Thats just empirically not true, real private property as an institution is relatively new in human history.
Most people probably would not, because they arn't sociopaths, but either way, that doesn't make it property.
I'm talking history here ... Private property only ever existed when nation states enforced them.
They have to be owned? Who owns a tree in the Serengeti? Who owns the sand in the Sahara? Your argument is nonsensical at best. Laying claim to something being a human tradition does not exclude it from being an invented tradition. The land you stand on and it's ownership is based on the ability to use force (collective or otherwise) to protect it. Your false dichotomy is just that a false dichotomy.
Goshin said:I addressed it most concisely. In reality, you own that which you can defend, or what you can get others to defend for you.
Goshin said:In the early Middle Ages, land was controlled by local warlords (robber barons, the early "nobility" or leaders of armed men who arose as Rome withdrew from Europe) and their armed retainers... they owned or controlled a territory as large as they and their loyal fighting men could defend against all comers.
Goshin said:Oh, I'm not dense... I know what you're trying to do. You're trying to come up with a way to remove the justification for private ownership of capital, of production: factories and businesses and whatnot. Will a factory get built if someone doesn't invest capital in it? No.... and those jobs will not be created. Someone has to have the savvy to amass enough capital and to build a business and make it profitable... they've "mixed their labor" into its creation and earned their ownership.
You can call it artificial if you like, but it is how we do things. If you replace it with another system, that system will be just as artificial....
Herin said:What exactly is fake private property?
Herin said:I'm sure you would make a claim to the food you found and if you didn't you have no interest in your survival on that island.
Herin said:I'm talking of history as well. Private property existed always. It was only attempted to be restricted by the leaders of past societies.
Oh look, a socialist. That's so cute :lol:A: The American declaratino of rights is not the end of and be all for all things ethical, its just an appeal to an arbitrary authority.
B: Even there its justified in the end "as meets the essencial needs of decent living and helps maintain the dignity of the individual and of home," which is extremely modest and by no means justifying capitalist private property.
I made no claims towards a higher force of being, but a claim of human history.
I can also make the claim the species beyond ourself control protect and make claims to property so if we invented it did they just happen to invent it as well?
We peed on bushes?Things obviously do not need claimed, but most things are claimed including the trees and the sand.
Many animals including man practice ownership. Show me how we all came up with the same tradition if you can.
Your argument is now bordering on the desperate. Here I'll help you out:
If a lion has "property" and a "right" to that property, why does it need to constantly defend it from other lions? After all, if it's PROPERTY and a RIGHT shouldn't the other lions know that they shouldn't be infringing on the rights of that lion? Obviously if an animal has the cognitive ability to define something like property (at least in a form similar to how we humans define it) - wouldn't the definition of said property be dependent on its understand of rights as innate?
So might is right ....
There wasn't land ownership in the middle ages, it was stewardship and by no means was it absolute.
Your argument is dripping in a complete misunderstanding of rights to begin with. You're like most people that reject natural rights get caught up in the lack of protections due to your ignorance of the ideas laid out in front of you. Do you wish me to help you on that or not?
Your argument is dripping in a complete misunderstanding of rights to begin with. You're like most people that reject natural rights get caught up in the lack of protections due to your ignorance of the ideas laid out in front of you. Do you wish me to help you on that or not?
In other words is property an innate right, or does it need to be justified?
Here is my position:
No, it just be justified either that it is needed by you exclusively and the sharing of it would be counter intuitive, or because you having exclusive rights to somethign would benefit soceity as a whole.
Having exclusive rights to part of the earth is NOT self justifiying, because you found it or whatever, if you want exclusive rights, and thus the potential for authority, it needs to be justified somehow.
Nope, but might makes a claim mighty hard to dispute.
Wrong. My original reference was to the very early Middle Ages, the period once referred to as 'the Dark Ages'. Land was controlled by those who lead a band of armed men and who had the capacity to control and defend a given territory against other leader-of-armed-men, and their rule over their territory was as absolute as the loyalty of their armed retainers.
In the later Middle Ages a more formal system of Feudalism arose in which fiefs were granted by the Crown, and were not absolute... but that was later. Even so, yes there was private property... at a certain point (I forget the exact century, been a while since college) there were problems that arose when the village/manor system began to change and private farming lots were fenced off, instead of being farmed in radial strips and ... well it gets involved and too much for me to go into just now, but suffice it to say that you're wrong about private property being nonexistent in the Middle Ages.
Well, you essencially gave no justification other than you have a gun, i.e. might is right.
What I mean by real private property, what i mean is exclusive rights over something beyond direct possession, so for example I have a toothbrush and call it mine, but thats not what I mean by private property.
What if you claim ownership of the whole island because you found it first, and the guy that shows up has to be yourslave to do anything on the island ...
you don't need to make a claim of ownership on food, you don't need prperty rights to eat an orange.
You need one to own an island and use that to exert authority over others.
No it didn't, in Most middle eastern ancient societies you had no private ownership, it was relative and dictated by the kings/temples.
In the middle ages you had stewardship, in most tribal societies it was collective.
Yawn - save me your weak interpretations of Locke and Ayn Rand rants. However it's good to see you ducked the example of the lions. We wouldn't want your "natural rights" argument to go out the window simply because you looked at another species.
A male lion's property are his lionesses. The lionesses do all the hunting and bear all the cubs so they have value to the lion and in exchange he provides them protection. Other male lions recognize the lion's property and see that it has value and they want it. So they try to take it by force. That is the state of nature. Now if several lions decide to form a pact to keep other lions away, then they have essentially formed a government by consent to protect their property.Good for you. Early human history is FULL of inventions which have made it to today: religion, currency, trade etc. None of these are "natural" by any stretch of the imagination.
Your argument is now bordering on the desperate. Here I'll help you out:
If a lion has "property" and a "right" to that property, why does it need to constantly defend it from other lions? After all, if it's PROPERTY and a RIGHT shouldn't the other lions know that they shouldn't be infringing on the rights of that lion?
I disagree, I think lions like so many other species including humans have an inate sense of property.Obviously if an animal has the cognitive ability to define something like property (at least in a form similar to how we humans define it) - wouldn't the definition of said property be dependent on its understand of rights as innate? Obviously this is not the case. We know lions don't know what property is anymore than they know what a right is. They defend a piece territory for the purposes of having a place on which to procreate, hunt etc not because they believe they have some natural or legal claim to it. When they are attacked and killed by other lions - what we'd call the "right" to that territory ceases to exist.
Thats why we the people consented to form a government to protect our property rights. However, the more people that consent, the stronger government gets.As such - we go back to the point Goshin and I have been making: Your "right" to "property" is entirely dependent on your ability to defend it. Once you can no longer defend it - that "right" ceases to exist.
That is private property.
What if we connect slavery to ownership. Come on, that is not even worth responding too.
It doesn't matter what you need. Do you have ownership of the orange or not?
What? I thought no one could own the island? I thought that was impossible? What am I missing?
As I said, the leaders restricted private property for their own gains be it the kings or the leaders of tribal societies.
A male lion's property are his lionesses. The lionesses do all the hunting and bear all the cubs so they have value to the lion and in exchange he provides them protection. Other male lions recognize the lion's property and see that it has value and they want it. So they try to take it by force. That is the state of nature. Now if several lions decide to form a pact to keep other lions away, then they have essentially formed a government by consent to protect their property.
I disagree, I think lions like so many other species including humans have an inate sense of property.
Thats why we the people consented to form a government to protect our property rights. However, the more people that consent, the stronger government gets.
Private property only ever existed when nation states enforced them.
Not really. Give the dog a bone and try to take it back, and see what happens.
Shoot the dog and take the bone back. Does the bone still belong to the dog? No. His ability to defend it has been completely removed and the bone is no longer his property. Private property is related to force in that you need 1 in order to maintain the other. If your ability to use force is neutralized, you can no longer lay a realistic claim to said property. Tis the law of nature yo.
In its most absolute form, you are correct, might will overpower any philosophy one chooses to hold. At best, you can say the power of a philosophy will motivate people to arms and they will bring their own level of might to the table.
But does anyone really want to live in a warlord society? I certainly don't and for my own comfort and happiness, I look towards thing like legalities, culture, shared values, etc to arbitrate these kinds of questions as it allows me to retain more of what I desire out of life. I think libertarians have formed their philosophy out of the same desire even if they go a different way with it.
Oh - I agree. I don't want to live in a world like that either. However the nonsense that "property" is some kind of godsend we can only explain with vague words like "natural rights" and whatever other invented term our Libertarian scholars du jour come up with is silly at best. Politics(that includes the concept of legality) is what keeps force from being used in regards to property. With that in mind it becomes clear that "property", in its most pure form is not something which we have an inalienable right to but something which we have the inalienable right to defend and once we can no longer defend it - ceases to be ours. The only right you truly hold on in nature is the right to use force to defend yourself and whatever territory you lay claim to. Once you can't do that, you don't have a right to it anymore.
So with that said, I have no choice but to conclude that physical property is for the most part an invented concept. I am personally of the school that something belongs to me for as long as I can defend claim to it. Whether that defence is legal, physical etc is a different story.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?