Argh property rights debate

[pvn]

[ 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.

[valenzuela]

[ 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 ]

[tomdemaine]

[ 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?

[valenzuela]

[ 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.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ 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?

[Kaj]

[ 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?

[pvn]

[ 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?

[BigLawMonies]

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.

[foal]

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.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ 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.