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 5 of 10 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 94

Thread: Is porperty Self justifying?

  1. #41
    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
    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 by Henrin; 06-26-12 at 07:30 AM.

  2. #42
    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
    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.

  3. #43
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:45 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,474

    Re: Is porperty Self justifying?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    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.

  4. #44
    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?

    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.

  5. #45
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,091

    Re: Is porperty Self justifying?

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    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 by Hatuey; 06-26-12 at 07:46 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

  6. #46
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    EUSSR
    Last Seen
    03-24-14 @ 01:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,851

    Re: Is porperty Self justifying?

    Quote Originally Posted by RGacky3 View Post
    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.

  7. #47
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,091

    Re: Is porperty Self justifying?

    Quote Originally Posted by Canell View Post
    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.
    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

  8. #48
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: Is porperty Self justifying?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    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.

  9. #49
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,091

    Re: Is porperty Self justifying?

    Quote Originally Posted by megaprogman View Post
    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.
    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

  10. #50
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: Is porperty Self justifying?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    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.

Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... 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
  •