Property Rights

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.

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.

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?

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?

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?

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.

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. 

I'm not questioning that. What I'm asking is this:  What if the "hoarder" does not engage in capitalism and free exchange?

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?

sicsempertyrannis:

Why isnt it?  Who are you to decide what is and what is not moral for a property owner to do?

Who are you to say that property rights are moral obligations?

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.

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.

 

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.

I'm not saying that it is immoral to hoard goods. nor am I saying confiscation of "hoarded" goods is moral. I am just offering this for discussion. I want to know if the view that "hoarding" is immoral is consistent with freedom.

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.

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.

 

Excuse me. I think I meant to ask this: Who are you to say that property rights even exist?

revolutionist:

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.

But is viewing "hoarding" as immoral consistent with viewing the violation of property rights as immoral? Can one consistently hold the libertarian opinion of property rights and also the view that "hoarding" is immoral?

I don't see how it would be possible, no.

Richard Chambers:

Excuse me. I think I meant to ask this: Who are you to say that property rights even exist?

My (and everyone else's) contention is that if property rights exist at all, then they exist absolutely; ergo if one owns something he may do with it as he pleases (possibly nothing).

The reasoning behind this is that if property is not owned absolutely, i.e. there exist situations in which it is permissible to forcibly divest one of his property, then it is not really owned at all (if aggression is permissible to accomplish one thing, then why is it impermissible in a situation in which it is normally frowned on?).

If you worry about the economic impact of hoarding see chapter 15 of Defending the Undefendable.

http://mises.org/books/defending.pdf

Without property rights society could not function.

Your body, nope, it's mine.  I have a right to it. Rape.

Your house, nope...mine. Theft.

Property rights are based upon a moral code that if you own your body, your actions (not getting into the abortion issue here or now) then a foundation is based upon that.

Take away those and you have complete chaos.

This is the process of de-civilization ...society working backwards.  It certainly is happening in different areas.

That certainly was not the best summary.  Hans Hoppe does much better. ..which is to be expected.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stolz25:

Richard Chambers:

Doesn't morality require that one put his wealth to use to better humanity?

No. /thread

Why don't you think this is an important matter? America is over 90% Christian. Christians believe it is immoral to refuse to help others with one's own property. I am not a Christian, and you might not be a Christian; but the thought of the majority of America being fundamentally opposed to libertarianism is discouraging, to say the least.

Richard Chambers:

Stolz25:

Richard Chambers:

Doesn't morality require that one put his wealth to use to better humanity?

No. /thread

Why don't you think this is an important matter? America is over 90% Christian. Christians believe it is immoral to refuse to help others with one's own property. I am not a Christian, and you might not be a Christian; but the thought of the majority of America being fundamentally opposed to libertarianism is discouraging, to say the least.

Christians don't require that others use force to compel you to use your property to help others. Your appeal to majority doesn't actually answer the key question that I have already asked, yet you never answered: what moral imperative requires that you use your property for the benefit of others?

krazy kaju:

Christians don't require that others use force to compel you to use your property to help others. Your appeal to majority doesn't actually answer the key question that I have already asked, yet you never answered: what moral imperative requires that you use your property for the benefit of others?

 

Do not Christians teach that everyone use his property for the benefit of others?

 

Richard Chambers:

Do not Christians teach that everyone use his property for the benefit of others?

Do Christians teach that you should steal money from those who justly earn it to give it to others?

Richard Chambers:

krazy kaju:

Christians don't require that others use force to compel you to use your property to help others. Your appeal to majority doesn't actually answer the key question that I have already asked, yet you never answered: what moral imperative requires that you use your property for the benefit of others?

Do not Christians teach that everyone use his property for the benefit of others?

Yes; Christians believe that it is moral to be charitable. But that in no way means that anyone should be forced to do so - in fact the New Testament is full of prohibitions against compulsory giving.

But it is important to note that charity is made possible through wealth, because one cannot be charitable with something that does not exist; that wealth always follows from savings, because savings are necessary for investment; and finally that there is no distinguishable line whatsoever between savings and hoarding. "Hoarding" is what people call savings when they think someone has saved too much, and that is nothing but a matter of opinion.

Richard Chambers:

 But I'm wondering what the moral basis is for enforcing property possession of "hoarded" goods.

The same as for any other good you're entitlted to own; ie, the fact that you're entitled to it.

 

Re/ 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.

- Right, but that makes it a negative obligation of abstewntion for everyone else; not a positive obligation for the rightful owner to do anything that the People, God, or whichever other fitction used by the powers-that-be thinks most convenient to justify their own (immoral) misappropriation of said goods for their own interests or vision of what the world should look like.

Richard Chambers:

Stolz25:

Richard Chambers:

Doesn't morality require that one put his wealth to use to better humanity?

No. /thread

Why don't you think this is an important matter? America is over 90% Christian. Christians believe it is immoral to refuse to help others with one's own property. I am not a Christian, and you might not be a Christian; but the thought of the majority of America being fundamentally opposed to libertarianism is discouraging, to say the least.

 

Hmm, nothing wrong or anti-libertarian in some people thinking they should use their own property to better the cause of humanity, or anything else they want... Obviously, the moral use of your property still only depends on ypour own preferences about how to use it or not.

 

 

M-la-maudite:

Richard Chambers:

 But I'm wondering what the moral basis is for enforcing property possession of "hoarded" goods.

The same as for any other good you're entitlted to own; ie, the fact that you're entitled to it.

I would also like to note that my OP said that "possession" of property was obviously fundamental to morality. This doesn't make sense, because possession just states what is (i.e., it's a positive word), whereas ownership states how things should be dealt with (i.e., it's a normative word). So, I guess my question was pointless.

But thanks to MacFall, who reminded me that there's no fundamental distinction between "hoarding" and saving.

krazy kaju:

Richard Chambers:

Stolz25:

Richard Chambers:

Doesn't morality require that one put his wealth to use to better humanity?

No. /thread

Why don't you think this is an important matter? America is over 90% Christian. Christians believe it is immoral to refuse to help others with one's own property. I am not a Christian, and you might not be a Christian; but the thought of the majority of America being fundamentally opposed to libertarianism is discouraging, to say the least.

Christians don't require that others use force to compel you to use your property to help others. Your appeal to majority doesn't actually answer the key question that I have already asked, yet you never answered: what moral imperative requires that you use your property for the benefit of others?

Exactly.