Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's not von Mises. Contained within this book are the answers to all the questions asked.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you serious? How many times does the name von Mises appears on the page you link to! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

How is that relevant? The book is by Rothbard.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ask them to stop using goverment services and see what they think about goverment services then. I'm serious. in fact don't even ask, just dont let them use anything the goverment produces . If they say anything about it then they believe in goverment no matter what fancy worded crap they spout.

[/ QUOTE ]

gg

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ask them to stop using goverment services and see what they think about goverment services then. I'm serious. in fact don't even ask, just dont let them use anything the goverment produces . If they say anything about it then they believe in goverment no matter what fancy worded crap they spout.

[/ QUOTE ]

gg

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol put down the gun first and then we'll talk.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ask them to stop using goverment services and see what they think about goverment services then. I'm serious. in fact don't even ask, just dont let them use anything the goverment produces . If they say anything about it then they believe in goverment no matter what fancy worded crap they spout.

[/ QUOTE ]

gg

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol put down the gun first and then we'll talk.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except that you are using a gun as well.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

thanks for the heads up clowntable.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ask them to stop using goverment services and see what they think about goverment services then. I'm serious. in fact don't even ask, just dont let them use anything the goverment produces . If they say anything about it then they believe in goverment no matter what fancy worded crap they spout.

[/ QUOTE ]

gg

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol put down the gun first and then we'll talk.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except that you are using a gun as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I'm not.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

Property rights aren't defended by guns (or the threat of policemen with guns)? I think you're wrong.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ask them to stop using goverment services and see what they think about goverment services then. I'm serious. in fact don't even ask, just dont let them use anything the goverment produces . If they say anything about it then they believe in goverment no matter what fancy worded crap they spout.

[/ QUOTE ]

gg

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol put down the gun first and then we'll talk.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except that you are using a gun as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I'm not.

[/ QUOTE ]

OMG you cant seriously be this stubborn, how do you plan to enforce youre property rights then?

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
Give me your wallet is enough to prove that people who don't think property exists are either saying stuff they don't really believe for their own purposes or batshit insane.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this is quite right. They can not believe in property rights and still get upset if you take their money, not because they feel their rights have been violated, but rather because they are forced to operate in an environment where money is the only way to acquire essential goods and services.

As an example, suppose I hate universal health care but live in Canada. If I get sick and you steal my health card, I will get upset. It's not because I really love my universal health care system deep down inside, it's because I am being forced to not pursue alternatives.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]

1. The idea of Property is inherently in contradiction with itself


a. There was no property in the state of nature: property is a legal institution that differs from both possession and use.


b. The first owners converted common objects or potentially other-owned objects into personal property. They took objects in the use of all or to others and made them their own. This conversion without compensation of other community stakeholders is theft.



c. All property today derives from these first takings, or from intermediate conquests, murders, pillages, etc. (i.e. colonization of North America, Arabic conquest of the Byzantine Empire). As an aside, this is why in the U.S. no one “owns” any land free and clear but rather we are tenants holding a fief of the Sovereign (we pay rent in property taxes ldo).


d. Therefore all property is theft in theory and in fact. Thus there is no basis for the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate possession and use. But property simply is the distinction between legitmate and illegitimate posession and use. Contradiction Q.E.D.



[/ QUOTE ]


I'd be interested in a serious AC'er addressing this "first taking" argument in the OP.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

We're not talking about him we're talking about you. You say that property is a myth how would you feel if someone stronger or more agile or smarter than you stole your money? You would have no legitimate right to be upset right cos that's just they way things happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, we're talking about me.

If someone takes my money, I try to get it back. That may entail beating the [censored] out of the other guy, telling him that he's a bad boy, going to the police, or whatever. The point is that whether I have a "right" to that money has no bearing on if or how I try to get that money back. I try to get it back because I want it back.

[/ QUOTE ]

So let's say $100 was taken from you. You try to get it back, but they guy who took it is big and has more guns. You figure out that it's probably better long term to live a little longer and give up on the $100. But you still want the $100 back.

You see a little old lady sleeping in a wheelchair. A $100 bill is poking out of her pocket.

Do you take it? Nobody will see you. She's sawing logs, it would take something along the lines of a jet engine right behind her to wake her up.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Give me your wallet is enough to prove that people who don't think property exists are either saying stuff they don't really believe for their own purposes or batshit insane. The grey area null zone crap we can deal with in the other 1000 threads on the topic but lets say once and for all that "property rights don't exist" is a self detonating argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that someone gets upset when you ask for their wallet has nothing to do with rights. If I steal your wallet, and then you ask for it back, I am not going to willingly give it you, despite the fact that I have no reasonably property claim to it. The reason that I don't give it back is because I feel I am better off with the wallet than without it. It is a utility-based decision and not a rights-based one. And it is the same decision process I go through if you demand something that I have a more legitimate legal claim to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Same question to you, but without the big guy stealing "your" wallet first. You just see a sleeping old lady with $100 hanging out of her pocket. Are you taking it?

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

We're not talking about him we're talking about you. You say that property is a myth how would you feel if someone stronger or more agile or smarter than you stole your money? You would have no legitimate right to be upset right cos that's just they way things happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, we're talking about me.

If someone takes my money, I try to get it back. That may entail beating the [censored] out of the other guy, telling him that he's a bad boy, going to the police, or whatever. The point is that whether I have a "right" to that money has no bearing on if or how I try to get that money back. I try to get it back because I want it back.

[/ QUOTE ]

So let's say $100 was taken from you. You try to get it back, but they guy who took it is big and has more guns. You figure out that it's probably better long term to live a little longer and give up on the $100. But you still want the $100 back.

You see a little old lady sleeping in a wheelchair. A $100 bill is poking out of her pocket.

Do you take it? Nobody will see you. She's sawing logs, it would take something along the lines of a jet engine right behind her to wake her up.

[/ QUOTE ]

PVN this is another stupid attempt to show that property rights in fact exist.

It fails miserably like every other time.

The only thing you demonstrate here is that one might rather live in a world where people don't take $100 bills from others with force or deception. This says nothing about whether one believes that one's property is a "natural right". Preference != right.

The fact that folks like you and TomD fail to acknowledge this point after we've gone round this circle a zillion times shows that you are either intentionally obtuse or just plain stupid. Neither helps your credibility in philosophical debates.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

We're not talking about him we're talking about you. You say that property is a myth how would you feel if someone stronger or more agile or smarter than you stole your money? You would have no legitimate right to be upset right cos that's just they way things happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, we're talking about me.

If someone takes my money, I try to get it back. That may entail beating the [censored] out of the other guy, telling him that he's a bad boy, going to the police, or whatever. The point is that whether I have a "right" to that money has no bearing on if or how I try to get that money back. I try to get it back because I want it back.

[/ QUOTE ]

So let's say $100 was taken from you. You try to get it back, but they guy who took it is big and has more guns. You figure out that it's probably better long term to live a little longer and give up on the $100. But you still want the $100 back.

You see a little old lady sleeping in a wheelchair. A $100 bill is poking out of her pocket.

Do you take it? Nobody will see you. She's sawing logs, it would take something along the lines of a jet engine right behind her to wake her up.

[/ QUOTE ]

PVN this is another stupid attempt to show that property rights in fact exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. I'm just pointing out that "I try to get it back because I want it back" is ignoring a whole lot of other factors. You're missing $100. You want it back. Here's a way to get $100 with no risk. Why wouldn't you take it if that's all that mattered?

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

We're not talking about him we're talking about you. You say that property is a myth how would you feel if someone stronger or more agile or smarter than you stole your money? You would have no legitimate right to be upset right cos that's just they way things happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, we're talking about me.

If someone takes my money, I try to get it back. That may entail beating the [censored] out of the other guy, telling him that he's a bad boy, going to the police, or whatever. The point is that whether I have a "right" to that money has no bearing on if or how I try to get that money back. I try to get it back because I want it back.

[/ QUOTE ]

So let's say $100 was taken from you. You try to get it back, but they guy who took it is big and has more guns. You figure out that it's probably better long term to live a little longer and give up on the $100. But you still want the $100 back.

You see a little old lady sleeping in a wheelchair. A $100 bill is poking out of her pocket.

Do you take it? Nobody will see you. She's sawing logs, it would take something along the lines of a jet engine right behind her to wake her up.

[/ QUOTE ]

PVN this is another stupid attempt to show that property rights in fact exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. I'm just pointing out that "I try to get it back because I want it back" is ignoring a whole lot of other factors. You're missing $100. You want it back. Here's a way to get $100 with no risk. Why wouldn't you take it if that's all that mattered?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because nobody said that's all that matters, dumb [censored].

Edit: You, tom, and the like resemble backwards fundamentalist Christians asserting that without God there is no basis to respect other people. Same rationale as without natural property rights there is no basis for people to respect property. And like those fundamentalists, it is appearing pointless to reason with you folks. And the sad thing is that a "natural" basis for property rights isn't even necessary to your belief system.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ask them to give you their wallets and see what they think about personal property then. I'm serious. in fact don't even ask, just take their wallets. If they say anything about it then they believe in property no matter what fancy worded crap they spout.

[/ QUOTE ]


No, ask them to move their property off from where you want to walk, as your inalienable birth right and see how they try to fit their piece of land into their back pocket!

If they can't move it they can't own it!

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.hitachi-c-m.com/au/images...ess/030604.jpg

+

http://library.thinkquest.org/05aug/.../dumptruck.jpg

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think it is sociopathic when people claim they don't have a moral obligation to pay taxes. Does that mean they don't actually believe what they say they believe?

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you figure this? If I say I don't have a moral obligation to give "my" wallet to a mugger, do you think that if I get mugged and give my wallet up I don't believe what I say?

I don't have a moral obligation to eat a cheeseburger. I did, however, eat a cheeseburger last night. Contradiction?

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
b. The first owners converted common objects or potentially other-owned objects into personal property. They took objects in the use of all or to others and made them their own. This conversion without compensation of other community stakeholders is theft.

[/ QUOTE ]

The trick here is in the conflation of "common objects" with "potentially other-owned objects". Saying that owning something is "bad" or "undesirable" because someone else could own that thing makes as much sense as saying that killing Mr. X is bad because someone else could have potentially killed him.

Now, specifically why that conflation is bad:

Taking "ownership" of something that is "owned" by some group of people is "bad". I will no doubt agree with this. But to make this argument you have to accept that the group owned the thing that is being stolen. Property can't be theft without property already existing!

Taking ownership of something that is unowned cannot be objectionable. If nobody owns it, what objection can they have? If they DO have an objection, they must have an ownership interest (or at least *believe* that they do - and if you can explain how you can believe that you have an ownership interest without believing in property, then we can go a little further).

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Answers

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you assuming I never read L. von Mises before?

I suggest you read some more recent economists, any of the notable ones, or those with a peer acceptance, which excludes those of the pseudo-School of Austrian Economics will do. You are really living behind the times.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ ] excessive smileys
[ ] excessive exclamation points
[ ] usa sucks
[ ] bush sucks
[x] excessive commas
[x] didn't read the linked article before commenting on it

C-, but at least you're improving.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ask them to stop using goverment services and see what they think about goverment services then. I'm serious. in fact don't even ask, just dont let them use anything the goverment produces . If they say anything about it then they believe in goverment no matter what fancy worded crap they spout.

[/ QUOTE ]

gg

[/ QUOTE ]

This argument only works if you totally ignore the fact that governments wildly distort and often outright monopolize the markets for many of these services.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

We're not talking about him we're talking about you. You say that property is a myth how would you feel if someone stronger or more agile or smarter than you stole your money? You would have no legitimate right to be upset right cos that's just they way things happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, we're talking about me.

If someone takes my money, I try to get it back. That may entail beating the [censored] out of the other guy, telling him that he's a bad boy, going to the police, or whatever. The point is that whether I have a "right" to that money has no bearing on if or how I try to get that money back. I try to get it back because I want it back.

[/ QUOTE ]

So let's say $100 was taken from you. You try to get it back, but they guy who took it is big and has more guns. You figure out that it's probably better long term to live a little longer and give up on the $100. But you still want the $100 back.

You see a little old lady sleeping in a wheelchair. A $100 bill is poking out of her pocket.

Do you take it? Nobody will see you. She's sawing logs, it would take something along the lines of a jet engine right behind her to wake her up.

[/ QUOTE ]

PVN this is another stupid attempt to show that property rights in fact exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. I'm just pointing out that "I try to get it back because I want it back" is ignoring a whole lot of other factors. You're missing $100. You want it back. Here's a way to get $100 with no risk. Why wouldn't you take it if that's all that mattered?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because nobody said that's all that matters, dumb [censored].

[/ QUOTE ]


O RLY?

[ QUOTE ]
The point is that whether I have a "right" to that money has no bearing on if or how I try to get that money back. I try to get it back because I want it back.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Edit: You, tom, and the like resemble backwards fundamentalist Christians asserting that without God there is no basis to respect other people. Same rationale as without natural property rights there is no basis for people to respect property. And like those fundamentalists, it is appearing pointless to reason with you folks. And the sad thing is that a "natural" basis for property rights isn't even necessary to your belief system.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't asserted any natural property right here. But don't stop the jumping to preconceived conclusions and ad hominem.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ask them to stop using goverment services and see what they think about goverment services then. I'm serious. in fact don't even ask, just dont let them use anything the goverment produces . If they say anything about it then they believe in goverment no matter what fancy worded crap they spout.

[/ QUOTE ]

gg

[/ QUOTE ]

Tomd argument only works if you totally ignore the fact that money is neccessary on capitalism in order to survive

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ask them to stop using goverment services and see what they think about goverment services then. I'm serious. in fact don't even ask, just dont let them use anything the goverment produces . If they say anything about it then they believe in goverment no matter what fancy worded crap they spout.

[/ QUOTE ]

gg

[/ QUOTE ]

Tomd argument only works if you totally ignore the fact that money is neccessary on capitalism in order to survive

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

What's to stop you from merely working for the bare survival essentials and eschewing money or in fact getting private charities to provide those bare essentials for you?

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ask them to stop using goverment services and see what they think about goverment services then. I'm serious. in fact don't even ask, just dont let them use anything the goverment produces . If they say anything about it then they believe in goverment no matter what fancy worded crap they spout.

[/ QUOTE ]

gg

[/ QUOTE ]

Tomd argument only works if you totally ignore the fact that money is neccessary on capitalism in order to survive

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

What's to stop you from merely working for the bare survival essentials and eschewing money or in fact getting private charities to provide those bare essentials for you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Self-intrest, what is youre point? All ACists use goverment services beyond of what is neccesarry for survival.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
b. The first owners converted common objects or potentially other-owned objects into personal property. They took objects in the use of all or to others and made them their own. This conversion without compensation of other community stakeholders is theft.

[/ QUOTE ]

The trick here is in the conflation of "common objects" with "potentially other-owned objects". Saying that owning something is "bad" or "undesirable" because someone else could own that thing makes as much sense as saying that killing Mr. X is bad because someone else could have potentially killed him.

Now, specifically why that conflation is bad:

Taking "ownership" of something that is "owned" by some group of people is "bad". I will no doubt agree with this. But to make this argument you have to accept that the group owned the thing that is being stolen. Property can't be theft without property already existing!

Taking ownership of something that is unowned cannot be objectionable. If nobody owns it, what objection can they have? If they DO have an objection, they must have an ownership interest (or at least *believe* that they do - and if you can explain how you can believe that you have an ownership interest without believing in property, then we can go a little further).

[/ QUOTE ]


pvn,

Thanks for addressing the "first taking" argument. For the purposes of this discussion, I would give the following two premises, the first of which you will of course agree with:

1) property does exist (and it is silly to object to someone taking something if it doesn't)

2) in the beginning all property was owned in common


#2 is part of that first taking argument, and seems obviously true if one takes a timeline back far enough. In fact this is similar to using the paradigm that all property is part of a share corporation called EarthInc. Thus all own an indivisible part of everything. Of course this ignores the fact that any individual must be wearing and using articles in daily life himself alone in order to function, like clothes, food, etc. So I am excepting that part of food/clothes/shelter that is *minimally* necessary to individual survival. However when you die, any such unconsumed individual articles revert back to the common moiety.

Do you object to #2 and my further explanation of same and caveat on minimal personal property used in daily life?

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

We're not talking about him we're talking about you. You say that property is a myth how would you feel if someone stronger or more agile or smarter than you stole your money? You would have no legitimate right to be upset right cos that's just they way things happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, we're talking about me.

If someone takes my money, I try to get it back. That may entail beating the [censored] out of the other guy, telling him that he's a bad boy, going to the police, or whatever. The point is that whether I have a "right" to that money has no bearing on if or how I try to get that money back. I try to get it back because I want it back.

[/ QUOTE ]

So let's say $100 was taken from you. You try to get it back, but they guy who took it is big and has more guns. You figure out that it's probably better long term to live a little longer and give up on the $100. But you still want the $100 back.

You see a little old lady sleeping in a wheelchair. A $100 bill is poking out of her pocket.

Do you take it? Nobody will see you. She's sawing logs, it would take something along the lines of a jet engine right behind her to wake her up.

[/ QUOTE ]

PVN this is another stupid attempt to show that property rights in fact exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. I'm just pointing out that "I try to get it back because I want it back" is ignoring a whole lot of other factors. You're missing $100. You want it back. Here's a way to get $100 with no risk. Why wouldn't you take it if that's all that mattered?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because nobody said that's all that matters, dumb [censored].

[/ QUOTE ]


O RLY?

[ QUOTE ]
The point is that whether I have a "right" to that money has no bearing on if or how I try to get that money back. I try to get it back because I want it back.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Edit: You, tom, and the like resemble backwards fundamentalist Christians asserting that without God there is no basis to respect other people. Same rationale as without natural property rights there is no basis for people to respect property. And like those fundamentalists, it is appearing pointless to reason with you folks. And the sad thing is that a "natural" basis for property rights isn't even necessary to your belief system.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't asserted any natural property right here. But don't stop the jumping to preconceived conclusions and ad hominem.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I value living in a society where people don't take $100 bills from others, then I'd want to get my $100 bill from the guy that stole it or teach him a lesson to not do that again. Simple as that. No appeal to rights, and no inconsistency with the fact that I won't replace it with another $100 taken from an old lady.

And where again in your "ORLY" response did you show that the poster believed that any $100 bill will do?

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

We're not talking about him we're talking about you. You say that property is a myth how would you feel if someone stronger or more agile or smarter than you stole your money? You would have no legitimate right to be upset right cos that's just they way things happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, we're talking about me.

If someone takes my money, I try to get it back. That may entail beating the [censored] out of the other guy, telling him that he's a bad boy, going to the police, or whatever. The point is that whether I have a "right" to that money has no bearing on if or how I try to get that money back. I try to get it back because I want it back.

[/ QUOTE ]

So let's say $100 was taken from you. You try to get it back, but they guy who took it is big and has more guns. You figure out that it's probably better long term to live a little longer and give up on the $100. But you still want the $100 back.

You see a little old lady sleeping in a wheelchair. A $100 bill is poking out of her pocket.

Do you take it? Nobody will see you. She's sawing logs, it would take something along the lines of a jet engine right behind her to wake her up.

[/ QUOTE ]

PVN this is another stupid attempt to show that property rights in fact exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. I'm just pointing out that "I try to get it back because I want it back" is ignoring a whole lot of other factors. You're missing $100. You want it back. Here's a way to get $100 with no risk. Why wouldn't you take it if that's all that mattered?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because nobody said that's all that matters, dumb [censored].

[/ QUOTE ]


O RLY?

[ QUOTE ]
The point is that whether I have a "right" to that money has no bearing on if or how I try to get that money back. I try to get it back because I want it back.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Edit: You, tom, and the like resemble backwards fundamentalist Christians asserting that without God there is no basis to respect other people. Same rationale as without natural property rights there is no basis for people to respect property. And like those fundamentalists, it is appearing pointless to reason with you folks. And the sad thing is that a "natural" basis for property rights isn't even necessary to your belief system.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't asserted any natural property right here. But don't stop the jumping to preconceived conclusions and ad hominem.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I value living in a society where people don't take $100 bills from others, then I'd want to get my $100 bill from the guy that stole it or teach him a lesson to not do that again. Simple as that. No appeal to rights, and no inconsistency with the fact that I won't replace it with another $100 taken from an old lady.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no problem with any of that.

[ QUOTE ]
And where again in your "ORLY" response did you show that the poster believed that any $100 bill will do?

[/ QUOTE ]

Someone buys something from you for $10. Do you care which $10 bill he gives you?

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

Bluff This,

My answer with my friends who assert 1b is to concede this point as irrelevant because it assumes that all legitimate ownership comes from the transfer of prior titles someone else owned, or appropriation of unowned community property.

I argue that any reasonable notion of property rights includes the concept of adverse possession, which is an alternative means of acquiring property.

The first takings and even some takings today can be justified on the grounds that the new owner has possessed against the rights of all others and title now rests in him.

Most states recognize adverse possession, that a posessor can gain title to property by

1. Actually possessing it

2. Openly and Notoriously (i.e. anyone can see that he is using the property)

3. Exclusively (i.e. he is excluding others or requiring permission of others, through active policing or erecting barriers etc.)

4. For a certain period of time (without challenge) and continuous for that period of time.

5. He must possess adversely to all others claiming ownership.

The first property was probably gained this way. Someone started using something, policed others' use and excluded others' use. Over time people came to recognize the property as "his" even when he was not possessing or using it. This was not conquest, it was a good faith appropriation of probably basic things like arable land, orchards, etc. needed to survive.

This is how wilderness became property also, for in what sense it anyone "own a share in" the mojave desert before it was settled? Even if others did own a share, they allowed the share to atrophy and pass to others but not exercising their rights...

Now you may say that this property acquisition theory sucks/is unfair/ etc. but at least it avoids self-contradiction.


I think this is the best justification for first takings and intermediate conquest anyway because it protects peoples interests in security, repose, and freedom WHILE freeing us from truly bull [censored] claims by people who just have pieces of paper to waive around and haven't actually excercised their "ownership" for 30+ years.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

Just to take one more shot at a point that's already beaten to death, you can believe that property rights don't exist inherently AND that property is theft, but if you're in a society where most desirable objects are claimed to be "owned" and defending with force then of course you're going to want to "own" things within that system. Otherwise everyone else is going to be supremely advantaged over you. You can try to change the rules of the game, but before you've done so you still have to play by the current rules.

A proper way of approaching this argument is to think of an example WITHIN the type of system they are advocating in, in which you think they would not appreciate not having property rights.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
Now you may say that this property acquisition theory sucks/is unfair/ etc. but at least it avoids self-contradiction.

I think this is the best justification for first takings and intermediate conquest anyway because it protects peoples interests in security, repose, and freedom WHILE freeing us from truly bull [censored] claims by people who just have pieces of paper to waive around and haven't actually excercised their "ownership" for 30+ years.

[/ QUOTE ]


BigLaw,

Thanks for your response. pvn must have made you his understudy to free his time up (insert Midge smilie).

So let's state your position in the most concise manner possible if we can:

1) adverse possession (i.e. homesteading) is a valid method of property acquisition;
2) there is a time period one must possess same to justify same;
3) you have the right to "police" that adverse possession as did the "first takers" of wilderness or whatever.

Please correct me if the above isn't an accurate representation before I discuss it further.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

BluffThis,

You stated my position almost exactly right.

I think adverse possession is a little different from homesteading because I think you acquire property legitimately this way even if someone else "owned" it, for instance if the "owner" abandons his property and moves to Tibet to be a buddhist or whatever...

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

I can't agree or disagree that property is "stolen" since it comes from nature. But here's an interesting article I thought you should read about the Pilgrams, Native Americans, Thanksgiving, and property rights.

http://www.mises.org/story/336

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
I can't agree or disagree that property is "stolen" since it comes from nature. But here's an interesting article I thought you should read about the Pilgrams, Native Americans, Thanksgiving, and property rights.

http://www.mises.org/story/336

[/ QUOTE ]

?? I dont see anything about property rights. The only thing close is the phrase "He gave each family a parcel of land", but it doesnt define "give". Did they own the land? Did they have growing rights only? Did they lease the land?

At least it wasn't some garbage about how we stole property from the Native Americans, which the linking post led me to expect.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can't agree or disagree that property is "stolen" since it comes from nature. But here's an interesting article I thought you should read about the Pilgrams, Native Americans, Thanksgiving, and property rights.

http://www.mises.org/story/336

[/ QUOTE ]

?? I dont see anything about property rights. The only thing close is the phrase "He gave each family a parcel of land", but it doesnt define "give". Did they own the land? Did they have growing rights only? Did they lease the land?

At least it wasn't some garbage about how we stole property from the Native Americans, which the linking post led me to expect.

[/ QUOTE ]

You really expected that from mises.org?

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Now you may say that this property acquisition theory sucks/is unfair/ etc. but at least it avoids self-contradiction.

I think this is the best justification for first takings and intermediate conquest anyway because it protects peoples interests in security, repose, and freedom WHILE freeing us from truly bull [censored] claims by people who just have pieces of paper to waive around and haven't actually excercised their "ownership" for 30+ years.

[/ QUOTE ]


BigLaw,

Thanks for your response. pvn must have made you his understudy to free his time up (insert Midge smilie).

So let's state your position in the most concise manner possible if we can:

1) adverse possession (i.e. homesteading) is a valid method of property acquisition;
2) there is a time period one must possess same to justify same;
3) you have the right to "police" that adverse possession as did the "first takers" of wilderness or whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]



[ QUOTE ]
BluffThis,

You stated my position almost exactly right.

I think adverse possession is a little different from homesteading because I think you acquire property legitimately this way even if someone else "owned" it, for instance if the "owner" abandons his property and moves to Tibet to be a buddhist or whatever...

[/ QUOTE ]


OK so let's remove the homesteading thing and add your qualification for taking adverse possession. So we now have:

1) adverse possession is a valid method of property acquisition when:
<font color="white">--</font>a) a current owner is using or has abandoned such property;

2) there is a time period one must possess same to justify same;
3) you have the right to "police" that adverse possession as did the "first takers" of wilderness or whatever.


So now I have some questions:

I) Are there any other qualifications/justifications for taking adverse possession other than abandonment?

II) Can you please define abandonment?

III) Is there a limit on how much such "abandoned" property one may adversely possess *and* retain?

IV) What is the basis for determining the time period of either abandonment or adverse possession?

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
2) in the beginning all property was owned in common

#2 is part of that first taking argument, and seems obviously true if one takes a timeline back far enough. In fact this is similar to using the paradigm that all property is part of a share corporation called EarthInc.

[/ QUOTE ]

This only works if everyone agrees with it. So, social norms again. In other words, you can't argue against a natural right in property being bogus by simply asserting a different set of natural rights.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
A proper way of approaching this argument is to think of an example WITHIN the type of system they are advocating in, in which you think they would not appreciate not having property rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some big guy shows up out of nowhere and builds a wall around their favorite watering hole.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2) in the beginning all property was owned in common

#2 is part of that first taking argument, and seems obviously true if one takes a timeline back far enough. In fact this is similar to using the paradigm that all property is part of a share corporation called EarthInc.

[/ QUOTE ]

This only works if everyone agrees with it. So, social norms again. In other words, you can't argue against a natural right in property being bogus by simply asserting a different set of natural rights.

[/ QUOTE ]


pvn,

I am either going to come back to this later or start another thread on it, as property rights are a subset of natural rights, and overall principles of same are a little different topic. I am however interested in discussing it (overall principles of natural rights).

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

We're not talking about him we're talking about you. You say that property is a myth how would you feel if someone stronger or more agile or smarter than you stole your money? You would have no legitimate right to be upset right cos that's just they way things happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, we're talking about me.

If someone takes my money, I try to get it back. That may entail beating the [censored] out of the other guy, telling him that he's a bad boy, going to the police, or whatever. The point is that whether I have a "right" to that money has no bearing on if or how I try to get that money back. I try to get it back because I want it back.

[/ QUOTE ]

So let's say $100 was taken from you. You try to get it back, but they guy who took it is big and has more guns. You figure out that it's probably better long term to live a little longer and give up on the $100. But you still want the $100 back.

You see a little old lady sleeping in a wheelchair. A $100 bill is poking out of her pocket.

Do you take it? Nobody will see you. She's sawing logs, it would take something along the lines of a jet engine right behind her to wake her up.

[/ QUOTE ]

PVN this is another stupid attempt to show that property rights in fact exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. I'm just pointing out that "I try to get it back because I want it back" is ignoring a whole lot of other factors. You're missing $100. You want it back. Here's a way to get $100 with no risk. Why wouldn't you take it if that's all that mattered?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because nobody said that's all that matters, dumb [censored].

[/ QUOTE ]


O RLY?

[ QUOTE ]
The point is that whether I have a "right" to that money has no bearing on if or how I try to get that money back. I try to get it back because I want it back.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Edit: You, tom, and the like resemble backwards fundamentalist Christians asserting that without God there is no basis to respect other people. Same rationale as without natural property rights there is no basis for people to respect property. And like those fundamentalists, it is appearing pointless to reason with you folks. And the sad thing is that a "natural" basis for property rights isn't even necessary to your belief system.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't asserted any natural property right here. But don't stop the jumping to preconceived conclusions and ad hominem.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I value living in a society where people don't take $100 bills from others, then I'd want to get my $100 bill from the guy that stole it or teach him a lesson to not do that again. Simple as that. No appeal to rights, and no inconsistency with the fact that I won't replace it with another $100 taken from an old lady.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no problem with any of that.

[ QUOTE ]
And where again in your "ORLY" response did you show that the poster believed that any $100 bill will do?

[/ QUOTE ]

Someone buys something from you for $10. Do you care which $10 bill he gives you?

[/ QUOTE ]

What does your question have to do with me stealing $100 from a sleeping old lady?

And yes, if someone wants to give me $100 that I just saw them take from a sleeping old lady, I do care. I care because that's not the kind of society I want to live in and I know such a society is not in my (or my childrens' best interest).

I really don't understand your continued use of this line of reasoning.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I value living in a society where people don't take $100 bills from others, then I'd want to get my $100 bill from the guy that stole it or teach him a lesson to not do that again. Simple as that. No appeal to rights, and no inconsistency with the fact that I won't replace it with another $100 taken from an old lady.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no problem with any of that.

[ QUOTE ]
And where again in your "ORLY" response did you show that the poster believed that any $100 bill will do?

[/ QUOTE ]

Someone buys something from you for $10. Do you care which $10 bill he gives you?

[/ QUOTE ]

What does your question have to do with me stealing $100 from a sleeping old lady?

And yes, if someone wants to give me $100 that I just saw them take from a sleeping old lady, I do care. I care because that's not the kind of society I want to live in and I know such a society is not in my (or my childrens' best interest).

I really don't understand your continued use of this line of reasoning.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're conflating the two questions.

The post I replied to (from goodsamaritan IIRC) suggested that rights didn't matter, he had $100, no longer has it, and wants it back.

If getting it back is the important thing, and rights are unimportant, then he shouldn't have any problem getting it back in the easiest way possible. Dollars are fungible, and there's no rational reason to prefer one $100 bill over another.

In the example where someone buys something from you, he has six or seven $10 bills in his wallet. You don't know anything about any of them, other than they are all denominated as $10 and you have no reason to believe that any of them are counterfeit or stolen (or more precisely you don't have any way to determine that one of them is more or less likely to be bogus than any other one of them).

Do you care which one he gives you? Are you going to ask to see all of his $10 bills, examine them all and pick the one you want? A yes or no will suffice here.