Private Property

[quatona]

I have been wondering if there are any philosophical attempts to establish the concept of private property as the almost universally accepted basis for moral considerations that it apparently is.
To clarify:
I am not asking about attempts to regulate or define particularities for private property (once it has become a commonly accepted moral criterium), but about private property per se. On what philosophical basis do we work from the assumption that something can belong to someone?

To make it perfectly clear: Imagine a devil´s advocate who claims that the concept of private property is immoral itself.

 

[SkyWriting]

I have been wondering if there are any philosophical attempts to establish the concept of private property as the almost universally accepted basis for moral considerations that it apparently is.
To clarify:
I am not asking about attempts to regulate or define particularities for private property (once it has become a commonly accepted moral criterium), but about private property per se. On what philosophical basis do we work from the assumption that something can belong to someone?

To make it perfectly clear: Imagine a devil´s advocate who claims that the concept of private property is immoral itself.

The Parable of the Talents
(Luke 19:11-27)
14 For it is just like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted them with his possessions. 15To one he gave five talents,b to another two talents, and to another one talent—each according to his own ability. And he promptly went on his journey.
(Skip to end)
28Therefore take the talent from him and give it to the one who has ten talents. 29For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. But the one who does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. 30 And throw that worthless servant into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

So here you can see we are each responsible for our given property/money/talents.

 

[Tallguy88]

A person is entitled to the fruits of his labor. To take those fruits from him in the form of mass collectivization is unjustly depriving him of those fruits.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I have been wondering if there are any philosophical attempts to establish the concept of private property as the almost universally accepted basis for moral considerations that it apparently is.

Of course. I think that Aristotle made some sort of justification of private property.

Although Aristotle, in the Greek tradition, scorned moneymaking and was scarcely a partisan of laissez-faire, he set forth a trenchant argument in favor of private property. Perhaps influenced by the private-property arguments of Democritus, Aristotle delivered a cogent attack on the communism of the ruling class called for by Plato. He denounced Plato's goal of the perfect unity of the state through communism by pointing out that such extreme unity runs against the diversity of mankind, and against the reciprocal advantage that everyone reaps through market exchange. Aristotle then delivered a point-by-point contrast of private as against communal property. First, private property is more highly productive and will therefore lead to progress. Goods owned in common by a large number of people will receive little attention, since people will mainly consult their own self-interest and will neglect all duty they can fob off on to others. In contrast, people will devote the greatest interest and care to their own property.

https://mises.org/library/aristotle-private-property-and-money

Ayn Rand had also presented a defense of private property, though obviously she did not scorn moneymaking or laissez-faire. Here is just a sample from the article "Man's Rights" from her essay collection The Virtue of Selfishness.

The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.

Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Strivax]

Imagine a devil´s advocate who claims that the concept of private property is immoral itself.

I sense an opportunity to be that devil's advocate!

So, the anarchist Proudhon thought that 'Property is theft!' Well, maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Whatever, most of the justifications I have heard for the institution of private property, as opposed to communal well-being, derive from the assumption that private property makes society work better. If it does, right leaning politics has a point. But if it doesn't, and from what I can make out, the contention has never been proven, only assumed, then we need to look for elsewhere theories about 'the good life'.

Best wishes, Strivax

 

[greenguzzi]

If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.

 

[greenguzzi]

The earth is the LORD's, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it.

 

[greenguzzi]

“The ground of a certain rich man yielded an abundant harvest. He thought to himself, ‘What shall I do? I have no place to store my crops.’

“Then he said, ‘This is what I’ll do. I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store my surplus grain. And I’ll say to myself, “You have plenty of grain laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry.”’

“But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?’

“This is how it will be with whoever stores up things for themselves but is not rich toward God.”

 

[expos4ever]

Strictly speaking, I think the concept of private property is neither Biblical nor helpful (even if Biblical considerations are set aside).

From the Christian perspective, all of creation belongs to God and we are merely stewards. But even from a secular perspective the notion of private property seems harmful - as our population grows, our natural resources dwindle, and technology otherwise knits us together more and more as a global community, the notion that "this bit of land or other concrete or even abstract thing belongs to me" strikes me as self-evidently counterproductive to the smooth operation of the global community.

 

[Strivax]

From the Christian perspective, all of creation belongs to God and we are merely stewards.

So far as any religion goes, not just Christian, I think this is absolutely right. And we are stewards, not for our own benefit, but for the benefit of our children, and theirs. I really think the world, as a whole, has to climb out of this wannabe billionaire, wannahaveitall, acquisitive mindset, and get some wisdom going as a happening thing.

Cheers, Strivax.

 

[Eudaimonist]

If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.

If it is your shirt, and you may choose to give it to someone else, then clearly that supports private property.

You can't give someone what isn't yours to give.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Chesterton]

I have been wondering if there are any philosophical attempts to establish the concept of private property as the almost universally accepted basis for moral considerations that it apparently is.
To clarify:
I am not asking about attempts to regulate or define particularities for private property (once it has become a commonly accepted moral criterium), but about private property per se. On what philosophical basis do we work from the assumption that something can belong to someone?

To make it perfectly clear: Imagine a devil´s advocate who claims that the concept of private property is immoral itself.

To paraphrase you: "Moral"? What do you mean? Are you asking whether there's a right to it, or whether it's beneficial?

 

[greenguzzi]

If it is your shirt, and you may choose to give it to someone else, then clearly that supports private property.

It's a command, not a suggestion. There is no choice, there is no private property if one is a servant of Christ.
However if one is not a servant of Christ, then you can do as you please.

 

[Strivax]

If it is your shirt, and you may choose to give it to someone else, then clearly that supports private property.

You can't give someone what isn't yours to give.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Uh huh. And here we see in miniature diorama, the nub of the problem. The shirt and coat may be legally yours, in the sense that you bought them and paid for them, presumably from your own legitimately organised wealth. But are they morally yours, if some naked and shivering someone else needs them more than you do?

Or, could we support some other world order, where no one is naked and shivering?

Cheers, Strivax,

 

[Tallguy88]

It's a command, not a suggestion. There is no choice, there is no private property if one is a servant of Christ.
However if one is not a servant of Christ, then you can do as you please.

Is a man entitled to the fruit of his labor, or not?

 

[greenguzzi]

Is a man entitled to the fruit of his labor, or not?

Sustenance yes. Accumulation no. Or so the scriptures say.

 

[Eudaimonist]

It's a command, not a suggestion. There is no choice, there is no private property if one is a servant of Christ.

So God is the Divine Stalin?

No, I think that commands even in this case don't nullify private property rights. They are moral commands, not political ones. You are still being told to give someone what is yours to give.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Tallguy88]

Sustenance yes. Accumulation no. Or so the scriptures say.

Even sustenance is dependant on the concept of private property. Otherwise, you can justify the Holodomor by saying none of those people had a right to any food except as allotted by the state.

 

[greenguzzi]

So God is the Divine Stalin?

No, I think that commands even in this case don't nullify private property rights. They are moral commands, not political ones. You are still being told to give someone what is yours to give.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I prefer to think of Him as the Divine Marx.
I like what you have to say, it makes me think.
Personally I don't really see much distinction between the moral and the political. My morality is political, and my politics are moral.
I enjoy adequate wealth, but I don't regard any of it as my own. So no, I am not being asked to give something that is mine, because everything is the Lords.

 

[aieyiamfu]

I have been wondering if there are any philosophical attempts to establish the concept of private property as the almost universally accepted basis for moral considerations that it apparently is.
To clarify:
I am not asking about attempts to regulate or define particularities for private property (once it has become a commonly accepted moral criterium), but about private property per se. On what philosophical basis do we work from the assumption that something can belong to someone?

To make it perfectly clear: Imagine a devil´s advocate who claims that the concept of private property is immoral itself.

The idea that a person can own a piece of the earth and pass it down and accumulate it out of proportion with the rest of humanity is absurd.

A person working and owning land during their lifetime, so long as that ownership steals from no one else is not so bad.

The idea that one woman can own one sixth of the world's surface, because she can trace her lineage to some bum who enslaved his fellow man is criminal.

I think there are (as illustrated above) degrees of immorality involved in private property, if you use is legitimate then OK. If your use is just to have land while others suffer, why?