Individual rights and private property

[Whoisjohngalt]

I was thinking about the concept of private property. The institution of private property is no doubt the beginning of civilization. The idea of "public property" is a primitive one.

1. However, on the concept of individual rights: The idea of individual rights assumes that there is someone to "enforce" it (say, the government). Why make this assumption? Why assume an enforcer? Can individual rights exist without a government?
   
2. Also, on private property, the private owners can make their own "rules" as to who enters and who stays on his property. If this is the case, there is no guarantee that individual rights will be in force for whoever that enters that property. So, "individual rights" will not be in force on that property. Sorry if I sound like a Marxist, but this is something fundamental and needs to be answered. I could not think of any answer for this.
   

[mrocktor]

Those are good questions, I hope I can help clear them up.

However, on the concept of individual rights: The idea of individual rights assumes that there is someone to "enforce" it (say, the government). Why make this assumption? Why assume an enforcer? Can individual rights exist without a government?

Individual rights are a consequence of man's nature, they exist whether they are recognized or not, whether they are enforced or not. Objectivist politics do not assume an enforcer, rather they recognize that objective enforcement of individual rights is necessary for man to thrive in society.

Also, on private property, the private owners can make their own "rules" as to who enters and who stays on his property. If this is the case, there is no guarantee that individual rights will be in force for whoever that enters that property. So, "individual rights" will not be in force on that property.

There are two distinct concepts and you are packaging them, namely property and sovereignty. Sovereignty is the claim to the exclusive right to use retaliatory force. Having sovereignty over an area is what makes an organization a government. A proprietor is not sovereign over his property, he is not free to violate rights and he is not free from retaliation from the government.

From a practical point of view, the proprietor cannot keep the government's law enforcement agents out of his property - if they have cause to believe some rights violation occurred or is occurring there.

[DavidOdden]

Can individual rights exist without a government?

Another point that I would like to add is that a government is necessary to objectively state what these rights are. Just as man isn't born knowing what "horse" or "power set" is, man doesn't have an ethical sense organ. Very many issues of rights are extremely complex, such as immigration, copyright, the right to an attorney during questioning, etc. and need to be represented in an objective form. ('Cuz if you hang around here long enough, you will see some awesome squabbles over rights, all sides thinking that it is inconceivable that a rational being could disagree with them).

Also, on private property, the private owners can make their own "rules" as to who enters and who stays on his property. If this is the case, there is no guarantee that individual rights will be in force for whoever that enters that property.

The closest that a property owner can come to restricting the rights of a visitor is to make permission to be on the property be contingent on acting in some way, such as "must bow before the owner". Permission to be on the property can be withdrawn, though you may need to get the person ejected by the police, if he isn't willing to go when you ask him to. The courts could decide whether by throwing him out, you had violated a contract with the visitor and should thus be penalized. You can never initiate force against a person on your property. Edited February 27, 2007 by DavidOdden

[Cogito]

You can never initiate force against a person on your property.

Question about this one... If I let you come onto my property under the (signed contract) condition that if you break whatever conditions I set, I get to break your leg and physically throw you off of my property, is that an initiation of force?

[DavidOdden]

If I let you come onto my property under the (signed contract) condition that if you break whatever conditions I set, I get to break your leg and physically throw you off of my property, is that an initiation of force?

Is signing a contract an initiation of force? No. Or do you mean, is breaking the leg? As such, it isn't, unless I were to repudiate the contract. If I do, then the question is whether you can (rightfully) unilaterally use force to enforce a contract -- the answer is no, you cannot. That is the job of the courts. The force is not defensive, and you have no right to use retaliatory force, so it's initiation of force. Indeed, this would go in the category of unenforceable non-contracts.

[softwareNerd]

David's point bears repeating. Objectivism does not say that a court will enforce any type of private agreement whatsoever. There are certain basic attributes that must be present in order to have an enforcable contract.

[Galileo Blogs]

David's point bears repeating. Objectivism does not say that a court will enforce any type of private agreement whatsoever. There are certain basic attributes that must be present in order to have an enforcable contract.

Excellent point. That is why a contract selling a lifetime of servitude to another person would not be enforceable in court. There are rational standards as to what types of contracts are enforceable.

[Qwertz]

A problem arises, however, when our legal positivist courts decide to hold such contracts unenforceable because they are "against the public policy," without further elaboration. Those that do elaborate tie public policy to social utilitarianism, or to vague ideas of "fairness." I have yet to find a court opinion holding a contract unenforceable in the way David just did.

-Q

PS: David - if you know of one, let me know please!

[Whoisjohngalt]

Thanks, Mrocktor and others, for your cogent replies.

Individual rights are a consequence of man's nature, they exist whether they are recognized or not, whether they are enforced or not. Objectivist politics do not assume an enforcer, rather they recognize that objective enforcement of individual rights is necessary for man to thrive in society.

Ok. I get this. But, then, why does Ayn Rand insist on a "minimum government"? If the laws are natural, why should any external, man-made agency like the government exist? (also see my earlier topic)

There are two distinct concepts and you are packaging them, namely property and sovereignty. Sovereignty is the claim to the exclusive right to use retaliatory force. Having sovereignty over an area is what makes an organization a government. A proprietor is not sovereign over his property, he is not free to violate rights and he is not free from retaliation from the government.

I see. Does the same concept of sovereignty apply for business too? If this applies to private business too, the socialist confounding of economics and politics would be effectually nullified.

Another point that I would like to add is that a government is necessary to objectively state what these rights are. Just as man isn't born knowing what "horse" or "power set" is, man doesn't have an ethical sense organ. Very many issues of rights are extremely complex, such as immigration, copyright, the right to an attorney during questioning, etc. and need to be represented in an objective form. ('Cuz if you hang around here long enough, you will see some awesome squabbles over rights, all sides thinking that it is inconceivable that a rational being could disagree with them).

So you are saying that just like schools teach children science, the government should act as a "teacher". But is the concept of ethics similar to the concept of science? Can ethics and rights be as "natural" and real as science itself? I know this is a pretty important question and I want to know your/the Objectivist position on this.

[DavidOdden]

So you are saying that just like schools teach children science, the government should act as a "teacher".

No, but in order for the government to fulfill its function, of protecting individual rights, the government has to have and make available the concrete prohibitions and consequences that are the law. It's up to others to undertake the education function, in whatever manner they think is best. In addition, the government has to have an objectively defined means of identifying what those laws are, which in a rational society state the principles regarding what is necessary for man's survival qua man.

But is the concept of ethics similar to the concept of science? Can ethics and rights be as "natural" and real as science itself?

Utterly. Totally.

[mrocktor]

Ok. I get this. But, then, why does Ayn Rand insist on a "minimum government"? If the laws are natural, why should any external, man-made agency like the government exist?

As David mentioned above, the laws are natural but knowledge of them is not automatic. I strongly recommend you read this post by David on why government is necessary.

Ayn Rand insists on a "minimum government" because, due to its nature, if the government is doing anything besides protecting rights, it is violating rights.

I see. Does the same concept of sovereignty apply for business too? If this applies to private business too, the socialist confounding of economics and politics would be effectually nullified.

I don't understand what you mean, please clarify.

Can ethics and rights be as "natural" and real as science itself?

Yes.

[softwareNerd]

... why does Ayn Rand insist on a "minimum government"?

Rand herself did not primarily use the term "minimum", and even saw some problems with such usage. For instance, in a letter to another author she writes:

In your concluding paragraphs, you state that you believe "in law, in the minimum necessary for the regulation of human interrelationships" and that you think I do also. I hold no beliefs which I am unable to define objectively and specifically—and I will never hold as a belief, on any subject, such a loophole definition as "the minimum necessary." Necessary—to whom? By what standard? Who determines what constitutes a "minimum"?

I have stated the specific principle of law which I advocate—and I advocate no other. Please do not ascribe to me the opposite of my statements. I do not know what principle you advocate. I know only that a formulation such as "the minimum necessary" can be claimed by any social theorist in defense of any system, from a timid, middle-of-the-road Republican platform writer to a communist or any totalitarian statist: after all, even a dictator can claim that he imposes only "the minimum necessary" controls—necessary, that is, to his purpose.

So, you can see how she explains the danger of using a concept like "minimum" as applied to government. One can use the term if everyone understands that the key to legitimacy is the underlying principle: whther it is defending rights. Else, the notion can be misread. A lot of people think that Objectivists view government as a bad thing that we ought to keep in check...keep to the minimum. This is not right.

[Whoisjohngalt]

I don't understand what you mean, please clarify.

I meant that since sovereignty means having a monopoly on force, only the government has this, but businessmen or capitalists do not have this. They only have private property but not the "right" to initiate force. So, like the private property owners who cannot violate others' rights on their property just because the others are on their property, the businesspeople ideally have no sovereignty or political power. I am sorry if this sounds a little woolly. Its just something that came to my mind while I was reading your post.

Rand herself did not primarily use the term "minimum", and even saw some problems with such usage. For instance, in a letter to another author she writes:So, you can see how she explains the danger of using a concept like "minimum" as applied to government. One can use the term if everyone understands that the key to legitimacy is the underlying principle: whther it is defending rights. Else, the notion can be misread. A lot of people think that Objectivists view government as a bad thing that we ought to keep in check...keep to the minimum. This is not right.

I understand that Ayn Rand had some issues with such usage of the term "minimum" government. But, I thought that she was describing a government which only protects the individual rights and does not interfere in people's lives otherwise in "The Nature of Government" in VoS. How do/should Objectivists describe their type of government?

[DavidOdden]

But, I thought that she was describing a government which only protects the individual rights and does not interfere in people's lives otherwise in "The Nature of Government" in VoS. How do/should Objectivists describe their type of government?

Rights-protecting. It directly describes the proper nature of government, and thereby implies whatever you probably had in mind by referring to the govenment being "minimal".

[mrocktor]

I meant that since sovereignty means having a monopoly on force, only the government has this, but businessmen or capitalists do not have this. They only have private property but not the "right" to initiate force. So, like the private property owners who cannot violate others' rights on their property just because the others are on their property, the businesspeople ideally have no sovereignty or political power.

This is certainly true. The socialists, however, usually equivocate metaphysical necessity with force. For instance "the people are forced to work for US$1 an hour in sewatshops". In truth, the businessman offering those wages is not using force at all. Mans nature demands that he feed himself, if one dollar an hour is the most he can make, that is not the businessman's doing (and in fact, without the businessman the worker would be even worse off).