Political Theory

Re: Competing Theories of Property?

Brainpolice — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 09:00:42 GMT

wombatron:

Mutualist property theory holds that ownership is based on continuous use and occupancy of the property. This is why mutualists are oppossed to absentee landlordism. Also, "use and occupancy" is meant to be defined by a common law-like precedent or by consensus. One can argue that it only really differs from Lockean theory in that it requirements for what constitutes abandoing property are more restrictive, as both theories see homesteading or free exchange as the only 2 ways to justly acquire property.

Georgist property theory doesn't differ much from Lockean theory, except in the area of land, which is held to be the common patrimony of the human race. It gets a bit complicated, and I don't really know that much about it, so I think that I'll just show you the Wikipedia article.

Agreed.

Here's my formal article on this: http://polycentricorder.blogspot.com/2009/01/neo-lockean-vs-use-based-property.html

Re: Competing Theories of Property?

wombatron — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 07:26:42 GMT

Andrew:
I've been thinking of an other way to justify property ownership, and I can't think of any other?

On a side note, I've often wondered if something similar to a Nietzschean will-to-power could justify property. Perhaps Geoffrey or someone else interested in Nietzsche could interject here?

Re: Competing Theories of Property?

wombatron — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 07:23:41 GMT

Mutualist property theory holds that ownership is based on continuous use and occupancy of the property. This is why mutualists are oppossed to absentee landlordism. Also, "use and occupancy" is meant to be defined by a common law-like precedent or by consensus. One can argue that it only really differs from Lockean theory in that it requirements for what constitutes abandoing property are more restrictive, as both theories see homesteading or free exchange as the only 2 ways to justly acquire property.

Georgist property theory doesn't differ much from Lockean theory, except in the area of land, which is held to be the common patrimony of the human race. It gets a bit complicated, and I don't really know that much about it, so I think that I'll just show you the Wikipedia article.

Re: Competing Theories of Property?

Solomon — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 04:39:15 GMT

As I understand, a theory of property consists of the following:

a definition of property (as opposed to the intuitve conception of it);
a way of assigning property titles to individuals;
a way of secerning what is capable of being owned from what is not.

So of course there are many theories of property, though most are patently impractical or even unmeaningful.

Re: Competing Theories of Property?

AndrewKemendo — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 02:20:12 GMT

wombatron:

Mutualist and Georgist theories of property.

Which in your own words would be what?

I think this is one of the main things which divides the Left and Right libertarians and as such the forum would be well to know the theories.

Re: Competing Theories of Property?

wombatron — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 22:18:53 GMT

Mutualist and Georgist theories of property.

Re: Competing Theories of Property?

Andrew — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 22:17:21 GMT

So in 5,000 years all we have is: Stirner, Locke, Commi's. The last two being introduced up to 500 hundred years prior to the present.

Just seems that there would be more than this. And might makes right is still the most prevalent form to date.

Re: Competing Theories of Property?

Juan — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 21:54:02 GMT

aka might makes right.

Re: Competing Theories of Property?

scineram — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 21:51:15 GMT

The state owns natural resources and conditionally permits some use. The status quo.

Competing Theories of Property?

Andrew — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 21:42:23 GMT

Are there other theories of property, even impractical, than Locke's labor theory(includes first user justification), and universal ownership?

I've been thinking of an other way to justify property ownership, and I can't think of any other? The only thing that jumps out at me would be conquest, but that seems to be using your labor to transfer ownership, and would fall in Locke's theory of labor. Conquest is a legitimate form of ownership, right? Not legitimate in transfer, but in justification of ownership.

And if there are any others, can they be applied in a liberal society?