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 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 94

Thread: Is porperty Self justifying?

  1. #1
    Sage
    RGacky3's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Last Seen
    08-25-15 @ 05:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,570

    Is porperty Self justifying?

    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 by RGacky3; 06-26-12 at 05:01 AM.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    SE Asia
    Last Seen
    07-12-14 @ 10:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    2,333

    Re: Is porperty Self justifying?

    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.

  3. #3
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,048

    Re: Is porperty Self justifying?

    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.
    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

  4. #4
    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?

    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.

  5. #5
    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?

    I believe this video can answer the question of ownership, along with some other questions.


  6. #6
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:24 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,467

    Re: Is porperty Self justifying?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    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 by Moot; 06-26-12 at 06:11 AM.

  7. #7
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,048

    Re: Is porperty Self justifying?

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    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 by Hatuey; 06-26-12 at 06:11 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

  8. #8
    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 Moot View Post
    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.

  9. #9
    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
    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 by Henrin; 06-26-12 at 06:17 AM.

  10. #10
    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?

    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.

Page 1 of 10 123 ... 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
  •