Is private property a natural right?

nerv14 · Jun 4, 2009

Agnapostate,

immediet arachno-socialism is impossible if people aren't culturally ready for it. That is why you first need a STATE transfer culture. That transferculture should be something like the modern social-democractic, welfare state, and of course not the Soviet Model.

But my point is that you need government with socialism (at least in the short term) so your views don't really have much practical application right now.

Agnapostate · Jun 4, 2009

I've of course never expressed disagreement, which is why I advocate boring old nationalization.

Jerry · Jun 4, 2009

nerv14 said:
I am using a definition of "natural rights" that I picked up when I was studying political philosophers.

Those are rights that all people inherently have, and those are near absolute.
John Lockes include "Life, Liberty and estate"

when Thomas Jefferson's include "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

I have a definition from wikipedia that seems to support this:

Natural rights (also called moral rights or inalienable rights) are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity... Natural rights are thus necessarily universal, whereas legal rights are culturally and politically relative.

or a even more direct definition that supports the rights as being nearly absolute is from:

natural rights definition

"General: Fundamental human rights based on universal natural law, as opposed to those based on man-made positive law. Although there is no unanimity as to which right is natural and which is not, the widely held view is that nature endows every human (without any distinction of time or space, and without any regard to age, gender, nationality, or race) with certain inalienable rights (such as the right to 'life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness') which cannot be abrogated or interfered with by any government. And that, whether or not these rights are enshrined in a national legal code, no government is lawful if it fails to upholds them"

and since a government can clearly be justified by violating property rights (education, unemployment insurance or public infrastructure) property rights can't be natural rights.

I should of gotten these definitions in the first post though to show how they were the same to mine... thx for making me get them now then.

Only if you assume that natural rights are sweeping and general can that interpretation be seen as accurate.

Locke assumed that humans were by nature rational and good, and that they carried into political society the same rights they had enjoyed in earlier stages of society. However, if an individual is a sociopath, that person may not necessarily have various natural rights to begin with.

The government stopping one individual from infringing on the rights of others in no way demonstrates that no right per-se exists at all for anyone. It only means it doesn't exist for that particular individual under those circumstances.

Additionally, the explanation "...which cannot be abrogated or interfered with by any government..." in context refers to unjust interference.

For example, the government can't simply say "there are to many people on the planet so we're going to cull a few billion" and that be just. That is what the definition is saying; again it's not saying that natural rights have a magic shield as you're assuming.

Inferno · Jun 4, 2009

Jerry said:
Well then a woman's body is not her own so it's not her choice :2razz:

celticlord said:
If there's no personal property, then I can, at any time, take your most cherished keepsake (or the clothes off your back, depends on my mood), and there is no crime. As you do not own them, I have not stolen them.

You really want to live like that?

I was thinking along the lines of land. If you would like my old socks you could have them as well.

I am against the private ownership of property by anyone. (property = land)

Inferno · Jun 4, 2009

Wessexman said:
I disagree. Let's take the framework(ie don't argue about this framework either accept or don't, the former allowing us an easy debate, the latter moving us onto a complex issue that we aren't really required to be bogged down on.) of wanting what is best for society and individuals over the long-term and natural rights as what are abstractly best for that end.

Within this framework I think one can see a definite place for some kind of private property. It would allow one to have the fruits of one's labour, to plan for the future and to give him and his family that necessary, practical autonomy and independence from the state and other large organisations that helps maintain freedom.

I have no problem with personal items i.e TV, Ipod, blender, stove, etc. I thought of the question more as the ownership of land. That i do not believe anyone should own.

Jerry · Jun 4, 2009

Inferno said:
I have no problem with personal items i.e TV, Ipod, blender, stove, etc. I thought of the question more as the ownership of land. That i do not believe anyone should own.

When you get into the nitty-gritty of it, no one does. The way the law is written you have various usage rights, but you don't actually own the land.

The State does.

Agnapostate · Jun 4, 2009

Inferno said:
I have no problem with personal items i.e TV, Ipod, blender, stove, etc. I thought of the question more as the ownership of land. That i do not believe anyone should own.

Yeah, there's generally a necessary distinction drawn between "private property" and "personal possession."

Jerry · Jun 4, 2009

Agnapostate said:
Yeah, there's generally a necessary distinction drawn between "private property" and "personal possession."

Right, exactly, like your jeans are yours, you don't simply have a right to use them, they are yours completely.

Not so with land.

Inferno · Jun 4, 2009

Jerry said:
When you get into the nitty-gritty of it, no one does. The way the law is written you have various usage rights, but you don't actually own the land.

The State does.

Agnapostate said:
Yeah, there's generally a necessary distinction drawn between "private property" and "personal possession."

Jerry said:
Right, exactly, like your jeans are yours, you don't simply have a right to use them, they are yours completely.

Not so with land.

But you are paying for the land are you not? You may not have the mineral rights or anything else but I still am putting in my share to buy the farm. I am still paying for my condo. The mortgage is in the end buying the house and it sits on the land.

We purchased 470 acres of land that is the farm. We also purchased a plot of land that the school will be built on. I went to the store and bought a pair of socks but I also can buy land.

The state shouldn't even own the land in my mind. No one does.

Jerry · Jun 4, 2009

Inferno said:
But you are paying for the land are you not? You may not have the mineral rights or anything else but I still am putting in my share to buy the farm. I am still paying for my condo. The mortgage is in the end buying the house and it sits on the land.

We purchased 470 acres of land that is the farm. We also purchased a plot of land that the school will be built on. I went to the store and bought a pair of socks but I also can buy land.

The state shouldn't even own the land in my mind. No one does.

When you look at how your documents are worded, and how the law is worded, you not buying that land, you are buying the right to use that land.

Ultimately, though, the land belongs to the state.

***
A structure on the land is a different issue, precisely because the structure is not land.

The structure can be yours in every way.

ARealConservative · Jun 4, 2009

Jerry said:
Right, exactly, like your jeans are yours, you don't simply have a right to use them, they are yours completely.

Not so with land.

it is possible, in theory atleast, to hold allodial title to land

Jerry · Jun 4, 2009

ARealConservative said:
it is possible, in theory atleast, to hold allodial title to land

I think you would all but have to declare yourself a sovereign nation, though, which has been don before with unclaimed islands.

Inferno · Jun 4, 2009

Jerry said:
When you look at how your documents are worded, and how the law is worded, you not buying that land, you are buying the right to use that land.

Ultimately, though, the land belongs to the state.

***
A structure on the land is a different issue, precisely because the structure is not land.

The structure can be yours in every way.

This then becomes a very complicated discussion and involves the dissolution of states and nations. I don't care for those either. Land just is. No single person or any entity should have ownership of it. The land should be used for the common benefit of all people not just some.

Jerry · Jun 4, 2009

Inferno said:
This then becomes a very complicated discussion and involves the dissolution of states and nations. I don't care for those either. Land just is. No single person or any entity should have ownership of it. The land should be used for the common benefit of all people not just some.

Native American's tried that argument in SCOTUS to keep da'white man from taking Oklahoma....look how far that got them

Inferno · Jun 4, 2009

Jerry said:
Native American's tried that argument in SCOTUS to keep da'white man from taking Oklahoma....look how far that got them

Talk about illegal immigrants. The White Europeans in North America are at the head of the list. We should be a shamed of our ancestors when we talk badly about people that we say are illegally entering the nation founded by illegals. That is a mouth full say that three times fast.

Jerry · Jun 4, 2009

Inferno said:
Talk about illegal immigrants. The White Europeans in North America are at the head of the list. We should be a shamed of our ancestors when we talk badly about people that we say are illegally entering the nation founded by illegals. That is a mouth full say that three times fast.

"Illegal" refers to violating American law, not 'Native law.

Guess who won the war?

Mach · Jun 4, 2009

Jerry said:
"Illegal" refers to violating American law, not 'Native law.Guess who won the war?

I thought we wiped those terrorist natives from the history books. Why do they keep showing up in public discourse? On a side note, I thought we paid the survivors hush money?

Are you at all disturbed by the behavior of the U.S. at various points in history Jerry, out of curiosity? Not accusatory curiousity either, just interested.

Jerry · Jun 4, 2009

Mach said:
I thought we wiped those terrorist natives from the history books. Why do they keep showing up in public discourse? On a side note, I thought we paid the survivors hush money?

Out of the kindness of our cold, black hearts, we graciously set up reservations for them where to this day they are free to indulge in their meth addictions and related criminal behavior.

We even gave their tribes a special tax-free status so great as to make the Vatican insanely jealous. And I'm not talking only about the casinos, no. Registered members of the Lakota and Suix tribe are paid $3,500 per month by the state; upon turning 18 they are giving a modest car for free; they are given preferential treatment in housing assistance programs, academic scholarships, etc.

And how do they re-pay our kindness? "You can't drill in Alaska, it'll harm the wildlife".

To bad, you should've thought about that before bringing a tomahawk to a long rifle fight.

Mach said:
Are you at all disturbed by the behavior of the U.S. at various points in history Jerry, out of curiosity? Not accusatory curiousity either, just interested.

Actually, all kidding aside, yes I am. I can't believe we allow these people to maintain sovereign nations within our boarders.

Agnapostate · Jun 4, 2009

Actually, it's you who's the boarders.

Jerry · Jun 4, 2009

Agnapostate said:
Actually, it's you who's the boarders.

It like like a typo or something?

nerv14 · Jun 5, 2009

Jerry said:
Only if you assume that natural rights are sweeping and general can that interpretation be seen as accurate.

Locke assumed that humans were by nature rational and good, and that they carried into political society the same rights they had enjoyed in earlier stages of society. However, if an individual is a sociopath, that person may not necessarily have various natural rights to begin with.

The government stopping one individual from infringing on the rights of others in no way demonstrates that no right per-se exists at all for anyone. It only means it doesn't exist for that particular individual under those circumstances.

Additionally, the explanation "...which cannot be abrogated or interfered with by any government..." in context refers to unjust interference.

For example, the government can't simply say "there are to many people on the planet so we're going to cull a few billion" and that be just. That is what the definition is saying; again it's not saying that natural rights have a magic shield as you're assuming.

But if the government elliminated billions of people that would violate people's natural right to life. So the tactics of the government still relate to natural rights, and how they do exist.

And I don't see how you are claiming that "which cannot be abrogated or interfered with by any government" only relates to unjust treatment. The quote doesn't talk about the government "unjustly" dealing with the right, but just that a government CAN'T violate the right. (except of course under extreme circumstances where other natural rights may be violated)

So I think property rights still can't be natural rights from the definition I pulled up.

Jerry · Jun 5, 2009

nerv14 said:
But if the government elliminated billions of people that would violate people's natural right to life. So the tactics of the government still relate to natural rights, and how they do exist.

And I don't see how you are claiming that "which cannot be abrogated or interfered with by any government" only relates to unjust treatment. The quote doesn't talk about the government "unjustly" dealing with the right, but just that a government CAN'T violate the right. (except of course under extreme circumstances where other natural rights may be violated)

So I think property rights still can't be natural rights from the definition I pulled up.

Your definition speaks of what can be don justly and rightly; it speaks from the Natural Law premise. When it says "you can't do X", it doesn't mean there's some magic forcefield protecting against X, it means you can't justify X, that doing X is always erroneous.

Hitler comes in and say "Jews no longer have the right to breath".

Jews still have the right to breath even while Hitler passes various civil laws to the contrary and sends them off to die. Hitler is not justified and is in error when he does this.

Inferno · Jun 5, 2009

Jerry said:
Your definition speaks of what can be don justly and rightly; it speaks from the Natural Law premise. When it says "you can't do X", it doesn't mean there's some magic forcefield protecting against X, it means you can't justify X, that doing X is always erroneous.

Hitler comes in and say "Jews no longer have the right to breath".

Jews still have the right to breath even while Hitler passes various civil laws to the contrary and sends them off to die. Hitler is not justified and is in error when he does this.

He is justified in his own mind and the Nuremberg Laws for the protection of the race were put forth to be carried out. When immigration stopped Hitler found a different path and that was at Wannsee where the Final Solution was put in place. He may not have been justified but there were definitely enough meat hooks in Germany to on which to hang enemies of the state.

Jerry · Jun 5, 2009

Inferno said:
He is justified in his own mind and the Nuremberg Laws for the protection of the race were put forth to be carried out. When immigration stopped Hitler found a different path and that was at Wannsee where the Final Solution was put in place. He may not have been justified but there were definitely enough meat hooks in Germany to on which to hang enemies of the state.

That illustrates the power of tyranny, but does not negate the existence of natural rights.

Inferno · Jun 5, 2009

Jerry said:
"Illegal" refers to violating American law, not 'Native law.

Guess who won the war?

Is this like mob rule? Might makes right? I don't like that. I think fair and right and goodness always should win. Unjust is never laudable and makes us all less.

Is private property a natural right?