Natural Right is the Fountain of all Freedoms

[Sculptor1]

It's similar to what he does with "objective," where he reads "objective values," for example to be "values about objective things." It's a weird "literal" misreading of the common phrase. (Hence why I always put "literal" in quotation marks in these contexts. One person's "literal" is another person's "what the f-- are you talking about?")

Yup
In my view this sort of approach is deliberate obfuscation. Goal post moving.
Such as murder is bad is objectively true.
Since murder is unlawful killing by definition you are making a tautological claim. It's not objective in any meaningful way.
Murder is not always morally bad. Depends on who your target it surely?

[Sculptor1]

"Natural rights" he read "literally" to be "rights about natural things"

According to my limited understanding of the history of Western Liberalism, your quarrel there is with John Locke et al. Maybe he was an "Aspie"?

Locke was all about reading the book of nature alongside the "good book". As god designed nature you've only to examine nature to find god's purpose and seek understanding of moral values. It was quite common in the 17th and 18thCs, but rubbish today.
When rights are up for discussion the fall back is most usually the UNUDHR, which reveals the problems with rights in general as far from natural. Applied universally has had its problems across a range of cultures and exposed the lie of natural rights.

[GE Morton]

The tree is not in a "common", but in an uncharted wood. The boys are friends, but there is no implicit or explicit partnership.

If the tree is in an uncharted wood your story loses plausibility. The boys are then pioneers, and "young boys" will not be pioneers exploring uncharted territories; they would not be capable of it and their mothers would not allow it. If they do any exploring it is in their own well-trod neighborhood and nearby commons. And there is an implicit partnership --- if they are traveling together for more than few hours they are cooperating, in deciding which paths to follow, in finding/building shelters at night, securing food, sharing tools and other resources, etc. That establishes a partnership. If they were adults they would enter into some explicit agreement as to how anything of value they discover will be shared. Moreover, merely being friends entails obligations by itself. All of those extraneous factors render your story irrelevant to the issue at hand.

However, since there were enough apples for both boys to eat their fill, there is no reason to postulate "ownership" for the first discoverer of the tree.

Given the relationship between them they are both discoverers of the tree. Suppose, instead of quarreling over who may eat the apples, they jointly decide to pick all the apples, carry them back to to their village, and sell them at the local farmer's market. Have they no right to do so?

Nobody owns the tree. Anybody can pick and eat the apples.

Only until someone discovers and claims it. That is how all ownership, all property, begins. Until then it is res nullius, available for taking by anyone who comes along.

It is your notion that the discoverer obtains some "right" that is a reductio ad absurdum (or whatever the Latin term). It leads to the nonsensical conclusion that Morton has some "right" allowing him to deny nourishment to Ecurb.

That is also mistaken. Even if the tree is unquestionably my property I still have a (conditional) duty to give you an apple if you are starving.

Any normal person of reasonable sensibilities reading my little story can only think that Morton is a jerk for trying to prevent Ecurb from eating an apple. I suppose this could be because, although it is legitimate to claim ownership, Morton should share with his friend. But it is more likely that the entire concept of ownership is (in this case) ludicrous.

Yes, he is a jerk, for the first reason you gave. If you think it is because the concept of ownership is ludicrous you'll need to present some explanation for why it is, one that doesn't rely on failures to honor obligations arising from other sources.

The first occupancy principle, BTW, is the foundational, default principle for settling property disputes in courts all over the world, and has been since time immemorial. If It is "ludicrous" you'll have your work cut out for you in convincing people of that.

"The notion that first in time is first in right is an ancient one. It determines the resolution of numerous human conflicts both in law and custom. The legal rules about finding, water rights, nuisance, prescription, patents, wild animals, creditors' rights, franchises, recording and priorities in realty, and scores of other issues are wholly or partially governed by it. People follow it as unwritten law in their social interaction. The line waiting in front of a movie theater obeys its commands. The notion seems to be grounded in something almost instinctual; yet there is much more to it than that. Different policies serve to justify its application in various legal disputes. We discuss here some of the many contexts in which the doctrine is used (or abused), as well as the various policies that serve to justify or undermine it. . . ."

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/view ... ontext=nlr

Morality cannot be determined by logic. As G.K. Chesterton said, we can only discover using logic what we have already discovered without it. (That's because logic is by its nature circular; the conclusion is contained in the premises).

Logic cannot supply the axioms and postulates of a moral theory, but it can constrain the conclusions we draw from those premises. The premises themselves must identify the relevant facts bearing on the subject matter and set forth the goal of the theory.

So we must conclude that the theory of property rights that accepts Morton's behavior is unacceptable, and that Ecurb was justified in plucking an apple and nourishing himself with its juicy flesh.

That is a non sequitur. Ecurb is indeed justified in taking an apple, but for reasons that have nothing to do with the first occupancy theory of property.

[Ecurb]

It's MY story, and I can tell it however I wish. The reason it's ridiculous to think that Morton "owns" the tree is that he has done nothing to merit "owning" it. He did discover it -- but that's insufficient to claim ownership. I'd suggest that most people would claim that Morton had to be more involved in the creation of the tree before he can be considered its owner. Maybe he planted it. Maybe he watered it. If he wants to pick the apples and sell them, fine. However if he wants to prevent other travelers from picking and eating the apples he has (most reasonable people would think) over stepped his bounds.

Speaking of fruit, I went to a lecture on animal morality recently. The expert showed a film of a rhesus monkey who performed a task and was rewarded with a slice of cucumber. The monkey was happy to perform his trick, and pleased with his reward. The experimenter then went to the next cage, which was in plain sight of the original monkey. He trained another rhesus monkey to perform the task, and then gave him a grape as a reward.

It turns out that rhesus monkeys like grapes better than cucumbers. So when the experimenter returned to the first monkey, asked him to perform the task, and then rewarded him with a cucumber, the first monkey hurled the slice of cucumber at the experimenter. He knew what was fair, and what was unfair. So do people. Morton is unfairly claiming ownership because he has done nothing to merit it. He stumbled across the apples by dumb luck, and has no more right to "own" them than the next person who stumbles across them.

[Steve3007]

...Needless to say, a fight ensues. This is because Ecurb HAS, in fact, lost something. It is true that he didn't have any apples before, but he has lost the opportunity to have some now, which he would have had if there was no silly notion of a natural right to property.

You think that the concept of a "natural right" to property ownership is a silly notion. Do you think that it's silly to apply any concept of rights to property ownership, or just the concept of "natural rights"? Would you distinguish between the general right to own property (the thing which it has been claimed here is a "natural right") and the claim made to a specific piece of property? i.e. my right to own stuff and my right to the Toyota Yaris that I currently own.

If I own an object which I bought from someone, who bought it from someone, who bought it from someone who made it using raw materials from the environment, is the concept that I have acquired a right to claim that object as mine a useful one, in your view? Is this affected by the fact that those raw materials in the environment are a bit like the apples in your example? i.e. the original manufacturer, by using those raw materials, prevented somebody else from using them. Do you regard that as affecting my ownership of the manufactured product? Do you perhaps even regard that as meaning that the whole concept of rights to property is of no use?

I'm curious to know what system you think is best for managing the whole idea of private property, or whether you think there should be any notion of private property at all.

[Steve3007]

So when the experimenter returned to the first monkey, asked him to perform the task, and then rewarded him with a cucumber, the first monkey hurled the slice of cucumber at the experimenter. He knew what was fair, and what was unfair.

It seems to me that he knew what he could potentially get for his trick and thought it worth holding out for that. He could see that the going rate for that trick had gone up from a piece of cucumber to a grape. So, in human terms, he'd grasped the basic principles of free markets and inflation. Hurling that slice of cucumber was his way of demanding a pay rise and going on strike if he didn't get one (equal pay for equal work). In that free market sense, he'd made an assessment of the "fair value" of the trick.

Calculating the "fair value" of something, especially if the fair value is not immediately obvious, is a potentially lucrative skill to learn. When some markets researchers worked out the mathematical equation for the fair value of stock options (the Black–Scholes equation) they gained a competitive advantage. They knew when to hurl the slice of cucumber back and when to settle for it.

[Sculptor1]

It's MY story, and I can tell it however I wish. The reason it's ridiculous to think that Morton "owns" the tree is that he has done nothing to merit "owning" it. He did discover it -- but that's insufficient to claim ownership. I'd suggest that most people would claim that Morton had to be more involved in the creation of the tree before he can be considered its owner. Maybe he planted it. Maybe he watered it. If he wants to pick the apples and sell them, fine. However if he wants to prevent other travelers from picking and eating the apples he has (most reasonable people would think) over stepped his bounds.

Speaking of fruit, I went to a lecture on animal morality recently. The expert showed a film of a rhesus monkey who performed a task and was rewarded with a slice of cucumber. The monkey was happy to perform his trick, and pleased with his reward. The experimenter then went to the next cage, which was in plain sight of the original monkey. He trained another rhesus monkey to perform the task, and then gave him a grape as a reward.

A good lesson is how smart primate are against how stupid we have portrayed them. Not necessarily a good basis for saying anything about natural rights or morality.
Chimps are naturally deceitful. Is this to be taken as a moral allowance for humans, who excel at deceit?
For a good moral framework to help our unusually large human society we require humans to fly against the wind of natural behaviour and clamp down on our urges.

[Sculptor1]

PROPERTY RIGHTS.

Clearly this is as far from natural rights as you might want to get.
In early societies no such rights existed. The idea that an individual could own land for example was close to unthinkable. In many extant hunter/gatherer societies the idea of property is often wholly restricted to a few personal items. But the overall feeling is that objects, even those specifically made by individuals for individuals are held in common by the group. Were a hunter to make a bow, then that would be the bow he uses. Amongst the San the best bow maker tends to supply all the bows, whilst the best hunter tends to use them.
In early societies territories were boundless, as subsistence often required following herds. This could involve trips of a thousand miles in a year. Although some groups benefiting from tropical environments were able to be more sedentary, most of our ancestors had no concept of owning land. Strict rules and rituals often accompanied the division of the hunt or the gleanings of gathering, but by and large food was a common resource, with the person delivering the coup d'gras had the choice cut.
Then one day (circa 10kbp) some bright spark noticed that food plants sprouted out of the rubbish heap and figured out that seeds made plants grow. Soon they were fencing of portions of land to keep animals out. Then had to protect the crops from itinerant hunter/gatherers. Next there was a militia, then a priesthood that knew the secrets of the seasons, and before you knew it there was heirarchical structure from the head warrior/priest down to the poor women who were enslaved to do the grinding of the corn.
Archaeology shows just how tragic this move was for the majority who were ideologically and economically enslaved. Bone analysis shows the deformations resulting from a life grinding corn.
But this is the moment when "property rights" were first dreamed up.
Far from natural I think.

[Ecurb]

I don't have answers as to how to best regulate society, only questions. My objection to the Libertarian worship of property rights is not an objection to property, but an objection to misunderstanding and misdefining property. As is the case with all other "rights" (and all laws) property rights involve the legal right of one person to control other people. Libertarians, who want to blow the bugle of liberty, obfuscate this clear fact by claiming such rights are "natural" -- like the right to life or freedom of movement. Sometimes it seems fair and reasonable to enforce the right of one person to control other people (as is always the case when one person owns property). In other cases (such as that suggested by my little story) it seems unfair.

As Sculptor points out, property rights are a recent development in human history -- the way they are seen in the modern West is a development of the last 200-300 years. The ancient Greeks thought trading with non-Greeks was wimpy -- why not just take what you want by main force?

The rhesus monkey example serves to show that there IS a basic principle of "fair value" that informs us all. In moralistic America, that might prompt some people to promote inheritance taxes ("They didn't EARN it so they have no 'natural right'' to it.") People like equating "reward" with "merit". I don't like this approach either. We should regulate society so as to provide the best environment for people. In general, people benefit from being allowed to enjoy their "natural rights" -- life, liberty, etc. However, limiting such rights is often necessary for the greater good ("If you kill someone, we will take away your liberty.") It's reasonable to suggest that Property Law benefits society, although it clearly limits liberty (think "trespassing"). It's unreasonable to suggest that "property rights" are in some special moral category because property is somehow an extension of one's person, and slapping someone in irons for trespassing is morally equivalent to slapping someone in prison for punching you in the nose.

[GE Morton]

It's MY story, and I can tell it however I wish.

You sure can. But if you want your story to be convincing and on-point it has to be plausible and not include obfuscating factors.

The reason it's ridiculous to think that Morton "owns" the tree is that he has done nothing to merit "owning" it. He did discover it -- but that's insufficient to claim ownership.

Insufficient? Per what principle or criterion? Per common law and all but universal custom it is entirely sufficient. Merit plays no role whatsoever in ownership; whether someone "deserves" something or not has nothing to do with whether he owns it.

Most discoveries of valuable natural goods, of course, require an expenditure of substantial efforts and capital --- e.g., mineral and oil deposits, wild mushrooms, game animals, even underground water sources. But if a diamond-laden meteorite falls at your feet your claim to the diamonds is as sound as those excavated from a kimberlite pipe at great expense.

Morton is unfairly claiming ownership because he has done nothing to merit it. He stumbled across the apples by dumb luck, and has no more right to "own" them than the next person who stumbles across them.

Oh, you're quite right. But that takes us back to the reductio ad absurdum regarding lost opportunities. That next person can't take them either. No one may, and so everyone goes hungry.

[GE Morton]

I don't have answers as to how to best regulate society, only questions. My objection to the Libertarian worship of property rights is not an objection to property, but an objection to misunderstanding and misdefining property. As is the case with all other "rights" (and all laws) property rights involve the legal right of one person to control other people. Libertarians, who want to blow the bugle of liberty, obfuscate this clear fact by claiming such rights are "natural" -- like the right to life or freedom of movement. Sometimes it seems fair and reasonable to enforce the right of one person to control other people (as is always the case when one person owns property). In other cases (such as that suggested by my little story) it seems unfair.

You haven't been reading carefully. Property rights --- rights to particular items of property --- are not natural rights; they are "common rights." There is a natural right to seek and acquire property, however --- it is embraced in the natural right to liberty. The only property right that is a natural right is the property you brought with you into the world, i.e., your body.

As Sculptor points out, property rights are a recent development in human history -- the way they are seen in the modern West is a development of the last 200-300 years. The ancient Greeks thought trading with non-Greeks was wimpy -- why not just take what you want by main force?

That is false. Most hunter-gatherer cultures did not recognize property rights in land, because they were nomadic and considered the Earth a big common. That changed quickly with the development of animal husbandry and agriculture. But every culture recognizes and (largely) respects property rights in almost everything else. The spear you fashioned, the tipi you built, the horse you captured and trained, the berries you gathered, even the woman you claimed as a mate are yours. You may choose to share those things or exchange them for other goods belonging to others, but that choice is yours.

The rhesus monkey example serves to show that there IS a basic principle of "fair value" that informs us all.

No, it doesn't. It only shows monkeys are capable of envy. The "fair value" of anything is whatever price buyer and seller agree to. There is no objective criterion of "fairness."

[GE Morton]

That is false. Most hunter-gatherer cultures did not recognize property rights in land, because they were nomadic and considered the Earth a big common. *

* Incidentally, many of those pre-agricultural peoples did recognize property rights in land, but those rights were held by the tribe, not individuals. When hunters or gatherers from other tribes encroached upon territory they considered theirs, they drove them off.

[Steve3007]

No, it doesn't. It only shows monkeys are capable of envy.

I don't know. If I was just envious I think I'd get angry about the grape but I'd also eat the cucumber. Rejecting the cucumber suggests to me a rudimentary understanding of the concept of what price my performance could fetch in a free market, and therefore wage inflation. Although obviously not in those terms. Sadly, of course, the monkey isn't in a free market for his labour. He's a slave.

[GE Morton]

No, it doesn't. It only shows monkeys are capable of envy.

I don't know. If I was just envious I think I'd get angry about the grape but I'd also eat the cucumber. Rejecting the cucumber suggests to me a rudimentary understanding of the concept of what price my performance could fetch in a free market, and therefore wage inflation. Although obviously not in those terms. Sadly, of course, the monkey isn't in a free market for his labour. He's a slave.

I agree the monkey's behavior could well be a bargaining strategy, but the driving emotion is envy.

[Sculptor1]

I don't know. If I was just envious I think I'd get angry about the grape but I'd also eat the cucumber. Rejecting the cucumber suggests to me a rudimentary understanding of the concept of what price my performance could fetch in a free market, and therefore wage inflation. Although obviously not in those terms. Sadly, of course, the monkey isn't in a free market for his labour. He's a slave.

I agree the monkey's behavior could well be a bargaining strategy, but the driving emotion is envy.

Fairness and envy are two side of the same coin. And the term is selected if you decide you want to put a negative or a positive spin on it. What the monkey thinks in this situation is unknowable.