Defining Private Property

[GhostWriter16]

To give you a counter example, suppose I see you hurt and lying in the gutter, outside another man's empty house on a lonely. I am walking along the road, and it is getting dark, and cold. You seem to be suffering from it badly and might have hypothermia. If I try dragging you all the way to my destination, you might freeze to death. Contrived scenario, but you get the idea.

Now, I can respect that man's property, and refuse to trespass, or I can kick his door down and get you in side and hopefully next to a fire. One action respects people, and one action respects property.

In such an example, the "Lesser of the evils" doctrine would apply, and you could make the desperate action of saving the man, even though you're technically breaking tresspassing laws, you are saving human life, so you did the "Better" thing and so shouldn't be liable.

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, this is really a question of ethics rather than legality, but: In what situation, do you think, would it not be the better act to help another human, rather than to respect private property? (And I specifically mean respecting private property for its own sake, rather than a situation in which respecting people takes on a similar appearance to respecting property.)

 

[GhostWriter16]

Well, this is really a question of ethics rather than legality, but: In what situation, do you think, would it not be the better act to help another human, rather than to respect private property? (And I specifically mean respecting private property for its own sake, rather than a situation in which respecting people takes on a similar appearance to respecting property.)

In an emergency situation, respecting the ordinary right of property becomes secondary to protecting life. But that's only in extreme circumstances, which the person in question is being threatened with the loss of life or serious injury. Otherwise, you need the consent of the property owner. In ParkCungHee's example, if the options are "Get him inside or he dies" then yes, you can make the owner let im in, but if its just "Get him inside or he'll be cold for awhile" well sorry you can't make the property owner let them in. Death and serious injury are not the sum of all situations.

 

[Traitorfish]

Why should we consider the consent of the property-owner? (That's not intended facetiously, for the record, it's a sincere question.)

 

[GhostWriter16]

Because the property belongs to him...

For the record, while I don't know why land itself can be owned (I think its just because of how long we've been doing it that way) any improvements you build or pay someone to build on that land (Or buy such improvements from) clearly belong to you.

Theoretically, the best thing to have done from the beginning would be distribute the land equally and then, in the future, if you sell it for money or whatever, the new owner keeps it, but it starts out equal. I'm sure it didn't happen that way, but obviously doing so now (When people have already built and bought and sold improvements on the land) wouldn't really be fair.

 

[Traitorfish]

Because the property belongs to him...

I don't follow. What moral obligations do his property-ownership place upon me?

 

[GhostWriter16]

If I own a house, generally you cannot simply barge in and let someone stay there because it is for their good.

In an extreme example where its life VS property, one might justify an exception to the general rule.

 

[Traitorfish]

If I own a house, generally you cannot simply barge in and let someone stay there because it is for their good.

Why not?

 

[ParkCungHee]

Because the property belongs to him...

I would question that. Can a man ever produce any physical evidence of his ownership? Has ownership ever been found to exist in a laboratory? Has it been described by any of the physical sciences?

If not, it would appear to me that his ownership is a particular social fiction, like my obligation to the O'Neils, or the border between counties, or the idea that my Civic Motto is "Civitas Ad Mare." Which leaves me wondering why this particular social fiction is being raised to be more valuable than human lives, and when you started adopting a neo-Hegelian understanding of Freedom.

 

[BasketCase]

I don't follow. What moral obligations do his property-ownership place upon me?

If you expect him to respect your private property, you must do the same.

The private property system works because virtually everybody chooses to abide by the above rule. People want to avoid getting stuff taken from them by force, and the only way to achieve that is to avoid taking stuff by force.

 

[ParkCungHee]

If you expect him to respect your private property, you must do the same.

Uh-huh, and what if Traitorfish is, for whatever reason, okay with others not respecting his property rights? Whether you're attempt to appeal to a moral or a pragmatic basis, attempting to redefine property as an agreement between persons to not interfere with each other's property leaves many good reasons to opt out of the arrangement.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Question (mostly to "anti-propertarians"):

What is the difference between private property and personal property? Is the distinction meaningful? Is respecting personal property different from respecting private property?

 

[timtofly]

Question (mostly to "anti-propertarians"):

What is the difference between private property and personal property? Is the distinction meaningful? Is respecting personal property different from respecting private property?

Maybe there is not much personal capacity for the willingness to allow others the right to capacitize outside one's personal space?

 

[Cheetah]

I don't follow. What moral obligations do his property-ownership place upon me?

The moral obligation to respect his property. Just as you expect him to respect your private property.

And if, like PCH suggested, you'd argue that you don't need anyone to respect your property, let me remind you that just as your books, your house or your car is your private property, so is your time, and your body!

I would think that you at least expect people to show respect for your own time and body?

 

[Traitorfish]

The moral obligation to respect his property. Just as you expect him to respect your private property.

Well, yes, but why? All I'm really getting here is "it's property because it's property because it's property", without any particular suggestion as to why I should care.

And if, like PCH suggested, you'd argue that you don't need anyone to respect your property, let me remind you that just as your books, your house or your car is your private property, so is your time, and your body!

I would think that you at least expect people to show respect for your own time and body?

I'm confused as to why you think that private property is the only way to avoid people raping and killing each other, given that most human beings for most of history managed not rape and kill each other into existence despite lacking even an acquaintance with the concept, and we've done some of our worst raping and killing while completely immersed in it. The implied correlation is completely absent form the historical record.

Question (mostly to "anti-propertarians"):

What is the difference between private property and personal property? Is the distinction meaningful? Is respecting personal property different from respecting private property?

Well, personally, I dislike the term "personal property". It derives from models of (alleged) post-capitalist that confuse communisation with socialisation, and thus fully expect to preserve property as such, simply divided into hyper-socialised and "personal" forms.

That said, the terminology is sometimes used by anti-capitalists to mean certain goods or objects which are essentially personal in function, and so don't call for any form of communal ownership. I would suggest that in principle the distribution of these things in a non-propertarian society are still negotiated, but that I am likely to be fine with you doing whatever you see fit with your toothbrush, and expecting a similar reasonableness from you.

 

[ParkCungHee]

What is the difference between private property and personal property? Is the distinction meaningful? Is respecting personal property different from respecting private property?

In my mind? None really. Be it a toothbrush or an oil refinery, all claims of absolute ownership are absurd. The governing rule of what should be done with the toothbrush and the oil refinery must be governed in accordance with the principles of universal love and refraining from the use of force against evil.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Well, yes, but why? All I'm really getting here is "it's property because it's property because it's property", without any particular suggestion as to why I should care.

You're making it too easy on him. It's not sufficient to say why you should care; one also has to say why some particular assignment of goods to persons, or some particular set of institutions for establishing that, is better than the other alternatives. And there have always been other alternatives, along with plenty of dispute over them. "Property is property is property" papers over the glaring fact that it comes in many flavors.

 

[ParkCungHee]

And if, like PCH suggested, you'd argue that you don't need anyone to respect your property, let me remind you that just as your books, your house or your car is your private property, so is your time, and your body!

I would think that you at least expect people to show respect for your own time and body?

I would definitely argue that your time and your body are not your property. If that were the case, one would be free to dispose of them, and trade them as they see fit. The very physical fact that I cannot trade away my time or body for someone else's demonstrates this.

 

[BasketCase]

Uh-huh, and what if Traitorfish is, for whatever reason, okay with others not respecting his property rights?

That's the thing--he won't be. Because if he was, I would call dibs on his computer and he wouldn't be able to post to CFC any more.

In all seriousness: if the above was true, it would be an exception. Leftists in general may not like private property, but they put up with it (reluctantly) because they don't want to start a civil war and kill people to change the system to what they want. Hence my original point: private property comes out of peoples' desire not to have a war and shoot each other.

 

[wolfigor]

In my view, private property is in is essence a "protection" for people, originally developed to protect your own work, and avoid conflicts.

I assume everybody would agree on the basic function of private property as a legal framework aimed at the protection of the assets you built for yourself.
Imagine you work a piece of land, make it productive, build irrigation, barn, house etc.
You need "something" to ensure that nobody will come and take it away from you.
Private property is that "something"; a legal framework accepted and upheld by everybody that ensure your protection.
In such legal framework, violence is not arbitrary but reserved only as a protection against those who want to steal the fruit of your hard work.

Clearly things are not so clear cut today but that's the original motivation and justification for private property.