undefined | Better HN

0 pointsspacebanana71y ago0 comments

> If right to property is a God given right, why the hell I as a atheist should give a damn?

You can argue it from political necessity.

Some kind of property rights are necessary for the operation of any social group. Even in a communist society you can't have the air force stealing land from the navy, or the transport department taking electricity from hospitals, or neighbours taking each others food allocations.

There needs to be some kind of organised transfer of property or you get chaos.

0 comments

jampekka1y ago

You can argue divine right of kings or white supremacy from political necessity.

Some kind of systems to allocate scarce resources is needed. This doesn't have to be property. Access to e.g. the moon and earth's orbits and international waters and polar regions have systems of allocation, but they are not property.

spacebanana7OP1y ago

> You can argue divine right of kings or white supremacy from political necessity.

Those arguments can be incorrect without entailing all arguments from political necessity are false.

I can incorrectly argue a justification of the flat earth theory from physics - but that would discredit my own intellect rather than the subject of physics.

> Some kind of systems to allocate scarce resources is needed. This doesn't have to be property.

I agree not everything has to be property, but some things must. Essentially anything that's both important and "stealable" needs to be protected by property rights of some kind.

Regardless of how your food and water come into your possession (trade, charity, gov allocation), it's necessary that some of it remains in your possession for you to consume.

jampekka1y ago

> Those arguments can be incorrect without entailing all arguments from political necessity are false.

> I can incorrectly argue a justification of the flat earth theory from physics - but that would discredit my own intellect rather than the subject of physics.

Do you mean the right to (certain very specific form of) property is somehow an empirically shown fact like the geometry of the earth?

Am I right in guessing that you have inclination towards praxeology?

> I agree not everything has to be property, but some things must.

Why do some things must? Because it leads to more desirable consequences than other options, or because it is some metaphysical truth you're somehow privy to?

The first kind of argument is fine, the latter is just blunt rhetorics. I don't see why the former should be spoiled with the latter.

1 more reply

andsoitis1y ago

> Some kind of systems to allocate scarce resources is needed. This doesn't have to be property.

I should not be coerced to give output of my labor (whether physical or mental) to others based on some burocrat’s allocation system or my neighbor’s wishes. That would be immoral.

jampekka1y ago

Per your morality perhaps. But morality is just an opinion, and one that can't be justified otherwise.

I should not be coerced not to enter a piece of land just because somebody made a contract with somebody who killed or evicted by force the people (and other animals) who previously inhabited the land. That would be immoral, right?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

jampekka1y ago

You can argue divine right of kings or white supremacy from political necessity.

spacebanana7OP1y ago

> You can argue divine right of kings or white supremacy from political necessity.

Those arguments can be incorrect without entailing all arguments from political necessity are false.

I can incorrectly argue a justification of the flat earth theory from physics - but that would discredit my own intellect rather than the subject of physics.

> Some kind of systems to allocate scarce resources is needed. This doesn't have to be property.

I agree not everything has to be property, but some things must. Essentially anything that's both important and "stealable" needs to be protected by property rights of some kind.

Regardless of how your food and water come into your possession (trade, charity, gov allocation), it's necessary that some of it remains in your possession for you to consume.

jampekka1y ago

> Those arguments can be incorrect without entailing all arguments from political necessity are false.

> I can incorrectly argue a justification of the flat earth theory from physics - but that would discredit my own intellect rather than the subject of physics.

Do you mean the right to (certain very specific form of) property is somehow an empirically shown fact like the geometry of the earth?

Am I right in guessing that you have inclination towards praxeology?

> I agree not everything has to be property, but some things must.

Why do some things must? Because it leads to more desirable consequences than other options, or because it is some metaphysical truth you're somehow privy to?

The first kind of argument is fine, the latter is just blunt rhetorics. I don't see why the former should be spoiled with the latter.

1 more reply

andsoitis1y ago

> Some kind of systems to allocate scarce resources is needed. This doesn't have to be property.

I should not be coerced to give output of my labor (whether physical or mental) to others based on some burocrat’s allocation system or my neighbor’s wishes. That would be immoral.

jampekka1y ago

Per your morality perhaps. But morality is just an opinion, and one that can't be justified otherwise.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse