labmath2 Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 Libertarian philsophy stems from property rights and the esence of evaluating this philosophy is to understand the meaning of ownership. Question 1: What is necessary for one to be a property owing agent and what is sufficient for one to be a property owning agent? In this category, my understanding is that what is necessary for one to be a property owing agent is for one to be human, and what is sufficient for one to be a property owing agent is for one to be a sane human (mentally healthy). I think this is the essence of the libertarian position, but i may be mistaken, so please correct me if i am wrong. QUestion 2: What is necessary for one to own something (for something to be considered one's property) and what is sufficient for one to own something? Here i can offer no real answer as i have yet to encounter an aswer since it seems to vary depending on the context of the discussion. I would like to get a clear, concise and universalizable anwser on this question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrCapitalism Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 1.) One must be demonstrate purposeful action. This is commonly referred to as human action and it occurs any time an entity acts with the intention of achieving a desired outcome. 2a). The intended property must be unowned (in a state of nature...having no previous claims as property by acting individuals), or its previous owner must voluntarily transfer ownership. 2b). The owner must exert ownership by transferring it from a state of nature into something which has value to the owner, and which must be exclusively controlled in order to extract that value. That's my best cliff-notes explanation based on my research and understanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
june Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 1.) One must be demonstrate purposeful action. This is commonly referred to as human action and it occurs any time an entity acts with the intention of achieving a desired outcome. i'm a little confused at how this translates into a person being a "property owning agent". are you saying that a person only gains property rights when they are performing a "purposeful action"? so what about when they are not, eg. when they are sleeping, when they make mistakes, if they have a mental dsiability, or what about newborn children.. in these instances has one not gained the right of being a "property owning agent" because they do not demonstrate "purposeful action"?also, don't animals demonstrate "purposeful action"? so why make the specific distinction of "human action"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts