No, only if the natural resource is rivalrous. You can bottle air or sea water and it abrogates no one else's rights, as long as there is plenty of air and sea water for everyone who wants some. If the resource in question is not abundant, there can be no rightful owner to give or withhold an imagined "permission." How did we manage before land was considered eligible for appropriation as private property? If you deprive others of something they would otherwise have been at liberty to use, make just compensation to the community of those thus deprived. That is self-evident justice. It's not rocket science.
No it doesn't specifically violate one person's property rights but instead violates the natural right of property of the 7.4 billion people mutually living on the planet. If it's just one extra apple more than you need then each person has lost 1/7.4 billionth of an apple because you stole it from them.
You're damn right it's liberal. John Locke was a very progressive liberal when he wrote the Second Treatise of Civil Government that addressed and defined the Natural Right of Property. Eighty years later the founders of the United States including Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and James Madison weren't just "progressive" liberals but instead were "revolutionary" liberals that revolted against the King of England and established a nation based upon the "unalienable" (natural) Rights of the Person as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. If you actually check your history this time period is referred to as the age of Classical Liberalism that was a result of the Age of Enlightenment when people actually began to think for themselves. So you're damn right when you call it Liberal because our nation was founded upon Classical Liberalism which included the Natural Right of Property but unfortunately the "conservatives" refused to ever change our laws of property based upon statutory "title" to the "right of use and consumption" based upon the Natural Right of Property. It is true that through specialization in farming and in providing other goods and services society can produce more for everyone than they could as individuals. It's this very argument that John Locke puts forward for "commerce" in Chapter 5 of his Second Treatise of Civil Government. Specialization and commerce, based upon the Natural Right of Property, results in everyone have more of what they need and enjoy. Under the statutory laws of "Title of Ownership" that doesn't happen of course and that's why we still have working people living in poverty in the United States. We're actually proving why John Locke was correct when he opposed "Ownership of Property Established by Title" that he argued against in putting forward an understanding of the "Natural Right of Property" that we've fundamentally ignored since 1690 when he presented it to the world. Instead the "Haves and Have-Mores" under the Natural Right of Property we have the "Haves and Have-Nots" because our laws of property are based upon "Title" as opposed to the "Natural Rights" of the person.
Which of the 7.4 billion people has had his property violated, damaged, or stolen by me growing food? What thing that they owned did I violate?
No one's rights are violated by just growing food. Everyone's rights are violated when a person grows "more than they can use" either directly or by trade for that which they don't require for their support and comfort. Once again under the natural right of property you don't actually own anything. You have a right to use and consume only that which is necessary for your support and comfort. This is a senseless discussion because you obviously don't understand the natural right of property nor do you have any desire to understand the natural right of property.
You're answering a question that I never asked. I will ask again, with a highlight this time: Which of the 7.4 billion people has had his property violated, damaged, or stolen by me growing food? What thing that they owned did I violate?
Based upon the "Natural Right of Property" no one "owns" anything. They have a "Right to Use and Consume" that which is necessary for their support and comfort and no more. If you "used" more land that was necessary to grow more food that was necessary for your personal "support and comfort" then you violated the "Right of the Common" which is all of the 7.4 billion people. "Title" under the Natural Right of Property is Title to "use and/or consume" that which is necessary from nature and all "wealth" originates in nature. That "Title" is also highly limited because you cannot possess more than what you need and if you stop using anything then you lose title to it because the title is based upon the "use" of the land, water, air and all that nature provides. Once again you have absolutely no desire to learn about the "Natural Right of Property" so I'm basically "talking to the hand of ignorance" that has no desire to learn. We'll leave it at this. Ownership established by Title violates the Natural Right of Property of ALL the people. You can accept that or not at face value or you can actually study the Natural Right of Property so that you understand the basis for that statement.
That may require more social morals for free than we seem to be currently capable of. That would work in a Commune of Heaven on Earth.
Yet still, me owning 10,000 pounds of tomatoes doesn't violate, damage, or take anyone else's property that they own. Someone owning 10,000 pounds of tomatoes doesn't effect any of my property.
Didn't you destroy ShivaTD understanding of Locke's theories a long time ago? And on a side note: egads, another Georgist!
of course that is 100% stupid and liberal. If no person can grow more than he consumes then everyone would have to be a farmer to survive. See why we say liberalism is based in 100% pure ignorance? Is any other conclusion possible?
If you increase the cost of goods and services this will increase the prices of goods and services which is inflation. When a company has exhausted it's options to deal with higher business costs consolidation and/or closing the doors will happen. I'd say this is a bad thing. The people who hold ALL jobs in the USA care very much about their jobs. More people can spend more money but if the price of goods and services increase, inflation, no increase in purchasing power...
Whatever governments demand in funding, nearly 100% of this funding comes from taxes on people. Every American earning income should help fund the government which they are demanding. How the taxes are collected, whether they are regressive or progressive, all Americans need to chip in their fair share. $0 IS NOT a fair share! ALL Americans earning an income, whether it be earned or investment, must help to fund the government which they are demanding. The tax system must be progressive where it can but it cannot be designed in which a small percentage of Americans are funding all or most of government. Today's progressive tax system, along with sales and excise taxes, is working just fine and not placing a burden on anyone...
actually the top 1% pay 44% of all Federal income taxes collected and 50% of the state budgets in NY and CA. This violent liberal theft steals their investment capital and makes the bottom 99% very free to waste other people's money. Every person must pay an equal amount for govt just as they pay an equal amount in the supermarket.
only in that simplistic model. how much does labor cost, actually cost when compared to all other costs? and, we already got price inflation with fuel, due to our conflict in the Middle East. so what, even the rich have to pay more at the pump for a war they get to benefit the most from.
Yes, another conclusion is possible. The interpretation of the word "use" is myopic because it's being used in the context of commerce as opposed the specific "right of property" where the person is a generalist providing for all that then require for their support and comfort directly from nature. In the context of commerce where people specialize and produce more which can add to their "comfort" the term "use" applies to not just what they personally consume but also to what they trade for to provide for their "support and comfort" in their life. The farmer growing corn might choose to own a television which would fall under the category of "comfort" so growing enough extra corn to trade for a television falls under the definition of "use" as applied to commerce. What they don't have a "natural right of property" to is the production of more corn (that will be stored in either it's natural state or in a monetary form) than they can conceivable trade for those products and services they can "use" in their lifetime for their personal support and comfort. If they "over-produce" and store more than the can conceivable "use" then it's a violation of the "Right of Property of the Common" which is all people. So yes there is a different conclusion if a person isn't a complete idiot and understands what the term "use" means in the context of commerce.
How do other people have a right to the corn that a farmer grows? What possible claim could they have to it over him?
This ideology comes directly from the Dark Ages under the Divine Right of Kings when at harvest time the King's soldiers, or the soldiers of the Titled Nobility, would raid the crops of the farmers taking what they wanted to fund their opulent lifestyles often leaving the farmers with not enough to survive on until the next harvest. Guess what. The Age of Enlightenment followed the Dark Ages and the King (government) doesn't have any right to take that which the person requires for their basic support and comfort. You may want to return to the Dark Ages where the King (government) steals the food off the table of the people but that's not how we can live in our current world anymore. It's a fundamental violation of the Natural Right of Property for the government to take that which the person requires for their basic support and comfort.
It isn't a question of other people having a right to the corn the farmer grows but whether the farmer has a right to more corn than they can use directly or through trade for their own support and comfort. If the farmer grows more than they can use either directly or through trade then they don't have a "Natural Right of Property" to that corn nor to the use of the land that they used to produce that corn. One of the greatest failures of our education system is that we don't spend any time on addressing the "Natural (unalienable/inalienable) Rights of the Person" in the classroom. These Rights are mentioned, because our nation was founded upon their protections, but they're never explored in depth so that Americans know what the words mean. You expect me to summarize that which would require years of education in a few short posts but that's impossible. I can only provide you with the fact that the Natural Right of Property is limited to what the person can, through their labor, provide for their support and comfort during their lifetime. The person is not entitled to anymore than that.
But the question of other people having a right to the farmer's corn is the key. Because if they don't have a right to take his corn from him, then he may keep it. So who has a better claim to the farmer's corn than he does?
