- Joined
- Oct 12, 2013
- Messages
- 6,112
- Reaction score
- 987
- Location
- (none)
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Communist
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?
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?