Before a person can own a hammer or an anvil, they must first desire a hammer or an anvil. Property emerges from a desire to own a thing. Before an individual can own something produced by a blacksmith, they must first desire that product.


Not at all. We are talking about the origins of property. How long have women been viewed as property... not as slaves, but as vessels to produce children? I wasn't talking about slavery.





There is a difference between claiming that cultures, customs, ideas, etc... emerged via evolution and not reason... and claiming that someone might not understand the idea of spontaneous order because the idea is beyond human reason. Two different things. The former, I understand... the latter, ridiculous.

And, when one looks close enough many things that appear spontaneous are, in actuality, not.

On top of all of this, none of what you've stated disproves the idea that property stems from a desire to own - desire, itself, tending to have nothing to do with reason.

But you are not focusing on what is really being desired. Hammers were desired by blacksmiths only as much as they could be used to do their trade. It was their property not because they desired it, but because they were the only ones able to wield it.



Where you are mistaken is in your definition of property. You fail to take into account how the definition has evolved over time. Women may have always been seen as vessels to produce children, but that doesn't mean that they were seen as "property" or something that was "owned" and "bought and sold" in the modern sense of the world.



Oh i agree, which is why I think you misinterpreted me. I didn't say that the theory of spontaneous order was beyond human reason to understand, I meant that the theory holds that human events can occur outside of human reason. The "difficult" part was merely describing the concept's difficulty to grasp.


I disagree.



Perhaps in today's materialistic environment, property stems from a desire to own things just to own them...but its not even close to how property originated. Property stemmed from in actuality from human ability. Objects are only as valuable as people make them. A chisel is valuable to a mason because he can sculpt a statue. A chisel isnt valuable to me because I couldnt do anything. To use a contemporary example, oil is only valuable because someone figured out a way to produce fuel from it. If that same person discovered that rocks could be used to produce fuel, than it would be rocks and not oil that would have been valued.

I think there are some serious issues with this line of reasoning.

An anthropologist would point that in early human history tools were typically used for many purposes. So the idea that property emerged with specialist tools is specious. I suspect that anyone who took a stone axe could use it, but whoever lost it would still be ticked off.

entspeak also makes a good point about wives which were considered chattel (property) in many societies. Yes, even to be bought or sold.

This plain truth of the matter is that although physical possession is a natural phenomenon, moral possession is an artificial concept. No natural law states that any object belongs more to one person than another. Indeed in nature it is more likely that the strong own all.

The "individual vs. collective" rational fails when we see that security from crime need not be a collective concern.

The natural rights rational fails when we see that moral possession (ownership) is an artificial concept.

The simple fact of the matter is a that a society in which government only act to protect "natural rights" leads to a society in which the rich are the only one's able to enjoy a quality of life we in a liberal democracy take for granted.

History has shown us time and time again, where government does not interfere exploitation is a sure result.

I can see what you are saying, but here's where I take issue. Unless I am mistaken, you are making a distinction between tools (such as a stone axe) and "specialist" tools such as say a chisel. I think this is wrong. You are certainly correct when you say that certain tools could be utilized by everyone, but those tools would be utilized at different levels. Perhaps you and I can both wield a stone axe, with you being slightly more proficient at it while I can wield a chisel whereas you couldnt at all. We have to take the focus off of the tool itself and redirect our attention to the value imbued onto that tool by the person wielding it.



But this occurred well after the earliest emergence of property. The buying and selling of wives only occurred once early peoples began to settle in groups and create agriculture and engage in other trades.



And i agree with this notion which is why i mentioned in my first post that the recognition of property came first and was followed by the laws...not the other way around. Blacksmiths were the only ones able to wield a hammer which is why the hammer was theirs. If the hammer wasn't theirs, they wouldn't be a blacksmith.



I do not see it that way. Property rights are the very thing that makes freedom possible.



History has shown us time and again, where government does interfere, serfdom is a sure result.

Not when discussing the very origins of property. If a novice buys a tennis racket he imbues no more value on it than any other man, yet property it remains.


..but if another took the hammer he could put it to use as well. Not as "great" a use in our judgment, but any tool can be used for multiple purposes. I think cheap freezers actually come with warnings not to use screwdrivers as ice picks.


America's history has been a strong counter example. The adoption of public schools led to skyrocketing literacy rates. The FDA led to safer drugs. Government interference can be beneficial.

Total anarchy is unalterably destructive.

Your contemporary example makes no sense when discussing the origin of property. Early civilization did not have markets and did not have various items that could be bought and sold like a tennis racket. The tools used by artisans as well as the knowledge they had was created and inherited from their family. Their abilities made their tools valuable. That made those tools property. Your contemporary example is right in the present day...not in the earliest days of civilization.


But if I am able to wield the tool more effectively than you, then it is my services that will be valued greater and will force you to choose a new profession which you would have a comparative advantage with.



But are you not forgetting that America's history spawned out of a rejection of tyranny and interference of government?



No argument there.

Not necessarily, I may well simply be stubborn.

I may have an entirely different use for the item. Nothing said the carpenter owned his hammer any less than the blacksmith, or the guy who used it to crack walnuts.

Property is property no matter how well one makes use of it.

I see how comparative value to society may be a rational for the continuation of property rights, but not for the origin.


Indeed government interference can go horribly wrong, but restricting it to the protection of "natural rights" alone is a recipe for a weak society.

Pure libertarianism is as dangerous as pure communism.

Things are backwards here. Your examples have nothing to do with the origin of property. So let me try to rephrase my point as best I can.

When the earliest peoples began to set the foundations for civilization, the society was collective. When there was large prey, an individual informed the group so that together they could capture/kill the beast to eat. An individual could not do it alone and needed the aide of his party. When those nomadic people began to settle into towns and villages, the society was sitll fairly collective, but less so. They settled because they had a food/water source and did not have to move around constantly to find it. This allowed them to develop new skills and create new things. It is at THIS POINT that earliest emergence of property began. People began to learn about various trades like masonry, carpentry, soldier, blacksmith, etc... This knowledge was new and so were the tools used. At this time, there were very few people who were able to wield certain tools because the knowledge was not widely known. It was the knowledge of how to wield the tools that made those tools property of their owners. Their skills were valuable to early society which is why it was accepted that the blacksmith had his hammer and the mason had his chisel.

Your example doesn't apply because goods were not yet bought and sold. Goods were either created for the use of the family unit or handed down from ancestors. Point is- A carpenter didnt own a hammer, the blacksmith did. The carpenter had no use for a hammer because that was not his trade.



I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. -Thomas Jefferson



Sounds about right.

Wouldn't they have to have the desire to wield it? Wouldn't they have to have the desire to make something? Wouldn't there exist a desire for the product?



Certainly not. One does not need to buy and sell property in order to own it. If an alpha male deer had any concept of ownership, do you think he might believe that the females in the herd were his property? He seems to fight for them as such even without such a concept.



There is saying things and meaning things. You did say the idea of spontaneous order was beyond human reason, despite what you may have meant.



Subject: the idea of a spontaneous order. When you say it is beyond human reason, you refer to the subject.



That's stating the obvious.



I wasn't talking about today's materialistic environment. You don't seem to be tracing things back completely, but only to a step that satisfies your acceptance of your own argument.



We aren't talking the level of value, we are talking about ownership. If someone owns something it is because they desired to have it regardless of its value. Without the desire to own, there would be no need for property.



This statement deals with value and not with the mason's desire to sculpt - without which the mason would not need the chisel and, therefore, would be unlikely to own one.


And so, you would have little desire to own one. You might have no desire to own anything and, so, a system of ownership would be meaningless to you.



Again, you are referring to value and not desire.

I'll speak more later but I'll point out that this same Thomas Jefferson was one of the earliest advocates of public education.
Thomas Jefferson on Politics & Government

Their desire to wield the object didn't make it their property.


I never said that property had to necessariy be bought and sold. I said that women were not seen as property in the usual sense of the word.

Unfortunately, I cannot speak for the alpha male deer.



Ok, it appears I misspoke then. You have my clarification.


Not in terms of the earliest emergance of property. See my scenario in my last post.



But again, his desire did not make it his property. If a person was born into a family of carpenters, then he would be a carpenter. Desire had nothing to do with it.



There was no SYSTEM of ownership. I am talking early civilization here. The person who created the hammer and had the skills of the mason owned that hammer. That is because he was the only one who could wield it. It was accepted that because he had those very skills that he owned his tools.

EDITED TO ADD


And i never spoke of the ills of public education. I spoke of the ills of too much government interference. There is a difference between providing public education and interfering with property rights.

Never said it did. I said property stems from desire. The first men didn't look at the stick and spontaneously say, "this is my club."
They looked at the stick, picked up the stick, recognized that the stick could perform some desired function, and, wishing to be successful, claimed that stick as their own. The stick may not have been bought or sold, but this doesn't mean it wasn't owned. Desire to keep the item established a sense of property. "I want this for myself, I, therefore, own it."



You made the assumption that I was using property in the "modern sense of the word." I informed you that I wasn't.



I only asked you to hypothesize.


I've seen your last post. Even in the earliest emergence of property, there had first to be a desire for said property. Necessity is the mother of invention. Invention is not spontaneous.



If he was born into a family of carpenters then he was not the first carpenter and, as such, you are not talking about the origin of property.



Sounds like a system of ownership to me.

my citation of the 'enclosure acts' of the 16th (and later centuries as well) was meant to serve as one method by which the strong were able to actually in fact alter the existing property laws and customs to their exclusive benefit

another example that comes immediately to mind is the conquest of the "new world" (so called) and the acquisition, by force, of enormous quantities of gold and silver (which gave impetus to the development of capitalist economics as the altered property relations in england, combined with the influx of gold meant that the farmer/tenants of land who normallyi rented or leased it on 99 year terms, were paying off in gold which was suddenly abundant where before it was scarce (the first instance of "inflation", really)....





i didnt say that either.

the State (well actually its ruling class) has its own interests in having a state-run Uniform educational system in order to instill the requisite myths and legends into the youth and to "orientate" them correctly....we are taught the basics of what we in our "maturity" take to be "home truths" - all that PATRIOTIC (patria) stuff that wer're taught in the schools is in the interests of the State, presumably it will instill in its subjects the requisite "love of country" and patria, that will then enable our "betters" to send us off to die in wars in which we will be asked to kill people who've never done anything to us for the benefit of people (the capitalists) who've never done anything FOR us....

so of course, it's a way of scratching several itches


and the "private" universities (many are state-universities, miind you!) are really just "finishing schools" where the products destined to serve as managerial fodder are "polished" and "shined" up

but the real regimentation and such goes on in our youths....all those bells and raising your hand to go to the bathroom is just PREPARATION for the regimentation required in factories and such.

the bells that called us in from recess (coffee break) are the bells that call us to the Machine


(and 'homework' is merely training for the salary men, who will be required to do much work gratis AT HOME






regards,

Swing





here is a (partial) definition that i would like to supply, for the concept of "Right" as used in debate.....

if anyone has objections to this definition, i would be interested in their thoughts






again,

at one time in the (not too distant) history of english-speaking peoples, there were "rights" to "the commons" enjoyed by a great many people which, by an act of Law became suddenly altered, much to the detriment of the unpropertied classes, which were then subject to starvation or the uncertain prospects of urban exisitence - and hounded by Laws yet again, which decreed that their newfound propertyless and "vagrant" existence (brought about by certain Acts of Parliament!) was a matter of their "criminal" and "work-shy" natures, for which they could be then branded and subject to "transportation to the colonies" which then meant a specified period of unpaid servitude on the plantations of the rising bourgeoisie and propertied classes

i mean, as an example given, of how "right" is "never an altogether settled condition...."



(i would like to add this only):


in regards to the discussion of property and its origins, i think that it might be helpful to conceive of this in its relations within the family (gens) and how the development of property within the family (gens) influenced our notions of "property rights"

(as i understand the rules, one is permitted to quote two paragraphs from a source one would like to cite? - if i'm mistaken my apologies!)



regards,


Swing

Clearly, there are historical examples of imperialism in which powerful countries absorbed less advanced ones...This is undeniable, but my question was more focused on how today, within a country, the strong can take away the land of the weak, without violating their rights. The only way that I can see this occuring is through the use of eminent domain, which I view as a blatant violation of property rights.
Well, I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Public schools do clearly attempt to foster patriotism, but they are simply not good enough to train us to be the good little corporate workers you believe they are molding us into. As for colleges, there is too much choice involved in curriculum, major, etc. for the school to do much in the way of "polishing" a student...even public schools.
It will come of no surprise to you, I'm sure, that I disagree with the Marxist view of rights. I do understand and acknowledge to a degree that there is always a struggle for/against rights...With that said, as someone who believes in natural rights, I believe that any act of government that violates those natural rights is illegitimate regardless of what the actual law states. Suffice it to say, there are just some things that the State has no ethical justification for. I do agree, though, again, that rights are constantly being struggled over...Where we disagree is our interpretation regarding whom the struggle is between.

CP

alrighty then. i guess i wasnt quite on the same "page" as you, CP. i hadnt quite grasped the meaning of your question it seems.

i guess the question remains then, "from whence do property "rights" derive"?

you seem to believe in "natural" rights, and (presumably) you believe that such "natural" rights derive from.....a "higher power"?

i, on the other hand, believe that property "rights" derive from the specific and concrete relations between human beings and are inextricably linked to the particular mode of production prevailing in any given society.

societies of "primative" herdsmen are certainly going to have different conceptions of property "rights" than industrial urbanites

(i mean, e.g. - the conception for example, of the american aborigines of the rights of "land ownership" were quite strikingly different than those of the europeans, and this is explained by their particular mode of production/reproduction (of the means of subsistence)









well, i was speaking of the ideal to which the State (and its schools) adheres. obviously they do their job imperfectly, as witness the numbers of "deviants" who (like myself) did not seem to drink deeply of the wells of patriotism

i do believe that the State uses its authority qua "instructor of the public" to foster a common sense of identity and "patriotism" among its subjects.

(actually tho, by the time one hits college, one is pretty much already "formed" - one already usually has developed a political "consciousness" or at least the rudiments thereof, - the really "heavy" indoctrination occurrs in our earliest years in the school systems. (not that i'm kicking a dead horse, i'm just trying to be sure that i'm defintely understood - i didnt mean to imply that the "polishing" that goes on in the higher levels of education is necessarily oriented towards instilling a "patriotic attiitude" in the subjects of the State, rather that the "polishing" implied a perfection of the skills necessary for the particular managerial unit to take its place within the "machinery" of production









again, i wonder whence such "natural" rights are supposed to derive?

it seems to me that it a right were "natural" and "inalienable" that we would never have had to actually struggle to obtain these rights. obviously our "inalienable" rights are alienable, as witness the many instances, even in the USA in which these "inalienable" rights were "alienable" - as witness the condition (for another 80 some years!) of a 5th (or roughly) of the american populace which were (despite the high-flown phraseology of the "founding fathers") kept in a state of Bondage

obviously the "inalienable" rights of "all" men to "life, liberty and happiness" had to be weighed against the economic interests (and "property rights"!) of the propertied classes

(and that of course opens up the 'can of worms' over the shifting nature of our conceptions of what is and is not "property".....since we no longer consider other human beings to be a valid form of "property" it seems obvious that even "property rights" are not immutable and change over time and conflicts)



well, that's all for now


regards


Swing

The case for natural rights need not rely on God-given rights. Natural rights, as their name implies, are derived from nature, not necessarily a God...But certainly a higher power than man.
I believe that property rights are altered and affected by concrete relations between human beings and that those changes are inextricably linked to the particular mode of production prevailing in any given society. I do not believe that is where they are derived from.
I could not agree more with this statement.
If you mean that education, and specifically colleges trains a young person to become a functioning member of the economy, then I agree completely. Frankly, that's what I'm paying my University to do [primarily]. I've got a feeling you would have serious philosophical disagreement with my college's "co-op" program .
They are derived from nature. LINK
LINK
LINK
Hence my distaste for the State. The government, being comprised of power-hungery individuals who proport to represent a very authority-worshipping group of people [the electorate] naturally are always at odds with our rights. They are "inalienable" in the sense that they cannot be legitimately stripped from us. They are not rights that we are "given" by man [i.e. they are not examples of "positive law"] they exist in a state of nature before positive law existed. If man did not give us these rights, man cannot legitimately take them away. That does not mean that man, in the form of the State, will not try.
Again, property laws are subject to change as a result of positive law. The fundamental concept of property and ownership however, existed long before positive law existed, would you not agree?

CP

But the trouble is property rights are not natural.

This reasoning justifies any theft that does not require force. If for example the government took your hoe whilst you were away nothin in natural law says this is a violation of rights.

You're putting the wagon before the horse here, Turnea. You're saying, "property is not a natural right because if the government took my property, it doesn't violate natural law." If you don't buy into the theory that natural law includes property as a right, then of course you would think that way. If you believe in natural law and that property is a part of it, than taking another's property would be a violation of that law. In addition, the theft you described is inherently forcefull. If I tried to take my hoe back, would I be met with resistance?

To be honest, I'm not entirely clear on what you're arguing here. Can you clarify.

CP

..and just what natural law says it's your's anymore?

I can just as easily claim your taking my hoe.



This plain truth of the matter is that although physical possession is a natural phenomenon, moral possession is an artificial concept. No natural law states that any object belongs more to one person than another. Indeed in nature it is more likely that the strong own all.

I've been asking myself this whole while, why it is difficult to defend natural law in this thread, I've figured out why; because you are analyzing it as you would positive law, thereby making an apples and oranges comparison. Natural law is easy to attempt to disassemble when it is measured in the same way as "positive law". You ask me "what natural law states..." Natural law simply does not work that way, Turnea...It is an abstract concept, to measure it in the same concrete manner as positive law is impossible. You ask me what "natural law says" that a piece of property belongs more to one than another. None...Nowhere in existence will you find the "Big Book O' Natural Law". In a state of nature, if I am walking with a watch, and you take the watch which either I have purchased, created or have been voluntarily gifted by another, any reasonable person would say I would be acting in an acceptable manner in taking in back. That, in essence, is natural law. Is it concrete and neat like positive law. No, is it consistant in substance...No, becuase it relies on natural actions of human beings. It is, however, consistant in application, and that, is something that cannot be said about positive law. Now, does positive law affect property rights, yes...But they are not deriven from positive law. If all law were deriven from positive law, there would be no entity, concept or ideal greater than the State, and that is something that I am philosophically opposed to.

CP

Only in our own historical context. In another time and place if the emperor demanded your watch, any reasonable person would say hand it over and thank him for taking the weight off your hands.

My argument is this: A government which only acted in defense of natural rights would be unable to protect property rights or even define what they are.

And those were backwards times when natural rights were not protected by the government.
And if you're argument is that a government cannot act only in defense of natural rights, then I'm not sure who you're arguing with.
Legal being positive law, natural being natural law. I have said several times that government should create and protect legal rights, my only contention is that when positive law and natural law come into conflict, natural law is the trump card.

CP

...but then all of the programs you criticized are meant to protect legal (if not natural) rights.

The FDA, public education... all of it.

Incorrect...As I said, if natural rights and positive rights conflict...Natural rights trump. If you take my property [money] to educate your child...You are violating my rights in order to sustain your "legal right".

CP

...and who said your property was a natural right?

Oy vey...

Are we really going to do this again?

I said it, God only knows how many hours ago, that natural law is a philosophy. I believe that property is a natural right because, again, in a state of nature, I was wearing a watch, and you walked by and took it, by any reasonable person's standards, I would be acting legitimately in taking it back. I would be acting legitimately in taking it back because I acquired it without force, voluntarily. Now, is that concrete? Is it something everyone can agree on? No...Because if it was it wouldn't be a PHILOSOPHY...it would be a fact. We could argue this until the Rapture and no one would change their minds because we have diametrically opposed PHILOSOPHIES. You cannot disprove a philosophy, by definition, you can disagree with it, but a philosophy cannot be proven wrong. I would be just as much in error if I tried to "prove socialism 'wrong'"...I can disagree with it, but I can't prove it to be a "wrong". Natural law, as I said, is abstract...It is a philosophy that does not rely on concrete, set-in stone principles, again, because it relies on human action...which is rarely, if ever, concrete and set-in-stone.

So again, this has been one, ENORMOUS circular debate because you are trying to dispell a 300 year old philosophy...something that cannot be done. Being that it is incredibly obvious that we will not agree on the principle of property being a natural right or not, or in the general concept of natural vs. positive law...Can we move on, or should we put another quarter in the merry-go-round?


CP

I agree that a philosophy cannot be agreed on, but that is precisely the problem.

You've boiled this down to an appeal to common sense, but I might just as easily say that any reasonable person would agree that a country would be acting unjustly to do away with public education.

The point is that there is no concrete basis to believe that paying taxes to support government programs is theft whether on agrees with said programs or not.

I agree anyone can choose to believe this, but it is not a rigorously logical axiom.

And that is fine...That is what makes our philosophies different. Your guiding principles result in a belief in public education...mine don't. Our respective philosophies manifest themselves in policy ideals.
How do you define theft? If I take steal your wallet, take the money in it and donate it to the United Way, was that a social program or theft? Now, if the IRS takes $10,000 dollars and gives it to a faith-based charity, was that an act of a social program, or theft?

CP

Again, this assumes that exclusive ownership is a natural state, I have argued that it is not. Natural law dictates that if I have it, it is mine. You may try to take it back, but it belongs only to the person who possesses it. This occurs in nature today between alpha males and the rest of a group of animals. The concept of property rights in terms of trade or purchase existed as a result of established rules - agreements between persons... positive law, as it were. If you are going to deconstruct ownership and search for its origins in a natural state, you must go all the way back. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

I didn't elect a pickpocket nor do I have any say over what he does once he has my wallet.

The IRS is an institution that the voting public entrusts to use tax dollars to its collective benefit or wishes. Its policies are subject to political pressures. Does that mean they can take whatever they want?

No, they take whatever we want.

I didn't elect a single member of Congress...not one. A majority of people did. So, it is okay, then, if a majority of people says it is okay to take my $10,000 to give to the faith-based charity; that is not theft? How many people makes theft permissable? Ultimately, I see an individual who doesn't want to give his money away being forced to my a group of people. Ultimately, that is what most government action entails.

CP

Your view on this issue is quite Rousseauean. But you are making a few assumptions that flaws your argument. Despite your attempt to reconcile the difference between a caveman picking up a stick and declaring it property and a caveman picking up a stick and recognizing the usefulness of the object, you fail to create any real disconnect. Desire may play a role that I understated earlier, but it is not as significant as you think. The reason is that in this early state of nature, there was no reason for the property to be recognized on a wide scale. Just because you picked up a club, recognized its usefulness, and desired it, doesnt mean that your neighbor shared those viewpoints. Clubs, axes and simple tools were not recognized as objects of individual ownership because as was mentioned earlier, everyone could wield such things. The societies were collective. It was only when they began to settle and learn new trades that property began. People acquired skills that were unique and couldnt be done by a large majority of society. What I mean is that society recognized the blacksmith as owning the hammer because he had the skills to wield it. Desire alone is not enough to explain why ownership was accepted as legitimate.



I disagree quite a bit on this. Throughout human history, inventions and advancements have been completely random. This is not to say that there were certain things that were sought after, researched, and created...but a significant amount of advances and discoveries were complete accidents or different altogether from the original intention of the research.



There was no split second time and place where property was universally recognized. It took generations of cultural evolution.



Perhaps it is the wording that is getting me. "System" implies something rationally planned out. There was certainly no system in place, tradition is probably a better description.



*Tags in from ConservPat

While I do not necessarily buy completely into the natural rights theory, there is a significant portion of the philosophy that I agree with. It is a philosophy of freedom. The right to several property is a defense against coercion. It is the recognition and protection (backed by the rule of law) of the private sphere of the individual. "In modern society, however, the essential requisite for the protection of the individual against coercion is not that he possess property, but that the material means which enable him to pursue any plan of action should not be all in the exclusive control of one agent" (Hayek, 1960). The institution of property ensures that I do not have to depend purely on the state. Furthermore, it establishes a system of peaceful collaboration among people rather than forceful coercion, through contracts. The protection of contracts goes hand in hand with property rights. Without contracts, and without property, the state would have unlimited power over the individual with little ability to fight back. If that's the type of philosophy that you would like to buy into...caveat emptor

Perhaps, I should read him, then.



If we are talking about property as a natural right, it would've been so even before its legitimacy. As CP would imply, property existed before its recognized legitimacy. If this wasn't the case, then there is no way property could be considered a natural right.



Random discovery is not spontaneous invention. If one invents something unintended as a result of research, that is also not spontaneous invention.



Universal recognition of property is irrelevant if you are going to consider it a natural right.



Is a biological system "rationally planned out"? Is an ecological system "rationally planned out"? I don't think so, but they are, nonetheless systems.

I am not making a natural rights case, I am making a case based on cultural evolution and tradition. Natural rights theory emerged duringl the Enlightenment, thousands of years after origin of property rights.



Sure it is. It was unintended, unplanned, and unexpected. Surely you are not making the argument that all advances ever made by humanity were carried out exactly the way it was intended to by the inventors. If not, then it was spontaneous.



See above. I see property rights as stemming from a long history of evolution and tradition that occurred with no rational plan. Natural rights theory is all well and good, and I do agree with parts of the theory because I believe in human freedom, but it is not necessary to justify property rights.



Well there is quite a portion of the world that would disagree with you on that (nod to God), but i understand. I just think tradition is a better description is all.

hello again, CP


if natural law is an abstract construct, then that is to say that it is a construct of the human mind, and as such it can only reflect the mores and values of a particular time/place and is, therefore a subjective and can not be considered a "universal truth" or "Law"

if the "natural law" conception had been in fact a "Law" of "nature" then we would reasonably expected to see this particular form of "Law" in practice through-out the history and development of human culture.

but on the contrary, if we actually examine the records of the past, we find that time and time again these supposed "Laws" have been universally violated and that it has indeed been a truism in history that the strong have tended to take what they could from the weak, and that the weak have typically been only able to expand their own rights at an incremental pace, partially by playing off one "estate" against another, and partially through circumstantial happenings quite beyond their control (the labor shortages of the 14th and 15th century from the black plague e..g.),

natural laws such as gravity have found constant expression throughout the recorded history of mankind (barring the fantastical accounts of joshua - ), and one would expect other such 'natural' laws to do likewise. but in the case of this supposed 'law' it seems to've worked all the opposite.

just ask any aborigine


at least, it seems quite evidently so to me

(perhaps someone's already covered this base and i'm beating their dead horse....hope not!)

and also, (just as a point of clarification), i don't believe that "rights derive from modes of production", but rather that rights derive from social struggles of economic classes which are formed and conditioned by prevaling modes of production....


regards,


Swing






hi again, CP


pardon me a moment, but i wanted to zero in on this particular aspect of your philosophy of "natural law" and attempt, in my inept way, to explain why it is anything but 'natural' as we have seen history actually in fact unfold

the history of mankind is the history of the strong displacing (at first, in the age of nomads and H/G stages of 'civilization') and then enslaving (introducing new relations of production which was a ""industrial revolutioN' in its own right, as it actually (at least in greece where it reached its highest expression) allowed a class of idle rich to create their own 'enlightenment'

but that's another topic for another time


in the real world, we have seen the european hordes sweep over the world's populace and take what they've wanted (the 'crown jewels' of the english monarchy have this nice little gem, i think, called the 'star of india', which was a bit of booty from a past robbery and transgression of this "natural" "law"

i agree with you that you have the right to attempt to redress a wrong, but if the guy who steals your rolex (or your star of india, or your oil etc) happens to have a bunch of well disciplined goons to back him up, and all you've got is a nerf whiffleball bat, well, i think his might will prevail over your "right" and then where are we?

i think you're confusing the "social contract" with "natural law"


but maybe i'm confused




regards,


Swing

and i wanted to just butt in a moment 'tween ent and leder....



it's probably bad form to even ask, as i'm sure the answer is positive, but i must ask if you're familiar with the ideas of "value in use" and "value in trade"


if you're a fletcher of arrows and have a room full of 'em and no shoes and you meet jack the cobbler who's got a hundredweight of shoes, you got two guys who have commodities for which they have no real use in value but both have a use in trade (maybe cobbler joe needs to practice with his longbow as required by the new laws....)


the ORIGINAL property was CATTLE

you look at the old stories of the celts in ireland and all they ever did was raid each others' cattle

the origins of wealth are reflected in the etymology of the word for wealth

PECUNIA


(lack of wealth - impecunius)



pecus is cattle


just thought i'd throw this in


regards,


Swing

(furthermore, i notice that the subject of women as chattel has come up....twasn't always so tho! in the earliest days the women were mostly still in positions of power and it was some time before they lost power (about the time that they put 2 and 2 together and figured out the male role in the reproductive process, i imagine....)

Okay. I believe property rights exist, but I don't believe the right to several property is a natural right. The origin of the theory is irrelevant.





Just because an individual didn't plan, intend or expect a particular discovery, doesn't mean something or someone did not influence, force, cause, or treat... they just didn't intend, plan or expect the result. Spontaneity appears to come from nothing... out of thin air. My point is that, if you look closely at many things that appear spontaneous, you will find some external influence, force, cause or treatment - however unintended, unplanned or unexpected.



Yes, it better suits your argument.

Cpt. Swing,



While this may prove that people who spoke Latin viewed cattle as an indicator of wealth, this doesn't mean the original property was cattle. Unless, of course, the original people spoke Latin.



Actually, the view that women play any more of a role than that of a vessel for a man's seed is a relatively new one. Nobody knew that men fertilized an egg. They believed that semen became the child.

Surely, Captain, if it were a universal truth, everyone would believe in it. Natural law is a theory, a theory which I subscribe to and one that in my view, maximizes individual freedom. It is no more of a universal truth than any other theory or ideology.
I'm attempting to connect the two. In my view, the government can act legitimately only if it is acting to protect natural or legal rights or its citizens. If it is acting in a way that does not protect the citizens' rights, it is acting unethically, in my view. So no, I'm not using the terms interchangably, I'm simply attempting to explain the role nautral law plays in the social contract.

I hope that was more clear.

CP

Then perhaps yet again, I used the wrong wording. I'm not afraid to admit I am mistaken. Perhaps spontaneous is not the correct word, but I think the main idea of my point stands. Discoveries and progress more often then not were random occurrences. Even when a certain invention was intended, the impact that the invention had on society was never fully known beforehand. It is impossible to know for sure. It is that ignorance that is so telling about the history of man.



So does believing that the majority of people are rational. So is assuming that people would rather be free than slaves. We can play this game all day, but my point was merely that tradition was a more powerful force than human reason in the emergance and legitimacy of property.

hello, entspeak

you may notice that i gave the example of the celts as well

the fact is, the first wealth and property was reckoned in cattle. language was prerequisite to "civilization" and therefore existed PRIOR to civilization. etymologists are able to trace the development of civilization through the etymology of words, as well as track the movements of humanity - in so far as there is a "indo european" language tree this is true

the sanskrit word for cattle (domesticated animal) is a cognate of pecus.....pa?u,,


q.e.d.







read "the golden bough" for more on what i'm getting at


(I believe it was the golden bough.....the "pre-homeric" era in greek history shows women in quite a different light than the "heroic" era and this is what i'm referring to)


regards,,


Swing






cp

it's all much more clear

i had i guess taken the term "natural" quite too literally perhaps

now i suppose the only remaining question is, is your "law" retroactive?


that is to say, before you can expect others to honor your particular claims to justice, the injustices of the past (which are basically the foundation of the present property relations) must then be addressed, don't you think?


or are we to arbitrarily set aside the past (since it benefits us to do so!) and ignore the past injustices (which are the foundation of our OWN rights in property in a great many cases!) because it is "convenient"?

e.g. - are we going to restore the descendants of tories to THEIR property as they had their property confiscated (and handed over to good fortuned rebels who happened to choose the right side?

regards,


Swing

Wealth... maybe. Property? No. Nothing that you've posted indicates that cattle was the original property. It may have been the first indicator of wealth - which has more to do with the ability to trade and less to do with the ability to claim possession of something. But it doesn't mean it was the first property. One could own other things and not own cattle. It may have meant one was poor, but not necessarily without property.



No, thanks. Perhaps you could provide something from the text? The full text is available on the internet, so it shouldn't be too difficult to provide some supporting quote.


lederuvdapac,



How does this relate to:



While the concept of property rights may have come about through an evoluion of ideas and concepts that were seen as beneficial for the furtherment of society, this doesn't mean that property itself came about this way. If property rights came about through an evolution of ideas and concepts, then human reason played a roll.

Hey Captain,
Any reparations for past violations of natural or legal rights would inherently require present violations of natural and/or legal rights. Essentially, two wrongs would not make a right, so to speak. It is impossible to fairly address past violations; it is only possible to ensure the same mistakes are not made twice.

CP