7 ms·

I hate this argument. "Property", as in land ownership, does not exist outside of the State. You "own" land only by the consent of society. Conceptually, land o

by beat 9y ago

I hate this argument. "Property", as in land ownership, does not exist outside of the State. You "own" land only by the consent of society. Conceptually, land ownership is inseparable from the State.

patricius 9y ago
Only if you equate society and State, which I don’t. But do you believe that anything is made morally right when the State does it, e.g., confiscating property?
- beat 9y ago
  The State is not the exact equivalent of society in general, but there's enough overlap to interchange them in most arguments. And you say "do you believe anything is made morally right when the State does it", but what you mean is "do you believe everything is morally right when the State does it". So you're turning bad phrasing into a bad argument. I can think that some things, even most things that the State does are good, without being universal. This includes eminent domain, which is a social good but must be applied carefully, on a case-by-case basis. Absolutism is the second core failing of libertarianism, after the absurd ideas of "natural rights".
  - patricius 9y ago
    Sorry, not a native English speaker. What the State does depends on which State. You would probably agree that what the State does in Venezuela is atrocious, but of course pales in comparison to what State has done historically in other countries. So by what principle do you judge whether a particular thing the State does is good or bad?
    - beat 9y ago
      You're still looking for a universal criteria, and I am not going to give you one. Absolutism is a bad thing, in software and in society. States that behave atrociously toward their citizens tend to fall victim to revolution, sooner or later. Constitutional democracies, where "consent of the governed" has some real teeth, tend to be stable and avoid violent revolutions, because the need for social change can be handled via the ballot box. But in terms of State injustice, we're talking about matters of degree, not absolutes. If you're saying that any injustice invalidates the State, you fail, because as long as the State is working pretty well for the majority (as it usually does), then the complaints of the few will just be seen as complaining, not cause for revolution. Hence, eminent domain. It works pretty well for most people, who see direct benefit in terms of, say, new transportation systems.
      - patricius 9y ago
        By denouncing absolutism, you are being absolutist yourself ;-) Okay, so if the absense of State would prove to work for the majority of people (which seems to be your criterion), you would support a State-free society?
        beat 9y ago
        I'm pretty familiar with historic and modern anarchist thought. In theory, I would support (and prefer) a State-free society. In practice, I don't see it as viable, especially at this point in history. That said, a State-free society would necessarily be a property-free society. We need the State in order to have the records and the courts to resolve disputes over property ownership.
        patricius 9y ago
        I don’t think it is viable currently either. I just think it is the ideal we should strive towards. Paradoxically, I don’t believe an anarchist society could work without private property rights. And if you are familiar with anarchist thought, you are probably also aware of and have considered the arguments for privatizing courts and so on, so I won’t bore you with that.
      - ovao 9y ago
        The problem with the by-the-ballot approach is that, if voters had reasonably considered that acts of eminent domain might be or would be pursued to complete the project, there is at least some reasonable likelihood that it would not have received enough votes for its funding. It’s speculative, of course, but “well they voted for it” is not necessarily cause for “well we’ll force out landowners with a fair market value price”. These are often someone’s homes — places for families, their memories, and their sense of pride and security — for which fair market value does not fully appreciate.
Cyberdog 9y ago
Um, no. Me and mine is me and mine, regardless of what a government may think. And if you try to take or cause harm to me and mine, I have natural right to stop it from happening, regardless of the presence or non-presence of a government. I cannot fathom disagreeing with anything more than I disagree with your post.
- QAPereo 9y ago
  Do you at least acknowledge the reality of how laughable your “natural right” to resist would look against even a minute fraction of the state’s power?
  - sounds 9y ago
    Here in this nation of the United States, we claim that the state derives its power from the consent of the governed. It's a novel concept, really. Obviously, if you like the idea of a powerful nation-state, you can try any number of other experiments, elsewhere. Those nations do not even try to veneer their actions with the consent of their populace.
    - QAPereo 9y ago
      I think you’re taking my acknowledgement of reality to be an endorsement of it. You can’t hope to change anything if you’re living in a fantasy. The reality is that the government of “this here nation” can roll over you like you never existed. Want that to change? I do.
      - sounds 9y ago
        Sorry, I was responding to your assessment of the situation as "laughable." I'm not laughing. Neither are you, right?
    - beat 9y ago
      "Consent of the governed" means consent of society in general, not the consent of every individual to every action of the State. Society has long been okay with eminent domain. When things become unacceptable, we can elect legislators to change the laws and make them acceptable again. I don't hear a cry to end eminent domain in our elections, or see anyone in Congress making any effort in that direction. That's consent of the governed.
antishatter 9y ago
Strong ownership laws are a fundamental requirement of a State that is deemed worthy of investment. Why would anyone bother if the government could just take all your shit without compensation.
- beat 9y ago
  Eminent domain doesn't happen without compensation. It's done at fair market value, almost always settled by the courts, that don't have a political interest in the outcome. It doesn't mean take your land without compensation. It means take your land whether you like it or not, for fair market compensation.
Helmet 9y ago
I don't understand how an American can manage this thought. It runs in the face of every stated ideal and philosophical underpinning of this dear republic. I'll refer you to the concept of natural rights, Locke, Paine, the Deceleration of the Independence, the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution, and the entirety of classical liberal philosophy.
- beat 9y ago
  I don't buy the idea of "natural rights" in general. That doesn't mean I think constitutional democracy is a bad idea. It's just a good idea for different reasons. Believing that the concept of owning property is inseparable from a government that defines property and resolves property disputes doesn't make me un-American. Sheesh.
  - taurath 9y ago
    The argument is absurd, because anyone more powerful than you can and will take your property by force unless you have the backing of a society.
- yongjik 9y ago
  The Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights were written when land was one virtually unlimited resource in the US. Because it was sparsely populated (even more sparsely than a few centuries before that), and most of its inhabitants simply didn't matter. Let's stop pretending that the 18th century understanding of society transcends time just because this nation happened to be founded at that particular era.
- phil248 9y ago
  So does the lack of universal voting rights for a couple hundred years. Sometimes old ideas are wrong and should be mocked an then ignored.
  - Helmet 9y ago
    The lack of universal voting rights, as well as slavery, existed despite what I mentioned, not because of it. The Declaration of Independence is quite unequivocal: ...all men are created equal...endowed..with certain unalienable rights... All you have shown is that we as people are flawed, even when the truth is right there in front of us.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 9y ago
Actually it kind of does. Even in the animal world, an animal will mark its territory and defend that territory against encroachment. Humans would do the same thing, except now we have outsourced the violence to the state. Instead of peeing on trees to mark our property, the state keeps a registry of property owners. Instead of physically fighting with intruders, we call the law enforcement arm of the state. The concept of property or territory you control exists apart from the state.
- beat 9y ago
  But now you're not talking about a "right", but merely a biological imperative. Nothing that separates humans from, say, spiders. And then your "natural right" to property extends no farther than your ability to defend it from someone bigger and meaner than you. I can shoot you, and then your land becomes mine, by "natural right". Is this really the hill you want to die on?
  - RcouF1uZ4gsC 9y ago
    I was not addressing "rights", but that the concept of "property" exists independently of the state.
    - jbooth 9y ago
      It really doesn't in regards to land in modern society, though. Ownership of land is quite literally a deed on file with the government. Feudal society, maybe.
      - azernik 9y ago
        Not even in feudal society. That "deed on file" was originally a relationship with the sovereign lord (usually the king) who actually "owned" the land. In fact, ownership in Anglophone countries is still referred to as "fee simple", derived from "fief"; you hold the land from your Lord the state, under a form of tenure that happens not to include any feudal obligations ("simple").
    - 9y ago

by beat 9y ago

I hate this argument. "Property", as in land ownership, does not exist outside of the State. You "own" land only by the consent of society. Conceptually, land ownership is inseparable from the State.

patricius 9y ago

Only if you equate society and State, which I don’t. But do you believe that anything is made morally right when the State does it, e.g., confiscating property?

beat 9y ago
The State is not the exact equivalent of society in general, but there's enough overlap to interchange them in most arguments. And you say "do you believe anything is made morally right when the State does it", but what you mean is "do you believe everything is morally right when the State does it". So you're turning bad phrasing into a bad argument. I can think that some things, even most things that the State does are good, without being universal. This includes eminent domain, which is a social good but must be applied carefully, on a case-by-case basis. Absolutism is the second core failing of libertarianism, after the absurd ideas of "natural rights".
- patricius 9y ago
  Sorry, not a native English speaker. What the State does depends on which State. You would probably agree that what the State does in Venezuela is atrocious, but of course pales in comparison to what State has done historically in other countries. So by what principle do you judge whether a particular thing the State does is good or bad?
  - beat 9y ago
    You're still looking for a universal criteria, and I am not going to give you one. Absolutism is a bad thing, in software and in society. States that behave atrociously toward their citizens tend to fall victim to revolution, sooner or later. Constitutional democracies, where "consent of the governed" has some real teeth, tend to be stable and avoid violent revolutions, because the need for social change can be handled via the ballot box. But in terms of State injustice, we're talking about matters of degree, not absolutes. If you're saying that any injustice invalidates the State, you fail, because as long as the State is working pretty well for the majority (as it usually does), then the complaints of the few will just be seen as complaining, not cause for revolution. Hence, eminent domain. It works pretty well for most people, who see direct benefit in terms of, say, new transportation systems.
    - patricius 9y ago
      By denouncing absolutism, you are being absolutist yourself ;-) Okay, so if the absense of State would prove to work for the majority of people (which seems to be your criterion), you would support a State-free society?
      - beat 9y ago
        I'm pretty familiar with historic and modern anarchist thought. In theory, I would support (and prefer) a State-free society. In practice, I don't see it as viable, especially at this point in history. That said, a State-free society would necessarily be a property-free society. We need the State in order to have the records and the courts to resolve disputes over property ownership.
        patricius 9y ago
        I don’t think it is viable currently either. I just think it is the ideal we should strive towards. Paradoxically, I don’t believe an anarchist society could work without private property rights. And if you are familiar with anarchist thought, you are probably also aware of and have considered the arguments for privatizing courts and so on, so I won’t bore you with that.
    - ovao 9y ago
      The problem with the by-the-ballot approach is that, if voters had reasonably considered that acts of eminent domain might be or would be pursued to complete the project, there is at least some reasonable likelihood that it would not have received enough votes for its funding. It’s speculative, of course, but “well they voted for it” is not necessarily cause for “well we’ll force out landowners with a fair market value price”. These are often someone’s homes — places for families, their memories, and their sense of pride and security — for which fair market value does not fully appreciate.

Cyberdog 9y ago

Um, no. Me and mine is me and mine, regardless of what a government may think. And if you try to take or cause harm to me and mine, I have natural right to stop it from happening, regardless of the presence or non-presence of a government. I cannot fathom disagreeing with anything more than I disagree with your post.

QAPereo 9y ago
Do you at least acknowledge the reality of how laughable your “natural right” to resist would look against even a minute fraction of the state’s power?
- sounds 9y ago
  Here in this nation of the United States, we claim that the state derives its power from the consent of the governed. It's a novel concept, really. Obviously, if you like the idea of a powerful nation-state, you can try any number of other experiments, elsewhere. Those nations do not even try to veneer their actions with the consent of their populace.
  - QAPereo 9y ago
    I think you’re taking my acknowledgement of reality to be an endorsement of it. You can’t hope to change anything if you’re living in a fantasy. The reality is that the government of “this here nation” can roll over you like you never existed. Want that to change? I do.
    - sounds 9y ago
      Sorry, I was responding to your assessment of the situation as "laughable." I'm not laughing. Neither are you, right?
  - beat 9y ago
    "Consent of the governed" means consent of society in general, not the consent of every individual to every action of the State. Society has long been okay with eminent domain. When things become unacceptable, we can elect legislators to change the laws and make them acceptable again. I don't hear a cry to end eminent domain in our elections, or see anyone in Congress making any effort in that direction. That's consent of the governed.

antishatter 9y ago

Strong ownership laws are a fundamental requirement of a State that is deemed worthy of investment. Why would anyone bother if the government could just take all your shit without compensation.

beat 9y ago
Eminent domain doesn't happen without compensation. It's done at fair market value, almost always settled by the courts, that don't have a political interest in the outcome. It doesn't mean take your land without compensation. It means take your land whether you like it or not, for fair market compensation.

Helmet 9y ago

I don't understand how an American can manage this thought. It runs in the face of every stated ideal and philosophical underpinning of this dear republic. I'll refer you to the concept of natural rights, Locke, Paine, the Deceleration of the Independence, the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution, and the entirety of classical liberal philosophy.

beat 9y ago
I don't buy the idea of "natural rights" in general. That doesn't mean I think constitutional democracy is a bad idea. It's just a good idea for different reasons. Believing that the concept of owning property is inseparable from a government that defines property and resolves property disputes doesn't make me un-American. Sheesh.
- taurath 9y ago
  The argument is absurd, because anyone more powerful than you can and will take your property by force unless you have the backing of a society.
yongjik 9y ago
The Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights were written when land was one virtually unlimited resource in the US. Because it was sparsely populated (even more sparsely than a few centuries before that), and most of its inhabitants simply didn't matter. Let's stop pretending that the 18th century understanding of society transcends time just because this nation happened to be founded at that particular era.
phil248 9y ago
So does the lack of universal voting rights for a couple hundred years. Sometimes old ideas are wrong and should be mocked an then ignored.
- Helmet 9y ago
  The lack of universal voting rights, as well as slavery, existed despite what I mentioned, not because of it. The Declaration of Independence is quite unequivocal: ...all men are created equal...endowed..with certain unalienable rights... All you have shown is that we as people are flawed, even when the truth is right there in front of us.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 9y ago

Actually it kind of does. Even in the animal world, an animal will mark its territory and defend that territory against encroachment. Humans would do the same thing, except now we have outsourced the violence to the state. Instead of peeing on trees to mark our property, the state keeps a registry of property owners. Instead of physically fighting with intruders, we call the law enforcement arm of the state. The concept of property or territory you control exists apart from the state.

beat 9y ago
But now you're not talking about a "right", but merely a biological imperative. Nothing that separates humans from, say, spiders. And then your "natural right" to property extends no farther than your ability to defend it from someone bigger and meaner than you. I can shoot you, and then your land becomes mine, by "natural right". Is this really the hill you want to die on?
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 9y ago
  I was not addressing "rights", but that the concept of "property" exists independently of the state.
  - jbooth 9y ago
    It really doesn't in regards to land in modern society, though. Ownership of land is quite literally a deed on file with the government. Feudal society, maybe.
    - azernik 9y ago
      Not even in feudal society. That "deed on file" was originally a relationship with the sovereign lord (usually the king) who actually "owned" the land. In fact, ownership in Anglophone countries is still referred to as "fee simple", derived from "fief"; you hold the land from your Lord the state, under a form of tenure that happens not to include any feudal obligations ("simple").
  - 9y ago