9 ms·

>property rights robbed individuals of a natural inheritance There was no such magical right. You have more right to land than animals, or worms, or the soil i

>property rights robbed individuals of a natural inheritance There was no such magical right. You have more right to land than animals, or worms, or the soil itself? When someone uses the words 'natural' or 'fair' or 'just' it is to invoke some emotional response, but generally has zero solid justification free from contradiction and conflicts. Mankind made up the concept of 'natural rights' which feels good, but does not scale to populations of billions, limited actual resources, etc. Me being born does not give me rights to anything other than that which society has agreed to. If society has agreed that I work to provide my own way, so be it - it's the price I pay for the benefits of society. You were born with zero, you actually have zero. Claiming rights to 'natural things' (which, by the same argument, actually were someone else's before you laid claim to them) is simply asking for the value of others to be handed to you for free.

nradov 4y ago
This is essentially the difference between negative and positive rights. We can reasonably claim that everyone has certain natural rights such as freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and freedom of association. But merely existing doesn't give anyone the natural right to free housing, food, or healthcare.
- yunwal 4y ago
  If you exist and are able-bodied, you could build yourself a shelter and gather/kill your own food. The reason you can’t do that now is because of property rights.
  - nradov 4y ago
    Wrong. Even if there were no property rights, there simply isn't enough food for 8B people to survive through hunting and gathering. So unless we want to kill off 90% of the population then we need large-scale agriculture. And strong property rights are absolutely necessary in order to maximize agricultural productivity.
    - yunwal 4y ago
      You can farm in the natural world as long as you can set up a system to protect your crops but also arguing about the precise amount of resources and agency afforded to you in the natural world is also missing some of the point. By following social order, populations trade natural rights for the rights of their society. Collectively, the population can choose to stop doing that if they think they’re on the wrong end of the bargain. It doesn’t even necessarily have to be that they’re worse off, but that other parties receive much more of the surplus. This is how deals work in business and it’s the same thing here.
yunwal 4y ago
No, natural law is that which would exist without a government monopoly on violence. The only reason people can maintain property is because the government will protect it for them. Otherwise, a group of homeless people could easily band together and take your house. Beating the state of the world under natural law is the lower bound for a legitimate government, and as automation increases, a capitalist system without UBI starts to lose to natural law and lose it’s legitimacy.
- SideQuark 4y ago
  >No, natural law is that which would exist without a government monopoly on violence Governments don't have a monopoly on violence. There's plenty of that without governments, even in civilized places. Governments help lower the incidence of violence by banding the people together against as much of the violence that not having a government allows. And under your form of 'natural law', there is no law except that which you can take. You have no rights, only force. I prefer governments and civilization.
  - yunwal 4y ago
    > governments don’t have a monopoly on violence. Yes they do. Any violence not conducted or sanctioned by the government is illegal and is theoretically punished. When you say there exists violence with no government, you’re agreeing with me. How about the people who have no home. Do they prefer governments and civilization? Would they not be better off if they could take your things? Why do you assume that in order for a government to be legitimate, it must only satisfy you? I don’t really care about you or me or any one person. The question is whether the order we operate under is legitimate. In order for it to be legitimate, it must, at the very least, beat disorder for most people.
    - SideQuark 4y ago
      >Do they prefer governments and civilization? Would they not be better off if they could take your things? Would they be better off if idiots could beat them without fear of police? If they don't prefer civilization, why do they go where civilization exists? Why don't they wander off into some deep national forest land and build their own place? Because they prefer civilization. >Why do you assume Why do you put assumptions in my writing that are not there? Need a strawman? > In order for it to be legitimate, it must, at the very least, beat disorder for most people. It does by the simple proof that most people don't just wander out of civilization and create chaos in some wasteland. In fact, only a tiny, tiny minority of people actually do that, so it must be working pretty well for nearly all people.

nradov 4y ago

This is essentially the difference between negative and positive rights. We can reasonably claim that everyone has certain natural rights such as freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and freedom of association. But merely existing doesn't give anyone the natural right to free housing, food, or healthcare.

yunwal 4y ago
If you exist and are able-bodied, you could build yourself a shelter and gather/kill your own food. The reason you can’t do that now is because of property rights.
- nradov 4y ago
  Wrong. Even if there were no property rights, there simply isn't enough food for 8B people to survive through hunting and gathering. So unless we want to kill off 90% of the population then we need large-scale agriculture. And strong property rights are absolutely necessary in order to maximize agricultural productivity.
  - yunwal 4y ago
    You can farm in the natural world as long as you can set up a system to protect your crops but also arguing about the precise amount of resources and agency afforded to you in the natural world is also missing some of the point. By following social order, populations trade natural rights for the rights of their society. Collectively, the population can choose to stop doing that if they think they’re on the wrong end of the bargain. It doesn’t even necessarily have to be that they’re worse off, but that other parties receive much more of the surplus. This is how deals work in business and it’s the same thing here.

yunwal 4y ago

No, natural law is that which would exist without a government monopoly on violence. The only reason people can maintain property is because the government will protect it for them. Otherwise, a group of homeless people could easily band together and take your house. Beating the state of the world under natural law is the lower bound for a legitimate government, and as automation increases, a capitalist system without UBI starts to lose to natural law and lose it’s legitimacy.

SideQuark 4y ago
>No, natural law is that which would exist without a government monopoly on violence Governments don't have a monopoly on violence. There's plenty of that without governments, even in civilized places. Governments help lower the incidence of violence by banding the people together against as much of the violence that not having a government allows. And under your form of 'natural law', there is no law except that which you can take. You have no rights, only force. I prefer governments and civilization.
- yunwal 4y ago
  > governments don’t have a monopoly on violence. Yes they do. Any violence not conducted or sanctioned by the government is illegal and is theoretically punished. When you say there exists violence with no government, you’re agreeing with me. How about the people who have no home. Do they prefer governments and civilization? Would they not be better off if they could take your things? Why do you assume that in order for a government to be legitimate, it must only satisfy you? I don’t really care about you or me or any one person. The question is whether the order we operate under is legitimate. In order for it to be legitimate, it must, at the very least, beat disorder for most people.
  - SideQuark 4y ago
    >Do they prefer governments and civilization? Would they not be better off if they could take your things? Would they be better off if idiots could beat them without fear of police? If they don't prefer civilization, why do they go where civilization exists? Why don't they wander off into some deep national forest land and build their own place? Because they prefer civilization. >Why do you assume Why do you put assumptions in my writing that are not there? Need a strawman? > In order for it to be legitimate, it must, at the very least, beat disorder for most people. It does by the simple proof that most people don't just wander out of civilization and create chaos in some wasteland. In fact, only a tiny, tiny minority of people actually do that, so it must be working pretty well for nearly all people.