You have no Property Rights

Priviledge of Ownership

Government Rights
Government Rights
Private Rights
Private Rights
Right of use
Right of use

Who said you could have it?


Property rights have:

(1) universality — all resources are owned by someone

A. Government B. Organization

C. Individuals

(2) transferability — to ensure that resources can be allocated to profitable use or held for duration of time to benefit posterity.

Private ownership of these resources may involve a variety rights,

1. The right to exclude non-owners from access,

2. The right to economic benefit of the resource

3. Rights to sell or transfer the resource to others.

Many Capitalist libertarians believe that property rights are inherent in the individual but in practice Governments determine the actual extent of those rights. The purpose of my discussion here is to determine if there is any such right or if governments can grant only privilege sustained by the might to defend it. It is my belief that all resources are collectively owned by all living things and the privilege to possess and utilize by an individual or group are determined by the power to possess and utilize and are limited in duration of time.



Culture of Social Order

How to take Property rights

In 1492, when Spain began its exploitation of the land and people of the Americas, Portugal was well on it way to claiming rights to most of West Africa and making its way to India and control of all far eastern trade. It also wanted a piece of what was now known as the New World. Brazil was its Beachhead. The Catholic Church on at least three occasions made decrees about which Nation owned what.

The Protestant Reformation was well underway and the rest of Europe was not about to let Spain and Portugal and the Catholic Church divide up the world. While Elizabethan Privateers were helping themselves to some of the Spanish property acquired from American Natives without their expressed permissions, they were also laying plans to claim territory in North America(again without the indigenous populations expressed consent). The Roanoke settlement failed because Elizabeth was tied up in a little War with the Spanish Armada and could not resupply the colony. But it was soon followed by Jamestown.

Religious Colonies soon followed from Maryland to Maine and the French were claiming Canada and all the land from the mountains to the Mississippi through the activities of their traders and settlers. All through this activity of gaining property rights without the actual permission of the current holders of that property, it never seem to occur to any of these avanguard Capitalist and Libertarian Property Right Holders that God had never actually sanctioned their acquisitions. Most present day Capitalist and Libertarians don't much care what god may think.

By the time Andrew Jackson's Indian removal policy along the Trail Of Tears killed 4000 out of 15,000 Cherokee members of the Cherokee Nations the ownership rights of property was considered settled. The Cherokee Indians were promised the land of Oklahoma would be theirs so long as the Wind blew and the Sun shined or new settlers needed the land for homesteads. Property rights seemed to have a much more fluid definition in those days.

In the Libertarian Party Statement of principles are these words:

Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.

Does no one find it a little convenient that natural rights always begin with the people who hold an advantage when those rights become sacrosanct. As a White Southerner I once had a decisive economic and social advantage over blacks because of my color. To most of my contemporaries this seemed to be the natural order of things. Yet when Blacks achieved Civil Rights and the voting power to seek Affirmative Action for the past effect of discrimination on their status in life, the constant refrain was and still is, I was not responsible for segregation and I never owned any slaves.

There is not one mention in the Statement of Principals of the Libertarians or by any Conservative Republicans that all that they have and hold is directly related to the activities of Governments that existed in the past and exist in the present and will exist in the future. They hold themselves entitled to existing benefits and entitled to guarantees that government will protect these benefits as inherent natural rights.

I submit that this conclusion is sheer Poppycock. Government is the invention of man. Rights are not natural but are conceived by the holders of power in these governments. Governments grant priviledge that have duration in time and are not eternal and natural. If you believe in rule by democratic majority, you must be prepared to accept standards that do not conform to yours until you are the majority. To fail to do so is to seek advantage over others against their will. That is not Democracy. That is Dictatorship. That is not equality, that is privilege. That is not Liberty, that is Slavery. If you wish to gut your neighbor and serve him on your table, then at least be true to yourself and savor the sauce in which you baste him.

It is a false notion to believe that you alone are responsible for what you have and who you are. There is not a man alive who spun the thread, and weaved the cloth, and cut & sewed the clothes he wears. There is none who mined the ore, smelted the metal and caste the parts of any object he owns. You learned all the knowledge you possessed from others and accomplished every task you credit to yourself with the hands of others. You are the product of all people and owe your life to your village no matter what its size. Any man who claims an independent existence from others is either a liar or a fool. If you deny the worth of your fellow man you are thief.

 I am a Social Liberaterian. I believe that my worth is measured by the worth of friends

.

Comments 4 comments

jcm_blabs profile image

jcm_blabs 7 years ago from My Bunker in the Midwest

Very stimulating.


John E. Steele 7 years ago

Well written contemplative food. Thanks...


Last Hand Willie profile image

Last Hand Willie 7 years ago from CAMDEN, SC Author

I read you blog http://owlnest.blogspot.com/ You do good research, do very logical development of an idea, and have a light entertaining touch to your writing. I enjoy reading your work,John.


Coolbreezing profile image

Coolbreezing 6 years ago from New York, New York

At last Mr. Willie you are absolutely right "Any man who claims an independent existence from others is either a liar or a fool. If you deny the worth of your fellow man you are thief." And by the way excellent writing - thanks for sharing.

We are truly a chain of individual thoughts that comprised many ideas. What separates us from each other is hate or fear. we learn from each other every day either consciously or unconsciously.

We are a compound idea of all the ideas that we have accepted in our minds through the years. So when you look at us, you do not see who we are because we are invisible to the eye. In order to see our identity, you must contemplate us and not just look at the housing.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working