Political Theory

Re: Private Property Rights as Natural Rights

filc — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 06:32:56 GMT

Yes, the ethical nihilists.

Re: Private Property Rights as Natural Rights

krazy kaju — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 06:21:28 GMT

Nitro:
@ Kaju: I'm not sure how nihilism equates to "nobody owns anything", as I know plenty of nihilists who believe in property.

Could you elaborate further on whether you are targetting a specific strain or interpretation of nihilism, or generalizing nihilism as a whole?

I'm not using nihilism as it's commonly used. By "nihilism" in this thread I mean that nothing is owned.

Re: Private Property Rights as Natural Rights

wilderness — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 22:25:37 GMT

Great Post filc... Great Post.

Re: Private Property Rights as Natural Rights

filc — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 22:18:48 GMT

ClaytonB:
I absolutely agree and that's part of the problem with a natural rights approach to law - only in a top-down, socialized, territorial law monopoly could a rational, theoretical rights framework be imposed upon legal decisions. If we take competition in law seriously, then we must expect to see the same variation in law that we see in the rules of sports organizations or homeowners' associations. This means that some law systems will look more natural-rights-ish and others less so. I suspect that the larger the scale on which a court operates (e.g. globally) and the larger the stakes involved, the more rational the approach that would prevail for dispute-resolution (in a free law market) though my reasons for believing this ignore the effects of mob sentiment.

Clayton -

The point is, one system does not invalidate the other but instead the two compliment each other as necessary objects of a functioning market. Justice systems are again nothing more then business's on the market offering a service. Rights, or claims to action, is a fairly liberal definition and can be mended, and molded to suit the needs of a specific market environment. Natural rights does not state that rights must be universally excepted across the entire world. Obviously things need to be adaptable to local markets and needs of local consumers. You will most definately see different rules and laws from one geographical region to another, but again this does not invalidate naturally originating concepts of rights and property. I explained their origins in my post above.

People will ofcoarse interprit things differently, but the lower down the pyramid you go the more uniform, fundamental, and naturally occuring objects you will see. Property for example, is un-avoidable naturally occuring phenomena as I explained above. No amount of legal positivism can remove it, such thoughts are simply wishful thinking. There is this common desire with opponents of natural rights advocates to attempt to dispel their theory by pointing out discrepancies between various societies and regions. All they are doing is missing the point of what naturally occuring rights are. And Vise Versa there is also a tendency for natural rights advocates to go too far, get sucked into the argument, and start drawing hasty conclusions in an effort to defend their case.

Legality will always exist as a market function, it however does not invalidate the praxeological origins of claims to action, and property. How those claims are handled is up to the consumers.

Re: Private Property Rights as Natural Rights

wilderness — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 19:50:50 GMT

Clayton,

Don't forget that the question 'what natural rights are?' is a theoretical question and involves dynamic circumstances. Some people confuse what is a principle with the theories about a principle, ie. principle being property/scarcity. Theories are evolutionary in nature as they are the practical application of principles. Debates will not end, societies will change etc.... Two hundred years ago there could have never have been an actual thought experiment and practical application of property rights in terms of computers. Look around you know at to how many different interpretations of dealing with scarcity conflicts arise. Of course determining what is logical, illogical; or evidential, lacking evidence are what humans are capable of distinguishing but it takes a maintenance in society of being able to make these distinctions that is one of exercise and development, not simply a static given.

Sometimes the evidential knowledge isn't corresponding with an object in question, or a poor judge (has poor judgment) sits bench, or the society in general decides various other ways to deal with things; but all of this is still centered upon private property, ie. the person or tangible object external to the person. The content isn't already decided upon, but the boundaries are implied.

If the court case isn't about a person but a person is on trial, then it's self-evidently a contradiciton of events. There's possibly always going to be different theories of natural rights as long as knowledge is limited due to dynamic circumstances, ie. innovation, social developments, etc... in other words dynamism exists in the world which I doubt will end. The universe will not become suddenly static. This is a very signficant understanding that I've noticed some people overlook.

Re: Private Property Rights as Natural Rights

Clayton — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 19:31:32 GMT

ClaytonB:
I think that "natural rights" is a good theoretical account of what human rights probably should be, as a first approximation. Where natural rights break down is at the point where rights are useful, and that is in ascertaining who is in the right in a legal dispute. For this, natural rights theory is essentially useless. The conundrum is that even though natural rights theory is no use in legal disputes, it seems reasonable to expect that a just world would be characterized by resolution of legal disputes in a manner consistent with natural rights theory. I have my own theories on this, though they are work-in-progress.

Clayton -

Thats just moving it from one arena to another. Property for example can be used in a legal sense, but it does not come from legal positivism. Courts, laws, and justice systems should be stewards or servants of the market(IE Adhering to consumer demand) in general, not dictate the market.

I absolutely agree and that's part of the problem with a natural rights approach to law - only in a top-down, socialized, territorial law monopoly could a rational, theoretical rights framework be imposed upon legal decisions. If we take competition in law seriously, then we must expect to see the same variation in law that we see in the rules of sports organizations or homeowners' associations. This means that some law systems will look more natural-rights-ish and others less so. I suspect that the larger the scale on which a court operates (e.g. globally) and the larger the stakes involved, the more rational the approach that would prevail for dispute-resolution (in a free law market) though my reasons for believing this ignore the effects of mob sentiment.

Clayton -

Re: Private Property Rights as Natural Rights

filc — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 18:44:46 GMT

ClaytonB:
I think that "natural rights" is a good theoretical account of what human rights probably should be, as a first approximation. Where natural rights break down is at the point where rights are useful, and that is in ascertaining who is in the right in a legal dispute. For this, natural rights theory is essentially useless. The conundrum is that even though natural rights theory is no use in legal disputes, it seems reasonable to expect that a just world would be characterized by resolution of legal disputes in a manner consistent with natural rights theory. I have my own theories on this, though they are work-in-progress.

Clayton -

Thats just moving it from one arena to another. Property for example can be used in a legal sense, but it does not come from legal positivism. Courts, laws, and justice systems should be stewards or servants of the market(IE Adhering to consumer demand) in general, not dictate the market.

Re: Private Property Rights as Natural Rights

Clayton — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 18:13:22 GMT

Rothbard states in most of his books that all human rights are derived from the basic property right, which in turn is the primary natural right of man qua man. Now, I get the derivation he makes from the property right and the logic there seems to be airtight. However, I am a little confused on how to scientifically (without introducing the God, please) establish the property right as a natural right. Could anyone direct me to some works that address this issue? Thank you.

I think that "natural rights" is a good theoretical account of what human rights probably should be, as a first approximation. Where natural rights break down is at the point where rights are useful, and that is in ascertaining who is in the right in a legal dispute. For this, natural rights theory is essentially useless. The conundrum is that even though natural rights theory is no use in legal disputes, it seems reasonable to expect that a just world would be characterized by resolution of legal disputes in a manner consistent with natural rights theory. I have my own theories on this, though they are work-in-progress.

Clayton -

Re: Private Property Rights as Natural Rights

Zavoi — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 06:04:58 GMT

krazy kaju:
The communist method of organizing society is impossible, because if everyone owned everything, then an individual would need permission from everyone else in order to act, but in order to grant that permission, others would have to seek permission in order to act.

What do you say to the proposition that everyone is allowed to do anything they want, unless the people decide by majority vote (or some other way) that you shouldn't be allowed to do something? Then the permission-seeking problem is avoided, since everything is allowed by default.

krazy kaju:
The slave/fascist method of organizing society is also possible, but it falls by the wayside since it is not a universal ethic that can be adopted by all of mankind.

Where do you draw the line between universal and non-universal? Any rule can be formulated universally as "Anyone who is X is a slave, and anyone else is free," but then X can be made as specific as you want, even so much as to single out a particular individual.

Re: Private Property Rights as Natural Rights

filc — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 02:50:08 GMT

"However, I am a little confused on how to scientifically (without introducing the God, please) establish the property right as a natural right. Could anyone direct me to some works that address this issue? Thank you."

It's naturally occurring. For example, God isn’t necessary to understand that a rock exists. The rock simply exists and occurs due to natural phenomena. Property likewise also occurs naturally, as do rights. Let me dumb it down because there are many people on this forum who shriek at the word "Rights" and "ethics" and assign all kinds of crazy mystical or arbitrary otherwise values to those concepts as if they were divine. They are not, rights(In the economic sense) do not come from God, and the concept of property and rights occur naturally as consequences to various phenomena that man must contend with in this life. You can argue that there is an ethical(Ethics are nothing more than codes of conduct, and they can influence rights for sure) structure that God requires of you, but that does not invalidate that fundamental purpose of rights, and they exist with or without his proclamations.

First Property

Property is quite simply a consequential axiom which occurs due to the following 3 reasons. (Notice the praxeological connection)

Objects are Scarce
Time is Scarce
Man must occupy objects over time to satisfy ends.

Since we know objects are scarce, and only one man(In general) can occupy an object at any given time to satisfy his own ends we know that other people must wait, contend, or build their own objects to satisfy their ends as well. The fact remains however that only one object can be in control by a person at any given time (IN general). This simple fact is what property is, nothing more. Do not fall into fallacy of assigning more weight to it than that. It’s simply a concept which shows that a tangible object (Like your body) is currently in occupation by someone.

Second Rights, Claims to Action (Again notice the link to praxeology)

Rights are just as much of natural phenomena as the rock, and property. It may be argued that some rights come from God, as subjectively appraised by a group of people, but rights would exist with or without the divine, at least as far as how the structure of man and his behavior is concerned. This neither proves nor disproves credits nor discredits the legitimacy of religion. The point I am making is that rights, in the economic sense, operate outside of the scope of religious scrutiny of all types (Atheism included). Rights are simply Claims to specific Human Action. A claim on a specific action is making a claim to a right. That claim may be to occupy a specific scarce object for some duration of time. Rights simply help us ascertain who presently has a claim to a specific action. In this way rights form economically on the market and serve the interest of people, who hold property (Currently occupying tangible objects) that they desire to protect. In other words, Rights is more or less an economic phenomenon, not a divine one.

Rights are nothing beyond that, and they can be formulated and fabricated in various ways. This is where the problem lies however, there are many who believe that since rights are so malleable that we can make them function in ways which operate counter to human action. This is why there are so many discrepancies for what are legitimate rights. For example, we can construct rights which stipulate that man must fly in the air like the bird, and that he is the natural owner of the sky. We could argue that man has a right to flight(A right to action) but such a claim would naturally prove to be folly. In the same sense many other schools of thought build their systems of rights on such folly, they try as hard as they can to force man to act like an Ant, but he is no such type of organism.

If left alone however Rights (Claims to human action) will naturally develop in the best interest of the market, and form as a need on the market. Rights will naturally formulate in a way which best fosters the environments of private ownership of property as this method is the most praxeologicaly consistent method. Moving away from this is like swimming up current, or moving against the grain of the wood, it simply won't work over a long period of time short of re-wiring the brain of man and altering his characteristics of action. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t work for a time. People can be indoctrinated into all sorts of beliefs, and for a time they will follow suit but eventually the economically detrimental effect of their beliefs will become apparent and they will abandon them and adopt new ethics(New codes of conduct)

I know I went off on a tangent but all you have to keep in mind is that Property occurs naturally due to various “natural” conditions we have on earth. And Rights occur also out of necessity (Who has the best claim to occupy said scarce resource). Once you understand that rights are simply claims to human action, and that property is nothing more than a phenomena that occurs due to natural worldly ailments, then it doesn't become so difficult to see how private property is a natural result of the two. People who put forth the effort in creating tangible objects for their own use will also protect their objects and attempt to keep ownership over them. It's really remarkably simple and it all occurs naturally. By that I mean it occurs based on the praxeological structure of man and as consequences to various earthly ailments, like scarcity.

Re: Private Property Rights as Natural Rights

filc — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 02:13:17 GMT

"Needs seem to me to be very finite, while wants are subjective and thus changeable (in extent, for example). "

Let us know what the standard number of "Needs" a human being SHOULD have in their lifetime. Now let us know what the quantifiable standard number and combination of needs every individual in society will have in the next 1 year.

If you can't answer that then the point is conceded.

Ultimately though it's not that we cannot fathom the number of needs that could potentially exist. It's that needs typically or tend to always outweigh the number of possible solutions to address them, IE Scarcity.

P.S. FYI, needs are also subjective. What you a need the next person may not.

Re: Private Property Rights as Natural Rights

wilderness — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 00:32:12 GMT

Benjamin:
Do you believe that all humans have limitless material wants and needs?

How would I know? I mean I've heard of monks who supposedly live on minimal material possessions. I don't understand the question.

Benjamin:
Needs seem to me to be very finite, while wants are subjective and thus changeable.

ok, but seeing that the universe is scarce those wants have finite boundaries.

Benjamin:
I think on my better days my wants are not infinite...

Re: Private Property Rights as Natural Rights

Benjamin — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 00:27:20 GMT

anything else?

Do you believe that all humans have limitless material wants and needs?

Needs seem to me to be very finite, while wants are subjective and thus changeable (in extent, for example).

I think on my better days my material wants are not infinite...

Re: Private Property Rights as Natural Rights

E. R. Olovetto — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 22:56:28 GMT

Benjamin thinks that in a free society all people who didn't own land would literally not be able to speak and constantly forced from one place to another by the landed class.

This forum needs a real rolleyes smiley.

Re: Private Property Rights as Natural Rights

wilderness — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 22:56:03 GMT

Benjamin:
But they're not rightfully in the same category on a co-equal basis.

I don't know what 'equal' has to do with this. Law of marginal utility comes to mind. It's a declarative proposition, meaning, it's semantics. It's what the word means and has meant for hundreds of years at least. I know Locke wrote that property includes in ones own person.

Benjamin:
And what I find really interesting about scarcity is how it's an evolving and malleable social condition.

The universe is finite. The earth is round with distinct boundaries that end. Etc....

anything else?