4 ms·

Property rights inherently derive from the state. Unless you subscribe to "might makes right", the idea of property rights is inherently a social construct whic

Property rights inherently derive from the state. Unless you subscribe to "might makes right", the idea of property rights is inherently a social construct which the state is a formalization of. Limitations on rights is precisely the foundation of any society. To claim otherwise is just the semantic game of "oh, I don't mean those rights".

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> Property rights inherently derive from the state. This is not true, property rights are the human incarnation of territoriality which is exhibited by many species. > Unless you subscribe to "might makes right", the idea of property rights is inherently a social construct which the state is a formalization of. The state is a formalization of a particular social construct that is not identical to property rights. > Limitations on rights is precisely the foundation of any society. Do you have any support for this statement? It seems to contradict your earlier assertions and despite that I'm not sure how it would be true on its own. > To claim otherwise is just the semantic game of "oh, I don't mean those rights". Well, I don't think its a meaningless semantic argument for people to discuss what specifically is referred to by "rights." If you think people have a right to steal food out of other people's homes then I can see why you would think the government was a necessary limitation on that "right." But I think its a reasonable response to say "there is no right to steal food from other people" and then we can discuss what is and is not a right, which is much closer to a necessary conversation than a game (when conducted by sincere interlocutors).
- Volundr 6y ago
  > This is not true, property rights are the human incarnation of territoriality which is exhibited by many species. And those species lose their territory as soon as a bigger, meaner creature wants it. Their "right" to their territory is only as strong as their personal ability to protect it. No one else will help them. Unless that's what your advocating for when you talk about property rights, then rights absolutely do come from the state. Most of us think property rights mean what's mine is mine no matter who wants it, not that I lose it as soon as someone takes it from me or hires someone to do so.
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    > And those species lose their territory as soon as a bigger, meaner creature wants it. Their "right" to their territory is only as strong as their personal ability to protect it. No one else will help them. Indeed, and the same for the state. > Unless that's what your advocating for when you talk about property rights, I'm not advocating for anything, just correcting some misconceptions. > then rights absolutely do come from the state. No, they do not. Rights are a social fiction that arises from mutual cooperation and are continued through repetition and intentional performance. It is true that actors whose actions are colored by state power can participate disproportionately in this process of evolving norms. > Most of us think property rights mean what's mine is mine no matter who wants it, not that I lose it as soon as someone takes it from me or hires someone to do so. Yes because the norm of property requires that theft, robbery, and things of that nature are violations of that norm.
    - kyralis 6y ago
      > Rights are a social fiction that arises from mutual cooperation aka, the state. The formalization of the social fiction.
      - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        > aka, the state. The formalization of the social fiction. No, rights. the state is distinguishable from rights. They are both social fictions but they are not the same social fiction.
- cycomanic 6y ago
  > > Property rights inherently derive from the state. > This is not true, property rights are the human incarnation of territoriality which is exhibited by many species. Do you have proof for that? I mean that is a pretty sweeping statement, and I can think of a lot of counter examples. > > Unless you subscribe to "might makes right", the idea of property rights is inherently a social construct which the state is a formalization of. > The state is a formalization of a particular social construct that is not identical to property rights. Sure but that isn't a contradiction to what the OP said. He did not say the state is identical to property rights. > > Limitations on rights is precisely the foundation of any society. > Do you have any support for this statement? It seems to contradict your earlier assertions and despite that I'm not sure how it would be true on its own. > > To claim otherwise is just the semantic game of "oh, I don't mean those rights". > Well, I don't think its a meaningless semantic argument for people to discuss what specifically is referred to by "rights." If you think people have a right to steal food out of other people's homes then I can see why you would think the government was a necessary limitation on that "right." But I think its a reasonable response to say "there is no right to steal food from other people" and then we can discuss what is and is not a right, which is much closer to a necessary conversation than a game (when conducted by sincere interlocutors). But you don't specify what a right is either. In fact you earlier said it's incarnation of territoriality. How can that be a right? I mean maybe a desire, but a desire is very different to a right.
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    > Do you have proof for that? I mean that is a pretty sweeping statement, and I can think of a lot of counter examples. I'm not sure what proof (or evidence really) would be required. You can observe animal territoriality in the wild, or you can trust animal behaviorists to report on it accurately. They have areas they defend against other members of the same species. Behavior varies widely, solitary species don't like any other members of their species (except for sexual partners), social species have different arrangements. Sometimes an elder male will have several females and young that are permitted and when the young get big enough they either leave or fight. Sometimes the males will have a hierarchy and defend the territory against other members of the species who are not part of their group. Sometimes they even make war on another group for their territory. If you let me know what kind of evidence you're looking for I might be able to supply it. > Sure but that isn't a contradiction to what the OP said. He did not say the state is identical to property rights. He said that state is a formalization of the social construct of property rights. I'm saying the state is not a formalization of the social construct of property rights, but a social construct of nation and government; and that the two have relation but exist independently of each other. > But you don't specify what a right is either. In fact you earlier said it's incarnation of territoriality. How can that be a right? I mean maybe a desire, but a desire is very different to a right. Excellent question, thanks for asking. Rights are a social construct that emerges from mutual cooperation, essentially a social technology that allows people to co-exist and pursue their own interests and desires without needing to establish the same agreements with every individual and without generating unnecessary conflict. This is to say that rights are emergent and arise from individuals agreeing to respect each other. Perhaps an example would help: I don't like to be the victim of violence. Neither do you. At some point we agree not to do violence to each other. A third person shows up and attacks me to steal my food. You make the rational choice to help me defend myself because if he kills me for my food he may do the same to you. Being that he is outnumbered he stops and we explain "don't do violence on people." He says "you contradicted yourself, you say you're against violence but you used violence to stop me." We say "You're correct, it must be the initiation of violence that is bad, and it would be ok to use violence on someone who has used violence on you." He says "ok that may be the case but you used violence on that gazelle I was trying to take from you." We eventually conclude that rights are a social arrangement between humans as a result of our preference for cooperation with humans and do not apply to inter-species relations. > you earlier said it's incarnation of territoriality. How can that be a right? Property is a human expression of territoriality. Property rights are a social arrangement where people customarily or by agreement avoid violating each other's territory. Rights are a social arrangement that allow people to minimize the amount of violence in a community. This is already kind of long but let me know if you have more questions and thank you for the opportunity to discuss these issues.
martindale 6y ago
Property rights are intrinsic to our natural self-sovereignty (and agency). The State cannot grant rights.
- kyralis 6y ago
  Oh? I have an intrinsic right to the land that I currently own, the car in my driveway, and the computer I'm typing this on? How did that intrinsic right derive? And why don't I have an intrinsic right to, say, the land of the entire continent of North America? Property rights are entirely a social construct. They are not intrinsic; they are created and granted solely via the formalizations of that social contract in the form of the state.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago

> Property rights inherently derive from the state. This is not true, property rights are the human incarnation of territoriality which is exhibited by many species. > Unless you subscribe to "might makes right", the idea of property rights is inherently a social construct which the state is a formalization of. The state is a formalization of a particular social construct that is not identical to property rights. > Limitations on rights is precisely the foundation of any society. Do you have any support for this statement? It seems to contradict your earlier assertions and despite that I'm not sure how it would be true on its own. > To claim otherwise is just the semantic game of "oh, I don't mean those rights". Well, I don't think its a meaningless semantic argument for people to discuss what specifically is referred to by "rights." If you think people have a right to steal food out of other people's homes then I can see why you would think the government was a necessary limitation on that "right." But I think its a reasonable response to say "there is no right to steal food from other people" and then we can discuss what is and is not a right, which is much closer to a necessary conversation than a game (when conducted by sincere interlocutors).

Volundr 6y ago
> This is not true, property rights are the human incarnation of territoriality which is exhibited by many species. And those species lose their territory as soon as a bigger, meaner creature wants it. Their "right" to their territory is only as strong as their personal ability to protect it. No one else will help them. Unless that's what your advocating for when you talk about property rights, then rights absolutely do come from the state. Most of us think property rights mean what's mine is mine no matter who wants it, not that I lose it as soon as someone takes it from me or hires someone to do so.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  > And those species lose their territory as soon as a bigger, meaner creature wants it. Their "right" to their territory is only as strong as their personal ability to protect it. No one else will help them. Indeed, and the same for the state. > Unless that's what your advocating for when you talk about property rights, I'm not advocating for anything, just correcting some misconceptions. > then rights absolutely do come from the state. No, they do not. Rights are a social fiction that arises from mutual cooperation and are continued through repetition and intentional performance. It is true that actors whose actions are colored by state power can participate disproportionately in this process of evolving norms. > Most of us think property rights mean what's mine is mine no matter who wants it, not that I lose it as soon as someone takes it from me or hires someone to do so. Yes because the norm of property requires that theft, robbery, and things of that nature are violations of that norm.
  - kyralis 6y ago
    > Rights are a social fiction that arises from mutual cooperation aka, the state. The formalization of the social fiction.
    - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
      > aka, the state. The formalization of the social fiction. No, rights. the state is distinguishable from rights. They are both social fictions but they are not the same social fiction.
cycomanic 6y ago
> > Property rights inherently derive from the state. > This is not true, property rights are the human incarnation of territoriality which is exhibited by many species. Do you have proof for that? I mean that is a pretty sweeping statement, and I can think of a lot of counter examples. > > Unless you subscribe to "might makes right", the idea of property rights is inherently a social construct which the state is a formalization of. > The state is a formalization of a particular social construct that is not identical to property rights. Sure but that isn't a contradiction to what the OP said. He did not say the state is identical to property rights. > > Limitations on rights is precisely the foundation of any society. > Do you have any support for this statement? It seems to contradict your earlier assertions and despite that I'm not sure how it would be true on its own. > > To claim otherwise is just the semantic game of "oh, I don't mean those rights". > Well, I don't think its a meaningless semantic argument for people to discuss what specifically is referred to by "rights." If you think people have a right to steal food out of other people's homes then I can see why you would think the government was a necessary limitation on that "right." But I think its a reasonable response to say "there is no right to steal food from other people" and then we can discuss what is and is not a right, which is much closer to a necessary conversation than a game (when conducted by sincere interlocutors). But you don't specify what a right is either. In fact you earlier said it's incarnation of territoriality. How can that be a right? I mean maybe a desire, but a desire is very different to a right.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  > Do you have proof for that? I mean that is a pretty sweeping statement, and I can think of a lot of counter examples. I'm not sure what proof (or evidence really) would be required. You can observe animal territoriality in the wild, or you can trust animal behaviorists to report on it accurately. They have areas they defend against other members of the same species. Behavior varies widely, solitary species don't like any other members of their species (except for sexual partners), social species have different arrangements. Sometimes an elder male will have several females and young that are permitted and when the young get big enough they either leave or fight. Sometimes the males will have a hierarchy and defend the territory against other members of the species who are not part of their group. Sometimes they even make war on another group for their territory. If you let me know what kind of evidence you're looking for I might be able to supply it. > Sure but that isn't a contradiction to what the OP said. He did not say the state is identical to property rights. He said that state is a formalization of the social construct of property rights. I'm saying the state is not a formalization of the social construct of property rights, but a social construct of nation and government; and that the two have relation but exist independently of each other. > But you don't specify what a right is either. In fact you earlier said it's incarnation of territoriality. How can that be a right? I mean maybe a desire, but a desire is very different to a right. Excellent question, thanks for asking. Rights are a social construct that emerges from mutual cooperation, essentially a social technology that allows people to co-exist and pursue their own interests and desires without needing to establish the same agreements with every individual and without generating unnecessary conflict. This is to say that rights are emergent and arise from individuals agreeing to respect each other. Perhaps an example would help: I don't like to be the victim of violence. Neither do you. At some point we agree not to do violence to each other. A third person shows up and attacks me to steal my food. You make the rational choice to help me defend myself because if he kills me for my food he may do the same to you. Being that he is outnumbered he stops and we explain "don't do violence on people." He says "you contradicted yourself, you say you're against violence but you used violence to stop me." We say "You're correct, it must be the initiation of violence that is bad, and it would be ok to use violence on someone who has used violence on you." He says "ok that may be the case but you used violence on that gazelle I was trying to take from you." We eventually conclude that rights are a social arrangement between humans as a result of our preference for cooperation with humans and do not apply to inter-species relations. > you earlier said it's incarnation of territoriality. How can that be a right? Property is a human expression of territoriality. Property rights are a social arrangement where people customarily or by agreement avoid violating each other's territory. Rights are a social arrangement that allow people to minimize the amount of violence in a community. This is already kind of long but let me know if you have more questions and thank you for the opportunity to discuss these issues.

martindale 6y ago

Property rights are intrinsic to our natural self-sovereignty (and agency). The State cannot grant rights.

kyralis 6y ago
Oh? I have an intrinsic right to the land that I currently own, the car in my driveway, and the computer I'm typing this on? How did that intrinsic right derive? And why don't I have an intrinsic right to, say, the land of the entire continent of North America? Property rights are entirely a social construct. They are not intrinsic; they are created and granted solely via the formalizations of that social contract in the form of the state.