• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is porperty Self justifying?

Is property self justifying

  • Yes, property is an innate right, your exclusive rights to your property is self justifying

    Votes: 8 72.7%
  • No, if you want exlusive rights to something it must be justfiable.

    Votes: 3 27.3%

  • Total voters
    11
Thats just empirically not true, real private property as an institution is relatively new in human history.

What exactly is fake private property?

Most people probably would not, because they arn't sociopaths, but either way, that doesn't make it property.

I'm sure you would make a claim to the food you found and if you didn't you have no interest in your survival on that island.

I'm talking history here ... Private property only ever existed when nation states enforced them.

I'm talking of history as well. Private property existed always. It was only attempted to be restricted by the leaders of past societies.
 
They have to be owned? Who owns a tree in the Serengeti? Who owns the sand in the Sahara? Your argument is nonsensical at best. Laying claim to something being a human tradition does not exclude it from being an invented tradition. The land you stand on and it's ownership is based on the ability to use force (collective or otherwise) to protect it. Your false dichotomy is just that a false dichotomy.

Things obviously do not need claimed, but most things are claimed including the trees and the sand.

Many animals including man practice ownership. Show me how we all came up with the same tradition if you can.
 
Goshin said:
I addressed it most concisely. In reality, you own that which you can defend, or what you can get others to defend for you.

So might is right ....

Goshin said:
In the early Middle Ages, land was controlled by local warlords (robber barons, the early "nobility" or leaders of armed men who arose as Rome withdrew from Europe) and their armed retainers... they owned or controlled a territory as large as they and their loyal fighting men could defend against all comers.

There wasn't land ownership in the middle ages, it was stewardship and by no means was it absolute.

Goshin said:
Oh, I'm not dense... I know what you're trying to do. You're trying to come up with a way to remove the justification for private ownership of capital, of production: factories and businesses and whatnot. Will a factory get built if someone doesn't invest capital in it? No.... and those jobs will not be created. Someone has to have the savvy to amass enough capital and to build a business and make it profitable... they've "mixed their labor" into its creation and earned their ownership.

You can call it artificial if you like, but it is how we do things. If you replace it with another system, that system will be just as artificial....

Firs you have to justify the exlucsive rights someone has to capital, giving him the power to invest or not invest.

If its mixing labor with nature that creates ownership, why? Also why does that not apply to wage labor?

My point is since property is a function of society, shouldn't it be justified based on its impact on society.

Herin said:
What exactly is fake private property?

What I mean by real private property, what i mean is exclusive rights over something beyond direct possession, so for example I have a toothbrush and call it mine, but thats not what I mean by private property.

Herin said:
I'm sure you would make a claim to the food you found and if you didn't you have no interest in your survival on that island.

What if you claim ownership of the whole island because you found it first, and the guy that shows up has to be yourslave to do anything on the island ...

you don't need to make a claim of ownership on food, you don't need prperty rights to eat an orange.

You need one to own an island and use that to exert authority over others.

Herin said:
I'm talking of history as well. Private property existed always. It was only attempted to be restricted by the leaders of past societies.

No it didn't, in Most middle eastern ancient societies you had no private ownership, it was relative and dictated by the kings/temples.

In the middle ages you had stewardship, in most tribal societies it was collective.
 
A: The American declaratino of rights is not the end of and be all for all things ethical, its just an appeal to an arbitrary authority.
B: Even there its justified in the end "as meets the essencial needs of decent living and helps maintain the dignity of the individual and of home," which is extremely modest and by no means justifying capitalist private property.
Oh look, a socialist. That's so cute :lol:
 
I made no claims towards a higher force of being, but a claim of human history.

Good for you. Early human history is FULL of inventions which have made it to today: religion, currency, trade etc. None of these are "natural" by any stretch of the imagination.

I can also make the claim the species beyond ourself control protect and make claims to property so if we invented it did they just happen to invent it as well?

Your argument is now bordering on the desperate. Here I'll help you out:

If a lion has "property" and a "right" to that property, why does it need to constantly defend it from other lions? After all, if it's PROPERTY and a RIGHT shouldn't the other lions know that they shouldn't be infringing on the rights of that lion? Obviously if an animal has the cognitive ability to define something like property (at least in a form similar to how we humans define it) - wouldn't the definition of said property be dependent on its understand of rights as innate? Obviously this is not the case. We know lions don't know what property is anymore than they know what a right is. They defend a piece territory for the purposes of having a place on which to procreate, hunt etc not because they believe they have some natural or legal claim to it. When they are attacked and killed by other lions - what we'd call the "right" to that territory ceases to exist.

As such - we go back to the point Goshin and I have been making: Your "right" to "property" is entirely dependent on your ability to defend it. Once you can no longer defend it - that "right" ceases to exist.
 
Last edited:
I don't see anything "innate" about property rights. The idea of property is simply a social convention the purpose of which is to reduce constant conflicts by deciding who may use and control a particular resource, which right is referred to as "ownership". The owner of a piece of property is recognized as having the exclusive right to use and control his property.
 
Things obviously do not need claimed, but most things are claimed including the trees and the sand.

Many animals including man practice ownership. Show me how we all came up with the same tradition if you can.
We peed on bushes?
 
Your argument is now bordering on the desperate. Here I'll help you out:

If a lion has "property" and a "right" to that property, why does it need to constantly defend it from other lions? After all, if it's PROPERTY and a RIGHT shouldn't the other lions know that they shouldn't be infringing on the rights of that lion? Obviously if an animal has the cognitive ability to define something like property (at least in a form similar to how we humans define it) - wouldn't the definition of said property be dependent on its understand of rights as innate?

Your argument is dripping in a complete misunderstanding of rights to begin with. You're like most people that reject natural rights get caught up in the lack of protections due to your ignorance of the ideas laid out in front of you. Do you wish me to help you on that or not?
 
So might is right ....

Nope, but might makes a claim mighty hard to dispute.



There wasn't land ownership in the middle ages, it was stewardship and by no means was it absolute.


Wrong. My original reference was to the very early Middle Ages, the period once referred to as 'the Dark Ages'. Land was controlled by those who lead a band of armed men and who had the capacity to control and defend a given territory against other leader-of-armed-men, and their rule over their territory was as absolute as the loyalty of their armed retainers.

In the later Middle Ages a more formal system of Feudalism arose in which fiefs were granted by the Crown, and were not absolute... but that was later. Even so, yes there was private property... at a certain point (I forget the exact century, been a while since college) there were problems that arose when the village/manor system began to change and private farming lots were fenced off, instead of being farmed in radial strips and ... well it gets involved and too much for me to go into just now, but suffice it to say that you're wrong about private property being nonexistent in the Middle Ages.
 
Your argument is dripping in a complete misunderstanding of rights to begin with. You're like most people that reject natural rights get caught up in the lack of protections due to your ignorance of the ideas laid out in front of you. Do you wish me to help you on that or not?

Whether or not natural rights exist si totally seperate of the qeustion, even if they do, why should property be included in that, since by its very nature its exclusive and exclusionary.
 
Your argument is dripping in a complete misunderstanding of rights to begin with. You're like most people that reject natural rights get caught up in the lack of protections due to your ignorance of the ideas laid out in front of you. Do you wish me to help you on that or not?

Yawn - save me your weak interpretations of Locke and Ayn Rand rants. However it's good to see you ducked the example of the lions. We wouldn't want your "natural rights" argument to go out the window simply because you looked at another species.
 
Last edited:
In other words is property an innate right, or does it need to be justified?

Here is my position:

No, it just be justified either that it is needed by you exclusively and the sharing of it would be counter intuitive, or because you having exclusive rights to somethign would benefit soceity as a whole.

Having exclusive rights to part of the earth is NOT self justifiying, because you found it or whatever, if you want exclusive rights, and thus the potential for authority, it needs to be justified somehow.

Neither, its just how people are programmed to relate to the world and some feel the need to build a philosophy around it to feel justified.
 
Nope, but might makes a claim mighty hard to dispute.

Well, you essencially gave no justification other than you have a gun, i.e. might is right.

I get it you rightwingers constantly feel the need to re-assert your manhood by playing tough, but that doesn't address the issue at all.

Wrong. My original reference was to the very early Middle Ages, the period once referred to as 'the Dark Ages'. Land was controlled by those who lead a band of armed men and who had the capacity to control and defend a given territory against other leader-of-armed-men, and their rule over their territory was as absolute as the loyalty of their armed retainers.

Even that wasn't actual land ownership, those war lords didn't own the land, the offered protection to people, and they had possessions.

It wasn't private property as such, a farmer could'nt just sell land or build whatever he wanted.

In the later Middle Ages a more formal system of Feudalism arose in which fiefs were granted by the Crown, and were not absolute... but that was later. Even so, yes there was private property... at a certain point (I forget the exact century, been a while since college) there were problems that arose when the village/manor system began to change and private farming lots were fenced off, instead of being farmed in radial strips and ... well it gets involved and too much for me to go into just now, but suffice it to say that you're wrong about private property being nonexistent in the Middle Ages.

Even the Crown didn't actually own the land, the conept was divine stewardship.

The private farming lots got fenced off after the black plague, but even that wasn't actual private property until nation states came along and distributed land grants.

Property may have existed, but it was very limited and very contingent.
 
Well, you essencially gave no justification other than you have a gun, i.e. might is right.

Well, that's essentially all he needs in order to be justified in having a right to that land. Not so much a gun, but the ability to use force if his regency over it is threatened. If he is beaten, neither he nor his children can lay claim to the land anymore. So either it's a "natural right" or it's not. If it's "natural" - it's inalienable. We know that's not true because if I have bigger guns, I could simply take the property from him. That leaves us with a single option: that a right to land is based on a) the ability to defend it and b) the legal framework which is added in for rhetorical and societal purposes.
 
What I mean by real private property, what i mean is exclusive rights over something beyond direct possession, so for example I have a toothbrush and call it mine, but thats not what I mean by private property.

That is private property.

What if you claim ownership of the whole island because you found it first, and the guy that shows up has to be yourslave to do anything on the island ...

What if we connect slavery to ownership. Come on, that is not even worth responding too.

you don't need to make a claim of ownership on food, you don't need prperty rights to eat an orange.

It doesn't matter what you need. Do you have ownership of the orange or not?

You need one to own an island and use that to exert authority over others.

What? I thought no one could own the island? I thought that was impossible? What am I missing?

No it didn't, in Most middle eastern ancient societies you had no private ownership, it was relative and dictated by the kings/temples.

In the middle ages you had stewardship, in most tribal societies it was collective.

As I said, the leaders restricted private property for their own gains be it the kings or the leaders of tribal societies.
 
Last edited:
Yawn - save me your weak interpretations of Locke and Ayn Rand rants. However it's good to see you ducked the example of the lions. We wouldn't want your "natural rights" argument to go out the window simply because you looked at another species.

Locke and Ayn Rand were idiots. You really don't understand anything about this, do you?

And I didn't duck your example. There is simply a reason we are protecting his claims.
 
Good for you. Early human history is FULL of inventions which have made it to today: religion, currency, trade etc. None of these are "natural" by any stretch of the imagination.



Your argument is now bordering on the desperate. Here I'll help you out:

If a lion has "property" and a "right" to that property, why does it need to constantly defend it from other lions? After all, if it's PROPERTY and a RIGHT shouldn't the other lions know that they shouldn't be infringing on the rights of that lion?
A male lion's property are his lionesses. The lionesses do all the hunting and bear all the cubs so they have value to the lion and in exchange he provides them protection. Other male lions recognize the lion's property and see that it has value and they want it. So they try to take it by force. That is the state of nature. Now if several lions decide to form a pact to keep other lions away, then they have essentially formed a government by consent to protect their property.


Obviously if an animal has the cognitive ability to define something like property (at least in a form similar to how we humans define it) - wouldn't the definition of said property be dependent on its understand of rights as innate? Obviously this is not the case. We know lions don't know what property is anymore than they know what a right is. They defend a piece territory for the purposes of having a place on which to procreate, hunt etc not because they believe they have some natural or legal claim to it. When they are attacked and killed by other lions - what we'd call the "right" to that territory ceases to exist.
I disagree, I think lions like so many other species including humans have an inate sense of property.

As such - we go back to the point Goshin and I have been making: Your "right" to "property" is entirely dependent on your ability to defend it. Once you can no longer defend it - that "right" ceases to exist.
Thats why we the people consented to form a government to protect our property rights. However, the more people that consent, the stronger government gets.
 
That is private property.

No its not because you don't need any institution to give you exclusive rights to your toothbrush.

What if we connect slavery to ownership. Come on, that is not even worth responding too.

Why not?

if you claim ownership over the whole island and some other guy is on it, he can't eat anything on the island unless you allow him ...

It doesn't matter what you need. Do you have ownership of the orange or not?

Your assuming that whether or not you have ownership is an important question in that situation, or whether its justified, I'm saying you don't need a concept of ownership, if you need the orange you eat it, if 2 peopel need the orange they work it out.

What? I thought no one could own the island? I thought that was impossible? What am I missing?

I'm saying its impossible, but your saying its possible, I'm just pointing out the absurdity of the conept of property as an innate right.

As I said, the leaders restricted private property for their own gains be it the kings or the leaders of tribal societies.

The leaders ALWAYS created private property, so of coarse they restricted it because it would'nt have existed without them.

There IS NO private property without the state.
 
A male lion's property are his lionesses. The lionesses do all the hunting and bear all the cubs so they have value to the lion and in exchange he provides them protection. Other male lions recognize the lion's property and see that it has value and they want it. So they try to take it by force. That is the state of nature. Now if several lions decide to form a pact to keep other lions away, then they have essentially formed a government by consent to protect their property.

I disagree, I think lions like so many other species including humans have an inate sense of property.

Thats why we the people consented to form a government to protect our property rights. However, the more people that consent, the stronger government gets.

A natural right by the definition of those who verbalized the idea is inalienable. If it can be taken away from you - it's not inalienable. However, I'll play along: Let's say a lion does have an innate "sense"(I don't even really know what you mean by this - do you mean an understanding of property?) of property. It follows that if lions can conceptualized the idea of property and the components necessary to arrive at said idea are there (ie rights, persons, etc.) they'd be just as capable of conceptualizing the idea that you are infringing on another lion's right to that land simply by attacking him and taking it from him.

However, we know this is not the case. In nature - one lion takes over the supposed property of another and the circle continues with little concern for the infringing of the supposedly natural and I remind you - inalienable rights of the lion which supposedly owned the females and land before. Why is this? It's simply because A) the 1st lion only had a right to said property for as long as he could defend it and B) once he could no longer defend it - the right to that land was taken away(thus proving it's NOT inalienable or natural) and a new regent came to power.
 
Last edited:
Private property only ever existed when nation states enforced them.

Not really. Give the dog a bone and try to take it back, and see what happens. ;)
 
Not really. Give the dog a bone and try to take it back, and see what happens. ;)

Shoot the dog and take the bone back. Does the bone still belong to the dog? No. His ability to defend it has been completely removed and the bone is no longer his property. Private property is related to force in that you need 1 in order to maintain the other. If your ability to use force is neutralized, you can no longer lay a realistic claim to said property. Tis the law of nature yo.
 
Shoot the dog and take the bone back. Does the bone still belong to the dog? No. His ability to defend it has been completely removed and the bone is no longer his property. Private property is related to force in that you need 1 in order to maintain the other. If your ability to use force is neutralized, you can no longer lay a realistic claim to said property. Tis the law of nature yo.

In its most absolute form, you are correct, might will overpower any philosophy one chooses to hold. At best, you can say the power of a philosophy will motivate people to arms and they will bring their own level of might to the table.

But does anyone really want to live in a warlord society? I certainly don't and for my own comfort and happiness, I look towards thing like legalities, culture, shared values, etc to arbitrate these kinds of questions as it allows me to retain more of what I desire out of life. I think libertarians have formed their philosophy out of the same desire even if they go a different way with it.
 
In its most absolute form, you are correct, might will overpower any philosophy one chooses to hold. At best, you can say the power of a philosophy will motivate people to arms and they will bring their own level of might to the table.

But does anyone really want to live in a warlord society? I certainly don't and for my own comfort and happiness, I look towards thing like legalities, culture, shared values, etc to arbitrate these kinds of questions as it allows me to retain more of what I desire out of life. I think libertarians have formed their philosophy out of the same desire even if they go a different way with it.

Oh - I agree. I don't want to live in a world like that either. However the nonsense that "property" is some kind of godsend we can only explain with vague words like "natural rights" and whatever other invented term our Libertarian scholars du jour come up with is silly at best. Politics(that includes the concept of legality) is what keeps force from being used in regards to property. With that in mind it becomes clear that "property", in its most pure form is not something which we have an inalienable right to but something which we have the inalienable right to defend and once we can no longer defend it - ceases to be ours. The only right you truly hold on in nature is the right to use force to defend yourself and whatever territory you lay claim to. Once you can't do that, you don't have a right to it anymore.

So with that said, I have no choice but to conclude that physical property is for the most part an invented concept. I am personally of the school that something belongs to me for as long as I can defend claim to it. Whether that defence is legal, physical etc is a different story.
 
Oh - I agree. I don't want to live in a world like that either. However the nonsense that "property" is some kind of godsend we can only explain with vague words like "natural rights" and whatever other invented term our Libertarian scholars du jour come up with is silly at best. Politics(that includes the concept of legality) is what keeps force from being used in regards to property. With that in mind it becomes clear that "property", in its most pure form is not something which we have an inalienable right to but something which we have the inalienable right to defend and once we can no longer defend it - ceases to be ours. The only right you truly hold on in nature is the right to use force to defend yourself and whatever territory you lay claim to. Once you can't do that, you don't have a right to it anymore.

So with that said, I have no choice but to conclude that physical property is for the most part an invented concept. I am personally of the school that something belongs to me for as long as I can defend claim to it. Whether that defence is legal, physical etc is a different story.

Oh I completely agree, at best these things are a moral stance that only works if the person makes everything a black and white issue. Either we have full property rights or none, that kind of thing. Of course the real world doesn't work this way at all, so its just another form of unworkable idealism.
 
Back
Top Bottom