The right to property vs other human rights

[Astaroth]

Alright, so to begin with, let me state this clearly: I am not a communist and I do not support the abolishment of property.

With that out of the way, let us begin...

---

My main question here is: why do many people, especially Americans (libertarians in particular) see the "right to property" as so much more important than other human rights?

I agree that being able to have your own property is important, but why is that one right seen as holy and sacred, whereas other human rights - the right to life, dignity and so on - are considered as secondary?

Thoughts?

[Enemy of the State]

All rights are property rights. The right to life is but an acknowledgement that each person is the owner of himself. The right to liberty is but an acknowledgement that each person may do as he sees fit with his own property, which includes his body.

Often it is claimed that there exists a right to freedom of speech. However, it is conceded that a person does not have a right to yell fire in a crowded theatre. Because it is not absolute, no such right actually exists. The error here is that it isn't a question of speech, but of property. The theatre is owned by someone. This owner gets to decide the terms upon which people have to agree to enter the theatre. Obviously yelling fire and disrupting a performance would be unacceptable to the property owner. Thus, when someone yells fire during a performance, it is actually the right of the theatre owner which is being violated. All rights must be seen in the context of property rights.

[Astaroth]

Often it is claimed that there exists a right to freedom of speech. However, it is conceded that a person does not have a right to yell fire in a crowded theatre. Because it is not absolute, no such right actually exists.

Huh?

No right is absolute. If you murder someone on your property (or hide yourself on your property after the murder), violating your property in order to bring you to justice is fair game. Just because something is not absolute does not mean that it is not a right.

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with property, yet it is still a human right. Restricting it can be necessary in certain cases, however. Just like any other right (e.g. if you attack someone, he may hurt you in self-defense and therefore violate your right to your body).

[Enemy of the State]

No right is absolute. If you murder someone on your property (or hide yourself on your property after the murder), violating your property in order to bring you to justice is fair game. Just because something is not absolute does not mean that it is not a right.

Rights already imply that you cannot infringe upon the rights of others. Rights are thus absolute until surrendered. Every man loses his rights to the extent he has violated the rights of others.

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with property, yet it is still a human right. Restricting it can be necessary in certain cases, however. Just like any other right (e.g. if you attack someone, he may hurt you in self-defense and therefore violate your right to your body).

I pretty much explained how it has everything to do with property... Do you really believe you can barge into someone's home and start telling the owner your opinion of the government? Or that you can force a newspaper owner to print your article?

I do not believe that the right to own property is a human right. That it is a very very very important right is something different.

If you do not have a right to property you have no rights at all. What is the right to life if not an ownership of your own body? If you do not have that, your continued existence relies only on permission from others to let you live.

[Treize]

If you do not have a right to property you have no rights at all. What is the right to life if not an ownership of your own body? If you do not have that, your continued existence relies only on permission from others to let you live.

I can see where that comes from but I find it a rather ridiculous assumption.

[Dr. Croccer]

I can see where that comes from but I find it a rather ridiculous assumption.

The problem with that post is that in it ''property'' has been completely changed from its original definition of physical items of value to ideas and now abstract ideas and living beings. If you have to completely morph ''property'' into something it is not in order to make the ideology work then there's something wrong with it.

[Treize]

I do not believe that the right to own property is a human right. That it is a very very very important right is something different.

[Dr. Croccer]

My main question here is: why do many people, especially Americans (libertarians in particular) see the "right to property" as so much more important than other human rights?

Because the people who invented the ideology did.

The fact is that Liberalism as an ideology, like any ideology, has tried to legitimize itself as much as possible, with the philosophers coming up with logical fallacies in order to protect their ideas from criticism and change. In the case of Liberalism this is the natural world. It's heavily based on the idea of ''natural rights'', a notion which had existed in Classical times as well as in Early Modern ones, but which went through a massive facelift in order to accomodate enlightened ideas. This is basically the entire foundation for the ideology, and the greatest barrier to any criticism, as it makes the entire ideology an absolute one. Not one based on logical principles, which could be debunked or improved by logical thought, but one declaring itself to be based on fundamental truths of the world, and which therefore cannot be criticized in any manner.

Obviously, most people don't believe in that anymore. We've taken what we liked from Liberalism, and left the rest to the dustbin of history. The notion of natural rights has been debunked logically as well as scientifically. As most philosophers' assessments of the nature and history of man were overwhelmingly guesses based on no real evidence, this wasn't too hard. Both Hobbes' perception of early mankind as a ''war of all against all'' and Locke's utopia on the other end of the scale are demonstrably false. That doesn't stop some people from still believing it, and keeping an outdated ideology alive by ignoring facts. It's a fundamental trait of absolutist ideologies, that the world will keep spinning on while they remained locked in an increasingly irrelevant and incorrect state of mind, unable and unwilling to deal with any new developments that would ruin what they view as the fundaments of human society.

So, why is property so important? Because it was important for the people who came up with the ideology. Just take a look at the American Constitution and other legislation dating back to that the 18th century and before and it becomes obvious that nearly all of these made perfect sense back then. The right to carry arms was a necessity back in the time when many people lived in loosely-knit communities on the frontier, vulnerable to attack and without any form of public law enforcement. The same can be sad for property, especially in the sense of land, which was all-important in this area in this period. Land was still the measurement of one's wealth and status in this society, with slaves and indentured servants who were property at the bottom.

Again, the notion of ''right to property'' just falls flat on its face when brought into the modern world. Defining property is already incredibly hard. Whereas back in the day it refered to land, homes, livestock, servants, etc, physical property in general; in our modern service economy with digital goods and the Internet and free availability of them to everyon the definition of what constitutes property have been incredibly blurred. The idea that it's a natural part of mankind is false, when research of prehistoric man has revealed that they moved in family packs of hunter-gatherers and would've used any tools and possessions communally. The invention of agriculture meant that human groups could settle down, build permanent settlements, support a larger population and spend time on other things than trying to find food, and that is what spawned large settlements a division of labour and created a social hierarchy and detachment from family packs in which property could exist. Property is a social construct, and that makes sense when you think about it. The only reason property exists, and why it belongs to one person and not another or to all, is because others are willing to recognise it as such. And people who do not (thieves) are collectively regarded as outcasts and who act wrongly. And this is applicable to basically all rights, as rights are really only institutional affirmations of things that a community believes to be what is expected of and what belongs to an individual, and this frequently change, as rights and duties have along history.

[Astaroth]

@Dr Croccer: Great post.

Rights already imply that you cannot infringe upon the rights of others. Rights are thus absolute until surrendered. Every man loses his rights to the extent he has violated the rights of others.

Rights can not be absolute. If my right to swing my fist ends at your rights to your body, why doesn't my right to property end where your right to life begins?

I pretty much explained how it has everything to do with property... Do you really believe you can barge into someone's home and start telling the owner your opinion of the government? Or that you can force a newspaper owner to print your article?

Rights have to be measured up against each other. In your example, my right to freedom of speech has to be restricted because of your right to be left alone on your property. Just like your right to your property is going to be restricted if you affect the rights of others.

[Enemy of the State]

Our rights are given to us by our govts... there is no universal human right since rights are concepts created by humans. Our rights though are protected by societies. Nobody lacks for the right to own property though. Anyone can own property if you can afford to do so. When the city needs to expand or build a rail line or something and your property is in the way you can appeal and present an alternative but your be fairly compensated if you lose your property.

If rights are given by governments, then government can take those rights away aswell. Which means a government murdering people is perfectly acceptable? Would you forfeit your own life if it was the opinion of the majority that you should do so?

If rights are determined by the subjective opinions of men, then they are a worthless concept. Men can change their opinion as they desire. If rights can change in an instant, then they no longer provide any guarantees. Essentialy there is only a choice between objective, universal morality and nihilism.

Rights can not be absolute. If my right to swing my fist ends at your rights to your body, why doesn't my right to property end where your right to life begins?

Because as I've said, all rights are property rights. A right to life means you own yourself. It does not mean other people have an obligation to keep you alive. Are you going to punish someone because a man died of cancer? His right to life has been violated, since he is no longer living, according to your logic. Someone must have infringed upon it. Of course, this view is absurd. A right to life is like any other property right, meaning it forbids others to infringe upon your property. You can thus not act in a way which results in the death of another. Any obligation to act would in fact infringe upon the right to life, as it would mean you are no longer the owner of your own person.

Rights have to be measured up against each other. In your example, my right to freedom of speech has to be restricted because of your right to be left alone on your property. Just like your right to your property is going to be restricted if you affect the rights of others.

But as I've explained time and time again, and you simply seem to ignore this, there is only one right and that is to property. Everything you call a right is derived from this. Why make things complex?

[Astaroth]

Because as I've said, all rights are property rights.

Says who? This is nothing but a completely arbitrary claim.

A right to life means you own yourself. It does not mean other people have an obligation to keep you alive. Are you going to punish someone because a man died of cancer? His right to life has been violated, since he is no longer living, according to your logic. Someone must have infringed upon it. Of course, this view is absurd. A right to life is like any other property right, meaning it forbids others to infringe upon your property. You can thus not act in a way which results in the death of another. Any obligation to act would in fact infringe upon the right to life, as it would mean you are no longer the owner of your own person.

Human rights are universal. Rights are not just negative rights against other people, they are general rights. By refraining from helping somebody (when you could have), you are really no better than someone who actively harms another.

But as I've explained time and time again, and you simply seem to ignore this, there is only one right and that is to property. Everything you call a right is derived from this. Why make things complex?

Your claim is just that, a claim. Something you believe in. No different from religion, really.

[AqD]

Human rights are universal. Rights are not just negative rights against other people, they are general rights. By refraining from helping somebody (when you could have), you are really no better than someone who actively harms another.

But it's not about better or worse. We have no right to interfere with others, including dependency on them. To force help from others is no different from armed robbery.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Our rights are given to us by our govts... there is no universal human right since rights are concepts created by humans. Our rights though are protected by societies. Nobody lacks for the right to own property though. Anyone can own property if you can afford to do so. When the city needs to expand or build a rail line or something and your property is in the way you can appeal and present an alternative but your be fairly compensated if you lose your property.

[AqD]

My main question here is: why do many people, especially Americans (libertarians in particular) see the "right to property" as so much more important than other human rights?

I agree that being able to have your own property is important, but why is that one right seen as holy and sacred, whereas other human rights - the right to life, dignity and so on - are considered as secondary?

Thoughts?

I don't understand. What do you mean by the right to life and dignity?

Our rights are given to us by our govts... there is no universal human right since rights are concepts created by humans. Our rights though are protected by societies. Nobody lacks for the right to own property though. Anyone can own property if you can afford to do so. When the city needs to expand or build a rail line or something and your property is in the way you can appeal and present an alternative but your be fairly compensated if you lose your property.

No - it's simply wrong.

Everyone should have the right to be free from others. So nobody touches your property, nobody stops you from making a speech, and so on. The government is formed by the people for them for certain things to be done, it's not above people. If your neightbor cannot blow up your house for building a swimming pool, the government should not be able to do it for whatever reason either.

[MathiasOfAthens]

No - it's simply wrong.

Everyone should have the right to be free from others. So nobody touches your property, nobody stops you from making a speech, and so on. The government is formed by the people for them for certain things to be done, it's not above people. If your neightbor cannot blow up your house for building a swimming pool, the government should not be able to do it for whatever reason either.

Free from others? Howso? What do you mean by free from others?

Touches your property? I am speaking of eminent domain. Sometimes infrastructure investment trumps property rights. Neighbor putting in a swimming pool is different then the city or community building a road or rail line. The later benefits the community as a whole.

The govt has used eminent domain countless times, sometimes for good, othertimes for bad.

US cities have become sprawl and auto-dependent. This is bad for sustainability and economic development. I would promote the use of eminent domain to build rail systems and parks and general redevelop areas. That may require evicting some people from suburban homes.

In the 50s nearly every major US city evicted countless millions to build the interstate highway system that tore through urban landscapes. New Orleans, Boston, SF were devastated because of this.

Also around 50 years ago the city of Boston used Eminent Domain to clear an impoverish area to build the government center. The area wasnt so much as impoverished but old. The streets were narrow and some claimed were a fire hazard. Unfortunately thousands lived there and were forced to leave. Some were promised apartments in the same area but afterwards the new apartments were too expensive for them to afford.

[ash874]

Alright, so to begin with, let me state this clearly: I am not a communist and I do not support the abolishment of property.

With that out of the way, let us begin...

---

My main question here is: why do many people, especially Americans (libertarians in particular) see the "right to property" as so much more important than other human rights?

I agree that being able to have your own property is important, but why is that one right seen as holy and sacred, whereas other human rights - the right to life, dignity and so on - are considered as secondary?

Thoughts?

if someone encroaches on your right to live in security and attacks you with a knife, can you take his knife away and not return it?
if that someone is using his land as an attack lauch base (analogical to the knife) can you take his land? (and thats before speaking about reparations for the attack)
right now the rockets from the gaza strip can be stopped if a certain strip of land will be taken from it
i think a couple miles wide
that way the rockets will land in the strip itself
so in relation to the 2 questions i presented, will it be legal to conquer that strip
is it legal to launch attacks to begin with?
how can you be held to a legal standard when your opponent is not?

[MathiasOfAthens]

Nobody is advocating the use of force on others. You may very well consider rights natural, the rest of us merely consider them rights granted to us by govt and society and protected by our laws.

[Enemy of the State]

Nobody is advocating the use of force on others. You may very well consider rights natural, the rest of us merely consider them rights granted to us by govt and society and protected by our laws.

Well I disagree. What are you going to do about it?

[eisenkopf]

Well I disagree. What are you going to do about it?

Put you in jail.

[Basil II the B.S]

Put you in jail.

Lol, sent to jail because he begs to differ. What's this? Nazi Germany? Soviet Union?
Either way Hayek was right. Collectivism in any form leads to a life of serfdom. Even freedom of thinking is abolished.