Argh property rights debate

[BigLawMonies]

BluffThis,

You stated my position almost exactly right.

I think adverse possession is a little different from homesteading because I think you acquire property legitimately this way even if someone else "owned" it, for instance if the "owner" abandons his property and moves to Tibet to be a buddhist or whatever...

[theseus51]

I can't agree or disagree that property is "stolen" since it comes from nature. But here's an interesting article I thought you should read about the Pilgrams, Native Americans, Thanksgiving, and property rights.

http://www.mises.org/story/336

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't agree or disagree that property is "stolen" since it comes from nature. But here's an interesting article I thought you should read about the Pilgrams, Native Americans, Thanksgiving, and property rights.

http://www.mises.org/story/336

[/ QUOTE ]

?? I dont see anything about property rights. The only thing close is the phrase "He gave each family a parcel of land", but it doesnt define "give". Did they own the land? Did they have growing rights only? Did they lease the land?

At least it wasn't some garbage about how we stole property from the Native Americans, which the linking post led me to expect.

[valenzuela]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can't agree or disagree that property is "stolen" since it comes from nature. But here's an interesting article I thought you should read about the Pilgrams, Native Americans, Thanksgiving, and property rights.

http://www.mises.org/story/336

[/ QUOTE ]

?? I dont see anything about property rights. The only thing close is the phrase "He gave each family a parcel of land", but it doesnt define "give". Did they own the land? Did they have growing rights only? Did they lease the land?

At least it wasn't some garbage about how we stole property from the Native Americans, which the linking post led me to expect.

[/ QUOTE ]

You really expected that from mises.org?

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]



[ QUOTE ]
BluffThis,

You stated my position almost exactly right.

I think adverse possession is a little different from homesteading because I think you acquire property legitimately this way even if someone else "owned" it, for instance if the "owner" abandons his property and moves to Tibet to be a buddhist or whatever...

[/ QUOTE ]


OK so let's remove the homesteading thing and add your qualification for taking adverse possession. So we now have:

1) adverse possession is a valid method of property acquisition when:
<font color="white">--</font>a) a current owner is using or has abandoned such property;

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.


So now I have some questions:

I) Are there any other qualifications/justifications for taking adverse possession other than abandonment?

II) Can you please define abandonment?

III) Is there a limit on how much such "abandoned" property one may adversely possess *and* retain?

IV) What is the basis for determining the time period of either abandonment or adverse possession?

[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.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some big guy shows up out of nowhere and builds a wall around their favorite watering hole.

[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).

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

What does your question have to do with me stealing $100 from a sleeping old lady?

And yes, if someone wants to give me $100 that I just saw them take from a sleeping old lady, I do care. I care because that's not the kind of society I want to live in and I know such a society is not in my (or my childrens' best interest).

I really don't understand your continued use of this line of reasoning.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

What does your question have to do with me stealing $100 from a sleeping old lady?

And yes, if someone wants to give me $100 that I just saw them take from a sleeping old lady, I do care. I care because that's not the kind of society I want to live in and I know such a society is not in my (or my childrens' best interest).

I really don't understand your continued use of this line of reasoning.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're conflating the two questions.

The post I replied to (from goodsamaritan IIRC) suggested that rights didn't matter, he had $100, no longer has it, and wants it back.

If getting it back is the important thing, and rights are unimportant, then he shouldn't have any problem getting it back in the easiest way possible. Dollars are fungible, and there's no rational reason to prefer one $100 bill over another.

In the example where someone buys something from you, he has six or seven $10 bills in his wallet. You don't know anything about any of them, other than they are all denominated as $10 and you have no reason to believe that any of them are counterfeit or stolen (or more precisely you don't have any way to determine that one of them is more or less likely to be bogus than any other one of them).

Do you care which one he gives you? Are you going to ask to see all of his $10 bills, examine them all and pick the one you want? A yes or no will suffice here.