On 9/20/2019 at 9:33 AM, dream_weaver said:
What are you going to do about the natural producers of such signals. Shall the sun be held in contempt until it blots itself out from emitting into “your space”?
No. The sun is not a member of society, nor can it be reasoned with or defeated in war.
On 9/20/2019 at 9:33 AM, dream_weaver said:
See Owning Land? for “The source of property rights is the law of causality. All property and all forms of wealth are produced by man’s mind and labor.” Jon Southall made the argument that the land (or “space” through which electromagnetic waves pass through", was not produced by your mind or your labor . . . you couldn’t lay claim to ownership to it.
It looks like Jon focused too hard on the metaphysical versus man-made distinction and dropped the moral and social context of property rights.
Let’s take the example of the hunter-gatherers. They are members of a tribe. What is the purpose of a tribe? It’s similar to that of a town. Both are social-political groups formed in order to benefit and protect the members of that group. Some tribesmen go hunting to feed the group, some go gathering, some do various tasks around the camp or village to keep the place functioning properly. It’s a primitive division of labor. The wise chieftain hears complaints and dictates justice. Warriors train to protect the tribe or raid others for needed supplies. Elders tell stories to pass on knowledge and entertain. Women have children and make clothes and baskets. So when the hunter catches a deer, he recognizes that, in a sense, it’s his deer, but also that the rest of the tribe has a certain claim to it, since he is part of a group working to survive together. Their claim is not one of primary (personal, private) ownership. They did not personally kill the deer and carry it back to the village. Their claim is one of secondary (social, public) ownership. They can say that, yes, the hunter caught the deer, but as his fellow tribesmen, we have been raising his children, weaving baskets for him, protecting his family from enemies, dispensing tribal justice and keeping thieves away from his possessions, and entertaining him with stories at night. Doesn’t he owe us some of the food that he caught today? Isn’t it wrong of him to take from us without giving something in exchange?
That sort of claim does not originate from the tribal premise that “wealth belongs to the tribe or to society as a whole.” Rather, its source is the trader principle applied to a social context. Part of the nature of a primitive village or a civilized town is the sharing and trading of values. To function properly, however, the villagers or townsfolk must draw a reasonable and just line between primary-private ownership and secondary-public ownership of the things that comprise the village or town. The individual and his personal space and possessions must be respected, and the integrity and proper functioning of the village or town must be maintained. This is the political problem that divides socialists and capitalists. Socialists say “private property” is a fiction, and capitalists say “public property” is a fiction. Neither one is a fiction, but one does have primacy over the other. Without the individual, the group can’t exist. Likewise, without private property, there can be no public property. The purpose of public property is to add value to private property, thereby adding value to the town or nation as a whole.
Even primitive villagers (with only the concepts of “his” versus “ours”) must first recognize the deer as belonging to the hunter, before they can then make a claim to some of it based on the trader principle in that social context. And if the hunter should refuse to trade, keeping the whole deer for himself, then he would be setting himself up against the very notion of the trader principle and the social situation that maintains his standard of life. The chieftain would be very reasonable to confiscate part of the deer for tribal use, and possibly to exile the anti-social hunter, if he could not be convinced to change his behavior.
Now, how does all that relate to the ownership of land and space? Well, land and space are very much like the deer, in that they are values needed by everyone in a tribe or town. People must have land and space to use–so they can live and work to produce food and tools, or to make things they can trade for food and tools. A metaphysically given thing, such as an unworked piece of land or an unoccupied region of space, is itself a value to people, whether that value is recognized or not. Its value is objectively relational to man. It’s not created by our mind or labor. We discover that metaphysically given value and then later use it to create other things of value from it. We see that an empty field has value as a suitable place to plant seeds, which have value as potential plants, which have value as something to eat. The chain of values begins with the metaphysically given (the land and space), and it continues with the things man makes from the land and in the space. Within a social context the value-chain still begins with the metaphysically given, but now one’s claim to a value must be understood within the new context of the village or town. An individual resident has primary ownership over his allotment of land and space, and also the things he produces from that land and in that space, but the other residents have a secondary claim based on the trader principle that governs the proper functioning of the village or town.
Quote
The principle of trade is the only rational ethical principle for all human relationships, personal and social, private and public, spiritual and material. It is the principle of justice. (Ayn Rand)
It is the objective value of land and space which establishes a man’s moral right to use and hold such property to survive. And it’s the trader principle that recognizes and regulates his political right in a social context. By the law of causality he has primary ownership of any production he causes, including the land and space of his production. And by the same law of causality, he must accept that his fellow townsfolk hold a secondary claim over his land and space, which he owes to them on account of the trader principle applied to his social context. Without the benefits and protections of living in a civilized town, his life and possessions would be vulnerable to any common thug or gang. He therefore must contribute to the overall integrity and health of the town, which means possibly granting easements or property to the public right of ways and infrastructure.