Am I the radical or is my professor?

[Joshua Parrish]

I am a Health Science major but I had some electives so I decided to take a Political Theory class. Today in that class, my professor told us that John Locke was a fool and that property rights are not natural rights. He said that property rights are granted by the state!!! He then began to argue the virtues of the state using force to redistribute wealth. The worst part is that the class overwhelming supported his view!!!

I was the only student in the class with a dissenting opinion! Am I the radical or is he?

[low preference guy]

I am a Health Science major but I had some electives so I decided to to a Political Theory class. Today in that class, my professor told us that John Locke was a fool and that property rights are not natural rights. He said that property rights are granted by the state!!! He then began to argue the virtues of the state using force to redistribute wealth. The worst part is that the class overwhelming supported his view!!!

I was the only student in the class with a dissenting opinion! Am I the radical or is he?

he is a savage whose ideas will destroy civilization, if they are implemented.

also, the job of the professor is to stimulate students to think, not to give them his opinions. if you told him that he wasn't doing his job and was wasting your time, you wouldn't have been out of line. you can write that in your evaluation forms at the end of the semester if you don't want to say it now.

if i were you, i would drop the class, because i wouldn't learn anything. but i guess you could stay if you want to understand the mindset of the enemy.

[emazur]

If property rights aren't natural rights, just what the hell is natural about a government that arbitrarily gives and takes people's wealth?

[Epic]

The government cannot give "rights" - that's a semantic contradiction. The correct word, in that case, would be "privilege".

[ItsTime]

The take his laptop. He should be fine with that. He is richer than you and after all its not his right to own it. /sarcasm.

[Deborah K]

I am a Health Science major but I had some electives so I decided to to a Political Theory class. Today in that class, my professor told us that John Locke was a fool and that property rights are not natural rights. He said that property rights are granted by the state!!! He then began to argue the virtues of the state using force to redistribute wealth. The worst part is that the class overwhelming supported his view!!!

I was the only student in the class with a dissenting opinion! Am I the radical or is he?

He is a victim of a collectivist mindset, and so is the class.

[Imperial]

I am a Health Science major but I had some electives so I decided to to a Political Theory class. Today in that class, my professor told us that John Locke was a fool and that property rights are not natural rights. He said that property rights are granted by the state!!! He then began to argue the virtues of the state using force to redistribute wealth. The worst part is that the class overwhelming supported his view!!!

I was the only student in the class with a dissenting opinion! Am I the radical or is he?

I wouldn't worry about it. You will always find a few who are skeptical of government force. One route to keep note of- we all have exceptions to our view of the world. I believe in negative liberties but think it would be bad to allow private ownership of nuclear weapons, for example. Find it in your classmates- somewhere they think government coercion is negative, like marijuana or Iraq.

By the way, my current political theory class is an in-depth study of the Frankfurt School, which leaned quite Marxist. He is a founding member of a pretty radical journal called Telos (http://www.telospress.com/main/index.php?main_page=page&id=30&chapter=0).

That said, it doesn't mean those with opposing viewpoints cannot teach you something. At the very least it helps to understand your opponent's perspective and to account for their criticisms.

[MikeStanart]

In the middle of class tell him he's a joke and drop the class. :D

[ItsTime]

In the middle of class tell him he's a joke and drop the class. :D

Should he do this before or after he takes the professors laptop?

[oyarde]

Dude is a pure commie .

[zade]

I don't believe there's anything naturally self-confirming about property claims either.

[McBell]

You say radical like it's a bad thing.

[MikeStanart]

Should he do this before or after he takes the professors laptop?

Instead he should say: "Professor, I was going to steal your laptop to "spread the wealth" but it looks like you're in luck because I'm a firm believer of property rights".

[sailingaway]

he is a savage whose ideas will destroy civilization, if they are implemented.

also, the job of the professor is to stimulate students to think, not to give them his opinions. if you told him that he wasn't doing his job and was wasting your time, you wouldn't have been out of line. you can write that in your evaluation forms at the end of the semester if you don't want to say it now.

if i were you, i would drop the class, because i wouldn't learn anything. but i guess you could stay if you want to understand the mindset of the enemy.

Good luck with that. Did you read the recent study that college students lack critical thinking skills? They are taught on emotion and the conviction of the professor. Dissect it in your mind, parrot it back, get the A, then go forth and take over the world.

Living well is the best revenge.

[ItsTime]

Instead he should say: "Professor, I was going to steal your laptop to "spread the wealth" but it looks like you're in luck because I'm a firm believer of property rights".

Good one :D

[low preference guy]

I don't believe there's anything naturally self-confirming about property claims either.

from an ethical perspective, i think there is. stealing is immoral.

saying that you have a right to your property just means that no one can take your property or prevent you from using it without violating an ethical rule.

about whether this is "natural"... well, humans have a natural ability to reason, but to use that faculty to live well, they need to be able to acquire property and use it freely. so from that point of view property rights are natural.

[low preference guy]

Instead he should say: "Professor, I was going to steal your laptop to "spread the wealth" but it looks like you're in luck because I'm a firm believer of property rights".

thread winner!

[LedHed]

Professors sometime deliberatively argue a point to inspire their students to think for themselves and question established point of view or philosophy. However, be prepared to argue your position with logic, not mere feelings. It appears that perhaps you might be the only one in the class who is getting the point - whether you yourself know this or not. Were you called a "troll" for not going along with the crowd?

[mczerone]

he is a savage whose ideas will destroy civilization, if they are implemented.

also, the job of the professor is to stimulate students to think, not to give them his opinions. if you told him that he wasn't doing his job and was wasting your time, you wouldn't have been out of line.

They're not his opinions. They are the "leading theories of political theory". The same shit is in economics classes and law lectures. Even if the professor disagrees, he or she must teach "this is why we need government".

[low preference guy]

Professors sometime deliberatively argue a point to inspire their students to think for themselves and question established point of view or philosophy.

have you taken a class at a college recently? the likelihood that this professor was trying to inspire students to think for themselves is close to zero.

[zade]

from an ethical perspective, i think there is. stealing is immoral.

saying that you have a right to your property just means that no one can take your property or prevent you from using it without violating an ethical rule.

about whether this is "natural"... well, humans have a natural ability to reason, but to use that faculty to live well, they need to be able to acquire property and use it freely. so from that point of view property rights are natural.

Only if ethics are objective, which is a different issue. If you think about it, isn't property just whatever you're willing to protect with force? There is no mystical bond that exists between you and your property unless you accept god stuff. I think a lot of people here use the term natural property rights to describe simply the capability of using things and having them under your control, which makes sense. But "rights" and capability are not interchangeable. Because someone else may have the capability to use more force than you have to deprive you of your "property."

And this you say is morally wrong. But I wouldn't exactly say that's objective. In fact, to me, theft by force seems actually more "natural," as this is what goes on in the animal kingdom constantly. But that doesn't mean it's desirable, I wouldn't say it's desirable of course. I think property rules are very useful things, and we should have them, but nevertheless things that exist as social constructs in order to create a society where the rules promote the common goals of peace and prosperity.

[low preference guy]

Only if ethics are objective, which is a different issue.

well yeah, i believe ethics, properly understood is objective. the concept of "rights" arises in that context. if someone doesn't grasp or believes that stealing is objectively immoral, then he of course wouldn't understand the concept of rights.


There is no mystical bond that exists between you and your property unless you accept god stuff.

Ayn Rand would disagree. there doesn't have to be a mystical bond, but there can still be ethics.


in fact, to me, theft by force seems actually more "natural," as this is what goes on in the animal kingdom constantly.

i think what's natural for animals is different from humans because humans can reason.

but nature doesn't determine of course how humans act. humans act by choice. ethical rules and property rights are only natural if one assumes humans want to live well and use rationality to do it.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

If there is no natural right to property, then there is no right to life, and therefore chaos, destruction, and unparalleled misery ensues. However, even if you reject this argument, one cannot reject the absolute that I have sole autonomy of myself. That would seem to indicate my natural right of self-ownership, and ownership implies property. I mean, you could also go into Argumentation Ethics if you wanted, but that is a bit deliberated in libertarian circles.

[zade]

ethical rules and property rights are only natural if one assumes humans want to live well and use rationality to do it.

Yeah that's what I'm saying. You used the word "want." I don't personally want to be physically harmed or have the things that i need or enjoy taken away from me. And I wouldn't want that to happen to anyone else either. And yes, this is probably quite a natural desire, but still just a desire. So yes, I would want to use these natural convictions and the rational capability to carry them out as a goal for the best possible society, but I don't see how this desire is a self-enforcing objective moral reality.

For example, many of you reject all claims of government property as illegitimate. It is because they first had to steal in order to have for themselves. In which case, basically all property claims in the society established in North America by westerners would be just as illegitimate, as all the land and resources within were first taken from the Native Americans by Europeans. And in modern times, where not everyone has their own private security forces to protect their property or the willingness or ability to do so themselves, it is largely the government which provides the force necessary to sustain property claims as they are.

So I just can't see it as being that clear-cut. I've heard it proposed as a solution in discussions of pollution that the entire ocean and all the things in it should be privately owned. In what way could such a claim be meaningful other than a piece of paper saying someone owns it, since it is pragmatically impossible to even have enough force or protection to physically defend such a claim.

[Jack Bauer]

Individuals can exist without the state but the state cannot exist without individuals. In fact, for most of our evolutionary history, individuals have existed without a formally structured state.

Thus, the individual is a naturally existing entity. The state is an artificial construct. The state is essentially a contract between several individuals.

Only natural entities can have natural rights (now you may disagree on what are natural rights but thats an entirely different argument) and thus only individuals can possess natural rights. The state being an artificially constructed entity, can only possess contractually (formal or informal) agreed rights.

You cannot dispose and distribute those rights that you do not possess yourself and the state cannot endow anyone with natural rights, because it doesn't have those rights itself! The concept of individuals deriving their natural rights from the state is not only absurd, its downright ridiculous.

PS: Your prof. is not a radical, he's just plain dumb.

[Deborah K]

I don't believe there's anything naturally self-confirming about property claims either.

Do you believe the fruits of your labor are your property?

[Kludge]

I wrote this a few years ago for a gov't class. I still agree with it, and your professor. It isn't just physical property rights, it's a philosophical skepticism of entitlements altogether. In that regard, rights (LEGAL rights or what I would call "practical rights") must obviously be granted by some type of government, whether de facto or de jure.

"I believe that a "right" is only a right when society (government) recognizes, guarantees, and protects the right. People of the present United States may say they have a right to healthcare, but that obviously isn't true since they aren't receiving the healthcare they believe themselves entitled to, even if God is claimed as a source of that right. It only becomes a right when the government grants and protects it. This is most evident in anarchy, where it is most observable that are no natural rights at all. My neighbor could shoot me and there would be no guarantee (nor likelihood) that the murderer would even be sought. Especially in modern times of small lethal guns, potent poisons and devastating explosives, life would definitely be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" if government didn't at least try to grant and protect "rights" since at least Locke, Hobbe and I agree that people are inherently selfish (not that it is necessarily bad).

The "rights" Jefferson chose are valuable to any society and worth protecting, but I don't believe that they were granted by God or nature but rather humans themselves. I think the Bill of Rights shows that at least some of the Framers didn't believe in Natural Rights either, as the Bill of Rights isn't a decree by God or Nature that government must follow, but a directive by people who established the (new) rules of the government. If Jefferson (and all other Framers) truly believed the rights he listed to be inherent, there would be no point in re-establishing that on a written document of rules government must follow.

Most strange is that the fifth amendment guarantees that " ... private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation". Aren't representatives then violating the Consitution every single time they spend taxpayer (or "printed") money on something not of value to the taxpayer directly? Giving an extravagant "last meal" to a "Death Row" inmate certainly gives me no benefits. So even when rights are supposedly guaranteed by the government, they don't follow through. The entire concept of "rights" may be useless and flawed since no being, collective, or object can truly guarantee them. The government doesn't always protect "rights", God doesn't always protect "rights", and surely people (many, at least) aren't capable of respecting "rights".

Instead, maybe they (government/God[god/gods]/people) merely grant privileges and then try to protect them. I have the privilege of living until someone/something takes it away. I have the privilege of healthcare until I can no longer afford it. I have the privilege of eating until I can no longer obtain it.
In a Communist (or any other) society, I would be granted (ideally though very unlikely) those same privileges until a revolution occurs, seeking different privileges or until the government crumbles under its own policies/corruption/etc. The same would be true with a Church organization. Let's say they give food and drink to those unable to obtain it themselves. The church is then merely trying to protect my privilege to eat, drink and live. Even other people try to protect others' privilege to eat/drink/live when they give to charity or feed/house the person directly.

If it were truly a right, isn't it the duty of those with extra to give all they can to those without? Isn't Communism or some other radical form of socialism the only logical outcome if a society believes in rights? I see now why some may view Communism as a Utopia, those who truly believe in "rights" anyways... If "rights" were considered only as a privilege, then selfishness could be justified. In a society which "guarantees rights" though, it would just be immoral and a violation of rights if someone has excess and doesn't give to someone without enough because the duties of society (the governed individuals) and government cannot be different."

[nobody's_hero]

Sometimes I think teachers are more powerful than politicians. After all, who taught the politicians everything they know?

[Eric21ND]

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=BB9FD099AB05F435

Start here.

[BuddyRey]

"Radical" is more a product of one's historical context than anything else. In the 1770's, your views would put you squarely in the mainstream of political thought, and your professor would be considered the radical for supporting such massive government (far more even than Hamilton and the other Federalists envisioned it at the time).

[Promontorium]

I've taken Poli Theory, and Philosophy, both covered Locke. I actually had much more appreciation for my Philosophy teacher who challenged and criticized every philosopher we covered. I too was alone in defending property rights, but the way he challenged me made me appreciate the course, and his instruction. He took a more socratic approach, he didn't simply say "Locke was a fool" but instead propsed scenarios that might challenge his ideas.

So I would say to the OP, maybe your professor was just challenging you, but if he's a jerk, or you find your papers are being critiqued harshly, he might just suck.


As for land ownership, I do find it's a different kind of situation than most other rights. Land, by its nature is not easily defined. I don't want to get into extreme detail on the matter, but I find that conceptual possession of physical land is less a right, than a manifestation of social agreement.

I saw a great example recently, the hills of Berkeley are slowly sliding down towards the San Francisco Bay. Houses are going with the soil. By traditional concepts of "property rights" the houses that have drifted (about an inch a year) onto their neighbor's land claim (by Lat/Long) are now violating that property and would usually become the financial burden to move the house, or destroy it. However every house is sliding down, and so as each house and yard stays equidistant, every house is off its own plot, and now in someone else's plot. By the "right" of property, every person should be homeless. That's ridiculous. Instead the people are accepting that their homes are slowly drifitng (slow enough that it's unlikely to ever be an issue in their lifetime) and an entire neighborhood accepts that Lat/Long property claim isn't a purely rational endeavor. This is just one example, I could probably rattle out dozens.

Land, as it is, simply can't be a "right" by definition of rights, rather I think the right is derived from a more conceptual base. For example, if you have a "right" to an area of land, how high up? 10,000 feet? 100,000 feet? Do satellites need your permission? How deep is your claim? Beyond the soil? The lithosphere? The Asthenosphere? The core? The land on the opposite end of Earth? What about borders? If a river is a border, when the river moves, does your border? It's arbitrary. It's a social concoction. Not saying people shouldn't have private land, I think they should. I'm not saying the government shouldn't stay the hell off, I think they should. But it isn't like free speech or owning a car, it's a whole other realm.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I've taken Poli Theory, and Philosophy, both covered Locke. I actually had much more appreciation for my Philosophy teacher who challenged and criticized every philosopher we covered. I too was alone in defending property rights, but the way he challenged me made me appreciate the course, and his instruction. He took a more socratic approach, he didn't simply say "Locke was a fool" but instead propsed scenarios that might challenge his ideas.

So I would say to the OP, maybe your professor was just challenging you, but if he's a jerk, or you find your papers are being critiqued harshly, he might just suck.


As for land ownership, I do find it's a different kind of situation than most other rights. Land, by its nature is not easily defined. I don't want to get into extreme detail on the matter, but I find that conceptual possession of physical land is less a right, than a manifestation of social agreement.

I saw a great example recently, the hills of Berkeley are slowly sliding down towards the San Francisco Bay. Houses are going with the soil. By traditional concepts of "property rights" the houses that have drifted (about an inch a year) onto their neighbor's land claim (by Lat/Long) are now violating that property and would usually become the financial burden to move the house, or destroy it. However every house is sliding down, and so as each house and yard stays equidistant, every house is off its own plot, and now in someone else's plot. By the "right" of property, every person should be homeless. That's ridiculous. Instead the people are accepting that their homes are slowly drifitng (slow enough that it's unlikely to ever be an issue in their lifetime) and an entire neighbirhood accepts that Lat/Long property claim isn't a purely rational endeavor. This is just one example, I could probably rattle out dozens.

Land, as it is, simply can't be a "right" by definition of rights, rather I think the right is derived from a more conceptual base. For example, if you have a "right" to an area of land, how high up? 10,000 feet? 100,000 feet? Do satellites need your permission? How deep is your claim? Beyond the soil? The lithosphere? The Asthenosphere? The core? The land on the opposit end of Earth? What about borders? If a river is a border, when the river moves, does your border? It's arbitrary. It's a social concoction. Not saying people shouldn't have private land, I think they should. I'm not saying the government shouldn't stay the hell off, I think they should. But it isn't like free speech or owning a car, it's a whole other realm.

To be honest I don't think you studied Locke at all, or any other following in the NP-Lockean Tradition. Property rights are clearly detailed in the natural right of property -- e.g. self-ownership. This comes to fruition with the Lockean notion of homesteading, that is mixing your labor to better the land. That is justly owned property following from the natural right of self-ownership. I am surprised with the number of strawman and non-sequitors in your post for someone who has proclaimed to study Locke, and liberal and libertarian tradition.

Also one other point of contention. Land isn't a right. Property is a natural right.

I think this will help in furthering your understanding of the issue:

Rothbard: Introduction to Natural Law
4. Natural Law and Natural Rights

http://mises.org/daily/2426#4

& Straight from Locke:

[E]very man has a property in his own person. This nobody has any right to but himself. The labour of his body and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it that excludes the common right of other men. For this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer; no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to….

[Promontorium]

To be honest I don't think you studied Locke at all,


AED, really? Could you be a more condescending douchebag?

Calling me a liar in saying I've never read Locke (or anyone). Accussing me of making nothing but straw man arguments. To what? I wasn't arguing with anyone. I pointed out a real example that questions the nature of location based property.

Yeah, I didn't write out every single aspect of property rights, you got me! I didn't write out the entire history of property law, I didn't lay out the foundations of natural rights, I didn't define the essence of land use. You sure showed me!

You are a troll.

[AFPVet]

I am a Health Science major but I had some electives so I decided to to a Political Theory class. Today in that class, my professor told us that John Locke was a fool and that property rights are not natural rights. He said that property rights are granted by the state!!! He then began to argue the virtues of the state using force to redistribute wealth. The worst part is that the class overwhelming supported his view!!!

I was the only student in the class with a dissenting opinion! Am I the radical or is he?

Seriously? So no other students had a brain? Obviously, your professor is not correct. One would think that a political scientist would have studied constitutional history.

[BenIsForRon]

Austrian Econ Disciple, how long after a piece of land has been stolen does the property become the thief's instead of the victim's.

[Sentient Void]

Austrian Econ Disciple, how long after a piece of land has been stolen does the property become the thief's instead of the victim's.

Well, the quick and simple answer is: the time it's held by the criminal is irrelevant. What's relevant is if the property someone has control over was attained justly or not. If not - then it may be expropriated at any time and returned to it's rightful owner or ancestors. Now, it can also not be so simple, particularly in regards to where property has been expropriated numerous times over by individuals, groups, the State, etc... for this, Rothbard dives right in.

Ffor all such questions, they have been covered effectively by Rothbard. In one instance he covers it in his (awesome) book 'The Ethics of Liberty', on Chapter 9: Property and Criminality.. Here's the chapter in it's entirety, where he starts off on the foundation and works towards the question you (and others) have proposed.

here you go (Apologies for the format. You can download the book in PDF for free at Mises.org BTW.):


W e may define anyone who aggresses against the person or other
produced property of another as a criminal. A criminal is anyone
who initiates violence against another man and his property:
anyone who uses the coercive "political means" for the acquisition of goods
and services.'
Now, however, critical problems arise; we are now indeed at the
very heart of the entire problem of liberty, property, and violence in society.
A crucial question-and one which has unfortunately been almost totally
neglected by libertarian theorists-may be illustrated by the following examples:
Suppose we are walking down the street and we see a man, A, seizing
B by the wrist and grabbing B's wristwatch. There is no question that A is
here violating both the person and the property of B. Can we then simply infer
from this scene that A is a criminal aggressor, and B his innocent victim?
Certainly not-for we don't know simply from our observation
whether A is indeed a thief, or whether A is merely repossessing his own
watch from B who had previously stolen it from him. In short, while the
watch had undoubtedly been B's property until the moment of A's attack,
we don't know whether or not A had been the legitimate owner at some
earlier time, and had been robbed by B. Therefore, we do not yet know
which one of the two men is the legitimate or just property owner. We can
only find the answer through investigating the concrete data of the
particular case, i.e., through "historical" inquiry.
Thus, we cannot simply say that the great axiomatic moral rule
of the libertarian society is the protection of property rights, period.
For the criminal has no natural right whatever to the retention of property
that he has stolen; the aggressor has no right to claim any property
that he has acquired by aggression. Therefore, we must modify or rather clarify the basic rule of the libertarian society to say that no one has
the right to aggress against the legtimate or just property of another.
In short, we cannot simply talk of defense of "property rights" or of
"private property" per se. For if we do so, we are in grave danger of defending
the "property right" of a criminal aggressor-in fact, we logically
must do so. We may therefore only speak of just property or legitimate property
or perhaps "natural property."And this means that, in concrete cases,
we must decide whether any single given act of violence is aggressive or
defensive: e.g., whether it is a case of a criminal robbing a victim, or of a
victim trying to repossess his property.
Another vital implication of this way of looking at the world is to
invalidate totally the utilitarian way of looking at property rights and
therefore of looking at the free market. For the utilitarian, who has no
concqtion, let alone theory, of justice, must fall back on the pragmatic, ad
hoc view that all titles to private property currently existing at any time
or place must be treated as valid and accepted as worthy of defense against
~iolat ionT.~hi s, in fact, is the way utilitarian free-market economists
invariably treat the question of property rights. Note, however, that the
utilitarian has managed to smuggle into his discussion an unexamined
ethic: that all goods "now" (the time and place at which the discussion
occurs) considered private property must be accepted and defended as
such. In practice, this means that all private property titles designated
by any existing government (which has everywhere seized the monopoly
of defining titles to property) must be accepted as such. This is an ethic
that is blind to all considerations of justice, and, pushed to its logical
conclusion, must also defend every criminal in the property that he has
managed to expropriate. We conclude that the utilitarian's simply praising
a free market based upon all existing property titles is invalid and ethically
nihilistic.
I am convinced, however, that the real motor for social and political
change in our time has been a moral indignation arising from the fallacious
theory of surplus value: that the capitalists have stolen the rightful property of the workers, and therefore that existing titles to accumulated capital
are unjust. Given this hypothesis, the remainder of the impetus for both
Marxism and anarchosyndicalism follow quite logically. From an apprehension
of what appears to be monstrous injustice flows the call for "expropriation
of the expropriators," and, in both cases, for some form of "reversion"
of the ownership and the control of the property to the workem4 Their
arguments cannot be successfully countered by the maxims of utilitarian
economics or philosophy, but only by dealing forthrightly with the moral
problem, with the problem of the justice or injustice of various claims to
property.
Neither can Marxist views be rebutted by utilitarian paeans to the
virtues of "social peace." Social peace is all very well, but true peace is
essentially the quiet, unmolested enjoyment of one's legitimate property,
and if a social system is founded upon monstrously unjust property titles,
not molesting them is not peace but rather the enshrinement and
entrenchment of permanent aggression. Neither can the Marxists be
rebutted by pointing the finger at their use of violent methods of
overthrow. It is, to be sure, a consistent creed-though one that I do not
sharethat no violence should ever be used by anyone against anyone
else: even by a victim against a criminal. But this Tolstoyan-Gandhian
moral position is really irrelevant here. For the point at question is whether
or not the victim has a moral right to employ violence in defending
his person or property against criminal attack or in repossessing property
from the criminal. The Tolstoyan may concede that the victim has such a
right but may try to persuade him not to exercise that right in the name
of a higher morality. But this takes us afield from our discussion into broader
reaches of ethical philosophy. I would only add here that any such total
objector to violence must then be consistent and advocate that no criminal
ever be punished by the use of violent means. And this implies, let us note,
not only abstaining from capital punishment but from all punishment
whatsoever, and, indeed, from all methods of violent defense that might
conceivably injure an aggressor. In short, to employ that horrid cliche to
which we shall have occasion to return, the Tolstoyan may not use force
to prevent someone from raping his sister.
The point here is that only Tolstoyans are entitled to object to the
violent overthrow of an entrenched criminal group; for everyone who is
not a Tolstoyan favors the use of force and violence to defend against and punish criminal aggression. He must therefore favor the morality, if
not the wisdom, of using force to overthrow entrenched criminality. If
so, then we are pushed immediately back to the really important question:
who is the criminal, and therefore who is the aggressor? Or, in other words,
against whom is it legitimate to use violence? And if we concede that
capitalist property is morally illegitimate, then we cannot deny the right
of the workers to employ whatever violence may be necessary to seize
the property, just as A, in our above example, would have been within
his rights in forcibly repossessing his watch if B had stolen it previously.
The only genuine refutation of the Marxian case for revolution, then,
is that capitalists' property is just rather than unjust, and that therefore
its seizure by workers or by anyone else would in itself be unjust and
criminal. But this means that we must enter into the question of the justice
of property claims, and it means further that we cannot get away with
the easy luxury of trying to refute revolutionary claims by arbitrarily
placing the mantle of "justice" upon any and all existing property titles.
Such an act will scarcely convince people who believe that they or others
are being grievously oppressed and permanently aggressed against. But
this also means that we must be prepared to discover cases in the world
where violent expropriation of existing property titles will be morally
justified, because these titles are themselves unjust and criminal.
Let us again use an example to make our thesis clear. To use Ludwig
von Mises's excellent device for abstracting from emotionalism, let us
take a hypothetical country, "Ruritania." Let us say that Ruritania is ruled
by a king who has grievously invaded the rights of persons and the
legitimate property of individuals, and has regulated and finally seized
their property. A libertarian movement develops in Ruritania, and comes
to persuade the bulk of the populace that this criminal system should be
replaced by a truly libertarian society, where the rights of each man to
his person and his found and created property are fully respected. The
king, seeing the revolt to be imminently successful, now employs a
cunning stratagem. He proclaims his government to be dissolved, but
just before doing so he arbitrarily parcels out the entire land area of his
kingdom to the "ownership" of himself and his relatives. He then goes
to the libertarian rebels and says: "all right, I have granted your wish,
and have dissolved my rule; there is now no more violent intervention
in private property. However, myself and my eleven relatives now each
own one-twelfth of Ruritania, and if you disturb us in this ownership in
any way, you shall be infringing upon the sanctity of the very fundamental
principle that you profess: the inviolability of private property. Therefore,
while we shall no longer be imposing 'taxes,' you must grant each of us the right to impose any 'rents' that we may wish upon our 'tenantsrlor to
regulate the lives of all the people who presume to live on 'our' property
as we see fit. In this way, taxes shall be fully replaced by 'private rents'!"
Now what should be the reply of the libertarian rebels to this pert
challenge? If they are consistent utilitarians, they must bow to this subterfuge,
and resign themselves to living under a regime no less despotic than
the one they had been battling for so long. Perhaps, indeed, more despotic,
for now the king and his relatives can claim for themselves the libertarians'
very principle of the absolute right of private property, an absoluteness
which they might not have dared to claim before.
It should be clear that for the libertarians to refute this stratagem
they must take their stand on a theory of just versus unjust property;
they cannot remain utilitarians. They would then say to the king: "We
are sorry, but we only recognize private property claims that are justthat
emanate from an individual's fundamental natural right to own
himself and the property which he has either transformed by his energy
or which has been voluntarily given or bequeathed to him by such
transformers. We do not, in short, recognize anyone's right to any given
piece of property purely on his or anyone else's arbitrary say-so that it is
his own. There can be no natural moral right derivable from a man's
arbitrary claim that any property is his. Therefore, we claim the right to
expropriate the 'private' property of you and your relations, and to return
that property to the individual owners against whom you aggressed by
imposing your illegitimate claim."
One corollary that flows from this discussion is of vital importance
for a theory of liberty. This is that, in the deepest sense, all property is
"pri~ate."F~o r all property belongs to, is controlled by, some individual
persons or groups of persons. If B stole a watch from A, then the watch
was B's private "propertyn-was under his control and de facto ownership-
so long as he was allowed to possess and use it. Therefore, whether
the watch was in the hands of A or B, it was in private hands-in some
cases, legitimate-private, in others criminal-private, but private just the
same.
As we shall see further below, the same holds for individuals
forming themselves into any sort of group. Thus, when they formed the
government, the king and his relatives controlled-and therefore at least
partially "ownedu-the property of the persons against whom they were
aggressing. When they parcelled out the land into the "private" property of
each, they again shared in owning the country, though in formally different ways. The form of private property differed in the two cases, but not the
essence. Thus, the crucial question in society is not, as so many believe,
whether property should be private or governmental, but rather whether
the necessarily "private" owners are legitimate owners or criminals. For,
ultimately, there is no entity called "government"; there are only people
forming themselves into goups called "governments" and acting in a "governmental"
manner.6 All property is therefore always "private"; the only
and critical question is whether it should reside in the hands of criminals
or of the proper and legitimate owners. There is really only one reason
for libertarians to oppose the formation of governmental property or to
call for its divestment: the realization that the rulers of government are
unjust and criminal owners of such property.
In short, the laissez-faire utilitarian cannot simply oppose "government"
ownership and defend private; for the trouble with governmental
property is not so much that it is governmental (for what of "private" criminals
like our watch-stealer?) but that it is illegitimate, unjust, and criminal-
as in the case of our Ruritanian king. And since "private" criminals
are also reprehensible, we see that the social question of property cannot
ultimately be treated in utilitarian terms as either private or governmental.
It must be treated in terms of justice or injustice: of legitimate propertyowners
vs. illegitimate, criminal invaders of such property, whether these
invaders are called "private" or "public." The libertarian may now be
getting ratlier worried. He may say: "granted that you are right in principle,
that property titles must be validated by justice, and that neither the
criminal may be allowed to keep the stolen watch, nor the king and his
relatives 'their' country, how can your principle be applied in practice?
Wouldn't this involve a chaotic inquiry into everyone's property title,
and furthermore, what criterion can you establish for the justice of these
titles?"
The answer is that the criterion holds as we have explained above:
The right of every individual to own his person and the property that he
has found and transformed, and therefore "created," and the property
which he has acquired either as gifts from or in voluntary exchange with
other such transformers or "producers." It is true that existing property
titles must be scrutinized, but the resolution of the problem is much
simpler than the question assumes. For remember always the basic
principle: that all resources, all goods, in a state of no-ownership belong
properly to the first person who finds and transforms them into a useful
good (the "homestead" principle). We have seen this above in the case of unused land and natural resources: the first to find and mix his labor
with them, to possess and use them, "produces" them and becomes their
legitimate property owner. Now suppose that Mr. Jones has a watch; if
we cannot clearly show that Jones or his ancestors to the property title in
the watch were criminals, then we must say that since Mr. Jones has been
possessing and using it, that he is truly the legitimate and just property
owner.
Or, to put the case another way: if we do not know if Jones's title to
any given property is criminally-derived, then we may assume that this
property was, at least momentarily in a state of no-ownership (since we
are not sure about the original title), and therefore that the proper title of
ownership reverted instantaneously to Jones as its "first" (i.e., current)
possessor and user. In short, where we are not sure about a title but it
cannot be clearly identified as criminally derived, then the title properly
and legitimately reverts to its current possessor.
But now suppose that a title to property is clearly identifiable as
criminal, does this necessarily mean that the current possessor must give
it up? No, not necessarily. For that depends on two considerations: (a)
whether the victim (the property owner originally aggressed against) or
his heirs are clearly identifiable and can now be found; or (b) whether or
not the current possessor is himselfthe criminal who stole the property.
Suppose, for example, that Jones possesses a watch, and that we can clearly
show that Jones's title is originally criminal, either because (1) his ancestor
stole it, or (2) because he or his ancestor purchased it from a thief (whether
wittingly or unwittingly is immaterial here). Now, ifwe can identify and
find the victim or his heir, then it is clear that Jones's title to the watch is
totally invalid, and that it must promptly revert to its true and legitimate
owner. Thus, if Jones inherited or purchased the watch from a man who
stole it from Smith, and if Smith or the heir to his estate can be found,
then the title to the watch properly reverts immediately back to Smith or
his descendants, without compensation to the existing possessor of the criminally
derived "title."7 Thus, if a current title to property is criminal in
origin, and the victim or his heir can be found, then the title should
immediately revert to the latter.
Suppose, however, that condition (a) is not fulfilled: in short, that
we know that Jones's title is criminal, but that we cannot now find the
victim or his current heir. Who now is the legitimate and moral property owner? The answer to this question now depends on whether or not Jones
himself is the criminal, whether Jones is the man who stole the watch. If
Jones was the thief, then it is quite clear that he cannot be allowed to keep
it, for the criminal cannot be allowed to keep the reward of his crime;
and he loses the watch, and probably suffers other punishments beside^.^
In that case, who gets the watch? Applying our libertarian theory of property,
the watch is now-after Jones has been apprehended-in a state of
no-ownership, and it must therefore become the legitimate property of
the first person to "homestead" it-to take it and use it, and therefore, to
have converted it from an unused, no-ownership state to a useful, owned
state. The first person who does so then becomes its legitimate, moral,
and just owner.
But suppose that Jones is not the criminal, not the man who stole the
watch, but that he had inherited or had innocently purchased it from the
thief. And suppose, of course, that neither the victim nor his heirs can be
found. In that case, the disappearance of the victim means that the stolen
property comes properly into a state of no-ownership. But we have seen
that any good in a state of no-ownership, with no legitimate owner of its
title, reverts as legitimate property to the first person to come along and use
it, to appropriate this now unowned resource for human use. But this
"first" person is clearly Jones, who has been using it all along. Therefore,
we conclude that even though the property was originally stolen, that if
the victim or his heirs cannot be found, and ifthe current possessor was
not the actual criminal who stole the property, then title to that property
belongs properly, justly, and ethically to its current possessor.
To sum up, for any property currently claimed and used: (a) if we
know clearly that there was no criminal origin to its current title, then
obviously the current title is legitimate, just and valid; (b) if we donlf
know whether the current title had any criminal origins, but can't find
out either way, then the hypothetically "unowned" property reverts
instantaneously and justly to its current possessor; (c) if we do know that
the title is originally criminal, but can't find the victim or his heirs, then
(cl) if the current title-holder was not the criminal aggressor against the
property, then it reverts to him justly as the first owner of a hypothetically
unowned property. But (c2) if the current titleholder is himself the criminal
or one of the criminals who stole the property, then clearly he is properly
to be deprived of it, and it then reverts to the first man who takes it out of its unowned state and appropriates it for his use. And finally, (d) if the
current title is the result of crime, and the victim or his heirs can be found,
then the title properly reverts immediately to the latter, without
compensation to the criminal or to the other holders of the unjust title.
It might be objected that the holder or holders of the unjust title (in
the cases where they are not themselves the criminal aggressors) should
be entitled to the property which they added on to the property which
was not justly theirs, or, at the very least, to be compensated for such
additions. In reply, the criterion should be whether or not the addition is
separable from the original property in question. Suppose, for example,
that Brown steals a car from Black, and that Brown sells the car to
Robinson. In our view, then, the car must be returned immediately to the
true owner, Black, without compensation to Robinson. Being a victim of
a theft should not impose obligations on Black to recompense someone
else. Of course, Robinson has a legitimate complaint against the car-thief
Brown, and should be able to sue Brown for repayment or damages on
the basis of the fraudulent contract that Brown had foisted upon him
(pretending that the car was really Brown's property to sell). But suppose
that Robinson, in the course of his possession of the car, had added a
new car radio; since the radio is separable from the car, he should be able
to extract the radio as legitimately his own before returning the car to
Black. On the other hand, if the addition is not separable, but an integral
part of the property (e.g., a repaired engine), then Robinson should not
be able to demand any payment or property from Black (although perhaps
he may be able to do so by suing Brown). Similarly if Brown had stolen
a parcel of land from Black, and sold it to Robinson, the criterion should
again be the separability of any additions Robinson had made to the
property. If, for example, Robinson had built some buildings on the
property, then he should be able to move the buildings or demolish them
before turning the land over to the original landowner, Black.
Our example of the stolen car enables us to see immediately the
injustice of the current legal concept of the "negotiable instrument." In
current law, the stolen car would indeed revert to the original owner
with no obligation on the owner's part to compensate the current holder
of the unjust title. But the State has designated certain goods as "negotiable
instruments" (e.g., dollar bills) which the non-criminal recipient or buyer
is now deemed to own, and who cannot be forced to return them to the
victim. Special legislation has also made pawnbrokers into a similarly
privileged class; so that if Brown steals a typewriter from Black, and then
pawns it with Robinson, the pawnbroker may not be forced to return the
typewriter to its just property owner, Black. To some readers, our doctrine may seem harsh on good-faith recipients
of goods which later turn out to be stolen and unjustly possessed. But
we should remember that, in the case of land purchase, title searches are
a common practice, as well as title insurance against such problems. In
the libertarian society, presumably the business of title search and title
insurance will become more extensive to apply to the wider areas of the
protection of the rights of just and private property.
We see, then, that, properly developed libertarian theory neither joins
the utilitarians in placing an arbitrary and indiscriminate ethical blessing
upon every current property title, nor does it open the morality of existing
titles to total uncertainty and chaos. On the contrary, from the fundamental
axiom of the natural right of every man to property in his self and in
the unowned resources which he finds and transforms into use, libertarian
theory deduces the absolute morality and justice of all current titles to
property except where the origin of the current titles is criminal, and (1)
the victim or his heirs can be identified and found, or (2) the victim cannot
be found but the current title-holder is the criminal in question. In the
former case, the property reverts in common justice to the victim or his
heirs; in the latter, it becomes the property of the first appropriator to alter
its unowned state.
We thus have a theory of the rights of property: that every man has an
absolute right to the control and ownership of his own body, and to
unused land resources that he finds and transforms. He also has the right
to give away such tangible property (though he cannot alienate control
over his own person and will) and to exchange it for the similarly derived
properties of others. Hence, all legitimate property-right derives from
every man's property in his own person, as well as the "homesteading"
principle of unowned property rightly belonging to the first possessor.
We also have a theory of criminality: a criminal is someone who
aggresses against such property. Any criminal titles to property should
be invalidated and turned over to the victim or his heirs; if no such victims
can be found, and if the current possessor is not himself the criminal,
then the property justly reverts to the current possessor on our basic
"homesteading" principle.
Let us now see how this theory of property may be applied to
different categories of property. The simplest case, of course, is property
in persons. The fundamental axiom of libertarian theory is that each person
must be a self-owner, and that no one has the right to interfere with such
self-ownership. From this there follows immediately the total
impermissibility of property in another person. One prominent example of this sort of property is the institution of slavery. Before 1865, for example,
slavery was a "private property" title to many persons in the United
States. The fact of such private title did not make it legitimate; on the
contrary, it constituted a continuing aggression, a continuing criminality,
of the masters (and of those who helped enforce their titles) against their
slaves. For here the victims were immediately and clearly identifiable, and
the master was every day committing aggression against his slaves. We
should also point out that, as in our hypothetical case of the king of Ruritania,
utilitarianism provides no firm basis for vacating the "property right"
of a master in his slaves.
When slavery was a common practice, much discussion raged as to
whether or how much the master should be monetarily compensated for
the loss of his slaves if slavery were to be abolished. This discussion was
palpably absurd. For what do we do when we have apprehended a thief
and recovered a stolen watch: do we compensate the thief for the loss of
the watch, or do we punish him? Surely, the enslavement of a man's very
person and being is a far more heinous crime than the theft of his watch,
and should be dealt with accordingly. As the English classical liberal
Benjamin Pearson commented acidly: "the proposal had been made to
compensate the slaveowners and he had thought it was the slaves who
should have been compen~ated."A~n~d clearly, such compensation could
only justly have come from the slaveholders themselves, and not from
the ordinary taxpayers.
It should be emphasized that on the question of slavery, whether or
not it should have been abolished immediately is irrelevant to problems
of social disruption, of the sudden impoverishing of slave masters, or of
the flowering of Southern culture, let alone the question-interesting, of
course, on other grounds-whether slavery was good for the soil, and
for the economic growth of the South, or would have disappeared in one
or two generations. For the libertarian, for the person who believes in
justice, the sole consideration was the monstrous injustice and continuing
aggression of slavery, and therefore the necessity of abolishing the
institution as soon as it could be accomplished.

[Sentient Void]

As for land, one owns the part of land that he has justly acquired through voluntary exchange and/or mixed his labor with. He doesn't own any area above the land (whether it's 50 feet, 500 feet, or 10000 feet), nor does he own any land beneath his house and ground for which he has or does mix his labor with. For example, as long as you didn't disturb his plot of land (and if you did, you would be responsible for damage to his property as a violation of it), you could justly dig a trench deep enough under his property to make a tunnel if someone refuses to sell their land in order to build a road for transportation.

As for you professor and his absurdities, ask him if there is any State that mandates a bear has a right in his cave property that the bear clearly believes is his from homesteading it. Or a dog and how he treats and perceives *his* bone, and what he does if another animal tries to come near it. While such examples in the animal kingdom are scattered and can be spotted in different species, the human being being *sapient* and with the capacity for reason, wisdom, and a much higher order of intelligence is able to consistently recognize and utilize this concept of property in order to increase his own standard of living and manipulate his environment further for his own benefit - which many animals cannot nearly come close to.

Property is a concept that predates the State (there was virtually no State in the [not so] Wild West - yet people recognized property very consistently also).

Not to mention the fact that modern civilization and increased standards of living are impossible with property and it's extension of allocating resources effectively through the price system and a supply/demand mechanism.

Ultimately, *all* rights are property rights that extend from the right of self-ownership, and other than the self all other property is attained throguh self-ownership and the homesteading principle (mixing one's owned labor with unowned resources to justify it as one's property). If you acknowledge that one owns himself, then you must believe in property.

You can only be a consistent anti-property dude if you believe you do not own yourself, and either every one owns you, a person owns everyone, or everyone owns eachother, or no one owns anyone including not owning themselves. The logical slippery slopes that are created by advocating any of these concepts are not only dangerous, but easily refuted as absurd in practicality (apart from the moral arguments against them).

[Vessol]

Anyone who believes that all property is owned by the government, then they believe all human beings are owned by the government that they are a part of and thus that government can do whatever they want to with their property. Thus is a given, because without the right to own the production of your labor, you have no liberty and no life as you are simply a slave.

Explain this to him, and then ask him why he thinks slavery in the South was bad when it was the same thing but practiced by individuals rather than the State. Then ask him why he hasn't moved to North Korea, that place would be a wet dream for him.

[Bman]

You have to spell out what force is. Make the class understand what they are advocating. Tie it to something important to themselves. One of my favorite reads has been Frederic Bastiat "The Law" I'd suggest trying to turn as many people on to that as you can also.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

AED, really? Could you be a more condescending douchebag?

Calling me a liar in saying I've never read Locke (or anyone). Accussing me of making nothing but straw man arguments. To what? I wasn't arguing with anyone. I pointed out a real example that questions the nature of location based property.

Yeah, I didn't write out every single aspect of property rights, you got me! I didn't write out the entire history of property law, I didn't lay out the foundations of natural rights, I didn't define the essence of land use. You sure showed me!

You are a troll.

You bring up Locke, then go into a tirade about 'location based land', which has nothing do with Locke, liberal or libertarian natural rights tradition whatsoever. What did you expect me to say? If you are going to provide input, at least do so with a critique of the actual theories. There is actually a strong utilitarian tradition in liberal and libertarian history to provide enough of a critique and a starting point to further the debate, but you didn't even touch on any of that and I doubt your Professor brought any of that up.

Besides, I hold self-professed libertarians up to higher standards on libertarian traditions and history than I do non-libertarians. I would hope all libertarians, even utilitarians would have read and understood Non-Proviso, and Proviso Lockean property rights. Less so would I expect them to understand Georgism, and other land rights theories, but Locke is quite essential.

I never said you haven't read Locke, I said I do not think you studied Locke, which implies an understanding of the theories he proposed. I read many things, and many things I do not completely understand, and things that take time to manifest an understanding of. It took me quite a while to fully understand the epistomelogical foundations and the strict rigorous logical structure of the first 400 pages of Human Action (Mises sure has quite the vocabulary :p).

Really your argument against natural rights is lackluster to say the least. I mean, your last paragraph obviously shows me you do not even know what homesteading is because anyone with an understanding of homesteading would not utter such non-sense strawman and non-sequitors. Sorry if the truth hurts.

[Freedom 4 all]

"Radical" is more a product of one's historical context than anything else. In the 1770's, your views would put you squarely in the mainstream of political thought, and your professor would be considered the radical for supporting such massive government (far more even than Hamilton and the other Federalists envisioned it at the time).

You don't even have to go back that far. If the prof said that back in the cold war when Joseph McCarthy was around, he'd probably have been blacklisted or something. I don't agree that anyone should be punished for their political views no matter how wrong they are, just saying that's what would have happened.

[Fox McCloud]

AED, really? Could you be a more condescending douchebag?

Calling me a liar in saying I've never read Locke (or anyone). Accussing me of making nothing but straw man arguments. To what? I wasn't arguing with anyone. I pointed out a real example that questions the nature of location based property.

Yeah, I didn't write out every single aspect of property rights, you got me! I didn't write out the entire history of property law, I didn't lay out the foundations of natural rights, I didn't define the essence of land use. You sure showed me!

You are a troll.

he's not trolling you; he's bringing up the same objection I likely would have; to mention Locke in the same sentence as "where does property end. . .Do satellites need permission" would make even people with a modicum of knowledge of Locke's philosophy question if you really did read Locke or if you truly did understand the concepts he was espousing. He also didn't say "you didn't read Locke"; he said that he didn't think you read Locke based on the evidence (your post)--it's a fairly rational objection, at least in my opinion, given what you stated.

[Rocco]

Honestly, I would listen to the dude and try to have engaging debate. Can't hurt to expand your world view a little bit and challenge yourself by standing up for your ideals. And this is coming from somebody who has a couple of liberal professors who are very biased and whom I do have a ton of debate with.

[hazek]

I suggest you give the professor a doze of this:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t26ENNxHiPg

[Promontorium]

he's not trolling you; he's bringing up the same objection I likely would have; to mention Locke in the same sentence as "where does property end. . .Do satellites need permission" would make even people with a modicum of knowledge of Locke's philosophy question if you really did read Locke or if you truly did understand the concepts he was espousing. He also didn't say "you didn't read Locke"; he said that he didn't think you read Locke based on the evidence (your post)--it's a fairly rational objection, at least in my opinion, given what you stated.

I didn't mention Locke in the "same sentence", there are 3 fucking paragraphs between my mentioning Locke, and my points about modern conceptions of property.

I don't have to defend myself, when you fail to even bring up any specific objections to what I wrote. And if you don't think he was insulting me, and preemptively dismissing me, without even addressing one actual point then you should probably read it again.

But since I'm on trial...

I've read the Second Treatise twice. I've read Hobbes, Rousseau, Plato, Socrates, Machiavelli, Marx, Hegel, Smith, and Rand.
I'm a Political Science major. I've been pondering the concepts of property rights for years. I've studied modern property laws.

Do I meet your criteria of deserving civil discourse yet?

How about this, if you think I'm wrong, tell me why instead of just listing the education you think I need before I am worthy to converse with you.

You know how I know AED is a troll? Because I actually agree with him on property rights, but he and you failed (or didn't bother) to understood the point I was making, choosing instead to focus on the irrelevant, because even if you or AED are more educated on the subject than I am, it is irrational to conclude that you cannot communicate with me, no, he was just being an asshole. The questions that I proposed, are precisely the kind of questions a good teacher might ask to challenge a student, which refers back to the OP.

You know you aren't worth talking to. You and AED take such a snide, condescending and childish approach to berating me, what do I have to gain from even trying to talk with you? You dismiss me as too ignorant, and make sure to tell me how sure you are of that. I only write this now so the next asshole like you and AED wants to make another "reasoned" assertion of how ignorant you think I am, maybe they'll just keep walking.

[Vessol]

I suggest you give the professor a doze of this:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t26ENNxHiPg

Excellent video!

[mczerone]

As for land ownership, I do find it's a different kind of situation than most other rights. Land, by its nature is not easily defined. I don't want to get into extreme detail on the matter, but I find that conceptual possession of physical land is less a right, than a manifestation of social agreement.

Okay, rather than join the conversation after all the name calling, I'll start by actually analyzing your arguments. First, a definition of terms. How do you distinguish a "right" from a "manifestation of social agreement"? In any formulation of rights the philosopher must recognize that each right is in a dual relationship with a corresponding duty on the part of the surrounding society. Thus this duty, as acted upon, is a manifestation of a social agreement.

The issue then isn't "do you have a right to land equivalent to other personalty?", but instead, "does the manifestation of the social agreement with respect to land differ from the manifestation of the same surrounding personalty?" We could investigate what type of behavior creates such social agreement, how these social agreements are different in practice, and how breeches of these agreements are handled by the individual claiming the right.


I saw a great example recently, the hills of Berkeley are slowly sliding down towards the San Francisco Bay. Houses are going with the soil. By traditional concepts of "property rights" the houses that have drifted (about an inch a year) onto their neighbor's land claim (by Lat/Long) are now violating that property and would usually become the financial burden to move the house, or destroy it. However every house is sliding down, and so as each house and yard stays equidistant, every house is off its own plot, and now in someone else's plot. By the "right" of property, every person should be homeless. That's ridiculous. Instead the people are accepting that their homes are slowly drifitng (slow enough that it's unlikely to ever be an issue in their lifetime) and an entire neighborhood accepts that Lat/Long property claim isn't a purely rational endeavor. This is just one example, I could probably rattle out dozens.

So instead of looking to differences in the types of rights/social agreements in land and personalty in any way, you critique a single method of managing land right claims. The specific response to your hypothetical (a straw-man argument, btw) is that the homeowners still own the same specific molecules comprising their house and yard, but the underlying object of the property claim has moved. This actually suggests that there are no real differences between personalty and realty aside from the inability of the individual to physically move his realty. My watch or car is not defined by an arbitrary coordinate system that is used to pinpoint locations in space-time. Instead my watch, car, and even my land is defined by those underlying physical objects that I have acquired through the Lockean labor theory of property (if we accept this as a valid starting point).


Land, as it is, simply can't be a "right" by definition of rights, rather I think the right is derived from a more conceptual base. For example, if you have a "right" to an area of land, how high up? 10,000 feet? 100,000 feet? Do satellites need your permission? How deep is your claim? Beyond the soil? The lithosphere? The Asthenosphere? The core? The land on the opposite end of Earth? What about borders? If a river is a border, when the river moves, does your border? It's arbitrary. It's a social concoction. Not saying people shouldn't have private land, I think they should. I'm not saying the government shouldn't stay the hell off, I think they should. But it isn't like free speech or owning a car, it's a whole other realm.

This has already been covered by others, and suggests that you haven't grasped the Lockean theory. Have you directly altered the core of the earth or the lithosphere? If you haven't, you can't claim to own it. Have you any control over the core of the earth or the lithosphere? If you do not, you can't claim to own it. Have you any expectation of receiving particular personal benefit from the core of the earth or the lithosphere? If you do not, you can't claim to own it. There is a range of air and sub-foundation surrounding your house that does meet these conditions, and those ranges are part of your property. Anything further is not your property.

The "river-border" is indeed a tougher question - but those same three questions apply to the flow of water as applied to the physical ground your house is sitting on.

And here's the kicker - the ownership of your car or your speech is just as arbitrary. I mean, you don't really own that 7"x11" space in the center of your rear bumper, do you? You don't really own, or have a right to, certain phrases that you will be punished by the government if you say them, do you?

You've made an observation of the nature of land property ownership, which certainly extends to all other physical objects as well, rather than distinguishing them from land.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I didn't mention Locke in the "same sentence", there are 3 fucking paragraphs between my mentioning Locke, and my points about modern conceptions of property.

I don't have to defend myself, when you fail to even bring up any specific objections to what I wrote. And if you don't think he was insulting me, and preemptively dismissing me, without even addressing one actual point then you should probably read it again.

But since I'm on trial...

I've read the Second Treatise twice. I've read Hobbes, Rousseau, Plato, Socrates, Machiavelli, Marx, Hegel, Smith, and Rand.
I'm a Political Science major. I've been pondering the concepts of property rights for years. I've studied modern property laws.

Do I meet your criteria of deserving civil discourse yet?

How about this, if you think I'm wrong, tell me why instead of just listing the education you think I need before I am worthy to converse with you.

You know how I know AED is a troll? Because I actually agree with him on property rights, but he and you failed (or didn't bother) to understood the point I was making, choosing instead to focus on the irrelevant, because even if you or AED are more educated on the subject than I am, it is irrational to conclude that you cannot communicate with me, no, he was just being an asshole. The questions that I proposed, are precisely the kind of questions a good teacher might ask to challenge a student, which refers back to the OP.

You know you aren't worth talking to. You and AED take such a snide, condescending and childish approach to berating me, what do I have to gain from even trying to talk with you? You dismiss me as too ignorant, and make sure to tell me how sure you are of that. I only write this now so the next asshole like you and AED wants to make another "reasoned" assertion of how ignorant you think I am, maybe they'll just keep walking.

Wait a second. In your first paragraph you stated that you studied Locke, and the Professor challenged Locke, and your position on property rights (Here I assume you and Locke agreed). Then, in your last paragraph you go on about easily answered questions if you had actually studied (understood) Locke and homesteading. Why is it a far stretch for me to say I do not think you studied Locke when you make such elementary errors? If you find this condescending, then I am sorry, but I will not rescind what I said.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Austrian Econ Disciple, how long after a piece of land has been stolen does the property become the thief's instead of the victim's.

Like Sentient stated before me, that question is irrelevant, or in other words, the thief can never obtain legitimate property through theft no matter how much time has elapsed. If you cannot find the original owners, or kin of such owner, then the property becomes unowned and homesteadable. In a practical sense on how to implement such theoretical propositions, I would simply state either by removing the person from the property and allowing any individual, or group to homestead it, or in the case of non-land property that it would simply be non-practical as a matter of both logistics and definition (That is, it is quite hard to homestead say, a CD player which has been abandoned, so in this case it would be whoever decides to put it into use receives ownership).

^ This is all based on the inability to determine or find the original owner, or his/her kin. The issue is quite easily solved if you can find the original owner or the kin of the owner.

[Slutter McGee]

My favorite professor was a commie. Philosophy.

But he didnt push his own views. If you argued for wealth ridistribution, he would challenge you with brilliant arguements in support of property rights and individualism. If you tried to argue for property property rights he would challenge you with intelligent arguments against it and in support of socialism. If you argued against Christianity, he would brilliantly defend it. If you argued for Christianity he would attack it.

That is the mark of a good professor. I know in his personal life he was a commie, but he was a good professor. Sounds like this guy just wants force his opinions.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

My favorite professor was a commie. Philosophy.

But he didnt push his own views. If you argued for wealth ridistribution, he would challenge you with brilliant arguements in support of property rights and individualism. If you tried to argue for property property rights he would challenge you with intelligent arguments against it and in support of socialism. If you argued against Christianity, he would brilliantly defend it. If you argued for Christianity he would attack it.

That is the mark of a good professor. I know in his personal life he was a commie, but he was a good professor. Sounds like this guy just wants force his opinions.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

I agree. Oh noes. It is raining again, since me and Slutter agree for the second time! :)

[Madly_Sane]

I am a Health Science major but I had some electives so I decided to take a Political Theory class. Today in that class, my professor told us that John Locke was a fool and that property rights are not natural rights. He said that property rights are granted by the state!!! He then began to argue the virtues of the state using force to redistribute wealth. The worst part is that the class overwhelming supported his view!!!

I was the only student in the class with a dissenting opinion! Am I the radical or is he?

You're asking this question on a forum in which most members strongly believe that property rights are natural rights, so you're going to get answers that are strongly based on biasedness. If you went to a forum/asked a person who strongly opposed that idea (property rights being natural) then you would probably get the most opposite answer also strongly based on biasedness.

[Freedom 4 all]

My favorite professor was a commie. Philosophy.

But he didnt push his own views. If you argued for wealth ridistribution, he would challenge you with brilliant arguements in support of property rights and individualism. If you tried to argue for property property rights he would challenge you with intelligent arguments against it and in support of socialism. If you argued against Christianity, he would brilliantly defend it. If you argued for Christianity he would attack it.

That is the mark of a good professor. I know in his personal life he was a commie, but he was a good professor. Sounds like this guy just wants force his opinions.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

I had several profs like that. Unless the prof is a complete narcissist (many are, but a number are not), they actually want their views challenged, and prefer students who fight with them over students who don't. If everyone just agrees uncritically there is no point in class discussion. I've had huge arguments with all of my favorite profs.

[Slutter McGee]

I agree. Oh noes. It is raining again, since me and Slutter agree for the second time! :)
haha. it is a rare thing indeed.

Slutter McGee

[Travlyr]

Natural rights are inherent. Everyone has natural rights, but not everyone enjoys them. I enjoy my rights because I understand and enforce them.


As for land, one owns the part of land that he has justly acquired through voluntary exchange and/or mixed his labor with. He doesn't own any area above the land (whether it's 50 feet, 500 feet, or 10000 feet), nor does he own any land beneath his house and ground for which he has or does mix his labor with. For example, as long as you didn't disturb his plot of land (and if you did, you would be responsible for damage to his property as a violation of it), you could justly dig a trench deep enough under his property to make a tunnel if someone refuses to sell their land in order to build a road for transportation.

Real estate "bundle of rights (http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Topic:Real_estate_economics)" theoretically includes ownership of land and air from the center of the earth throughout the universe.


Theoretically, all of the universe radiating out from this land, and all of the Earth to the center point directly under this land, is also part of the real estate. In practice, however, rights to do anything with that space and Earth would be impractical and unsupportable by law.

Property rights are fundamental to individual liberty. These "bundle of rights" that comes with land are proper because all wealth comes from the earth (mine it, grow it, or sew it). Whoever owns/controls the property can become wealthy enough to pursue happiness. People who own land can become prosperous from the fruits of their labor.

Globalists are enforcing Agenda 21 (http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=52) because it confiscates land, centralizes people, and empowers control to the ruling elite. Agenda 21 perpetuates enslavement.

[moostraks]

As for land, one owns the part of land that he has justly acquired through voluntary exchange and/or mixed his labor with. He doesn't own any area above the land (whether it's 50 feet, 500 feet, or 10000 feet), nor does he own any land beneath his house and ground for which he has or does mix his labor with. For example, as long as you didn't disturb his plot of land (and if you did, you would be responsible for damage to his property as a violation of it), you could justly dig a trench deep enough under his property to make a tunnel if someone refuses to sell their land in order to build a road for transportation.

As for you professor and his absurdities, ask him if there is any State that mandates a bear has a right in his cave property that the bear clearly believes is his from homesteading it. Or a dog and how he treats and perceives *his* bone, and what he does if another animal tries to come near it. While such examples in the animal kingdom are scattered and can be spotted in different species, the human being being *sapient* and with the capacity for reason, wisdom, and a much higher order of intelligence is able to consistently recognize and utilize this concept of property in order to increase his own standard of living and manipulate his environment further for his own benefit - which many animals cannot nearly come close to.

Property is a concept that predates the State (there was virtually no State in the [not so] Wild West - yet people recognized property very consistently also).

Not to mention the fact that modern civilization and increased standards of living are impossible with property and it's extension of allocating resources effectively through the price system and a supply/demand mechanism.

Ultimately, *all* rights are property rights that extend from the right of self-ownership, and other than the self all other property is attained throguh self-ownership and the homesteading principle (mixing one's owned labor with unowned resources to justify it as one's property). If you acknowledge that one owns himself, then you must believe in property.

You can only be a consistent anti-property dude if you believe you do not own yourself, and either every one owns you, a person owns everyone, or everyone owns eachother, or no one owns anyone including not owning themselves. The logical slippery slopes that are created by advocating any of these concepts are not only dangerous, but easily refuted as absurd in practicality (apart from the moral arguments against them).

The ideas proposed on property bring to mind airplanes flying within feet of a home's roof and not being able to grow carrots because of tunnels made by neighbors. Seems impractical to go to the extent you propose regarding land.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

The ideas proposed on property bring to mind airplanes flying within feet of a home's roof and not being able to grow carrots because of tunnels made by neighbors. Seems impractical to go to the extent you propose regarding land.

If you interfere with their property that is trespassing, and actionable. If you read Walter Blocks Privatizing Roads he goes into depth on this issue. There is a reasonable amount of land you own underneath your house, and your property, but beyond that it is all open to homesteading. As for the sky, that is probably better understood by possession / use than by actual ownership of physical space. Which means, wherever your property is located, no one has the right to damage that property, or interfere in its use (IE, you can't encass a satellite in a material which prevents transmission for instance).

Impractical is a case of price. It would certainly not be impractical to build a tunnel underneath a large stretch of land which the owners refused to sell, than to buy up property around them if it was cheaper to homestead underneath. I think it would be awesome to see an underground network of roads. Imagine all the space that would be freed up! Of course, with no taxation and no monopoly on the good of transportation/roads, it might become cost efficient to build something like that rather than buy up property.

[Stary Hickory]

I am a Health Science major but I had some electives so I decided to take a Political Theory class. Today in that class, my professor told us that John Locke was a fool and that property rights are not natural rights. He said that property rights are granted by the state!!! He then began to argue the virtues of the state using force to redistribute wealth. The worst part is that the class overwhelming supported his view!!!

I was the only student in the class with a dissenting opinion! Am I the radical or is he?


You should have walked right up to him punched in the nose and taken his wallet. Since he is all for that sort of thing. Maybe he would have gotten the point after that.

[moostraks]

If you interfere with their property that is trespassing, and actionable. If you read Walter Blocks Privatizing Roads he goes into depth on this issue. There is a reasonable amount of land you own underneath your house, and your property, but beyond that it is all open to homesteading. As for the sky, that is probably better understood by possession / use than by actual ownership of physical space. Which means, wherever your property is located, no one has the right to damage that property, or interfere in its use (IE, you can't encass a satellite in a material which prevents transmission for instance).

Impractical is a case of price. It would certainly not be impractical to build a tunnel underneath a large stretch of land which the owners refused to sell, than to buy up property around them if it was cheaper to homestead underneath. I think it would be awesome to see an underground network of roads. Imagine all the space that would be freed up! Of course, with no taxation and no monopoly on the good of transportation/roads, it might become cost efficient to build something like that rather than buy up property.

Was reading at face value, which was you own strictly that which is the surface/property residing on surface no more no less. I have very little faith in my fellow man to be held accountable for anything they destroy so I am not so keen on a wild west approach to that which is beneath my considerably heavy brick home with hopes of restitution in the event of a cave in.Call me pessimistic...:p

[Sentient Void]

Was reading at face value, which was you own strictly that which is the surface/property residing on surface no more no less. I have very little faith in my fellow man to be held accountable for anything they destroy so I am not so keen on a wild west approach to that which is beneath my considerably heavy brick home with hopes of restitution in the event of a cave in.Call me pessimistic...:p

Thou must readeth more Rothbard (At least 'For a New Liberty' and 'Ethics of Liberty') before coming to such conclusions.

[Chieppa1]

My favorite professor was a commie. Philosophy.

But he didnt push his own views. If you argued for wealth ridistribution, he would challenge you with brilliant arguements in support of property rights and individualism. If you tried to argue for property property rights he would challenge you with intelligent arguments against it and in support of socialism. If you argued against Christianity, he would brilliantly defend it. If you argued for Christianity he would attack it.

That is the mark of a good professor. I know in his personal life he was a commie, but he was a good professor. Sounds like this guy just wants force his opinions.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

That's what I inspire to be. Not a Commie, of course. I tested my professors in college. Most failed. The few that actually read like above, are friends.

[tangent4ronpaul]

The worst part is that the class overwhelming supported his view Automatic "A" policy for kissing his ass and telling him what he wanted to hear!!!

There, fixed that for ya!

-t

[MikeStanart]

My favorite professor was a commie. Philosophy.

But he didnt push his own views. If you argued for wealth ridistribution, he would challenge you with brilliant arguements in support of property rights and individualism. If you tried to argue for property property rights he would challenge you with intelligent arguments against it and in support of socialism. If you argued against Christianity, he would brilliantly defend it. If you argued for Christianity he would attack it.

That is the mark of a good professor. I know in his personal life he was a commie, but he was a good professor. Sounds like this guy just wants force his opinions.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee



I had a great Political Science Methodology professor exactly like that. One of my better experiences in college, due to intellectual honesty.