pull down to refresh
100 sats \ 6 replies \ @Undisciplined 22h \ on: Re-broaching an old question: private property - 'natural' or 'acquired' right? BooksAndArticles
Of course not, it's just an occasionally useful expression. All models are wrong, but some models are useful.
On private property, I think the Hoppean view is the most sophisticated secular view. In brief, this view is that something like Lockean homesteading and property rights are the only system consistent with non-violent dispute resolution.
That makes this a consequentialist view: private property "rights" are what peaceful people must logically support. "Rights" then is more of a shorthand for a covenant between people who share a desired end (non-violent dispute resolution).
"Rights" then is more of a shorthand for a covenant between people who share a desired end (non-violent dispute resolution).
Right. So, do you think looking at rights as either natural or acquired is somewhat of a false dichotomy?
It sounds like what the article is referring to as 'natural' are those afforded us by Nature, in the transcendentalist sense of 'I have the right to my own person i.e. not to be assaulted by you.' On the other hand, the author writes that Hobbes claimed, "property is a creation of the state."
reply
I think "rights" is sort of the wrong concept. It's hard to get there without running afoul of the Naturalistic Fallacy.
It makes more sense to ground it in something people desire, like peaceful coexistence. People who don't value that and won't follow those rules can find somewhere else to live.
reply
follow those rules
That's a good point.
Aside from observing the obvious property rights and maintaining a semblence of peaceful coexistence, there's probably a standard of virtues that a society ought to follow.
I'd recently heard of a man (in Canada) completely on government dole-outs, six children, and a wife pregnant with a seventh and has nothing to say for it other than inshallah
In this case, allowing him to lead this lifestyle provided he peacefully coexists and plays along is probably much too tolerant enforcement of 'rules.' But it's certainly happening and that's far from an isolated case.
Really feels antithetical to a prosperous society...
reply
allowing him to lead this lifestyle provided he peacefully coexists
Someone is violently coexisting to enable that lifestyle, though. I don't generally blame the recipients of welfare programs for taking the money, but the state took it from someone else in a non-peaceful manner. Absent that, the lifestyle wouldn't be feasible and we don't have to worry about people aspiring to it.
reply
I'm with you.
Absent that, the lifestyle wouldn't be feasible
Unfortunately, I don't think we get there without a shared set of ethical principles regarding individuals' rights and freedoms,
These are being eroded day by day in this country.
reply
That’s right, but the only shared value we need is not violating what are normally referred to as private property rights.