On Property - Collective Version
2005.06.28 5:22

Among many Morosoph's insightful comments, he often shows us reference to his original JE.http://www.blogger.com/ ">This is one of them and the other is this.

His 'Reply to The Angry Economist' is written last year, I haven't read it yet though, I read his 'Property is a Positive Right' some month ago. Because it was already archived at the time I first read, I just left it without having an oppotunity to make a comment, in this occasion, I want to make through analysis on his very interesting JE. (As to his 'Reply to The Angry Economist' later I will do.)

Property is a Positive Right 2005.03.12 20:55 [ Remove Friend #100704 ] What do I mean when I say "property is a positive right"?I do not mean that "property is a positively a right", although property is an important part of the concept of freedom, rather I mean property is a right in the same way that health care is a right, as opposed to say the right to bear arms.

Here three different rights and their nature is talked about. The property right, right to be covered by a health care, the right to bear arms. And he interestingly shows the property right is similar in nature to the right to have access to the health care, but as opposed to the right to bear arms. In order to be valid, the property right has to be claimed by someone who might be eligible to have this right, in other words, unless the right being claimed, this would be ruled out to be a proper right. Property right is not an inherent right as basic human rights. So we need some eligibility to claim to have the proper right as being property right. For example, for those who invented something, they are eligible to claim property right only derived from something. For those who have been paying premium to health care, they are eligible to claim health insurance. In the case of annuity, tax reduction too. the property right is similar to all these rights.

On the other hands, the right to bear arms is quite different in that

A negative freedom is where others refrain from harming you, in particular the state. An example is freedom from false imprisonment.

The right to bear arms is regarded as to protect from a negative freedom, therefore is regarded as negative right. Unnecessary, but if it were not for the right to bear arms, even a negative freedom is unable to be protected and guaranteed.

A positive freedom is one where one is guaranteed something by an outside entity, usually the state. An example of this is freedom from poverty.

Thus property right appears to be positive. For

Property certainly appears at first to be a negative right because it appears to be very natural, especially to those that are used to it. It is indeed likely that civilisation would be impossible without it. However, property is not nearly as simple as being a simple, universal right.

Exactly. Property right is not an inherent one but a social one. We have to claim first, then property right come up with itself as a positive right, later it will become the criteria of social position in the inevitable natural sequence.

Coase's Theorem lies at the root of why land is property, and air is not, for example. The key here is the concept of transaction cost.

The keys here also are 'public utility'. I used to ponder about why coasts are not eligible to be claimed as private property as land ownership. Different law is applicable in sea and land, coasts are where sea and land are adjacent, so if someone owns coasts, it is harmful to the state entity, in other words, he is challenging against state entity automatically when he owns coasts, so state law prohibits anyone from having ownership on the rim of sea and land, I mean coasts.

There is a defence of property as natural in the theory of natural law,

I.e. property right as inherent, which is rather against the natural law.

but proponents of natural law are far more subtle than simply proposing property rights as absolute; rather such a defence is about the natural equilibrium of common law over time.

Therefore more dangerous.

Those who would hold property to be a negative right would have to lean on natural law theory, implicitly defining property to be a natural extension of the owner.

Dangerous. If property right is claimed to be inherent, it extends to the theory that the right was given to me so it is unquestionable, which leads to the consolidation of the class.

The trouble with such a theory is that it isn't nearly as strong as the proponents would wish it to be.

Given the problem with defining what property is, and the implicit definition required of property being an extension of oneself, I posit that this kind of reasoning is post-rationalisation used by those who want a minimal government, and divide the concept of rights conveniently into positive and negative rights for the purpose of achieving the kind of government that they wish. This is an entirely reasonable thing to do: seeking consistency by searching for underlying principles is what makes a course of action moral rather than merely arbitrary.

However, property is awkward, and ever-shifting. The evolution of patent law and copyright show this to be precisely the case

In the wake of intellectual law, how large we admid someone who invented something claiming the property right on their owns remains to be arguable furthermore.

and it appears that a better thesis than that of natural law, or concerns of efficiency concerning what is and isn't considered to be property is simply that

the powerful get their way.

Because property right is not inherent but social. Basically intellectual property has to be admitted as a property right of someone who invented first, but because intellectual matters are unseen and easily transmissable through once verbalised, it is indeed ambiguous.

Luckily, however, the multitude of firms in existence means that power is to some extent decentralised, but property certainly appears to exist with the blessing of the state, and this would still be the case even if property law enforcement were in some way more 'just' (this term will mean different things to different readers).

In short, property is a positive right.

Yes, indeed.

Morosoph wrote on his 'Property is a Positive Right' that

Coase's Theorem lies at the root of why land is property, and air is not, for example. The key here is the concept of transaction cost.

We cannot claim property right on things which show high publicity, so coast line can be used as a national border. Of course as well as parks or roads, coasts can be used more publicly than other simple land. In the case of coasts utilised as port, too. Port is used as highly public facilities. How about factories built adjacent to the sea? They occupied the area adjacent to the sea. Answer. They are usually engaged in highly public industries, of course they are privately owned, but rather collectively owned by companies which represent the collective benefit of shareholders.

Beaches are usually used similar to the parks, so we cannot claim property right on the beaches, too.

Then his comment,

Property . . . is not so simple. See my journal [slashdot.org].In short, property is a positive right: reinforced exclusivity.

Yes, indeed so.

I agree that Anachro-Capitalists tend to lean upon natural law, but natural law doesn't tell you what one is, but rather (should it be a valid mode of analysis), what it should be.

The point a little bit difficult to understand. We know natural law merely admits someone has a right to claim property right on the objectives, but in order to make them generate the property right, someone has to claim for it, Unless doing so someone's property right remains to be silent. When he said natural law tells you what it should be, I think he is stating the same thing. Not sure though...

Ronald Coase wrote about this; brief analysis: property exists where the investment gains outweigh the costs of exclusivity (the thing in question cannot be readily put to its best use).

Ronald Coase wrote about this; brief analysis: property exists where the investment gains outweigh the costs of exclusivity (the thing in question cannot be readily put to its best use).

He explains what phenomenon property is like. Where the costs of exclusivity outweighs the investment gains, he would suggest someone who owns property right might let go of his right. I would rather suggest emphasising the role of who claims the right to own property. Since propety right is not something taken for granted in nature law, someone has to declare he has the property right. Property 'exists' in nature from the beginning, but that does not regulate who owns the right. Only later those who claim the right, the right to own property 'appears' 'generates' itself. The property right might be 'existing', but sleeping till being called by someone who 'claims'.