NationStates Jolt Archive

Alright private propertarians, explain the justification for private property.

I am specifically calling out traditional capitalists who believe in homesteading and non-aggression.

Alright private propertarians, explain the justification for private property.

I am specifically calling out traditional capitalists who believe in homesteading and non-aggression.

It works better for one thing. Look at how much of a huge success homesteading was in the USA. The disease and bad conditions were due to a lack of good tools and not because they didn't subscribe to some sort of communal based farming, before you make that remark :p

No such thing mate...

No such thing mate...

Then I guess we are all a bunch of thieves

Then I guess we are all a bunch of thieves

No...that would be the State....

bugger.

timewarped again.

As compared to....

Well, you can look at serfdom in russia in the 18th century, and see how much the was a complete and utter failure.

It works better for one thing. Look at how much of a huge success homesteading was in the USA.

As compared to....

Your thread is coming...

My post feels slightly dirty and ashamed yet quietly relieved as well....!

dammit!

Premature epostulation!

No such thing mate...

Your thread is coming...

Are the two situations really all that comparable?

I'd say so, they were both around the same times. Russia and the USA are both huge places, filled with land and resources.

Well, you can look at serfdom in russia in the 18th century, and see how much the was a complete and utter failure.

Are the two situations really all that comparable?

People want property, people get property. Simple enough.

I just had a huge brain fart. When I asked you "Compared to what?" you said "Russian Serfdom" and I let it slide.

Why even make that comparison in the first place?

What do you mean? Whats wrong with the comparison?

I'd say so, they were both around the same times. Russia and the USA are both huge places, filled with land and resources.

I just had a huge brain fart. When I asked you "Compared to what?" you said "Russian Serfdom" and I let it slide.

Why even make that comparison in the first place?

People want property, people get property. Simple enough.

Then you will not decry my morality when I steal what you consider yours?

Yes, I would, because private property implies individual ownership (or that by certain entities). Because everyone agrees that they should be able to own property, infringing upon that tenet would negate it.

Which the State can relieve you of quite simply.

Then you will not decry my morality when I steal what you consider yours?

Yes, I would, because private property implies individual ownership (or that by certain entities). Because everyone agrees that they should be able to own property, infringing upon that tenet would negate it.

What do you mean? Whats wrong with the comparison?

I just don't know what you hope to prove by saying that homesteading is better than later feudalism in Russia.

I just don't know what you hope to prove by saying that homesteading is better than later feudalism in Russia.

Well it compares private property with non private communal property, one was effective the other wasn't. Theres not much else to compare really, communism was clearly a bad ecenomic model. Erm.... Spanish anarchism was alright, but not as good as private property. What else is there?

Which the State can relieve you of quite simply.

I thought we were debating what should be, not what is.

Yes, I would, because private property implies individual ownership (or that by certain entities). Because everyone agrees that they should be able to own property, infringing upon that tenet would negate it.

Because we have consensus on the idea of private property, you also support it?

How do you feel about the income tax?

And private property does not imply individual ownership, it implies non-public ownership. There are forms of collective property ownership.

I thought we were debating what should be, not what is.

Don't go into is-oughts when you just based your opinion on private property on what popular consensus is.

Yes, I would, because private property implies individual ownership (or that by certain entities). Because everyone agrees that they should be able to own property, infringing upon that tenet would negate it.

obviously, if i am going to take what you believe is "yours" i don't agree that you should be able to own property. therefore, everyone does not agree, and your argument falls to pieces.

Well it compares private property with non private communal property, one was effective the other wasn't. Theres not much else to compare really, communism was clearly a bad ecenomic model. Erm.... Spanish anarchism was alright, but not as good as private property. What else is there?

what the hell? russian serfdom were a bunch of would-be-slaves working for almost nothing on PRIVATE LAND. owned by the government and the church

communism implies that EVERYONE owns the land, not just the government.

Because we have consensus on the idea of private property, you also support it? How do you feel about the income tax?

Virtually everybody supports the concept of private property; this does not apply to the income tax, however. Although I don't want to set a strict threshold for want is deemed an acceptable majority, 99% should suffice.

There are forms of collective property ownership.

And I acknowledged this by stating that property may be owned by certain (non-individual) entities.

I am basing my opinion on human architecture; we are created with an innate desire to own property. For example, how many young children have you seen that reject the toys that are given to them or do not react adversely when they have those toys taken away?

yeah. but children are greedy bastards.

i wish the past were tangible so i could stab wildly at it.

Don't go into is-oughts when you just based your opinion on private property on what popular consensus is.

I am basing my opinion on human architecture; we are created with an innate desire to own property. For example, how many young children have you seen that reject the toys that are given to them or do not react adversely when they have those toys taken away?

Virtually everybody supports the concept of private property; this does not apply to the income tax, however. Although I don't want to set a strict threshold for want is deemed an acceptable majority, 99% should suffice.

Why not 51%?

And I acknowledged this by stating that property may be owned by certain (non-individual) entities.

Yes you did, my apologies.

I have no problem with property, I just think it is the responsibility of the state the help their most abject and poor citizens to free/subsidized housing.

The initial concept of property was developed as a social tool to reduce conflict over resources. Even in the earliest communal societies, there was debate over who got what, and what was each individuals fair share. Even the earliest farming gave birth to such disputes.

The basic concept of property was developed as a tool to resolve those disputes. Because human beings are rarely satisfied with what they have, conflict over resources is intrinsic to settled human societies. To overcome this challenge and hurdle, early farmers and villages worked out a simple code. If you made x, x was yours. If you grew x, x was yours.

Land property rights were doubtless borne out of convenience in enforcing this code. It's far easier to tell what I've grown, if what I've grown is a piece of land that is delineated for my use, and your land is delineated for your use. Importantly are the currently existing examples of this early system, customary land titles, a tradition that can be found throughout much of Africa, where fields are delineated by natural phenomenon (in Uganda, I believe, there is a certain type of tree that one plants along the edges of fields, for example). That this sort of system still exists is evidence of how more modern, codified formal property titles evolved.

Since then, civil codes have been developed, and this simple system eventually evolved into part of countless codified bodies of law around the world.

So, why property rights?

A.) Because human beings are rarely satisfied with what they have, conflict over resources is intrinsic to settled human societies.

B.) The basic concept of property was developed as a tool to resolve those disputes.

C.) We continue to make use of property rights today because of their power to confront the challenges of "who gets what."

D.) Finally, in resolving "who gets what" with codified property rights, we protect the weaker members of society from the stronger members. Their property cannot forcibly be taken from them.

I am basing my opinion on human architecture; we are created with an innate desire to own property. For example, how many young children have you seen that reject the toys that are given to them or do not react adversely when they have those toys taken away?

You are not off-base.

Do you think that property should be fee simple by government decree?

Why not 51%?

There is no good reason; I was simply pointing out the difference between the level of acceptance of the two concepts.

Maybe I'll get an adequate answer here;

In a communist society where prostitution is legal - would his or her body be community property? If so - then wouldn't that mean that everyone's body would be community property? Therefore wouldn't that mean everyone would be a whore? By extension then aren't ALL communists whores?

You are not off-base.

Do you think that property should be fee simple by government decree?

I'd say so.

We must be able to recognize that property rights are guaranteed by the state as a method to obtain increased social harmony.

At the same time, the state bears costs for the protection of proerty rights, as such the four government functions must be permissible to have sway in any individuals fee simple property.

The initial concept of property was developed as a social tool to reduce conflict over resources. Even in the earliest communal societies, there was debate over who got what, and what was each individuals fair share. Even the earliest farming gave birth to such disputes.

The basic concept of property was developed as a tool to resolve those disputes. Because human beings are rarely satisfied with what they have, conflict over resources is intrinsic to settled human societies. To overcome this challenge and hurdle, early farmers and villages worked out a simple code. If you made x, x was yours. If you grew x, x was yours.

Land property rights were doubtless borne out of convenience in enforcing this code. It's far easier to tell what I've grown, if what I've grown is a piece of land that is delineated for my use, and your land is delineated for your use. Importantly are the currently existing examples of this early system, customary land titles, a tradition that can be found throughout much of Africa, where fields are delineated by natural phenomenon (in Uganda, I believe, there is a certain type of tree that one plants along the edges of fields, for example). That this sort of system still exists is evidence of how more modern, codified formal property titles evolved.

Since then, civil codes have been developed, and this simple system eventually evolved into part of countless codified bodies of law around the world.

So, why property rights?

A.) Because human beings are rarely satisfied with what they have, conflict over resources is intrinsic to settled human societies.

B.) The basic concept of property was developed as a tool to resolve those disputes.

C.) We continue to make use of property rights today because of their power to confront the challenges of "who gets what."

D.) Finally, in resolving "who gets what" with codified property rights, we protect the weaker members of society from the stronger members. Their property cannot forcibly be taken from them.

I understand how property was formed and why it is a necessity (although I seriously doubt the part about that "simple code"), but that is not particularly my question.

I'd say so.

We must be able to recognize that property rights are guaranteed by the state as a method to obtain increased social harmony.

Why do you think that?

At the same time, the state bears costs for the protection of proerty rights, as such the four government functions must be permissible to have sway in any individuals fee simple property.

Since government bears the costs of protection, we assume the state determines who maintains property rights. How does the state determine this?

Why do you think that?
I think it's merely a codification of the earlier, primitive agreements into a codified form of the social contract. In a pluralistic society, the codified rights incorporated tend to be for the general good, rather than for the good of a specific individual.



Since government bears the costs of protection, we assume the state determines who maintains property rights. How does the state determine this?

Those who adhere to the social contract are entitled to full, fee simple property rights. Those who violate the social contract should experience restrictions on their rights in general.

I think it's merely a codification of the earlier, primitive agreements into a codified form of the social contract. In a pluralistic society, the codified rights incorporated tend to be for the general good, rather than for the good of a specific individual.

You obviously have a much rosier vision of the state than I do.

While I agree that a pluralistic society would operate more towards popular good than the good of an individual, I do not know of many spontaneous pluralistic societies.

Those who adhere to the social contract are entitled to full, fee simple property rights. Those who violate the social contract should experience restrictions on their rights in general.

That's not what I mean. How does the state determine who possesses the fee simple property rights?

Maybe I'll get an adequate answer here;

In a communist society where prostitution is legal - would his or her body be community property? If so - then wouldn't that mean that everyone's body would be community property? Therefore wouldn't that mean everyone would be a whore? By extension then aren't ALL communists whores?

Mind if I use this as a sig quote?

Maybe I'll get an adequate answer here;

In a communist society where prostitution is legal - would his or her body be community property? If so - then wouldn't that mean that everyone's body would be community property? Therefore wouldn't that mean everyone would be a whore? By extension then aren't ALL communists whores?

Well the concept of whores and prostitution implies ownership of that individual to a reasonable extent, the prostitute is 'selling herself'. In communism private ownership is irrelevant so the concept of 'whore' is also irrelevant.

Well it compares private property with non private communal property, one was effective the other wasn't. Theres not much else to compare really, communism was clearly a bad ecenomic model.Allow me to demonstrate the logical flaw in your reasoning:

In Bakery A I bought a cake. Yum!!
In Bakery B I bought a cookie. It was stale.

Therefore, cakes are better than cookies.

D.) Finally, in resolving "who gets what" with codified property rights, we protect the weaker members of society from the stronger members. Their property cannot forcibly be taken from them.

"With this view, after having represented to his neighbours the horror of a situation which armed every man against the rest, and made their possessions as burdensome to them as their wants, and in which no safety could be expected either in riches or in poverty, he readily developed plausible arguments to make them close with his designs. 'Let us join,' said he, 'to guard the weak from oppression, to restrain the ambitious, and secure to every man the possession of what belongs to him: let us institute rules of justice and peace, to which all without exception may be obliged to conform; rules that may in good measure make amends for the caprices of fortune, but subjecting equally the powerful and the weak to the observance of reciprocal obligations. Let us, in a word, instead of turning our forces against ourselves, let us collect them in a supreme power that will govern us in accordance with supreme laws, repulse our common enemies, and maintain eternal harmony among us.'

"Far fewer words to this purpose would have been enough to impose on men so barbarous and easily seduced, especially as they had too many disputes among themselves to do without arbitrators, and too much ambition and avarice to go long without masters. All ran headlong to their chains, in hopes of securing their liberty; for they had just wit enough to perceive the advantages of political institutions, without experience enough to enable them to foresee the dangers. The most capable of foreseeing the dangers were the very persons who expected to benefit by them; and even the most prudent judged it not inexpedient to sacrifice one part of their freedom to ensure the rest; as a wounded man has his arm cut off to save the rest of his body.

"Such was, or may well have been, the origin of society and law, which bound new fetters on the poor, and gave new powers to the rich; which irretrievably destroyed natural liberty, eternally fixed the law of property and inequality, converted clever usurpation into unalterable right, and, for the advantage of a few ambitious individuals, subjected all mankind to perpetual labour, slavery and wretchedness."

- Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on the Origin of Inequality Among Men

In a communist society where prostitution is legal - would his or her body be community property?

No.

Next question.

Well the concept of whores and prostitution implies ownership of that individual to a reasonable extent, the prostitute is 'selling herself'. In communism private ownership is irrelevant so the concept of 'whore' is also irrelevant.

That is like saying that since, in communism private ownership is irrelevant so the concept of 'doctor' is irrelevant.

In other words, nonsense.

Allow me to demonstrate the logical flaw in your reasoning:

In Bakery A I bought a cake. Yum!!
In Bakery B I bought a cookie. It was stale.

Therefore, cakes are better than cookies.

It wasn't really intended to be an argument, I was just answering the question "compared to what?".

No.

Next question.

Even if it were determined that sex were a valuable commodity or service?

Mind if I use this as a sig quote?

Be my guest - feel free to clean it up a bit if you want to make it your own.

It works better for one thing. Look at how much of a huge success homesteading was in the USA. The disease and bad conditions were due to a lack of good tools and not because they didn't subscribe to some sort of communal based farming, before you make that remark :p

Sorry for the laziness, I was just going to attempt to point out that homesteading, although succesful for farming, was a failure when it was implemented on many American Indian reservations. I think that consitutes at least some evidence that private property is just a culturally suggestive phenemenon.

Even if it were determined that sex were a valuable commodity or service?

Health care is a valuable service. Who's advocating enslaving doctors?

Health care is a valuable service. Who's advocating enslaving doctors?

You would claim his equipment to be the property of the masses.

Face it, with prostitutes, good looks are a source of rent.

*snip*
culturally suggestive phenemenon.

Mind if I sig that?

You would claim his equipment to be the property of the masses.

Hmm, maybe. And the brothels would be expropriated too.

Face it, with prostitutes, good looks are a source of rent.

With doctors, skill also makes them better able to produce value. So?

Alright private propertarians, explain the justification for private property.

I am specifically calling out traditional capitalists who believe in homesteading and non-aggression.

Isn't the burden of proof on you, given that we have had private property for quite a long time now? If you don't believe in the concept, you won't mind if I come along and take that computer you're using, as I need a new one...

Well the concept of whores and prostitution implies ownership of that individual to a reasonable extent, the prostitute is 'selling herself'. In communism private ownership is irrelevant so the concept of 'whore' is also irrelevant.

A farmer is one who sells his crops for money - In communism private ownership is 'irrelevant' therefore by applying your same standards the concept of farmer would also be irrelevant... Same goes for all other professions. The only valid concept would be 'caveman'. Not even the oldest profession would survive...

Isn't the burden of proof on you, given that we have had private property for quite a long time now?

No. Why would it be?

The burden of proof would only be on him if he denied the justification of private property. As it stands, he is merely asking for one.

If you don't believe in the concept, you won't mind if I come along and take that computer you're using, as I need a new one...

The question here has to do with broad social choices ("should society allow private property or not, and how much?"), not individual ones, which have a whole set of different considerations. In your example it is not society as a whole making a decision to advance the public good in contravention of property rights, but simply you arbitrarily taking something.

And most people against the capitalist system of property rights wouldn't be taking away your computer anyway.

The reason for private ownership of property is an extension of the first truth of capitalism, that the individual owns his own body and his own labor. If an individual owns his own body and labor but must devote that to the king because the king owns the land, well it isn't much good owning the body and the labor. Instead, there is private property. When you own your own body, your own labor, and the property on which that labor is performed, you have true freedom.

As far as types of property go, real property is no different from personal property. Some people don't own real property but have personal property. Some have alot of both.

Somebody was posting about theft earlier. The good thing about a private property system is that property is only transferred by VOLUNTARY exchanges, thus no force is used (theft is punished). Before you start in on all this BS about "but the reason that so-and-so has so much property is that his ancestors stole it from somebody else", get over it. In order for a private property system to take root, there has to be a start to it, some beginning point where all property is owned by somebody (or at least unowned and belonging to the first taker). Yes, this is no fair. But what is? First in time? How is it fair to me that somebody who is 20 years older than me bought the house I wanted b/c they found it first? It's not 'fair', but 'fair' is never workable. So we found a starting point that enough people can live with and we went with private ownership of property from that point.

The thing I would like explained is the rationale behind collective property. In such a system, would everybody in the world own my computer? Or just my house? The way I see it, if everybody owns something then nobody owns that thing. Ownership of property comes with many rights, two of them being the right of exclusion and the right of consumption/use. If everybody owns Item A, then the right of exclusion is obviously gone. I understand that much. But what about the right of consumption? Let's say that 10 of us own a pond. One of us wants to fish, another wants to drink, another wants to preserve it, etc. Who wins out? Some uses of the pond may be able to coexist, but others will obviously oppose each other. How do you tell somebody that despite their 'ownership' of a resource, it will be consumed in a manner opposite their wishes? I'm not trying to be a smart*ss here (okay, maybe a little), but I am trying to figure out what property system other than a private property system exists and how it is explained.

If an individual owns his own body and labor but must devote that to the king because the king owns the land

Or to the capitalist or to the landowner because they own the land or the factory or the office building....

Yes, property restricts self-ownership. ALL property. Private or collective.

thus no force is used (theft is punished).

Theft isn't force. Punishment, however, is.

All property rights, therefore, rest on the initiation of force.

But what is? First in time?

An equal starting point would certainly be better than trusting to one kind of usurpation (first in time) or another (simple theft)... or, for that matter, admitting the arbitrary nature of property "rights" and recognizing that, as such, they can be regulated, manipulated, and otherwise interfered with if it serves the public good.

If the best claim a person has to property is that it was given to him or her through a series of voluntary exchanges from a thief, that's not much of a moral rationale for opposing taxation or expropriation.

In such a system, would everybody in the world own my computer? Or just my house?

Neither, most likely. You would own both--or at least you would have pretty much the same rights over them as you do now.

The way I see it, if everybody owns something then nobody owns that thing.

No, these are very different categories.

The US public, through the government, collectively owns government buildings. Mars, however, is unowned.

Ownership of property comes with many rights, two of them being the right of exclusion and the right of consumption/use. If everybody owns Item A, then the right of exclusion is obviously gone. I understand that much.

No, it's not. The right of exclusion remains: society as a whole can regulate how its members can use collectively owned property.

But what about the right of consumption? Let's say that 10 of us own a pond. One of us wants to fish, another wants to drink, another wants to preserve it, etc. Who wins out? Some uses of the pond may be able to coexist, but others will obviously oppose each other.

Under a system of social ownership, decisions like these would be made democratically.

How do you tell somebody that despite their 'ownership' of a resource, it will be consumed in a manner opposite their wishes?

By pointing out that they do not have exclusive ownership--they have a share of ownership. That means they have a share of power, not that whatever they say goes.

It works the same way when property is privately owned by more than one person.

With doctors, skill also makes them better able to produce value. So?

But that is not rent.

Isn't the burden of proof on you, given that we have had private property for quite a long time now?

I am not sure how the burden of proof is on me since a)I didn't make any claim, b) tradition is not an argument, c) private property is very short lived within human relations.

If you don't believe in the concept, you won't mind if I come along and take that computer you're using, as I need a new one...

I don't mind saying "Use it if you can," and then stopping you.

Theft isn't force.[QUOTE]

Theft certainly can be force.

[QUOTE]All property rights, therefore, rest on the initiation of force.

Yes it is, but damned if we can figure out what force is just.

This is, by the way, the point of my post in the other property thread. I would like to know what you think.

But that is not rent.

I fail to see the distinction.

In both cases, the question is whether or not a given person will contribute labor. Whether it's health care or prostitution makes no difference.

Theft certainly can be force.

Theft of a person, maybe.

Yes it is, but damned if we can figure out what force is just.

The fact that it is force initiation does not mean that it is unjust, true.

This is, by the way, the point of my post in the other property thread. I would like to know what you think.

I didn't find anything dispute-worthy there.

I have always founded property rights (private or public) in their role in securing the public good... and as such have been willing to accept certain absolute restrictions on their extent.

I create value. People I know don't. I get payed. They don't. Why should I not be compensated for creating value?

I fail to see the distinction.

In both cases, the question is whether or not a given person will contribute labor. Whether it's health care or prostitution makes no difference.

It all depends on whether the prostitute has control of her own body. If her body is "protected" from others, having better looks than others is a form of rent when she becomes a prostitute.

Theft of a person, maybe.

If I meet you on the street, beat you up to take your wallet, is that not force?

It all depends on whether the prostitute has control of her own body. If her body is "protected" from others, having better looks than others is a form of rent when she becomes a prostitute.

Similarly, a salary is the form of rent the doctor demands for use of his or her skills, as a consequence of his or her protection from enslavement.

Right?

If I meet you on the street, beat you up to take your wallet, is that not force?

Of course it is, but it is also not (simply) theft.

Similarly, a salary is the form of rent the doctor demands for use of his or her skills, as a consequence of his or her protection from enslavement.

Right?

I have been drinking and I'm not sure I understand what you are saying.

Of course it is, but it is also not (simply) theft.

Of course it is. If I beat you up to take your wallet, I am forcing you to accept my claim on your wallet.

I have been drinking and I'm not sure I understand what you are saying.

My understanding is that you are saying that the prostitute's capability to refuse to provide value if he or she is not sufficiently compensated is akin to rent.

I am pointing out that the same is true of the doctor.

Of course it is. If I beat you up to take your wallet, I am forcing you to accept my claim on your wallet.

Yes... but you are not simply depriving me of property. You are also attacking me.

The use of force is not contained in depriving me of property. My wallet could have been stolen without me being attacked.

The use of force is not contained in depriving me of property. My wallet could have been stolen without me being attacked.

Just call it 'tax'.

Under a system of social ownership, decisions like these would be made democratically.



By pointing out that they do not have exclusive ownership--they have a share of ownership. That means they have a share of power, not that whatever they say goes.

It works the same way when property is privately owned by more than one person.


Problem is with democracy is that pesky little thing called the rights of the minority. Sorta the reason a constitutional republic is better than democracy, but I'm most likely nitpicking over semantics.

There is a big difference when it comes to private property owned by more than one person, whether that property is held in some form joint tenancy or if it is held by an entity. Basically, the person who owns it in either of these situations has consented to that form of ownership. They have consented to making some investment in the property, with prior knowledge that they will not have the exclusive right to control that property. Problem is with a system wherein a democracy decides how property is to be used is that there is no ability to withdraw consent. Of course, the same can be argued for anything that the state currently has power over. Thus, the idea that the state should be constitutionally limited. It gives fewer realms in which the tyranny of the majority can rear its ugly head.

I also see a huge practical problem with allowing a democracy to decide how property is used. Basically, property becomes yet another tool that the state uses to keep people in line. "Oh, so citizen A spoke out against the state? That's nice, we will just pass a law in which all of citizen A's land becomes a hospital. That's the end of that problem!"