>>But you can't draw the distinction with the term "rightful property
>>rights," since that is question-begging.
>
> OK, call them "property rights that are consistent with equal human
> rights to life and liberty."
>
>>You'll need to provide some
>>criterion of "rightfulness." HINT: "Labor" is not it.
>
> HINT: I have already proved to you that it is. The only way to obtain
> a property right that does not deprive others of their rights is by
> _adding_ property -- products of labor -- that they did not previously
> have a right to use because it did not exist. That takes labor. A
> property right that consists of depriving others of their rights
> without compensation, such as private property in natural resources,
> can never be rightful because it is inherently criminal.
>
> You stand refuted.
Hm. You shall have to learn the meanings of "proof" and "refutation." A mere
denial of a proposition is not a disproof or refutation of it. Especially
when the denials are question begging, such as "depriving others of their
rights without compensation." If others have rights to the stick you used to
make the spear before you picked it up, you'll need to set forth the basis
of those alleged rights. You are apparently assuming the the "primordial
common ownership" thesis, which holds that all natural goods are originally
common property. There is no basis for such a claim (which, in fact, you
acknowledge below). And if the stick is no one's property, then no one has
any *rights* to it, since those two terms are correlative and in fact
interdefined.
(1) R(P,x) (P has a right to x) defines P as an *owner*, and x as
*property*.
Not only does a right not exist prior to first possession, neither does an
owner, or property.
Hence you can't argue that taking possession of unowned property deprives
others of their *rights*, since others have no rights to it at that point.
Or if they do, you'll need to explain where they got them. Note that
non-first-possessors lack such rights even by your own criterion, since they
have invested no labor in the stick either.
I gave you several examples of rights in property which would be generally
acknowledged but which involve no labor (other than the labor of taking
possession). Here are a few more:
1. "A woman has a right to her body." Obviously no woman produced her body
via her own labor. She is it's first possessor, however.
2. You win $1 million in a sweepstakes. Your name was drawn at random from
the phone book. The $1 million becomes your property upon your appearance at
the sweepstakes office and presenting ID. No labor involved, other than
taking possession.
3. You have a property right to anything given to you, provided the donor
himself had a right to it prior to making the gift. No labor required on
your part.
>>At least, not as
>>that term is ordinarily understood. There is no correlation between the
>>values of property and their labor investment.
> That is irrelevant, because value has nothing to do with it. You are
> simply trying to deflect attention from the facts with a strawman
> argument by falsely claiming that my argument is derived from the
> Labor Theory of Value. It is not. So kindly stop lying about what I
> have plainly written.
It is entirely relevant. But the relationship is not the one you assume. The
Labor Theory of Value derives from the Labor Theory of Property, as
mistakenly attributed to Locke, not the other way around. If property
originates in labor, then it is reasonable to conclude the value of property
should be proportional to labor. Which of course it isn't. But it is the
first premise, the Labor Theory of Property, which leads to that error.
There is no relationship between labor and the value of property because
there is no relationship between labor and property to begin with.
Considering the value of property also serves as an inductive check on the
Labor Theory of Property. It heads off attempts to tautologize the Labor
Theory of Property by counting any act by the agent, such as holding out
one's hand to receive a gift, as "labor."
>> unless you wish to count the mere labor of taking possession.
> That is not labor.
OK. At least we agree on that.
> Labor is defined as productive human effort.
Agree there also.
> Appropriating for oneself what already existed (and which others
> consequently have just as much right to as you) is not productive.
Ah, you are back in your circle. We are arguing about the basis for property
rights here, remember? If others have rights to what you have just first
possessed, you'll need to explain the basis/origin of those alleged rights.
You cannot blithely assume them.
Note also your formulation, "what already existed (and which others
consequently have just as much right to as you)." It is *not* a consequence
of the existence of x that anyone has a right to x. Neither you nor anyone
else has a right to x merely because x exists. That is, again, the
"primoridal common ownership" thesis, that everything that exists is owned
in common by all. Which is an utterly gratuitous and baseless claim.
Let me try to clear up your confusion. Prior to any takings of natural
goods, no one has any rights to any such goods. No property rights (in those
goods) exist. However, each person already has a property right in his own
body, being its first possessor. Being the owner of his own body, he has
entailed rights to use his body as he sees fit, including the right to
explore the Earth and take possession of any good x he desires, provided no
one else has already taken possession of x. (Perhaps I should explain what I
mean by "taking possession." P takes possession of x by placing himself in a
position to derive some use or benefit from x, and declares his intent to do
so. See the legal cite below).
What others have "just as much right as you" to do, of course, is to explore
the Earth themselves and take possession of any goods they desire, including
x. Their rights to do so are perfectly symmetrical with yours. But until a
taking of x occurs, *no one has any property right to x*. They all only have
an equal (liberty) right to take x, if they discover it and desire to
possess it. Until someone does that, no property right to x exists, and
hence the first possessor cannot possibly violate anyone's right to x.
You are confusing "the right to x" with "the right to take x." The latter
originates in your first possession of your own body. The former originates
in your first possession of x.
>>If a diamond-laden meteorite lands in your backyard it
>>is your property, every carat of it.
> Perhaps legally (though even that is questionable) but certainly not
> rightfully, any more than the land itself is rightfully your property.
"Rightfully"? Still in your circle, I see. If you think others have rights
to the meteorite (or the land), you'll need to explain the origin of those
rights. But I did not mean that one has only a legal right to the meteorite.
I meant that your right to the meteorite would be acknowledged wherever the
concept of property, as it has been generally understood in the West, is
understood. Few would challenge or dispute it.
It is also worth pointing out that the only "legal right" to the meteorite
would be a common-law right. Should anyone challenge your right to it in an
ordinary civil suit, they'd lose. First possession is the *sine qua non* for
resolving property disputes in common law.
>>The only labor you need invest is
>>picking it up and carrying it to the diamond wholesaler.
>
> That is, of course, labor. Thank you for providing additional proof
> that I am indeed completely correct and you are totally wrong.
Ah. Now you are trying to tautologize "labor." But above you agreed that
mere taking possession does *not* constitute "labor". So is it the labor of
carrying it to the wholesaler that vests your right? You have no right to
the meteorite until you arrive at the wholesaler's shop (having then
invested that labor)?
What if you don't carry it to the wholesaler, but instead summon him by
phone to your place to assay the meteorite. Is the phone call then the
crucial labor?
>>Likewise if you find a $100 bill on the sidewalk.
> No. That is a completely different case, as the money was previously
> someone else's and the meteorite was not.
Why does that matter? Are you arguing that labor is not required for found
manmade goods, but only for found natural goods?
> You clearly have not the slightest understanding of the relevant
> philosophical issues, and have cobbled together your "arguments" based
> on an uncritical immersion in philosophically and economically
> illiterate feudal libertarian websites like New Liberal Review.
Well, I'd be happy to hear what you think are the relevant philosophical
issues. So far you have only begged all the questions.
>>Since that item had to have been owned
>>by someone else, you cannot be the first possessor. Hence you have a
>>duty to try to locate its prior owner, if that's possible.
>
> No, you have no such duty. The money is simply not yours. If you
> pick it up and keep it, you are a thief.
>
>>If it's not possible
>>the $100 is your property, and the only labor you've invested is picking
>>it up.
>
> The $100 is not your rightful property, and does not become your legal
> property unless you turn it in to the authorities and it remains
> unclaimed for some time.
"Authorities"? Where do "authorities" enter the picture? Are you confusing
natural rights with legal rights again? Suppose there are no "authorities."
To make that more plausible, imagine that you have found a well-crafted
spear point instead of a $100 bill. I should think you have some duty to ask
around in your tribe to try to locate the previous owner. But you know that
many other tribes traverse the area from time to time, and that it would be
impossible to make inquiries among them, even if you could locate them (some
of them might kill you on sight). When no one in your tribe claims it, what
then?
> In any case, there is no labor involved, as
> the money already existed and you have produced nothing.
Perfectly true. So how do I gain the right to the spear point? Or don't I
have one? Does lost or abandoned property remain forever *res nullius*,
which can never become anyone else's property?
Your labor theory has a problem there, Roy. It can't account for property
rights in found, manmade goods (or indeed for any found goods). There is no
problem for first possession, however. Lost or abandoned goods revert to
*res nullius*, and first possession starts over. You're probably familiar
with the principle, which is all but universally accepted --- it's called
"finders keepers." That is just another term for the first possession
principle.
> That is simply another flat-out lie. Forcible appropriation (the only
> alternative to labor investment) has almost never been recognized as a
> source of rightful property -- other than by the appropriators
> themselves, that is.
Well, we've already covered that. There is no force involved in
appropriating a hitherto unknown, unused natural good. Against whom is force
applied?
You really need to answer that one, Roy. And be sure you don't confuse
*appropriating* the good with *defending* one's right to the good *after* it
has been appropriated. You need to show what force is exerted, and against
whom, in the act of *appropriating* the good. Especially given that in
typical cases there would be no one else around to be "forced." You are no
doubt confused there because you suppose others already have rights to that
good, and thus that defending an appropriated natural good entails force
against its other "owners." Which of course begs the question. Those others
have no right to that good (or at least none you have shown).
> As I already proved to you above, the effort expended by a thief in
> appropriating what is not rightfully his is not labor, as it is not
> productive.
Again I agree. But it is not the lack of productive labor which prevents the
thief from gaining a right to stolen goods. He fails to gain a right because
his acquisition does not comply with the first possession rule. The
recipient of a gift invests no productive labor either, but he *does* gain a
right. You need a theory which can account for that difference.
>>Labor investments bear on property rights only to the extent that they
>>evidence first possession.
>
> Lie. As usual, you have it exactly backwards: first possession only
> bears on property rights to the extent that it evidences investment of
> labor (most particularly the labor of bringing the property into
> existence). First possession only has any bearing whatever on
> property rights when it results in a _product_ that inherently first
> appears in the producer's hands.
Well, we've already looked at several cases where no labor is invested, yet
rights are not (generally) disputed. (You realize I have to insert
"generally" because someone will dispute anything).
>>E.g., the labor you invest in making a spear is
>>evidence of your first possession of the spear.
>
> No, you have it backwards again. The labor is the proof that you have
> _contributed_ the spear to the sum of what exists, rather than just
> _appropriating_ it from others as a common thief would do.
>
>>By making it, you are its first possessor.
>
> You incidentally become its first possessor in the course of making
> it. The latter, not the former, is the basis of your rightful
> property in the spear, because that is what ensures your property in
> it does not violate anyone else's rights. Conspicuously _un_like
> initial appropriation of natural resources.
You're still begging the question. Which rights of whom are violated? What
is their basis?
>>But there was no labor investment in the stick from which
>>you made the spear, or the flint from which you made the point.
> They started as natural resources to which everyone had just as much
> right as you. Correct.
And you are correct there also. Prior to an appropriation everyone has an
equal right to all natural resources. They are all equal in being zero.
Hence an act of first appropriation violates no one's rights.
As you can perhaps see, saying "everyone's rights to natural resources are
equal" doesn't get you anywhere. You also have to establish that some or all
of them have some positive right. Which you have so far failed to do.
>>Those became your property the moment you picked them up.
> Yes, when you removed them from nature and made them into a product by
> your investment of labor -- _assuming_ they were not so scarce that
> your use of them deprived others of equivalent spear-making
> opportunities. Correct.
Well, we were discussing the stick and the stone prior to their being
fashioned into a spear. You may not make a spear with them until next week.
May anyone take them from you in the meantime?
But I also see Locke's "enough and as good" proviso lurking in there. That
leads to a *reductio ad absurdum*. Here is the argument:
1. Everyone has an equal right to appropriate any unowned natural good x1.
2. No given person A may appropriate x1 unless "enough and as good," e.g.,
an x2, is left for the next person, B, who may come along and wish to
appropriate an x.
3. But B may not appropriate x2 unless there is an x3 left for C to
appropriate, and so on.
4. But unless the supply of x is sufficient for everyone, now and in the
future, to appropriate an x, then someone N will be left with the last x,
and thus may not take it (since the "proviso" would then be violated).
5. Hence the person preceding N may not take an x either, since N would then
be left only with a share he cannot take.
6. And so on back to x1.
Thus no one may appropriate any natural good unless he can assure that the
supply will be sufficient for all future demand. And since no one can assure
that, everyone starves in the midst of plenty.
Very simply, the first person A has no duty, and cannot have a duty, to
assure that the supply of x will be sufficient for B and all his successors.
B and the successors have no right to an x2, or to any x. The only rights
they have are to appropriate whatever x's there may happen to be.
But perhaps you think A does have some such duty. You'll have to explain the
origin of that duty (which will turn out to be equivalent to justifying the
claim that B has a right to an x2).
It is perfectly true that appropriation by any agent of any good x
forecloses the opportunity to appropriate that x to all other agents. If 100
explorers are searching for the Holy Grail, then when one of them finds it,
the opportunity to find it is foreclosed to the other 99. And that is
perfectly acceptable, since none of the 100 has any duty to guarantee
opportunities for the other 99.
Of course, if you disagree, then you'll need to supply some argument
(non-question-begging) for that presumed duty.
> It is trivially easy to prove beyond any possibility of dispute that
> your notion of property rights deriving from first possession has
> never been anything but a feudal libertarian lie. If a man shoots a
> wild animal but another man is closer when it falls, the other man
> cannot go and claim it by first possession. It is former man's the
> labor of killing the animal, not the latter's of grabbing it first,
> that confers a genuine property right in the quarry. This simple
> example proves that first possession is never even a relevant
> criterion in determining rightful ownership. The contribution of
> labor to the property's production is therefore the relevant
> criterion.
That question was actually addressed in a classic case, Pierson v. Post
(1805). But the question is not one of labor v. possession, but of what
constitutes possession. The court ruled in Pierson that whoever kills the
animal has taken possession.
"Consider Pierson v. Post, a classic wild animal case from the early
nineteenth century. Post was hunting a fox one day on an abandoned beach and
almost had the beast in his gunsight when an interloper appeared, killed the
fox, and ran off with the carcass. The indignant Post sued the interloper
for the value of the fox on the theory that his pursuit of the fox had
established his property right to it.
"The court disagreed. It cited a long list of learned authorities to the
effect that "occupancy" or "possession" went to the one who killed the
animal, or who at least wounded it mortally or caught it in a net. These
acts brought the animal within the 'certain control' that gives rise to
possession and hence a claim to ownership."
---Perspectives on Property Law, 2nd Edition, Ellickson, Rose, Ackerman
(181-189).
http://www.kentlaw.edu/classes/kbaker/property/Possession.htm
There is no consideration of the relative amounts of labor invested. The
labor invested by the first hunter probably well exceeded that invested by
the interloper. Nonetheless, he had not taken possession.
They also state, "For the common law, possession or 'occupancy' is the
origin of property."
Lunchtime, sir. More later.
