Do We Own?

[genkaus]

........only if you value deferment, and only if it's applied in an area where you feel that deferment is advantageous...and only if you judge the system on the metrics of "does it include deferment".

Having the option of deferment is the same as having more choices and more freedom. So you can bet your ass that people value it - even if it may not be advantageous. The metric being used is not "deferment" but how much freedom it allows. We know that priority model curtails atleast one freedom available to us under ownership model. As for determining how much people value it - try applying the concept of "use it or lose it" at a small scale - maybe just with your children - and see how they react.

Sounds like inefficient (and potentially corrupt) administration.

Sounds like every government in existence.

Sure, but we don't have to grant that option - as it's not necessary to a priority system

You seem to be forgetting your own position at the beginning of this part of discussion. You said that the current system was essentially similar to priority use system. But here you seem to accept that certain basic changes would need to be made to make it into one.

Oh I know..and wouldn't it just be hilarious if those same lobbyists could not participate as there was nothing to leverage/no room in the system. Lobbysists are no more a problem for priority use than they are for ownership. If we don;t want them, we boot them.

No, actually, they'd be a bigger problem. Right now, the government does have legal justification for booting them - if and when it wants to. Under priority use system, they'd be going directly to courts to exercise their use rights.

Reserving land is not the only way (and I would argue not even close to the "best" way) to accomplish such. Quick and easy, think like a proponent of priority use. What do you do when you want to preserve resources or protect environments? You include it in the proposal requirements.

Not even close to enough. Firstly, it goes against the principle that environment and other natural resources must be preserved regardless of gain to be had. Secondly, it'd be impossible to use the resource and preserve it at the same capacity. What are you going to do? Put a clause in mining rights contract that "you may mine as much ore as you like from the land, just make sure that the ore content remains the same"?

[The Grand Nudger]

Having the option of deferment is the same as having more choices and more freedom.

No..more like "different choices". There would be choices available to you under priority use that are not available under ownership, of course. "More choices, more freedom" seems a hell of a stretch.

So you can bet your ass that people value it - even if it may not be advantageous. The metric being used is not "deferment" but how much freedom it allows. We know that priority model curtails atleast one freedom available to us under ownership model.

-and we know that the ownership model curtails at least one freedom available to us in the priority model. As far as valuing it, no argument from me there - I value my rights to ownership as well.

As for determining how much people value it - try applying the concept of "use it or lose it" at a small scale - maybe just with your children - and see how they react.

Try applying the concept of deferment to a hostile audience (like my children). This is just chewy back and forth - the sword cuts both ways.

Sounds like every government in existence.

Agreed, but since we're chalking this one up to government it's possible in either system- so long as there is government.

You seem to be forgetting your own position at the beginning of this part of discussion. You said that the current system was essentially similar to priority use system. But here you seem to accept that certain basic changes would need to be made to make it into one.

It is similar, but similar doesn't mean equivalent, obviously. Many of the tools we use in our current system are equally applicable to a priority system - we use priority based systems in some areas already. Changes would have to be made, yes. Specifically changes made to what can and cannot be "owned" - but beyond that, it;s a bit more difficult to put anything firmly on one side of the line or the other - ne'er the twain to meet.

No, actually, they'd be a bigger problem. Right now, the government does have legal justification for booting them - if and when it wants to. Under priority use system, they'd be going directly to courts to exercise their use rights.

Good for them, may the best proposal win. They've ceased to be lobbyists, or at least ceased doing that which diferentiates them -as- lobbysists, relative to a guy like myself just trying to get the best proposal in the bundle.

Not even close to enough. Firstly, it goes against the principle that environment and other natural resources must be preserved regardless of gain to be had.

A principle that could be included in either system (though I, personally, wouldn't include it...to me, some gain is worth unfathomable damage and cost to natural resources and environment)

Secondly, it'd be impossible to use the resource and preserve it at the same capacity. What are you going to do? Put a clause in mining rights contract that "you may mine as much ore as you like from the land, just make sure that the ore content remains the same"?

More like a clause that states that the highest level of environmental controls must be applied and will be rigorously tested at random to check for a breach of contract. This is assuming that the proposal requirement for this parcel could even include mining (and why would we agree to such a thing if the above could not be accomplished - if we wished to both preserve environment and resources while availing ourselves of their use?

[genkaus]

No..more like "different choices". There would be choices available to you under priority use that are not available under ownership, of course. "More choices, more freedom" seems a hell of a stretch.

For example?

-and we know that the ownership model curtails at least one freedom available to us in the priority model. As far as valuing it, no argument from me there - I value my rights to ownership as well.

We do? I don't.

Try applying the concept of deferment to a hostile audience (like my children). This is just chewy back and forth - the sword cuts both ways.

Its not deferment that's valuable here but the choice of deferment. You are not being forced to defer under the ownership model, but you are being forced to "use it or lose it" under priority use model.

Agreed, but since we're chalking this one up to government it's possible in either system- so long as there is government.

No its not. What's being chalked up to the government is using possibly corrupt reasons for exercising its right to defer - a right not available to it under priority use.

It is similar, but similar doesn't mean equivalent, obviously. Many of the tools we use in our current system are equally applicable to a priority system - we use priority based systems in some areas already. Changes would have to be made, yes.

And we are back to square one. The point I'm making is that it is that the current system is not similar to priority use system - for the reasons I've already given.

Good for them, may the best proposal win. They've ceased to be lobbyists, or at least ceased doing that which diferentiates them -as- lobbysists, relative to a guy like myself just trying to get the best proposal in the bundle.

They'd still end up the bigger problem.

A principle that could be included in either system (though I, personally, wouldn't include it)

And how exactly would it be enforced in the priority use system?

More like a clause that states that the highest level of environmental controls must be applied and will be rigorously tested at random to check for a breach of contract. This is assuming that the proposal requirement for this parcel could even include mining (and why would we agree to such a thing if the above could not be accomplished - if we wished to both preserve environment and resources while availing ourselves of their use?

By its very nature, the "highest level of environmental controls" is a compromise. It is used when the need for development is great enough to justify a certain amount of damage to the environment and the controls are just a way to minimize it. Under the ownership model, even the compromise would be limited - certain sections of environment must remain inviolate. The same cannot be enforced under priority use.

[Whateverist]

More controversially, I think there should be significant limits on inheritance and we should look at any other such conventions which serve to concentrate wealth in the hands of the few and suppress upward mobility. We have a real interest as a society in not letting the masses be turned into serfs for the 1%. Violence is always justifiable to that end, though never the best alternative.

Controversial is right. Can you justify this view without opening the door to other equally atrocious actions all in the name of the good of society?

Well can you justify the status quo no matter how ugly it gets? If property is a convention that we invent together, why should we not correct this cancerous accumulation of wealth? I would just say we are justified to remake this convention for the general good. You'd have to be more specific about what other atrocious acts you have in mind. I'm open to tinkering.

[The Grand Nudger]

For example? / We do? I don't.

The freedom to avail yourself of some piece of land that might be "owned" and thusly locked out to you under the ownership model.

Its not deferment that's valuable here but the choice of deferment. You are not being forced to defer under the ownership model, but you are being forced to "use it or lose it" under priority use model.

Agreed, that would be whats forced. On the other hand, under the ownership model you wither "own it or don't have such a choice". That's similarly forced.

No its not. What's being chalked up to the government is using possibly corrupt reasons for exercising its right to defer - a right not available to it under priority use.

I appreciate the way we've tied this in with "rights not available" - and I'd like to think that the same would occur to me if the roles were reversed. Probably not though. In any case, this all falls to the same as above.

And we are back to square one. The point I'm making is that it is that the current system is not similar to priority use system - for the reasons I've already given.

There is nothing essentially different between the way a black powder rifle and a modern rifle operate. Nevertheless, if you want to take a round out of a black powder rifle and make it work in a modern rifle..some changes will have to be made. You've given dissimilarities, I've given similarities. On the balance of it you or I may feel that the scales for either tilt in our favor. I'm torn, as devils advocate here - so my opinion is likely to be biased and useless for such a summary.

They'd still end up the bigger problem.

No bigger a problem than John Q could be under such a system - unless they're given special access and advantage - which I wouldn't be giving them.

And how exactly would it be enforced in the priority use system?

Same as we do so now. "The State v -insert here-"

By its very nature, the "highest level of environmental controls" is a compromise. It is used when the need for development is great enough to justify a certain amount of damage to the environment and the controls are just a way to minimize it. Under the ownership model, even the compromise would be limited - certain sections of environment must remain inviolate. The same cannot be enforced under priority use.

Of course it could be. The terms of use on the contract (from your proposal) are handled the same under priority use as they are now. If logging rights are not available - logs stay thick on the ground.

[genkaus]

Well can you justify the status quo no matter how ugly it gets?

If it is justifiable, then yes.

If property is a convention that we invent together, why should we not correct this cancerous accumulation of wealth?

Because its not a convention that we just happened to agree upon, its a concept formed on factual basis.

I would just say we are justified to remake this convention for the general good.

I would say we are not. Because its not a convention that can be remade on whim.

You'd have to be more specific about what other atrocious acts you have in mind. I'm open to tinkering.

How about slavery? That'd be a good idea. After we've stolen all that money from the rich, we can make them our slaves. Only those who agree to be slaves, ofcourse. The others would have to be killed, ofcourse, since they are most likely planning to bring future harm upon the society. And since neither the wealth or the numbers of top 1% is sufficient, let's extend that to 10%. Sure, one section of the society is suffering unjustly, but over all everyone else is better off - so its all for the greater good.

[The Grand Nudger]

How about slavery? That'd be a good idea.

If people could be property and there was vast wealth to accrue in labor intensive agricultural production then it would be "a good idea" by some metrics. Yes. Of course...people would have to be property. We'd have to acknowledge some form of ownership....for this to be either possible -or- a "good idea".

[genkaus]

The freedom to avail yourself of some piece of land that might be "owned" and thusly locked out to you under the ownership model.

I can avail myself of it under ownership model - by buying it.

Agreed, that would be whats forced. On the other hand, under the ownership model you wither "own it or don't have such a choice". That's similarly forced.

The parallel to that under priority use model would be "have use right or don't have use rights". So they are pretty much equal at that point.

No bigger a problem than John Q could be under such a system - unless they're given special access and advantage - which I wouldn't be giving them.

It wouldn't be up to you.

Same as we do so now. "The State v -insert here-"

Vehemently disagreed. The principles used in such cases right now won't be applicable under priority use model.

Of course it could be. The terms of use on the contract (from your proposal) are handled the same under priority use as they are now. If logging rights are not available - logs stay thick on the ground.

But under the priority use model, the logging rights would always be available. It is not government property and therefore it is not up to the government to grant or deny logging rights. Logging rights would be available to every logger and the only question would be who gets priority.

[Polaris]

No. I support eminent domain because there is always that asshole who drags his feet. Now mind you, this for the simple issues such as easements and not destroying someone's home without exhausting all options.

[The Grand Nudger]

I can avail myself of it under ownership model - by buying it.

- exactly. If you can't buy it, you can happily go avail yourself of jack shit.

The parallel to that under priority use model would be "have use right or don't have use rights". So they are pretty much equal at that point.

-similarities indeed.

It wouldn't be up to you.

Hehehe, if people foolishly allowed me to install myself as supreme potentate it would be....but no, in the only way I can reconcile this model it wouldn't be up to me, individually, No.

Vehemently disagreed. The principles used in such cases right now won't be applicable under priority use model.

Any principle in use for contract law is applicable. After all, getting that "winning bid" to generate a claim has to be made official.

But under the priority use model, the logging rights would always be available.

Why, under the ownership model logging rights aren't always available either - even if you own the property.

It is not government property and therefore it is not up to the government to grant or deny logging rights. Logging rights would be available to every logger and the only question would be who gets priority.

No more their property than ours, no. They'd have their own contract to fulfill as administrators. I don;t see why logging rights -have- to be included in priority use (though I would...but I'm a stickler...I'd insist that the logging be sustainable..and that all expectations of damage be accurately and clearly conveyed..lol).