[net.politics.theory] Private Property & Humans Prone to Evil

cooper@steinmetz.UUCP (Clark Cooper) (07/10/85)

 In article <756@umcp-cs.UUCP> (Charley Wingate) writes:
> ....  Mike seems rather consistent in his assertion that
> the right to unrestricted liberty in the use of private property is supreme
> above all other rights. ...

I don't think Mike has said or implied this. If he has implied any
"supreme right", it is an individual's right to her/his own life and the
direction of it.

> ... I maintain that human beings are too prone to evil
> to be trusted with such a right. ...

If people don't have a right to their own property, then this means
that others may use it. They may even use the property in the same way
as the owner (though probably not for his benefit.)

If we accept your assertion that people are too prone to evil
to be trusted to own property, why should they be trusted to use it?

I anticipate some objections:
1) You were only talking about "unrestricted" property rights.
	If this was really what you meant, then I have no argument.
	"Unrestricted" could include my neighbor using his privately
	owned kitchen knife to stab me. However, from the tone of
	the rest of your article, I don't believe there would be
	much left in the way of a property *right* after you had
	imposed what you saw as necessary restrictions.

2) It is not ownership per se that this evil tendency makes
   dangerous, but concentration of resources in a few hands. (It is 
   safer that 1000 imps have 1000 shekels than that one devil
   has a million.)
  	When there are no property rights, resources are controlled
	by those who run the {tribe, gang, party, nation}. The
	Rockefellers were penny-ante in their control of resources
	compared to Stalin, Hitler, and many medieval kings.

3) Ownership intensifies this evil tendency; it brings out the worst.
	Is stealing evil? It is an action that rejects the right of
	property.
	Is fraud evil? Fraud is stealing by means of deception.
	Is slavery evil? A slave owns not even his life.

> ...  I suggest that it is no
> wonder that Mike's views are not held by working people, but by professors,
> bankers, and businessmen.
> 
> Charley Wingate  umcp-cs!mangoe

My grandfather was a coal miner, my father was a school teacher, and
I'm a computer programmer. Do I qualify as a working person?
Anyway I'm neither a professor, banker, or businessman and I hold
views similar to Mike's.

-- 
Clark Cooper |UUCP: decvax!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!edison!steinmetz!cooper
             |ARPA: coopercc@ge-crd

mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (07/15/85)

In article <172@steinmetz.UUCP> cooper@steinmetz.UUCP (Clark Cooper) writes:

>> ....  Mike seems rather consistent in his assertion that
>> the right to unrestricted liberty in the use of private property is supreme
>> above all other rights. ...

>I don't think Mike has said or implied this. If he has implied any
>"supreme right", it is an individual's right to her/his own life and the
>direction of it.

I have yet to see Mike Sykora qualify the right to uncontrolled use of one's
property in any way.  Besides, the right you state cannot exist, if only
because circumstances frequently prevent people from doing what they want to.

>> ... I maintain that human beings are too prone to evil
>> to be trusted with such a right. ...

>If people don't have a right to their own property, then this means
>that others may use it. They may even use the property in the same way
>as the owner (though probably not for his benefit.)

>If we accept your assertion that people are too prone to evil
>to be trusted to own property, why should they be trusted to use it?

You misunderstand me.  I am not saying that private proerty is wrong.  What
I am saying is that (1) private property is a secondary right, and must be
reconciled with other rights, and (2) absolute control of one's property is
too much power to trust people with.

>I anticipate some objections:
>1) You were only talking about "unrestricted" property rights.
>	If this was really what you meant, then I have no argument.
>	"Unrestricted" could include my neighbor using his privately
>	owned kitchen knife to stab me. However, from the tone of
>	the rest of your article, I don't believe there would be
>	much left in the way of a property *right* after you had
>	imposed what you saw as necessary restrictions.

Not so.  For some kinds of property (such as homes) I think almost
completely uncontrolled private property is ESSENTIAL.  But I am saying that
considerations of different kinds of property leads me to the conclusion
that some forms of property must at the very least be under some sort of
public control.  I think it should be clear, for instance, why I would
advocate continuance of public power utilities: without some sort of public
control, the power is just too great.  From my point of view, the
"publicness" of a property derives from its intended use, not just from mere
ownership.

>2) It is not ownership per se that this evil tendency makes
>   dangerous, but concentration of resources in a few hands. (It is 
>   safer that 1000 imps have 1000 shekels than that one devil
>   has a million.)
>  	When there are no property rights, resources are controlled
>	by those who run the {tribe, gang, party, nation}. The
>	Rockefellers were penny-ante in their control of resources
>	compared to Stalin, Hitler, and many medieval kings.

Certainly.  But I'm not advocating complete socialism; I'm advocating a
balance between public and private property.  Public use restrictions on
shopping malls restrain the tyranny of the owners; privacy rights concerning
dwellings restrict the tyranny of governments.

>3) Ownership intensifies this evil tendency; it brings out the worst.

I do not raise this objection at all.  Evil finds whatever way it can.

>> ...  I suggest that it is no
>> wonder that Mike's views are not held by working people, but by professors,
>> bankers, and businessmen.

>My grandfather was a coal miner, my father was a school teacher, and
>I'm a computer programmer. Do I qualify as a working person?
>Anyway I'm neither a professor, banker, or businessman and I hold
>views similar to Mike's.

Well, it's not my place to say.  My comment was directed more at Sykora than
at you.  IT seems clear to me that Sykora's system would give great
advantage to property owners.  It's hard to imagine some poor apartment
dweller who thinks that the street in front of her house sould be owned by a
landlord too.

Charley Wingate   umcp-cs!mangoe