A major litmus test for your political views: How you view property rights

page: 1
1

log in

join

posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 01:50 AM
link   
Under our laws, we have property rights. The property rights that exist under our laws come in many forms. For example, some property rights pertain to land, some pertain to tangible objects like cars or clothing, others may pertain to intangible objects like ideas or securities. Some property rights give the right holder the power to do almost anything with the property forever. Other people have restrictions on their property rights.

There are two major justifications for giving people property rights. One justification is based in Natural Law and the the theories of Locke and Hegel. These philosophers believed if someone worked to obtain something, they should have property rights over it.

Another justification for property rights is a utilitarian one. The idea being, giving people property rights encourages productive and desirable behaviors and leads to a more efficient use of resources. People will go out and work if they can get property in exchange for their labors. People will take care of resources like land and machinery if they "own" them.

Most of us probably believe that property rights are justified by some combination of the two reasons above. Some of us, I will call them the "Natural Law" camp believe the Natural Law is the controlling reason as to why property rights. Others, I will call them the "utilitarians" believe utilitarian objectives are the controlling reason property rights should exist.

Depending on what camp you are in has profound implications for your political world view. Take the Occupy Wall Street crowd and Tea Party crowd. The Tea Party crowd seems to be in the "Natural Law" camp. They feel government should not take away "their" property because they "worked hard" to earn it. To them, the government should not take away property from individuals, even if a common good can be advanced by taking property away from some or all individuals.

The Occupy Wall Street crowd seems to feel the current system of property ownership is not working. They feel the" rich are getting richer" not because they are "working hard" and engaging in desirable behaviors like building new things, but because they are gaming the system. They want the property rights system to be re-worked somehow to promote utilitarian objectives like rewarding businesses that promote the common welfare.

We can go on and on.

So what camp do you fall into?




posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 


Whichever camp is "I'll keep my stuff, you keep your stuff, and we're square." is the camp I'm firmly entrenched in.

/TOA



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 02:07 AM
link   
Finite resources with infinite demand leads to infinite conflict over those resources.

Ownership is simply illogical.

Believing you own anything not physically in your possession leads to remorse over it's loss.

Ownership is an illusion.

Desiring to have more than your neighbor is foolish. You came into this world without, and you will leave without. Everything in between is borrowed.

With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 02:19 AM
link   
reply to post by IAMIAM
 


"Ownership" makes perfect sense in a world with finite resources. Economists call a situation where no property rights exist the "tragedy of the commons." If you take a resource let everyone "own" it, the resource ends up getting inefficiently used. Everybody uses up the resource as much as possible and nobody invests in the resource. In the case of land, common pastures were overgrazed and poorly maintained. Privately owned pastures on the other hand, were not overgrazed. The owners of the private pastures maintained their land and put improvements on it.



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 

Ummmm, I feel like you are misrepresenting the gripes the Occupy movement has with regards to property rights. In a nutshell, they believe taxpayer money was used to bail out wall street when they should have failed due to imprudent business practices. Not only did they get money from the govt but the kept rewarding themselves with crazy bonuses and the like. Winners and losers were handpicked.....that is not capitalism. They just want the system to work, not change the system to reward those who promote common welfare.
edit on 2-11-2011 by acmpnsfal because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 02:23 AM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 


But why should "your stuff" be "your stuff." Should "your stuff" belong to you because you worked hard to earn it? Or should society allow people like you to have "your stuff" in order to encourage you to go out and work hard, produce things, and contribute to the overall efficiency of the economy?

What if you were harming others with "your stuff." Should you be allowed to have a gas guzzling car if someone has to go off fight wars to get the gas you need for your car? Should you be allowed to have that gas guzzler if it is causing global warming?



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 02:41 AM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 


Do you have the right to dump your insecticides into a stream that runs through your land, if that steam also runs through my parcel, further down, though?

Who owns the stream?

If you own a business, is it your right to knowingly produce a dangerous product? You own the plant, you own the supplies, and so on. Do I as the owner of one of hte finished products, have any right over you where injury to myself is concerned?

Your VCR is your VCR (and god, I feel old.) However there is still very much a thing known as "the commons." That some desperately try to pretend there isn't, doesn't change the reality of this fact.



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
reply to post by IAMIAM
 


"Ownership" makes perfect sense in a world with finite resources. Economists call a situation where no property rights exist the "tragedy of the commons." If you take a resource let everyone "own" it, the resource ends up getting inefficiently used. Everybody uses up the resource as much as possible and nobody invests in the resource. In the case of land, common pastures were overgrazed and poorly maintained. Privately owned pastures on the other hand, were not overgrazed. The owners of the private pastures maintained their land and put improvements on it.


I do not listen to economists. They create the system, therefore it is their job to sell you on the system.


With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by acmpnsfal
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 

Ummmm, I feel like you are misrepresenting the gripes the Occupy movement has with regards to property rights. In a nutshell, they believe taxpayer money was used to bail out wall street when they should have failed due to imprudent business practices. Not only did they get money from the govt but the kept rewarding themselves with crazy bonuses and the like. Winners and losers were handpicked.....that is not capitalism. They just want the system to work, not change the system to reward those who promote common welfare.
edit on 2-11-2011 by acmpnsfal because: (no reason given)


Actually the tragedy of the commons is a thought exercise to show the drawback of organizing a society exclusively around the self-interest of the individual and unsustainable growth on finite resources.

it's not really an argument for or against private property, though people have tried to take it both ways



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 02:45 AM
link   
You dont "own" anything. No one does. You got it, you die, you leave it. We just borrow things for awhile.

What you "own" can be taken away in a heart beat by Marshall law, theft, or bullets.



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 02:45 AM
link   
reply to post by IAMIAM
 


hear hear!

"Economics" needs to be tossed in the back with phrenology, alchemy, astrology, and the lumineferous aether as far as "science" goes.

Just like the astrologers of old, the economists' one and only function is to tell the king the future that the king wants to hear.



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by IAMIAM
 


hear hear!

"Economics" needs to be tossed in the back with phrenology, alchemy, astrology, and the lumineferous aether as far as "science" goes.

Just like the astrologers of old, the economists' one and only function is to tell the king the future that the king wants to hear.


Here is my horoscope for today from FB...




Astrology - Today's Scorpio Horoscope
Here is your Today's Scorpio Horoscope Change is on the horizon -- change of the most major kind. The good news is that you'll be in charge of getting the show on the road, and that you'll meet absolutely no resistance whatsoever. Compatibility: Taurus Mood: Lucky Lucky Color: Navy Blue


I have actually made some fine distilled oils with alchemy.

And well who doesn't enjoy a good scalp massage?

I would resurrect any of those old dust bins to see the horror of economics consigned to oblivion.

With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 03:08 AM
link   
reply to post by IAMIAM
 


At least Alchemy is almost there, right?
it's just the bastard love-child of chemistry and philosophy, is all. Poor unloved Alchemy. Half math dweeb, half liberal arts loser.



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 06:23 AM
link   
If I enter an agrement, and it says that in exchange for my hardwork I get X... then at the end of my work, X now belongs to me.

Likewise, If i work all summer to grow 100 bushels of tomatoes... then those tomatoes are mine, and mine to do with what I will. I can keep them and eat them, I can sell some and eat the rest, I can sell all of them, I could do the above and give some away too.

What bothers me, is there are some people that think I should give them some and have to give them some... even when they did not work for them.

I would gladly give them some to begin with, but don't come and tell me with a so-called law or gun pointed at me or even some self righteous rant... that I have to give you my tomatoes. Then I will give them to you at the end of a bayonet at the end of a bigger gun.



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
reply to post by The Old American
 


But why should "your stuff" be "your stuff." Should "your stuff" belong to you because you worked hard to earn it? Or should society allow people like you to have "your stuff" in order to encourage you to go out and work hard, produce things, and contribute to the overall efficiency of the economy?


People like me? You mean people that have a clear understanding of what "ownership" means? If I buy a home, it's mine (after I pay off the mortgage, if there is one). "People like me" see that as my home, not some collective meeting place, like an ant hill.

What if I have 20 acres of land, and on this land I raise all of my own food. Vegetables and meat. I sell enough to pay the property taxes, but otherwise I keep all that I produce. I'm not a drain on the economy, but neither am I contributing to it (I realize that the local economy has a net gain as I pay property taxes, but we'll ignore my property taxes as a contribution for this discussion).

Are you suggesting that I must contribute to the economy to continue to keep my property (land, home, cows, chickens, tractor, etc.)? Even though I'm not a drain on the economy? That's quite a special argument. For special people.


What if you were harming others with "your stuff." Should you be allowed to have a gas guzzling car if someone has to go off fight wars to get the gas you need for your car? Should you be allowed to have that gas guzzler if it is causing global warming?


First of all, I wouldn't harm anyone. I take personal responsibility quite seriously. But what if it's not a gas guzzling car? Our government will still send our men and women to kill people for oil. But I need a mode of transportation, just like you do. I'm getting older and can't ride a bike to work anymore. Electric cars are not at the point where I can buy one right now, as there are no electric charging stations in my city. Not to mention the battery life is on them is not nearly up to par with gasoline engines.

Ownership of property was so important to our founders that they created a whole Amendment for the Bill of Rights for it. That Amendment doesn't just cover right leaning people like me, it covers liberals, too. I think that some people have lost focus on the fact that what's written in the Constitution isn't just for Republicans.

/TOA



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by The Old American
 


Do you have the right to dump your insecticides into a stream that runs through your land, if that steam also runs through my parcel, further down, though?

Who owns the stream?


Technically the whole stream isn't owned, but any section that goes through a property is owned by that property owner as far as use (fishing, drainage, herd use, etc.). But no, they don't have the legal right to dump anything in it, as it's considered a common water source.


If you own a business, is it your right to knowingly produce a dangerous product? You own the plant, you own the supplies, and so on. Do I as the owner of one of hte finished products, have any right over you where injury to myself is concerned?


That's kind of an odd question. I own scissors, but I don't have the right to plunge them into your eye. There are laws against harm, and that really has little to do with this thread. If I create a bomb on my property, my property has nothing to do with it. The problem is that private citizens aren't allowed to create and own bombs.

But if I create a bat, which is perfectly legal, and you hit yourself in the head with it, you don't have any reasonable right to any damages from me for that. I say "reasonable" because, as you well know, there are strange people out there that will gladly blame the fire for burning their fingers.


Your VCR is your VCR (and god, I feel old.) However there is still very much a thing known as "the commons." That some desperately try to pretend there isn't, doesn't change the reality of this fact.


Sure there are commons. But they are clearly laid out. Public parks, for example, could be considered commonly owned. But homes are not. Businesses are not. Private land is not. Items are not. (These are all as a general rule) They're all owned by someone, and they have a right to say who can or can't be occupying or using it, as well they should have the right to.

/TOA



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
reply to post by The Old American
 




People like me? You mean people that have a clear understanding of what "ownership" means? If I buy a home, it's mine (after I pay off the mortgage, if there is one). "People like me" see that as my home, not some collective meeting place, like an ant hill.

You can't own land in this country. The best you can do is pay rent to the government for the privilege of living there. Don't pay your rent?(property taxes) Then you lose your home.

What if I have 20 acres of land, and on this land I raise all of my own food. Vegetables and meat. I sell enough to pay the property taxes, but otherwise I keep all that I produce. I'm not a drain on the economy, but neither am I contributing to it (I realize that the local economy has a net gain as I pay property taxes, but we'll ignore my property taxes as a contribution for this discussion).

Are you suggesting that I must contribute to the economy to continue to keep my property (land, home, cows, chickens, tractor, etc.)? Even though I'm not a drain on the economy? That's quite a special argument. For special people.

You can't ignore property taxes. I did and my little 1 acre lot is gone. You can't own land in this country.


What if you were harming others with "your stuff." Should you be allowed to have a gas guzzling car if someone has to go off fight wars to get the gas you need for your car? Should you be allowed to have that gas guzzler if it is causing global warming?


First of all, I wouldn't harm anyone. I take personal responsibility quite seriously. But what if it's not a gas guzzling car? Our government will still send our men and women to kill people for oil. But I need a mode of transportation, just like you do. I'm getting older and can't ride a bike to work anymore. Electric cars are not at the point where I can buy one right now, as there are no electric charging stations in my city. Not to mention the battery life is on them is not nearly up to par with gasoline engines.

Ownership of property was so important to our founders that they created a whole Amendment for the Bill of Rights for it. That Amendment doesn't just cover right leaning people like me, it covers liberals, too. I think that some people have lost focus on the fact that what's written in the Constitution isn't just for Republicans.

/TOA


What grinds my gears about property ownership is the fools that buy huge tracts of land, use them for "hunting" only and post signs every 20 feet saying "KEEP OUT". If it's land in the woods EVERYONE should have the right to walk through it. Not hunt, not camp, not dig ginseng, not to leave trash behind or cut down the trees. Merely to walk the woods. There are millions of acres around here. All woods and all posted. No houses, these are not people's homes, just land that you will go to jail for walking on. That is immoral, wrong and evil. We need a law to prevent such huge amounts of land from being cut off. There are two rivers around here that you can't fish on solely because every scrap of it's shore is posted farmland. Zero access. THAT should be a crime.



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 11:34 AM
link   
When you think about it, you don't really own your home, even it it's bought and paid for. You only rent it from the government. You don't think so ? Try not paying your property taxes and see what happens.



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 


The concept of "ownership" as it is defined by our laws is not simple. "Ownership" involves a bundle of rights that an "owner" may or may not have with respect to the property. If you "own" land in fee simple, you have the legal right to occupy and use the land. If somebody comes onto your land without your permission, you can, in theory, call the police (government) and have that person removed and/or sue that person for trespassing.

Your rights over the land you "own" are not absolute. The government can seize it from you if you fail to pay your taxes. Others can put liens on the land if you owe them money. If you have a mortgage on the land, the bank can foreclose if you do not pay your mortgage. You cannot use the land however you please because you have to comply with laws like zoning ordinances.

Things get complicated when we deal with pieces of property like intellectual properties and securities. One can be said to "own" a patent, "own" a copyright, or "own" a share of stock in a corporation. But the rights one has as an "owner" of these things are not so simple. As a society, we made up rights that attach to these properties that owners can enjoy. For example, a patent owner is allowed to stop others from selling items covered by his patent. An author can stop others from selling copies of his books. A stock holder has numerous rights under the federal and state securities laws.





new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join