Argh property rights debate

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The distinction is important, because if someone says they don't believe in property "rights" but will act to stop someone from taking their property then that's contradictory. If you believe that "people will just be generally better off" if you stop them from stealing, you also need to feel that you have a "right" to stop them in order to take action. This "right" can be interpretted as a property right.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is totally false. The easiest example to refute being that I can force my neighbor to stop abusing his kid. This does not imply that I believe I have a right to do it, it is just my own value judgment as far as what preferences of mine I am willing to use force to impose. Why is this concept difficult?

[/ QUOTE ]

But why do you prefer to use force here?

You could also use force to stop your neighbor from mowing his yard. Why didn't you use that as an example?

[/ QUOTE ]

Read again.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not getting the point of my question. What makes one of these a case where you're willing to use force and the other not one? I'm guessing (hoping) there is a principle underlying this decision making process and you're not just arbitrarily picking on a case-by-case basis as you would when (eg) selecting what type of cheese to put on your burger each day.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm guessing (hoping) there is a principle underlying this decision making process and you're not just arbitrarily picking on a case-by-case basis as you would when (eg) selecting what type of cheese to put on your burger each day.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I believe that all hamburgers have a natural right to be topped with cheddar cheese, so bad example.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
You're not getting the point of my question. What makes one of these a case where you're willing to use force and the other not one?

[/ QUOTE ]

I said already: my own values. What makes you like blue and not red shoes?

[ QUOTE ]
I'm guessing (hoping) there is a principle underlying this decision making process

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a principle as I've already explained. It is my belief that the world is better off if people behaved as such. That's the principle I am using for my life. You may not share the same principle in yours and that is fine.

[ QUOTE ]
... and you're not just arbitrarily picking on a case-by-case basis as you would when (eg) selecting what type of cheese to put on your burger each day.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why can't I pick and choose my values? Why can't I decide that I believe activity X to be so egregious that I will use force and that I won't do so for activity Y. Is your solution to the fact that life includes arbitrary choices to arbitrarily establish some notion of "rights"? How is that any better? Use REASON dude. Stop pretending there is some non-arbitrary answer here.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
There is a principle as I've already explained. It is my belief that the world is better off if people behaved as such. That's the principle I am using for my life. You may not share the same principle in yours and that is fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, when you say you would use violence to stop someone else from abusing a child you are saying that it's not fine for some people to not share the same principles. This is the distinction you are not making in your "counterexamples" about blue and red shoes but that is essential to the concept of "rights" vs. "subjecive preferences" that you are claiming does not exist.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Use REASON dude. Stop pretending there is some non-arbitrary answer here.

[/ QUOTE ]


pvn is the one using reason here Kaj. Reason leads one to some consistent set of first principles from which one derives further principles that determines the rightness/wrongness of one's actions, even if all others wouldn't agree on the axioms.

If you disagree, and everyone is just acting according to impulse as a situation arises, then you can *never* claim the actions of another are wrong in any discrete case. You are just acting similarly to the Diceman, but where the random electrons in your head determine your actions at any instant. In fact, how would you even be able to determine that someone was mentally ill with your totally subjective standards?

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
pvn is the one using reason here Kaj. Reason leads one to some consistent set of first principles from which one derives further principles that determines the rightness/wrongness of one's actions, even if all others wouldn't agree on the axioms.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have stated that I act on a particular principle over and over in this thread (namely, I try to act how *I* would want society in general to act). However, I acknowledge my principle is subjective rather than pretend it is non-arbitrary. There is nothing inconsistent about my principle.

[ QUOTE ]
If you disagree, and everyone is just acting according to impulse as a situation arises,

[/ QUOTE ]

I have stated my principle in over and over in this thread. And it was not "acting impulsively as the situation arises".

[ QUOTE ]
then you can *never* claim the actions of another are wrong in any discrete case.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can claim an action is wrong in that it violates my values. There really is nothing non-arbitrary to appeal to when one judges an action as "wrong".

[ QUOTE ]
You are just acting similarly to the Diceman, but where the random electrons in your head determine your actions at any instant.

[/ QUOTE ]

I HAVE STATED MY PRINCIPLE OVER AND OVER IN THIS THREAD. AND IT WAS NOT ACTING RANDOMLY! WHY CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT!?!?!?

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, how would you even be able to determine that someone was mentally ill with your totally subjective standards?

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't. What's the point? If I were mentally ill, it would affect my "first principles" (as you describe) just as surely as my personal values. And illness from one perspective might be genius from another anyway. Again, why must you keep pretending there is some non-arbitrary basis for human action that defines our "rights" when in fact none exists?

[BigLawMonies]

Man BluffThis you are really putting me to work here. I think this might be the deepest elaboration I’ve ever had to make on this issue. I should print it out or something.

[Quote] V) What is the justification for your different time periods for portable articles and land? Is it value, which thus would mean high value portable articles should enjoy greater time protection as well? [\Unquote]

My intuitive justification is that land is the origin of most wealth, and has a value just in its possession (i.e. enables privacy).

Also the “lifetime” of portable articles is generally very finite. Even high price tag items like cars only run so long, whereas land is technically enduring in value. I guess you could make a case for minerals (but I consider that land anyway) or rare/historic art pieces or objects like the original Declaration of Independence.

But I’m not sure there is a coherent justification here, or that one is necessary to the theory of adverse possession. I think no distinction between portable articles and land in the theory would just modify and not disprove the doctrine of adverse possession.

[Quote] VI) Who determines what reasonable is, even? [\Unquote]

I’m not sure on a theoretical level this matters as much to the rebuttal of the “first taking = theft argument.” I think that all I need is the concession that there is some objectively reasonable time, and whether it is 5 or 50 years does not matter. This is because most if not all land and property owned today has been owned adverse to all others far longer than any plausibly objective reasonable time, no matter what the time is set at.

I think a political community can fix a time period within the range of reasonable times. The reasonable range is bounded on the one hand by a minimal amount to ensure than owners have an opportunity to object to squatters but not so long that an adverse possessor is prevented from relying on possession for investment and security.

Any fixed point will always be somewhat arbitrary as an approximation of the ideal reasonable time. This is the same with a minimum sexual consent age, voting age, retirement age, etc. What makes one minute before or after midnight on your 18th birthday less unreasonable than exactly midnight, right? That is the nature of measured time. But that does not prove that there is not some reasonable time.

We can debate what circumstances might influence the appropriate point or range.

[Quote VII) In #2d, where the time clock starts with adverse possession, doesn't this mean when I see anyone leave their house and drive away I can go sit in their house and start the clock, being willing of course to leave if the owner returns soon to reassert his claim? [\Unquote]

Yes, but any private property regime usually sanctions trespass with fines, etc. especially against “land pirates” or those who actively try to take others’ land in this way. But in principle if you were to stay in my house long enough you could gain ownership.

But think about how impractical a move this would be for you if you knew there was an owner who may or may not come back within the stipulated time period. Any improvements you make to the property, any investment you make in bringing your stuff to the property or maintaining the property could be lost at any moment. Could you live like that for 5, 10, 30 years? This move would give you little security unless you prefer a nomadic lifestyle.

In the U.S., adverse possession is mostly used to protect people with defective deeds, or people who accidentally built a fence a few feet on the other side of the property line 20 years ago.

But people in the U.S. do try to squat as a profit tool. See www.cashflowinstitute.com/freerealestate.htm for dumbasses who think they can actually profit this way.

I think you could see adverse possession also as an application of the Coase theorem, especially in the case of abandoned property.

[Quote] VIII) Are violent means, as in those minimally necessary to get the job done, valid means for assertion and policing of prior ownership, whether that of the earlier owner during the reasonable period or a later squatter, when persuasion fails? [\Unquote]

My argument for adverse possession as a moral or theoretical theory about the acquisition of property and property rights in response to the “first taking = theft” claim does not have to deal with this question, imo. One can have a right regardless of the means available to enforce it. For instance, we would all say I have a right to bodily integrity, regardless if we think that it is right for me to use force to prevent someone from harming me, or the degree of force.

However I would acknowledge that unless you are an Amish-style pacifist you would have to acknowledge that as a practical matter, some degree of force is necessary to enforce any system of property rights, even in a communist system (i.e. preventing someone from using more than they need, or interfering with others’ use).

IX) Regarding #5, and the practical amount of land one can actually use, is that conditioned on how much an individual can use, or is it permissible to hire enough employees to work it and thus assert ownership?

I have not really thought about this question to deeply, but I think the answer is no. You have to actually possess the land; you can’t get your agent to do it for you vicariously.


Interesting discussion we have going here….

[BluffTHIS!]

BigLaw,

This is interesting so let's continue. To recapitulate where you are now:

1) adverse possession is a valid method of property acquisition conditioned on being:
-a) actual possession
-b) open/publicly known
-c) exclusive
-d) for a given time period
-e) held adversely against all other claims
-f) abandonment is defined as "the failure to assert one’s ownership rights against a squatter or other invader of the property within a reasonable time"

2) there is a time period (reasonble time) one must possess same to justify same;
-a) that time period is the same for both objects/whatever goods you can take with you and for land
-b)The time period has to be long enough for owners or potential owners to assert their ownership, but short enough that owners cannot sit on their rights indefinitely. It is a balance between protecting the owner’s security and the new possessor’s developed interest in the property.
-c) the time periods for both adverse possession and reasonable assertion of ownership begins with adverse possession.

3) you have the right to "police" that adverse possession as did the "first takers" of wilderness or whatever, including the use of violent force as such is necessary to enforce property rights.

4) there is a limit on how much property one can adversely possess and retain which is determined by the conditions justifying adverse possession and due to the fact that one can only ACTUALLY possess and use a relatively small piece of property exclusively to others’ use AND continuously for a reasonable period (farmer can only plow so many acres). However you can sell any excess at any time. Also one cannot use an agent/employee to expand the limit.




More questions:

X) Regarding your answer to who determines what a reasonable time period is you said:

"I think a political community can fix a time period within the range of reasonable times"

So are you saying the definition depends on others, and if so, on a unanimity of such opinion, or a simple majority or what?

XI) You said in answer to my clock question on squatting:

"Yes, but any private property regime usually sanctions trespass with fines, etc. especially against “land pirates” or those who actively try to take others’ land in this way. But in principle if you were to stay in my house long enough you could gain ownership.
But think about how impractical a move this would be for you if you knew there was an owner who may or may not come back within the stipulated time period. Any improvements you make to the property, any investment you make in bringing your stuff to the property or maintaining the property could be lost at any moment. Could you live like that for 5, 10, 30 years? This move would give you little security unless you prefer a nomadic lifestyle."


There seems to be a conflict here between your assertion of a right to squat on land which is at the moment unoccupied, and your saying that to so squat would be trespass that would be sanctioned. Since you say the clock starts with adverse possession, i.e. no necessity of a "waiting period", how do you reconcile this so as to formulate a consistent principle? If you have a right to squat, then it can't be tresspass, unless there is a further limitation upon squatting.

XII) Regarding #4 as modified with your "no agent" caveat, doesn't this mean that you don't have a right to squat on any land when you currently have as much or more than you can actually use/work yourself? Thus you could never have an excess to sell unless you received it as a gift or bought it. Basically this question boils down to whether adverse possession of "abandoned" land can *only* be done when it is necessary to survival (if you say you might have exhausted a certain tract of land so it can't be worked enough to survive, then you would have to first dispose of it prior to finding new land to squat on).