Political Theory

Re: Property Rights

Bank Run — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 18:09:40 GMT

@same

"Aren't property rights territorial monopolies maintained by compulsion?"

Are property rights not monopolies? Are monopolies maintained by compulsion?

I will answer the second half first. Monopoly prices cannot exist (long run) in the absence of violent coercion. Government is a form of violent coercion. One may say that without government no monopoly prices are long term. Really the problem is not monopoly per se , but the prices under monopoly conditions. You see; under the mythical free market: some producer would have to be very good at what they do in order to win the votes of consumers. Things change over time, and this producer who is also a consumer must stay very active in order to satisfy his consumers wants. In this special case their is probably nothing wrong with being the market leader.

Secondly the first part. Yes in general; depending on the situation. You have a right of property in yourself; and if you choose to sell that, than you can set the monopoly price.

If you in a free market; are the first producer, than at first whatever clearing price is the monopoly price. Once other producers freely enter the market, the first entrepreneur must adapt to market conditions in order to set the perceived monopolized clearing prices. In general if the production resources are not too scarce, prices will tend to clear at lower rates over time.

I am thinking only the indolent dislike property rights, that would mean they would have to assume more responsibility, and no longer be indolent.

Re: Property Rights

cognitivist — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 12:31:27 GMT

@original post,

All men can be their own central planners.

Some are better equiped to deal with the calculations that lead them through an "economy of the Self",

while others fail miserably.

Re: Property Rights

fancyshirtman — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 12:20:26 GMT

Telpeurion:

(By the way, I am kidding around)

You is troooooolling!

Re: Property Rights

MaikU — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 11:56:22 GMT

Every person is a slave to himself and is a "one man state". Yes. That makes sense. No joke here.

Re: Property Rights

Angurse — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 06:13:00 GMT

Number 2 seems pretty fitting, he provides his own defense and judges accordingly. However, you could just assume he didn't mean Rothbard's definition and play along.

Re: Property Rights

The Late Andrew Ryan — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 06:11:17 GMT

Yes. But the way which it is attained is different then that of the state. The way that you have defined the term is too general. It's like me saying "Adolf Hitler is a person" and then making you either say, by that, that all people are either good or evil when we must be more specific and less general as to the nature of something. Yes property is a territorial monopoly, but it originally utilized by a single individual and then sold and so forth. It is not claimed arbitrarily by a single entity which doesn't even define its ownership in terms of property rights and societal norms, furthermore 80% of that which the state lays claim to is never touched by an agent of the state as such

Re: Property Rights

Telpeurion — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 06:04:41 GMT

I require all persons using my Nintendo Wii to pay a tax of 15 cents per hour. Sadly, the enforcement is sketchy. I also hold myself to be the supreme judge and executor of all matters high and low in relating to my property or the users there of. Are you saying there is another person or group of persons who say they have claim to my territorial monopolies?

(By the way, I am kidding around)

Re: Property Rights

Conza88 — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 05:57:59 GMT

Negative.

"Let me say from the beginning that I define the state as that institution which possesses one or both (almost always both) of the following properties:

(1) it acquires its income by the physical coercion known as "taxation"; and

(2) it asserts and usually obtains a coerced monopoly of the provision of defense service (police and courts) over a given territorial area.

An institution not possessing either of these properties is not and cannot be, in accordance with my definition, a state. On the other hand, I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of an individual. Anarchists oppose the state because it has its very being in such aggression, namely, the expropriation of private property through taxation, the coercive exclusion of other providers of defense service from its territory, and all of the other depredations and coercions that are built upon these twin foci of invasions of individual rights." --

Re: Property Rights

Conza88 — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 05:54:07 GMT

"A property right is simply the exclusive right to control a scarce resource.

...

Protection of and respect for property rights is thus not unique to libertarianism. What is distinctive about libertarianism is its particular property assignment rules: its view concerning who is the owner of each contestable resource, and how to determine this." --

Did you want to re-phrase your question so it's actually applicable to Libertarians?

Re: Property Rights

Angurse — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 05:39:51 GMT

Yet most anarchists would actually object to my dissolving, eradicating, crushing, or destroying you... hypocrites!

Re: Property Rights

Telpeurion — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 05:29:09 GMT

Yep. I am the State. ;)

Re: Property Rights

Angurse — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 05:27:57 GMT

To which every one declaring (implicitly or explicitly) that they own themselves, have a right to their body, have individual sovereignty, etc... are statists.

Re: Property Rights

A New Hope — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 05:12:39 GMT

"All property rights are territorial, in that they encompass a defined area of matter (or space). Inanimate, or animate. Mobile, or immobile."

I think I can agree with your definition. Are you implying that there is something wrong with using force to defend one's property? For property to exist, one must be able to defend against aggression.

Re: Property Rights

Telpeurion — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 04:53:16 GMT

All property rights are territorial, in that they encompass a defined area of matter (or space). Inanimate, or animate. Mobile, or immobile.

Re: Property Rights

A New Hope — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 04:41:29 GMT

Property rights pertain to more than just land. Land is only a subset of property.