Argh property rights debate

[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?

[goodsamaritan]

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.

[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.

[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.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]

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.



[/ QUOTE ]


I'd be interested in a serious AC'er addressing this "first taking" argument in the OP.

[pvn]

[ 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).

[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?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

This only works if everyone agrees with it. So, social norms again. In other words, you can't argue against a natural right in property being bogus by simply asserting a different set of natural rights.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

This only works if everyone agrees with it. So, social norms again. In other words, you can't argue against a natural right in property being bogus by simply asserting a different set of natural rights.

[/ QUOTE ]


pvn,

I am either going to come back to this later or start another thread on it, as property rights are a subset of natural rights, and overall principles of same are a little different topic. I am however interested in discussing it (overall principles of natural rights).