Page 4 of 4

PostPosted: Sun Oct 17, 2010 5:49 am
by Eternal Yerushalayim
The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is also important.

PostPosted: Sun Oct 17, 2010 6:03 am
by Volnotov
Helertia wrote:
Volnotov wrote:Property is an illusion.


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


Yum yum, delicious strawman is delicious.

PostPosted: Sun Oct 17, 2010 6:15 am
by Gravlen
Helertia wrote: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.

Indeed. And how much does it help to have property rights if you don't have the right of freedom of movement to get to your property, no protection against arbitrary arrest, no right to a fair trial, no right to be protected against torture (perhaps with a goal to make you give up the property?), and ultimately, no right to life?

PostPosted: Sun Oct 17, 2010 6:15 am
by Gravlen
Volnotov wrote:
Helertia wrote:
Oddly, I can't put my hand through my keyboard. Holograms must be really advanced these days.


Yum yum, delicious strawman is delicious.

Time is an illusion; lunchtime doubly so -_-

PostPosted: Sun Oct 17, 2010 6:29 am
by Helertia
Volnotov wrote:
Helertia wrote:
Oddly, I can't put my hand through my keyboard. Holograms must be really advanced these days.


Yum yum, delicious strawman is delicious.


Well I'm sorry, but this Procian penchant for claiming everything is an illusion irritates me greatly. Words don't mean anything, time is an illusion, blah blah blah. Who cares? It has absolutely no relevance to anything in the real world, and there are far better things to spend time on than proving you chair exists so you can sit down.

PostPosted: Sun Oct 17, 2010 6:30 am
by Sdaeriji
Bendira wrote:Its quite clear that rights extend from land ownership.


Rights extend from physical might. Land ownership might be a common trait, but it is not the defining characteristic.

PostPosted: Sun Oct 17, 2010 6:31 am
by Person012345
Occupied Deutschland wrote: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.

The right to life is not a property right, your life is not property.

Anyway, no they aren't, in my opinion.

PostPosted: Sun Oct 17, 2010 7:07 am
by Siromizu
The Cat-Tribe wrote:
Siromizu wrote: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.


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

Where, specifically? I'll do my best to sort that out, if you'll point me towards what you have an issue with.

PostPosted: Sun Oct 17, 2010 7:43 am
by Hamilay
Volnotov wrote:Property is an illusion.


volnotov: the worst libertarian

PostPosted: Sun Oct 17, 2010 8:11 am
by Andaluciae
Property rights, like other rights, are protections upon and individuals ability to assert control over some aspect of their existence. They are vitally important to guaranteeing the security and liberty of an individual--and protection from harm (either through malice or incompetence) that may be imposed upon them by other persons,* and within a legal system, provide for restitution in the event of harm. They provide a uniquely effective tool for addressing negative externalities--and making those who suffer from a negative externality whole again. Overall, I like property rights a lot.


*I'm using the concept of persons very broadly and including both corporations and governments therein, and the concept of individuals very narrowly.

PostPosted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 10:00 am
by The Cat-Tribe
Bendira wrote: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.


You posted this in another thread and I answered it there, so I'll keep this short:
  • if rights are a a fiction that don't exist in the real world, why/how do property rights exist?
  • what justifies property rights or obligates anyone to recognize them?
  • if rights "extend from who has the guns," then "who has the guns" can freely take your property and you have no grounds for complaint, right?
  • I'm curious as to how rights are the "creation of mankind" is different from "social contract theory"
  • What makes you think the U.S. government owns "a little bit of all the land" in the United States? If that is true, isn't taxation rent, instead of theft?

PostPosted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 10:03 am
by Jello Biafra
Occupied Deutschland wrote: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.

No. That is one form that property rights can take. Property rights are social agreements regarding who gets to use what. There's nothing inherent about them than means they apply to what someone produces or earns, though if someone does have the right to what they produce or earn, they have property rights over it.

PostPosted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 11:00 am
by Grave_n_idle
New Nicksyllvania wrote:Property rights are the reason why civilisation exists in the first place.

It was easy enough for neolithic humans to feed themselves, around 3 hours, indeed there was no point in agriculture without property rights.

Thanks to property rights those who owned land whipped the local nomads into farming, hence leading to specialisation.


Seems unlikely.

Specialization is the reason why civilisation exists, perhaps - but 'property rights' are, at best, secondary to that (since they aren't required for specialisation).