You are here

Property is not so simple

Matt Malesky "Now, legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on. All these plans as a whole --with their common aim of legal plunder -- constitute socialism."
~ Frederic Bastiat
http://lexrex.com/informed/otherdocuments/thelaw/law08.htm
The Law by Frederick Bastiat
lexrex.com
Like · Reply · 3 · 11 hrs

Lev Lafayette From the same link: "See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong."

It seems that Bastiat doesn't trouble himself with justification of property rights or anything as complex as a bundle of rights.
Like · Reply · 1 hr · Edited

Matt Malesky He says abolish this law without delay.
Like · Reply · 1 hr

Lev Lafayette Of course he would. It's so easy for him to make an assertion of what he thinks is just property.
Like · Reply · 1 hr

Matt Malesky Huh?
Like · Reply · 1 hr

Matt Malesky You don't believe in property right?
Like · Reply · 1 hr

Lev Lafayette Did I say that? I recognise the legitimacy of self-ownership, personal possessions (chattels), and from there a graduated bundle of rights in real property depending on the relevant stakeholder.

Bastiat, on the other hand, simply asserts claims of property without troubling himself with the moral issue of the legitimacy of claims. You can have a look at his presentation "Property and the Law" to see how lazy his thinking on the subject is.
Like · Reply · 25 mins

Matt Malesky So it you who determines what I may own?
Like · Reply · 24 mins

Lev Lafayette To repeat: " I recognise the legitimacy of self-ownership, personal possessions (chattels), and from there a graduated bundle of rights in real property depending on the relevant stakeholder."
Like · Reply · 22 mins

Matt Malesky Ok, this it's a little late in the day and I've had this conversation hundreds of times. Don't much care what you think about what I may own. There's cooperation or conflict. Property is a concept for the resolution, avoidance, or elimination of conflict using reason. Part of process the process starts with a claim. If I make the claim that I own something and you come along and say I can't own it because you have determined what I claim to own cannot be owned it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate why I cannot own it. And, that includes explaining your proposed replacement concept that accomplishes the same thing. It must be universal and not arbitrary.
Like · Reply · 14 mins · Edited

Lev Lafayette > If I make the claim that I own something and you come along and say I can't own it because I have determined this cannot be alone it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate why I cannot own it.

Actually no. That is not logical. The onus of proof is on the person who makes the positive claim. For example, it is not the atheist who has to prove that God doesn't exist, it is the theist that must prove that God does exist.

*You* have to justify your claim to exclusive rights of ownership.
Like · Reply · 14 mins

Matt Malesky Conflict
Like · Reply · 12 mins

Matt Malesky In fact let me demonstrate what I will do with you when you tell me I can own my own property.
Like · Reply · 11 mins

[Matt Malesky, apparently wishing that property claims were as simple as Bastiat imagined they were, blocked me at that point]

From: https://www.facebook.com/Jimmyarmstrongiv/posts/10204961564942090?commen...

Commenting on this Blog entry will be automatically closed on November 21, 2015.