeah so like the argument uses 4A as a premise. If you don't like 4A, then you won't like the argument. But I also, in my original post, argued for 4A itself. 4A is based on the Virginia and Massachusetts Declarations of Rights. Those, in turn, are based on the common law caste doctrine. That, in turn, is based on individual rights. How? It seems like individual rights can be violated even when someone says they're only enforcing them. You have the rights you have, but you also have "procedural rights," which is to say, the right to have your rights-claims decided upon in an epistemically reliable manner. One principle that implies is the burden of proof. If anyone can just claim you might possibly have done something at any point for any arbitrary reason, just on the authorities' say so, then you don't really have any rights. So that's why the government has to meet certain thresholds. Of course there's much more to be said and can be said about this. But at no point was the argument that 4A should just be taken for granted or that it's the only possible tradition.
  5. Umm no. This is just literally dumb. Yes a broadcast station and land both, if they exist, exist. You may try to argue for some "levels of existence" doctrine, maybe like the metaphysics of Plotinus or John Scotus Eriugena. If this is what you wish to stake your argument on I shall leave you to enjoy your opinion as someone not fit to be reasoned with. This is also incoherent. So like, yes the broadcaster, if he homesteaded that wavelength to broadcast on, he owns that emission. If Mr Swig builds his house and wants to complain that he's being "penetrated" with the radio emission (call it the Chuck McGill thesis) the common law will regard him as having "come to the nuisance." It's kind of like an easement, yes. This is kind of the whole point of the Rand essay. However, at no point, does something called "the public" own the radio emission, or the air, or anything at all. That is a little non sequitur that you let into your argument. It just does not follow.
  6. Frequencies and wavelengths aren't abstractions. That's just silly. I literally don't know why or how or what you think this proves here. Do you, a person just sitting there, own those radio waves? No. Do you own those wavelengths on the EM spectrum? No. Why do you? How can someone who did not conceive of or produce or take any actions whatsoever own something that someone else took productive actions towards? The misapplication is this: In a production theory of property, like Rand's, there can be no pre-existing claims to that which the person isn't even aware of. It literally didn't even exist qua value for that person. He's precisely not "living in it," ie., not making use of it or suffering interference thereof to his life. Property is production for life-furthering. He didn't take any productive acts and wasn't even aware of the existence of something, it's not property for him. The relationship people have towards possession or ownership is one of production. A human being only has property rights to things that are the result of his productive efforts. He is using his body. He is using his land. He is using a lot of things. He is not using the radio waves passing through it, unless he first took some productive action and created them. Then he, the radio broadcaster, privately owns them. At no point does public ownership, which is a fictional term, enter the picture. Umm, how you think this helps your point, is beyond me. Yes. If you shine a bright light or laser at your neighbor, you're violating his rights. How you reason from that to "if you send radio waves through your neighbor you're violating his rights" is a non sequitur. And it's a basic non sequitur that any of the legal literature on radio waves addresses. Are radio waves bright lights? No, their wavelength is too long to be visible (that's kind of the whole point.) This kind of error in reasoning destroys all property rights. Specs of dust constantly fly from my property into my neighbors'. Am I violating their rights? Why is that not violating their rights, while heaping a cloud of dust would be? There are no intrinsic metaphysical borders that are carved at the joints for property. This is the fallacy of intrinsicism. If my emission of a given wavelength would ever in any scenario interfere with your enjoyment of your life or goods in some way, then we have a case, which in nuisance law largely depends on who was there first.
  7. Yeah man, plus all of reality should be communist because we're living in the visible light spectrum. It's passing through us! Blind people are the real capitalists, man. **Bong hit**
  8. Just pointing out that this, as literally taken, makes no sense. To say radio broadcasts use something already owned by someone else would be the entire question. Of course she wouldn't say something she disagrees with is a violation of rights. The unidentified space is the EM spectrum. If he were using it, then he'd own it. That's the entire point. And if he owned it, someone's broadcast on that wavelength would interfere with his use, and he could take the interfering broadcaster to court. And this is precisely what historically happened until 1927. The civil courts were working out a system of homesteading in the radio spectrum. See Coase 1959. "He's living in it" is quite frankly a dumb argument. He's living on his land. That wavelength is not his land. Land and radio waves are two different resources. He's not using that specific wavelength. He can point to no specific use of it he is making. He is not producing any value with it. He can point to no harm being done to him by another's original appropriation of it. If he could bring to the court some way he was being harmed or some use out of it he is being prevented, he would have a case. Presumably, ipso facto, he does not. If we're just assuming it's his, then we're playing the question begging game again.
  9. 4A argument 1: You need probable cause to get a warrant. You need a warrant to perform a search. Being an immigrant is not probable cause. It's a violation of rights to search immigrants without a warrant. 4A argument 2: You can perform stops and search with reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity. Immigration isn't criminal activity. Therefore it's a violation of rights to stop and search someone for being an immigrant. If that's confusing to you, I can't help you. Let's review your argumens: You argued that changing jurisdiction was a reason to perform a search. But I change jurisdictions all the time and still 4A applies to both jurisdictions. Nobody thinks I can be stoped and search just for changing jurisdictions. It seems like you're just making an exception for immigrants. You argued that it would be impossible to get any information and enforce any laws. But 4A applies and people can get information and laws are investigated and enforced, even between US and Mexico and Canada. This is just factually false. You argued that it's okay because we can posit sometimes we might have probable cause even though a person be innocent. This doesn't show why you can search someone without a warrant or why probable cause or reasonable suspicion shouldn't be required. All in all, seems bad. Seems like you just don't agree with 4A. Or don't think 4A should apply to immigrants.
  10. If you have probable cause you can get a warrant. If you don't understand this, you have no hope of understanding any argument involving 4A.
  11. Just a separate post on the side issue of perceptual observation versus aided observation: Although it's a currently debated issue as to what is the way to apply 4A, what rights to privacy are, etc., I don't see it primarily in terms of aided vs unaided. I see it in terms active versus passive. The original castle doctrine that the Earl of Camden discovered (if anyone actually read my wall of text) frames the issue in terms of "trespass," that the government may not even "bruise my lawn." Clearly there is some sort of active intrusion that is essential differentiating feature. Even if I'm sitting there with infrared detection scanning crowds of passersby, I'm not trespassing. IR is passive receiving of emitted radiation. But if I scan you with some sort of active device, something that is not just receiving but transmitting, in order to gain access to your person, papers, effects, etc., I'd say that constitutes a search and requires a warrant.
  12. Yeah that's true. Being a foreigner applies to immigration, so I'm talking about people who argue for immigration restrictions. But assume I'm an American traveling from Haiti. I come back to America and the immigration officer stops me and says I can't come in. Is this just? The people who endorse nationalism might say no because the key feature is I'm not foreign. For you, the key feature is the border. The line in the map represents something different, an exception to how I should be treated. See next paragraph: Supposed I live in Colorado. I am under the jurisdiction of Denver PD. I lose my job. I look for a job in Florida. I get hired. I need not submit myself to a search, interrogation, or screening with Tampa PD. I just rent a place and go. Tampa and Denver are different jurisdictions. Nor does the federal government even know I am moving, nor do I submit to a warrantless search from them. Is it just that they stop me? No it is not. I'm just in one jurisdiction, then the other. Information, if it need be transferred, can be requested. No warrantless screening happens. If you want to say the border is special, you need some reason that's not circular or a double standard.
  13. Yeah so, if you believe that, you don't believe in the Fourth Amendment (and the castle doctrine) at all. You either make a double standard for foreigners, or you throw it out altogether. Since I support 4A, I need not consider either of these.
  14. Yeah so you may want to challenge that it is a general warrant because, hey it's not just general to the whole planet, but just for immigrants. Why doesn't this work? In legal terms a general warrant is one that doesn't have probable cause or specify the items to be searched and the items to be searched for. Do you have any of these things when you stop and question an immigrant at the border? No, you do not. Next you may say, just being a foreigner satisfies these criteria. Is being a foreigner a specific criminal act? No. Do you have witness testimony that they've possibly committed a crime? No. Do you have evidence that they've committed a crime? No. So this doesn't work. The only way forward is to embrace nationalism or throw the law out. Otherwise it just seems you're making an exception for immigrants. Also note that saying something like "well, I would have evidence, if I could stop and search them!" is precisely the kind of thing the law was created for. So invoking this is just wanting to get rid of the law.
  15. You're not allowing criminals to flee. If you know someone is a criminal, or have probable cause, you may stop them. If you have reasonable suspicion, you may stop them. But if you do not, you have to meet that threshold before treading upon their homes, persons, papers, and effects. If you think not being able to perform warrantless searches prevents investigators from doing anything, then you'd have to explain why it doesn't prevent investigators from doing anything they can't already do internally to any other crime they investigate involving citizens. In fact, if you think it does, you'd seem to be committed to believing that no crimes get solved. Which is just obviously false. I suspect that you simply don't agree with this. The 4th amendment doesn't apply here. Castle doctrine doesn't apply here. The common law doesn't apply here. Why? Because they're foreigners crossing the border "changing jurisdictions." So what's wrong with this? It's question begging. If your argument at any point is "because they're foreigners" you haven't demonstrated why an exception for them is justified, when presumably you wouldn't do so with normal US citizens. Why should there be a double standard? Because they're foreigners. This is circular. The only way to argue this is to argue against castle doctrine for everybody, thus destroying private property rights altogether. Or just to embrace something like nationalism and argue that immigrants don't get the same rights as natives, or just being a foreigner is probable cause. My guess is that Yaron and Harry don't want to do that. They just didn't want to restrict immigrants from coming in, but just assumed stopping and screening them was fine and didn't think more about that aspect (except Harry seems to have thought about some of these aspects, only to come to the same conclusion.) Certainly just stopping and searching people would be better than restricting them. But it doesn't appear to me that it is justified. You can let people come into the country and not subject them to warrantless searches, or you can hold a double standard. Or you can throw out the law.
  • Create New...