participant-3927, 5:57 AM, May 7
Another example are places like Vancouver , Canada which did not allow Uber to enter the market, and as the result impeded productivity of people for years, while the rest of the world advanced.
participant-7471, 9:57 AM, May 7
In that context, it would be necessary to understand how road ownership is managed; depending on how ownership is defined, one could then assess what a ’laissez-faire, laissez-passer’ system can guarantee in the sector
participant-7471, 12:45 PM, May 7
Who agrees with Rothbard’s pollution easements? “The ‘first ownership to first use’ principle for natural resources is
also popularly called the “homesteading principle.” If each man owns
the land that he ‘mixes his labor with,’ then he owns the product of
that mixture, and he has the right to exchange property titles with
other, similar producers. This establishes the right of free contract in
the sense of transfer of property titles. It also establishes the right to
give away such titles, either as a gift or bequest.
Most of us think of homesteading unused resources in the oldfashioned sense of clearing a piece of unowned land and farming the
soil. There are, however, more sophisticated and modern forms of
homesteading, which should establish a property right. Suppose, for
example, that an airport is established with a great deal of empty land around it. The airport exudes a noise level of, say, X decibels, with the sound waves traveling over the empty land. A housing
development then buys land near the airport. Some time later, the homeowners sue the airport for excessive noise interfering with the use and quiet enjoyment of the houses.
Excessive noise can be considered a form of aggression but in this
case the airport has already homestead X decibels worth of noise. By its prior claim, the airport now ‘owns the right’ to emit X decibels of noise in the surrounding area. In legal terms, we can then say that the airport, through homesteading, has earned an easement right to
creating X decibels of noise. This homesteaded easement is an
example of the ancient legal concept of “prescription,” in which a
certain activity earns a prescriptive property right to the person
engaging in the action.
On the other hand, if the airport starts to increase noise levels,
then the homeowners could sue or enjoin the airport from its noise
aggression for the extra decibels, which had not been homesteaded.
Of course if a new airport is built and begins to send out noise of X
decibels onto the existing surrounding homes, the airport becomes
fully liable for the noise invasion.
It should be clear that the same theory should apply to air
pollution. If A is causing pollution of B’s air, and this can be proven
beyond a reasonable doubt, then this is aggression and it should be
enjoined and damages paid in accordance with strict liability, unless
A had been there first and had already been polluting the air before
B’s property was developed. For example, if a factory owned by A
polluted originally unused property, up to a certain amount of
pollutant X, then A can be said to have homesteaded a pollution
easement of a certain degree and type.” (Ref.
https://cdn.mises.org/Law,%20Property%20Rights,%20and%20Air%20Pollution_2.pdf, pp. 145–146)
participant-3927, 3:42 PM, May 7
Objectivism disagrees with the Lockean notion of ownership as mixing labour with resource.
participant-3927, 3:43 PM, May 7
Ayn Rand has an article on ownership of radio waves, which clarifies the principle.
participant-3927, 3:45 PM, May 7
Also, Harry Bjnswanger provided this example: an apple hangs off a wild apple tree, a man walks by and reaps the apple. Is it his apple ? According to Lock, it’s his only 99%, but not 100%. According to Objectivism it’s 100%.
participant-3927, 3:45 PM, May 7
Locke would say that it’s 99% because there is a mix of effort involved, the tree has contributed some effort in making an apple.
participant-3927, 3:46 PM, May 7
Also, Ayn Rand never used the word homesteading in her article
participant-3927, 3:47 PM, May 7
It’s the principle of who comes first and actually truly uses the resource, that makes him an owner. It can’t be superficial.
participant-3927, 3:48 PM, May 7
So someone who operates a radio station for a long time, is the first owner of it.
participant-7471, 3:49 PM, May 7
Setting aside the category mistake, how can one even “mix” something that’s not a substance but an activity? The core of Lockean theory has foundational issues: it starts from a state of nature where property is treated as res communis. Rothbard, on the other hand, starts from a state of nature where things are considered res nullius
participant-7471, 3:50 PM, May 7
So Rothbard’s starting point is better than Locke’s
participant-7471, 3:56 PM, May 7
But here we’re dealing also with negative externalities, such as air pollution
participant-3927, 4:04 PM, May 7
The noise level of the airport is part of the property taken by the airport. It’s not only land.
participant-3927, 4:06 PM, May 7
The new real estate developers are homesteading the land that’s unused, but the air is already taken over by vibration
participant-3927, 4:08 PM, May 7
There is no technology invented to reduce airport noise.
participant-3927, 4:09 PM, May 7
So it’s the airport owner who is giving good will by letting people build on adjacent land
participant-7471, 4:11 PM, May 7
So, do you maintain the same position regarding air pollution?
participant-3927, 4:12 PM, May 7
Is there technology to limit airports air pollution ?
participant-7471, 4:16 PM, May 7
Well, if I build near an airport, I can install soundproofing materials to reduce noise. If I build near a refinery or similar facility, I can—within certain limits—use filtered masks and household air purifiers. Still, it’s unlikely that such precautions would actually be taken, since housing near a refinery is typically intended for people with very low incomes
participant-3927, 4:18 PM, May 7
Can the airport owner technically do anything on his end ?
participant-7471, 4:21 PM, May 7
I’m not sure about airports, but refineries can use scrubber systems and similar technologies
participant-3927, 4:23 PM, May 7
Refineries should clean it then
participant-3927, 4:23 PM, May 7
Within reason
participant-3927, 4:24 PM, May 7
That’s why it’s important to have a philosophy underpinning law and politics. Philosophy here would clarify what is good will, and the law will reflect this.
participant-7471, 4:26 PM, May 7
Yeah. The question was whether, in the context of harmful externalities and in the case of a dispute, refineries should be forced to take action or be granted a pollution easement
participant-3927, 4:30 PM, May 7
It has to do with a case of cultivating nobody’s land, when there are no delineated property lines yet. Does the airport control all territory where its noise and pollution reaches , or some land and air around it? What about refineries? Obviously, the principle must be going to the minimal not maximal ownership. It must also take account of technology limitations, such as there is no way to block noise from airplanes. But, there is a way to limit refinery’s pollution.
participant-3927, 10:55 PM, May 7
It seems that “The Chicken” in Tel Aviv, Israel, is the only restaurant in the world where you can try lab-grown meat. The two american companies Upside Foods and Good Meat don’t make it easily available to try.
participant-3927, 11:46 PM, May 7
When the founders of libertarian initiatives fail by avoiding long term planning, they lose their investments and time. And, the people who follow them also lose time and money (on flights alone). However, you can say: “So what? There’s no harm in trying.” Well, let me present to you a case in which this kind of near-sighted pragmatism has dire consequences. It’s the story in which sparrows were killed in order to–the theory goes–save the crops.
The sparrows were systematically hunted, burned and shot wherever they could be found. Millions terrorised them to their deaths, banging loud pots and drums near their nests until the frightened sparrows eventually dropped from the sky out of exhaustion. Others went out into the forests to climb trees and smash their eggs.
The societal mobilisation for this effort was total. Refusal to participate was tantamount to treason. Dutch historian Frank Dikotter found archival records showing at least one elderly man spent a month in confinement north of Beijing for failing to catch enough sparrows.2 All in all, up to two billion sparrows were slaughtered in a bloodbath of revolutionary fervour.
What on Earth motivated this maniacal crusade? Mao believed the tiny birds were robbing the Chinese people of their revolutionary gains by stealing the grain harvest. By wiping out the sparrow, Mao would ‘’conquer nature,’’ boosting grain yields to pay for the rapid forced industrialisation of China.
The only problem was that the sparrows hunted locusts. Free from their natural predators, locust populations exploded across China, blanketing the skies and devouring grain crops. The resulting famine killed at least 40 million people in a disaster of world-historic proportions.
participant-3927, 11:51 PM, May 7
So, when Objectivists advocate for building a laissez-faire state on a solid philosophical foundation, it’s for a good reason. Otherwise, the new fledgling country will tank at the first conflict.
participant-3927, 12:16 AM, May 8
From HB Letter forum:
Gordon Gregory: “A government’s priority is protecting the rights of its citizens.”
Stephen Grossman: “This drops the context of government having only one purpose, protecting the rights of its citizens. It has no other purpose, thus can’t have a priority of purpose.”
participant-3927, 5:31 PM, May 8
The anthemism twitter channel now has a blue “verified” checkmark. I’m paying $8/month
participant-3927, 5:53 PM, May 8
A new pope has been chosen, and masses of people are clapping in the Vatican, smiling. Why do they care so much? This is even more revealing than mourning the dead pope, which could be merely a polite ceremony for tradition’s sake. But the happiness and smiling is revealing of a mystical and perhaps collectivist mentality that so many peolpe carry. I’d expect that in 2025, religion would be at most just a tradition, not something important that makes people so happy. Notice that the American society is much more secular than European one. Can you imagine, Americans smiling like this, because some religious figure is chosen?
But, I wrote previously, that this channel is about the Anthemism project and new countries. Why am I writing about religion? Afterall, in the new country, there will be also many religious people. I’m writing this, hopefully, to show you, how hopeless the existing societies are. There will be no significant changes in present societies, in the next century, at least. But in a country founded on reason, there is hope for change. There is hope that religion won’t be the centerpiece of life, but merely a traditional artifact that will slowly erode into history. With every new generation, the children will increasingly eschew the traditions of the parents, because those traditions would not appear important in their own lives.
In USA, at least, before Reagan, it was the case that religion was reduced to a joke. You can see it the “Mad Men” TV series. The main character Peggy Olson is presented as escaping a backward church-going society who is joining the modern city life.
From ChatGPT:
By the 1950s and 1960s, although the U.S. was still broadly religious, urban professionals, intellectuals, and business elites—especially in cities like New York—were increasingly secular, viewing religion as a private or even outdated concern. In fields like advertising, media, and academia, modern thinking was shaped more by science, psychology, and rationalism than by traditional faith, which was often seen as something for the working class or rural communities. This cultural backdrop made Peggy Olson’s devout Catholic upbringing stand out in Mad Men—her religious values marked her as morally earnest and socially conservative in a cynical, fast-moving professional world that was rapidly shedding those old norms.
participant-3927, 6:21 PM, May 8
More from ChatGPT on the subsequent two decades, through Reagan:
In the 1960s and 1970s, the U.S. experienced significant cultural upheaval, marked by the civil rights movement, the Vietnam War, and the sexual revolution. These events, along with the rise of feminism and the growing influence of scientific and intellectual thought, contributed to a shift away from traditional religious values. Religion became more private and less central in public life, as many young people, especially in urban areas, distanced themselves from institutional faith. A key moment in this shift was the 1973 “Roe v. Wade” Supreme Court decision, which legalized abortion nationwide, further challenging traditional religious and moral views on family and sexuality. The Supreme Court’s rulings and the growing secularism of the time symbolized a broader movement toward individual rights and personal autonomy.
In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan played a pivotal role in bringing religion back into the public and political sphere, though in a more politicized form. By aligning with the Religious Right, which was led by evangelical Christians and conservative Catholics, Reagan championed “traditional values” and positioned religion as central to his conservative agenda. While this didn’t signal a full revival of widespread religious devotion, it helped solidify religious conservatism as a powerful political force, particularly in the culture wars surrounding issues like abortion, gender roles, and family values.
participant-9259, 6:35 PM, May 8
As much as I’d like you to be right, no free nation and no good example can automatically make people free: to understand one is free, one must focus one’s own mind and try to grasp reality. Although a man is always going to have more occasions to develop as an independent individual in a free nation, this doesn’t mean it’s gonna happen, and believing children will gradually abandon the parents’ irrationalities is a false belief, as history has proved. The thinkers of the Enlightenment also thought religion would be a thing of the past, just like tyranny, but religion grew stronger and Kant layed the philosophical foundations for the USSR and N@participant-5092 Germany
participant-9259, 6:38 PM, May 8
This is also why no government can be trusted always to follow its original founding principles
participant-3927, 11:47 PM, May 8
If it wasn’t for Kant, religion would be history now. No one could philosophically oppose Kant: everyone bought-in, including mathematicians and physicists. But now we have the antidote to Kant – Ayn Rand.
participant-3927, 12:20 AM, May 9
I removed Hibernar because he had an icon of the frog, which I consider to be some kind of racist thing, which started during the days of Antifa
participant-7471, 10:07 AM, May 9
Pepe the Frog?
participant-3927, 1:55 PM, May 9
Yes
participant-3927, 2:06 PM, May 9
It’s (or was) a euphemism for xenophobia. I don’t want this associated with the channel.
participant-7471, 2:10 PM, May 9
It’s literally a cartoon a frog
participant-3927, 2:11 PM, May 9
Do you know what is a euphemism ?
participant-7471, 2:14 PM, May 9
Yeah, do you know what paranoia is?
participant-3927, 5:28 PM, May 9
🙂
participant-7471, 8:21 PM, May 9
I assume Boris won’t like the new Midjourney update
participant-9259, 2:01 PM, May 10
I don’t see what’s wrong with a Mahometan city with a mosque. They still cannot violate the Constitution, so what’s the problem?
participant-7471, 2:09 PM, May 10
Honestly, I’m in favor — if only for the principle of isonomy
participant-3927, 2:20 PM, May 10
But they do, they want to have Sharia law there
participant-3927, 2:20 PM, May 10
There’s only one law code, the law of United States.
participant-3927, 2:21 PM, May 10
Sharia law can be only a suggestion, but can carry no legal import.
participant-3927, 2:50 PM, May 10
And if the land of the city is privately owned by a single owner, that means that everyone living there is leasing land. This would make the real estate worth less. People prefer to have title to their real estate.
participant-3927, 2:52 PM, May 10
However, if land parcels can be sold to individual owners, nothing can prevent someone buying a lot in the middle of this city and be an atheist, walk around in a skirt or bikini. At least, on the public street, on her balcony etc.
participant-7471, 2:53 PM, May 10
There could be a coexistence agreement
participant-7471, 2:54 PM, May 10
Generally, in Christian or Orthodox Jewish walled communities, you won’t see women in bikinis. I believe it would violate the internal rules of conduct
participant-3927, 2:56 PM, May 10
There can’t be any rules of conduct that are imposed
participant-3927, 2:56 PM, May 10
I can legally walk around in shorts in orthodox Jewish community in Israel
participant-3927, 2:57 PM, May 10
Rules of conduct can be imposed only on private property , by its owner
participant-7471, 2:58 PM, May 10
It depends on whether you agreed to a contract. The road inside a walled community isn’t public
participant-3927, 2:59 PM, May 10
But what prevents the owner to become an atheist and change the rules ?
participant-7471, 3:05 PM, May 10
Granted that in laissez-faire capitalism, no one could stop someone from discriminating in sales for any reason — even intolerance… Realistically, if an atheist bought a house to live in an Islamic community, he’s a dumbass. In the case of apostasy, he’d probably end up moving out due to being ostracized by his neighbors
participant-3927, 3:12 PM, May 10
He is not a dumbass, but a militant atheist.
participant-7471, 3:14 PM, May 10
Throwing money away like that? Definitely a dumbass
participant-3927, 3:15 PM, May 10
My point is that a community can’t corner a territory , not in a free capitalist country
participant-7471, 3:15 PM, May 10
At Epic City, I think the roads will be owned by a holding company or the developer
participant-3927, 3:16 PM, May 10
But what prevents the holding company shareholders (let’s say 2nd generarion) to sell?
participant-7471, 3:17 PM, May 10
That could happen
participant-3927, 3:18 PM, May 10
You could have small gateway communities, each with own idiosyncrasies , but not a city. That is just too big, its can’t be held on ideology alone.
participant-3927, 3:20 PM, May 10
In Israel, upper Nazareth, which is a Jewish city, many houses are sold to lower Nazareth arabs. Even though Jews don’t like them living so close.
participant-3927, 3:20 PM, May 10
My whole street has been taken over by the arabs.
participant-7471, 3:21 PM, May 10
I don’t know their corporate charter or if there’s a shareholder agreement and things like: right-of-first-refusal clauses, sale approval requirements, or golden shares held by the founders
participant-3927, 4:04 PM, May 10
No matter what it is, people are not determined to hold certain views, and corporations are not eternal.
participant-3927, 4:08 PM, May 10
Sheepshead Bay, in Brooklyn where I lived, had all sorts of people from USSR, different religions too. I rented a room in a family home from Kazakhstan, for a year, which was secular Muslim.
participant-3927, 4:14 PM, May 10
And my son goes to advanced math classes which are hosted in a church building, with a lot of Christian worship books on display here. The commercial interest is stronger than ideology. One of the parent I spoke with, while we waited, surrounded by the Christian books, was a Muslim woman from Iran. Me (an atheist) and her, valued strong math education more than we hate Christianity, it seems.
