First acquisition (AC question)

[DougShrapnel]

Boro, so your contention is there is no naturally arising definition of property only what the market decides?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I told you they are defined using the same method. It's called the market. It defines what property rights are to minimize costs, and it would define what abandonment means, for the same reason.

[/ QUOTE ] So the hubub is about replacing one arbitrary definition of property to a different arbitrary definition one? I'm not very excited about that.

[/ QUOTE ]

First appropriation and voluntary exchange is not arbitrary. On the contrary, it's the only system of property assignation that is not arbitrary or subjective. It is objective.

Defining property "abandonment" is clearly inherently subjective. But again, whether you like it or not, the market sorts these things out to minimize costs.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Boro, so your contention is there is no naturally arising definition of property only what the market decides?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I didn't say that. A property system based on first appropriation and voluntary exchange arises naturally to deter and settle disputes over scarce resources.

As I said, "abandonment" is an inherently un-objective thing. But the market will still sort out what the market definition of "abandoned" is, and will do so in such a way as to minimize costs and conflicts.

Let me be clear, regarding any particular case of potential "abandonment" I expect there to be relatively more conflict than over any particular claim of (regular) ownership, specifically because of the subjectivity of defining "abandonment." The same thing will likely happen with intellectual property; it's not scarce, so any social norms about ownership of IP are inherently subjective, and there will likely always be conflicts over IP, to a greater or lesser extent depending on cultural factors.

But cases of property abandonment, specifically real estate, are so rare as to be almost totally pathological. Nobody abandons real estate because it is so predictably an appreciating asset (unless it's in a city somewhere where the local government can tax it off the market and destroy its value).

The best example of abandoned property might be marine salvage of wrecked ships, a field of law the developed entirely privately before being usurped by various governments.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But he WANTS to take someone elses stuff! Before he dies!

Doug, when I want to take your TV, it's called what?

[/ QUOTE ] I am both in possesion and control of my TV. You ACist and your jackbooted thuggery. How can something belong to someone else if they don't have possesion or control?

[/ QUOTE ]

EXACTLY! It's jackbooted thuggery when I take your TV which you have possession and control of. But when someone takes my land, which I have possession and control of, and that someone happens to be the state, it gets dressed up as fancy-sounding "Eminent Domain."

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
So these are people that want to minimize costs over war, but will rise to war at systems designed to take slight advangtage of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most likely they'll just ignore the guy. If it comes to war, it won't be very expensive since it will be millions of people against one.

If Bill Gates wanted to wage war against the entire state of, say, Washington, who do you think would win? How about Bill Gates AND Warren Buffet? It's not even close.

[Girchuck]

they'll have to be smart about it and have clear achievable objectives.
Hire assassins, operate covertly, so that the state of Washington will never even know that a war is being waged and who is behind it. Get what they want using any means necessary. Ofcourse, if their goal is extermination of Washington's population, they will lose, but other war goals could be achievable.