Property Rights are the most important rights

[The Cat-Tribe]

And again, property rights are meaningless if you have no water or food.

Property rights enable you to be self-sufficient instead of relying on government to provide for you.
If you can't be bothered to ensure your own survival, why should I care if you live or die.
If you want to live, prove your desire to do so by earning it. Instead of robbing Group A to provide for Group B.

Death is natural, Life is struggle.
I have an obligation to make sure that I survive
but I don't extend that obligation to everyone else, simply because they happen to live near me.

If something rests wholly on your personal might to enforce it, what makes it a "right"?

Is anything you can do by force a "right"?

[Occupied Deutschland]

And again, property rights are meaningless if you have no water or food.

Property rights enable you to be self-sufficient instead of relying on government to provide for you.
If you can't be bothered to ensure your own survival, why should I care if you live or die.
If you want to live, prove your desire to do so by earning it. Instead of robbing Group A to provide for Group B.

Death is natural, Life is struggle.
I have an obligation to make sure that I survive
but I don't extend that obligation to everyone else, simply because they happen to live near me.

Precisely, and people having a right to 'Life' doesn't mean they have the right to steal from those with property to supply that right to life.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Property rights enable you to be self-sufficient instead of relying on government to provide for you.
If you can't be bothered to ensure your own survival, why should I care if you live or die.
If you want to live, prove your desire to do so by earning it. Instead of robbing Group A to provide for Group B.

Death is natural, Life is struggle.
I have an obligation to make sure that I survive
but I don't extend that obligation to everyone else, simply because they happen to live near me.

If something rests wholly on your personal might to enforce it, what makes it a "right"?

Is anything you can do by force a "right"?

Ah, and THAT is why 'governments are instituted among men.' EDIT: To protect those rights, not grant them. And to punish those who infringe on others rights.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Property rights enable you to be self-sufficient instead of relying on government to provide for you.
If you can't be bothered to ensure your own survival, why should I care if you live or die.
If you want to live, prove your desire to do so by earning it. Instead of robbing Group A to provide for Group B.

Death is natural, Life is struggle.
I have an obligation to make sure that I survive
but I don't extend that obligation to everyone else, simply because they happen to live near me.

Precisely, and people having a right to 'Life' doesn't mean they have the right to steal from those with property to supply that right to life.

Um. wouldn't GeneralHaNor answer's imply they would have such a "right," if they had the power to do so?

[The Cat-Tribe]

If something rests wholly on your personal might to enforce it, what makes it a "right"?

Is anything you can do by force a "right"?

Ah, and THAT is why 'governments are instituted among men.' EDIT: To protect those rights, not grant them. And to punish those who infringe on others rights.

You get a gold star.

And how do we institute such governments? Do we not surrender some minor portion of our rights to the state in order to protect the majority of our rights?

[Occupied Deutschland]

Ah, and THAT is why 'governments are instituted among men.' EDIT: To protect those rights, not grant them. And to punish those who infringe on others rights.

You get a gold star.

And how do we institute such governments? Do we not surrender some minor portion of our rights to the state in order to protect the majority of our rights?

Indeed we do. Edit: and we institute the governments by a variety of methods. The easiest example being the consent of the governed or force.

[GeneralHaNor]

Before I could possible answer your question, I would need to know the following:

• What are "property rights"?
  
  
• Where do they come from? How are they justified?
  
  
• What things are subject to the protection of property rights? In other words, what can one own?
  
  
• How does one come to be the legitimate owner of a specific item of tangible property?
  
  
• How does one come to be the legitimate owner of a specific parcel of land?
  
  
• Who enforces these rights/protects ones property?

I challenge anyone who says property rights are the most important rights (or believes property rights should be absolute or near-absolute) to answer these questions.

I normally don't answer challenges because I don't have an innane need to justify myself
But I will anyways

1. "The Right to own, possess and use things obtained legitimately from voluntary exchange/production"
2. Construct/ Because they are essential to maintaining freedom and liberty
3. Anything obtained legitimately via voluntary goods or services exchange, or anything produced via ones labor, or alternatively collaborative effort with partners/employees
4. Voluntary exchange with current owner/ability to hold "unclaimed" land
5. Government or Yourself, usually by force in the absence of general respect for your rights.

I'm sure you'll seize on the "Construct" part, and argue against natural rights in the same breath. I don't really care.

For me, it boils down to what I am willing to defend, and by defense I don't just mean the idea, I mean physical defense, IE the use of force to achieve goals.

[Bendira]

Without property rights, we have no other rights. If you do not have the right to do what you wish on your own property, then you cannot be guarenteed any other rights. Anywhere other than on your own property, people can dictate what rights you have and what rights you don't have.

[GeneralHaNor]

Property rights enable you to be self-sufficient instead of relying on government to provide for you.
If you can't be bothered to ensure your own survival, why should I care if you live or die.
If you want to live, prove your desire to do so by earning it. Instead of robbing Group A to provide for Group B.

Death is natural, Life is struggle.
I have an obligation to make sure that I survive
but I don't extend that obligation to everyone else, simply because they happen to live near me.

If something rests wholly on your personal might to enforce it, what makes it a "right"?

Is anything you can do by force a "right"?

Life isn't a right as far as I'm concerned, you live you die, that's the cycle and it can't be broken.
I'm all about voluntary association, that association being 100% contingent on individual cooperation.
I choose not to hand over my things to you.
Get over it.
Or fight me
That's the choice.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Before I could possible answer your question, I would need to know the following:

• What are "property rights"?
  
  
• Where do they come from? How are they justified?
  
  
• What things are subject to the protection of property rights? In other words, what can one own?
  
  
• How does one come to be the legitimate owner of a specific item of tangible property?
  
  
• How does one come to be the legitimate owner of a specific parcel of land?
  
  
• Who enforces these rights/protects ones property?

I challenge anyone who says property rights are the most important rights (or believes property rights should be absolute or near-absolute) to answer these questions.

I normally don't answer challenges because I don't have an innane need to justify myself
But I will anyways

1. "The Right to own, possess and use things obtained legitimately from voluntary exchange/production"
2. Construct/ Because they are essential to maintaining freedom and liberty
3. Anything obtained legitimately via voluntary goods or services exchange, or anything produced via ones labor, or alternatively collaborative effort with partners/employees
4. Voluntary exchange with current owner/ability to hold "unclaimed" land
5. Government or Yourself, usually by force in the absence of general respect for your rights.

I'm sure you'll seize on the "Construct" part, and argue against natural rights in the same breath. I don't really care.

For me, it boils down to what I am willing to defend, and by defense I don't just mean the idea, I mean physical defense, IE the use of force to achieve goals.

Unfortunately, real life calls, but you judge me wrong. I am neither against the idea of rights as a construct or natural rights per se.

In fact, I wouldn't quibble with most of your answers. I would follow up on #3 & #4 about where one gets materials or finds "unclaimed" land, because the usual basis of property rights is a fictional state of nature -- the very same fictional state of nature that is the basis of social contract theory.

I believe in property rights. I put them as among the most important. I just don't think they are absolute or override all other rights and I think, by definition, they are subject to government interference. Generally the less the better, but still subject to it.

Gotta go.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Without property rights, we have no other rights. If you do not have the right to do what you wish on your own property, then you cannot be guarenteed any other rights. Anywhere other than on your own property, people can dictate what rights you have and what rights you don't have.

This Rothbardian fallacy is based on a fictional land where all land is private and all property rights are absolute.

Note: In this "utopia" (distopia), you have no right to free speech, no right to freedom of the press, no protection against defamation, no right to privacy, no laws against blackmail, no laws against bribery, and copious other outrageous absurdities.

[Bendira]

Without property rights, we have no other rights. If you do not have the right to do what you wish on your own property, then you cannot be guarenteed any other rights. Anywhere other than on your own property, people can dictate what rights you have and what rights you don't have.

This Rothbardian fallacy is based on a fictional land where all land is private and all property rights are absolute.

Note: In this "utopia" (distopia), you have no right to free speech, no right to freedom of the press, no protection against defamation, no right to privacy, no laws against blackmail, no laws against bribery, and copious other outrageous absurdities.

So you think rights actually exist in the world someplace? Like they are floating around the universe somewhere? Rights are an extension of who owns the property your on.

[Jervak]

Richard Dawkins has a segment in this in one of his documentaries. They constructed a computer program to play the Prisoner's dilemma game by assuming that there would be numerous kinds of players. So, there was a programs to the effect of: nice (who would always be cooperative), grudgers (who would hold a grudge against those who cheated him), tit-for-tat, selfish capitalists, and so on.

They found that the best strategy with all of these multiple players was tit-for-tat, an inherently cooperative program. That single program alone disproves the idea that it is wrong to be cooperative: clearly, sometimes being cooperative is to have the BEST strategy.

"The success of the strategy, which is largely cooperative, took many by surprise. In successive competitions various teams produced complex strategies which attempted to "cheat" in a variety of cunning ways, but Tit for Tat eventually prevailed in every competition."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat

Furthermore, even if we ignored the facts and admitted ownership of property is the best way to work for the commons, I'm not convinced capitalism is the way to go.

In capitalism, if someone tried to look out for the future of the commons and adjusted his market practice accordingly, he could be undercut in the market place. This happens all the time in the real world and why corporations are always moving towards the "bottom line" so to speak. So, I fail to see how capitalist ownership is the most sufficient solution, although Nozick's is a bet better than the rest.

Also, capitalism creates the problem of the Tragedy of the Anti-commons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_anticommons

That is to say, capitalist property rights like patents, copyrights, etc., end up being counterproductive because they prevent people from freely inventing and creating, and give monopolies to certain individuals. This is also a good argument against capitalism. We see how this happens with market failures or with technologies that probably should have come through like electric cars or at least cars that get far better gas milage than the ones on the roads today.

[Dododecapod]

No. The most important rights are legal rights, and to be specific, the right to press for redress of grievance in the courts.
Without that right there are no other rights. A people can claim (or a government can grant) any rights it chooses to, in any manner at all - property rights, rights of assembly, rights of communication, and so on - but if there is no mechanism by which the individual can enforce his possession of those rights - and punish or at least deny those who would violate those rights - then those rights are only ink on paper, ash in the wind.

[Der Teutoniker]

Who here thinks property rights are the most important rights we have, why? Why not?

Property rights are extremely important. They are not the most important, but they are up there. For example, I maintain the firm position that if someone breaks into my house, I am free to assume that he has a violent intent, and should be legally allowed to defend my house, and property with any means of defence at my disposal. By destroying my property in the attempt to steal more of my property, or even hurt/injure myself, or my family, the criminal has made him self less valuable than my (an upstanding citizen) property rights. So yes, they are damned important.

[The blessed Chris]

Basing all liberty on property rights means your liberty is directly proportional to your pocket book. If you own nothing, you have no freedom.

Stop for a minute and think if that is a reasonable outcome.

But the propisition is not that all liberty should be based on property rights, but that property rights are a central foundation upon which the economic, social and political indepedance of the citizens from their government are based.

Hence why legal wranglings over property and possession of property tend to arise shortly after the emergence of consciously constitutional Hellenic city states in which the rights of citizens are explicitly expressed.

[KludgeMUSH]

No, the rights of frogness are clearly more important.
1. You have the right to be a frog.
2. Should no means exist of being a frog, you have the right to pretend you are a frog.
3. Should someone choose not to exercise the rights above, everyone else has the right to pretend they are a frog.

[Hydesland]

They found that the best strategy with all of these multiple players was tit-for-tat, an inherently cooperative program. That single program alone disproves the idea that it is wrong to be cooperative: clearly, sometimes being cooperative is to have the BEST strategy.

"The success of the strategy, which is largely cooperative, took many by surprise. In successive competitions various teams produced complex strategies which attempted to "cheat" in a variety of cunning ways, but Tit for Tat eventually prevailed in every competition."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat

I'm struggling to see what the prisoner's dilemma has to do with literally... anything regarding property rights. There is a huge literature on the PD, and the outcomes can vary massively depending on very minor tweaks to the situation, one study is next to useless, and I'm sceptical if the study you quote was actually an unbiased one.

That is to say, capitalist property rights like patents, copyrights, etc., end up being counterproductive because they prevent people from freely inventing and creating

No they don't.

This is also a good argument against capitalism.

No, it's pretty dreadful.

[Greed and Death]

From the "freer the market..." thread.
Who here thinks property rights are the most important rights we have, why? Why not?
Personally, I do believe this. "Property Rights" means that one is entitled to what one produces or earns. In a short definition, it's what one 'has'. So, you're right to life is protected under the phrase property rights. Anything that restricts you're life (smoking, drinking, sexing, texting, sexting, drinxting (ala the gubmint)) is therefore restricitng your property rights.

Before I could possible answer your question, I would need to know the following:

• What are "property rights"?
  
  
• Where do they come from? How are they justified?
  
  
• What things are subject to the protection of property rights? In other words, what can one own?
  
  
• How does one come to be the legitimate owner of a specific item of tangible property?
  
  
• How does one come to be the legitimate owner of a specific parcel of land?
  
  
• Who enforces these rights/protects ones property?

I challenge anyone who says property rights are the most important rights (or believes property rights should be absolute or near-absolute) to answer these questions.

I will have a go.
1. The right to property is thus, you cannot be deprived of it with out due process of law.
2. It comes from an old piece of paper, a bunch of long dead white guys agreed to live by, However much like the bible no one is able to agree on what that old piece of paper means anymore. It was justified because it was considered the most expedient way to keep us from killing each other over property.
3. You can own anything that piece of old paper says you can not own. (current interpretations of the old piece of paper disagree with me on this but I digress). Certain things like air perhaps need to be contained.
4. Certain expensive items that are often disputed have titles. Lesser expensive items are your provided you control them and ownership is not contested by someone else.
5. Originally by stealing it from native Americans. After that getting a deed for the land from the government that helped you steal it from the native Americans. After that the deed was passed down and sold as the holders of the deed wished.
6. Zombie Jefferson, Squatters beware zombie Jefferson will suck your brains out.

Though I only find property rights coequal to the other rights.

[Les Drapeaux Brulants]

Well, if you define your body to be your property, then your income doesn't matter. You still own that no matter what.

Would you really want to do that?

Bankrupcy hearings would be a lot more interesting....

It sort of settles the abortion and euthanasia questions if we do. Besides, who else would own a body but the one that inhabits it?

[Smartephant]

Property rights are important to me but really the only true freedom anyone has is choice. As a free marketeer I have no problem with a group of people banding together and forming a commune, that's their choice. I only have a problem when other people tell me "you can't" or "you must" do something. The right to choose should stop when you're choosing for someone else. Unless the person in question is a small child or mentally incapable of caring for themselves.

[Vandengaarde]

I would think personal freedoms like the right to live are more important, but whatever.

[Siromizu]

But why should everyone have a RIGHT to food, water and basic neccessities (and who decides what is 'basic') If Hitler wasd dying of dehydration would you give him water because it's his "right" as a human being? (I know it's extreme but...)

Yes.

Because I'm a human being.

I wouldn't. You saying I'm not a human being?
Humanity has nothing to do with this.
What people have is the right to get things for themselves without taking them away from others. That means that they have the right to produce or purchase food and drink, but not necessarily to just have it without doing the other things.

[Sibirsky]

From the "freer the market..." thread.
Who here thinks property rights are the most important rights we have, why? Why not?
Personally, I do believe this. "Property Rights" means that one is entitled to what one produces or earns. In a short definition, it's what one 'has'. So, you're right to life is protected under the phrase property rights. Anything that restricts you're life (smoking, drinking, sexing, texting, sexting, drinxting (ala the gubmint)) is therefore restricitng your property rights.

Actually, right to food, water, and basic necessities is most important.

Cause it's irrelevant what you hold dear if you're dead from dehydration or starvation.

You don't have those rights. You're miles away from the nearest homeless shelter and broke. You're by an abundant grocery store. They have food and water. You do not have the right to take it. Property rights triumph.

[Sibirsky]

I would refuse to live in a world without property rights

Property rights are essential to maintain freedom
I value my freedom, more then I value security, physical or economic

And again, property rights are meaningless if you have no water or food.

And if I do have food and water, property rights are essential to making sure they remain my food and water.