Political Theory

Re: Property Rights

Stolz25 — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 21:23:11 GMT

krazy kaju:

Richard Chambers:

Stolz25:

Richard Chambers:
Doesn't morality require that one put his wealth to use to better humanity?

No. /thread

Why don't you think this is an important matter? America is over 90% Christian. Christians believe it is immoral to refuse to help others with one's own property. I am not a Christian, and you might not be a Christian; but the thought of the majority of America being fundamentally opposed to libertarianism is discouraging, to say the least.

Christians don't require that others use force to compel you to use your property to help others. Your appeal to majority doesn't actually answer the key question that I have already asked, yet you never answered: what moral imperative requires that you use your property for the benefit of others?

Exactly.

Re: Property Rights

Individualist — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 23:17:11 GMT

M-la-maudite:

Richard Chambers:

But I'm wondering what the moral basis is for enforcing property possession of "hoarded" goods.

The same as for any other good you're entitlted to own; ie, the fact that you're entitled to it.

I would also like to note that my OP said that "possession" of property was obviously fundamental to morality. This doesn't make sense, because possession just states what is (i.e., it's a positive word), whereas ownership states how things should be dealt with (i.e., it's a normative word). So, I guess my question was pointless.

But thanks to MacFall, who reminded me that there's no fundamental distinction between "hoarding" and saving.

Re: Property Rights

M-la-maudite — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 01:48:07 GMT

Richard Chambers:

Stolz25:

Richard Chambers:
Doesn't morality require that one put his wealth to use to better humanity?

No. /thread

Why don't you think this is an important matter? America is over 90% Christian. Christians believe it is immoral to refuse to help others with one's own property. I am not a Christian, and you might not be a Christian; but the thought of the majority of America being fundamentally opposed to libertarianism is discouraging, to say the least.

Hmm, nothing wrong or anti-libertarian in some people thinking they should use their own property to better the cause of humanity, or anything else they want... Obviously, the moral use of your property still only depends on ypour own preferences about how to use it or not.

Re: Property Rights

M-la-maudite — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 01:42:39 GMT

Re/ Who are you to say that property rights are moral obligations?

That's precisely how 'property right' is defined: a moral obligation on the part of every one else to refrain from using the property without the owner's consent.

- Right, but that makes it a negative obligation of abstewntion for everyone else; not a positive obligation for the rightful owner to do anything that the People, God, or whichever other fitction used by the powers-that-be thinks most convenient to justify their own (immoral) misappropriation of said goods for their own interests or vision of what the world should look like.

Re: Property Rights

M-la-maudite — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 01:34:45 GMT

Richard Chambers:

But I'm wondering what the moral basis is for enforcing property possession of "hoarded" goods.

The same as for any other good you're entitlted to own; ie, the fact that you're entitled to it.

Re: Property Rights

MacFall — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 04:49:35 GMT

Richard Chambers:

krazy kaju:

Christians don't require that others use force to compel you to use your property to help others. Your appeal to majority doesn't actually answer the key question that I have already asked, yet you never answered: what moral imperative requires that you use your property for the benefit of others?

Do not Christians teach that everyone use his property for the benefit of others?

Yes; Christians believe that it is moral to be charitable. But that in no way means that anyone should be forced to do so - in fact the New Testament is full of prohibitions against compulsory giving.

But it is important to note that charity is made possible through wealth, because one cannot be charitable with something that does not exist; that wealth always follows from savings, because savings are necessary for investment; and finally that there is no distinguishable line whatsoever between savings and hoarding. "Hoarding" is what people call savings when they think someone has saved too much, and that is nothing but a matter of opinion.

Re: Property Rights

krazy kaju — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 03:54:25 GMT

Richard Chambers:
Do not Christians teach that everyone use his property for the benefit of others?

Do Christians teach that you should steal money from those who justly earn it to give it to others?

Re: Property Rights

Individualist — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 03:38:46 GMT

krazy kaju:

Christians don't require that others use force to compel you to use your property to help others. Your appeal to majority doesn't actually answer the key question that I have already asked, yet you never answered: what moral imperative requires that you use your property for the benefit of others?

Do not Christians teach that everyone use his property for the benefit of others?

Re: Property Rights

krazy kaju — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 01:38:57 GMT

Richard Chambers:

Stolz25:

Richard Chambers:
Doesn't morality require that one put his wealth to use to better humanity?

No. /thread

Why don't you think this is an important matter? America is over 90% Christian. Christians believe it is immoral to refuse to help others with one's own property. I am not a Christian, and you might not be a Christian; but the thought of the majority of America being fundamentally opposed to libertarianism is discouraging, to say the least.

Christians don't require that others use force to compel you to use your property to help others. Your appeal to majority doesn't actually answer the key question that I have already asked, yet you never answered: what moral imperative requires that you use your property for the benefit of others?

Re: Property Rights

Individualist — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 23:26:13 GMT

Stolz25:

Richard Chambers:
Doesn't morality require that one put his wealth to use to better humanity?

No. /thread

Why don't you think this is an important matter? America is over 90% Christian. Christians believe it is immoral to refuse to help others with one's own property. I am not a Christian, and you might not be a Christian; but the thought of the majority of America being fundamentally opposed to libertarianism is discouraging, to say the least.

Re: Property Rights

MattW — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 04:38:07 GMT

Without property rights society could not function.

Your body, nope, it's mine. I have a right to it. Rape.

Your house, nope...mine. Theft.

Property rights are based upon a moral code that if you own your body, your actions (not getting into the abortion issue here or now) then a foundation is based upon that.

Take away those and you have complete chaos.

This is the process of de-civilization ...society working backwards. It certainly is happening in different areas.

That certainly was not the best summary. Hans Hoppe does much better. ..which is to be expected.

Re: Property Rights

Solomon — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 04:16:13 GMT

Richard Chambers:
Excuse me. I think I meant to ask this: Who are you to say that property rights even exist?

My (and everyone else's) contention is that if property rights exist at all, then they exist absolutely; ergo if one owns something he may do with it as he pleases (possibly nothing).

The reasoning behind this is that if property is not owned absolutely, i.e. there exist situations in which it is permissible to forcibly divest one of his property, then it is not really owned at all (if aggression is permissible to accomplish one thing, then why is it impermissible in a situation in which it is normally frowned on?).

If you worry about the economic impact of hoarding see chapter 15 of Defending the Undefendable.

http://mises.org/books/defending.pdf

Re: Property Rights

Knight_of_BAAWA — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 00:46:49 GMT

I don't see how it would be possible, no.

Re: Property Rights

Individualist — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 00:42:42 GMT

revolutionist:

Viewing "hoarding" as immoral is perfectly fine. You can think what you want in a free society. The problem is when you take that view of hoarding as immoral and try to impose that view on everyone. That is where freedom ends.

But is viewing "hoarding" as immoral consistent with viewing the violation of property rights as immoral? Can one consistently hold the libertarian opinion of property rights and also the view that "hoarding" is immoral?

Re: Property Rights

Individualist — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 00:33:19 GMT

Solomon:

Richard Chambers:
Who are you to say that property rights are moral obligations?

That's precisely how 'property right' is defined: a moral obligation on the part of every one else to refrain from using the property without the owner's consent.

Excuse me. I think I meant to ask this: Who are you to say that property rights even exist?