On Property Right II
2005.06.05 1:47

Continues from 'On Property Right'

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.