Argh property rights debate

[goodsamaritan]

[ 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.

[tomdemaine]

[ 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"

[Copernicus]

[ 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.

[NickMPK]

[ 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?

[tame_deuces]

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.

[MidGe]

[ 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!

[clowntable]

Answers

[MidGe]

[ 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.

[clowntable]

[ 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.

[MidGe]

[ 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!