What Is Property?
- Thread starter Traitorfish
- Start date
RobAnybody
Emperor
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 1,952
I think the Time you're talking about makes all the difference.
10,000 years ago, Grok had no concept of property. If Grok & Tharn dispute this little bit of land, the witch doctor comes along & says "get to hunting, yow great d-bags! What, what!" & they get to hunting. It's irrelevant.
6,000 years ago, Tibus & Timus dispute over a plot of land & they fight. Possibly with their tribes behind them. Winner take all. You... cannot... take.... our.... sweet potatoes!
2,000 years ago, we start to get codified "rights" to land, but it's still Might-Makes-Right, for the most part. Ibrim & Orim both want the same land. They take it to the chief/pharoah/prelate, depending on where they live. If they live in different civilizations, they probably go to war. If they live in the same civilization, they probabaly go to war anyway, but the winner declares the loser as unholy & sacrifices abound. What, what! Not much progress has been made, honestly.
1,000 years ago we have Kings & whatnot. All the known land has been divided, it all belongs to the King, & he grants it to whoever he likes best. You wanna take it? You best have a good army, else the chopping block for you. Still Might Makes Right.
500 years ago, there's a whole unoccupied continent discovered, with the only problem being the people who occupy it. Kill 'em, smallpox 'em, Kevin Costner 'em. Might definitely still makes right.
250 years ago. No taxation without tea. Or something. Wars ensue. Whoever learns that lining up across from your foe & shooting at each other is a bad tactic, wins. Might, maketh thee right, what, what? And then thou get your own country.
200 years ago, all the lines have been drawn on paper & are quite steady, so now we can get down to divvying up our countries tout suite.
Here's where Property Rights come into play. Jethro the gold prospector suddenly needs the government to protect his rights, 'cause he can't do it with his 5 sons & 2 guns. Might Makes Right? That's not fair! Left to his own devices, Horace his next door neighbor wil take his claim by force of arms, & we can't have that because Jethro has friends in high places!
So Jethro enlists the government to declare that he is the rightful owner of his claim, thereby gaining the backing of The Entire United States Government in protecting it. Take that, Horace, you jerk. Horace has all sorts of Might on his side, but he's outta luck, 'cause now we have Property Rights, all legal & such.
Today, one buys a deed of land, with or without a building situated upon it, through a licensed broker, using the Federal Government's interest rate as a benchmark, often financed through an FDIC-backed bank, with the knowledge that the government will both acknowledge you as the owner & protect your right to own, inhabit, & sell that land. All 'cause of Property Rights. Stupid Jethro.
Sure, some may say that's still Might Makes Right, but Grok can still tell Tharn to get off his lawn, so it's all good. That's all Grok wanted to begin with.
10,000 years ago, Grok had no concept of property. If Grok & Tharn dispute this little bit of land, the witch doctor comes along & says "get to hunting, yow great d-bags! What, what!" & they get to hunting. It's irrelevant.
6,000 years ago, Tibus & Timus dispute over a plot of land & they fight. Possibly with their tribes behind them. Winner take all. You... cannot... take.... our.... sweet potatoes!
2,000 years ago, we start to get codified "rights" to land, but it's still Might-Makes-Right, for the most part. Ibrim & Orim both want the same land. They take it to the chief/pharoah/prelate, depending on where they live. If they live in different civilizations, they probably go to war. If they live in the same civilization, they probabaly go to war anyway, but the winner declares the loser as unholy & sacrifices abound. What, what! Not much progress has been made, honestly.
1,000 years ago we have Kings & whatnot. All the known land has been divided, it all belongs to the King, & he grants it to whoever he likes best. You wanna take it? You best have a good army, else the chopping block for you. Still Might Makes Right.
500 years ago, there's a whole unoccupied continent discovered, with the only problem being the people who occupy it. Kill 'em, smallpox 'em, Kevin Costner 'em. Might definitely still makes right.
250 years ago. No taxation without tea. Or something. Wars ensue. Whoever learns that lining up across from your foe & shooting at each other is a bad tactic, wins. Might, maketh thee right, what, what? And then thou get your own country.
200 years ago, all the lines have been drawn on paper & are quite steady, so now we can get down to divvying up our countries tout suite.
Here's where Property Rights come into play. Jethro the gold prospector suddenly needs the government to protect his rights, 'cause he can't do it with his 5 sons & 2 guns. Might Makes Right? That's not fair! Left to his own devices, Horace his next door neighbor wil take his claim by force of arms, & we can't have that because Jethro has friends in high places!
So Jethro enlists the government to declare that he is the rightful owner of his claim, thereby gaining the backing of The Entire United States Government in protecting it. Take that, Horace, you jerk. Horace has all sorts of Might on his side, but he's outta luck, 'cause now we have Property Rights, all legal & such.
Today, one buys a deed of land, with or without a building situated upon it, through a licensed broker, using the Federal Government's interest rate as a benchmark, often financed through an FDIC-backed bank, with the knowledge that the government will both acknowledge you as the owner & protect your right to own, inhabit, & sell that land. All 'cause of Property Rights. Stupid Jethro.
Sure, some may say that's still Might Makes Right, but Grok can still tell Tharn to get off his lawn, so it's all good. That's all Grok wanted to begin with.
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
Property is a concept that modern society really can't operate without. Our species is not the only one with the concept either. Its usually called "territory" by many other species.
What makes other people so great?
MagisterCultuum
Great Sage
You have a claim to the products of your own labor. However, you may gain real property by mixing your labor with land only so long as it does not infringe on the ability of other to do likewise. (Classical Liberals were quite clear on this point, no matter how much modern right libertarians like to ignore it.) When you monopolize and deprive others of equal access to natural resources of equal quality, then you are committing aggression unless you pay compensation to those denied access.This aggression is continuous as long as the property is held, not a one time offense at the moment the property was first claimed which can be ignored generations later. Even if there was no one else around and thus no scarcity or reason to compensate anyone when the property was first claimed, keeping the property generations later when the area has grown populous ought to require compensating the new neighbors. Regular rents are owed to each generation of the landless.
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,482
Ayn Rand* says they are great.
*The Russian bat with a poor grasp of history, not the poster.
The Middle East owes us free oil then? I can live with that. And tell those selfish Africans I'm not paying for my coffee any more - they've no right to the coffee they grew by working 14 hours a day in the baking Sun when I don't own any farmland in Africa.
Btw I live in Britain - so in exchange they can have some grass, a few sheep and some snow.
Terxpahseyton
Nobody
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 10,759
@Traitorfish
To be honest, I am disappointed. That's like saying: Day is night! Or Wet is dry! You need the one to have the other. Not very revealing or insightful if you ask me but more a reflection on the way we grasp things in general - that if I define something, I automatically also define what it is not.
@MagisterCultuum
I am more and more inclined to adhere to the libertarian view of landownership. It seems morally just in itself and in its effects. I assume this view holds true for natural resources as well? Unless I planted the tree I take it.
What is the libertarian take on heritage or gifts for that matter?
To be honest, I am disappointed. That's like saying: Day is night! Or Wet is dry! You need the one to have the other. Not very revealing or insightful if you ask me but more a reflection on the way we grasp things in general - that if I define something, I automatically also define what it is not.
@MagisterCultuum
I am more and more inclined to adhere to the libertarian view of landownership. It seems morally just in itself and in its effects. I assume this view holds true for natural resources as well? Unless I planted the tree I take it.
What is the libertarian take on heritage or gifts for that matter?
No, because we don't have a world government.
What I said above. What does belong partially to you is the north sea oil or what is left of your coal. Of course, the government will be happy to get your share as a representative through taxes. And no you don't have to say thank you
MagisterCultuum
Great Sage
As an economic term, Land denotes all natural resources.
There is not such thing as the libertarian position. Libertarianism is a broad spectrum. In the United States the term typically refers to rightwing positions that simply assume a natural right to property without recognizing a need to compensate anyone.
What I described was the Geo-Libertarian, Geo-Classical Liberal, Georgist, or Geoist position. (It is most associated with its champion Henry George, but the ideas originate with John Locke.) It falls in between right-libertarianism and left-libertarianism. It is perhaps a bit closer to left libertarianism, but the later often focuses more on the rights of organized labor and may require not only compensating neighbors but also getting their permission on how to use one's property. Left libertarians may also require all rent go to the community, while Geoists consider it acceptable to lease out one's property and keep a portion of the rent for upkeep costs and profit so long as the community is compensated for the monopolized land.
By heritage may I assume you mean inheritance? (If you meant something like cultural heritage, then libertarians would support the right of individuals to choose to embrace or reject that. If you meant natural heritage, then the environment is not something that was traditionally given much thought but which various schools of libertarianism now argue that they can handle better.)
Libertarians are generally in favor of the right to give gifts and leave an inheritance to one's children (or whomever) if one wishes. (They are not keen on legally mandated patrimonies.) Some Left libertarians might oppose this, and also oppose the buying and selling of property. A geo-libertarian would ask only that the new property holder continue to pay rents to compensate society.
Thomas Paine, who adopted rather Geoist ideas from Locke long before George was born, thought that the state should use taxes on land to provide a decent inheritance to young men whose families could not. His Agrarian Justice argued that the state should pay 15 pounds sterling to every man when he turns 21, and 10 pounds sterling per year to every person over 50.
There is not such thing as the libertarian position. Libertarianism is a broad spectrum. In the United States the term typically refers to rightwing positions that simply assume a natural right to property without recognizing a need to compensate anyone.
What I described was the Geo-Libertarian, Geo-Classical Liberal, Georgist, or Geoist position. (It is most associated with its champion Henry George, but the ideas originate with John Locke.) It falls in between right-libertarianism and left-libertarianism. It is perhaps a bit closer to left libertarianism, but the later often focuses more on the rights of organized labor and may require not only compensating neighbors but also getting their permission on how to use one's property. Left libertarians may also require all rent go to the community, while Geoists consider it acceptable to lease out one's property and keep a portion of the rent for upkeep costs and profit so long as the community is compensated for the monopolized land.
By heritage may I assume you mean inheritance? (If you meant something like cultural heritage, then libertarians would support the right of individuals to choose to embrace or reject that. If you meant natural heritage, then the environment is not something that was traditionally given much thought but which various schools of libertarianism now argue that they can handle better.)
Libertarians are generally in favor of the right to give gifts and leave an inheritance to one's children (or whomever) if one wishes. (They are not keen on legally mandated patrimonies.) Some Left libertarians might oppose this, and also oppose the buying and selling of property. A geo-libertarian would ask only that the new property holder continue to pay rents to compensate society.
Thomas Paine, who adopted rather Geoist ideas from Locke long before George was born, thought that the state should use taxes on land to provide a decent inheritance to young men whose families could not. His Agrarian Justice argued that the state should pay 15 pounds sterling to every man when he turns 21, and 10 pounds sterling per year to every person over 50.
velosepappe
Warlord
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2005
- Messages
- 141
I have the feeling that you describe here what things you think ought to be property, but do you know what it really is to own something, what qualities should the thing you own have?
For me owning something (which is a attribute of the object) means that I am confident that this object still has the same attribute for as long as I please or as long as the nature of the object permits (like decay). Also the nature of ownership allows the owner to change its properties as it pleases (like the attribute of ownership itself, or destroying it), which is also restricted to the nature of the object. Perhaps a quality related to property and very often equated to property is that others acknowledge that you own an object. I dont thinkt that this attribute is necessary for ownership (otherwise there would be no need to defend something which you think is your property).
If you are not certain that others agree you own the object you think you own, you either must defend it, or accept it. Defending you can do by locking things up, or calling the police, or trying to get others to accept your ownership of the object... to ensure that the object you own still has the same attributes I defined before; if you accept you weaken the definition of ownership, and you accept that you dont really own the thing.
For me owning something (which is a attribute of the object) means that I am confident that this object still has the same attribute for as long as I please or as long as the nature of the object permits (like decay). Also the nature of ownership allows the owner to change its properties as it pleases (like the attribute of ownership itself, or destroying it), which is also restricted to the nature of the object. Perhaps a quality related to property and very often equated to property is that others acknowledge that you own an object. I dont thinkt that this attribute is necessary for ownership (otherwise there would be no need to defend something which you think is your property).
If you are not certain that others agree you own the object you think you own, you either must defend it, or accept it. Defending you can do by locking things up, or calling the police, or trying to get others to accept your ownership of the object... to ensure that the object you own still has the same attributes I defined before; if you accept you weaken the definition of ownership, and you accept that you dont really own the thing.
Property is theft is an anarchist saying. Enough said.
I've always viewed property as accumulated labor, or better accumulated time that was used up in that labor.
Our lifetime certainly "belongs" to us. If say, our primitive hunter-gatherer spends hours on carving a good hunter spear, it's his property because it cost him his time to make it. If his tribe colleague would claim it as his own by saying "property is imaginary", he would basically steal the time that he invested in making it.
Of course our current society is a whole lot more complex, and other aspects like using your property to do "work" for you and accumulate even more property without using up your own labor, or inherited property are not as easily justifiable under this concept. But that doesn't mean that all forms of property are theft or imaginary.
Our lifetime certainly "belongs" to us. If say, our primitive hunter-gatherer spends hours on carving a good hunter spear, it's his property because it cost him his time to make it. If his tribe colleague would claim it as his own by saying "property is imaginary", he would basically steal the time that he invested in making it.
Of course our current society is a whole lot more complex, and other aspects like using your property to do "work" for you and accumulate even more property without using up your own labor, or inherited property are not as easily justifiable under this concept. But that doesn't mean that all forms of property are theft or imaginary.
Murky
Deity
let me wiki that for you
What are you driving at?
Is this a should property be own only by private individuals or by the community type of question?
What are you driving at?
Is this a should property be own only by private individuals or by the community type of question?
That's the argument used by white settlers that stole all the Indian land in North America. Only it really wasn't true that they weren't using it. They were just using it in a different manner than whites wanted to use it.
Ayatollah So
the spoof'll set you free
Yup. Property is semi-moralized by each stable nation-state, but it's often a thin (and never more than medium-thick) cover layer on top of brute force. I think you can draw a pretty straight line from territoriality among animals to human property conventions.
Citation needed.
Good point. We may not have come very far, conceptually, from territoriality as practiced among animals, but the conventions of property sure do make life a lot easier for us.
Which highlights the problem that "use" is hopelessly vague. If an environmentalist likes to take walks in a pristine forest - so that every few decades he manages to see each part of it - is he "using" the whole forest?
Loppan Torkel
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2004
- Messages
- 4,756
It's something sustainable that has been gained through sacrifice of something sustainable or unsustainable and something you have an exclusive right to through your sacrifice.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,374
See? The LTV is alive and kicking. Take that, marginalists!
Anyway, I'm disappointed that everyone is concerned with what justifies property, but few people actually answer the question of what is property. To answer that you have to look at its effects more than its justifications... I wasn't just joking when I pretended to mix it up with the different views about freedom.
Murky
Deity
Nope. There's lots of other ways of obtaining it. Most rich people do not do low-skilled, labor intensive jobs. More likely they run a company that employs a lot of low skilled workers. Laborers typically get a much smaller share of the profits than management.
Some hunter-gatherer tribes have communal property for just about everything. There's also passing tools down from generation to generation. There's also intellectual property involved in knowing how to make tools, but that is considered the group's knowledge not that of the individual. They do reward merit. The hunter who makes the kill gets the first choice of the meat.
Property comes in a variety of forms. Really you should look at it more in terms of people who are willing to share their property and those who aren't.
Terxpahseyton
Nobody
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 10,759
Good point.
In that case (to get as abstract and encompassing as possible), property means a system of more or less followed rules which establish a more or less transparent frame (transparency depending on how much the rules are followed) and where this frame constitutes in what ways people may claim personal (the individual) or collective (corporations, public goods) ownership of physical or intellectual or financial goods. The owned goods are then called "property".
The effects depend on the frame and its transparency.
edit: Actually, scrap that. That's like saying property means to own something. Not very useful.
What I am not sure about, would we count obligations to property? My intuition says no, only the property that may proceed from such obligations is also property.
BasketCase
Username sez it all
I do. Private property was first claimed when wild animals figured out that keeping a chunk of territory for themselves was the only reliable way to get a secure food supply. And since getting food from hunting and grazing is always dicey, the only way to be sure of not starving to death was to have as much land as possible.
Before modern artifices such as laws existed, the rules were very simple: find yourself a piece of land you like, and attack anybody else who encroaches on it. Such a system selected with extreme prejudice in favor of critters who were physically strong and good at fighting.
The reason we have modern capitalism today is because it's a huge improvement over that.
Similar threads
