On Property Right
2005.06.05 0:41

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.

(Continues..)