What Are Property Rights

[bozolazic]

"Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right."

---Thomas Jefferson

[bozolazic]

The first man who,having fenced in a piece of land, said "This is mine,"and found people naïve enough to believe him,that man was the true 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

[garybsg]

I agree the government must respond to the will of the people, this is a democracy. However, the "will of the people" may never exceed the rights of it's citizens. When you say "public healthcare", you mean if citizen A can't afford healthcare then take the property of (tax) citizen B. Citizen A gets B's property. Our founding fathers made it clear that no one has the right to take Citizen's B's property. It is his and his alone. Socialism says, if it benefits the group, take his property.

[AlecTaylor6]

Excellent, very succinct.

This is going on my website!

[Mike10four]

The foundation of: Locke, Hobbes and Jefferson’s work crystallizes by using science to prove our unalienable Rights are from the Laws of Nature. It becomes clear these Rights apply to all Life, from bacteria to humans, and Social systems, including Charles Darwin’s research; as in a Grand Unification principle for all Living-systems (see my channel video). The Laws of Nature trumps mortals in power; a new understanding of these Rights may help make this world a better place to live.

[floydstinkyboy]

"property is what we are" - spoken like the true Westerner. Cochise would not be pleased.

[garybsg]

@floydstinkyboy Cochise would not agree with that or with property rights in general and it why the Apaches and every other indian tribe was in a perpetual state of war.

[kshackleton]

@garybsg

The reason why western societies are not also in a perpetual state of war is due to the state imposing itself upon the populace. The libertarian view, with little or no government would see us degrade into small, fractured bands of people who would similarly be in a constant state of war with our neighbors.

[nathanreinhardt]

@kshackleton you're clueless.

[kshackleton]

@nathanreinhardt

How so?

[garybsg]

@kshackleton The libertarian view is for government to protect citizens life, liberty and property against foreign invaders and criminals. Each citizen is to deal with other citizens through free trade. Socialism uses government power to forcibly take the property of some citizens for the benefit of others. Notice socialism uses force to take property and libertarian uses force to protect freedom and property. A gigantic difference.

[kshackleton]

@garybsg

I agree with the stated goals. The issue has always been with the implementation. If the government is to fund its own operations to protect citizens as you describe....how can it do that without taxation? Since I have heard many Libertarians claim that taxation is theft by force, how does that change when they are funding the military, police, courts, prisons? In this regard, socialism is not different.

[garybsg]

@kshackleton Great point. It is not taxation that is the issue, it is the purpose of taxation. Money taken from citizens in order to "defend" their life, liberty and property is proper and right. It is in the citizen's interest to have a military to defend from invaders, police from crooks or courts to adjudicate citizen's differences. Taxes taken from one citizen for the benefit of another citizen is stealing and socialistic (welfare, public education, medicare,medical, etc).

[kshackleton]

@garybsg

It could also be argued that it is in one's own best interest to make sure that all citizens are educated, healthy, and housed. From a taxation point of view, it is cheaper to provide the disadvantaged with a basic level of care than to deal with them in the courts and prisons.

[garybsg]

@kshackleton . The role of government is to protect freedom to live your life as you wish. It is not to ensure a citizen has a good or decent life. It is his/her responsibility to use their freedom wisely. My poverty gives me no right to your life, liberty or property. It's a simple decision: the force of government is either used to protect rights or its used to violate them. Pick your choice.

[kshackleton]

@garybsg

The role of good government is to serve the interests of the people that elect them. If the people decide that basic medical care, a proper education, and minimum standard of living should be provided for all; then that will be the role of government and their doing so will be the protection of rights, not a violation of them.

It's a matter of perspective.

[garybsg]

@kshackleton so your rule is "if it serves the interest of the people it is therefore OK". So if a poor man gets $30,000 kidney operation, it is OK to take the property of other citizens to pay for it. If Hispanics children join more gangs, it is OK for society to force Hispanic women to abort their children. If society can fund higher education through stealing a million Ipods from Apple then it is OK since higher ed is in society's interest. mmmm

[kshackleton]

@garybsg

Nice pile of straw that you've built there. Have a nice day.

[garybsg]

@kshackleton can't defend your beliefs. I understand most liberals don't really think their positions through. That is why I'm no longer a liberal. Best of luck

[kshackleton]

@garybsg

Your response did not reflect my beliefs. My position is simply that government should be responsive to the desires of the people. If the people support a publicly funded health care system, then the poor get the kidney operation, and the funding is theft in the same fashion that it's theft to fund police or military.

Your point about gangs is silly, and so is your example about education.

[DeanApril14]

@kshackleton there is only one thing that benefits every single person on the planet and that is non-aggression or peace. Your example of public health care is faulty. It may be good for the receiver but not the person who was forced to pay for it. Freedom and peace are good for everyone and the only common good. you want to benefit one group at the expense of another which makes EVERYONE worse off.

[kshackleton]

@DeanApril14

Do you not think that the role of government is to respect the will of the people? Apparently not.

In Canada, the people strongly support a publicly funded health care system. We spend less per capita than does the US, and our population is healthier by any standard you care to measure when compared to the US.

Your claim that publicly funded health care makes everyone worse off is falsified by the evidence.

[DeanApril14]

@kshackleton you assume the US has a free market in health care. It certainly does not! By what right do you claim the property, namely the income of other people, to pay for YOUR medical needs? Doing so means we are slaves to one another which is not our nature and makes us poorer.

[kshackleton]

@DeanApril14

Ah.....the old Libertarian compaint...."It's not a True Free Market".

However, that is not my point. I don't care if we use free market mechanisms or not. I care about having a government that is responsive to The People.

Do you?

Just answer that simple question......

Do you believe that government should be responsive to the will of the people?

[GoingGoingGalt]

@kshackleton Look up Arrow's Impossibility Theorem. It's logically impossible to have a vote that registers solely the "will of the people" without other ulterior influences. Besides, is 51% really representative of the "will of the people"? What about the other 49%? Are they not people?

[kshackleton]

@GoingGoingGalt

More straw.....

Did I ever say a simple majority? Perhaps some issues require more, perhaps some less. If a referendum was held and 98% of the population was in favour of a publicly funded health option, how would any responsible government say no.

What if I think that the government spending on law enforcement and the military is obscene, and should be slashed, if enough people feel the same way, should they respond?

[GoingGoingGalt]

@kshackleton Alright, where do you draw the line then? Why 98% Why not 97 or 99? You see, you lack a basic principle. At least the simple majority has a defining principle, you do not. How many people is enough people to repeal or enforce a measure?

Also, you didn't bother to look up Arrow's Impossibility Theorem, did you?

[kshackleton]

@GoingGoingGalt

"if the decision-making body has at least two members and at least three options to decide among, then it is impossible to design a social welfare function that satisfies all these conditions at once"

This does not seem to apply if the electorate is being asked to approve, or disapprove, on the creation of a publicly funded health care system. Two options only, yes, or no. The theorum appears to be inapplicable here.

Cheers

[GoingGoingGalt]

@kshackleton Exactly how many of those options are there? Clearly not even health care, since there is also partially private partially public, or having a public option, or universal, or single payer, or totally private. Who has the right to remove these options from consideration?

[kshackleton]

@GoingGoingGalt

Honestly, I think that the goal should be effective health care for all at the least cost. The US system is clearly broken and the Canadian system is too. A blend of public and private as is practiced in many nations seems to work best. There is nothing stopping us from trying something and making changes

[GoingGoingGalt]

@kshackleton Ok, no one asked you what is the RIGHT choice. Stop trying to change the topic. The point is that it is still impossible to register the preferences of the majority of people, and even then you would ignore the preferences of the minority. And again, if not simple majority, what then? And what principle defines this?

[kshackleton]

@GoingGoingGalt

Here's the thing, you don't understand the theorum, so you build straw. The theorum states that if there are more than three options then one cannot satisfy all conditions. It does not say that it's impossible to register the preferences of the majority.

I happen to believe that government should respond to what the individuals in society want. As imperfect as that is, it should be attempted. The alternative is for govt to do as they please....and who wants that? Not me.

[GoingGoingGalt]

@kshackleton It says it is logically impossible to register the will of the people without ulterior influences. Clearly it is YOU who fails to understand this.

And obviously you don't want a government that protects individual rights. How can you when youre ok with the majority to do as it pleases?

[GoingGoingGalt]

@kshackleton The point of the theorem is that if there is to be an vote where only a majority can decide, all the options except two must be removed, and by the time you come down to a decision, you no longer have a majority. It's simple math, even you should be able to understand that

[kshackleton]

@GoingGoingGalt

Again, you did not answer the basic question:

Do you believe [in principle] that government should be responsive to the will of the people?

[GoingGoingGalt]

@kshackleton Excuse me, but you aren't answering my questions.

Either way, I will answer your question with a simple no. In fact, I doubt we even should have a government, but if we did, it should serve as a protectorate of individual rights. The people is not an entity. It has no will. Individuals do exist, and therefore deserve rights.

So, will you now answer my question?

[kshackleton]

@GoingGoingGalt

Having no government would be the death of freedom. The rule of law, enforced by a government which is responsive to the will of the people best provides that.

Take away government and we would instantly degrade into tribal violence, theft, and retribution.

[GoingGoingGalt]

@kshackleton Honestly, do you really think anarchists haven't thought of that? Why don't you read up on some of their literature, particularly the works of Murray Rothbard and David Friedman. There is much more to this than just the Hobessian self interest model.

[kshackleton]

@GoingGoingGalt

I have read what some anarchists have written, the problem is that they have no clue about the workings of human nature, and they care not to learn from history. Anarchy results in maximum violence, it's that simple.

[GoingGoingGalt]

@kshackleton Oh really, then do refute their response to your human nature allegation, because they do address that. If you have read their works, you should know

[bozolazic]

@kshackleton Example of where Anarchism resulted in maximum violence?

Representative governments seem to have the Anarchists beat on this issue.

[kshackleton]

@bozolazic

Any hunter-gatherer society ever studied. They live in a state of natural anarchy, and they live exceptionally violent lives.

[bozolazic]

@kshackleton Any examples from the last few thousand years? Or the last 500 yrs.?

Minus the Spanish civil war.

[kshackleton]

@bozolazic

Sure, any hunter-gatherer society that exists today and has not been pacified by modern influences. Somalia today. The mountain country of Afghanistan and Pakistan. These are areas where people have to fend for themselves from their neighbors because there is no central authority. The warlords invariably take over and the people are subjected to violence as the result.

[bozolazic]

@kshackleton There are tribal leaders in Pakistan and Afghansitan.Ruled by men from the top-down.Somalia seems to be led by gangs and warlords which is more akin to chaos than anarchy.The West has central authority and we are still taken over by the warlords and are subject to violence as a result.I believe that some of the freest people on the planet are native tribes(depending on the tribe) that have not been found by the civilized world.Many native Americans were a good example.

[kshackleton]

@bozolazic

Native Americans constantly fought with one another. In any state of anarchy, inter-tribal warfare is constant. The large, and democratic states, and the adoption of freedom of speech, has proven to be the best thing that has come along....if you care about living a peaceful...and long...life. Life under anarchy is brutal, violent, and short.

[bozolazic]

@kshackleton I forgot to mention that if there were elders(mothers and fathers), spiritual, warrior and medicine men leaders, how can that be Anarchism.Anarchy means No Chief or leader.As far as I can tell they were more democratic than my representative democracy is today.If you totaled the numbers of Native murders relative to civilized murders, it would be like comparing an atom to an elephant.

[kshackleton]

@bozolazic

The chiefs in those societies were people that you went to for advice, because they had the most experience. In the non-agrarian societies, the chiefs had no right to impose their will on anyone. If you know anything about natives, you should have known that. They lived as free individuals in independent bands. It's as close to anarchy as you can get, and they fought with, and raided their neighbors on a regular basis.

[bozolazic]

@kshackleton Yes, I do understand that the chief could not just do as he pleases, he was there for the benefit of all and that he can be overruled by others, such as the mothers.None the less there were still leaders.As far as raiding neighbors on a regular basis, the so-called civilized West raids the world on a daily basis.I sure would not want to be the poor people at the end of spreading democracy and freedom campaign(Orwellian terms) in countries all around the world!Civilized?

[kshackleton]

@bozolazic

Anthropologists have actually studied murders in various cultures. Today, you live in the safest time ever known....so long as you live in a western democracy.

[bozolazic]

@kshackleton Maybe in the sense of being invaded but that depends on who you ask, specifically a Native or a Muslim.Since the so-called war on terror began we have been creating more terrorists not less and the blowback could get ugly.But I don't feel safe about the fact that we are killing ourselves to live by polluting the air, water and soil leading to diseases and deformities.Manipulation of food stuffs and on.We don't respect the earth.Whereas the Natives were the opposite.

[kshackleton]

@bozolazic

Actually, they were communists in the purest sense. People contributed according to their abilities, and everything was shared according to their needs. That applied to those within the band, outsiders were often killed.

[bozolazic]

@kshackleton Communism and Anarchism may have similarities but they are not the same.I don't want to get into semantics and the different variances with regards the two ideologies.Natives never knew of capitalism, fighting over different religions and the ruling classes, yet they did live similar to both of them.A new category is called for, I'll use your term of free individuals in independent bands.

[kshackleton]

@bozolazic

It is odd that any tribe ever found lives in a state of constant belligerence with its neighbors. If you are a male living in any of these tribes, your odds of being killed at the hands of another male, rather than living to a ripe old age and dying in your sleep...is about 65%. The idea of the "Noble Savage" fails to stand up to any scrutiny at all.

Humans in their wild state live violent lives.

[bozolazic]

@kshackleton In Letters from the American Farmer He spoke of how children captured during the Seven Years' War and found by their parents, growing up and living with Indians, would refuse to leave their new families."There must be in their social bond," he said, " something singularly captivating, and far superior to anything to be boasted among us; for thousands of Europeans are Indians, and we have no examples of even one of those Aborigines having from choice become Europeans."

[bozolazic]

@kshackleton Humans in so-called civilized life are ultra-violent.Compared with the conquerors,as far as I can tell, the savage was noble.At the time, if I were to make an agreement with somebody and I had a choice between the English and a Native,I would definitely make a deal with a Native because his word was bond relative to the English.How many millions of Natives had to be exterminated to bring about this so-called civilized life.Native property rights=Nobody owns the land.

[DeanApril14]

@kshackleton so if 51% of the people will to make the other 49% their servants thats ok to you because its the will of the people? Democracy is nothing but mob rule. We are nothing but slaves to others who seek to control ours lives through the government. You must really enjoy being a slave...

[kshackleton]

@DeanApril14

The people make their will known all the time. All I am asking is this.....

Do you feel that the government should be responsive to the will of the people? It can be in the form of constitutional reform, referenda, etc. Nobody said that such changes only require simple majority.

[garybsg]

@kshackleton Well if society wants healthcare then why don't individuals just buy it? Why do you need society? Society doesn't buy cars, society doesn't buy movie tickets, housing etc. I'm confused.

[kshackleton]

@garybsg

Again with the straw.

If enough individuals desire a publicly funded system, then would you not agree that government should be responsive to that will?

Does the phrase "Of the People, By the People, and For the People" not mean anything to you?

[alphafirstoneyou]

WTF?

[xkeltoix]

the philosophy of property rights is faulty. if you dont believe in god, most of what locke said means nothing.

[britishjohn04]

@xkeltoix His explanation seemed spot on to me. If you steal someone's money, land or goods, then you are stealing their time and labour that went into purchasing or building such items. It ultimately comes down to the philosophical question of whether you believe we are all born sovereign with absolute discretion over our own thoughts and actions, or whether you believe that the collective has a claim to such things. I think the former, not the latter because I value liberty and freedom.

[xkeltoix]

@britishjohn04 in order to steal someones anything you first have to prove that people can objectively own something. Without a government (which is naturally coercive) to define property rights, then people can merely claim anything, and cite the subjectivity of property rights. Communists have radically different philosophical view points as to what counts as property, and your view is no more objective.

[fede2]

nobody will ever argue that property is a necessary commodity for a de facto disposition of one's liberty. however, the capitalist definition (private ownership of the means of production) is shallow and obscure. there is an abyss between that definition and it's practical aplication.

if the definition really applied universally bussinesses would not be hierarchical. desicion-making and management would be participatory and renumeration would be more just.

[SocialAnarchism]

You're awesome!

[ourearthhome]

John Locke said: "When the 'sacredness' of property is talked of, it should be remembered that any such sacredness does not belong in the same degree to landed property." He meant that property in our bodies and the product of our efforts is sacred but land, the earth, cannot be said to be owned in the same way because it is not produced, its value is created by the community and it is necessary for individuals to make an independent living. He actually opposed the landed aristocracy.

[puremilkgenius]

however; he did propose that once one has created something from that land; ie farmed it, built on it or as we would say today "landscaped" it, that the effort put into that land constitutes ownership.