eris: I disagree that Jack’s or Bob’s standards are completely dependent on any single one of them – certainly they have much more leeway in defining their individual roles as Hunters than does a Police Officer or Clan Chief, but to some degree both must adhere to the other guy’s definition of the Hunter role (assuming that there is both give and take in the contractual process). There’s also the Jack-Bob-Vlademir case – when Jack dies and Julius wanders into the territory, then Julius will be expected by Bob/Vlademir to consent to more-or-less the same contract as had Jack (no poaching from somebody else’s territory, no loud parties on weekdays, etc.). Jack-Bob or Jack-Bob-Vlademir have an incredible amount of leeway by virtue of the fact that they’re the first Hunters (just as Washington had more leeway in defining his role than did, say, Van Buren), but no individual among them has absolute leeway in dictating the terms of the contract.
Rodney: Welcome to the board (coming from another newbie). I agree that it’s debateable as to whether property is an entirely human construct (though this is still problematic – by what right does a tiger lay claim to its territory?), but regardless, the assertion still stands IMO that property is a social construct.
Well, I would, too! After all, we are dealing with social interaction. What is important to me is that the lifetime of the role played by Jack is exactly equal to Jack’s lifetime, or less (since he may always opt out… in which case the role is also gone… maybe I should say it is limited to Jack’s participation).
Granted that this is almost certainly the case in the Jack-Bob scenario – if Julius wanders in to the territory after Jack has passed away, then he is under minimal compulsion to adhere to Jack’s previous Hunter role (“I’ll have loud parties whenever I want to, dammit!”). But, change it to the Jack-Bob-Vlademir scenario, and suddenly Julius is under a considerable compulsion (in the form of not one but two Cro-Magnons) to adhere to Jack’s previous role. And while it’s not a given that Julius is going to show up before Bob’s and/or Vlademir’s death, it’s also not a given that the members of the Clan are going to be sufficiently fertile to maintain the Clan (thus potentially nullifying the role of Chief in the same way as Jack’s role as Hunter is potentially nullified).
It lays claim to its territory through strength or cunning. The same would be the same for man in a state of nature. A man would own whatever he is able to keep others from taking. I can claim a hill as my property as long as I can force others to respect that. Probably through martial strength.
With regards to property, society just makes it easier. Presumably, everyone agrees to respect other people’s legitimate claims to property in exchange for others respecting their property. It means you can rest a bit easier at night and not worry about someone stronger just up and taking your stuff (more or less, you get what I mean).
loinburger - I was paraphrasing Locke. As for who gets to claim raw materials, think of it as communal property, like grazing land in pastoral communities. The ore is there for everyone who wants to use it until it runs out. A first come, first served dealie.
Sure, I can buy that as a means of acquiring “property,” but what I don’t understand is how such a thing as “theft” could exist with a property acquisition/maintenance setup like this – everybody’s essentially got an equal claim to a piece of property, so it’s all just a matter of who is best equipped to defend their claim. In other words, if this is how property is defined in a State of Nature, then I don’t understand how somebody claiming to have a Natural Right to Property could thus argue that their property has been stolen (or that they are being coerced out of their property or whatever).
Property in the purest state of nature is whatever a solitary being can take and hold.
Once Jack moves into Bob’s hut (we’re assuming Jack has more weaponry, aggression, or whatever - maybe he just looks good to Bob), Bob has a choice. He can (a) stay and hunt the land and share the dwelling with Jack - which immediately forms the beginnings of a society and therefore is no longer a state of nature or (b) go away and build another hut elsewhere that is, perhaps, more defensible and allows him to exist on his own ‘property’ in said state of nature.
Right. I agree. But my definition doesn’t jibe with the theoretical state of nature. In that state of nature, a man has a natural right to property with this logic. Obviously, nature has given man a body and mind, and this is his first property. By logical extension, then, things that man creates with his body or mind are his property as well. So basically, anything that man creates through his labor is his natural property and he has a natural right to it.
Nevermind that this “State of Nature” claim to property “rights” exists nowhere in nature itself, but is just a theoretical concept dreamed up by man. Not that I don’t appreciate the social construct of property rights existing outside of what I can defend with my own strength and cunning, I just don’t think it’s inherent outside of societal constructs.
loinburger it’s the same as the ‘law of the jungle’ (which is, essentially, the state of nature) where the strongest survive and have ‘property’ (i.e. territory). The property is always up for grabs for whomever wants to challenge the current ‘owner.’ There’s no theft per-se, just territory boundary fluctuations.
Sure, that jives with the only conception of “property” that I could come up with for a State of Nature. I’m just having trouble figuring out how the philosopher-types could go from this conception of “property” to the idea that “taking `my’ property without my consent is coercion.” My assumption was that Locke (or whoever) was using a much different definition of “property,” but damned if I can think up what it would be.
That’s similar to what Libertarian had said earlier, but I still don’t understand the natural process of taking something that is “not-mine” and making it “mine” (or the process of taking something that is “everybody’s” and making it “mine and only mine”). F’rinstance, with the copper bracelet example, I created the copper bracelet using my own two hands (by mining, smelting, and shaping the raw ore), so logically the bracelet is “mine” – except that I don’t see how I made the raw ore “mine” in the first place (or the ore vein, or the raw materials that I used to fashion smelting/shaping tools, etc.). If Jack then says “That bracelet is rightfully mine since you used my copper ore to make it,” why is Jack incorrect? (Is Jack incorrect?) If Jack takes my bracelet, or my farm, etc., then how is Jack stealing from me (or coercing me)? Sure I’ve improved upon the raw materials, but how were the raw materials rightfully “mine and only mine” to begin with?
The right of property is any possesion that is controlled by the user and is protected by him. If there is an acre of land that I wish to call my own and I am willing to guard it from all comers, that makes it my property under the state of Nature. Animals do that by challenging all trespassers. Theire territory is clearly marked and is zealously guarded. Disputes over the border is what starts fighting. Contracts are usually drawn as an agreement of who is in possesion of what so that less time is spent guarding and more time is spent enjoying. It is merely a formal declaration of agreement to the right of property.
Granted that Jack has not made any use of the copper ore, but what convinces/compels Jack to accede that I have put sufficient labor into the ore to “rightfully” transfer full ownership of the ore to myself? F’rinstance, if I were to simply urinate on the ore, or sign my name on the ore, then I would (I assume) not have put sufficient labor into the ore to claim “rightful” ownership. Why should Jack treat my smelting/working of the ore any differently than he would treat my superficially marking the ore? (I don’t mean to ask “What prevents Jack from being a coercive bully and taking my bracelet” – I mean to ask “Why is Jack clearly being a coercive bully by taking my bracelet.”)
This also poses the question of “How have I rightfully transferred ownership if I give the bracelet to my ladyfriend (or whoever)?”, since Jack will have put just as much labor into the bracelet as has my ladyfriend.
This doesn’t strike me as being substantively different (i.e. more “fair”) than “the ore is available to whomever is sufficiently powerful to defend it” – it just changes the rules so that the contest goes to the quickest rather than the strongest. (In a State of Nature I’m assuming that the race goes to both the quick and the strong – the quick gets to use the ore right up until the strong shows up. Kinda like how a cheetah “owns” her kill until the lions show up to claim it from her.)