Why is it so difficult for people to understand about private property?
Mr. Haddock
In
11 responses
-
Because the concept of property rights depends – at its heart – on coercion?
-
Sam: yes, good, we like that one.
More directly related to the original point: we don’t allow people to commit ritual sacrifice, even on their own private property. This suggests that we have a concept of human rights that is more important than property rights… -
Perhaps this article from the Institute of Economics may shed some light on property rights, and where NuLab are taking us with it.
http://www.iea.org.uk/record.jsp?type=release&ID=126 -
‘we don’t allow people to commit ritual sacrifice, even on their own private property. ‘
Thank you for that, it is a perfect example of someone who doesn’t understand property rights. The ‘property’ in property rights does not, in fact, refer to a piece of land where your roses grow, just as you would struggle to build a house on your intellectual property. Now, in your example ~ who is having their property rights violated? Hint ~ the virgin on the alter. -
Sam:
In one sense, you’re correct; coercion is certainly involved–or potentially inolved–in a system of private property.
But that is no more than complaining that all are subjected to unremitting coercion because we are forced to consume food (and air and water, too) or suffer some very unpleasant consequences. That is certainly an extremely cruel interference with our individual right to self-determination.
In similar manner, we are not faced with a choice (in the matter systems of mens’ political and economic organization) between a given system and some “perfect” arrangement. Rather, that sought by the great majority (and claimed by the proponents of every system proposed) is the extremely utilitarian one of delivering the greatest all-round satisfaction while involving the least amount of or necessity for coercion.
For men, no system other than that of private property and free markets comes anywhere near the goal. -
Harry – I’d assumed ‘consenting’ was implicit in the human sacrifice example. Or would you allow people to consent to being humanly sacrificed? (in which case, fair enough, you’re being consistent)
Gene – I’m willing to accept utilitarian defences of property rights. However, the standard libertarian argument fetishises them as more important than utilitarian goals.
Tim adds: On the human sacrifice one: I think I did actually make that point on the German cannibalism case. About consent that is. -
John B, “we don’t allow people to commit ritual sacrifice, even on their own private property”.
Yet we allow people to be homophobic in their private property. And racist. If a bunch of people turn up to a house party, I can admit them based on whatever grounds I wish, including race and sexuality. -
“If a bunch of people turn up to a house party, I can admit them based on whatever grounds I wish, including race and sexuality.”
Yes you can. But if your party turns into a public night club, then no, you can’t.
It’s the same when it comes to your booze: you can give it to your friends. You can even charge them money for it. But as soon as you start selling booze to the public, you need a licence. Similarly I can sell my friend my SIM card in the street. If I start to sell them from a suitcase to the public, I’ll be nicked (and if I’m an Indian doctor in Australia and someone bad is found with that SIM then I’ll end up in an orange jump suit).
It comes down to the relationship between you and the people involved: is it a private relationship or a public one? If it’s public, you have certain obligations, and one of them is (now) that you’re not allowed to persecute “queers” (you can still persecute ginger people, but if that became widespread I suspect we’d get a law on the matter of hair colour, too). -
“It’s the same when it comes to your booze: you can give it to your friends. You can even charge them money for it. But as soon as you start selling booze to the public, you need a licence.”
What if all of one’s friends happen to be members of the public? -
“What if all of one’s friends happen to be members of the public?”
You’ve been spending too much time on Facebook then. -
john b.:
If you’ll read what I wrote a little more closely, you’ll see that I wasn’t making a
Utilitarian argument but making the point that almost all proponents of the many varying systems claim the very same (utilitarian) benefits for their proposals. Even libertarians, though eschewing utilitarianism as a proper basis of morality (in which opinion I concur) yet claim for the (private property and free markets) system the very same benefit–and they are entirely correct.
The classical liberals had three major “planks” in their “platform”: private property; free markets (laissez-faire); and elected governance. The chiefest benefit of each of these and of their combination alleviates, for all participants, the need to prepare for and engage in aggression as a regular, ineradicable phenomenon of human social behavior. Libertarians, in general, view things similarly (though I recognize a utopian segment of the persuasion which hankers, like all utopians, after conditions unobtainable).
The private property system’s chief excellence lies simply in the fact that it settles–theoretically forever–what justly belongs to whom and consequently, to whom and to what extent the portion of governance devoted to protection of such property is to be charged.
It may not be a perfect system; it’s just the best, by far, that has ever existed.
Leave a Reply to gene bermanCancel reply