Are property rights natural?

Here is an argument that they are not.

Think of it this way. There is a lake. People drink water from the lake for centuries until a white man comes along and claims "ownership" of the lake. Then the white man bottles the water and sells it to the people, and forces them to do labor in order to earn money to get the water that is everyone's.

Through trickery and especially property rights, the white man has both claimed the lake and the people as his slaves.

The point I am making is that property rights are not the natural way to do things. The natural way to do things is to have no property rights. If you are worried about stealing, remember, you can't steal something if you can't own something!

For example, with the lake. In the original version with no property rights, Sam attempts to steal the lake and claim it as his own, and people just laugh at him and continue drinking and let him rant.

But with property rights, the corporation owned by the white man succeeds in stealing the lake. They claim ownership due to some statute from some obscure law.

Ultimately there is ONE Consciousness. So any notion of separation is a complete intentionally created construct for the purposes of creating experience.

Does a, territorial Grizzly Bear own a berry bush, and anything near that berry bush?

Does a Squirrel own that nut that another Squirrel just un-buried and stole?

"the white man" Yea I noticed that...not even gonna dignify that particular disgusting racial statement with a response other than to say...what it should have read was "other humans".

The deal is, I tend to agree. Nobody truly owns anything. Why? Because of the one universal truth that all humans on this planet are going to die. You can't take anything with you. You are going to lose everything. Your "possessions" your friends, your family, your children...everything is lost eventually when you die. So no, nobody really "owns" anything. This planet, this reality is a bizarre place for "souls" to inhabit. Whether we are here by choice, or because we are being punished...well I suppose we will all find out one day when we die. Hope that answers your question.

a reply to: darkbake

I'm going to have to disagree here, and strongly.

I guarantee you that the lake that you're talking about would have been within this tribe's territory or that tribe's territory and that those Native American tribes would have constant battles and skirmishes over territory. The white man didn't come in and just decide this thing called property and territory and such.

Also, the concept of property is really just an abstraction of the very natural concept of territory. Creatures from ant colonies to big cats to the great apes have this concept within their natural order, and different groups of great apes are known to have violent fights over territory and resources.

So, if you take off for a couple of weeks on vacation and someone has taken up residence in your house and on the land where you live, it's ok?

a reply to: AnIntellectualRedneck

Yep! Native Americans fought over land and resources. Some people feel better blaming the white man though.

The "natural" rights might be going back to animals defending territory.

a reply to: darkbake

I agree with you, in a perfect Utopian society there would not be any need for property rights of any kind! I wish the whole world belong to everyone, oh wait it does! I wish that there were no countries and cities and borders or money and everyone just shared the fruits of the land equally together!

That would be awesome! Would somebody please push the reset button and try this society/civilization experiment again, and next time get it right, dang it!

Hi Darkbake, thought-provoking question you raise... s&f for you I have asked myself this question in one form or another many times.

The best answer I have come up with so far is, I think individual property rights are about as natural as holding the land "in common", IMHO. Either method of dealing with land (and the resources on it/in it/under it) makes as much sense as the other in the long run.

The reason I answer thusly... even when the land is held "in common", the question still exists "in common to whom?" If the piece of land you live on has wild game, and the piece of land I live on has fertile fields, isn't it still in the best interest of all of us if you harvest some extra game and trade it to me for some of the surplus grain that grows over here?

What if another "tribe" moves into our sphere, increasing the demand on the resources in our area? Do we invite them in? Do we chase them away? If we chase them away, are we really holding the land "in common"? If we invite them in, are we dooming us all because we have exceeded the carrying capacity of the land?

And either way, once we live out our allotted physical lifetimes, it's up to the next generation(s) to rethink the question for themselves, isn't it?

I think I have asked more questions, rather than answered anything... curious what your reply to some of those questions would be, if you have a moment.

The Human Species might need another 50,000 years or so to balance out all the constantly changing neurological, psychological and psychiatric differences between every single Human.

Then again, those differences could keep drifting further apart.

a reply to: CantStandIt

Thanks, this was meant as a thinking exercise. I used the "white man" statement in order to specify a situation where this kind of thing had occurred before. Therefore, statements that Native American tribes had fought over territory prior to the white man coming are relevant to the discussion as well as statements that animals fight over territory.

Another thing to consider:

You need food, clothing and shelter. Those are all basic needs. Animals claim territory because their territory is generally going to be a space that provides for those things. When it doesn't is when the animals die. How many times have you seen nature docs on lions where the pride is starving because their land is in drought and the game has moved on but they can't because it's their territory?

So with humans if you work your butt off to grow a garden and raise some sheep or cattle or pigs, with property rights, the produce of that labor is generally held to be yours to dispose of/use/trade as needed. Without property rights anyone can come along and claim that produce for themselves and their use. Or a government entity can take it to distribute as it likes.

This did happen in Russia. The Soviets took the food grown in Ukraine and decreed that native Ukrainians who grew it could not eat it, only those of Russian background could. As a result, Ukrainians starved in the midst of plenty. But communism has no property rights, so the Ukrainians did not own it even though they grew it. It happens in plenty of other places too. Some of the biggest barricades to economic prosperity in some countries are the lack of property rights. How can you expect businesses to be started and grow and thrive when the owners do not know from day to day if they can be secure in their ownership?

I don't feel like dignifying your racist rant with a response. Any credibility you had or question you might have wanted to ask was invalidated with your 'white man' BS.

Well, by "white man" I guess you are referring to the situation with the native Americans.

Question... Before the "white man" (to use that derogatory term) came along did the native American tribes / nations fight each other for territory? They did. This means they put value in their land - their property.

It's a myth that before the "white man" North America was inhabited by people who were in tune with nature and themselves. They warred on each other and nature was just the darkness, like in medieval Europe - full of spirits and superstitions.

a reply to: darkbake

Having property rights is not natural and so is owning air space not natural.

a reply to: darkbake

Without property rights there is not true civilization.
The Grasshoppers would outnumber the ants and all would starve unless you have a police state to whip the slave force into shape.

No "rights" are natural - land rights, human rights, animal rights are all just ideals either supported or opposed by the society in which the individual lives.

When you are out in nature and removed from society and civilisation, survival of the fittest is the order of the day.

There are no "rights" to adhere to or respect, just one motivation: survival.

The thing is... it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if property rights are natural or not, because we are human beings and as such we can choose to ignore that fact entirely and invent something of our own. Is the internet natural ? Is instantaneous communication wherever you are in the world natural ? Is launching a robot to planet Mars natural ? Is neuroscience natural ? Is the particle accelerator natural ? It doesn't matter as long as it works, and works well. And considering the incredible inequality in the world today which doesn't stop from growing, we have to come to the conclusion that property rights is a notion that we have to revise and replace.