Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > Other Topics > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-30-2007, 02:17 AM
BigLawMonies BigLawMonies is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 22
Default Argh property rights debate

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.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-30-2007, 02:24 AM
tomdemaine tomdemaine is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: buying up the roads around your house
Posts: 4,835
Default Re: Argh property rights debate

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.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-30-2007, 02:24 AM
goodsamaritan goodsamaritan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,465
Default Re: Argh property rights debate

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.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-30-2007, 02:37 AM
BigLawMonies BigLawMonies is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 22
Default Re: Argh property rights debate

[ 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 ]

Seriously I told one of them that I need his car more than him and jokingly took his keys.

Its so [censored] ing funny because we are all going to be so [censored] ing rich beyond what we really deserve that it is pretty stupid for them to keep being dirty commies.

We are all going to make more in a 10 week summer period of free lunches and ego blowjobs than my girlfriend makes in a [censored] ing year busting her ass off working overtime. I point this out to them and LOL at the hypocracy
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-30-2007, 02:39 AM
Kaj Kaj is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bet-the-pot
Posts: 1,812
Default Re: Argh property rights debate

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

Seriously I told one of them that I need his car more than him and jokingly took his keys.

Its so [censored] ing funny because we are all going to be so [censored] ing rich beyond what we really deserve that it is pretty stupid for them to keep being dirty commies.

We are all going to make more in a 10 week summer period of free lunches and ego blowjobs than my girlfriend makes in a [censored] ing year busting her ass off working overtime. I point this out to them and LOL at the hypocracy

[/ QUOTE ]

Where is the hypocrisy? You don't have to believe that property is a natural right to want to own property. In making that assumption, you and tomd look like fools in this thread.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-30-2007, 02:39 AM
goodsamaritan goodsamaritan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,465
Default Re: Argh property rights debate

[ QUOTE ]
Its so [censored] ing funny because we are all going to be so [censored] ing rich beyond what we really deserve that it is pretty stupid for them to keep being dirty commies.

We are all going to make more in a 10 week summer period of free lunches and ego blowjobs than my girlfriend makes in a [censored] ing year busting her ass off working overtime. I point this out to them and LOL at the hypocracy

[/ QUOTE ]

So is a thread about property rights or a thinly veiled brag post? Maybe both?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-30-2007, 02:44 AM
tomdemaine tomdemaine is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: buying up the roads around your house
Posts: 4,835
Default Re: Argh property rights debate

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

Seriously I told one of them that I need his car more than him and jokingly took his keys.

Its so [censored] ing funny because we are all going to be so [censored] ing rich beyond what we really deserve that it is pretty stupid for them to keep being dirty commies.

We are all going to make more in a 10 week summer period of free lunches and ego blowjobs than my girlfriend makes in a [censored] ing year busting her ass off working overtime. I point this out to them and LOL at the hypocracy

[/ QUOTE ]

Where is the hypocrisy? You don't have to believe that property is a natural right to want to own property. In making that assumption, you and tomd look like fools in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have to believe that property exists though. If you say that property doesn't exist but get upset when someone takes something of yours well I don't know what to say you're just a moron. If you believe that property is theft and whatever you take is yours then you can't get upset about being stolen from either. If you think everything should be shared you can't get upset when I want to share the contents of your wallet.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-30-2007, 02:48 AM
BigLawMonies BigLawMonies is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 22
Default Re: Argh property rights debate

[ QUOTE ]
Where is the hypocrisy? You don't have to believe that property is a natural right to want to own property. In making that assumption, you and tomd look like fools in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

In general Kaj you are right that you can participate in a system you believe is unjust without being a hypocrite, but only if you HAVE to do it, right? Like a poor socialist worker still wants to own his own clothes, or not go to jail for stealing food or whatever.

I was pointing out that all of them had the option of working "in the public interest" but rather went for profit maximization instead. They could have done less "exploitative" work or made a comfortable living as labor rights advocates or the [censored] whatever. But no they want to make $200K+ a year and have their [censored] ing cheese and wine...that is what makes them hypocrites.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-30-2007, 02:50 AM
goodsamaritan goodsamaritan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,465
Default Re: Argh property rights debate

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

Seriously I told one of them that I need his car more than him and jokingly took his keys.

Its so [censored] ing funny because we are all going to be so [censored] ing rich beyond what we really deserve that it is pretty stupid for them to keep being dirty commies.

We are all going to make more in a 10 week summer period of free lunches and ego blowjobs than my girlfriend makes in a [censored] ing year busting her ass off working overtime. I point this out to them and LOL at the hypocracy

[/ QUOTE ]

Where is the hypocrisy? You don't have to believe that property is a natural right to want to own property. In making that assumption, you and tomd look like fools in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have to believe that property exists though. If you say that property doesn't exist but get upset when someone takes something of yours well I don't know what to say you're just a moron.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a terrible arguement. You are essentially saying that: getting upset = right being violating. If you get upset about your favorite team losing a game, does that mean you have to believe a right has been violated?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-30-2007, 02:52 AM
goodsamaritan goodsamaritan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,465
Default Re: Argh property rights debate

[ QUOTE ]
They could have done less "exploitative" work or made a comfortable living as labor rights advocates or the [censored] whatever. But no they want to make $200K+ a year and have their [censored] ing cheese and wine...that is what makes them hypocrites.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why are you assuming that making more money is more exploitive? It sounds like you are failing victim to the classical liberal fallacy of equating making less with helping people.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:02 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.