Difference between revisions of "What Is Property?"
From Critiques Of Libertarianism
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | <!-- you can have any number of categories here --> | ||
| + | [[Category:Mike Huben]] | ||
[[Category:Property|100]] | [[Category:Property|100]] | ||
| − | Property is a complex set of coercive rights. | + | [[Category:Under Construction]] |
| + | {{DES | des = Property is a complex set of coercive rights. Most people rely on simple folk models, but at least four fields are important for understanding property: philosophy, law, economics, and anthropology. Libertarians want an absolute, full liberal property over everything, that has never existed and that most people would not want. See also Proudhon's [[What Is Property? An Inquiry into the Principle of Right and of Government]]. | show=}} | ||
==The Nature of Property== | ==The Nature of Property== | ||
| − | Property is a set of coercively enforced | + | Property is [[Bundle of Rights|a specific set of rights]] that are coercively enforced. Without coercive enforcement, there are no rights, there are only claims (so-called moral rights.) Property is only as strong and secure as its enforcement, which is why property enforcement is generally by coercive social organizations such as governments, clans, feudal systems, etc. Individuals generally cannot create and maintain property because they are not nearly as powerful as social organizations. Thus, in modern nations, governments create and maintain property. All property reduces liberty of all others by creating enforced duties to respect the property. This is a tradeoff, between the benefits of property and the reduction of liberty by duties. |
For a general overview of the nature of rights, see: [[What Are Rights?]] | For a general overview of the nature of rights, see: [[What Are Rights?]] | ||
| Line 11: | Line 14: | ||
==Why isn't my possession good enough to establish my property?== | ==Why isn't my possession good enough to establish my property?== | ||
| − | If an individual picks up an object, makes something or homesteads some land, there is mere possession (physical control). There is no reason anybody else can't take that posession, either peacefully (picking up an object left alone) or violently (threatening or physically overpowering the former posessor) and make it their own possession. In addition, it is VERY common for people to be in possession of the property of others. For example, I possess a tool that I borrow, but I do not own it. | + | Every thief in the world wishes life was that simple: take somebody's stuff and PRESTO it is your property. |
| + | |||
| + | Possession (AKA holding) is a factual state of exercising control over an object, whether owning the object or not. If an individual picks up an object, makes something or homesteads some land, there is mere possession (physical control), often called holding. There is no reason anybody else can't take that posession, either peacefully (picking up an object left alone) or violently (threatening or physically overpowering the former posessor) or illegally and make it their own possession. In addition, it is VERY common for people to be in possession of the property of others. For example, I possess a tool that I borrow, but I do not own it. | ||
So claims and possession are not enough to establish property. | So claims and possession are not enough to establish property. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Possession is considered in the legal community to be only one of [[#What_are_the_component_rights_of_property.3F|a bundle of many rights that comprise property, and an optional one at that]]. You need more than just possession to have property. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Possession is [[What Is Liberty?|arguably a liberty]] (which could be freely interfered with by others), while property mostly consists of rights (where others have a duty not to interfere.) | ||
| + | |||
| + | There are "natural" rules to possession as well. Here is an incomplete list: | ||
| + | # You can acquire possession of something by finding it, by taking it from somebody, if it is given, or if it is uncontested. | ||
| + | # You keep what you possess if you can defend it. | ||
| + | # Stronger parties get to take your possession and make it their own. | ||
| + | # You can cede or abandon your possession. | ||
| + | These rules apply to pretty much all life forms which are in competition for resources. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==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, it does not have [[#What_are_the_component_rights_of_property.3F|the other legal rights that comprise property according to Honoré]]. 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. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==What about the [[State Of Nature]]?== | ||
| + | The State Of Nature is a philosophical fairy tale that ignores or predates modern anthropological science. Humans evolved in hunter-gatherer bands which had commonly-held (and defended) territories (a type of possession.) Property institutions did not evolve until the advent of chiefdoms, long after any putative State Of Nature. | ||
| + | |||
| + | For more on this, see: {{Link| Why Do Philosophers Talk so Much and Read so Little About the Stone Age? False factual claims in appropriation-based property theory}}. | ||
==How is property created?== | ==How is property created?== | ||
| Line 19: | Line 46: | ||
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!== | ||
| Line 24: | Line 54: | ||
For more on this subject see: [[Non-Aggression]] and [[Property Is Coercive]]. | For more on this subject see: [[Non-Aggression]] and [[Property Is Coercive]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Isn't there a Natural Right to own property?== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Natural rights are exactly as knowable as invisible pink unicorns: anybody can fantasize them any way they want. During the Enlightenment, when liberalism was invented, liberal natural rights were a propaganda tool used to undermine the equally fictitious natural rights of kings. But even among liberals there was no agreement about whether slaveholding was a natural right or not, because natural rights are really just bullshit claims. Bentham famously dismissed the idea of natural rights as "[[Anarchical Fallacies|nonsense on stilts]]". Unfortunately, most libertarians (including Nozick) start with this philosophical abomination rather than more factual alternatives. | ||
| + | |||
| + | For more on natural rights, see: [[Natural Rights]] | ||
==What about Locke and Mixing of Labor?== | ==What about Locke and Mixing of Labor?== | ||
| Line 37: | Line 73: | ||
* Why would mixing of labor be restricted to the first mixer only? Why not allow others to later mix labor and take partial ownership? | * Why would mixing of labor be restricted to the first mixer only? Why not allow others to later mix labor and take partial ownership? | ||
* Why is it that a mixing of labor would grant absolute ownership rather than limited ownership? Locke did not say that. See: {{Link|John Locke Says Everything Belongs to Everyone}}. | * Why is it that a mixing of labor would grant absolute ownership rather than limited ownership? Locke did not say that. See: {{Link|John Locke Says Everything Belongs to Everyone}}. | ||
| + | * Mixing of labor can bring about a [[Tragedy Of The Commons]] when the commons is unregulated. For example, hunters can hunt their prey to extinction. | ||
* Mixing of labor is symbolic language; labor cannot be mixed. Substances are mixed. What molecules are labor made out of? See: {{Link| Initial Appropriation: A Dialogue}}. | * Mixing of labor is symbolic language; labor cannot be mixed. Substances are mixed. What molecules are labor made out of? See: {{Link| Initial Appropriation: A Dialogue}}. | ||
* Mixing of labor is just expenditure of effort, but it does nothing to create or change ownership. Only coercion can do that. | * Mixing of labor is just expenditure of effort, but it does nothing to create or change ownership. Only coercion can do that. | ||
| Line 43: | Line 80: | ||
==What about the Lockean Proviso?== | ==What about the Lockean Proviso?== | ||
| − | Locke declared that making property was just when "leaving enough and as good for everyone else." There is a very simple measure of when this proviso is violated: whenever a price arises for any undeveloped property. That would make pretty much all property in land unjust now. A small sect of libertarians, the geolibertarians, criticize other libertarians on this | + | Locke declared that making property was just when "leaving enough and as good for everyone else." There is a very simple measure of when this proviso is violated: whenever a price arises for any undeveloped property. That would make pretty much all property in land unjust now. A small sect of libertarians, the geolibertarians, criticize other libertarians on this basis. See: {{Link| A Geolibertarian FAQ}}. |
Robert Nozick excuses this injustice by declaring "it is ok to rob them of their access because capitalism is so great that they will be better off for having been robbed." (A paraphrase by Matt Bruenig.) Bruenig writes: "This solution leads to a whole host of problems, the most glaring of which is that it seems to undermine one of the key points of libertarianism. If you can violently destroy people’s liberty so long as you leave them better off, then surely a long variety of things that libertarians hate can be justified, e.g. banning large sodas. There is no reason welfare-improving paternalism should be limited just to the initial appropriation of property, though Nozick clearly would like it to be so limited." See: {{Link|The Nozickian case for Rawls’ difference principle}}. | Robert Nozick excuses this injustice by declaring "it is ok to rob them of their access because capitalism is so great that they will be better off for having been robbed." (A paraphrase by Matt Bruenig.) Bruenig writes: "This solution leads to a whole host of problems, the most glaring of which is that it seems to undermine one of the key points of libertarianism. If you can violently destroy people’s liberty so long as you leave them better off, then surely a long variety of things that libertarians hate can be justified, e.g. banning large sodas. There is no reason welfare-improving paternalism should be limited just to the initial appropriation of property, though Nozick clearly would like it to be so limited." See: {{Link|The Nozickian case for Rawls’ difference principle}}. | ||
| Line 55: | Line 92: | ||
Ronnie claims ownership of some land and pays Eddie to enforce that right against the denizens of Dallas. Eddie tells them "you have a duty not to use this land because Ronnie has the right and I will pop anybody who does." | Ronnie claims ownership of some land and pays Eddie to enforce that right against the denizens of Dallas. Eddie tells them "you have a duty not to use this land because Ronnie has the right and I will pop anybody who does." | ||
| − | * Ronnie is a '''RightHolder''' with the right to the land. | + | * Ronnie is a '''RightHolder''' (owner) with the right to the land. |
| − | * Eddie is an '''Enforcer''' who makes threats and follows up if Ronnie's right is violated. In the US, the enforcer is the government. | + | * Eddie is an '''Enforcer''' (an other) who makes threats and follows up if Ronnie's right is violated. In the US, the enforcer is the government. |
| − | * The denizens of Dallas are '''DutyBearers''': a duty not to use the land is forced on them by Eddie, otherwise they could use the land for themselves. | + | * The denizens of Dallas are '''DutyBearers''' (others): a duty not to use the land is forced on them by Eddie, otherwise they could use the land for themselves. |
| − | * The land is a '''Thing''' that is controlled by the right. | + | * The land is a '''Thing''' (property) that is controlled by the right. |
[[Image:Rights.jpg|500px]] | [[Image:Rights.jpg|500px]] | ||
| − | * Ronnie receives the '''Benefits''' of the Thing: | + | * Ronnie receives the '''Benefits''' of the Thing: use of the land. |
* Eddie receives the '''Fees''' for enforcement, in this case from Ronnie. In the case of the US, from taxes on everybody. | * Eddie receives the '''Fees''' for enforcement, in this case from Ronnie. In the case of the US, from taxes on everybody. | ||
* The denizens of Dallas have an '''Opportunity Cost''': if it wasn't for Eddie, they could use the land. | * The denizens of Dallas have an '''Opportunity Cost''': if it wasn't for Eddie, they could use the land. | ||
| Line 68: | Line 105: | ||
* If the denizens of Dallas don't obey Eddie, Eddie will give them a '''Penalty'''. | * If the denizens of Dallas don't obey Eddie, Eddie will give them a '''Penalty'''. | ||
| − | This diagram makes clear that ownership places duties to respect ownership without requiring consent: property as constituted everywhere in the world does not require consent except from the enforcer. | + | This diagram makes clear that ownership places duties to respect ownership without requiring consent: property as constituted everywhere in the world does not require consent from others except from the enforcer. |
==What are the component rights of property?== | ==What are the component rights of property?== | ||
| Line 89: | Line 126: | ||
Full liberal rights would consist of all these elements. | Full liberal rights would consist of all these elements. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundle_of_rights bundle of rights] theory is commonly used in first-year law school property | ||
| + | classes to explain how a property can simultaneously be "owned" in some sense | ||
| + | by multiple parties. For example, a husband and wife can be owners (technically, | ||
| + | title owners) of real property that is also encumbered by a mortgage and a | ||
| + | mechanics lien. Their neighbor may have an easement for a utility line, and a | ||
| + | license for entry and exit to a nearby plot of land. Planes have the right to | ||
| + | fly through their airspace. Constitutionally, the state and federal governments | ||
| + | always holds the right to condemnation, also called eminent domain, and the | ||
| + | government at multiple levels retains various regulatory rights such as | ||
| + | environmental regulation, zoning, and building codes. ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundle_of_rights From Wikipedia.]) | ||
| + | |||
| + | To read more, see: [[Bundle of Rights]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Are human rights property rights?== | ||
| + | No, because they lack too many of the component rights of property. For one, they are not transferable: you cannot sell your human rights because they are inalienable. Libertarians sometimes claim that all rights are property rights. Frequently they say this to claim human rights are not real rights, but otherwise they are simply wrong. Both options are [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procrustes#Cultural_references Procrustean]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Are property rights human rights?== | ||
| + | Only in the sense that humans sometimes have them. That claim is part of the plutocratic propaganda that would privilege the rich and corporations by protecting inequality. | ||
==Are there different rights for public property?== | ==Are there different rights for public property?== | ||
| − | In Elinor Ostrom's article [[Efficiency, Sustainability, and Access Under Alternative Property-Rights Regimes | + | In Elinor Ostrom's article [[Efficiency, Sustainability, and Access Under Alternative Property-Rights Regimes]], she identifies five property rights that are most relevant |
for the use of common-pool resources, including access, withdrawal, management, | for the use of common-pool resources, including access, withdrawal, management, | ||
exclusion, and alienation. These are defined as: | exclusion, and alienation. These are defined as: | ||
| Line 100: | Line 156: | ||
#Alienation: The right to sell or lease management and exclusion rights. | #Alienation: The right to sell or lease management and exclusion rights. | ||
| − | ==Why don't we have full liberal rights?== | + | ==Why don't we have full liberal property rights?== |
| − | The property relationship enforced by society is NEVER the full liberal rights desired by libertarians because (a) society retains the [[Hohfeld’s typology of rights|Hohfeldian POWER]] to change the deal however desired and (b) some of the pre-existing rights and externalities of rights can be very expensive (c) enforcement of rights is costly: both directly due to costs of enforcement and due to the injustice of violating the Lockean Proviso of "leaving enough and as good for everyone else." | + | The property relationship enforced by society is NEVER the full liberal property rights desired by libertarians because (a) society retains the [[Hohfeld’s typology of rights|Hohfeldian POWER]] to change the deal however desired and (b) some of the pre-existing rights and externalities of rights can be very expensive and (c) enforcement of rights is costly: both directly due to costs of enforcement and due to the injustice of violating the Lockean Proviso of "leaving enough and as good for everyone else." |
For (a), if government is paying for rights enforcement, it gets to make the rights it wants. That can include rights to enter with a warrent and eminent domain for example. For (b), existing commonlaw rights may lead to easements and limitations due to nuisance. For (c), enforcing rights is costly, and the more perfect the enforcement the more costly. Intellectual property is enforced through private lawsuits to prevent the cost of the enforcement of those rights unless it is profitable. | For (a), if government is paying for rights enforcement, it gets to make the rights it wants. That can include rights to enter with a warrent and eminent domain for example. For (b), existing commonlaw rights may lead to easements and limitations due to nuisance. For (c), enforcing rights is costly, and the more perfect the enforcement the more costly. Intellectual property is enforced through private lawsuits to prevent the cost of the enforcement of those rights unless it is profitable. | ||
| + | |||
| + | For more on this, see: [[Limited Property]]. | ||
==What about self-ownership?== | ==What about self-ownership?== | ||
| − | No human society has ever treated people as their own inviolate property. Even if self-ownership was only an aspirational goal, it could not be implemented for children or incompetents. Historically, ownership of other people (slavery, wives, children) has been the norm. Libertarians frequently base their philosophy on this imagined right. It is merely an unenforced claim. You might also be in possession of yourself, but there is a long history of others being in possession of people's bodies. | + | No human society has ever treated people as their own inviolate property. Even if self-ownership was only an aspirational goal, it could not be implemented for children or incompetents. Historically, ownership of other people (slavery, wives, children) has been the norm. Libertarians frequently base their philosophy on this imagined right. It is merely an unenforced claim. You might also be in possession of yourself, but there is a long history of others being in possession of people's bodies. Bodies are NEVER property (let alone absolute property) in any culture except in [[slavery]]. |
| − | If you have anything resembling ownership of your body, it is a result of rights created by government or other coercive social organizations. But they are never full liberal ownership because there are always important exceptions (resembling easements) having to do with the duties of citizenship and the facts of competency. | + | If you have anything resembling ownership of your body, it is a result of rights created by government or other coercive social organizations. But they are never full liberal ownership because there are always important exceptions (resembling easements) having to do with the duties of citizenship and the facts of competency. Persons have legal "body rights": they do not own their bodies, but do have limited property rights in them. Too many component rights are lacking to say that individuals own their bodies. |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
To read more, see: [[Self-Ownership]]. | To read more, see: [[Self-Ownership]]. | ||
| Line 124: | Line 180: | ||
* Patents and copyrights did not significantly exist without demon government to create them. | * Patents and copyrights did not significantly exist without demon government to create them. | ||
* Intellectual property might give people the accurate idea that government is responsible for the system of stable property we enjoy. | * Intellectual property might give people the accurate idea that government is responsible for the system of stable property we enjoy. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Property Is Theft== | ||
| + | Pierre-Joseph Proudhon famously declared that "Property is theft." He also said that property is despotism, property is liberty and property is impossible. These are shortcut expressions of philosophical points he made at much greater length. All describe different aspects of property: they only seem to contradict. | ||
| + | |||
| + | All property reduces the liberty of all other people by threatening violence for use of the property. Violent confiscation of liberty is a theft of liberty. This isn't simply theft of an abstract, but rather theft of opportunity to freely use natural resources (for example.) This is true of other types of rights as well. | ||
| + | |||
| + | To read more, see: [[Property Is Theft]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Related Articles== | ||
| + | * [[A Positive Model Of Rights]] | ||
| + | * [[What Are Rights?]] | ||
| + | * [[wikipedia:What Is Property?]], a description of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's book of the same title. | ||
| + | * [[Private Property Is a Police State: Real Libertarianism Is Anti-Capitalist]] | ||
| + | <!-- NOT THIS PAGE'S QUOTATIONS: because huge overlap with Property page. --> | ||
| + | {{Quotations|title=Property|quotes=true}} | ||
