[net.politics.theory] Freedom and property, round 4

hfavr@mtuxo.UUCP (a.reed) (12/09/85)

In reply to the claim of Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes, that my
earlier definition of ownership was circular, I wrote in round 3 that my
>> definition of ownership is not circular, merely generative,
>> that is, it is a recursive definition whose first step is subsumed in
>> its second step. The recursion may be laid out as follows:
>>
>> 1.	When exercised for the first time in human history, OWNERSHIP
>> is the right to use an entity in any way that does not invade,
>> or threaten to invade, the person of another.  
>> 2.	Once it has been exercised by somebody, OWNERSHIP becomes the
>> right to use or trade the owned entity in any way that does not invade,
>> or threaten to invade, the person or property of another; where PROPERTY
>> is the ensemble of things over which a person exercises ownership.
>>
>> ....  I would be surprised by a claim that generative or recursive
>> definitions are inherently either not valid or impossible to understand.

At this point, an honest intellectual correspondent can take one of two
approaches to my argument: (a) challenge the validity of recursive
definitions explicitly, or (b) challenge the validity of this or some
other definition used in my argument on other grounds. Instead, Carnes
replies with:

> .... What is your definition of "owned"?
> (Please do not use "ownership" in the definition.) ....

in effect demanding that libertarians come up with a non-recursive
definition of "ownership" (which is rather like asking mathematicians for
a non-recursive definition of "integer"). Carnes claims that this is a
> .... very reasonable request that the argument be stated without
> the use of own-terms or terms whose definitions contain own-terms,
> since they seem to cause confusion.

Not in my mind they don't. But since I don't want the discussion to go
off on a tangent, I am re-casting my argument into a completely
non-recursive form for Carnes' benefit. Here it is:

A RIGHT to do something is the condition of not being subject to morally
or politically legitimate interference in doing it, or to morally or
politically legitimate coercion in consequence of having done it.

A RESOURCE is the ensemble of all things that may not be changed without
interfering with a given human activity.  It follows from the previous
definition of a right that, if one person has the right to use a resource,
and is exercising this right, then no other person may have the right to
change that resource, since this would subject the first person to
interference with something that the first person has a right to do.
The condition in which one person exercises a right to use a resource,
and no other person has a right to change this resource, will be called
OWNERSHIP (of the resource by the person who has the right to use it).
PROPERTY is the ensemble of resources over which a person exercises
ownership.  It follows from the above definitions that a resource that
has never been used by humans cannot have been owned, that is, it cannot
have been a part of anyone's property.

LIBERTY is the set of rights which, when applied to every person in a
society, maximizes the aggregate of activities that people in that
society have a right to engage in, subject to the condition that no one
may have the right to invade the person of another. A moral right
which belongs to this set is called a LIBERTY RIGHT, and would
constitute a legal right in a LIBERTARIAN SOCIETY.

Prior to the first use of resources in human history, liberty obviously
corresponds to a condition in which every person has a right to do
anything he or she can physically do, in any way that does not invade,
or threaten to invade, the person of another. This logically includes
the right to initial use of any discovered resource. But, as shown
above, it follows from the previous definition of a right that, if one
person exercises the right to use a resource, no one else may have the
right to change this resource. Thus, property does not exist prior to
the first human use of resources; the first resource used by a human
becomes the property of its first user.

FREEDOM is the right to do anything one can physically do, as long as
this does not invade, or threaten to invade, the person or property of
another.  It follows from previous definitions that when property
exists, as it necessarily does once people have started to use resources
from a postulated condition of liberty, liberty becomes the set of
rights which maximizes the freedom, in the above sense, of individuals
in society.

It follows that when a person finds a resource which can be used without
invading the person or property of another, he or she has a liberty
right to start using it. This use constitutes an exercise of ownership,
and the resource henceforth becomes the person's property.

An aside:
I am grateful to Richard Carnes for a discussion that, in spite of a
regrettable lack of civility, stimulated me to refine these ideas.

			Adam Reed (ihnp4!mtuxo!hfavr)

torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek ) (12/10/85)

I have yet to hear a response to my criticism of Adam Reed's original
posting.  I would assume that this has been due to a bad newsfeed here at
my site, but it appears that Richard Carnes has seen my posting.  So, why
no response?  Perhaps because there's no way to refute my point?

Take note:  this message WILL be REPEATED as many times as it takes to get
a reply -- even if the reply is just "I'm not replying to you."  

In article <1160@mtuxo.UUCP> hfavr@mtuxo.UUCP (a.reed) writes:
>, I am re-casting my argument into a completely
>non-recursive form for Carnes' benefit. Here it is:
>
>A RIGHT to do something is the condition of not being subject to morally
>or politically legitimate interference in doing it, or to morally or
>politically legitimate coercion in consequence of having done it.

"Not being subject to morally ... legitimate interference" sounds like a
claim-right to me.  Is that how you meant it?  (Cf. my reply to your Round 1
for a definition of "claim-right", or if you never saw that article, ask me.)

>A RESOURCE is the ensemble of all things that may not be changed without
>interfering with a given human activity.  It follows from the previous
>definition of a right that, if one person has the right to use a resource,
>and is exercising this right, then no other person may have the right to
>change that resource, since this would subject the first person to
>interference with something that the first person has a right to do.

Indeed it does follow.  This strong consequence of the definition of a right
raises a crucial question:  WHY SUPPOSE that everyone has a *right* to use 
previously unused material?

>The condition in which one person exercises a right to use a resource,
>and no other person has a right to change this resource, will be called
>OWNERSHIP (of the resource by the person who has the right to use it).
>PROPERTY is the ensemble of resources over which a person exercises
>ownership.  It follows from the above definitions that a resource that
>has never been used by humans cannot have been owned, that is, it cannot
>have been a part of anyone's property.

Indeed it does follow, but only because OWNERSHIP has been defined to imply
that the person *exercises* the right -- currently.

>LIBERTY is the set of rights which, when applied to every person in a
>society, maximizes the aggregate of activities that people in that
>society have a right to engage in, subject to the condition that no one
>may have the right to invade the person of another. 

It must be demonstrated, not assumed, that "maximizes the aggregate of
activities ..." is a COHERENT phrase.

>Prior to the first use of resources in human history, liberty obviously
>corresponds to a condition in which every person has a right to do
>anything he or she can physically do, in any way that does not invade,
>or threaten to invade, the person of another. This logically includes
>the right to initial use of any discovered resource.

This does NOT follow.  Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that "maximum
aggregate of activities that people have the right to engage in" is a coherent
expression.  Suppose I come upon the only natural shelter in a very large
area, and proceed to occupy it.  Another person comes along the next day --
having had no help from me in finding the place, and not knowing that I am
here -- and proceeds to occupy it.  I then rise up from my inconspicuous
sitting place, whereupon the other person first notices me.  I yell "Hey
you, get out of here, I was here first!" and kick her out.

Do I have a right to do this?  Why?  How does this "maximize aggregate
activities..."?  What if the person will freeze to death without this shelter?
Tough?  By the way, don't bother trying to duck the issue by assuming, e.g.,
that her presence would not interfere with my activities.  Assume it would.  I
would have to sleep in a slightly more cramped position, say.  I'm sure
you can dream up other details as necessary.

>			Adam Reed (ihnp4!mtuxo!hfavr)

--keepin' 'em honest,
Paul V. Torek, Iconoclast for all reasons			torek@umich