• 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
Its never been posed as a qeustion, or ever been able to be disputed, just like during monarchies when there was no mechanism to challenge them, everyone went along with it.



The "extreme left" are mostly anarchists ... not really collectivists, but this whole collectivism vrs individualism is a false dictomy, its really democracy vrs plutocracy, since economics is an inherently social activity.



Right now, but that doesn't make it inherently right.

Also its fallacious to say its our collective ethical opnion, because we've never had another option.



This paper is simply an assertion not an argument, but anyway




The former definition is the real definition, and the main part is the exclusion part.

The latter definition is arbitrary and can mean anything, and its a idealistic concept without any reality in concrete isntitutional reality.



None of those things are property, you dont' need any exclusive right of property, infact the opposite, those values are meaningless IF YOU HAVE exlusive rights to it, such as liberty, its meaningless unless its universal, religion, is almost always a communal concept, the same with free choice. The only time they become property is with intellectual property, which is forced exclusion, not of thought, but of implimentation of thought.



Except that most of the time property IS power.



An assersion posing as an axiom, also what ever "is his own" is arbitrary.



Since when has merit determined who gets property.

I could continue, but my point is that article doesn't show anything really.

When it comes to Liberty I'll quote Bakunin





No you can't, you need to have land first, and have seeds,.

BTW, I agree we DO have laws, but I'm talkinga bout the philosophy of property here.



I explained why that is bull****, opinions do NOT need exclusionary laws for their value, infact the very opposite is true.



Its not a trap, what I'm saying is that people consider taxation to be a form of theft because tehy consider property fundemenatal and the state not.



I don't consider that to be an authority on morality ... Laws don't make right.



That was one founding fathers opinion, other had other opinions ... Also since when does their opinion count more than anyone elses?


If there is a fire in a building we cannot all descend the fireman's later at once.

We cannot all eat the same apple.

If you ban private property who banned it? Bakunin's ideas are meaningless since it would require the same amount of exclusion of personal rights to enforce his ideas. We cannot all enjoy some liberties at the same time in the same place. Bakunin and yourself seem to be asserting that since we cannot all enjoy those liberties at the same time that we shouldn't have those liberties at all. We cannot all own the same property at the same time so then no one can own property since it excludes the right s of others?


If that is what you are asserting (and correct me if you are not, but so far it seems to be) then where does this philosophy end? Will it be deemed unfair for me to possess anything, since I must store my things somewhere and that space would disallow someone else from using that space? So far Im not finding much logic in Bakunin's ideas even though the assertion was written well and sounded great on the surface. But its the details that go array and make the entire assertion childish and idiotic. For the simply fact that we cannot all eat the same apple. But even Bakunin's ideas require laws to enforce them which would be going against Bakunin's ideas, hence the reason why I assert that they are childish and idiotic.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure leftists have a sense of time. They seem to believe results just happen, ignoring the process which makes them happen.
 
The only way someone "owns" anything is either by the laws of the land, cultural mores, or their ability to defend it. It's not rocket science.
 
If there is a fire in a building we cannot all descend the fireman's later at once.

We cannot all eat the same apple.

If you ban private property who banned it? Bakunin's ideas are meaningless since it would require the same amount of exclusion of personal rights to enforce his ideas. We cannot all enjoy some liberties at the same time in the same place. Bakunin and yourself seem to be asserting that since we cannot all enjoy those liberties at the same time that we shouldn't have those liberties at all. We cannot all own the same property at the same time so then no one can own property since it excludes the right s of others?


If that is what you are asserting (and correct me if you are not, but so far it seems to be) then where does this philosophy end? Will it be deemed unfair for me to possess anything, since I must store my things somewhere and that space would disallow someone else from using that space? So far Im not finding much logic in Bakunin's ideas even though the assertion was written well and sounded great on the surface. But its the details that go array and make the entire assertion childish and idiotic. For the simply fact that we cannot all eat the same apple. But even Bakunin's ideas require laws to enforce them which would be going against Bakunin's ideas, hence the reason why I assert that they are childish and idiotic.

Having an apple and eating it doesn't require private property.

You don't need to ban private property to abolish it, you just need to stop enforcing it.

Why would you need to exclude ANY personal rights?

Of coarse we can enjoy liberties at the same time, we can all have thoughts, we can all move, we can all talk, when our actions come into conflict they must be resovled democratically, not juts by saying "I OWN THIS and you are excluded, and here is the states guns to show that."

Use and property are not the same thing neither are possession and property.

It would'nt be deemed unfair for oyu to possess stuff, I'm saying if someone else NEEDS the stuff you have, it must be worked out democratically rather than tyrannically.

Your making the horrible mistake of confusing possession and property, possession means you juts have it, if you have it, it woudl be understandable that you would expect that other people would'nt take it from you, and most people would probably go along with it because they also possess stuff, but property is different.

Property would be you owning ALL the apples in an area, leaving the area, and then having everyone else in the area excluded from eating the apples would be property.
 
Having an apple and eating it doesn't require private property.
Again we cannot all eat the same apple. One person will get to eat at least the part they took a bite of. Meaning that someone else did not get to eat that bite. Which would mean that some people will be excluded from eating the apple.

You don't need to ban private property to abolish it, you just need to stop enforcing it.
Stop enforcing private property is the same as banning it. What you are proposing is not an honest way to run a country. I mean you obviously have the goal of abolishing property rights so you enploy a method that achieves that end but refuse to call it banning private property. Geesh we are not that naive we can see goal and what would be the effect.
Why would you need to exclude ANY personal rights?
Well because there are many situations where we cant all be involved in any given activity since it would be logistically impossible.

Of coarse we can enjoy liberties at the same time, we can all have thoughts, we can all move, we can all talk, when our actions come into conflict they must be resovled democratically, not juts by saying "I OWN THIS and you are excluded, and here is the states guns to show that."
So then laws/rules are a part of this philosophical discussion of property? I ask this because you just described a situation that requires some form of organization. We presently in the US have a valid form of organization to settle conflicts. Why should we stop using our current laws to enforce new ones?

Use and property are not the same thing neither are possession and property.
Property | Define Property at Dictionary.com
prop·er·ty   [prop-er-tee]
noun, plural prop·er·ties.
1.that which a person owns; the possession or possessions of a particular owner: They lost all their property in the fire.
2.goods, land, etc., considered as possessions: The corporation is a means for the common ownership of property.
3.a piece of land or real estate: property on Main Street.

pos·ses·sion   [puh-zesh-uhn]
noun
1.the act or fact of possessing.
2.the state of being possessed.
3.ownership.
4.Law . actual holding or occupancy, either with or without rights of ownership.
5.a thing possessed: He packed all his possessions into one trunk.


I dont think that you are communicating well your thoughts here. I simply stated that in order to own property it must be in your possession. You do not need to be present to be in possession of property to still have your right to own it. For example if we were fishing and we both caught a fish each and nature called and when you came back I was eating both fish, I would not be justified by any means in eating YOUR fish. You caught the fish so the fish was your possession and your property and everyone else was excluded from owning your fish.



It would'nt be deemed unfair for oyu to possess stuff, I'm saying if someone else NEEDS the stuff you have, it must be worked out democratically rather than tyrannically.
Why must my possessions by up for grabs by my neighbors? All they would need to do is to vote that they want everything in my possession and now it would be me being excluded from my possessions. Why should have to justify my needs for my possessions? Are you proposing that we should all ask the permission of our neighbors on every single possession that we thought we owned? Such a system would turn to chaos so fats that the system wouldnt even have existed for a day.

Your making the horrible mistake of confusing possession and property, possession means you juts have it, if you have it, it woudl be understandable that you would expect that other people would'nt take it from you, and most people would probably go along with it because they also possess stuff, but property is different.

Property would be you owning ALL the apples in an area, leaving the area, and then having everyone else in the area excluded from eating the apples would be property.
I dont think that you quite understand what you are saying. On one hand your telling me that its ok to have possessions and since other people have possessions I MIGHT be in luck and they will let me keep my possessions. That is unless my peers are assholes, then Im **** out of luck.

What also has not convinced me is that you are accusing everyone that owns land as being a tyrant. Why do you think that people want to own their homes? Its called privacy. See we Americans consider our homes (whether we own them or not) as an extension of our person. As a home owner myself I know that I am not a tyrant keeping people excluded form my possessions and my trees or my garden. I do not own all of the gardens or houses in the area. I just own one small house on a small lot just like my neighbors do. In fact the only people that are in my town are people who live here or are visiting other people that live here. No one is actually being excluded in reality. In fact if you wanted to live in this town there are houses for sell. There is plenty of opportunity to own your own home here. Your idea of voting for possessions is called a dictatorship by the majority. Like I said it would be extremely easy to tack advantage of people such a society. All it tacks is team work. If I wanted your fish in your world all I would need is a friend or two. Theses no difference in your dreamed of society than a bunch of thugs taking possessions by force. If I lived in a apartment building on the ground floor all I would need to do to move to higher floor (if thats what I desired) was to convince other people to vote me into where I wanted to be. And whoever was in that spot is **** out of luck.

In America we came up with a better society than what you are proposing. Your so called democratic method is not really democratic in any real sense. Instead it is ruthless and primitive assbackwards, my gang is bigger than your gang.
 
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.

It's justified by me owning the deed. If anyone disagrees, they can file a complaint with my 30-06.
 
It's justified by me owning the deed. If anyone disagrees, they can file a complaint with my 30-06.

Smile, wait for the flash. Shick shick boom. I like a speedy complaint department. Its makes things sooo much easier.
 
Smile, wait for the flash. Shick shick boom. I like a speedy complaint department. Its makes things sooo much easier.

All I'm saying is the land is mine. The deed says so, the courts back it, as does the sheriff. Some hippie ****s with my land, guess what I'm authorized to do? I wouldn't, unless such force was necessary, but it's not wise to **** with a mans land. If a man doesn't have land, then he doesn't have anything at all.
 
I think we agree. I dont like hippies on my property either. Or any other uninvited guests. Questions? I don need to ask no stinkin questions. Shick shick.........Boom. Tango serviced. Next.:shoot:devil:
 
My ex wife's family owned a bunch of land in Cuba then Castro took over. Now they own none. Land changes hands by trade or force. I don't know how to answer this because reality is reality.
 
It's justified by me owning the deed. If anyone disagrees, they can file a complaint with my 30-06.

Legality is not that same as justification.

Otherwise anything the government does is justified.

Including taking your property.
 
Again we cannot all eat the same apple. One person will get to eat at least the part they took a bite of. Meaning that someone else did not get to eat that bite. Which would mean that some people will be excluded from eating the apple.

Again, totally irrelevant, you don't need property rights to eat an apple ...

Stop enforcing private property is the same as banning it. What you are proposing is not an honest way to run a country. I mean you obviously have the goal of abolishing property rights so you enploy a method that achieves that end but refuse to call it banning private property. Geesh we are not that naive we can see goal and what would be the effect.

Not at all, you can have stuff if you want, you just can't rely on an outside force to defend it for you, and if there is a conflict yo uhave to work it out.

Well because there are many situations where we cant all be involved in any given activity since it would be logistically impossible.

Things that are logistically impossible are not rights ...

I dont think that you are communicating well your thoughts here. I simply stated that in order to own property it must be in your possession. You do not need to be present to be in possession of property to still have your right to own it. For example if we were fishing and we both caught a fish each and nature called and when you came back I was eating both fish, I would not be justified by any means in eating YOUR fish. You caught the fish so the fish was your possession and your property and everyone else was excluded from owning your fish.

When I'm saying possession I'm saying things that are in your inmediate possession ... i.e. you are present there, and they are clearly in use by you.

Thats what I mean.

As far as the fish example basic human respect would be enough to stop your buddy from eating your fish, you don't need property rights for that.

Why must my possessions by up for grabs by my neighbors? All they would need to do is to vote that they want everything in my possession and now it would be me being excluded from my possessions. Why should have to justify my needs for my possessions? Are you proposing that we should all ask the permission of our neighbors on every single possession that we thought we owned? Such a system would turn to chaos so fats that the system wouldnt even have existed for a day.

You need their consent yeah ... you don't need to ask their permission every single time, but if a conflict happens you have to work it out democratically ...

Also it didn't turn to chaos, they have had systems like tha before that worked fine.

The other option than working it out democratically is working it out tyrannically.

I dont think that you quite understand what you are saying. On one hand your telling me that its ok to have possessions and since other people have possessions I MIGHT be in luck and they will let me keep my possessions. That is unless my peers are assholes, then Im **** out of luck.

You don't need property rights for direct possessions ....

What also has not convinced me is that you are accusing everyone that owns land as being a tyrant. Why do you think that people want to own their homes? Its called privacy.

You don't need to legally own a home for it to be yours and have privacy.

I don't have a legal deed to my toothbrush, yet I am rational to expect it to be mine.

See we Americans consider our homes (whether we own them or not) as an extension of our person.

Dont' say WE Americans, say "I", I am an American btw, and my person is complete as it is thank you very much.

As a home owner myself I know that I am not a tyrant keeping people excluded form my possessions and my trees or my garden. I do not own all of the gardens or houses in the area. I just own one small house on a small lot just like my neighbors do. In fact the only people that are in my town are people who live here or are visiting other people that live here. No one is actually being excluded in reality. In fact if you wanted to live in this town there are houses for sell. There is plenty of opportunity to own your own home here.

Sure, I don't have a problem iwth that, obviously if all property righst were taken away in that neighborhood, it would still work out fine with people in their homes.

The tyrant part comes in when property rights affect other people who have no control over it, which is obviously not the case with a simple home

Your idea of voting for possessions is called a dictatorship by the majority. Like I said it would be extremely easy to tack advantage of people such a society.

No, its not voting over possessions, its deciding over conflicts democratically.

If I wanted your fish in your world all I would need is a friend or two. Theses no difference in your dreamed of society than a bunch of thugs taking possessions by force. If I lived in a apartment building on the ground floor all I would need to do to move to higher floor (if thats what I desired) was to convince other people to vote me into where I wanted to be. And whoever was in that spot is **** out of luck.

If you wanted my fish in anyworld all you'd need is a friend or too ... property rights (law) doesn't really work with fish in this world either.

BTW, all the doomsday arguments your making now are the same ones that pro-monarchy people made against political democracy ... It didn't happen.
 
Legality is not that same as justification.

Otherwise anything the government does is justified.

Including taking your property.

Legality has everything to do with it. I bought it, therefore it is mine. No other justification is required.
 
Then don't complain about taxes ...
 
Well, if you think legality justifies something, then it also justifies taxes ... and anything else the state does.
 
Again, totally irrelevant, you don't need property rights to eat an apple ...
Yes it is relevant. If I go to court and have no property rights I have no case.



Not at all, you can have stuff if you want, you just can't rely on an outside force to defend it for you, and if there is a conflict yo uhave to work it out.
Of course if I have no property rights then I have no recourse but to use violence to protect my natural rights. The world is not perfect in fact there are a lot of assholes out there that do not care about property rights or about any individual. With no property rights I have no judicial recourse. What would happen in your happy utopia is that street gangs would take over communities along with other more powerful organized crime.



Things that are logistically impossible are not rights ...
So then the hell with peoples rights since its a logistic nightmare? Again you are leaving the door wide open for corruption to take over.



When I'm saying possession I'm saying things that are in your inmediate possession ... i.e. you are present there, and they are clearly in use by you.

Thats what I mean.

As far as the fish example basic human respect would be enough to stop your buddy from eating your fish, you don't need property rights for that.
So when I am at work or the store its open season. Not everyone is honorable and will just ignore my possessions, take a look around reality is a tough place.

Again if my so called buddy steals my fish what am I supposed to do if I have no property rights? You seem to be acknowledging that property rights extend further than just real estate. Its our property rights that bar the government and corporations from just doing whatever they want.





You need their consent yeah ... you don't need to ask their permission every single time, but if a conflict happens you have to work it out democratically ...

Also it didn't turn to chaos, they have had systems like tha before that worked fine.

The other option than working it out democratically is working it out tyrannically.
Have you not ever heard of a jury trial? That would be the democratic part of our judicial system. But even judges answer to the people and are constrained by the Constitution and case law.

What systems are you referring to that worked out fine?



You don't need property rights for direct possessions ....
Property rights enable each citizen the liberty to have possessions without the fear of someone deciding to take them away.



You don't need to legally own a home for it to be yours and have privacy.
What stops ruthless people from tacking a home (owned or not) if we have no right to our homes?

I don't have a legal deed to my toothbrush, yet I am rational to expect it to be mine.
Try leaving a store without a receipt. A toothbrush costs less than 10 bucks it would be ridiculous to have to get a deed for a toothbrush.



Dont' say WE Americans, say "I", I am an American btw, and my person is complete as it is thank you very much.
Thats debatable.



Sure, I don't have a problem iwth that, obviously if all property righst were taken away in that neighborhood, it would still work out fine with people in their homes.

The tyrant part comes in when property rights affect other people who have no control over it, which is obviously not the case with a simple home
No it would not work out alright. Any asshole could just take away my house and I would have no rights to defend since you just took them away.

If a simple home is not what you are talking about then why take the owners rights away?



No, its not voting over possessions, its deciding over conflicts democratically.
I set the situation that I have possessions that i want to keep regardless of what anyone else says. Either way you put it., it turns out to be other people wanting to take possession of my property. Since I am one individual I will always loose your little democratic setup. In effect it will be the majority dictating to me and telling me what I can and cannot do.

If you wanted my fish in anyworld all you'd need is a friend or too ... property rights (law) doesn't really work with fish in this world either.
Right now in this country if I came and took your fish you could press charges of theft against me. And more charges if I used force. And the reason that you could is because the Constitution enforces our property rights.

BTW, all the doomsday arguments your making now are the same ones that pro-monarchy people made against political democracy ... It didn't happen.
Well now wasnt that an fallacious thing to say. I am not making the same arguments that pro-monarchy idiots made. That would be you making an strawman argument trying to tie me to monarchy.

It is interesting that you should try this tactic so soon. So far I have only been standing up for my rights as a citizen. You on the other hand want to take my rights away and turn this country into a place where no one has any rights. Because as I said property rights are the mainstay of a free society. No property rights no liberty and no freedom. I did not work years to have no right to that which I posses just so people like you can feel like they live in a just society. Lol you talk about justifying private property while asserting that you want to take my rights away. I dont know how you were raised but for most Americans taking rights away is taboo and will incite a fight.

Tell me something do you own a house or a vehicle?
 
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.

So very true, and even moreso if you add land owned by state, country and local government it is even much more.
 
Back
Top Bottom