I am having a major argument with my father about property rights. He refuses to aknowledge any libertarian argument on the basis of property rights. He continuously asks me who owns property that was expropriated from the Palestinians during 1948, or who owns property that was expropriated from the Irish during 1200. I argue that this is not a matter for me to answer as an economist and that this is a matter for the courts, but he rejects this and claims that it is fundamental to my argument.Can anyone help me with this?
'' The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.'' Stephen Hawking
Saying you are an economist and it is not a matter for you does not make you a libertarian. Economists maybe value-free but libertarians are not. I recommend reading Murray Rothbard's The Libertarian Manifesto to bettter educate yourself on the property right arguments of libertarians.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
property that was expropriated from the Irish during 1200
Something was expropriated from an entire people at once? Perhaps you mean many small things were expropriated from individuals?
My personal belief without having read the greats is that inheritance without contract is moot, and since both the accused and the oppressed are now dead, no one had any right to sue. Hence, whoever had the land when all parties involved died homesteaded it and it became his.
Unless you can establish land ownership through charters dating back to the 13th century and show the exporiation. Not very easy but if you can show original ownership of a family member in that time period and prove it was illegally taken then you should be able to reclaim the land.
That's pretty similar to my view, but my father makes a good point in asking are property rights diminishing with time. Again, I say that this is a matter for the courts,but he is unconvinced.
if you can show original ownership of a family member in that time period and prove it was illegally taken then you should be able to reclaim the land
But it's not yours. It was some guy living 700 years ago who may not have wanted you to inherit his property. Property rights exist only for living people. Once you're dead, you inherently have no rights. All of your possessions that have not been accounted for by contract become unowned property up for grabs.
"But it's not yours. It was some guy living 700 years ago who may not have wanted you to inherit his property. Property rights exist only for living people. Once you're dead, you inherently have no rights. All of your possessions that have not been accounted for by contract become unowned property up for grabs."
If one were to have no property rights when one was dead then land could never be passed down through the family since after the death of the individual they would no longer retain the ability to bequeth the property because they have no right to it cause they are dead according to you. Also we are discussing the illegal extraction of land from the rightful owner by an aggressing force. It is not land that has been left to go fallow. It is land stolen. If the land cannot be returned to the rightful owner then it goes to his kin or his agent.
He refuses to aknowledge any libertarian argument on the basis of property rights.
Well, in theory, the individual Palestinians who lost their farms or other lands would have a valid claim in a "libertarian law" society, to put it crudely. As time goes by and witnesses die and records are lost or destroyed by the criminals or their descendants, even such "libertarian law" courts could not sort the matter out any longer. Invoking the long deceased of whom little or no record remains in order to make a tort claim is no better than invoking Leprechauns or Santa Claus. Mystical arguments have no place in a rational legal order.
But I don't see what the hell his objection has to do with opposing arguments based on property rights. Is he asserting there is no right in property because I think this is objectively false... people act in "property-like" ways all the time, that is, they have property rights. So, the question is why do they have those rights, not whether they have them. Answering the question "why" can help us answer the other question, "why not", that is, why are some people deprived of the property rights which others may freely exercise?
Clayton -
I talking about a situation where there is perfect evidence and proof of an ancestor unlawfully having their property stolen. But his argument is if, say, my great great great grandfather had a field stolen from him; does this give me a right to that land? My opinion is no. However, I don't really think it is for me to say, and I think that it is for a court to decide.
His objection is pretty stupid, i guess, since we have the same problem in the current system, plus I don't think that it is very relevent to more basic things abolishing government and so on. Saying that, however, I would like the question to be answered.
In my opinion, it boils down to this: If there is no contractural record of passing down the property rights, then we can't assume that the generations in between to have passed on the property. The initial act of aggression doesn't allow for any kind of contract creation, so the property should default to an heir. For example, if a man is killed in a carjacking, the thief doesn't suddenly get to "homestead" the "abandoned" car.
However, if you have a situation where some aggressor, state or otherwise, comes in, and kicks a family off their land, they would do well to keep some record of inheritance. That is, the first owner is murdered and has his land stolen. The heir makes sure to pass down a deed or other record to his offspring, and so on. Otherwise, how are we to assume that multiple generations of the disenfranchised party all wanted to pass the land on. They may never have known they had the right to it, or even seen it. The land has essentially been abandoned by the injured party. I mean, part of my ancestory is Irish, the other Welsh, I have no interest in going back hundreds or thousands of years to try and reclaim any property stolen by the English state. Many Palestinians, on the other hand, still have the (currently void) deeds to the property they were kicked off of back in 1948. There's a case for reparation there. It's also important to note that the injured party doesn't necessarily have to get the land back, but perhaps the fair value for the land. This, I would imagine, would be up to the arbitration process and the demands of the injured.
You guys should start a Polycentric Legal Order Law Firm! I say those in possession are in possession, until possession is wrested from them, or they cease to possess.
If one were to have no property rights when one was dead then land could never be passed down through the family since after the death of the individual they would no longer retain the ability to bequeth the property because they have no right to it cause they are dead according to you.
That's what wills are for (contracts). You can have a clause saying something like "five minutes before my death, my property shall have been entrusted to person X" or something along those lines.
If the land cannot be returned to the rightful owner then it goes to his kin or his agent.
You're imposing the idea of the family unit on people simply because of tradition. The son is no more the rightful owner of the land than is a total stranger. He didn't make the property, he didn't improve it, he didn't homestead it.
If property gets passed on, why not debt and other obligations?
if a man is killed in a carjacking, the thief doesn't suddenly get to "homestead" the "abandoned" car.
That's an issue I've been having with my idea. I need to work it through.
Vladimir Ulyanov:I am having a major argument with my father about property rights. He refuses to aknowledge any libertarian argument on the basis of property rights. He continuously asks me who owns property that was expropriated from the Palestinians during 1948, or who owns property that was expropriated from the Irish during 1200. I argue that this is not a matter for me to answer as an economist and that this is a matter for the courts, but he rejects this and claims that it is fundamental to my argument.Can anyone help me with this?
Your father's attempt at a rebuttal is an instance of the nirvana fallacy. He's essentially arguing that, because property rights haven't been perfect historically, they aren't valid at all. That simply does not follow.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
I mean, part of my ancestory is Irish, the other Welsh, I have no interest in going back hundreds or thousands of years to try and reclaim any property stolen by the English state. Many Palestinians, on the other hand, still have the (currently void) deeds to the property they were kicked off of back in 1948. There's a case for reparation there.
Although neither me nor my father have any intention of reclaiming land. I do wonder if property rights diminish with time. For exapmle, the Irish state reclaimed estates owned by Protestants. I personally disagree with this, but why is there a case for a Palestinian to reclaim land that his grandfather owned, but not for an Irish person to reclaim land that their great x 16 grandfather owned (even if they had legitimate records)?
Well if there are legitimate records in both cases, ie. proof of intended inheritance, then yeah you may have a case. My point was that in the more ancient cases, those records have been lost to time. As for the Irish state claiming land owned by protestants, I can't endorse that, as the State has no legitimate case to the land in the first place. Employing reparations from one class to another doesn't hold up under scrutiny, it's only individuals.