Property Rights are the most important rights

[The Cat-Tribe]

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.

Why?

[Siromizu]

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.

Why?

In taking food and water that somebody else has, would you not be denying them their right to food and water (even if not immediately)?

What would give you the right to deny others their rights?

[The Cat-Tribe]

Why?

In taking food and water that somebody else has, would you not be denying them their right to food and water (even if not immediately)?

What would give you the right to deny others their rights?

1) If you assume there is not enough water and food for everyone, what gives some people the "right" to it and not others? (Especially as most theories of property rights are derived from an assumption of a fictional status where there is no scarcity.)

2) If there is not a shortage of water and food, what harm is there in sharing? Shouldn't there be an obligation to share?

[Siromizu]

1) If you assume there is not enough water and food for everyone, what gives some people the "right" to it and not others? (Especially as most theories of property rights are derived from an assumption of a fictional status where there is no scarcity.)

If they got it before anyone else did/produced it with their own labour/engaged in consensual exchange for it, then it's theirs. Other people have the "right" to do those things in order to get their own or someone else's.

2) If there is not a shortage of water and food, what harm is there in sharing? Shouldn't there be an obligation to share?

Uh, no? Consider that times of plenty tend to be impermanent, and that it may be in an individual's best interests to retain what is plentiful for times of scarcity, or to exchange it for something else that they need. Sure, it's nice to share, but I don't think anybody is obliged to do so.

[Greed and Death]

In taking food and water that somebody else has, would you not be denying them their right to food and water (even if not immediately)?

What would give you the right to deny others their rights?

1) If you assume there is not enough water and food for everyone, what gives some people the "right" to it and not others? (Especially as most theories of property rights are derived from an assumption of a fictional status where there is no scarcity.)

2) If there is not a shortage of water and food, what harm is there in sharing? Shouldn't there be an obligation to share?

1. Because society has a reached a compromise where by property is protected in order to minimize violent conflict over property.

2 Because, and obligation that is not voluntary or mandated as an agreement reached in 1 above is subject to the one seeking thirsts view point, and completely void of the needs of the owner. While a mandate reached in 1, may not take into account the owner's needs it is foreseeable has the responsibility to plan for it.

[The Cat-Tribe]

1) If you assume there is not enough water and food for everyone, what gives some people the "right" to it and not others? (Especially as most theories of property rights are derived from an assumption of a fictional status where there is no scarcity.)

2) If there is not a shortage of water and food, what harm is there in sharing? Shouldn't there be an obligation to share?

1. Because society has a reached a compromise where by property is protected in order to minimize violent conflict over property.

2 Because, and obligation that is not voluntary or mandated as an agreement reached in 1 above is subject to the one seeking thirsts view point, and completely void of the needs of the owner. While a mandate reached in 1, may not take into account the owner's needs it is foreseeable has the responsibility to plan for it.

So if society reaches a different compromise (or has reached a different compromise) than the one you think it should, it would be fine to take the food and water?

[The Cat-Tribe]

1) If you assume there is not enough water and food for everyone, what gives some people the "right" to it and not others? (Especially as most theories of property rights are derived from an assumption of a fictional status where there is no scarcity.)

If they got it before anyone else did/produced it with their own labour/engaged in consensual exchange for it, then it's theirs. Other people have the "right" to do those things in order to get their own or someone else's.

2) If there is not a shortage of water and food, what harm is there in sharing? Shouldn't there be an obligation to share?

Uh, no? Consider that times of plenty tend to be impermanent, and that it may be in an individual's best interests to retain what is plentiful for times of scarcity, or to exchange it for something else that they need. Sure, it's nice to share, but I don't think anybody is obliged to do so.

The highlighted sentences make a number of dubious assumptions that you don't explain or justify.

[Greed and Death]

1. Because society has a reached a compromise where by property is protected in order to minimize violent conflict over property.

2 Because, and obligation that is not voluntary or mandated as an agreement reached in 1 above is subject to the one seeking thirsts view point, and completely void of the needs of the owner. While a mandate reached in 1, may not take into account the owner's needs it is foreseeable has the responsibility to plan for it.

So if society reaches a different compromise (or has reached a different compromise) than the one you think it should, it would be fine to take the food and water?

The compromise is know as the law or the government. In general one should obey that compromise and live within the rules set up therein. If however if the compromise is so disagreeable that it can not be abided then one has a duty to resist, and accept the consequences of that resistance. Because at the end of the day the law is just a scrap of paper, and a scrap of paper should not trump what is right.

[The Cat-Tribe]

So if society reaches a different compromise (or has reached a different compromise) than the one you think it should, it would be fine to take the food and water?

The compromise is know as the law or the government. In general one should obey that compromise and live within the rules set up therein. If however if the compromise is so disagreeable that it can not be abided then one has a duty to resist, and accept the consequences of that resistance. Because at the end of the day the law is just a scrap of paper, and a scrap of paper should not trump what is right.

If you are justified in disobeying the law if it allows the taking of property with which you disagree, why should the people dying of dehydration or starvation obey the scrap of paper rather than save their lives by drinking some water and/or eating some food that is "owned" by someone else?

[Greed and Death]

The compromise is know as the law or the government. In general one should obey that compromise and live within the rules set up therein. If however if the compromise is so disagreeable that it can not be abided then one has a duty to resist, and accept the consequences of that resistance. Because at the end of the day the law is just a scrap of paper, and a scrap of paper should not trump what is right.

If you are justified in disobeying the law if it allows the taking of property with which you disagree, why should the people dying of dehydration or starvation obey the scrap of paper rather than save their lives by drinking some water and/or eating some food that is "owned" by someone else?

They should resist by taking it, if they feel they have been provided no other remedy, but accept the likely consequences, that the property owner will resist their taking of it, and society will likely side with the property owner through the action of the courts. But hey in prison at least they will be fed.

[Alien Space Bats]

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

And yet, strangely, while most conservatives embrace the principle that property rights reign supreme, they won't let people do what they want with their own bodies.

Such as, for instance, having sex with any consenting partner they please.

[The Cat-Tribe]

If you are justified in disobeying the law if it allows the taking of property with which you disagree, why should the people dying of dehydration or starvation obey the scrap of paper rather than save their lives by drinking some water and/or eating some food that is "owned" by someone else?

They should resist by taking it, if they feel they have been provided no other remedy, but accept the likely consequences, that the property owner will resist their taking of it, and society will likely side with the property owner through the action of the courts. But hey in prison at least they will be fed.

You are doing a rather strange job of hopping back and forth between ethical claims to what is "right" and practical claims to "might"/consequences.

[Greed and Death]

They should resist by taking it, if they feel they have been provided no other remedy, but accept the likely consequences, that the property owner will resist their taking of it, and society will likely side with the property owner through the action of the courts. But hey in prison at least they will be fed.

You are doing a rather strange job of hopping back and forth between ethical claims to what is "right" and practical claims to "might"/consequences.

The individual determines what is right. Law only represents an attempt at a compromise. The compromise only last so long as the vast majority support the compromise. If you as an individual reject the compromise, the only way to determine if a significant enough of a minority to force either a modification, or a complete rewrite of the compromise exist, is to you yourself take that first step of resistance.

[Carls-land]

No the most important right is the right of a democraticaly elected government to make the laws of it's country/control it's country.

[Greed and Death]

No the most important right is the right of a democraticaly elected government to make the laws of it's country/control it's country.

Not a big fan of democracy myself.

[Carls-land]

No the most important right is the right of a democraticaly elected government to make the laws of it's country/control it's country.

Not a big fan of democracy myself.

Why?

[Greed and Death]

Not a big fan of democracy myself.

Why?

They don't work, the majority becomes the tyrant, the restraints to limit this eventually become outdated due to technology, and the vast majority of people are too stupid to be allowed to vote.

[Der Teutoniker]

They don't work, the majority becomes the tyrant, the restraints to limit this eventually become outdated due to technology, and the vast majority of people are too stupid to be allowed to vote.

IMO, they're too big. I'm one vote in what? 100 million? My individual votes, and desires mean nothing.

Neo-tribalism is the way to go. Small nations up to 100,000 sound a hell of a lot better to me.

[Bendira]

I said it earlier, so I will say it again. Rights don't exist in the real world, they are a creation of mankind. I would argue there are many rights that are biologically universal, but thats irrelevant. The point is, if rights don't exist, where do they come from? They extend from property rights. If you are on somebody else's property, they can dictate what you can and cannot do there. Conversely if they are on your property, you can tell them what they can and cannot do. You do not need to view this as a utopian scenario, because it exists in the United States right now. The U.S. government allows us to purchase land, but we really are renting it. Thats where taxation and laws about what you can and cannot do on your land come from. The U.S. government owns a little bit of all the land, and as a result they can dictate what rights we have and do not have. The way property rights are enforced, is of course by who has the guns. Ultimately, rights extend from who has the guns, and who controls the property via the guns. The idea that this concept is a "Rothbardian Fallacy" is absurd. Its quite clear that rights extend from land ownership. Unless you are a christain nutcase that thinks rights actually exist independently, im not sure how you could refute anything ive said.

[SaintB]

i think there are more important rights than property.

[The blessed Chris]

Why?

They don't work, the majority becomes the tyrant, the restraints to limit this eventually become outdated due to technology, and the vast majority of people are too stupid to be allowed to vote.

Which is a problem with the form democracy takes, rather than democracy as a principle. If the electorate were either better educated, or franchise limited to those who pass an exam and thereby demonstrate some knowledge of economics, politics and philosophy, then democratic policies might be more sensible.

[Tekania]

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.

I would not count texting-while-driving prohibitions, or drinking while driving prohibitions, for example, as a violation of your property rights... More that your engaging in those activities is a violation of other people's property rights, due to the extra unknown risk you are willingly applying upon their properties.

[Helertia]

I regard property rights secondary to other rights. Living with no property rights in a Democracy allows me to attempt to change the system, and probably win. Living with property rights in a dictatorship, I can't change any part of the system and I'll probably get myself killed whilst arguing for free speech.

[Volnotov]

Property is an illusion.

[Helertia]

Property is an illusion.

Oddly, I can't put my hand through my keyboard. Holograms must be really advanced these days.