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 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 94

Thread: Is porperty Self justifying?

  1. #61
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:24 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,460

    Re: Is porperty Self justifying?

    Quote Originally Posted by lizzie View Post
    There is so much federally-owned land in the US, I seriously doubt we have to worry about all the land being privately owned at any time in the next few hundred years.
    But there is only so much viable land and that could lead to problems of ownership.

  2. #62
    Educator

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    12-11-17 @ 12:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    1,115

    Re: Is porperty Self justifying?

    Quote Originally Posted by RGacky3 View Post
    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.
    Justified by the fact that I hold the deed? Would that not be sufficient?

    But there is only so much viable land and that could lead to problems of ownership.
    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.

    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 03:17 PM.

  3. #63
    Sage
    Mach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    11,463

    Re: Is porperty Self justifying?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    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.
    That's incorrect. Someone can violate your right, they don't take it away though. Where do they store these rights when they take them away Hatuey, in a rights-bag made of rainbow unicorn hide?

    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?

  4. #64
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,158

    Re: Is porperty Self justifying?

    Quote Originally Posted by RGacky3 View Post
    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.
    I don't play tough, son.... I am tough.

    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
    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.'.."

  5. #65
    Professor

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    MI and AZ
    Last Seen
    03-15-15 @ 01:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,581

    Re: Is porperty Self justifying?

    Quote Originally Posted by RGacky3 View Post
    Whether or not your purchased it is begging the question, it being something that you have a right to sell or perchase is the whole point of the question.

    Also if its dependant on the society then its not an innate right.
    I'm having trouble with understanding what an innate right is because of the definition of innate. Anyway, your society, culture, religion etc. define your rights. I don't know how someone separates oneself from these influences to know what an innate right is or if they even exist.

  6. #66
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,041

    Re: Is porperty Self justifying?

    Quote Originally Posted by RGacky3 View Post
    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.

    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.

  7. #67
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:24 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,460

    Re: Is porperty Self justifying?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    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.
    Since natural rights are inherent wouldn't that naturally make them 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.
    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.


    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.
    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.


    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.
    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.
    Last edited by Moot; 06-27-12 at 04:50 AM.

  8. #68
    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?

    If it's for sale, and I want it, and can afford to buy it, that's all the justification that is necessary.
    Justified by the fact that I hold the deed? Would that not be sufficient?
    Thats begging the question .... Its like saying government is justified just by the fact that they are in government.

    Quote Originally Posted by kamikaze483
    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.

    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.
    But thats begging the question, your assuming land is something that people should be able to own.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll
    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.
    What I mean by property is an institution of exlusive right to something which is beyond pocession and needs to be enforced.

    i.e. basically anything which you need a peice of paper to own.

  9. #69
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,041

    Re: Is porperty Self justifying?

    Quote Originally Posted by RGacky3 View Post
    Thats begging the question .... Its like saying government is justified just by the fact that they are in government.



    But thats begging the question, your assuming land is something that people should be able to own.



    What I mean by property is an institution of exlusive right to something which is beyond pocession and needs to be enforced.

    i.e. basically anything which you need a peice of paper to own.
    Quote Originally Posted by RGacky3 View Post
    Thats begging the question .... Its like saying government is justified just by the fact that they are in government.



    But thats begging the question, your assuming land is something that people should be able to own.



    What I mean by property is an institution of exlusive right to something which is beyond possession and needs to be enforced.

    i.e. basically anything which you need a peice of paper to own.
    Ok but then in lieu of what you just said to kamikaze483 why even mention a piece of paper? 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. 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. 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.

    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 03:14 PM.

  10. #70
    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?

    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.
    yeah ...

    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 ... 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.

    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.
    No one ever asked me about the economic structure, nor most Americans.

    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 ...

    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.
    And if its a social construct, if the system of property doesn't work anymore then society has a right to change it.

Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... 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
  •