Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories

Scotch78 · #1 12-15-2005, 11:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
That's basically the statist argument. Unfortunately, decree isn't sufficient to claim a legitimate property right. Nice try, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about force? Those are the only two methods I know of for the origination of land ownership.

Scott

#2 12-16-2005, 12:01 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's basically the statist argument. Unfortunately, decree isn't sufficient to claim a legitimate property right. Nice try, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about force? Those are the only two methods I know of for the origination of land ownership.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. And both are oppression. So, property rights are gained by oppression. So, now that we are all oppressed, perhaps we should arrange some agreements so that we can be happy?

tylerdurden · #3 12-16-2005, 12:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]
What about force? Those are the only two methods I know of for the origination of land ownership.

[/ QUOTE ]

Force is a method of gaining *control* of property. It does not, however give you a property right.

Property rights stem from self-ownership. If you own yourself, you also own your labor. You can sell your labor to others in exchange for property, which is a legitimate way of obtaining a property right. You also can mix your labor with unowned materials, and obtain a property right in the finished product. Homesteading of land is a way of origination property rights in land.

You can use decree, conquest, or eminent domain (a sort of combination of decree and conquest) to obtain "normative control" of property. That's not the same as legitimately owning it.

tylerdurden · #4 12-16-2005, 12:28 AM

Note also, the logical conclusion of this is that states cannot ever legitimately own property, since a state cannot work the land except with either slave labor or by paying for labor (or by paying for the land directly) with stolen property (taxes).

Scotch78 · #5 12-16-2005, 02:32 AM

[ QUOTE ]
You can sell your labor to others in exchange for property

[/ QUOTE ]

And the person who you obtain the property from, please tell me how they obtained it without using force or decree.

Scott

tylerdurden · #6 12-16-2005, 02:36 AM

Read the next sentence.

#7 12-16-2005, 12:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Property rights stem from self-ownership.

[/ QUOTE ]

I own the world -- that includes you, and your labor. What right do you have to think that you own yourself? Who is oppressing me by taking my right to own you away?

So, the 1000-peson island... nobody owns anything. The first person to work the land, owns it? How much work is required? And who gets to decide 1) the rule that whoever works on the land now owns it, and 2) the quantity/quality of work that is sufficient for ownership to be bestowed to that person?

(I'm crossing my fingers that you won't ignore this question this time.)

tylerdurden · #8 12-16-2005, 06:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I own the world -- that includes you, and your labor. What right do you have to think that you own yourself? Who is oppressing me by taking my right to own you away?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ugh. As long as you refuse to differentiate between "control" and "rights" there's no point in continuing, because that's the entire issue - that they aren't the same.

If you want me to admit that a big guy with a big club can beat up some smaller guy that doesn't have a club, well, I can't argue with that. If you want to aruge that the big guy is justified in doing so, then I'm willing to talk. As it stands now you are basically saying "can" is interchangable with "may".

Borodog · #9 12-17-2005, 01:24 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Property rights stem from self-ownership. If you own yourself, you also own your labor. You can sell your labor to others in exchange for property, which is a legitimate way of obtaining a property right.

[/ QUOTE ]

pvn,

I think this "mixing of labor" ala Adam Smith is an antiquated and sloppy way of defining ownership. Labor is actually not required at all. All that is really required is first occupation, i.e. homesteading. "Mixing your labor" with the object can serve as constructive notice of ownership, but it it not sufficient or necessary.

If I pocket a rock while in Antarctica, I haven't "mixed any labor" with it, yet I still own it. If I "mix my labor" with lumber stolen from my neighbor's land to fashion a chair, I don't own it.

The "labor mixing" concept lends itself to silly questions like "how much labor is required," etc (as you see).

tylerdurden · #10 12-17-2005, 10:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]
All that is really required is first occupation, i.e. homesteading.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't homestead without investing labor.

[ QUOTE ]
If I pocket a rock while in Antarctica, I haven't "mixed any labor" with it, yet I still own it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Possession of objects (as opposed to land) requires labor - transport, maintenance, etc.

[ QUOTE ]
If I "mix my labor" with lumber stolen from my neighbor's land to fashion a chair, I don't own it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. I specified that the materials must be unowned (of course, in the case where you add your labor to materials you already own, the product is unambiguously your property).