BloodHenge wrote:Forrest wrote:There is of course the question of how to balance people's liberty rights in their joint property with other people's claim rights in that same property, and my answer to that, in short, is this: a co-owner of a thing is permitted to do anything to that thing which does not deprive other co-owners of their equal enjoyment of that thing. So, if all the people of a city jointly own the sidewalks there, none of them, not even group of 99% of them, may prohibit someone from walking on those sidewalks, or place conditions on their permission to do so (such as "if you are a woman you must cover your face" or "if you are a Jew you must wear a Star of David", etc), because merely walking on the sidewalk does not impede others' equal ability to make use of the sidewalk. However, anyone in that city, even one single person, has a claim right against someone wantonly tearing up the sidewalk with a jackhammer for no good reason; even if 99% of the people in the city want to tear up the sidewalk like that. If they want to do so so bad, they can buy the dissenting 1%s share of ownership from them; provided the 1% is willing to sell for the price the 99% are offering . . . I think I went over this in more detail in the "Smoking Bans" thread under Debates here, so I don't think I'll into it all over again here, unless you'd like me to of course.
Actually, that makes sense . . . The specific "commons" issue I'm most familiar with is pelagic fisheries. To sum up (since a detailed explanation would take way too long), without regulation, market forces result in overfishing. However, as you reason, every person on the planet has a claim right to prevent overfishing (which could, ironically, increase the yield while decreasing the effort expended). Since the principle (in theory) works just as well whether you're dealing with property shared between two people or among the entire planetary population, I'm prepared to say that it's valid.
Hmmm, the logic of defining rights as “property” is interesting, but some care has to be taken to make sure it allows for the viability of culture and government.
Under normal circumstances, humans in groups, being primates and herd animals, tend to hierarchy, an interactive group with followers and leaders. This is something natural selection picked out for us. For creatures of our general quality, it works better than solitary or pure kinship interaction. Paradoxically, it also allows us to be individuals. We don’t all have to have the same skills, the same personalities, all attuned to a maximum fitness for survival. Our group has to have those characteristics, and we only have to be alike enough to fit into the group.
Filtering this basic drive through 50,000 years of cultural variation, we find that, in any human society, decision-making drifts into the control of some elite faction or individual. When all competent members of the larger group have input into the selection of the decision-making elite, we call that a “free” society. More often, though, consent arises through custom and hierarchy, translated into social class, religion, and law. This kind of society is more common. Some variations work well, some don't, and most lose viability over time and are replaced by other variations.
One thing that does not happen in human societies, in any way that increases that society's survival chances, is decision by consensus or by market transactions, which is what you seem to be describing.
The simpler example from the above is the jackhammer on the sidewalk. When every individual in a group has to consent to any action by the group, paralysis of action is the most common result. When the number of individuals rises to a level where routine immediate group interaction is impossible, the group loses any ability to make decisions. They don’t even quality as a “herd,” “flock,” or “pod,” let alone a society
The problem with trying to recompense anyone who disagrees with a group/society/government decision is that there is no efficient means of attaching a monetary value to every decision one might disagree with. In most societies, the formal decision making process assumes that the individual has already agreed, in general, to the governing entities right to take action on his/her behalf. In some cases, there might be some clearly defined means for recompense on a taking of property—physical (sidewalk) or political (freedom of action)—but usually, the efficient exercise of government (protection, regulation, wealth creation, etc.) is considered sufficient compensation.
There are examples of social entities acting as you’ve described in the jackhammer example. One of the most famous was the old Polish parliament of the 18th Century. It was composed of several hundred nobles and required unanimous consent for a law to be passed. A famous example of really, really bad government, it failed to do its job and Poland was devoured by its more efficient neighbors in short order.
The concept of financial recompense for anyone whose assent is needed to a government or private action does occur in many, many cultures, although not in a way the practicing societies approve. at least in public. The monetary payment that replaces or overrides other concerns is called a “bribe,” “baksheesh,” “grease,” etc. and is at least nominally illegal. In practice, what you are describing is a “kleptocracy.” When you want to get something done, figure out everyone’s market price for consent and pay them off.
In theory, consensus by market transaction sounds reasonable. In practice, the result is usually fear, poverty, and degradation for most of society and a general weakening of that society relative to any rivals or threats. Odd as it sounds in our era of feral capitalism triumphant, some degree of traditional ethical behavior has to be coupled with need and greed to make the economy function (as well as the government.) This is why the lobbyists who constantly decry regulation never go the last step and demand removal of the basic regulations that shape the money, commodity, and stock markets. Caveat Emptor sounds liberating when you are conning home-owners or selling contaminated food to the un-informed poor, but they need to be able to trust the people involved in trading paper and promises on Wall Street.
Per the other examples, of women wearing burkhas and Jews marked with the Star of David, you have a good baseline for making judgments, but only that. If every individual was driven only by economic needs, you could quantify the basic rules of basic public behavior and arrive at a system for assigning everyone the degree of liberty they wish . . . and can afford. Unfortunately, humans are driven by complex emotions and that 50,000 years of cultural variation I mentioned. Most people don’t want to live in a society where anyone can wander around naked on a public street, or go about armed to the teeth to defend their right to a parking space, or worry whether the next fellow they meet practices human sacrifice to his god.
There are sound and unsound reasons to restrict the three behaviors I gave as examples, and while you or I might find the two restrictions you mention to be heinous, there are a lot of people for whom my examples and yours are pretty much equivalent. Resolving the differences in that spread of opinion is a very complicated matter. There isn’t even a sharp divide between libertarian, conservative, and liberal on all the matters you discuss. The three factions just have different priorities, with no simple way to sort them out.
Gosh, you said that purrty.