What is property?

[Minarchist]

How does the concept of property lead you to (what you consider to be) NAP? You need to explain that, instead of just saying that it does.

Let us take the following definition of property:

“To own a thing is to have the exclusive right to use that thing.”

We can rewrite this in a simpler form:

“One has the right to exclusive use of the things he owns.”

And from this, the NAP is simply the inverse:

“One who does not own a thing, does not have a right to use that thing.”

And if one wants to phrase this as a commandment:

“thou shalt not use a thing which thou dost not own.”

Aggression is “to use a thing which you do not own.”

Or, in other words, to violate property rights.

And there you have a derivation of the NAP from the concept of property.

But doing the inverse is impossible, one cannot derive the concept of property from the NAP, because one cannot even meaningfully state the NAP without already assuming the concept of property.

The fact that people’s brains are wired to think of {property} and {propertyholder} when things are coded into those contexts does not make your argument for you. The philosophical implications of that biological fact are that humans need a coherent, cogent, workable theory of property in order to use those biocircuits effectively. This is an epistemological starting point, not the slam dunk you thought it to be.

I have no idea what you’re talking about. All that I’m saying is that, if you want to idenfity the basic principles from which libertarian ethics can be derived, the property ethic is one of them, and the NAP is not. The NAP is not one of the basic principles, it is something derived from one of the basic principles. The basic principles concern (1) what property is, and (2) how people come to acquire property (and this divides into three principles: that of voluntary exchange, that of torts, and that of homesteading). Given those principles, the rest of libertarian ethics can be derived.

property is a separate axiom

Seperate from what? From the NAP? No, it is not. The NAP makes no sense without the concept of property. Suppose there is a world where everyone knows the NAP, but no one has any concept of property. The NAP is meaningless to them. Great, don’t aggress - but what’s aggression? They don’t know, because the definition of aggression rests on a concept of property.

just like there is a “Minarchist” who rejects NAP and substitutes it with his own principle derived from property axioms

I reject the NAP? How so?

I said the NAP presupposes the concept of property. Why would that mean I reject the NAP? Non sequitur.

[Minarchist]

Can you enumerate them, or are they unquantifiable?

Enumerate? I mentioned a single right: the right to exclusively use a thing.

So, ok, I’ll enumerate “them”

1

…all finished.

[Malachi]

Aggression is “to use a thing which you do not own.”

Or, in other words, to violate property rights.

so how does property come to exist as property? You obviously reject homesteading, since its included in your definition of aggression.

But doing the inverse is impossible, one cannot derive the concept of property from the NAP

sure you can, I demonstrated that in this thread, which you conveniently ignored, just like you ignore conventional definitions of NAP when you assert that “I said the NAP presupposes the concept of property” because the non-aggression principle that everyone else agrees upon simply does not. If you want to create your own system of ethics (as you apparently have done) please develop your own labels. K thx.

I have no idea what you’re talking about. All that I’m saying is that, if you want to idenfity the basic principles from which libertarian ethics can be derived, the property ethic is one of them, and the NAP is not.

what kind of argument is this when you basically say “I dont understand what we are talking about so I will repeat myself?” NAP is a premise, not a conclusion. You reject NAP and derive something different from property axiom, then call that principle NAP and claim to speak for all of libertarianism. Thats fallacious.

The NAP is not one of the basic principles, it is something derived from one of the basic principles. The basic principles concern (1) what property is, and (2) how people come to acquire property (and this divides into three principles: that of voluntary exchange, that of torts, and that of homesteading). Given those principles, the rest of libertarian ethics can be derived.

ok, explain how you expect to homestead something without using something that you do not own.

[Malachi]

@Minarchist

Can you enumerate them, or are they unquantifiable?

Enumerate? I mentioned a single right: the right to exclusively use a thing.

So, ok, I’ll enumerate “them”

1

…all finished.

So where does this right come from? Is it’s property of existence subjective or objective?

[Malachi]

@Malachi

But first to do what? What kind of action is involved in aggression? Violence against the body, sure.

and youre done. Call this NAP-prime. Now, its axiomatic that humans have property, continued human existence requires the use of property, hence depriving someone of his just property is potentially depriving him of his life. If you steal his food and he starves to death over the winter, he died because of your thievery. But if he simply didnt store enough food, and tried to mooch off of someone else, then his death would be his own fault. So you see that the part of aggression that refers to property requires a theory of property, its not something that is simply assumed. Theories of jus property are derived from axioms. One of them is the inalienability of the self. The “owner” that is implied in any concept of property, even those that address the corpus. When social fictions like states and corporations own property, they have to invent a person. The physical corpus isnt the owner. When the us government owns something, the pentagonal building in washington isnt the owner. Its an invented person. With respect to humans, the person is inalienable. You may not aggress against people. Once we found out that depriving someone of his property could be aggression, we started calling it that. Youre begging the question, and that dog dont hunt.

But isn’t there another kind of action (like what we call stealing, for example) that can be aggression?

Yes, it can be for reasons explained above.

So is it aggression to drive cars? No, it is aggression to drive someone else’s car without their permission.

thats not really aggression qua aggression unless it materially impacts them, like prevents them from driving their car. Its just misappropration of goods, theft. To even have this discussion requires a theory of property, which presupposes people and their right to remain unaggressed upon, concepts of permissions, to include temporality, so we have contracts here, meaning contract theory is involved, which you apparently want to assume to benefit you in your first premise. But we are already talking about the nature of property, you cant beg the question, its not happening. Moving on

O look, our explanation of aggression had to presume the concept of property!

no, just yours, because you have the oddest fixation on arguing a system of ethics that appears to be based on the premise that you can legally own human beings. I’m pretty sure youre not any sort of libertarian.

Apparently you didnt see this post so I am quoting it.

[Minarchist]

So where does this right come from? Is it’s property of existence subjective or objective?

A right is an idea, its existence is subjective. What’s your point?

[Minarchist]

@Malachi

To even have this discussion requires a theory of property, which presupposes people and their right to remain unaggressed upon, concepts of permissions, to include temporality, so we have contracts here, meaning contract theory is involved, which you apparently want to assume to benefit you in your first premise…

In the physical sciences, you are seeking objective truth. Hence you must let the data lead you to whatever conclusion they will. It would be improper to choose your conclusion beforehand and then cherry-pick data to support that conclusion. It sounds like you’re accusing me of something like this.

But it is completely different in ethics, where there is no objective truth. You cannot follow the data wherever they lead, because they lead nowhere. The mere facts of reality can never yield any ethical claim however trivial (the is-ought problem). In making an ethical argument, you always begin with your own ethical claims. Your task is then to work backwards toward principles, which you construct such that your ethical views logically follow. This is what I’ve done.

you have the oddest fixation on arguing a system of ethics that appears to be based on the premise that you can legally own human beings.I’m pretty sure youre not any sort of libertarian.

Gasp! Malachi doesn’t think I’m a libertarian!? What ever shall I do?! (rolls eyes)

…I guess Walter Block isn’t a libertarian either.

http://mises.org/journals/jls/17_2/17_2_3.pdf

[Malachi]

But it is completely different in ethics, where there is no objective truth.

you appear to have missed the point of ethical study. The main reason I am replying is because your replies are so absurd I dont want you to think you can pretend to ignore the fact that the ethical system you constructed doesnt allow for homesteading.

[Minarchist]

the ethical system you constructed doesnt allow for homesteading

How’s that?

[Malachi]

@Malachi

Aggression is “to use a thing which you do not own.” Or, in other words, to violate property rights.

so how does property come to exist as property? You obviously reject homesteading, since its included in your definition of aggression.

But doing the inverse is impossible, one cannot derive the concept of property from the NAP

sure you can, I demonstrated that in this thread, which you conveniently ignored, just like you ignore conventional definitions of NAP when you assert that “I said the NAP presupposes the concept of property” because the non-aggression principle that everyone else agrees upon simply does not. If you want to create your own system of ethics (as you apparently have done) please develop your own labels. K thx.

I have no idea what you’re talking about. All that I’m saying is that, if you want to idenfity the basic principles from which libertarian ethics can be derived, the property ethic is one of them, and the NAP is not.

what kind of argument is this when you basically say “I dont understand what we are talking about so I will repeat myself?” NAP is a premise, not a conclusion. You reject NAP and derive something different from property axiom, then call that principle NAP and claim to speak for all of libertarianism. Thats fallacious.

The NAP is not one of the basic principles, it is something derived from one of the basic principles. The basic principles concern (1) what property is, and (2) how people come to acquire property (and this divides into three principles: that of voluntary exchange, that of torts, and that of homesteading). Given those principles, the rest of libertarian ethics can be derived.

ok, explain how you expect to homestead something without using something that you do not own.

[Minarchist]

Aggression is “to use a thing which you do not own.”

…the implication being that someone else owns it.

[Malachi]

@Minarchist

How does the concept of property lead you to (what you consider to be) NAP? You need to explain that, instead of just saying that it does.

Let us take the following definition of property:

“To own a thing is to have the exclusive right to use that thing.”

We can rewrite this in a simpler form:

“One has the right to exclusive use of the things he owns.”

And from this, the NAP is simply the inverse:

“One who does not own a thing, does not have a right to use that thing.”

And if one wants to phrase this as a commandment:

“thou shalt not use a thing which thou dost not own.”

Aggression is “to use a thing which you do not own.”

Or, in other words, to violate property rights.

And there you have a derivation of the NAP from the concept of property.

Where did you imply that someone else owns the property? You clearly stated that “one who does not own a thing does not have a right to use that thing.” you felt no need to refer to another owner. You even restated this principle 4 times without referring to another person. Are we now to conclude that you do not feel that this exposition of your version of property rights and your principle (that you choose to call NAP) is not authoritative as it pertains to your philosophy?

[Minarchist]

you felt no need to refer to another owner.

Correct, because I assumed it would be understood.

At the bottom of this thread is a complete summary of my views on property rights. As you can see, the final principle is all about homesteading.

Now, if you want to interpret “to use a thing which you do not own” contrary to what it was intended to mean, and then attack that strawman, go right ahead, but I have nothing further to say on the matter.

[Malachi]

Its understood that you appear to have realized your error eventually.

[LibertarianMarxist]

Property is the exclusion of everybody but the owner from use, enforced by (state) violence.

Under a property regime like capitalism full liberty is impossible. There is still the oppression by property. Consequently, a true libertarian must seek to abolish property. Just go one liberty further!

[grant.w.underwood]

---

how is it more freedom not to own property?

Why does property need to be enforced by the state?

how do i oppress you by owning my skivvy shorts?

[LibertarianMarxist]

@grant.w.underwood

how is it more freedom not to own property?

It is more freedom not to be excluded from use of things by property owners.

@grant.w.underwood

Why does property need to be enforced by the state?

The state has the monopoly of violence. The state enforces the property laws. If one does not respect the law, the state punishes. That’s what I mean by enforcing property by violence. Property is a relation of violent exclusion. The majority suffers under the violence. The few are free to exploit the majority. I agree, this is freedom, but it is freedom only for the lucky few who happen to be the oppressors.

@grant.w.underwood

how do i oppress you by owning my skivvy shorts?

I meant property of the means of production.

[grant.w.underwood]

it is also more freedom to include or exclude anyone you want on possessions you acquired through your own personal labor.

“The state has thhe monopoly of violence” - umm they dont.

“state enforces the property laws”- they dont have to.

“it is freedom only for the lucky few” - lucky few who own property? Who doesnt own property? I pretty sure 100% of the population isnt the ‘lucky few’.

“i meant property of the means of production” - what if i invent a way to produce laptops out of my skivvy shorts? So now that i invented a new way to produce goods i became oppressive?

Fact - If you care to test your theory that the state has a monopoly on the use of violence. I live in Denton, Tx and I’m a former Marine. You can come attempt to take my personal property, and i will prove to you 1. The state doesnt have a monopoly on the use of violence. 2. the state wont enforce anything because i dont need the state to defend my property. 3. your attempt to take my personal property is the initiation of the use of violence (which goes back to number 1)

Do you have self ownership of your person/being/soul?

[LibertarianMarxist]

“it is also more freedom to include or exclude anyone you want on possessions you acquired through your own personal labor.”

It is certainly not freedom for those excluded. And to exclude other people from the usage of goods is only necessary under capitalism. Capitalism creates scarcity.

"“The state has thhe monopoly of violence” - umm they dont. "

Of course, the state has the monopoly on violence. If you break a law, you can feel this violence.

““it is freedom only for the lucky few” - lucky few who own property? Who doesnt own property? I pretty sure 100% of the population isnt the ‘lucky few’.”

Only the capitalists own property. They are the parasites of society who can afford not to work. They exploit the rest by blackmailing them. The property regime is just a more efficient form of slavery.

Fact - If you care to test your theory that the state has a monopoly on the use of violence. I live in Denton, Tx and I’m a former Marine. You can come attempt to take my personal property, and i will prove to you 1. The state doesnt have a monopoly on the use of violence. 2. the state wont enforce anything because i dont need the state to defend my property. 3. your attempt to take my personal property is the initiation of the use of violence (which goes back to number 1)

So that is your vision of a libertarian society: A crowd of gun freaks shooting whoever they please. You do a good job in exposing anarcho-capitalism as the fraud it really is.

Finally some insights by Engels on the violent nature of property:

The proletarian is helpless; left to himself, he cannot live a single day. The bourgeoisie has gained a monopoly of all means of existence in the broadest sense of the word. What the proletarian needs, he can obtain only from this bourgeoisie, which is protected in its monopoly by the power of the state. The proletarian is, therefore, in law and in fact, the slave of the bourgeoisie, which can decree his life or death. It offers him the means of living, but only for an “equivalent”, for his work. It even lets him have the appearance of acting from a free choice, of making a contract with free, unconstrained consent, as a responsible agent who has attained his majority.

Fine freedom, where the proletarian has no other choice than that of either accepting the conditions which the bourgeoisie offers him, or of starving, of freezing to death, of sleeping naked among the beasts of the forests! A fine “equivalent” valued at pleasure by the bourgeoisie! And if one proletarian is such a fool as to starve rather than agree to the “equitable” propositions of the bourgeoisie, his “natural superiors”, another is easily found in his place; there are proletarians enough in the world, and not all so insane as to prefer dying to living.

(…)

The only difference as compared with the old, outspoken slavery is this, that the worker of today seems to he free because he is not sold once for all, but piecemeal by the day, the week, the year, and because no one owner sells him to another, but he is forced to sell himself in this way instead, being the slave of no particular person, but of the whole property- holding class. For him the matter is unchanged at bottom, and if this semblance of liberty necessarily gives him some real freedom on the one hand, it entails on the other the disadvantage that no one guarantees him a subsistence, he is in danger of being repudiated at any moment by his master, the bourgeoisie, and left to die of starvation, if the bourgeoisie ceases to have an interest in his employment, his existence. The bourgeoisie, on the other hand, is far better off under the present arrangement than uncover the old slave system; it can dismiss its employees at discretion without sacrificing invested capital, and gets its work done much more cheaply than is possible with slave labour, as Adam Smith comfortingly pointed out.

(Frederick Engels: The Condition of the Working Class in England)

[Autolykos]

@LibertarianMarxist

Property is the exclusion of everybody but the owner from use, enforced by (state) violence.

So you’re saying that’s your definition of “property”? I just want to be clear on this.

@LibertarianMarxist

Under a property regime like capitalism full liberty is impossible. There is still the oppression by property. Consequently, a true libertarian must seek to abolish property. Just go one liberty further!

If I’m eating food that you could’ve eaten, would you say I’m oppressing you?