Jerry Smith

GFA & all,

Pardon me for posting while under the influence.

I have to agree with this statement. I am no economist. I am in some respects an idealist. In this respect, I can only give a practical opinion:

I will let stand the definition of ownership as exclusive use of, or right to determine the disposition of X (Where x is "property").

I think the whole question here should be how could/should one EARN the right of ownership of property.

GFA seems to be working from the assumption that property not 'previously claimed' belongs by default to no-one. In his example, Smith owns 1/4 of the island, Jones owns 1/4 and the other 1/2 is in proprietary limbo.

Others seem to be working from the assumption that property, by default, belongs to the community (in the example, Jones & Smith each own 1/4 and they jointly own the other 1/2.. provided there are no other human denizens of the island.)

I agree with those others who work from the assumption that the default condition of property is communal ownership, and I believe that this follows from real-life relationships. In the example, Jones and Smith both have the right of use of the remaining 1/2 the island. If one of them is to claim exlusive use of part of that land (thereby harming the other by depriving him of the use of that part), he must have some valid claim to it.

I think the claim should be based on whether or not exlusive use can be EARNED, where what qualifies as an EARNED right is defined by community concensus.

Where it conerns real economics, this goes too deep for me. There is injustice in the system we now have, but that injustice may prove to be inescapable, and the least possible evil. I remember reading a book by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. that describes property in terms remotely like this:

Gravity is a thing that makes people stick to the earth. Property is what allows others to make them pay to stick there.

Of course, Vonnegut put it in a parable that was much more apt than my simplification of it.


Edited twice, under the influence, once to add David's name to his Quote, the other to correct "his" to "is".
[ February 13, 2002: Message edited by: Jerry Smith ]

[ February 13, 2002: Message edited by: Jerry Smith ]</p>

Deputy42

howdy-just a few thoughts...i don't want to rehash anything, but i might so bear with...

if the length of this thread is any indication, the originators assumption that property rights is an easy theory to prove seems to be false.

today it seems we are more concerned with justice in acquistion of property and not the right to have property itself. earlier, others explained that property rights today are historical and ultimately reside in the power of the government. i think this is correct, however the subject isn't this simple.

attempting to justify a theory of property rights that is not historical is dangerous and inconsistent. this is not all my stuff here and i am sure many of you are familiar with Nozick, specifically Anarchy, State, and Utopia (good book ) clearly property rights are not universal; have the right to use a my knife as i see fit unless it is inside your head. moral constraints on use inevitably lead to discussions about proper distribution.

end state theories are usually of the sort that aim at a social good. however this seems to violate kant, using people as means. and taken to the extreme ownership of people by people or demoktesis.

patterned principles are also flawed. saying "all those with high iq should get x" is just as bad as "all those with moral merit" or "all those with large feet" they all seem arbitrary. even the most well intentioned patterned principles lead to "to each as he chooses to each as he was chosen"

interested to hear what you think
remember what Homer said(simpson) "facts? facts are meaningless. you can use facts to prove anything thats even remotely true."

Anthemic

Hi. I'm new to this board. I'm a student at Temple University. Feel free to flame me.
<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

There have been several references here to "hard work" and the rights one acquires by excercising this concept upon land. I'm not sure that this is valid. Maybe by "working hard" these people are forcing the rest of humanity to "work hard" as well, just to keep up and maintain some balance of power. It may be that "hard workers" should be penalized, rather than rewarded, because they have created a society that fetishizes unhappiness in service of larger goals that are, in the end, not worth any more than our small moments of blissful leisure.

God Fearing Atheist

There is always scarcity: it has nothing to do with offspring, but with the fact that one use nessecarly negates all others.

And im not saying someone else *cant* possess it. Im saying, insofar as i currently own something, your taking it means i cant use it, making me (assuming i dont alienate it voluntarily) worse off.

Lastly, property, as i have argued elsewhere, makes no one worse off. Acquisition does not subtract from the status quo ante. If Jones acquires a piece of land, Smith still has everything he had before.

hedonologist

It looked like your hypothetical was made so that Smith had no desire/need to use anything Jone's had, therefore that "scarcity" wasn't a problem.

BTW, I think what you are saying is true in a sense, if scarcity is defined only involving the possession of natural resources. I want to point out that that is not necessarily true in the case of information, and that information seems to be one of the most valuable things because it seems that the higher paying jobs involve the employee working with information, such as by making decisions, etc.
Yes. I'm saying that when the first person to posses it possesses it, that makes the person who will later want it, worse off also.
Acquisition is much less likely to subtract from someone's present status quo, than it is to subtract from a future person's status quo, if the population increases, etc.

But as I said, even in your hypothetical where there is no need for competition, that is hardly ever the case on this planet, even regarding everyone's present status quo. Maybe on the polar caps or the moon. You've got various "environmentalists" who compete to have the land used in their ways and developers competing with each other for bids on land. One person's bid drives the price up for another. Armed men, tanks, etc are used to keep other people from possessing it without going through this system.

Dr. Retard

Actually, wouldn't present acquisition be more likely to increase someone's future prospects, as compared with the person's ex ante future prospects? After all, it is by acquisition that people have the incentive to utilize a good productively and the opportunity to gain enough knowledge to do so. Certainly, the acquisitions of the past have left us better off than we would be otherwise, better off in terms of all sorts of values.

I wouldn't want to deny that acquisition limits everyone else's short-term opportunity, but it seems to greatly expand everyone else's long-term opportunity, in general.

hedonologist

To some extent, yes. I was only speaking in terms of the "raw materials" or natural environment. I didn't mean to imply that all prospects would be diminished proportionally for everyone. Some prospects would be diminished for some people.

[ February 16, 2002: Message edited by: hedonologist ]

[ February 16, 2002: Message edited by: hedonologist ]</p>

God Fearing Atheist

Im not particularly concerned about the lot of people that dont exist. What is reasonable to prohibit is the *actual* use of force; future people cant better/worsen my situation.

That was actually going to be the basis of my argument against intellectual property, until it was moved from this forum and I lost interest. Ideas are not scarce, hence we have no reason to prohibit their "theft".

God Fearing Atheist

Another good point Doc. A sort of...postivie externality.

Im sure our left-wing friends would be happy to argue it, though.

hedonologist

When is it reasonable to prohibit the use of force? Should we give the land to ancestors of native people?
If they didn't have a reason to they wouldn't be doing it. Of course they have a reason to. Some can make money by lowering competition by monopolizing using a patent or copyright and suing someone if they are making money off "their" idea.

The copyright/patent system is one attempt to encourage the development of information, because it supposedly favors the original developer, so long as they get the patent, etc.

[ February 18, 2002: Message edited by: hedonologist ]</p>