Private property is a fiction of government or held by force (some libertarian thought equates government being force). The commons was here before private property was ever codified into law.
continued... Wraith wrote: > At 02:16 PM 6/30/2008, you wrote: > >> Wraith wrote: >> >> >> >> >> Nobody owns the property on the border? >> > >> > >> > Exactly. Its "owned" by the group of thugs commonly referred to as >> > government. >> > It would be entirely different if that land was private property. >> >> Wrong, it is owned by the people who own land there. > > Try telling that to the Imperials, Goat...I'm certain that they will > be rather entertained...The border zone isn't private property. Maybe some of it, but there was just a piece out of Miss that says you are wrong. About the guy who went camping on the river. However, even if we assume that you assertion is true, there is private property that abuts against your supposed government land. > >> > >> >> There is no mixing of concepts, >> >> they are exactly the same. >> > >> > On the contrary, you are mixing private property with that of >> government. >> >> Except that the concept of common property is just as valid and predated >> the concept of private property. > > Common property is a useful fiction. As for it predating private property, > that's open for debate. Its all in who gets to make the definitions. As > with most such, its those with the most power. But does that make it > right? Those definitions is what is called law. Law is a reflection of what is (or it is suppose to be), as far as making it right. Is the law of nature right? That is suppose to be what our law reflects. I suppose whether the commons is right or not is if it existed before the Law (or government), and it certainly did. The whole of North America was pretty much set up such before the the Europeans came. The concept of private property outside that of force, that is by Law, is a much newer concept, then the commons (isn't much need for private property when populations are low, though without Law / Government, it could only be held by force). The only way that private property could exist now without the law, is by having the force to keep it such. The commons have / had similar distinctions, though not always, of being controlled or used by a tribes, to the exclusion of other tribes, making it private commons, as much as could be without the law, by force. And why did these tribes not want others trespassing against their commons? It was a matter of plain and simple survival. > >> Since we are suppose to be the >> government, it is us who is suppose to have the say on how >> the commons is administered. > > Oh please...Sure we have a government of, by and for the people. What > they don't tell you is which people. Its those who have bought(or > rented) the > politicians that get to make the definitions, as I stated above. Certainly that is the way it is now, since we will not tell them different. So why do they insist the borders remain open? Certainly it isn't some twisted sense of liberty? > >> Without the commons, and without any >> private property, you would have nether positive or negative rights, >> except for what somebody who did have negative property rights >> granted you positive rights on their property. > > Without commons(or very limited) everything would be a matter of private > property. But that doesn't suit certain types of ideologues. Without commons, you would quickly become a prisoner on your own land, or pay very dearly for the privilege of liberty outside it, perhaps even with blood. > >> > >> >> Some libertarians just ignore it to try >> >> to make the position tenable, when it isn't. >> >> Goat >> > >> > What position might that be? >> >> That a people doesn't have the right to keep others from trespass. >> Goat > > Having never taken that position, I feel no need to defend it. Private > property > is just that, private. And common property isn't? So if some buds and I buy some hunting property, we aren't allowed to make rules (such is government) to say who else can use it and must let anybody who wants to do so? <http://books.google.com/books?id=C6sqAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22distribution+of+ownership%22&as_brr=1> Goat
