Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-04-2017, 11:46 PM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,315,644 times
Reputation: 9074

Advertisements

A caller asked him why the "property" right of which Locke wrote ("life, liberty, and property") was changed in the Declaration of Independence to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

Mark explained that "pursuit of happiness" was understood at the time to encompass more than mere real or personal property.

Okay, but why then is property the weakest right of the three? Why is the right to property so insecure, so tenuous?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-05-2017, 06:20 AM
 
Location: *
13,242 posts, read 4,873,018 times
Reputation: 3461
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
A caller asked him why the "property" right of which Locke wrote ("life, liberty, and property") was changed in the Declaration of Independence to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

Mark explained that "pursuit of happiness" was understood at the time to encompass more than mere real or personal property.

Okay, but why then is property the weakest right of the three? Why is the right to property so insecure, so tenuous?
The caller had an interesting question, I had the same when I first learned where the phrase came from.

I haven't been able to determine the answer so I suppose Mr. Kevin's answer is as good as any other. Most likely the writers of the Declaration of Independence were rightly conflicted re: property rights when, at the time, there were some who illogically considered they could 'rightfully' own human beings as property.

Additionally, at the time, there were competing ideas, such as ...

Quote:
Property is theft! (French: La propriété, c'est le vol!) is a slogan coined by French anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in his 1840 book What is Property? Or, an Inquiry into the Principle of Right and of Government. ...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft!

Essentially these are similar to a thought experiment ~ perhaps reduced to an idea something like this:

"Accordingly property is not theft, but a theft becomes possible only through property."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2017, 09:41 AM
 
Location: Madison, WI
5,294 posts, read 2,331,666 times
Reputation: 1227
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest View Post
The caller had an interesting question, I had the same when I first learned where the phrase came from.

I haven't been able to determine the answer so I suppose Mr. Kevin's answer is as good as any other. Most likely the writers of the Declaration of Independence were rightly conflicted re: property rights when, at the time, there were some who illogically considered they could 'rightfully' own human beings as property.

Additionally, at the time, there were competing ideas, such as ...



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft!

Essentially these are similar to a thought experiment ~ perhaps reduced to an idea something like this:

"Accordingly property is not theft, but a theft becomes possible only through property."
That last sentence is very true. If there is no property, there is no theft, because no one has a rightful claim to anything. Property rights are foundational to a truly civil society, because establishing property is how we resolve conflicts over scarce resources.

That's one reason why communists (or anarcho-communists as referred to in the quote) are idiots. Or that famous John Lennon quote "Imagine no possessions"...how bout not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2017, 10:23 AM
 
20,956 posts, read 8,578,120 times
Reputation: 14048
General Welfare - Happiness of the People......obvious is MUCH more than property.

It's not even debatable.

"Theft only through property?".......talk about a a lack of imagination or knowledge.....

1. Lack of proper medical care - injured, suffering or dead people. Therefore, no "general welfare" or "happiness".

2. Propaganda instead of education (teaching only abstinence, questioning the age of the earth, etc.) - has nothing to do with property, yet the Founders were very clear that education of the masses was one of the most important facets of civilization.

The idea that everything belongs to someone is crazy. For example, we may "manage" some big bays and entrances to the ocean with buoys and lighthouses - but the "property" does not belong to anyone except "the commons" - what you would call socialism.

What we have now is nothing like what is expressed in the Declaration and Constitution. The very idea that we let individuals "own" and therefore cut the entire tops (sometimes 1,000 feet or more) off mountains and pollute rivers and streams...is crazy. Of course, these companies go bankrupt once they pollute and extract, therefore casting the cost onto the "socialists" - meaning onto future generations.

The entire idea of United States was to lift UP "The People", not just to allow a few bankers and oil men to control the country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2017, 02:50 PM
 
3,570 posts, read 2,502,188 times
Reputation: 2290
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest View Post
The caller had an interesting question, I had the same when I first learned where the phrase came from.

I haven't been able to determine the answer so I suppose Mr. Kevin's answer is as good as any other. Most likely the writers of the Declaration of Independence were rightly conflicted re: property rights when, at the time, there were some who illogically considered they could 'rightfully' own human beings as property.

Additionally, at the time, there were competing ideas, such as ...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft!

Essentially these are similar to a thought experiment ~ perhaps reduced to an idea something like this:

"Accordingly property is not theft, but a theft becomes possible only through property."
Even one of the slaveowners among them, Thomas Jefferson himself, was conflicted on the subject of slavery. This is doubtless the reason for changing 'property' to 'pursuit of happiness.' 1840 is not contemporary to the Declaration.

Pursuit of happiness avoided the thorny issue of slavery. It is also a superior piece of rhetoric. To the ears of 1776 (as of today, really), proclaiming the superiority of property rights would harken to the British class system, conjuring images of near-feudal Lords with vast holdings. Pursuit of happiness speaks to something greater: to each a dream.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2017, 03:18 PM
 
Location: Madison, WI
5,294 posts, read 2,331,666 times
Reputation: 1227
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri View Post
General Welfare - Happiness of the People......obvious is MUCH more than property.

It's not even debatable.

"Theft only through property?".......talk about a a lack of imagination or knowledge.....

1. Lack of proper medical care - injured, suffering or dead people. Therefore, no "general welfare" or "happiness".

2. Propaganda instead of education (teaching only abstinence, questioning the age of the earth, etc.) - has nothing to do with property, yet the Founders were very clear that education of the masses was one of the most important facets of civilization.

The idea that everything belongs to someone is crazy. For example, we may "manage" some big bays and entrances to the ocean with buoys and lighthouses - but the "property" does not belong to anyone except "the commons" - what you would call socialism.

What we have now is nothing like what is expressed in the Declaration and Constitution. The very idea that we let individuals "own" and therefore cut the entire tops (sometimes 1,000 feet or more) off mountains and pollute rivers and streams...is crazy. Of course, these companies go bankrupt once they pollute and extract, therefore casting the cost onto the "socialists" - meaning onto future generations.

The entire idea of United States was to lift UP "The People", not just to allow a few bankers and oil men to control the country.
On the bold, not so fast...

Everything is owned except that which is unused, or not yet discovered. This is one of the best summaries I've read...

https://steemit.com/economics/@larke...-2-of-a-series

Just an excerpt:

Quote:
"Even in the simplest scenario, if two people both want one thing, and want that one thing used for different purposes, then there is a conflict. It doesn’t even make sense to say that they both “own” it, since that would mean that each of them has an exclusive right to decide what happens to the thing. If they happen to come to an agreement, that’s fine, but if either of them needs the permission of the other do use the thing, then neither of them really “owns” it. So really, the term “collective ownership”—or even “joint ownership” (with just two people)—doesn’t make any sense.
...and no, there is no theft without property. If I take something and you say "hey, that guy stole my (whatever)", that implies that it's yours. If there's no property, that means anyone can use anything they want whenever they want. Property is how people decide who has the highest claim to it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2017, 03:26 PM
 
3,570 posts, read 2,502,188 times
Reputation: 2290
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E View Post
On the bold, not so fast...

Everything is owned except that which is unused, or not yet discovered. This is one of the best summaries I've read...

https://steemit.com/economics/@larke...-2-of-a-series

Just an excerpt:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Text
"However, applying that definition to “collective ownership” immediately makes a mess, both conceptually and in practical terms. If ten people claim to “collectively” own a sandwich, what would that even mean? Ten individuals obviously cannot each have the exclusive right to decide what is done with the sandwich. And if the ten people vote on what to do with it, whoever loses the vote doesn’t share in the “ownership” at all. And if the sandwich is cut into ten pieces, and a piece given to each person, then none of them owns the whole sandwich, and then it turns into individual ownership of each piece.
Counterpoints:

1) The logic here is circular: ownership means exclusive control because exclusive control means ownership.

2) The more common simple property categories are more pedagogically appropriate: i) public property, ii) open access, iii) private property, iv) common property.

3) Collective ownership takes three different forms: public ownership (state control), open access, and common property. The sandwich example does not seriously attempt to engage any of them, taking its premise as its conclusion: "what would that even mean?" It does not try very hard to determine what that might actually mean.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2017, 03:34 PM
 
Location: Florida
33,465 posts, read 17,983,921 times
Reputation: 15476
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
A caller asked him why the "property" right of which Locke wrote ("life, liberty, and property") was changed in the Declaration of Independence to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

Mark explained that "pursuit of happiness" was understood at the time to encompass more than mere real or personal property.

Okay, but why then is property the weakest right of the three? Why is the right to property so insecure, so tenuous?
Probably the pursuit of prosperity.. whatever makes one happy. We can prosper in different ways to create happiness.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2017, 04:21 PM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,315,644 times
Reputation: 9074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taratova View Post
Probably the pursuit of prosperity.. whatever makes one happy. We can prosper in different ways to create happiness.

What if someone wants to pursue happiness by buying a tiny piece of land and building a tiny house on it - but government prohibits it? What would the property rights people say?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2017, 04:35 PM
 
Location: Madison, WI
5,294 posts, read 2,331,666 times
Reputation: 1227
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge View Post
Counterpoints:

1) The logic here is circular: ownership means exclusive control because exclusive control means ownership.

2) The more common simple property categories are more pedagogically appropriate: i) public property, ii) open access, iii) private property, iv) common property.

3) Collective ownership takes three different forms: public ownership (state control), open access, and common property. The sandwich example does not seriously attempt to engage any of them, taking its premise as its conclusion: "what would that even mean?" It does not try very hard to determine what that might actually mean.
I could be wrong, but I see that as overcomplicating things and possibly distracting from the purpose of the concept. The fundamental reason for the existence of property is to settle conflict over scarce resources. It wouldn't make sense to say that multiple people own anything simultaneously, because the conflict is not resolved if both/all of them want to use it differently. Someone will need to have the final say, and that person is acting as the owner.

But I'm open to hearing a counterargument to that...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top