What's wrong with join ownership?

[John_James]

@FlyingAxe

I dissolved my full ownership of an item every time I threw something in the garbage. I.e., I told the world: “It used to be that I could restrict others’ use of this item. That’s no longer the case. I give up that right.”

When I said “dissolved full ownership” I was talking about in the type of case where you eliminate “full” ownership and end up with “half” ownership…like the example currently in discussion. If you recall, that comment was in direct response to your statment: “Once they dissolve the full ownership, they each get a half of what they owned.”

My question to you is, when was the last time you had “full ownership” of something and then dropped your ownership to half?

Also: I used to co-own a car with my mom. Both our names were on the title. A few days ago, my wife and I bought a new car for ourselves. I removed my name from my mom’s title. Now only she can restrict others’ use of the car; I can’t.

What’s the point of this story?

The point is: If I co-own a car with my wife, it’s not that I own it at some times, but she owns it at others, or I own the front of the car, and she owns the back of it.

The funny thing is, that sounds exactly like what you’re describing. Because that is actually closer to a situation in which you could both have “full ownership” of the vehicle.

Again, two people cannot logically have “full ownership” of the same thing at the same time. That doesn’t make sense. It’s like saying you’re only partially pregnant.

We have 100% of this right in the sense that either of us can at any time restrict a third party’s use of the car and either of use has at any time the right to use the car.

Bingo. You can’t restrict everyone, can you. You do not have 100% of this right because neither you nor she can prevent the other access to the property. You CANNOT prevent 100% of people from use of the car. Ergo, your rights to the car are limited…as in, not “full” and 100%.

But that would be a case of contractual rights, not natural rights.

So?

The relevance of the last point has to do with a situation when things are co-owned in a corporation. Can the majority force the minority to a decision? Or does it need to ask the minority’s permission every single time?

Again, it depends how the corporation is setup. It depends on what the agreements are. I’m sorry that contractual agreements are for some reason not good enough for you, but that’s the way it is.

I have no idea why it’s so important to you that a thousand people be able to all be said to have “full ownership” of the same property at the same time, and that any sort of conflict avoidanc with regard to this arrangement be derived solely from “natural rights”.

Hoppe’s argument is based (among other things) on universability. We shouldn’t make ethical rules that favor one group of people over another. Questions:

1. Why not?

If you scroll down from that post, you’ll see where I asked the same question presented my own issues with Hoppe’s argumentation ethics here. As far as I can tell, you have to presuppose (i.e. assume) an interest in and goal of conflict avoidance.

If ethics is an ought system, and we believe that favoring one group of people over another creates a better society, why shouldn’t we?

Do you believe that favoring one group of people over another creates a better society?

And besides…I don’t think Hoppe ever said anything about the goal being “a better society”. That is a subjective value judgement. I’m pretty sure his goal was conflict avoidance and resolution.

Also: if the purpose of the law is to resolve a conflict or to prevent a conflict from happening, then a descriminatory rule adopted by a society would be as clear. For instance: in any dispute between a man and a woman, the man wins. That’s very clear.

“Clarity” is not conflict resolution. I have no idea why you think “clarity” would be a sufficient case for that.

I agree that this sounds absurd. As do the mob rule or “might makes right” rule that you have used as ad absurdums in your response. I agree that they do not jive well with my inner sense of justice (which is not to say that that means anything). But that’s the evidence against the idea that resolving/preventing conflict in a clear way is the only purpose of the law. There must be something else to it.

So basically, you’re saying if you have to take something down to its logical conclusions to show how absurd it is, then “there must be something else to it”…because logic (and apparently your own gut feeling) is just not enough.

Don’t we use non-universal rules in natural or common law anyway? For instance, the person who finds an object first owns it. That descriminates against those who did not find the object.

You cannot be serious.

If you are, take it down to its logical conclusion. You’re basically concluding the Marxist notion that property itself is “exploitative” or “immoral” or whatever other evil thing you want to term it…that essentially property is invalid. That takes us right back to square one. You claiming that you own your body descriminates against those who were not born into your body. Ergo, if we follow universality, you do not own your body. Ergo…“no one would be able to even breath without getting permission from everyone else to do so…which of course, they would not be able to grant such permission because they themselves would require permission from everyone else to be able to move their mouth and communicate that they grant such permission. So basically everyone would all die out in a matter of minutes from asphyxiation.”

Also, there could be a common law rule that when two people come to an intersection, the first person who arrived has the right of way (assuming we live in a society where roads are common). But in Russia, if I am not mistaken, the rule is that the person to the right or who is turning right has the right of way. Both rules seems somewhat arbitrary.

Maybe they are. But I don’t see how it follows that they violate universality. Not to mention, if we’re talking about a Stateless society, the property owner makes the rules with regard to his property.

The same way you can say: If a “private” individual wants to take away my house, natural rights rule applies (if I homesteaded it first, he violates the law, and I have a right to defend my property), but if the government wants to take my house away, another set of rules applies. The set of rules is clear, and according to Clayton’s definition of the law, it passes.

No, it doesn’t. You’re comparing apples and pencils. In the “emergency vehicles have right of way” situation, you’re talking about a rule set up by a property owner that dictates the use of his property. In the “government can take my house away”, you’re talking about a mob of people giving themselves the authority to take ownership and control of property that belongs to someone else.

I have no idea how in the world you find those anywhere close to being similar.