Economics‎ > ‎


What is property

The concept of property defines boundary's and personal jurisdiction.

Why is it property?

Property = only proper
No property rights = anarchy (no rights, no right to control= anarchy)

Property taxes

Governments are instituted to protect. Property is just something that we exchange some of our time to acquire, such as when we spend hours to till the soil and grow food. So in effect, property is equal to our lives, having been acquired in exchange for a portion of our lives. Some of us have been more effective in exchanging our time and have acquired more property than others. Some of us have kept the property we have acquired rather than consumed it. You say that it is justice to tax more heavily those who have acquired more property, but I say that is taxing one life more heavily than another life. It is true that government as an extension of protecting life also protects property rights. But rights are something that we each possess equally no matter how much or little property we posses, and I think you confuse protecting rights (which we all have equally) and protecting property (which we own in unequal proportions). If the government is protecting rights, we have equal protection and there is no valid argument for charging one man more for protecting those than another man.
The minute you require one man to pay more for government to protect his life and rights than you require of another, you create the incentive for more government, since the person paying less for government is then in a position to get something for nothing. Government is a service that we pay for collectively. If income were the test of what price one should pay at the grocery store for apples, then under your theory of justice, shouldn't we each pay a price based on our incomes and not the same price. If poor people could get apples cheaper than rich people, poor people would consume a lot more apples than the now do.
In a free market, prices are regressive because the price of apples is the same for everyone, but we all have different incomes. So how is it that for one service, government, you suddenly want to adopt the Marxist philosophy and charge people in proportion to incomes. 

Property is theft

What is meant by this is that personal property is theft. Don't think of property as a physical thing. Think of it as "jurisdiction over." or a "right to control".
If property is theft, then the government is the biggest thief.

Why property is not theft?
Why property is not theft

But you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth is the product of mans capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who invents the motor at the expense of those who did not invent it?

   --  Ayn Rand

Quote 192That wealth can only be acquired by force- and that fortune as such is the proof of plunder, with no further distinctions or inquirys necessary. If the men who had prodcued that wealth were thieves, from whom had they stolen it?(from those who had not produced it)
-- Ayn Rand

Evading the difference between production and looting, they called the businessman a robber. Evading the difference between freedom and compulsion they called him a slave driver. Evading the difference between pay checks and guns they called him an autocrat. Evading the difference between trade and force they called him a tyrant. The most critical issue they had to evade was the difference between earned and unearned.

   --  Ayn Rand

It makes no logical sense for the government to own land on the basis that individuals should not.

Right of exclusion

The analogy between Free Speech Toleration and Ownership toleration.
The RIGHT OF EXCLUSION that barely remains in Private Property itself.

What if a person carries into the restaurant a gun. In Arizona it is legal to openly carry. Does the Owner have the RIGHT OF EXCLUSION ?

This BLURRING of the line has made private property really public property.

"One of the least-understood functions of private property rights is that of determining who may harm whom in what ways. In a free society, it is presumed that the air in a person's house, restaurant, hotel, car or place of business is his property. That means that if you own a restaurant and don't want your air polluted by tobacco smoke, it is your right. Most would deem it tyranny if a bunch of smokers had the political power to get the city council to pass an ordinance forcing you to permit smoking. You'd probably deem it more respectful of liberty if those who wanted to smoke sought a restaurant owner who permitted smoking. The identical argument can be made about a restaurant owner who permits smoking in a city where non-smokers have the political power. The issue is not whether smoking harms others. The issue is the rights associated with property ownership."

Prohibition and property

Quote 1093

The economics of prohibition implies an analysis of the pecuniary costs and benefits of prohibition, but it also entails much more than this. First, the relevant costs and benefits are far more than simply monetary – they include all the individual and social costs and benefits. Second, at its heart economics is the study of property rights and the consequences that arise from different regimes for the ownership of property. Owning a property title involves owning a bundle or collection of rights. A person who owns a property can do what he or she wants with it: they may use it, rent it, donate it, transfer it, sell it or even destroy it. If, however, another entity may prevent an individual from using their property as they wish, then that other entity has a partial right of ownership of that property. Hence, when planning laws prevent a person from demolishing a listed building, the government obtains part-ownership of that property because it has a say in its use. Similarly, when government prevents an individual from choosing to imbibe cocaine or engage in prostitution, it may be said to have taken part-ownership of that person as it has a say in how they use their body. Slavery and military conscription are examples of other people taking almost complete ownership of a person, but all prohibitions involve government assuming at least partial ownership rights in its citizens. By assigning partial ownership rights in citizens to the state, prohibitions necessarily involve a diminution of individual liberty. People without the power to choose what they do with their bodies cannot be said to be as free as people with such a choice, and a society in which many activities are prohibited cannot be considered a free society. For this reason, prohibitions must be carefully justified. It must be shown that the benefits of prohibition outweigh the costs. But the most important cost may be the most difficult to measure and to quantify: the cumulative cost of many small and seemingly unimportant restrictions on individual liberty. Freedom is rarely lost in one dramatic incident, but is more commonly gradually taken away as many seemingly minor restrictions on personal freedom cumulatively take effect.

   --  IEA

First Possession

The right of first possession specifies that unowned resources come to be owned by the first person or association to establish control over them.

Limits of property rights

“[m]y property rights in my knife allow me to leave it where I will, but not in your chest.”
-- Robert Nozick