How is property an inalienable right?

[rumborak]

This seems to be a major foundation of Libertarians, but I always found it to be rather indefensible.
Thinking about it, the only possible argument I could see is that property, say a woven basket, is a result of a person's effort and thus "belongs" to that person. Or, if purchased, the money used represented the person's effort. The result of that argument however would be that inheritance (and gifting) is a breakdown of that "trade of effort". I guess the taxation of inheritance would find a justification through this train of thought.
In the end however, one must consider that any crafted object (a woven basket, a microchip) was made from material that belonged to the public beforehand.

Hmm.

Thoughts?

rumborak

[Chino]

I'm not sure if I understand your example, but an inalienable right is something that can not be taken away from or sold by the person with ownership,  yes?  I might be wrong. But you can own a piece of property and then sell it later. That would make in inalienable, wouldn't it?

[Super Dude]

Inalienable meaning that there is no context in which that right can be infringed or taken away.

[rumborak]

I was more eyeing towards disappropriation of people's property, say by a government. That according to Libertarianism is a violation of an inalienable right.

The thing that strikes me as weird is the idea that a person can truly "own" an object. What is this deep ownership based on? I can see the term "ownership" being shorthand for the produced/traded labor , but I think that's something very different than the true ownership that (I think) Libertarianism requires for it to be part of inalienable rights.

rumborak

[XJDenton]

When it comes to Libertarians and property, I would take their position a bit more seriously if their current property status wasn't built on several centuries of flagrant breaches of those rights.

[PraXis]

My property is mine. Your property is yours. I have no right to your property, and you have no right to mine. If you infringe on my property (i.e. theft or trespass), you get shot.

Any infringement on a person's property angers me to no end.

[XJDenton]

Why is your property yours?

[PraXis]

Why is your property yours?

You're kidding, right? 

[XJDenton]

Nope.

[chknptpie]

Why is your property yours?

I find this question highly intriguing.

[Adami]

I agree with Rumby. The problem is, at some point someone just took stuff and said "MINE!".

[Super Dude]

Ouch PraXis. Even Islamic law at least let's you keep your life.

[Adami]

Ouch PraXis. Even Islamic law at least let's you keep your life.

To be honest, it really seems like he's dying to shoot someone. A good amount of his posts are about killing people who go on his property.

[William Wallace]

This seems to be a major foundation of Libertarians, but I always found it to be rather indefensible.
Thinking about it, the only possible argument I could see is that property, say a woven basket, is a result of a person's effort and thus "belongs" to that person. Or, if purchased, the money used represented the person's effort. The result of that argument however would be that inheritance (and gifting) is a breakdown of that "trade of effort". I guess the taxation of inheritance would find a justification through this train of thought.
In the end however, one must consider that any crafted object (a woven basket, a microchip) was made from material that belonged to the public beforehand.

Hmm.

Thoughts?

rumborak

You touched on the libertarian view with your first example, but let me expand a little. Your property is yours because you have a better claim to it than anybody else may have. The person owns the woven basket because he or she created it out of several unrelated parts to fulfill a need. There's nobody else who could lay claim to ownership in that case.

The same is true of your gifting example. If somebody gifts you something, say an inheritance, you have a better claim to it's ownership than anybody else. Of course, the inevitable response is a utilitarian one - "you didn't earn than money, and the state, 'the public,' could put it to better use." But I think you lose that argument too.

And why does the original material for your basket, microchip, or anything else belong to the public? Seems unfounded to me.   

[PraXis]

I don't understand why liberals are so threatened by Libertarians. I mean is it fear of becoming more self-reliant? Relax. Generally speaking, just enjoy life and don't try to over-think about things such as "what is property?", "what is the meaning of life", etc... My biggest problem with liberals is that they always want government to intervene, whether the problem is social or economic. They just HAVE to do something, whether it works or not, to feel some kind of self-worth. These interventions always have a financial impact on people like me and we are tired of it. I'm sorry if I sound harsh, but this is how I feel.

Libertarians just want to be left alone with our families and our property (be it my car, my land, my guitar) to pursue our interests. You have nothing to worry about (in terms of safety) unless you plan on stealing my possessions or trespass onto my land.

[Adami]

This seems to be a major foundation of Libertarians, but I always found it to be rather indefensible.
Thinking about it, the only possible argument I could see is that property, say a woven basket, is a result of a person's effort and thus "belongs" to that person. Or, if purchased, the money used represented the person's effort. The result of that argument however would be that inheritance (and gifting) is a breakdown of that "trade of effort". I guess the taxation of inheritance would find a justification through this train of thought.
In the end however, one must consider that any crafted object (a woven basket, a microchip) was made from material that belonged to the public beforehand.

Hmm.

Thoughts?

rumborak

You touched on the libertarian view with your first example, but let me expand a little. Your property is yours because you have a better claim to it than anybody else may have. The person owns the woven basket because he or she created it out of several unrelated parts to fulfill a need. There's nobody else who could lay claim to ownership in that case.

The same is true of your gifting example. If somebody gifts you something, say an inheritance, you have a better claim to it's ownership than anybody else. Of course, the inevitable response is a utilitarian one - "you didn't earn than money, and the state, 'the public,' could put it to better use." But I think you lose that argument too.

And why does the original material for your basket, microchip, or anything else belong to the public? Seems unfounded to me.   

Imagine someone steals........I dunno a statue or something (a small one) from your house. Then a few hundred years later, one of your direct descendents finds it in the direct descendents of the people who stole it. Who's property is it?

[William Wallace]

This seems to be a major foundation of Libertarians, but I always found it to be rather indefensible.
Thinking about it, the only possible argument I could see is that property, say a woven basket, is a result of a person's effort and thus "belongs" to that person. Or, if purchased, the money used represented the person's effort. The result of that argument however would be that inheritance (and gifting) is a breakdown of that "trade of effort". I guess the taxation of inheritance would find a justification through this train of thought.
In the end however, one must consider that any crafted object (a woven basket, a microchip) was made from material that belonged to the public beforehand.

Hmm.

Thoughts?

rumborak

You touched on the libertarian view with your first example, but let me expand a little. Your property is yours because you have a better claim to it than anybody else may have. The person owns the woven basket because he or she created it out of several unrelated parts to fulfill a need. There's nobody else who could lay claim to ownership in that case.

The same is true of your gifting example. If somebody gifts you something, say an inheritance, you have a better claim to it's ownership than anybody else. Of course, the inevitable response is a utilitarian one - "you didn't earn than money, and the state, 'the public,' could put it to better use." But I think you lose that argument too.

And why does the original material for your basket, microchip, or anything else belong to the public? Seems unfounded to me.   

Imagine someone steals........I dunno a statue or something (a small one) from your house. Then a few hundred years later, one of your direct descendents finds it in the direct descendents of the people who stole it. Who's property is it?

I'm not sure. I would venture that if my descendant could prove it belonged to me and was stolen all those years ago, he would a better claim to it.  But I also don't know why that's relevant. It's so far removed from a typical dispute over property rights.

[El Barto]

Out of curiosity,  is the entire planet (in this case each of it's separate components) owned by someone or something at any given time?  Every tree?  Every blade of grass?  Interstate 45?  The water in Lake Erie?  

I don't really have a point here, by the way.  Just wondering.

[Scheavo]

And why does the original material for your basket, microchip, or anything else belong to the public? Seems unfounded to me.   

I think you're ignoring the role of the common in original libertarian thought. Locke wrote a lot about the Commons.

As for the OP: It's an "inalienable" right because everyone in the the Western World enjoys their property, and doesn't like when it's taken away. The problem with all "rights" discussions is they assume a morality without expressing that morality, or even acknowledging that the morality is there. There are no "inalienable" rights, the only rights you have are the rights afforded to you by you're fellow citizens, and the obligations you afford your fellow citizens to have their rights.

Anyone who denies this has never studied Native American culture.

[PraXis]

Americans' rights come from God, Creator, call it what you will.

[Adami]

Americans' rights come from God, Creator, call it what you will.

I guess your god didn't care much about the rights of native americans.

[GuineaPig]

Out of curiosity,  is the entire planet (in this case each of it's separate components) owned by someone or something at any given time?  Every tree?  Every blade of grass?  Interstate 45?  The water in Lake Erie?  

I don't really have a point here, by the way.  Just wondering.

Past 200 nautical miles from nearest coastline (that constitutes each country's exclusive economic zone), the open sea is fair game.

Natural resources on land are pretty well claimed by this point, so that's the only example that really comes to mind.  Some parts of Antarctica might still have unclear sovereignty, or the country that has control over them does not have the right to use them economically.

[Scheavo]

Americans' rights come from God, Creator, call it what you will.

And as someone who doesn't believe in the existence of God, I fully disagree with you. If God gave us our rights, why are they so easily infringed upon by, well, everyone and everything? If god gave me an "inalienable" (meaning it cant' be taken away) right to life, why is it that it's so easy for my life to be taken away from me? Or my property?

[Scheavo]

Out of curiosity,  is the entire planet (in this case each of it's separate components) owned by someone or something at any given time?  Every tree?  Every blade of grass?  Interstate 45?  The water in Lake Erie?  

Someone can probably confirm or deny this, but I was talking with someon from Germany a few weeks ago, and they still have some notion of the commons. If someone has a fruit tree growing on like the side walk, and you walk by, you are legally allowed to take the fruit to eat. I'm fairly sure the same is true in the Philippines; one of my best friends grew up there as a little kid, and said that there'd be public fruit tree's everywhere, where you can just go up and take the fruit to eat.

[El Barto]

Out of curiosity,  is the entire planet (in this case each of it's separate components) owned by someone or something at any given time?  Every tree?  Every blade of grass?  Interstate 45?  The water in Lake Erie?  

Someone can probably confirm or deny this, but I was talking with someon from Germany a few weeks ago, and they still have some notion of the commons. If someone has a fruit tree growing on like the side walk, and you walk by, you are legally allowed to take the fruit to eat. I'm fairly sure the same is true in the Philippines; one of my best friends grew up there as a little kid, and said that there'd be public fruit tree's everywhere, where you can just go up and take the fruit to eat.

Hell, Dallas used to be like that.  I ate pears from neighborhood trees all the time.  Nowadays,  Praxis would shoot you in the face for that shit.

[PraXis]

Americans' rights come from God, Creator, call it what you will.

And as someone who doesn't believe in the existence of God, I fully disagree with you. If God gave us our rights, why are they so easily infringed upon by, well, everyone and everything? If god gave me an "inalienable" (meaning it cant' be taken away) right to life, why is it that it's so easy for my life to be taken away from me? Or my property?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

That was the intent of the founders. I'm not a religious person, but any mention of "God" doesn't bother me in the least.

[sonatafanica]

Americans' rights come from God, Creator, call it what you will.

i like to think that this is the america jesus had in mind when he was born in that manger in Mobile, Alabama

[El Barto]

"We are here to help the Vietnamese, because inside of every gook soldier is an American trying to get out."

[ReaPsTA]

No rights actually exist unless you're religious.  Not to inject more murder into this thread, but if me and El Barto are the last two people on Earth and he kills me, why's it wrong given that there's no one around to say it is?  I'm serious, what other reason is there?

This whole thread's kinda silly in a way because we're debating notions of pure human fabrication.  If we're going to talk about something we merely made up, can we at least acknowledge that and work from there?  There's no right to property, but there's also no reason that a right to property can't exist.

So Rumborak, I guess the first question is, what's your opinion on property rights?  Otherwise, I don't know how you could be sold on the idea of property rights, because I don't want to either presume your opinion or try to make some claim about naturally existent rights that only exist to me because I think they do.

[j]

Americans' rights come from God, Creator, call it what you will.

i like to think that this is the america jesus had in mind when he was born in that manger in Mobile, Alabama

You mean Jackson County, Missouri.  Crack a history book once in awhile.

-J

[William Wallace]

A good book on this subject is the ethics of Liberty by Murray Rothbard, and you can read it for free here. And, no, the argument isn't base solely on the existence of God. There's actually solidly logical foundation for the existence of property rights.

[chknptpie]

No rights actually exist unless you're religious.

What? Thats like saying there are no morals without religion.

[Adami]

No rights actually exist unless you're religious.

What? Thats like saying there are no morals without religion.

I think he meant to say that there are no inaleinable rights unless you're religious. Which is more like saying that there are no objective morals without religion.

[chknptpie]

No rights actually exist unless you're religious.

What? Thats like saying there are no morals without religion.

I think he meant to say that there are no inaleinable rights unless you're religious. Which is more like saying that there are no objective morals without religion.

Thank you, this makes much more sense.

[Super Dude]

Good God, I leave for a few hours to have lunch and a movie with my girlfriend and this is what I come back to?