Without Private Property Rights, there is no liberty!

[LibertyEagle]

The Property Basis of Rights

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/the-property-basis-of-rights/

[Kludge]

Enforcement of "rights" through government is the opposite of liberty.

That said, I'm no libertine.

[LibertyEagle]

Are you saying that you do not believe in private property rights?

[BuddyRey]

If you can't own any form of property, you can't own your own life. And if you can't own your own life, you are a slave!

http://blairmulholland.typepad.com/thewhig/RobinBooth_files/prison_bars2.jpg

[Kludge]

Are you saying that you do not believe in private property rights?

I don't believe "rights" inherently exist, but rather that the concept is created to justify retaliatory aggression against initial aggression which "crosses the line". Thus for me to believe that government should enforce "rights", I believe the government grants us "rights" (but even calling it a right then is incorrect, since all government [to my knowledge] violates those so-called rights). I'd like some basic rights from the government (Minarchy), but I recognize that it's ethically dubious and itself aggression. I think of it as a "benevolent dictator" position.

[Original_Intent]

I believe that true rights are inherent and inalienable.
Government does not grant rights - if it has the power to grant them it also has the power to revoke.
And I believe that property rights do exist.

[LibertyEagle]

I don't believe "rights" inherently exist, but rather that the concept is created to justify retaliatory aggression against initial aggression which "crosses the line". Thus for me to believe that government should enforce "rights", I believe the government grants us "rights" (but even calling it a right then is incorrect, since all government [to my knowledge] violates those so-called rights). I'd like some basic rights from the government (Minarchy), but I recognize that it's ethically dubious and itself aggression. I think of it as a "benevolent dictator" position.

What? :D

Our rights don't come from government. Where ya been, Kludgey?

[andrewh817]

I don't believe "rights" inherently exist, but rather that the concept is created to justify retaliatory aggression against initial aggression which "crosses the line". Thus for me to believe that government should enforce "rights", I believe the government grants us "rights" (but even calling it a right then is incorrect, since all government [to my knowledge] violates those so-called rights). I'd like some basic rights from the government (Minarchy), but I recognize that it's ethically dubious and itself aggression. I think of it as a "benevolent dictator" position.

But you're born absolutely free except for laws of nature.... and nowadays we have no rights, only privileges since the government got so enormous.

[RedStripe]

The reason I say "no" is because "property rights" is a pretty vague concept. The rules for homesteading, adverse possession, transfer formalities, and the scope of ownership, among many other issues, are all riddled with arbitrary lines-in-the-sand that certainly aren't based on universal principles (but rather consequential, normative, and historical developments/concerns).

Just because you have legal title to property, or just because the legal system will recognize a certain "property right" does not mean that it is moral or wise for the legal system (violence allocating system) to do so. This is where the non-aggression axiom breaks down: whether the use of force violates the axiom (and thus the liberty of another) depends upon the relative property claims of each party (I can use force against someone breaking into a house, so long as it is *my* house --- but how do I determine that it is *my* house besides just taking for granted whatever the government says? What if the government confiscated the house from the 'intruder' and gave 'legal title' to me?). There's a lot of gray area when it comes to property rights.

I also don't believe in "rights" as some mystical force that permeates the universe. The limits of what governments or individuals can do is ultimately set by physical power, while appeals to social norms and pragmatism effectively limit the application of physical power (i.e. even though the federal government could nuke Chicago, the fact that so many people would find that morally offensive limits their ability to do so). If you think that "property rights" are nothing more than ownership of property by individuals, you aren't really proving anything at all since in all societies property is owned (dominated and controlled) by individuals - sometimes several individuals have joint ownership, and sometimes they refer to themselves as a "the state", but they are still individuals. In the USSR, there were certainly "property rights". Certain individuals had legally-recognized claims of ownership with respect to particular physical matter. Even if there was a legal system that would permit anyone to use anything, there would still be property rights because everyone would have a legal claim on everything! And if it allowed certain individuals some form of exclusive control (whether they call themselves a "state" or otherwise), there would also be "property rights". Calling something 'private' property is equally meaningless since you would also have a claim against anyone preventing you from using 'public' property (which you clearly own, as a member of the public). In reality, the things we contrast to 'private' property as 'public' (e.g. state property) is essentially private property owned and controlled by the largest and most diabolical corporate entity that has ever come into existence and which controls the very legal system by which it is permitted to expand its holdings nearly without limit. It's all about who has the guns, and how many people they can fool into believing that they have the authority to use the guns in as many situations as possible.

[Kludge]

But you're born absolutely free except for laws of nature.... and nowadays we have no rights, only privileges since the government got so enormous.

I understand, and that is why I've always sympathized with anarchists.

I think of government as more of a contract. I agree to restrict my own actions if you agree to restrict yours (or, thought of in another way, I'll agree to respect these rights if you do the same). If you fail to uphold your end of this contract, you will be punished.

This would work in an ideal world where all would enter into this contract voluntarily, but what do we do about people who don't enter into that contract? Well, we could kill them so they no longer pose such a threat (#1), or we could force them to agree to this contract (born-into citizenship -- #2). OR, we could just let them be, and "stop" them if and when they try to kill us, which would be the anarchists' position (#3).

#1 is probably the most selfish and disrespectful, while #3 is the least selfish and most respectful but very dangerous. #2 is terribly arrogant ("We know what's best for you"), but it's a compromise between the disrespect of #1 and the dangers of #3, and is how government generally works today. They all allow you to change the terms of the contract, but merely alter how that contract is agreed upon. Freedom is voluntary morality, dangerous, and relatively unknown in our world (perhaps for the better). The freedom to enter into an engagement to enforce private property rights is the truest freedom.

[silverhawks]

I own myself. That is the ultimate expression of private property rights.

If you say that they don't exist, people become slaves.

Likewise, free market capitalism would not exist. People would not be able to control their own destiny or make a life for themselves.

[nickcoons]

Private property rights are a requirement for liberty, but they are not its basis. While I agree with Murray Rothbard's consequentialist observations, I believe Ayn Rand's moralist view of rights provides a more solid foundation:


http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/individual_rights.html

A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)

The concept of a “right” pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.

Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive—of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.

The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.

Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values.

[ChaosControl]

Yes.

The lack of any real true ownership of property is evidence of the lack of any real liberty in this nation or anywhere on this planet.

Of course property is more than the land of your residence. Anything you possess, including your body and mind, would fall under private property.

[newbitech]

Private property rights are a requirement for liberty, but they are not its basis. While I agree with Murray Rothbard's consequentialist observations, I believe Ayn Rand's moralist view of rights provides a more solid foundation:


I agree with this.

I believe the basis for liberty is encoded into my DNA and as such, as long as I am alive private property rights or not, I will instinctively seek to act and think freely without constraint from or upon others.

I believe private property rights are a subset of liberty and a concept that has been encoded into the constitution from the express purpose of facilitating a lifestyle of liberty.

[sailor]

Yes, in a sense that rights themselves are owned. Specificaly rights are that which you own ( = that property of yours) which can never be taken from you. Eg, someone may steal a toy from you, but they can never make it be their toy. They can never make the toy by rights not belong to you.

It takes the concept of ownership to have rights.

But I wouldn`t say the ownership of the right to material possesion is fundamentaly any different or any more important than say the ownership of the right to speak your mind.

In both cases what is yours by rights (your ownership) is under attack in much the same way.

[LibertyEagle]

Have you guys read the article yet? If not, please do. See what ya think. :)

[sailor]

Just because you have legal title to property, or just because the legal system will recognize a certain "property right" does not mean that it is moral or wise for the legal system (violence allocating system) to do so. This is where the non-aggression axiom breaks down: whether the use of force violates the axiom (and thus the liberty of another) depends upon the relative property claims of each party (I can use force against someone breaking into a house, so long as it is *my* house --- but how do I determine that it is *my* house besides just taking for granted whatever the government says? What if the government confiscated the house from the 'intruder' and gave 'legal title' to me?). There's a lot of gray area when it comes to property rights.

For an Anarchist you sure use the government as a reference point a lot. Rights have nothing to do with any government. Property rights or any other.

[newbitech]

Have you guys read the article yet? If not, please do. See what ya think. :)

I read the article.

I think it is a dangerous slippery slope to think of by mind, body, thoughts, and actions as being owned. Even if we could somehow guarantee that I always remain the owner, separating self from the ownership of self seems to be contrived and almost schizophrenic.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/own

http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/own

Synonyms
hold (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hold)
possess (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/possess)
retain (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/retain)
admit (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/admit)
avow (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/avow)
concede (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/concede)
confess (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/confess)
grant (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/grant)
endemic (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/endemic)
individual (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/individual)
inherent (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inherent)
intrinsic (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intrinsic)

I own my self.
I hold my self.
I possess my self.
I retain my self.
I admit my self.
I avow my self.
I concede my self.
I confess my self.
I grant my self.
My self is endemic. Or I am endemic to my self.
My self is individual. Or I am individual to my self.
My self is inherent. Or I am inherent to my self.
My self is intrinsic. Or I am intrinsic to my self.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/self

self

 http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/S02/S0283600) /sɛlf/ http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html) Show Spelled Pronunciation [self] http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.html) Show IPA noun, plural selves, adjective, pronoun, plural selves, verb

–noun
1. a person or thing referred to with respect to complete individuality: one's own self.
2. a person's nature, character, etc.: his better self.
3. personal interest.
4. Philosophy.
a. the ego; that which knows, remembers, desires, suffers, etc., as contrasted with that known, remembered, etc.
b. the uniting principle, as a soul, underlying all subjective experience.

[sailor]

Have you guys read the article yet? If not, please do. See what ya think. :)

You mean all of it? :eek:

:D

[LibertyEagle]

You mean all of it? :eek:

:D

Yessir. ALL of it. :)