Argh property rights debate
 

So I go to school with numerous new dealers and semi-socialists with whom I regularly argue. I run into the following theoretical arguments about the nature of property all the time, and I am sure many of you do as well. Help me out plz – What are some of your responses? Long post but I tried to give a full outline of the arguments I hear weekly. Here it goes:

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.


2. The nature of Property implies social ownership.


a. Property is not a naturally fact. Ownership prior to legalism was merely use and possession. There is nothing about an object that makes it property of Person A or Corporation B.


b. Property as a social fact exists only at the sufferance of social acceptance – i.e. acquiesce of social institutions or non-owners to the owners’ claim of exclusive use and possession. This is the like case where if we all stopped believing that there is a president of the united states, then there is no president of the united states.


c. Property relies on positive externalities of others,
such as a system of contracts, debts, marketable titles, policing, etc.



d. Thus since all participate in the ‘creation’ and maintenance of ownership, all own property.



e. [Note: at bottom I think this objection comes down to the assertion that assignment of property rights over an object to A and not B is in some sense arbitrary and needs independent social justification for support].



3. Property is a socially created right, not a human or natural right, and thus is subject to modifications for the social good and human happiness. Property rights have to be balanced against the needs of all and other utilitarian concerns; insofar as property rights run counter to the best scheme of social cooperation we should reject the maintenance of property as a social fact.



4. As a default position we should be wary of all claims asserting the absolute inviolability of a social institution (property rights in this case) absent a strong showing of proof that such rights should be recognized and held inviolable.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

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.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

There are no property rights. Property is just exclusion by force or persuasion. Arguing about rights is just masturbation, or possibly a form of persuasion.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ 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 ]

Seriously I told one of them that I need his car more than him and jokingly took his keys.

Its so [censored] ing funny because we are all going to be so [censored] ing rich beyond what we really deserve that it is pretty stupid for them to keep being dirty commies.

We are all going to make more in a 10 week summer period of free lunches and ego blowjobs than my girlfriend makes in a [censored] ing year busting her ass off working overtime. I point this out to them and LOL at the hypocracy

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 ]

Seriously I told one of them that I need his car more than him and jokingly took his keys.

Its so [censored] ing funny because we are all going to be so [censored] ing rich beyond what we really deserve that it is pretty stupid for them to keep being dirty commies.

We are all going to make more in a 10 week summer period of free lunches and ego blowjobs than my girlfriend makes in a [censored] ing year busting her ass off working overtime. I point this out to them and LOL at the hypocracy

[/ QUOTE ]

Where is the hypocrisy? You don't have to believe that property is a natural right to want to own property. In making that assumption, you and tomd look like fools in this thread.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
Its so [censored] ing funny because we are all going to be so [censored] ing rich beyond what we really deserve that it is pretty stupid for them to keep being dirty commies.

We are all going to make more in a 10 week summer period of free lunches and ego blowjobs than my girlfriend makes in a [censored] ing year busting her ass off working overtime. I point this out to them and LOL at the hypocracy

[/ QUOTE ]

So is a thread about property rights or a thinly veiled brag post? Maybe both?

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

Seriously I told one of them that I need his car more than him and jokingly took his keys.

Its so [censored] ing funny because we are all going to be so [censored] ing rich beyond what we really deserve that it is pretty stupid for them to keep being dirty commies.

We are all going to make more in a 10 week summer period of free lunches and ego blowjobs than my girlfriend makes in a [censored] ing year busting her ass off working overtime. I point this out to them and LOL at the hypocracy

[/ QUOTE ]

Where is the hypocrisy? You don't have to believe that property is a natural right to want to own property. In making that assumption, you and tomd look like fools in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have to believe that property exists though. If you say that property doesn't exist but get upset when someone takes something of yours well I don't know what to say you're just a moron. If you believe that property is theft and whatever you take is yours then you can't get upset about being stolen from either. If you think everything should be shared you can't get upset when I want to share the contents of your wallet.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
Where is the hypocrisy? You don't have to believe that property is a natural right to want to own property. In making that assumption, you and tomd look like fools in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

In general Kaj you are right that you can participate in a system you believe is unjust without being a hypocrite, but only if you HAVE to do it, right? Like a poor socialist worker still wants to own his own clothes, or not go to jail for stealing food or whatever.

I was pointing out that all of them had the option of working "in the public interest" but rather went for profit maximization instead. They could have done less "exploitative" work or made a comfortable living as labor rights advocates or the [censored] whatever. But no they want to make $200K+ a year and have their [censored] ing cheese and wine...that is what makes them hypocrites.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

Seriously I told one of them that I need his car more than him and jokingly took his keys.

Its so [censored] ing funny because we are all going to be so [censored] ing rich beyond what we really deserve that it is pretty stupid for them to keep being dirty commies.

We are all going to make more in a 10 week summer period of free lunches and ego blowjobs than my girlfriend makes in a [censored] ing year busting her ass off working overtime. I point this out to them and LOL at the hypocracy

[/ QUOTE ]

Where is the hypocrisy? You don't have to believe that property is a natural right to want to own property. In making that assumption, you and tomd look like fools in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have to believe that property exists though. If you say that property doesn't exist but get upset when someone takes something of yours well I don't know what to say you're just a moron.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a terrible arguement. You are essentially saying that: getting upset = right being violating. If you get upset about your favorite team losing a game, does that mean you have to believe a right has been violated?

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
They could have done less "exploitative" work or made a comfortable living as labor rights advocates or the [censored] whatever. But no they want to make $200K+ a year and have their [censored] ing cheese and wine...that is what makes them hypocrites.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why are you assuming that making more money is more exploitive? It sounds like you are failing victim to the classical liberal fallacy of equating making less with helping people.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

Seriously I told one of them that I need his car more than him and jokingly took his keys.

Its so [censored] ing funny because we are all going to be so [censored] ing rich beyond what we really deserve that it is pretty stupid for them to keep being dirty commies.

We are all going to make more in a 10 week summer period of free lunches and ego blowjobs than my girlfriend makes in a [censored] ing year busting her ass off working overtime. I point this out to them and LOL at the hypocracy

[/ QUOTE ]

Where is the hypocrisy? You don't have to believe that property is a natural right to want to own property. In making that assumption, you and tomd look like fools in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have to believe that property exists though. If you say that property doesn't exist but get upset when someone takes something of yours well I don't know what to say you're just a moron.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a terrible arguement. You are essentially saying that: getting upset = right being violating. If you get upset about your favorite team losing a game, does that mean you have to believe a right has been violated?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a necessary but not sufficient condition. If you don't believe in property and I steal your stuff how can you possibly logically be upset in any way? It's impossible. The analogy is that you say "I don't care about this team in fact I don't even watch this sport" then getting upset when that team loses.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

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

Seriously I told one of them that I need his car more than him and jokingly took his keys.

Its so [censored] ing funny because we are all going to be so [censored] ing rich beyond what we really deserve that it is pretty stupid for them to keep being dirty commies.

We are all going to make more in a 10 week summer period of free lunches and ego blowjobs than my girlfriend makes in a [censored] ing year busting her ass off working overtime. I point this out to them and LOL at the hypocracy

[/ QUOTE ]

Where is the hypocrisy? You don't have to believe that property is a natural right to want to own property. In making that assumption, you and tomd look like fools in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have to believe that property exists though. If you say that property doesn't exist but get upset when someone takes something of yours well I don't know what to say you're just a moron.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a terrible arguement. You are essentially saying that: getting upset = right being violating. If you get upset about your favorite team losing a game, does that mean you have to believe a right has been violated?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a necessary but not sufficient condition. If you don't believe in property and I steal your stuff how can you possibly logically be upset in any way? It's impossible. The analogy is that you say "I don't care about this team in fact I don't even watch this sport" then getting upset when that team loses.

[/ QUOTE ]

Being upset has nothing to do with logic. That's the point. Most people don't get upset if somebody writes an equation that says 2=2=3, but most people get upset if their mother dies of cancer, which has absolutely nothing to do with logic.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

Seriously I told one of them that I need his car more than him and jokingly took his keys.

Its so [censored] ing funny because we are all going to be so [censored] ing rich beyond what we really deserve that it is pretty stupid for them to keep being dirty commies.

We are all going to make more in a 10 week summer period of free lunches and ego blowjobs than my girlfriend makes in a [censored] ing year busting her ass off working overtime. I point this out to them and LOL at the hypocracy

[/ QUOTE ]

Where is the hypocrisy? You don't have to believe that property is a natural right to want to own property. In making that assumption, you and tomd look like fools in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have to believe that property exists though. If you say that property doesn't exist but get upset when someone takes something of yours well I don't know what to say you're just a moron.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a terrible arguement. You are essentially saying that: getting upset = right being violating. If you get upset about your favorite team losing a game, does that mean you have to believe a right has been violated?

[/ QUOTE ]

You arent serious with this are you? How about if he tries to stop you? By what authority or reason does he prevent you from taking his wallet?

EDIT: Sorry, THE wallet, not his wallet.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

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

Seriously I told one of them that I need his car more than him and jokingly took his keys.

Its so [censored] ing funny because we are all going to be so [censored] ing rich beyond what we really deserve that it is pretty stupid for them to keep being dirty commies.

We are all going to make more in a 10 week summer period of free lunches and ego blowjobs than my girlfriend makes in a [censored] ing year busting her ass off working overtime. I point this out to them and LOL at the hypocracy

[/ QUOTE ]

Where is the hypocrisy? You don't have to believe that property is a natural right to want to own property. In making that assumption, you and tomd look like fools in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have to believe that property exists though. If you say that property doesn't exist but get upset when someone takes something of yours well I don't know what to say you're just a moron.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a terrible arguement. You are essentially saying that: getting upset = right being violating. If you get upset about your favorite team losing a game, does that mean you have to believe a right has been violated?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a necessary but not sufficient condition. If you don't believe in property and I steal your stuff how can you possibly logically be upset in any way? It's impossible. The analogy is that you say "I don't care about this team in fact I don't even watch this sport" then getting upset when that team loses.

[/ QUOTE ]

Being upset has nothing to do with logic. That's the point. Most people don't get upset if somebody writes an equation that says 2=2=3, but most people get upset if their mother dies of cancer, which has absolutely nothing to do with logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea what you are trying to get at here but it sounds pretty vacuous. The important part isnt that he gets upset, the important part is that he reacts in such a way that demonstrates that HE SURE FEELS LIKE THATS HIS WALLET

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]

You arent serious with this are you? How about if he tries to stop you? By what authority or reason does he prevent you from taking his wallet?

EDIT: Sorry, THE wallet, not his wallet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does he need authority or reason? Force can be just as effective, if not more so.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You arent serious with this are you? How about if he tries to stop you? By what authority or reason does he prevent you from taking his wallet?

EDIT: Sorry, THE wallet, not his wallet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does he need authority or reason? Force can be just as effective, if not more so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, so if in the OP somewhere he had mentioned that his friends ALSO agree with the principle that something isnt right just because I have bigger guns than you, are we back on track with this argument? I sort of have a feeling you think a legitimate response to just about any post in the entire world is "Yeah well what if I had a nuke?"

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why are you assuming that making more money is nore exploitive? It sounds like you are failing victim to the classical liberal fallacy of equating making less with helping people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, if you believe our system of property rights is exploitative of labor and unjust to the poor then you have to say that doing transactional work for [censored] ing Dow Chemical, Archer Daniels Midland, et. al is pretty [censored] ing exploitative work.

But really come on dude you can't argue that a certain social regime is unjust, then participate in the unjust institution on its own terms AND not be a hypocrite WITHOUT taking alternative actions to adjust or overthrow the institution AT LEAST when they are available.

But they passed on that because they dont want to be "poor." They want to do the best for themselves. And I am totally fine with that but I am a economic libertarian not a communist.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

Seriously I told one of them that I need his car more than him and jokingly took his keys.

Its so [censored] ing funny because we are all going to be so [censored] ing rich beyond what we really deserve that it is pretty stupid for them to keep being dirty commies.

We are all going to make more in a 10 week summer period of free lunches and ego blowjobs than my girlfriend makes in a [censored] ing year busting her ass off working overtime. I point this out to them and LOL at the hypocracy

[/ QUOTE ]

Where is the hypocrisy? You don't have to believe that property is a natural right to want to own property. In making that assumption, you and tomd look like fools in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have to believe that property exists though. If you say that property doesn't exist but get upset when someone takes something of yours well I don't know what to say you're just a moron.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a terrible arguement. You are essentially saying that: getting upset = right being violating. If you get upset about your favorite team losing a game, does that mean you have to believe a right has been violated?

[/ QUOTE ]
For your analogy to hold, they would have to believe there was something wrong with being emotionally invested in teams. If they believe that AND get upset when "their" team loses, it sounds like there's some cognitive dissonance going on.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

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

Seriously I told one of them that I need his car more than him and jokingly took his keys.

Its so [censored] ing funny because we are all going to be so [censored] ing rich beyond what we really deserve that it is pretty stupid for them to keep being dirty commies.

We are all going to make more in a 10 week summer period of free lunches and ego blowjobs than my girlfriend makes in a [censored] ing year busting her ass off working overtime. I point this out to them and LOL at the hypocracy

[/ QUOTE ]

Where is the hypocrisy? You don't have to believe that property is a natural right to want to own property. In making that assumption, you and tomd look like fools in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have to believe that property exists though. If you say that property doesn't exist but get upset when someone takes something of yours well I don't know what to say you're just a moron.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a terrible arguement. You are essentially saying that: getting upset = right being violating. If you get upset about your favorite team losing a game, does that mean you have to believe a right has been violated?

[/ QUOTE ]
For your analogy to hold, they would have to believe there was something wrong with being emotionally invested in teams. If they believe that AND get upset when "their" team loses, it sounds like there's some cognitive dissonance going on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah but he could get angry and pop you in the face then what are you gonna do huh huh huh huh?

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]

I have no idea what you are trying to get at here but it sounds pretty vacuous. The important part isnt that he gets upset, the important part is that he reacts in such a way that demonstrates that HE SURE FEELS LIKE THATS HIS WALLET

[/ QUOTE ]

What I'm saying is: whether he believes he has a "right" to the wallet or whether he actually has a "right" to that wallet is irrelevant; all that matters is either his ability to convince you that the wallet is his or his ability to take control of the wallet via force.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah but he could get angry and pop you in the face then what are you gonna do huh huh huh huh?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're being facetious, but that is essentially what I'm saying. How do rights matter unless they are enforceable?

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I have no idea what you are trying to get at here but it sounds pretty vacuous. The important part isnt that he gets upset, the important part is that he reacts in such a way that demonstrates that HE SURE FEELS LIKE THATS HIS WALLET

[/ QUOTE ]

What I'm saying is: whether he believes he has a "right" to the wallet or whether he actually has a "right" to that wallet is irrelevant; all that matters is either his ability to convince you that the wallet is his or his ability to take control of the wallet via force.

[/ 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.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

We live in a society where we need money and property rights to get by. Believing that the system should be changed does not equate to not caring if someone takes your wallet. Just as ACers pay taxes and utilize public services. We have to work within the system we've got, as much as we may dislike it.
So I don't think "give me your wallet, then" is a valid counter-argument.

I do think "all property is theft" is a silly position, although no sillier than natural rights. Both suffer from their absolutism and attempt to objectively define intangible moral ideas. So if I was big on property rights, my line of attack would be to go after the "all property is theft" thing. By that logic, not only is property theft, but anything that denies anyone else the use of anything is theft. E.g. eating an apple is theft, even if you don't claim to own it. What if someone else wanted to eat that? Then I would argue that concepts such as property rights are a matter of preference and social norm and I'd give some examples of why a lack of property rights would be unpleasant in a socialist society though, not "give me your wallet, now".

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
We live in a society where we need money and property rights to get by. Believing that the system should be changed does not equate to not caring if someone takes your wallet. Just as ACers pay taxes and utilize public services. We have to work within the system we've got, as much as we may dislike it.
So I don't think "give me your wallet, then" is a valid counter-argument.

I do think "all property is theft" is a silly position, although no sillier than natural rights. Both suffer from their absolutism and attempt to objectively define intangible moral ideas. So if I was big on property rights, my line of attack would be to go after the "all property is theft" thing. By that logic, not only is property theft, but anything that denies anyone else the use of anything is theft. E.g. eating an apple is theft, even if you don't claim to own it. What if someone else wanted to eat that? Then I would argue that concepts such as property rights are a matter of preference and social norm and I'd give some examples of why a lack of property rights would be unpleasant in a socialist society though, not "give me your wallet, now".

[/ 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.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah but he could get angry and pop you in the face then what are you gonna do huh huh huh huh?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're being facetious, but that is essentially what I'm saying. How do rights matter unless they are enforceable?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets start with do they exist or don't they. Admit that you believe in the existence of property rights before we move on to how and if they can be enforced.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ 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.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah but he could get angry and pop you in the face then what are you gonna do huh huh huh huh?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're being facetious, but that is essentially what I'm saying. How do rights matter unless they are enforceable?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets start with do they exist or don't they. Admit that you believe in the existence of property rights before we move on to how and if they can be enforced.

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends on how you define right. I will say that rights, as they are defined by many people in this forum either explicitly or implicitly, don't exist.

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 it's right that the strong steal from the weak and you're only entitled to that which you can use force to take and defend. That sounds pretty sociopathic to me. At least it's consistent.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
We live in a society where we need money and property rights to get by. Believing that the system should be changed does not equate to not caring if someone takes your wallet. Just as ACers pay taxes and utilize public services. We have to work within the system we've got, as much as we may dislike it.
So I don't think "give me your wallet, then" is a valid counter-argument.

I do think "all property is theft" is a silly position, although no sillier than natural rights. Both suffer from their absolutism and attempt to objectively define intangible moral ideas. So if I was big on property rights, my line of attack would be to go after the "all property is theft" thing. By that logic, not only is property theft, but anything that denies anyone else the use of anything is theft. E.g. eating an apple is theft, even if you don't claim to own it. What if someone else wanted to eat that? Then I would argue that concepts such as property rights are a matter of preference and social norm and I'd give some examples of why a lack of property rights would be unpleasant in a socialist society though, not "give me your wallet, now".

[/ QUOTE ]

Yay! Thanks for being responsive to the OP

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. 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.

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 it's right that the strong steal from the weak and you're only entitled to that which you can use force to take and defend. That sounds pretty sociopathic to me. At least it's consistent.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not right or wrong, it just is what it is. But sometimes, if not often, it is smart to refrain from preying on the weak because of the negative social and/or legal costs of getting caught doing so.

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 ]

But you still recognize property rights, you just believe like our sociopath friend here that your property right is "whatever you can get your hands on and defend"

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
So I go to school with numerous new dealers and semi-socialists with whom I regularly argue. I run into the following theoretical arguments about the nature of property all the time, and I am sure many of you do as well. Help me out plz – What are some of your responses? Long post but I tried to give a full outline of the arguments I hear weekly. Here it goes:

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.


2. The nature of Property implies social ownership.


a. Property is not a naturally fact. Ownership prior to legalism was merely use and possession. There is nothing about an object that makes it property of Person A or Corporation B.


b. Property as a social fact exists only at the sufferance of social acceptance – i.e. acquiesce of social institutions or non-owners to the owners’ claim of exclusive use and possession. This is the like case where if we all stopped believing that there is a president of the united states, then there is no president of the united states.


c. Property relies on positive externalities of others,
such as a system of contracts, debts, marketable titles, policing, etc.



d. Thus since all participate in the ‘creation’ and maintenance of ownership, all own property.



e. [Note: at bottom I think this objection comes down to the assertion that assignment of property rights over an object to A and not B is in some sense arbitrary and needs independent social justification for support].



3. Property is a socially created right, not a human or natural right, and thus is subject to modifications for the social good and human happiness. Property rights have to be balanced against the needs of all and other utilitarian concerns; insofar as property rights run counter to the best scheme of social cooperation we should reject the maintenance of property as a social fact.



4. As a default position we should be wary of all claims asserting the absolute inviolability of a social institution (property rights in this case) absent a strong showing of proof that such rights should be recognized and held inviolable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Arent the bases all of these arguments essentially the same, that property is a social construct and not a "natural right", which is certainly correct imo, since I dont believe there is such a thing as "natural rights".

However, starting from that basis certainly doesnt logically lead you to 1d, 2d, or 3.

And 4 isnt a conclusion its just a restatement of the premise because there is no extant strong proof of the inviolability of any social institution.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

But you still recognize property rights, you just believe like our sociopath friend here that your property right is "whatever you can get your hands on and defend"

[/ QUOTE ]

No, in this example I am not saying I have a "right" to anything. Just that I will do benefits me and not do what doesn't benefit me.

You can say this is sociopathic, but that is just your opinion, and has nothing to do with my actual believe system. 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?

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

This thread officially have some of the dumbest replies I have ever read. There is no arguments in the quotes of the OP that makes it a contradiction to say 'this is my wallet so give it to me or I'll hurt you'

The entire points of the many of the arguments in the OP is that when two people is fighting over the same wallet, natural rights is shown to be useless, it IS the cultural construct of the property rights that matter.

And that all property is at one time unowned and then claimed by humans makes the legitimacy of property claims ultimate recide on opinion, not 'natural rights'.

You might disagree with some of the conclusions and hold differing political views. But that's another case. The 'your wallet is my wallet' argument is completely of base by a mile.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ 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!

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ 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.

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 ]
It's not von Mises. Contained within this book are the answers to all the questions asked. No reason to insult people.
I feel like I don't live behind the times because quite frankly the matter at hand is timeless.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ 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 ]
No reason to insult people.
I feel like I don't live behind the times because quite frankly the matter at hand is timeless

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, as timeless as father christmas!