A question about property rights

Political Philosophy
21

What something is worth to me has absolutely no bearing on what something is worth. Worth comes from utility.

We need a definition for worth, because I have never seen an economic (or philosophic) one yet. Let us define the worth of an item as the marginal value of that item, or the amount of money you would pay to have one more unit of it. Then yes, worth comes from utility.

Now let us discuss the definition of economic value: it is whatever the prospective buyer and seller agree upon. It is the intersection of the supply and demand curves. It is the point at which marginal cost equals marginal value, or where the minimum amount you would have to pay equals the maximum amount you would be willing to pay. As you can see, value comes partly from “worth”, and partly not.

If someone started burning twenty dollar bills on the street, you wouldn’t just shrug it off. Despite the fact that it’s not your money, you’d still feel like something of value was being destroyed.

No, I would not shrug it off, because the person is causing a miniscule amount of deflation on a government-regulated currency. Other than that, I would shrug it off, because a person is entitled to do whatever he wills with his property by definition. I am assuming, for the moment, that the bills don’t belong to no-one.

When Toyota builds a car, it’s worth $18,000. Someone drives it around for three years and sells it to me for $12,000. I drive it around for a while and sell it for $5000. Was the car worthless before I bought it? After? Absolutely not, despite the fact that I’m not getting any use out of it.

There is exclusive claim on the car; it is not worthless. The owner can sell it for whatever the market price (objective value) is. Value does not depend on who is taking utility, but on the fact that utility can be taken at all.

Similarly, if we assume that taxes are 100%, the product of my labor is worth whatever it’s worth to the government (which depends on the use they put it to), not zero. I certainly wouldn’t say that what I’d made was suddenly worthless.

You create something and somebody else steals it: the object still has value because it still has exclusive claim. You create something and everybody and nobody steals it: the object has no value because it has non-exclusive claim and non claim.

You’re talking a lot about claiming, though, and that seems fishy to me. As I said to someone else above, it’s incredibly easy (and incredibly worthless) to prove the existence of ownership when you assume that ownership exists; that seems to be what you’re doing when you talk about claims.

Value exists because people value; people only value because they have exclusive claim (ie, exclusive ability to arbitrary use and disposal). Value is wholly dependent on the existence of exclusive claim. If product has no value because there is no exclusive claim to it, then neither does what product is equal to, the sum of mind and reason. If exclusive claim does not exist, mind/reason has no value, and therefore is of no value. Mind/reason of no value is no different in functionality than no mind/reason to begin with. No mind/reason is how animals are different from people metaphysically speaking. People being on a higher order than animals requires objectively defined exclusive claim, ie the “right to property”.

I am not starting with the concept ownership and then proving it exists. First, I define what the concept ownership; and then I show why it is necessary in our conception of nature. On the other hand, you could have a different conception of nature in which ownership is unnecessary - in which case you would have to renounce mind/reason and reject the distinction between Homo sapiens (wise man) and the oak trees.

22

  1. Value exists because people value; people only value because they have exclusive claim (ie, exclusive ability to arbitrary use and disposal).  Value is wholly dependent on the existence of exclusive claim.

  2. If product has no value because there is no exclusive claim to it, then neither does what product is equal to, the sum of mind and reason.  If exclusive claim does not exist, mind/reason has no value, and therefore is of no value. 

  3. Mind/reason of no value is no different in functionality than no mind/reason to begin with.  No mind/reason is how animals are different from people metaphysically speaking.  People being on a higher order than animals requires objectively defined exclusive claim, ie the “right to property”.

  4. I am not starting with the concept ownership and then proving it exists.  First, I define what the concept ownership; and then I show why it is necessary in our conception of nature.  On the other hand, you could  have a different conception of nature in which ownership is unnecessary - in which case you would have to renounce mind/reason and reject the distinction between Homo sapiens (wise man) and the oak trees.

  1. Nonsense. People value their children and their relationships and the organizations they belong to and, in some cases, the deities they believe in. These people don’t have an exclusive claim to any of those things.

  2. More than that, worth is a measure of percieved value. For the products of our mind and reason to have worth, all that is necessary is for us to believe that ownership/exclusive-claim exists, even if it doesn’t.

Even if you don’t buy that, I’m sure you’re prepared to concede that there are forms of value beyond economic value. For instance, imagine that ownership is a farce, and I live in a society which doesn’t believe in it – in fact, that hasn’t heard of it. I spend some time building a relationship with a horse, and I eventually train it so that it can be ridden. Even though I don’t have exclusive claim on the horse, and even though it hasn’t even occured to me that I might own it, I’ll still value it, because I’ve put time into it, because I’m (sort of) friends with it, because I’m used to having it come around, and perhaps even because it’s useful for getting from place to place (when it’s nearby).

  1. Having established that there are kinds of value beyond economic value, let’s consider your final statement in this vein. Even if the products of our mind and reason have no economic value (i.e. we can’t sell them and we don’t own them) does not mean that they are not valued in other ways, so I maintain that ownership does not have to be a valid concept in order for us to stand apart from the other animals. (If pressed, I’d further maintain that ownership doesn’t even have to exist as a social invention for this distinction to exist.)

Side point: metaphysics has nothing to do with functional differences; you’re thinking of epistemology.

  1. With regards to the ownership/claim issue: all I was saying was that if you’re going to contend that ownership is a valid concept describing a real phenomenon, you’re not going to be able to use the notion of claims as evidence for its existence. It’s completely circular.

As for the rest of your paragraph, I think my comments above show that it’s not impossible for us to have grounds to believe ourselves fundamentally different from everything else on the planet even if ownership isn’t in place as a real thing.

I think we might be miscommunicating a little, so I’d lke to take the opportunity to try to set things aright so that we don’t drift further off topic. Recall that the point of the thread is to show me that ownership is something other than a human invention.

Telling me about all the wonderful things that would be true if ownership existed is a start, but it’s really not going to get you anywhere. A theist, for example, would tell you that if God existed, he’d bring to the world a wonderful basis for logic and morality and order and consciousness and free will and a thousand other marvelously convenient things. You don’t buy it, though, because 1) you don’t find the idea of God plausible, and 2) you feel that you can have access to these things even without God.

Showing me the work that ownership is doing is a good start, but in order to convince me that ownership must be a valid concept (and thus that it’s possible that we have property rights), you’re going to have to do more. You’re going to have to 1) assume that I don’t find the idea of ownership plausible (which means no cheating and talking about property and claims), and 2) show me that nothing else could possibly be doing the work that you’re ascribing to ownership. Show me that a universe in which ownership didn’t exist as anything other than a social fiction would necessarily be unlike ours in some obvious way.

Right now you’re showing me that ownership can give us an account of things like value and our (fairly obvious) distinction from the other creatures on the planet. What you need to do is show me something that only ownership can give us an account of, and then only if ownership is real. I can see you sort of moving in this direction, but you need to address some of my counterexamples.

(I’m sorry that got kind of long.)

23

One Shot Wonder,

Apparently you suppose that any human invention cannot be a valid concept. If that is your premise then you have already started off on the wrong chain of reasoning, because ALL CONCEPTS are human inventions.

But if that is not the case, and all you demand is proof of the existence of ownership, first define what you mean by “ownership”. For the following argument I will assume that you mean the general definition.

Ownership presupposes something that is owned–i.e., property. Property likewise presupposes an owner of property. Neither property nor its owner can exist exclusively; neither can be without the other because “ownership” is a relative concept.

Now, you demand that we prove to you the existence of ownership and its validity as a concept; ask yourself first, how is the concept of “ownership” derived? That is, what observable facts of reality do we differentiate and then integrate to form the concept of “ownership”? And if it’s not a first-level concept, which lower level concepts are considered as its concrete units, its deferentia, its genus?

The answer to those question require that we have an exact definition of the concept of “ownership”;

The Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary defines “ownership” as “the state, relation, or fact of being an owner.”

So the concept depends upon the concepts of “owner” (its differentia) and “state, relation or fact” (its genus).

An “owner” is one who “owns”, and “to own” means “to have as property”. Thus, as I stated in the beginning, “ownership” depends on the concepts of “owner” and that which is owned: “property”. Thus your question really comes down to:

Does property exists?

Once that is proven, there can be no doubt about the existence of an “owner” since there can be no property without an owner of property; and if both property and its owner exist, there can be no doubt about the existence of “ownership” and its validity as a concept.

So now let us proceed to prove the existence of “property”…

24

So now let us proceed to prove the existence of “property”…

I believe I’m with you so far, and duly impressed.

25

I had forgotten to log in when I replied as a “Guest”, but continuing…

I still have to deliberate about “property”. We need to know its clear and exact definition, precisely how it is produced or obtained, and exactly what it means to own it.

26

What something is worth to me has absolutely no bearing on what something is worth.  Worth comes from utility.

Now if that isn’t collectivism I don’t know what is.

27
  1. People value their children and their relationships and the organizations they belong to

Because these entities have exclusive claim to themselves, and individuals derive benefit from mutually voluntary interaction.

  1. worth is a measure of percieved value

Mass brainwashing.

there are forms of value beyond economic value

There is no such thing; value is always the trading price (though not always traded in currency). (Objectivist definition of moral value is not the same.) And in an Anthem society, there is no word I.

A value (a thing which has value) is that which one acts to gain and keep, and depends entirely on a person’s acting. Nonexclusive claim = no claim, by the definitions of it I’ve provided in my preceding posts, means an individual cannot act to gain and keep.

  1. I did not define claims in terms of ownership. I defined claims and then equated ownership with a specific type.

so that we don’t drift further off topic. Recall that the point of the thread is to show me that ownership is something other than a human invention.

Have you noticed?! It’s not me taking things off topic. I’ve spent quite a number of posts showing what ownership is.

Telling me about all the wonderful things that would be true if ownership existed is a start, but it’s really not going to get you anywhere.

No kidding, that’s why I’m not doing it.

Show me that a universe in which ownership didn’t exist as anything other than a social fiction would necessarily be unlike ours in some obvious way.

What do you mean exactly by social fiction?

In a universe where the concept ownership was arbitrarily applied by some government, it can always be retracted. I equated ownership with exclusive claim, and exclusive claim (exclusive ability to arbitrary use and disposal) that is retractable, ie negatable, is not exclusive claim. Since exclusive claim doesn’t exist, nothing is of value, and mind/reason is negated. Men are metaphysically and act physically no different from animals of the lowest orders. A universe without ownership would be a commune: and history has proved that such a thing cannot exist, especially in its purest form, so long as men have mind and reason.

28

We had a thread about the definition of property:

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=143

29

Wonder, you sound like you have been the victim of quite an amount of communist brainwashing. You should read Ayn Rand’s Anthem for an example of what a society without the concept of ownership would really be like.

30

Now if that isn’t collectivism I don’t know what is.

Yes, that seems likely.

31

  1. People value their children and their relationships and the organizations they belong to because these entities have exclusive claim to themselves, and individuals derive benefit from mutually voluntary interaction.

  2. worth is a measure of percieved value

Mass brainwashing.

  1. there are forms of value beyond economic value

There is no such thing; value is always the trading price (though not always traded in currency).  A value (a thing which has value) is that which one acts to gain and keep, and depends entirely on a person’s acting.  Nonexclusive claim = no claim, by the definitions of it I’ve provided in my preceding posts, means an individual cannot act to gain and keep.

  1. I did not define claims in terms of ownership.  I defined claims and then equated ownership with a specific type.

  2. Show me that a universe in which ownership didn’t exist as anything other than a social fiction would necessarily be unlike ours in some obvious way.

What do you mean exactly by social fiction?

  1. You said that, “value exists because people value; people only value because they have exclusive claim (ie, exclusive ability to arbitrary use and disposal). Value is wholly dependent on the existence of exclusive claim.” In answering my question (I noticed that you avoided the deity thing), you admitted that people can value an organization because of a derived benefit rather than from exclusive claim. Unless you want to clarify or restate, I’ll count that as a retraction of your previous statement and we can move on.

  2. You said, “Let us define the worth of an item as the marginal value of that item, or the amount of money you would pay to have one more unit of it.” I find it fairly obvious that the amount of money I would pay for something is wholly contingent on my appraisal – my perception. In fact, if worth were not a measure of percieved falue, then we would have to concede some very silly things. For instance: consider advertising. Ad campaigns are designed to increase the visibility of a product, and thereby increase demand. omdn’t advertise, they’d have to drop their prices to create that same demand. An/i]duct’s worth is exactly what someone is willing to pay for it, we can conclude that a McDonald’s sandwich would be worth substantially less than it is today if that guy with the ‘fro weren’t "lovin’ it".

Consider shoddy workmanship. Say you bought an expensive DVD player that broke the day after the one-year warranty expired. Would you feel a little ripped off? Heresy! Socialist brainwashing! The crappy DVD player was quite obviously worth every penny, because that’s how much you paid for it.

  1. There are no non-economic forms of value? Interesting. If someone acts to gain and keep a thing, then it has value. If something has value, that value can be measured by the trading price. Tell me: are you married?

  2. I think I missed this. Where did you define claims?

concept is one which refers to something in the world. By contrast, a social fiction is an invented concept which is invalid but believed to be valid. The Greek people believed in the Olympians, for instance, and made sacrifices to them and built temples for them. It was all just a stupid farce, of course, but (nearly) everyone bought into it, and this mythology became part of the Grecian value system, influencing their lifestyle, their literature, and their thought processes. It even had some positive effects, despite the fact that it was complete hogwash.

32

Wonder, you sound like you have been the victim of quite an amount of communist brainwashing. You should read Ayn Rand’s Anthem for an example of what a society without the concept of ownership would really be like.

I haven’t been brainwashed, I’m asking a question. Moreover, I’m not suggesting that the concept of ownership be abandoned – in fact, I think it’s a good one that’s serving us well. I’m suggesting that it might be an invention, and asking you to show otherwise.

33

I’m suggesting that it might be an invention, and asking you to show otherwise.

OK, here we go:

Assume that I take your car away from you and use it without your permission, without any intention to return it to you. Do you condemn this act of mine as immoral? Do you call the police to help you get the car back? If yes, Q.E.D. If no, JUST TELL ME WHERE YOU LIVE!

34

Now I will prove that contact with swine tissue will keep someone out of heaven:

Assume that I start walking around Afghanistan with a bucket of pig fat, and suddenly, without permission, I toss the thing on some woman who’s covered head-to-toe in traditional Islamic garments. Will the Afghanis condemn this act of mine as immoral? Will they beat the ever-living crap out of me and probably kill me? If yes, Q.E.D.

Somehow I doubt that someone believing that a thing is true actually makes it true.

More than that, even if I did just believe that ownership was a social fiction, I’d still probably call the police (because I need a car and I won’t be able to just gank someone else’s without legal trouble).

35

You didn’t answer my question. Do you think it would be moral for me to take your car?

I want to know because if you don’t have a moral objection against my taking it, then I intend to take it.

36

You didn’t answer my question. Do you think it would be moral for me to take your car?  I want to know because if you don’t have a moral objection against my taking it, then I intend to take it.

I suspect that taking my car would be immoral, and I’d rather you left it alone. I don’t know that it is, though, which is why I’m posing my question.

37

Well, you would be angry if I took it, wouldn’t you? You would feel outraged at my action! There is that car, which you bought from money you earned as a reward for your exertions–and I just went there and took it. You would undoubtedly think that I am a disgusting man!

And that’s why I respect the rights of people to keep what they have earned–because I find theft disgusting, and I definitely prefer enjoying things that I have honestly earned.

Also, I want to be allowed to keep what I have earned, without having to worry about it being suddenly taken from me. How could I fault other people for taking away my stuff if I myself take away other people’s stuff all the time? If I acted like that, people would think that I am an absolute hypocrite, and there would be no chance they let me keep what I earned. “If he doesn’t respect my rights, why should we respect his?”

Thus, I accept property rights as a principle, because I want my property rights to be respected. I accept the principle because I want the principle to apply when my property is concerned.

38

That’s really more than fair – and it shows that the concept of property and the respect thereof are wonderful social conventions, and things go well when everyone buys into them. But I want is something a bit deeper than “well you wouldn’t like it if someone took your stuff now would you?” That’s something we teach two year olds, and thus something we usually take for granted. It’s not really enough for me anymore.

What I want is to see someone show me that property and ownership are something other than invented ideas that keep the wheels greased.

39

You said that, “value exists because people value; people only value because they have exclusive claim (ie, exclusive ability to arbitrary use and disposal). Value is wholly dependent on the existence of exclusive claim.” In answering my question (I noticed that you avoided the deity thing), you admitted that people can value an organization because of a derived benefit rather than from exclusive claim. Unless you want to clarify or restate, I’ll count that as a retraction of your previous statement and we can move on.

I will indeed clarify and restate: in people valuing an organization, there is exclusive claim, and people derive benefit from the existence of exclusive claim through trade.

You said, “Let us define the worth of an item as the marginal value of that item, or the amount of money you would pay to have one more unit of it.” I find it fairly obvious that the amount of money I would pay for something is wholly contingent on my appraisal – my perception. In fact, if worth were not a measure of percieved falue, then we would have to concede some very silly things. For instance: consider advertising. Ad campaigns are designed to increase the visibility of a product, and thereby increase demand. If a company didn’t advertise, they’d have to drop their prices to create that same demand. And since a product’s worth is exactly what someone is willing to pay for it, we can conclude that a McDonald’s sandwich would be worth substantially less than it is today if that guy with the ‘fro weren’t "lovin’ it". Consider shoddy workmanship. Say you bought an expensive DVD player that broke the day after the one-year warranty expired. Would you feel a little ripped off? Heresy! Socialist brainwashing! The crappy DVD player was quite obviously worth every penny, because that’s how much you paid for it.

That’s why I have not used “worth” in any of my logic - only, when you brought the term up, attempted to give it an actual economic form of a definition which I don’t think you liked very much. So, we are going to forget the term “worth” and focus on objective value.

Ad campaigns are designed to increase the visibility of a product, and thereby increase demand. If a company didn’t advertise, they’d have to drop their prices to create that same demand.

This is why I advised you to learn the fundamentals of economics, because that statement was patently untrue, though at this point there is no way you would know it. Precisely because of that, I mention what things there are for you to look up on the internet: supply and demand curves. “A shift in demand curve is different from a shift in quantity demanded.”

Consider shoddy workmanship.

That’s why there are contracts over which you can take action if one party breaks his word to, say, a guaranteed piece of equipment.

There are no non-economic forms of value? Interesting. If someone acts to gain and keep a thing, then it has value. If something has value, that value can be measured by the trading price. Tell me: are you married?

No, I am not married, and I understood the implicit question. Ask any economist (by this I mean any one I’ve read) this question, and he will tell you that yes, marriage has a trading price which can even be tested to prove its reality.

I think I missed this. Where did you define claims?

All over the place. For example, here. A claim is ability to arbitrary use and disposal.

A valid concept is one which refers to something in the world. By contrast, a social fiction is an invented concept which is invalid but believed to be valid.

Your definition of social fiction is … the Objectivist definition of mysticism?

40

I will indeed clarify and restate: in people valuing an organization, there is exclusive claim, and people derive benefit from the existence of exclusive claim through trade.

That’s why I have not used “worth” in any of my logic - only, when you brought the term up, attempted to give it an actual economic form of a definition which I don’t think you liked very much.  So, we are going to forget the term “worth” and focus on objective value.

That’s why there are contracts over which you can take action if one party breaks his word to, say, a guaranteed piece of equipment.

No, I am not married, and I understood the implicit question.  Ask any economist (by this I mean any one I’ve read) this question, and he will tell you that yes, marriage has a trading price which can even be tested to prove its reality.

A claim is ability to arbitrary use and disposal.

Your definition of social fiction is … the Objectivist definition of mysticism?

What exclusive claim have I got on an organization that I value? What exclusive claim have I got on a pantheon that I value?

Fine, worth, whatever. Answer the question. Tell me whether the fact that I will pay more for an advertised product than I will for an unadvertised product of similar quality means that the advertised product is of greater value than its otherwise equivalent counterpart.

Contracts? I told you that there was a one-year warranty, and that a year had passed. Answer the question. Will you feel ripped off?

Actually, I was going to tell you that I dated my wife longer than you dated yours, and tell you that we’ve been married longer. Then I was going to offer to trade. I mean, obviously my wife is of greater value than yours is, because I invested more time in pursuing her. Assuming both our wives were willing, would you jump at the deal?

A claim is ability to arbitrary use and disposal. Excellent. I will go back and read some of your older stuff with this in mind. Just for my personal edification: ownership is simply exclusive claim, correct?

It could be, I don’t know. What’s the Oist definition of mysticism?