Defending Private Property

[Fight for freedom]

A socialist friend put forward an interesting argument about property. When someone owns property they have freedom but are they not depriving other people of freedom by preventing others from using that property? Of course a counter could be the tragedy of the commons etc but that is more the practical effects rather than a moral counter argument. What do you think? Does freedom create a lack of freedom? How can private property be defended if it does diminish others freedom?

[dondigitalia]

In Objectivism, the term "freedom" does not apply to the unsanctioned use of someone else's property. Freedom is the right to act in the pursuit of one's own values. One person's ownership of property does not prevent another person from acting to obtain property for himself.

[Felix]

I even think that ownership is the source of freedom. You own yourself and, as an owner, you can do with yourself whatever you want. You can earn money and buy more property. That's yours, too. You are free to use your property and to engage in contracts and nothing else. That is freedom. Everything else is anarchy.

[gags]

When someone owns property they have freedom but are they not depriving other people of freedom by preventing others from using that property?

So if I own a car, I'm depriving others of freedom because I don't allow the entire neigborhood to drive it? Likewise, if I own some food, am I depriving others of freedom when I eat it and they don't? Only a socialist could come up with such a silly notion.

[softwareNerd]

Check out this thread (link) for a similar question.

[Fight for freedom]

So if I own a car, I'm depriving others of freedom because I don't allow the entire neigborhood to drive it? Likewise, if I own some food, am I depriving others of freedom when I eat it and they don't? Only a socialist could come up with such a silly notion.

Yes that's the just of the argument, though my friend would argue that you don't legitimately own the car in the first place. Why do you think its so silly? Is property natural and if so how? And even if it is natural does that mean its just?

I even think that ownership is the source of freedom. You own yourself and, as an owner, you can do with yourself whatever you want. You can earn money and buy more property. That's yours, too. You are free to use your property and to engage in contracts and nothing else. That is freedom. Everything else is anarchy.

Is that similar to Nozick's argument? I suppose a counter may be that you may own yourself but you don't own the environment as other people live so close by (unless your on a desert island).

I'm trying to think of counter's and than counter arguments to them as I want to be able to answer well in response to debates with socialists on this issue.

[gags]

Is property natural and if so how? And even if it is natural does that mean its just?

What do you mean by this?

Felix was correct when he said that you own yourself (your life). In a rational capitalist society, people deal with each other voluntarily as traders. Usually this involves working in exchange for money. In other words, they spend a portion of their life on a task and recieve compensation in exchange for the effort/life they have expended. They may then use that money to purchase property which they own.

In a socialist society where one has no property/ownership rights, one also has no right to life because property is essentially an extension of your life. How can one be free if you don't own and control your life?

BTW, the Lincoln quote in my sig gets at this point.

[Regis]

Your friend has a concept of "Positive Liberty". Here is an article on the differences between Negative and Positive Liberty. Notice that Positive Liberties have to be provided by some people to others. Negative Liberties do not. Positive Rights and Positive Liberty are *nothing* like the rights provided by the US constitution. They shouldn't even be called "rights" or "liberty". The proper word for them today is "Entitlements through redistribution of wealth". Ask your socialist friend why he is entitled to your money (all of it if necessary), because that's what he is claiming.

From Wikipedia, Positive Right

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_right

A positive right is a right, either moral or decreed by law, to be provided with something through the action of another person or group of people (usually a state). Positive rights are sometimes contrasted with negative rights, which are rights to not be subject to the action of another. The former prescribe action, while the latter proscribe action.

For example, a right to an education is a positive right because education must be provided by a series of positive actions by others. A school system, teachers and materials must be actively provided in order for such a right to be fulfilled. The right to be secure in one's home, however, is a negative right. In order for it to be fulfilled, others need take no particular action but merely refrain from certain actions, specifically trespassing or breaking into the home in question.

Different political philosophies have different opinions concerning positive and negative rights. Under socialism and social democracy, positive rights are considered an essential part of the social or governmental contract: something that society promises to all its members. Under these philosophies there need be no particular distinction between positive or negative rights, rather they tend to be all grouped together.

Libertarians and other critics of the notion of positive rights hold that positive rights could only be guaranteed to any one person by abridging the negative rights of others. For instance, if right to life is recognized, this would imply that if a citizen was not able to produce or obtain food and health care for himself then others would be compelled to provide them for him. This is not an ethical compulsion (others should provide food and care out of charity) but rather political compulsion: the state must require others to provide food and a healthcare "safety net" (usually by taxation). This political compulsion, they hold, necessarily contravenes the existence of a (negative) right to private property. If one person's property may rightly be taken to pay for someone else's food, then the first person cannot be said to have a right to that property.

Many positive rights are economic in nature: they involve the rights-holder being assured of the provision of some economic good such as housing, a job, a pension, health care, or the enforcement of exclusive rights in inventions or in works of authorship. Under most systems of social democracy, these are provided under some manner of public welfare system, in which public funds are used to establish public housing, works programs, social security, and the like.

In contrast, negative rights are usually not directly economic in nature, although the right to security in private property is considered an economic negative right in that it entails freedom from theft or state confiscation. Other negative rights include freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, freedom from violent crime and freedom from involuntary servitude.

[RationalBiker]

In other words, they spend a portion of their life on a task and recieve compensation in exchange for the effort/life they have expended.

I think I understand what you mean, but I would make a suggestion regarding your wording here. "Effort" in and of itself is not a value. Rather, it is the results of the effort, or the product, that represents the value of an exchange.

If I spend 5 months building a hammer for you, are you going to pay me for five months work, or are you going to pay me for what the hammer is worth to you? I realize the specific context may have an impact on your answer, but am I getting my point across?

Edited October 29, 2005 by RationalCop

[donnywithana]

I think that the answer that will satisfy both you AND your friend is this:

True freedom is Anarchy. Anarchy is when no one has the "legal" ability to tell you what to do, and the only way someone can make you do something is if they force you. Objectivism holds that Anarchy is undesirable.

The evidence brought forth is simple. When people work together, they can achieve more. However, there is no natural mechanism for "making" people work together. For example, it might be in my best interest to kill Bob. Other animals around me kill things all the time. There's no natural law against it. However, it's certainly not good for men if the status quo gives me the right to kill Bob.

Therefore we, as a group or society, might agree that killing is "illegal," or against the "rules." In order to enforce this, we grant someone the power to enforce this agreement. In the same way, we as individuals agree to respect the private property of others.

This is important, because "property" is a social construct which essentially means "that which one will defend, for their own use, from others." In other words, in the "free" Anarchy, anyone would be free to claim whatever they wanted, and as long as they could defend it, it would continue to be theirs.

However, as a group, we might agree that this is not the way we want things to be run. We therefore would all agree that there are certain things that individuals can call "theirs." This is the viewpoint of many groups, empirically, though not all, as illustrated by your Socialist friend.

Your friend believes that there is no right to possess something that someone else may not use. However, as Rand points out, the only incentive to produce a value is the benefit one will derive from having produced that value. Saying that the value that they individually produced does not belong to them seems wrong, and Rand asserts that it is. Your Socialist friend will probably disagree, most likely citing "social spirit" or "satisfaction of a job well done" as the incentive to produce. Does these forces exist? For many, yes. Is it enough to make the average person give up 8 hours a day? Maybe not. Overtime? I think you understand.

Private property does mean that you're defending something against use by others. Socialism would, by nature, hold this to be a bad thing, because the entire system is based on everyone using everything. Objectivism recognizes that people need incentives in order to act meaningfully, and the Socialist answer doesn't provide this. Providing someone with personal reward for their labors is the way that this problem is solved. Society, however, must recognize an individual's right to maintain the possession of these rewards. Otherwise, no system exists.

I hope that makes sense.

Edited October 29, 2005 by softwareNerd

[dondigitalia]

True freedom is Anarchy. Anarchy is when no one has the "legal" ability to tell you what to do, and the only way someone can make you do something is if they force you. Objectivism holds that Anarchy is undesirable.

Objectivism makes a much stronger claim about anarchy than, "It is undesirable." Objectivism holds that freedom is impossible under anarchy.

[gags]

I think I understand what you mean, but I would make a suggestion regarding your wording here. "Effort" in and of itself is not a value. Rather, it is the results of the effort, or the product, that represents the value of an exchange.

If I spend 5 months building a hammer for you, are you going to pay me for five months work, or are you going to pay me for what the hammer is worth to you? I realize the specific context may have an impact on your answer, but am I getting my point across?

Oh yes, your point is perfectly clear and a good one. I figured it was implicit in my earlier statement. If you think you're going to get paid for sitting around and twiddling your thumbs, then you're mistaken. You have to provide some value with your efforts.

[donnywithana]

Objectivism makes a much stronger claim about anarchy than, "It is undesirable." Objectivism holds that freedom is impossible under anarchy.

To be more specific, Objectivism holds that man's ability to live life qua man is impossible under anarchy.

Freedom, according to Dictionary.com, is "The condition of being free from restraints." Government therefore certainly removes certain freedoms from men by imposing restraints on them.

But they are freedoms that are deemed worth giving up (such as the freedom to steal, kill, etc), in order to gain other "freedoms." The "right" to the products of one's own life is not "real" per se, but Objectivism holds it to be much more important than the right to do whatever you want, no matter what your reason.

[dondigitalia]

To be more specific, Objectivism holds that man's ability to live life qua man is impossible under anarchy.

It's not really that simple. There's a whole causal chain involved, as there always is. Have you thought to examine the reasons why living such a life is impossible? The reason is because freedom is necessary to that life and freedom is not possible under anarchy. To reduce the line of reason to a conclusion, without reference to the fundamental causes of that conclusion is dropping a whole lot of context.

Freedom, according to Dictionary.com, is "The condition of being free from restraints." Government therefore certainly removes certain freedoms from men by imposing restraints on them.

Dictionary definitions are not usually real, objective definitions. They are formulated based on popular usages of words, rather than identification of the essential characteristics use to integrate a concept into one's body of knowledge. That may be the way dictionary.com defines the term "freedom," but that is not what the word means in the context of Objectivism. In Objectivism, freedom means: the condition of being free from the intiation of physical force.

But they are freedoms that are deemed worth giving up (such as the freedom to steal, kill, etc), in order to gain other "freedoms." The "right" to the products of one's own life is not "real" per se, but Objectivism holds it to be much more important than the right to do whatever you want, no matter what your reason.

There is no such thing as a "freedom to steal, kill, etc." The "freedom to initiate force" is a contradiction. I understand what you are trying to say, but it would be better understood on an Objectivist forum to say "legal sanction," rather than "freedom."

[donnywithana]

I think we pretty much agree, but we're using the same terms to mean different things

So let's make some definitions that we can both agree on. I'm putting these out there for discussion and debate, so don't think that I'm simply asserting these definitions as correct.

An Ability is that which one is capable of doing, given the physical nature of their existence.

A Freedom is that which one is capable of doing, given the physical nature of their existence, with legal sanction.

A Right is a recognition made by a group of an individual's just claim to the legal sanction of an Ability, making it a freedom.

Private Property is, literally, that which one is willing to defend against all others. Objectivism holds that individuals have the Right to Private Property, which ensures that they have the Freedom to hold it. Those who attack an individual's Private Property will be subject to evaluation or retaliation from the group.

The application of these concepts is that Objectivism, as a philosophy, holds that all non-human matter can be used as a resource by an individual who makes legitimate claim to it. In order to live to the potential of man, man must have the Freedom to live without imposition of force so that man may restructure resources in a way that better suit the end of their life.

If a man can not possess the products of his labor, but another man can, there is no reason to produce value rather than steal it from someone else. This is why Objectivism recognizes the Right of an individual to keep that which they are Able and Free to produce.

Your Socialist friend may not realize it, but his system of beliefs rotates around the idea of individuals benefitting from something they did not do, while others are punished for simply coexisting with thieves. Objectivism rightly rejects that this is ideal, and therefore the Right to Private Property is fabricated.

[mweiss]

Moderator's note: Reader discretion advised:

No particular poster's comments should be assumed to represent "the Objectivist position".

Private Property is, literally, that which one is willing to defend against all others. Objectivism holds that individuals have the Right to Private Property, which ensures that they have the Freedom to hold it. Those who attack an individual's Private Property will be subject to evaluation or retaliation from the group.

Boy, this last one really rings the violation bell with regard to confiscatory taxes on primary domiciles.

As a person who is still reeling and very upset after Black Friday (that's when the revaluation notice from our tax assessor arrived in our mailbox) and the fact that our already overvalued property has been increased substantially, I say that the only thing left is to do an act of terrorism to get the media to focus on the issue. Until property owners take up arms and defend their rights with force, until we are willing to kill those who would force us off our land, what good are so-called "property rights"? We have none if we are not willing to defend them with as much force as the government would use to violate them.

And why is it that no one is paying attention to this very dire issue, despite the thousands of homes that are stolen from their owners due to 'back taxes unpaid'?

Pardon me if I seem a bit steamed. I feel as if I've been dealt a death sentence by this notice..

Edited December 3, 2005 by softwareNerd

[Inspector]

A Right is a recognition made by a group of an individual's just claim to the legal sanction of an Ability, making it a freedom.

You're wrong about that. A right is more than that, as I've told you before. That recognition (which you take to be the definition of a right) is merely the acknowledgement of a right.

[gags]

....I say that the only thing left is to do an act of terrorism to get the media to focus on the issue. Until property owners take up arms and defend their rights with force, until we are willing to kill those who would force us off our land, what good are so-called "property rights"? We have none if we are not willing to defend them with as much force as the government would use to violate them.

And why is it that no one is paying attention to this very dire issue, despite the thousands of homes that are stolen from their owners due to 'back taxes unpaid'?

Pardon me if I seem a bit steamed. I feel as if I've been dealt a death sentence by this notice..

Mark, how does the tax appeal process work in your state? Have you tried that avenue yet? Here in Michigan, people often get relief through an appeal, but it can be a long and difficult road. I too think it's an absolute disgrace that we don't own our homes in this country, we just rent them from the taxman.

[BlackSabbath]

A socialist friend put forward an interesting argument about property. When someone owns property they have freedom but are they not depriving other people of freedom by preventing others from using that property?

No. Ask him to define his terms? What does me mean by freedom? Does he mean anarchy?

The cancellation of private property, in all forms of socialism, is totalitarian and, if you check 'Socialism' by Ludwig von Mises, you will find that socialism makes economic calculation impossible.

[mweiss]

Moderator's note: Reader discretion advised:

No particular poster's comments should be assumed to represent "the Objectivist position".

Mark, how does the tax appeal process work in your state? Have you tried that avenue yet? Here in Michigan, people often get relief through an appeal, but it can be a long and difficult road. I too think it's an absolute disgrace that we don't own our homes in this country, we just rent them from the taxman.

I have been down the appeals process so many times over the past dozen years that they know my name down there are are NOT happy to see me.

My circumstances are too bizarre to be believable, but suffice it to say, my property is overvalued for its condition, the assessment rules don't take condition into account, only square footage and the value of surrounding properties and from that they derive the assessed value of my home.

Things got pretty ugly at the last revaluation appeal in 2001. Really ugly in fact.

Throughout this whole ordeal, I have had the opportunity and the mindset to ponder the root causes of terrorism, and I conclude that it is the remaining response left to small groups and individuals when a government system fails to provide redress of grievences. I can almost comprehend the concept of building an atomic bomb, placing it in one's attic and detonating it when the SWAT teams arrive to remove one from one's home and toss him into homelessness, to die, freezing to death in the street.

I've thought about the issue of collateral damage, and I have concluded that neighbors who support the tax system have just as much blame to bear in this situation as the tax man and the corrupt legislature that allowed this perversion of law to come into existence, therefore, I feel no moral restriction on the person who decided to 'go out with dignity' and take out as many of the Fascist pigs as he could at the same time.

Pardon me if I sound a bit irate. I feel like I've been issued a death sentence. I will appeal, but like 2001, I don't expect to get much, if any relief. I'm just very upset. A discussion I've been having in another forum has prompted some other member to comment that I am "a very disturbed individual". No kidding! I'm VERY disturbed by the notice I received in the mail!

If it were up to me entirely, I'd love to be making a million dollars a year and not have to be even the least bit concerned about taxes, just like my new neighbors, but the reality is that I'm not the greatest businessman and my years as an employee in regular employment almost drove me to suicide, they were so unfulfilling and miserable. Since I've quit the 'rat race', I have never been happier, but now I can't afford these taxes on the income I'm able to earn in business for myself, doing what I enjoy. It is very frustrating.

Edited December 3, 2005 by softwareNerd

[colin]

You're freaking me out man. Those neighbours of yours who you wouldn't mind seeing die, are paying taxes just like you are and for the same reasons - the government forces them to.

I sounds to me like you need to either find more lucrative work or find a less expensive place to live.

[gags]

Mark, I completely agree that you're being screwed by the state. This is an insane system that drives people from their homes using confiscatory property taxes. However, I would hate to see you sacrifice yourself to make a point to a government full of bureaucrats who couldn't care less. Perhaps you should take a realistic look at selling your house and moving to a lower tax state. I know that will be difficult and expensive, but it may be your only alternative unless you can increase your earnings.

By the way, I was looking at the links in your sig and I noticed you do video work. To whom do you market your services? The reason I ask is that a friend of mine here in Michigan has a fairly successful business making videos for attorneys. He videotapes depositions and also does a lot of work for personal injury attorneys. Perhaps this would be a niche market for you?

[mweiss]

My situation is not what you're expecting: a saleable house and an easy, straightforward move. On the contrary, this place was built in a storm, so to speak, without permits, and doesn't even have a C of O. There are environmental issues with the land, it has also several in ground fuel tanks, the cost of removing each to be born by the seller before a sale can legally take place under CT law. In short, no one would buy the property once the environmental issues were disclosed (as they must be, else I would be liable for possibly hundreds of thousands in environmental cleanup). The land issues are a long story. The taxing division of our local government is not familiar with these issues to the extent that would make them realize the parcel has little to no commercial appeal.

I don't mean to 'freak people out' with my remarks. For the longest time, I held the position that blowing one'self and one's land up during a military inrush a la Waco Texas would be unethical if it caused harm to nearby neighbors. I gave this angle much thought in recent months, and realized that the neighors are complicit in prumulgating the tax abuse, because their payments are a form of consent to the law. In fact, their consent to the law helps to impose on MY rights, so in an indirect way, the neighbors are imposing on my right to exist too. If someone can provide a solid Objectivist argument as to why I might be wrong in this conclusion, I anxiously await to hear from you. It was a bold and uncomfortable conclusion to reach, which ran counter to my emotional beliefs.

I love my home and my location. Recently, I drove down south to visit friends (who had escaped the northeast) and relatives. My trip had me spending time in Raleigh NC, then west to Huntersville, NC, then south to Columbia SC, and finally on through GA to Florida, where I spent some time in a small town called Inverness. I visited Orlando on the way to Disney, at the request of my wife and four our daughter's sake.

While I was down there, I didn't like the air quality or the fact that all the housing was practically on top of eachother. I did like the roads in NC though. Built to avoid backups. But for your money you got a shoddily constructed house that would blow down easily in a CAT3 hurricane, flimsey walls, weak roof structures and a lot of recycled materials, all thrown up in 3-4 days. My friend was having a Pulte Home built. It went from a slab to a finished house from exterior looks, during the four days I was there. But the neighbor's house wall is 8' from theirs. Since I have an uncontrollable perverse need for ultra loud music and extreme amounts of bass, I must not have any neighbors within 1/2-3/4 mile. My current lot is isolated in the woods. We have great water from a pure aquifer here, and our situation has protected us from lightning strikes for the past 40 years, being in a slight crater at the top of a mountain.

We built the house without any outside help, so I'm familiar with all the systems, the water, septic, plumbing, electrical, structural, etc. The house also has great sentimental value, even though it is an eyesore. in short, it's pretty well adapted to my needs, even if it is a leaky, rough unfinished structure in need of major roof repairs. On top of that, I have a LOT of stuff to move, if I were to move. Sure, I'd move, if I could move to a better place in a similar geological setting.

Answering the last question:

I do video production for anyone that is willing to hire me. I specialize in recording orchestras where the absolute finest audio is required. I do some graphics animation, and arrange some music, but I usually leave the composition work to others. I have excellent tools to to my work with. That's where all my investment goes. I tend to over-reinvest in my business tools, since video/audio is my passion in life. Of course I keep most of this quiet and don't advertize in local media. The equipment and software is easily worth several times the house!

My relative in Inverness FL is in the real estate business. He tells me there is a market for virtual tours of high end real estate and suggested I market my services there. Legal depositions sound completely foreign to me. What does it entail?

[softwareNerd]

Mark, If you don't mind my asking... are you saying that the cost to fix the environmental issues are such that the land + house are worth ZERO (perhaps negative) on the market? Essentially, your land and property are worth nothing to any new owner. They have the obvious use-value to you, but no market value to anyone else? Is that true?

Is there any way to break the lot to get a saleable chunk that does not have environmental issues?

On the business side, you mention you don't advertise locally. Does your business come mostly through word-of-mouth?

[mweiss]

The lot is only .51 acre and we are now 2+ acre zoned. I am surrounded by 14 acres of swamp (wetland protected by local and fed law).

Yes, if the property sold for $20K and the federal environmental cleanup fees were $250k, I would be liable for $230K and be homeless at the same time.

So it's better to either abandon or just stay put. I've taken the latter choice, since my income is decreasing steadily each year.

All of my work comes by word of mouth.

My day job is radio broadcast engineering. I got that set of clients because a station broker heard and likes the technical quality of a pirate station I ran in the 1990s. We met, I showed him schematics of my designs and he said I was more than qualified to do engineering for commercial stations. So he lined me up with some clients and I've been doing that. Not my favorite work and the commutes are hell--often out of state.

I've been the official videographer for a non profit cultural dance group for about four years now. I've recently produced a wedding DVD. I've also done music concerts with large orchestras and a lot of microphones. All of these jobs are by word of mouth.

I am good at this stuff, but the market is extremely hard to break into. I've been doing a lot of freebies just to get my name out there. Four years of free video work is enough though.

The local paper just published my latest editorial about this reval (the most recent after the 2001 reval). Interested parties may read it in the online edition of the paper's web site if out of the local area:

http://www.newmilfordspectrum.com/acrossstory.php?id=653269