Property: The thread of what it means to own things

Ok, I'm not very sure how best to start this. Given human nature, each of us has the notion that some things "belong" to us, that even if we don't happen to possess them at any given time, they are "ours" to do with as we please. These things -- property -- are more than just possessions (i.e. things we physically possess or, more loosely, have sole practical access to). Because they are more than just possessions, it would seem that they would be defined by what it is proper (I'm guessing the words have the same etymological root, which might shed some light on initial attitudes) for an individual to have access to. The notion of property would, then, seem to make sense only in a moral context (which would then be codified in law). That is, what can and can not be property is a question of what morally should and should not be accorded to an individual.

Some socio-economic theories (please correct me if I'm wrong) view property as theft (though I really have no idea how this makes sense). Others view it as non-theft and necessary for a human's survival.

No matter which view you have, however (unless you think "property" labels something that doesn't exist), it is the case that governments usually have the power to restrict one's use of particular pieces of property, which prompts me to question the utility of the notion of property -- as I described it in my first paragraph, property may not even exist if a government can impose restrictions.

This train of thought sprung to mind again because of Raptor Buddha's thread on eminent domain. Ever since I shed my libertarian identity and adopted a more "moderate" one (by U.S. standards, save for my socially liberal stances), I've wondered about the best way to think of property, and how much influence over it anyone else can have for it to remain property.

I have come to no conclusions, myself, so I would like to know what everyone else thinks. Discuss, and may the property be (or not be) with you!

While I have not studied economics and government beyond what was required in high school (a semester on government and a semester on economics), socialism is the system that I believe is the most viable. Everyone is paid equally no matter what their job is and it isn't based off of competition (such as in Capitalism) and seems to put more focus on working together and cooperating as a human race. I don't really like the attitude that society has right now which is "well I'm doing fine, why should I give a ♥♥♥♥ about other people?" Which I believe is reinforced by having a capitalist economy.

I think it makes sense for an individual to have ownership of things like a computer, or a bed, or a couch, or a car, or a house. When it comes to things like buildings (i.e. factories, police stations), I don't think there should be one person who owns it. Everyone who contributes to its production and maintenance should "own" it, so to speak.

But I will admit that I don't believe that any country is ready to move from a capitalist/mixed economy and become a socialist one over the course of a week or a month. For now I think it would only work in small isolated communities. Socialism probably wouldn't work unless the entire global economy switched to it, something that I doubt I'll see in my lifetime.

Well, I know you kindly asked for my opinion in this thread, and I’m sorry to say that my opinion on the morality of property rights is hopelessly primitive and undeveloped. I, like you, have made no definitive opinion. This is because I think that your views on property are most likely a function of your views of human nature. E.g. is it moral and correct for individuals to accrue resources and limit access of the same resources to all others? Or, on the other hand, is the very notion of property meaningless? Is it just an arbitrary distinction used to accrue resources at the expense of others? Is it possible that the truth is somewhere in the middle? Would it be proper to acknowledge some degree of ownership in those resources we personally possess and use rather than have property be a function of a signature on a piece of paper? I really don’t know myself. I think either way there’s going to be some arbitrariness no matter what you personally believe. However, I do think that depending on what your views of property are, your personal political and economic beliefs tend to rationally follow. I really haven’t resolved this issue, but I hope I’ve at least illuminated my ongoing existential property angst. : P

Now, I feel like I can speak a bit more confidently as to the character of property when subject to restrictions, and whether that still constitutes property in the literal sense. I think this very depends on what your view of property is. Generally, almost all property is subject to regulation in some form another, whether real or personal property. If your point of view is that property is constitutes that which you have exclusive right to use and enjoy without any contravening interests (i.e. the government), then I suppose you can argue that what you have isn’t property—merely a license to use things in an acceptable way. Of course you can also argue that property really isn’t about owning the object but the value of the object. I think this point of view gets some support in the US Constitution’s Fifth Amendment which allows for the taking of property so long as that property is taken with just compensation. Also, if one has a definition that property precludes regulatory control, I think the easy way to explain that discrepancy is that the government isn’t regulating the thing in itself, but is instead regulating you and your uses of that thing.

So, the short of it is that I think whether or not regulation negates the existence of property really depends on your definition. I think if one does have a definition of property that precludes regulation, then it’s going to be very difficult finding a real instance of personal property in a situation where there is no authority whatsoever.

Everyone is paid equally no matter what their job is

The problem with this idea is that if everyone is compensated equally, then they aren't being compensated fairly.

Certain jobs and fields of work have higher value placed on them than others, based on demand for service and occasionally the difficulty of the work itself.

Why should someone who drives shipments on a minimal education be paid the exact same salary as a doctor who provides medical service on a maximal education?

Originally Posted by Great White North

Why should someone who drives shipments on a minimal education be paid the exact same salary as a doctor who provides medical service on a maximal education?

Because without those shipments the doctor wouldn't have tools and medicine to work with.

It's not exactly difficult to drive a shipment. It is kind of difficult to do brain surgery.

Difficulty is not synonymous with importance.

Also, we were talking about a doctor, not a brain surgeon. I could just as easily say that ice road trucking is incredibly difficult. It's not easy driving a semi on hundreds of miles of ice.

Difficulty is not synonymous with importance.

No, but it is usually synonymous with value.

Almost anybody with two arms and two legs could drive a truck, and even some of those without them.

It's a great deal more difficult to practice medicine.

I enjoy owning things. There are more things I would like to have, but I can't afford them, and I can live with that. This is about as deep as my thoughts on the subject go.

Originally Posted by Great White North

Why should someone who drives shipments on a minimal education be paid the exact same salary as a doctor who provides medical service on a maximal education?

Risk is also a big factor. Why should I, as a soldier being shot at everyday in a country full of terrorists hostile towards me, or a coal miner inhaling poisonous dusts and having worry about mine collapses, be paid at the same rate as a woman who will never have to worry about such things (and expends less calories, I might add) by selling groceries at the marketplace?

Capitalism is far from perfect, but I don't see socialism working very well in the present human condition.

Originally Posted by Great White North

The problem with this idea is that if everyone is compensated equally, then they aren't being compensated fairly.

Certain jobs and fields of work have higher value placed on them than others, based on demand for service and occasionally the difficulty of the work itself.

Why should someone who drives shipments on a minimal education be paid the exact same salary as a doctor who provides medical service on a maximal education?

And this is why I don't believe Socialism could work. At least not in the world today. Too many people have this arbitrary concept of values such has how risky a job is or how difficult a job is, rather than viewing every job as a necessity to a functional and happy society.

It won't be until we stop applying all these abstract concepts to our lives that we'll be ready to shift forward.

Originally Posted by Gamzee

And this is why I don't believe Socialism could work.

You reject the entirety of socialism on the basis of one, contrived, totalitarian, theoretical implementation? What of mutualism, parecon, egotism, decentralized (industrialized) communism, resource-pool (primitive) communism, collectivist anarchism, ...?

Too many people have this arbitrary concept of values

Is the value of the work/hour of someone who produces a car in one year equal to the value of the work/hour of someone who produces an entirely identical car in one day?

If we have no concept of value, what motivations exist, external or internal, to do none but the least intense and quickest work? I'd love to be a video game reviewer if the quality of my reviews is irrelevant, and I only have to work an hour a year to make as much money as a surgeon who works ten hours a day.

It won't be until we stop applying all these abstract concepts to our lives that we'll be ready to shift forward.

I would like to note that all of society is based on abstract concepts. Actually society is inherently abstract, most of our world is.

That's one of the wonders of humans. If we don't like how the world is, through our collective minds and agreement, we can make it, in effect, the same as if it had been physically that way.

On the subject of capitalism vs socialism. On a global scale, I wouldn't say to go with either of them. I'd say a type of global Federalism would work best for this, so that those areas which would prefer, and gain more happiness from a capitalist society can have that, and those who gain more happiness from socialism in their society can have that. And those who'd like a mix, or some other type of concept can have that in their own community. Or, really, what we have globally already lol.

Although I'm no economist, and I'm not particularly educated on the issue, so I can't comment very well on it.

Originally Posted by Gamzee

And this is why I don't believe Socialism could work. At least not in the world today. Too many people have this arbitrary concept of values such has how risky a job is or how difficult a job is, rather than viewing every job as a necessity to a functional and happy society.

It won't be until we stop applying all these abstract concepts to our lives that we'll be ready to shift forward.

I really don't think we're going to cease applying such concepts. It's not as if worker pay is doled out by philosophers -- instead, it's given by people who must decide how much money they're willing to part with for the job to get done. If the workers like the offer, they take it (ideally). If everyone got paid the same, however, there would be no incentive to do more difficult, tedious, or menial work. Everyone would try to work the easiest job they could. Unfortunately, humanity couldn't survive by doing that, or at least it couldn't have anywhere near our current level of technology and quality of life.

---------- Post added at 08:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:42 AM ----------

This thread has gotten extremely side-tracked. Please keep it on property. Socialism vs capitalism vs whatever is for other threads.

Undeniably. I'm wanting to discuss property on a different level, though, not argue political philosophy as such. I want to know in what way the concept of property makes sense, for one thing, as it's not reducible to what we physically possess, nor is it reducible to what we desire or demand. If anything, the existence of property seems to be the product of agreements made and upheld with other people. However, since we still use the term even though the government can regulate how we can or can not use our "property", it's not as if we can do whatever we want with it, thus making people who say "MY money, the government is stealing it from me!" sound somewhat idiotic.

Originally Posted by Bravo

Spoiler:  

Once upon a time, there was a little red hen who lived on a farm . She was friends with a lazy dog , a sleepy cat , and a noisy yellow duck .


One day the little red hen found some seeds on the ground. The little red hen had an idea. She would plant the seeds .

The little red hen asked her friends, "Who will help me plant the seeds ?"

"Not I," barked the lazy dog .
"Not I," purred the sleepy cat .
"Not I," quacked the noisy yellow duck .

"Then I will," said the little red hen . So the little red hen planted the seeds all by herself.


When the seeds had grown, the little red hen asked her friends, "Who will help me cut the wheat ?"

"Not I," barked the lazy dog .
"Not I," purred the sleepy cat .
"Not I," quacked the noisy yellow duck .

"Then I will," said the little red hen . So the little red hen cut the wheat all by herself.


When all the wheat was cut, the little red hen asked her friends, "Who will help me take the wheat to the mill to be ground into flour ?"

"Not I," barked the lazy dog .
"Not I," purred the sleepy cat .
"Not I," quacked the noisy yellow duck .

"Then I will," said the little red hen . So the little red hen brought the wheat to the mill all by herself, ground the wheat into flour , and carried the heavy sack of flour back to the farm .


The tired little red hen asked her friends, "Who will help me bake the bread ?"

"Not I," barked the lazy dog .
"Not I," purred the sleepy cat .
"Not I," quacked the noisy yellow duck .

"Then I will," said the little red hen . So the little red hen baked the bread all by herself.


When the bread was finished, the tired little red hen asked her friends, "Who will help me eat the bread ?"

"I will," barked the lazy dog .
"I will," purred the sleepy cat .
"I will," quacked the noisy yellow duck .

"No!" said the little red hen . "I will." And the little red hen ate the bread all by herself.

I don't know if that's how Socialism is supposed to work, but if someone chooses to not get a job then I don't see why they should receive an income or any benefits.

I guess I'm not a fan then.

I'm a bit late getting to this, but I feel it's necessary...

Originally Posted by Bravo

Well, like I said, that was written from the capitalist's point of view. Obviously socialists don't intend for vast numbers of people to sit on their asses. They intend for people to work, but to work because they WANT to. They think that human nature will cause people who lie idle to become bored and seek work simply for the change of pace. I just happen to think that they're a little overly optimistic.

This is a very strange understanding of socialism. Does this include socialist and egoist, Max Stirner, who wrote:

"They all have an admirable time of it when they receive zealous homage. Just observe the nation that is defended by devoted patriots. The patriots fall in bloody battle or in the fight with hunger and want; what does the nation care for that? By the manure of their corpses the nation comes to "its bloom"! The individuals have died "for the great cause of the nation," and the nation sends some words of thanks after them and - has the profit of it. I call that a paying kind of egoism.

But only look at that Sultan who cares so lovingly for his people. Is he not pure unselfishness itself, and does he not hourly sacrifice himself for his people? Oh, yes, for "his people." Just try it; show yourself not as his, but as your own; for breaking away from his egoism you will take a trip to jail. The Sultan has set his cause on nothing but himself; he is to himself all in all, he is to himself the only one, and tolerates nobody who would dare not to be one of "his people."

And will you not learn by these brilliant examples that the egoist gets on best? I for my part take a lesson from them, and propose, instead of further unselfishly serving those great egoists, rather to be the egoist myself."

And:

"Nothing is more to me than myself!"

And:

"The world has become prosaic, for the divine has vanished from it: it is my property, which I dispose of as I (namely, the mind) choose."

And:

"Very good! I do not want to have or be anything especial above others, I do not want to claim any prerogative against them, but - I do not measure myself by others either, and do not want to have any right whatever. I want to be all and have all that I can be and have. Whether others are and have anything similar, what do I care? The equal, the same, they can neither be nor have. I cause no detriment to them, as I cause no detriment to the rock by being "ahead of it" in having motion. If they could have it, they would have it."

?

What of the free market socialists? Proudhon and the like?

Property is a tricky business. Let's consider the story of the Little Red Hen.

Perhaps this would be more relevant if the work loads were reversed, but the conclusion remained the same.

Originally Posted by Left4Cuccos

Ok, I'm not very sure how best to start this. Given human nature, each of us has the notion that some things "belong" to us, that even if we don't happen to possess them at any given time, they are "ours" to do with as we please.

I disagree that the desire to "own" things is part of human nature. I believe it is a cultural value instilled in us because of the market based economy we exist within.

I believe that if we lived in a gift economy, or a resource based economy, where the only motivation for many things is profit, we would not have this value.

Originally Posted by AzraelBlack

I disagree that the desire to "own" things is part of human nature. I believe it is a cultural value instilled in us because of the market based economy we exist within.

Would I be correct in pointing out that property existed before markets?

Originally Posted by Double A

Would I be correct in pointing out that property existed before markets?

Before civilisation, most tribal groups have worked in a sense of common ownership. What belonged to them belonged to the entire family/tribe/clan. People were part of a cell and not individuals, as individual existence was much more difficult than living as part of a group.

As groups came together and societies began people began to trade, once there is trade there is market. But I highly doubt that there was individual sense of ownership as trade would have begun between these cells of people.

With market came individual property.