3 ms·

>Property is a social construct. If humans decide these are the rules of property, then they are the rules of property. If your username is indicates your posit

by ancap 11y ago

>Property is a social construct. If humans decide these are the rules of property, then they are the rules of property. If your username is indicates your position, your beliefs are outside of the mainstream and your definition of property is outside of the mainstream. While I'm not aware of any polls on the subject I would guess that your concept of property is what is "outside of the mainstream." >theft is not necessarily involved in the transfer of wealth from A to B and you have not established that theft is involved in this context Your wording here seems to indicate that you have a contradiction in your own view of property. If the wealth was not A's to start with, then how could it be transferred away from A and to B? If A did not own the wealth in question, why is it in his possession? Where did A get the wealth from? What does it mean that it was "transferred" to B? Does B now own the wealth? >If you really want to have a conversation, describe where you stand. Rent control is theft. The marginal difference between the market rate and the rent control rate is being stolen from the property owner.

danharaj 11y ago
My personal views on property are most certainly fringe. However, I couldn't get by very well without understanding its logic as it is implemented, as other people understand it, and enforce it. If you are talking about theft legally, then clearly there is no contradiction that a transfer of wealth from A to B can occur without it being theft and without it being whatever notion of consensual exchange you hold (which I'll take for granted is compatible with the incumbent system). Taxes are legal. Judgments calling for transfer of wealth from one to another are legal. I think surely you are not saying I am contradicting myself applying the legal system as it is, are you? In the current system, rent control isn't theft because the marginal difference, by definition does not belong to the property owner. The system that enforces their property claim is the same system that defines what their claim is. Without that system, their claim is neither justified nor well defined. So let's move away from legality and law. Your original question must have been one of morality, not law. My response is that I, personally, don't think property is moral or immoral because I do not take it as a priori. It is a human system. It has consequences. Its consequences are what can be judged on morality. On this count, I am heterodox. However, I understand how others think. Others, basically the entire history of property, actually, takes taxes levied and property rights regulated by the authority that justifies them as legitimate. What notion of property do you have?
- ancap 11y ago
  >Your original question must have been one of morality, not law. You are correct in your assumption. Perhaps I should be more explicit in that premise, as this seems to get lost on a lot of people. My fault. >My response is that I, personally, don't think property is moral or immoral because I do not take it as a priori. It is a human system. Surely, property in and of itself is not moral or immoral because we are talking about inanimate things. But the ownership of property, if you agree that property can be owned, does lead to questions of morality. I am not sure I follow when you say property is a "human system... it has consequences". Surely all discussion of morality involve humans, correct? We certainly don't condemn lions as immoral for killing and eating antelope; or the mallard for reproducing forcibly with a less than willing female. >What notion of property do you have? I am of the belief that property is an essential element of liberty. If someone has the right to say what they want, or worship how they will, or have relationships with others how they see fit, or whatever they want that is not initiating violence against others, that right is valid as long as they have property to perform those rights on. They cannot go on someone else's property and be entitled to act however they want, without the owner's permission. Now, just to be clear, I am not talking in the context of our current system, even though there are similarities. I am talking theoretically. This is important because I believe property rights pre-exist the state; that the right to own property is a natural, inalienable right. (In case there's any confusion when I say "right to own property" I do not mean that everyone is entitled to have property, but rather the rights which someone has as a property owner). So I would disagree with your statement that "property rights regulated by the authority that justifies them as legitimate," assuming the "authority" you refer to is the state. With the view of a natural right to property, it is clear that theft is a "crime" even absent codified law. Furthermore, any codified law which sanctions theft in any form is a violation of natural rights, is immoral and is invalid. >My personal views on property are most certainly fringe. You are in good company. While many believe in the notion of natural rights, few hold an intellectually consistent view in applying what it would mean to respect natural rights today. Edit: up vote for you for fostering an intelligent conversation and not resorting to ad hominem attacks.
  - danharaj 11y ago
    That's all very fair. I think we've pinned down adequately where our differences lie. I spoke about property intending to mean the notion of property, not the physical things that we call property, to clarify. In fact, I see entirely in the word property the notion of ownership, and likewise I only see the word property meaningful in the context of the notion of ownership. Without this, things are just things doing their thing. So, I take it to be true that property is, not being an intrinsic attribute of things, to be a human system: A system of relationships between human beings. I believe it is possible to consider human relationships without morality coming into account, morality being a complex interaction between the nature of the world and the way humans act in it. I am being very wishy-washy, so I'll drop the point. I think it would be hard for me to clarify what I mean. So, that leaves us with the notion of natural rights. I have to acknowledge that it is a useful notion. Liberalism has been a powerful force in the world for centuries and it rests on the idea of natural rights. That cannot be denied. However, that is merely the idea of natural rights. I cannot take that as basic. What I take as truly fundamental is an almost tautological statement: What is fundamental is the way things go. When you go against the fundamentals, you get problems, resistance. Sometimes you can brute your way through it, but you always leave, by definition, problems in your wake. If there weren't problems, then it wouldn't have been contravening the fundamental. Sometimes, you can't even get a compromise. To move from the abstract to the concrete, as an example the second law of thermodynamics is fundamental: That's the way things go, and you can't contravene it. Mallard ducks have violent mating rituals, human power is wasted trying to change that. It is beyond human power. It is duck fundamental. To take things as they are is fundamental. When I observe humans and their societies, I can easily note that natural rights are violated. They are not fundamental. Natural rights have power in two ways: When humans exercise, respect, and enforce natural rights, they have power. When humans need to justify themselves to each other, they can use natural rights; this is another aspect of their power, the moral aspect. When you take this way of thinking in a logical framework to its conclusion, you get critical theory. Critical theory is a fun tool. It digests all morality and rationality, breaking it down into power; power is premoral, prerational. Human power applied not to labor, or industry, but to social relations. So, I have not much to say about ideologies (coherent systems of ideas) except as they are rendered material and thus embodied in the fundamental way of things. When I look at our society, I see conflict as intrinsic to its nature. I think these conflicts can be avoided, but to do so requires coming to grips with the reality of social relations and letting ideas be our subordinates instead of our masters. You're willing to discard a lot of ideas to find a world that you think is good, which is a good thing. I am willing to discard all ideas and always work with a blank slate. I kind of started rambling there, and I don't have a punchline or anything. I'll just leave it at that. It was a nice conversation.

by ancap 11y ago

danharaj 11y ago

My personal views on property are most certainly fringe. However, I couldn't get by very well without understanding its logic as it is implemented, as other people understand it, and enforce it. If you are talking about theft legally, then clearly there is no contradiction that a transfer of wealth from A to B can occur without it being theft and without it being whatever notion of consensual exchange you hold (which I'll take for granted is compatible with the incumbent system). Taxes are legal. Judgments calling for transfer of wealth from one to another are legal. I think surely you are not saying I am contradicting myself applying the legal system as it is, are you? In the current system, rent control isn't theft because the marginal difference, by definition does not belong to the property owner. The system that enforces their property claim is the same system that defines what their claim is. Without that system, their claim is neither justified nor well defined. So let's move away from legality and law. Your original question must have been one of morality, not law. My response is that I, personally, don't think property is moral or immoral because I do not take it as a priori. It is a human system. It has consequences. Its consequences are what can be judged on morality. On this count, I am heterodox. However, I understand how others think. Others, basically the entire history of property, actually, takes taxes levied and property rights regulated by the authority that justifies them as legitimate. What notion of property do you have?

ancap 11y ago
>Your original question must have been one of morality, not law. You are correct in your assumption. Perhaps I should be more explicit in that premise, as this seems to get lost on a lot of people. My fault. >My response is that I, personally, don't think property is moral or immoral because I do not take it as a priori. It is a human system. Surely, property in and of itself is not moral or immoral because we are talking about inanimate things. But the ownership of property, if you agree that property can be owned, does lead to questions of morality. I am not sure I follow when you say property is a "human system... it has consequences". Surely all discussion of morality involve humans, correct? We certainly don't condemn lions as immoral for killing and eating antelope; or the mallard for reproducing forcibly with a less than willing female. >What notion of property do you have? I am of the belief that property is an essential element of liberty. If someone has the right to say what they want, or worship how they will, or have relationships with others how they see fit, or whatever they want that is not initiating violence against others, that right is valid as long as they have property to perform those rights on. They cannot go on someone else's property and be entitled to act however they want, without the owner's permission. Now, just to be clear, I am not talking in the context of our current system, even though there are similarities. I am talking theoretically. This is important because I believe property rights pre-exist the state; that the right to own property is a natural, inalienable right. (In case there's any confusion when I say "right to own property" I do not mean that everyone is entitled to have property, but rather the rights which someone has as a property owner). So I would disagree with your statement that "property rights regulated by the authority that justifies them as legitimate," assuming the "authority" you refer to is the state. With the view of a natural right to property, it is clear that theft is a "crime" even absent codified law. Furthermore, any codified law which sanctions theft in any form is a violation of natural rights, is immoral and is invalid. >My personal views on property are most certainly fringe. You are in good company. While many believe in the notion of natural rights, few hold an intellectually consistent view in applying what it would mean to respect natural rights today. Edit: up vote for you for fostering an intelligent conversation and not resorting to ad hominem attacks.
- danharaj 11y ago
  That's all very fair. I think we've pinned down adequately where our differences lie. I spoke about property intending to mean the notion of property, not the physical things that we call property, to clarify. In fact, I see entirely in the word property the notion of ownership, and likewise I only see the word property meaningful in the context of the notion of ownership. Without this, things are just things doing their thing. So, I take it to be true that property is, not being an intrinsic attribute of things, to be a human system: A system of relationships between human beings. I believe it is possible to consider human relationships without morality coming into account, morality being a complex interaction between the nature of the world and the way humans act in it. I am being very wishy-washy, so I'll drop the point. I think it would be hard for me to clarify what I mean. So, that leaves us with the notion of natural rights. I have to acknowledge that it is a useful notion. Liberalism has been a powerful force in the world for centuries and it rests on the idea of natural rights. That cannot be denied. However, that is merely the idea of natural rights. I cannot take that as basic. What I take as truly fundamental is an almost tautological statement: What is fundamental is the way things go. When you go against the fundamentals, you get problems, resistance. Sometimes you can brute your way through it, but you always leave, by definition, problems in your wake. If there weren't problems, then it wouldn't have been contravening the fundamental. Sometimes, you can't even get a compromise. To move from the abstract to the concrete, as an example the second law of thermodynamics is fundamental: That's the way things go, and you can't contravene it. Mallard ducks have violent mating rituals, human power is wasted trying to change that. It is beyond human power. It is duck fundamental. To take things as they are is fundamental. When I observe humans and their societies, I can easily note that natural rights are violated. They are not fundamental. Natural rights have power in two ways: When humans exercise, respect, and enforce natural rights, they have power. When humans need to justify themselves to each other, they can use natural rights; this is another aspect of their power, the moral aspect. When you take this way of thinking in a logical framework to its conclusion, you get critical theory. Critical theory is a fun tool. It digests all morality and rationality, breaking it down into power; power is premoral, prerational. Human power applied not to labor, or industry, but to social relations. So, I have not much to say about ideologies (coherent systems of ideas) except as they are rendered material and thus embodied in the fundamental way of things. When I look at our society, I see conflict as intrinsic to its nature. I think these conflicts can be avoided, but to do so requires coming to grips with the reality of social relations and letting ideas be our subordinates instead of our masters. You're willing to discard a lot of ideas to find a world that you think is good, which is a good thing. I am willing to discard all ideas and always work with a blank slate. I kind of started rambling there, and I don't have a punchline or anything. I'll just leave it at that. It was a nice conversation.