Property Rights

[mb121]

I understand Rand's theory of property rights - you have the right to keep what you create.

Let's say I "create" a house on unowned land. I then have the right to keep my house. My question is how do we get from the fact that I have a right to keep my house to "my property extends 1 acre x 1 acre around my house in a neatly drawn square". It seems that the only way we get to that point is when we have arbitrary lines drawn for us by states and/or forced contracts.

For example, although Person A and Person B might agree where their property line should be drawn so they can live in peace, person C and person D might never agree. Both of them will think their right to property is being violated by each other and the only way to solve it out is through force (a forced contract by a state, for example).

Secondly, why do we even own the ground the house is on to begin with? All that we "created" was the house, not the ground. As a clearer example, let's say I build a fence around a plot of land. The only thing I created was the fence, which lays on a line surrounding a plot in the shape of the square. Why do I not only own the fence (ie, why do we assume that we own any land to begin with)?

Whatever the case, what would stop someone from (before property was appropriated) building a fence around the entire earth, or claiming all of North America (as many people tried to do), etc etc.

Answers to any of these questions are appreciated.

PS - I want to note that I do not contend with Rand's theory of property. I am only curious as to how it is applied in the real world without arbitrary force.

[DavidV]

The word "arbitrary" means "originating solely in the mind; having no basis in reality." So the question in this case would be - is there any basis in reality for granting a 1 acre plot, as opposed to a 1 million acre plot?

Here's a historical example: Spain claimed all of North America based on its colonization of a small part of Central America. The English and French flouted these claims because Spain had only settled a tiny fraction of the land.

When American settlers were settling down on new land, the land they claimed was limited by the area a single area could farm, the need to stick close to neighbors for mutual protection, and the need to stay close to vital resources, such as trails and rivers. For ranchers, the area that a single family or company could survey and watch determined the extent of their claims.

These are just some of the objective facts that determine the limits on homesteading. It is not enough to simply claim land: you must put it to productive use. If you do not create a value from natural resources, then you can't reasonably claim that values are being taken from you when someone else claims then.

While there is room for disagreement over homesteading claims, there is also lots of space in an uncivilized land. Once laws, courts, and property rights are established, there is no need to make such estimates.

[mb121]

Ohh, so if I don't put it to "productive use" then it's not mine? If I build a fence around a plot and leave it there, is it still mine? What if I plan to build a house on it in 5 years when I finally get enough wood? Do I have a right to claim it and keep it for 5 years? What if I leave it unattended for 5 minutes and then someone else comes and claims that it now belongs to them because I hadn't put it to "productive use" yet?

I don't mean to act like an ***hole, I just don't think my question has been answered. Eventually, disagreements between property plots are going to have to be resolved. How is it not arbitrary (ie, not not connected to reality) for a state or a stronger party to say this is where the property line is going to be drawn because I say so, and then later feeding you some line about "mutual survival".

Sure, everyone wants to mutually survive! Everyone acknowledges the right to property! We just want a natural (not arbitrary) criterion of how we are going to draw boundaries besides "welp, there it is says I the person/group with the most guns for no particular reason."

For example, let's say I farm roughly in a square about 10 acres by 10 acres. You build a house about 10.1 acres from me (in other words really really close because you like the view of my crops) After a year or two my crops begin to literally grow and spread around your house. How does the newly formed state going to decide where the line is going to be drawn? Do I get a right to my crops that extended around your house as a result of their natural spread (remember, they were only there because I created the ones nearby in the first place)? What if the crops only spread and stopped 1 inch from your house. Is that where the property line is? Or is it 10 feet away from the house (allowing you to actually have some say about what goes on in your immediate front yard)? Assuming you and I can't decide on a contract (which would be the first step in this conflict), how does is a state to decide where the boundary is without entering into the land of the arbitrary?

[softwareNerd]

The rules are based on some real need and the recognition of something real. So, that's the sense in which they are not arbitrary.

As an analogy, consider the rule that a person can enter into binding contarcts when they're 18. In the sense you're using it, 18 is arbitrary; but not in the sense that David is using it. It would not even matter if one were to remove the age test and do some type of maturity test. You'd still have to have a "passing grade" that would be arbitrary in that sense.

Edited April 3, 2007 by softwareNerd

[mb121]

The rules are based on some real need and the recognition of something real. So, that's the sense in which they are not arbitrary.

As an analogy, consider the rule that a person can enter into binding contarcts when they're 18. In the sense you're using it, 18 is arbitrary; but not in the sense that David is using it. It would not even matter if one were to remove the age test and do some type of maturity test. You'd still have to have a "passing grade" that would be arbitrary in that sense.

Then it seems natural rights are not natural. They are things we have invented in our head that are pseudo-natural. If they are not practical, if they do not bend to the reality of human relationships and needs, then how can they be "rights"?

I wholly wish this wasn't the case (please, tell me it's not the case). Because just leaving these standards up to the criterion of "what's reasonable" (like a judge picking an arbitrary property line, a legislature picking an arbitrary age of consent) is what opens up society into collectivism (since absolute protection of things we can't even identify isn't "reasonable," they'll say).

These things have to be discoverable, they have to be real, or they are not natural or reality-based, and they certaintly aren't "rights"!

[DavidV]

mb121,

As softwareNerd points out, it sounds like you're engaging in the "fallacy of the gray area." This is not really about property rights, but the meaning of "objectivity". Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff both addressed this argument, though I don't have any references handy.

Edited April 3, 2007 by GreedyCapitalist

[DavidOdden]

Then it seems natural rights are not natural.

What does it mean to be "natural", as far as you're concerned?

Rights are moral concepts, statements subordinating society to the individual. Without society, it is right for man exist, and to take whatever action is required to exist qua man. When you live in a society (this is a fundamental assumption: if you want to live the life of the wild animal, there are different consequences of your actions), with other men who also have the right to exist, you have to first grasp the fundamental fact of nature, non-contradiction. That means that your rights -- those actions that you may rightfully engage in to survive by reason -- cannot contradict those of other men.

Survival by reason means following principles, i.e. logical rules that you apply to particular cases. These moral concepts must be identified -- they are not uttered by god. Since a right is not just a statement confirming that it is proper for you to act in a certain way but is also a statement to others that they should not act in contradiction to that principle regarding you, then those others (and you) must know clearly what the principles are. That is, they must be stated objectively (as published laws), and the identification of a moral concept must also be done on an objective basis, meaning with reference to the purpose of moral concepts. That basis is, man's nature. A natural law is one that states what conditions are necessary for man's existence, according to his nature as a rational animal. But laws only exist in a social context -- if you were the only man on the planet, the concept of "law" would be otiose.

[Groovenstein]

As softwareNerd points out, it sounds like you're engaging in the "fallacy of the gray area." This is not really about property rights, but the meaning of "objectivity". Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff both addressed this argument, though I don't have any references handy.

I googled "fallacy of the gray area" (and grey) and nothing came up with that exact phrase. However, not using that exact phrase I found what I think you're referring to, which the author calls the semantic version of the slippery slope fallacy. He describes it as such: "A differs from Z by a continuum of insignificant changes, and there is no non-arbitrary place at which a sharp line between the two can be drawn. Therefore, there is really no difference between A and Z." (link)

Is this what you're referring to? Hopefully you or someone else can find a reference in Rand's works, because I'd love to read it. I've never put a name to this fallacy before, but I have found it troubling particularly when discussing abortion.

[softwareNerd]

Then it seems natural rights are not natural. They are things we have invented in our head that are pseudo-natural. ...

These things have to be discoverable, they have to be real, or they are not natural or reality-based, and they certainly aren't "rights"!

mb121, You could say the same for any human concept. Good concepts are reality-based. At the same time, one does make up concepts "in one's head". If you dig below your question, you will reach the question about the nature of concepts: are they "natural" in some sense? Are they subjective? etc. Is there any hope that people will agree on concepts? etc.

... a reference in Rand's works, ...

I think what GC is referring to is what Rand called the "Borderline Case", which is used as a straw man to attack the non-borderline.

The optional area includes also the favorite category (and straw man) of modern philosophers: the "Borderline Case."

...

The modern philosophers' favorite examples of this "problem" are expressed by such questions as: "What precise shade of color represents the conceptual borderline between 'red' and 'orange'?" Or: "If you had never seen any swans but white ones, and then discovered a black one, by what criteria would you decide whether to classify it as a 'swan' or to give it a different name and coin a new concept?" Or: "if you discovered the existence of a Martian who had a rational mind, but a spider's body, would you classify him as a rational animal, i.e., as 'man'?"

All this is accompanied by the complaint that "Nature doesn't tell us which choice to make," ...

[mb121]

Please, someone specifically answer my general question (how rights physically applied to reality are not arbitrary) using these examples:

1) we agree that consent is required for contracts, and that as long as no third parties rights are being violated by the contract people can do anything they want with their contracts. We also agree that children are not able to do this because they are not (developmentally speaking) rational.

Now tell me how picking the age of 18 in society by legislative fiat is NOT arbitrary? What if it was a test. Well, what if the test was bogus. My government denies me my right to contract because it didn't think I passed some bogus test it gave me. Are my rights being violated?

2) I'm even more interested in the arbitrary property line example. This is what drives me crazy. What possible test could you use that isn't arbitrary (a test that IS grounded in nature) to decide where the property line goes?

[DavidOdden]

Now tell me how picking the age of 18 in society by legislative fiat is NOT arbitrary? What if it was a test. Well, what if the test was bogus. My government denies me my right to contract because it didn't think I passed some bogus test it gave me.

How do you propose to prove, in advance, that you as an under 18 child, are capable of an agreement? I don't exactly relish the idea of allowing the under 18 be deemed legal adults, but suppose we let go of my reservations. What should be the legal age at which people are treated as full adults, in all respects? Give an age. Or, if not an age, an objective test. I assume you're aware that you mispoke in a minor way, in claiming that your rights have been violated -- rather, my rights have been violated, since any contract with you is asymmetrically unenforceable, to my detriment and your benefit.

What possible test could you use that isn't arbitrary (a test that IS grounded in nature) to decide where the property line goes?

Read the law, and that will tell you. Also, read the replies that you're been given here. I don't believe that you understand the issues, and I think you should read what has been posted in response to your question. If you want to focus on one issue, about hypothetical homesteading laws (which do not exist in the US anymore), you should do a basic study of homesteading, drop the "child rights" nonsense, and concentrate on the details of an actual homesteading law.

[softwareNerd]

Mb121, In your original post you asked: Let's say I "create" a house on unowned land. I then have the right to keep my house. My question is how do we get from the fact that I have a right to keep my house to "my property extends 1 acre x 1 acre around my house in a neatly drawn square"

Two questions:

1. I presume you agree with the house itself being recognized as being the property of the homesteader. Why? What is the basis for this?
   
2. Whatever the basis (i.e. the principle) that makes you conclude the house it property, would a tiny yard around the also be the property of the homesteader? If so, why? If not, why not?
   

[DavidV]

I think what GC is referring to is what Rand called the "Borderline Case", which is used as a straw man to attack the non-borderline.

Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking of.

[mb121]

Two questions:

I presume you agree with the house itself being recognized as being the property of the homesteader. Why? What is the basis for this?

The right to property is the physical realization of our right to life - the right to keep what we as individuals create.

Whatever the basis (i.e. the principle) that makes you conclude the house it property, would a tiny yard around the also be the property of the homesteader? If so, why? If not, why not?

From that basis, if you created a house to live on I do not see why you get a "right" to the tiny yard in front of it. Thinking about it more, I suppose I could understand a person claiming a right to have some yard in front of their house because that's part of why this person created his house to begin with (to enjoy his surrounding nature in protection). However, no one has yet answered my criterion of how much yard this person is entitled to (1 acre, 2 acres, 3 acres...what if the man claimed 100 acres)?

Perhaps this is why Locke put his proviso on property which said you could own as much property as you wanted so long as there was enough left for your neighbors to enjoy (but Locke had to be wrong on this for that eventually leads to denying someone what they have created).

Finally, I apologize for the inconvenience, but I re-read the posts and I honestly do not see what I'm missing.

[softwareNerd]

The right to property is the physical realization of our right to life - the right to keep what we as individuals create.

Let's analyse this a little more. For instance, a person creates a home... so it is his. However, is it really all his? After all he used something to make it. So, for instance, if a person makes a mud-hut, how do you arrive at his property-right to the mud? Edited April 5, 2007 by softwareNerd

[mb121]

Before his creation, nothing existed but a natural layer of mud. After his creation, the environment was altered to the creator's desire. Since without him no mud hut would exist, it is clearly up to him the creator to decide what to do with it.

[softwareNerd]

However, my question was: by what right does he take mud. We know he cannot come into your yard and take mud, or come into your forest and take timber. What them gives him the right to take these from hitherto unclaimed land and forests? Are you saying that since he uses the unowned mud, therefore we recognize him as its first owner? Or is there some other rule? Is modification necessary? Suppose he takes some fine sand (unowned) from a river bank and puts it in a play-pit for his kids -- is that his sand now? Why or why not?

[DavidOdden]

MB121, I think your problem stems from a misunderstanding of Rand's theory of rights. With my underlining for emphasis, she says (CUI ch. 1) "I shall remind you also that the right to life is the source of all rights, including the right to property", and ch. 10 "Any material element or resource which, in order to become of use or value to men, requires the application of human knowledge and effort, should be private property—by the right of those who apply the knowledge and effort.". In ch. 11, "Patents and copyrights are the legal implementation of the base of all property rights: a man's right to the product of his mind." and "By the very nature of the right on which intellectual property is based—a man's right to the product of his mind—that right ends with him.". Then in the appendix, "The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life." Finally, from Galt's speech: "Rights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being"

The right to property is not just the right to the physical objects which you assemble. That would undercut the broader right to sustain your life. To build a house of wood, you need wood. Do you have a right to cut down a tree and turn it into planks? Under the theory that you only have a right to the finished planks, you don't have the right to harvest the tree in the woods. Similarly with adding water to dirt, or stones used to build a wall. Can a man shoot a deer to feed himself? He did not create the deer, so under the "creation creates rights" theory, he does not have a right to shoot the deer.

In short, man has a right to live; he has the non-contradictory right to take what is necessary to survive, and the right to that which he creates. You have to first understand why man has a right to own real estate; then we can address the question of homesteading laws and acre limits, if any. The answer was, historically, 160 acres, though now it is 0 since there is no unclaimed land. That value was set with reference to a hunter-gatherer mentality, and not with reference to the needs of modern mechanized farming and resource-exploitation. 160 acres is a hell of a lot of land to clear and plow using axes, mules and plows, but with gas-powered engines, that's not so much. Farms are bigger than that now, because it's possible to manage. The feds list over 21,000 farms of 5000 acres or more and almost half of current farms are larger than 160 acres, indicating that the 160 acre limit would be currently unrealistic -- it would not reflect man's potential. I'm not sure what that number would be, maybe 100,000 acres. This is something you have to determine with reference to the actual facts, and since there isn't any unclaimed land in the US, we'd just be spculating. The question of colonizing other planets is a more realistic scenario.