Difference between revisions of "What Is Property?"
From Critiques Of Libertarianism
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
[[Category:Property|100]] | [[Category:Property|100]] | ||
[[Category:Under Construction]] | [[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. | show=}} | + | {{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== | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
Every thief in the world wishes life was that simple: take somebody's stuff and PRESTO it is your property. | Every thief in the world wishes life was that simple: take somebody's stuff and PRESTO it is your 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. | + | 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?== | ==Don't animals have property?== | ||
| Line 27: | Line 36: | ||
==Even children understand that possession is 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. | 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 43: | Line 57: | ||
==Isn't there a Natural Right to own property?== | ==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 | + | 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]] | For more on natural rights, see: [[Natural Rights]] | ||
| Line 85: | Line 99: | ||
[[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 125: | Line 139: | ||
To read more, see: [[Bundle of Rights]]. | 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?== | ||
| Line 140: | Line 160: | ||
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?== | ||
| Line 170: | Line 192: | ||
* [[What Are Rights?]] | * [[What Are Rights?]] | ||
* [[wikipedia:What Is Property?]], a description of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's book of the same title. | * [[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. --> | <!-- NOT THIS PAGE'S QUOTATIONS: because huge overlap with Property page. --> | ||
{{Quotations|title=Property|quotes=true}} | {{Quotations|title=Property|quotes=true}} | ||
