The Mises Community
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Legitimacy of private property

rated by 0 users
This post has 5 Replies | 2 Followers

Top 100 Contributor
Posts 295
Points 5,880
ivanfoofoo Posted: Thu, Feb 19 2009 8:05 PM

Is it legitimate to individually own property, for example, land? Following that, one could say that every government are legitimate. Private property makes it possible to be the dictator on that given area, just like any government.

When I defend private property, instead of going back to natural rights issues and the lockean perspective about it (as Rothbard would do), I rather think of its utilititarian ends. I think private property, and its corolary, capitalism, are preferable to any other social system because of its ends. I don't even go into the issue of legitimacy of private property as I think that's a philosophical issue, which has no definite answer. Any opinions?

  • | Post Points: 80
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,501
Points 28,695
Moderator

Maybe you should read Rothbard. He deals with these issues specifically in The Ethics of Liberty.

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 24
Points 315

Utilitarianism is always a weak argument, no matter what you are debating. I wouldn't go there. When you argue from a utilitarian position, you are communicating to your opponent that you don't actually believe in what you are saying. I'd get into the Rothbardian goodness if I were you.

 

That being said, what is wrong with being a dictator over a given area? I wish to be a dictator over the 1/4 acre that I "own," but I have to get a permit every time I think about making improvements to my property. Why should anyone have a say over the size of my back porch and how deep the support posts go into the ground?

"Every civilization depends on the quality of individuals it produces. If you over-organize humans, over-legalize them, suppress their urge to greatness-they cannot work and their civilization collapses." -Frank Herbert, from Children of Dune

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 598
Points 9,770
Moderator

ivanfoofoo:

Is it legitimate to individually own property, for example, land? Following that, one could say that every government are legitimate. Private property makes it possible to be the dictator on that given area, just like any government.

When I defend private property, instead of going back to natural rights issues and the lockean perspective about it (as Rothbard would do), I rather think of its utilititarian ends. I think private property, and its corolary, capitalism, are preferable to any other social system because of its ends. I don't even go into the issue of legitimacy of private property as I think that's a philosophical issue, which has no definite answer. Any opinions?

There's no way of showing that capitalism is better than socialism or communism using utilitarian grounds.

You cannot measure even one of the subjective valuations of the specific outcomes to each individual under either system, much less sum them. Unless of course, you base your utilitarianism not on the "greatest good for the greatest number" but on your own personal valuation of whatever suits everyone best. The problem with this kind of utilitarianism is you can reductio it. Surely, if you are only trying to maximise people's outcomes through your perception, then it is legitimate to wield power over others in order to achieve these outcomes.

But I know you don't hold that position. Thus, utilitarianism is rejected.

The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 598
Points 9,770
Moderator

That said, I am unsure when it comes to original appropriation, except for through one's labour. When through one's labour, property is readily justified through self-ownership. Homesteading needs its own justification. That it is objectively pareto-efficient is not enough for me.

The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,929
Points 36,460
Spideynw replied on Fri, Feb 20 2009 4:26 PM

I just come at it from the point of view that all property is owned by someone.  If property is jointly owned, then no one really owns it.  Then you just have to ask who has the best claim to the property?  The answer boils down to individuals.

So you could probably say I come at it from a utilitarian point of view.  I find most people have almost no critical thinking skills and cannot understand it from a philosophical point of view.

At most, 5% of the population would need to stop complying to bring down the government.

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (6 items) | RSS

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