Actually, I’m getting a greater sense of that from you. Property rights are property rights. Why? Because they’re property rights. Why are they property rights? Because they are. Why aren’t they different? Because they aren’t.
I’m asking people to stop and think. Is your only justification for your view of property rights the fact that it’s the only system you’re familiar with?
You need to be able to do more than say “this is good” and “that is bad”. You need to be able to say why one thing is good and the other is bad.
As wellanuff mentioned, in the US, we have CERCLA (aka Superfund) regulation which makes the polluter responsible for the cleanup. It was passed in response to the Love Canal development caused when residential and school property was developed on a site used as a waste dump by Hooker Chemical.
In practice, CERCLA doesn’t always mean the polluter pays. Sometimes it’s difficult to find a potentially responsible party (PRP). They may have gone under or are simply too poor to pay. That’s when the EPA picks up the tab. (Actually, I think EPA pays for the cleanup then goes after the PRPs, but it’s generally best for EPA and the PRPs to coordinate early.)
Can we expand the discussion of property rights to include both time and location? Rights get messy when the pollution takes 50 years to reach a neighbor.
[ul][li]Freedom is good[/li][li]One aspect of being free is the ability to dispose of one’s own property as one sees fit, providing it doesn’t interfere with anyone else[/li][li]Under the circumstances of the OP, building a leak-proof toxic waste dump in my backyard doesn’t interfere with anyone else[/li][li]Therefore, the system of property rights that maximizes freedom is that system where no one gets to say Boo about what I do with my property unless it interferes with them.[/li][/ul]Note that I did not say “unless it interferes with someone else who may or may not exist, and who may or may not object if I do what I want with my property instead of giving it to them without payment”.
Sure, we could have a different understanding of property rights, in which someone else, or several someones, had more say over what I do with my stuff. I don’t like that, because
[list=A][li]It becomes subject to the tragedy of the commons. My sense of proprietorship is the major factor working against a habit of destroying my own property, and maintaining it instead. Lessen that sense, and you lessen the strength of the factor. “A pig with two owners will starve” said the English, and the American bison who belonged to nobody almost went extinct while the numbers of privately owned cattle exploded. [/li][li]I don’t like busybodying. And I especially object to the modern trend to say to me, “I don’t like what you are doing even if it doesn’t hurt me, so you don’t get to do it.” And so by default - not absolutely, but by default - I would prefer it to be the rule that my right to swing my arm ends at your nose - and not an inch sooner. [/list][/li]
Regards,
Shodan
Shodan - I was suggesting you want to take another line of argument than, “Future generations are hypothetical.” There are superior conservative ones, some offered by you today.
He’s right as a matter of history as well. Even in colonial times, property rights were never absolute. Property is a creation of the state.
Sure, but in the proverbial long run everyone is obligated to give up their property without payment. Nobody owns anything forever, and if you can figure out a way to force future generations to obey your present wishes in perpetuity, then I’d like to hear it.
If there really were a problem with people buying land, ruining it, and then dying, we might find this is something we should address.
And it turns out that we have done this sort of thing, with the before mentioned superfund laws and to a lesser extent zoning laws. You can’t set up a toxic waste dump on your land, even if it doesn’t leak, without getting a list of permits longer than your arm. It turns out under our current law that you can’t discharge your obligation to clean up certain types of pollution just by selling the land. Dying is a pretty good way to get out of that obligation, though.
Nonsense. The nature and extent of your property rights is entirely a societal choice, there is nothing “defined” about them that is not dependent on societal choices. And nowhere is this more clearly illustrated than in relation to the disposal of your property on death. As already noted, the argument that dead people can have any “rights” at all is dubious at best, and there are plenty of societies where, e.g., your spouse or children have claims on your estate, or on parts of it, that you cannot defeat by will.
And this is equally true of the rights you might have while alive. The freedom to sell your land, for instance, is not inherent in the fact that it;s your land; freedom of sale is a relatively late arrival in our own legal system.
Generally, it is society which decides what rights an individual can have to control, dispose of, etc, particular lands or particular goods. Some societies recognise extremely limited property rights; others, wider rights. There is no default set of property rights established by nature or reason.
You don’t have a right to build a leak proof toxic waste dump. You may say it’s leak proof and you may even think it, but is it really? This is why we have regulations on disposal of toxic wastes. You don’t have the right to take chances with the groundwater and air that belongs to all of us.
You don’t have the right to swing your fist within an inch of my nose. That’s assault.
The buffalo-cattle example was first class loony tunes. People hunted bison for meat, some just to watch them fall over dead. Overhunting leads to depopulation. People still wanted meat, so they raised cattle. How this proves some lame libertarian clap trap is a fiction of your imagination.
[ul][li]Freedom is good[/li][li]One aspect of being free is the ability to dispose of one’s own property as one sees fit, providing it doesn’t interfere with anyone else[/li][li]Under the circumstances of the OP, building a leak-proof toxic waste dump in my backyard doesn’t interfere with anyone else[/li][li]Therefore, the system of property rights that maximizes freedom is that system where no one gets to say Boo about what I do with my property unless it interferes with them.[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
“Freedom is good” is an irrelevant side issue. I’ll one up you by stating that freedom is better. So now I’ve staked the moral high ground above yours.
But “One aspect of being free is the ability to dispose of one’s own property as one sees fit, providing it doesn’t interfere with anyone else” and “Under the circumstances of the OP, building a leak-proof toxic waste dump in my backyard doesn’t interfere with anyone else” is begging the question. The whole topic of this thread is that you’re disposing of property that’s going to belong to somebody else and your actions are interfering with somebody else.
So unless you’re going to stick with your theory that humanity has no future (one which I suspect you’re going to be holding on your own) you need to address this issue. Are you free to dispose of your own property when it is going to interfere with somebody else’s property? You can answer yes or no but stop pretending the question doesn’t exist.
How, exactly, did you get from his post to “Whatever is, is right?” Where did the “…is right” part come from? Where did he claim that the current status of property rights is the most desirable? What part of his post precludes the ability to argue for or against the wisdom of any particular policy?
Huh? If property rights don’t come from the rest of us agreeing that you have certain rights over certain objects, then where do they come from? Nature? But aren’t property rights in nature simply whatever the strong can enforce?
The only sensible source of property rights is the social contract–I agree to help you enforce your rights to your property and you agree to help me enforce my rights to my property. And if the other 300 million of us refuse to act as if you have the right to a property, then willy-nilly you no longer have the right to that property, no matter how much you protest. Of course it comes down to force tempered by self-interest, because how else can we operate? You and your brother are arguing over the teddy bear, and dad grabs the bear and gives it to its “owner”. If dad refuses to get involved because that would be coercion, then the bigger/meaner/tricksier kid gets the bear.
So in order for you to have property rights you have to convince the rest of us to help you enforce your property rights. What’s in it for us? Well, we have to live on this planet too, so we try to figure out a way to get along with each other with the least possible hassle. Sometimes that works, other times the Mongols invade China and build pyramids of skulls. The Chinese peasants asserting their property rights to their land and heads don’t get listened to.
However, it seems to me that I am more like one of the Chinese peasants than a Mongol warrior, and when the shit hits the fan I’m much more likely to be the guy lying face down in the mud wondering where his head went than the guy who rides away laughing. And I don’t know you, but you’re probably in the same boat as me. The only thing we have going for us is if we agree to act in concert against the dudes with swords. Even the Mongols themselves realize this, that’s why they ravage as a horde and not as one guy riding into town on his lonesome. A Mongol horde that has no problem chopping our heads off and enslaving our families will still protect Warrior X’s property rights over his horses and property and slaves against Warrior Y.
And so mafiosi who kill and murder regular people will have methods of resolving disputes among themselves, that’s what makes the mafia organized crime instead of one guy crime.
There may well be a basis for arguing against how society defines and establishes property rights. You’re just not offering us any basis. You claim that property rights “by definition” are whatever you think they should be . That’s not really an argument, especially when you conspicuously fail to enage with any of the contrary arguments being offered.
Some people acquire knowledge of land ownership by studying the history of civilization. Others get peculiar notions from right-wing blogs and YouTubes. I think these two groups are disjoint. I’ve often wondered what reaction the latter group would have, if confronted with the historic facts of land ownership
Most of the land in England can be traced back, through a series of land transfers, to William the Bastard who won the land with force of arms beginning in 1066. And for centuries, most of this land was held as a fief. The land was held by permission of the King in return for service to the King. For example
[QUOTE=Assize Roll … 12 Edw. 1]
William Hoppeshort holds 1/2 a yard-land [15 acres] of the king by the service of keeping for the king 6 damsels, to wit whores, at the cost of the king
[/QUOTE]
Some land in medieval Europe was Allodial, which usually meant that its “owner” had his own soliders and did not require assistance from the King to defend his land. In practice, many allodial owners voluntarily converted their property for fiefdom for obvious reasons.
Land held in fief belonged to the overlord and could not be degraded without the overlord’s permission. As an extreme example, a nobleman whose lands and serfs had belonged to his family for centuries was not allowed to free those serfs! The serfs belonged to the land, and the land belonged to the King. Many Kings added another step to the chain: they claimed to be holding their land in stewardship for The Almighty God.
As you trace back land ownership through a series of deeds, you will usually find explicit enfeoffments. Exceptions include Native American land, whose “rights” are held to precede the European conquests.
If you own land in Pannsylvania, it probably traces back to William Penn who got it from King Charles II in 1681. That grant was almost absolute, yet still carried the notion of republican democracy!:
[QUOTE=Charles the Second, by the grace of God King of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, defender of the faith, &c., To all to whome these presents shall come Greeting.]
… Doe grant free, full and absolute power … by and with the advice, assent and approbacon of the freemen of the said Countrey, or the greater parte of them, or of their Delegates or Deputies
[/QUOTE]
The King of England demanded a rent (and some mineral rights) to ensure that he was still conceptually the overlord:
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
It’s amusing to contrast the facts of history, with the beliefs of Freemen on the Land and other property rights fanatics who think rights and government are at odds! Most amusing is the claim that Tragedies of the Commons would disappear if only commons were owned by private rent collectors. Since commons include bodies of sea water and the atmosphere, one really wonders what model these people have. William the Bastard neglected to create an Earl of the Thames River, or Duke of the Troposphere. Should the U.S. do so now, selling the Great Lakes to the highest bidder? It sounds prosperous yet the biggest objection to the idea, among the extreme right, would be the revenue the U.S. Government gets from the sale! I’m sure they’d rather that those funds were just divvied up among the Jo Creating billionaires.
(And many commons tragedies can be modeled as very simple games. The fanatics are happy to bandy about words like “Nash equilibrium” yet wen asked to put up or shut up on their alleged solutions they … shut up.)
John Locke argued the idea that ownership of land was legitimated by use of the land. In other words you could show up on an unclaimed piece of land and acquire title to it by working on the land (or having people work on it on your behalf).
This idea was obviously a product of its time. Europeans were exploring the world and laying claim to tracts of land without working very hard to determine who the previous owners had been. There was obvious support for the idea that you could establish a legitimate claim out of nothing but occupation and work.
The idea survived for quite some time. You could still see it in the settlement of America via homesteading.
But it has points which clearly contradict the modern concept of land ownership in America. There was no general theory of absentee ownership. If you were somewhere in a city and you bought a piece of land several hundred miles away out in the country, it wasn’t really your property until you traveled out to it and did something with it. Until then, your ownership of the property might be lost to somebody who just moved on to the land and started farming it.