If property is theft, surely someone has to have property for it to be stolen from?

The state should own everything and people be allowed to live in a house, but they should not own it.

@ cgwhite: "If property is theft, surely someone has to have property for it to be stolen from?"

The concept that property is theft refers to the idea that the owning of property by *individuals* represents theft from *society*. That is, all significant resources should be held in common.

@ Hellenic Riot: "The state should own everything"

/agree.
Hellenic Riot +1

"The concept that property is theft refers to the idea that the owning of property by *individuals* represents theft from *society*. That is, all significant resources should be held in common."

So you do not reject the notion of property rights, only the notion that people as individuals should hold them?

Jamiet

I'm really confused by your argument.

First, do you believe that there are no inherent "rights" and therefore, by default, there are no property rights? Or, do you think that some rights exist, but property rights aren't one of them?

Second, I still don't understand what you mean by:
"The concept that property is theft refers to the idea that the owning of property by *individuals* represents theft from *society*. That is, all significant resources should be held in common."

So, does society have property rights, but individuals don't? By "society" do you mean all of humanity, or smaller groups? Tis really makes no sense at all.

I don't know where I stand on this issue, but in order to explore it further, I'd like to ask whether or not you think I should be able to walk into 'your' house and just do my own thing. Oh and do justify your answer

I think that Jamiet means that like any other kind of law property rights are a social convention.
Society ethics and morals define refine and change the current law system.
For example nowadays many of us feel that you have the right to download a song.
This behavior if adapted by the last majority of people will create a shift in law.
Eventually there may be the case that all kinds of intellectual property are banished.
On the other hand there is some kind of fight between the current ethics and change.
For example the state tries to shape people's thoughts on the subject of intellectual property by comparing downloading to theft.
The points is that if the majority of people decide behavior A is desirable then it will also become a legal behavior.
ps: some studies indicate that if a certain behavior is adapted by about 20% of people then it rapidly expands to the rest of society, so having a majority by your side only takes a strong minority (ex. cell phone expansion case)

@Jamiet

Also, it's not like I can just go out a claim property. First, I need to purchase it from the previous owner and then I need to pay taxes to society (Government). So, how is that theft?

abgemacht did Americans purchased land from the previous, Indian owners? ;)

@hellalt

I agree. I'd go so far as to say that all rights are social constructs. There are no inherent rights.

The rights to survival and reproduction are inherent.

heh

No and that kind of sucked for them, but that's how it goes. Rights are determined by the most powerful group (doesn't have to be weapons).

No. The instinct to survive and reproduce are inherent. No one has an inherent right to either.

You are right.

"My view is that "property rights" are a cultural convention only and have no moral status. You do not automatically have any property rights - it's up to society. If society decides that property rights are not necessary or desirable, then you have no property rights."

... well, that's pretty much true of *any* "rights". It's a social convention that slavery is wrong. It didn't used to be that way. Similarly, people having a right to their stuff - instead of, for example, their feudal lord being able to do whatever he wanted - is a relatively recent invention.

"I further content that this is potentially a good thing. Property rights encourage a "Mine! Mine! Mine!" culture of acquisition which leads to people hoarding resources in a manner which promotes poverty and social division."

You're making an unwarranted assumption: that the elimination of property rights would discourage a "mine mine" culture of acquisition. You're also ignoring other negative consequences for a lack of property rights - for one thing, if property is theft, and everything is just sitting around for the common good, why am I commuting three hours a day instead of just taking crap from the local grocer?

"That is, all significant resources should be held in common."

Define "significant". My clothes are pretty damn significant when the weather is below freezing.

Also, explain how these 'significant' resources will be administered. By 'Society'? How will that work? How will 'Society' care for these resources? How will new resources be created, and how will those decisions be made?

Chernobyl was a resource cared for by 'Society', but 'Society' was more interested in power than making sure the plant didn't go boom. When you look at Three Mile Island, on the other hand, there were massive failsafes - which worked, I might add - because the consequences of a boom were bad... due to the potential damage to other people's property.

No business is going to take risks like the idiots who blew up Chernobyl did, because the *consequences* of those risks are too dire. Look at BP; they crapped out when it came to risk management and now they're paying billions and billions to clean up a mess. If it was just 'society's' problem, then State Oil would have just said "oops", gone on drilling, and let State Cleanup clean up the mes.

Strat +1/2

Had to dock you for the BP comment. They're paying, but it really won't have much of an effect on they company. They still supply the US Military and I don't think their rank in oil production has dropped much, if at all.

Eh, if I didn't bring up BP someone else would have. I'm writing a requirements doc, and don't have many free brain cells right now

@ abgemacht: "First, do you believe that there are no inherent "rights" and therefore, by default, there are no property rights? Or, do you think that some rights exist, but property rights aren't one of them?"

I think we have some basic rights, yes, such as a right to life - ie a right not to be murdered. Property "rights" currently exist as a legal "right" but I certainly don't think we *should* have them. I don't think there is a moral right to property, as Ghostmaker does.

@ abgemacht: "Second, I still don't understand what you mean by:
"The concept that property is theft refers to the idea that the owning of property by *individuals* represents theft from *society*. That is, all significant resources should be held in common."

"So, does society have property rights, but individuals don't? By "society" do you mean all of humanity, or smaller groups?"

Society can be defined in many ways, but to keep things simple I basically mean either all of humanity, or all the people in a given geographical location, ie a country.

The question "does society have property rights?" is moot. If all resources are owned in common by everyone in the country/world, then 'property rights' as they currently exist would simply not be of any relevance.

"Also, it's not like I can just go out a claim property. First, I need to purchase it from the previous owner and then I need to pay taxes to society (Government). So, how is that theft?"

Where did the previous owner get it from? Trace it back far enough and eventually something was appropriated from a resource which should not be in private hands.


@ SynalonEtuul: "I don't know where I stand on this issue, but in order to explore it further, I'd like to ask whether or not you think I should be able to walk into 'your' house and just do my own thing."

I'll respond to this by pointing out that people who live in rented accommodation, or in social housing provided by the state, do not own the house they live in, yet it is still considered unacceptable for strangers to wander into the place without an invitation, and start "doing their own thing". Therefore, property rights are clearly not the main issue in this case. I generally think that people are entitled to some privacy, yes, but that doesn't relate to the ownership of buildings.

Does that answer your question?


@hellalt: Thanks for your contribution - very helpful.


@stratagos: "You're making an unwarranted assumption: that the elimination of property rights would discourage a "mine mine" culture of acquisition. You're also ignoring other negative consequences for a lack of property rights - for one thing, if property is theft, and everything is just sitting around for the common good, why am I commuting three hours a day instead of just taking crap from the local grocer?"

That's a nice straw man. I did not say "everything is just sitting around for the common good."

Holding resources in common does not mean things are "sitting around" and you can just take what you want without there being any control over this. The utilisation of resources held in common would need to be carried out in an organised way, or else there would not BE any food at the local grocer.

"Define "significant". My clothes are pretty damn significant when the weather is below freezing."

You need clothes, yes. But as long as you have some decent clothes to wear, why do you need to own them? Why is your need for comfort and warmth an issue that can only be resolved by property rights?

"Also, explain how these 'significant' resources will be administered. By 'Society'? How will that work? How will 'Society' care for these resources? How will new resources be created, and how will those decisions be made?"

This is going beyond a discussion of rights, but without going off on too much of a tangent, what you're basically asking me here is "you're a communist, aren't you?" to which the answer is yes, I am. The state would administer these resources on behalf of everyone.

Finally you raise the issue of Chernobyl but then immediately destroy your argument by mentioning BP. I'm grateful to abgemacht for pointing out the failure of your logic here. Chernobyl was state owned and caused a massive catastrophe. BP is privately owned and caused a massive catastrophe. Thus your use of the Chernobyl example proves nothing. I can give you a list of disasters caused by private firms - a list as long as you like. The fact that BP are paying billions does not mean the massive environmental damage never happened.

Owning things encourages greed.
Greed must be discouraged.
Let the state discourage greed.
I get what I need, not I get what I want. Better moral to live by.

Especially as people *never* get what they want. Wants are infinite.

The problem with an emphasis on property rights is simple: when property rights are given first priority, the people with the most property have the most rights.

This is not a coincidence. If you go back to 18th-century Britain, where our modern idea of property rights was hatched, you'll find that the supremacy of property rights was put forward by men whose ability to profit from their land was limited by the traditional rights of the tenants on the land. By claiming that their right to use their property as they chose trumped their tenants rights to a reasonable standard of living, they were able to exploit their workers and their land to make massive profits. The whole modern idea of property rights is explicitly designed to allow rich people to be freed from any social responsibility to others.

This becomes clear if you look at the holes in libertarian thinking. For example, I haven't found a single libertarian who will argue that I have a right to not have the air on my property polluted by a coal-fired power plant. If people were serious about property rights, they would acknowledge that no one has a right to dump carbon dioxide into my air.

Jamie: If you're going to follow that rabbit down the hole to legal positivism, just fucking go for it. :) I personally recommend it.

Rights are not inherent to anything. That includes the right to live. Its a social construct, because we have decided that murder is detrimental to the common good. It has no force outside our social conventions.

I mean, if I were to drop you in the middle of the jungle, and a fucking tiger mauled you to death and snacked on your entrails, you certainly can't claim you have a natural right to live( because the natural world just showed you that you don't).

By the way, just to be clear, when I heard "inherent rights" I understand that to mean that the right exists no matter what, independent of us as a people or society (like Plato's Forms, it exists outside of us and is always true). Like the Law of Gravity. That's always true, no getting around that (although I have a physicist friend that says it may be possible to trump that, which I told him to go for)

Positivism says we have to actually do something to claim its a right, but without that "doing" the right doesn't exist. Be that shooting that tiger in the face before it mauls you (asserting your right to exist), or enacting a Bill of Rights (enshrining in law certain rights) or some such.

Without those things, any protest of rights would be like a Roman Slave claiming he's got rights to his own labor and person, and his patrician master nodding, and then having him thrown off the Tarpeian Rock.

@Jamiet

"I think we have some basic rights, yes, such as a right to life - ie a right not to be murdered. "

How do you justify this?

"Society can be defined in many ways, but to keep things simple I basically mean either all of humanity, or all the people in a given geographical location, ie a country.

"The question "does society have property rights?" is moot. If all resources are owned in common by everyone in the country/world, then 'property rights' as they currently exist would simply not be of any relevance."

No, this is not moot. If you define society as you have, then which society has the right to the resources? You are giving society a property right.

"Where did the previous owner get it from? Trace it back far enough and eventually something was appropriated from a resource which should not be in private hands."

You are making a leap of faith here. The fact that it initially wasn't someone's property, does not mean it shouldn't be someone's property.

@Jack

I think you and I are in complete agreement.

This doesn't take into account that the source of most wealth is labour. Take any item in a store and break down its cost. I would guess that 60% of the cost of an item is labour (from the shop keeper, to the cotton grower to the seamstress etc.) 30% is capital investment (land cost to grow the cotton, machine costs) and 10% profit for the various owners of the companies.

So what part of this should be 'public'. By eliminating private property, this would create a disencentive for productive labour, and reduce the overall standard of living.

There is a quote attributed to Winston Churchill "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."

Property rights (including intellectual property) encourages productive labour and innovation.

""Also, explain how these 'significant' resources will be administered. By 'Society'? How will that work? How will 'Society' care for these resources? How will new resources be created, and how will those decisions be made?"

This is going beyond a discussion of rights, but without going off on too much of a tangent, what you're basically asking me here is "you're a communist, aren't you?" to which the answer is yes, I am. The state would administer these resources on behalf of everyone."

Actually, I deliberately did not jump to that conclusion - even though you've pretty much already stated so in the past - but I think you miss my point - *how* would the state administer the resources for the good of everyone.

I don't think it veers from the conversation topic as you 'went there' yourself in your very first post. Only your first paragraph focuses on rights, the rest is your opinion on why property rights suck.

In theory, market capitalism is self regulating. In practice, everyone who is not completely delusional admits that there needs to be some failsafes to keep people from rampantly screwing other people.

In theory, having everything held in common works. In practice, there are going to be people who would game the system just to be lazy shits, and others aren't going to bother working any harder than they must as they derive no benefit from doing is. How is the state going to administer resources in a way that prevents these problems without, basically, a police state? For that matter, how it is any different from feudalism?

It's extremely relevant to the topic at hand, as you are advancing a proposition - the elimination of private property - but that begs the question of "what next?" History is full of examples of people who didn't bothering thinking about Step #2 because they focused on Step #1, and who consequently faced disaster.

In other words, if you passionately believe that private property should be eliminated, then logically you should have a good idea of what should replace it - and if so, it's reasonable to be able to explain why the alternate solution is superior to the current one.

Somebody (R.A.H?) once said "You only really own what you can carry in both hands while running for your life."

@joey1: property rights encourage productive labor up to a point, but they can also be used to stifle productive labor. To use an obvious example, the unlimited extension of copyrights actually stifles innovation by allowing corporations to profit from ideas that they had nothing to do with creating.

True, I do think there should be changes to Copyright/Patent law to encourage more innovation.

1) I think that any work should come into the public domain 50 years after its creation. (any work with a statement (c)1960 or earlier will now be public domain)
2) Patents may only be enforced if you are actually producing what is described in the patent. (No more patent holing companies)
3) I would be willing to consider limitations on the sale of patents, if you apply for a patent to protect your invention from copiers, you can only sue others for patent infringement on the actual harm that it does to your product.