The Myth of Natural Property

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

In our discussion of libertarian heroism, an interesting misconception came to light. There is a belief that private property is an aspect of human nature. The people who espouse this notion are not experts on what does and does not constitute human nature, nor are they experts on what constitutes privacy or property. The science on human nature is problematic because scientists are themselves sheltered from nature. The scientific discipline is an elevation above the level of the natural homo sapiens to a highly disciplined degree.

Are human beings selfish, greedy, lacking in compassion by nature, or is it a conditioned state of being demanded by the economic system into which homo sapiens is indoctrinated? Does the rat race program human beings to behave like rats, or is homo sapiens naturally rodent-like? Sometimes we can hear the soft patter of rodent feet scampering across the drop ceiling of Internet punditry.

Before Roman enslavement, educators did not own property. Property management was a mundane responsibility that prevented people from experiencing a full life. It was not a highly valued occupation although it was important for the sustenance of the general population. Education was a more rigorous discipline and its practitioners were better respected than they are today.

Whenever I hear people speak of property rights, I am reminded of an organization I encountered on the streets of New York back in the eighties. It is a retrograde Catholic group whose politics seem to resemble those of Opus Dei called the Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family, and Property (aka TFP). My partner was on their mailing list and regularly received their high production value newsletter. It was filled with quasi-fascist propaganda.

I am also reminded of Jeremy Bentham's arguments against the idea of equal property rights. It can be summed up by the argument that if your neighbor had property rights equal to yours, she has just as much a right to sleep in your bed as you do. (I know that a number of the guys in this community would probably welcome that.)

The traditional Tory slogan for rights runs along the line of the right to "life, liberty, and property." In America, broader minded people reconsidered this slogan and came up with "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Which right do you think is more important, the right to property or the right to the pursuit of happiness?

Comments

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

"There is a belief that private property is an aspect of human nature. "

It predates humans.

A lot of animals will claim and defend their territory. They just as well will defend their food kills/finds (assuming the thief isn't too big). Birds don't make nests only to let other birds take them.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

Yup. Many animals will invest twice the energy to defend "property" (as they perceive it) as they will to acquire new.

We are animals. It's that simple.

Then it is not...

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

... strictly a human right, but a beastly right. Not the rat-like conduct of the acquisitive.

Re: Then it is not...

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

"Nature figured out" that it was a good idea. People kept it going.

Re: Then it is not...

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

Some people have yet to figure out how to transcend it.

(BTW, there is a typo in my previous comment. The "Not" should be "Note.")

Re: Then it is not...

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

Maybe we'll all get to be superior someday, but in the meantime how is it not an aspect of human nature?

Re: Then it is not...

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

It is more human to transcend beastly passions than to succumb to them.

Re: Then it is not...

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

That's not an answer. A more than B does not imply not B.

Re: Then it is not...

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

How about this: territoriality is a passion that humans share with beasts. Transcending beastly passions is a purely human endeavor that beasts would never consider.

Re: Then it is not...

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

How about this: territoriality is a passion that humans share with beasts. Transcending beastly passions is a purely human endeavor that beasts would never consider.

Re: Then it is not...

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

That doesn't imply that territoriality isn't a part of human nature.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Nope, animals are not human beings. Territory in the animal kingdom is different from that in human beings, only chimpanzees and only common chimps at that remotely have concepts similar to our own and even then the chimps act like really incompetent band societies. Nature is Hobbes's war of all against all. The concept of property as in civilization is a construct in origin and in nature purely human. Animals abandon their dens if they really have to to save themselves, humans will die to the tune of millions to hold rocks and deserts.

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

Humans abandon their homes to save themselves. That's why there are refugees.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

His first sentence was true.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

I see what you did there :D

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Sure, some humans do abandon their homes. Other times the victorious side turns them out and leaves them to die and claims that the refugees "left voluntarily." Sometimes even both are right.

Then when they reach...

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

... the refugee camps, they are fleeced for all of the possessions they were able to carry away. Life begins anew.

Re: Then when they reach...

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

Except for all the ones that die in the camps.

Re: Then when they reach...

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

It is nice that you see a silver lining.

[nevermind6794.livejournal.com]

A lot of animals will claim and defend their territory.

Yes, usually in packs.

Birds don't make nests only to let other birds take them.

Meerkats don't make tunnels or watch for predators only to let other meerkats take advantage of their freely volunteered labor?

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

"Yes, usually in packs."

You have justification for that, or did it just sound good? There are more solitary animals than pack animals.


"Meerkats don't ..."

You found an example of animals sharing with their clan members? That certainly refutes what I said.

[nevermind6794.livejournal.com]

You have justification for that, or did it just sound good? There are more solitary animals than pack animals.

I'm pretty sure most animals are social to some degree, and many I can think of are social to the point of explicit cooperation at the potential expense of an individual.

You found an example of animals sharing with their clan members?

It's an example of communally-owned "property" wherein individuals sacrifice for the greater good, to counter an example of animals defending territory on an individual basis.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

"I'm pretty sure most animals are social to some degree, and many I can think of are social to the point of explicit cooperation at the potential expense of an individual."

Show me birds that make nests and then give them up to other birds.

Your examples refute the idea that animals are completely self-centered, but no one here claimed that in the first place.

[nevermind6794.livejournal.com]

Show me birds that make nests and then give them up to other birds.

The point is that your example is not reflective of the general population of animals, and your single example is easily countered with another single example.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

birds != single example, and my point was that property predates humans, not that all animals have individual property.