[net.politics.theory] Freedom and ownership

hfavr@mtuxo.UUCP (a.reed) (11/13/85)

In several postings, carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) objected to
the Libertarian (or should I say "Propertarian"?) position that (as I
put it) "the conversion into individual property (through use or trade)
of things not previously owned by anyone is an instance of productive
creation of wealth (rather than 'theft')." As I noted previously, this
position hinges on the nature of value, and on the specific process
through which things acquire value, i.e. become wealth. I would like to
thank Richard Carnes for stimulating me to think about these issues.
I believe a version of the Propertarian argument can be made as follows:

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

OWNERSHIP is simply 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.  (Note that in a free society, ownership cannot be terminated
except by mutually agreed upon transfer to another, or by use that invades
or threatens to invade another's person or property. A body or property
alienated from ownership by such use is subject to legitimate
self-defense.)

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.
Under this definition, freedom implies the right to use or trade any thing
that was never owned by anyone else: since no one else has ever owned it,
using it cannot possibly be an invasion of another individual's person or
property in and of itself.  But having the right to use it in any way that
does not invade, or threaten to invade, the person or property of another,
means OWNING it.  Thus, the above definitions of freedom and of ownership
imply that freedom subsumes the right to establish ownership over any
previously unowned object.

To establish ownership over a previously unowned object cannot be a
case of "stealing the pre-existing inherent value" of the object. In
general, a VALUE is a condition that a person wishes to attain or
preserve.  An object is said to be valuable if its availability is
believed by someone to increase the likelihood of attaining or preserving
a value.  Because only people can value, it is not possible for a thing
to have an "inherent value" (that is, a value independent of any person
who finds that thing useful in his or her own pursuit of happiness).

Making a previously unvalued object available for use or trade is no
less a case of creation of wealth than the creation of a new object.
WEALTH is the ensemble of all things a person believes contribute to his
or her happiness, or are available to enhance it. Thus, a thing cannot
constitute wealth unless it is either being used, in the sense of
contributing directly or indirectly to some person's happiness, or
available for use or trade.  Of course, a person who creates a thing
thereby also makes it available for use or trade, thus creating wealth.
But so does a person who discovers a thing, and establishes its
usefulness, and, if necessary, brings it to a place where it can be used
or traded.

I suspect that Carnes will disagree with my argument at the level of the
definitions on which it is based (of right, ownership, freedom, value,
and wealth). Those definitions seem reasonable to me, but I shall be
grateful to anyone who can help me improve them.

			Adam Reed (ihnp4!npois!adam)

nrh@inmet.UUCP (11/24/85)

> [Richard Carnes gives the example of Running Dog, an American Indian
>  who, migrating with his tribe across America, decides to claim some
>  land in the Libertarian fashion (claiming and using it).  The tribal
>  elders don't buy it.  Who is right and why?]

Richard:  Running Dog, assuming he's done everything right
(staked out the land, worked it, made sure that any other claims
to the land are vacated) is right, regardless of what the tribal elders 
think.

If, for example, the tribal elders arrange a raid on 
another bunch of Indians for the purposes of glory, are they "right"?

If they torture their prisoners, as some Indians did, is that "right"?

You see, the question of who's "right" depends upon (and no doubt there
are better terms for this) the moral framework in which an act and
its motives are examined.  Were I to inhabit the People's Republic of China,
I might be beaten to death if I tried to organize an independent political
party.  Would this be "right", even though THAT set of tribal elders
sanctioned it?

In short, who's "right" will depend on who you ask.   One of the reasons
why it's important that people be able to talk to each other -- so that
the best arguments can circulate widely.

For those who believe in an absolute morality, please note that I'm 
speaking here of who's "right", that is, who is SAID to be right,
not who's "really right".

By the way, Richard, if the Indian TRIBE in your example claims the
same land, do they have the right to it, even if other tribes later
come by and want to steal all the produce?