If I may post one more time on this, Apos, I think you were closer to a good argument when you suggested that a person’s labor might not entitle him to complete ownership of a resource but only ownership of that part of the resource that he had changed with his labor.
As I indicated below, I think Locke addressed this by suggesting that the resouce in question changed state if you will. Namely to an object in the wild and of no use to anyone into a resource useable by anyone, but being used by the individual who labored to change it state. That is the object has changed from something in common into property.
In the end I guess I really am not understanding your objections to Locke’s line of reasoning. I think I understand your objections to Shodan’s extension of it and the problem of time limits. But your objections to his main point that an individual’s labor belongs to that individual somehow escapes me.
That man owns his labor is, essentially, one of Locke’s premises. If you reject that premise, then you shouldn’t accept the argument, obviously.
If you’re going to set up a system that says that at least something is legitimate, though, then why wouldn’t you start with ownership of one’s own labor?
Yes and no. They were honest about their ownership of land and resources but, as you point out, they were generally nomadic. Agrarianism is considerably more efficient given private ownership of farms, so the preferred nature of our ownership of the land might be different than theirs (unless you don’t think farming is legitimate). There are some areas in which you don’t want to mess around with the incentive for the individual to be productive. Collectivisation of farms has tended to have bad consequences (and by “bad” I mean, you know, famine and such).
Ragards,
VarlosZ (Eco: -2.25; Soc: -6.51)
I agree with VarlosZ. Property rights (like all rights IMO) are a human invention, based on certain premises and designed to achieve certain ends. They don’t have any absolute existence, as evidenced by the fact that some societies existed for millenia without them, and that thunderbolts don’t strike those who violate them.
I’m in favor of fully protected property rights, in that they best preserve human life, encourage the production of wealth, and bring up the standard of living for everyone. That includes the buying and selling of land, to get back to the OP.
mr_moonlight (+5, -6) – I forgot what the fractions were
Sorry I couldn’t get back to this thread before (nor can I spend much time on it now), but I wanted to add that my principle of how to establish ownership works best to make it clear at what point some resource passes from ownership in common to individual ownership.
This is established by the principle that you establish ownership of land by making use of it in ways that are more efficient than are likely for commonly owned land, and by the labor you put into improving it (another good point I thank pervert for mentioning).
Thus, if you come across land where nobody lives and that nobody already owns, you can gain ownership by occupying it and turning it to some productive use. The principle of eminent domain means that even privately held property rights can be overruled by the decision that some more efficient use can be made of land than by leaving it in private hands.
In both cases, utilitarian principles determine how you establish moral ownership of property. As mr_moonlight points out, property rights are founded on the belief that they are an efficient way of bringing about the greatest good for the greatest number. But it is a balancing act.
Maybe it is a hardship to be compelled to sell your property when you would rather not sell, so it can be used for a public road. But the greater good of the community means that it is better that the needs of the few give way to the needs of the many. Similarly, it may be a hardship to allow private individuals to retain ownership of property that is left to Nature, when developers itch to build condominiums on it. But overall, it is better in general to enforce property rights, because it allows people to be sure that their labor and investment will be for their own long-term good.
But I chose “Strongly Disagree” because I feel that, in general, the bias ought to be in favor of individual property rights. You establish original ownership according to the principles I mentioned. Then you override those established property rights only in rare and clear-cut cases.
Does this not justify draining the Everglades, or cutting down and ranching the Amazon rainforest, or building a hotel and casino in Yosemite’s beautiful wilderness? Utility, in a “greater good” utilitarian sense, is surely sometimes served by denying “efficient” use?
Economic Left/Right: -3.38 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.00
Disagree with this particular point. The buying/selling of something as fundamental to human existance as the earth itself can be damaging to whomever is locked out of getting something they may need from that particular resource. Still I believe transactions of this sort can be freely engaged in as long as the terms are amenable to all parties involved. Taking land by force from an inhabiting tenant is abhorrent and should be disallowed. Taking previously uninhabited/unused land, no more than you need, and “homesteading” it for some period of time during which your claim can be disputed is ok with me. Mineral rights and the like become sticky wickets. Things like public parks and the airwaves are the property of the world and could not be owned by a private person without denying their beauty/utility to the rest of mankind, so they should remain offlimits.
In general I believe freedom to be who you are is not intrisically intertwined with economic freedom. I don’t believe “money talks” is an intrinsically valid statement. In certain societies and frameworks, certainly, but there is no reason to believe this has to be a universal truth.
No. There is an essential difference between Nobody owns it and a particular government body or group owns it. And your right, efficient use is not the an over riding criterion. It only applies in limited circumstances. If nobody owns the land, for instance.
This is a hijack, so I’ll just ask one question for my own curiosity.
Do you believe it is possible to exercise the “freedom to be who you are” without economic freedom? That is without the right to own property or the fruits of your own labor?
This really is a hijack, so I don’t want to get into a long discussion. But If you could clear this up for me I’d appreciate it. Thanks in advance.
But efficiency also includes reserving some land for public use. Not in general, or as a general rule, but yes, it would be perfectly justifiable under my principles to use the Amazon for ranching, or whatever, if the benefits outweigh the costs.
I don’t accept your opposition of “utilitarian” vs. “efficient” principles. Using land for farming instead of leaving it alone, or paving it over, is justified by appeal to the principle that the system of land allocation involved in private ownership operates better over all than leaving land open to use by anyone or everyone. It is thus “efficient” to allow using land for a variety of purposes. But this is an establishment of the principle of efficient use, not an abandonment of it.
You are assuming that there is no economic value in wilderness. That’s not a valid assumption. Patrons of state and national parks in the US pay nontrivial entrance fees and camping fees, so there is obviously potential profit to be made by keeping some land wild. Many people even pay organizations such as the Nature Conservancy to keep land wild even though they never visit the land themselves.
Another invalid assumption you are making is that government manages land better than private owners. When government owns land, the ones with the most political influence get to determine its use. Hence, in the US, the National Forest Service allows clearcutting to lumber companies at below market prices.
In contrast, wilderness privately owned by the Nature Conservancy and the Audubon Society is lovingly managed and kept unspoiled.
How are we to determine what is the proper amount of undeveloped land anyway? How can anyone know what is the right amount of wilderness, that perfectly balances the public demand for park land versus the economic value of developed land?
No one can answer such a question, just as no one can answer the question “How many shoe stores should there be?” It is the weighing of the economic value of park land versus the economic value of development that reveals the best use of the land. To think that development will always win such a comparison is shortsighted in my opinion and underestimates the real value that we place on wilderness.
Sure, I can wander wherever I feel like wandering unless someone declares that place “his” and puts up a fence and patrols it with a shotgun. I can say what I want unless someone declares they are the arbiter of what can and can’t be said and will toss my butt in jail unless I comply. All I need of the fruits of my labor are enough fruits to provide for the needs of me and mine. The rest would just rot. I’d rather see the excess capital I generated “trickle down” to people who need it than me just watch the bank balance grow. We already have the means of production to feed and clothe the world. Now this requires a distribution mechanism which is fair and efficient, neither of which has been achieved in human history. It also requires a mindset shift from “he who dies with the most toys wins” to “he who dies with the most toys still dies”. Still, the difference between “ownership” and “access” is miniscule enough to make it irrelevant for the vast majority of cases. I don’t really care if I “own” the car I drive or the road I drive on, as long as they are both available to me when I need them. This is the pie-in-the-sky vision I have for mankind.
Ultimately I’m a practical man. My politics on quizzes set in ideals and principles are idealized. In the real world I know that money talks and that taking more than you need from the fruits of your labor is wise because you can turn it into preserves for the inevitable winter. Still I like my Star-Trek like vision of a society where subsistence is not an issue and one is free to explore their own path and add value to society through whatever it is they love to do. I find this no less unrealistic or pie-in-the-sky than the Libertarian vision of humans suddenly learning to mind their own damn business or where people refuse to use coercion just because, even though it would get them what they want, gosh darn it, it’s just wrong. Or the the free-market vision of perfect good-faith competition where consumers aren’t apathetic sheep who would buy diet pills packed with tapeworm eggs(produced by people who care more about money than they do about their fellow human beings) if it weren’t for the FDA and people like Ralph Nader.