NationStates Jolt Archive

in so much that they exist in and of themselves. I find that property claims. The difference is that you don't have an inherit "right" to property. However, you respect the land, material objects, etc. possessed by an individual. This creates a peaceful society.

1. Assume I have ownership over my body.
2. By assuming that I will also assume that others have ownership over their bodies.
3. I acquire possessions that I require to survive or are extensions of myself (character, beliefs, personality, etc.)
4. I will assume the same about others.
5. I would like to continue to possess them and to live peacefully.
6. Most people want the same.
7. In order to live peacefully, I should respect their property claims.
8. If they wish to live peacefully, they will do the same.

My belief is something along those lines.

I agree that property claims are not an inherent "right." My belief goes something like this:

1. I presume ownership of my body.
2. I acquire possessions that I require to survive or are extensions of myself (character, beliefs, personality, etc.)
3. I would like to continue to possess them and to live peacefully.
4. I assume most people want the same.
5. In order to have them respect my property claims, I should respect their property claims.
6. We all live happily ever-after.
7. Until somebody robs me.

To prevent number seven from happening, you purchase a firearm or security from a private firm.

To prevent number seven from happening, you purchase a firearm or security from a private firm.
And in comes anarchy.

Anyways, what about conditionality of property rights? If someone does something irresponsible with their property, shouldn't it be taken away from them?

And in comes anarchy.

Anyways, what about conditionality of property rights? If someone does something irresponsible with their property, shouldn't it be taken away from them?
By irresponsible I assume you mean uses it to harm another, if that's not it then please specify. Well, if someone used to their property bring harm to another, then they would face a penalty under the law. The person, or people, he harmed could take him to a court. There's still a penalty system.

Of course property rights aren't inherent. If they were, economic systems would work a hell of a lot better. What we call "property rights" are goverment-backed allocations of resources in order to encourage entrepreneurship and investment (both of which are essential for the function of a capitalist system).

By irresponsible I assume you mean uses it to harm another, if that's not it then please specify. Well, if someone used to their property bring harm to another, then they would face a penalty under the law. The person, or people, he harmed could take him to a court. There's still a penalty system.
Harming others physically is one factor.
But more generally, do you think that there should be a conditionality on property rights?
The German constitution for example contains an article "Property imposes duties.". What do you think?
http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/eurodocs/germ/ggeng.html

in so much that they exist in and of themselves. I find that property claims. The difference is that you don't have an inherit "right" to property. However, you respect the land, material objects, etc. possessed by an individual. This creates a peaceful society.

Property rights are inherent, outside of society you have full right to claim a piece of property and defend that claim.

The foremost reason that society was formed was the need for a group of individuals to defend their property rights.


1. Assume I have ownership over my body.
2. By assuming that I will also assume that others have ownership over their bodies.
3. I acquire possessions that I require to survive or are extensions of myself (character, beliefs, personality, etc.)
4. I will assume the same about others.
5. I would like to continue to possess them and to live peacefully.
6. Most people want the same.
7. In order to live peacefully, I should respect their property claims.
8. If they wish to live peacefully, they will do the same.

This is the very nature of society and its protection of property rights.

Harming others physically is one factor.
But more generally, do you think that there should be a conditionality on property rights?
The German constitution for example contains an article "Property imposes duties.". What do you think?
http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/eurodocs/germ/ggeng.html
I do not think that anyone has to use their property in a manner that benefits the society. I don't think owning property entails using it for the public good. If one wishes to do so, then that is understandable, but I do not think they have a responsibility to do so.

bump

Before European settlement of Australia, the indigineous communities actually had a very similiar system to what you suggest - there was no private ownership of anything, pretty much. There were no permanent dwellings and 'tools' (boomerangs, etc) were owned by the community at large. Even children did not belong to their parents, they simply became a part of the community and were looked after by the entire tribe, which was overseen by elders. It was like a functional kind of Communism.

Until the Brits came and reasonably noted that these people essentially did not claim to own the land. So the Brits did. Long story short, the Aborigines don't own the land anymore

Long story short, the Aborigines don't own the land anymore
...or their kids....

Well thats what Europeans/Most Caucasians do. I think it makes alot of sense, since if the whole tribe was watching over a kid there would be less of a chance of the kid coming out bad or a sociopath.

That was only during the 30s/40s. I mean it was an extreme policy but we could probably let that go now...

...we could probably let that go now...
:D

To prevent number seven from happening, you purchase a firearm or security from a private firm.
That is not in the interest of living peacefully, though.

Property rights are inherent, outside of society you have full right to claim a piece of property and defend that claim.

The foremost reason that society was formed was the need for a group of individuals to defend their property rights.
Based on what, do you make this assumption?

This is the very nature of society and its protection of property rights.

I thought the same thing. Seems like our Vodka drinking friend first says he doesn't believe in property rights then goes on to list the property rights he believes in, which it turns out are those very property rights he said he didn't believe in.

That was only during the 30s/40s. I mean it was an extreme policy but we could probably let that go now...

You mean the kidnapping of Aboriginal children? I wouldn't let it go, seeing as the Aboriginals still face a hell of a lot of predjudice and unfair land rights against them.

That is not in the interest of living peacefully, though.

That's the problem with Utopias. People usually get involved, and you can't trust them to behave.

That's the problem with Utopias. People usually get involved, and you can't trust them to behave.
Ah, but you can trust them to be people. If we are all sensible in our expections, there should be no need for guns.

Based on what, do you make this assumption?

The first part is common sense.

As for the second part, I believe that the foremost reasons for the formation of society was to form stationary and peaceful markets, along with mutual protection. The markets were there to insure fair and safe trade of property, while the mutual protection was to protect the welfare and property of the families that joined the society.

I thought the same thing. Seems like our Vodka drinking friend first says he doesn't believe in property rights then goes on to list the property rights he believes in, which it turns out are those very property rights he said he didn't believe in.
I think you may have misunderstood him. The way I read it, he was stating that he did not believe that property rights were rights in that they 'just were', but rather that they existed in an analagous form based on the informal proof he provided.

I'm not sure if that is totally accurate, but that was the feeling I got off this bit:
"[...]in so much that they exist in and of themselves. I find that property claims. The difference is that you don't have an inherit "right" to property"

The first part is common sense.

As for the second part, I believe that the foremost reasons for the formation of society was to form stationary and peaceful markets, along with mutual protection. The markets were there to insure fair and safe trade of property, while the mutual protection was to protect the welfare and property of the families that joined the society.

well, common sense doesn't appear to be helpful in this case. which is pretty typical for common sense's batting average.

society predates markets, let alone 'peaceful and stationary' ones. and societies where the internal economy is based on trade of property are a strange and relatively recent thing.

I think you may have misunderstood him. The way I read it, he was stating that he did not believe that property rights were rights in that they 'just were', but rather that they existed in an analagous form based on the informal proof he provided.

I'm not sure if that is totally accurate, but that was the feeling I got off this bit:
"[...]in so much that they exist in and of themselves. I find that property claims. The difference is that you don't have an inherit "right" to property"
That is correct. I don't believe they are inherent, I believe that a right is a social construct. The informal proof I provided was to demonstrate the basis for a property right. I believe in that, but do not necessarily believe it's a right by any means. That is why I stated the difference between a right and a claim.

I was using peacefully as a synonym for stable, I apogize the lack of clarity.

society predates markets, let alone 'peaceful and stationary' ones. and societies where the internal economy is based on trade of property are a strange and relatively recent thing.

I shouldn't have said "peaceful and stationary" markets, although after specialization and agriculture took hold, the need for safe exchange of goods and resources was a driving force for societies and civilization to form. As for stationary, the accumulation of people in areas where resources were plentiful began to lead to stationary markets.

Questions:

1. Why does the idea of inherent property rights not agree with common sense?

2. What do you think caused society to spring up?

3. Are you speaking of land as property, or resources and goods as property as well?

I think you may have misunderstood him. The way I read it, he was stating that he did not believe that property rights were rights in that they 'just were', but rather that they existed in an analagous form based on the informal proof he provided.

I'm not sure if that is totally accurate, but that was the feeling I got off this bit:
"[...]in so much that they exist in and of themselves. I find that property claims. The difference is that you don't have an inherit "right" to property"

The reason I say that he described property rights and society's motivation for protecting them is in this:

3. I acquire possessions that I require to survive or are extensions of myself (character, beliefs, personality, etc.)

This ability to acquire possessions is a property right. Capital is and extension of the person, in that it is a resource that has been manipulated by labor. So the claims he is mentioning are made through property rights.

4. I will assume the same about others.
5. I would like to continue to possess them and to live peacefully.
6. Most people want the same.
7. In order to live peacefully, I should respect their property claims.
8. If they wish to live peacefully, they will do the same.

This is exactly what the social contract is. You wish to protect yourself, so you agree not to harm others.

I believe that property rights are in fact rights. If your possession of some land is in conflict with the greater good of society that land must be stripped away(the owner should be compensated of course) and be used to where it does the most good. Property is something that is only given by society and contracts, and can be taken away if necessary.

Let us claim that there is a war and that our society is losing, a treaty that is given requires us to give up some land to the enemy for their purposes or otherwise they will take the land and kill a lot more people. What is better, respecting the property rights of those within the land and refuse saying that the land can not be given or to give up the land to save the majority of people from death/oppression while hurting those people that were in the land that was given up to the enemy?

in so much that they exist in and of themselves. I find that property claims. The difference is that you don't have an inherit "right" to property. However, you respect the land, material objects, etc. possessed by an individual. This creates a peaceful society.

1. Assume I have ownership over my body.
2. By assuming that I will also assume that others have ownership over their bodies.
3. I acquire possessions that I require to survive or are extensions of myself (character, beliefs, personality, etc.)
4. I will assume the same about others.
5. I would like to continue to possess them and to live peacefully.
6. Most people want the same.
7. In order to live peacefully, I should respect their property claims.
8. If they wish to live peacefully, they will do the same.

My belief is something along those lines.

Wow. I really can't find a single word or line that I disagree with.


Wow.

7. Until somebody robs me.
Under most alternatives to the original post, most require such a force (thief) to "kindly" redistribute the properties.

Never leaves me feeling warm n' fuzzy.

I believe that property rights are in fact rights. If your possession of some land is in conflict with the greater good of society that land must be stripped away(the owner should be compensated of course) and be used to where it does the most good. Property is something that is only given by society and contracts, and can be taken away if necessary.

Let us claim that there is a war and that our society is losing, a treaty that is given requires us to give up some land to the enemy for their purposes or otherwise they will take the land and kill a lot more people. What is better, respecting the property rights of those within the land and refuse saying that the land can not be given or to give up the land to save the majority of people from death/oppression while hurting those people that were in the land that was given up to the enemy?
Ah, we meet again, Holyawesomeness.
For your scenario it requires more information. How many people populate the land. The people could offer compensation to the land owner(s) as long as there is a voluntary contract. If not, then the people will try to take it from the owner(s), but they could defend themselves and their property claims.

Why should one surrender their property for the myth of the greater good? Society grants rights, I was speaking of claims. Claims can be respected or violated, but it will be more stable to respect them. It is an individual ideal and therefore, cannot be taken by society to suit the needs of others.It is a contract, so to speak, and taking away another's land is violating that contract.

The whole of history has been characterized by conflict which is a result of violation of property claims.

Ah, we meet again, Holyawesomeness.
For your scenario it requires more information. How many people populate the land. The people could offer compensation to the land owner(s) as long as there is a voluntary contract. If not, then the people will try to take it from the owner(s), but they could defend themselves and their property claims.

Why should one surrender their property for the myth of the greater good? Society grants rights, I was speaking of claims. Claims can be respected or violated, but it will be more stable to respect them. It is an individual ideal and therefore, cannot be taken by society to suit the needs of others.It is a contract, so to speak, and taking away another's land is violating that contract.

The whole of history has been characterized by conflict which is a result of violation of property claims.
It's not just the first name (good choice). You actually seem to get it without going into bloviated (mastur)debatory lingo. I like your style.
I can't find it on the board these days.

Can't disagree. Claims are "staken" for a reason (going back to literally staking a stake to claim that property).

It's natural to want to define your property, for your family. For yourself.
Guiltmongers will have you ashamed for wanting that. It's rediculous, and laughably arrogant.

Don't let them tell you that you're the arrogant one for wanting to protect what you have.
Also, don't let them tell you you're so right, that you believe that the more property you acquire, the more you should gain control over individuals (and their families).

Checking your PC score, I think it's a no-brainer we'd agree, but, hey.
We're still a rare breed on NS (aside from the occasional influx):

Free minds wanting free markets. :D

It's not just the first name (good choice). You actually seem to get it without going into bloviated (mastur)debatory lingo. I like your style.
I can't find it on the board these days.

Can't disagree. Claims are "staken" for a reason (going back to literally staking a stake to claim that property).

It's natural to want to define your property, for your family. For yourself.
Guiltmongers will have you ashamed for wanting that. It's rediculous, and laughably arrogant.

Don't let them tell you that you're the arrogant one for wanting to protect what you have.
Also, don't let them tell you you're so right, that you believe that the more property you acquire, the more you should gain control over individuals (and their families).

Checking your PC score, I think it's a no-brainer we'd agree, but, hey.
We're still a rare breed on NS (aside from the occasional influx):

Free minds wanting free markets. :D
Thank you, Eichen, I try to get my message across as directly as I can.

I would like to ask which is more selfish. Me defending my property claims, or others taking my, and my family's, property from us unwillingly to use for another?

I am sure we will meet on future threads. One could call me staunch individualist.

Anyways, what about conditionality of property rights? If someone does something irresponsible with their property, shouldn't it be taken away from them?
Individuals? No.

Conversely, if the public has done such a shitty job with their property upkeep, shouldn't it be "taken" from "them" and offered to the private sector?

I on the other hand do believe in property rights.

When I view property rights I view these as things that someone has taken to improve upon by their labor (directly or indirectly,) i.e. plowing, planting and farming a field right out of a state of nature makes that yours. Or if you make a clay pot, it's yours.

But in modern times you cannot just go and grab a bit of land, you have to acquire from someone else, this you do by mixing your labor with it, typically through the standardized substitute we have for labor known as money. When employed by someone else, you receive money in return for your labor, thus instead of being stuck with a thousand pieces of pottery at the end of the day, you get money and your employer gets the pottery. It is a fun little system, and I'd go further into it if I weren't so tired or half drunk...

Why should one surrender their property for the myth of the greater good? Society grants rights, I was speaking of claims. Claims can be respected or violated, but it will be more stable to respect them. It is an individual ideal and therefore, cannot be taken by society to suit the needs of others.It is a contract, so to speak, and taking away another's land is violating that contract.

We are pretty much on the same page but I want to register a disagreement. I personally feel that the "claims" you are speaking of, claiming the ability to occupy land or use property are property rights. When you use property that you possess, you are using your property rights. That is why they are inherent, as possession and use of property is possible without the intervention of society.

When people join society, they are granted the right to use property, they are granted protection of their rights.

So, while we don't really disagree on the nature of property, we disagree on the the nature of rights.

I shouldn't have said "peaceful and stationary" markets, although after specialization and agriculture took hold, the need for safe exchange of goods and resources was a driving force for societies and civilization to form. As for stationary, the accumulation of people in areas where resources were plentiful began to lead to stationary markets.

societies predate agriculture and most specialization of labor. sedentary societies predate both agriculture and market-based internal economies.

Questions:

1. Why does the idea of inherent property rights not agree with common sense?

2. What do you think caused society to spring up?

3. Are you speaking of land as property, or resources and goods as property as well?

1. i don't recall saying that it didn't. however, 'common sense' is just another word for conventional beliefs, which vary from culture to culture and are wrong more often than not. the mere existence of cultures that don't share your particular 'common sense' intuitions is enough to demonstrate that appeals to 'common sense' are of little use.

2. i don't know that i would describe society as springing up. our ancestors lived in multiple distinct social groups for millions of years. humans live in societies; we never decided to do so.

3. it doesn't really matter in terms of what i've said so far. in some societies none of those things could be owned as property.

This ability to acquire possessions is a property right.

how does the mere ability to acquire possessions = a property right? possession is about the physical facts of who happens to be holding or occupying some thing. a thief may possess some item, but i doubt you would say that that transfers the property right over it to him.

I believe in property rights, but rights that are based on use. For example, people have the right to own the house they live in, their toothbrush, the food they eat, etc. People do not have the right to own things they don't use, for example, houses or land they rent to other people, shares of stock in a company, etc.

Well, I always figured that my property would be forfeit if the society needs it for some greater project. Certain buildings are needed for certain places, I am not sure I would be happy to be forced out of my house but I would not blame anyone(unless they forced me out for a wal-mart, those things are evil!!)
Anyway, I would claim that society is responsible for the majority of people and by its nature has more authority than any individual, this means that if the property of someone else is needed, it must be taken(with fair or more than fair compensation) and then society can continue to help people.(hopefully)

how does the mere ability to acquire possessions = a property right? possession is about the physical facts of who happens to be holding or occupying some thing. a thief may possess some item, but i doubt you would say that that transfers the property right over it to him.

The theif actually claims the rights to the property when he gains possession of it through force. In the natural state those who can hold possessions have the right to it.

However, in society the government insures property rights by issueing legal claims to property and a monopoly on violence. So by taking possession of property through force, the theif has obtained the natural property rights. The government, however, is obligated to enforce the legal claim to the property and return the property rights to the original owner.

I believe in property rights, but rights that are based on use. For example, people have the right to own the house they live in, their toothbrush, the food they eat, etc. People do not have the right to own things they don't use, for example, houses or land they rent to other people, shares of stock in a company, etc.

It is not feasibly possible to separate the goods that one uses or produces from those he possesses for rent or speculation.

For example, who gets the rights to a car that 50 factory workers had a hand in making?

2. i don't know that i would describe society as springing up. our ancestors lived in multiple distinct social groups for millions of years. humans live in societies; we never decided to do so.


The nomadic clans of prehistoric times are hardly comparable to modern civilization.

If you want to get down to it, ants have lived in societies for millions of years and have communal systems of property rights in their own societies.

Anyway, I would claim that society is responsible for the majority of people and by its nature has more authority than any individual, this means that if the property of someone else is needed, it must be taken(with fair or more than fair compensation) and then society can continue to help people.(hopefully)
Then the society is disturbing thr order of property claims by violating those of another, the reason for such is irrelavent. Does the compensation include possible emotional damage? The value of the land could have some cultural connection? Their claim to the property does not expire unless the original owner leaves no heir or direction for what to do with the land.

Then the society is disturbing thr order of property claims by violating those of another, the reason for such is irrelavent. Does the compensation include possible emotional damage? The value of the land could have some cultural connection? Their claim to the property does not expire unless the original owner leaves no heir or direction for what to do with the land.
Well, to some extent I believe that all property belongs to the government first. I can not claim that my farm is an independent state and refuse to pay taxes for it(assuming that I make money off of my farm). Ultimately, the claim to land is created by the government and the government is created by power structures and power structures are created by distribution of wealth, technology, and alliances.

The theif actually claims the rights to the property when he gains possession of it through force. In the natural state those who can hold possessions have the right to it.

However, in society the government insures property rights by issueing legal claims to property and a monopoly on violence. So by taking possession of property through force, the theif has obtained the natural property rights. The government, however, is obligated to enforce the legal claim to the property and return the property rights to the original owner.

so possession = 'property rights', while property rights = government enforced privilege?

The nomadic clans of prehistoric times are hardly comparable to modern civilization.

in terms of what? society-ness?

so possession = 'property rights', while property rights = government enforced privilege?

Property rights=ability to claim and use property

However, property rights are not a government privilege, they are a government protected ability. Government does not grant property rights, it protects the property rights already possessed by the people.

in terms of what? society-ness?

In terms of size, interaction, technology, just about any characteristic you choose.

In terms of size, interaction, technology, just about any characteristic you choose.

so when you were talking about 'the formation of society' you weren't talking about society in general, but some other thing. what other thing would that be?

in so much that they exist in and of themselves. I find that property claims. The difference is that you don't have an inherit "right" to property. However, you respect the land, material objects, etc. possessed by an individual. This creates a peaceful society.

1. Assume I have ownership over my body.
2. By assuming that I will also assume that others have ownership over their bodies.
3. I acquire possessions that I require to survive or are extensions of myself (character, beliefs, personality, etc.)
4. I will assume the same about others.
5. I would like to continue to possess them and to live peacefully.
6. Most people want the same.
7. In order to live peacefully, I should respect their property claims.
8. If they wish to live peacefully, they will do the same.

My belief is something along those lines.

Problem is, what if I claim the same property that you do?

so when you were talking about 'the formation of society' you weren't talking about society in general, but some other thing. what other thing would that be?

I guess the formation and growth of civilization.

I guess the formation and growth of civilization.

civilization being defined by agriculture, cities, and monumental architechture?

civilization being defined by agriculture, cities, and monumental architechture?

Civilization as defined by more complex societies that were marked by agricultural dependency and specialization of labor. The societies that marked man's move out of the natural state.

But I would like to point out that all societies in human history would have recognized property rights as I have discribed them. It doesn't matter whether the property was claimed by the whole society communally or the individual hunter/gatherer. They still made claims on the use of resources and goods and defended that claim. Amongst their tribe or clan the early humans would hunt as a pack as they were unable to sustain or protect themselves on their own. In return for the protection of the pack, they would sacrifice the fruits of their hunt to the pack. That is a communistic idea of property rights at work.

Problem is, what if I claim the same property that you do?
If I purchase a piece of property and you claim it as your own, then either he:
A) Surrender his claim.
B) We could settle the claim via a contractual agreement.
C) If he attempts to take the property from me, I will defend myself and my claim.

Problem is, what if I claim the same property that you do?

Allow an independent arbitrator determine the rightful owner.

Well, to some extent I believe that all property belongs to the government first. I can not claim that my farm is an independent state and refuse to pay taxes for it(assuming that I make money off of my farm). Ultimately, the claim to land is created by the government and the government is created by power structures and power structures are created by distribution of wealth, technology, and alliances.
Not necessarily. Your land doesn't require that it's an independent state in order for it to be your property. The government recognizes your claim, but that doesn't mean that it's the source of it. Taxes give the implication that you are the renter and the government is the landlord which I believe is false because they did not purchase the land or make an honest claim to it, not all of it. The government is for a system of security, it's not a landlord. If you pay X to protect your property, does that mean that X owns it?

It is not feasibly possible to separate the goods that one uses or produces from those he possesses for rent or speculation.

For example, who gets the rights to a car that 50 factory workers had a hand in making?
The 50 factory workers would decide such a thing before making the car. I'd imagine that they would also make more than one car, perhaps enough for everyone to have one.

not bothering to read the rest of the thread, i'll just throw in a quote that aptly illustrates my stance on the matter :cool:


"The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying this is mine, and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody"
- Jean-Jacques Rousseau

The 50 factory workers would decide such a thing before making the car. I'd imagine that they would also make more than one car, perhaps enough for everyone to have one.

What about the contruction workers who built the factory, the individuals who gathered the materials for the factory, the individuals who harvested and refined the materials for the factory, what about the individuals who refined the materials for the cars?

One car represents the labor input of thousands of people on varying levels, and it would be impossible to assign a value to the various inputs without allowing the people involved to decide the value of their input for themselves.

not bothering to read the rest of the thread, i'll just throw in a quote that aptly illustrates my stance on the matter :cool:


"The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying this is mine, and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody"
- Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Specialisation has made this idealized idea of property and resources going unclaimed completely unfeasible.

Anyone here might be interested in the views of eminent anarcho-savant Pierre-Joseph Proudhon...follow this link to read his work 'what is property' online:
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/ProProp.html.
Is a bit dry and long-winded, but offers some very interesting views on the origin and justice of property if you take the bother to read the whole thing through.

What about the contruction workers who built the factory, the individuals who gathered the materials for the factory, the individuals who harvested and refined the materials for the factory, what about the individuals who refined the materials for the cars?I would hope that all of this would be decided before the materials were manufactured for the cars, and before the factory was built. And, of course, those people who are building the factory and making the cars probably aren't harvesting their own food as well, so there will have to be people doing that. So, since society as a whole contributed to the manufacture of the car, society as a whole would decide what to do with it.

I see that a lot of people feel very strongly about this issue, and are willing to contribute insightful arguments either for/against/on the fence. If anyone does wish to take this further, see the 'Rival Think Tank' thread and you can sign up. Property rights are an issue we will almost undoubtedly discuss.

I do not think that anyone has to use their property in a manner that benefits the society. I don't think owning property entails using it for the public good. If one wishes to do so, then that is understandable, but I do not think they have a responsibility to do so.

What about the responsibility to not use it to harm others in accordance with the harm principle?

I would hope that all of this would be decided before the materials were manufactured for the cars, and before the factory was built. And, of course, those people who are building the factory and making the cars probably aren't harvesting their own food as well, so there will have to be people doing that. So, since society as a whole contributed to the manufacture of the car, society as a whole would decide what to do with it.

Then we get to the problem of having society fairly distribute the product of the nation. It would be impossible to have a direct democracy to decide the value of every person's input and every person's need. It would also be impossible to maintain a government large enough to accurately measure needs and deliver the goods to fulfill those needs.

What about the responsibility to not use it to harm others in accordance with the harm principle?

Using one's property in a way that does not help the public good does not mean that one is hurting others.

I no longer believe in property rights...


Cool. I'll be over over in 15 minutes to take all your stuff. Thanks.


Without property rights, humans would still be squabbling over meat scraps at the kill.

Individuals? No.

Conversely, if the public has done such a shitty job with their property upkeep, shouldn't it be "taken" from "them" and offered to the private sector?
Are you talking about Publicly Owned Firms now? Or Governments?
And what does that have to do with it?
If you use your billion dollars to hurt others, one way or the other, shouldn't someone take those billion dollars away from you?