| | Joe,
In post #49 , near the bottom, you wrote, "...in describing rights as things that you possess much like property, and by analogy other people are morally limited in their options just like they are limited in stealing from you. But as I said, it is circular. It relies on the concept of a right to property to then create the analogy that rights are sort of like property, and your possession of them implies others can't interfere with them."
What if the problem is not how we are using the term "rights," but in how we are using the term "property"?
From Rand, all rights apply to action, "The concept of a 'right' pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men."
She goes on to say, "The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation."
I'm going to argue that this is where the problem exists. That it makes no sense to say we have a "right to property," because property IS a bundle of rights relating a person to an entity - they are a set of actions that we have the moral sanction to exercise in relation to some entity. This bundle of rights define the boundaries of actions relative to the entity. If I have leased a car, I have acquired a bundle of rights related to that car. They are very specific, time-limited in this case, and define the actions for which I have moral sanction. Knowing those boundaries empowers me - I can do anything I want within them - I don't have to work up complex reasonings from basic principles before doing anything with that car. My energies are liberated.
It is the common usage of the word 'property' that is the problem in this issue, not the word 'rights'.
The equivocation in the last statement of Rand's that I quoted is the mixing the meanings of property as a bundle of rights with the meaning of property as the entity itself, be it a car, or a hammer, or a copyright to a novel.
I am claiming, as did Rand, that rights can only apply to actions. The actions are always relating the person entitled to take that action to an entity upon which the action would fall. I have the right to breathe (action taker = me, action=drawing a breath, entity=my body). I have many more rights related to my body, a whole bundle of them. I possess them, they are my property.
So, is my body my property? No. The way I believe we should use the term property is that we do not own things - we only own rights to things. That which we can morally do with an entity is defined by that bundle of rights that represent our moral relationship to that thing, and that bundle is what we own - that bundle is our property in that thing.
A woman can sell her hair to a wig-maker, or some of her blood to a blood bank. She can do this morally because she has a right to sell these things, because these are two items in the bundle of rights that relate to her body. The law may define terms of a contract to protect the exchanges of the values represented by these transactions - a law that legally sanctions what is morally sanctioned. If a law is passed that prohibits her from selling her blood, it is immoral because it interferes with an action that has moral sanction and that is primary to the law.
Here is a quote from Rand on rights and property: "The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation."
We understand exactly what she means, but if I were to rewrite it to strictly conform with a defintion of "property" as a bundle of rights, it would be something like this, "The right to life is the source of all rights—and property is their only implementation." I find that awkward. And it is a problem that property can refer to the entity, to the bundle of rights in that entity, or in all entities, or all rights that can be associated with all entities, to the idea that things can be owned, to the assigned or implied possession and/or title of an entity... etc. (not counting the use of word to mean 'land' or real estate)
"Ownership" is our relationship to a specific bundle of rights. I "own" a collection of rights relative to an entity.
All of this is awkward and tedious and makes it clear why common usage would fall to saying 'property' means the object, and 'ownership' means possession and/or title of the the object, and that wealth is a collection of objects. But awkward or not, this concept of a bundle of rights takes care of the circular reasoning problem.
Here is quote from Bastiat's Law where he uses "property" as I have described, "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose—that it may violate property instead of protecting it—then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious."
(Side Note: Doesn't that fit so well what we see in politics today?!?!)
Here is another item to consider: I lease the use of a car for this next month. I have acquired a bundle of rights relative to the car (and Avis retains some of their bundle of rights in the car, as well as a transfer of my bundle of rights in some money to them). I now have the right to drive the car to the grocery store next Tuesday. But, I was not born with that specific right. My human nature isn't about driving rental cars. But it is also NOT a just a legal right, or a right granted by statute. It is an expression of my right to participate in voluntary exchanges - to take any action that does not violate the rights of others, and that does have a basis in human nature (and become a moral principle in presence of others). All moral rights will be directly inferred from my nature, or will be derived as logical extensions of those fundamental rights.
Some moral principles arise even on a Island inhabited by a single person - it would be immoral to lie to myself about the reality of my situation; it would be immoral to not take those actions my survival requires in this context. Other moral principles only come into being when there is the possibility of the actions of the person on the island effecting others or of their actions effecting him. If there are no others, there are no rights, no bundle of rights, no property in the sense of a bundle of property, no property in the sense of ownership. The base of rights is human nature, but the rights as moral sanction of actions require the existence of other in a context where a boundary between actions might exist such that we could violate their rights or they could violate ours without those boundaries.
As infants we have no sense of rights and act as if we had the right to any action we want. Childhood is partly about learning restrictions - learning that we can't hit or take things away from our playmates, that we shouldn't touch things that don't belong to us without permission and so forth. When we have learned that, we, hopefully, have enough self-esteem to pursue our ambitions vigorously which means taking a wide and assertive range of actions in pursuit of our goals (within the boundary of rights). Through childhood we restricted our actions as we acquired an understanding and acceptance of rights, and in adulthood we expand our actions within those boundaries - we reap the benefits of being able to act in an environment of rights (to the degree that they are recognized legally and culturally).
|
|
