Property Rights and the Initiation of Violence
- Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- The admin formerly known as Scott
- Posts: 5765
- Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- Contact:
Property Rights and the Initiation of Violence
In the thread I wrote: "The question of property rights is indeed a complicated issue. When property is involved it can be hard to see who is actually the offender, i.e. the initiator of violence or the threat of violence, and who is the potential defender. For example, if a person declares he owns a piece of land and tells anyone else that if they step on it he will kill these so-called trespassers, is declaring 'ownership' of land and using violence or the threat of violence to take and retain 'ownership' of it the initial threat or act of violence? Or when the alleged 'trespasser' who steps on the land and claims he will use violence to stop anyone who uses violence to stop him from walking on the land and does, is that the initial act of violence? Did the one who claims to own the land by threatening to use violence to stop anyone else from using it without his permission initiate the conflict? Or did the one who stepped onto the land someone else claimed to 'own' instate the conflict?"
I also previously made a blog post recalling a hypothetical example that shows how ridiculously oppressive property ownership can be and thus how ridiculous it can be to justify violence as defense of property?
What do you think? When it comes to property, where is the line between offensive aggression and defense? In a conflict between a self-proclaimed property owner and the one he alleges of violating his property rights, who is the attacker? Whose freedom is being infringed?
"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."
I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
-
- Posts: 3314
- Joined: April 6th, 2009, 9:55 pm
Re: Property Rights and the Initiation of Violence
It is always easy to see who is the original offender, or who are both as guilty as original offenders when we use Hate as the first violation, the first offense, the first instigation and the instigation of further offense.
Example:
When I hate the thief who steals my tv, I am the bigger thief and the causal initiator of him violating my home-space: I am stealing his Love which is worth far more than the tv he steals from me by violating the sanctity of my property.
Physical violence and its absence is neither here nor there. The war of swords is always preceded by the war of words. No violence of swords still means cold-war and uneasy peace when Hate is allowed to violate hearts.
Both the property-owner who hates trespassers, and the trespasser who hates property-owners are offenders and are as guilty as each other no matter who initiates what.
Hatred violates the binding compact between all people and thus leads to violence, which is then also hated.
Both non-property-owners and non-trespassers who hate violators are also just as guilty.
All owners of property and trespassers and their opposites are within their rights when in Love. Property-owners in Love will allow non-property owning trespassers to glean their fields, for example, without any fear of retaliation.
In a conflict between a self-proclaimed property owner and the one he alleges is violating his property rights, the initial attacker is one who hates the other. The hater infringes on his own and on the freedom of all others.
What is ridiculously oppressive about property ownership and non-property-ownership is how impossible it is to justify the violence of Hatred in defense of property or of poverty.
When it comes to property, the line between offensive aggression and defense is crossed when we cross the Line of Love and hate the person who is opposite to ourselves.
Hope that helps.
If not, please ask questions, or make challenges, or both.
- Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- The admin formerly known as Scott
- Posts: 5765
- Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- Contact:
It seems to me like it would be even more difficult to tell who hates whom and especially who hates whom first. Isn't hatred something someone can have for another without any noticeable outward evidence. One person could hate or strongly dislike a second person without telling or showing the second person, right?
I want to forcibly disallow people from engaging in offensive violence. For instance, I would want to use defensive force to stop someone from committing an offesnive act such as murder or rape. But I would not suggest prohibiting hatred per se. For instance, I may not want someone to strongly dislike me or to hate me but I want them to have the right to have those feelings. Ape, I assume you'd agree with me that you wouldn't want thought police telling me to think only happy thoughts about each other.
"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."
I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
- whitetrshsoldier
- Premium Member
- Posts: 1773
- Joined: March 11th, 2009, 1:19 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Frederic Bastiat
- Location: San Diego, CA
This is an excellent post, and I'm not surprised that so few people have participated in it so far.
Who determines the original owner of any given piece of property? Who determines who's hate caused another's? Very interesting questions, indeed.
I'd say that at some point in time, property ownership was based on an unjust process of violent domination. However unfair that was, the lines were drawn, and that period of time is over. Now that this injustice has been perpetrated, much like slavery, I do not believe that it is right for people to ask for "reperations" by demanding distributive retribution [i.e. they should not be "given" money or land by any outside arbitrator] because this would be unfair. Who has the right to determine who's land/property it really was? How far back could we really go in order to say who's land it was?
In reality, we must end this cycle of whining. We must, instead, begin working towards "righting the wrongs" by earning property through merit [acquisition of wealth] in order to effectively "steal" it back from those who have it.
The old rules of the game dictated that you pillage and kill to take land from others. The new rules demand that you achieve success and use your wealth to "steal" it back. It's pretty simple, and a result of your newly earned wealth can also be new contributions to society, newly created jobs, new wealth for others [taxes, jobs, charity, etc.].
So why not encourage greed, so that we can all benefit?
- Alun
- Posts: 1118
- Joined: July 11th, 2009, 8:55 pm
I believe the latter case might be permissible, because as a principle, the recognition of property ownership is extremely valuable. Without it, we would essentially be left to fend for ourselves, ascribing resources to our own uses whenever it we could think of something to do with them. This, I guarantee it, would put us back into a nomad civilization, with constant strife. Now, small violations of property ownership don't really undermine this; we are not worried to the point of becoming anti-social if someone steals our trash. In contrast, we may choose not to go down a street if we're sure someone will try to steal our wallet.
If you extend the latter case to a deep-seated fear that your house will be ransacked, you can see how--very quickly--you would remove yourself from productive society. In fact if the members of a town really didn't trust one-another, it seems likely that the town would disperse.
- Juice
- Posts: 1996
- Joined: May 8th, 2009, 10:24 pm
This way we can reason that ownership is an inherent a priori attribute of reality as applied to aware, conscious beings.
If we apply this reasoning to a valid proof that property, or objects that exist outside of an individuals mind or the direct physical properties that are an extension of an individual mind, is an extension of the labors of an individual mind and body then the works and objects associated with those products of mind and body can then by extension be considered as part of the ownership of that mind and body which owns itself.
In other words a fisherman who does the work to catch fish can then sell or trade those fish for his benefit and profit since he is actually selling the labors of his mind and body which thought to catch and sell fish supplying a need for fish even though, in reality, the fish can be argued to belong to anyone, everyone and even another hungry fish. This is the result of the apriori concept of ownership. I'm sure we can agree that no one would have the right to claim those fish, by force, who didn't have a stake of contributing to labors in catching them.
Further, if I dig into the earth and come upon a precious stone would anyone deny that I can claim ownership of that stone and do with it as I see fit? Would it be acceptable for some ruling entity to claim that stone as collective property, take it from me without proper recompense as collective wealth? Would it be acceptable for some ruling entity to claim exclusivity of the land in which the stone was found and force or hire individuals to look for more precious stones for a collective benefit, of which that ruling entity has control?
So, in a free society an individual is able, by the abilities of his own merit, to secure property for his benefit as an extension of the a priori concept of self ownership and ownership of the labors of mind and body. So to goes land where the individual claims that land, by merit, to provide the things for his benefit.
Long gone are the days in which someone will arbitrarily kill a person for setting foot on dirt that is part of claimed land, but removing or misusing the things, without permission, from that dirt or land that a free person acquired by his own merits is theft and as consistent with the right of an individual to protect himself from anyone who would forcible deny an individual the right to self ownership so to does an individual have the right to protect the products of his meritorious acquisition from wrongful use or appropriation.
Any material element or resource which, in order to become of use or value to men, requires the application of human knowledge and effort, should be private property—by the right of those who apply the knowledge and effort. Anne Rand
An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason.
C. S. Lewis
Fight the illusion!
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023