• 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
Shoot the dog and take the bone back. Does the bone still belong to the dog? No. His ability to defend it has been completely removed and the bone is no longer his property.

Then the dog's owner may shoot you as well and where does it all end? That's why the Good Old Dad has proclaimed that we should not kill and plunder each other, in order to survive and live. Property is an innate right to the extent I don't harm others. My yard ends there where the yard of my neighbour begins. :)
 
Last edited:
Then the dog's owner may shoot you as well and where does it all end? That's why the Good Old Dad has proclaimed that we should not kill and plunder each other, in order to survive and live. Property is an innate right to the extent I don't harm others. My yard ends there where the yard of my neighbour begins. :)

Who is the good old dad? I think it's far more likely humans themselves decided that it doesn't really benefit any of us to live like animals in the wild. It just seems like the logical thing to do.
 
Last edited:
Who is the good old dad? I think it's far more likely humans themselves decided that it doesn't really benefit any of us to live like animals in the wild. It just seems like the logical thing to do.

Whatever. The point is that private property exists naturally and I would say it exists because it's practical. You wouldn't want somebody else wearing your clothes or taking your tools when you need them, do you? :) If people are alienated from the fruits of their labour, why would they want to work anyway?
 
Last edited:
Whatever. The point is that private property exists naturally and I would say it exists because it's practical. You wouldn't want somebody else wearing your clothes or taking your tools when you need them, do you? :) If people are alienated from the fruits of their labour, why would they want to work anyway?

Lol - there is nothing "natural" about private property. There is something natural about laying claim to X but X itself, as a private property being natural? Not even once.
 
Lol - there is nothing "natural" about private property. There is something natural about laying claim to X but X itself, as a private property being natural? Not even once.

You do own your ass, don't ya? If you don't, may I use it for a while? :mrgreen:

P.s. no offence, that is supposed to be fun illustration. ;)
 
You do own your ass, don't ya? If you don't, may I use it for a while? :mrgreen:

P.s. no offence, that is supposed to be fun illustration. ;)

Well, I do get it but still are we going to talk about the human body as "property" of a person in the same way we would a piece of land? I mean we could but I would like to think that the human body and "ownership" of it falls outside of the debate regarding private property.
 
Well, I do get it but still are we going to talk about the human body as "property" of a person in the same way we would a piece of land? I mean we could but I would like to think that the human body and "ownership" of it falls outside of the debate regarding private property.

During communism this was regarded as "personal" property. :lol:
You are correct, the body is not like the land because the later is inhabited with other creatures as well (ants, worms, plants, etc.), i.e. there are others involved. In that sense the land is not like your own personal body, no.
Still, I think property is well explained in the video on page 1 of this thread. :)
 
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.

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.
 
In other words is property an innate right, or does it need to be justified?

If it's for sale, and I want it, and can afford to buy it, that's all the justification that is necessary.
 
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.
That individuals NOT own land is something that I have held as part of my philosophy for many years..
Good to see that I am no longer the only one..
 
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.
But there is only so much viable land and that could lead to problems of ownership.
 
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.

Justified by the fact that I hold the deed? Would that not be sufficient?

But there is only so much viable land and that could lead to problems of ownership.

What that will lead to is increase in value of the land. Lower supply combined with increased demand equals higher prices. People do not have an inherent right to own land, but they have an inherent right to keep it and protect it if they do own it.

It's possible that we will see land become very expensive in the future. It might be cost prohibitive for some people to own. I can see that happening. That occurs now. They will just have to rent from the property owners until they work hard and save up enough money to purchase.
 
Last edited:
A natural right by the definition of those who verbalized the idea is inalienable. If it can be taken away from you - it's not inalienable.

That's incorrect. Someone can violate your right, they don't take it away though. Where do they store these rights when they take them away Hatuey, in a rights-bag made of rainbow unicorn hide?

If basic laws of logic are self-evident to a logical discourse, can you take those "logic rules" away too, maybe put them in that same bag?
What about the axioms that describe the system of Euclidean geometry, can you take those away too?

Many of us choose to use Government to help protect those rights, i.e. to prevent others from violating them, to punish those that do, etc. We don't give those rights to government to protect, we establish government to help sensibly help all of us, protect all of our rights. Isn't any of this familiar to you? Trivially you can see where some governments do NOT protect such rights, and actually violate those rights. And of course when they do to a dysfunctional degree, we may rightfully label them illegitimate governments.

The question is, what rules should make a government legitimate vs illegitimate?
 
Well, you essencially gave no justification other than you have a gun, i.e. might is right.

I get it you rightwingers constantly feel the need to re-assert your manhood by playing tough, but that doesn't address the issue at all.

:lamo I don't play tough, son.... I am tough.

But even so, I'm damn glad the government guarantees my property rights through its far greater collective force... I'm not fool enough to think I can take all comers by myself if all law suddenly went out the window.





Even that wasn't actual land ownership, those war lords didn't own the land, the offered protection to people, and they had possessions.

It wasn't private property as such, a farmer could'nt just sell land or build whatever he wanted.



Even the Crown didn't actually own the land, the conept was divine stewardship.

The private farming lots got fenced off after the black plague, but even that wasn't actual private property until nation states came along and distributed land grants.

Property may have existed, but it was very limited and very contingent.


Meh. You can split hairs if you want... but a Lord could throw a peasant off "his" land if he wanted, that's a right of exclusion. If you have control and exclusion rights then you have private property.
 
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'm having trouble with understanding what an innate right is because of the definition of innate. Anyway, your society, culture, religion etc. define your rights. I don't know how someone separates oneself from these influences to know what an innate right is or if they even exist.
 
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.


Define property. Marxist Private property? Marxist Personal property? Or the different types of property as defined by the US Government? Or property as defined by different religions?

I have seen this argument a thousand times: A Socialist or at least someone extreme Left asks is the concept property is legit but never defines the word properly. Others come in thinking that the subject is land. While the subject turns out to be about the means of production and a collectivists perception of ownership that denies the legitimacy of owning anything but a toothbrush so to speak.


So for the sake of a 100 pages of ill defined arguing please tell us what you mean.
 
A natural right by the definition of those who verbalized the idea is inalienable. If it can be taken away from you - it's not inalienable.
Since natural rights are inherent wouldn't that naturally make them inalienable?

However, I'll play along: Let's say a lion does have an innate "sense"(I don't even really know what you mean by this - do you mean an understanding of property?) of property.
Yes, an inate or inherent sense of property. Lion's mark their territory with their scent. House cats do the same so marking territory must an inherent characteristic.


It follows that if lions can conceptualized the idea of property and the components necessary to arrive at said idea are there (ie rights, persons, etc.) they'd be just as capable of conceptualizing the idea that you are infringing on another lion's right to that land simply by attacking him and taking it from him.
If I understand you correctly, yes, I think a lion can conceptualize the idea of property when he marks his territory and by smelling can conceptualize when another lion is infringing on his territory and will try to defend it. I think wolves do the same. In a state of nature the conceptualization of ownership seems to be inherent, ....endowed by the Creator......and can't be separated from the nature of the species....which therefore would make it inalienable.


However, we know this is not the case.

In nature - one lion takes over the supposed property of another and the circle continues with little concern for the infringing of the supposedly natural and I remind you - inalienable rights of the lion which supposedly owned the females and land before. Why is this? It's simply because A) the 1st lion only had a right to said property for as long as he could defend it and B) once he could no longer defend it - the right to that land was taken away(thus proving it's NOT inalienable or natural) and a new regent came to power.
But if it's the nature of the lion to defend his property because doing so means his survival then wouldn't the inherent act of self defense make it an inalienable right? There is nothing in nature that guarentees the lion will keep his property or even that he won't be killed in defending it, but only that he has the natural right to act in defense.
 
Last edited:
If it's for sale, and I want it, and can afford to buy it, that's all the justification that is necessary.
Justified by the fact that I hold the deed? Would that not be sufficient?

Thats begging the question .... Its like saying government is justified just by the fact that they are in government.

kamikaze483 said:
What that will lead to is increase in value of the land. Lower supply combined with increased demand equals higher prices. People do not have an inherent right to own land, but they have an inherent right to keep it and protect it if they do own it.

It's possible that we will see land become very expensive in the future. It might be cost prohibitive for some people to own. I can see that happening. That occurs now. They will just have to rent from the property owners until they work hard and save up enough money to purchase.

But thats begging the question, your assuming land is something that people should be able to own.

FreedomFromAll said:
Define property. Marxist Private property? Marxist Personal property? Or the different types of property as defined by the US Government? Or property as defined by different religions?

I have seen this argument a thousand times: A Socialist or at least someone extreme Left asks is the concept property is legit but never defines the word properly. Others come in thinking that the subject is land. While the subject turns out to be about the means of production and a collectivists perception of ownership that denies the legitimacy of owning anything but a toothbrush so to speak.

What I mean by property is an institution of exlusive right to something which is beyond pocession and needs to be enforced.

i.e. basically anything which you need a peice of paper to own.
 
Thats begging the question .... Its like saying government is justified just by the fact that they are in government.



But thats begging the question, your assuming land is something that people should be able to own.



What I mean by property is an institution of exlusive right to something which is beyond pocession and needs to be enforced.

i.e. basically anything which you need a peice of paper to own.
Thats begging the question .... Its like saying government is justified just by the fact that they are in government.



But thats begging the question, your assuming land is something that people should be able to own.



What I mean by property is an institution of exlusive right to something which is beyond possession and needs to be enforced.

i.e. basically anything which you need a peice of paper to own.
Ok but then in lieu of what you just said to kamikaze483 why even mention a piece of paper? Even my house which I own is in my possession right now. Of course all possessions can be taken away by force. But under civilized social conditions the possession of my home be myself is a respected and accepted situation. making my ownership of this property justified socially and individually. The same can be said about anything that I own legally. The legalization of my property is a social contract of the society in which I live. That is because socially the citizens of America are in agreement to the economic structure that permits the soul possession of legal properties by an individual or a group or community. There is no cognitive dissonance, or hypocritical behavior involved unless the individual owning the property is opposed to owning the soul rights to that specific property.

The possession of my home my vehicles my shop and tools do not make me feel guilty in any shape or form. I gave up a good portion of my own life in order to obtain these properties if that is what you consider self justifiable then you are wrong. I only participated in the social contract that I have with all citizens of this country. My possession of said properties is an agreed situation and justifiable by the laws of this nation. If your ideology or that you are personally not happy with the laws of this nation it is of low concern to me as a law abiding citizen.
 
Last edited:
Even my house which I own is in my possession right now. Of course all possessions can be taken away by force. But under civilized social conditions the possession of my home be myself is a respected and accepted situation.

yeah ...

making my ownership of this property justified socially and individually. The same can be said about anything that I own legally. The legalization of my property is a social contract of the society in which I live.

No ... Your right to your home is debendant on your possession of it, if you move out of the area, and the community needs teh building you use to call home, but is now just your property, why should you still have property rights over it? Your right to the home was respected and upheld by the community based on the fact that it made sense.

The legalization of my property is a social contract of the society in which I live. That is because socially the citizens of America are in agreement to the economic structure that permits the soul possession of legal properties by an individual or a group or community. There is no cognitive dissonance, or hypocritical behavior involved unless the individual owning the property is opposed to owning the soul rights to that specific property.

No one ever asked me about the economic structure, nor most Americans.

You made the jump from having rights over possession and not initiation force to take it away from you, right to total property rights without any justification ...

The possession of my home my vehicles my shop and tools do not make me feel guilty in any shape or form. I gave up a good portion of my own life in order to obtain these properties if that is what you consider self justifiable then you are wrong. I only participated in the social contract that I have with all citizens of this country. My possession of said properties is an agreed situation and justifiable by the laws of this nation. If your ideology or that you are personally not happy with the laws of this nation it is of low concern to me as a law abiding citizen.

And if its a social construct, if the system of property doesn't work anymore then society has a right to change it.
 
The point being that the model of property possession is an accepted institution in the US. And there is NOT a popular movement to change that reality.



No ... Your right to your home is debendant on your possession of it, if you move out of the area, and the community needs teh building you use to call home, but is now just your property, why should you still have property rights over it? Your right to the home was respected and upheld by the community based on the fact that it made sense.
A community can only gain possession of private property through legal channels. A group of citizens cannot just decide to take private property whether the owner is present or not. When you leave a vehicle in a parking spot and another citizen takes the vehicle without permission it is called stealing. But if the vehicle is abandoned for certain amount of time it is legal to put in a claim for possession of the vehicle.



No one ever asked me about the economic structure, nor most Americans.
That is a weird thing to say. Its almost as if you expect to have individual rights.

You made the jump from having rights over possession and not initiation force to take it away from you, right to total property rights without any justification ...
You didnt seem to understand my point. My point was that property rights are well accepted in the US. In fact it is quite rare that anyone in the US does not accept property rights. And those that do not accept property rights are usually either in the extreme Left, Anarchists, or in the extreme Right. Or simply the scabs of society.


And if its a social construct, if the system of property doesn't work anymore then society has a right to change it.
Who wants to change the basic concept of property rights in the US? After all freedom is based on property rights. The US Constitution is a piece of paper that enforces society to respect property. Religion, opinions, and free communication are all property rights that must be enforced through the cooperation of those in any community. Since we recognize that such freedoms (including the right to own things) can be taken away by individuals and groups within our society we have formed a Government to fairly enforce the Constitution.

At first only white male owners of real estate and a good amount of personal property could vote in the US. It was later decided that all people should retain the right to vote. Society made the decision and made the necessary changes.
 
The point being that the model of property possession is an accepted institution in the US. And there is NOT a popular movement to change that reality.

Sure, however
A: Property rights in the US is not fundemental, i.e. the government CAN take property if needed for the common good (legally) with reasonable (not market) compensation.
B: Just because it is law doesn't make it justified, I'm talking philisophically here.

A community can only gain possession of private property through legal channels. A group of citizens cannot just decide to take private property whether the owner is present or not. When you leave a vehicle in a parking spot and another citizen takes the vehicle without permission it is called stealing. But if the vehicle is abandoned for certain amount of time it is legal to put in a claim for possession of the vehicle.

You can't appeal to legality of property laws to justify the legality of property laws.

That is a weird thing to say. Its almost as if you expect to have individual rights.

No its not, its a strange thing to say that "we collectively made a contract" to have the amount of private property that we have, because that decision wasn't actually made by the people.

You didnt seem to understand my point. My point was that property rights are well accepted in the US. In fact it is quite rare that anyone in the US does not accept property rights. And those that do not accept property rights are usually either in the extreme Left, Anarchists, or in the extreme Right. Or simply the scabs of society.

The extreme right are generally propertarians.

But thats fine, but its not really relevant.

Unless your assertion is that the fact that people accept it makes it right, meaning if most people stopped accepting it it would not be right.

Who wants to change the basic concept of property rights in the US? After all freedom is based on property rights.

I'm asking a meta question about property.

Also how the hell is freedom based on property rights????

The US Constitution is a piece of paper that enforces society to respect property. Religion, opinions, and free communication are all property rights that must be enforced through the cooperation of those in any community. Since we recognize that such freedoms (including the right to own things) can be taken away by individuals and groups within our society we have formed a Government to fairly enforce the Constitution.

The right to own things (beyond possession) is not a freedom, its the right to exclusivity, i.e. its the right to take away other peoples freedom, if you own a huge estate, and someone picks and apple on it, what property laws do is allow you to restrict people form picking apples, even though doing so doesn't affect your concrete freedom at all.

Thre is a fundemental difference between free speach, opinions, faith and property, having opinions doesn't restrict other peoples opinions.

At first only white male owners of real estate and a good amount of personal property could vote in the US. It was later decided that all people should retain the right to vote. Society made the decision and made the necessary changes.

Ok, so then I take it you thinkg property is NOT fundemental, and is subject to community desicions, (thus making taxes not stealing).
 
Sure, however
A: Property rights in the US is not fundemental, i.e. the government CAN take property if needed for the common good (legally) with reasonable (not market) compensation.
B: Just because it is law doesn't make it justified, I'm talking philisophically here.
I agree that laws do not justify everything.



You can't appeal to legality of property laws to justify the legality of property laws.
True



No its not, its a strange thing to say that "we collectively made a contract" to have the amount of private property that we have, because that decision wasn't actually made by the people.
A contract is an agreement. Most Americans are agreeable with the legal concept of property rights.


The extreme right are generally propertarians.

But thats fine, but its not really relevant.
And the extreme Left is generally collectivism, which is relevant to property rights just as much as the extreme Rights view of property.

Unless your assertion is that the fact that people accept it makes it right, meaning if most people stopped accepting it it would not be right.
No, I am pointing out that in our culture we do not accept that by owning a piece of land that we are harming the rights of others, which is our collective ethical opinion. We would need to make a huge cultural change to think otherwise as a nation.


I'm asking a meta question about property.
Then you are asking if property is moral? If so then the answer is subjective at best.

Also how the hell is freedom based on property rights????
No property rights = no freedom.



The right to own things (beyond possession) is not a freedom, its the right to exclusivity, i.e. its the right to take away other peoples freedom, if you own a huge estate, and someone picks and apple on it, what property laws do is allow you to restrict people form picking apples, even though doing so doesn't affect your concrete freedom at all.
Not being allowed to pick an apple from a tree does not harm the freedom of the person wanting to pick the apple either. They can simply find another tree or plant one themselves. All apples and apple trees are not under the possession of the single estate, only the trees on the single estate. But we do have regulatory laws that govern such monopolies. Recently locally a outside investor in New Mexico wanted to purchase water rights with no good reason. Their application was denied since they did not provide and establish a reason that would benefit the local population or the regional population or the citizens of the state of New Mexico. http://www.ose.state.nm.us/PDF/Publications/AnnualReports/05-06-annual-rpt.pdf

Thre is a fundemental difference between free speach, opinions, faith and property, having opinions doesn't restrict other peoples opinions.
a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.



Ok, so then I take it you thinkg property is NOT fundemental, and is subject to community desicions, (thus making taxes not stealing).
Interesting. Kind of a trap that you are trying lay here. The US Government is in existence to serve the people as an extension of the peoples will. Tax's are necessary to ensure the will of of the people. Of course tax's can be unjust. Take that so called Obamacare tax that has everyone up in arms for example. What makes that tax unjust is not just because it could be considered an living tax, but because the tax is not the will of the people.

Anyway property rights are one of the fundamental principles of this country.

If the United States mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to wise and just governments, they will equally respect the rights of property, and the property in rights: they will rival the government that most sacredly guards the former; and by repelling its example in violating the latter, will make themselves a pattern to that and all other governments. Property: James Madison, Property
 
A contract is an agreement. Most Americans are agreeable with the legal concept of property rights.

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.

And the extreme Left is generally collectivism, which is relevant to property rights just as much as the extreme Rights view of property.

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.

No, I am pointing out that in our culture we do not accept that by owning a piece of land that we are harming the rights of others, which is our collective ethical opinion. We would need to make a huge cultural change to think otherwise as a nation.

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.

No property rights = no freedom.

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

madison said:
This term in its particular application means "that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual."

In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.


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.

madison said:
He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.

He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.

He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.

In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.

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.

madison said:
Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.

Except that most of the time property IS power.

madison said:
Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.

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

madison said:
According to this standard of merit, the praise of affording a just securing to property, should be sparingly bestowed on a government which, however scrupulously guarding the possessions of individuals, does not protect them in the enjoyment and communication of their opinions, in which they have an equal, and in the estimation of some, a more valuable property.

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

Bakunin said:
I am a fanatic lover of liberty, considering it as the unique condition under which intelligence, dignity and human happiness can develop and grow; not the purely formal liberty conceded, measured out and regulated by the State, an eternal lie which in reality represents nothing more than the privilege of some founded on the slavery of the rest; not the individualistic, egoistic, shabby, and fictitious liberty extolled by the School of J.-J. Rousseau and other schools of bourgeois liberalism, which considers the would-be rights of all men, represented by the State which limits the rights of each — an idea that leads inevitably to the reduction of the rights of each to zero. No, I mean the only kind of liberty that is worthy of the name, liberty that consists in the full development of all the material, intellectual and moral powers that are latent in each person; liberty that recognizes no restrictions other than those determined by the laws of our own individual nature, which cannot properly be regarded as restrictions since these laws are not imposed by any outside legislator beside or above us, but are immanent and inherent, forming the very basis of our material, intellectual and moral being — they do not limit us but are the real and immediate conditions of our freedom.

Not being allowed to pick an apple from a tree does not harm the freedom of the person wanting to pick the apple either. They can simply find another tree or plant one themselves. All apples and apple trees are not under the possession of the single estate, only the trees on the single estate. But we do have regulatory laws that govern such monopolies. Recently locally a outside investor in New Mexico wanted to purchase water rights with no good reason. Their application was denied since they did not provide and establish a reason that would benefit the local population or the regional population or the citizens of the state of New Mexico. http://www.ose.state.nm.us/PDF/Publi...annual-rpt.pdf

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.

a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.

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

Interesting. Kind of a trap that you are trying lay here. The US Government is in existence to serve the people as an extension of the peoples will. Tax's are necessary to ensure the will of of the people. Of course tax's can be unjust. Take that so called Obamacare tax that has everyone up in arms for example. What makes that tax unjust is not just because it could be considered an living tax, but because the tax is not the will of the people.

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.

Anyway property rights are one of the fundamental principles of this country.

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

If the United States mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to wise and just governments, they will equally respect the rights of property, and the property in rights: they will rival the government that most sacredly guards the former; and by repelling its example in violating the latter, will make themselves a pattern to that and all other governments. Property: James Madison, Property

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

If property is not self-justifying, it raises to know where justification comes from.

Coherentism is circular. You can't have coherence without foundations. You can't have a puzzle without puzzle pieces.

Rights to privacy need private property. Private property needs properness.

Unless you want to say someone is entitled to assault you on the street short of mob justice, then you have to believe in this.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom