5 ms·

I disagree with the notion that property ownership should be provided as a right, for free, and that any regulation or control over the property the State prote

I disagree with the notion that property ownership should be provided as a right, for free, and that any regulation or control over the property the State protects is an atrocity on par with slavery. Don't get me wrong, in general I very much like the concept of private citizens managing capital rather than the State (though I wish workers had a bigger say in how capital is managed, but I digress), but there are times when States have to exercise some control over the property they protect in order to protect itself and the property it guards. Keep in mind, the Draft is a thing the State can do, the trick is to use such controls as lightly as possible. Private control and ownership of property, while important, must necessarily be secondary to the stability and protection of the society it inhabits. Also read bryanlarsen's comment, they go into good detail on how the State enhances private citizen's ability to create and accumulate capital.

hacknat 10y ago
Also individual property rights have not been the norm for most of human history, and in much of the world they still aren't. Obtaining mining rights to land in Papua New Guinea is incredibly difficult because the state recognizes historic communal land ownership rights. One member of a tribe can veto mining rights. The possibilities for wealth creation are enormous when you enforce individual property rights strictly, but it comes at the cost of a more egalitarian society.
- mseebach 10y ago
  > Also individual property rights have not been the norm for most of human history, and in much of the world they still aren't And those places can be easily recognised by their widespread abject poverty. Papua New Guinea has a GDP per capita of $2k, Australia $42k. PNG has a 40% poverty rate and it's ranked as one of the worst places for violence against women. Life expectancy is 62, a full 20 years behind Australia. But, hey, they're more egalitarian, so that's great.
  - twoquestions 10y ago
    I don't think hacknat disagrees with you, and I certainly don't. What I read is that what we call "property rights" is a fairly new idea, and we shouldn't treat it as "natural" or as a fundamental law of the universe as some do. For the record, I'm in full agreement that excessive restriction on property and capital has costs. Creating and maintaining the idea of "private property" has costs too.
kybernetyk 10y ago
http://imgur.com/sjO5Hi3 http://imgur.com/sjO5Hi3
- antisthenes 10y ago
  Cut out the middle panel entirely and it's accurate.
- hacknat 10y ago
  We should all stop paying for third party enforcement of criminal and civil disputes. Any seizure of my property by the government is a curtailment of my property rights. What benefits of the state are you willing to live without? All of them? If the answer is no you just want the line drawn further back or forward than others. My guess is like most of us you draw the line around services and benefits from the state that benefit you and people you know and not around services and benefits the state provides you deem unimportant to you and the people you know.
narag 10y ago
there are times when States have to exercise some control over the property To be fair, the article's author seems to agree with that: "This delicate balance of power between individuals and governments has been in flux throughout history, and it’s helpful to have some checks in place to ensure it doesn’t get too far out of alignment."

hacknat 10y ago

Also individual property rights have not been the norm for most of human history, and in much of the world they still aren't. Obtaining mining rights to land in Papua New Guinea is incredibly difficult because the state recognizes historic communal land ownership rights. One member of a tribe can veto mining rights. The possibilities for wealth creation are enormous when you enforce individual property rights strictly, but it comes at the cost of a more egalitarian society.

mseebach 10y ago
> Also individual property rights have not been the norm for most of human history, and in much of the world they still aren't And those places can be easily recognised by their widespread abject poverty. Papua New Guinea has a GDP per capita of $2k, Australia $42k. PNG has a 40% poverty rate and it's ranked as one of the worst places for violence against women. Life expectancy is 62, a full 20 years behind Australia. But, hey, they're more egalitarian, so that's great.
- twoquestions 10y ago
  I don't think hacknat disagrees with you, and I certainly don't. What I read is that what we call "property rights" is a fairly new idea, and we shouldn't treat it as "natural" or as a fundamental law of the universe as some do. For the record, I'm in full agreement that excessive restriction on property and capital has costs. Creating and maintaining the idea of "private property" has costs too.

kybernetyk 10y ago

http://imgur.com/sjO5Hi3 http://imgur.com/sjO5Hi3

antisthenes 10y ago
Cut out the middle panel entirely and it's accurate.
hacknat 10y ago
We should all stop paying for third party enforcement of criminal and civil disputes. Any seizure of my property by the government is a curtailment of my property rights. What benefits of the state are you willing to live without? All of them? If the answer is no you just want the line drawn further back or forward than others. My guess is like most of us you draw the line around services and benefits from the state that benefit you and people you know and not around services and benefits the state provides you deem unimportant to you and the people you know.

narag 10y ago

there are times when States have to exercise some control over the property To be fair, the article's author seems to agree with that: "This delicate balance of power between individuals and governments has been in flux throughout history, and it’s helpful to have some checks in place to ensure it doesn’t get too far out of alignment."