Disambiguating the concept of "property"

[scotlyn]

In 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!

Comments

[missbreanna]

Hi! I am a rare poster but regular reader of JMG's blogs (I post as Breanna there sometimes). I wanted to say that I always really appreciate your comments and I especially thought what you were trying to do in the property comment thread was valuable.

I find myself frustrated at the way the word socialism sucks all the air out of the room. I think most people use it to express, as one commenter said, "something like Canada" or as a way to say "Hey things are really unbalanced in favor of those who own vast amounts of property, maybe we should change that somehow" and then other people mentally go straight to gulags. I have found myself somewhat taken aback that JMG seems to be locked into a binary of "status quo" or "the killing fields." I was surprised that there seemed to be so little room to question the idea and scope of property rights without assuming the only alternative was Stalin and Mao.

I liked the distinction you made between that which one uses and cares for, vs that which a person or corporate entity has legal claim to and can force other people off of. There is some gray area in the overlap; for example, I am currently renting a room in my house. If my housemate fails to pay me, does no housework, or becomes abusive, there has to be a way to remove them from my space, which would unfortunately dispossess them. However, I think that is qualitatively different to the case where a corporation owns a chain of apartment complexes such as we used to live in.

[scotlyn]

Thanks for chiming in, Breanna. And I appreciate the comments. I have often run into this "blind spot" on the conservative side. Although people can BE the property, there is an unwillingness to separate the idea of property from the idea of freedom. If you keep the two tightly bound up together, then you will be unable to prevent property rights from including the right to "own" people. And it is so obvious to me that if people can be owned, they cannot be free. But there is a brick wall that stops that line of reasoning penetrating very far.

On the other hand, you are in a situation in which two free people are making an agreement that each can freely walk away from. It being your house, when you freely walk away, you walk away WITH your house. If your housemate "walks away" from the terms of your free agreement, they will be walking away from your patience and forbearance, for sure!

That is to say, it is not the kind of "leonine contract" (ie - take it or leave it and suffer) that G K Chesterton says makes capitalist agreements UNfree.