Am I the radical or is my professor?

[Freedom 4 all]

"Radical" is more a product of one's historical context than anything else. In the 1770's, your views would put you squarely in the mainstream of political thought, and your professor would be considered the radical for supporting such massive government (far more even than Hamilton and the other Federalists envisioned it at the time).

You don't even have to go back that far. If the prof said that back in the cold war when Joseph McCarthy was around, he'd probably have been blacklisted or something. I don't agree that anyone should be punished for their political views no matter how wrong they are, just saying that's what would have happened.

 

[Fox McCloud]

AED, really? Could you be a more condescending douchebag?

Calling me a liar in saying I've never read Locke (or anyone). Accussing me of making nothing but straw man arguments. To what? I wasn't arguing with anyone. I pointed out a real example that questions the nature of location based property.

Yeah, I didn't write out every single aspect of property rights, you got me! I didn't write out the entire history of property law, I didn't lay out the foundations of natural rights, I didn't define the essence of land use. You sure showed me!

You are a troll.

he's not trolling you; he's bringing up the same objection I likely would have; to mention Locke in the same sentence as "where does property end. . .Do satellites need permission" would make even people with a modicum of knowledge of Locke's philosophy question if you really did read Locke or if you truly did understand the concepts he was espousing. He also didn't say "you didn't read Locke"; he said that he didn't think you read Locke based on the evidence (your post)--it's a fairly rational objection, at least in my opinion, given what you stated.

 

[Rocco]

Honestly, I would listen to the dude and try to have engaging debate. Can't hurt to expand your world view a little bit and challenge yourself by standing up for your ideals. And this is coming from somebody who has a couple of liberal professors who are very biased and whom I do have a ton of debate with.

 

[hazek]

I suggest you give the professor a doze of this:

 

[Promontorium]

he's not trolling you; he's bringing up the same objection I likely would have; to mention Locke in the same sentence as "where does property end. . .Do satellites need permission" would make even people with a modicum of knowledge of Locke's philosophy question if you really did read Locke or if you truly did understand the concepts he was espousing. He also didn't say "you didn't read Locke"; he said that he didn't think you read Locke based on the evidence (your post)--it's a fairly rational objection, at least in my opinion, given what you stated.

I didn't mention Locke in the "same sentence", there are 3 fucking paragraphs between my mentioning Locke, and my points about modern conceptions of property.

I don't have to defend myself, when you fail to even bring up any specific objections to what I wrote. And if you don't think he was insulting me, and preemptively dismissing me, without even addressing one actual point then you should probably read it again.

But since I'm on trial...

I've read the Second Treatise twice. I've read Hobbes, Rousseau, Plato, Socrates, Machiavelli, Marx, Hegel, Smith, and Rand.
I'm a Political Science major. I've been pondering the concepts of property rights for years. I've studied modern property laws.

Do I meet your criteria of deserving civil discourse yet?

How about this, if you think I'm wrong, tell me why instead of just listing the education you think I need before I am worthy to converse with you.

You know how I know AED is a troll? Because I actually agree with him on property rights, but he and you failed (or didn't bother) to understood the point I was making, choosing instead to focus on the irrelevant, because even if you or AED are more educated on the subject than I am, it is irrational to conclude that you cannot communicate with me, no, he was just being an asshole. The questions that I proposed, are precisely the kind of questions a good teacher might ask to challenge a student, which refers back to the OP.

You know you aren't worth talking to. You and AED take such a snide, condescending and childish approach to berating me, what do I have to gain from even trying to talk with you? You dismiss me as too ignorant, and make sure to tell me how sure you are of that. I only write this now so the next asshole like you and AED wants to make another "reasoned" assertion of how ignorant you think I am, maybe they'll just keep walking.

 

[Vessol]

I suggest you give the professor a doze of this:

Excellent video!

 

[mczerone]

As for land ownership, I do find it's a different kind of situation than most other rights. Land, by its nature is not easily defined. I don't want to get into extreme detail on the matter, but I find that conceptual possession of physical land is less a right, than a manifestation of social agreement.

Okay, rather than join the conversation after all the name calling, I'll start by actually analyzing your arguments. First, a definition of terms. How do you distinguish a "right" from a "manifestation of social agreement"? In any formulation of rights the philosopher must recognize that each right is in a dual relationship with a corresponding duty on the part of the surrounding society. Thus this duty, as acted upon, is a manifestation of a social agreement.

The issue then isn't "do you have a right to land equivalent to other personalty?", but instead, "does the manifestation of the social agreement with respect to land differ from the manifestation of the same surrounding personalty?" We could investigate what type of behavior creates such social agreement, how these social agreements are different in practice, and how breeches of these agreements are handled by the individual claiming the right.

I saw a great example recently, the hills of Berkeley are slowly sliding down towards the San Francisco Bay. Houses are going with the soil. By traditional concepts of "property rights" the houses that have drifted (about an inch a year) onto their neighbor's land claim (by Lat/Long) are now violating that property and would usually become the financial burden to move the house, or destroy it. However every house is sliding down, and so as each house and yard stays equidistant, every house is off its own plot, and now in someone else's plot. By the "right" of property, every person should be homeless. That's ridiculous. Instead the people are accepting that their homes are slowly drifitng (slow enough that it's unlikely to ever be an issue in their lifetime) and an entire neighborhood accepts that Lat/Long property claim isn't a purely rational endeavor. This is just one example, I could probably rattle out dozens.

So instead of looking to differences in the types of rights/social agreements in land and personalty in any way, you critique a single method of managing land right claims. The specific response to your hypothetical (a straw-man argument, btw) is that the homeowners still own the same specific molecules comprising their house and yard, but the underlying object of the property claim has moved. This actually suggests that there are no real differences between personalty and realty aside from the inability of the individual to physically move his realty. My watch or car is not defined by an arbitrary coordinate system that is used to pinpoint locations in space-time. Instead my watch, car, and even my land is defined by those underlying physical objects that I have acquired through the Lockean labor theory of property (if we accept this as a valid starting point).

Land, as it is, simply can't be a "right" by definition of rights, rather I think the right is derived from a more conceptual base. For example, if you have a "right" to an area of land, how high up? 10,000 feet? 100,000 feet? Do satellites need your permission? How deep is your claim? Beyond the soil? The lithosphere? The Asthenosphere? The core? The land on the opposite end of Earth? What about borders? If a river is a border, when the river moves, does your border? It's arbitrary. It's a social concoction. Not saying people shouldn't have private land, I think they should. I'm not saying the government shouldn't stay the hell off, I think they should. But it isn't like free speech or owning a car, it's a whole other realm.

This has already been covered by others, and suggests that you haven't grasped the Lockean theory. Have you directly altered the core of the earth or the lithosphere? If you haven't, you can't claim to own it. Have you any control over the core of the earth or the lithosphere? If you do not, you can't claim to own it. Have you any expectation of receiving particular personal benefit from the core of the earth or the lithosphere? If you do not, you can't claim to own it. There is a range of air and sub-foundation surrounding your house that does meet these conditions, and those ranges are part of your property. Anything further is not your property.

The "river-border" is indeed a tougher question - but those same three questions apply to the flow of water as applied to the physical ground your house is sitting on.

And here's the kicker - the ownership of your car or your speech is just as arbitrary. I mean, you don't really own that 7"x11" space in the center of your rear bumper, do you? You don't really own, or have a right to, certain phrases that you will be punished by the government if you say them, do you?

You've made an observation of the nature of land property ownership, which certainly extends to all other physical objects as well, rather than distinguishing them from land.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I didn't mention Locke in the "same sentence", there are 3 fucking paragraphs between my mentioning Locke, and my points about modern conceptions of property.

I don't have to defend myself, when you fail to even bring up any specific objections to what I wrote. And if you don't think he was insulting me, and preemptively dismissing me, without even addressing one actual point then you should probably read it again.

But since I'm on trial...

I've read the Second Treatise twice. I've read Hobbes, Rousseau, Plato, Socrates, Machiavelli, Marx, Hegel, Smith, and Rand.
I'm a Political Science major. I've been pondering the concepts of property rights for years. I've studied modern property laws.

Do I meet your criteria of deserving civil discourse yet?

How about this, if you think I'm wrong, tell me why instead of just listing the education you think I need before I am worthy to converse with you.

You know how I know AED is a troll? Because I actually agree with him on property rights, but he and you failed (or didn't bother) to understood the point I was making, choosing instead to focus on the irrelevant, because even if you or AED are more educated on the subject than I am, it is irrational to conclude that you cannot communicate with me, no, he was just being an asshole. The questions that I proposed, are precisely the kind of questions a good teacher might ask to challenge a student, which refers back to the OP.

You know you aren't worth talking to. You and AED take such a snide, condescending and childish approach to berating me, what do I have to gain from even trying to talk with you? You dismiss me as too ignorant, and make sure to tell me how sure you are of that. I only write this now so the next asshole like you and AED wants to make another "reasoned" assertion of how ignorant you think I am, maybe they'll just keep walking.

Wait a second. In your first paragraph you stated that you studied Locke, and the Professor challenged Locke, and your position on property rights (Here I assume you and Locke agreed). Then, in your last paragraph you go on about easily answered questions if you had actually studied (understood) Locke and homesteading. Why is it a far stretch for me to say I do not think you studied Locke when you make such elementary errors? If you find this condescending, then I am sorry, but I will not rescind what I said.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Austrian Econ Disciple, how long after a piece of land has been stolen does the property become the thief's instead of the victim's.

Like Sentient stated before me, that question is irrelevant, or in other words, the thief can never obtain legitimate property through theft no matter how much time has elapsed. If you cannot find the original owners, or kin of such owner, then the property becomes unowned and homesteadable. In a practical sense on how to implement such theoretical propositions, I would simply state either by removing the person from the property and allowing any individual, or group to homestead it, or in the case of non-land property that it would simply be non-practical as a matter of both logistics and definition (That is, it is quite hard to homestead say, a CD player which has been abandoned, so in this case it would be whoever decides to put it into use receives ownership).

^ This is all based on the inability to determine or find the original owner, or his/her kin. The issue is quite easily solved if you can find the original owner or the kin of the owner.

 

[Slutter McGee]

My favorite professor was a commie. Philosophy.

But he didnt push his own views. If you argued for wealth ridistribution, he would challenge you with brilliant arguements in support of property rights and individualism. If you tried to argue for property property rights he would challenge you with intelligent arguments against it and in support of socialism. If you argued against Christianity, he would brilliantly defend it. If you argued for Christianity he would attack it.

That is the mark of a good professor. I know in his personal life he was a commie, but he was a good professor. Sounds like this guy just wants force his opinions.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

My favorite professor was a commie. Philosophy.

But he didnt push his own views. If you argued for wealth ridistribution, he would challenge you with brilliant arguements in support of property rights and individualism. If you tried to argue for property property rights he would challenge you with intelligent arguments against it and in support of socialism. If you argued against Christianity, he would brilliantly defend it. If you argued for Christianity he would attack it.

That is the mark of a good professor. I know in his personal life he was a commie, but he was a good professor. Sounds like this guy just wants force his opinions.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

I agree. Oh noes. It is raining again, since me and Slutter agree for the second time!

 

[Madly_Sane]

I am a Health Science major but I had some electives so I decided to take a Political Theory class. Today in that class, my professor told us that John Locke was a fool and that property rights are not natural rights. He said that property rights are granted by the state!!! He then began to argue the virtues of the state using force to redistribute wealth. The worst part is that the class overwhelming supported his view!!!

I was the only student in the class with a dissenting opinion! Am I the radical or is he?

You're asking this question on a forum in which most members strongly believe that property rights are natural rights, so you're going to get answers that are strongly based on biasedness. If you went to a forum/asked a person who strongly opposed that idea (property rights being natural) then you would probably get the most opposite answer also strongly based on biasedness.

 

[Freedom 4 all]

My favorite professor was a commie. Philosophy.

But he didnt push his own views. If you argued for wealth ridistribution, he would challenge you with brilliant arguements in support of property rights and individualism. If you tried to argue for property property rights he would challenge you with intelligent arguments against it and in support of socialism. If you argued against Christianity, he would brilliantly defend it. If you argued for Christianity he would attack it.

That is the mark of a good professor. I know in his personal life he was a commie, but he was a good professor. Sounds like this guy just wants force his opinions.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

I had several profs like that. Unless the prof is a complete narcissist (many are, but a number are not), they actually want their views challenged, and prefer students who fight with them over students who don't. If everyone just agrees uncritically there is no point in class discussion. I've had huge arguments with all of my favorite profs.

 

[Slutter McGee]

I agree. Oh noes. It is raining again, since me and Slutter agree for the second time!

haha. it is a rare thing indeed.

Slutter McGee

 

[Travlyr]

Natural rights are inherent. Everyone has natural rights, but not everyone enjoys them. I enjoy my rights because I understand and enforce them.

As for land, one owns the part of land that he has justly acquired through voluntary exchange and/or mixed his labor with. He doesn't own any area above the land (whether it's 50 feet, 500 feet, or 10000 feet), nor does he own any land beneath his house and ground for which he has or does mix his labor with. For example, as long as you didn't disturb his plot of land (and if you did, you would be responsible for damage to his property as a violation of it), you could justly dig a trench deep enough under his property to make a tunnel if someone refuses to sell their land in order to build a road for transportation.

Real estate "bundle of rights" theoretically includes ownership of land and air from the center of the earth throughout the universe.

Theoretically, all of the universe radiating out from this land, and all of the Earth to the center point directly under this land, is also part of the real estate. In practice, however, rights to do anything with that space and Earth would be impractical and unsupportable by law.

Property rights are fundamental to individual liberty. These "bundle of rights" that comes with land are proper because all wealth comes from the earth (mine it, grow it, or sew it). Whoever owns/controls the property can become wealthy enough to pursue happiness. People who own land can become prosperous from the fruits of their labor.

Globalists are enforcing Agenda 21 because it confiscates land, centralizes people, and empowers control to the ruling elite. Agenda 21 perpetuates enslavement.

 

[moostraks]

As for land, one owns the part of land that he has justly acquired through voluntary exchange and/or mixed his labor with. He doesn't own any area above the land (whether it's 50 feet, 500 feet, or 10000 feet), nor does he own any land beneath his house and ground for which he has or does mix his labor with. For example, as long as you didn't disturb his plot of land (and if you did, you would be responsible for damage to his property as a violation of it), you could justly dig a trench deep enough under his property to make a tunnel if someone refuses to sell their land in order to build a road for transportation.

As for you professor and his absurdities, ask him if there is any State that mandates a bear has a right in his cave property that the bear clearly believes is his from homesteading it. Or a dog and how he treats and perceives *his* bone, and what he does if another animal tries to come near it. While such examples in the animal kingdom are scattered and can be spotted in different species, the human being being *sapient* and with the capacity for reason, wisdom, and a much higher order of intelligence is able to consistently recognize and utilize this concept of property in order to increase his own standard of living and manipulate his environment further for his own benefit - which many animals cannot nearly come close to.

Property is a concept that predates the State (there was virtually no State in the [not so] Wild West - yet people recognized property very consistently also).

Not to mention the fact that modern civilization and increased standards of living are impossible with property and it's extension of allocating resources effectively through the price system and a supply/demand mechanism.

Ultimately, *all* rights are property rights that extend from the right of self-ownership, and other than the self all other property is attained throguh self-ownership and the homesteading principle (mixing one's owned labor with unowned resources to justify it as one's property). If you acknowledge that one owns himself, then you must believe in property.

You can only be a consistent anti-property dude if you believe you do not own yourself, and either every one owns you, a person owns everyone, or everyone owns eachother, or no one owns anyone including not owning themselves. The logical slippery slopes that are created by advocating any of these concepts are not only dangerous, but easily refuted as absurd in practicality (apart from the moral arguments against them).

The ideas proposed on property bring to mind airplanes flying within feet of a home's roof and not being able to grow carrots because of tunnels made by neighbors. Seems impractical to go to the extent you propose regarding land.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

The ideas proposed on property bring to mind airplanes flying within feet of a home's roof and not being able to grow carrots because of tunnels made by neighbors. Seems impractical to go to the extent you propose regarding land.

If you interfere with their property that is trespassing, and actionable. If you read Walter Blocks Privatizing Roads he goes into depth on this issue. There is a reasonable amount of land you own underneath your house, and your property, but beyond that it is all open to homesteading. As for the sky, that is probably better understood by possession / use than by actual ownership of physical space. Which means, wherever your property is located, no one has the right to damage that property, or interfere in its use (IE, you can't encass a satellite in a material which prevents transmission for instance).

Impractical is a case of price. It would certainly not be impractical to build a tunnel underneath a large stretch of land which the owners refused to sell, than to buy up property around them if it was cheaper to homestead underneath. I think it would be awesome to see an underground network of roads. Imagine all the space that would be freed up! Of course, with no taxation and no monopoly on the good of transportation/roads, it might become cost efficient to build something like that rather than buy up property.

 

[Stary Hickory]

I am a Health Science major but I had some electives so I decided to take a Political Theory class. Today in that class, my professor told us that John Locke was a fool and that property rights are not natural rights. He said that property rights are granted by the state!!! He then began to argue the virtues of the state using force to redistribute wealth. The worst part is that the class overwhelming supported his view!!!

I was the only student in the class with a dissenting opinion! Am I the radical or is he?

You should have walked right up to him punched in the nose and taken his wallet. Since he is all for that sort of thing. Maybe he would have gotten the point after that.

 

[moostraks]

If you interfere with their property that is trespassing, and actionable. If you read Walter Blocks Privatizing Roads he goes into depth on this issue. There is a reasonable amount of land you own underneath your house, and your property, but beyond that it is all open to homesteading. As for the sky, that is probably better understood by possession / use than by actual ownership of physical space. Which means, wherever your property is located, no one has the right to damage that property, or interfere in its use (IE, you can't encass a satellite in a material which prevents transmission for instance).

Impractical is a case of price. It would certainly not be impractical to build a tunnel underneath a large stretch of land which the owners refused to sell, than to buy up property around them if it was cheaper to homestead underneath. I think it would be awesome to see an underground network of roads. Imagine all the space that would be freed up! Of course, with no taxation and no monopoly on the good of transportation/roads, it might become cost efficient to build something like that rather than buy up property.

Was reading at face value, which was you own strictly that which is the surface/property residing on surface no more no less. I have very little faith in my fellow man to be held accountable for anything they destroy so I am not so keen on a wild west approach to that which is beneath my considerably heavy brick home with hopes of restitution in the event of a cave in.Call me pessimistic...

 

[Sentient Void]

Was reading at face value, which was you own strictly that which is the surface/property residing on surface no more no less. I have very little faith in my fellow man to be held accountable for anything they destroy so I am not so keen on a wild west approach to that which is beneath my considerably heavy brick home with hopes of restitution in the event of a cave in.Call me pessimistic...

Thou must readeth more Rothbard (At least 'For a New Liberty' and 'Ethics of Liberty') before coming to such conclusions.