Objectivism and private property

[musashi]

In an Objectivist society, how would a system of private property function?

It would seem that private property rights are at the core of Objectivist theory. The virtue of greed would lead us to believe that the object of greed (in many cases private property) is important. Not everything in our current world has a clear title.

Who owns the air? Who owns the air over the ocean?
Who owns the clouds?
Who owns the rain? And who is responsible for the damage caused by a flood when their rain comes down in excess?
What about space and the distant stars – who owns those?
Who owns the wild animals?
Who owns the people that lack the capacity to enter into a contract. In an Objective world aren’t these individuals comparable to wild animals?
And what about the microscopic? Do I own the germs that live on the fruit that comes from the tree, which grows on my land?
And if someone gets sick because of that germ am I culpable?
Who owns the Ebola virus?

It would seem that the current customs for defining private property lack resolution. This ambiguity in private property would appear to create pesky little issues like social dependency and pollution. Do these various issues, really just come from a single common cause?

Greed may indeed be a virtue, but some of the stuff in our universe is not coveted. What about the responsibility for the undesirable objects? In this brave new world of 100% assigned private ownership, would some forms of private property really constitute a burden rather than a boon?

[Tolthar Lockbar]

Musashi, do you have the book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal?

There is a chapter called, "The Property Status of Airways", and it is speaking about radio frequencies. I think it would clear up this issue.

[musashi]

It took me awhile to get to the essay (I had the book on the shelf, but the essays just don’t fire me up like the novels).

The essay does address part of my question, and it reinforces the need to consider the question. Some might consider it poor form to take a quote out of context, but I thought this statement was germane…

… it took many centuries before primitive nomadic tribes of savages reached the concept of private property – specifically land property, which marked the beginning of civilization.

I think she is with us here – figuring out who owns what? And how they get it can resolve many social problems. In some sense a better definition of private property ownership can lead us to a greater degree of civility.

Unfortunately the essay had a narrow focus, so it is a forced fit answer to the question at best. Her main point was that as new territory opens up, the government has a role in defining the legitimate ownership of the property. Her example was the Home-Steal, errr…. Homestead Act of 1862. In that instance the US government found themselves instantly in control of vast tracks of land. The government offered parcels of land to homesteaders that would occupy the land for 5 years.

• Coincidentally this government program is where the Oklahoma “sooners” get there nickname. These settlers crossed over into Indian Territory “sooner “ than the government allowed, took the land and drove off the natives by force. It was a GLORIOUS moment in US history, and certainly worthy of emulation and adulation.

So in this instance, ownership of ANYTHING can be conferred if you can show use for a specified time. That is how it all starts. Once title is granted, the whole system runs like clockwork.

But let’s examine this approach for the river Thames…
Is the first person who lived by and regularly drank from the river the one true owner?
And if they lived in one small area, do they own the whole river from head water to mouth?
And do they own every spec of water as it runs by?
And what if the owner of the Ocean declares that the water dumping out of the Thames is a trespass, and pursues a cease and desist order?

And what about the people that came after and needed the use of the river, did they owe rent to the river-baron?
Is the river-baron responsible for all the damage caused when the river floods?
Can he be shown to be negligent if someone accidentally drowned in his river?
What happens when that river changes course and erodes away the land of another? Does the river-baron still own the river? The land is gone, is the river-baron responsible for full compensation for the damage done by his river?
And what happens when a mob kills the river-baron and all his legitimate heirs? Who get the river then? Does the government hold an auction?
And what about neglect or abandonment, what if the owner stops using the river and yet constrains all others from accessing it? Can the government take the river back and auction it a second time?


No for me the essay doesn’t really measure up to the questions.

[Tolthar Lockbar]

First of all, some of these questions are very specific and I am not a proper lawyer by any means.

Is the first person who lived by and regularly drank from the river the one true owner? You don't own something unless you use it. Assuming that person was free and respected rights, yes.
And if they lived in one small area, do they own the whole river from head water to mouth?No, they own where they drank from.
And do they own every spec of water as it runs by?The section of the river they drink from I would think.
And what if the owner of the Ocean declares that the water dumping out of the Thames is a trespass, and pursues a cease and desist order? They would deal with the court system then. They have a valid claim to their water.

And what about the people that came after and needed the use of the river, did they owe rent to the river-baron? They would not be able to use _that part_ unless they have a trade of some sort (or donation)
Is the river-baron responsible for all the damage caused when the river floods? Thats a toughie, I'll answer it below.
Can he be shown to be negligent if someone accidentally drowned in his river? No. I don't see why he would be. If you own a bridge and someone falls off, is it your fault? But there could be a contract in which he would take responsibility.
What happens when that river changes course and erodes away the land of another? Below.
Does the river-baron still own the river? Below.
The land is gone, is the river-baron responsible for full compensation for the damage done by his river? Beeeeeelow! These are all the same abstract question: "If something happens that was not caused by the owner, is the owner to blame?". Isn't reason great? People should make abstractions more often...
And what happens when a mob kills the river-baron and all his legitimate heirs? No ownership.
Who get the river then? Just like it started.
Does the government hold an auction? no.
And what about neglect or abandonment, what if the owner stops using the river and yet constrains all others from accessing it? Below.
Can the government take the river back and auction it a second time? Not even a first time.


The questions I didn't answer are ones I can't think of answers to right now. The ones I did answer, I actually used the article I told you about.

One has to think abstractly. If you use it, and its unclaimed, you can claim it. That abstract principle alone is enough to answer what I answered. Abstractions are a wonderful thing.

To the ones I didn't answer, I'd have to think on it. I am not a professional in the field. People probably spend alot of time researching things like this. Its part of the study of law. They would have to look at morality, and think about how to implement it into laws. Its not always easy.

[Oleksandr]

Btw, just using a resource isn't enough to claim ownership.

You can only claim ownership on resources where you have created some value.

For example, you don't oil just because you swim in it. But if you have created value by using processing oil into something that fuels car then you have created value, thus you can own that oil and its nearby surroundings.

[Ciaras]

Things like water and air are essentially impossible to claim ownership on given our current level of technology. It isn't feasible at this time to track every molecule of water or air from its originating source, through its various stages, and then to its consumption. Perhaps at some time in the future this will be possible, but until that time there can be no ownership.

However, owning the land and physical space above or below said land is permissible. You can't own the air molecules above your state (due to technological constraints), but I'd have no issue with someone owning the air space above said land.

If a company comes up with a method of extracting breathable air from...let's say...certain ore deposits...then yes...they own that "air". This is best seen in a lunar example. If company XYZ buys a parcel of land on the moon, settles the land, and creates breathable air utilizing the above mentioned extraction process from resources on its land...then yes...they can own the air...in that case that air can be quantified and followed from beginning to end of its cycle.

If in 400 years the surface of the Earth becomes unlivable and we're reduced to moving into dome protected cities...then those responsible for the technology for creating/filtering the air would own it.

I know that sounds a bit scary to some people...but you have to make a hard stand. Just because you need something doesn't mean you are entitled to it. A company that controls all the air it produces in this post-apocalyptic dome-city I mentioned COULD charge extravagantly for the air it provides and deny it to those who couldn't afford it...but if those people die or leave for a dome with cheaper air...eventually you run out of people who can afford it. True...human nature and lack of logical reasoning by said humans could cause deaths like that to happen...but do you instead hold the company ransom to provide free air...to the point where it collapses and the air stops flowing because they can't afford to maintain the equipment?

Its true that I'm leaving out the possibility of government control of the air for the "public good", but I hate submitting to the idea of a collectivist/communist/socialist society.[/b]

[musashi]

Things like water and air are essentially impossible to claim ownership on given our current level of technology. It isn't feasible at this time to track every molecule of water or air from its originating source, through its various stages, and then to its consumption. Perhaps at some time in the future this will be possible, but until that time there can be no ownership.

That’s right gases and liquids don’t sit still for very long. It is impractical to define boundaries of ownership using current technology. But if we could identify collections of gas and liquid molecules, would this bring us to a more civil society? Just as establishing land boundaries brought us civilization.

[Ciaras]

I think we need to define a common term for civilization before we can get much further. I may be wrong, but from what it sounds like you're equating being "civilized" with civilization.

The American Heritage Dictionary gives the following definition of Civilization:

1. An advanced state of intellectual, cultural, and material development in human society, marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of record-keeping, including writing, and the appearance of complex political and social institutions.

I think for the purposes of our discussion this seems to be a reasonable definition.

Civilized, however, brings up a different set of definitions:

1. Having a highly developed society and culture.
2. Showing evidence of moral and intellectual advancement; humane, ethical, and reasonable: terrorist acts that shocked the civilized world.
3. Marked by refinement in taste and manners; cultured; polished.

I think we can both agree that the ability to eventually track and control each molecule and atom might be a step forward for civilization it wouldn't necessarily make us more civilized in the respect to becoming more "humane, ethical, and reasonable".

[Outsider]

musashi, where did you get the idea that everything is owned (according to Objectivism, or whatever) regardless of any action people take (or not take)?
Can you give a quote to support this idea and state who you think is claiming it?

[Outsider]

Ayn Rand- "Man's Rights," The Virtue of Selfishness, 94

The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.

Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values.

Ayn Rand - "The Property Status of Airwaves" Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 122

Any material element or resource which, in order to become of use or value to men, requires the application of human knowledge and effort, should be private property—by the right of those who apply the knowledge and effort.

Galt's Speech, For the New Intellectual, 182

The source of property rights is the law of causality. All property and all forms of wealth are produced by man's mind and labor. As you cannot have effects without causes, so you cannot have wealth without its source: without intelligence.

[musashi]

Musashi, where did you get the idea that everything is owned (according to Objectivism, or whatever) regardless of any action people take (or not take)?
Can you give a quote to support this idea and state who you think is claiming it?

Tolthar gave me the idea. No I haven’t seen an "everything is owned" type of essay or story. I like to reach past what is written when I can. So the question is just an extension of our conversations.

But I believe it is a worthwhile question. It seems that a strong system of laws is at the core of most Objectivists’ utopias. And how can a strong system of laws exist when we have weak definitions of personal property?

[Tolthar Lockbar]

I didn't mean to give this impression. Not everything is owned. Actually, the reason that I pointed you to that article is because it points out the fact that not everything is owned.

So I may of misspoke or given the wrong impression.

[musashi]

I didn't mean to give this impression.

You don’t need to back up on my account Tolthar. Your comments allowed a question bloom in my mind.

Objectivism has many desirable traits, but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t still some difficult questions about how the real world should work. I’ve raised some of those questions in this forum: coping with the truly needy; dealing with the effects of pollution; even interaction between individuals.

To relate more specific details, we were discussing a polluted river. Tolthar said that if the river was private resource (rather that a public one) then the owner would have a tort against all the people that dumped their pollution into his river. And a good and true court should up hold the owner’s rights. Much as I can not legitimately dump on a private land without the owner's permission. I think this is a rather creative way for dealing with the problem of pollution.

Tolthar’s point was that a private owner would presumably take a more proactive role in managing his property. I can think of several reasons why this would be the case.

• For starters, polluting would reduce the market value of the property. Assuming a generality that most owners desire to maximize their wealth, I think it is safe to presume the private owner would put a stop to the pollution.
• Also if the owner allows polluting of their property, and then the pollution spreads and causes harm to another person, the owner is culpable in the chain of events that caused the harm. Again assuming that most owners desire to minimize their risk, I think it is safe to presume that the private owner would not want assume liability for a situation not of his own making. I believe the private owner would put a stop to the pollution.

This is a fun approach to some complicated problems.

[Arakasi Takeda]

Ayn Rand- "Man's Rights," The Virtue of Selfishness, 94
Quote:
The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.

Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values.

Ayn Rand - "The Property Status of Airwaves" Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 122
Quote:
Any material element or resource which, in order to become of use or value to men, requires the application of human knowledge and effort, should be private property—by the right of those who apply the knowledge and effort.

Galt's Speech, For the New Intellectual, 182
Quote:
The source of property rights is the law of causality. All property and all forms of wealth are produced by man's mind and labor. As you cannot have effects without causes, so you cannot have wealth without its source: without intelligence.

Two men stand a meter apart, both with shovels. They both dig a hole ten feet into the ground and simultaneously strike a lump of copper. One man turns to the other and says 'I'm going to turn this into a copper hammer'. The second says 'I'm going to turn this into copper wire'.

They shovel off the remaining dirt and discover there is only one large piece of copper.

Question - according to Objectivism - Who owns what?

Both men own a hole in the ground - their effort produced it and created it.

But who owns the copper? - neither man has actually made anything of the copper yet - they have both only stated their intentions to do so. Objectivism states that neither man has a right to an _object_ (the lump of copper), just to the products of their labor and intelligence. Both both men lay claim to the copper, because didn't their labor uncover it?



Two men arrive simultaneously on a previously undiscovered patch of land. Both have brought a horse, a plow, and seed with them. One man says to the other 'I'm here to plant wheat'. The other says 'I'm here to plant corn'. Both men claim the land is theirs...who owns it?

No one does...neither man has actually planted anything, nor tilled it. So who decides which man can plow it, if no one owns it?



Two men a mile apart build two radio towers. Both radio towers operate on the same radio wave frequency. Both start broadcasting simultaneously, and the two radio signals cause so much interference that their signals are indecipherable. One goes to the other and says 'Hey - I built this tower - I have a right to use it.' The second man rebuts by saying exactly the same thing. Both men own their individual towers.....who owns the radio signal?




AT

[Oleksandr]

There is no such thing as two discoveries done at the same time.
There is always time difference between when they discover it, when they realize it's a discovery, and when they mark it as their discovery officially.

So much for non-existent problem.

[musashi]

There is no such thing as two discoveries done at the same time.
There is always time difference between when they discover it, when they realize it's a discovery, and when they mark it as their discovery officially.

So much for non-existent problem.

So there is no such thing as simultaneous events? Which man owns the copper? The lump can only be taken to a single mill, will it end up as hammers or wire?

Plenty of examples of shared credit for scientific discoveries because one inventor could not establish the earliest claim.

• There are three separate men who hold the credit for discovering Oxygen.
  
  Charles Darwin shares credit for the Origins of the Species with a younger author that was going to publish before him.

[Oleksandr]

So there is no such thing as simultaneous events? Which man owns the copper? The lump can only be taken to a single mill, will it end up as hammers or wire?

Plenty of examples of shared credit for scientific discoveries because one inventor could not establish the earliest claim.

• There are three separate men who hold the credit for discovering Oxygen.
  
  Charles Darwin shares credit for the Origins of the Species with a younger author that was going to publish before him.

You are changing context and applying historical man-made decisions as a proof of something metaphysical, musashi.

1. Yes, there are events that occur at the same time in the context of all possible kind of events.

However, in the context of human actions of submitting the paper work, only one will be first. First through the door, first to the office in charges of officially singing property, etc.

2. Example of gov'ts making a decision to split something based on their laws doesn't mean those actions happened at the same time.

[musashi]

1. Yes, there are events that occur at the same time in the context of all possible kind of events.
However, in the context of human actions of submitting the paper work, only one will be first. First through the door, first to the office in charges of officially signing property, etc.

Oh nooo… That is soft ground you are standing on there Olek. You are right establishing the prior claim is what patent offices do. Some countries do it on a first to file basis (like Japan those sneaky so and so’s) some do it on first to invent (like the USA). The patent office has to sort the whole situation out, and award the claim to only one man. This approach puts each person’s rights into the hands of a bureaucrat.

There needs to be a way to settle this thing in the field, without a team of lawyers and a court room.

[Oleksandr]

There needs to be a way to settle this thing in the field, without a team of lawyers and a court room.

That's not possible, but shouldn't be that way anyway.

We are talking about protection of property rights, and for this law is required, and thus government action. If people are let to themselves to figure out who owns what, then it becomes anarchy.

It's up to a single source, government to defend and properly assign all claims on discoveries. Thus, it will be one at a time.

And personally, I think, first come first serve is basis is the best option.

[musashi]

And personally, I think, first come first serve is basis is the best option.

From this (and your post above) I take it that you are in favor of a first to file system. I don’t like that system myself. I prefer first to discover.

There are several reasons behind my dislike for first to file.

• Theft – Say man number #1 digs the hole finds the copper. Man #2 learns of the find, digs the second hole and finds the copper. But man #2 is working concert with a fast runner that can reach the claims office first.
• Patent Bombardment – In a first to discover system much of the focus is upon figuring out who was first. In a first to file system even if you are first to file, if your application is incomplete competitors can file applications on the inadequate aspects around your discovery, even if the competitor has invested no prior work towards the discovery. (I know a part of you is saying tough luck right now – should have done a more complete job with the application – see Theft above). What a competitor will do in the area is attack an existing patent by file many, many minuscule applications around the patent. Once awarded the bulk of these small patents carry more force than the original patent, and the competitor can now sue for an injunction against the original patent holder.
• Corruption – The first to file system is easily corrupted. A patent application must pass through many hands before it is officially received. Any one of those hands could intentionally slow down an application, allowing a later application to be first filed. The system is all about artifact and not about art.

But pushing to the first post in the thread, should the government assign title to some of this property directly? Or employ a system like land grants, spectrum auctions, and patents? (a temporary fix right Tolthar? patents expire)

[Arakasi Takeda]

musashi wrote:

So there is no such thing as simultaneous events? Which man owns the copper? The lump can only be taken to a single mill, will it end up as hammers or wire?

Plenty of examples of shared credit for scientific discoveries because one inventor could not establish the earliest claim.

There are three separate men who hold the credit for discovering Oxygen.

Charles Darwin shares credit for the Origins of the Species with a younger author that was going to publish before him.

Oleksandr said:
You are changing context and applying historical man-made decisions as a proof of something metaphysical, musashi.

1. Yes, there are events that occur at the same time in the context of all possible kind of events.

However, in the context of human actions of submitting the paper work, only one will be first. First through the door, first to the office in charges of officially singing property, etc.

2. Example of gov'ts making a decision to split something based on their laws doesn't mean those actions happened at the same time.

1) The fact that simultaneous events occur is both scientifically demonstratable and indisputable. You can't cut a fine metaphysical hair by trying to parse scientific reality.

Also - Rand's first principles state that all metaphysical concepts are born either from rational foundations OR out of physical experience. I did not make these up 'out of the blue' - I have a concept of simultenaity, of mining, of people, and of disputes. I have created these concepts by abstracting direct experience of all of them, and then used the concepts to create a metaphysical puzzle.

You are changing context and applying historical man-made decisions as a proof of something metaphysical, musashi.

Your statement is non-sense for the reason I pointed out - a 'proof of something metaphyiscal' must be borne out of experiences of _actual_ events. Therefore, using real world examples of supporting events is not only appropriate, but a necessary condition of Rand's metaphysical foundation.

2) Your second response is surprising, because your solution is related directly to governmental action. I am surprised to hear that, based on your general opinion of governments. But that still wouldn't allow you to resolve my problem #2 - the unplowed field - because for a piece of land to be undiscovered one assumes it probably doesn't belong to any state. If there is no state, there is no existent government to appeal to for resolution. But if there is no state, how can these two men resolve ownership of the field? For Objectivists who push for the absolute minimum of governmental interference (the logical outcome of which is no government at all - and yes, I note that you are not one of these individuals with your reference to anarchy), how can you resolve the property right without any governmental input?

Finally, if the property right in these circumstances, or in the 'file first' case can only be resolved by governmental action, then how is that effectively any different than acknowledging that the STATE ultimately decides property rights? You can run a symantic circle around the idea that the State doesn't own what it is parcelling out or judging on, but, in the end, the state is making the decision.

To get out of that conundrum, there must be a foundation to decide these for which the State acts only as an agent, not the source, of property rights.


AT

[musashi]

For Objectivists who push for the absolute minimum of governmental interference (the logical outcome of which is no government at all - and yes, I note that you are not one of these individuals with your reference to anarchy), how can you resolve the property right without any governmental input?

This is part of that soft ground I was referring to earlier. The government option is a dull tool.