Property from self-ownership?

Economics Political Theory
81

It is not the case that property rights are merely granted to people by society. The most you can say about property rights and society, is that a society might respect property rights, yet it does not grant them.

The only way that morality could be constructed is by a system of property rights, hence its a pretty simple calculus that is not utilitarian so much as perhaps trancendental, or hypothetical. If one adopts a moralistic viewpoint, or wishes to construct ones behaviours and advocations in line with morality, then one must respect and abide by natural law property rights theory.

Granted, property rights theory might have no purchase with amoralists, but lots of people who profess to be so slip into moralist habits very frequently (in my experience), which gives me cause to doubt their honesty in this regard. Any ciriticisms such people might make about natural rights property theorists will be that their preferences differ from their own, and will not be critcisms which have any moral force.

Even amoralists may well concede that respecting property rights is ‘prudent’ since we know (by theory and empricial evidence) that this way of structuring human society confers material benefits (leaving aside the question of how much the material produced and distributed is valued) and the effect of greater individual freedom which some amoralists may appreciate.

82

Agreed. The entire premise that society can grant property rights assumes that they had the authority over the property to decide how it shall be allocated in the first place. Property has everything to do with authority, whoever owns the property decides over the usage of it. It is then a moral question of who shall have ultimate authority over the individual’s choice (not only over his own body, which is also his property by default, but as well the resources he uses for his survival/happiness), himself/herself or others. The former is freedom, the latter is slavery.

There are three prongs to legitimate property, labor, usage, and contract. When one labors he is entitled to the fruits of that labor, the continual usage of property for his survival and happiness leads to the right to defend it from theft or vandalism, and contract is the ability to decide over that property in relation to others. The contract of exchange (whether item for item, or labor for wealth) is the most common voulantary agreement that legitimizes the proper ownership in any given situation.

83

That would be true, so long as the earner has no contractual obligations. But marriage is a contractual obligation.

In marriages where only a single spouse works its assumed that one spouses contributes monetarily to the relationship while the other spouse contributes in others; eg doing house chores or raising children. This is called division of labor.

If both spouses are living off of the same bank acount, its a shared account.

84

Wombatron and cryptocode I found out more information about “pursuit of happiness”. I made contact with the individual I previously posted about.

The individuals name that wrote the book that somebody read over the air waves is Francis Hutcheson. This is what the radio show host mentioned to

to me pertaining to the pursuit of happines, "…it was from an old edition of the Oxford English Dictionary page photographed and sent to me that I made the

connection with Francis Hutcheson… Liberty Fund, Inc. (sent a notice) of their recent publication of An Inquiry into the Original of Our Ideas of Beauty and

Virtue by Francis Hutcheson… In another source, I found that Dr. Franklin was an ardent admirer (perhaps student/disciple) of Hutcheson. And on, and

on…"

(hope this reads well… the copy and paste didn’t come out to great)

85

I, too am debating on whether private property is a “right”, be it man-made or natural. Here is my argument:

The homestead principle makes no sense to me. If I travel to Mars and am the first person to do so, kick a couple of rocks around and leave, do I own the “general area” of the rocks? Do I only own the land I’ve stepped foot on? Wouldn’t that just mean my footprints? If not, couldn’t I say I owned the whole dang planet?

Nobody owning anything does not justify destroying/taking stuff others use. In a property-less system, the users are the ones that are in control of items. If I use a house to live in, then someone burning it down has prevented me from using it without my consent, which would be a form of aggression. If something is unused, anyone can use it any way they want as long as they don’t initiate aggression upon another. Therefore, a flower in a field is unused, so anyone is free to take it. However, a flower in a vase on my table is something used primarily by me for decoration, so one must have permission from the current user to eat it. Public places would require a majority of use time like so:

There is a tennis court. Three people use it. The builders are dead.

Person A used it 100 hours
B used it 80 hours
C used it 30 hours

I would say that either A&B, A&C, B&C, or all three would have to consent to turn it into something else, like a basketball court, as they make up the majority use time.

Can anyone argue against a system like this, but for a homestead system?

86

I would say you own the “general area of the rocks” or just were your footprints are. You were not there very long and showed no signs of homesteading, meaning, to make something of the place yours. You just left some footprints and left.

To use or not use gets into the dilemma of savings. Whether in a bank account or a piece of land. I used it and mixed my labor at one point in time and established property, but now that it is being saved and not used doesn’t make it not mine anymore.

A,B, and/or C used it before or after the builders (assuming the builders were the original owners) died?

Time isn’t that great of a variable to establish ownership. A farmer uses a field four days a year. Once to plow, once to till, once to sow seeds, and lastly to harvest. Yet a shopping mall would use the land longer. So shopping mall gets it? I would say no. Or somebody walks the farmers field everyday to and from school for 12 years lets say. Finds out about this “use” law your bringing up and now tells the farmer to get off his or her land for the individual used it everyday compared to the farmer who used the land only four days out of the year? I would say no it’s not this walkers.

87

Thanks for the great answer. One of the problems with left-anarchy is that one cannot own their own body, only use it, which brings up a whole sort of problems. But I still see no way possible to claim unclaimed land without being 100% free from possible objections. The only way I see possible is if instead of initialily no one owning land, everyone owns it at first, and then people form groups of people to agree with other groups of people what the borders should be. If an area is disputed, then the people living within the borders would cut up aditional borders based on if they wanted to stay soverign or not.

88

Let me elaborate on this concept. Imagine people on a piece of land. Instead of the idea that whoever travels to and claims part of the land first owns it, it would would like this:
Initially, everyone owns it. Therefore, everyone is entitled to use force to keep other people off their property. They would realize, though, that using force would be dumb because they would not gain anything from being the only human in the world. There may be fighting at first, but they would soon get too smart for that, and the weaker in strength would agree to make the borders enclose a bigger or more useful land for the stronger. Now that there is no other land desired, the borders have been set and can not change legitimately without consent of the owner(s) of the land within. That would clear up the entire issue without breaking any rules of non-aggression.

89

If it’s unclaimed, then you are there first, and then somebody comes along and objects to taking it, then why? This brings up your “time dilemma” it seems.

90

If they can use force to keep other people off their property then what does it matter if they all own it first or not?

umm, the whole event started with aggression?

91

In a free-market anarchy, people can tell others that if they step on their property they will use force against them, and then proceed to use force when they do. There is nothing breaking the non-aggression principle there, as the other person initiated the aggression. But this is not really the point.

What I am doing is striking the root of the property problem. Some say property can be owned by natural rights, but who or what determines the terms of homesteading? Some say it can not be owned, only used, but what is preventing another from “using” one of your limbs? The only position that does not have these problems is social contract theory. The concept of a person agreeing with another person on the specific terms of ownership has no contradicting flaws, and what more, is guided by the laws of supply and demand.

Land owners who give their tenants more freedom and less taxes will be wealthier than their competitors, simple as that. It does not matter whether or not the present day system developed like that. Colonists took land used by the Native Americans through coercion, and I would say that they should be able to reclaim control by force, but that will never happen as long as the other people here side with the government. But why should they not? After all, would not the Native Americans have the right to kick us off their land? People will always initiate aggression provided they can get away with it. What we can do is make sure they cannot get away with it anymore. This can be done by making breaches of voluntary contracts crimes punishable by fines and/or jail time. So what would society end up like according to the social contract?

I see the entire world (or more, if we spread out into space) owned by two competing for-profit law & order agencies. People would be free to move between them, and whoever had the better service and conditions would have more people choose them and therefore make more money. It would be this constant competition that guarantees growing living conditions and increasing freedom for everyone.

People can argue to the death about how natural rights dictate otherwise, but the inability to prove their existence is an enormous problem. The social contract idea is simply the philosophy that it is illegitimate to break agreements, and adopting it leads to a society that constantly increases in wealth and freedom.

92

Its also impossible. You can’t contract resolve every potential conflict in advance.

What happens when a third party, not bound by any contract, arrives? Is he free to invade the property? If he isn’t your contract idea is defeated.

Market forces. People voting with their dollars. Public opinion.

The market brings people together, while crime dividies people. Its not hard to see why property rights prevail.

93

In social contract theory, no one can have property rights unless everyone else agrees with them. However, most country leaders today agree on their borders, and the contracts that the citizens are under state that to live there they must recognise that too. Disputed areas are still are fair game to be invaded and because every land (today at least, but this can change) is disputed by one country or another, it is important to have a strong military/militia. The social contract philosophy helps because it keeps the contracts made while also making and keeping more. Eventually smaller countries will be bought by larger ones because they can’t compete, and the less countries there are, the less land disputes there will be. Once all land disputes are settled by the leaders, the progression of society kicks in at full force.

For your explanation of the terms of homesteading, can you tell me exactly how much of Mars I own if I go there, walk around the land for a couple hours, and leave? Do I own the area enclosed by my footprints, just the land under my footprints, or the whole planet? What do market forces have to do with this?

94

There are all kinds of problems with left-anarchy, but that isn’t one of them, lol.

Please don’t take this as condescending, it’s meant in good faith.

You are over thinking this. Big time.

95

What have you read on this subject? You should give Hoppe a read on the topic. I am not sure why some people are bent on reinventing the wheel. No, courts will require you to meet a certain minimum (whatever the local standard is, it might even be something like the BTU) for them to recognise and enforce your ownership claims. Courts, being like anything else governed by market forces, will thus handle the problem. Where’s the issue?

96

Property isn’t merely the fruit of our labors. To argue this would suggest that a Marxist system is legitamite, since often people will work to produce property for others.

Instead, property is the both physical and intellectual rights to something that you obtain through any type of “contract”. If it’s a ‘contract’ with yourself, then yes the fruits of your labors are indeed yours. However property is often obtained through others. If you are the owner of a company, you are on a ‘contract’ (written, verbal or otherwise) with those who work for you, and agree to compensate them for their work with other property that they find value in (I’m going to argue that money is property).

To assume that the fruits of your labors are yours would mean that everything you work for would be translatable into property or money of equal value to how much you work. That’s not true. Some people work more and get less. Others work less and get more. And some get equal value to their input. This difference among people’s input to how much they are getting would refute the idea that we get the fruits of our labor.

Instead, at least in a pure capitalist society, you get what you want or need through formal or informal ‘contracts’. Meaning, as a worker you work for a certain amount of property. Or as a business owner, you get other people to work for you by offering them something you own. Or if you play the stock market or are a banker, you invest what you have in the hopes of getting a return on your investment, which is still a ‘contract’ with other people.

This does not mean that if someone takes 10 years to build a house that is stolen, that the 10 years of labor are not lost. They still are. However 10 years to you is a different amount in a different value to someone else. For some it’s not 10 years, but $100,000. For others it isn’t worth a cent or any of their time.

With that said, property is indeed a natual right. Through negotiation with yourself, nature and other people, you have made a claim on something (whether or not that something has value to you is irrelevent, you simply own it). If we define a natural right as a right that is to be had regardless of whether a government or similar institution ordains it, then we can assume that as a self owning person (and those you negotiate with as self owning persons as well) that you were able to form the contracts among yourselves to obtain what you got, and since all parties were consenting, you therefore have a natural claim to whatever it was you’ve now obtained.

97

I’d give this (and especially the sources contained therein) a read to clarify the issues at hand.

98

If over-thinking things mean taking claims to their logical conclusion, then I’m guilty as charged :slight_smile:

The court makes a judgement based upon previous cases and customs of homesteading. But did not the first “homesteader” stake his claim by grouping with people who agreed and destroying those who thought otherwise? This looks more like a contract of “You can live on my property if you help defend it from outsiders”.

Like I said, we can argue over how a social contract system would work as opposed to how a system assuming a natural right of property would. The main problem is proving that natural rights exist, as opposed to contracts which are completely tangible.

99

That’s all fine-and-dandy if one assumes the right of self-ownership, which I am arguing against.

100

If I am the only self-aware, reasoning being in the world, for all I care, I can claim I own everything.

If another enters the picture, and they disagree on whether I can solely use something or not, I can either destroy them, or I can compromise to gain a benefit of company. In comprimising with the other I have made a contract. No homesteading or natural rights required.