Property is theft?

by Narkissos 10 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Narkissos

  From one language or one continent to another very similar words often have very different meanings. Perhaps notions too.

  One striking example (for a French user of an English forum) is the political/economical use of the notion of "freedom / liberty".

  For instance, "liberalism" in current English seems to be fairly equivalent to "left-wing" (on almost any issue, whether moral, social or economical). In French, libéralisme points to low state involvement in economic or social issues, which is clearly a right-wing doctrine. On the other hand, "libertarianism" in America (I'm not sure about UK) sounds to imply extreme economical libéralisme (no regulation whatsoever to individual enterprise and wealth), while in France libertaire is synonymous of anarchism, which is overwhelmingly located on the far left of the political spectrum.

  One central issue in this difference is the understanding of the relationship between freedom and property. High in the French libertaire tradition stands the 19th-century thinker Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and his famous maxim: "Property is theft," which covers a deep criticism of both private and collective property and is not as simplistic as it may sound. Libertarians and libertaires do agree on a number of moral and societal issues, but they are antagonistic on this central point.

  I feel the perception of property, hence of freedom, is widely different both sides. As I understand, private property in America is perceived as the very basis of individual freedom. We tend to consider it as a potential cause of social inequality and alienation.

  Is this general assessment correct? What is your perspective? Do you think of property as a somewhat absolute, if not sacred, value, or do you think it can be questioned? If so, on which basis?

  I've been curious about that for quite a while...
• 

  Liberty

  Hi Narkissos,

  I consider myself a libertarian so I may be semi-qualified to answer your question. Firstly, since I am an atheist also, I would say that any concept of ownwership is strictly a human construct much like manners and morality. Since I believe that there is no "higher authority" who gives us absolute truths we as humans are left floundering around to find "truths" on our own using logic, history, and experiance to formulate some kind of objective reality we can live with. The concept of property falls into this category. Ayn Rand wrote extensively on the non-theistic justifications of a property concept. As I recall chief among her arguments was how human individuals take a natural resource and through the application of intelligence and labor produce something of a much greater value which can rightly then be thought of as their property.

  I think any human construct is open to critical debate and ultimately I would agree that no one can really own anything since the Universe was here long before the first human could claim it. I could make the same arguments for rape and murder since forced sex and killing among animals has existed for much longer than any human or their moral contstructs. However, in order for humans to live together in some kind of orderly semi-peaceful way, we have evolved these human constructs and formed societies. I think the American concept that personal property insures individual liberty is such a construct. The writings of Ayn Rand and other liberty based philosophies have convinced me (a once ardent communalist) that individualism goes hand in hand with property rights and liberty. You cannot have communalism/communism/socialism and individual freedom because they are mutually exclusive. So far capitalism, though imperfect, is the most liberty friendly economic system since, by its very nature, you have less people to answer to. The economic effeciency of capitalism is also a nice side benifit to enhance the individual liberty angle.

  I think a key to understanding the american libertarian view is the acceptance that all humans are very different in ability and intelligence, therefore, equality is not a literal concept applied to people outside of a government arena. Equality is the way a very limited government should treat citizens equally not giving special favors or changing laws for people based on social class or race. In short, equality is how laws are written and enforced by the governments but not an individual's concept applied to the very real differences in human beings. There is an acceptance that there will always be segments of a given population which are not as well off as others due to circumstance or lack of ability. Libertarianism is NOT a Utopian philosophy which promises to solve all problems. Libertarianism/capitalism merely promises to be the most effecient and liberty friendly system among many other flawed economic models. It is unrealistic to think perfection of any human construct is possible since their source, the human mind, is imperfect.
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Nark,

  What is your perspective? Do you think of property as a somewhat absolute, if not sacred, value, or do you think it can be questioned? If so, on which basis?

  My view which is definately not main stream usa, is that ownership of property is "imaginary" and not absolute. I don't think anyone can really own land, it is all just concepts based on arbitrary laws. For example who owned the land on the north american continent before the europeans took it? Did they buy it from the indians, or just take it from them? and who sold it or gave it to the indians?

  Clearly no one owns anything, it is no ones to own except in the imaginary constructs of governmental laws, for if we do a title search we find a dead end. Who really has the absolute right to anything on this earth, it is all imaginary.
• 

  diamondblue1974

  My view which is definately not main stream usa, is that ownership of property is "imaginary" and not absolute. I don't think anyone can really own land, it is all just concepts based on arbitrary laws. For example who owned the land on the north american continent before the europeans took it? Did they buy it from the indians, or just take it from them? and who sold it or gave it to the indians?

  Property in terms of land here in the UK is also difficult to define as such; in the UK nobody owns their own land they simply hold it (which is where the word 'holdings' comes from); you can own estates or interests in land but to actually physically own the land itself is an impossibility.The monarch owns the property in the UK which begs the question as to how they acquired it....theft maybe? spoils of war maybe?

  DB74
• 

  Jourles

  As I understand, private property in America is perceived as the very basis of individual freedom. We tend to consider it as a potential cause of social inequality and alienation.

  I don't know if I would call it "individual freedom," but rather, "materialistic goals." In America, you are judged by the clothes you have on your back, the car you drive, the neighborhood you live in, and the restaurants you eat at(plus a zillion other items). If I said I lived in East Lansing, drove an import vehicle, shopped online for my clothes, and ate at Dusty's Wine Cellar, people would classify me as a Liberal Democratic Snob. But if I lived in south Lansing, drove a GM truck, bought my clothes at Wal Mart and ate out at Pizza Hut, people around me would see me as a Patriotic Republican whatever. I know for a fact here in Lansing, if you drive an import vehicle, you are partly responsible for the job losses(automotive industry) in this state. There is definitely an alienation between the people who live on one side of the town compared to the other.

  Real estate is the ultimate sign of wealth in this country I believe. A big ass house on a huge plot of land. But what if your house just happens to be in a town on the water where the state/city wants to build a new shopping center? Eminent domain. The gov't can take away what [seems to be] is rightfully yours.
• 

  TD

  Narkissos

  As I understand, private property in America is perceived as the very basis of individual freedom. We tend to consider it as a potential cause of social inequality and alienation. Is this general assessment correct? What is your perspective?

  As you probably know, many of the original European settlers who came to the North American continent were either the wealthy seeking to expand their holdings, or members of the lower classes who were pretty much trapped in that caste permanently because they could not hold land.

  The ability to actually own property, especially land, which could not be taken away except through narrow and clearly defined legal process was the very essence of independence. All it took was hard work and one would be dependent upon no one for life's necessities.

  Today, that agrarian life style is largely a thing of the past, most people are hopelessly dependent on others to feed, house and clothe them, and U.S. courts appear less and less inclined to support the property rights of individuals. Nevertheless, the concept of private property is still very much alive in American culture.
• 

  daystar

  Nark,

  At an early point in US history, dems were for weak government (low state involvement) and at some point they switched, no doubt as issues shifted.
• 

  PrimateDave

  Quotes from http://anthropik.com/2005/07/the-right-to-property/
  
  'The original draft of the Declaration of Independence outlined the "inalienable rights" of all men as including "life, liberty, and property." Benjamin Franklin convinced Thomas Jefferson to change the wording to "and the pursuit of happiness," simply because it sounded better, but the Lockesian philosophy Jefferson alluded to has remained the cornerstone of American thought.'
  
  'For Locke, the right to property comes from the application of one's time, talents and labor to an object; it is that part of nature which an individual transforms into something useful and valuable. Thus, to rob a person of his property is to rob her of the products of her past--just as murder robs her of her future life, and slavery of her present liberty. All well and good, if one accepts a pivotal, unspoken assumption that nature has no value of its own and is free for our taking.'
  
  'This certainly was Locke's assumption, and the assumption of all his readers. In their understanding, G-d had bequeathed nature to mankind's use. Humanity was destined to rule as the earth's masters, and nature existed only to serve mankind. In this context, Locke's philosophy makes perfect sense. To date, however, no philosopher has ever successfully divorced Lockesian property rights from monotheism.'
  
  'In a sense, then, Locke's property rights are already relying on circular logic: human property rights are dependent on divine property rights, so that we have a right to property because there is a right to property.'
  
  'Once we have either a monotheistic deity, as Locke presumed, or at least a pantheon acting as one, then Locke's argument is at least tenable, if circular. Let us, for a moment, consider the theological implications of this monotheistic god that Locke supposes.'
  
  'Such a god creates nature, thus making nature his "property" to do with as he pleases--including allow humans free access to it, if he so desires. Does this god know the ultimate outcome of such an arrangement, and of all the suffering and death that will be unleashed on the various plants and animals he has made, essentially selling them into slavery to another of his creations? If he cannot foresee this, he is not only not omniscient, but in fact incredibly short-sighted and rather dim, frankly. If he can foresee this, then his grant of such access means that he approves of such an arrangement--making him an evil tyrant. The implication of Locke's argument is either that G-d is stupid, or G-d is evil.'
  
  Dave
• 

  Narkissos

  Thanks all for those interesting and informative posts.

  Great link (http://anthropik.com/2005/07/the-right-to-property/) PrimateDave -- the rest of the article, the following discussion and other pages from that site are worth reading too.

  I guess the most apparent conflicts between the legality and morality of private property today are less in the area of land property or real estate -- except in the remaining cases of latifundia in developing countries -- than in corporate structures, whether business or associative. Where people who have spent a lifetime contributing to a social structure and making it what it is have no say in its becoming and can be fired / excluded from it overnight at the whim of anonymous stockholders who hardly know what it is about -- but they are the legal owners. Mutatis mutandis, most of us had a similar experience with our past involvement with a religious group we were encouraged to make "our own," only to realise at the first disagreement that it was never really meant to be so...

  The notion of "intellectual property" is also an interesting topic for debate I think. So much of what we "author" we actually owe to someone else, even though we may not be aware of it. But as long as our means of existence depend on a (mostly arbitrary) definition of "authorship" and "property" we are bound to insist on it, in spite of its artificiality (not to mention the loss of time and energy spent on tracking down the untraceable).

  In those areas I tend to think that much of "property" is "theft" and will have to be surpassed. But that may require a slow evolution, not only of social and economical macro-structures, but also of our very notion of individual "identity" which is very much tied to the notion of "property".
• 

  5go

  The notion of "intellectual property" is also an interesting topic for debate I think. So much of what we "author" we actually owe to someone else, even though we may not be aware of it. But as long as our means of existence depend on a (mostly arbitrary) definition of "authorship" and "property" we are bound to insist on it, in spite of its artificiality (not to mention the loss of time and energy spent on tracking down the untraceable).

  Never ceases to amaze me how freemarketers can't stand the goverment but insist on copyright inforcement. Which is something that only a goverment can do. Not only that but our copy right system was built on the idea that someone dies and the then the copyrighted material is free. But corporations that are starting to hold them more and more don't die. So how can there exist a free exchange of ideas when ideas aren't free ever.