• 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

RGacky3

DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
9,570
Reaction score
1,493
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
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.
 
Last edited:
I am not sure how to answer. In most cases I would say it is an innate right, particularly if it is something you made or purchased with the proceeds of your labor. For me the sticking point is land. I find it more and more difficult to justify private ownership of land. It is a finite resource and over time if the rich continue to buy up more and more if it eventually it could all end up in the hands of a few. This is particularly worrisome with the world population continuing to grow.

I am not sure what the solution is to that, but I do think it will be a real problem in the future.
 
Land "ownership" is a fictional construct based upon population growth. Small hunter gatherer societies have no real concept of "ownership" of the land on which they've lived on. They only develop this concept as their populations grows and they are forced to compete with other groups for food. With that said, modern land ownership is justified by a centralized agency granting an individual the right to claim land under their guardianship. With that said, it's justified in the same way we justify ownership of anything else. I could easily claim you didn't build your car and thus aren't justified in taking ownership of it even if you've paid for it. However the very fictional construct of ownership deems that the real transaction that took place allows you to be the rightful owner of said car and not me.

As far as "owning land" being an innate right,that depends on the sociological and political context in which you live and how you define "innate". In the US, "owning land" is indeed considered an innate right. However, I don't believe it is innate as "natural". It's innate as it is "born in the mind". It is something the human brain devised in order to cope with the environmental stresses of a hunter-gatherer society, abuses of royalty, etc.

In essence, what I am getting at is that "land ownership" as an innate right really depends on the sociological context in which you live. The Chinese have no concept of land ownership as an innate right. Sure, they have created delineations in order to separate the farmers and people are allowed to purchase land but at the end of the day the actual ownership of land has been granted to either the emperor or the modern state (ie the CPC). There is no recourse by which the Chinese can fight imminent domain. They simply never had the sociological and political conditions under which such ideas could emerge.

In contrast, the US does. This is because immigration to North America allowed the already decaying culture of serfdom, and by extension "Crown land", to be completely erased and) replaced with one where men were entitled not only a complete claim to their land but also the products of said lands after purchasing it from governing institutions.

I hope this answers your question.
 
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 believe this video can answer the question of ownership, along with some other questions. ;)

 
Land "ownership" is a fictional construct based upon population growth. Small hunter gatherer societies have no real concept of "ownership" of the land on which they've lived on. They only develop this concept as their populations grows and they are forced to compete with other groups for food. With that said, modern land ownership is justified by a centralized agency granting an individual the right to claim land under their guardianship. With that said, it's justified in the same way we justify ownership of anything else. I could easily claim you didn't build your car and thus aren't justified in taking ownership of it even if you've paid for it. However the very fictional construct of ownership deems that the real transaction that took place allows you to be the rightful owner of said car and not me.

As far as "owning land" being an innate right,that depends on the sociological and political context in which you live and how you define "innate". In the US, "owning land" is indeed considered an innate right. However, I don't believe it is innate as "natural". It's innate as it is "born in the mind". It is something the human brain devised in order to cope with the environmental stresses of a hunter-gatherer society, abuses of royalty, etc.

In essence, what I am getting at is that "land ownership" as an innate right really depends on the sociological context in which you live. The Chinese have no concept of land ownership as an innate right. Sure, they have created delineations in order to separate the farmers and people are allowed to purchase land but at the end of the day the actual ownership of land has been granted to either the emperor or the modern state (ie the CPC). There is no recourse by which the Chinese can fight imminent domain. They simply never had the sociological and political conditions under which such ideas could emerge.

In contrast, the US does. This is because immigration to North America allowed the already decaying culture of serfdom, and by extension "Crown land", to be completely erased and) replaced with one where men were entitled not only a complete claim to their land but also the products of said lands after purchasing it from governing institutions.

I hope this answers your question.

Reminds me of the story of a Palestinian who owned an ancient grove of olive trees that had been in his family for hundreds of years and by his own labor he tended the trees and harvested their olives which gave the olives their value and gave him a livlihood and nourishment. But apparently he didn't own the land the olive trees were growing on because he didn't have a title or deed of ownership. So did he or didn't he legally own the grove of olive trees?
 
Last edited:
Reminds me of the story of a Palestinian who owned an ancient grove of olive trees that had been in his family for hundreds of years and by his own labor he harvested the olives from the trees which gave the olives their value and gave him a livlihood and nourishment. But apparently he didn't own the land the olive trees were on because Israeli law said so. So did he or didn't own the olive trees?

You own the land because somebody says you do, or because you've taken it by force from someone (ie you've become the new regent). Whether or not you have an innate right to own that land is defined by these two options and even then it may not be the case that your ownership of the land allows you to escape the political and social restrictions which apply to citizens who don't own the land they live on. I mean it all depends on who is doing the defining of land ownership.
 
Last edited:
Reminds me of the story of a Palestinian who owned an ancient grove of olive trees that had been in his family for hundreds of years and by his own labor he tended the trees and harvested their olives which gave the olives their value and gave him a livlihood and nourishment. But apparently he didn't own the land the olive trees were on because he didn't have a title or deed of ownership. So did he or didn't he legally own the grove of olive trees?

Don't allow yourself to be caught up in their ridiculous idea that ownership comes from legality.
 
You own the land because somebody says you do, or because you've taken it by force from someone (ie you've become the new regent).

1. If you take the land by force it clearly is not a right to do as it's a violation of the rights of the owner of the land.
2. You don't need someone to tell you that you own something.
3. The entire concept has nothing at all to do with society. It is greatly assisted by society without a doubt but property itself exists in and outside of society.
 
Last edited:
Property is 100% dependant on society, its inherently social, its exclusionary, i.e. only I have exclusive rights to this property and the rest of society must respect that.
 
1. If you take the land by force it clearly is not a right to do as it's a violation of the rights of the owner of the land.
2. You don't need someone to tell you that you own something.
3. The entire concept has nothing at all to do with society. It is greatly assisted by society without a doubt but property itself exists in and outside of society.

Utter nonsense. The entire concept of the state is based around the securing territory through the use of force. To claim that you violate the former regent's rights by deposing him and creating a new regime is based on the notion that under a new regent, the old framework concerning ownership still applies. It does not. As such, the ONLY logical conclusion is that your right to a particular piece of land is a fictional concept dependent on the very real idea of social contracts allowing legal guardianship eg. if government X were to be replaced by government Y tomorrow, your "ownership" of that land would be contingent on the changes of the legal framework of government Y.

Don't think so? Tell me what happened in the land formerly owned by Palestinians in Israel? New government, new ownership laws - old laws became obsolete and irrelevant. What happened in the US? Creation of US government, Indians got their ass kicked - new definition of land ownership - the Indians no longer owned their land.

Western Philosophy 101.
 
Last edited:
Property is 100% dependant on society, its inherently social, its exclusionary, i.e. only I have exclusive rights to this property and the rest of society must respect that.

Ownership as I have said to you before is about control over something that allows you the say on what to do with it always by making a claim to said property and taking an effort to protect such claim. As I have said before this is found in and outside of society.
 
Utter nonsense. The entire concept of the state is based around the securing territory through the use of force.

I'm talking about property as a idea, not states. Try to keep up.

To claim that you violate the former regent's rights by deposing him and creating a new regime is based on the notion that under a new regent, the old framework concerning ownership still applies. It does not. As such, the ONLY logical conclusion is that your right to a particular piece of land is a fictional concept based on the very real idea of social contracts allowing legal guardianship.

States =/= the idea of property.
 
Ownership as I have said to you before is about control over something that allows you the say on what to do with it always by making a claim to said property and taking an effort to protect such claim. As I have said before this is found in and outside of society.

I'm talking about private property, i.e. exlcusive rights over something.

If you live on an island alone and have control over stuff, that not property, you don't need the idea of property, its a pointless concept.

States =/= the idea of property.

Actually historiaclly its true, the idea of private property came from nation states.
 
I'm talking about property as a idea, not states. Try to keep up.

Yes and as an idea - it's invented. Something which isn't real and dependent on your ability to defend it physically or otherwise.

States =/= the idea of property.

Your inability to extrapolate is amazing.
 
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.
"Every Person has the right to own such private property as meets the essential needs of decent living and helps to maintain the dignity of the individual and of the home."

American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man

However, ultimately everything belongs to God. We just manage it for Him for a while. I read the above to mean a right to manage at least that minimum level of property.
 
Last edited:
Here's my definition of property:


If you try to take my property, me and my rifle are going to have to dispute your theft.


That's the fundamental basis of it, really... you truly own what you're willing and able to defend. Now in modern times we've ceded a measure of our individual sovereignty to the government, so the government backs my title to my land with government force.... specifically cops, courts and prison.

But if the government isn't "immediately on hand" there's still me and my rifle, and I have no problem with shooting thieves, and neither does my state government.

There's also, of course, the theory of mixing your labor with the land makes it yours... but ultimately it is only going to STAY yours if you or someone else is willing to defend your claim.

As I told someone else, "go try to squat on my back woodlot and see what happens". :)
 
Jerry said:
"Every Person has the right to own such private property as meets the essential needs of decent living and helps to maintain the dignity of the individual and of the home."

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.

Goshin said:
Here's my definition of property:


If you try to take my property, me and my rifle are going to have to dispute your theft.


That's the fundamental basis of it, really... you truly own what you're willing and able to defend. Now in modern times we've ceded a measure of our individual sovereignty to the government, so the government backs my title to my land with government force.... specifically cops, courts and prison.

But if the government isn't "immediately on hand" there's still me and my rifle, and I have no problem with shooting thieves, and neither does my state government.

There's also, of course, the theory of mixing your labor with the land makes it yours... but ultimately it is only going to STAY yours if you or someone else is willing to defend your claim.

As I told someone else, "go try to squat on my back woodlot and see what happens".

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.
 
Last edited:
Yes and as an idea - it's invented. Something which isn't real and dependent on your ability to defend it physically or otherwise.

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.
 
I'm talking about private property, i.e. exlcusive rights over something.

I am too.

If you live on an island alone and have control over stuff, that not property, you don't need the idea of property, its a pointless concept.

You do have control over everything there and if someone comes to the island you will protect it.

Actually historiaclly its true, the idea of private property came from nation states.

Actually its not. The idea of private property came from people that was picked up on by nation states.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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:
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.
 
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?
 
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....
 
Back
Top Bottom