• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

What are property rights? How do they begin?

matchlight said:
That is not accurate. The right to acquire property by conquest was well established in English common law long before there were any American colonies.
Click to expand...
"Acquire by conquest" is very different than "taking over abandoned or unoccupied land." Someone has to actually be there in order to be conquered. Other than the first waves of occupants, land wasn't "unoccupied," i.e. it's been "conquest" for tens of thousands of years. In the agrarian eras and after, territories were not raided because there was nothing there, but because people and crops and supplies could be seized.

It was pretty much only the Americas where land was seized using the rationalization that the land was "abandoned" or "not in use," although it was being used, cultivated and lived in by indigenous tribes.


Of course. That is just what has been done with large areas of Antarctica.
Click to expand...
Unless it isn't. Various nations claim control of Antarctic territory, mostly based on sheer declarations of swaths of land they didn't literally occupy, while the Antarctic Treaty declares it as a "scientific preserve."

And no, you can't just row up to a section of Antarctica and make a land claim that will be recognized by any government.


A person may acquire another person's land by adverse possession, but only under certain conditions. Someone would have had to been occupying your land openly, with your knowledge and against your interests, in a way that excluded you from it, and have done it continuously--usually for twenty years.
Click to expand...
That doesn't answer my question.

Again, you claimed: "Where no one else is occupying land or otherwise making use of it, anyone who wants to has a right to that land." Why would this apply to land occupied by indigenous territories, but not to modern land ownership?

E.g. if I have a 20 acre estate, and I'm not actually doing anything with 10 acres of it, does that fact alone give another person the legal or ethical right to seize the land? If not, why not?

Or: The Powhatans outnumbered the Virginia colonists for decades. Did the colonists only "earn" the right to seize territory when they became more numerous, or the population became more dense? Or when their crop yields were greater than the Powhatans? Would it make sense for the English to approach the Powhatans and say "there are more of us, therefore this land is no longer yours" or "we grew more corn than you this year, therefore we're taking all your land."

By the way, most tribes (especially on the East Coast) were not nomadic by the time the Europeans showed up. The Powhatans had many settlements on what we now call the Virginia coastal areas. Many colonists tried to seize territories that were settled by Indian tribes. They relied on military force to kick the indigenous tribes off their territories. Does that sound like an instance of people who had no claim whatsoever to a territory...?
 
Essentially, what you have is, on the left, a theory of property informed by anthropology, and, on right, the rewarmed guesses of the classical liberals. But there is something very different about the modern apology for property and the classical one. And that is that the classical liberals, to varying degrees of explicitness, had a labor theory of value, and could thus argue that these mythical, self-reliant land-tamers gave the land its value, all its value. Though it's complete nonsense, it is at least an appeal to reciprocity: for your labor worth x, here is this entitlement worth x; or, what's the same, as this land was worthless before your labor, you take nothing from me by excluding me from it.

However, as the official theory of land value changed, becoming more realistic, the above argument became increasingly unavailable to sophisticated property apologists. No, the new argument is not that we are a species of Midas-like value-givers, but rather that we are a supremely antisocial species; we hate, much more than mere nuisances like poverty, sharing. Sharing turns us from rational men into incoherent beasts, incapable of so much as planting a seed without either one man's spade banging uselessly into another's pick or one submitting to enslavement by the other. Priority one was thus to get this world permanently individually compartmentalized so that we never had to engage with each other like thinking, speaking, social beings again (but of course, rich or poor, we inevitably would, hence the joint stock company and the beggars' bonfire). Still, the property apologists treat the unimproved value of land as negligible, only now it's negligible compared to the value of privacy instead of the value of labor.
 
vasuderatorrent said:
What are property rights? How do they begin? ....... Any thoughts?
Click to expand...
When the human being uses his right to liberty to perform actions in the pursuit of creating self-happiness, physical manifestation in the form of property arises since he has processed non-owned and unused natural resources away from the natural state in the direction of increased usability (the human being has indirectly by its nature the genes for the use of muscles, rationality, free will, language and handiness that are needed for creating property). Since the natural resources used for creating the product are non-owned and unused, he does not violate anyone's rights by creating the product. From the definition of legitimacy (see chapter 4, Rational Gaudism) the producer's use/disposition of the product is also legitimate since nobody's rights are violated by using or disposing the product. Consequently, he has the right to use and to dispose his property (included to let it be untouched), and the property right is established as logical consequence of the nature-given right to liberty.
If other persons use/take/dispose the product without the consent of the owner, they violate the property right. By depriving or impairing a person's property, he is forced to work a period of time for replacing the property to reconstruct the situation before the violation. Thus, he has his right to liberty violated in this period of time as a consequence of the property violation. If the product is permanently abandoned and without a known owner, new property right may be established accordingly to the principle of “first come, first served”.

Basically, the property right is based on processing non-owned and unused natural resources away from the natural state in the direction of increased usability, but the creator may transfer the property right to others as a consequence of the contractual freedom being a nature-given right.
The basis of the property right is the difference between the processed state (in the direction of increased usability) and the natural state, and the economic value is defined by the market's willingness to pay for this difference. A vein of gold lying in the underground has no value in its natural state; the value arrives when somebody digs out the gold and produces gold jewelers, tooth fillings or gold coins. A natural resource being in its natural state may not be claimed to be anybodies property. Fencing in a non-owned field of land without processing it duly is a violation of the right to liberty of other individuals. In order to establish property right, the natural state has not only to be altered, but it has to be altered in the direction of increased usability. Therefore, you may not carpet-bomb or asphalt a huge non-owned and unused area for obtaining property right by claiming that the bombing or asphalting is not the work of nature. These are attempt of preventing other person's right to travel, to use or to establish property rights on non-owned and unused areas.

The post is cited from: Rational Gaudism , chapter 5
 
Gaudius said:
The basis of the property right is the difference between the processed state (in the direction of increased usability) and the natural state, and the economic value is defined by the market's willingness to pay for this difference. A vein of gold lying in the underground has no value in its natural state; the value arrives when somebody digs out the gold and produces gold jewelers, tooth fillings or gold coins.
Click to expand...

But the reverse is also true. Gold mining, and thus gold processing, is of no value without the gold vein. The buyer pays for the value of the processed gold, period, without deducting the gold vein's contribution on ideological grounds.

Gaudius said:
Fencing in a non-owned field of land without processing it duly is a violation of the right to liberty of other individuals. In order to establish property right, the natural state has not only to be altered, but it has to be altered in the direction of increased usability. Therefore, you may not carpet-bomb or asphalt a huge non-owned and unused area for obtaining property right by claiming that the bombing or asphalting is not the work of nature. These are attempt of preventing other person's right to travel, to use or to establish property rights on non-owned and unused areas.
Click to expand...

But intent cannot be concluded from the direction in which usability is changed. For example, say the best use of my labor is on already cultivated land. Under your regime, that alone is not enough to ensure that I'll labor on the already cultivated land, because laboring on uncultivated land comes with the bonus of property. Furthermore, I have an incentive to commit the uncultivated land to uses requiring minimal labor, even when I have the ability to commit it to better uses, so that more of my labor is available for the continuation of my conquest. The property entitlement is thus a distortionary subsidy to primary industry and especially land-intensive primary industry--that is, until everything is claimed, at which point it's a simple robbery.
 
The whole notion of "owning" land is a bit silly since the land is only yours to use while you are alive, which is a tiny portion of the time the land has, and will, exist. IMO it should be called "renting" instead. We should also reconsider whether renting land gives the renter the right to designate the next owner when they die. (no specific proposal here, its just something that should be reconsidered) Among the issues that should be considered is whether a land "owner" (renter) has the right to destroy the land so that is is useless, perhaps even toxic and/or dangerous, to future users.
 
Last edited:
Visbek said:
...Why does someone need to "improve" the land in order to have a valid claim to it? If I have a farm, and a developer wants to put a bunch of McMansions on my land, does that give them the right to seize my property?...
Click to expand...

Yes, sometimes. Remember when the Supreme Court allowed a local government to seize land that was actually already in use so that they could have a developer put a shopping mall on that land instead.

"Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)[1] was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development. In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified private redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

The case arose in the context of condemnation by the city of New London, Connecticut, of privately owned real property, so that it could be used as part of a “comprehensive redevelopment plan.” However, the private developer was unable to obtain financing and abandoned the redevelopment project, leaving the land as an empty lot, which was eventually turned into a temporary dump.[2]"

This is one of the few instances of both liberals and conservatives hating a decision by the Supremes.
 
Hard Truth said:
The whole notion of "owning" land is a bit silly since the land is only yours to use while you are alive, which is a tiny portion of the time the land has, and will, exist. IMO it should be called "renting" instead. We should also reconsider whether renting land gives the renter the right to designate the next owner when they die. (no specific proposal here, its just something that should be reconsidered) Among the issues that should be considered is whether a land "owner" (renter) has the right to destroy the land so that is is useless, perhaps even toxic and/or dangerous, to future users.
Click to expand...

That's the problem. The owner doesn't rent, but his ownership compels others to rent. Under the old usufruct system, both of your concerns are answered: no, the owner did not determine the indefinite future ownership of the land, because the entitlement itself was temporary; and no, the entitlement didn't include the right to spoil the land. Nor were systems like usufruct replaced by the current, permanent and unconditional entitlement because it had any more merit to it; it was conquest, plain and simple.
 
vasuderatorrent said:
This is a topic that really puzzles me. Living in a society that is heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian principles we probably take property rights for granted and give it little thought.

When someone wants your computer, they are forbidden from taking it for their own use no matter how bad they want it. Why is that? Well. It's yours. It belongs to you. It is immoral, unethical, illegal, disappointing and annoying for you to steal it. Why is it yours? The owner of the store gave it to you in exchange for pieces of paper or a credit card or debit card swipe or a promissory not which is a manifestation of your present or future labor which you have traded in exchange for the computer. Who gave the computer to them? Well. They obtain the parts to build the computer through voluntary transactions with their previous owner. That argument works really good until you take it to the point of land. The land is where all natural resources originate. These natural resources are responsible for every single non-living thing in existence. Even the living things can be considered a natural resource. Who owns the property and why? That's easy. The person holding the deed.

This is where it gets tricky. When did the first transaction of real property occur? Who was the first entity to own the land and what was their justification of ownership? It seems like the concept of property rights had to be violated in order to begin the tradition of property rights.

This is where our discussion begins.

Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

Property rights are whatever the state says they are.

In a democracy we the votes sort of decide what they are in general and the politicians work out the details.

Once you have that sorted in your mind taxes no longer seem immoral.
 
Tim the plumber said:

Property rights are whatever the state says they are.

In a democracy we the votes sort of decide what they are in general and the politicians work out the details.

Once you have that sorted in your mind taxes no longer seem immoral.
Click to expand...

It seems very immoral that the majority has the right to take resources from me that I have justly earned and give those resources to some who have not earned them.
 
Stoney said:
It seems very immoral that the majority has the right to take resources from me that I have justly earned and give those resources to some who have not earned them.
Click to expand...

And I think it's immoral to expect the state to protect your resources while expecting to pay nothing for that protection.
 
Stoney said:
It seems very immoral that the majority has the right to take resources from me that I have justly earned and give those resources to some who have not earned them.
Click to expand...

You got to do all that, and congratulations and respect to you, because there are not mobs of nasty brigands wandering around Somalia style. The state made it so. The state says what the rules are. You are expected to help your fellow man. Even when you don't want to.
 
sangha said:
And I think it's immoral to expect the state to protect your resources while expecting to pay nothing for that protection.
Click to expand...

Surely you can see that I have not denied a need to pay taxes for the protection of my property.
 
Tim the plumber said:
You got to do all that, and congratulations and respect to you, because there are not mobs of nasty brigands wandering around Somalia style. The state made it so. The state says what the rules are. You are expected to help your fellow man. Even when you don't want to.
Click to expand...

Another who reads into what I said that which is not there. I'm willing to pay taxes for the protection of life, liberty and property. I think it immoral to have resources taken from me by force to be given to others. And at least to some degree its not generosity of people with my money that causes this transfer of wealth. Its those getting the transfer voting to take the money from me and giving the money to them.
 
Stoney said:
Surely you can see that I have not denied a need to pay taxes for the protection of my property.
Click to expand...

All that other stuff is part of the terms and conditions of citizenship. It's a package deal. If you don't like those terms, you are free to renounce your citizenship and stop making use of the protections and priviliges that citizenship provides.
 
sangha said:
All that other stuff is part of the terms and conditions of citizenship. It's a package deal. If you don't like those terms, you are free to renounce your citizenship and stop making use of the protections and priviliges that citizenship provides.
Click to expand...

I see. You want me to leave what is now your country because I don't want to pay your way. What happens when all of us that you hate because we work and earn and contribute to your existence what you should be contributing are gone and there is no one left to send you a check for sitting on your butt?
 
Stoney said:
I see. You want me to leave what is now your country because I don't want to pay your way. What happens when all of us that you hate because we work and earn and contribute to your existence what you should be contributing are gone and there is no one left to send you a check for sitting on your butt?
Click to expand...

I really got a kick out of your delusion that every working person agrees with your petty complaints.
 
sangha said:
I really got a kick out of your delusion that every working person agrees with your petty complaints.
Click to expand...

You're correct. Not everyone agrees now. But the appetite for other peoples money keeps growing and as it does the taxes keep growing on other peoples money. It will catch up one day and all will be lost for all of us.

Its immoral taking what is not yours and using it for yourself or giving it to others. Being immoral has its own end.
 
Stoney said:
Another who reads into what I said that which is not there. I'm willing to pay taxes for the protection of life, liberty and property. I think it immoral to have resources taken from me by force to be given to others. And at least to some degree its not generosity of people with my money that causes this transfer of wealth. Its those getting the transfer voting to take the money from me and giving the money to them.
Click to expand...

Part of not having mobs of desperate people involves the transfer of wealth to the poor. This is done because the natural thing for any stable economy is to concentrate wealth at the top.
 
Stoney said:
You're correct. Not everyone agrees now. But the appetite for other peoples money keeps growing and as it does the taxes keep growing on other peoples money. It will catch up one day and all will be lost for all of us.

Its immoral taking what is not yours and using it for yourself or giving it to others. Being immoral has its own end.
Click to expand...

Not everyone agrees now, nor will they ever. Your predictions of inevitable doom are nothing but hysteria-fueled drama-queening and your selfishly perverse moral code has been rejected by the american people.
 
Tim the plumber said:

Part of not having mobs of desperate people involves the transfer of wealth to the poor. This is done because the natural thing for any stable economy is to concentrate wealth at the top.
Click to expand...

The problem with that is that the mob begins to grow as more and more people determine that its easier to sit on the couch than go to work and they demand more and more from those who do work. Takers are never satisfied. And of course our politicians love the dependent class because they can count them to support those politicians who promise to give them more.

I have more faith in people than you. If we give people a little push and a little help more will find their niche in this world and be happier for it. You seem to want to say there is a class of people that we just need to write off as unable to contribute.
 
Stoney said:
The problem with that is that the mob begins to grow as more and more people determine that its easier to sit on the couch than go to work and they demand more and more from those who do work. Takers are never satisfied. And of course our politicians love the dependent class because they can count them to support those politicians who promise to give them more.

I have more faith in people than you. If we give people a little push and a little help more will find their niche in this world and be happier for it. You seem to want to say there is a class of people that we just need to write off as unable to contribute.
Click to expand...

Totally wrong.

You are able to have the successful life you have due to the education you got amongst other things. This education is for most of us paid for by the state. It's a good investment.

When the state transfers wealth downwards it does so to counter the tendency of wealth to accumulate at the top and the fact that rich people are good at getting money out of the state. Most subsidies go to the pockets of the wealthy.

I fully agree that the present systems of state support whereby for each dollar earned the state, at least in the UK, removes more than that from the support, is a very bad way of doing it.

You made money, a lot of it. More than you needed. You did not do this out of necessity. You did it because you are competitive and hard working. So is everybody else. Allow people to work as much as they can and get some reward from it and the habit will form.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Totally wrong.

You are able to have the successful life you have due to the education you got amongst other things. This education is for most of us paid for by the state. It's a good investment.

When the state transfers wealth downwards it does so to counter the tendency of wealth to accumulate at the top and the fact that rich people are good at getting money out of the state. Most subsidies go to the pockets of the wealthy.

I fully agree that the present systems of state support whereby for each dollar earned the state, at least in the UK, removes more than that from the support, is a very bad way of doing it.

You made money, a lot of it. More than you needed. You did not do this out of necessity. You did it because you are competitive and hard working. So is everybody else. Allow people to work as much as they can and get some reward from it and the habit will form.
Click to expand...

I'd like to say that everyone in the US has a shot at a good education, and thy do. But some of us find it more important to support the teachers unions than the students so for some a good education is something they'd have to seek outside the resident school system.

Again, I have more faith in my fellow man than you.

How does the state earn dollars?

If we could help people find what they're cut out to do and then help them get the proper training to compete in that field there would be a lot more happy people who would not want the support of the state because its much more satisfying to fend for oneself.
 
Stoney said:
I'd like to say that everyone in the US has a shot at a good education, and thy do. But some of us find it more important to support the teachers unions than the students so for some a good education is something they'd have to seek outside the resident school system.
Click to expand...

By unionizing, teachers support themselves. The social betrayal of students is rather in the sanction of inefficiently distributed property, which results in an equally inefficient distribution of resources among schools, regardless of whether the resources are collected indirectly, in the form property taxes, or directly, in the form of tuition.

Stoney said:
How does the state earn dollars?
Click to expand...

By allowing people on its piece of Earth, same as any other landlord.

Stoney said:
If we could help people find what they're cut out to do and then help them get the proper training to compete in that field there would be a lot more happy people who would not want the support of the state because its much more satisfying to fend for oneself.
Click to expand...

Who fends for oneself? The state fends for the rich by enforcing their property entitlements. If they wanted to fend for themselves, they would return their property to the commons and sell their labor like everyone else--properly, not confused with capital.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom