Re:Richmond’s rules: Why one California town is keeping Wall...
by pron on Sunday October 06, 2013 @12:03PM
(#6504439)
Of course I used a little hyperbole. Still, property is not innate – it is a social construct. When agriculture started, society decided to allow people to own property. People need society, they don't need property (as they've lived without it for over a million years). Society therefore can define the limits of private possession.
Obviously, we need to take into account that now, unlike 10,000 years ago, people no longer have the option of leaving society completely, so they have little choice in the matter, and in order to restore some of that freedom, private property needs to be protected by law. But again, property is not a natural right; it's a social convention. That should be the premise.
Re:Richmond’s rules: Why one California town is keeping Wall...
by zequel on Sunday October 06, 2013 @11:26PM
(#6506396)
A bit of an aside, are you sure we lived without property for over a million years? Is there evidence property didn't exist? Has the idea been observed, between say, apes? I'll guess that, not codified, the idea has existed for a long time. Just a thought.
It is dangerous to view it literally this way. To think that government and/or society is giving you things, assumes that they owned them to begin with. Government owns your rights, and then "graciously" allow you to exercise them? No.
Government exists to protect your rights. It's an important distinction. You rights to life, liberty, property, etc. are innate to you as a human being (the fact that others in the past have not had this view does not disprove this philosophy), and we created government and the notion of a rule of law to protect those rights.
Of course not all systems of government work this way, we call those that view themselves as the arbitrary "giver of all things" tyrannies.