Property from self-ownership?

[cryptocode]

Thank you Wilderness and Wombarton. Great reading and links.

[hayekianxyz]

@whipitgood

I’m guess I say this because I need to know that the base of my belief structure is absolutely solid. I need to know where property rights come from.

Property was adopted by man for the aforementioned reasons, it is the only possible way for man to effectively deal with scarcity. What’s not “solid” about that?

@whipitgood

but that won’t stop him from asking me why I ever accepted it to begin with.

Because private property brings more prosperity than any other system.

[wilderness]

@wombatron

@wilderness

Cool thanks! I’ll read those works you linked.

Also, incidentally, this idea of pursuit of happiness I wouldn’t doubt is closely kin to to the Greek concept arete, excellence. This has to do with art of living in the individualistic sense. Japanese and Chinese arts of pursuing excellence in martial arts, flower arrangement, and tea ceremony have to do with this allowing the individual to flourish from within. I give that as an example cause usually people are familiar of this effort to live in excellence and a quality of life as an individual in these cultural performances in the East. This is also a Greek concept, too, that has been buried by the dominance of what has become known as logical positivism. That latter didn’t just show up in the 1800’s, but has a long history of being apart of battling concepts in which statist, amoralist, or socialist mentalities (what we call them now) have combated and tried to rid the value in the individual. This value in the individual has become known as subjective and has taken on a tone of falsity whereas the dominating nature of objectivism or logical positivism has hoarded for itself a tone of truth. This is in total disregard and ill-recognition of the individual if objectivism is taken too far. It is a belief in science without regard to the scientist. To live an excellent life is an art and involves morality in the individuals effort. Now how to encourage this excellent and happy life is intellectually pursued to become aware of what would be the best way to live life as an individual. At the moment I would say the intellect has discovered Natural Law and natural property encourages this pursuit of happiness by the individual.

Thanks again for the links.

Indeed. Arete is a constitutive part of eudaimonia. Another important work that I forgot to link to earlier: Roderick Long’s Why Does Justice Have Good Consequences?

Dang, I had no sources to link Arete and eudaimonia, but merely went on the idea! Therefore I would say the Metaphysics of Quality has much to do with this. Pirsig in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance traces quality back to Greece and arete.

I’ll bookmark that link as well. Thanks.[:)]

[wilderness]

@JonBostwick

@Juan

@JonBostwick

If ownership means the ability to decide how something is used, then its impossible for two individuals to both have that right. In the case of marriage, the property is(in practice) not owned by both individuals, but by the marriage.

A marriage is just a contract. It can’t own anything. Only human actors own things.

Can a husband empty the couple’s joint bank account and spend it on his mistress? No. Can the wife do the same? No.

So, this isn’t a case where there are two owners of the money. As I said, the money belongs to the couple but not to the individuals.

My wife and I have the same account and she could empty it today if she wanted without me involved at all.

[wilderness]

@cryptocode

Thank you Wilderness and Wombarton. Great reading and links.

Your Welcome! [Y] Thanks for bringing it up or else I may not have gotten those links from Wombatron.

[whipitgood]

@GilesStratton

What’s not “solid” about that?

If man ‘adopted’ property because it was useful, could he not also do away with it? What if the majority decides that it’s not useful anymore? Isn’t that less of a right, and more of a privledge?

It all feels too utilitarian. Maybe i’m just not getting it though. ; )

[wilderness]

@whipitgood

@GilesStratton

What’s not “solid” about that?

If man ‘adopted’ property because it was useful, could he not also do away with it? What if the majority decides that it’s not useful anymore? Isn’t that less of a right, and more of a privledge?

It all feels too utilitarian. Maybe i’m just not getting it though. ; )

whipitgood, I grant you your life. Your life is a privilege that I gave you. I can take it whenever I want to. Now rights on the other hand…

[;)]

[hayekianxyz]

@whipitgood

@GilesStratton

What’s not “solid” about that?

If man ‘adopted’ property because it was useful, could he not also do away with it? What if the majority decides that it’s not useful anymore? Isn’t that less of a right, and more of a privledge?

It all feels too utilitarian. Maybe i’m just not getting it though. ; )

He could do away with it, but your friend has to demonstrate why man would wish to do so. Which he won’t be able to.

[Bostwick]

@wilderness

My wife and I have the same account and she could empty it today if she wanted without me involved at all.

I know that. But you could sue her for it.

[wilderness]

@JonBostwick

@wilderness

My wife and I have the same account and she could empty it today if she wanted without me involved at all.

I know that. But you could sue her for it.

I didn’t know that. If none of the money was my money, in this State, could I still sue her if she withdrew it all for reasons that have nothing to do with our livelihood, to use your example, if she gave it all away to somebody she was seeing outside the marriage? Or would some of that money have to be mine before I could sue and have a chance of winning?

[Bostwick]

@wilderness

@JonBostwick

@wilderness

My wife and I have the same account and she could empty it today if she wanted without me involved at all.

I know that. But you could sue her for it.

I didn’t know that. If none of the money was my money, in this State, could I still sue her if she withdrew it all for reasons that have nothing to do with our livelihood, to use your example, if she gave it all away to somebody she was seeing outside the marriage? Or would some of that money have to be mine before I could sue and have a chance of winning?

Depends. If the account was only ever deposited into by her then some states could consider it a seperate, personal account; especially if she owned the account before getting marriage. I don’t have specific knowledge, though.

Now, if one spouse worked and one didn’t. Then the idea that its a separate account wouldn’t float.

Pre-nups are used to determine what prior owned property stays outside the marriage, so they are particularly common when marrying late in life.

Of course, how the law works today and how it should work are very different. But this is area seems to have remained pretty true to common law.

[Elutherian]

@whipitgood

@GilesStratton

What’s not “solid” about that?

If man ‘adopted’ property because it was useful, could he not also do away with it? What if the majority decides that it’s not useful anymore? Isn’t that less of a right, and more of a privledge?

It all feels too utilitarian. Maybe i’m just not getting it though. ; )

I agree. The usefullness is to be decided by the individual, who can do away with his property as he wishes.

This is Justin btw, just thought I’d let you know. [H]

[Bostwick]

P.S.

My point was that joint-bank accounts are not commons that can be looted at will. They must be administered according to the agreement of the relationship (marriage, partnership, etc), and if they are not then the relationship can be ended and the property divided.

So contrary to Juan, a contract can own(that is, control) property.

[Juan]

Well, I can just repeat that the contract is an agreement between two people (in this case) so whatever terms are in the agreement came from these two people, which means ultimately they(partners) are ‘controlling’ the property jointly. That doesn’t mean it’s a commons and that any partner can loot it. I never said or implied that.

[wilderness]

@JonBostwick

Now, if one spouse worked and one didn’t. Then the idea that its a separate account wouldn’t float.

Wait. In this State, are you saying that natural property doesn’t exist in this circumstance you describe here above?

[Bostwick]

@wilderness

@JonBostwick

Now, if one spouse worked and one didn’t. Then the idea that its a separate account wouldn’t float.

Wait. In this State, are you saying that natural property doesn’t exist in this circumstance you describe here above?

I don’t think I understand the question.

[cryptocode]

You all are debating legal definition distinctions between methods of ownership. For example, real estate can be owned ‘as an individual’, ‘jointly’ (married only), ‘as tennants in common’ jointly or severally, or ‘as a corporation’. Let’s look the words up in the dictionary. Much easier.I believe all these forms of interest are for undivided property, that is, each individual, if more than one, owns an unknown geographic interest of some stated percentage, of the whole.

As for ‘ownership by right of use’, different states have different laws, depending on the history of their courts. Suppose you own a piece of vacant land which you purchased in full and improved by putting a road into it. Then you did nothing else for 30 years. You didn’t even visit it. But you did pay all taxes on it and all other assesments.

No suppose that during those 30 years a family of hobo’s moved onto the property and built a house, put in a garden, and lived on the property full time as their primary residence. Do they own a part or all of it by right of use?

[wilderness]

@JonBostwick

@wilderness

@JonBostwick

Now, if one spouse worked and one didn’t. Then the idea that its a separate account wouldn’t float.

Wait. In this State, are you saying that natural property doesn’t exist in this circumstance you describe here above?

I don’t think I understand the question.

I assumed you meant that if one spouse worked and the other didn’t, then the account has money from only one spouse. Yet you say it would not be considered a “separate account”. In natural property whether it’s separate or not wouldn’t matter due to the money is owned by the spouse that worked and earned the money. You say it “wouldn’t float” in the U.S.?

[whipitgood]

@Elutherian

The usefullness is to be decided by the individual, who can do away with his property as he wishes.

I was making a larger point. If property rights are merely granted to people by society, then its not a right. How can it be? I was under the impression that people were taking a natural rights position on property as opposed to this absurd utilitarian position.

[wilderness]

@cryptocode

You all are debating legal definition distinctions between methods of ownership. For example, real estate can be owned ‘as an individual’, ‘jointly’ (married only), ‘as tennants in common’ jointly or severally, or ‘as a corporation’. Let’s look the words up in the dictionary. Much easier.I believe all these forms of interest are for undivided property, that is, each individual, if more than one, owns an unknown geographic interest of some stated percentage, of the whole.

As for ‘ownership by right of use’, different states have different laws, depending on the history of their courts. Suppose you own a piece of vacant land which you purchased in full and improved by putting a road into it. Then you did nothing else for 30 years. You didn’t even visit it. But you did pay all taxes on it and all other assesments.

No suppose that during those 30 years a family of hobo’s moved onto the property and built a house, put in a garden, and lived on the property full time as their primary residence. Do they own a part or all of it by right of use?

In a free market society that reasons Natural Law, I guess it would depend on how close to the road, meaning, is their house, garden, and living presence disruptive of the road? The road was there first. Historical (also known as traditional) precedence is recognized by Natural Law no matter how long ago the use took place. What was historically used established ownership and this “currently unused” is called savings. It is still the road owners, unless as I was pointing out, the hobo’s moved into virgin land. If they use the road, then the road owner can ask them to pay a toll.