Political Theory

Re: When does lost property cease to be rightfully owned?

Willy Truth — Wed, 22 Aug 2012 16:53:28 GMT

True, I'm just pointing out an obvious flaw with a statute of limitations.

Re: When does lost property cease to be rightfully owned?

Aristophanes — Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:15:29 GMT

what if the finder comes upon the watch after one month and intentionally holds the watch in secret so that he may be sure that he attains ownership?

All you must do is prove that you are actually looking for it. If someone finds your shit and keeps it even though you are looking they have successfully stolen from you.

Re: When does lost property cease to be rightfully owned?

Marko — Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:12:36 GMT

Make the 'expensive watch' from your example into a 'family album' and you will see it is the case. And if it is true for one it is true for another.

Re: When does lost property cease to be rightfully owned?

bloomj31 — Wed, 22 Aug 2012 00:02:30 GMT

Boniek:
Private property is a social construct. What is and what isnt property is up to the people to decide. It is whatever people find reasonable with edge cases investigated under court. In principle it wouldnt be any different under ancap system than it is today.

+1, I think this is what I've been trying to say.

Re: When does lost property cease to be rightfully owned?

cporter — Wed, 22 Aug 2012 00:00:55 GMT

boniek:
Private property is a social construct. What is and what isn't property is up to the people to decide. It is whatever people find reasonable with edge cases investigated under court. in principle it wouldn't be any different under ancap system than it is today.

This is the right answer. Ancaps, there is no One True Law out there for you to find that will act just like the State and let you know what is right and what isn't. Only the ever-changing values of free people in voluntary action can reveal that.

Re: When does lost property cease to be rightfully owned?

boniek — Tue, 21 Aug 2012 23:16:22 GMT

Private property is a social construct. What is and what isnt property is up to the people to decide. It is whatever people find reasonable with edge cases investigated under court. In principle it wouldnt be any different under ancap system than it is today.

Re: When does lost property cease to be rightfully owned?

Marko — Tue, 21 Aug 2012 23:16:05 GMT

Original owner.

Re: When does lost property cease to be rightfully owned?

Minarchist — Tue, 21 Aug 2012 22:42:01 GMT

I'm a right wing statist I suppose.

Right wing meaning what....favoring free markets? Because "right wing" tends to also mean hawkish/interventionist in terms of foreign policy, and socially authoritarian.

Re: When does lost property cease to be rightfully owned?

bloomj31 — Tue, 21 Aug 2012 21:09:07 GMT

Willy Truth:
I'm also curious about your political affiliation and why you have so many posts yet don't ascribe to libertarianism.

Meh, labels. I'm a right wing statist I suppose.

I've been coming here a long time. I've accumulated these posts over several years.

I participate on forums where the people tend to think more like me but frankly I find it just as interesting to observe and talk to people who I often disagree with.

Re: When does lost property cease to be rightfully owned?

Willy Truth — Tue, 21 Aug 2012 20:26:35 GMT

bloomj31:
Yeah I suppose it does. But that doesn't really bother me. You'd have to vote with your dollars and hope that more people were like you than like me.

There's nothing wrong with voting with your dollar, but when your dollar can violate other's property rights, there's something troubling about the system that you're participating in. But that's just me.

I'm also curious about your political affiliation and why you have so many posts yet don't ascribe to libertarianism.

Re: When does lost property cease to be rightfully owned?

Willy Truth — Tue, 21 Aug 2012 20:08:45 GMT

@Kelvin_silva: "Or in such a case, the watch should be destroyed. Actually this is not that bad of an idea at all, both parties are left unhappy, so therefore they cant attack each other.

It solves the conflict."

Lol what? I'm not even sure what this accomplishes, there's no reason to destroy the object in question. Both parties are more apt to attack one another if they're unhappy anyways. Is this a parody of the Judgment of Solomon or something?

Re: When does lost property cease to be rightfully owned?

Minarchist — Tue, 21 Aug 2012 19:31:28 GMT

Well I'm not a libertarian. I just want laws that basically agree with my worldview which is decidely more statist than yours.

Fair enough. If we don't begin with the same premises, we certainly aren't going to arrive at the same conclusions.

I'm curious though, what exactly is your world-view? You say it's more statist than mine - how much more? What powers do you think the State should have?

Re: When does lost property cease to be rightfully owned?

bloomj31 — Tue, 21 Aug 2012 19:16:46 GMT

Minarchist:
The real problem is that it amounts to democratic control over private property.

Yeah I suppose it does. But that doesn't really bother me. You'd have to vote with your dollars and hope that more people were like you than like me.

Minarchist:
The community has a "feeling" that they should be able to take your property from you if in their opinion you aren't using it often enough, or looking for it hard enough, etc. That doesn't make me feel too secure as a property owner.

Yes well as a statist imagining a free society that's how I imagine things playing out.

I don't expect to ever be completely secure as a property owner.

Perhaps that's static thinking but I can't really fathom a free society completely anyways.

Minarchist:
We want libertarian law, do we not?

Well I'm not a libertarian. I just want laws that basically agree with my worldview which is decidely more statist than yours.

Minarchist:
but why you intuitively believe a time-limit is needed in the first place? Are you worried about property sitting around unused? Or what?

I wouldn't say I intuitively think a time-limit is "necessary." I just think a time-limit seems reasonable. I could accept it. I could probably accept no time limit as well to be honest, I think I'd just prefer a time limit. Why? Can't really say, I don't pretend to understand all my intuitions, this is just the intuition I have.

Minarchist:
I can't fathom why any libertarian would advocate laws that strip property owners of their property based on the feelings of his neighbors about how he uses (or doesn't use) said property.

I can't either but I generally find libertarians very difficult to comprehend which is why I spend so much time on this forum to begin with.

Willy Truth:
I think that, regardless of what the statutes may say about time constraints, if a plaintiff can prove that they are still the true owners and have been the whole time (i.e., they did not voluntarily trade or abandon it), then it should be their rightful property.

Well that's cool. In a free society the market would determine what the law would actually be. I can't really say which side would be more popular. I'd like to think mine but that might just be wishful thinking.

Willy Truth:
Put differently, I don't get how the idea of competing courts is a viable option. If I want to file a suit against you to retain possession of the watch, I'll take you to the court that supports the notion of ownership being unlimited. If you want to appeal the case after you've been ordered by the court to relinquish it, you'd take me to the court that supports the statue of limitations notion. Since the courts would be supplying a service, you'd obviously want to choose the court that matches what your endgame is: winning the suit.

Yeah I've never been able to wrap my head around it either. I'm sure someone here can explain it though.

Re: When does lost property cease to be rightfully owned?

Willy Truth — Tue, 21 Aug 2012 19:00:57 GMT

Yeah, once again, Minarchist beat me to it. My problem is with the idea of a statute of limitation itself, not the length that is decided upon by whatever legislative body. I think that, regardless of what the statutes may say about time constraints, if a plaintiff can prove that they are still the true owners and have been the whole time (i.e., they did not voluntarily trade or abandon it), then it should be their rightful property.

On a completely note, I have trouble understanding how we could live in a society with a rule of law that recognizes ownership being both "forever" and having "a clear statute of limitations".

Put differently, I don't get how the idea of competing courts is a viable option. If I want to file a suit against you to retain possession of the watch, I'll take you to the court that supports the notion of ownership being unlimited. If you want to appeal the case after you've been ordered by the court to relinquish it, you'd take me to the court that supports the statue of limitations notion. Since the courts would be supplying a service, you'd obviously want to choose the court that matches what your endgame is: winning the suit.

Re: When does lost property cease to be rightfully owned?

Minarchist — Tue, 21 Aug 2012 18:19:04 GMT

It doesn't have to be six months. It could be six months, eight months, a year, two years etc. I can imagine that the market process would give us an idea of the general view.

The market process could determine which kind of norm fit people's general feelings on this issue.

It isn't the fact that the time period of arbitrary which is the real problem. The real problem is that it amounts to democratic control over private property. The community has a "feeling" that they should be able to take your property from you if in their opinion you aren't using it often enough, or looking for it hard enough, etc. That doesn't make me feel too secure as a property owner.

Not everyone is going to be satisfied though. But I suppose the idea behind free market law is that more people would be satisfied than they would be under state-provided law because while a free market could conceivably allow for more than one norm, state-provided law tends to yield one-size-fits-all solutions.

It's a truism that market-produced law will meet the demand of the consumer. But that isn't the end of the story. We as libertarians cannot just say "whatever the market produces is good" when it comes to law. We want libertarian law, do we not?

Arbitrariness is not necessarily unappealing to me. It just depends on how close it comes to my natural feeling. I cannot give you a complex argument for why six months seems reasonable to me it just does. I don't really need to explain myself I just have to hope that my sense of reasonableness is widely shared within whatever community I end up living in.

I'm curious not so much about why you intuitively prefer 6 months, but why you intuitively believe a time-limit is needed in the first place? Are you worried about property sitting around unused? Or what? I can't fathom why any libertarian would advocate laws that strip property owners of their property based on the feelings of his neighbors about how he uses (or doesn't use) said property.