Re: On Property Ownership -- LIFEBOAT

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 11:50:17 07/18/00 Tue
Author: SwimmingUpstream
Subject: Re: On Property Ownership
In reply to: OWK 's message, "On Property Ownership" on 11:47:19 07/18/00 Tue

Dear OWK,

You wrote: We seem to have established several foundational concepts upon which
to advance our conversation. First, we seem to agree to the idea that men
are possessed of the right to ownership of transportable tangible property.
Secondly, we seem to agree that men have a right to the fruits of their
industry (given that the fruits of their industry represent an investment in
time which is necessary to his survival).

Given our agreement that man has property rights (insofar as portable
property is concerned) and that man has the right to the product of his own
industry (given that this is his means of survival) how would man be able to
protect his industrial investment in the land (improvements such as
agricultural and habitational) if he cannot claim ownership of that land?

Let's table the discussion of methods of acquisition for the time being, and
focus on the concept of ownership in the present.

How can man be expected to invest his efforts of industry in the land, if he
cannot expect to secure his efforts through a claim of ownership for his
investment?

Before I answer your question I want to avoid future confusion by stating
now that your parenthetical caveat about "necessity" is to me fundamental --
we are starting from the premise I suggested in essay #2, namely that the wellspring of natural right is natural
need.

It seems to me there are at least four forms of land ownership -- 1)
Private; 2)Family (Household?); 3) Non-Public Corporate (partnership) -- in
which land is owned by several persons, but not by the entire body politic;
and, 4) Public Corporate -- in which land is owned by the entire body
politic for common use.

It is important to be clear about what we mean when we use the word
"property". When I use it I am refering to something appropriated from the
Common, and by that act of appropriation the rest of mankind is deprived of
access to the property unless the owner chooses to allow access.

What can be the moral basis for that appropriation? I think we have agreed
that the basis is NATURAL NEED.

The question must first be, then, not how can one be expected to invest
labor in agriculture without some security for that investment, but rather:
What type of ownership is NECESSARY to secure one's investment of labor?

(I think we have already agreed that a securable domicile is a natural
necessity, but if we haven't we ought to address it as a separate case.)

So, we have now arrived at the point where we begin to elaborate a moral
philosophy of ownership on a natural need by natural need basis. For
example, ownership based on the need for food; ownership based on the need
for shelter; ownership based on the need for liberty, etc. We may find that
after this elaboration it is possible to formulate a comprehensive and
reasoned argument that covers all the needs for ownership, or we may find
that there is a different argument to be applied to various needs.(For
example, that domicile ownership ought to be private, but commercial
enterprise ownership ought to be corporate when engaged in by more than one
person -- that is, the enterprise ought to be owned by all who participate
in it and not by a single owner who employs others.)

Let's tackle the question of agriculture, since you raised it. What type of
ownership of land is NECESSARY for the purpose of agriculture? And, what are
the practical considerations to be taken into account -- for example, is the
agricultural enterprise to be undertaken by an individual who is farming for
himself alone, for others, by several persons for themselves, for others,
etc?

I'll let you take a whack at those before I offer any comments, for this
was, afterall, originally to be YOUR defense of property ownership, and I
don't want to steer you away from a line of reasoning that has not occurred
to me but that has occurred to you.

Kindest Regards

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: On Property Ownership -- OWK, 11:52:31 07/18/00 Tue
- Re: On Property Ownership -- SwimmingUpstream, 11:53:52 07/18/00 Tue
  - Re: On Property Ownership -- OWK, 12:02:28 07/18/00 Tue
    - Re: On Property Ownership -- SwimmingUpstream, 12:03:31 07/18/00 Tue