Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Steve3007]

GE has an entire philosophy of eternal, perfect property rights being the only path to justice. He conveniently ignores all the injustice that came along with gathering up ownership to begin with. Since it is impossible to undo those injustices and prevent future injustices, I say it is reasonable (just, if you like) to add some extra burdens to the people enjoying the property rights, and to meet some of the basic needs of the folks who don't enjoy the luxury of property ownership. He says my ideas amount to slavery.

However, the people in the societies that do just what I suggest report to be the happiest in the world, as I noted earlier. Actual socialists, not socialist in name only, enjoy their "slavery" more than we enjoy our "freedom".

OK, yes, I thought it was probably GE you were mostly referring to. I think anybody who has been here for a reasonably long time would be able to predict more or less what GE's view would be on a topic like this because we can say what we like about him, but he is pretty consistent in his strictly libertarian views.

[Steve3007]

GE has an entire philosophy of eternal, perfect property rights being the only path to justice.

Just on this point, I imagine GE would probably reply with something along the lines that he doesn't have a philosophy of eternal, perfect property rights, and would mention again the concepts of first possessor and chain of consent. Here's the earliest example of the argument that I can find. I vaguely remember having a discussion with him about dealing with the situation in which somebody inherits property that was stolen by their forefathers (or similar) but can't find it right now so don't remember how it went.

[Steve3007]

I guess this would do as an example of the type of argument.

[Pattern-chaser]

Surely it would be very easy to live on land which one does not own?

If the land is available and if nobody throws you off it, yes. The reason I said it was increasingly difficult is that the land is not available.

The answer to this is a little off-topic, but the problem is that we are a plague species. The land isn't 'available' because there are too many of us, crowding into a space that isn't big enough to nurture and sustain us all, never mind all the other living creatures who live[d] here too.

Where is the logic in one species declaring its ownership of the land where so many other creatures live, and always have lived?

As I said, one of the main rationales for the concept of ownership of land is the encouragement of responsible husbandry.

I think this is wishful thinking. Ownership is a manifestation of outrageous greed. 'Outrageous' in that the very idea of owning land that you, and lots of others creatures too, share. Don't forget that our human concept of ownership is very much exclusive, the opposite of sharing...

[Pattern-chaser]

Any piece of land, however small, hosts billions and billions of living organisms that live on this land. That most of them are too small for human eyes to see is beside the point. Where is the logic in one species declaring its ownership of the land where so many other creatures live, and always have lived?

I don't see why you talk about what other creatures do before asking for a reason for what humans do. What's the connection?

The connection is that all those creatures live on the land we 'own' at the same time as we 'own' it. They lived on the land before we climbed down from the trees, and the survivors of our human-made holocaust will live there after we've gone. The land we live on is shared with all the other life there. That's the connection. We declare exclusive ownership of something that is shared with everything else.

When a human 'owns' land, they are more or less free to do with it as they choose. The important part of ownership, as far as human 'owners' are concerned, is that they can deny the use of that land to anything and anyone. And they do. Exclusive ownership means we can exclude people and things from 'our' land. No husbandry here, I'm afraid.

[Steve3007]

The answer to this is a little off-topic, but the problem is that we are a plague species. The land isn't 'available' because there are too many of us, crowding into a space that isn't big enough to nurture and sustain us all, never mind all the other living creatures who live[d] here too.

Well, I've read your thoughts about human population before so, given those views, I see why you say this. Although an answer wasn't required, as such, because there was no question. I was just answering your question.

I think this is wishful thinking. Ownership is a manifestation of outrageous greed. 'Outrageous' in that the very idea of owning land that you, and lots of others creatures too, share. Don't forget that our human concept of ownership is very much exclusive, the opposite of sharing...

So you see no rational reason for ownership of land by anybody? I'm not asking whether you think a particular person or group ought to own a particular piece of land. I'm just wondering whether you really can't see the rationale and still stick to the idea that there is "no logic to it" (by which I assume you mean that no rational reason can be given for it.)

[Steve3007]

The connection is that all those creatures live on the land we 'own' at the same time as we 'own' it. They lived on the land before we climbed down from the trees, and the survivors of our human-made holocaust will live there after we've gone. The land we live on is shared with all the other life there. That's the connection. We declare exclusive ownership of something that is shared with everything else.

When a human 'owns' land, they are more or less free to do with it as they choose. The important part of ownership, as far as human 'owners' are concerned, is that they can deny the use of that land to anything and anyone. And they do. Exclusive ownership means we can exclude people and things from 'our' land. No husbandry here, I'm afraid.

I dispute that this is true. I own a house. I'm not legally allowed to burn it down.

[Steve3007]

Ownership of something is, as far as I know, almost never unconditional. Where we live, ownership of land and the buildings on it is usually filled with conditions. The same goes for farmland. An unnecessarily specific example: We want to do a loft conversion in our house and we applied for planning permission and they wouldn't even let us put a small Velux window in the front elevation of the roof (and wouldn't let us put a dormer on the back) because it would supposedly spoil the line of rooftops, even though the neighbours have got one, and you can't even see the back from outside our garden. Bloody council. Rant over.

[Pattern-chaser]

I think this is wishful thinking. Ownership is a manifestation of outrageous greed. 'Outrageous' in that the very idea of owning land that you, and lots of others creatures too, share. Don't forget that our human concept of ownership is very much exclusive, the opposite of sharing...

So you see no rational reason for ownership of land by anybody? I'm not asking whether you think a particular person or group ought to own a particular piece of land. I'm just wondering whether you really can't see the rationale and still stick to the idea that there is "no logic to it" (by which I assume you mean that no rational reason can be given for it.)

Would it clarify my position if we were discussing the air we breathe instead of the land we live on/off/from? Imagine that (exclusive) human 'ownership' of air allowed us to prevent others from using 'our' air? And not only did it allow for this, but that human owners routinely did it?

I can see no logical or rational justification for the exclusive ownership of land. Given what I just wrote, can you?

[Pattern-chaser]

The connection is that all those creatures live on the land we 'own' at the same time as we 'own' it. They lived on the land before we climbed down from the trees, and the survivors of our human-made holocaust will live there after we've gone. The land we live on is shared with all the other life there. That's the connection. We declare exclusive ownership of something that is shared with everything else.

When a human 'owns' land, they are more or less free to do with it as they choose. The important part of ownership, as far as human 'owners' are concerned, is that they can deny the use of that land to anything and anyone. And they do. Exclusive ownership means we can exclude people and things from 'our' land. No husbandry here, I'm afraid.

I dispute that this is true. I own a house. I'm not legally allowed to burn it down.

If you (not a building society, who hold your mortgage) own your house, I think you could burn it down, if you chose to, provided that anti-smoke laws didn't prevent it. You could certainly demolish it, if burning was a problem. Similarly, you could level the land you 'own', and concrete it over, preventing its use by the creatures that currently live there.

[Pattern-chaser]

...you could level the land you 'own', and concrete it over, preventing its use by the creatures that currently live there.

I think recent floods in Boston were put down to the number of yards that have been covered with waterproof material (probably concrete), which prevented the water from draining away.

[Pattern-chaser]

Ownership of something is, as far as I know, almost never unconditional. Where we live, ownership of land and the buildings on it is usually filled with conditions. The same goes for farmland. An unnecessarily specific example: We want to do a loft conversion in our house and we applied for planning permission and they wouldn't even let us put a small Velux window in the front elevation of the roof (and wouldn't let us put a dormer on the back) because it would supposedly spoil the line of rooftops, even though the neighbours have got one, and you can't even see the back from outside our garden. Bloody council. Rant over.

I feel your pain. But I don't think this changes the basic thrust of our conversation. You are allowed to do many/most of the things that prevent the land from also being used by all the other living creatures, even if you aren't allowed a loft extension.

[Steve3007]

Would it clarify my position if we were discussing the air we breathe instead of the land we live on/off/from? Imagine that (exclusive) human 'ownership' of air allowed us to prevent others from using 'our' air? And not only did it allow for this, but that human owners routinely did it?

I can see no logical or rational justification for the exclusive ownership of land. Given what I just wrote, can you?

Of course I can see the logical/rational justification for the exclusive ownership of land. Obviously I don't accept the analogy with air as a valid one. Call me selfish if you want to, but I like the fact that if some stranger walked in through my front door and announced that he's going to go and sleep in my kids' bedroom I'd have some recourse in law against that. The reason I have that recourse is that I either own or rent the property and it is therefore regarded in law as a private space to which I can legally deny entry to people if I want to. There's no comparison to the air we breathe.

Do you at least agree that being able to designate a place as a private space where others are not allowed to come and go as they please has some use? Should nobody be allowed that privacy and safety? If they should be allowed that privacy and safety, how do you propose to enforce it in law, if not by something like the concept of property ownership?

[Steve3007]

If you (not a building society, who hold your mortgage) own your house, I think you could burn it down, if you chose to, provided that anti-smoke laws didn't prevent it. You could certainly demolish it, if burning was a problem. Similarly, you could level the land you 'own', and concrete it over, preventing its use by the creatures that currently live there.

Given that I'm not even allowed to install a Velux window, I seriously doubt that.

[Steve3007]

I think recent floods in Boston were put down to the number of yards that have been covered with waterproof material (probably concrete), which prevented the water from draining away.

I don't see this very real problem as being anything to do with the general concept of the ownership of land. I wouldn't want any ownership of land to be unconditional and, as I've said, thankfully, it never is. It always comes with conditions. The details of what those conditions should be, in order to promote such public goods as proper drainage of the land, have nothing to do with the general question of whether there is ever any rational reason for the the concept of land ownership to exist. I don't buy the argument:

"It would be possible to make land ownership laws such that the owner can do whatever he/she wants with that land, therefore there should be no such thing as land ownership."

That seems to me to be the argument you're making. It makes no sense to me. A better argument would be:

"It would be possible to make land ownership laws such that the owner can do whatever he/she wants with that land, therefore let's not make land ownership laws like that."