Land ownership versus self-ownership

[square4]

 

How can be prevented that land or building ownership would basically negate self-ownership? The problem is as follows. Suppose a person owns a piece of land, and grants access to the land under the terms that he chooses. In the extreme case, the condition that he sets for entering his land may be that anyone may do whatever he wants with you and your property, while on this piece of land. If this would be valid, it would basically erase all morality on this land. Of course, we have the option not to enter his land. But now suppose nearly all land is owned, and each owner has certain conditions for entering, regarding your body and your property. Suppose those rules are not as extreme as in the previous example, but they are arbitrary rules, nonetheless. If they, as a land owner, have the right to set rules, as a condition for entering, why would they not? This might mean, as the stipulated conditions multiply, that in the end basically everything, except land ownership, is completely governed by the rules of the land owners. Anyone who inhabits the earth unavoidably must be on some piece of land (or sea), which is likely to be owned, and therefore be subject to the "jurisdiction" (or government) of the land owner. This means, for example, that prohibition against theft basically becomes irrelevant, except to the degree that the land owners, of their own accord, decide to take it into account in their conditions for entering their land. Of all ethical principles, only one remains, namely that of land ownership, and self-ownership would be like a thing of the past, only to be exercised out of society in the unowned woods. This does not seem right.

 

Intuitively, we may say, that a land owner should not set absurd rules, and we would want to limit them in various ways, but how do we avoid that these will be just our own arbitrary preferences, not based on universal principles?

 

We may say that in the free market, land owners that set harsh rules, will not flourish. That might be true, but that does not answer the philosophical question about whether this is morally right.

 

This question has already been discussed in various forms in previous discussions. I have not yet found a satisfying way to look at it yet, so I welcome your input.

[TheRobin]

Unless you're a farmer or a caretaker of a protected nature area how would you get the ownership in the first place?
What "land" people actually own is houses/appartements and maybe a bit of garden/lawn.

I fail to see the problem. Unless you want to say that you should have a right to enter other people's homes, make yourself comfortable on their lawn or walk through their cornfields (or whatever they plant) then where's the problem?

Like, what locations would you want to visit where you expect problems to occur as a result of ownership?

[square4]

I fail to see the problem. Unless you want to say that you should have a right to enter other people's homes, make yourself comfortable on their lawn or walk through their cornfields (or whatever they plant) then where's the problem?

 

 

Of course, we have no right to enter other people's houses. But if the ownership is about a large area, such as a large corn field, I would think there are circumstances where people would have the right to walk through other people's corn fields, if they need to travel through it for some reason (a right-of-way), of course provided they do not damage the corn, and the owner would not have the right to attack those who are passing by.

 

Like, what locations would you want to visit where you expect problems to occur as a result of ownership?

 

People would spent a large percentage of their time on the property of others: the houses they rent, the roads and other transportation facilities, parking places, shops, and businesses where they work 8 hours a day. Can the owners of these places set arbitrary conditions for entry, basically making all other property rights superfluous?

[William Wyatt]

voluntaryist property rights permit, not ownership of land, but ownership of that which you've mixed your labour with, like building a house. There are much more elaborate explanationsof what it is to mix your labour. 

If there are property disputes, we would only assume they would be dealt with by community court systems, or DRO's. 
the wealthier man may win the case unless the rest of the community dissagrees. So it is still a decentralized democracy in a sense... 

 

[TheRobin]

 

 

Of course, we have no right to enter other people's houses. But if the ownership is about a large area, such as a large corn field, I would think there are circumstances where people would have the right to walk through other people's corn fields, if they need to travel through it for some reason (a right-of-way), of course provided they do not damage the corn, and the owner would not have the right to attack those who are passing by.

 

This is more a practical/legal problem than an ethics problem. If it's your field then obviously you can exluce anyone from walking through that field for any reason. However that doesn't mean you can just shoot people who set a foot on your ground. As there might be lots of reasons why they do it (like being unaware that don't wish the have your field traversed or maybe they're in grave danger or whatever). Also, even assuming they continue to walk through your field without adhering to your warning, shooting them for it would still be immoral, as they haven't threatened your life or anything else.

Think of it this way, assuming the case goes to court afterwards: What would be the restitution for the trespassers? Certainly not a death penatly, so shooting them is out of question. However it was still a breach of proeprty rights on their parts, so you can use force to get restitution if you so desire.

 

 

 

 

People would spent a large percentage of their time on the property of others: the houses they rent, the roads and other transportation facilities, parking places, shops, and businesses where they work 8 hours a day. Can the owners of these places set arbitrary conditions for entry, basically making all other property rights superfluous?

If they couldn't then you'd just make their property rights in their store, facility, business, etc. superflous. As you'd then claim to have a better right to decide how they can use their own property than they themselves do, which would completely invalidate any property rights (as they then would have the same right to make decisions over how you can use your own property)

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

It wouldn't erase all morality because if anyone can do what they want to you or your property then they can apply morality to it. 

[labmath2]

I assume its not immoral to put a sign saying all trespassers will be shot on site.

[TheRobin]

I assume its not immoral to put a sign saying all trespassers will be shot on site.

No, but that doesn't make it moral to shoot tresspassers on site either

[Mister Mister]

owning property doesn't trump the non-aggression principle.  There's no rational Law system that would defend the scenario you are describing.  I can't invite a woman into my house, point to a sign in my bedroom which says "all guests must have sex with the home-owner on demand", and rape her.  And there is no one who argues for universal property rights who has come close to arguing anything like that.  The closest thing to what you are saying, is that it is sometimes argued that you can initiate force against someone who is on your property if you have reason to believe they have intention to commit a crime.  If someone enters your house in the middle of the night, if someone is making threats or refuses to leave when asked, if there are clear signs saying "No Trespassing", and so on, then it may be that force is justifiable.  But at the same time, you can't shoot a Jehovah's Witness who rings your doorbell in the middle of the day.

 

Property rights are a concept which extend from the obvious reality of self-ownership, which are supposed to serve as a Universal, consistent, and intelligible principle by which we can resolve inevitable disputes over the exclusive use of matter.  This concept is in no way opposed to self-ownership, it is extended from it, it is a logical conclusion of it.  And if you reject this concept, you still have to reconcile the fact that there will be conflicts over the use of land, resources, and even ideas in any society.  As far as I know, there is no other just and rational way to resolve these conflicts.

[AncapFTW]

 

How can be prevented that land or building ownership would basically negate self-ownership? The problem is as follows. Suppose a person owns a piece of land, and grants access to the land under the terms that he chooses. In the extreme case, the condition that he sets for entering his land may be that anyone may do whatever he wants with you and your property, while on this piece of land. If this would be valid, it would basically erase all morality on this land. Of course, we have the option not to enter his land. But now suppose nearly all land is owned, and each owner has certain conditions for entering, regarding your body and your property. Suppose those rules are not as extreme as in the previous example, but they are arbitrary rules, nonetheless. If they, as a land owner, have the right to set rules, as a condition for entering, why would they not? This might mean, as the stipulated conditions multiply, that in the end basically everything, except land ownership, is completely governed by the rules of the land owners. Anyone who inhabits the earth unavoidably must be on some piece of land (or sea), which is likely to be owned, and therefore be subject to the "jurisdiction" (or government) of the land owner. This means, for example, that prohibition against theft basically becomes irrelevant, except to the degree that the land owners, of their own accord, decide to take it into account in their conditions for entering their land. Of all ethical principles, only one remains, namely that of land ownership, and self-ownership would be like a thing of the past, only to be exercised out of society in the unowned woods. This does not seem right.

 

Intuitively, we may say, that a land owner should not set absurd rules, and we would want to limit them in various ways, but how do we avoid that these will be just our own arbitrary preferences, not based on universal principles?

 

We may say that in the free market, land owners that set harsh rules, will not flourish. That might be true, but that does not answer the philosophical question about whether this is morally right.

 

This question has already been discussed in various forms in previous discussions. I have not yet found a satisfying way to look at it yet, so I welcome your input.

 

1) The hypothetical landowner reminds me of a government, especially with the "all land is owned" part added in.  The main difference is that the hypothetical land owner probably didn't get the land through violence.

2) This reminds me of the "can you sell your rights" argument I was once in when I mentioned Indentured Servitude.   Basically, all interaction is a limitation on your rights, and you choose to limit those rights when you choose to interact.  In this case, you get to choose if the rules on one owners land are worth the benefits of being on the land.  If not, find a better place where it is.  If no place exists, find the one that is best.

As for whether such rules are immoral, I would ask if they require violence to force them on people.  Whether or not they use violence when being enforced doesn't matter.  If I freely agree that you can shoot me if I step off of a walkway, then step off, I wouldn't consider it immoral to shoot me, as I agreed to the punishment as a condition of being there.  I would, however, consider it immoral to make that a condition of the contract if it doesn't at least put someone else's life at risk if I leave the path.

[DCLugi]

If I let you in my house can I set a rule saying I can do what ever I want to you? Morality doesn't change when I get into a taxi that isn't mine. The driver has the right to remove me from his cab but he can't say while you're in my cab I have the right to open mouth kiss you while shaving your legs.

[Anuojat]

If i walk unto someones property i am not threatening said property unless if i refuse to leave of be led out.

 

Hell, basic human decency of saying sorry and asking for best directiosn for way out seems to be the mso tlikely outcome in 99% cases in free society.

 

Also... self-ownership being negated is impossible. Thats like me renting an apartment and being told that it costs 500€ a month and then being told i am not responceable for effects of my actions. I then dont pay my bills. Land property cannto negate self ownership because then the said "violator" would not be responceable for "disobeying" said rules.

[Nathan Metric]

Where did we get this idea that property rights are absolute? Property rights are rights that are deduced from other moral values. Not the end all of morality.