SRL Archive - Discussions & Debates

I'm going to write a short narrative on what I think the nature of property is.

What is property? What does it mean to have property? Where do "property rights" come from?

Property is anything whose use is controlled. For instance, if you own some land you control how it will be used, whether it will be farmed, cultivated, a house built upon it or simply left fallow. You control who may be granted or denied access to it. In other words, you have property rights.

Where do these property rights come from?

I'm increasing becoming convinced that your ownership of property is backed up by force.

Simply claiming property as yours does not make it yours. A property-owner's claim to have something is only as good as the force that backs it up. If a thief steals it or an invader drives you away from it, it has changed hands. You might claim the property is morally yours, and we might entirely sympathise but that doesn't change the fact that the property is now controlled by someone else.
I should mention that I'm talking about the situation as it currently is, not about the moral justification. We should look at how reality actually is, not how we're like it to be.
I'm sure many tears have been shed for the native Americans who were driven from their land and the poor Africans whose land was colonised. But the fact remains that the use of that land was controlled by the invaders, there's no denying that. The British, French, Spanish, Dutch or whoever it were the owner of the land. Remember, this post isn't about morals but facts, of course colonialism was wrong.

You might argue that property comes from contracts. For instance, you have a title-deed to your house and thus the house is yours.
We can look at examples like Hitler marching troops into the Rhineland, in defiance of the Treaty of Versailles, which he claimed was "Merely a piece of paper".
We can also look at the example in Isreal. There have been cases of Palestinians that held title-deeds and lived in a house who were then driven away when the state of Isreal was created. 40 years later these Palestinians returned to find new people living in that house. These people also had title-deeds to the house, but these were issued by the state of Isreal.
We have a situation where two people hold title-deeds over the same property.
For much of its history, the U.N. has passed resolutions that were completely ignored by most nations. It was only recently that its resolutions were given "teeth," with the creation of U.N. peace-keeping forces.

Now, another thing I want to introduce is the notion of ultimate property and subordinate property. Those who have ultimate property (say, the army) can create a system of subordinate property where they devolve some of their power for other people to use.
An imperfect analogy is a landlord and tenant. Although the landlord has ultimate property he creates a subordinate property for the tenant to use in exchange for money. The tenant may move into the apartments (say) and refer to them as "his" or "her" home.
In our western democracies, the state has ultimate property but it devolves almost all property rights to citizens living within it.

So if you agree with me that all property ownership is backed up by force then it's interesting to note that, if you own your own home, then your house isn't your house at all, but actually belongs ultimately to the army, the police and government of your nation-state. It's quite an interesting and possibly disturbing thought.


Now land is just one example of property, other examples historically are objects (say gold and silver), ideas (intellectual property and copyright), people (like slaves) and even portions of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Historically some types of property have been abolished (like slaves) and some explicitly created (like intellectual property).

The electromagnetic spectrum is probably the most interesting case, if you know anything about physics you'll know that the radio frequency 64.5MHz (say) is merely a mathematical abstraction, you could say it doesn't even exist until somebody turns on a radio set and starts broadcasting on it. And yet, the station BBC Radio 4 is said to own the frequency 198KHz, if you broadcast on that frequency then police detect your location, come to your home, arrest you and turn off your radio equipment. They are enforcing the property rights of the BBC.

It's also interesting to note that humans are not the only animals that behave like this. We can see that dogs, lions, cats, elephants, wolfs and even butterflys are territorial. They defend their territory by force. They evolve bigger bodies, larger brains and the ability to form packs in order to become better at defending territory. It seems to me this is simply how the universe works.

This is what some call the violence inherent in the system.


What about us non-anarchists? It's pretty obvious to me that society cannot function without property, yet now we understand that property ownership is backed up by force. Since almost everyone agrees that force is bad, I'm forced to conclude that we cannot live in society without being massive hypocrites with regard to property.

Spam Bots!!!

On topic: DIdn't know you were still around Yakman :)

The niggling point is the assumption that "almost everyone agrees that force is bad" because that is much too general for the end result. As an example, everyone may agree that force is bad, but force may be required to protect yourself in a case of self-defence and that is something almost everyone would agree is okay. Another example is the force required for enforcing the law. People don't, always, willingly go to jail when breaking a law, but, especially for the more severe laws, almost everyone would agree that force is necessary. While this doesn't specifically critique the "bad" it is the case that the use of bad isn't entirely clear. From the context, I interpret "bad" to mean "something to be avoided" in which case I have answered it, however you might have meant it in a different way.

As I've linked it to law above, that brings us to laws enforcing property ownership. If the ownership of an item or piece of land or anything is disputed, there should be a paper trail which clearly leads from manufacturer to consumer which indisputably states who owns the item. The law is such that, ignoring complications from forgery and other crimes, this trail is the "truth" in the same way that laws create truths (an example of a law truth being "If you commit legal murder then you will go to jail for so many years".)

From: mixster
The niggling point is the assumption that "almost everyone agrees that force is bad" because that is much too general for the end result. As an example, everyone may agree that force is bad, but force may be required to protect yourself in a case of self-defence and that is something almost everyone would agree is okay. Another example is the force required for enforcing the law. People don't, always, willingly go to jail when breaking a law, but, especially for the more severe laws, almost everyone would agree that force is necessary. While this doesn't specifically critique the "bad" it is the case that the use of bad isn't entirely clear. From the context, I interpret "bad" to mean "something to be avoided" in which case I have answered it, however you might have meant it in a different way.

So violence is good provided it leads to a stable society where people have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

I think I can agree with that, after all a doctor does terrible violence to your body but we say its good because he's probably saving your life.

From: mixster

As I've linked it to law above, that brings us to laws enforcing property ownership. If the ownership of an item or piece of land or anything is disputed, there should be a paper trail which clearly leads from manufacturer to consumer which indisputably states who owns the item. The law is such that, ignoring complications from forgery and other crimes, this trail is the "truth" in the same way that laws create truths (an example of a law truth being "If you commit legal murder then you will go to jail for so many years".)

But arn't laws merely rules that society agrees to live by? Those rules are still enforced by violence, that is, the police.

Also, what about other property like land and the EM spectrum where nobody has manufactured it. Land has existed for more than 4 billion years before you were born and will exist for many more millennia after we're all gone.

From: Yakman
But arn't laws merely rules that society agrees to live by? Those rules are still enforced by violence, that is, the police.

Also, what about other property like land and the EM spectrum where nobody has manufactured it. Land has existed for more than 4 billion years before you were born and will exist for many more millennia after we're all gone.

In a (pseudo) democracy, the laws are the result of the majority opinion, so it (if we lived in a less imperfect world) follows that enforcing the laws by force is something the majority of people want - if they didn't, then they wouldn't be laws.

As for the un-manufactured, again it's indirectly the consequence of majority opinion.

As I said, that is only true if we lived in a less imperfect world. Since that's not the case, it's a point of contention amongst some, but ultimately the governments enforce it and if it were a big enough problem then they would be overthrown. Since it's not a big enough problem, there is no revolution.

If you were looking for a more philosophical approach, does the ownership of sections of the EM offer more advantages than disadvantages? Well, things like emergency signals that could be damaged by interference offer good reason for a government-enforced ban on usage. Similarly, commercialisation of sections offer a sauce of money for governments that they can use for good. There are some amateurs or small companies unable to buy a section, so leaving some sections open for them allows a compromise, where the ideal balancing point between the quantities of restricted and unrestricted is up to the government to find.

With things like land, I would say it's the case that the government "initially" owns all of it then people "buy" it from them in a similar commercialisation of excess property.

Intellectual property is another area of contention and again one where, unless there is serious opposition and revolution, the government does whatever it wishes to.

Again, on a more philosophical level, it should be the case that it offers a balance between encouraging ingenuity and allowing global adaptation of improvements where the government needs to find the ideal.

From: mixster
In a (pseudo) democracy, the laws are the result of the majority opinion, so it (if we lived in a less imperfect world) follows that enforcing the laws by force is something the majority of people want - if they didn't, then they wouldn't be laws.

As for the un-manufactured, again it's indirectly the consequence of majority opinion.

As I said, that is only true if we lived in a less imperfect world. Since that's not the case, it's a point of contention amongst some, but ultimately the governments enforce it and if it were a big enough problem then they would be overthrown. Since it's not a big enough problem, there is no revolution.

If you were looking for a more philosophical approach, does the ownership of sections of the EM offer more advantages than disadvantages? Well, things like emergency signals that could be damaged by interference offer good reason for a government-enforced ban on usage. Similarly, commercialisation of sections offer a sauce of money for governments that they can use for good. There are some amateurs or small companies unable to buy a section, so leaving some sections open for them allows a compromise, where the ideal balancing point between the quantities of restricted and unrestricted is up to the government to find.

With things like land, I would say it's the case that the government "initially" owns all of it then people "buy" it from them in a similar commercialisation of excess property.

Intellectual property is another area of contention and again one where, unless there is serious opposition and revolution, the government does whatever it wishes to.

Again, on a more philosophical level, it should be the case that it offers a balance between encouraging ingenuity and allowing global adaptation of improvements where the government needs to find the ideal.

Your wrong.

[15:15] <mixster> I'm expecting another one of the same messages telling me that I'm wrong without explanations and no reference to the points that I brought up that sparked this all off

From: Awkwardsaw
Your wrong.

*you're wrong

From: mixster
*you're wrong

Definitely didn't see that one coming!

Anyways, on topic: It's all one big illusion. How can you or the government or anyone tell you that a certain piece of land is 'yours?' Nothing makes us own property, it's simply the thought that we can that allows us to. So what really keeps someone from going into the middle of nowhere and building a house? I don't understand how anyone has the right to own property in the first place.

An interesting side note: according to U.S. law documents (I can't remember where it says this but my friend showed me one time), if you own a piece of land you own it down to the center of the earth and forever into space. Interesting how we think we can just claim an infinite amount of space, eh?

The Palestinians voluntarily left their land behind. Since most of these people were "traitors" to the country of Israel in the sense that they went to Arab held cities and eventually Arab held countries, Israel decided that they had forfeited their rights to the land.

It's noteworthy that many Palestinians and other Arabs chose NOT to leave, so saying they were "driven out" is a bit over the top. Those that remained in Israel have lived a relatively peaceful coexistence with Israeli Jews for decades.

It's also noteworthy that much of that land has still not be expropriated today, so it's not like Israel was gobbling up every piece of Palestinian land they could. The vast majority of Palestinian land that has been expropriated was used for a public purpose, just like land owned by Jewish citizens has been to a similar extent. We even have "eminent domain" in the US where property can be seized for a public purpose, and nobody acts like it's a civil rights crisis.

Well I didn't mean this thread to be about the Arab-Isreali conflict.

Whatever your views on that conflict, surely you must agree that land is held not by those who it "rightfully" belongs to (which of course depends on the moral standard you use), but is held by those who have the most guns and the largest army.

Like, am I wrong about this? I can't think of a way out of the line of reasoning but the conclusion is rather distasteful.

From: Yakman
Well I didn't mean this thread to be about the Arab-Isreali conflict.

Whatever your views on that conflict, surely you must agree that land is held not by those who it "rightfully" belongs to (which of course depends on the moral standard you use), but is held by those who have the most guns and the largest army.

Like, am I wrong about this? I can't think of a way out of the line of reasoning but the conclusion is rather distasteful.

Isn't that kind of how ownership in general is? For instance, I own a cell phone, what is the difference between someone stealing my cell phone than someone deciding to build a house on my land?

Essentially we have to use force against those who are not law-abiding citizens. Most people respect laws that are in place, for no other reason than they are laws. Not because they will be punished otherwise. Because of the society that we live in which (for some) is some form of Democracy, even if there is something that we don't agree with, because the (supposed) majority agrees with it, we must follow what is in place. That isn't to say that people don't get fed up with certain things, but rather than just defy the government, most people will try to go through legitimate avenues to get what they want done, done.

In my mind the same thing applies to gun control. Even though there may be laws in place making gun ownership illegal, the people who do evil are still going to find guns and do evil with those guns. What that ends up doing is making the law-abiding citizens give up their guns and be defenseless against those who want to do them harm.

Edit -
Also Yakman, it is "Israel" not "Isreal".

From: sirlaughsalot
Essentially we have to use force against those who are not law-abiding citizens. Most people respect laws that are in place, for no other reason than they are laws. Not because they will be punished otherwise.

I disagree. Most people obey laws because there are consequences against not following laws. Example, jail, fines… People know that the law is no phone while driving, but guess what people still do it unless there's a cop around. Same thing goes for speeding….

Pretty much any law is ultimately enforced by the threat of violence.

Regarding ownership, since the government can tax ownership of property, and seize that property by the threat of force if you refuse to pay the tax, it's as if NOTHING can be owned by an individual.

It's almost like the government is merely leasing the property to you, and you don't own it at all. The laws in place that protect "property rights" are like the lease agreement you make with a furniture store. They can't come seize the property at any time, but it's still theirs.

This also makes me wonder how much property tax the Palestinians have been paying for the last 62 years…

I imagine it all started out as individuals defending their own property, anarchy basically. However soon people realised that groups are more effective at defending property than individuals.

One reason is the strength provided by numbers. An external invader with a small army could conceivably fight individuals one by one and drive them from their land. If the individuals form a group than an attack on one is an attack on all, so the entire group would mobilise to defend themselves.
Another reason groups are more effective is the division and specialisation of labour. The group could delegate people to be professional soldiers whose job is only to defend the group from external attack.
A third reason groups can be very effective is an accident of (evolutionary) history. We are social animals who evolved in tribes and thus we find it easy to have loyalty to our group. Nation-states have historically exploited this by appealing to patriotism and nationalism. In this way, soldiers are not only defending themselves and their families, but the honour of their country.

For almost all people in the world, collectivism in an effort to defend collective property is preferable to being invaded by the Hitler's and Stalin's of the world.

Today we still have these "collectivist groups" but we call them governments.



That's what my thread was about, can it really be true that your property is not your property but instead belongs to the collective?
It seems absurd and a little disturbing, yet I can't fault the line of reasoning.

From: Yakman
I imagine it all started out as individuals defending their own property, anarchy basically. However soon people realised that groups are more effective at defending property than individuals.

One reason is the strength provided by numbers. An external invader with a small army could conceivably fight individuals one by one and drive them from their land. If the individuals form a group than an attack on one is an attack on all, so the entire group would mobilise to defend themselves.
Another reason groups are more effective is the division and specialisation of labour. The group could delegate people to be professional soldiers whose job is only to defend the group from external attack.
A third reason groups can be very effective is an accident of (evolutionary) history. We are social animals who evolved in tribes and thus we find it easy to have loyalty to our group. Nation-states have historically exploited this by appealing to patriotism and nationalism. In this way, soldiers are not only defending themselves and their families, but the honour of their country.

For almost all people in the world, collectivism in an effort to defend collective property is preferable to being invaded by the Hitler's and Stalin's of the world.

Today we still have these "collectivist groups" but we call them governments.



That's what my thread was about, can it really be true that your property is not your property but instead belongs to the collective?
It seems absurd and a little disturbing, yet I can't fault the line of reasoning.

If you put it that way then from the very beginning the answer is no… But, maybe the group realizes that if you leave them, they will lose power/land. Then they reason that there's no ownership because that brings vulnerability. I can't break away from a country to form my own legally (at least to my understanding).

I disagree. Most people obey laws because there are consequences against not following laws. Example, jail, fines… People know that the law is no phone while driving, but guess what people still do it unless there's a cop around. Same thing goes for speeding….

I would disagree with that, a lot of people follow laws based on moral conscience, not just consequences. What you're saying is everyone lives in constant fear by obeying the law?

From: Yago
If you put it that way then from the very beginning the answer is no… But, maybe the group realizes that if you leave them, they will lose power/land. Then they reason that there's no ownership because that brings vulnerability. I can't break away from a country to form my own legally (at least to my understanding).

Not if you live in the good old USA. Ever hear of the civil war? South wanted to depart from the Union, and the North said no. Rest is history.

On topic: this is actually very true, although at least in the USA if the government decides they need your property (not because of taxes, but like a highway) they are required to pay you market value for your property. So a little better, but still not great.

From: cause
I would disagree with that, a lot of people follow laws based on moral conscience, not just consequences. What you're saying is everyone lives in constant fear by obeying the law?

I said most people. There are some things I don't do because of my beliefs, etc. But if there weren't consequences, some people would think twice about what they were doing.

From: Silent SPY
On topic: this is actually very true, although at least in the USA if the government decides they need your property (not because of taxes, but like a highway) they are required to pay you market value for your property. So a little better, but still not great.

I don't know if this is true, but a history teacher told me that there is a law or something and states cannot leave the union anymore…

From: Yago


I don't know if this is true, but a history teacher told me that there is a law or something and states cannot leave the union anymore…

This is true, hence why the civil war went how it did. States can try to do whatever they want, but the federal government will break them like a stick if they tried to do this. On a side note, if one of our air-craft carries went rouge, it would be like the 5th most powerful military in the world or something like that. Learned that in history class :)

If I decide to go spray paint some graffiti, chances are I'm NOT going to get caught or punished. Sure, there's a law against it, but I would say that most people don't spray paint graffiti because of a moral sense against it than the fear of being caught and punished.

From: tarajunky
If I decide to go spray paint some graffiti, chances are I'm NOT going to get caught or punished. Sure, there's a law against it, but I would say that most people don't spray paint graffiti because of a moral sense against it than the fear of being caught and punished.

exactly.