Property Rights Are Not Natural Freedoms

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.

Have you read Orwell's 1984 or seen the society that exists in North Korea? Have you seen the control of thought, belief and personality that occurs under religion?

Thoughts, beliefs and personality can be controlled by external forces.

The question is, if something is 'of you' (ie your thoughts) yours if some other entity controls them?

Thus I assert that it is possible for someone else to possess attributes such as your thoughts, personality etc.....
 
I am sure glad I agreed with AOI before it got so deep I was lost in the thread

The best thing to read (if you haven't already) to explain it all is Jean Jacques Rousseau's The Social Contract.

It concerns the relatonship between natural freedoms, social freedom and the exchange between the two that is required to exist in society.

Good stuff but not bedtime reading.... lol
 
Thanks for the recomendation Any. I am however getting too old and my brain is getting full ;) I need to save brainpower for things like supporting my butt making a living and those kinds of insignificant things.
 
I am however getting too old and my brain is getting full I need to save brainpower for things like supporting my butt making a living and those kinds of insignificant things.

lol... It is hard to find the time, I struggle to find the time for my huge reading list.

JJR's Social Contract is a very important work to read concerning political philosophy and how society works.

Even at your decrepid age you should make room for it..... lol
 
I will Try Any, however my time has been full of learning a new system for my job lately. I am the oldest technodweeb in my company I think, those youngsters are getting harder to keep up with, they grew up on this stuff.
 
uscitizen said:
I will Try Any, however my time has been full of learning a new system for my job lately. I am the oldest technodweeb in my company I think, those youngsters are getting harder to keep up with, they grew up on this stuff.
Click to expand...
I get all my information on this stuff by osmosis... You need to link in!
 
On the basis of your argument there are no natural rights only freedoms granted by society.

Natural rights do not mean rights that cannot be violated by others. I don't where you got that idea. Even in society your rights can be violated.
 
Even in society your rights can be violated.

In society, rights can be violated, but they are protected by a moral agreement.

In nature, the only right you have is to do as you will, provided you are capable. It isn't possible to violate that.

Kind of like me arguing against the Democrats in the sense that Dixie defines them. Why would you use Rousseau? It is a strawman. Try Locke.

Rousseau provides a good explanation of the exchange, that's why.

We are all aware of the totalitarian paradox his writings bring.

I am not making a moral judgement as to whether property rights are good or bad, just that they are a social creation, not found in the natural state.
 
The right to own something is something the government grants you... it was pulled out of thin air. It may be the best that we allow people to own what they produce, but what about whenever it is destroying an entire society to do so? Moderate intrusion isn't so crazy.
 
The right to own something is something the government grants you... it was pulled out of thin air.

Well, it's a group moral decision if that's what you mean...

It may be the best that we allow people to own what they produce, but what about whenever it is destroying an entire society to do so? Moderate intrusion isn't so crazy.

Moderate intrusion into property rights?

How do you feel about the social moral decision to allow those who don't produce to own that property?
 
When a "pride" of African Lions adopt a certain territory of land as their home..is it a natural behavior or is it a Social behavior? Id say A little bit of both.... Natural in that by Nature the African Lion is a territorail Animal ...., Social ..meaning that the African Lion is a Social Animal and is governed by Natural law to be that way.
As it is with Humans, we are also territorial and as far back as archeology can take us, we have always been that way. Humans have always laid claim to land as our own ..and reserved the right to protect it. A funny thing happened on the way to Civilization, As a Social Species... the more dominant of our group decided it was in our best interests to have a larger body rule over the dispersion of land, Humans discovered a concept called Government...... in the world of Bees and Ants this is called colonization. With A larger organized body ruling over the rest of us..... they took control over the land and and put a for sale sign on it.

To sum it up ... since we are territorial... within us it is natural to want and own property, but because we are tribal....it is also within our Social Structure for the more dominant amongst us to take control over property and either disperse it in a fair and equitable way .. or dominate it.
 
To sum it up ... since we are territorial... within us it is natural to want and own property,

There is a major difference between possession and property, between possession and ownership.

In nature, a pride of lions might possess a territory as its own. But if it doesn't defend that property, if it can't defend it, it loses it.

Property (or ownership) is the concept that you possess something irrelevant of your ability to defend it.

Property rights, or the concept of ownership, don't exist in nature, outside human morality.

A creature in nature possesses their own body. But if they cannot defend themselves, their body becomes the possession of the attacker, there is no moral structure to protect it, and as a body is essentially meat, is likely to be eaten.

Property rights are thus a social freedom, as opposed to a natural freedom.
 
Watermark said:
The right to own something is something the government grants you... it was pulled out of thin air. It may be the best that we allow people to own what they produce, but what about whenever it is destroying an entire society to do so? Moderate intrusion isn't so crazy.
Click to expand...
The "Right" to own something is an extension of animal instinct to declare territory. The difference is in the protection. The protection extended by the government to protect your property is different... ownership however, is an instinct.
 
The "Right" to own something is an extension of animal instinct to declare territory.

Nothing is 'owned' in nature, only possessed. An animal doesn't own the territory it occupies (ie possesses).

Ownership is an abstract notion, the notion that something is yours regardless.

I know libertarians struggle with the paradox created by your belief in property rights and your belief that rights are granted in nature, but it is that, a paradox. There are no rights in nature other than will and ability to fulfill will.

In nature, nothing is owned. Ownership only occurs in human society, it is a social freedom created by moral decision, not natural.
 
AnyOldIron said:
The "Right" to own something is an extension of animal instinct to declare territory.

Nothing is 'owned' in nature, only possessed. An animal doesn't own the territory it occupies (ie possesses).

Ownership is an abstract notion, the notion that something is yours regardless.

I know libertarians struggle with the paradox created by your belief in property rights and your belief that rights are granted in nature, but it is that, a paradox. There are no rights in nature other than will and ability to fulfill will.

In nature, nothing is owned. Ownership only occurs in human society, it is a social freedom created by moral decision, not natural.
Click to expand...
What I stated is that fact, you are reiterating my point. However, "mine" is an instinct...

It is the extension of that. Just as I stated. That protection extended by government to protect for you that which is "yours"...

Don't be deliberately missing my points by misreading. It gets tiresome.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top