Difference between revisions of "What Is Property?"
From Critiques Of Libertarianism
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
==Don't animals have property?== | ==Don't animals have property?== | ||
Often people think of behaviors of animals (such as territoriality and nest defence) as being indicative of animal property. Such behaviors are widespread and ancient, arguably even present in bacteria. Possession is a better description. While an animal might protect its nest, does it really have [[#What_are_the_component_rights_of_property.3F|the other legal rights that comprise property according to Honoré]]? No. And with the exception of a very few social species, there is no social enforcement of possession. Apparently, only humans have property. | Often people think of behaviors of animals (such as territoriality and nest defence) as being indicative of animal property. Such behaviors are widespread and ancient, arguably even present in bacteria. Possession is a better description. While an animal might protect its nest, does it really have [[#What_are_the_component_rights_of_property.3F|the other legal rights that comprise property according to Honoré]]? No. And with the exception of a very few social species, there is no social enforcement of possession. Apparently, only humans have property. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Even children understand that possession is property!== | ||
| + | Even children understand that the sun rises in the East and sets in the west. But they are wrong: the sun is not moving over the Earth; the Earth is rotating. A child saying "this is mine" may understand possession, but not the much more sophisticated ideas of property. The childhood adage "finders keepers" illustrates the understanding of possession and does not show understanding of property. | ||
==How is property created?== | ==How is property created?== | ||
| Line 29: | Line 32: | ||
Claims and possession are sometimes considered by coercive social organizations such as governments to determine who owns particular property, but they are not necessary. For example, governments have granted lands to colonies and businesses such as railroads without claims or possession by the colonies or businesses. Gifts and inheritances can be made without claims or possession by the recipients. Just or not, those are facts of history and daily life. | Claims and possession are sometimes considered by coercive social organizations such as governments to determine who owns particular property, but they are not necessary. For example, governments have granted lands to colonies and businesses such as railroads without claims or possession by the colonies or businesses. Gifts and inheritances can be made without claims or possession by the recipients. Just or not, those are facts of history and daily life. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Wait! Game Theory says we do not need institutional coercion to have property!== | ||
| + | The game theory literature does not make that expansive a claim because (a) it is about possession, not full property, (b) it is based on assumptions that the possession is not valuable enough to justify the cost of aggression and (c) that the players have roughly equal powers of coercion. In the real world of human society, we differ in all three specifics. | ||
==Wait! The Non-Aggression Axiom says that retaliatory force is not coercion!== | ==Wait! The Non-Aggression Axiom says that retaliatory force is not coercion!== | ||
