Civil Discourse: Property Rights
 

Civil Discourse: Property Rights

This is an appeal to the better angels of our nature. I believe that The Cellar is capable of reasoned, meaningful discussion on important topics. Here's your chance to prove it.

The topic for this Civil Discourse is "Property Rights".

"Property" consists of a set of rights, or prerogatives, over a thing. These include the right of use, right of refusal (preventing others from use), right of modification, right of destruction. Those rights can be transferred to others for a limited time (lending/leasing) or permanently (giving/selling).

So here is the question: are property rights natural rights or social convention?

Natural rights are universal, inalienable, and usually self-evident. Examples might be the right of free speech, or the right to be free from physical violence.

Social conventions exist only because we all agree that they should exist, usually because they are useful and efficient ways of managing complex systems. Examples might be driving on the right or left side of the road, the value of money, or social manners.

So which kind of thing are property rights?

Oh, you're funny. sm, you're an oldtimer. you should know when you ask to have your homework done for you what you get is abuse and mockery instead.


...

I will return when I have some abuse for you.

Son, I don't DO homework, I GIVE it!

I believe that property rights are a natural right because it aligns with human nature. Sot it's intrinsic.

But I also think property rights are a necessary foundation for capitalism. And capitalism (in general) also aligns with human nature.

PZ, what do you mean when you say "aligns with human nature"?

Social. There are many aboriginal native peoples who do not recognize "things" as belonging to a person.

Are we including intellectual property in this? Such as the right to sing a song?

No, the question of what kind of things should count as property only makes sense if we determine what kind of right property is.

If it's social convention, then the only standard for modifying our understanding of property is "is this change useful". If so, then we're free to adapt the principle.

If it's a natural right, then we are significantly more limited in how we can change property rights.

These are my thoughts while driving home from a shopping trip...
subject to revision upon exposure to better ideas.

There is but one "natural" law... the animalistic survival of the fittest.
Whoever or whatever has the most lethal force overcomes whoever or whatever does not.

But that is not to say that this natural law is ultimately the superior.
Multiple inferior beings can and do overcome the superior individual.
Put simply, "majority rules".

Sometimes the mechanism used by the majority is by simple force,
but more often it is by developing social rules, laws, customs, religions, taboos, etc.
Sometimes it is by developing superior physical mechanisms, clubs,
guns, bombs, etc.
But even these are usually via mechanisms of social industry.
The physically inferior individuals of a group often use influence to obtain a superior position.

To speak of property rights as being ownership is entirely a social convention.
For example, real estate is commonly considered belonging to some owner,
and at first might seem to belong to the superior individual(s).

But this is purely cultural, as seen in the traditions of Native Americans
where land and all that it contains (including the people) is considered to be one, and can not "owned" by any person.

Intellectual property (copy rights, patents, etc) are still derived from social behaviors,
and ownership eventually depends upon the ability to enforce the social rules
that have been establised such as licensing, franchising, leasing, renting, etc.

P.S. Some people believe whoever has the most toys when they die, wins :rolleyes:

It would seem to align with animal nature in general as many animals mark and defend their territories, the space needed to maintain the quantity of renewable natural resources necessary to sustain them and enable successful reproduction. That humans would retain control over their man made resources would seem to be a natural extension of this. Once taken beyond meeting basic human requirements though, it becomes more of a social convention. At this time, whether property rights are a natural right; or, social convention varies with the type of property.

I disagree. That might be true of your feelings on the matter, but it doesn't necessarily hold that it's true for everyone.

I asked because my initial reaction was that physical property rights are a natural right -if I have food, it's mine. You are violating my rights if you take it from me. But not "intellectual property" -if I write a poem, am I not infringing on your right to freedom of speech if I prevent you from reciting it?

Regarding the aboriginal point, young children are naturally possesive, so wouldn't that suggest that the lack of property rights is more of a social convention and that property rights are natural rights?

Having not spent any time whatever with aboriginal children I can't speak to that point. Perhaps in a society where possession is not considered, the children don't exhibit that behavior. I'd be curious to read what an anthropologist would say.

fair point.

Inherently, property rights are a natural right--this is my food that I hunted, this is my chair that I made. Taking those from me is morally wrong; it is a natural right for me to possess things that I crafted/accomplished with my own hands, alone.

But beyond that it gets gray: land property is not a natural right unless maybe it manages to fit into the above category; that is, if I have farmed that land, or cleared the forest for my animals. My owning a house that some construction company built is a social convention. And once I start adding transactions into the mix, it is also no longer a natural right: if I hunt extra food, and exchange it with the guy who built an extra chair, that gets outside the realm of natural rights and into the realm of social convention. I don't have the natural right to trade my items with others, whether the balance of the exchange be favorable to one, both, or neither of us--I only have the natural right to take care of myself without interference.

I'd argue your first point as being social constructs. Your sense of 'self' and 'I' are completely informed by your upbringing. Even the concept of 'self' and 'other' is learned. Consider that infants do not distinguish the world as separate from themselves until something like a year old, IIRC. It is just as easy for me to consider a world view where there is 'food' not 'my food'. Heck, I know people who are like that that aren't even Buddhist monks.