5 ms·

I don't see why you need a broad intellectual foundation here. Property is granted by governments. Why? Because it's a useful abstraction. Where did the governm

I don't see why you need a broad intellectual foundation here. Property is granted by governments. Why? Because it's a useful abstraction. Where did the government get the property? It claimed it and enforced its claim by force. So I guess my answer to the story would be: fine, you can fight the owner for it, but the real owner isn't me, it's the United States government. If you are so inclined to fight the government, fine, but don't be surprised when people who find the abstraction useful and productive, or even simply find the other mechanisms of the government productive, decide to fight back.

vacri 14y ago
I imagine the wobbly will quite happily let the farmer go and get a representative of the US government for him to fight. Likely he will have naturally moved on before such a representative responds to 'someone is enjoying my shade against my will!'
- Locke1689 14y ago
  I agree that people can commit crimes without getting caught much of the time? I'm not sure if you have a point.
  - vacri 14y ago
    It's a sad world we live in when "sitting in the shade" is called a crime - and imply that it's bad people aren't getting 'caught' for such trivial things. I mean, if we're talking about absurdity of points, you are saying that a single travelling poor man sitting in the shade is something that is worthy of invoking the power of the federal government to combat.
    - kstenerud 14y ago
      "sitting in the shade" is not the crime; trespass is the crime. The concept of private property is useful enough on the whole that governments are willing to enforce it, and leave discretion for right-of-access to the owner of said property. This allows the property owner to assess people in terms of risk they pose to said property and either grant or deny access. If said farmer has had problems with transients damaging his property in the past, he will certainly appreciate the right to deny access, with the power of the government backing the decision.
      - vacri 14y ago
        Surely then, this would be the province of the local law enforcement, not something worth summoning in the Feds for.
        Locke1689 14y ago
        The only person to mention the federal government was you.
        vacri 14y ago
        but the real owner isn't me, it's the United States government - Locke1689, 5 hours ago I am not an American, but I've been online for nearly 20 years now, and I've seen a lot of US politics pass under the bridge. I've never seen anything that goes contrary to the notion that 'the United States government' is 'the federal government [of the US]'. The two terms are used interchangably in online discourse in my experience. If I am wrong in this, can you please provide me with some links to explain how 'the federal government' of the US is a different entity to the 'the United States government'. I'd be very interested to read them, because it would be a very curious oddity in the way politics are described over there. Does 'the federal government' operate at a higher or lower level than 'the United States government', or do they operate in parallel? It's an intriguing concept.
        argonaut 14y ago
        The fact that you're arguing over the synonymous/non-synonymous semantics of two phrases, rather than actually refuting locke's main point, says a great deal about your argument.
        vacri 14y ago
        Can you please point out Locke's 'main' point, because it seems he's danced around a few topics to me. If you're talking about the parent of my last comment, it should be abundantly clear that I'm saying 'no, you did', which is directly refuting his point, with a quote, no less. The rest was a bit of poetic license called 'taking the piss'.
    - rdouble 14y ago
      Well, at least the farmer didn't just shoot him and invoke the castle doctrine.
steveklabnik 14y ago
> Property is granted by governments. Why? Because it's a useful abstraction. This is where that 'broad intellectual foundation' comes in. You may think that it is, sure, but why? Not everyone does, and there's a whole lot of philosophical discussion on this very topic. Our conception of 'private property' has only been around ~200 years, and humanity's been around just a bit more than that.
- Locke1689 14y ago
  I'm a pragmatist. I find the philosophical 'discussion' on the metaphysical "purpose" of private property to be uninteresting and mostly worthless. I am, however, perfectly willing to entertain many possible critiques, if they are shown to be practical and better than the alternatives. Feudal property law, for example, I don't find to be nearly as flexible or efficient (which was around for quite a while, as well). It's no accident that our notions of property came into greater strength with the industrial revolution. If you look at the states with both strong public and private property systems, like the Scandinavians, you'll find that our system has also been far from static. Speaking as someone with a minor in philosophy, I have to agree with Paul Graham[1] that unfocused philosophy based on general principles (like "what is 'property?'") is terribly useless. If you want to make a difference, innovate. [1] http://www.paulgraham.com/philosophy.html http://www.paulgraham.com/philosophy.html
  - _delirium 14y ago
    Graham's critique is remarkably like the one Karl Marx had of "metaphysical" philosophy, in favor of praxis-oriented philosophy. ;-) From the end of his Theses on Feuerbach: "Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it".
    - steveklabnik 14y ago
      Thank you for making my point even better than I would.
    - Locke1689 14y ago
roel_v 14y ago
While I am on your side in the sense that we both agree that private property exists and is necessary, I think it's very dangerous to assume that property only exists when there is a government to enforce it. Furthermore, you seem to assume that only governments can own property and that the 'delegate' the ownership to citizens as it were - a point I take offense with, I am the owner of all my property, any government be damned.
- pessimizer 14y ago
  Government grants private property by agreeing to defend your exclusive use of it, and by dictating the conditions under which it will maintain or terminate that exclusive use. If you find that you have the ability to defend your exclusive use of something, you're either appealing to a sovereign, or you have become a sovereign. To be a sovereign, you need a very large stick.

vacri 14y ago

I imagine the wobbly will quite happily let the farmer go and get a representative of the US government for him to fight. Likely he will have naturally moved on before such a representative responds to 'someone is enjoying my shade against my will!'

Locke1689 14y ago
I agree that people can commit crimes without getting caught much of the time? I'm not sure if you have a point.
- vacri 14y ago
  It's a sad world we live in when "sitting in the shade" is called a crime - and imply that it's bad people aren't getting 'caught' for such trivial things. I mean, if we're talking about absurdity of points, you are saying that a single travelling poor man sitting in the shade is something that is worthy of invoking the power of the federal government to combat.
  - kstenerud 14y ago
    "sitting in the shade" is not the crime; trespass is the crime. The concept of private property is useful enough on the whole that governments are willing to enforce it, and leave discretion for right-of-access to the owner of said property. This allows the property owner to assess people in terms of risk they pose to said property and either grant or deny access. If said farmer has had problems with transients damaging his property in the past, he will certainly appreciate the right to deny access, with the power of the government backing the decision.
    - vacri 14y ago
      Surely then, this would be the province of the local law enforcement, not something worth summoning in the Feds for.
      - Locke1689 14y ago
        The only person to mention the federal government was you.
        vacri 14y ago
        but the real owner isn't me, it's the United States government - Locke1689, 5 hours ago I am not an American, but I've been online for nearly 20 years now, and I've seen a lot of US politics pass under the bridge. I've never seen anything that goes contrary to the notion that 'the United States government' is 'the federal government [of the US]'. The two terms are used interchangably in online discourse in my experience. If I am wrong in this, can you please provide me with some links to explain how 'the federal government' of the US is a different entity to the 'the United States government'. I'd be very interested to read them, because it would be a very curious oddity in the way politics are described over there. Does 'the federal government' operate at a higher or lower level than 'the United States government', or do they operate in parallel? It's an intriguing concept.
        argonaut 14y ago
        The fact that you're arguing over the synonymous/non-synonymous semantics of two phrases, rather than actually refuting locke's main point, says a great deal about your argument.
        vacri 14y ago
        Can you please point out Locke's 'main' point, because it seems he's danced around a few topics to me. If you're talking about the parent of my last comment, it should be abundantly clear that I'm saying 'no, you did', which is directly refuting his point, with a quote, no less. The rest was a bit of poetic license called 'taking the piss'.
  - rdouble 14y ago
    Well, at least the farmer didn't just shoot him and invoke the castle doctrine.

steveklabnik 14y ago

> Property is granted by governments. Why? Because it's a useful abstraction. This is where that 'broad intellectual foundation' comes in. You may think that it is, sure, but why? Not everyone does, and there's a whole lot of philosophical discussion on this very topic. Our conception of 'private property' has only been around ~200 years, and humanity's been around just a bit more than that.

Locke1689 14y ago
I'm a pragmatist. I find the philosophical 'discussion' on the metaphysical "purpose" of private property to be uninteresting and mostly worthless. I am, however, perfectly willing to entertain many possible critiques, if they are shown to be practical and better than the alternatives. Feudal property law, for example, I don't find to be nearly as flexible or efficient (which was around for quite a while, as well). It's no accident that our notions of property came into greater strength with the industrial revolution. If you look at the states with both strong public and private property systems, like the Scandinavians, you'll find that our system has also been far from static. Speaking as someone with a minor in philosophy, I have to agree with Paul Graham[1] that unfocused philosophy based on general principles (like "what is 'property?'") is terribly useless. If you want to make a difference, innovate. [1] http://www.paulgraham.com/philosophy.html http://www.paulgraham.com/philosophy.html
- _delirium 14y ago
  Graham's critique is remarkably like the one Karl Marx had of "metaphysical" philosophy, in favor of praxis-oriented philosophy. ;-) From the end of his Theses on Feuerbach: "Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it".
  - steveklabnik 14y ago
    Thank you for making my point even better than I would.
  - Locke1689 14y ago

roel_v 14y ago

While I am on your side in the sense that we both agree that private property exists and is necessary, I think it's very dangerous to assume that property only exists when there is a government to enforce it. Furthermore, you seem to assume that only governments can own property and that the 'delegate' the ownership to citizens as it were - a point I take offense with, I am the owner of all my property, any government be damned.

pessimizer 14y ago
Government grants private property by agreeing to defend your exclusive use of it, and by dictating the conditions under which it will maintain or terminate that exclusive use. If you find that you have the ability to defend your exclusive use of something, you're either appealing to a sovereign, or you have become a sovereign. To be a sovereign, you need a very large stick.