Property is theft!

[stringjack]

Taxes may be an infringement of property rights, but they are an necessity in order to be a responsible member of society. They are also an enforced 'good deed' that provides the infrastructure and services necessary to ensure everyone is on a level playing field.

It doesn't matter what your background is, we all have the same opportunities to create and gather wealth. It is true that some may have to work harder than others, but the opportunities are there for anyone willing to put the effort in.

As for the property inheritance issue. What is wrong with passing on your wealth? So long as the inheritor pays their fair share in taxes we all benefit from that wealth. Additionally, that wealth will most likely be invested or used in such a way to further benefit society such as investments in new technologies or keeping businesses afloat. All wealth benefits everyone in some small way.

First, once you allow that property rights can be infringed in order to ensure that people are 'responsible members of society', you are hostage to all kinds of other 'enforced good deeds'. In particular, if we need that nice furniture that you think is yours, in order to fuel our furnaces, then up in smoke it goes.

Second, suppose Watcher1 offers to sell me some stuff for €1, and offers to sell you the stuff for €100. It may be true that we both have an opportunity to buy the stuff, but we don't have the same opportunity. I have the opportunity to buy the stuff at €1 - you have the opportunity to buy the stuff at €100. Those are both opportunities, but different opportunities.

The situation where some people have to 'work harder' than others to create or gather the same amount of wealth is functionally equivalent (if you and I each have a job that pays €1 an hour, I have to work for one hour to get the stuff, whereas you have to work for 100 hours). If people have to work harder than one another in order to accomplish the same thing then they're not on a level playing field.

Finally, I didn't say that there was something wrong with passing on your wealth. You had said that in a "society where we do own things... [t]he more effort you put in, the more you get out." I was simply noting that in an economy where people can inherit wealth, some people can get a lot 'out' while putting practically nothing in - certainly, what they get out bears no relation to the 'effort' they put in. Whether or not you think that's a problem is, I guess, up to you.

[sarahj]

Now I have to find out the meaning of the word "pareto", I got by without knowing it for over 30 years - damn students!

Haha. Sorry.

Basically, it's a kind of economic rule for life by an Italian economist Pareto. Simplistically, a Pareto efficient situations are those in which any change to make any person better off would make someone else worse off. So a pareto efficient move is one that will make one or more people better off without making anyone worse off.

To be honest, in practice I wouldn't necessarily agree with the concept of Pareto efficiency though I'd say a lot of people would. It's a great idea in theory, assuming a socially desirable distribution initially, but we don't have that situation in Ireland so I would find it difficult to apply the principle.

[Conor]

1. If you cannot 'own' something then you are not free to exercise complete control (consumption / use) over this thing (or anything).

2. To 'own' something implies you are free to decide what to do with this thing.

3. To not 'own' something means you cannot consume or do with this object as you decide.

4. If you are unable to own anything this implies that you cannot exercise control over anything in your environment and therefore humans could not sustain their life by appropriating food for consumption, or building shelter from the elements, or clothes from the weather etc.

I can't control a freshwater spring, nor would I claim ownership of it simply because I draw water from it; but as long as it's there I'm not going to go thirsty.

[grundie]

Not at all. Hazlitt claims we need COMPLETE control over property. But if I have complete control of something, that means you can't. Which means you don't have what you need. Which is contradictory to his first sentence.

It isn't contradictory as it does not prevent me from acquiring my own property. He has control of his property, I can have control of mine.

Let's look at this another way.

We humans are inherently selfish and want to own things. This could cause us become very anti-social and fight, riot, steal etc in order to satisfy our wish to own things. But we also dislike disorder. We might be willing to steal to get what we want, but we don't like it when it happens to us.

Over time humanity has developed a system whereby we get to own things not by attacking others and risking reprisals, but by putting effort in.

The system we have today is the result of thousands of years of evolution. Owning property is literally part of human nature. We can never draft a 100% infallible justification why we must own things, all we can say is that this is the system that works for us and that the many attempts at trying something different (Communism etc) have always ended in failure.

[stringjack]

1. If you cannot 'own' something then you are not free to exercise complete control (consumption / use) over this thing (or anything).

2. To 'own' something implies you are free to decide what to do with this thing.

3. To not 'own' something means you cannot consume or do with this object as you decide.

4. If you are unable to own anything this implies that you cannot exercise control over anything in your environment and therefore humans could not sustain their life by appropriating food for consumption, or building shelter from the elements, or clothes from the weather etc.

3 doesn't follow from 1 and 2 (and 4 doesn't follow without 3).

[toughbutfair]

Haha. Sorry.

Basically, it's a kind of economic rule for life by an Italian economist Pareto. Simplistically, a Pareto efficient situations are those in which any change to make any person better off would make someone else worse off. So a pareto efficient move is one that will make one or more people better off without making anyone worse off.

To be honest, in practice I wouldn't necessarily agree with the concept of Pareto efficiency though I'd say a lot of people would. It's a great idea in theory, assuming a socially desirable distribution initially, but we don't have that situation in Ireland so I would find it difficult to apply the principle.

I was just back from my google search - thanks for the education,I assume it is free, for the moment anyway

It sounds like the opposite of your views as by definition it can increase inequality. We'll have to work the phrase Sarahj efficient into economics.

I'll drop "pareto efficient" into my next conversation on the economy and then make a big sigh if anybody asks what it means.

[DS-09]

Yes stringjack, but what system of thought, or governance for that matter, through history has not included some form of inequality? For instance in a Communist society, or the Indian caste system- people are locked into the same way of life, or level of wealth from cradle-to-grave. Regardless of the price somebody sells something at in a society which buys-and-sells for profit (whether large or small), it still gives you the chance to aquire something through work. As for some having to work harder than others- that is an unfortunate part of the human condition, one which has been with us since time immemorial- and is in fact made worse in countries under the sway of such systems of thought as communism, or absolute royal power.
Buying and selling, and the right to own property is amongst the fairest system's of thought in the world- the same cannot be said of communism, or any other system which promotes public, or common ownership.

[sarahj]

I was just back from my google search - thanks for the education,I assume it is free, for the moment anyway

It sounds like the opposite of your views as by definition it can increase inequality. We'll have to work the phrase Sarahj efficient into economics.

I'll drop "pareto efficient" into my next conversation on the economy and then make a big sigh if anybody asks what it means.

Hahaha!! A little intellectual superiority goes a long way.

It's funny coz I support it theoretically but not practically. Which is my view on a lot of things.

What do you think about the concept?

[Hazlitt]

But WHY must it be individual control?

You asked for a justification of private property rights and I gave you one. If you are asking "but why can't it be public property" well then this is a different question to the thread topic. Not only that, but you would only be arguing that property IS justified, and that you just "prefer" (for whatever reasons) public property over private.

But obviously each person having "complete" control over particular things in their environment, means that other people can't control them and can have no say in what you do with them.

This isn't a refutation over my property rights post, but anyway, are you suggesting that it would be better for everyone else if everybody had an equal say (ownership) in the action(s) to be exercised over objects?

Meaning you can affect other people negatively. Which is inefficient is it not?

It is not inefficient firstly. Secondly even if an object was publicly owned (just say for example an apple) then there would be some people negatively affected who weren't favoured after the outcome of the "public vote" so this point is irrelevant and also nothing to do with the ethical rights for private property.

Not at all. Hazlitt claims we need COMPLETE control over property. But if I have complete control of something, that means you can't. Which means you don't have what you need. Which is contradictory to his first sentence.

Not at all. Just that without the ability to own something we would not be able to decide what to do with things (even unappropriated land) and we could not live.

[DS-09]

Haha. Sorry.

Basically, it's a kind of economic rule for life by an Italian economist Pareto. Simplistically, a Pareto efficient situations are those in which any change to make any person better off would make someone else worse off. So a pareto efficient move is one that will make one or more people better off without making anyone worse off.

To be honest, in practice I wouldn't necessarily agree with the concept of Pareto efficiency though I'd say a lot of people would. It's a great idea in theory, assuming a socially desirable distribution initially, but we don't have that situation in Ireland so I would find it difficult to apply the principle.

We do not have what situation in principle in Ireland?

Hahaha!! A little intellectual superiority goes a long way.

It's funny coz I support it theoretically but not practically. Which is my view on a lot of things.

Explain.

What do you think about the concept?

Why do you think the concept of private property is a flawed concept? You still can't make an argument against it- therefore those in disagreement with the OP content are in fact winning this debate.