All forms of wealth created by the mind

[Easy Truth]

I have trouble with the idea that people go onto an island and there are fruit trees there. They are a form of wealth already there for the taking. How does that fit in with the quote below? Also a stream with fresh water. Granted one must reach out and pick the fruit or pick it off the ground, but the wealth does not have to be created. So what is the definition of wealth here?

 

"The source of property rights is the law of causality. All property and all forms of wealth are produced by man’s mind and labor. As you cannot have effects without causes, so you cannot have wealth without its source: without intelligence. You cannot force intelligence to work: those who’re able to think, will not work under compulsion; those who will, won’t produce much more than the price of the whip needed to keep them enslaved. You cannot obtain the products of a mind except on the owner’s terms, by trade and by volitional consent."

[Boydstun]

ET, from the context of that quotation, I don't think "wealth" was intended in the special economic sense of simply goods and resources having economic value. Rather, the more common meaning: riches, a great quantity of valuable material possessions or resources; affluence.

I notice that although there are edibles from naturally growing trees (or coconuts on the island), getting the benefit is sometimes easy, but sometimes takes some steps. And so far as I know, humans will not be satisfied with only that much. They would like also a grilled fish, and that will take quite a lot of intelligent steps.

Edited May 23, 2024 by Boydstun

[Easy Truth]

11 hours ago, Boydstun said:

ET, from the context of that quotation, I don't think "wealth" was intended in the special economic sense of simply goods and resources having economic value. Rather, the more common meaning: riches, a great quantity of valuable material possessions or resources; affluence.

Agreed, it must mean something like that. But the use of the word "property" is the problem. An apple can be your property, to be traded for an orange. How does one determine who the tree belongs to? as in whose property it is?

There is a discussion of the nature of the property below. At the core of the question is how does one deserve something. Yes, the law of causality is proper. You caused it, you deserve it. The leftist argument is that goods exist and you distribute them, as the collective or state does it. That there is no cause and effect. But some goods, like a beautiful ocean view is not created by man.

https://pressbooks.online.ucf.edu/introductiontophilosophy/chapter/the-nature-of-property/

[Boydstun]

15 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

. . .

There is a discussion of the nature of the property below. At the core of the question is how does one deserve something. Yes, the law of causality is proper. You caused it, you deserve it. The leftist argument is that goods exist and you distribute them, as the collective or state does it. That there is no cause and effect. But some goods, like a beautiful ocean view is not created by man.

. . .

Those two arguments are a false dichotomy, and it is false that in order to be justly entitled to property, one has to have earned it. Most property most of us have was earned by our own labor. But children inheriting property from wealthy parents are rightly entitled to it, even though they did nothing to deserve it. (And the fantasy that if the inheritor of wealth does not subsequently act in tending to it as though he or she would have been able to have earned it in the first place, they will lose their inherited wealth in the marketplace (a Rand assertion in her AS, as I recall), is just getting poetic justice mixed up with real-life free markets.) I'm not saying anything against inherited wealth (by will) here; people correctly have a right to give their property to underserving offspring. It is the idea that property is only just (as to having a right to it) if earned that should be dropped.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Rights, Games, and Self-Realization (1988)

Introduction / Part 1 - Rights against Personal Injury for Two in Isolation / Part 2 - Imperfect Rights in Land / Part 3 - The Just State / Freedom

---Followup to the preceding 1988 on its method of government funding: here.

[DavidOdden]

Wealth is the “abundance of possessions or of valuable products”, which is distinct from “anything that exists”, such as clouds or insects. It’s not that the thing itself must be created (by a person), rather, the thing must be turned into wealth by a person, for example by realizing that dirt and water can be combined into something quasi-useful, or that a certain weed can be eaten. By recognizing the utility of naturally-occurring objects, junk lying around becomes wealth. At present, the rat fish is not “wealth” and it is just lying (swimming) around. This is also the basis for claiming land, that a person sees the potential to use the land to survive (literally living off the land), meaning that the land is now a value worth working to keep.

In terms of sorting out unowned things, this requires some kind of legal framework is necessary. Typically, it means that a person lays claim to specific land, and when certain conditions have been satisfied, he owns that land. However, ownership can be sub-divided, therefore mineral rights are not the same as surface rights, and water rights can be separate from surface rights. Timber rights do not flow automatically from ownership of the land. Ordinarily, the owner of the apple tree owns the apples, and the owner of the land owns the apple tree except when someone else has permission to use the land via a lease, laws regarding which are a substantial part of the Code of Hammurabi. Under the terms of the lease, perhaps the land owner owns that particular apple, or perhaps the farmer does, you have to check the fine print.

[Easy Truth]

8 minutes ago, DavidOdden said:

Wealth is the “abundance of possessions or of valuable products”, which is distinct from “anything that exists”, such as clouds or insects. It’s not that the thing itself must be created (by a person), rather, the thing must be turned into wealth by a person, for example by realizing that dirt and water can be combined into something quasi-useful, or that a certain weed can be eaten. By recognizing the utility of naturally-occurring objects, junk lying around becomes wealth. At present, the rat fish is not “wealth” and it is just lying (swimming) around. This is also the basis for claiming land, that a person sees the potential to use the land to survive (literally living off the land), meaning that the land is now a value worth working to keep.

Beyond ordinary abundance, yes I could see that fitting the meaning. The original statement does not fully justify "ownership" only ownership of "extraordinary abundance". What about "adequate"? My point is, that the source of property rights can't be solely justified by extraordinary abundance. Or does Rand define property as very valuable things?

I can see the justification of cause and effect. You planted the seed, the tree is yours, or should be. And if someone else used or disposed of the tree, they stole it. My fundamental problem is that I was debating the issue of ownership with someone and an Objectivist made this claim and he was shot down because of these other examples.

Otherwise, the statement only ends up meaning "All forms of valuable things created by the mind are valuable things created by the mind". And of course, the right to own such things would flow from the creator's actions. But as Boydstun points out ownership is not all caused by the person and there are exceptions. There is the issue of supply and demand in determining value, the value of something is based on a subjective need too, in a drought cheap water becomes very valuable, in a famine, the apple could be traded for a house, etc. That's why the statements focus on extraordinary abundance is weak.

 

 

[DavidOdden]

The quote is not a full justification of anything taken in isolation. If you are looking for a justification of “ownership”, which is a linguistic re-phrasing of the concept “property”, you should look at the concept which property derives from, namely “rights”. Property does not depend on the amount of a thing. Rand does not claim that property rights are solely justified by extraordinary abundance, and Rand does not define property “as” anything. In general, Rand does not define words, she uses words with their proper, conventional meaning, and makes significant explanatory statements about those concepts.

I guess the underlying problem here is that you don’t understand her reduction of “property” to “rights” and “identity” via her identification of man as a rational animal. The concept of “wealth”, as invoked by Adam Smith, play no significant role in the Objectivist theory of rights and politics, it is just included in the quote to direct the reader’s attention to The wealth of nations. The statement does not focus on extraordinary abundance (you inserted “extraordinary”, that is not part of the definition of wealth). Are you trying to understand what justifies the concept of property?

[Easy Truth]

2 hours ago, DavidOdden said:

Are you trying to understand what justifies the concept of property?

Maybe. I'm trying to justify the concept of individual ownership. As opposed to common ownership or in some circles "no ownership at all". No ownership at all is easily refuted and most people understand that. No ownership at all is simply impossible. But many even conservatives see common ownership as virtuous. Some will even argue that it is because of ownership that conflicts exist in the first place. But right now, I'm trying to use the simplest argument for individual ownership.

The idea that you reap what you sow is usually acceptable. It is similar to the cause-and-effect aspect of ownership. The pushback I get is that you can respect cause and effect with a council determining ownership. I suspect that it's because Objectivism is lumped in with Anarchism.

[EC]

4 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

Maybe. I'm trying to justify the concept of individual ownership. As opposed to common ownership or in some circles "no ownership at all". No ownership at all is easily refuted and most people understand that. No ownership at all is simply impossible. But many even conservatives see common ownership as virtuous. Some will even argue that it is because of ownership that conflicts exist in the first place. But right now, I'm trying to use the simplest argument for individual ownership.

The idea that you reap what you sow is usually acceptable. It is similar to the cause-and-effect aspect of ownership. The pushback I get is that you can respect cause and effect with a council determining ownership. I suspect that it's because Objectivism is lumped in with Anarchism.

Why would Objectivism that is a proponent of capitalism and the complete opposite of any and all forms of anarchism ever be "lumped in" by anyone ever with its antithesis?

[DavidOdden]

6 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

I'm trying to justify the concept of individual ownership. As opposed to common ownership or in some circles "no ownership at all". No ownership at all is easily refuted and most people understand that. No ownership at all is simply impossible. But many even conservatives see common ownership as virtuous.

“Common ownership”, which is joint ownership, exists as well. But how can you justify joint ownership while denying individual ownership? What justifies joint ownership?

[Easy Truth]

1 hour ago, DavidOdden said:

“Common ownership”, which is joint ownership, exists as well. But how can you justify joint ownership while denying individual ownership? What justifies joint ownership?

For one thing "Judeo Christian" tradition. Altruism at its core. It feels right to them. Even in the case of joint ownership, if joint owners want to use the product, they have to take turns, and that in itself is a form of ownership. One cannot escape the necessity for individual ownership. But that is descriptive, the problematic argument is for prescriptive joint ownership. If you have seen debates online about that, there is a coop in Spain that is brought up repeatedly as the ideal.

My fundamental argument is that individual ownership will exist even if it is "not the policy". Otherwise, there is chaos ultimately leading to violence.

[DavidOdden]

But Judeo-Christian tradition does not justify joint ownership. Nowhere in the world do we find a system with only joint ownership. Nor do we find a system with only individual ownership. The choices are “no ownership” and “ownership”, where the latter entails the possibility of joint ownership (cooperative agreements). If a government prevents cooperative agreements, it is denying a fundamental consequence of the concept “property”, and is tending toward a “no ownership” communist system. Is there some specific thing in Spain that you are referring to that you think is relevant?

Even communism has a form of ownership, because no individual is free to do as they want with a resource, it requires permission of some management entity like “the peasant’s revolutionary council”. They may deny that they “own” the resource and they are only “administering” the resource, but they are administering it for some specific group of individuals, usually “that society” for instance “the workers of Russia” but not “the workers of Germany”.

 

[Easy Truth]

A brief video briefly bringing up the issue 

 

[Easy Truth]

On 5/24/2024 at 8:45 AM, DavidOdden said:

Even communism has a form of ownership, because no individual is free to do as they want with a resource, it requires permission of some management entity like “the peasant’s revolutionary council”. They may deny that they “own” the resource and they are only “administering” the resource, but they are administering it for some specific group of individuals, usually “that society” for instance “the workers of Russia” but not “the workers of Germany”.

That is an excellent point, demonstrating that ownership always exists one way or the other, in some form. Therefore it's how it comes about which is the disagreement between left and right.

In other words, the argument is not ownership vs. no ownership. It can't be.

[EC]

19 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

That is an excellent point, demonstrating that ownership always exists one way or the other, in some form. Therefore it's how it comes about which is the disagreement between left and right.

In other words, the argument is not ownership vs. no ownership. It can't be.

This isn't a false Left/Right statism dichotomy issue. It involves properly defined concepts and principles of man's nature in regard to reality and how ownership occurs. Any other arguments or ideas on the subject can be dismissed out of hand as arbitrary or subjective false interpretations and ignored because they don't reflect reality in even the remotest manner and are only produced to enslave mankind at their core. Engaging in debate on a subject like this is a complete waste of time in the same manner that engaging individuals who speak of mysticism is and improperly lends their false ideas the visage of being in the realm of the "possible" when they of course are not even remotely. "Does one own or not own property delivered by Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy?" is along the same lines and deserves the same "respect" and "discussion".

All of these "discussions" with people representing objectively false and/or arbitrary nonsense boils mostly down to Clintonesk "It depends on what the definition of is, is" type subjectivist nonsense or worse (purely arbitrary and imaginary with zero relationship with reality).

Edited June 2, 2024 by EC

[tadmjones]

16 hours ago, EC said:

. Any other arguments or ideas on the subject can be dismissed out of hand as arbitrary or subjective false interpretations and ignored because they don't reflect reality in even the remotest manner and are only produced to enslave mankind at their core.

 

Some arguments for collective ownership schemes are sustained by an appeal to the 'common good'. Some claim that the reasons to limit private, individual ownership is to protect against some supposed abuse that may result from the economic 'power' accrued by capital accumulation.

It is an example of of a big no no in Oism ie psychologizing "Armed with a smattering, not of knowledge, but of undigested slogans, they rush, unsolicited, to diagnose the problems of their friends and acquaintances. Pretentiousness and presumptuousness are the psychologizer’s invariable characteristics: he not merely invades the privacy of his victims’ minds, he claims to understand their minds better than they do, to know more than they do about their own motives. With reckless irresponsibility, which an old-fashioned mystic oracle would hesitate to match, he ascribes to his victims any motivation that suits his purpose, ignoring their denials. " , to assume a blanket denial of the attempt at persuasion.

[EC]

1 minute ago, tadmjones said:

Some arguments for collective ownership schemes are sustained by an appeal to the 'common good'. Some claim that the reasons to limit private, individual ownership is to protect against some supposed abuse that may result from the economic 'power' accrued by capital accumulation.

It is an example of of a big no no in Oism ie psychologizing "Armed with a smattering, not of knowledge, but of undigested slogans, they rush, unsolicited, to diagnose the problems of their friends and acquaintances. Pretentiousness and presumptuousness are the psychologizer’s invariable characteristics: he not merely invades the privacy of his victims’ minds, he claims to understand their minds better than they do, to know more than they do about their own motives. With reckless irresponsibility, which an old-fashioned mystic oracle would hesitate to match, he ascribes to his victims any motivation that suits his purpose, ignoring their denials. " , to assume a blanket denial of the attempt at persuasion.

I know every argument and they all can simply be dismissed out of hand because they are a combination of false, evil, and/or arbitrary. Arguing, or discussing them simply lend undue credence to these extremely old ideas that have been refuted by rational ideas, principles, and facts of reality countless times over the past two centuries. The only appropriate answer is to show the them the refutations and correct answers and not waste one's time past that nor attempt to "reword" perfectly understandable sources pointlessly for the "benefit" of people incapable of reading, listening, understanding, and integrating because they have chosen to evade reality and the responsibility of rational thinking. 

[EC]

Ban the little trolls.

Edited June 3, 2024 by EC

[necrovore]

Collective ownership doesn't necessarily imply collectivism.

A corporation is collectively owned by its shareholders.

A condominium building (or complex) is collectively owned by the owners of the individual units in the building.

There can be other examples.

There can be good and bad effects from collective ownership, but I suppose the important thing in a free system is that participation is voluntary. You don't have to buy a share of a corporation, and you don't have to buy a condominium.

Under a collectivist system, participation is not voluntary, it is coerced.