Subject:
|
Re: Questions about the nature of property rights (was Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 10 Jan 2000 06:25:36 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
mattdm@=IHateSpam=mattdm.org
|
Viewed:
|
780 times
|
| |
|
|
Ok. Here's some thoughts on answers to my own questions. I should start by
saying that I'm not here assuming that property is a natural right -- it
seems to be constructed. Nonetheless, much of this applies either way.
I'd still like Larry and anyone else who wants to contribute to this to
reply to the property-questions message directly with their own answers.
You're welcome to reply to this too of course, but I'd like to hear where
everyone is coming from at the base level.
Because I can see the sense in having some concept of property -- for one
thing, it can be be useful for building a good (i.e. life-affirming)
society -- I'll accept some property rights as reasonable.
For those just joining -- the numbered points are abilities/"properties" I
see as relating to conceptions of property. The *'d items are rights I see
associated with these.
1. The ability to gain property.
Given that we want to allow the concept of property, there has to be some
way to get it. Locke's concept of mixing-of-labor is an intriguing
starting point for an explanation of how this might work. (Although I
don't think it adequately addresses the "why" -- as I've said, I'm still
not convinced that this is a natural right.) Also, I think it's
reasonable to start right off with the life-affirming metric. So let's
say that property becomes mine when I interact with it in a constructive
way. (Note that I'm not saying that this _must_ be so, just that it's
reasonable to allow.) I don't have any problem with saying that I have
some sort of right to do so. Let's make it:
* The right to, through interacting constructively with things in the
universe, mark those things as mine.
Note that this doesn't speak to an exclusive right to ownership -- it
doesn't say that just because something is mine it can't be yours too.
It may be reasonable to develop such a right, but I'm not ready to
do so yet -- this is related to point three.
It also doesn't mean that your property is no longer part of the
universe.
Note also that this implies another more basic right:
* The right to interact constructively with the universe.
and even
* The right to interact with the universe at all.
(This last one may also be phrased as: "The right to life".)
2. The ability to retain property.
It's reasonable that while I continue to interact constructively with
something I own, it continues to be mine. I'm not sure how to get beyond
that in a way I feel comfortable with. (Not from a rights-based approach
anyway. Developing a system of laws may help, if we want to go in that
direction, but I think we're a long way from that yet.)
3. The ability to do stuff to property.
Of course, the first few rights above imply that I have the right to
continue the constructive interaction with my property. But what about
rights beyond this?
I can eat an orange I own. I can probably eat one I don't. But I probably
shouldn't eat one you own, if you don't want me to. Why not? How about:
* The right to have a voice in what happens to your property.
Note that this doesn't exclude seperate rights which may exist: A) the
right to have a voice in what happens to things which are no one's
property, and B) the right to have a voice in what happens to other
people's property. Arguably, the right starred above should be should be
stronger than at least right B.
Furthermore, this doesn't say that I've acquired a right to act
destructively.
This definitely is far into the realm of constructed rights; it doesn't
follow directly from the other rights at all, and doesn't necessarily
seem innately true on its own. It mainly seems like a good idea for
building a society.
4. The ability to release property.
If I've made something mine by #1, how can I remove that ownership
without destroying what I've contributed? This is especially tricky if
you want to give rights associated with #2. If something ceases to be
mine simply because I'm not paying attention to it (or otherwise fail to
interact constructively), there's far less of a problem.
(5). The ability to transfer ownership.
Since I haven't accepted any rights associated with #2 and #4, there's
not much I can say about this one. Transfer of ownership doesn't seem to
need any special rights; it just happens when I cease and someone else
starts constructive interaction. (The term 'stewardship' may be useful
here.)
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
29 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
