Political Theory

Re: Hunting grounds and property rights

Kelvin Silva — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 07:38:04 GMT

If anything it should not be one tribe assigning property bounds to the other tribes.

It should be each tribe and their peoples coming together and making mutual sound contracts on where they should hunt because that is the best way to social cooperation and prosperity.

As for a deontological viewpoint, if there is land area z with tribes x and y, then if tribe x discovers land area z first, then land x has the right to claim an enforceable boundary area.

That is, tribe x cannot come in and simply claim 1000 square kilometers of a piece of land just because it says so. He has to enforce this claim and mark the appropriate boundaries. Tribe x and y may even have to go further to arbitrate the boundaries of land or else use coercion/violence towards each other to attain their claims.

And so from this a utilitarian argument stems that the reason why property rights exist is not because of self ownership, but because it is the best method for social cooperation and harmony/production. Humans often tend to choose things which work best and benefit the most.

I believe that property rights only exist if they are be able to be enforceable by the property holder. --> While i can claim my house as a property, and certainly enforce this claim (if it has not been previously steaded, or claimed by anyone else), i cannot claim the whole city because i cannot enforce such claim.

Re: Hunting grounds and property rights

HabbaBabba — Sat, 02 Feb 2013 20:51:46 GMT

Pretty asinine. If you have 100 boar, first guy kills 60, nobody gets to hunt there anymore or the numbers will never get back to 100.

Re: Hunting grounds and property rights

Eugene — Sat, 02 Feb 2013 20:35:31 GMT

Your objection was purely utilitarian (tragedy of the commons). I am looking for moral, deontological objections.

Re: Hunting grounds and property rights

jmorris84 — Sat, 02 Feb 2013 16:00:45 GMT

Sorry, I don't understand your point.

Re: Hunting grounds and property rights

Eugene — Sat, 02 Feb 2013 15:26:41 GMT

The system is just for people not for animals. Animals don't have rights.

Re: Hunting grounds and property rights

jmorris84 — Sat, 02 Feb 2013 15:19:33 GMT

Your "just system" is the reason why there are a lot of endangered and extinct species right now.

Hunting grounds and property rights

Eugene — Sat, 02 Feb 2013 10:55:19 GMT

The Indians assigned property rights in hunting grounds. Each tribe could hunt in a specific area but not in other areas. I'm not sure whether this is a just system. Why should a person (or a tribe) has the right to use force against other people in a given area? The tribe did not create wild animals, so why should they be able to ban others from hunting them?

For example, if you use water from a river you don't gain ownership over the entire river or even parts of it, instead I believe, you get the right to continue using a given amount of water. If another person upstream drains the entire river, leaving you without your usual water allowance, you can sue.

Therefore, a more just system in my opinion would be that you may hunt anywhere you wish, but you must not over-hunt so that those who hunted in that area before you wouldn't be able to hunt as much as they did before you arrived. That is, the first hunter has the right to continue hunt as much as he hunted before, and every new hunter has to respect that.

What do you think?