Political Theory

Re: Property Rights as a Recreation of Government

Sieben — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 20:42:22 GMT

Thanks for suggesting the Kinsella piece. I enjoy his work.

I did find the first use principle to be kind of arbitrary... It is objective in that it will work provide a definite resolution as to who owns what property every time; I think this is why Kinsella chooses it. It is arbitrary in the metaphysical sense because the definition of "first user" is not equivalent to "owner", where i'm assuming owner means the person(s) who have control over whatever property.

I think I'm preferring the Rothbardian approach that was mentioned in another recent thread.

Re: Property Rights as a Recreation of Government

scineram — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 18:38:56 GMT

Sphairon:
The thing is, when you deny the objective nature of property rights, you also deny libertarianism's status as "the truth". You reduce it to being a good idea. That's controversial, to say the least.

Among libertarians. In broader circles libertarianism is controversial.

Re: Property Rights as a Recreation of Government

Sphairon — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 17:30:08 GMT

Right, so this would seem to suggest that the problem of government is not that it is a monopoly but that it can externalize costs unto its citizens as it seeks to maximize its income.

That, and the fact that contrary to market participants, they don't need to satisfy a customer demand in order to increase revenue. A capitalist may also wish to externalize costs, e.g. by polluting the environment, but that capitalist at leads needs to sell something to stay in business. The state doesn't.

It's not that states don't produce anything either. To the contrary, they create an astounding maze of paragraphs, forms and paperwork. In World War II, state-financed research improved military technology tremendously.

But this is all stuff that people wouldn't normally buy, yet states can just keep perverting the structure of production anyway because they have a monopoly on violence.

Right, I agree. The whole point of this post was to verify this conceptual difficulty I was having. I'm trying to revolutionize the way I think and pitch issues. Libertarian property rights is a wrinkle to be sure.

The thing is, when you deny the objective nature of property rights, you also deny libertarianism's status as "the truth". You reduce it to being a good idea. That's controversial, to say the least.

Re: Property Rights as a Recreation of Government

Jon Irenicus — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 17:20:26 GMT

I think people overestimate the force of Nozick's point. It was his wont to delve into puzzles he found difficult to resolve; that does not necessarily mean he thought said puzzles were decisive objections. Either way libertarians use a variant of Lockean homesteading, and I suggest people google Kinsella's How we come to own ourselves to get an idea of what it is. Few actually use the straightforward Lockean justification.

Re: Property Rights as a Recreation of Government

Angurse — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 17:10:35 GMT

Snowflake:
So how does Nozick resolve his observation that you do work when you pour a can of sauce into the ocean but do not come to own the ocean?

What is there to resolve? Do you think Locke would say otherwise?

Snowflake:
You can't steal if I assert myself. This is what property rights seek to legitimize. My point is that this kind of assertion does not require a natural rights concept of property rights.

Sure, I can. You assert yourself, Bam! *dead*. Thats why your premise seemed flawed, its generally cheaper not to. But I never said you need natural rights to claim (legitimately or otherwise) property rights.

Snowflake:
I think you misunderstood me: I agree that even a baseless concept of private property is superior to the state's arrangement. I'm simply trying to challenge the theoretical basis for property in an attempt to develop political philosophy.

Earlier you claimed to be challenging land-property due to they being inconsistent with libertarian thought. You are going to have to prove the concept of "abuse" as being more than baseless to start. As your challenges can be directed toward the individual quite easily.

Re: Property Rights as a Recreation of Government

twistedbydsign99 — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 17:08:58 GMT

Snowflake:
So how does Nozick resolve his observation that you do work when you pour a can of sauce into the ocean but do not come to own the ocean?

When I build a fence around the equator how come I don't own half the earth?

Re: Property Rights as a Recreation of Government

twistedbydsign99 — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 17:07:11 GMT

Snowflake:
So I was thinking about the Libertarian answer to environmentalism, which is that pollution shouldn't be allowed if it infringes on an un-consenting owner's property. More generally, libertarians are claiming that a landowner has the rights to make whatever laws s/he wants on their property. In this way, how is a landowner different from a government? They both have a territorial monopoly on the use of force etc in the land they own.

Legitimate acquisition requires use, the government did not acquire land legitimately. Furthermore the government itself is not a legitimate entity except for those that agree to its terms voluntarily. If you question property acquisition by use then answer this, if I create a walking stick by wittling and smoothing a piece of wood, who owns it? If I don't own it who does?

Re: Property Rights as a Recreation of Government

Sieben — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 16:55:56 GMT

Angurse:
Nozick basically said the same thing as Locke, he just didn't appeal to god as Locke did.

So how does Nozick resolve his observation that you do work when you pour a can of sauce into the ocean but do not come to own the ocean?

Angurse:
How is it cheaper, you have to produce in order to get more capital. While I can just steal (which technically isn't possible, as you need to have an owner in the first place, which you don't.). Property arises out of necessity.

You can't steal if I assert myself. This is what property rights seek to legitimize. My point is that this kind of assertion does not require a natural rights concept of property rights.

Angurse:
Sure, but you have yet to show that what they are doing constitutes "abuse" (also, unlike with a state, if the toll is too much you can simply pick a cheaper alternative, etc...)

I think you misunderstood me: I agree that even a baseless concept of private property is superior to the state's arrangement. I'm simply trying to challenge the theoretical basis for property in an attempt to develop political philosophy.

Re: Property Rights as a Recreation of Government

Angurse — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 16:25:54 GMT

Snowflake:
Even if I agree with this analysis, Nozick's example makes this interpretation absurd.

Nozick basically said the same thing as Locke, he just didn't appeal to god as Locke did.

Snowflake:
I mean it is cheaper to have property rights than not; that I can get more capital if I defend my claim to land than if I forfeit ownership of my labor. The point is that property rights arise out of utility rather than some natural law.

How is it cheaper, you have to produce in order to get more capital. While I can just steal (which technically isn't possible, as you need to have an owner in the first place, which you don't.). Property arises out of necessity.

Snowflake:
Could you link the analysis by Long? I usually like his work.

http://libertariannation.org/a/f53l1.html

Also see:

http://www.anti-state.com/article.php?article_id=362

Snowflake:

The point I was making was not that landowners would abuse toll privileges, but that the right of them to do so exists under natural rights based property.

Sure, but you have yet to show that what they are doing constitutes "abuse" (also, unlike with a state, if the toll is too much you can simply pick a cheaper alternative, etc...)

Re: Property Rights as a Recreation of Government

Sieben — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 16:10:24 GMT

Angurse:
Locke:
Though the earth and all inferior creatures be common to all men, yet every 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 it, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property.

Even if I agree with this analysis, Nozick's example makes this interpretation absurd.

Angurse:
That doesn't make sense. You are assuming you own the items in your house (as they can be stolen). And I disagree with your premise, normally its cheaper to let people steal. How often do muggers get resisted?

I mean it is cheaper to have property rights than not; that I can get more capital if I defend my claim to land than if I forfeit ownership of my labor. The point is that property rights arise out of utility rather than some natural law.

Angurse:
Thats not exactly true, as not all land wouldn't necessarily be owned, see Roderick Long on this. Further, contractual stipulations, such as easements could solve the any "just passing through" problem.

Could you link the analysis by Long? I usually like his work.

The point I was making was not that landowners would abuse toll privileges, but that the right of them to do so exists under natural rights based property.

Re: Property Rights as a Recreation of Government

Sieben — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:57:29 GMT

Sphairon:
It's true that property creates mini-monopolies. At first, this thought is disturbing because monopolies are associated with bad attributes, but in the case of property, the monopolistic incentive structure is actually a good thing:

A monopolist wants to extract maximum profit from that which he controls.

Right, so this would seem to suggest that the problem of government is not that it is a monopoly but that it can externalize costs unto its citizens as it seeks to maximize its income.

Sphairon:

The fact of the matter is, property did arise out of a need to distribute the means of production. We can ex post facto try to give a generally economically sound idea an "objectively good" coating, but in my opinion, that's only going to lead to absurd conclusions (see problem of self-ownership of amebae etc).

Re: Property Rights as a Recreation of Government

Angurse — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:55:24 GMT

Snowflake:
Right that's what I suspected libertarians would say. But I thought once you violated someone's property rights you forfeited all of your rights.

No, not all of your rights. Only in proportion.

Snowflake:
How is homesteading legitimate?

More or less:

Locke:
Though the earth and all inferior creatures be common to all men, yet every 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 it, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property.

But honestly how is legitimacy legitimate?

Snowflake:
I don't know if this is the case. I think property rights arise because they are cheaper than not having property rights in some cases. For example it is cheaper for me to enforce my claim of ownership to my house than it is to let people rob it. Conversely it is cheaper for me not to assert ownership over a barren patch of land as the cost of protecting it could never be balanced by what I got out of it. On this utilitarian ground it is possible that some new concept brought about by technology might supersede the utility of property rights, or change them completely.

That doesn't make sense. You are assuming you own the items in your house (as they can be stolen). And I disagree with your premise, normally its cheaper to let people steal. How often do muggers get resisted?

Snowflake:
You don't have to own land to be able to till it.

You lack incentives to do so. Why would you till land that you don't own? Love? And even if you did it out of love, you don't own the products so why shouldn't I just take them?

Snowflake:

I think I was saying land-property rights would be inconsistent with libertarian thought because every man would be inside some landowners jurisdiction aka gov. Since even if you think landowners can't make any law they want, they can certainly tax everyone who passes through their land.

Thats not exactly true, as not all land wouldn't necessarily be owned, see Roderick Long on this. Further, contractual stipulations, such as easements could solve the any "just passing through" problem.

Re: Property Rights as a Recreation of Government

Sphairon — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:31:05 GMT

It's true that property creates mini-monopolies. At first, this thought is disturbing because monopolies are associated with bad attributes, but in the case of property, the monopolistic incentive structure is actually a good thing:

A monopolist wants to extract maximum profit from that which he controls. For private property, this means maximum sustainability for long-term gains, maximum efficiency for current output and maximum production in general. Society benefits from this by being able to consume cheap and numerous products that were not available before. In a society without assured and distinct property ownership, the incentive is to maximize current output for one's own short-term benefit before control is usurped by another third party. This leads to waste, decay, pollution and shortages, as demonstrated by the Soviet economies.

So, ultimately, property rights arise and prevail because a critical percentage of people recognize them as sound. Without that, there is no real private property. It may exist as an idea, but it will not occur. "Society" or "the tribe" or "the collective" will prevent it.

And while we can make educated guesses about whether or not private property is "good", we cannot "prove" that it is "legitimate" for we cannot even objectively define what constitutes "property". A great illustration would be recreational areas which are not turned upside down on purpose, yet they serve an economic purpose. Much of the land that is required for a profitable recreational area should not be touched by a land owner, yet homesteading theories of property require this for "legitimate" property to exist.

The fact of the matter is, property did arise out of a need to distribute the means of production. We can ex post facto try to give a generally economically sound idea an "objectively good" coating, but in my opinion, that's only going to lead to absurd conclusions (see problem of self-ownership of amebae etc).

Re: Property Rights as a Recreation of Government

Sieben — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:18:18 GMT

Seph:
So you disagree assertion that when one uses previously unowned resources, they come into his/her possession?

Right.

Though even if I agree with you it raises a whole host of other questions... like if I till land do i only own the parts I till? Do I own the rights to the air above or the land below? If I stop tilling for a season do I forfeit my property rights during that period or do I own that land forever...

Re: Property Rights as a Recreation of Government

Seph — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:10:32 GMT

Snowflake:
Not following how this applies to land.

So you disagree assertion that when one uses previously unowned resources, they come into his/her possession?