you didn’t, because there is no property. Property comes into play when there is other people involved. It’s social construct. At individual level it is meaningless jiberish. But when some other individual tried to occupy your “thing” then you may legitimately defend it, because it is your property (implying you aquired it through legitimate means).
So yeah, in a social context, property rights can be said to be “force”. Yet, it’s red herring. As I said, important question is whether they are legitimate (logically consistent with reality etc.)
The social construct is a peaceful one in example lending it with the understanding that I get it back, or giving it up for something else. I do not need another persons approval to take it with me or defend it thus it becomes mine whether the other person is involved or not. If I have to ask if I can have it is to assume that it was someone else’s property to begin with or that I have no right to own it.
you don’t get it. If you are alone on earth there is no need for you to invent such concept as property in a first place. Only when there can arise a conflict it becomes useful word.
There is no need to enforce property rights if you’re alone on Earth, it doesn’t mean there isn’t property. By the very virtue of being self-aware you own yourself. I urge you or any other person here to explain to me how can there be a self-aware being who doesn’t own himself.
Property is intrinsic to sentience. It’s not a social construct.
"are property rights simply a manefestation of the threat of the use of force? "
No the right to own property is natural, just because they may not need to be enforced without social interaction does not mean they don’t exist. The manner in which a society intents to deal with or enforce those rights is the social construct.
You seem to equate property to simple physical things in a physical reality. While it is true (well, I believe in this) that only physical and scarce things can be property, not all physical things are (someone’s) property. Once again, it only has meaning in a world of at least two human beings. Even self-ownership loses its use if I am last man on earth. Nobody could deny my ownership of myself so what’s the use of such jiberish?
But this presupposes certain moral conclusions: that, for instance, finders are keepers and that both parties must agree to an exchange before property may be legitimately transferred. What if the prevailing convention is ‘might is right’? That one’s property is whatever he can take and successfully defend from others? Yes, if you subscribe to a Lockean or Rothbardian moral theory, then the good in question is still the property of the original owner and not of the ‘thief.’ But absent such a moral theory, how are you to say that the good is still the property of the original owner?
Ehh, I just don’t know if that’s a coherent statement. It makes more sense to concede that conflict arises when people break rules, and moreso when people reject a system of conventions and rules altogether (as the ‘might is right’ person above rejects liberal rules altogether). The question, then, is which collection of rules is most conducive to human flourishing. An important factor there is that the collection of rules be internally consistent, so as to minimize conflict and thus the need to use force.
How is one to do that? It may be less difficult to prove the opposite, that a “self-aware” being does in fact “own” “himself,” though first you would have to prove that it even makes sense to say a being can “own” “itself.”
But this presupposes certain moral conclusions: that, for instance, finders are keepers and that both parties must agree to an exchange before property may be legitimately transferred. What if the prevailing convention is ‘might is right’? That one’s property is whatever he can take and successfully defend from others? Yes, if you subscribe to a Lockean or Rothbardian moral theory, then the good in question is still the property of the original owner and not of the ‘thief.’ But absent such a moral theory, how are you to say that the good is still the property of the original owner?
Right, it just comes down to opinion. Thre is no one right answer. For some people private property based on the Lockean homesteading principle is voluntary, and for others it isn’t.
“Even self-ownership loses its use if I am last man on earth. Nobody could deny my ownership of myself so what’s the use of such jiberish?”
At this point everything looses value, the only thing left is life. Though it doesn’t negate that at property is existant.
“Yes, if you subscribe to a Lockean or Rothbardian moral theory, then the good in question is still the property of the original owner and not of the ‘thief.’ But absent such a moral theory, how are you to say that the good is still the property of the original owner?”
This again doesn’t change the value of property only the mode with which one deals with how to regulate it, or the Social construct (convention). Economically the Anarcho-Capitalist morals in regards to property produce the greatest wealth among the society, including the most evenly spread out wealth.
One could argue that this is part of what seperates man from animal is the ability to create a social construct the betters the use of resources through specialization. As well as the ability to keep the fruits of your labor since specialization alone doesn’t cut it.
I’m glad you mention this. I have been thinking about this problem recently.
Both the state and private property holders have a terrirtorial monopoloy and use force on their land to against weaker parties (either through lawsuits, or forcable explusion or whatever). Therefore, how is one a legitimiate use of force, and the other isn’t?
Actually, crazy as it sounds - I think I have just answered my own question above.
The fundamental difference is that a government has a monopoly on the use of force without being retaliated against. Since, it has the monopoly on the use of force - it determines what is “justice” on that stretch of land (“justice” being the outcome on a conflict).
On a private piece of land, no matter how big, the landlord cannot afford to use force on his tenants - for the same reason starbucks doesn’t force me to drink my latte if I’m feeling lazy … the landlord will have few tenants .. and he’ll have to drop his prices to accomodate his mini-dictatorship … eventually, he’ll realise that is uneconomical to force his way on people.
I suppose it is not a question of what is possible. After all, an elephant can fall out of the sky and land on my keyboard … but what is likely, in the context of the real world and economic principles that guide the free-market?
Well, no, I wouldn’t say that. I do think moral arguments ultimately come down to opinion, with no objective criteria to compare them. But as an instrumental end, a means to some agreed-upon moral end, a system of rules can be objectively scrutinized and scientifically studied.
What do you mean by, “value of property”? I took this as a disagreement over whether it makes sense to talk of property in the absence of society. Goods still exist and still satisfy ends for Crusoe on his island, but I don’t know if it makes any sense to say, “That coconut is his property.” I’m content with saying the coconut exists and that he uses it or plans to use it. I see no reason to also say that it is his property. I think doing so would only be for my benefit, and would merely reflect my own beliefs regarding property. It would have no relevance for the scenario.
And Liam, I would say private property owners do have less authoritarian control over their property. They can’t draft you because you strolled on to your land or rented a room. I also think there would be legal restrictions on what property owners may do to others on their land. Plus, the more decentralized nature of several property means greater checks and balances.
I’d say problem is not the monopoly per se, but illegitimate monopoly, or illegitimate ownership (which by definition is not ownership, but simply “use” when “might makes right”, for example when somone steals your bike, the thief doesn’t own the bike, he simply “has it” or “use it”. To own it he must own legitimately. I don’t know, maybe I am the only one here making the distinction here between legitimate ownership and other kind of “use”) of the land or other things. I have monopoly on my own body but that is legitimate monopoly. However some may argue that “self-ownership” is not the “real” monopoly yada yada yada. Whatever.
Coherent sentences are not my strong side. Anyway, what I mean was that for property to have some kind of practical use it must always be defended (in case of conflicts) and defence is always force (or not always? Dunno, doesn’t matter). So if we all were peaceful then there would be no need for property rights and law and we would just know that what you take is yours and what I take is mine and so on. Makes sense now?
But the sentence “property rights are force” is also jiberish, don’t you think? I just wanted to explain my view on what the author thought when he said what he said. Because honestly, I am not 100 percent sure.
I don’t understand why people are saying that property is force. Rights are merely legally enforcable claims concerning certain behavior. Just because I am capable of these claims and their enforcement does not mean that I do not own property if I don’t enforce them. I could very well be a pacificist. Do pacificists not own property?
Btw, to an earlier poster, it is not Frederick Long. It is actually Roderick Long. That section he is speaking of is a response to a Randian criticism direct toward anarchism.
as I said, I don’t know either, I just speculate my impression of what they could mean. Anyway, force is just an action. It says nothing whether it is violent or not.
I just wanted to explain my view on what the author thought when he said what he said. Because honestly, I am not 100 percent sure.