'A Positive Account of Rights' by David Friedman →
I would also think that the claiming of property does not imply a right to property.
Um it doesn’t… and that is rather obviously irrelevant to the linked article from Friedman, which is about positive analysis of rights. As he explains in the 2nd paragraph:
If I have a normative right not to be killed, that means that if you kill me you have acted badly, are a bad person, and ought to feel guilty. If I have a legal right, that means that killing me is against the law. If I have a positive right not to be killed, that means that the consequences to you of killing me are such that you probably won’t. Normative rights are moral claims. Positive rights, as I use the term, are descriptions of behavior.
…rabbits will be flushed from their holes and birds will be scared from their nests. Humans occasionally realise that their gift of logic shines light upon the unpalatability of this situation. Do we listen to logic or do we spray our scent around our lair in desperation?
Specifically now, what “logic” tells us that there is something unpalatable about whatever you’re talking about. EXPLAIN
(Also, libertarians of the propriertarian tradition seem to fail to draw the destinction between ‘self ownership’ and the right to personal space and protection (which is the function of territory in nature) an ‘object ownership’ which is disallowing others access to your resource, your property, unless there’s a profit in it for you. This is no better than the mentality of the state taxman knocking on the door claiming you owe something to someone who should have no control over your affairs.
Self ownership is libertarian. Private property is innately authoritarian.
Most “anti-propertarians” are in favor of “private property” in some other form (like council communism monopoly over x and y “resources” to the exclusion of those who dissent from council communism in that particular area or whatever). The only people in favor of no property are a small subset of purist anarcho-primitivists. The debate is not between resource exclusion and open access—its between ideologically collectivized property norm versus individually dispersed property norm. See thissssssssssss
No offense but I hardly see the logic in that, being familiar with the works of Friedman, Rothbard and Konkin I appreciate their arguments but think they are poorly thought through.
You are familiar with the works of David Friedman? Really? That’s impressive. Okay…
Firstly, what was unpalatable about a rather nice little phrase showing how we, as a species, strive naturally against adversity in nature?
I thought you were saying that was unpalatable as demonstrated by some “logic.”
Also making the point that socialisation and logic have worked wonders for our own emancipation from these sufferings.
I agree. I’m a big fan of sociability and logic in their appropriate roles, consequentialistically speaking.
A positive right is precisely what I know it to be, a monopoly.
A positive right in the sense this article is using the term is just an empirical analysis of human behavior which generates predictions about norms that we call “rights”…
If you have a monopoly in the local cookie market, I could start selling cookies on your block, but I will expend so much time and effort with so little reward in doing so that I probably won’t. This too, is a positive right, but not a universal right. Who are you to disallow me my liberty of selling cookies on the block through this positive right nonsense? Or to deny others the right to your ovens?
There seems to me to be, quite obviously, a significant difference between denying others the “right” to act according to general rules and attempt compete with me (a violently enforced monopoly) and denying others the “right” to prevent others from “stealing” stuff that I have acquired according to general rules applicable to all individuals (property norms).
Regardless, it would appear you have bigger problems…
…how can it not be an issue of ‘property exclusion’ when we have a limited world, with limited resources…and a limited universe also?
I believe this strain of thought to be authoritarian for advocating punitive measures at all in defense of a monopoly of any kind. Society must have a non-punitive basis of organisation. The only way this is possible is to end monopoly (thus the power to punish) of state and private property.
The propriertarian claims that punishment should be used in the enforcement of monopoly. This, sir, is authoritarianism. A question of hierarchy; “who should punish? who should be punished?”
First, you are setting up a dichotomy between exclusionary norms and unrestricted open access. Are you in favor of open access or are you in favor of some exclusionary norm different in details from individual property norms, such as council communism or majority rule or syndicalism or mutualist market norms or whatever? If you are in favor of unrestricted open access to all resources, think carefully about what you are advocating. It would entail the almost certain demise of all human civilization. If you are in favor of some other exclusionary norm like mutualist use-occupancy ownership then you are confused.
Second, who is talking about punishment? In order for a legal norm to be effective, there must be sufficient disincentives to violate it as a rule. This can certainly include retribution. However for most violations of external property norms, common law has been limited to restitution rather retribution as ultimate disincentive. Whether or not this is “authoritarian” would depend on your definition of authoritarian. I certainly don’t see individual property rights as authoritarian because they are general rules applied to everyone which do not subject individuals to the discretionary power of others (like, say, collectivist property norms do).
