Kragen writes:
> I suspect I know what your answer will be: that the right to property
> is innate and natural.
Yes, that would be my first cut at an argument, here. For a deeper
treatment that goes back to Locke i.e. your later commons argument, cf.
In Defense of Property, Dietz.
> This is hard to argue with; it is a dogma, an
> axiom, not a conclusion from logical bases.
I'm don't agree with that --- your assessment flies in the face of
*lots* of academic study and discussion of the notion of property. The
initial concept of property --- call it "First Property" --- extends
from the idea that we at least "own" --- i.e., have sovereign control
over --- at least one thing: our bodies. Once you've introduced the
notion of ownership and property, it is easy and natural to extend the
concepts beyond the body.
> And I disagree with it.
And I completely respect your right to disagree; you can refuse to
recognize the concept of or to own property if you want, that's no skin
off my back. But if you act to deny my right to property, you have
stepped beyond your philosophy and into my reality --- not a nice thing,
kemo sabe, I deny your right to do *that.* (And that's one of the only
rights I will deny you.) I am sovereign in my world; I'm happy to let
you be sovereign in yours, if you don't adversely impact mine. When you
start screwing with my reality, though, I have a right to defend it.
> One is that commons tend to be overgrazed.
Yes, yes, you'd think somebody would've come up with a more modern /
less feudal example 'lo these last two hundred years....
> My dogma is that
> people should be good to each other and live together harmoniously so
> that they can develop their intellectual, artistic, and spiritual
> capacities.
Fine, whatever. But the basic problem is that your argument proceeds
from the notion that "the common good" is a real thing. This is
questionable. In my opinion, there is no such thing as the common good,
just the good of the individual. There may be overlap in interests
between several individuals, but that forms a basis for cooperation, not
a thing in itself. "The common good" is one of those dangerous
abstractions, like "God" or "nation" or "family values" or "race," that
are slippery enough and yet compelling enough to cause a whole lot of
grief.
> I fail to see how giving inheritance to one's heirs deserves our
> protection.
Many people work their entire lives to provide security for their
families, friends, and loved ones. If the creation of this sort of
security is one's life's work, then why should anyone be able to claim
the proceeds and benefits of it without the consent of the person that
created that wealth? Wouldn't forfeiture of such created wealth provide
negative incentive for hard work? It would for me. I don't
particularly need a Lear Jet or a Porsche, but I have a strong innate
desire to ensure the security of my progeny. If I know I forfeit
everything I work for at death, screw it, I'm not incented to work as
hard.
But back to your argument: the "peasants" have every right to revolt if
they don't like the way I'm using *my* quote-unquote "common lands."
(Let's imagine that these lands are lands I purchased after selling a
patent to a new method of increasing hay production; let's not assume
anything silly like these are feudally-granted lands. And by the way,
maybe I'm letting it lie fallow because it's been overgrazed in the
past, and needs a few seasons to get back to prime fertility and
production. Stupid peasants! ;-) And I have every right to shoot every
one of those damn peasants dead in defense for threatening my life,
livelihood, and property. But in that case, who is in the wrong? It is
the peasants' reckless and immoral action that requires my reaction.
The notion of "common good" and "common ownership" is a dangerous thing
and proceeds in itself to dangerous excesses and social turmoil.
jb
--------------16CD4A40F45FBB50A482A3BF
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
Kragen writes:
> I suspect I know what your answer will be: that the right to property
> is innate and natural.
Yes, that would be my first cut at an argument, here. For a deeper treatment that goes back to Locke i.e. your later commons argument, cf. In Defense of Property, Dietz.
> This is hard to argue with; it is a dogma, an
> axiom, not a conclusion from logical bases.
I'm don't agree with that --- your assessment flies in the face of *lots* of academic study and discussion of the notion of property. The initial concept of property --- call it "First Property" --- extends from the idea that we at least "own" --- i.e., have sovereign control over --- at least one thing: our bodies. Once you've introduced the notion of ownership and property, it is easy and natural to extend the concepts beyond the body.
> And I disagree with it.
And I completely respect your right to disagree; you can refuse to recognize the concept of or to own property if you want, that's no skin off my back. But if you act to deny my right to property, you have stepped beyond your philosophy and into my reality --- not a nice thing, kemo sabe, I deny your right to do *that.* (And that's one of the only rights I will deny you.) I am sovereign in my world; I'm happy to let you be sovereign in yours, if you don't adversely impact mine. When you start screwing with my reality, though, I have a right to defend it.
> One is that commons tend to be overgrazed.
Yes, yes, you'd think somebody would've come up with a more modern / less feudal example 'lo these last two hundred years....
> My dogma is that
> people should be good to each other and live together harmoniously
so
> that they can develop their intellectual, artistic, and spiritual
> capacities.
Fine, whatever. But the basic problem is that your argument proceeds from the notion that "the common good" is a real thing. This is questionable. In my opinion, there is no such thing as the common good, just the good of the individual. There may be overlap in interests between several individuals, but that forms a basis for cooperation, not a thing in itself. "The common good" is one of those dangerous abstractions, like "God" or "nation" or "family values" or "race," that are slippery enough and yet compelling enough to cause a whole lot of grief.
> I fail to see how giving inheritance to one's heirs deserves our
> protection.
Many people work their entire lives to provide security for their families, friends, and loved ones. If the creation of this sort of security is one's life's work, then why should anyone be able to claim the proceeds and benefits of it without the consent of the person that created that wealth? Wouldn't forfeiture of such created wealth provide negative incentive for hard work? It would for me. I don't particularly need a Lear Jet or a Porsche, but I have a strong innate desire to ensure the security of my progeny. If I know I forfeit everything I work for at death, screw it, I'm not incented to work as hard.
But back to your argument: the "peasants" have every right to revolt if they don't like the way I'm using *my* quote-unquote "common lands." (Let's imagine that these lands are lands I purchased after selling a patent to a new method of increasing hay production; let's not assume anything silly like these are feudally-granted lands. And by the way, maybe I'm letting it lie fallow because it's been overgrazed in the past, and needs a few seasons to get back to prime fertility and production. Stupid peasants! ;-) And I have every right to shoot every one of those damn peasants dead in defense for threatening my life, livelihood, and property. But in that case, who is in the wrong? It is the peasants' reckless and immoral action that requires my reaction.
The notion of "common good" and "common ownership" is a dangerous thing
and proceeds in itself to dangerous excesses and social turmoil.
jb
--------------16CD4A40F45FBB50A482A3BF--