Philosophical Questions, Basis of Humanity, Property Rights, Ownership

[masonman]

After a long discussion with some people about property rights, we ended up having quite an interesting discussion about the foundations of property rights, and, while a decent theory of property rights doesn't necessarily require a 100 percent fleshed out understanding of these things, I think it makes fun food for thought, and I'd love to see what your responses are to this. Before I made this post I rewatched Stef's videos on property rights to be reminded of the axioms he puts forth.

1. Why does exhibiting use mean ownership? Why does "use" of my body = "ownership" of my body? This is the one that I am most confused about. If I say to you "there is no such thing as self-ownership," I am using this body to say that, but that doesn't mean I am exhibiting ownership, only use. I don't understand how one could equate these.2. Why does self-ownership imply ownership of the results of one’s labor?3. If we assume you do own the results of your labor, do you not own at least part of a child, considering it was created by you, and contains half of your chromosomes? Do you lose ownership once it becomes conscious (the body comes under his control)? In that case, does somebody else's control of a thing switch the ownership of it to him?4. If you own the results of your labor, how does homesteading really work? Like, do you only own the exact soil, rocks, and trees that you modified? How deep down into the ground do you own the land if you, say, farm it?5. Does the land have to be "improved" for you to own it? If you "homestead" by running a bulldozer through the soil, tearing everything up, and continue to do this once every while, do you own this?6. (This one I have heard before, but it is an interesting question). If I homestead a relatively small island, building a fence around it but doing nothing to the interior, do own all the land (my opinion is that you only own the land where the fence was built, so you own kind of a "band" around the island)7. If I build a house on the island in question 6, but do nothing to the land between the house and the fence, can somebody build another house right next to mine, since I have done nothing with that land?Also, if you have any good book suggestions which provide insights into this topic please suggest them, I can add them to my reading list []

[norpan]

I'll give it a go.

 

1. Why does exhibiting use mean ownership? Why does "use" of my body = "ownership" of my body? This is the one that I am most confused about. If I say to you "there is no such thing as self-ownership," I am using this body to say that, but that doesn't mean I am exhibiting ownership, only use. I don't understand how one could equate these.

 

Ownership arises because some object ("good") is scarce, that is to say that only one person can use it at the same time. To avoid conflict over the use of objects, we assign ownership, which is the exclusive right to use it. The alternative is to not have ownership at all, which means that anybody may use anything with equal rights. These are the only two alternatives which are universal and objective. Do the other person accept your use of his body to your liking? If not, then he must accept self-ownership as a valid concept.

2. Why does self-ownership imply ownership of the results of one’s labor?

3. If we assume you do own the results of your labor, do you not own at least part of a child, considering it was created by you, and contains half of your chromosomes? Do you lose ownership once it becomes conscious (the body comes under his control)? In that case, does somebody else's control of a thing switch the ownership of it to him?

4. If you own the results of your labor, how does homesteading really work? Like, do you only own the exact soil, rocks, and trees that you modified? How deep down into the ground do you own the land if you, say, farm it?

5. Does the land have to be "improved" for you to own it? If you "homestead" by running a bulldozer through the soil, tearing everything up, and continue to do this once every while, do you own this?

6. (This one I have heard before, but it is an interesting question). If I homestead a relatively small island, building a fence around it but doing nothing to the interior, do own all the land (my opinion is that you only own the land where the fence was built, so you own kind of a "band" around the island)

7. If I build a house on the island in question 6, but do nothing to the land between the house and the fence, can somebody build another house right next to mine, since I have done nothing with that land?

 

I'll group these. I don't see why labor has anything to do with ownership. The "resuls of one's labor"
is a confused concept. It's much easier to determine who owns a
scarce good by the following: either a good is unowned, or somebody owns
it. The only objective and universal rule is that the person that uses
the good first is the owner. By using it he proves that it is a scarce good that can be used. Ownership is only relevant when there is a conflict, and any subsequent conflict over the use of the good can then be resolved temporally.

If something is already owned, then your
labor with it does not transfer ownership to you. So labor is irrelevant.

You do not own children, they own themselves, since they are themselves their first users, and also because they are intrinsically the only ones who can use themselves fully.

Land does not have to be improved for ownership. Once you own something, you own it until you transfer ownership or abandon it.

If you homestead a whole island by fencing it, you own it. Unless somebody has homesteaded part of it before of course.

But keep in mind that just because you own something, that does not mean that nobody can take it from you. It only means that they are morally wrong to do so and that you are morally right in defending it. The only person you can force to behave morally is yourself.

 

[carlip]

I feel we must also take intent into consideration when assigning ownership. In the example of the fenced island, would a physical fence be the only way to claim a stake of the island? Could signs hold the same value of ownership? If signs are sufficient, then one could simply draft a deed and not have to use any physical barriers, the owner need only be present with the deed in hand to deliver upon a trespasser.

Intent could also be illustrated in this example, a man places a fishing trap in a river. He owns the trap of course, but does he own the fish once they enter the trap or has he expressed intent to claim the fish as property once he retreives his trap? Another man could come by and remove the fish from the trap and return the trap so the other man doesn't know. Would that be considered theft? Originally the man placed the trap empty, he would have no idea that the fish entered, or they could have escaped on their own. So would it really matter if another man removed the fish?