All property is secured by force.
Who owns the north pole, and why? Why is america owned by ‘americans’ and not ‘native americans’? Do you really want me to dish up all the paradoxes implied by the homesteading principle?
Property is a matter of force, plain and simple. There are property claims which i support, and ones which i am less fond of, but in the end, might makes right.
Am I saying that anarcho-capitalism is inconsistent? Sure looks that way.
(Well, it depends on what you mean by AC: AC doesnt have to be inconsistent, you just have to leave out that whole ‘natural’ right thing.)
Property isn’t the physical item, it’s the way we relate to the physical item. If the North Pole is my property, that means I can justly do what I wish with the land. As Bastiat says; “In our relations with one another, we are not owners of the utility of things, but of their value, and value is the appraisal made of reciprocal services.”
Sorry posted at wrong location!
Force or the threat of force are the fundamental premises at the basis of property, law etc. If you can’t enforce it, it’s irrelevant.
In the real world, might is right. The concept of “natural” right arises from deeply ingrained social and evolutionary norms that have been programmed into us by society or evolution, and they’re by no means infallible. Just remember the looting and mayhem that took hold in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina.
Force or the threat of force are the fundamental premises at the basis of property, law etc. If you can’t enforce it, it’s irrelevant.
In the real world, might is right. The concept of “natural” right arises from deeply ingrained social and evolutionary norms that have been programmed into us by society or evolution, and they’re by no means infallible. Just remember the looting and mayhem that took hold in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina.
Disagree. If I catch a fish or bake a loaf of bread and you agree to buy it from me or trade for it, where is the force? If you sell me the oven to bake the bread, where is the force? There isn’t any. Voluntarily trading property isn’t force. Force would be needed to steal it.
If i fill out my tax form, where is the force? Well, it is implied.
The fact that i am even considering buying the fish from you, rather than just taking it, means i take your implied threat of force seriously.
Who says the fact that you caught the fish makes it yours? You say so, and i happen to agree that it is sensible that the fruit of ones labor should be ones property (which ofcource includes the right to trade it away for a wage). But thats still nothing but our opinions happening to coincide. If you were to somehow catch all the fish on this planet, youd probably have a much harder time extending your property claim to that.
If you take my property from me (i.e., theft), then you are initiating force. You agreed to not initiate force, so if you did, then you would be breaking your contract. I also agreed to defend myself against force, so you should expect me to use defensive force. Surely this is simple and clear?
Ergo, you need force to guarantee your property remains yours. Just what Eelco and I’ve been saying.
I didnt know where were assuming any preconditions.
I might have agreed not to initiate force, but that was because i saw a benefit to it, not because it was ‘natural’.
I still dont believe there is any less force involved in you defending your property claim than in me challenging it. Its two sides of the same coin. The question is, do i respect your property claims? That can undoubtly be arranged, infact id be eager to reach such a mutual agreement, but it just doesnt follow from the non-agression principle.
No. If everyone agrees to not initiate force, then how are they going to take my property? Non-initiation of force implies many things, including no theft.
See above. if you agree to not initiate force, then you have also agreed to not steal my property. By our agreement, you restrain yourself from initiating force against me. If you follow your agreement to not initiate force, then I don’t need to use any defensive force. By agreement, you don’t initiate force and I don’t use defensive force and vice versa.
Technically, the part about defensive force is unnecessary because if everyone agrees to not initiate force, *and* defensive force is implicit against someone else who initiates force.
Regarding natural rights, this basic agreement about force doesn’t make any specific claims about natural rights or natural laws.
Reiterating your point doesnt make it more convincing.
If i take your fish while you are looking the other way, where is the force? It just isnt ‘force’, unless you want to extend the definition of force to ‘everything i dislike’. But why then not just call it that? You claim its your fish, i claim its my fish. Not assuming any preconditions, our positions are equal. Only because you assume the one property claim is just and the other is not do you see the position of these two actors as different.
What are these assumptions, and how are you going to make reality conform to them?
Not any more so than holding on to it is force.
But if you want, we can change the scenario to me just claiming the fish is mine, without moving a finger.
I really didn’t have anything to add here, but I just wanted to see how squished this text could get.
cthulhujunior 3 years, 10 months ago.
©2012 The Seasteading Institute