Property Rights

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,677
Media
0
Likes
2,811
Points
333
Location
Greece
I sometimes confuse myself as to what my politics are. I do not seem to fit any particular party, veering from the wholly liberal in terms of respecting personal freedom to rather conservative economic views.

I think the real dividing line in personal politics is in fact one's attitude to property rights, if indeed you even think that individuals have any right to property. Every declaration of human rights has varied in its attitude and approach to property rights, in fact the European declaration is loathed to accept personal property rights and if it does, it sublimates them to the whim of the State.

I believe that my personal liberalism extends to my freedom to enjoy and keep my legally obtained property. I no more want a tyrannical despot to encroach my property rights than a tyrannical State.
 

B_underguy1

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2013
Posts
1,983
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
73
Location
NZ
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
I sometimes confuse myself as to what my politics are. I do not seem to fit any particular party, veering from the wholly liberal in terms of respecting personal freedom to rather conservative economic views.

I think the real dividing line in personal politics is in fact one's attitude to property rights, if indeed you even think that individuals have any right to property. Every declaration of human rights has varied in its attitude and approach to property rights, in fact the European declaration is loathed to accept personal property rights and if it does, it sublimates them to the whim of the State.

I believe that my personal liberalism extends to my freedom to enjoy and keep my legally obtained property. I no more want a tyrannical despot to encroach my property rights than a tyrannical State.

You've been reading Libertarians and swallowing Austrian economics.

You're a social Darwinist who has no clue about economics and doesn't give a flying fuck whether people starve or die.

Your whole 'philosophy' is premised on the false notion that money is a resource and that it can run out.

Money isn't a resource, it is a unit of account. But people like you would rather let people die than think about it.

Enjoy your property mate. You probably think you earned it.

It pains me sometimes to think that Libertarians are my species. It's hard to reconcile you as being human beings.

At best you are clueless fools and useful idiots for the uber-rich who give less of a fuck about you than you do for the poor.
 
Last edited:

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,677
Media
0
Likes
2,811
Points
333
Location
Greece
Can anyone else who thinks that the above post by Underguy is beyond offensive please hit the report icon on the left hand side. I appreciate that many of you have him on ignore, but please click on the view post and let's put an end to his incessant, hostility, hate speech, flaming, trolling etc etc.

Thank you.
 

B_underguy1

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2013
Posts
1,983
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
73
Location
NZ
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
Can anyone else who thinks that the above post by Underguy is beyond offensive please hit the report icon on the left hand side. I appreciate that many of you have him on ignore, but please click on the view post and let's put an end to his incessant, hostility, hate speech, flaming, trolling etc etc.

Thank you.

LOL. So you'd rather get people banned than have your antisocial views challenged?
 

SilverTrain

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Posts
4,623
Media
82
Likes
1,312
Points
333
Location
USA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
You've been reading Libertarians and swallowing Austrian economics.

You're a social Darwinist who has no clue about economics and doesn't give a flying fuck whether people starve or die.

Your whole 'philosophy' is premised on the false notion that money is a resource and that it can run out.

Money isn't a resource, it is a unit of account. But people like you would rather let people die than think about it.

Enjoy your property mate. You probably think you earned it.

It pains me sometimes to think that Libertarians are my species. It's hard to reconcile you as being human beings.

At best you are clueless fools and useful idiots for the uber-rich who give less of a fuck about you than you do for the poor.

Can anyone else who thinks that the above post by Underguy is beyond offensive please hit the report icon on the left hand side. I appreciate that many of you have him on ignore, but please click on the view post and let's put an end to his incessant, hostility, hate speech, flaming, trolling etc etc.

Thank you.

LOL. So you'd rather get people banned than have your antisocial views challenged?

A blatant instance of flaming. With nothing substantive to contribute to the original poster's/post's inquiry. If this is not an actionable post, than I don't know what is.

And the quality quotient on the insult meter is truly pathetic. If you're going to go with ass-hattery, then bring some quality juice to the party. Cut-rate material and incompetent execution result in nothing but blah blase boring shite that does no good for anyone.

Drifter is an established mate of the site. Attack him in such an impotent manner = suffer the consequences. i.e., you're fired.

NEXT!
 

B_underguy1

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2013
Posts
1,983
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
73
Location
NZ
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
A blatant instance of flaming. With nothing substantive to contribute to the original poster's/post's inquiry. If this is not an actionable post, than I don't know what is.

And the quality quotient on the insult meter is truly pathetic. If you're going to go with ass-hattery, then bring some quality juice to the party. Cut-rate material and incompetent execution result in nothing but blah blase boring shite that does no good for anyone.

Drifter is an established mate of the site. Attack him in such an impotent manner = suffer the consequences. i.e., you're fired.

NEXT!

He put his political 'philosophy' out there.

it is open to challenge.

I have no interest in adding to his position. I find his position abhorrent.

Let him defend his position if he can. And the same goes for you.

That would be the democratic position. Wouldn't it?
 
Last edited:

kabutops74

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2007
Posts
23
Media
8
Likes
51
Points
98
Location
San Francisco
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Yeah this thread started as a flame war waiting to happen.

It's a rather funny quirk of our times that free-market policy preferences are described as "conservative." (And I still find it rather upsetting that most people throw the words "liberal" and "conservative" around as epithets or team names rather than as representation of actual ideas... )

I'd just hope you'd note that the phrase "legally obtained property" belies your concept as being some sort of fundamental right -- if the right to property is simply an outcropping of the local rules of property ownership, there's obviously nothing "fundamental" about the idea.

The ability to claim dominion over a piece of land, creature or physical object is as natural a right as calling dibs over a particular slice of pizza or the front seat in your mate's car — there may be conventions attached, but the *goal* of those rules isn't your enjoyment of exclusive rights, it's the social harmony gained by everyone else agreeing not to attack you to get that enjoyment for themselves.

If man were a nobler beast, property rights wouldn't be relevant. Like democracy it's just a least-bad idea we have dealing with one another.
 

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,677
Media
0
Likes
2,811
Points
333
Location
Greece
It interests me that the reality that I encounter in post totalitarian and failed Marxist countries is that people strive to protect property.

All the revolutions, beginning with Locke in the UK, held as central the protection of property rights of free citizens against despotic monarchic type rulers.

The great irony is that in three hundred years the revolution has been from the single tyrant to the state tyrant.

Property rights for the earner are the cornerstone of the American dream. They are also central to all free societies. Those who oppose property rights of the rightful lawful owner are enemies of freedom. And freedom that does not come now at the expense of anyone else. To think that all property is gained at the expense of someone else is pitifully out of date.

Yes colonial migrants took from aboriginal populations, but then so did the Romans and Anglo Saxons in my own country. The modern world has mostly moved beyond simple property rights meaning land. I have not heard the Marxist theory on intellectual rights and artistic rights.

Perhaps they could tell me.

People are not created equal. But we respect people equally in our law and suffrage.
 
Last edited:

Perados

Superior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Posts
11,002
Media
9
Likes
2,505
Points
333
Location
Germany
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
without a sociaty no individual
Without a prospering sociaty no long term personal property

Yes, you have the right to own property and no one in the western world really wants to take anything away from you.
But everyone has to pay its part to the sociaty, that has offered you the opinion to create your property...

We live in a sociaty where individual rights exist but (and thats at least as importent) we live also in a sociaty with communal rights.
And those with strong shoulders have to carry more then those with weak shoulders - everything else has nothing to do with "individualism", but its pure egoism!
 

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,677
Media
0
Likes
2,811
Points
333
Location
Greece
without a sociaty no individual
Without a prospering sociaty no long term personal property

I disagree, you can have a ton of property it just might not be worth anything to anyone else, but then again, you might not care.

Yes, you have the right to own property and no one in the western world really wants to take anything away from you.
But everyone has to pay its part to the sociaty, that has offered you the opinion to create your property...

This is our social contract, and if a citizen abides by that contract I do not see why they should be attacked, as some would on this board. What else would you have them do?

We live in a sociaty where individual rights exist but (and thats at least as importent) we live also in a sociaty with communal rights.
And those with strong shoulders have to carry more then those with weak shoulders - everything else has nothing to do with "individualism", but its pure egoism!

You have slightly lost me on the egoism. I think that that is probably over simplistic. I personally had a problem when the UK started levying more than 50% (in total) tax. Beyond that point you are making someone work for the State. In effect you are taking away their freedom. This is why M. Hollande has driven many from France and their loss is our gain, because there is no conveyor belt of equally talented people.
 

B_underguy1

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2013
Posts
1,983
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
73
Location
NZ
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
Taxation is the means of extinguishing money that the government has spent into the private sector.

The accumulators of it should surrender the most, otherwise the system goes tits up.

In the neoliberal era we jeep going tits up because no one understands how the system is supposed to work anymore.

The private sector relies on government spending. Not the other way around.

Milton Friedman was a liar and a charlatan.
 

noirman

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Oct 4, 2010
Posts
736
Media
0
Likes
5,279
Points
523
Verification
View
Sexuality
80% Gay, 20% Straight
Gender
Male
Taxation is the means of extinguishing money that the government has spent into the private sector.

The accumulators of it should surrender the most, otherwise the system goes tits up.

In the neoliberal era we jeep going tits up because no one understands how the system is supposed to work anymore.

The private sector relies on government spending. Not the other way around.

Milton Friedman was a liar and a charlatan.

You think that the free market advocated by Friedman is fallacious? The ONLY money government has is donated by private citizens and businesses. Our central government has been feasting on the private sector too long, providing benefits for themselves, for example, on the taxpayers' dime that those very taxpayers can't afford for themselves.
 

B_underguy1

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2013
Posts
1,983
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
73
Location
NZ
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
You think that the free market advocated by Friedman is fallacious? The ONLY money government has is donated by private citizens and businesses. Our central government has been feasting on the private sector too long, providing benefits for themselves, for example, on the taxpayers' dime that those very taxpayers can't afford for themselves.

No that's completely upside down. The government is the sole issuer of the currency.

If the government didn't spend dollars into the private sector, the private sector would have no dollars.

The private sector is reliant on government.
 

Phil Ayesho

Superior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Posts
6,189
Media
0
Likes
2,789
Points
333
Location
San Diego
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
This is a telling topic.

But let's be clear here... by "property rights" you are mostly talking about real estate. ( no western country disputes your right to own a car or an iphone )


Libertarians are a fringe group in the US who basically believe that property rights trump individual rights ( neighbors ) and collective rights. ( society)

They believe that once they buy some land, its theirs to with with as they please.

However, this argument is insupportable because of two basic and inescapable truths.
1- property can not be "made"... so no more is available.

2- you are mortal.


These two facts basically mean that, unlike a car, clothing or other property, which, like their owners, ultimately wear out, and that are intended to have limited ownership... property is permanent and has ramifications that outlive its owner by generations.

furthermore, real property is the basis for human survival... it is the source of our material resources, our water, and our food.


So... do you, as a property owner, have any right to poison your land such that future generations of human beings can never put it to productive use?


Do you, as a land owner have the right to engage in an activity such as mining, even tho you can not confine the toxic effects of that activity to your own property? That is, can you pollute water that will run off your land onto others? Can amass piles of tailings that fill the breeze with toxic dusts that blow downrange?


This simple analysis of property as a limited yet critical human resource, and the inability to fully contain all activities of land owners to their own land and the tort issues that exposes, makes it clear that the only ethical way to view property ownership is as beneficiary in trust.

That is... although you can buy property... you can not in any real sense own ANY thing that will outlive you by millions of years, and on which future generations of living things will utterly depend for survival. At best, you can hold it in trust and any landowner should be made to understand that they have a legal, ethical and social responsibility to act in stewardship of that land.

Thus, society and the governments that societies empower have not only the right, but the duty to ensure that land ownership by one, does not damage nor imperil land ownership of others... nor the lives and freedoms of other who do not own land.

They have an obligation to regulate land ownership and the activities of owners to ensure that the land that WILL be passed to future landowners not be despoiled by the actions of ONE.


Every argument in counter to this comes down to an argument of selfishness. ( not of 'rights' nor freedoms )

No man is an island, complete unto himself.

Any land you buy has been handed to you from someone else, and someone else will get it when you are gone... thousands of owners over millennia of time.

Its not YOURS in any real sense. You are being allowed use of it.

Property ownership does NOT confer any 'rights' to the owner.

Only responsibilities.
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
I believe that my personal liberalism extends to my freedom to enjoy and keep my legally obtained property.

With rights come responsibilities. You have a responsibility to use your property well. If you don't maybe you should forfeit it, even though it is legally obtained.

Just what "well" might be is a matter for judgment. In my view, Drifterwood should use his property to honour God and love his neighbour. I assume he would enjoy doing this.
 

rbkwp

Mythical Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2007
Posts
79,210
Media
1
Likes
44,901
Points
608
Location
Auckland (New Zealand)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
lil side note from a hick Country cowboy
read in my 20s a 'survey' was done, and it was supposed to be that it was 'better' to rent all your life, as compared to owning property,possibly falling into a trap of continually upgrading, keeping up with Joe etc etc ..

have done so, a bonus was most of my jobs were rent & food free/live in, went with the jobs
now, am more than OK to be continuing renting/paying rent, not a problem, was what i chose many years ago, and certainly dont regret it, maybe its how well you set your mind at, accepting your lot/role in life

Geuss it depends on what you aim for in life ..
 

TomCat84

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Posts
3,414
Media
4
Likes
171
Points
148
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I sometimes confuse myself as to what my politics are. I do not seem to fit any particular party, veering from the wholly liberal in terms of respecting personal freedom to rather conservative economic views.

I think the real dividing line in personal politics is in fact one's attitude to property rights, if indeed you even think that individuals have any right to property. Every declaration of human rights has varied in its attitude and approach to property rights, in fact the European declaration is loathed to accept personal property rights and if it does, it sublimates them to the whim of the State.

I believe that my personal liberalism extends to my freedom to enjoy and keep my legally obtained property. I no more want a tyrannical despot to encroach my property rights than a tyrannical State.

The history of property in both the UK and the US is a troubled one indeed. In the UK, it's all mixed up from the King stealing church and peasant land and i the US settlers and the government outright stole land from the indigenous.
 

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,677
Media
0
Likes
2,811
Points
333
Location
Greece
This is a telling topic.

Indeed. :wink:

But let's be clear here... by "property rights" you are mostly talking about real estate. ( no western country disputes your right to own a car or an iphone )

Actually no. I personally have more "wealth" outside real estate, and whilst this may be rare in the West, I have major concerns about the West's obsession with real Estate.


However, this argument is insupportable because of two basic and inescapable truths.
1- property can not be "made"... so no more is available.

2- you are mortal.

But you can develop and even reclaim, and you can put ownership in companies and trusts.


These two facts basically mean that, unlike a car, clothing or other property, which, like their owners, ultimately wear out, and that are intended to have limited ownership... property is permanent and has ramifications that outlive its owner by generations.

furthermore, real property is the basis for human survival... it is the source of our material resources, our water, and our food.


So... do you, as a property owner, have any right to poison your land such that future generations of human beings can never put it to productive use?

The EU was paying us not to farm not so long ago.

This simple analysis of property as a limited yet critical human resource, and the inability to fully contain all activities of land owners to their own land and the tort issues that exposes, makes it clear that the only ethical way to view property ownership is as beneficiary in trust.

I don't disagree, but the question is whether anyone has the right to remove your property from you if you are looking after it properly

Its not YOURS in any real sense. You are being allowed use of it.

Property ownership does NOT confer any 'rights' to the owner.

Only responsibilities.

And with regard to other property, Phil, even diamonds that will outlive you, and equities, cash, art, antiques, intellectual property etc etc. Does the State have the right to control how you own such stuff, how you use it and how you bequeath it?

Why should they take it away in terms of eroding your share of its value through tax levies? Why should someone pay a Mansion tax on a house worth £2M, but not on diamonds of the same or greater value for sake of argument? Why should you keep paying the State for something your family owns each time someone dies?
 

Phil Ayesho

Superior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Posts
6,189
Media
0
Likes
2,789
Points
333
Location
San Diego
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
And with regard to other property, Phil, even diamonds that will outlive you, and equities, cash, art, antiques, intellectual property etc etc. Does the State have the right to control how you own such stuff, how you use it and how you bequeath it?

Why should they take it away in terms of eroding your share of its value through tax levies? Why should someone pay a Mansion tax on a house worth £2M, but not on diamonds of the same or greater value for sake of argument? Why should you keep paying the State for something your family owns each time someone dies?

That is a false analogy.

Firstly; Diamonds are ( A) common as dirt- their "rarity" is an artificial construct of a monopolistic marketing consortium.
More diamonds are being dug up every day, and diamonds can even be Manufactured. Ergo, their supply grows just enough to support whatever price DeBeers chooses them to have.

Secondly; YOU CAN LIVE WITHOUT DIAMONDS.

Sorry Drifter, but there are VERY few things in this world that are as limited and finite in supply as Habitable land. And very few things that qualify as things to which human beings MUST have access in order to survive.

I can live without a car. I can live, albeit meanly, without electricity. And Access to Both of those things is already strictly regulated.


But No human beings can live without land. I need it to so much as stand upon... much less to provide the crops and livestock that will feed me, the minerals, timber, oil, and other plant products from which all other goods I can own are derived.


To even try and equate Land with diamonds as similar is shockingly disingenuous.
If YOU take YOUR diamond, and shatter it with a hammer into dust.
it has ZERO effect upon the rest of humanity. ( except perhaps your wife)

If you leave YOUR property radioactive upon your death. An unlivable contaminant in the midst of other people's properties... it DOES have a lasting effect... and if that property has a ten thousand year heritage of providing lumber... or crops... to sustain human civilization... then you have just made a portion of that legacy unusable... and made it that much harder for humanity to thrive.



The ridiculously inflated pricing for what is one of the most common gemstones there is is perfectly reflective of the kind of Me First avarice that so underpins all arguments of Property.


Here in the States, the group putting together the Constitution had long winded debates about WHO would be given the franchise to vote.

The conservatives argued that only those who own property should have any say in governance.

It took Ben Franklin to provide the argument that proved what an ethically bankrupt concept that was.

He stood up and pointed out that their argument came down to this... If I Don't own an ass, I can not vote.... if i DO own an ass, I Can vote... therefore my vote does not represent ME... it represents my ass.


If what YOU do with YOUR property destroys the value of MY property... Then you have Taken something from me which you had no right to do.

This is just as true of housing prices and the water table as it is of whether you hit my car with your car on a public road- or out in the middle of an empty field.


Here's an analogous issue of "property"

Water.

You and I and all living things REQUIRE water to live.

You pull water out of your own well... from an aquifer that underlies everyone else's land, too. How much can you pull out? ALL of it? Just because your well is on your property?

Moreover... suppose you use that water for some industrial purpose that pollutes that water to the point of being unsafe to have around?

Are you gonna STORE all that water for all future time on YOUR land and guarantee that it won't escape back into the aquifer? Or into the river nearby from whence other people and living things derive Their drinking water?

In truth... you can not meaningfully OWN water, either. It flows downhill, and you can not invent a means of permanently containing it.

There is a Finite amount of freshwater on this world ( an amount that is actually shrinking ) and the notion that you can BUY some and do whatever you wish with it, without regard to the fact that that water will ultimately mix back in with everyone else's water is an expression of selfishness and obliviousness that borders on the criminal.

That is... most conservatives position on such issues reveals that they really don't give a rat's ass about the consequences of their actions on others as long as it satisfies or enriches THEM, today.

No republican smart enough to get into congress REALLY believes that global warming isn't man made.... its just a convenient position to take when you personally want to see Coal and Oil companies thrive, because you are invested in them, and global warming won't impact YOUR life because your over 50.

Try to come up with an argument for property ownership conferring absolute control over that property that ISN"T predicated upon personal selfishness and an abrogation of any responsibility to the rest of humanity, your neighbors, or the generations yet to be born.

( hint- diamonds, rolexes, and other artificially "valuable" luxury goods are not going to make a good argument. )



Another example is MONEY.

Should a society allow ALL the money in circulation to collect into a vast pool owned by a handful of people from which that money never leaves?

Of course not. We ALL depend upon the FLOW of money. money isn't an economy... only its MOVEMENT is the economy.

Ergo, governments have every right to heavily tax the wealth of the super rich, and tax them even more when they die. THEY don't need it anymore...and putting at least SOME of that money Back into play is critical... because without that, capitalist economic models ALWAYS result in the concentration of wealth into fewer and fewer hands.

Re-distribution is actually essential... just as water must evaporate and rain on the highlands... so that its flow downhill performs useful work... so, too, must government take money out of those vast lakes and oceans in which it collects, and rain it onto the impoverished highlands to ensure that money keeps coming INTO the the system in the hands of those who, just to survive MUST spend nearly every dollar they get.

Knowing that, inexorably, that money will flow thru the economy and find its way back into the bank of some person already hugely wealthy.


Its a money cycle, just like water is part of the water cycle.


Once you are dead... you will cease to have any impact on others and future generations.

But until that day... your right to swing your foot ENDS just shy of my ass.

And what you do with property kicks a LOT of asses- both now- for generations to come.

You can't build a disneyland on your property... without wearing out the roads your neighbors pay for. Without that traffic polluting their air, and clogging their communities.

You do not live, alone. You Can Not ACT without Effect.
You could not even obtain property without the help of the community from which you derive the livelihood that you use to purchase that property.
you are responsible for YOUR part in society... and in the legacy your society inherits from you... be that to your own children... or whatever other beneficiary you might name.

Sorry, we all have a SAY in what effect you are allowed to have.
 
Last edited: