pull down to refresh
26 sats \ 5 replies \ @BallLightning 3 Apr \ on: Re-broaching an old question: private property - 'natural' or 'acquired' right? BooksAndArticles
Property rights are a lot more subjective than many people claim to be. Some are quite clear, like if you have a hammer, it's yours and you own it and control it and can do anything with it.
On the other end of the spectrum you can have a right to a part of the radio spectrum. You "own" specific frequency range (with specific transmission parameters). In that case what is it exactly the thing that you "own"?
And then we can get to cases that are close to reality. If you own a land and have built a structure in it, do you have a right to build a well? If you live in some place and you and people around you have wells and don't deplete the aquifer there is no conflict. But what happens if after decades of living there new people come and build houses and build their own wells and suddenly the water is not enough for all? Should the new owners be made to use less water? Should the existing owners be forced to use less water then before, so that everybody gets the proportional quantity of water? What about the case where due to change in the climate suddenly there is not enough water? How should the remaining water be split and who owns it?
Also what about building a tall structure that casts shadow on your neighbour's property? What if it was there before your neighbour acquired his property? Does who came first make a difference? That if someone blocks a convenient path you have been using fo 50 years because he acquired the land (even if you have an inconvenient alternative path to your property)?
What about a part of the river running through your property having a dam constructed a thousand kilometers upstream?
What about painting your house a nasty color that ruins the experience of your neighbour? What about painting an image some will find offensive on your wall? What about painting a child porn "art" on the wall of your house? Does this violate your neighbour's property rights?
Fairness in property rights are full of cases that are not clear cut. And some of the cases above although fictional are similar to a real cases in the real world.
You've provided an interesting framing. Reminds me of how money is unjustly debated by the powers of the state apparatus.
I like what was said here #932907 about rights being somewhat problematic a term. In any case, I guess the fundamental most important right is that of being able to own and use one's own property without that property being unjustly infringed on.
Importantly, what I think lots of bitcoiners have in common (probably most people if you really got to know them) is that they dont believe the enforcement of their right to their money is 'aquired' by being party to a civilization that can protect you if that right becomes threatened.
In other words, my right to own bitcoin is 'natural' in the sense it doesn't require the state to intervene except (maybe) in edge cases.
Hobbes, Locke et al. didn't yet know about programmatically enforced property rights.
reply
Hm... Do these "edge cases" include getting scammed for example?
reply
Being scammed is just another word for fraud, which is a type of theft. The scammer essentially entered into a contract in bad faith, which nullifies the validity of the contract in the first place.
reply
Probably not. Maybe if someone robs you of your bitcoin by force, but I don't think we're a the point where you have much legal recourse in either case.
reply
Practice has proven that today scamming someone is easier and more profitable than using force. This is amplified by the fact that almost no victim believes in advance that is vulnerable to scams. But nevertheless you have legal recource should you know who the offender is. The offender can be sentenced to return the money at least and made to do so by using the state's violence apparatus actually.
reply