3 ms·

Whether or not the esoteric idea of "property" exists as some sort of natural law seems irrelevant. Philosophy aside, a society just agrees that something shoul

Whether or not the esoteric idea of "property" exists as some sort of natural law seems irrelevant. Philosophy aside, a society just agrees that something should be a certain way, and then decides to enforce that idea. To me this is all what modern liberalism representative governments try to be. I reject the need for an idea to exist as some magical entity apart from a society. The idea of property was invented by people and is seen as good and is agreed upon. Same with government. Neither are natural laws of the universe. So to me this whole argument is arguing over nothing.

tptacek 13y ago
Aren't you agreeing with Hobbes?
- rthomas6 13y ago
  Probably, but I am not sure. Actually the more I think about it, yes. But only according to one interpretation of what Hobbes says in the quoted passage. I agree that order can only exist when people agree on something. Hobbes calls it a "common power". However, one could interpret Hobbes as saying you need some kind of rigid construct to enforce order. Not really. People just have to agree. I was trying to say that that's the only reason property rights exist, because people agree on them, but that's also the only reason government exists. My point was that "property" and "government" are both just words, and whether or not "property" can exist without "government" depends on how you define them. So in my opinion the two people above me were arguing over nothing of consequence. I do not count philosophy among my strengths so sorry if this doesn't make any sense. Said another way, if you define "government" as people agreeing on a rule, then no, property rights cannot exist outside of government. Or if they did, they would have no basis in reality so they're not worth thinking about. However, if you define "government" as a certain way of enforcement, or a way of codifying laws, or really any particular construct, then in that case property rights obviously do exist outside of government.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > I agree that order can only exist when people agree on something. Hobbes calls it a "common power". However, one could interpret Hobbes as saying you need some kind of rigid construct to enforce order. Not really. People just have to agree. What Hobbes is saying is a bit more involved than that. He is saying that because people's nature (and self-interest in particular) mean that they will, in practice, not acheive universal agreement, you can't, in practice, have order without an entity which can enforce compliance with the general-but-not-universal agreement and punish defection from it, because otherwise even a general agreement will devolve into chaos. (He might have been more succinct and made reference to the "Tragedy of the Commons", except that that term wouldn't be coined for a little over three centuries after Hobbes wrote Leviathan, and even the historical events that motivated the term were still.)

tptacek 13y ago

Aren't you agreeing with Hobbes?

rthomas6 13y ago
Probably, but I am not sure. Actually the more I think about it, yes. But only according to one interpretation of what Hobbes says in the quoted passage. I agree that order can only exist when people agree on something. Hobbes calls it a "common power". However, one could interpret Hobbes as saying you need some kind of rigid construct to enforce order. Not really. People just have to agree. I was trying to say that that's the only reason property rights exist, because people agree on them, but that's also the only reason government exists. My point was that "property" and "government" are both just words, and whether or not "property" can exist without "government" depends on how you define them. So in my opinion the two people above me were arguing over nothing of consequence. I do not count philosophy among my strengths so sorry if this doesn't make any sense. Said another way, if you define "government" as people agreeing on a rule, then no, property rights cannot exist outside of government. Or if they did, they would have no basis in reality so they're not worth thinking about. However, if you define "government" as a certain way of enforcement, or a way of codifying laws, or really any particular construct, then in that case property rights obviously do exist outside of government.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > I agree that order can only exist when people agree on something. Hobbes calls it a "common power". However, one could interpret Hobbes as saying you need some kind of rigid construct to enforce order. Not really. People just have to agree. What Hobbes is saying is a bit more involved than that. He is saying that because people's nature (and self-interest in particular) mean that they will, in practice, not acheive universal agreement, you can't, in practice, have order without an entity which can enforce compliance with the general-but-not-universal agreement and punish defection from it, because otherwise even a general agreement will devolve into chaos. (He might have been more succinct and made reference to the "Tragedy of the Commons", except that that term wouldn't be coined for a little over three centuries after Hobbes wrote Leviathan, and even the historical events that motivated the term were still.)