I noticed that Felipe had a somewhat unusual view of property rights in another thread. I was curious to find out if it is the official Objectivist stance that you may only retain the title to property IF you fulfill the requirements of (1) using the property morally (to further one’s life) and (2) adding value to the land? This seems a bit wrong to me, because it would mean that Christian’s couldn’t build churches because they wouldn’t be building it to “further their life” and there are a variety of other people would use land in immoral ways, even though they don’t violate the rights of others. Also this view of property rights seems problematic because if I purchase a chunk of land that has a beautiful forest on it, because I just want to be able to view the forest any time I please, then I see no problem with not adding value to the land when I OWN it.
Also this view of property rights seems problematic because if I purchase a chunk of land that has a beautiful forest on it, because I just want to be able to view the forest any time I please, then I see no problem with not adding value to the land when I OWN it.
Who did you buy it from and how did they get the right to own it in the first place? Does the first person to find the forest beautiful and say ‘its mine’ have a legitimate claim? What if I find the moon beautiful - can I have it?
This is the kind of situation the ‘value added’ thing is meant to cover.
Who did you buy it from and how did they get the right to own it in the first place? Does the first person to find the forest beautiful and say ‘its mine’ have a legitimate claim? What if I find the moon beautiful - can I have it?
This is the kind of situation the ‘value added’ thing is meant to cover.
Well, truthfully my view is probably a lot different than most people on here. I believe that a lot of what property rights are is your ability to enforce them. Let’s see you keep me from having the moon too. HAHA. :pirate:
But anyway, let’s say I purchased it from the government. And let’s say I plan to build a small home in the corner of the forest and live there, but never again add value to the property, because I am a retired wealthy man who won this property at auction, and just wants to relax for the rest of his life. I think it would be rediculous to say that you can only own land that you add value too. There are parts of my yard I have probably never even walked on, should I not own those spaces in my yard? Maybe someone could plant a vegetable plant there and make some use of it, that I am not.
Who did you buy it from and how did they get the right to own it in the first place? Does the first person to find the forest beautiful and say ‘its mine’ have a legitimate claim? What if I find the moon beautiful - can I have it?
This is the kind of situation the ‘value added’ thing is meant to cover.
Bill Gates owns a lake and about 2 square miles of forest. I am sure he has probably never even set foot on any of it, and has probably added nothing to the land. He probably hasn’t fished or hunted it; he probably hasn’t cut down trees for wood. I bet it just sits there, but should he not own it?
Well, truthfully my view is probably a lot different than most people on here. I believe that a lot of what property rights are is your ability to enforce them. Let’s see you keep me from having the moon too. HAHA. :pirate:
In practice, yeah. But morally, no. If you’re saying that you should own what you grab, then its misleading to talk about rights in the first place.
But anyway, let’s say I purchased it from the government. And let’s say I plan to build a small home in the corner of the forest and live there, but never again add value to the property, because I am a retired wealthy man who won this property at auction, and just wants to relax for the rest of his life. I think it would be rediculous to say that you can only own land that you add value too. There are parts of my yard I have probably never even walked on, should I not own those spaces in my yard? Maybe someone could plant a vegetable plant there and make some use of it, that I am not.
But again, how do you prevent me from taking ownership of the moon, or the Pacific Ocean? Imagine I got 1000 people together and we all individually declare ownership of half a mile of ocean each, forming a 500 mile long vertical line between Britain and America. Then we declare that no ships are be allowed to sail across our ocean. Surely this shouldnt be allowed?
In practice, yeah. But morally, no. If you’re saying that you should own what you grab, then its misleading to talk about rights in the first place.
But again, how do you prevent me from taking ownership of the moon, or the Pacific Ocean? Imagine I got 1000 people together and we all individually declare ownership of half a mile of ocean each, forming a 500 mile long vertical line between Britain and America. Then we declare that no ships are be allowed to sail across our ocean. Surely this shouldnt be allowed?
I never said that you get what you grab is moral, and hopefully I didn’t imply that that’s how I feel.
I agree that property rights arise through working the land for the most part. But I do not agree that you have to work the land in order to own it. I think the property lines that we drawn on maps are somewhat arbitrary but necessary in order to work property rights into a legal system. So what I am saying is that there is more to property rights than working the land. I don’t know exactly what that is yet.
Genuinely though I think markets work all this out. Let’s say I claim a bit more land than I work. Lets say I claim 3000 square feet of land, and I build a house on 2500 of it. I still think I own the rest even though I have not worked it. If I make a claim that is too big, someone will either contest it, or they will offer me some compensation to just give it to them without contest. And then the land will be used more efficiently.
And to your last point about claiming large territories of water and such…you cannot morally keep me from getting to my property, so that scheme doesn’t quite work. Also, again I think the market will handle things. If you guys form some sort of moon or ocean cartel, it is always in the individual’s interest to betray the cartel and sell off a portion, or something like that. Cartels don’t last in free markets, because market incentives always push toward efficiency and competition.
First of all let’s forget about government legalities for a second, and imagine that this were Laissez-Faire, with a separation of gov. and trade. A man sells his property to another man, and they consensually give and receive money for this land. That man then plants trees in his yard that he paid for and in the future they will grow into a forest. The man has worked hard and has enough money, so he buys some of his neighbor’s land and adds more trees and a little dirt path so he can walk through and enjoy his forest.
Didn’t this person add value to his land? Did he not spend money for a commodity that wasn’t there? The concept that a person has to use their land is based in altruism. It is his desire to enjoy the forest he has created and this then adds value and furthers his life. Does he have to cut those trees down and sell them so *other* people can enjoy lumber? And if he doesn’t will you seize that land by *force*, for that which he paid money for? Let’s say that man surrounds his estate with trees because he likes the shade and derives enjoyment from that? Doesn’t this further his life - who cares if other people’s aren’t? If others want land let them buy it from someone who wants to sell - he doesn’t.
If you support some arbitrary notion of development in regards to property the only way to enforce it is by force. How much does he have to develop? By what standard? Isn’t planting trees or adding a lake, just as much development as taking away those things? If you buy land, you don’t buy the developments of the land - you buy the very earth that you step on, the physical area on which developments can be made. Those who profess that you *must* develop your own property and would take it if you don’t, believes in the redistribution of wealth just as socialism did.
My understanding is that in order for the moral right to property to exist (and here I talk about the use of uninhabited and unimproved land) one must create property–ie using the product of their mind to transform the land to be useful to that man. The government’s role in the legal enforcement of property is to set some standard in which a deed will be given to recognise the ownership of this land. As an example, when homesteading was popular, governments would grant acreages to families who tilled them for a period of time, or built a house upon them.
Once property exists legally, it should remain protected by law. This standard is applied to all property: If I buy a car and it slowly depreciates in value as I use it, it is still mine. It’s mine because I traded for it, so I have legal and moral rights to it. Why would I have to improve it?
First of all let’s forget about government legalities for a second, and imagine that this were Laissez-Faire, with a separation of gov. and trade. A man sells his property to another man, and they consensually give and receive money for this land. That man then plants trees in his yard that he paid for and in the future they will grow into a forest. The man has worked hard and has enough money, so he buys some of his neighbor’s land and adds more trees and a little dirt path so he can walk through and enjoy his forest.
Didn’t this person add value to his land? Did he not spend money for a commodity that wasn’t there? The concept that a person has to use their land is based in altruism. It is his desire to enjoy the forest he has created and this then adds value and furthers his life. Does he have to cut those trees down and sell them so *other* people can enjoy lumber? And if he doesn’t will you seize that land by *force*, for that which he paid money for? Let’s say that man surrounds his estate with trees because he likes the shade and derives enjoyment from that? Doesn’t this further his life - who cares if other people’s aren’t? If others want land let them buy it from someone who wants to sell - he doesn’t.
If you support some arbitrary notion of development in regards to property the only way to enforce it is by force. How much does he have to develop? By what standard? Isn’t planting trees or adding a lake, just as much development as taking away those things? If you buy land, you don’t buy the developments of the land - you buy the very earth that you step on, the physical area on which developments can be made. Those who profess that you *must* develop your own property and would take it if you don’t, believes in the redistribution of wealth just as socialism did.
Great post Myself! I’m in complete agreement with you.
The necessity of developing land or adding value to it or mixing your labor into are valid criteria for determining the first ownership of land. A good example would be the moon. Someone who landed upon the moon wouldn’t be entitled to simply claim all of it as his property without doing something with the land (though I would support his right to claim as much of it as he could put to use, especially if a large corporation wanted to claim large parts of it for business purposes). The key here is that you must do something with the land to gain title to the land.
But once we have an established system of property rights, such as today, the purchase of land by itself is enough to justify ownership. Whether you develop it, plant a forest or create an ecological preserve is your business at that point, and no one else’s.
