View Poll Results: Is property self justifying

Voters
12. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, property is an innate right, your exclusive rights to your property is self justifying

    9 75.00%
  • No, if you want exlusive rights to something it must be justfiable.

    3 25.00%
Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 94

Thread: Is porperty Self justifying?

  1. #21
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:03 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,460

    Re: Is porperty Self justifying?

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Don't allow yourself to be caught up in their ridiculous idea that ownership comes from legality.
    I edited in "legally" because I thought it added more clarity. lol So why is it ridiculous? Self ownership really is a very nuanced theory. It's a natural right with many names for the same meaning: self ownership > self government > self control > individual rights > property rights. They all seem to have the same bundle of "legal" rights (aka control rights) in common: the right to use, the right to transfer, the right to exclude, and immunity from expropiation. There's probably more but those seem to be the main ones.

  2. #22
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,024

    Re: Is porperty Self justifying?

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Its hardly invented. People have made claims and controlled property for as long as people existed.
    Which means what in terms of being invented? People have believed in higher forces for as long as people have existed. That doesn't mean they're not invented.

    Things have to be owned by someone in nature and society so its either owned by you and me or owned by our leaders. You decide.
    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.
    Last edited by Hatuey; 06-26-12 at 06:58 AM.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  3. #23
    Sage
    RGacky3's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Last Seen
    08-25-15 @ 05:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,570

    Re: Is porperty Self justifying?

    Its hardly invented. People have made claims and controlled property for as long as people existed. Things have to be owned by someone in nature and society so its either owned by you and me or owned by our leaders. You decide.
    Thats just empirically not true, real private property as an institution is relatively new in human history.

    You do have control over everything there and if someone comes to the island you will protect it.
    Most people probably would not, because they arn't sociopaths, but either way, that doesn't make it property.

    Actually its not. The idea of private property came from people that was picked on by nation states.
    I'm talking history here ... Private property only ever existed when nation states enforced them.

  4. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Is porperty Self justifying?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Which means what in terms of being invented? People have believed in higher forces for as long as people have existed. That doesn't mean they're any less invented then the entire concept of land ownership.
    I made no claims towards a higher force of being, but a claim of human history.

    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?

  5. #25
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,158

    Re: Is porperty Self justifying?

    Quote Originally Posted by RGacky3 View Post
    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.



    Your not justifying anything, your just talking about enforcement of what you allready assume to be an innate right.

    Also what If I claim that what you claim is your property actually isn't ... then its just whoever shoots each other first ... thats not a justification thats just saying "I got a gun," your not addressing the question.


    I addressed it most concisely. In reality, you own that which you can defend, or what you can get others to defend for you.


    In modern America, the government decides what constitutes legal title to a piece of land, and will defend that title against those who try to take it from the owner.

    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.

    In modern times we've decided that, instead of how much armed force you can muster, how much land you can own is based on how much land you can BUY (and pay taxes on), but the claim is still backed by force.... government force, cops and courts and prisons.

    Or in my case, inherit.... I inherited the family farm. Several generations of my direct ancestors and kinfolk have mixed their labor with this land, and it was the last owner's wish that it remain in the hands of his descendant.... think anyone else has a better claim?

    Anyone who tries to take it from me is going to run afoul of the government that recognizes my title to the land... if they're lucky.

    I'm being practical about it.... if you want to talk ivory-tower philosophy instead, then every piece of worthwhile ground on this planet has been taken by force from someone else at some point, probably several times. Unravelling that plate of spaghetti is going to be quite a trick.

    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....

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  6. #26
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Is porperty Self justifying?

    Quote Originally Posted by RGacky3 View Post
    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.

  7. #27
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Is porperty Self justifying?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    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.

  8. #28
    Sage
    RGacky3's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Last Seen
    08-25-15 @ 05:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,570

    Re: Is porperty Self justifying?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin
    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 ....

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Herin
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Herin
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Herin
    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.

  9. #29
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Is porperty Self justifying?

    Quote Originally Posted by RGacky3 View Post
    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

  10. #30
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,024

    Re: Is porperty Self justifying?

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    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 by Hatuey; 06-26-12 at 07:13 AM.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •