Giving up property vs destroying property

Questions about Objectivism
1

Do we forfeit our property rights to an object, when we throw that object into a trash can? or when we take the trash out of our house or property?

Do specific behaviours (like throwing an object to a trash can or to the sea) signal our intention to lose property rights on that object?

I have difficulties figuring out the right to destroy my property as inherent to property rights.

When I plan to destroy my property, I know I will not own it anymore. I am planing my resignation as owner of that object.

But by destroying it, I am not only relinquishing ownership, but preventing any other valuer access to it.

Suppose I own several acres of land in Rwanda where a family of gorillas happens to live. I plan to get rid of the gorillas since I am building a farm. Then I receive offers from zoos, scientific institutions and even ecologists to buy my gorillas. But what they offer is too little money for me. They just seem unable or unwilling to hit the price. Regarding the ecologists, I hate them. So, one morning me and my boys go to the forest and shoot them all dead. Then I think “Mmmm… maybe what I did was stupid. I should have accepted the bucks, even if the price seemed too low… But who cares now. What is done is done. Now let’s move on and start building”.

Why can’t the State force this man to hand the gorillas to am agency where all objects that have been classified through previous investigations as “VALUED” by valuers, can be made accesible for them?

Imagine a law calling for all men to “inform Agency X their intention to get rid of any object mentioned in the attached list. The agency will take temporary custody of the object until a valuer is found. The agency will post the availability of this object in its webpage and in the newspaper. If no valuers show up within 60 days, the agency will proceed to the destruction of the object”.

Would such a law violate property rights? If so, what is the rationale?

2

Would such a law violate property rights? If so, what is the rationale?

In general, yes, it would. The right to property means the right to do what you will with that property. If someone wants to purposely break an expensive wine glass as a symbol of celebration, it is his right to do so. “Social” good is not is not a legitimate end of government.

3

Do we forfeit our property rights to an object, when we throw that object into a trash can? or when we take the trash out of our house or property?

Do specific behaviours (like throwing an object to a trash can or to the sea) signal our intention to lose property rights on that object?

More literally, it signals your renunciation of those rights.

Why can’t the State force this man to hand the gorillas to am agency where all objects that have been classified through previous investigations as “VALUED” by valuers, can be made accesible for them?

Because it is not the business of the state to force individuals to do anything other than respect the rights of others. The closest you might reasonably hope to get is that since you don’t apparently own the gorillas (they are merely present on your land), then anyone can take these gorillas. However, to actually obtain the monkeys, they would have to trespass on your land.

If there were a way for an external force to magically transport unwanted items off of your property, then they could do so, if they also magically knew that you had no interest in the gorillas and that you did not possess them. But if they could do that, we’d have flying cars and colonies on Alpha Centauri. So in lieu of magic, encumbrances on your freedom of action requiring you to report a loss of interest in an object, or to dispose of unwanted objects in such and such a way, violates your rights because it is done by force.

4

More literally, it signals your renunciation of those rights.Because it is not the business of the state to force individuals to do anything other than respect the rights of others. The closest you might reasonably hope to get is that since you don’t apparently own the gorillas (they are merely present on your land), then anyone can take these gorillas. However, to actually obtain the monkeys, they would have to trespass on your land.

If there were a way for an external force to magically transport unwanted items off of your property, then they could do so, if they also magically knew that you had no interest in the gorillas and that you did not possess them. But if they could do that, we’d have flying cars and colonies on Alpha Centauri. So in lieu of magic, encumbrances on your freedom of action requiring you to report a loss of interest in an object, or to dispose of unwanted objects in such and such a way, violates your rights because it is done by force.

Thanks for your answers, DavidOdden and softwareNerd.

If we admit that certain behavious signal our renunciation of rights, could we think in a period of time, between the moment I signal my renunciation of my property rights over an object, to the actual disappearance of the object, in which the object is available to anyone interested?

Let’s say I come to my friend’s house and throw a chewing gum to the trash basket. But then, I notice something glittering in the middle of the garbage. I bend down and happen to find a ring.

Imagine I hold this dialogue with my friend :

– " I found this ring inside your trash basket. Is this an accident or do you really want to get rid of it?".

– “Actually, I am getting rid of it. It doens’t mean anything to me anymore.”

Then, after having heard this, I refrain to ask him “Can I have it?”. I just decide to keep it, and quietly put it in my pocket. My friend is looking. He knows what I am doing. He says nothing. I say nothing. One hour later I leave the house, considering the ring as my new property.

Did I did something wrong?

The ring was still within the limits of my friend’s house. But his behaviour signaled (and his words explicitly confirmed) that he had given up his property rights on the ring. So, I didn’t need to ask him permission to keep the ring for me, as he was not anymore the owner, by his own will.

What do you think?

5

If we admit that certain behavious signal our renunciation of rights, could we think in a period of time, between the moment I signal my renunciation of my property rights over an object, to the actual disappearance of the object, in which the object is available to anyone interested?

Certainly, but you have to solve the trespassing problem. Being invited in is a good way. So under your scenario, I hope you enjoy your new ring.

6

But his behaviour signaled (and his words explicitly confirmed) that he had given up his property rights on the ring.

Certain behavior demonstrates the renunciation of certain specific ownership rights. I think each U.S. state has some laws about situations when property is considered abandoned.

This is different from your opening question about forcing an owner to give up property rather than destroy it.

7

I’m not sure I understand your question, but I suspect it.

In the two examples you gave the issue of property rights has the same Objectivist, and rather objective answer: what you rightfully own, or rightfully acquire, is yours. In the case of the ring, we know that you acquired it via a simple verbal agreement, good. But in the case of the monkeys:

  • Are there property rights in Rwanda? Did you chose the place intentionally as the hallmark of some apes being valued more than others? (protected gorilas vs homos sapiens genocide)

Many times properties are advertised as having lakes with ducks or swans. When you buy such a property in the USA or Uruguay, you rightfully own each and every duck that came with the property and can shoot them at will. The question now bifurcates: while at first sight only endangered species were protected, now ecosystems are being protected as well, meaning that the state might have a (unrighteous) claim over those ducks or bees as well. We can dismiss the latter as cattle manure but, how even if you could buy an estate with an endangered specie in it:

Your suggestion of a method to save value from being destroyed, as in the case of gorilas, means your question might belong to the issue of environmentalism, and whether one has the right to destroy the last current dodo in existence.

I know there’s a hotel in Zambia where elephants casually stroll through the lobby. I guess a solution would be for endangered animals to be owned (like dogs are owned) by institutions that see the maximum value in keeping them alive, smart enough to understand that they own a living piece of rare gene in addition to the flesh and bones that composes it. The Objectivist answer is that private individuals and associations are the ones that, have proven, to maximize value - not state agencies.

8

I’m not sure I understand your question, but I suspect it.

In the two examples you gave the issue of property rights has the same Objectivist, and rather objective answer: what you rightfully own, or rightfully acquire, is yours. In the case of the ring, we know that you acquired it via a simple verbal agreement, good. But in the case of the monkeys:

  • Are there property rights in Rwanda? Did you chose the place intentionally as the hallmark of some apes being valued more than others? (protected gorilas vs homos sapiens genocide)

Many times properties are advertised as having lakes with ducks or swans. When you buy such a property in the USA or Uruguay, you rightfully own each and every duck that came with the property and can shoot them at will. The question now bifurcates: while at first sight only endangered species were protected, now ecosystems are being protected as well, meaning that the state might have a (unrighteous) claim over those ducks or bees as well. We can dismiss the latter as cattle manure but, how even if you could buy an estate with an endangered specie in it:

Your suggestion of a method to save value from being destroyed, as in the case of gorilas, means your question might belong to the issue of environmentalism, and whether one has the right to destroy the last current dodo in existence.

I know there’s a hotel in Zambia where elephants casually stroll through the lobby. I guess a solution would be for endangered animals to be owned (like dogs are owned) by institutions that see the maximum value in keeping them alive, smart enough to understand that they own a living piece of rare gene in addition to the flesh and bones that composes it. The Objectivist answer is that private individuals and associations are the ones that, have proven, to maximize value - not state agencies.

I do agre with you, Volvo.

But I am not advocating State ownership of any wild animal.

I am wondering whether the State should serve as a temporary “depot” or “custody” of unwanted highly valued objects, to ensure they are not destroyed before known valuers had had their chance to claim them.

My line of thought would go like this: When you destroy an object, you have not only given up your right to it, but also the opportunity for any other individual to get and excercise a right on it.

I am not talking about any kind of property, but property that is objectively proven to be valued, scarce, unique, etc.

Take, for example, the giant Buddha statues in Afghanistan that were destroyed by the Taliban.

Suppose I own the land where the statues are located. I am a crazy Taliban and I announce I will destroy them because they represent a pagan idol and Allah will punish me if I don’t do it.

Then a series of wealthy art-loving or history-loving men and associations make me offers. They offer one, two, three million dollars. But I say that it is not about money, but about defending Islam. So I go ahead and blow them up.

My proposal would be to make this statues not property of the State, which is clearly wrong, but make the State custodian to prevent their destruction until a private owner, maybe by means of an auction, takes possesion of them. Certinaly, the State would have to use FORCE if necessary to avoid their destruction. And this is where I cannot reconcile my scneario with Objectivism… unless it could be demostrated that certain behaviours and statements represent an objective renunciation to property rights, and that no unowned object already valued by other individuals can be detroyed by the former-owner. Either you own something or you don’t. If you don’t, you can’t prevent anyone else to seize it.

In other words, I cannot have my pie and eat it. By opposing the State to enter my home/land to take it away in custody, I would be violating the rights of other already identified man to pursue an unowned value. So, it would be fair for the State to use force if necessary.

9

By opposing the State to enter my home/land to take it away in custody, I would be violating the rights of other already identified man to pursue an unowned value. So, it would be fair for the State to use force if necessary.

A man has a right to pursue whatever values he wants, as long as he does not violate the rights of others. Thus a man does not have the right to trespass, which means that he does not have a right to enter my property in search of something of value. Since this thing is not his property (since he does not yet possess it), then it is just something that he longs for. So the state has no business using force against me – I have not violated this other guys rights, by denying him permission to enter my property.

10

Let’s say I come to my friend’s house and throw a chewing gum to the trash basket. But then, I notice something glittering in the middle of the garbage. I bend down and happen to find a ring.

Imagine I hold this dialogue with my friend :

– " I found this ring inside your trash basket. Is this an accident or do you really want to get rid of it?".

– “Actually, I am getting rid of it. It doens’t mean anything to me anymore.”

Then, after having heard this, I refrain to ask him “Can I have it?”. I just decide to keep it, and quietly put it in my pocket. My friend is looking. He knows what I am doing. He says nothing. I say nothing. One hour later I leave the house, considering the ring as my new property.

Did I did something wrong?

The ring was still within the limits of my friend’s house. But his behaviour signaled (and his words explicitly confirmed) that he had given up his property rights on the ring. So, I didn’t need to ask him permission to keep the ring for me, as he was not anymore the owner, by his own will.

What do you think?

It may not be immoral but it is pretty tacky.

Jewelry and rings in particular are items that tend to have sentimental or emotional value to people, when throwing such a thing away one might not be entirely rational.

Say.. if your friend found out his wife had been unfaithful and threw the ring in the trash, something maybe he wasn’t willing to make you aware of.

He may change his mind later.

Though it is in the trash it is still on his property and he can still easily reclaim it.

It is interesting though philosophically to contemplate scenarios where one can be acting morally but still not be acting in a way that is entirely right.

11

A man has a right to pursue whatever values he wants, as long as he does not violate the rights of others. Thus a man does not have the right to trespass, which means that he does not have a right to enter my property in search of something of value. Since this thing is not his property (since he does not yet possess it), then it is just something that he longs for. So the state has no business using force against me – I have not violated this other guys rights, by denying him permission to enter my property.

Yeah, the problem of trespassing seems unsurmountable…

Yet the right for denying entrance to a property is not an absolute.

For example, parents abusing a child could not hold a right for their house not being trespassed by the police to rescue the child.

So, trespassing might be lawful if a right is being violated.

If we could demostrate that by destroying a highly valued object, the right of others value to pursue it (not a right for the object, which does not exist, but the right to pursuieut it, ) is being violated, then we would have a case for a rightful tresspasing.

When I read Ayn Rand’s rationale on why property rights exist, it is my understanding that it has nothing to do with the accidental contact between a man and an object.

It has to do with survival needs, it has to do with the product of his mind, or trading with the products of his mind.

Property has to be valued or it is not property.

I can value it for what it is,or for what it be transformed to: it can bring me money or other values if I exchange it or trade it for something else.

But I cannot conceive to behave as an owner of something I do not value.

To me, it would seem more logical to think that if I don’t value something, then it is not my property any more, and I can’t build a fence around it to make it unattainable for any other man.

So, a family of gorillas that happens to live in my acres of land, a piece of art (like the ancient giant Buddha statues) that happens to be in my property, have in common that

  • were not a product of my mind
  • were not obtained in exchange of a product of my mind
  • were not given or donated by other man, but more importantly
  • are not being used for my survival or flourishing, nor are planned to be used with that purpose. This means that the object will not be transformed into something new, nor will generate wealth, or knowledge, or pleasure for me

.

Then, it what sense are the gorillas or the statues my property?

This reminds me about the fact that going camping does not give me right over the land I cross. A primitive nomadic hunter-gatherer has no property rights on the land he happens to sleep tonight.

This mans owns the prey he hunted, or the fruits he has gathered, but not the un-hunted prey nor the un-gathered fruit, even if he has seen, smelled or touched them.

When Ayn Rands talks about the inexistent property rights to the land of nomadic natives tribes in America, she says something lke (I do not have the quotation at hand) they [the Indians] didn’t know what to do with the land, so how they could have a claim to it. The nomadic Indians did not value the land. There was no effort in them to “get it” or “keep it”. So a white men, by settling on that land, were not violating a Indian’s right even if he used to wander through it.

So, my line of thought would be like this

  1. Property has to meet two criteria: be considered as a value by the owner, and be obtained in a rightful manner

  2. I give up my property rights to an object when I display certain objective behaviour that shows I do not value it.

  3. Once my rights have been given up, the object is available for other identified valuers.

  4. Man has the inalinable right to pursue values. This includes pursuing the acquisition of any unowned object.

  5. By preventing identified valuers to obtain it, I am violating their right to pursue a value (not ther right to the object, which does not exist yet)

  6. One way to block the right of other valuers to pursue the object is to keep it within the limits of my house or land, in all circumstances in which it is possible for me to put it outside my house/land. In doing so I am creating a fence around the object so that it remains inaacessible. I am not defending a value, since I do not value it. I am just interfering with other’s pursuit… wiht other man’s life qua man.

12

  1. Property has to meet two criteria: be considered as a value by the owner, and be obtained in a rightful manner

  2. I give up my property rights to an object when I display certain objective behaviour that shows I do not value it.

I object to #2. If the property has been obtained properly, then #2 has the wrong focus. The law should not be trying to figure out what concretes indicate that I no longer value an object; instead, the law should be trying to figure out what concretes indicate that I have given up my rights.

If it is a value to me to sacrifice a goat each year and burn it to a full charred unusable state, the law may not takes that as an indication that I have given up my property rights in my goat. In fact, specific property is destroyed by perfectly rational people every day, in order to achieve some end: e.g. burning gas as fuel. The question is not whether the owner values it, but whether he is seen to relinquish his right to it.

13

Yet the right for denying entrance to a property is not an absolute.

For example, parents abusing a child could not hold a right for their house not being trespassed by the police to rescue the child.

The concept of “an absolute” is inapplicable when a contradiction is at hand. The government may enter property without permission only in a well-defined context – where force has already been initiated, and such trespass is necessary to bring about justice. The contradiction, created by the initiator of force, is that one must not use force, but one (the government) must use force to protect the rights of the victim. The resolution of this contradiction does not disparage the property owner’s right, it simply renders that point temporarily moot. The extent to which one’s property rights are rendered moot is carefully limited and spelled out by the law.

If we could demostrate that by destroying a highly valued object, the right of others value to pursue it (not a right for the object, which does not exist, but the right to pursuieut it, ) is being violated, then we would have a case for a rightful tresspasing.

There is no absolute right to pursue a value. Your right to pursue a value exists only to the extent that you can do so without violating the rights of another. The right to keep a value, once obtained, is stronger than the right to pursue a value. Put simply, when you want to buy the house of another man, you have the right to offer him whatever sum of money you think will induce him to transfer the property to you. Until you actually buy the house, it’s not your property and you have no right to use any amount of force to keep the house – because “keeping” implies prior ownership. Therefore, you do not have a right to shoot another customer who also wants to obtain the property.

To me, it would seem more logical to think that if I don’t value something, then it is not my property any more, and I can’t build a fence around it to make it unattainable for any other man.

And therefore, the act of building a fence is proof that the owner does not relinquish his property.

14

Thank you very much, David, for your clarity and patience.

I now understand that, however irrational the destruction of a value by his owner may be, there is no practical way the State could interfere without violation other rights, and there would be no objective way to tell between the actual destruction of a value and a significant alteration.

For exapmle, if I own Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa, and I paint moustaches over her image, would I be altering the painting or destroying it?

I guess that ostracism or economic boycott can be effective (indeed, very effective) ways for valuers to act against the owner.

This doesn’t need the force of the State nor complex redefinition of property rights.

15

For exapmle, if I own Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa, and I paint moustaches over her image, would I be altering the painting or destroying it?

The concept of “destruction” isn’t limited to the physical structure, and a painting is not just “a piece of canvas, with some pain applied to it”. As a work of art, Mona Lisa is an artistic expression that is conveyed via a particular physical medium. When we speak of “The Mona Lisa”, we are usually referring to the larger artistic expression, not the concrete physical medium. Painting a moustache on it would be destroying that expression; but, hypothetically speaking, you could alter the painting by some elaboration of the original expression. The question would be, does the original expression (or, “essense” of the expression) still exist? If so, you have “altered” the work.