You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Open Borders Presupposes a State
I think there should be a wall around California...after all what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
NO.
I think there should be a wall around Orange County...after all , what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
NO...WAIT..
I think there should be a wall around Long Beach.
After all...what's good for the goose,
........
I don't understand what you're getting at.
No?
If one political entity cal wall it's boundaries then why not all of them?
NOT that I think that's such a bad idea, good fences make good neighbors, BUT.
the logic remains.
If you want one you should also be in favor of the other.
Once again, my preference is for no state enforcing arbitrary lines. My ultimate preference is for the abolition of the state, reverting everything to private property, which one should necessarily advocate and support exclusive borders for. I don't want a state at all.
Vernor vinge style Armadillos? Yeah...I can go with that.
I don't understand the relevance of Italian city-states to this conversation.
(6 nest limit)
Ok
reverting everything to private property? Huh?
There was all-mans-land. Then there was the state (or whatever kingly entity passed as state) and THEN there was private property. The first private property (of land) WAS the kings lands. Thats where the idea of private property, apart from "things I use every day" originates from.
So you can cannot "revert everything" to private property.
Of course you can. Your body is private property. You exercise sole control over it. Same goes for land you homestead. And any other property you exercise sole control over. Private property predates the state, as people predate the state.
(answer to your previous comment)
You can only held something private FROM. If there is no from, then there is no private. Someone had to start making land their own FROM everyone else, and that was the king. Before that, the land was everyones. That sort of property was (partly) existent in the western world until the great enclosures (an expansion of privately owned land into the Commons) in England, dating just 200 years back ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclosure_Acts ) and similar moves in other countries.
[a few years after the well-kown Magna Carta of England, which was about the rights of the aristocrats, there was a lesser known document about the rights of the common people, explicitly stating some rights for common land]
In several parts of the world you still find land that belongs to no person, but to a (changing) group based on the fact that they "use it daily".
Private land was first land that was taken from this everyones land - you can even see it in the words, as the latin privare means "to rob".
Yes. Such as your body, which you hold private from everyone else in using it. That private, or exclusive use, property changes hands does not mean that it's anything other than private. If you homestead a piece of land, that land is private. You exercise exclusive control over it. This is the case without a state.
A piece of land cannot simultaneously be under the control of two competing individuals simultaneously. Coincidentally, that's where the tragedy of the commons arises from.
"Coincidentally, that's where the tragedy of the commons arises from."
No, the tragedy of the Commons originates in Hardins misunderstanding. Because what he wrote about was the tragedy of the untended commons, or in modern words, no commons at all.
Hardin described a land where there was no rules (or no control of those rules), which is the opposite of what a commons constitutes. He decribes a land that everyone treated as his uncontrolled private property (both no access control and no "dont do bad things" control) and so it failed. Rivalry.
In a commons (cooperation) there are rules, given and enforced by everyone. A commons is always the continued process of managing it together with each other. There is no commons without commoning. Which is especially true to those commons that arent something you can touch like land or the sea (where, currently, there is no commons, just lots of state and private actors who dont have rules that are enforcable or respected by everyone - such the overfishing).
If you are interested in commons, search for books from Silke Helfrich. The 2 Commons books have a big set of diverse articles.
Fair enough, and I'll happily walk back that last statement until I read through that material. I have a fairly basic understanding of the commons, enough to get by, so I can always stand to learn more.
However, that does nothing to invalidate anything I said about private property. Exercising exclusive control over a resource, such as a parcel of land, your body, or virtually anything else, constitutes private ownership. This does not require nor presuppose a state existing in order to occur.