pull down to refresh

Most people think of PROPERTY in terms of material possessions. Because of this, many have successfully denied the morality of PROPERTY, or attacked its moral validity, and claimed that pursuit of material well-being conflicts with human rights. The above concept produces conflicts with human rights, and needs correction.
The above is a restricted and erroneous point of view on PROPERTY. A more satisfying and total concept arises from the following definition:
PROPERTY IS INDIVIDUAL MAN’S LIFE AND ALL NON-PROCREATIVE DERIVATIVES OF HIS LIFE.
PROPERTY is the basis and essence of liberty. To own means to have and hold PROPERTY exclusively. If man is not free to own PROPERTY, then he owns nothing. Life itself is defined by ownership. A man may own anything but himself. Thus, PROPERTY must always include self-ownership.
Thoughts and ideas, the court of man’s life are his PROPERTY. From thoughts and ideas, man derives further products and actions. Primary PROPERTY is man’s own life. Thoughts and ideas are primary PROPERTY. Products (things) and actions derived from thoughts and ideas, through man’s knowledge and action, are PROPERTY. Ownership (right) is the essence of PROPERTY.
Clearly, liberty itself is PROPERTY. Since all so-called HUMAN RIGHTS are PROPERTY RIGHTS, there can be no conflict!
Ideas and actions produce further, or secondary, derivatives. These include the access to and use of land and the production, utilization, enjoyment, and disposal of material, tangible goods of all kinds from ash trays to television sets, from log cabins to skyscrapers, from oxcarts to jet planes.
These are called SECONDARY PROPERTY. They are secondary both logically and chronologically. In all instances, their existence is antedated by PRIMARY PROPERTY which led to their generation and employment.
Further derivatives of man’s life lead to voluntary transactions involving PROPERTY transfers (sales, trades, gifts, etc.). Involuntary PROPERTY transfers are derivative not from the property owner’s life but from the life of the coercer. Therefore, PROPERTY ceases to remain PROPERTY and is converted to plunder when subjected to involuntary (coercive) transfer.
Children — being young human beings — have PROPERTY rights of their own and cannot themselves be owned; children are not property.
Your ownership of PROPERTY is the basis of all you are, all you have, and all you can hope to achieve.
THEREFORE, PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY AS THOUGH YOUR LIFE DEPENDED UPON IT.
IT DOES!
From THRUST FOR FREEDOM - No. 2, Copyright © 1965 by Joseph A. Galambos
Governments gain power because they take the role as upholders and enforcers of property rights. Without governments the opportunity for plunder is hugely increased. How do Libertarians resolve this ?
reply
Governments are plunder. They don't take the role, you are forced into this relationship at birth.
reply
be aware: you are talking with a gov agent
reply
Because you cannot refute my arguments with convincing, reasoned responses, you try to shoot the messenger with false accusations. Your antipathy toward governments does not withstand a contest of ideas.
reply
Perhaps, but without the enforcement of property rights by governments there are no consistent property rights- only plunder and the law of the jungle. How you can have reliable property rights regarding physical and intellectual property, without government to defend, impose and enforce those rights?
reply
government is eroding property rights, not enforcing them, thats the point.
Nobody really owns their land/house anymore, theres only a few countries left without at least some kind of property tax. Which means you don't own shit because if you don't pay the tax sooner or later the goons from the government will come kick you out of YOUR land because you owe they taxes for YOUR property.
And that is done by monopolizing violence, preventing you to protect your own property (including yourself) because they will throw you in jail for that. You don't own anything, you've just been given permission to use it while you're subscribed to the worst service under the sun, to which subscription was forced upon you at birth
reply
So you want the property law of the jungle where if I am stronger than you I can forcefully take your property? I doubt most people would want that and that is why we have governments. Yes the monopolise the 'lawful' use of violence because they make it their business to create a jurisdiction within which property rights are recognised and enforced. Without governments, funded by taxes, all you would have is the law of the jungle. Is that what you want?
reply
you assume that people don't defend their property or won't make coalition, partnerships, pay enforcement agencies on a free market to enforce the rules?
society doesn't collapse because you don't have a fat bureaucrat 1000km away telling you want is best for you and how you should live your life. Many animals manage to establish societies and live in groups yet somehow humans need to have a ruler because otherwise everything falls apart?
tribes existed for a long time before any nation state government started imposing their will and involving itself with every aspect of your life. You just assume that because you can't think of a different way that this is the only way. Services that governments provide can (and are usually done much better) be provided by businesses as that is exactly what a government is suppose to be - a service. Not a tyranny of majority that doesn't exist, with ever expanding coercion and singular power across everything in your life.
reply
I am certain people will quite urgently make a 'coalition'...its also called a government. Governments via taxes are precisely the paid 'enforcement agencies' that enforce property rights. Remove government and most people will very rapidly, almost in a panic, seek to form one! Because it is governments that secure and fairly governed property rights can be established. Nowhere ever has any other reality existed. Sure governments are flawed -more or less and approximately in proportion to the laziness and apathy of the people they govern, but they are a fundamental requirement if you want to have any possibility consistent and fair property rights. Without government you can and may well try to defend your 'property rights', but if someone is stronger they will nevertheless be able take 'your property' from you.
reply
1100 sats \ 5 replies \ @252 21 Aug
I was born and raised in Somalia, so I witnessed firsthand that life can function with little to no state.
When the state collapsed in 1991, everything related to governance fell apart completely. You could find machine guns everywhere, sometimes for free, and even tanks if you wanted.
The first five years were absolute chaos, especially in the main cities, because society went from 100% state control to almost none.
But by the late ’90s and early 2000s, in the city where I grew up, life actually became better than in many places with functioning states.
There was almost no centralized administration, yet the city had one of the best telecommunications networks, excellent doctors, good schools, and remarkable peace. People could walk around with thousands of dollars without fear of robbery, and the high level of freedom.
I am not saying everything was 100% perfect but the lesson learned is that societies, tribes, and individuals can govern themselves and provide state services through private businesses. But the main weakness was that people didn’t have plan for stopping outside interventions, which eventually destroyed and gave rise the current situation.
i think for starters we need to define the terms we're using, because narrow contract enforcement agency is very far from what nowadays government looks.
contract enforcement on voluntary basis is VERY different to the extortion the governments of the world are doing now where you are forced into a relationship you never wanted nor needed in most cases.