5 ms·

"The basic foundation" might be the wrong way to word it. That would suggest it is the ONLY tenet, which is misleading. However, private property rights are a

"The basic foundation" might be the wrong way to word it. That would suggest it is the ONLY tenet, which is misleading. However, private property rights are absolutely a tenet of [classic] liberal thinking. > The foundation of liberty is the freedom to make your own decisions and exercise your own will. I think that is a common misconception. Liberty =/= Freedom. Absolute freedom, in fact, can be an obstruction to liberty (which I think is what your extreme example eludes to). However, let's work through your example; how did they acquire all the property? If they did it without violating other people's property rights (i.e. voluntary exchange) than I think that would answer your question. It's kind of a non question (and I don't mean that rudely) - It just wouldn't happen. Every other person would have to give him/her all the "property" for free.

my5thaccount 11y ago
The land was given away to people, in the US, up to about 100 years ago, just for staking a claim on the land. Up to 40 acres per person. Many made illegal claims to more than one. Many of the wealthy quickly bought them up. You can learn more about it here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Acts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Acts
- djschnei 11y ago
  You're kind of preaching to the choir here...
clavalle 11y ago
It is a bit of a non-question but it illustrates a point. So let's say that person acquires all of the property through voluntary exchange. Ok. Now, what about the next generation who now live under that person's (or their descendant's) control of that property? They can demand anything they like (in this case their time and service) in exchange for the non-property owner's survival. Are those voluntary transactions? While more than one person owns different parts of everything, this is essentially the situation a lot of people find themselves in...they must trade their time and service in exchange for their survival. That seems less than voluntary to me and a violation of liberty. Granted, as you pointed out, absolute freedom cannot exist...there is a trade-off when freedoms of different entities collide. This is as true in the realm of private property as anywhere else, perhaps more so since certain people start off with so much more control, therefore choices and freedom, when it comes to property, from birth. All men are certainly not created equal when it comes to those rights. So, the question is what has to give in the realm of private property rights in order to achieve maximum liberty (or at least approach that ideal)? Treating private property rights as sacrosanct leads to an obstruction of liberty as surely as treating any other exercise of control (IOW, freedom) would.
- djschnei 11y ago
  I see what you're saying, but I think we disagree on WHY it's a non-question. One person can't lay claim to all private property through voluntary exchange. What was he exchanging for "all" the property? My point is that the free exchange of goods (property, services, etc...) in conjunction with a strong adherence to private property rights is the least problematic method of allocating "property". It's the least problematic in terms of making sure "property" or resources are used for their most "effective" use as well as the least problematic in terms of maximum liberty for the individual (and therefore the collective).
  - clavalle 11y ago
    > One person can't lay claim to all private property through voluntary exchange. What was he exchanging for "all" the property? Yet, that is what is how things are currently trending if you change one person to one group. When you own the means to produce what others need for their survival you can exchange those consumables for more production capacity -- the one side gets things that are valuable for a short time and fade to zero value and the other side gets things that increase in value or produce more value over time. It is a virtuous/vicious spiral (depending on what side of the equation you are on). So, not all property is created equal either.

my5thaccount 11y ago

The land was given away to people, in the US, up to about 100 years ago, just for staking a claim on the land. Up to 40 acres per person. Many made illegal claims to more than one. Many of the wealthy quickly bought them up. You can learn more about it here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Acts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Acts

djschnei 11y ago
You're kind of preaching to the choir here...

clavalle 11y ago

It is a bit of a non-question but it illustrates a point. So let's say that person acquires all of the property through voluntary exchange. Ok. Now, what about the next generation who now live under that person's (or their descendant's) control of that property? They can demand anything they like (in this case their time and service) in exchange for the non-property owner's survival. Are those voluntary transactions? While more than one person owns different parts of everything, this is essentially the situation a lot of people find themselves in...they must trade their time and service in exchange for their survival. That seems less than voluntary to me and a violation of liberty. Granted, as you pointed out, absolute freedom cannot exist...there is a trade-off when freedoms of different entities collide. This is as true in the realm of private property as anywhere else, perhaps more so since certain people start off with so much more control, therefore choices and freedom, when it comes to property, from birth. All men are certainly not created equal when it comes to those rights. So, the question is what has to give in the realm of private property rights in order to achieve maximum liberty (or at least approach that ideal)? Treating private property rights as sacrosanct leads to an obstruction of liberty as surely as treating any other exercise of control (IOW, freedom) would.

djschnei 11y ago
I see what you're saying, but I think we disagree on WHY it's a non-question. One person can't lay claim to all private property through voluntary exchange. What was he exchanging for "all" the property? My point is that the free exchange of goods (property, services, etc...) in conjunction with a strong adherence to private property rights is the least problematic method of allocating "property". It's the least problematic in terms of making sure "property" or resources are used for their most "effective" use as well as the least problematic in terms of maximum liberty for the individual (and therefore the collective).
- clavalle 11y ago
  > One person can't lay claim to all private property through voluntary exchange. What was he exchanging for "all" the property? Yet, that is what is how things are currently trending if you change one person to one group. When you own the means to produce what others need for their survival you can exchange those consumables for more production capacity -- the one side gets things that are valuable for a short time and fade to zero value and the other side gets things that increase in value or produce more value over time. It is a virtuous/vicious spiral (depending on what side of the equation you are on). So, not all property is created equal either.