Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

From Where Are Property Rights Derived?

jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2012 3:02:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
For almost a year I've been a libertarian and throughout that entire time I've believed that the taxation of income is theft. I realized though that while I certainly questioned the validity of the long established practice of taxation, I never questioned the validity of property rights.

So, property rights defenders and those who think the income tax is theft: from where are property rights derived? Without the state, would there be property at all? And is the income tax theft by definition if there does exist a right to own property?
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2012 3:04:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
In my view, property is subjective. Ownership is subjective.

However, societies with more private ownership are more prosperous by virtually all measures. For this reason, I support societal protection of private property.
President of DDO
Mimshot
Posts: 275
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2012 3:45:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Property is a construction of the state and cannot exist without the state. It is a collections of privileges all of which are derived from law. Without a state to enforce property rights, you only have possession, not ownership.

Property exists, because its existence helps motivate and organize people for the collective betterment of society. It encourages people to build and create rather than kill and take.
Mimshot: I support the 1956 Republican platform
DDMx: So, you're a socialist?
Mimshot: Yes
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2012 3:56:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/22/2012 3:04:48 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
In my view, property is subjective. Ownership is subjective.

However, societies with more private ownership are more prosperous by virtually all measures. For this reason, I support societal protection of private property.

This. This post is an excellent example of the problem with most people who subscribe to certain political ideologies. The fact of the matter is that we are too content to justify our beliefs through the vague standards of what our society classifies as moral, and our own personal feelings. It does not make sense to have an ideology without an ethical philosophy based upon reason to justify it.

I think it should be our duty first and foremost to understand the different theories on the origin of morality, and the normative principles to carry them out,...and then compare that to what ideology effectively meets those purposes.

To you answer your question, I believe that morality is both a creation by human beings, and a biological tendency to do that which furthers the overall prosperity of mankind. It is against our interest to disrespect the right to own, ...because unless we establish that one's possessions ought to be protected, then no one's possessions will be protected and no one would be prosperous or happy. There is nothing objective that claims we ought to have the right to property,....but we as the human race have a common desire that would not be achieved unless we established that right.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2012 3:57:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Self autonomy.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2012 4:01:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/22/2012 3:57:45 PM, thett3 wrote:
Self autonomy.

That's not an answer. Why do you answer a question implying the origin of morals, with ANOTHER moral? You presuppose that autonomy is an inherent and objective good,....and essentially state "we ought to have self autonomy." without actually justifying ought.

You can only "OUGHT" anything "IF" there is a desired outcome. The notion of a singular ought without justification is illogical.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Mimshot
Posts: 275
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2012 4:06:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/22/2012 3:57:45 PM, thett3 wrote:
Self autonomy.

That's not an answer at all. If you're fully autonomous, you have no property, only possessions. If someone takes your stuff from you, without a third party you are no more likely to get it back than if it was something that was originally "his."
Mimshot: I support the 1956 Republican platform
DDMx: So, you're a socialist?
Mimshot: Yes
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2012 4:22:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/22/2012 4:06:10 PM, Mimshot wrote:
At 2/22/2012 3:57:45 PM, thett3 wrote:
Self autonomy.

That's not an answer at all. If you're fully autonomous, you have no property, only possessions. If someone takes your stuff from you, without a third party you are no more likely to get it back than if it was something that was originally "his."

Property rights arise from self autonomy because our bodies are our property. I'm not saying that self autonomy is the only factor abut rights, if it was your theft argument would be correct. But property rights apply, I was just answering the question to where they come from.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2012 4:31:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/22/2012 4:22:21 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/22/2012 4:06:10 PM, Mimshot wrote:
At 2/22/2012 3:57:45 PM, thett3 wrote:
Self autonomy.

That's not an answer at all. If you're fully autonomous, you have no property, only possessions. If someone takes your stuff from you, without a third party you are no more likely to get it back than if it was something that was originally "his."

Property rights arise from self autonomy because our bodies are our property. I'm not saying that self autonomy is the only factor abut rights, if it was your theft argument would be correct. But property rights apply, I was just answering the question to where they come from.

To elaborate a bit, if you decided to take my property that would be aggression, just as if you decided to rape me or beat me. Either way my property is being devalued/damaged.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2012 4:34:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/22/2012 4:31:36 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/22/2012 4:22:21 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/22/2012 4:06:10 PM, Mimshot wrote:
At 2/22/2012 3:57:45 PM, thett3 wrote:
Self autonomy.

That's not an answer at all. If you're fully autonomous, you have no property, only possessions. If someone takes your stuff from you, without a third party you are no more likely to get it back than if it was something that was originally "his."

Property rights arise from self autonomy because our bodies are our property. I'm not saying that self autonomy is the only factor abut rights, if it was your theft argument would be correct. But property rights apply, I was just answering the question to where they come from.

To elaborate a bit, if you decided to take my property that would be aggression, just as if you decided to rape me or beat me. Either way my property is being devalued/damaged.

yea, but property rights is derived from the homesteading principle which is kind of flimsy ideologically. I mean, how can one justify ownership of land using the principle of self-ownership, since land is not created via man.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2012 4:43:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/22/2012 4:34:57 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/22/2012 4:31:36 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/22/2012 4:22:21 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/22/2012 4:06:10 PM, Mimshot wrote:
At 2/22/2012 3:57:45 PM, thett3 wrote:
Self autonomy.

That's not an answer at all. If you're fully autonomous, you have no property, only possessions. If someone takes your stuff from you, without a third party you are no more likely to get it back than if it was something that was originally "his."

Property rights arise from self autonomy because our bodies are our property. I'm not saying that self autonomy is the only factor abut rights, if it was your theft argument would be correct. But property rights apply, I was just answering the question to where they come from.

To elaborate a bit, if you decided to take my property that would be aggression, just as if you decided to rape me or beat me. Either way my property is being devalued/damaged.

yea, but property rights is derived from the homesteading principle which is kind of flimsy ideologically. I mean, how can one justify ownership of land using the principle of self-ownership, since land is not created via man.

How does it not being created via man have anything to do with man being able to claim it?
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2012 4:45:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/22/2012 4:43:41 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/22/2012 4:34:57 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/22/2012 4:31:36 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/22/2012 4:22:21 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/22/2012 4:06:10 PM, Mimshot wrote:
At 2/22/2012 3:57:45 PM, thett3 wrote:
Self autonomy.

That's not an answer at all. If you're fully autonomous, you have no property, only possessions. If someone takes your stuff from you, without a third party you are no more likely to get it back than if it was something that was originally "his."

Property rights arise from self autonomy because our bodies are our property. I'm not saying that self autonomy is the only factor abut rights, if it was your theft argument would be correct. But property rights apply, I was just answering the question to where they come from.

To elaborate a bit, if you decided to take my property that would be aggression, just as if you decided to rape me or beat me. Either way my property is being devalued/damaged.

yea, but property rights is derived from the homesteading principle which is kind of flimsy ideologically. I mean, how can one justify ownership of land using the principle of self-ownership, since land is not created via man.

How does it not being created via man have anything to do with man being able to claim it?

Then how does it logically follow that because you have self-ownership that property is the same as your body?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2012 4:57:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm an argumentation ethics man myself. It's impossible to argue for something while simultaneously arguing against that which makes arguing (and thus justification itself) possible. This seems relatively uncontroversial. For instance if A is requisite for B than it would be incoherent for B to argue against A occurring.

In the context of property rights, we begin with the body as thett pointed out. Do we own ourselves? And by ourselves I mean do we possess the right to act in any way that does not infringe on anyone elses right to act. I would say yes since to argue against ownership of ones body while simultaneously using said body is as Hoppe calls it, a performative contradiction.

Once self ownership is established we move on to things in the outside world. Do we have the right to transform external objects into useful purposes and take legitimate ownership of them? One would contradict one's self to deny that we could since humans are not closed systems. As such we need basic necessities to survive and thus any ethics (or whatever you want to call it) that denies mans's right to do the things he needs to survive is again contradicting himself since arguig against this concept requires that the argued had already transformed external objects to himself into some useful function.

I like argumentation ethics because it is able to skip over the fact-value problem that plagues other ethical systems. Hoppe never makes a value judgement, just points out contradictions in any attempt to deny his ethics. As such property rights becomes a problem of logic instead of competing subjective values.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2012 5:01:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/22/2012 4:57:57 PM, socialpinko wrote:
It's impossible to argue for something while simultaneously arguing against that which makes arguing (and thus justification itself) possible.

Oh, we will see about that.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2012 6:43:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/22/2012 3:02:37 PM, jat93 wrote:
For almost a year I've been a libertarian and throughout that entire time I've believed that the taxation of income is theft. I realized though that while I certainly questioned the validity of the long established practice of taxation, I never questioned the validity of property rights.

So, property rights defenders and those who think the income tax is theft: from where are property rights derived? Without the state, would there be property at all? And is the income tax theft by definition if there does exist a right to own property?

Property rights derive from right to your money, basically. A worker earns a wage, that wage is his The wages are used to purchase items, personal and real property. Property, therefore, is the benefit of labor of the owner. Now the owner of most real property is a finance company, but some of us own our real property.

The construct is called distribtionism and developed from the Industrial revolution holding that big corporations were just as oppressive as big government. ie capitalism and communism are two sides of the same coin, the coin being bad. It is better to have many small businesses than a few large ones. The right of the individual to those things which are his is inviolate. One's skills, abilities, goods and services are exchanged with others for pay (consideration) and that pay becomes property and may be used as the owner see fit.

This construct is very unpopular currently because it makes Taxes, insurance and MegaCompanies (AIG) bad.
Mimshot
Posts: 275
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2012 12:24:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/23/2012 6:43:55 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 2/22/2012 3:02:37 PM, jat93 wrote:
For almost a year I've been a libertarian and throughout that entire time I've believed that the taxation of income is theft. I realized though that while I certainly questioned the validity of the long established practice of taxation, I never questioned the validity of property rights.

So, property rights defenders and those who think the income tax is theft: from where are property rights derived? Without the state, would there be property at all? And is the income tax theft by definition if there does exist a right to own property?

Property rights derive from right to your money, basically. A worker earns a wage, that wage is his The wages are used to purchase items, personal and real property. Property, therefore, is the benefit of labor of the owner. Now the owner of most real property is a finance company, but some of us own our real property.

The construct is called distribtionism and developed from the Industrial revolution holding that big corporations were just as oppressive as big government. ie capitalism and communism are two sides of the same coin, the coin being bad. It is better to have many small businesses than a few large ones. The right of the individual to those things which are his is inviolate. One's skills, abilities, goods and services are exchanged with others for pay (consideration) and that pay becomes property and may be used as the owner see fit.

This construct is very unpopular currently because it makes Taxes, insurance and MegaCompanies (AIG) bad.

So, property rights derived from the right to have money? I'm pretty sure there were property rights long before the industrial revolution.
Mimshot: I support the 1956 Republican platform
DDMx: So, you're a socialist?
Mimshot: Yes
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2012 1:19:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/23/2012 12:24:28 PM, Mimshot wrote:
At 2/23/2012 6:43:55 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 2/22/2012 3:02:37 PM, jat93 wrote:
For almost a year I've been a libertarian and throughout that entire time I've believed that the taxation of income is theft. I realized though that while I certainly questioned the validity of the long established practice of taxation, I never questioned the validity of property rights.

So, property rights defenders and those who think the income tax is theft: from where are property rights derived? Without the state, would there be property at all? And is the income tax theft by definition if there does exist a right to own property?

Property rights derive from right to your money, basically. A worker earns a wage, that wage is his The wages are used to purchase items, personal and real property. Property, therefore, is the benefit of labor of the owner. Now the owner of most real property is a finance company, but some of us own our real property.

The construct is called distribtionism and developed from the Industrial revolution holding that big corporations were just as oppressive as big government. ie capitalism and communism are two sides of the same coin, the coin being bad. It is better to have many small businesses than a few large ones. The right of the individual to those things which are his is inviolate. One's skills, abilities, goods and services are exchanged with others for pay (consideration) and that pay becomes property and may be used as the owner see fit.

This construct is very unpopular currently because it makes Taxes, insurance and MegaCompanies (AIG) bad.

So, property rights derived from the right to have money? I'm pretty sure there were property rights long before the industrial revolution.

No from the right that your body is yours.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2012 1:20:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/22/2012 3:02:37 PM, jat93 wrote:
For almost a year I've been a libertarian and throughout that entire time I've believed that the taxation of income is theft. I realized though that while I certainly questioned the validity of the long established practice of taxation, I never questioned the validity of property rights.

So, property rights defenders and those who think the income tax is theft: from where are property rights derived? Without the state, would there be property at all? And is the income tax theft by definition if there does exist a right to own property?

Define property. Locke for real property, English common law for your stuff.