I would suggest something like this as a proper definition of property:
Property - Any material element or resource to which mental and physical effort have been applied.
In the Objectivist Newsletter, May 64 and later in CUI (both under the title “Patents and Copyrights”) AR stated:
“Every type of productive work involves a combination of mental and physical effort: of thought and of physical action to translate that thought into a material form. The proportion of these to elements varies in different types of work. At the lowest end of the scale, the mental effort required to perform unskilled manual labor is minimal. At the other end, what the patent and copyright laws acknowledge is the paramount role of mental effort in the production of material values; these laws protect the mind’s contribution in its purest form: the origination of an idea.”
She further states:
“An idea as such cannot be protected until it has been given a material form. An invention has to be embodied in a physical model before it can be patented; a story has to be written or printed. But what the patent or copyright protects is not the physical object as such, but the idea which it embodies. By forbidding an unauthorized reproduction of the object, the law declares, in effect, that the physical labor of copying is not the source of the object’s value, that that value is created by the originator of the idea and may not be used without his consent; thus the law establishes the property right of a mind to that which it has brought into existence.”
Now, working backwards in response to previous posts:
Matt - while ownership is indeed a concept linked TO the concept property, it is not specifically included in that concept. Ownership pertains to WHO has rightful possession of property. While the definition of property implicitly answers that question, such an answer must be explicitly applied somewhere besides a fundamental definition (just as the definition “selfishness: concern with one’s self” does not answer whether that is a moral act or not IN the definition).
GC - While I would say your definition is on the right track, I would also say it is carrying too many baggage cars. First off, AR explicitly stated (in the above referenced article) that discoveries cannot be considered private property:
“A scientific or philosophical discovery, which identifies a law of nature, a principle or a fact of reality not previously known, cannot be tthe exclusive property of the discoverer because: (a) he did not create it, and (b ) if he cares to make his discovery public, claiming it to be true, he cannot demand that men continue to pursue or practice falsehoods except by his permission.”
Of course one can discover new lands, and thus claim them. But since this is only one aspect of the concept ‘discovery’, that term simply does not belong. It is too broad a concept to validly be included. Furthermore, what is properly included from the concept ‘discovery’ is already covered under the general definition. So, besides including improper applications of the concept, it is also redundant.
Another piece of extra baggage is: “…to a rational being’s life.” The inclusion of this ‘clause’ is again either redundant (implicit in the definition, since a rational animal is the only being which can value) OR is a loophole. It places a condition upon property that it must be a value TO a RATIONAL being life. Whereas the first interpretation references metaphysics, someone could interpret it to reference epistemology or ethics (ie sanity or proper philosophy). Thus such a definition could be seen to exclude the insane and/or those who do not follow a proper philosophy (ie Christians follow an irrational philosophy, thus what they create with the effort of their mind and body is not a value to a RATIONAL being’s life. Therefore those creations are not their property).
Either way - be it redundancy or exclusion - the ‘clause’ does not belong.
That leaves the rest of your definition with similar intent to the one I posted. However, I’m not certain you have fully grasped what you yourself have written. You ask:
“… a potentially valuable object in nature doesn’t become property until someone derives a value from it, right?”
Actually, a thing becomes property when, as YOU state, an individual engages in the “APPLICATION of mental and physical effort” in regards to it (emphasis added of course). Until such an application, it is not property at all but simply a material element or resource.
You further say:
“…under this definition, any valuable idea we think up becomes our property.”
This is not true either, even according to your own definition. Merely thinking of an idea (“valuable” or not) does not make it property. Again, as you say, property requires the “application of mental AND physical effort” (emphasis added). In other words, one must have and idea and THEN apply that idea TO some matter. A thought MUST be manifested physically in order to become property. For, just as man an indivisible combination of mind and body, so too is property - it is the embodiment of that indivisible whole.
Additionally, there is no conflict with a proper legal definition of property (in fact, considering property is a political concept, I don’t know that there IS any other proper definition of property EXCEPT a “legal” one - ie the one I have given). For reasons I indicated earlier in this post, discoveries are NOT property. This includes the discoveries of the principles of Objectivism - ie the discoveries of principles of reality. And the fact that someone else thinks of an idea but renders it physically LATER than another does not somehow create a conflict in*definition* - any more than someone seeing a plot of land and attempting to claim it as his own does not create a conflict in definition, even if somone else already owns that property. Someone simply beat him to it.
As to patents (and copyrights etc) being “limited” in time, I do not see how this is a conflict in the definition. You need to explain further (though I would suggest reading the referenced article first. It may answer that question for you).
All of this means that your question:
“Does this mean that moral ideals must be compromised by practical considerations in the realm of politics?”
is invalid because it is based on an erroneous premise (conflict between definitions). And thus the example you give suffers the same problem as well because it proceeds from the same faulty premise.
One does not promote the idea that the earth is round as a debt to those who discovered that fact of reality. One promotes that idea because it is true. The same is true of Objectivism. One promotes Objectivism, not because of any debt one has to AR for discovering it (though one does owe her a debt - that of gratitude AND of recognition for the discovery), but because one is a rational being who wishes to live, and who realizes that to do so requires an understanding of reality (ie WHERE one lives). In other words, one promotes Objectivism because it describes existence accurately - and thus serves YOUR ends, not the ends of someone else.
–
Hope all that helps :blink:
