Disambiguating the concept of "property"
Nov. 28th, 2020 08:25 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
scotlynIn a recent comment on a recent Ecosophia.net blog entry as part of a conversation on the way in which "property rights" can be said to underwrite, or alternatively to undermine, freedom, I said the following:
"jmg – “As for property rights, I’d already suggested that the concept needs reform to stop some of the many abuses we’ve both mentioned and agreed on. How am I missing your point? Help me here.”
"Here is my best shot – and bear in mind I’m only trying to “think in” to the cracks where only weeds grow, because, for sure no one ventures there on purpose…
"Property rights are not possession rights [according to my best effort at disambiguation], and below I lay out the reason I consider this disambiguation necessary.
"Security of possession is what underwrites freedom. (As I believe you agree)
"Security of property, on the other hand, is the entire basis for a legal system written to underwrite legally enforceable claims to acts of DISpossession. (As I do not believe you have heard me say in so many words, despite me saying it several times). Securing dispossessions is, on this reading, not an ABUSE of property rights, but a USE of property rights, precisely as they are written and conceived into law.
"I would like to talk freely with others who are willing to talk with me, about possession rights, and how to secure them, and how that helps to secure freedom, without having to give ground to the kind of property/DISpossession rights we actually have which abolish the freedom of the dispossessed.
"I would be even happier if I could, even once, persuade a person of conservative bent that this is a worhwhile disambiguation effort that exists completely independently of anything to do with socialism, and which, if negotiated and navigated right out there, all hands on board, in open discourse, might result in MORE security of possession, and in MORE freedom, for all of us."
Another commenter, TemporaryReality, asked if I had a blog or such for further discussion, so let this be it.
Please have at it!
"
jmg – “As for property rights, I’d already suggested that the concept needs reform to stop some of the many abuses we’ve both mentioned and agreed on. How am I missing your point? Help me here.”"Here is my best shot – and bear in mind I’m only trying to “think in” to the cracks where only weeds grow, because, for sure no one ventures there on purpose…
"Property rights are not possession rights [according to my best effort at disambiguation], and below I lay out the reason I consider this disambiguation necessary.
"Security of possession is what underwrites freedom. (As I believe you agree)
"Security of property, on the other hand, is the entire basis for a legal system written to underwrite legally enforceable claims to acts of DISpossession. (As I do not believe you have heard me say in so many words, despite me saying it several times). Securing dispossessions is, on this reading, not an ABUSE of property rights, but a USE of property rights, precisely as they are written and conceived into law.
"I would like to talk freely with others who are willing to talk with me, about possession rights, and how to secure them, and how that helps to secure freedom, without having to give ground to the kind of property/DISpossession rights we actually have which abolish the freedom of the dispossessed.
"I would be even happier if I could, even once, persuade a person of conservative bent that this is a worhwhile disambiguation effort that exists completely independently of anything to do with socialism, and which, if negotiated and navigated right out there, all hands on board, in open discourse, might result in MORE security of possession, and in MORE freedom, for all of us."
Another commenter, TemporaryReality, asked if I had a blog or such for further discussion, so let this be it.
Please have at it!
Re: ok backtrack
Date: 2020-11-30 10:44 pm (UTC):)