What is Property?
In the "Postmodernism" discussion, engaged with AAshinoff, CBJ offered the image of a locked door. There, I replied:
Locks just stop honest people. Definitions of "property" seem to me to be socially contextual. I grant that fences are a universal indicator. But there are societies in which the huts have no doors, and the hut is still not to be transgressed. On the other hand, our retail establishments have very stout doors that open automatically for anyone and everyone. I once read that Eskimos (Aleuts), have a sense of property concerning driftwood. Wood is valuable, there being so little of it. But, if you find a piece of it, arbitrarily "far" up the shore away from the water, it was "obviously" dragged there by someone else and is not your property. That idea -- "not mine" -- is deep within our own culture: not everything left unattended is free for the taking.
I believe that one-liners are insufficient to understand property. The quip from John Locke that property is that "with which you mix your labor" is wholly insufficient, though it does identify at least one way to look at a complex phenomenon.
One challenge to understanding property is to differentiate "first instance" examples from "civilized" cases. In other words, Robinson Crusoe owned his island because it was isolated and uninhabited when he found it. What if, however, another person had landed on the opposite side, each thinking they owned the whole thing? It is easy to imagine many people each working the "whole island" planting here, hunting there, discovering each other... Now what?
For me, the single problem with "mixing your labor" is that breaking into a bank vault takes a lot of work. You might say that the vault is someone else's property. But Robinson Crusoe might have enjoyed 20 years on "his" island before the original owner returned to check on his property...
Locks just stop honest people. Definitions of "property" seem to me to be socially contextual. I grant that fences are a universal indicator. But there are societies in which the huts have no doors, and the hut is still not to be transgressed. On the other hand, our retail establishments have very stout doors that open automatically for anyone and everyone. I once read that Eskimos (Aleuts), have a sense of property concerning driftwood. Wood is valuable, there being so little of it. But, if you find a piece of it, arbitrarily "far" up the shore away from the water, it was "obviously" dragged there by someone else and is not your property. That idea -- "not mine" -- is deep within our own culture: not everything left unattended is free for the taking.
I believe that one-liners are insufficient to understand property. The quip from John Locke that property is that "with which you mix your labor" is wholly insufficient, though it does identify at least one way to look at a complex phenomenon.
One challenge to understanding property is to differentiate "first instance" examples from "civilized" cases. In other words, Robinson Crusoe owned his island because it was isolated and uninhabited when he found it. What if, however, another person had landed on the opposite side, each thinking they owned the whole thing? It is easy to imagine many people each working the "whole island" planting here, hunting there, discovering each other... Now what?
For me, the single problem with "mixing your labor" is that breaking into a bank vault takes a lot of work. You might say that the vault is someone else's property. But Robinson Crusoe might have enjoyed 20 years on "his" island before the original owner returned to check on his property...
Previous comments... You are currently on page 6.
Are you saying Locke was not part of the Enlightenment?
The Indians have an interesting 'claim' on the land in that they were an indigenous people compared to the Europeans when they began to appear, but they had invaded the country from Asia, what gives them the right to ownership because no one else is around? The tribes of the Americas were anything but cooperative and could take another tribes property at any time. It is interesting that they all want to band together when there is the opportunity to aggrandize their property any time there is some connection to them and their ancestors to the land; to wit: a local tribe suddenly claimed an area was their sacred ground when someone discovered ancient petroglyphs on the land. Up until then the local tribe knew nothing about the petroglyphs and they have no clue as to what message they might have but once discovered they wanted 'their' land returned to them.
One thing I am certain of, no government no matter how small or large should ever be allowed to own or control any property (land, intellectual, goods or etc.) under any condition for any purpose. When the entity that has the right to use violence against its citizens has the right to property it is simply one more abuse they will use to its maximum extent; to wit: The BLM, Forest Service, Park Service etc.
Of course you lose your possessions (or your life) to thugs who get away with it; your rights have been abrogated. That is why we require a government to protect our rights from arbitrary use of force.
Hitlers and Obamas don't justify the cynical principle that "guns make for property rights", which reduces the whole intellectual argument to one gang against another.
Although, the Ghost Cult in the later 19th century did, to a certain extent.
Also, American Indians had a lingering "raider" mentality. Stealing, from other tribes, was considered a virtue, so they must have had some sense of "property".
New Amsterdam was traded by the Indians for beads and shiny things, and their thought was that they were getting the better of the Dutch, as no one could sell, or barter, what he didn't own.
I'm not one to whine too much over the "noble savage" concept.
Any material element or resource which, in order to become of use or value to men, requires the application of human knowledge and effort, should be private property—by the right of those who apply the knowledge and effort.
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal “The Property Status of the Airwaves,”
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 122
"Bundle of rights" refers to the fact that you can have a partial right of use, such as an easement over land, so the full right of use is divided among different individuals in a well-defined manner.
Using guns to steal and violate rights does not negate the principle of the rights. The raw cynicism of 'guns make for property rights' is anti-intellectual 'might makes right' hooliganism, not a theory of property rights.
To me, in order for something to be considered property it must be associated with an ownership claim - whether by me or by someone else. And my claim can exist regardless of any social context. If I existed to the exclusion of everyone else, I would still claim my body and my mind my own first be recognition of the basic idea of me. Nothing else has boundaries or can be subject to a claim of ownership until they are differentiated from me. Thus the very first identification of property rights has to do with this primary identification and separation.
Second, I then must evaluate my relationship in context with everything else which is not me. If I have an exclusive right of control and use of something, I assert personal property rights to that object. If I have shared right of control or use I assert shared or co-mingled property rights. And if I acknowledge someone else's personal property rights to something I acknowledge my lack of even shared right of control.
As soon as I breathe air, I assert a personal property ownership over it. When it leaves my body I forego that ownership. It is fleeting. Water is the same way. When we talk about water rights (which are a big deal in my area), what we are talking about are water use rights - who gets to make first claim on water from such-and-such a source.
Load more comments...