So I was having a conversation with a poster from another forum about the right to private property and he asked why I thought I had a right to private property, and why I believed that the idea that "property is theft" is invalid, or at least that people who believed that to be the case do not have the right to impose that belief on me. My response was a kind of mish-mash of things I have read or heard, so I wondered if there is anything here which is incorrect could be expanded on by other posters.


"While no right actually exists of course, natural rights do exist and follow in natural, logical steps. I am the sole master of my body, I control my body, therefore I OWN my body. Now let us take the example of my voice. I am the only person who controls my voice, and my voice is unique to me. When I speak, I am responsible for the sound-waves that I produce, therefore I OWN those sound-waves. I own them because I created them, nobody else can create them, they are MINE, no one elses. I OWN my voice and my voice is created from my labour, therefore I OWN the fruits of my labour. If I pick an apple from an ownerless tree, it follows that it is now MY apple, since the apple would be useless without the labour I put into obtaining it.

The difference between my belief in property rights and the belief of someone who believe that property is theft is that if I CHOOSE to exert my individual property rights, no-one has the right to force me to act otherwise. Ideas similar to as communism can and would form under this system - but people would have the right to not be FORCED to hand over their individual property rights. You cannot sign a contract for someone else and enforce it with violence. This is all about individualism - I have whatever rights I choose to have - as long as they do not intrude on others rights. Property rights are of course a construct of humanity, but they are a natural supposition. I own the fruits of my labour. If someone else believes private property is theft, they have the right to believe that, but I also have the right to defend what I believe and that is the right to private property."

The other one I've heard is that if everyone owns everything communally, then no one could eat or consume any resources because that would be theft. When you eat, you are making the food your property and saying I can take this away from everyone else.

Yeah, I've heard that too. Sorry for not mentioning it in the OP, but he wasn't arguing that all property is theft, just private property. He is arguing the communist stance of people taking whatever they need and nothing more - group property. Which is surely logically inconsistent because for that to be the case everyone would have to consent to everything which was taken which would be impossible?

None of this really follows without some kind of definition of ownership. What does it even mean to own sound-waves?

This is how property as a natural, logical right was explained to me.

You can own sound waves in the sense that a singer owns his voice. Sound waves are a product of his labour (of the movement of his lungs and voice box). They are also a unique product of his labour, no one can replicate those sound waves like he can. If he is the person responsible for producing these unique sound waves, then it follows that he owns that song. It is his property and he can choose to use it as he wishes. It's kinda a hard concept to explain and maybe the picking an apple one is better - but it is basically illustrating that ownership is derived from the application of labour to something - air, an apple, land etc.

What does it mean though? How would things be different if he didn't own his sound waves? A computer can reproduce a given set of voice waves better than the source. Is that immoral? If so, why?

How is owning an apple, a speech, and yourself all the same concept?

I don't really understand your point. How could someone not own their voice?

The rationale would be that the owner of the computer has laboured on the computer to produce those voice waves, so his application of labour is inextricably linked to his ownership of those waves. In the instance of a man singing - the resource (his voice) is finite, unique. When a computer can reproduce that sound - it's ownership is passed on to whoever used the computer to create the sound, since now anyone with a computer can reproduce that sound and own it.

That you own yourself is self evident. You are in sole control of yourself, no else is or has an logical or moral right to control you, so you own your body, thoughts etc. Owning an apple and owning a speech is similar because you apply the same concept - because you have applied your labour to something - you have laboured to make use of a resource which previously was going unused (the manipulating the air, picking the apple from the ownerless tree), and it follows that you now own what you have produced.

apples are renewable resources, and so poor examples for any "property is theft" discussion. not because it necessarily does not apply to them, but because it is a grey area, and so leads to a lack of clarity in discussion. i think land or oil are far better examples to discuss.

I don't really get the difference either way. When you eat an apple you are making it your private property. I don't know how anyone could think that people are really going to take "whatever they need and nothing more", especially since that is going to be debatable anyway. Also, property provides incentive to produce.

This little article is great: Socialist Calculation vs Magical Monsters

There is a difference.

To oversimplify an article by Kinsella on Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics:

Only oneself can have direct control over their body, and others can only have indirect control over another person. Likewise, we can only have indirect control over the apple.

Anyhow, that has been explained a million times here.

This is a good article, Objectivist Law Prof Mossoff on Copyright; or, the Misuse of Labor, Value, and Creation Metaphors

Kinsella even responds to comments, but it gets too much into IP.

Another fallacious argument is whatever that was about something being renewable.

Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth

I don't really agree with the notion of self-ownership, actually, because I don't think we have the same definition of ownership. Taking ownership to mean the exclusive moral right to control, you clearly do own yourself, but it's not clear to me why you own the apple you pick. Specifically, you're implying that, once you pick your apple, you cut off anyone's moral right to that apple. Why? (I think a lot of people would claim that you own the whole tree, which is even more problematic.) Why is it immoral for someone else to snatch the apple away from you?

How do you define ownership then bobman?

Remember NIMN asked if anything was incorrect, and I think introducing the word morality to justify ownership as a starting point is wrong (I am not perfect at explaining this stuff too).

Like I wrote above, the criteria for ownership is different for 'a body' or oneself and objects that are typically thought of as property, where we use the Homesteading Principle.

Again, we shouldn't say "moral right" but that we have "undercut" (as the socialist would say it) another's possible claim of "first use" when we have homesteaded the apple orchard.

If you just walk along the road and pick an apple from an unowned tree, you don't own the tree. That is sort of like the irrational leap Marxism attempts to make.

ZN, I think of ownership as a social or legal recognition of certain rights. But that's not really important. My problem with what NIMN writes is that he asserts that various things that don't follow from his premises do follow or are self-evident. I think this is because he has an "I know it when I see it" definition of ownership.

It is important!

I don't quite get the rest of what you were saying though. He understands some basic ideas and kind of mixed them together. I am just trying to get us on the right path anyhow.

I think you are referring to "positive rights" or legal/state positivism.

Can you actually define ownership or try to persuade me to reject the libertarian concept of self-ownership? Morality or utilitarianism can be left out of the philosophical justification for ownership, because it is self contradicting.

By believing in property rights and the non-agression principle, we hope that people act morally or in a way that produces the best result but we understand why a 3rd party (the state) is both unnecessary and detrimental. You can question the wisdom of another person for drinking alcohol or smoking crack, but not their right to do so.

To attempt that is tyranny, usually veiled in some pleasant, innocuous, and necessary-sounding concept like public goods and social security, or *gasp* representative democracy. The theoretical end of socialism is a faceless, "perfect" society with no room for change, reform, or innovation. It is anti-economy, anti-human, and of course truly utopian because it is impossible to acheive.

Classical liberalism, the culmination of ideological movements after monarchy brought about both capitalism and socialism. This new individualism, the freedom to dissent without fear of retribution, brought about civilization's productive advancements. Meanwhile, Marxism (or some bastard child like American socialist-corporatist rep. democracy) though fed off of the deeply seated tendency of those who had benefited from this new prosperity without having contributed to the growth (think wanting the apple picked for you and delivered), to give into authoritarianism.

So, many people might not recognize themselves as socialists but they all have their sails pointed in the wrong direction. Socialism is not compatible with an industrial age. It takes so little effort though to pull the lever every 4 years, drop your W-2 at HR Block every April, then sit back and enjoy your beautiful public roads.

How could it get any better? Inconceivable! Health care is your "right" folks, now hand over the loot. Re-accepting your 'citizenship' among humanity and embracing the only true political and economic philosophy doesn't require much more physical effort. In fact, you don't even need to trot down to the polling station 2.5 times per decade. It does take a mental effort though to look beyond what you have been taught to believe from childbirth.

The movement still advances ideas, but any answer you seek has probably been written about many times over. I personally feel liberated having gained a certain amount of understanding on these issues. That a stateless world is best is evident to me. I am open minded though I think the theory of self ownership and private property are pretty rock solid. By believing in state enforcement of positive rights, you immediately destroy any hope of equal rights and liberty.

I think I am reading this wrong so I'd appreciate if you could clear this up for me. I'm reading this as 'yes, you own your voice, but once someone can reproduce it in its exactness the ownership moves to them'. So I write and sing a song, then someone digitally or otherwise creates it exactly the same they now own it? Or is it that you own your voice but the guy owns the computer copy and they're completely seperate?

In both cases you control and are responsible for the labour on the product, you OWN the method of production. You own your voice, you own the computer that created the sound. There is still ownership the second case in the sense that you have to apply your labour to produce that sound. The fact that you have "stolen" the idea of that song from someone does not change the fact you own the sound you produce. The idea of intellectual property is a different subject entirely.

Edit: sorry if I'm not explaining this very well, it is kinda a hard thing to explain (partly why I made the OP in the first place). I think the main argument is that by combining your labour with a resource, you have created something new and you own that creation.

Are there no copyrights or patents in ACland? If someone comes up with an idea and uses their labor to create it but then you use your labor to create it and can sell it cheaper, whether or not you had the original idea doesn't matter? I realize you said intellectual property is a different subject and I don't want to derail, just curious.

So by your definition, you could claim the Mississippi river and argue to everyone else that hey, I am CHOOSING to exert my RIGHT to the Mississippi and you don't have the right to force me to act otherwise.

My dream of the future, is an anarchist, free land where people can choose to live in different societies with different political themes. I understand how property works in ACland and I do think that is great and very efficient from a market standpoint, I just disagree philosophically with the idea that some corporation can own a river, or a forest, or the air.

I personally would prefer to live in a communal society where everyone appreciates the rivers and the forests as gifts from nature and wouldn't have the gall to claim ownership of our Earth, but I am all for the right of ACers to have a good time over in competition-land.

It is only semi-derailing I guess. Socialist theory doesn't hold water anyhow.

This link should explain why we oppose IP better. some parts:

I think NIMN was making a mistake in how he explained the sound waves. Refer to my last post on IP and the full article. He may be able to exert control over his sound waves (uniqueness of voice or even aiming them down the echoing cave) but he doesn't own the resources I use to record (or reproduce recordings of) him necessarily.

So it seems like an awful situation for artists. (Trust me, as an artist myself, I balked at this part of AC initially too.) Like Block mentions though:

We return to the same problem with the institution or non-existent rights by a state, or "treating morality like a consumer good", or trying to make a price into a piece of property (like fishing rights in Iceland we discussed a while back).

Your dream is just that, a dream. Do you really want a million dollars or do you want the things it would bring? Do you really care if a corporation owns (realistically only parts of the bank of) the river or do you want the river clean and to have access to it? Leftist writing constantly demonizes corporations and presents illogical horror-scenarios. Like I said before, socialism is anti-human, anti-innovation, anti-individuality.

The Death Wish of the Anarcho-Communists

This has probably been asked before, but if IP is not valid unless under voluntary contractual agreements, then how would authors have incentives to write? How would inventors have incentives to work, if they knew that as soon as they came up with something great someone else could take their idea and mass produce it with no compensation to them.

I'm not here to create business models for other people.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...4&postcount=46


So how did Youtube become so large? Or Toyota?

They would most likely come up with some sort of digital form of protection, voluntarily supported works, speaking engagements, a productive job that supports their writing. People often do things because they simply love to do it.