quote:Well, I deny that private property is an artificial concept
Private land ownership is a concept that developed in Europe between 400 and 500 years ago. It is unquestionably an artificial concept.
Consider a hunter gather society in the Western US in around 1300 AD. In such a society would you agree that the right to gather food was a basic human right. If a person was forbidden to gather berries or hunt buffalo, and the community provided no other means by which a person could obtain food, wouldn't you agree that this persons fundamental human rights were being violated. Certainly the need to eat is a human need which is equal or greater than the need to speak ones mind or worship god.
Now add to that society, modern private property "rights" that allow a land owner to prevent trespassing. Unless every person is guaranteed ownership of land that contains buffalo and berries, how can their fundamental right to gather food co-exist with private property rights?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Well, I deny that private property is an artificial concept.
Many societies have done without the concept of private property. For example:
quote: 43Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. 44All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. Acts 2:43-45 (NIV)
posted
You're confusing Property, with Real Estate, Rabbit.
Everything you own is private property, not just the land you live on.
Further, could you provide evidence that land ownership is an artifact of the Renaissance? Or do you mean that it wasn't until then that commoners were allowed to own and that the nobility didn't count because they were members of the government?
quote:And kids who are educated in the public school system have a vastly higher crime rate later in life than those who go to private schools. By your logic, the entire public school system should be scrapped.
(Oh, I wish.)
Lisa [/QB]
Abolishment of the public school system would produce overwhelmingly unwanted results, and is nigh indefensible.
Also, I hope we're not trying to establish any links between public education and higher crime rates, as the association is spurious and related instead to obvious associations involving income levels.
Demographics show that those who have access to education -- by either public or private means -- have lower rates of criminal activity. Public education systems help with crime rates; the better the system, the better the social benefit. So any such delineation of public schooling crime rates vs. private schooling crime rates ... only works to color a positive social benefit as a negative one, while not actually being a case against public schooling. That 'logical' analysis is not correct.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, private land ownership was developed far more than 400 to 500 years ago. But a bit over 1000 years ago, it was very common in certain cultures (including those in most of Europe) for the apportionments of land to be periodically (annually, often) re-allotted, for instance.
Actually, that period in European history is very interesting because the area(s) went through several major changes in land allotment policies, moving from various more tribally or roman oriented systems to several systems of what we would now call feudalism and eventually the eminence of towns, with the "members of the bourgs" being the influential holders of property.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was Private land ownership in Rome 2000 years ago. In fact, the reason many of the buildings in Rome are so oddly shaped, is that many times Emperor's (I know for a fact this happened several times to Augustus) couldn't buy enough land in a small area to build something, so they had to build it right up to the borders of other oddly shaped buildings, forcing him to shape them accordingly.
Also, farmsteads were all over Italy. From time to time the allyare publicus would be alloted out to the people, but generall that was run by the wealthy, until the tribunes started ramming home pro-pleb legislation that divied out the land to the landless.
Private land ownership is as old as nations are.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
One thing that's always interested me is the story of how things became private property. I mean, at some point there were very few people and lots of essentially untouched land (and the things found on and under the land, of course).
The notion that humans can divide up the resources via various adopted schemes I'm fine with, its just the extension from that to a particular system of the division being somehow "right", particularly because of the incredibly arbitrary ways things were divided up in the first place.
The idea that "first come" or at least "last person to kill all the others in the past" is a justifiable basis for a nigh-absolute heritable, transferrable privilege with respect to that property seems silly to me.
Reasonable way to apportion things in scarcity? Sure. Morally imperative way to apportion things no matter what? Why?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn: the roman villa system of organization, while similar in many ways to our private property system of today, could arguably be considered a very different animal.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
(note that I'm not commenting on the presence of private property in roman cities, a very different question).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:But a bit over 1000 years ago, it was very common in certain cultures (including those in most of Europe) for the apportionments of land to be periodically (annually, often) re-allotted, for instance.
Perhaps I should have been more explicit by what I meant by private land ownership. I was referring in specific to modern property rights, such as the right to buy and sell land, the right to prohibit trespass on land and even the right to exclusive use of resources on the land. These are all fairly modern concepts. In fact if you look at current "property rights" in Europe they differ substantially from property rights in the US because the US broke from European law about the time that these rights were in hot dispute.
And no Pixiest, I was not confusing property with Real Estate. I was using Real Estate as one example of private property which is an artificial concept. I can give others.
In traditional Navajo culture, there is no personal ownership of things. Things are owned by a family or a clan but not an individual. In Navajo culture, if you need the money in your mother's wallet or the the shirt in your sisters closet, its OK for you to take it. There is no need to ask permission or even tell them. These things are as much yours as they are theirs. At least this is how it has been explained to me by several Navajos. (My apologies to the Dinee if I have misrepresented their culture. It was not intended).
The point is that private property is an artificial construct and one which is still in flux. For example, if I go to the store and buy a cabbage -- it becomes my private property. But what exactly does that mean. Clearly it doesn't mean I can do anything I want with it. If I just leave the cabbage on a public sidewalk, I would be guilty of littering. If I through it at some ones window, I would be guilty of vandalism. If the police believe that my cabbage is material evidence in a crime, they can take it away from me and keep it plenty long enough that it will no longer be of value to me. If I simply buy one cabbage everyweek and store them in my basement until they rot and fill the entire neighborhood with a nauseating stench, I could be charged with all kinds of crimes and have not only the cabbages taken away but possibly my home as well. So what rights to the cabbage do a get when I buy it? What exactly does it mean to own the cabbage.
And no I'm not trying to be obtuse. My point is that ownership and "private property" are abstract concepts. We know what they mean because they are part of our culture but they are still artificial concepts.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whoo, start a thread, don't touch it for a few days, and then you have to spend half an hour reading to chatch up...
I'm a bit confused on what people mean when they are talking about artificial rights. If a right is artificial, does that mean that it's not really a real right, but one only because we say it is? Because any existing right you could name is only a right because we claim it as such. Rights, by their nature ARE artificial in the same way money is. There's certainly no logical or empirical proof you could give to show a right exists that doesn't distill down to "because we said so." The simple fact is that rights, like morals, are in essence imperative statements, which have no true/false value.
Now, I'm going to contradict myself here, but bear with me. Rights, like morals, do exist for another reason besides, "we said so." They exist because they are practical ways to define, enforce, and improve interpersonal and societal relationships. A right is really only as good as it is useful.
That's why a government, in it's most fundamental purpose, exists to protect and improve the lives of those it governs.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because any existing right you could name is only a right because we claim it as such. Rights, by their nature ARE artificial in the same way money is.
Not everybody agrees. There are many people who believe in "Natural" or "God-given" rights.
quote:There's certainly no logical or empirical proof you could give to show a right exists that doesn't distill down to "because we said so."
This is true. But just because something cannot be proven doesn't mean that it isn't important to people.
quote:The simple fact is that rights, like morals, are in essence imperative statements, which have no true/false value.
There's certainly no logical end emprical proof you could give to show this.
That's fine if it's your opinion, but realize that everybody won't share it with you.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not everybody agrees. There are many people who believe in "Natural" or "God-given" rights.
"Natural" rights still exist because of someone's say-so, regardless. If rights existed in a natural state, they would presumably be similar to physical laws, and would be impossible to violate. "God-given" rights are just more derivative: "we say God said so."
quote:This is true. But just because something cannot be proven doesn't mean that it isn't important to people.
I never said they weren't. I'm not sure what you were trying to accomplish here.
quote:There's certainly no logical end emprical proof you could give to show this.
That's fine if it's your opinion, but realize that everybody won't share it with you.
Learn some introductory logic, and you will realize how wrong this is. This is fact. Imperative statements, fundamentally, are opinions. I'm not sure how to be much more clear on this.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If rights existed in a natural state, they would presumably be similar to physical laws, and would be impossible to violate.
Unless there's a difference between a "law" and a "right".
quote:"God-given" rights are just more derivative: "we say God said so."
Unless they literally are God-given.
quote:Learn some introductory logic, and you will realize how wrong this is.
I got an A in Philosophy 103: Introduction to Logic. I'm pretty sure I learned some stuff there.
I don't believe that all morals are mere opnions or imperative statements. Some of them are facts as real as anything else in the universe. Unprovable ones, yes. But true nonetheless.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I gotta agree with Mr. P here. Nothing in logic establishes that there are no moral truths (and my own studies extend all the way to set theory).
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Specifically, it's the wording of a moral truth as an imperative statement that's the problem.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is certainly possible that there exist god-given rights, but it is completely certain that there do not exist god-enforced rights. So for all practical purposes, and whatever people may want to believe about the Platnoic ideal of rights, they have to be treated as manmade.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: it is completely certain that there do not exist god-enforced rights.
It depends on what you mean by enforced. It is pretty certain that God does not prevent us from infringing on rights, but it's not certain that there are no consequences from God if we do.
quote:So for all practical purposes, and whatever people may want to believe about the Platnoic ideal of rights, they have to be treated as manmade.
I don't have any problems people treating them as manmade.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It depends on what you mean by enforced. It is pretty certain that God does not prevent us from infringing on rights, but it's not certain that there are no consequences from God if we do.
God is so weird. I mean, what would you think of me if I told you, "I'm not going to try to prevent you from doing something wrong, even though I easily could, but I will punish the heck out of you after you do it."
Sorry about the digression.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I assume the theists here would consider that to be preventing people from doing the wrong thing - you've been told about the consequences, after all.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:So for all practical purposes, and whatever people may want to believe about the Platnoic ideal of rights, they have to be treated as manmade.
I don't have any problems people treating them as manmade.
Whether or not we disagree on the point that the the purpose of rights is practicality, we can (I hope) agree that they do have that pragmatic aspect to them. To libertarians and non, what do you think are the most necessary rights?
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think "necessary" rights are difficult to define. To say that a right is necessary is to say that it is exceptionless. For example, we do not have the right to free speech when what we will say will lead directly to someone else's endangerment (think Novak). In other words, when the right to free speech of one person conflicts with the right to privacy of another person, then one of the rights cannot be absolute. But then, I guess that's a pretty strict definition of necessary, and I can easily avoid my difficulties by broadening it a bit.
Anyway. The right to not be tortured or treated inhumanely is probably one of the most necessary rights. I can't think of other rights that would conflict with it.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:God is so weird. I mean, what would you think of me if I told you, "I'm not going to try to prevent you from doing something wrong, even though I easily could, but I will punish the heck out of you after you do it."
I would question your authority to punish me.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You wouldn't also think that, if I really opposed evil, I would use all my powers to prevent it as well as punish it?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: You wouldn't also think that, if I really opposed evil, I would use all my powers to prevent it as well as punish it?
Not if what you really wanted was for me to do was to choose to do the right thing.
It's much like the situation with me and my children. Of course I want them to not do unwise things right now, because I want them to be happy and not suffer the consequences of bad choices.
But even more than I want them to do wise things right now, I want them to learn how to make wise choices. In order for them to learn this, they have to have practice making chioces. That includes making mistakes.
I would be derilict as a father if I make sure my children were never able to make a mistake.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"A human being is endowed with free will. He can use this to choose between good and evil. If he can only perform good or only perform evil, then he is a clockwork orange, meaning that he has the appearance of an organism lovely with colour and juice but is in fact only a clockwork toy to be wound up by God or the Devil or (since it is increasingly replacing both) the Almighty State. It is as inhuman to be totally good as it is to be totally evil. The important thing is moral choice. Evil has to exist along with good, in order that moral choice may operate. Life is sustained by the grinding opposition of moral entities."- Anthony Burgess commenting on his novel A Clockwork OrangePosts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: [QUOTE]Private land ownership is a concept that developed in Europe between 400 and 500 years ago... Perhaps I should have been more explicit by what I meant by private land ownership. I was referring in specific to modern property rights, such as the right to buy and sell land, the right to prohibit trespass on land and even the right to exclusive use of resources on the land. These are all fairly modern concepts.
And he bought the parcel of land, where he had pitched his tent, from the children of Hamor, Shechem's father, for one hundred pieces of money. -- Genesis 33:19
Then Abraham stood up and bowed himself to the people of the land, the sons of Heth. And he spoke with them, saying, "If it is your wish that I bury my dead out of my sight, hear me, and meet with Ephron the son of Zohar for me, that he may give me the cave of Machpelah which he has, which is at the end of his field. Let him give it to me at the full price, as property for a burial place among you." ... and he spoke to Ephron in the hearing of the people of the land, saying, "If you will give it, please hear me. I will give you money for the field; take it from me and I will bury my dead there." And Ephron answered Abraham, saying to him, "My lord, listen to me; the land is worth four hundred shekels of silver. What is that between you and me? So bury your dead." -- Genesis 23:7-9, 13-15
These are accounts written roughly 3,400 years ago, describing real estate transactions that took place centuries earlier.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Many societies have done without the concept of private property. For example:
quote: 43Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. 44All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. Acts 2:43-45 (NIV)
For one thing, this situation was voluntary (i.e., not a governmental abridgement of rights); but you are incorrect to interpret this as a lack of private property ownership. Among the same community just a couple of chapters later, we have an account of a couple selling a piece of property, then contributing only a part of the proceeds but representing it as the whole. In rebuking them, the apostle Peter says, "Wasn't it yours while you possessed it? And after it was sold, wasn't it at your disposal?"
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Irregardless, You are making the radical assumption that because the Bible reports the buying and selling of land, that owners of this land had property rights to the land similar to those enjoyed by modern american land owners. Historical evidence all indicates that they did not.
[ January 23, 2006, 04:28 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Irregardless, You are making the radical assumption that because the Bible reports the buying and selling of land, that owners of this land had property rights to the land similar to those enjoyed by modern american land owners. Historical evidence all indicates that they did not.
Feel free to present this evidence.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Isn't being able to sell your property on your own initiative one of the cornerstones of property rights?
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
