Posts in "Property Rights"

By Brian Underwood at 3:52PM

Jan 12, 2011

The Universality of Property Rights

As seen on themendenhall.com

Ownership is an extremely rudimentary concept. Simply attempt to take a toy from a toddler’s hand and you can reasonably expect one very clear and emphatic response from that child’s mouth: “MINE!”

Obviously this is an oversimplification of all the components of the idea of possession, but the basic premise behind it remains unchanged. In essence, if something belongs to someone, then no one but the owner is entitled to the use of the item in question. In the same way that no one is entitled to the use of another’s body except its respective owner, the only person entitled to the use of any form of property is its owner. However, this essay will not focus on whether or not property rights exist, or even how property comes to be justly owned. Instead, the reader should presuppose that property can in fact be owned and, provided that obtainment of property is completed in accordance with basic principles of justice, that individuals do have a right to the property that they own. With those notions in mind, it shall be the purpose of this essay to debunk the prevailing myth amongst the left that adequately recognized property rights serve only to benefit the privileged classes while producing only detrimental effects amongst the lower classes.

The "Public Good"

Read more here

Posted in:

By Dan John at 9:41PM

Jun 26, 2010

A Question of Free and Equal Rights for All -- Not Race

Rand Paul was recently criticized for not agreeing with Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Paul justifiably argued that the distinction between public and private institutions was blurred in the bill.

The bill does take away rights from private business owners. All businesses should have the same right to discriminate against whomever they may wish, just as those very same groups discriminated against should have the free and equal right to boycott the hell out of those very same businesses that discriminated against them.

If there was no law forcing all business owners to serve all customers, minorities and other groups of people who may be discriminated against would know which businesses were racist or had racist people working in them, and would know which businesses to boycott. Non-racist white people would follow and help boycott those very same businesses, which will lead to a lot of potential revenues being lost.

Read more here

Posted in:

By Wesley Messamore at 12:47PM

May 21, 2010

A Question for Rachel Maddow

Watching Rachel Maddow attack Rand Paul with a typical, predictable, closed-minded, and intentionally dense line of questioning: "Should restaurant owners be allowed to discriminate against racial minorities? Yes or no, please," I have a question of my own for her.

Rachel, should black restaurant owners be forced to serve white nationalists? Hmm? Say David Duke walked into a black restaurant and wanted to be served. Does the black restaurant owner have a right to say, "Mmm... no thanks, we'd rather not serve you"? Or does David Duke have a right to be served by the black restaurant owner? Yes or no, please.

It's interesting -- to be consistent, Maddow would practically have to say that Duke has a right to the black restaurant owner's labor, which is dangerously close to advocating something akin to slavery. Yes or no, Maddow?

Let's use another example: if Fred Phelps (that's the God Hates Fags guy) walked into a gay bar and demanded to be served a drink, would Maddow support the right of the restaurant owner or bartender to refuse to serve him? Yes or no, please.

Posted in:

10 comments

By Elliot Engstrom at 5:52AM

Mar 25, 2010

Green Libertarianism

Amidst all the craziness that has been the recent healthcare bill, I've found some "fun" in taking a closer look at what is called "green libertarianism" or "free market environmentalism." It's a really cool idea that basically argues that libertarian principles would work as great fixes for many of our environmental problems.

The concept deals with several aspects of the environmental problems that we see today. I'll focus on overexploitation, pollution, clean-up, and overconsumption.

Overexploitation of environmental resources is a direct result of government interfering in the realm of property and ownership. When massive amounts of property are made communal or state-owned (i.e. national/state parks, highways, urban areas, transportation hubs, etc.) there is no ownership incentive to keep an area clean or use its resources efficiently. Instead, everyone who uses the area operates under the "someone else will take care of it mindset." Often times no one takes care of it, and when someone actually does tend to the state-owned property it is, of course, the state -- and we know how well the state manages its affairs. For more on overexploitation, see: "Environmentalism, Free Market," Richard L. Stroup, The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics: Library of Economics and Liberty.

Read more here

Posted in:

By Preston Mui at 7:49AM

Feb 11, 2010

Avatar: A Pro-Freedom Movie

It's been out for a while, but I only just got around to seeing Avatar. Luckily for me, the local cinema is open even with the snowstorm here in D.C. (yes, the movie theater is open, but the Federal Government is closed).

I wasn't sure what to expect from it before going in. The day before, one of my Republican friends at school expressed disapproval of the movie. He didn't say it in so many words, but he implied that the movie was anti-military and overly environmentalist. But I felt it was a movie I should see anyways -- and I was right. Not only was it a decent movie, but I found its themes to be extremely pro-liberty.

[Read on only if you want spoilers!]

Read more here

Posted in:

By George Edwards at 6:53AM

Jan 21, 2010

Goods for the Rich (at the Expense of the Poor)

Getting into long debates with Objectivists about Intellectual Property can be fun. Nonetheless, I think even they would agree that the United States taxpayer is insuring the property protection of huge corporations at a MUCH higher more and expensive rate than he pays for us poorer citizens.

Now our ever-so-benevolent rulers want to practice what Republicans have been spouting as "good government" by taking laptops away at the border for having unauthorized copyrighted material on them.

Avatar has grossed 1.6 billion dollars so far and has done so using a technique that would be hard to replicate on websites like Filmhill.com. IP can and would be enforceable through contract law in a free market, but the price that comes with the profit wouldn't be externalized at the cost of the poor. So, do we really need a trillion dollar infrastructure of security that takes away our human rights (right to property, absence of institutionalized theft) in order to protect profit generation and tax revenues for the rich government class?

Posted in: