Yes, property is an innate right, your exclusive rights to your property is self justifying
No, if you want exlusive rights to something it must be justfiable.
What that will lead to is increase in value of the land. Lower supply combined with increased demand equals higher prices. People do not have an inherent right to own land, but they have an inherent right to keep it and protect it if they do own it.But there is only so much viable land and that could lead to problems of ownership.
It's possible that we will see land become very expensive in the future. It might be cost prohibitive for some people to own. I can see that happening. That occurs now. They will just have to rent from the property owners until they work hard and save up enough money to purchase.
Last edited by kamikaze483; 06-26-12 at 01:17 PM.
If basic laws of logic are self-evident to a logical discourse, can you take those "logic rules" away too, maybe put them in that same bag?
What about the axioms that describe the system of Euclidean geometry, can you take those away too?
Many of us choose to use Government to help protect those rights, i.e. to prevent others from violating them, to punish those that do, etc. We don't give those rights to government to protect, we establish government to help sensibly help all of us, protect all of our rights. Isn't any of this familiar to you? Trivially you can see where some governments do NOT protect such rights, and actually violate those rights. And of course when they do to a dysfunctional degree, we may rightfully label them illegitimate governments.
The question is, what rules should make a government legitimate vs illegitimate?
But even so, I'm damn glad the government guarantees my property rights through its far greater collective force... I'm not fool enough to think I can take all comers by myself if all law suddenly went out the window.
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.
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.
Meh. You can split hairs if you want... but a Lord could throw a peasant off "his" land if he wanted, that's a right of exclusion. If you have control and exclusion rights then you have private property.
Fiddling While Rome Burns
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.'.."
Define property. Marxist Private property? Marxist Personal property? Or the different types of property as defined by the US Government? Or property as defined by different religions?
I have seen this argument a thousand times: A Socialist or at least someone extreme Left asks is the concept property is legit but never defines the word properly. Others come in thinking that the subject is land. While the subject turns out to be about the means of production and a collectivists perception of ownership that denies the legitimacy of owning anything but a toothbrush so to speak.
So for the sake of a 100 pages of ill defined arguing please tell us what you mean.
Yes, an inate or inherent sense of property. Lion's mark their territory with their scent. House cats do the same so marking territory must an inherent characteristic.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.
If I understand you correctly, yes, I think a lion can conceptualize the idea of property when he marks his territory and by smelling can conceptualize when another lion is infringing on his territory and will try to defend it. I think wolves do the same. In a state of nature the conceptualization of ownership seems to be inherent, ....endowed by the Creator......and can't be separated from the nature of the species....which therefore would make it inalienable.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.
But if it's the nature of the lion to defend his property because doing so means his survival then wouldn't the inherent act of self defense make it an inalienable right? There is nothing in nature that guarentees the lion will keep his property or even that he won't be killed in defending it, but only that he has the natural right to act in defense.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 Moot; 06-27-12 at 02:50 AM.
If it's for sale, and I want it, and can afford to buy it, that's all the justification that is necessary.Thats begging the question .... Its like saying government is justified just by the fact that they are in government.Justified by the fact that I hold the deed? Would that not be sufficient?
But thats begging the question, your assuming land is something that people should be able to own.Originally Posted by kamikaze483
What I mean by property is an institution of exlusive right to something which is beyond pocession and needs to be enforced.Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll
i.e. basically anything which you need a peice of paper to own.
The possession of my home my vehicles my shop and tools do not make me feel guilty in any shape or form. I gave up a good portion of my own life in order to obtain these properties if that is what you consider self justifiable then you are wrong. I only participated in the social contract that I have with all citizens of this country. My possession of said properties is an agreed situation and justifiable by the laws of this nation. If your ideology or that you are personally not happy with the laws of this nation it is of low concern to me as a law abiding citizen.
Last edited by FreedomFromAll; 07-02-12 at 01:14 PM.
yeah ...Even my house which I own is in my possession right now. Of course all possessions can be taken away by force. But under civilized social conditions the possession of my home be myself is a respected and accepted situation.
No ... Your right to your home is debendant on your possession of it, if you move out of the area, and the community needs teh building you use to call home, but is now just your property, why should you still have property rights over it? Your right to the home was respected and upheld by the community based on the fact that it made sense.making my ownership of this property justified socially and individually. The same can be said about anything that I own legally. The legalization of my property is a social contract of the society in which I live.
No one ever asked me about the economic structure, nor most Americans.The legalization of my property is a social contract of the society in which I live. That is because socially the citizens of America are in agreement to the economic structure that permits the soul possession of legal properties by an individual or a group or community. There is no cognitive dissonance, or hypocritical behavior involved unless the individual owning the property is opposed to owning the soul rights to that specific property.
You made the jump from having rights over possession and not initiation force to take it away from you, right to total property rights without any justification ...
And if its a social construct, if the system of property doesn't work anymore then society has a right to change it.The possession of my home my vehicles my shop and tools do not make me feel guilty in any shape or form. I gave up a good portion of my own life in order to obtain these properties if that is what you consider self justifiable then you are wrong. I only participated in the social contract that I have with all citizens of this country. My possession of said properties is an agreed situation and justifiable by the laws of this nation. If your ideology or that you are personally not happy with the laws of this nation it is of low concern to me as a law abiding citizen.