The fundamental source of property rights is force. I exclusively control this land or object because either myself, or some institution I am a member of, have credible capacity to kill anyone who interferes with my ownership. That's it, any other answer is at least a step removed from reality.
But we know that trade > force in the long run, so the goal is to foster a system that maximizes trade, while acknowledging the basis of who owns what today or tomorrow rests solely on the ability to physically protect it. So we cooperate as much as possible on when that force must be deployed, currently (suboptimally) administered by governments, but not necessarily so.
Henry George did a pretty good job in getting down to basic assumptions as to property rights in his debate with Herbert Spencer "A Perplexed Philosopher" and his open letter to Pope Leo XIII on "The Condition of Labour". Basically he said "What you create is yours, what I create is mine, what God gives us is ours." The Physiocrats and Adam Smith would not have disagreed.
"If you flatly insist that a person who builds a hut on a desert island isn’t morally entitled to exclude a new arrival from sharing it, there’s little left for me to say."
I would venture to say that you would be in a very small minority in defending that statement as a clear moral principle, since all the major religions on Earth propose exactly the opposite and explicitly encourage their members to share what they have in a hypothetical situation like that. So much for talking about principles and ignoring what happens in the real world.
My understanding is that our instinct as social animals is to share our resources with someone in need with the expectation of fairness in the form of receiving future compensation, not as an immediate commercial transaction; therefore, it is necessary to actively educate oneself in the ideology of freedom to support your moral principle. In any case, I just wanted to say that your case is neither straightforward nor clear-cut.
What I find admirable about Liz Bruenig is that she is quite internally consistent. She will absolutely criticize her own camp for things that she criticizes the other camp for. This is refreshing. She was awesome on 'Left, Right, and Center' when it was moderated by Josh Barro. Too bad she's a radical letfist...
The fundamental source of property rights is force. I exclusively control this land or object because either myself, or some institution I am a member of, have credible capacity to kill anyone who interferes with my ownership. That's it, any other answer is at least a step removed from reality.
But we know that trade > force in the long run, so the goal is to foster a system that maximizes trade, while acknowledging the basis of who owns what today or tomorrow rests solely on the ability to physically protect it. So we cooperate as much as possible on when that force must be deployed, currently (suboptimally) administered by governments, but not necessarily so.
That doesn't seem right given common reactions to Bryan's 'desert island' examples. The fundamental source of property rights is our moral intuitions.
Force is very important in enforcing those rights, particularly at scale. But the underlying intuition seems more fundamental to me.
The fundamental source of property rights is self-ownership. Protecting that right only requires force in self-defense.
Bruenig's opening statement was a lot of learned twaddle.
Yours was opening (y)our eyes and looking around. While thinking about it.
Henry George did a pretty good job in getting down to basic assumptions as to property rights in his debate with Herbert Spencer "A Perplexed Philosopher" and his open letter to Pope Leo XIII on "The Condition of Labour". Basically he said "What you create is yours, what I create is mine, what God gives us is ours." The Physiocrats and Adam Smith would not have disagreed.
"If you flatly insist that a person who builds a hut on a desert island isn’t morally entitled to exclude a new arrival from sharing it, there’s little left for me to say."
I would venture to say that you would be in a very small minority in defending that statement as a clear moral principle, since all the major religions on Earth propose exactly the opposite and explicitly encourage their members to share what they have in a hypothetical situation like that. So much for talking about principles and ignoring what happens in the real world.
My understanding is that our instinct as social animals is to share our resources with someone in need with the expectation of fairness in the form of receiving future compensation, not as an immediate commercial transaction; therefore, it is necessary to actively educate oneself in the ideology of freedom to support your moral principle. In any case, I just wanted to say that your case is neither straightforward nor clear-cut.
What I find admirable about Liz Bruenig is that she is quite internally consistent. She will absolutely criticize her own camp for things that she criticizes the other camp for. This is refreshing. She was awesome on 'Left, Right, and Center' when it was moderated by Josh Barro. Too bad she's a radical letfist...