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!
no subject
Date: 2020-11-28 10:56 pm (UTC)“Welcome to 2030. I own nothing, I have no privacy, and life has never been better.”
and..
“Welcome to 2020. I own nothing, I have no privacy, and life has never been worse.”
is that in 2030, you're not allowed to own anything (by that author's own claim*) whereas in 2020 it's assumed to be a "right" that you can own pretty much anything (in theory).
Neither of those pieces of background information are stated up front, but I believe they're fundamental to the discussion.
*this is, of course, all in reference to the article linked to on ecosophia: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/how-life-could-change-2030/
Thanks!
Date: 2020-11-29 11:37 pm (UTC)"whereas in 2020 it's assumed to be a "right" that you can own pretty much anything (in theory)."
Yes, and that means that in theory one can "own" genetic information produced in human, or other living bodies, the rights to data harvested by eavesdropping on human conversations with each other on and offline, and various other such nefarious uses of humans as product.
The very same framework of law constructed around "property rights" which we have now, as recently as 160 years ago worked equally well to secure people's rights of ownership in other full people.
In fact it required an extra "add on" to disallow the applicability of those property rights to the trade in other human beings to stop that. Conceivably, other "subtract offs" could make it possible to rely on "property rights" as currently understood to secure owners in their restored "rights" to own other human beings.
That is to say that I do not understand how THESE property rights can be understood as underwriting freedom, per se.