The Issue Again...

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1) Government cannot legitimately own property.

[/ QUOTE ]

But a collective can?

[/ QUOTE ]
Can't speak for pvn, but I'd say yes, you can own a share of land with others. The reason gov'ts cannot legitimately own property isn't that it's a collective. It's because the money they use to buy the property is coercively obtained.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The fact that a "rightful" owner can't be found doesn't give government license to scoop up vast tracts by decree.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you do get to decree what is yours?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think his claim rests on decree. He can actually demonstrate ownership.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1) Government cannot legitimately own property.

[/ QUOTE ]

But a collective can?

[/ QUOTE ]
Can't speak for pvn, but I'd say yes, you can own a share of land with others. The reason gov'ts cannot legitimately own property isn't that it's a collective. It's because the money they use to buy the property is coercively obtained.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The fact that a "rightful" owner can't be found doesn't give government license to scoop up vast tracts by decree.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you do get to decree what is yours?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think his claim rests on decree. He can actually demonstrate ownership.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one has ever demonstrated that government ownership was obtained illegimately or coercively. Just a lot of opinions and rhetoric.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think his claim rests on decree. He can actually demonstrate ownership.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, I doubt that. He can say "I bought it from so and so who bought it from so and so" and on down the line, but eventually it ends with "and I assume that person got it legitimately." For all of us, we need to pick some point in time at which prior potential illegitimate transactions "don't count", and decree legitimacy from that point forward. In my opinion, this blows up the moral justification for a property rights based morality.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think his claim rests on decree. He can actually demonstrate ownership.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, I doubt that. He can say "I bought it from so and so who bought it from so and so" and on down the line, but eventually it ends with "and I assume that person got it legitimately." For all of us, we need to pick some point in time at which prior potential illegitimate transactions "don't count", and decree legitimacy from that point forward. In my opinion, this blows up the moral justification for a property rights based morality.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is a "property rights based morality"?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think his claim rests on decree. He can actually demonstrate ownership.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, I doubt that. He can say "I bought it from so and so who bought it from so and so" and on down the line, but eventually it ends with "and I assume that person got it legitimately." For all of us, we need to pick some point in time at which prior potential illegitimate transactions "don't count", and decree legitimacy from that point forward. In my opinion, this blows up the moral justification for a property rights based morality.

[/ QUOTE ]
This "cut-off" may not be necessary. Thinking aloud, I think it could be a sliding scale. Perhaps if your property was illegitimately obtained in the past, your claim to it is tainted, but if no one else can show that they have a more legitimate claim to the land, then you would be the rightful owner. So if A steals land from B and sells it to C, B's claim is still superior to C's, even though C obtained it "legitimately".

[latefordinner]

[ QUOTE ]
What is a "property rights based morality"?

[/ QUOTE ]

When things are deemed just or unjust by evaluating whether individuals have 100% control over their own property or not. ACers who take this stance believe that it is "natural" that one owns their own body/mind - no one else can make decisions about how to use that body/mind - that by choosing to improve something (mixing one's body/labor with land), one can have legitimate ownership over it.

They also assert that 100% respect for property rights means that all transactions are entered into voluntarily. (Any coercion over property would be less than 100% respect for property rights). These voluntary transactions are moral and just to the extent that they remain voluntary (you pissing in my lake is not moral, me pissing in my lake is). These voluntary transactions also happen to be the basis for a truly free market.

Luckily, the free market also happens to be the best way to get to an optimal outcome regarding allocation and use decisions and incentivize innovation and efficiency. Therefore - by basing all economic relationships on respect for property rights we end up with the best of all worlds - a free and just society (if it wasn't free it wouldn't be just, so redundant there), maximized efficiency, and more optimal outcomes regarding allocation than any sort-of conscious planning process.

--

now I happen to think most of that is hogwash and mystification and actually think the issue being raised here (where and how do we draw the line as to what consitututes legitimate ownership and illegitimate ownership) is a particular flaw in the pragmatics of AC. ACers here are wont to argue at times that the concentration of power/wealth under corporate capitalism is illegitimate/immoral but are loathe to talk about any sort of seizure and redistribution.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1) Government cannot legitimately own property.

[/ QUOTE ]

But a collective can?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. The differentiation is, as you pointed out, voluntary vs. involuntary transactions. If involuntary transactions can confer legitimate property rights, then we're immediately in a might makes right scenario. Agree?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The fact that a "rightful" owner can't be found doesn't give government license to scoop up vast tracts by decree.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you do get to decree what is yours?

[/ QUOTE ]

Decree isn't sufficient for obtaining property rights. If it were, governments could indeed own property, since decree is something governments are very good at.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2) Government isn't claiming ownership of the land I am currently occupying. They just levy taxes on it. So even ignoring #1, government doesn't get to "keep" my property since it doesn't "have" it now.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was thinking more of public roads, parks, lakes, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I've said before, if we want to look at things like speed limits, bans on smoking in courthouses, etc, these things by themselves are not particularly objectionable, as the "owner" (or, to use more neutral language, the "controller") of the property is simply setting rules for its use. Now, when smoking bans are extended to private property, to property NOT controlled by the group making the ban, we have obvious objections. Further, we can always go back to the ownership question and see that governments cannot legitimately "own" roads, parks, etc.

There could be some one-off corner cases, e.g. some wealthy benefactor donates a huge piece of land to a city government for use as a park. The government could theoretically "own" this property, but its ownership would be tainted by its inability to *maintain* that ownership legitimately (i.e. without taxation).

[ianlippert]

I think its possible that property rights are something that need to develop over time. In the beginning they may be aquired through violent force in a time period when there is no respect for property rights. Over time as the value of property rights are discovered we agree that we need to define property rights as to increase our economic well being.

As for claiming 'the people' own the land because the government own the land is a complete joke. When was the last time anyone was involved in the decision to take land under emminent domain. The justification for the government owning the land relies entirely on the justification for government in the first place. So Kaj, your arguement isnt going to convince ACists because we believe that government is a concept people use to organize their society, it doesnt actually exist outside the human mind. Its fantasy. You might as well start a thread claiming god has ownership over all the lands and try to convince an athiest that there are no property rights except those that are handed out by the word of god delivered through the priesthood.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
I see. So do you agree or disagree with pvn's assertion that we can ignore past illegitimate transactions and, so long as we transact legitimately from this point forward, maintain our own moral highground on that basis?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a mischaraterization. You can't just blanket disregard everything in the past. There are SOME cases where past transgressions cannot be rectified, damaged parties cannot be identified, etc. But there are others where this is not the case!

There is uncertainty, even in cases where it seems relatively straightforward. It is impossible to 100% be sure of who has a legitimate property right. And over time, the confidence we have in a particular claim can easily be diluted if that claim is not pursued.

Nobody ever said AC was perfect.

Other things to consider:

* Criminals cannot legitimately bequeath property that they do not legitimately own.

* Individuals *can* bequeath claims on property - if I am pursuing a claim on property that I believe has been stolen, my estate can continue that pursuit!

* over time, my estate will be dissolved; if the claim is not pursued, it may be considered abandoned.

* the fall of primogeniture makes the dilutive aspect of time MUCH more significant

[Nielsio]

Uhh, yeah: what pvn said.

That goes for any of his future posts as well.