The entire concept of property rights and private property rights really came up during the Renaissance. Later religious elements promoted property rights through the bible, and we saw the Protestant work ethic emerge. Private property was equated with human rights in the late 17th century. The debate over human rights come to a boil in the 18th and 19th centuries as human rights become the subject of intense debate
Once again I both agree and disagree.
You are absolutely right that the Renaissance was the cradle of property rights, the shedding of feudal encumbrance. But I see Adam Smith, and Thomas Paine as the the men who defined rights and the link between property and civil rights in a modern sense.
We basically have 4 types of absolute property systems: one person within a group, a group within the group, sovereigns within the group and the whole group. The first two can reject as IÂ’m sure you would agree. These would include monarchies, aristocracies, etc. The criminality and tyranny under these system are historical reality.
Yet the ultimate reality of what is promoted by the left is exactly this, that a group within a group, on behalf of the whole are the rightful owners of all - with individuals at best caretakers.
We have two left as the only examples for a fair and legitimate property system. We have the anarcho-capitalist system where people own 100% of their property and they can do with it as they wish in the alleged “free market”. But this will eventually recreate the first two systems so to speak, whereby rent collectors and business owners morph into aristocrats and monarchs of their own fiefdoms.
Fiefdoms require collusion of the crown. The reason that property owners generally cannot do as you suggest is the market. Nothing is a more poor investment than uninhabited space. Land lords seek to attract renters, this is a natural force pressuring prices down. Scarcity forces prices up. The struggle of the invisible hand adjusts market values.
WeÂ’ll have the problem of the nation state but on a much smaller scale. Decreasing the scale, however, makes this type of systems no less stable, corrupt or violent, and these systems have a long history of such problems.
The only system that is historically free of violence is free market property rights.
The system most nation states have chosen is group ownership. The entire group (representative government) owns all the property at the end of the day.
Individual citizens are allowed to own property in exchange for taxation and accepting certain responsibilities. A property system can range from market-based to complete socialism to a mixture of both.
That is not "owning" anything. What you advocate is that the government is owner of all property and might rent it to subjects. Only an owner or agent of the owner may collect rents on a property. If the county is charging you rent on your home - you are not the owner - regardless of what deeds you may hold.
In the end, at the end of the day, property ownership is based on force. People that refer to the right of ownership as negative rights are simply incorrect, since the entire concept of property is based on coercive denial of other people to use it. In our case, the US federal, state and local governments are the forces that protect and define our system of property in this country, whereby you and I can control the use of our property.
Yes and no. The federal government has no legitimate role in property except in cases involving interstate disputes.
The state and local governments are subject to laws enacted by popularly elected representatives. Brian earlier said he did not agree to a social contract - I disagree - the election of representatives is our consent to the social contract.
IÂ’m glad you brought up Kelo since IÂ’m actually not a fan of the ruling. No thread hijack
It's hardly a hijack, Kelo is the most important ruling on property rights in at least a century. A direct assault on the very notion of property rights.
