Property Rights Are Not Natural Freedoms

AnyOldIron

AnyOldIron

Atheist Missionary
Just thought I'd open a new thread as this is an interesting topic.

Property rights are a social, rather than natural freedom. In nature, there is no such concept of property, only possession.

Natural freedom is the freedom afforded by nature, the right to act as you will, provided you are physically capable. Possession is found in natural freedom, but property isn't. Provided the entity is physically capable of defending that being possessed, they keep it but there are no protections beyond that physical capability that make it property. A wolf pack will defend what it possesses, mates, territory, kills etc but it has no concept that those mates, kills etc are its property. If it is physically incapable of defending them, they are lost.

Social freedoms, (for example when the right to kill etc if you are physically capable is exchanged for the right not to be killed) are a moral decision. It is a moral decision to decide that members of a society should be protected, that what they possess should be theirs regardless of whether they can physically defended. All legislation is a moral decision.

Property rights are not natural rights, but the result of exchanging them for social freedoms.
 
This is a rehash from another thread Leaning.
I have to agree with Any, re this threads topic, not saying that property rights are wrong though.
 
uscitizen said:
This is a rehash from another thread Leaning.
I have to agree with Any, re this threads topic, not saying that property rights are wrong though.
Click to expand...
Even I don't say that owning property is "wrong." It's not about right and wrong -- in the ethical sense of the words. The question at hand is whether property rights can be considered "natural" rights. That is, whether the right to property is a purely social construct or not.

Part of the problem, of course, is that the word "natural" is exceedingly fuzzy and ill-defined. It's also freighted with a lot of emotional baggage.
 
When advocates of natural rights talk about this issue such as myself they are not so naive as to think that natural rights actually allow you to have property or the freedom of speech.

What we mean is that when forming a government the basis of law should be formed with the interest of allowing man to exist in his natural state free from violent coercion should be held in the highest priority.

My natural right to speak grants me the ability to say what I wish. My invocation of natural rights in terms of government means that because I can naturally say what I wish that government should recognize that right and not infringe upon my right to speak.


BTW property rights at least in natural rights theory are not included. Property rights require coercion because to gain property is to take it away from every member of society. This can only be done legitimately if you have compensated society in a manner that has been agreed upon by consensus.
 
LadyT said:
I don't think he said that at all. Just because its a social freedom rather than a natural freedom doesn't mean its "right" or "wrong"
Click to expand...

well natural freedoms are far more objective so it is actually important.
 
So you are saying that owning property is wrong?

How the buggery did you get the idea that I think property rights are wrong when I state that they are social freedoms, not natural freedoms?
 
Part of the problem, of course, is that the word "natural" is exceedingly fuzzy and ill-defined. It's also freighted with a lot of emotional baggage.

Natural freedoms in the sense described in Rousseau's The Social Contract.
 
well natural freedoms are far more objective so it is actually important.

Natural freedoms are the freedom to do as your will decides, provided you are physically able.

IE, if I wanted to, and could kill you, I could. Social freedoms are the rights not to be killed, regardless of the ability to defend yourself.
 
My natural right to speak grants me the ability to say what I wish. My invocation of natural rights in terms of government means that because I can naturally say what I wish that government should recognize that right and not infringe upon my right to speak.

It is a natural right to speak, but it is a social right that that speech is protected.

Under natural freedoms you can say whatever you like but another person, if they don't like what you say and are physically capable can bash you round the head for doing so.

It is only under social freedoms that protection.

Property rights and rights to free speech are moral decisions and such decisions aren't made in the natural state.
 
If you are trying to convince me that government is necessary for the protection of freedom I agree. I never was an anarchist. Let me say though that I believe that governments only legitimate responsibility is preserving our natural rights.

It isn't a natural right to be able to bash someones head in it is a natural right to not have your head bashed in. We are owners of our bodies and unwanted tresspassing upon it violates our natural state.
 
Let me say though that I believe that governments only legitimate responsibility is preserving our natural rights.

Preserving our rights to do what we will provided we are physically capable? Preserving the right to steal, provided you want to and are physically capable? To murder?

It isn't a natural right to be able to bash someones head in it is a natural right to not have your head bashed in.

You have them the wrong way round. Natural freedoms afford you the right to do what you will, provided you physically can.

Have you read Rousseau?

We are owners of our bodies and unwanted tresspassing upon it violates our natural state.

The concept of ownership, rather than mere possessors, is a social freedom, not found in nature.

In nature, if you can't defend your body, you loose possession and it becomes the possession of the creature attacking you.

Only in social freedoms do you have the 'right' to own what you cannot defend.
 
Preserving our rights to do what we will provided we are physically capable? Preserving the right to steal, provided you want to and are physically capable? To murder?

There is no right to steal or murder. There is a right to be free of violence. A rogue citizen when stealing or murdering usurps the rights of another. There are no rights to violate rights.

You have them the wrong way round. Natural freedoms afford you the right to do what you will, provided you physically can.

Have you read Rousseau?

I haven't read any of his writings cover to cover but I am very familiar with his principles.

I especially favor his idea of social contract. Modern day leftists and liberals misinterpret his writings however. Rousseau stated that social contract must be entered into freely. Many today including yourself from previous conversations indicate that one enters into social contract regardless of consent.

The concept of ownership, rather than mere possessors, is a social freedom, not found in nature.

No the natural state of man without interfernece is one in which a person has sole control over the use of their body. Thus how they move their mouth to make sounds, or where they move their legs so that they may stand. This is a natural phenomenon to to abrogate it requires violating that natural state.

In nature, if you can't defend your body, you loose possession and it becomes the possession of the creature attacking you.

I understand this concept AOI. Again I am not an anarchist being one reduces us to living under a might makes right paradigm. However if we create a government that crafts its laws with the interest of preserving the natural state of man before coercion we have a system that does not operate by the might makes right principle. However if we exceed this and craft law beyond this consideration we have transgressed back into the might makes right principle.
 
Careful of that Grind. You do know what you are welcoming if you agree with him.

AOI and I are not actually disagreeing here. He seems intent on convincing me that without government its survival of the fittest as if I didn't know that.

I just advocate that government stay as much off the people as possible and recognizing their natural state is a good base.
 
though i Do think we can own our thoughts, no one else can posesses them. We also own our beliefs as no one else can posesses them. We own our personalitiy and therefore our self/being, no one can posesses that. They can posesses the physical but a human isn't just skin and bones.
 
There is no right to steal or murder. There is a right to be free of violence. A rogue citizen when stealing or murdering usurps the rights of another. There are no rights to violate rights.

There is no freedom from violence in natural freedoms.

Natural freedoms are the right to do as you will, provided that you are physically capable. They are the only rights you have in nature... will and physical capability.

The right to be free from violence is a social freedom, not a natural freedom.

I especially favor his idea of social contract. Modern day leftists and liberals misinterpret his writings however. Rousseau stated that social contract must be entered into freely. Many today including yourself from previous conversations indicate that one enters into social contract regardless of consent.

Rousseau wrote that once the general will had been established, physical coercion to ensure its maintenance is required. The option that you have is to accept the general will or leave society.

For example, if the general will deems that you must pay 50% taxation, you have the option to pay or get out. It is this almost totalitarian aspect to Rousseau's writing that many rightly fear. (I wrote a paper on the totalitarian aspects of Rousseau's general will recently)

No the natural state of man without interfernece is one in which a person has sole control over the use of their body. Thus how they move their mouth to make sounds, or where they move their legs so that they may stand. This is a natural phenomenon to to abrogate it requires violating that natural state.

In nature there is no concept of ownership.

It is philosophically difficult to say, but under natural freedoms you only possess your body. (it is philosophically difficult to say because it invokes notions that the 'I' is seperate from the body, as in Cartesian 'Mind/body dualism' bollocks...)

In nature, if you are unable to defend your body and another has the will to take it, and is physically capable, your body becomes the possession of the creature who took it and will probably be eaten.

It is only under social freedoms that the notion of ownership comes in. It is a moral (and thus social) decision that someone should own something regardless of their ability to defend it against the will of others.

I understand this concept AOI. Again I am not an anarchist being one reduces us to living under a might makes right paradigm. However if we create a government that crafts its laws with the interest of preserving the natural state of man before coercion we have a system that does not operate by the might makes right principle. However if we exceed this and craft law beyond this consideration we have transgressed back into the might makes right principle.

In the natural state, under natural freedoms, right does make might.

That's not a pretty notion, hence my fondness for social freedoms, but it is a fact.

Before a fox leaps on to devour a chicken, he does not stop and think 'I am violating this chicken's rights'. He has the will (hunger) and he has the capability. He just does it.

If you have a government that crafts its laws with the interest of preserving natural freedoms, you have a government that preserves might is right. If you have a government that crafts its laws with the interest of preserving natural freedoms; murder, theft, arson, property rights (all things protected under the social freedoms we exchange for natural) all become legitimate.

As Rousseau wrote, you must exchange natural freedoms (ie the right to kill if you can and will) for social freedoms (the right not to be killed.)

This is the paradox of the American Libertarian, always pursuing the notion of increasing natural freedoms whilst maintaining the integrity of social freedoms such as property rights etc. It is like a dog chasing its tail, an endless, fruitless pursuit.
 
Last edited:
I just advocate that government stay as much off the people as possible and recognizing their natural state is a good base.

And I assert that the natural state is not good because it is the ultimate occasion of the use of the power of the will (combined with physical capability)

It is unconducive (almost mutually exclusive) for natural freedoms to exist in a social scenerio.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top