In spite of what some readers may think, I am a radical supporter of property rights. I am inflexible in my support of the principle. I have been told I'm an extremist on the topic.
This means I have thought hard, for a long time, about the foundation and consequences of property rights-- where they come from and where they lead. If they have limits and if so, where those limits might lie.
This has led me to see property rights (with regard to real estate) as absolutely essential, but not sufficient. These property rights are a slice of the pizza, maybe all but one thin slice, not the whole thing.
If you don't have absolute rights to, and ownership of, your body, no matter where it is, you have no property rights whatsoever. Nor any other kind of rights for that matter if people are right when they say all rights are property rights in one way or another.
All property rights grow out of your right to your body. And, like it or not, that includes the immediate contact surface of your body; your "personal space". I have described this in the past as the bubble surrounding you, from your clothing inward. Without this zone, you have a right to your naked body and nothing else.
To insist that real estate rights trump these self-ownership rights is to put the cart before the horse. It is to focus on the leaves while saying the trunk and branches don't matter.
Nothing I'm saying implies you can damage (or credibly threaten to damage) any private property around you, it doesn't mean you own any private property outside your sphere of "personal space"-- *any private property where your body may be that isn't property you own (As in, if you are standing in your neighbor's house or in Walmart, you have no claim to those properties. You only own yourself and your "personal space" immediately adjacent to your body. You can't reach out and stuff something that belongs to someone else into your pocket and then claim it is yours now-- your action violated their property. Your ACTION)* [between the *s edited for clarity], and it doesn't mean you can become a squatter on that property. If you have right-of-way, you still have right-of-way even if you are asked to leave-- but why hang around longer than you have to? Get out without hesitation.
I have said a lot on this topic over the years; there's no way for me to say it all again, or to even find everything that needs to be part of this post. If you are interested in digging deeper, try the "Property Rights" tag and sift through those posts.
You may not agree with me, and that's OK, but if I were to characterize my view in any other way, I would be lying to you. And I don't do that-- I won't do that on any topic. It's not me. For good or bad.
Relevant recent links:
Right-of-way
Right-of-way and (sometimes) guns
"Possession"
-
Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
With respect to just this article, not digging deeper using the suggested "Property Rights" tag, what disagreement from others do you anticipate? This, especially on the GBBL. I think a high majority of folks are vehemently in agreement. Even here where I say 'high majority', it is only that I allow there are some yahoos who would disagree simply for the sake of disagreeing. Yet even they who may be ill equipped to proffer a cogent argument would, in their heart, acknowledge the high value of property rights.
ReplyDeleteProperty rights are a corner stone of the deep foundation upon which the Republic is built; to disagree with property rights is to disagree with the Republic. (If you do not care for the term, Republic, you may insert 'natural rights' for the Republic was intended to identify and secure those natural rights. To me they are synonymous.
Rick
I've encountered a lot of push-back over this issue over the years. The three "relevant recent links" at the bottom, along with the comments posted to them, illustrate some of it.
DeleteWhile the readers of this website might constitute a majority in favor of property rights this is regretably not the case for the population of 21st century USA. From the out and out communists and socialists to those espousing the PC euphemisims like "stakeholder" and "vested interests", a contempt for the concept of private property has never been as strong as in the present.
DeleteI agree with you that self propriety is the source of the concomitant extension of that right that justifies the ownership of private property. It is thus clear that the primary right (in your body and its inherent compliment of natural rights) cannot then be violated by some application (real or spurious) of a derivative right (private property). Rights are inherent and inalienable. I also am a believer in the right of private property and have had disagreements in the past with those of the “Georgist” sect about their denial of the right to privately own physical land or ‘real estate’ which they deny in favor of some collectivist ‘social” ownership; a nebulous description as only actual individual human beings exist and all collectives are merely linguistic constructs or mental concepts not physical tangible entities and which still leaves some ‘person’ (who?) as the landlord for “society” (under whose authorization?). A rather sloppy and ambiguous solution for a matter of such importance.
ReplyDeleteCould you offer some elaboration on the statement from your post:
“….it doesn't mean you own any private property outside your sphere of "personal space"…”
If this is already explained in the private property tag then I apologize for the redundant request.
I meant, any private property where your body may be that isn't property you own. As in, if you are standing in your neighbor's house or in Walmart, you have no claim to those properties. You only own yourself and your "personal space" immediately adjacent to your body. You can't reach out and stuff something that belongs to someone else into your pocket and then claim it is yours now-- your action violated their property. (your ACTION)
DeleteI should have been more clear. I may edit the post...
GBBL ?
ReplyDeleteGBBL Geordie Blood Bowl League (France)
GBBL Grain Boundary Barrier Layer
GBBL Grand Blanc Branch Library (Grand Blanc, MI)
GBBL George Bruce Branch Library (New York, NY)
?
GBBL = Gun Blog Black List
DeleteProperty Rights, or more accurately the denial of said rights, is why I refuse to be an organ donor. Professor Walter E. Williams once said a true test of whether you actually own something is if you can sell it outright. Since I or my estate are not allowed to sell my organs for donation, then the government thinks IT actually owns my body and can determine what happens to it. Therefore, upon my demise, I will be cremated as God made me, fully intact.
"To insist that real estate rights trump these self-ownership rights ..."
ReplyDeleteTo insist that any right "trumps" another right -- or to claim that attempting to exercise a right (such as the right to dictate how one's property may or may not be used) is an attempt to "trump" another right -- is to admit that at least one of the two competing claimed "rights" isn't a right at all.
Rights don't conflict.
Exactly. But rights can be dependent on other, more fundamental rights in order to exist. If Right B grows out of the existence of Right A, Right B doesn't exist without Right A. It can't. Property rights don't conflict; your right to real estate grows out of your right to your bodily autonomy and self-ownership, without which the right to own other property doesn't exist. There is no conflict. The leaves (real estate property rights) don't exist as a living thing without the trunk and branches (property rights to your personal space) holding them up and nourishing them.
DeleteWell, yes, exactly. So I don't see where we're in conflict ... until you assert a right to use my body, or my real estate, in a manner I don't consent to. At which point, it's not a conflict of rights, it's just you violating my rights.
DeleteExcept that you seem to believe that me being there-- with permission-- violates your property rights if my body possesses-- non-aggressively and non-thievingly-- something you imagine you can forbid my body to possess. If it's OK for you to violate my body in this way, then all property rights are an illusion so there's no issue anyway.
Delete