Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'property rights'.
I am referring here to the initiation of physical force and coercion. Under Objectivism this is considered immoral because, fundamentally, it violates the victim's right to their life. It prevents the victim from acting according to their own judgement of what is best for them. To accept the general principle of force initiation would be self-defeating for that reason. Force initiation can be overt, a robbery, seizure of property by the state, a murder, an invasion by foreign military forces. Here it should be easy to identify force has been initiated. Force initiation may be "covert
Intellectual property. So if I go outside and build a mud hut somewhere I own it. It is my hut because I built it; that is, without myself, my idea and my actions it would not exist at all. So if I go and invent the idea of a hut I own it; without myself and my idea, no huts (as such) would ever be invented. . . ? AND if someone goes out and builds a hut without my permission, they are initiating coercive force against me: So, if someone uses my idea at all they are acting as a human photocopier. Thusly, if someone copies my idea without my permission, they are in
I know of four aspects of property rights: the right to any benefit from the property the right to the disposal of the property the right to exclude others from the use of the property the right to transfer or sell the property 1. Are these enough to cover rights violations such as damage to another's property? 2. How should we classify impact to the private owner's ability to enjoy the property, e.g. pollution?