-1 vote

The Beginning of Property. Was it some arbitrary claim enforced by threat and violence?

I have been reflecting on this for some time, and I am not sure what conclusion to come to.

The way that property has been illustrated for me was that in the beginning of man, property was first devised by some arbitrary idea in someone's head that they were going to make a claim of ownership on some parcel of land or object.

Ex:

There's this story of two men who lived in harmony and ate, slept and went throughout there days in the same area. One day, Man A decided that he didn't like Man B eating the apples off a tree that he too loved to eat from. So to remedy his frustration, Man A erected a fence. And in doing so restricted Man B's access to the tree. If Man B were to try and have an apple off the tree without the permission of Man A, Man A would then enforce his claim to the tree by use of force and would proceed to hit Man B with a stick until he got away from the tree.

Man B soon figured that if he was able to obtain the apples he wanted, he too would have to defend himself. So, Man B decided to find a larger stick and demanded to have access to an apple. Man A saw that Man B's stick was much larger, so he stepped down and let Man B have an apple.

In the back of his mind, Man A still held a grudge about the tree, so he devised a way to rap a rock around a larger stick and threatened, again Man B with force to stay away from 'his' tree. Man B, not wanting to get hurt, finally conceded and left Man A with the tree.

Man A was left with his Tree to himself for the rest of his days...until that dreadful day when someone else came along with a bigger stick with a bigger rick tied to it. The end!
----------

So , what I was trying to get at was that property rights initially was created through the use of threat and therefore violated the rights of another person's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Man A never made the claim that he would manage to tree to create a larger and more prosperous yield for the summer harvest, he just didn't want anyone else having access to it.

No, today property is used in a more sophisticated manner, in that our property is kept up and made profitable and taken advantage of all that said property has to offer. Property is one of the highest planks of a successful free market economy and a prosperous nation, but also it is important to note that property as an idea was not the same long ago as it is now. In today's world, property is seen as some natural right, but if we think about the first steps in the claiming of property in mankind's history, one would have to come to the conclusion that property was probably created, most likely by force.

That's just my two cents. I don't claim to have the answers, but this is just something that has been itching in the back of my might for quite some time and I wanted to share this with you all. What do you think?

for Liberty!

Brennan



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Property rights minimize conflict

Who should own the body and product of an individual? The individual or someone else? Who should own a resource, the original appropriator, or some latecomer?

The ideal system of political morality must be universal and should strive to minimize conflict. Slavery, the condition where some own others, is not universalizable, and inherently conflict causing. Communal ownership of each other's bodies is universalizable, but not practical and always devolves into slavery. Only self ownership is universalizable and minimizes conflict.

Likewise in the distribution of resources, we can either choose to have the original homesteader of a resource be the owner, or some latecomer(s) could be the owners. The only claim (whether sanctioned by the state or not) that the latecomers have is through the use of violence and conflict. This is hardly a recipe for minimizing the conflict in a society.

republic

The Genesis of Property

Property would have had to go back much further than that - to the time when our ancestors first started fashioning tools. These things take a lot of time to make and it's natural that someone who took the time to make a useful tool would see it as his exclusive property.

Natural law

By natural law, a resource(land) becomes owned by a person when said person has mixed himself(his labor) with the product to create something.

If you find unowned property and use wood from the trees on that property to create a house you have used nature given resources and your labor to create something.

Surely an artist who creates a painting with resources and his labor owns the painting. Nobody else can claim ownership over the painting.

Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto. - T. Jefferson rЭVO˩ution

"Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone.” - BASTIAT

Ownership

You may find this helpful to your enquiry.

Here is a link to Chapter one of "Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis" by Ludwig von Mises.

PART I. LIBERALISM AND SOCIALISM

CHAPTER 1—OWNERSHIP

1. The Nature of Ownership (p. 37)
2. Violence and Contract (p. 42)
3. The Theory of Violence and the Theory of Contract (p. 47)
4. Collective Ownership of the Means of Production (p. 50)
5. Theories of the Evolution of Property (p. 52)

http://mises.org/books/socialism/part1_ch.1.aspx

Good Reference!

Bump.

I see rabbits

in my backyard fight over territory and dogs pee on stuff to say "hey, this is my territory and boundary line". Territory or property is a natural instinct and probably a survival one.
IMO

"We can see with our eyes, hear with our ears and feel with our touch, but we understand with our hearts."

All Property Within The United States Is Public Property

We are back at the frontier land rush again. Because almost all of America has been Nationalized by the United States (Washington D.C.) it is now public property which can be claimed and re-privatized. Much like the former Soviet System, the U.S. System holds all property in the State's name. As that system unravels there will be a mad rush to re-claim land, houses, factories, railroads, even roads from the collective and re-privatize that property. This is already occurring. Roads and other assets are being claimed by creditors to the United States as The Empire bankrupts itself intentionally so the assets can be quietly distributed to Party members before the true owners (the workers) wake up and claim their shares of the public property held in the U.S. Commune. The beauty of it is for The Party members is that Americans do not know that all the factories, roads, bridges, land actually belong to them! So unlike the Soviet Union The Party Elites here can steal as much as possible from the true owners before the true creditors (the Collectivized American workers) wake up to reclaim their shares of the collapsing Empire.

The Oracle

This LAND is Your LAND this LAND is My LAND...

La de dah. Oracle you are an intelligent person. However, how does that help Ron Paul get elected? Yeah I might be ignorant of the details of how screwed up things are. The only details that are important now are how to help and the requisite action pursuant to Ron Paul's Presidency against all odds. One thing I can say without too much negative detail is that it doesn't look good in the MSM so far according to the poles.

and then you die

The Feudal Elections Are Irrelevant

It would be nice if the serfs could actually vote themselves back to freedom, however, the system was specifically designed to guarantee that CANNOT EVER HAPPEN.
If I were still a serf (U.S. citizen) I would wholeheartedly vote for Ron Paul.
The road out of bondage is a personal journey each of us must walk alone.
What is important is to spread the truth, the truth shall set the people free.
Once the truth is known, the liars will be laughed at and shunned.

The Oracle

The system is scripted to inevitable revolution.

Money and power propagated in a paradigm of exponential domination over a majority is what CANNOT EVER HAPPEN.
History provides a view to this truth whenever there is doubt.

Power and money are good things IF AND ONLY IF they're not someone else's.

and then you die

What Majority?

The .01 % payoff the 3% who pay off 17% who payoff 40 percent. That equals 60% who are on the take from this criminal racket.
The only thing you can do is opt out of the system by any number of routes and wait for the monkeys to starve.

The Oracle

Discovery provides moral justification of property

If man A was the first to discover the tree, and decide it was valuable, I believe he has the moral authority to claim it as property. Man B is the interloper here, and Man A is simply protecting his property.

Historically, most property of this type was stolen. But the value is much much less than the value added by labor that in all but unusual cases, it doesn't matter.

Property, a moral construct?

Suppose you live in a neighborhood where many other people live. Each has their property. Property being a "bundle of rights" we can see rights are only as substantial as the mutual respect and consideration afforded each by the others. So property and rights are inextricably intertwined. We can extend that to include moral attitude in that failing mutual respect and consideration (the Golden Rule?) rights are no longer honored and therefore possession and use of property comes up for grabs. Much could be said for the concepts of rights, property and conscience (moral standing). It seems to all boil down to how we see ourselves, each other and our relationships.