There is no axiomatic proof of property rights

A propertarian's rebuttal to Molyneux's claim that property rights are axiomatically valid.

Join in with the production of the follow up to George Ought to Help here: http://www.indiegogo.com/Edgar-the-exploiter

Category:

Education

Tags:

• molyneux
• self detonating
• axiomatic
• proof
• property rights
• self ownership
• bad libertarian arguments

[quantumG]

Homesteading is best argued from axiomatic principles by Murray Rothbard. The short version is, anyone who makes a claim after you is a latecomer, and although it is arguably true that your parents have a prior claim on your body than you, this is irrelevant as parents inevitable cede that claim to their children anyway. Check it out sometime.

[bitbutter]

@quantumG Thanks. I'm familiar with Rothbard's assertions. While i agree that the _outcomes_ of Rothbard's thinking are desirable (wrt to things many people value, including prosperity), I'm not persuaded that he succeeds in proving the validity of his foundational assumptions.

[shlockofgod]

Did you ever have the debate (mentioned in the comments) with Stefan? I would find a talk between you two really interesting.

[bitbutter]

@shlockofgod Sadly no. I saw his comment a few months after it was posted, replied expressing interest, but didn't hear back so far.

[quantumG]

@bitbutter I agree.. but I think proof is too much to ask for outside mathematics. Ayn Rand's attempts at axiomatic proof, with continual droning of A=A etc, have been as convincing as Hayden Christensen's acting ability.

[BeRealistic101]

The common law has long looked at property rights as a "bundle of sticks," wherein a bunch of different things are included in that bundle, such as interests, rights, estates, etc. For example, present estates have a right of possession, whereas future interests are non-possessory interests that have a future right of possession. There's also a distinction between legal and equitable title. Some of these concepts do involve analyzing who has dominion and control of the property.

[qtutoringhelps]

I'm never quite sure which "theory" Molyneux is propounding. I've heard him claim years ago that rights, including property rights, do not exist.

[xcvsdxvsx]

i sympathize with the communist who argues that all systems on the planet are interconnected and interdependent and so all actions effect all systems therefor all systems are mixed with the labor of all people so all people are entitled to an equal portion of all capital. however if you study economics you realize that the only way to utilize resources to anywhere near maximum effect is to allow for individual ownership of property, my argument for property rights is pragmatic not philosophical.

[slaughtz]

There's something I notice about your examples against his argument. Both examples involve the forceful taking of someone's property... Not sure how to formulate the problem of this, though but I'll try. Assuming the premise that control results in ownership and that no one has more control over their own body than themselves. A person is born with primacy of ownership of themselves and it is stolen by someone who takes it away. Sure, they 'own' it now, but it is ill gotten gains; theft.

[slaughtz]

It's kind of interesting. When I hear this refutation it's as if the mind becomes separate from the body.