The Beginning of Property. Was it some arbitrary claim enforced by threat and violence?

[enjoiskaterguy]

I have been reflecting on this for some time, and I am not sure what conclusion to come to.

The way that property has been illustrated for me was that in the beginning of man, property was first devised by some arbitrary idea in someone's head that they were going to make a claim of ownership on some parcel of land or object.

Ex:

There's this story of two men who lived in harmony and ate, sleep and went throughout there day in the same area. One day, Man A decided that he didn't like Man B eating the apples off a tree that he too loved to eat from. So to remedy his frustration, Man A erected a fence. And in doing so restricted Man B's access to the tree. If Man B were to try and have an apple off the tree without the permission of Man A, Man A would then enforce his claim to the tree by use of force and would proceed to hit Man B with a stick until he got away from the tree.

Man B soon figured that if he was able to obtain the apples he wanted, he too would have to defend himself. So, Man B decided to find a larger stick and demanded to have access to an apple. Man A saw that Man B's stick was much larger, so he stepped down and let Man B have an apple.

In the back of his mind, Man A still held a grudge about the tree, so he devised a way to rap a rock around a larger stick and threatened, again Man B with force to stay away from 'his' tree. Man B, not wanting to get hurt, finally conceded and left Man A with the tree.

Man A was left with his Tree to himself for the rest of his days...until that dreadful day when someone else came along with a bigger stick with a bigger rick tied to it. The end!
----------

So , what I was trying to get at was that property rights initially was created through the use of threat and therefore violated the rights of another person's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Man A never made the claim that he would manage to tree to create a larger and more prosperous yield for the summer harvest, he just didn't want anyone else having access to it.

No, today property is used in a more sophisticated manner, in that our property is kept up and made profitable and taken advantage of all that said property has to offer. Property is one of the highest planks of a successful free market economy and a prosperous nation, but also it is important to note that property as an idea was not the same long ago as it is now. In today's world, property is seen as some natural right, but if we think about the first steps in the claiming of property in mankind's history, one would have to come to the conclusion that property was probably created, most likely by force.

That's just my two cents. I don't claim to have the answers, but this is just something that has been itching in the back of my might for quite some time and I wanted to share this with you all. What do you think?

for Liberty!

Brennan

[Mini-Me]

Man A wanted to touch and use Man B's pee-pee, but Man B refused and claimed exclusive ownership via threat of force.

Obviously, Man B's pee-pee belongs to him. If it was free for everyone to use, molestation or even outright physical abuse would be perfectly acceptable, and surely you wouldn't suggest that. ;) Man B rightfully and naturally owns his pee-pee, and it is improper to say that he is committing aggression upon Man A by defending it.

All legitimate property is ultimately derived as an extension of that same self-ownership: You own your body and you own your time, and if you trade your time for goods and services, or if you invest yourself into resources previously unclaimed, they have become yours as well.* As such, property is not defined by force. Rather, the just (defensive) use of force is defined by property, because property is the sole differentiator between the just (defensive) use of force and the unjust (aggressive) use of force. In short, the proper understanding of property is the prerequisite to the proper understanding of justice and the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

* Granted, I understand the debate over the initial acquisition of natural resources, e.g. land, minerals, etc. What does it take to homestead something and properly make it yours? If it's "mingling labor with the land," that eliminates the idea of nature preserves. Simply erecting a fence around unclaimed land is usually a reasonable standard...but it can also be shown insufficient by the hypothetical example of an extremely rich corporation (or government...) erecting a gigantic fence around millions and millions of unclaimed acres on an alien planet, which defies sensibility.

That also raises the abandonment question: If you were to homestead land but not actually use it (i.e. make it your own by investing labor/etc. into it), when do abandonment principles rightfully take precedence? Your answer to that question pretty much defines whether you believe more in property or in the socialist/communist idea of "possession." Rather than being distinctly different concepts, they fall on a continuum of ownership, and people who believe in "possession" over property attach a MUCH looser standard of abandonment. In general, their standard would mean renters now possess their apartments, rented homes, etc., and the landlord has no further claim over them (i.e. you do not owe rent, and he cannot evict you). Abandonment principles are important, but going as far as "possession" advocates is totally unworkable to the point of being absurd: If you cannot build (or buy) property and rent it out, it completely eliminates the incentive to invest in real estate. The consequence of eliminating the concept of renters is that far fewer dwellings will be built in the first place, and unless you can afford to buy your own home (or pool your resources with others to buy something much less private), you will be HOMELESS. In short, the idea of "possession" eliminates a lot of incentives to create new wealth (this is common among socialist ideas, because their ideology implicitly rests upon the erroneous assumption of a "fixed-size pie"). Of course, socialists/communists have an answer for this too, but it also flies in the face of rational economics.

Going back to justly acquired property: If you were to buy land (using justly acquired capital), you would be obtaining it through the exchange of something incontrovertibly yours, and taking it away from you would therefore be an injustice done unto you...but what if it turned out to be stolen property in the first place? Someone certainly owes someone!

The truth regarding rightful ownership can admittedly be a complicated matter, but look to the pee-pee example if you're ever tempted to consider it an artificial construct altogether. Through that example, the concept of natural ownership should become self-evident. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about the exact standard of homesteading, the exact standard of abandonment, etc...which is why we pretty much need to settle for some reasonable approximations that have sane consequences. (As I mentioned above, the consequences for the socialist idea of "possession" are not even halfway sane ;)).

In any case, I should note that in your example, Man A was claiming a tree that was already equally homesteaded by Man B, who went to it regularly. Therefore, the property already had at least two owners, and Man A was actually infringing upon Man B's equal share of ownership over the tree...because Man A didn't respect property rights. That's why he keeps trying to claim ownership over Man B's pee-pee, too. ;)

[MaxPower]

I have been reflecting on this for some time, and I am not sure what conclusion to come to.

The way that property has been illustrated for me was that in the beginning of man, property was first devised by some arbitrary idea in someone's head that they were going to make a claim of ownership on some parcel of land or object.

Ex:

There's this story of two men who lived in harmony and ate, sleep and went throughout there day in the same area. One day, Man A decided that he didn't like Man B eating the apples off a tree that he too loved to eat from. So to remedy his frustration, Man A erected a fence. And in doing so restricted Man B's access to the tree. If Man B were to try and have an apple off the tree without the permission of Man A, Man A would then enforce his claim to the tree by use of force and would proceed to hit Man B with a stick until he got away from the tree.

Man B soon figured that if he was able to obtain the apples he wanted, he too would have to defend himself. So, Man B decided to find a larger stick and demanded to have access to an apple. Man A saw that Man B's stick was much larger, so he stepped down and let Man B have an apple.

In the back of his mind, Man A still held a grudge about the tree, so he devised a way to rap a rock around a larger stick and threatened, again Man B with force to stay away from 'his' tree. Man B, not wanting to get hurt, finally conceded and left Man A with the tree.

Man A was left with his Tree to himself for the rest of his days...until that dreadful day when someone else came along with a bigger stick with a bigger rick tied to it. The end!
----------

So , what I was trying to get at was that property rights initially was created through the use of threat and therefore violated the rights of another person's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Man A never made the claim that he would manage to tree to create a larger and more prosperous yield for the summer harvest, he just didn't want anyone else having access to it.

No, today property is used in a more sophisticated manner, in that our property is kept up and made profitable and taken advantage of all that said property has to offer. Property is one of the highest planks of a successful free market economy and a prosperous nation, but also it is important to note that property as an idea was not the same long ago as it is now. In today's world, property is seen as some natural right, but if we think about the first steps in the claiming of property in mankind's history, one would have to come to the conclusion that property was probably created, most likely by force.

That's just my two cents. I don't claim to have the answers, but this is just something that has been itching in the back of my might for quite some time and I wanted to share this with you all. What do you think?

for Liberty!

Brennan
I think your "origin-of-property" theory is rather narrow and misses the crucial points.

The basic origin of property lies in self-ownership. Why, in the first place, do we have natural rights to life and liberty? Because (temporally-speaking, at least) we naturally own ourselves; we have the innate characteristic of self-ownership, being natural masters over our own bodies and wills.

Now, since we own ourselves, we must, by extension, own our own exertions and labor. If I create a tool or kill an animal or till and farm a plot of land, I have, through my own enterprise, created wealth. Barring some voluntary contractual exception, if I own a cherry tree, it follows that I own the cherries which grow off it; if I own myself and own my labor, it follows that I own the fruits of my labor.

Now, all of this becomes less baldly simplistic once we introduce money, contracts and whatnot into the equation, but this basic set of principles still lies at the root of it.

[TastyWheat]

I think there is pretty much no such thing as "property rights" or even "ownership" except in a communal sense. I have the right to say what I want, believe what I want, and defend what I feel belongs to me. If nobody else agrees that I own such property and they aren't willing to help me defend it then I don't really own it unless I can keep others from taking it (through violence or threat of violence). The true concept of ownership only comes when others, that do not have an equal claim on my property, are also willing to defend or help me retrieve it. Not to say it's morally right if the community decides I don't own my cow anymore and they take it, but again, ownership is not exactly at the "owners" discretion.

This is in line with an Egoist anarchism point of view, so it doesn't exactly apply in an organized society. I go with the Lockean philosophy in that case.

[Expatriate]

I agree with Mini-Me. This is a very important issue since it determines the difference between aggressive (bad) and defensive (good) force. It would be nice if there was a very simple and common-sense way of stating how it should work.


... If you were to homestead land but not actually use it (i.e. make it your own by investing labor/etc. into it), when do abandonment principles rightfully take precedence? ...

I recall that there was a rule under the old common-law system that if someone squatted on your property for a certain number of years and you failed to notice and kick them off, the portion of property they homesteaded would become theirs. This kind of approach would probably solve the abandonment issue.

[Pericles]

I think you got it. One obtains property by creation of something new which did not previously exist or by acquisition.

The libertarian "anarchist" type concentrates on the first and a notion that my person is my property.

Acquisition via voluntary exchange is easy to justify morally, claiming what has not been previously claimed raises some considerations, and then conquest by force is the extreme in the other direction - where force can only be repelled by force or threat of force.

Fact is that most of the world works by conquest, then the other means come into play as the conqueror can enforce his property rights.

[Agorism]

It's by violence of course. Animals have property as well. Crocodiles have their set area. Hippos do it to. etc etc. And humans.

This is just the nature of the universe. People defend what is theirs.

[Dr.3D]

It's by violence of course. Animals have property as well. Crocodiles have their set area. Hippos do it to. etc etc. And humans.

This is just the nature of the universe. People defend what is theirs.

Yep, my dog goes out and marks his territory on a daily basis.

[heavenlyboy34]

It's not as simple as the OP makes it out to be. The real way that private property originated is after the miserable failure of communal property. Even in this country, the puritans in 17th century America tried to create a system of communal property in which noone owned anything (the "commonwealth"). The poverty and social upheaval that resulted was devastating. When this communal system was abandoned, immense prosperity followed. The celebration of this move from poverty in communalism to wealth in private ownership is today celebrated by what we call "Thanksgiving Day". Much more detail here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thanksgiving_%28United_States%29).

We should all be thankful for the institution of private property because it minimizes conflict/violence and promotes rational order.

[heavenlyboy34]

Man A wanted to touch and use Man B's pee-pee, but Man B refused and claimed exclusive ownership via threat of force.

Obviously, Man B's pee-pee belongs to him. If it was free for everyone to use, molestation or even outright physical abuse would be perfectly acceptable, and surely you wouldn't suggest that. ;) Man B rightfully and naturally owns his pee-pee, and it is improper to say that he is committing aggression upon Man A by defending it.

All property is ultimately derived as an extension of that same self-ownership (you own your body, you own your time, and if you trade your time for goods and services, you own them as well).* As such, property is not defined by force. Rather, property is the sole differentiator between the just (defensive) use of force and the unjust (aggressive) use of force. As such, the proper understanding of property is the prerequisite to the proper understanding of justice and the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

* Granted, I understand your point about the initial acquisition of natural resources, e.g. land, minerals, etc. If you were to homestead land but not actually use it (i.e. make it your own by investing labor/etc. into it), when do abandonment principles rightfully take precedence? If you were to buy land (using justly acquired capital), you would be obtaining it through the exchange of something incontrovertibly yours, and taking it away from you would therefore be an injustice done unto you...but what if it turned out to be stolen property in the first place? Someone certainly owes someone. ;) The truth regarding rightful ownership can admittedly be a complicated matter, but look to the pee-pee example if you're ever tempted to consider it an artificial construct altogether.

In any case, I should note that in your example, Man A was claiming a tree that was already equally homesteaded by Man B, who went to it regularly. Therefore, the property already had at least two owners, and Man A was actually infringing upon Man B's equal share of ownership over the tree...because Man A didn't respect property rights. That's why he keeps trying to claim ownership over Man B's pee-pee, too. ;)
lulz +rep

[smokemonsc]

I always remind myself of this quote when I discuss the origins of property.

"Wealth must first be created before it can be looted or mooched".

Pretty sure that's a paraphrased quote from the Money Speech in Atlas Shrugged. It is true now and it was true at the beginning of time :)