Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Why should all property be privately owned?

Rate this topic


Mnrchst

Recommended Posts

Basically, because we need some way to know who initiated force and who is allowed to do what with what, so it follows from the non-agression principle coupled with an examination of the nature of man and the world.

Also, don't forget about this thread: Why should all property be privately owned? http://forum.objecti...showtopic=21977

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that's one way of approaching it. So we have the non-aggression principle, no man may initiate the use of physical force against others, and that men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. So then how do we know who is an aggressor and who is exercising self-defense? Suppose we see one man go over to another man and take something from him? Has the first guy committed aggression or not? Well it all depends on who owns the thing that was taken. If the second guy owns it, then the first guy is an aggressor; if the second guy stole it from the first guy yesterday, then he's just taking back what is his. So you need a theory of ownership to be able to tell who is the aggressor and who is being victimized. This follows directly from Rand's virtue of justice:

1. One needs to interact with others to achieve values.

2. Other people can be a source of value, or a threat.

3. One needs some way of evaluating and according to each person what they deserve, i.e. we need to know who is a rights-violator and who is a victim of a rights violation.

4. Man exists in a material world of spatial boundaries, not as a ghost or floating spirit.

5. We need to know what any given person is allowed to do here and now with their body and with objects and things in the external world.

6. Therefore we need a theory of just ownership of the physical integrity of things and people in the world, so we know who is a bad guy and who is a good guy.

Or consider the virtue of productiveness:

1. Man is a being of material structure, not a floating wraith or disembodied spirit, he needs to obtain material values.

2. Coercion and parasitism are not reliable means of obtaining material values.

3. One needs to produce material values in order to live successfully.

5. If one can't keep what one produces, then one can't use material values to satisfy the needs of one's flourishing.

6. Therefore one needs to to be able to exclusively control material things to satisfy one's needs and live successfully.

Or the trader principle:

1. One needs to interact with others to achieve values.

2. Force is not a reliable way of interacting with others to achieve values.

3. One should interact with others through trade (voluntary title transfer.)

4. Therefore one needs to live in a society where people have the freedom to acquire and trade previously homesteaded materials things for their exclusive control.

Or take Rand's conclusion that all rights are property rights.

1. There is the fact that man can't not act, so long as he is alive and awake, and he needs to do so in order to live.

2. One must act virtuously to achieve the good life, and in order to act virtuously, one must act on one's independent judgment.

3. Therefore, in order to achieve the good life, one needs moral autonomy to be able to act independently (right to life.)

4. All actions require the use of scarce resources, including one's own physical body and its standing room.

5. Therefore, one needs to have exclusive right to control one's own body and external resources in order to act and thus in order to exercise any of the virtues.

Remember, Rand's ethics aren't the kind of strict deduction from axioms, it's actually more like a network of interconnected things that all point to the conclusion of private property from various premises and previous conclusions in her ethics. Rand holds to the Greek theory of the unity of virtue, so basically, private property rights follow from and include all of the virtues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This explains why we need property and why all property should be privately owned, which was my question. However, I've realized that "why should all property be privately owned" isn't really what I'm asking.

What I'm actually asking is "Why should all land be property?"

We don't allow a market on the use of force (government), so we don't necessarily want a market on everything.

What would be wrong with having (some) roads be public?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because it's not necessary and it would violate the non-aggression principle. If you're saying that all property should be privately owned, and land is property, then all land should be privately owned. Land is a scarce external object, just like any other kind of private property, that man's nature requires he maintain use of for directing his flourishing, beginning with the land area he uses for standing room. All external physical objects, things, and space should be privately owned, because you need autonomous control over your values in order to live morally. Land is just another external physical space, transportation is just another commodity for which you exchange with producers according to the trader principle, just like water, food, clothing, recreation, and other infrastructure. This just means all land areas would be owned by individuals acting in accordance with just property rules under objectivist ethics, i.e. by homesteading previously unowned land, or by voluntary title transfer with a present owner. It says nothing about what such individuals choose to do with their land, whether to form corporations, cooperatives, merchant's associations, whether the land is generally easy to access (like commercial roads and highways), or generally exclusive access (like residential areas), or to allow the land to be an "open forum" (like the current owner of Zuccotti Park in NYC.)

Now, if say, the military needs to construct some road for defense purposes, or the government needs some road for something, then they can have it built for these purposes that are directly related to its task of providing security and protection, then I see no conflict there. It would be no different than hiring soldiers, who require land area to stand on, or land area for bases to be housed in, or land area for any other function, like a courthouse, or police station. But the land is still purchased at market prices in free competition with other consumers, the road is owned privately by the government, and the government does not obtain a monopoly on roads and highways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it would violate the non-aggression principle.

Why? Because it's public? Then that would mean we should have no government.

If you're saying that all property should be privately owned, and land is property, then all land should be privately owned.

Not necessarily. Just because someone thinks some land is property doesn't mean all land should be property (newly discovered land isn't automatically property).

you need autonomous control over your values in order to live morally.

That seems like an endorsement of anarchism.

Look at it this way: Let's suppose there's an otherwise O-ist society where there are public roads. There are no taxes, so the roads get maintained by donations. What's wrong with this arrangement? If roads are privately owned, then (without govt regulation) that creates the possibility of a person being unable to legally leave their property to get to another's property (where said property owner is OK with this person coming over). If the government addressed this problem by requiring that anyone could travel over the roads, then there would be no point in owning roads that I can see.

However, let's say that the government partitions the roads (when they're privatized) into a set number of groups with a set number of borders (subject to change in the legislatures), and, anyone who owns property within a "road zone" gets to travel within the road zone, and the owner(s) of the roads get to set prices for others entering their zone (possibly setting it at nothing). Do you think this scenario (where all the roads are privately owned) violates NAP? Or is this OK?

I assume this is how it would work, because having the roads be owned by any number of people trading any portions of roads without some form of guaranteed easement could result in total chaos. And since having a zones within major cities would make enforcement of entrance into the zone almost impossible, every city/town would be its own zone.

Edited by Mnrchst
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at it this way: Let's suppose there's an otherwise O-ist society where there are public roads. There are no taxes, so the roads get maintained by donations. What's wrong with this arrangement? If roads are privately owned, then (without govt regulation) that creates the possibility of a person being unable to legally leave their property to get to another's property (where said property owner is OK with this person coming over). If the government addressed this problem by requiring that anyone could travel over the roads, then there would be no point in owning roads that I can see.

Easements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if we allow easements...

1) how far should this go? should we allow everyone in society to use all the previously "public" roads? If so, why? If not, why?

Also, what do you make of the idea that we must provide easements to all in our society once the roads are privatized indefinitely because our society has organized itself around everyone being able to use them? In other words, if I buy a house in the middle of a big block of private property, I shouldn't complain if I can't get to my house, but if my house is connected to a road, which is connected to many other roads, I can't expect to be prepared for not being able to get to my house (and the owner(s) can charge a high rate because of a near-monopoly on access to it).

2) What would the benefit(s) be of owning the roads if you can't make money off of it by charging a fee? Would it just be that you own something that's below the road (like if there's gold under there or in the sewers)? Graffiti?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) It should go all the way. Everyone in society should be able to use all the previously "public" roads, and the tollways too if they have the fare.

2) None. The state and local governments would never be able to sell off the majority of their roads even if they wanted to because there would be no buyers. There has been a long bubble in road construction resulting in many roads that are not financially viable concerns as tollways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...