Donnadogsoth Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 ...one gets there first and claims the shitter as his own private property. The second arrives there second and must pay a shit-tax of 2 cigarettes per job to the first prisoner. Fair? 1 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCLugi Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 ...one gets there first and claims the shitter as his own private property. The second arrives there second and must pay a shit-tax of 2 cigarettes per job to the first prisoner. Fair? A line of nuns are waiting to get into heaven. Sister Karen steps forward and St. Peter asks, "Have you anything to confess?" She says, "Yes, I thought about a penis." St. Peter puts holy water on her head and lets her in. Sister July steps forward and St. Peter asks, "Have you anything to confess?" She says, "Yes, I touched a penis." St Peter washes her hands in the holy water and lets her in. Suddenly Sister Debbie comes running to the front of the line. St Peter says, "What is the meaning of this, my child?" She responds, "I have to gargle in the holy water before sister Mary sits in it." 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Mister Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 Three statists are in a jail cell. Two of them claim the third as "public property", then vote on who gets to rape him first. Fair? 10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 ...one gets there first and claims the shitter as his own private property. The second arrives there second and must pay a shit-tax of 2 cigarettes per job to the first prisoner. Fair? It's funny how this perfectly describes the methodology of the state. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThomasTheIdealist Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 It's funny how this perfectly describes the methodology of the state.Also perfectly describes Lockean homesteading absent the Lockean Proviso. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 Also perfectly describes Lockean homesteading absent the Lockean Proviso. It doesn't resemble it. It demonstrably violates it as it involves the aggression of taxation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neeeel Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 It doesn't resemble it. It demonstrably violates it as it involves the aggression of taxation. Huh? Hes charging for use of his property ( using the definitions etc provided under the scenario) how is that taxation? So if someone owns land, he cant charge someone for use of it because its taxation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jot Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 It's funny how this perfectly describes the methodology of the state. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 Huh? Hes charging for use of his property ( using the definitions etc provided under the scenario) how is that taxation? So if someone owns land, he cant charge someone for use of it because its taxation? The OP referred to it as a tax. A tax is not a payment for services. Furthermore the OP did not demonstrate the toilet WAS the person's property. Just claiming something as your property doesn't necessarily make it so. The OP is using ambiguous language and ill-defined terms and scenarios. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Libertus Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 OP equivocates the situation of two persons sitting in jail (!) with a free society and market. And then he wonders why everyone is so mean to him. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donnadogsoth Posted February 15, 2016 Author Share Posted February 15, 2016 So you're saying that the first prisoner has no right to claim the toilet as his property? What if he were wandering in the woods and found a toilet there, could he claim it then? Why does the toilet being in jail matter, wouldn't the statist prison make everything in it illegitimately owned and therefore subject to private accumulation? Should everything in the prison be auctioned off to the highest ancap bidder first? What if it's a privately owned prison that by oversight forgot to describe in its contract the ownership condition of the toilets? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AncapFTW Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 So you're saying that the first prisoner has no right to claim the toilet as his property? What if he were wandering in the woods and found a toilet there, could he claim it then? Why does the toilet being in jail matter, wouldn't the statist prison make everything in it illegitimately owned and therefore subject to private accumulation? Should everything in the prison be auctioned off to the highest ancap bidder first? What if it's a privately owned prison that by oversight forgot to describe in its contract the ownership condition of the toilets? The fact that they aren't free to leave or even make their own choices makes it no longer a free market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 So you're saying that the first prisoner has no right to claim the toilet as his property? What if he were wandering in the woods and found a toilet there, could he claim it then? Why does the toilet being in jail matter, wouldn't the statist prison make everything in it illegitimately owned and therefore subject to private accumulation? Should everything in the prison be auctioned off to the highest ancap bidder first? What if it's a privately owned prison that by oversight forgot to describe in its contract the ownership condition of the toilets? Maybe you should ask ONE fucking question at a time and learn what you're talking about before you ask it? We're not here to entertain your idiocy. Also, maybe you should address the answers you were given and not just proceed to ask 5 more questions like a fucking asshole? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jot Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 ...one gets there first and claims the shitter as his own private property. The second arrives there second and must pay a shit-tax of 2 cigarettes per job to the first prisoner. Fair? Not fair. The shitter is not first inamates' property, it is jail's property. He did not create it nor did he buy it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neeeel Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 Not fair. The shitter is not first inamates' property, it is jail's property. He did not create it nor did he buy it. So If I find an apple on the ground, I cant claim it,because I didnt create it or buy it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jot Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 So If I find an apple on the ground, I cant claim it,because I didnt create it or buy it? If you take it from the ground and put it in your pocket, the owner who bought and who lost it saw you picking it up from the ground and chased after you...can he claim that apple back from you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neeeel Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 If you take it from the ground and put it in your pocket, the owner who bought and who lost it saw you picking it up from the ground and chased after you...can he claim that apple back from you? "jail" is not a thing that can own property. So your analogy doesnt work. Who owns the shitter, and who is going to chase after the inmate if they claim it? But, yes, I guess I didnt think it through, as I was imagining an apple that fell from a tree, and toilets dont generally fall from trees 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jot Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 "jail" is not a thing that can own property. So your analogy doesnt work. Who owns the shitter, and who is going to chase after the inmate if they claim it? But, yes, I guess I didnt think it through, as I was imagining an apple that fell from a tree, and toilets dont generally fall from trees I know that jail cannot own anything, I should have said the owner of the jail, probably. However in a state prison, who would be the owner anyways? Since you brought that apple scenario, I have a couple of questions...under which circumstances you can claim sth as your property given that you neither bought nor create that thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donnadogsoth Posted February 15, 2016 Author Share Posted February 15, 2016 Maybe you should ask ONE fucking question at a time and learn what you're talking about before you ask it? We're not here to entertain your idiocy. Also, maybe you should address the answers you were given and not just proceed to ask 5 more questions like a fucking asshole? Who answered my question? I just received a nun joke, a counterquestion about statists in jail, and an observation by you about how this is like "the methodology of the state" AND you misinterpreted the shitter tax as somehow illegitimate, rather than just the cost of doing business. I'm asking a question: who owns the fucking shitter? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neeeel Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 I know that jail cannot own anything, I should have said the owner of the jail, probably. However in a state prison, who would be the owner anyways? Since you brought that apple scenario, I have a couple of questions...under which circumstances you can claim sth as your property given that you neither bought nor create that thing? Im pretty uncertain on the whole property thing. I know that generally its held that if you found it first, then its yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrCapitalism Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 ...one gets there first and claims the shitter as his own private property. The second arrives there second and must pay a shit-tax of 2 cigarettes per job to the first prisoner. Fair?I smoke the two cigarettes in front of him and "do my job" on one of the mattresses. Fair... :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Who answered my question? I just received a nun joke, a counterquestion about statists in jail, and an observation by you about how this is like "the methodology of the state" AND you misinterpreted the shitter tax as somehow illegitimate, rather than just the cost of doing business. I'm asking a question: who owns the fucking shitter? Are you a retard? Why don't you go on an evolutionary biology website and keep asking "When did the first human arrive?" or "Well where are the transitional fossils?"? You're too ignorant and/or stupid to know your question is retarded. You have 705 posts here and you still don't know that the toilet would be stolen from the public because all taxation is illegitimate. BTW, why did it have to be a "shitter"? Did you just have to be especially repugnant and trollish? Just do us all a favor and get the hell off this forum. There are enough legitimate questions to answer without having to deal with cretins like you. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jot Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Are you a retard? Why don't you go on an evolutionary biology website and keep asking "When did the first human arrive?" or "Well where are the transitional fossils?"? You're too ignorant and/or stupid to know your question is retarded. You have 705 posts here and you still don't know that the toilet would be stolen from the public because all taxation is illegitimate. BTW, why did it have to be a "shitter"? Did you just have to be especially repugnant and trollish? Just do us all a favor and get the hell off this forum. There are enough legitimate questions to answer without having to deal with cretins like you. What if it is a private prison? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleak Morn Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 ...one gets there first and claims the shitter as his own private property. The second arrives there second and must pay a shit-tax of 2 cigarettes per job to the first prisoner. Fair? Can a person claim ownership of any part of their prison? If they own the toilet they may own the door. People may destroy the things they own. If a prisoner may destroy the door, they are no longer confined. Therefore either the person is a prisoner and may not own things, or the person is not a prisoner. In either case, your scenario is impossible and thus moot. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleak Morn Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Im pretty uncertain on the whole property thing. I know that generally its held that if you found it first, then its yours. Did the prisoner find it before the prison operator? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donnadogsoth Posted February 16, 2016 Author Share Posted February 16, 2016 Are you a retard? Why don't you go on an evolutionary biology website and keep asking "When did the first human arrive?" or "Well where are the transitional fossils?"? You're too ignorant and/or stupid to know your question is retarded. You have 705 posts here and you still don't know that the toilet would be stolen from the public because all taxation is illegitimate. BTW, why did it have to be a "shitter"? Did you just have to be especially repugnant and trollish? Just do us all a favor and get the hell off this forum. There are enough legitimate questions to answer without having to deal with cretins like you. Ahh, I see clearly now. The toilet exists in a transitional phase between being illegitimately owned by the State, and being legitimately owned by a private individual. The question of private ownership must therefore be resolved by having an auction! Now, the question is, who runs the auction and accepts the highest bid? The auction proceeds must go to the public, but where is the public's auctioneer? And is there a minimum bid? Can a rich prisoner buy all the toilets in his block and have a toilet monopoly? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Ahh, I see clearly now. The toilet exists in a transitional phase between being illegitimately owned by the State, and being legitimately owned by a private individual. The question of private ownership must therefore be resolved by having an auction! Now, the question is, who runs the auction and accepts the highest bid? The auction proceeds must go to the public, but where is the public's auctioneer? And is there a minimum bid? Can a rich prisoner buy all the toilets in his block and have a toilet monopoly? You trolling asshole. What if it is a private prison? Then the prison owns it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donnadogsoth Posted February 16, 2016 Author Share Posted February 16, 2016 Can a person claim ownership of any part of their prison? If they own the toilet they may own the door. People may destroy the things they own. If a prisoner may destroy the door, they are no longer confined. Therefore either the person is a prisoner and may not own things, or the person is not a prisoner. In either case, your scenario is impossible and thus moot. You're missing the spirit of the scenario, Bleak. Suppose you and I are both ancaps, and are both imprisoned in the same cell. Do property rights apply or not? If they do, how does that work? If they don't, are we to both hang up our ancaps and live as though we were...anarchocommunists? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrCapitalism Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 You're missing the spirit of the scenario, Bleak. Suppose you and I are both ancaps, and are both imprisoned in the same cell. Do property rights apply or not? If they do, how does that work? If they don't, are we to both hang up our ancaps and live as though we were...anarchocommunists? Your post might have been an attempt at trolling, but nonetheless I think you bring up a great question about property rights and anarcho-capitalism. Specifically, how do people that see private property as the means to settle disputes handle situations of ambiguous ownership? The part I quoted made me think of an article Jeffrey Tucker wrote some years ago about this scenario: Homesteading for Fun and Survival - Jeffrey Tucker - Mises Daily Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThomasTheIdealist Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 The OP is phrased pretty shitty. It's probably best to address the core implicit concern: When someone arrives (by birth or otherwise) into a nation where all the land and utilities around them are owned by others, does that individual have sufficient liberty? Or is the economic compulsion of broad property law overly restrictive of liberty? David Friedman on the problem with initial acquisition of property and moral conclusion derived from it: https://youtu.be/GuYt6X2g0cY?t=27m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GregMerwe Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 That is not the way homesteading works. The police station owns the toilet. The prisoner has not claim of ownership in that way. In a jail cell scenario anarcho capitalist ideals do not apply because the person is locked in a cage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCLugi Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 Sorry about the nun joke. Two dolphins walk into a jar of peanut butter... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donnadogsoth Posted February 20, 2016 Author Share Posted February 20, 2016 That is not the way homesteading works. The police station owns the toilet. The prisoner has not claim of ownership in that way. In a jail cell scenario anarcho capitalist ideals do not apply because the person is locked in a cage. (1) According to the ancap theory, the police station does not own the toilet because ownership has to be legitimate in order to be valid. The police station does not legitimately own the toilet and therefore its ownership is not valid. The ownership status of the toilet is thus in limbo as if in a primitive accumulation environment where rocks and apples are claimed by whomever picks them up first. (2) Ancaps put great stock in being moral, especially as that morality relates to property rights. In fact property rights, it is fair to say, is the issue sine qua non of ancappery. If that is suspended because you and I are in a jail cell, what else is suspended? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hi there Posted March 18, 2016 Share Posted March 18, 2016 What if the prisoner whittled a toilet out of Popsicle sticks that were paid for with taxes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ancapitalistpig Posted April 17, 2016 Share Posted April 17, 2016 So let's assume for one moment that the premise was sound and not riddled with holes like swiss cheese: If prisoner B can't (or doesn't want to) afford to pay the 2 cigarette fee for using the toilet he's forced to defecate somewhere in their cell. This of course will lead to heavy odor pollution of the cell and prisoner A suddenly has an incentive to let prisoner B use the toilet for free unless he enjoys spending his day in a smelly cell and risk diseases. Problem solved by the underlying principles of the free market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts