Pretend It’s April Fool’s Day When Parsing Reports on Nevada
On Facebook on April 1, I said something like, “Christmas is the one day of the year when we use our hearts. April Fool’s is the one day we use our reason.” I don’t think people got it; a lot thought I meant, “Sit around and brainstorm on a really good prank.” No, what I meant was, if you see a report of something on any day of the year, exercise some skepticism before filing it away as a “fact.”
Anyway, I’m trying to follow my own advice with the Nevada Bundy Ranch standoff. For example, a lot of people in my social networking circles are relaying matter-of-factly that the BLM has shut off local cell tower service and that a commissioner said people coming in to help should make “funeral plans.”
Well, on the cell phone claim, this story has an UPDATE that says:
[Update #3] We are hearing that cell service is not down and a member of the Bundy family has been contacted to verify that cell service is up and working. No explanation given as to why it was not working for some and seems to work fine for others, other than possibly hot spot issues. Will update if further information becomes available.
And as far as the commissioner saying incoming supporters need to prepare for a funeral, the source of that is a Facebook post by Utah commissioner Darin Bushman who wrote:
I was just told by commissioner Collins of Clark County NV that all of us folks from Utah are a bunch of “inbred bastards” and if we are coming to Clark [County] NV to support Cliven Bundy we all “better have funeral plans”. We should “turn our asses around on mind our own f-ing business”. Now there’s some classy leadership for you.
Now maybe the guy really did say that; here’s media coverage of the incident, and the writer doesn’t quote Collins as denying that he uttered those words in his private conversation.
Anyway, I just wish everybody would exercise a tad of due diligence before hitting Share or especially making a “meme” poster with “facts” that might not even be true. It takes literally a minute to Google something and see how plausible it is, or what the broader context is.
Hi Bob
How do you view drilling from a property rights point of view? (contaminating water supply/visual pollutant etc.)
No relevance to this post, sorry.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/conservation/metgascos-gas-exploration-well-delayed-after-protesters-block-entrance-to-bentley-site-20140331-35u41.html
It’s okay, I just discovered the licenses are issued by govt. Answered my own question.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-12/metgasco-wins-license-for-casino-csg-project/4256918
Sam, my go-to person on this stuff is Rob Bradley. He develops a libertarian-friendly application of property rights theory in mineral resources in his book, Oil, Gas, and Government. I’m not finding anything quickly that is on the web, though.
Thanks, but slightly out of my price range!
http://www.amazon.com/Oil-Gas-Government-U-S-Experience/dp/0847681106
I think if you don’t secure a resource from seeping contamination that the risk of contamination from many things – natural as well as man-made – are inherent in your property such that you can’t complain if what someone else does merely has the *effect* of contaminating your property. By not securing it you are implicitly accepting the risk of accidental contamination.
If someone goes onto your property and dumps pollution into your water source – whether or not it’s secured from seepage – then that would be a property rights violation.
Ron Paul, and I think many other Austrians, believe differently; that accidental pollution of private property is also a violation.
“Ron Paul, and I think many other Austrians, believe differently”
how do you decide who is right?
The way all decisions are made in their fantasy: each dollar is equal. He willing to pay more wins. MF explicitly defended this notion citing the rich provide more value to others.
what do you mean exactly? Pay more to whom?
If something on guest’s land contaminates something on Ron Paul’s land (austrians always seem to live on land, not in blocks of flats btw), and Ron Paul demands compensation but guest refuses, how do they resolve the dispute?
You can only collect from me by yourself or hiring enforcers. I can hire mine in turn. There is no final arbiter.
Sometimes they call these enforcers “judges” but there are no statutes. And any decision can be taken to yet another “judge”, and carrying it out is left to the same battle of hired gangs.
In normal law society or the state has an interest and a role and can impose decisions. None of that is true in Rothbardistan.
mental
but I guess it might make some sort of sense if you believe that rich people are superior beings.
actually no, it’s still mental.
… normal law society …
In Ken Land, “normal law society” = “other people making decisions for me whether I like it or not”.
Or: “There’s a little bit of Homer Simpson in all of us” and we need to be “manipulated”. (Google it.)
“other people making decisions for me whether I like it or not”.
but it sounds like that’s effectively what happens in Rothbardistan too
A normal state is exactly the same as what you describe, but you just have a monopoly supplier so you only get one justice system to choose from.
Actually, no real state exists without organised crime inside the state so the private buyer still has choices, but officially there’s only one choice offered. The state uses size and brute force as weapons, while the criminals use stealth, agility and cunning.
The “Non Aggression Principle” exists (like all morality) only as an agreement between men. I agree not to make war on you, on the mutual basis that you agree not to make war on me. Like all agreements, it holds while there is an advantage for all parties.
You miss a key point Tel. In our system of laws I and everyone else have a stake and standing in your trial for beating your wife. In Rothbard’s notions we do not.
Ken B,
Are you suggesting that the ONLY way an outsider can have a stake in the case of domestic abuse is by supporting a monopolist?
Besides, what if I don’t care about the domestic relations between other individuals? Will assigning a monopolist arbiter to these cases compel me to develop a “stake” in the case? If I don’t care, then I don’t care.
but it sounds like that’s effectively what happens in Rothbardistan too
Context. Context.
I’m presuming that we both understand that it’s the source of legitimate authority that we’re discussing.
If you have legitimate authority, then you do get to tell others what to do.
“If you have legitimate authority, then you do get to tell others what to do”
So you don’t actually have a problem, per se, with “other people making decisions for me whether I like it or not”.
So you don’t actually have a problem, per se, with “other people making decisions for me whether I like it or not”.
Not per se. It depends on the context.
Were you under the impression that Rothbardians were against violence, per se?
No, I’ve never for a moment thought that Rothbardians were opposed to violence.
You criticised Ken B by saying: “In Ken Land, “normal law society” = “other people making decisions for me whether I like it or not”.
Or: “There’s a little bit of Homer Simpson in all of us” and we need to be “manipulated”.”
But it turns out you don’t actually have a problem with “other people making decisions for me whether I like it or not”.
I take it this means you don’t have a problem with people being manipulated either? You just prefer it if the person doing the manipulating is Mr Burns?
Tel, the thing is, Rothbardians here are estopped from agreing with you. Gene has often made your point in other words, viz that if a single violence provider, or set of them in cooperation, can establish a final answer and enforce it, they ARE a state. And Bob et al reject that claim.
“Bob et al reject that claim”
on what grounds?
But it turns out you don’t actually have a problem with “other people making decisions for me whether I like it or not”.
Again: Context.
If you need clarification as to what the context is, just ask.
But I see no need to be more precise.
A very vague and nominal stake when you look at the US Attorney General and the way he selectively decides what to investigate.
I would have thought the average American was concerned about illegal gun shipments to Mexican gangsters.
They reject the moral righteousness of the claim, not the practical upshot of the result.
I personally don’t accept that moral righteousness can exist outside a practical outcome, but then again I’m very suspicious of anyone claiming to be righteous.
In that sense we both reject the state’s claim to having any moral legitimacy, but for different reasons.
(austrians always seem to live on land, not in blocks of flats btw)
If you live in a flat, then someone else owns the building, while someone else may own the land.
If you’re the land owner, the block-of-flats owner rents space to build flats.
If you’re the block-of-flats owner, then tenants rent flats from you.
people can also own flats.
People can contract with flat-owners for exclusive-use privileges, but this is a contractual arrangement in which the owner has delegated authority to someone else.
The owner, in this case, remains the block-of-flats owner.
the block could be owned by a company, owned by the flat owners.
The company would have to be owned by a specific individual, with others contracting with the owner.
If a shareholder (or whatever the equivalent would be when discussing flats) violates the contract, he is accountable to the company owner, not the other shareholders (even if the company owner has contracted to resolve such issues using other shareholders).
“The company would have to be owned by a specific individual”
Companies often aren’t owned by a specific individual.
Companies often aren’t owned by a specific individual.
To the extent that such is believed to be the case, either they are mistaken or the property isn’t really owned at all.
What needs to be addressed is who has authority over the company and where does that authority come from?
“To the extent that such is believed to be the case, either they are mistaken or the property isn’t really owned at all.”
Or you are mistaken.
Or you are mistaken.
Collectives can’t make contracts, nor can they eat, sleep or work. Only individuals can do these things.
Therefore ownership of anything can only belong to an individual.
Collectives can and do make contracts. You don’t need to sleep, snooze, snore, or drowse to make a contract.
“Therefore ownership of anything can only belong to an individual.”
That doesn’t follow.
Ownership can be *shared* by people.
Guest opposes freedom of contract. He would say you and I cannot contract to share ownership. So much our rights!
rothbardianism is just the worst impulses of a selfish child rationalised, isn’t it?
– finders keepers
– no such thing as sharing, only MINE MINE MINE
– my dad is richer than yours so shut up and do what I say
etc
Do not forget Philippe the claim to infallibility.
No, I am not kidding about that either. They claim their theory is provable and true a priori, that no observation of any sort can refute them.
Rothbard has also claimed that introspection is infallible in some areas.
amazing
You don’t need to sleep, snooze, snore, or drowse to make a contract.
Do you need to be conscious in order to enter a contract?
Collectives aren’t conscious. Only individuals are conscious.
– no such thing as sharing, only MINE MINE MINE
Or: “I own part of that for which you worked!”
Am I right? *fist bump*
Seriously, though: sharing is generally a bad thing:
Stossel – ‘The Tragedy Of The Commons’ 12/5/10 1 of 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IdzaEiYx5o
Ownership can be *shared* by people.
The fact that it cannot is the fact that it is possible for them to have a dispute over the use of a thing.
Which party has the legitimate authority in such a case? They can’t both be right.
“I own part of that for which you worked!”
that’s what employers implicitly say to their employees every day. Or what landlords say to their tenants.
You don’t actually have a problem with people owning “part of that for which you worked”, do you?
that’s what employers implicitly say to their employees every day.
Not true.
Employers work for an agreed-upon wage, NOT their output.
“The fact that it cannot is the fact that it is possible for them to have a dispute over the use of a thing.”
er?
being able to argue over the use of a thing does not somehow prove that shared ownership is impossible.
“Which party has the legitimate authority in such a case? They can’t both be right”
You assume that (a) one of them has to be right, and (b) that person has to be the sole owner. Neither assumption is necessarily true.
You assume that (a) one of them has to be right …
Diametrically opposed views cannot both be right. Therefore two people who hold such views cannot both be right.
And since we’re talking about who is right about their claim to authority, yes there does have to be a single owner because, again, they can’t both be right.
Guest, your argument only shows they cannot both be sole owner. It’s easier to just note the meaning of sole. They can however both be wrong about being sole owner, and will be if they are joint owners.
zactly
You might find these links interesting.
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2014/04/tom-woods-and-i-talk-private-law.html
I’ll read ‘chaos theory’ tomorrow.
Bob has slightly disavowed that now btw. He is no longer opposed to all authority. He believes Jesus is Lord.
I am neither joking nor making this up. He said exactly this himself on this blog.
And if Keshav is reading this, I do not doubt his ability to understand “estopped.”
For innocent bystanders, disregard Ken B.’s comments. It’s true that I no longer consider myself an “anarchist” because I am a Christian, but it’s not that I disavow anything in Chaos Theory. If somebody at a libertarian meeting asks, “Bob are you an anarchist?” I will say “yes” if I can only give a quick answer, because I know what the person means. When I wrote the book, I certainly didn’t think, “Well, only atheists will go along with this, so be it.”
What exactly did I get wrong then Bob. Exactly. Because I said you no longer opposed all authority. Here is a quote from you
“Regular readers may remember that this is why I stopped volunteering the word “anarchist” to describe myself, since I serve King Jesus.”
My apposition makes clear what I said you disavowed.
If you find Chaos Theory interesting, and you want to delve a little deeper into that kind of material, you might want to check out For a New Liberty or The Market for Liberty.
Philippe
If you do read Chaos Theory, please let us know your impression and please please do it as a response to the post. We are too far indented here.
Well, I’m right and Ron Paul is wrong, of course.
I only mentioned it because there are fine Austrians who disagree with me.
+1
Sure sounds like the words of a county commissioner…. fortunately, the NSA can confirm!
It’s perfectly fair to deliver both meanings. The person laying the trap is mentally locking horns with the person trying to detect it.
By the way, the news helicopters have also been excluded from the area so there is a kind of consistent pattern here.
http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/notam_actual_4_1687.html
Just because it’s April Fools Day and all that, I followed the coordinates and it takes you to the Eastern edge of Nevada near the Arizona border. It’s also a govt website, not one of those untrustworthy bloggers.