Comments on: The Right to Property

By: Diakka

Diakka — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 14:54:35 +0000

I am from a weird species, so you must excuse me, lol. You can own an accomplishment, as only you have created it, you can own the ground you walk on, or get “owned”, at will, and you can even own other people as chattels.

By: Jason Godesky

Jason Godesky — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 13:14:40 +0000

That question seems fundamentally at odds with the main point of the article, unless I’ve misunderstood you. Ownership doesn’t exist, so it never has any worth at all. You can’t own. While someone else uses it, while clouds float overhead, night or day, during any season, ownership never amounts to anything more than an illusion, so it never has any worth at all.

By: Diakka

Diakka — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 12:24:32 +0000

What exactly is ownership in property worth when someone else is using it, without your consent or at will?

By: Matt Holbert

Matt Holbert — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 20:14:34 +0000

Jason- I have a little different spin on the property issue. Much that is on the web seems to be dissecting the words of men and women that are long dead. What are we going to do today in order to encourage a more comprehensive world? My idea is to create a club that essentially acts as a bank that only builds ecologically aware infrastructure. Member deposits are utilized to build the infrastructure and then members draw down their account as they use the property at the lesser of cost or market. (As an aside, this addresses the coming hyper-inflation and/or deflation.) The infrastructure is eventually built and operated by scholars who are interested in learning for the sake of learning. This is something that can take off today with the assistance of key individuals. Please note that this is a system with property rights, but without the individual ownership that has dulled our minds and lined the pockets of the less thoughtful among us.

By: Jason Godesky

Jason Godesky — Mon, 10 Jul 2006 21:15:09 +0000

This is well worth a note, and some thought!

By: candy security

candy security — Sun, 05 Mar 2006 20:45:47 +0000

i am not convinced that the pursuit of happiness was franklin rather than jefferson or that it is only drapery/sophistry/making this shit smell good… while serving as the minister of france 13 years after the declaration, jefferson encouraged lafayette the replacement of droit a la propriete with la recherche du bonheur… an encouragement of the french to merely fall in line, or something more significant as in jefferson’s privileging of happiness/good life over property? the rest of jefferson’s work, through arendt, leo marx, and richard matthews indicates that the socialistically inclined should not dismiss jefferson’s peculiar capitalism so quickly.

By: Jason Godesky

Jason Godesky — Mon, 01 Aug 2005 14:53:09 +0000

Locke definitely wanted to promote the idea of property. Though, to “promote” something you’ve never questioned is perhaps not the right word. He believed in it, just as everyone believed in it. He was very liberal for his time, suggesting that commoners had as much a right to property as kings, and that such rights were not based on divine right from some ruler, but something more basic. His philosophy tried to create an order higher than the whims of kings, that bound rulers to do right and ennobled their subjects. Very revolutionary–for his time, at least.

That doesn’t mean that he has some unexamined, recieved wisdom that’s full of holes. His argument for property made complete sense in his historical context. His underlying premise was unquestionable in his day. Today–well, let’s just say it’s questionable.

By: Janene

Janene — Thu, 28 Jul 2005 21:20:25 +0000

Hey –

Systems Thinking… gotta love it:-)

But I just had a strange thought… one of the main reasons that humans will never be able to function as ‘gods’ (as opposed to play acting) is that we simply don’t have the capacity to understand all of the factors that come into play in the natural world. But with systems thinking, it seems like it becomes possible to understand more with less effort — because it is so conceptual…

nah…. nevermind

Janene

By: Devin

Devin — Thu, 28 Jul 2005 20:36:08 +0000

The whole point is to say that there is no “should” about property at all.

Oh. Right. I see.

So, if I might extrapolate a bit — the abstract of “property” is a function of both hierarchy and population. Hierarchy is the initial promoter of property, and along with population growth, the abstraction is almost necessary for the continuation of civilization’s social structure. Locke, Enlightened thinker that he was, perhaps just sough to extend the rights of property to the commoner and not just the elite.

I don’t think Locke was necessarily trying to promote the idea of property, or the first to argue this abstract idea of a right to property. Perhaps he merely wanted this concept extended to all, such that it wasn’t concentrated in the hands of the few. That would seem to fit the Enlightenment line of thought better, as it indirectly led to the Age of the Common Man (simplified, when nearly all men owned land or had the ability to own land in America).

So once again it comes down to population reduction and the removal of hierarchy, in my mind. Everything seems to be so closely linked…

By: Jason Godesky

Jason Godesky — Thu, 28 Jul 2005 19:17:38 +0000

What isn’t destructive when there’s 6.5 billion? Kant’s categorical imperative completely breaks down here, as there’s pretty much nothing that 6.5 billion can all do sustainably, save perhaps laying down and dying.

I would say it’s a “law of limited competition” thing, if you want to use those terms. Compete–and use–to the best of your ability. My whole point was to remove the idea of property from the realm of natural rights, to mere pragmatism. The whole point is to say that there is no “should” about property at all.