Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Objectivism And Tainted Holdings

Rate this topic


Clerisian

Recommended Posts

From a quote, I understand that Rand takes a Lockean stand on the aquisition of property, and I imagine she would take a Lockean stand on the transfer of property (except for maybe the proviso).

If so, then in an Objectivist society, the following problem might come up: suppose Alan is a businessman, and through his legitimate (non-agressive) actions, he comes to own a fair amount of property. Now, say Bob somehow steals all of Alan's property and gets away with it. Bob is no businessman, and Alan's property sees no improvement in value. Bob later has a son, Charlie, and wills all Alan's property to Charlie, concealing the theft from him. Unlike Bob, Charlie is a very talented businessman, and manages to make a great deal of money from Alan's property, but he doesn't have the kind of talent to make money out of nothing, only more money out of existing money, and therefore wouldn't have become rich without Bob's theft. Now Daniel, Alan's son, comes to Charlie and tells him what happened, and that he believes he is entitled to some of the property that Charlie now has.

Questions:

1. Is Daniel entitled to *all* of Charlie's property? Just what was stolen? What was stolen plus interest? Nothing? What?

2. If the answer to (1) is not nothing, and we have reason to believe that a good deal of the property now owned has been unfairly taken from someone at some point, how do we rectify this situation? Must we do anything?

I call this the problem of redistribution of tainted holdings, mostly because I don't remember what Nozick called it (I know, I know, I'm a Libertarian running-dog). Nozick claimed to have no idea how to answer (2), and I'm not sure how and if he answered (1). Consequently, I'm curious whether Objectivism provides an answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't know what, if anything, Objectivism says about this issue specifically. Start with the general principles and apply them to this scenario.

To be a theft victim, one must have a claim to the property taken. What do you think Daniel's claim is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure what role "Daniel" plays in your example.

Not sure what role the father-son relationship between Bob and Charlie plays either.

The example seems equivalent to this:

1) B steals from A

2) B gives the stolen property to C [you have not said if C knows it is stolen]

3) A [or his representative, D] asks C for restitution

Is that the essence of your example?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect that most non-intellectual property is 'tainted' in some way. To take a random example, if you trace back the history of the land you live on for enough generations, you'll almost certainly find that it was originally acquired by force. Is there any real difference between Daniel wanting 'his' property back, and Native Americans asking for reparations?

Edited by Hal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be a theft victim, one must have a claim to the property taken.  What do you think Daniel's claim is?

The obvious answer is that he would have inherited the property that Bob stole. However, it seems like you might be questioning whether or not this constitutes a claim. Is this so?

Not sure what role "Daniel" plays in your example.

I'm not completely sure, as I'm paraphrasing an analagous example I came up with some time ago. One reason for him is that if Alan has a claim, but Daniel does not, then there is a pretty simple answer to (2), namely resolve all current claims and get the Objectivist party started. I may have had other reasons for including him, but I dont' remember.

Not sure what role the father-son relationship between Bob and Charlie plays either.
I admit I could have made the example more spartan. They could have been two random guys.

The example seems equivalent to this:

1) B steals from A

2) B gives the stolen property to C [you have not said if C knows it is stolen]

3) A [or his representative, D] asks C for restitution

Is that the essence of your example?

Pretty much, although I did say that C does not know that it is stolen.

Bob later has a son, Charlie, and wills all Alan's property to Charlie, concealing the theft from him.

I was worried that this might be ambiguous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect that most non-intellectual property is 'tainted' in some way.

Well, sure. That's why it's a hard problem.

Is there any real difference between Daniel wanting 'his' property back, and Native Americans asking for reparations?

The structure of the arguments they are making aren't different, but one may be a sound argument and the other not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for your example, Daniel, the son of the victim, is not entitled to anything--he wasn't victimized; the initiation of force was not directed at him.

Crimes are crimes against living people, and when justice is served and value returned to the victim, the value is awarded to the victim of the crime, not to his son. Crimes aren't some floating concept whereby a race or group is victimized by proxy when an individual member of this group or race is victimized. I think you need to make your example clearer.

As for the Indians, for the most part, they did not build a single thing on the land they claimed to own. They, for the most part, lived "in balance" with the land. As such, they had no moral claim to land, because property rights are rights to the product of one's effort. In this sense, one doesn't actually own the land, one owns the value that's been built on the land. E.g., people own the homes they live in, not the actual land it sits on. The moral basis for land ownership is the value one adds or extracts by effort (like mining or oil) from the land. The indians, for the most part, did none of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this sense, one doesn't actually own the land, one owns the value that's been built on the land. E.g., people own the homes they live in, not the actual land it sits on.  The moral basis for land ownership is the value one adds or extracts by effort (like mining or oil) from the land.  The indians, for the most part, did none of this.

Wait a second, are you saying that I can't lay claim to land I don't develop? If I have a tract of land and I just let it sit and do nothing for 20 years, than squatters can develop on my land? It is a person's right to do whatever they wish with their land regardless if they develop or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Au contraire, mon ami. Land deeds are granted with terms of use, not with "do as you please with it." In a proper government, the first step is to apply for a land use contract, whereby you stipulate what you're going to do and when you're going to finish. This, of course, is for unowned land. If you are buying land off of a pervious owner, then it's more likely than not that the land has already had value built or extracted from it. No proper government will hand out land deeds that stipulate you can do anything you wish with the land. Imagine someone buying a plot of land in a residential area, and then building a tire manufacturing plant on it. For more insight on this, I suggest you read Jason King's blog post about the proper nature of land ownership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for your example, Daniel, the son of the victim, is not entitled to anything--he wasn't victimized; the initiation of force was not directed at him. 

Crimes are crimes against living people, and when justice is served and value returned to the victim, the value is awarded to the victim of the crime, not to his son.

I'm afraid that this may butcher the notion of inheritance. If you are arguing that Daniel has no claim because nothing was taken from him (that is, his loss was a loss of potential, which you hold to be non-considerable), why would we condemn a lawyer who stole all the money from a dead man that was to be willed to the descendents? Are we simply mistaken?

If you told me on your deathbed that you wanted your son to have your [heirloom] and you gave it to me to give to him, but I stole it and sold it, would I have taken something from him? I think I would have if you could, by your speech act, transfer ownership of your [heirloom] from yourself to him. I claim that this is possible.

The moral basis for land ownership is the value one adds or extracts by effort (like mining or oil) from the land.  The indians, for the most part, did none of this.

1. Does this mean you support Eminent Domain?

2. Why does extracting dead bison to eat not count as a moral basis for land ownership?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, but you did not mention anything about inheritance in your first post. Either way, you are presenting an example where a cake is had and eaten simultaneously. What I mean is, for Dan's dad to pass down his property, he had to have legal claim to it in the first place. If he didn't, how could he have passed it down (which is a legal action)? So, either the land was stolen before he passed it down, or after; not "the land was passed down and stolen from both Dan and his dad simultaneously." Let's stick to this example before venturing into others.

I do not support eminent domain. Extracting bison? The bison are inside the land? So extracting animals that roam all over the place gives one the right to all the land they roam in? I don't think so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No proper government will hand out land deeds that stipulate you can do anything you wish with the land. [snip] For more insight on this, I suggest you read Jason King's blog post about the proper nature of land ownership.

I have read the post you mentioned and found it highly informative, yet it brings to mind many questions-

- Is there a level of development you must complete in order to own a particular amount of land? For instance, if I buy a 1000 acre plot of land and build a house on it but leave the rest untouched can I lay claim to it? I thought that in a transaction between two private parties the owner can dispose of his land as he sees fit.

-In a Laissez-faire gov. how could the gov. grant land deeds? If everything is privately owned and a person isn't violating another person's rights, what does it matter if land isn't developed? If a person paid for his land he should be able to develop as much or as little as he wants of it (without violating other people's rights).

I know this is slightly off topic from this thread, but I would appreciate it if someone can elaborate and clarify this matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, depends on what the land deed stipulated. Land ownership is contextual, and the context stipulates the general terms of the land deed. Did the land deed to the 1000 acre plot of land, based on land surrounding it, the entire context of the land, stipulate that you could build one small house and leave the rest untouched?

See, if you applied for such a land deed, and the land was in high demand, I think it would be highly unlikely that you would be awarded a land deed over say, someone else who's willing to pay more, and thus build more, on the land.

As to your second point, look at the U.S. today. There is a vast amount of government owned land, which is basically unowned land, that would have to be sold. So in this sense, the government would have a hand in determining how it's used, based on which land applicant they choose, which more likely than not will be based on the highest bidder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, but you did not mention anything about inheritance in your first post. 

Well, technically I did, but I didn't say that Alan would will the property to Daniel.

for Dan's dad to pass down his property, he had to have legal claim to it in the first place. 
Which he presumably did, as I said he aquired the property by legitimate means.

So, either the land was stolen before he passed it down, or after; not "the land was passed down and stolen from both Dan and his dad simultaneously."

I imagine that you are saying here that the fact that Alan said to Daniel, "Someday, son, this will all be yours" (a speech act?), or that he made up a will promising the property to Daniel does not give Daniel any claim to the property. Is this so?

I do not support eminent domain.  Extracting bison?  The bison are inside the land?  So extracting animals that roam all over the place gives one the right to all the land they roam in?  I don't think so.

Bison are a resource of a piece of land. Why is hunting bison for food not an example of mixing one's labor with a piece of land, but drilling for oil an example? It seems like you have to say that there is a minimum level of labor mixation, as Myself suggests. Either that, or I can lay claim to a piece of land whose owners have developed it less than I plan to, which is pretty close to the new eminent domain ruling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to your second point, look at the U.S. today.  There is a vast amount of government owned land, which is basically unowned land, that would have to be sold.  So in this sense, the government would have a hand in determining how it's used, based on which land applicant they choose, which more likely than not will be based on the highest bidder.

Another question: why does the government have the right to decide what's done with unowned land? If this is undeveloped land that is basically sitting empty (such as the land Myself referred to in his example), why am I less justified in taking it from my government than we were justified in taking Indian territory? Heck, the government's not even hunting the bison.

Edited by Clerisian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suggest you read that blog post I referenced earlier regarding your questions about land ownership. You have an incorrect idea regarding the moral basis for land ownership.

Why don't you clarify your example. Did Alan transfer ownership of his property to his son before it was stolen? When did Alan will ownership of his land (which was not yet stolen) to his son? He clearly couldn't have willed something he didn't own. What you're suggesting seems like he willed the property to his son when he owned it, but before he died the property was taken, but stolen such that legal claim to the land was given to the person doing the stealing. First clarify and then I'll comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The obvious answer is that he would have inherited the property that Bob stole.

Nowhere in your problem does it say that Alan is dead. Until he is, you can not assume that his son would have inherited the property because Alan, before he died, could will the property to someone other than his son.

If you're assuming that the son is going to get the property, it's helpful to say that (as it seems like you now have), and also, to the extent you are aware, how that would be so. For example, you could say that Alan was dead and had left the property to his son in a legally proper will. Or you could say that Alan had no will and his son was his sole statutory heir. I emphasize on these examples that it's to the extent you are aware. I'm certainly not suggesting you should be a lawyer before you can pose such questions.

why would we condemn a lawyer who stole all the money from a dead man that was to be willed to the descendents? Are we simply mistaken?

I assume by "was to be willed" you mean that it already had been willed. Unless you're aware of a dead man who came back to life to express his final wishes. :pirate:

If my assumption is correct, then look at your premise that the lawyer stole from the dead man. He did not steal from the dead man. He stole from the beneficiaries who have an existing claim to the property.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few comments on that blogpost, since it seems to be playing the role of a foundational principle

So, land is used in a specific way, in keeping with its identity. You cannot compare its use to the use of other things (as I was doing before) and conclude that land isn't used. The only requirement for this use in order to establish a moral ownership of the land is that the use is for a moral purpose (by the Objectivist standards). Ie. that it furthers the life of the owner qua man.

The same is true for any natural resource, if you take rain and use it to further your life, then it is morally yours. If you take unowned trees, oil, seawater, air and use them to further your life, then they are morally yours. The act of using it to further your own life means that you morally own it.

This is wrong. Applying this logic means that I have the right to take tools which are being used to manufacture heroin, or to burn down a factory producing pornography (assuming you share Felipe's opinion of it) . Ayn Rand does not say that property is conditional on 'moral' usage, and rightly so. Property cannot be legitimately used to violate the rights of others, but it does not need to be used to 'further the life of man'. In fact a consistent application of his principle would probably lead to something similar to "Only Objectivists can own property".

In a political context, the same requirement exists as before. For a natural resource to be regarded as property it must be being used by the owner for the furtherance of his own life. The difference is not in that requirement, the essence of ownership is still use. The difference is in the form that that use takes.

A more serious problem arises here; _when_ am I using a hammer? When I'm actually hammering in nails, or when its just lying around in my shed? If property ownership is dependent upon an object being 'used', it follows that I can take another persons hammer as soon as he puts it down (or take his television as soon as he turns it off). In order to have a proper conception of property, we need to say that these objects still belong to the person even after he has finished using them. And there is no way to derive this purely from the concept of 'usage'.

The purposes for which one claims a resource for themself still need to be moral purposes. You cannot morally claim land for no purpose at all. You cannot morally claim it in order to hold it as pristine wilderness. Your purpose cannot be to exclude all men from using that land in any way.
This then falls apart because of the above points. Property does not have to be used for 'moral' purposes, and if you can only claim land by using it, I can legitimately take your land as soon as you have stepped off it (have 'finished using it'). To take a concrete example - someone owns a house with a nice garden. If they arent using their garden (if for instance, they are indoors watching TV or are on holiday in Spain), it follows that I am free to pitch a tent in their garden and stay there as long as I please. Any attempt by them to evict me will result in failure because I am 'using' the land, and noone was using it before me.

Owning property isnt about use. Property involves who is entitled to use objects in the future, not just who is using them at a specific time. It is this 'continuity of usage' that needs to be legitimately grounded, not a particular instance.

Edited by Hal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suggest you read that blog post I referenced earlier regarding your questions about land ownership.  You have an incorrect idea regarding the moral basis for land ownership.

If that is directed at me, then I will, but I don't think it's relevant to the tainted holdings problem, as we're assuming that the holding in question are legit.

Why don't you clarify your example. 
Okay, I will. I admit to being somewhat unclear on how the legal details of inheritance works, which led me to make ambiguous statements.

What you're suggesting seems like he willed the property to his son when he owned it, but before he died the property was taken, but stolen such that legal claim to the land was given to the person doing the stealing.  First clarify and then I'll comment.

That's right, except that Alan and Bob are both dead.

you could say that Alan was dead and had left the property to his son in a legally proper will. Or you could say that Alan had no will and his son was his sole statutory heir. I emphasize on these examples that it's to the extent you are aware. I'm certainly not suggesting you should be a lawyer before you can pose such questions.

I was assuming that it didn't matter whether there was a will or whether he was the statutory heir, but that one of them was the case, although I didn't know the name of "statutory heir."

If my assumption is correct, then look at your premise that the lawyer stole from the dead man. He did not steal from the dead man. He stole from the beneficiaries who have an existing claim to the property.
Okay, my ignorance of law is made painfully clear, but I think we've resolved the problem. So I would now reply to Felipe

As for your example, Daniel, the son of the victim, is not entitled to anything--he wasn't victimized; the initiation of force was not directed at him.

No, he was victimized, because he had a legitimate claim to a piece of property, and it was stolen from him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hal:

Hm, I'll look through the post again and answer your remarks later tonight or tomorrow.

Clerisian:

Okay, since you said that I'm write in saying that "What you're suggesting seems like he willed the property to his son when he owned it, but before he died the property was taken, but stolen such that legal claim to the land was given to the person doing the stealing," I'll remark that the legal claim Daniel had was contingent on his old man still owning the property. In other words, suppose he wrote the will, then sold the land. Would Daniel still have a claim, even though his Dad didn't own the land when he died (thus when the will came into affect)? So, Since Dan's dad lost the property on legal terms (though in fact stolen), Dan has no legal claim since his dad (legally, but immorally) lost the land.

So again, Dan wasn't the victim, his Dad was. And, since the victim and the victimizer are both dead, there's nothing to do. It's irrelevant whether the son of the victimizer "had no talent to create wealth on his own." It's the Dad (and son's, if he was old enough) fault that they did not respond to the fact that the Dad's property was immorally taken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the issue is "tainted property", adding inheritance to it complicates it unnecessarily. I would start with a simpler example.

1) Alan owns some property legitimately (not necessarily land)

2) Bob steals it from Alan

3) Charlie gets it from Bob, without any idea that it was stolen

Does Alan still own the goods?

Assuming that no law of limitations is applicable, yes. Title does not transfer if the goods were stolen. Alan can take the goods back, and Charlie had to sue Bob.

Now, assuming that no law of limitations is applicable, if Alan dies, the title belongs to his estate. If we assume that Daniel is the heir, then Daniel has title.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the legal claim Daniel had was contingent on his old man still owning the property...Dan has no legal claim since his dad (legally, but immorally) lost the land

Okay, but legal claims aside, do you think that Daniel has a moral claim on the property? That is, it could be the case that some degree of mixation of labor is a sufficient condition for owning a piece of property, as a matter of objective fact, but that we live in a country where this is not respected, but instead some other principle is used, such as need-based principles. Whether or not I can feign need sufficiently well to get the government to allow me to steal your property is relevant to the legal issue but not the moral one.

That said, it's clear that Alan has a moral claim to the land. Now the question is, does Daniel? If he does, then he is a victim, so the sticking point seems to be whether Alan can, by willing the property to Daniel, transfer his moral claim to the property to Daniel. Do you agree that this is the question?

In other words, suppose he wrote the will, then sold the land.  Would Daniel still have a claim, even though his Dad didn't own the land when he died (thus when the will came into affect)? 

I don't know what the legal status of his claim would be, although I suspect that it would be void. However, I think it's obvious that Daniel no longer has a moral claim, because Alan can no longer choose to give the property to him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daniel is never the victim, because his old man lost the land and failed to protect it--he can't give it to Daniel after it has been stolen, this makes no sense. However, if he represents his family's estate, and in that case he would be defending his father, he still would not be the victim. Alan failed to defend it. All Daniel can do is fight for it on behalf of his father, only then would a will kick in and only then could Daniel become a victim if it's taken from him. Crimes and victimizations aren't handed down, the father remains the victim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Felipe's is the only answer which isnt going to do great violence to property rights in general, but I'm not entirely happy with it. I know personally if someone had stolen something from my father I wouldnt be pleased if they willed it to their son and they received it unchallenged. You say Daniel has no right to the property, but what right does Charles have? His father cannot legitimately pass it down to him since it is not his to give. Neither of them really have any right to it - it seems unowned at best. Charles can have no real complaints if it is 'stolen' from him, since it is entirely unearned.

I've wrestled with similar problems in the past and have never really found a satisfactory answer.

Edited by Hal
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...