It is obvious that property possession is fundamental to morality (e.g., the prohibition against stealing). But what is the moral basis of resisting seizure of one's property if one is hoarding it? Doesn't morality require that one put his wealth to use to better humanity?
Disclaimer: I ask this for discussion only. I am not saying that one is morally prohibited from attempting to retain his property if he is hoading it.
First of all, there is nothing wrong with "hoarding" property if it obtained legitimately. Second of all, the beautiful thing about the free market is that in order for a person with savings to become richer, he must use his savings to create capital either through investment or entrepreneurship. This creates new wealth, raising the standard of living for everyone.
Where I come from, the women don't glow, but the men definitely plunder.
Richard Chambers: It is obvious that property possession is fundamental to morality (e.g., the prohibition against stealing). But what is the moral basis of resisting seizure of one's property if one is hoarding it? Doesn't morality require that one put his wealth to use to better humanity? Disclaimer: I ask this for discussion only. I am not saying that one is morally prohibited from attempting to retain his property if he is hoading it.
I note your disclaimer, however I think you are treading into Georgist territory. No property owner should ever have to 'justify' his hording, or whatever he may choose to do with his lawfully obtained property. Assigning positives rights to property is what gives us public accomidation laws today.
Semper Fidelis
revolutionist: First of all, there is nothing wrong with "hoarding" property if it obtained legitimately. Second of all, the beautiful thing about the free market is that in order for a person with savings to become richer, he must use his savings to create capital either through investment or entrepreneurship. This creates new wealth, raising the standard of living for everyone.
Richard Chambers: revolutionist: First of all, there is nothing wrong with "hoarding" property if it obtained legitimately. Second of all, the beautiful thing about the free market is that in order for a person with savings to become richer, he must use his savings to create capital either through investment or entrepreneurship. This creates new wealth, raising the standard of living for everyone. Could you explain how the second sentence relates to my question? And why is "hoarding" property moral?
Are you serious? Because it's your property. You can do with it what you want.
Richard Chambers: And why is "hoarding" property moral?
And why is "hoarding" property moral?
Why isnt it? Who are you to decide what is and what is not moral for a property owner to do?
Richard Chambers: Could you explain how the second sentence relates to my question? And why is "hoarding" property moral?
Could you explain how the second sentence relates to my question? And why is "hoarding" property moral?
The second sentence relates to your second question in the OP. You ask that we should use our property to better humanity, and I answered that capitalism and free exchange are the best methods to do so. We do not, however, have any obligation to better humanity. Individuals might feel it important to personally help the poor, but that doesn't mean that we should force everyone to sacrifice their property for the "betterment of humanity." Besides, who decides what betters humanity? Politicians? Central Planning boards? Dictators?
As for hoarding, what makes it immoral. What did you do wrong to obtain that property? "Hoarding" might be immoral if the property was obtained through force or fraud, but I see no reason that acquiring property through voluntary exchange would be immoral.
First, it is invalid to speak of the actions or desires of any collective, such as "humanity." Action can only be undertaken by individuals, so humanity can only refer to a group of individuals. Second, it is invalid to make interpersonal comparisons of utility. Therefore, it cannot be said that humanity (as the group of all individuals) is "better off" by stealing from the "hoarder."
Only if a voluntary exchange is made between the hoarder and some group of individuals can we say that, at the time and conditions of the exchange, both parties considered themselves better off as a result of the exchange. If no such exchange can occur, we must conclude that (a) the hoarder valued the hoarded goods substantially enough that he believed that no available exchange could improve his condition; or (b) the group (in their ability to coordinate an exchange as a voluntary cooperation of it's individual members) believed that nothing they possessed (including both property and labor) could be sacrificed in an exchange for the hoarded goods.
The hoarder does not require moral justification for hoarding goods he justly possesses. If the group of individuals all feel that this hoarding is immoral (perhaps based on some religious, traditional, or philosophical viewpoint), they can abstain from future cooperation with the hoarder to pressure him to exchange his hoarded goods . If all of humanity is engaged in this abstention, that pressure is likely to be significant enough to make the hoarder reduce his valuation of the hoarded goods. Obviously it is contrary to morality (as you define) if the group expedites this process by stealing the hoarded goods or threatening such violence.
Richard Chambers:And why is "hoarding" property moral?
The definition of the word "hoard" is, by its very definition, not suitable to be used in discussions involving economics. In economics, all consumer good will eventualy be consumed, with the date of that consumption influenced by the consumer's time-preferance. The "hoarding" you speak of is merely the saving of consumer goods by men to be used at a later date. It is impossible for you to measure anybody's time-preferance and to find it inadequate due to the subjective, nonquantifiable nature of an individual's time-preferance. Plus, the hording of consumers' goods has a role in a sustainable economy due to the fact that they enable the retention of an individuals' consumption rate even if the economy were to enter a recession.
I am becoming a Burkean Whig.
- F.A. Hayek
revolutionist:The second sentence relates to your second question in the OP. You ask that we should use our property to better humanity, and I answered that capitalism and free exchange are the best methods to do so.
Richard Chambers:It is obvious that property possession is fundamental to morality (e.g., the prohibition against stealing). But what is the moral basis of resisting seizure of one's property if one is hoarding it? Doesn't morality require that one put his wealth to use to better humanity?
What moral imperative requires you to use your wealth to better humanity?
Mises Community Natural Rights Discussion Group
sicsempertyrannis: Why isnt it? Who are you to decide what is and what is not moral for a property owner to do?
rstruzik: The hoarder does not require moral justification for hoarding goods he justly possesses. If the group of individuals all feel that this hoarding is immoral (perhaps based on some religious, traditional, or philosophical viewpoint), they can abstain from future cooperation with the hoarder to pressure him to exchange his hoarded goods . If all of humanity is engaged in this abstention, that pressure is likely to be significant enough to make the hoarder reduce his valuation of the hoarded goods. Obviously it is contrary to morality (as you define) if the group expedites this process by stealing the hoarded goods or threatening such violence.
Richard Chambers: rstruzik: The hoarder does not require moral justification for hoarding goods he justly possesses. If the group of individuals all feel that this hoarding is immoral (perhaps based on some religious, traditional, or philosophical viewpoint), they can abstain from future cooperation with the hoarder to pressure him to exchange his hoarded goods . If all of humanity is engaged in this abstention, that pressure is likely to be significant enough to make the hoarder reduce his valuation of the hoarded goods. Obviously it is contrary to morality (as you define) if the group expedites this process by stealing the hoarded goods or threatening such violence. This was my contention. But I'm wondering what the moral basis is for enforcing property possession of "hoarded" goods.
What is your moral basis from stopping people from "hoarding" goods.
Richard Chambers:Who are you to say that property rights are moral obligations?
That's precisely how 'property right' is defined: a moral obligation on the part of every one else to refrain from using the property without the owner's consent.
Diminishing Marginal Utility - IT'S THE LAW!
nibbler491: Richard Chambers: rstruzik: The hoarder does not require moral justification for hoarding goods he justly possesses. If the group of individuals all feel that this hoarding is immoral (perhaps based on some religious, traditional, or philosophical viewpoint), they can abstain from future cooperation with the hoarder to pressure him to exchange his hoarded goods . If all of humanity is engaged in this abstention, that pressure is likely to be significant enough to make the hoarder reduce his valuation of the hoarded goods. Obviously it is contrary to morality (as you define) if the group expedites this process by stealing the hoarded goods or threatening such violence. This was my contention. But I'm wondering what the moral basis is for enforcing property possession of "hoarded" goods. What is your moral basis from stopping people from "hoarding" goods.
Viewing "hoarding" as immoral is perfectly fine. You can think what you want in a free society. The problem is when you take that view of hoarding as immoral and try to impose that view on everyone. That is where freedom ends.
laws or force against "hoarding" makes all property subject to arbitrary decisions, be they from the state, the mob, or the otherwise powerful. the reason property rights exist is to avoid arbitrary use of force and the breakdown in orderly society such would cause.
study the historic use of emminent domain, which is virtually what we are discussing. now apply it to things that weren't related to government projects, multiplying its use many times over. for example, anything in a warehouse is fair game. could property rights exist in such a setting? absolutely not.
to propose that property rights in and of themselves are not moral requries that "society" develop a means to appropriate, use, and distribute property in a manner that better satisfies all individuals than individual property rights and free trade, while preserving economic justice. No such system has even been approached.
Check my blog, if you're a loser
Richard Chambers:Doesn't morality require that one put his wealth to use to better humanity?
No. /thread
Solomon: Richard Chambers:Who are you to say that property rights are moral obligations? That's precisely how 'property right' is defined: a moral obligation on the part of every one else to refrain from using the property without the owner's consent.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap