About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 8:33amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
A socialist argument that I am having difficulty dealing with is that planet earth is not owned by anyone and therefore all property rights are defunct as well.

Imagine a newly discovered island that has no inhabitants. How do we determine who owns it/parts of it ?

thanks

Nick




Post 1

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 2:56pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
I think Rand's appraisal of manifest destiny was a good starting point.

The first person to discover an area, develop it for use and defend it for a set period of time would own the new area.

---Landon




Post 2

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 4:51pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Nicholas,

What's the socialist's criteria for what is and isn't property? Most law systems', even socialist systems', criteria for what is and isn't property makes it pretty easy to own lots of stuff, but not planet earth.

Anyway, you seem to be exploring theories of property acquisition as well. To help you along, there're 4 questions basic to property law (as borrowed from Cooter's and Ulen's Law & Economics, 2003, pg 77):

1. How are ownership rights established?
2. What can be privately owned?
3. What may owners do with their property?
4. What are the remedies for the violation of property rights?

The typical Objectivist answer is, though not mine, is:

1. First in time to do something or other with the soon-to-be property, has the right to the property.
2. Everything.
3. Anything they want to.
4. This one varies, anywhere from fining to killing the violater.

Objectivists are keen on integration, so they'll urge you to read these answers "integratively."

Hope that helps,
Jordan




Post 3

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 6:18pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Number 3 has a craveat - only so long as it does not violate the rights of others [as in, for instance ,spewing smoke over onto another's properety]...



Post 4

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 6:44pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Robert's right. You can't use your property in a way that can be proven to be detrimental to another's. I can't run a factory and dump toxic waste onto your land, for example, nor am I allowed to let my dog loose so that he can piss in your gardens and leave little presents.



Post 5

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 8:00pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
I started a thread on a similar topic here: http://solohq.com/Forum/GeneralForum/0355.shtml



Post 6

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 6:50amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
If you integrate 3 with the other answers, particularly 1, Robert's caveat will be redundant.

Jordan




Post 7

Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 2:27pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
I am of the opinion that Henry George has the answer.

http://www.henrygeorge.org/rem0.htm




Post to this thread
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.