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: 2020-12-01 07:57 pm (UTC)I can't help but wonder if the 'zeitgeist' found in this month's comment thread - of a strand of the thought being about terms and how they're defined and how people use them - is a result of so much in the world being topsy-turvy and the boundaries between once-obvious differences blurred to almost meaninglessness. Is this the ultimate destination of post-modernism - that things mean only what each person says they mean? Anyway, that's tangential, but I do see it as relevant to your line of questioning and my wondering what the words even mean when all they do is refer to each other.
From a spiritual point of view, can we "own" anything? Do we not just use what we have access to, ultimately? I wonder about agency - does a forest or an animal resident of a forest not have agency in spite of a legal title of ownership held by a human? You spoke of owning your farm and your farm owning you. Can you own a sheep? Does a sheep want to be owned? I suppose without your ownership, the sheep wouldn't last long under the weight of its wool and the perhaps limitation in grazing land... do humans then, having domesticated sheep for their current characteristics, own sheepness.
Does ownership always imply responsibility?
Interesting that we (broadly speaking, modern Western, etc.) are part of a culture that wishes to NOT have responsibility: we cannot figure out a socially-approved method of maintenance of the built environment better than encouraging new constructions to generate revenue, to build 20-year buildings of commerce, and then to ignore them when they fail and become decrepit.
We throw the things we own "away".
Sorry, I'm not quite up to the "freedom" end of the discussion and am still working with ownership/property/possession. :)
The discussion didn't get very far on our end, and it was interesting to hear our daughter's viewpoint - she trends toward but contends with the in-practice limitations of more "socialist" directions in an attempt to try to theorize what would allow for more equitable access to "property" like houses.
As for the long-term plan, I do appreciate your well-wishes. He currently has employment and thankfully it doesn't require that he be on-site, though the underlying systemic nature of the work (an academic squeezed out of the domestic market - yikes!) is such that we know it's only a matter of time before it's gone and that abuses will continue since they know he's in a weak position.
I'm glad to hear that you've been allowed to reopen your clinic and that it helps move you closer to freedom from debt!
Re: ok backtrack
Date: 2020-12-02 03:54 pm (UTC)But I looked again at your set of definitions, and you are quite right in thinking the circle of terms that defines property and owning is thoroughly self-referential.
On the one hand, I myself benefit enormously from the fact that we (my husband and I) share legal title to our farm. We also almost have full legal title to our house, although there is a wee bit left on our mortgage (around 14 or 15 more months). But sharing equity in your house with a bank can be extremely risky, as far too many people have discovered on the the downslope since the bank crisis. I am extremely thankful that at the mortgage shopping stage, among the options we considered and were approved for (not any of the main banks as our resources were very intermittent), the one we chose turned out to be the best of all deals. One of the other ones was a straight "subprime" lender who has spent all of the post-crisis period repossessing.
I am also grateful to have a trade I can practice from home and find customers for.
So by rights I should be in the "hurray for property rights" team. But, as you say, I wonder where we are mired, metaphysically, when we can turn almost everything - and maybe almost everyone - into a saleable commodity. I don't think the sheep think of themselves as owned (nor would they like it if they did). I think they see us as an unavoidable environmental hazard, turning up sometimes to move them from one place to another - a relief when the old grazing has got short. Very occasionally to give them a medicine they probably don't enjoy, and also to be around and help with lambing. In the winter they follow my husband around with interest because he will arrange food in the feeders. But mostly they have a life of their own, they have friendships and gangs, and arguments among themselves and shifting alliances, and different personalities. Their daily interactions are mainly with each other and with the other wildlife about the place. As for myself, I don't think we own them, I think we "husband" them or "shepherd" them, which is a two-way relationship. Not the kind you'd have with other people, but very much a relationship.
Ownership does not imply ANY responsibility. Our legal title to this land means that we could legally dig up all the topsoil and sell it, cut down all the trees and sell them, spread enough chemicals on it to kill everything in sight. This would be consistent with ownership. But not with husbandry or care or with a set of relationships in which we are participants.
Well, freedom is a hard concept. I suppose it is the irony of people telling me over and over how fundamental to freedom it is to be able to own property, while not being able to come up with convincing reasons why that property cannot be human property, inconsistent with freedom, that has troubled me for years. I should maybe just get over that.
Anyway, none of this is easy to think about at the best of times, but when people are wound up by the general state of things, as they are, it is way harder.
I hope your daughter and her friends are also working on these problems - because it is a fact that there is a lot less housing availability for her generation and that of my sons.
Best wishes.
Re: ok backtrack
Date: 2020-12-04 12:09 am (UTC)"Ownership does not imply ANY responsibility"
vs.
"ownership" in "direct connectedness to ...personal extensions into the material world" that then includes "a person’s ability to enjoy, without undue external interruption, their connectedness to that which the person inhabits, that which the person makes, that which the person cares for, that which the person maintains, that to which the person’s direct connection could be “sniffed out” by anyone with a dog’s nose."
You've somehow inserted responsibility into the mix :)