UK Politics Thread X: Boris' Big Bonkers Brexit Bash

[Thermodolia]

Isn't the polio vaccine itself like $2-5? What price do you think is reasonable in the prevention of this horrible crippling disease?

I'd go full Martin Shkreli. Countries are always going to buy lots and lots of it for their citizens, would be a great moneymaker.

And with that the government has nationalized your corporation and you’re sitting in prison for making people pay exorbitant costs for life saving things.

[Novus America]

Yes, but the important thing is you do not have completely unrestricted and unfettered ownership. That distinction is very important.
There are restrictions on what you can and cannot do with it.

You do not every fully own every right in your land.
Yes you have a right to alienation, you have a right to get rid of it.
But you do have restrictions on what you can and cannot do with it.

Also I never advocated seizing people’s land rights entirely.

Of course, but any restrictions on your rights to land are simply delimited by the fact that there is a competing right to land. Case in point, if I own a freehold covenant over land like the one in Tulk v. Moxhay saying the owner of the freehold estate in land may not build over a pleasure-garden, there is a competition between the right of the estate-owner and the right of the covenantee of the freehold covenant. Both own real property, a right over the same piece of land, one freehold estate, one freehold covenant. The estate-owner's use of his land is delimited by the fact that he cannot act in a manner contrary to the freehold covenantee's rights, and vice versa. The scope of the private proprietary right you own is limited by a competing private proprietary right.

Nothing in this supports your broader proposition that you can limit people's private proprietary rights in pursuit of some vague public interest of the homeless to have homes, because the homeless don't have private proprietary rights to land which conflict with your own.

The government also has some competing rights and interests in your land.
The government essentially owns freehold covenants over all land in its jurisdiction.

Again I am not limiting your rights either. I am not saying you cannot own, buy or sell real property (or rather rights therein technically).

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Oh no, I'm just saying it's illegal.

You know, you're saying a lot without saying much.

Because I'm not sure where I stand on this issue.

[Purgatio]

But I don't, because I don't believing that the State or society can arbitrarily revoke, erase or dispossess a person of the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. The ability to enjoy security of property rights is a hallmark of your personal autonomy and the ability to possess, use, and enjoy the benefit of your possessions free of coercive and violent requisition or expropriation.

My point was that most people disagree with you when it comes to stuff like this, because most people know that power with no limits will be abused. Libertarians/borderline ancaps like you come about as a direct result of someone not realizing this.
We have checks on the power of the government because without them, the government will abuse its power. Why is it then irrational to have limits on the power of private individuals?

I've never been called a libertarian on NSG, thats a first.

Its not irrational to have limits on the power of private individuals. In particular, I don't believe private individuals should be allowed to use their legal rights to trample over other people's legal rights. I might have a legal right over my knife, but I can't use it to stab you because I'm infringing on your right to be protected from a trespass to your person and bodily sovereignty. Crucially, this does not extend to situations like the homeless where the existence of the homeless evinces no violation of a right or a trespass into that person's autonomy, merely the omission to give him something he's not entitled to.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

I'd go full Martin Shkreli. Countries are always going to buy lots and lots of it for their citizens, would be a great moneymaker.

And with that the government has nationalized your corporation and you’re sitting in prison for making people pay exorbitant costs for life saving things.

That isn't why Shkreli is in prison.

[Purgatio]

The efficiency comes from the cost-savings from reaping large economies of scale

Alright then, are you willing to make the case that a Soviet-style command economy is the most efficient economic model possible? Economies of scale and all that.

No because beyond the optimum size of a company it experiences diseconomies of scale, which is what happened in the Soviet Union, amongst other things.

[Purgatio]

Of course, but any restrictions on your rights to land are simply delimited by the fact that there is a competing right to land. Case in point, if I own a freehold covenant over land like the one in Tulk v. Moxhay saying the owner of the freehold estate in land may not build over a pleasure-garden, there is a competition between the right of the estate-owner and the right of the covenantee of the freehold covenant. Both own real property, a right over the same piece of land, one freehold estate, one freehold covenant. The estate-owner's use of his land is delimited by the fact that he cannot act in a manner contrary to the freehold covenantee's rights, and vice versa. The scope of the private proprietary right you own is limited by a competing private proprietary right.

Nothing in this supports your broader proposition that you can limit people's private proprietary rights in pursuit of some vague public interest of the homeless to have homes, because the homeless don't have private proprietary rights to land which conflict with your own.

The government also has some competing rights and interests in your land.
The government essentially owns freehold covenants over all land in its jurisdiction.

Again I am not limiting your rights either. I am not saying you cannot own, buy or sell real property (or rather rights therein technically).

Taxing private land to give free land to people who don't own land isn't the exercise of a 'competing right' over land because it isn't done in exercise of a right in real property.

[Novus America]

My point was that most people disagree with you when it comes to stuff like this, because most people know that power with no limits will be abused. Libertarians/borderline ancaps like you come about as a direct result of someone not realizing this.
We have checks on the power of the government because without them, the government will abuse its power. Why is it then irrational to have limits on the power of private individuals?

I've never been called a libertarian on NSG, thats a first.

Its not irrational to have limits on the power of private individuals. In particular, I don't believe private individuals should be allowed to use their legal rights to trample over other people's legal rights. I might have a legal right over my knife, but I can't use it to stab you because I'm infringing on your right to be protected from a trespass to your person and bodily sovereignty. Crucially, this does not extend to situations like the homeless where the existence of the homeless evinces no violation of a right or a trespass into that person's autonomy, merely the omission to give him something he's not entitled to.

You are more a Hoppean.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Hermann_Hoppe

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

My point was that most people disagree with you when it comes to stuff like this, because most people know that power with no limits will be abused. Libertarians/borderline ancaps like you come about as a direct result of someone not realizing this.
We have checks on the power of the government because without them, the government will abuse its power. Why is it then irrational to have limits on the power of private individuals?

I've never been called a libertarian on NSG, thats a first.

Its not irrational to have limits on the power of private individuals. In particular, I don't believe private individuals should be allowed to use their legal rights to trample over other people's legal rights. I might have a legal right over my knife, but I can't use it to stab you because I'm infringing on your right to be protected from a trespass to your person and bodily sovereignty. Crucially, this does not extend to situations like the homeless where the existence of the homeless evinces no violation of a right or a trespass into that person's autonomy, merely the omission to give him something he's not entitled to.

Well, your entire point appears to be that private corporations should be unfettered and have few if any restrictions on their behavior. Knowing or remembering nothing else about you, I'm content to put you in the ideology largely defined by worshiping the free market without actually understanding how it works.

As for your second point, what if I believe that people are entitled to housing, food, and medicine?

[Purgatio]

I've never been called a libertarian on NSG, thats a first.

Its not irrational to have limits on the power of private individuals. In particular, I don't believe private individuals should be allowed to use their legal rights to trample over other people's legal rights. I might have a legal right over my knife, but I can't use it to stab you because I'm infringing on your right to be protected from a trespass to your person and bodily sovereignty. Crucially, this does not extend to situations like the homeless where the existence of the homeless evinces no violation of a right or a trespass into that person's autonomy, merely the omission to give him something he's not entitled to.

You are more a Hoppean.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Hermann_Hoppe

Yeap seems about right (although I disagree with his views on homosexuality)

[Nimzonia]

No, just gouging, which is generally considered a shitty practice by normal, non-psychopathic humans.

If you purchase a right on the open market surely you are then entitled to exercise that right because you've paid for it with your own property.

I didn't say anything about your legal entitlement to be a shitty excuse for a human being.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

I've never been called a libertarian on NSG, thats a first.

Its not irrational to have limits on the power of private individuals. In particular, I don't believe private individuals should be allowed to use their legal rights to trample over other people's legal rights. I might have a legal right over my knife, but I can't use it to stab you because I'm infringing on your right to be protected from a trespass to your person and bodily sovereignty. Crucially, this does not extend to situations like the homeless where the existence of the homeless evinces no violation of a right or a trespass into that person's autonomy, merely the omission to give him something he's not entitled to.

Well, your entire point appears to be that private corporations should be unfettered and have few if any restrictions on their behavior. Knowing or remembering nothing else about you, I'm content to put you in the ideology largely defined by worshiping the free market without actually understanding how it works.

As for your second point, what if I believe that people are entitled to housing, food, and medicine?

Check the hong kong thread.

Purgatio is not a libertarian.

[Novus America]

The government also has some competing rights and interests in your land.
The government essentially owns freehold covenants over all land in its jurisdiction.

Again I am not limiting your rights either. I am not saying you cannot own, buy or sell real property (or rather rights therein technically).

Taxing private land to give free land to people who don't own land isn't the exercise of a 'competing right' over land because it isn't done in exercise of a right in real property.

Well then what is the problem?
You have no right to not pay your taxes.

Although the government generally has a right in the use and distribution of property in its jurisdiction. Such as the right to eminent domain.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Alright then, are you willing to make the case that a Soviet-style command economy is the most efficient economic model possible? Economies of scale and all that.

No because beyond the optimum size of a company it experiences diseconomies of scale, which is what happened in the Soviet Union, amongst other things.

Alright, this is legitimately funny. What you're saying here is that it's good for total monopolies to exist because giant corporations are efficient, but you're also saying is that it's bad for command economies to exist because giant corporations are inefficient, right?
Well, they're literally the exact same thing. A single central authority is in charge of production, and it gets to decide what to produce, how much to produce, and where it goes. Is it the ideal system or is it not, make up your mind.

[Thermodolia]

And with that the government has nationalized your corporation and you’re sitting in prison for making people pay exorbitant costs for life saving things.

That isn't why Shkreli is in prison.

Well that’s the reason I’d use if I was in charge, either that or I’d have some National Security charges be drummed up

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Taxing private land to give free land to people who don't own land isn't the exercise of a 'competing right' over land because it isn't done in exercise of a right in real property.

Well then what is the problem?
You have no right to not pay your taxes.

Although the government generally has a right in the use and distribution of property in its jurisdiction. Such a the right to eminent domain.

Eminent domain is terrible and should be outlawed. It removes someones property rights for government or private benefit.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

That isn't why Shkreli is in prison.

Well that’s the reason I’d use if I was in charge, either that or I’d have some National Security charges be drummed up

What for? It's not illegal.

[Purgatio]

I've never been called a libertarian on NSG, thats a first.

Its not irrational to have limits on the power of private individuals. In particular, I don't believe private individuals should be allowed to use their legal rights to trample over other people's legal rights. I might have a legal right over my knife, but I can't use it to stab you because I'm infringing on your right to be protected from a trespass to your person and bodily sovereignty. Crucially, this does not extend to situations like the homeless where the existence of the homeless evinces no violation of a right or a trespass into that person's autonomy, merely the omission to give him something he's not entitled to.

Well, your entire point appears to be that private corporations should be unfettered and have few if any restrictions on their behavior. Knowing or remembering nothing else about you, I'm content to put you in the ideology largely defined by worshiping the free market without actually understanding how it works.

As for your second point, what if I believe that people are entitled to housing, food, and medicine?

Oh you're right I do like capitalism and the free market being as unfettered as possible, but the reason I find it ironic is that I've also been called an authoritarian on NSG before, and its a bit hard to see how I can be both an authoritarian and a libertarian.

Anyway, people aren't entitled to housing, food and medicine because to speak of a 'right' to these things is a misnomer. You can't have a 'right' to something because such a right is irreconcilable with a person's 'right' to the peaceful enjoyment of his property rights over those same things. You cannot have a 'right' if its incompatible with another. For example, you have a right to bodily sovereignty, to consent to sex or withdraw or deny consent to sex. Hence, it must follow logically with an elegant inevitability that there is no right to receive sex from another, since such a right would imply the former person has no right to consent to sex or refuse consent to sex.

Likewise, to speak of a 'right' to something like food, water, medicine or housing implies the negation of property rights, since it cannot co-exist with the 'right' of a property owner not to be dispossessed of his property without his consent. So you have to pick one or the other, but I gather from you that you don't seem to like property rights very much so I know your stance on this choice.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

The government also has some competing rights and interests in your land.
The government essentially owns freehold covenants over all land in its jurisdiction.

Again I am not limiting your rights either. I am not saying you cannot own, buy or sell real property (or rather rights therein technically).

Taxing private land to give free land to people who don't own land isn't the exercise of a 'competing right' over land because it isn't done in exercise of a right in real property.

The government can exercise its competing rights, declare itself to be the owner of land, and then legally acquire land according to how your competing rights system appears to work. From that point, it is free to allow others to use that land, correct?

[Purgatio]

No because beyond the optimum size of a company it experiences diseconomies of scale, which is what happened in the Soviet Union, amongst other things.

Alright, this is legitimately funny. What you're saying here is that it's good for total monopolies to exist because giant corporations are efficient, but you're also saying is that it's bad for command economies to exist because giant corporations are inefficient, right?
Well, they're literally the exact same thing. A single central authority is in charge of production, and it gets to decide what to produce, how much to produce, and where it goes. Is it the ideal system or is it not, make up your mind.

...I mean, they are actually totally different. Economies of scale and diseconomies of scale are two concepts that follow from the U-shaped curve that tracks the quantity produced with the per unit cost of production. Hence, in a private monopoly, the monopoly will never exceed the efficient minimum point of the U-shaped curve because the profit motive will deter him from overproducing because beyond the minimum point the per unit cost of production will rise and eat into the company's profit margins, the result is the private monopolist will not cross the minimum point of the curve and hence allocative efficiency is preserved. In a public monopolist, there is no such deterrent effect from the profit motive and hence allocative inefficiency results.

[Novus America]

Well then what is the problem?
You have no right to not pay your taxes.

Although the government generally has a right in the use and distribution of property in its jurisdiction. Such a the right to eminent domain.

Eminent domain is terrible and should be outlawed. It removes someones property rights for government or private benefit.

The government is just reclaiming its rights in your real property. You live in the UK, right?
So any real property right you own in the UK are still in the UK, you cannot remove them from the UK.

And it is necessary for the proper functioning if society.

Obviously you still get fair compensation.
But I am not even advocating the use of eminent domain here.

[Purgatio]

Taxing private land to give free land to people who don't own land isn't the exercise of a 'competing right' over land because it isn't done in exercise of a right in real property.

The government can exercise its competing rights, declare itself to be the owner of land, and then legally acquire land according to how your competing rights system appears to work. From that point, it is free to allow others to use that land, correct?

Your 'competing right' in question, namely to arbitrarily erase a person's property rights and seize land without compensation, isn't a valid moral right because it cannot co-exist with a person's moral autonomy and self-determination to enjoy the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions and to be protected from violent, coercive dispossession.

[Novus America]

Taxing private land to give free land to people who don't own land isn't the exercise of a 'competing right' over land because it isn't done in exercise of a right in real property.

The government can exercise its competing rights, declare itself to be the owner of land, and then legally acquire land according to how your competing rights system appears to work. From that point, it is free to allow others to use that land, correct?

That is called eminent domain. Although I am not saying we use it here, it is a right the government has.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Well, your entire point appears to be that private corporations should be unfettered and have few if any restrictions on their behavior. Knowing or remembering nothing else about you, I'm content to put you in the ideology largely defined by worshiping the free market without actually understanding how it works.

As for your second point, what if I believe that people are entitled to housing, food, and medicine?

Oh you're right I do like capitalism and the free market being as unfettered as possible, but the reason I find it ironic is that I've also been called an authoritarian on NSG before, and its a bit hard to see how I can be both an authoritarian and a libertarian.

Anyway, people aren't entitled to housing, food and medicine because to speak of a 'right' to these things is a misnomer. You can't have a 'right' to something because such a right is irreconcilable with a person's 'right' to the peaceful enjoyment of his property rights over those same things. You cannot have a 'right' if its incompatible with another. For example, you have a right to bodily sovereignty, to consent to sex or withdraw or deny consent to sex. Hence, it must follow logically with an elegant inevitability that there is no right to receive sex from another, since such a right would imply the former person has no right to consent to sex or refuse consent to sex.

Likewise, to speak of a 'right' to something like food, water, medicine or housing implies the negation of property rights, since it cannot co-exist with the 'right' of a property owner not to be dispossessed of his property without his consent. So you have to pick one or the other, but I gather from you that you don't seem to like property rights very much so I know your stance on this choice.

This entire discussion has been built on the idea that the right to private property is sacrosant, an idea that I do not necessarily share. I have been treating your arguments as though your beliefs on the subject were equivalent to fact. Now it's time to return the favor, to accept my opinions as fact - even though you disagree with them - for the purposes of debate.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Eminent domain is terrible and should be outlawed. It removes someones property rights for government or private benefit.

The government is just reclaiming its rights in your real property. You live in the UK, right?
So any real property right you own in the UK are still in the UK, you cannot remove them from the UK.

And it is necessary for the proper functioning if society.

Obviously you still get fair compensation.
But I am not even advocating the use of eminent domain here.

Much of what is wrong in the world is caused by the concept of a 'society.' We are not a 'society,' we are a group of individuals who happen to live nearby.