4 ms·

Property rights is not a state invention. It's a concept. It wasn't invented by a bureaucrat. What state does is it provides a service of enforcing those rights

by snitko 12y ago

Property rights is not a state invention. It's a concept. It wasn't invented by a bureaucrat. What state does is it provides a service of enforcing those rights for the taxes I pay. However, I cannot choose another service provider because state holds a monopoly in this regard. Even if I somehow manage to hire expensive private protection, I still have to pay the state for the service I no longer use. Therefore, they are forcing me to pay. It's extortion at best.

tptacek 12y ago
Without governments, your rights in the state of nature are to wield whatever weapon you can lay your hands on or to run as fast as you can so as to avoid having what you call "property" sliced out of your hands, fingers still attached, by whatever armed gang takes a fancy to it. I'm sure stone-aged people huddled in caves hiding from axe-wielding mobs did indeed dream of "property" and a place where they'd have a "right" to it. So, sure, the state didn't "invent" property rights. They merely enable them.
- scott_s 12y ago
  I fully endorse your point. However, if we're going to go back to a time before governments, then I think we have to go back to before agriculture, when humans were hunter-gatherers that lived in tribes of around 60 or so. Within such tribes, I imagine that "property" was a relatively fluid concept, much as it is in families now. However, based on my understanding, the situation between tribes was such that there's no point in even using a concept like "property." Encountering a person from another tribe was a life-threatening event, let alone property. This, however, is in support of your point: government is how large groups of humans are able to live together and cooperate. The things provided through government and the rule-of-law do not come free, nor are they the default state.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    My problem with calling property a "natural" or "moral" right is that it obscures a really fundamental dynamic, which is the separation of possession from the ability to defend those possessions. A separation achieved by collective force suppressing the natural dominion of the strong over the weak.[1] The lion doesn't feel moral compunction for "stealing" the hyena's kill, and why should he? He is just using his natural gifts, just as a programmer might use his natural gift of intellect. [1] One might be tempted to invoke private security at this point, but one wonders whether, in a world without law, anybody who can defend say Mark Zuckerberg's wealth has any reason to take orders from Mark Zuckerberg, at least for very long.
    - tcoppi 12y ago
      A dynamic that is explored very well in the final season of Breaking Bad.

by snitko 12y ago

tptacek 12y ago

Without governments, your rights in the state of nature are to wield whatever weapon you can lay your hands on or to run as fast as you can so as to avoid having what you call "property" sliced out of your hands, fingers still attached, by whatever armed gang takes a fancy to it. I'm sure stone-aged people huddled in caves hiding from axe-wielding mobs did indeed dream of "property" and a place where they'd have a "right" to it. So, sure, the state didn't "invent" property rights. They merely enable them.

scott_s 12y ago
I fully endorse your point. However, if we're going to go back to a time before governments, then I think we have to go back to before agriculture, when humans were hunter-gatherers that lived in tribes of around 60 or so. Within such tribes, I imagine that "property" was a relatively fluid concept, much as it is in families now. However, based on my understanding, the situation between tribes was such that there's no point in even using a concept like "property." Encountering a person from another tribe was a life-threatening event, let alone property. This, however, is in support of your point: government is how large groups of humans are able to live together and cooperate. The things provided through government and the rule-of-law do not come free, nor are they the default state.
- rayiner 12y ago
  My problem with calling property a "natural" or "moral" right is that it obscures a really fundamental dynamic, which is the separation of possession from the ability to defend those possessions. A separation achieved by collective force suppressing the natural dominion of the strong over the weak.[1] The lion doesn't feel moral compunction for "stealing" the hyena's kill, and why should he? He is just using his natural gifts, just as a programmer might use his natural gift of intellect. [1] One might be tempted to invoke private security at this point, but one wonders whether, in a world without law, anybody who can defend say Mark Zuckerberg's wealth has any reason to take orders from Mark Zuckerberg, at least for very long.
  - tcoppi 12y ago
    A dynamic that is explored very well in the final season of Breaking Bad.