China hungry. Antarctica stuffed.

[bordsilver]

So what? The universal right to freedom from aggression doesn't imply that "the British were justified in violently taking land from the Aboriginal residents". It means that the Aboriginal residents had no right to try and enforce collective property ownership principles on the British (or their own people for that matter).

 

[SpacePete]

So what? The universal right to freedom from aggression doesn't imply that "the British were justified in violently taking land from the Aboriginal residents". It means that the Aboriginal residents had no right to try and enforce collective property ownership principles on the British (or their own people for that matter).

"The Aboriginal residents had no right to try and enforce collective property ownership principles on the British"

Yes, and I'm sure we'll condemn them when they invade Britain.

Your problem is that you don't recognise this is an old problem amongst classical Liberals and Libertarians, and it that takes honesty to accept. It dates back further than British occupation of Australia.

 

[mmm....shiney!]

So, while he argued that Aboriginals were subject to a collectivist system that was preventing them from becoming fully human, and that subjection to such a system overrode any right to freedom from aggression, it doesn't count in this case?

All I have argued is that it is only when we recognise and respect individual property rights that we enhance our individual liberty. A collectivist system places the needs of the whole above the individual. Now that's really great, until the needs of the whole override the needs of the minority, or the needs of the whole tribe in the West override the needs of the whole tribe in the East, or the needs of the 99% override the needs of the 1%.

The problem with justifying needs based upon the collective is that at some point the collective becomes either the majority or it becomes the minority with the most clout and imposes its view upon those who are not in the collective. The Aboriginal collective system of ownership gave scant regard for individual rights. It may have suited their hunter/gatherer lifestyle, but it was nothing more than a waypoint in human evolution that benefited a few at the expense of others.

...any system based upon collectivism as being the supreme value system overrides the fundamental right to freedom from aggression upon both person and property.

Now, any reasonable person would read that "freedom from aggression" because... that is what was written. It states that any right to freedom from aggression is no longer valid in the presence of a collectivist system.

Most people reading my original post in context would understand that I was trying to explain that a system of property rights based upon communal ownership nullifies any individual rights to property. It's not difficult to understand, either you own stuff individually or the group has a preceding claim, it's mine or it's everybody's, that's my car or it belongs to the collective, it's my boat or it belongs to the party. How difficult is that?

 

[bordsilver]

Yes, and I'm sure we'll condemn them when they invade Britain.

Well, that is an irrelevant diversion.

Your problem is that you don't recognise this is an old problem amongst classical Liberals and Libertarians, and it that takes honesty to accept. It dates back further than British occupation of Australia.

I think my original quote in the other thread shows that I do recognise that this is part of the difference between Classical Liberals and Voluntarists.

 

[SpacePete]

IS the above not a variation on one of the older post-justifications for land acquisition from the native inhabitants?

e.g.

"Many classical liberals (Locke, Paine, Jefferson) recognized that absolute ownership of natural resources could deprive liberty, but avoided the issue in practice due to the great amounts of unsettled land that their societies had access to."

All three of these classical liberals did not avoid the issue in practice, but chose instead to characterize the lands on the New World as unsettled, for purposes of convenience. They did this by divesting the aboriginal inhabitants of their title through characterizing those inhabitants as not having ownership of the land, simply because they appeared to be nomadic. Since the native inhabitants did not toil on the land according to the European model of land tenure (which itself relied for its valdity on derivation from radical title vested in the monarch), the land was _Terra Nullius_, and these classical liberals were able to rationalize their taking possession. In doing this they avoided the issue of the deprivation of the liberty of the aboriginal inhabitants.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Libertarian_perspectives_on_natural_resources

To demonstrate the variety of views on this topic, some people (classical Liberalist, not Libertarian) are more straightforward when commenting on a certain Libertarian school of thought that held up Aboriginal society as an ideal rather than as a failing:

The uncivilised irrelevance of 40,000 years of Aboriginal libertarian anarchy

...They presumably know this much at least (hopefully) that Australian Aborigines, being one of the oldest branch of humans to have left Africa, have lived in Australia for over 40,000 years.

There was a "dream" libertarian anarchic situation here for 40,000 years. An entire continent with an area nearly three times of India, and TOTAL FREEDOM from any nation state. No force governed them, only individual optimisation decisions. They could do WHATEVER they wanted. They could bargain with each other (and they did trade, to an extent) and get whatever they needed through individual work and effort.

But for 40,000 years all they managed to do was to invent a few trivial "inventions", and had NO capacity to defend themselves from any foreign assault. Primitive weaponry meant they were entirely vulnerable to British guns.

There was no pressure to innovate, no desire to learn about the world, no interest in anything long-lived.

They reason? They failed the most fundamental requirement of civilisation: to organise themselves into kingdoms or nation states.

We don't want a weak state or anarchy.

Civilisation needs a VERY STRONG STATE, which is capable of solidly defending its borders. Within that state, there should be total defence of individual property rights and freedom of individual enterprise and speech, allowing the society to innovate and flourish.

This worldview known as classical liberalism being ENTIRELY different to libertarianism. This worldview understands that without strong defence NOTHING can be achieved, not even basic innovation, like the wheel (Aborigines didn't even have the wheel for 40,000 years).

The anarchist libertarians are as IRRELEVANT to human progress as the Aborigines were for 40,000 of their history. No disrespect meant to the Aborigines, but had the human species relied on their libertarian anarchist approach, we would have been living a most primitive and brutish life even today.

Civilisation BEGINS with a strong state. Ensuring that such a strong state doesn't become tyrannical is the key political problem before us, not whether we should have such a strong state in the first place.

http://www.sabhlokcity.com/2014/03/...0000-years-of-aboriginal-libertarian-anarchy/

 

[fiatphoney]

All I have argued is that it is only when we recognise and respect individual property rights that we enhance our individual liberty.

Wonderful that the libertarian view is that everyone has a right to property. As long as you own it first. And you don't want to subdivide it as much as you want so laws and more govt regs is needed. That might hurt the rights of existing property holders. At the expense of non property owners. But open borders are great. Especially for property holders, whose rights are protected by govt.

 

[mmm....shiney!]

All I have argued is that it is only when we recognise and respect individual property rights that we enhance our individual liberty.

Wonderful that the libertarian view is that everyone has a right to property.

yes it is wonderful

As long as you own it first.

So you are suggesting everyone has a right to own property

And you don't want to subdivide it as much as you want so laws and more govt regs is needed.

Now you are drifting into fuckheadsville, which is pretty normal for you.

That might hurt the rights of existing property holders.

The rights of property owner are protected, or at least should be protected in the free market. We've been down this path a million times. Stop trolling.

At the expense of non property owners.

Under a free market everyone's property rights are protected. Stop trolling.

But open borders are great. Especially for property holders, whose rights are protected by govt.

Precisely. And if our property rights are not protected then you can only blame your beloved government. Stop trolling dickhead.

 

[bordsilver]

To demonstrate the variety of views on this topic, some people (classical Liberalist, not Libertarian) are more straightforward when commenting on a certain Libertarian school of thought that held up Aboriginal society as an ideal rather than as a failing:
:
:

Anyone who thinks that the Aboriginal society was anarchist-Libertarian is mislabelling a political philosophy or is delusional. Saying that, based on his post it should be obvious that shiney's position on property rights does not mean "the British were justified in violently taking land from the Aboriginal residents". Indeed, even the minarchist-Libertarian (ie classical liberal) argument in the post does not justify violent occupation - all it does is state that in the presence of illiberal nation states, a strong liberty-minded nation state is preferable.

 

[SpacePete]

To demonstrate the variety of views on this topic, some people (classical Liberalist, not Libertarian) are more straightforward when commenting on a certain Libertarian school of thought that held up Aboriginal society as an ideal rather than as a failing:
:
:

Anyone who thinks that the Aboriginal society was anarchist-Libertarian is mislabelling a political philosophy or is delusional. Saying that, based on his post it should be obvious that shiney's position on property rights does not mean "the British were justified in violently taking land from the Aboriginal residents". Indeed, even the minarchist-Libertarian (ie classical liberal) argument in the post does not justify violent occupation - all it does is state that in the presence of illiberal nation states, a strong liberty-minded nation state is preferable.

Your outright refusal, multiple times, to address Shiny's statement directly clearly demonstrates your position on the matter.

Here it is again:

* In this case I do believe their societal structure was flawed,

* any system based upon collectivism as being the supreme value system overrides the fundamental right to freedom from aggression upon both person and property.

* It's a view I can morally justify

* by arguing that a human can only achieve his or her potential when private property rights are recognised as supreme.

 

[SpacePete]

And to save you the trouble of yet again refusing to answer, here's one of your previous refusals:

I'm with shiney here. Reading through what he said, his position does not justify a violent occupation of Australia. If anything it simply justifies opposition to the predominant socio-political culture of the time (or simply ignoring its claims of authority).

Ok, I'm open to hearing which part of his quote doesn't apply to the traditional owners of the Australian land prior to white settlement.

(a) "In this case I do believe their societal structure was flawed,"

(b) "any system based upon collectivism as being the supreme value system overrides the fundamental right to freedom from aggression upon both person and property."

(c) "It's a view I can morally justify by arguing that"

(d) "a human can only achieve his or her potential when private property rights are recognised as supreme."

What part of that quote justifies a violent occupation of Australia?

 

[mmm....shiney!]

As it appears you have reading comprehension difficulties, I'll spell it out for you:

There is no freedom from aggression upon both person and property under a communal system of ownership.

That doesn't mean the British are vindicated for their actions, it doesn't mean I like chocolate eclairs, it doesn't mean I'm a member of the KKK, it doesn't mean I know who will win this years Melbourne Cup or any other fantasy you may have circling in your mind at the time that you care to credit me with - it simply means there is no freedom from aggression upon both person and property under a communal system of ownership. Now that's not so hard to understand is it?

Now I'd kindly ask you to stop attributing untruths to my statements.

 

[Jim4silver]

I have no sympathy for China. If the citizens there don't like what is going on they need to revolt and fix the problems. I can't follow what you all are debating in this thread, but anyone who feels sad for China is deluded. Their gov does many bad things to its citizens- reportedly harvests organs from prisoners (to sell on the black market) and even worse. I think the reason China is pushing its people to buy PM's over the past few years is so they can take them when the time is right, probably some day when they decide to incorporate PM's into their monetary system somehow.

If the billions of citizens there can't stand up to the gov they deserve what they get- same with NK and other such places. Isn't there a saying that the populace has the govt they deserve, or something to that effect. Sorry if that sounds harsh but it's true.

The true test for whether a gov is bad or good isn't how said gov treats other countries, it is how they treat their own citizens.

Just my opinion.

Jim

 

[SpacePete]

As it appears you have reading comprehension difficulties, I'll spell it out for you:

There is no freedom from aggression upon both person and property under a communal system of ownership.

That doesn't mean the British are vindicated for their actions, it doesn't mean I like chocolate eclairs, it doesn't mean I'm a member of the KKK, it doesn't mean I know who will win this years Melbourne Cup or any other fantasy you may have circling in your mind at the time that you care to credit me with - it simply means there is no freedom from aggression upon both person and property under a communal system of ownership. Now that's not so hard to understand is it?

Now I'd kindly ask you to stop attributing untruths to my statements.

I am only repeating what you wrote and pointing out the logical inconsistencies with your attempted defense of those statements. On the one hand you claim that it is morally justified to negate any freedom from aggression against a people who live under a system of communal ownership, and on the other hand you claim that it doesn't vindicate (why not say it "doesn't justify"?) the actions of the British against the aboriginal population of Australia.

Again, this is what you wrote. This is where you claimed your view was morally justified.

* In this case I do believe their societal structure was flawed,

* any system based upon collectivism as being the supreme value system overrides the fundamental right to freedom from aggression upon both person and property.

* It's a view I can morally justify

* by arguing that a human can only achieve his or her potential when private property rights are recognised as supreme.

 

[mmm....shiney!]

Take some drugs and have a lay down SP.

 

[SpacePete]

Take some drugs and have a lay down SP.

If your logic requires a drug-addled mind to perceived any sense in it then pardon me if I skip that suggestion.

Also, your earlier attempted defense that necessitated you calling fiatphoney a "trolling dickhead" really wasn't that convincing.

 

[bordsilver]

I am only repeating what you wrote and pointing out the logical inconsistencies with your attempted defense of those statements. On the one hand you claim that it is morally justified to negate any freedom from aggression against a people who live under a system of communal ownership, and on the other hand you claim that it doesn't vindicate (why not say it "doesn't justify"?) the actions of the British against the aboriginal population of Australia.

Again, this is what you wrote. This is where you claimed your view was morally justified.

Except that his morally justified view isn't that it is "justified to negate any freedom from aggression against a people who live under a system of communal ownership". It's that the idea of communal ownership overrides people's fundamental rights and that these rights are morally justified.

Or to put it another way, by virtue of nature humans have the universal right of self-ownership and any consequences from this (namely the right to life, liberty and property) are morally justified. The socialist ideas of communal ownership override this universal right and consequently (one way or another) override the right to life and liberty and hence, self-ownership.

 

[mmm....shiney!]

Well at least we've cleared that up then, now we can get back on topic and talk about oilstocks.

 

[mmm....shiney!]

So the Chinese have been buying up agricultural/farming properties in Australia for at least 4 years, have any of the fears about exploitation of the natural resources materialised? Or are the opponents of foreign investment just blowing it out of their arse as usual?

@ Big A.D., when you get back online I just want to draw your attention to http://forums.silverstackers.com/message-888655.html#p888655 , with all the unnecessary crap this thread has seen you are likely to not have noticed my post.

 

[mmm....shiney!]

Can you honestly, with a straight face, explain how the best person to decide how any given area of land should be managed is a Chinese businessman because he has cash? No, really: in terms that wouldn't make most people bend over laughing.

It seems the cashed up Chinese businessman may just be the best person to decide how his area of land is managed if they are wanting to meet Chinese domestic demand:

"As countries get richer, their diets change and they prefer higher quality food products, and I think that's a big part of the beef story," said Paul Bloxham, chief Australia economist at HSBC Holdings Plc. "We think it's still got further scope to pick up. There's still a lot more people to enter the middle-class in China and preferences are shifting quite quickly."

Farmers like Burton-Taylor at his Kenny's Creek property are capitalizing on Australia's reputation for high-quality produce at a time of dwindling trust among Chinese citizens in the safety of their own food. Scandals ranging from babies poisoned by tainted milk powder to dead pigs found floating in a river regularly remind Chinese consumers that the produce they eat might not be safe.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...der-australia-enjoys-new-boom-in-china-demand

The economic return on good farming practices is likely to be higher than the return on trashing once productive land.

 

[mmm....shiney!]

@ Big A.D., I know you are busy and stuff but you don't want to respond to my post?