Joe Jarvis mountains

EDITORIAL
Everyone Alive Believes in Private Property
By Joe Jarvis - April 06, 2017

Everyone alive on earth drank water within the last 72 hours (or at least within the last week if they are a special case of survival).

That means at the time of consumption, every person on earth considered that water their property, otherwise they would not have monopolized its use.

This demonstrates that private property must exist in order to fulfill what humans literally need to live.

Life, existence, is the most basic human right, and it would be impossible without property. That is why property rights form the basis for individual rights.

First and foremost, we are each our own property.

All true rights stem from self-ownership. True rights are negative rights, meaning the absence of coercion (not having something provided for you as some like to think).

We should have exclusive and monopolistic control over how others get to interact with our body. Consent is required for all just actions involving an individual. When consent is not gained, and force is used on an individual, that is a violation of natural rights, a form of rape.

In nature, an individual is at peace until acted upon by an outside force. Whoever wields that force is naturally in the wrong.

Government’s promote a culture of rape by failing to gain the consent of individuals before forcing them to do any number of things with their body, like forcing someone to labor for the state, or when the state arrests/ kidnaps someone for a victimless crime.

Mob rule is not consent, others cannot justly decide for you what is done to your body. Remaining where you were born is likewise not consent since compelling you to move or face violations of your rights is itself a violation of the natural right to self-ownership.

Government monopolizes final control over all property within their jurisdiction, thus inherently violating the rights of citizens.

Private property stems from self-ownership, because anything you originally appropriate, plus add labor to, becomes your property.

A river is not my property. But If I bend down, cup my hands, and draw a mouthful of water from the river, that water becomes my property. This is because no one else is using the water cupped in my hands at the time, nor have they improved it (as would be the case if the water came from a fish pond they created). The act of getting the water from the river added my labor to the water, which is now my property.

Same goes for food, it belongs to whoever performed the labor to grow it. If found in nature, food belongs to whoever picks it.

Shelter is an obvious one, building on uninhabited land makes it your own–naturally at least, not always in practice. And that is because we live in a world where rights are violated wholesale by governments.

But just because they are able to violate rights does not mean the rights themselves don’t exist.

Rights are a concept; they are a philosophical way of understanding existence, and what is natural, and just. Rights are a way to categorize naturally wrong actions–anything that violates that basic right of self-ownership.

Humans should be able to exercise exclusive control over what they do with and what happens to their body, the only limitation being when those actions violate another person’s self-ownership.

And just by going on existing, which requires food, water, and shelter, you must believe, in practice, in property rights.

Tagged with: , , , ,
Posted in EDITORIAL
  • Sol

    lol…you letting high school students write for the site now?

    • Centurian

      Even if it is the case, it does not make him wrong. It gives me some small modicum of hope for the future.

      The 30 kt. wind is blowing the water up against my bulkhead today. Can you come remove your socialized share of that right now? Or, do I accept the risks of where I choose to live? And if so, why do I have to pay the state, FedGov and corporatists for so called insurance coverage?

      When a hurricane caused $10k in damage to the bulkhead, it turned out that the federally mandated property, flood and wind and hail policies just would not cover it. So I was forced to pay tens of thousand over a period of years and received no benefits from these mandated “insurance” policies. So another $10k went down the drain. Hmm. Looks like theft to me. Property damage, wind and flooding and not one of the policies would pay despite decades of payments at the point of a gun. Fail to pay and they take your property.

      We lost a tree and a portion of bulkhead, but they saved the house. Had I not had those things in place the house would be gone too. No idea if any of the policies would have covered that either.

      Drain the swamp, send the gators, snapping turtles and rats scurrying away. Make them get real jobs that don’t involve extortion and violence. Heck, the Mob would be a better alternative.

    • autonomous

      Sometimes–admittedly seldom in our times–high school students are well worth listening to.

    • monkeyhouse

      They let them post in the comments too.

    • Doc

      Yeah, this wasn’t an impressive one.

  • CCblogging

    “Humans should be able to excercise (sic)exclusive control over what they do with and what happens to their body, the only limitation being when those actions violate another person’s self ownership”———————-

    Abortion violates another person’s self ownership.

    • autonomous

      But what of the case where the mother’s self-ownership was violated by means of an act that by definition continues for an indefinite span of time and could mean the loss of her own life?

      • CCblogging

        I don’t speculate on the abstract or hypothetical.

    • Col. Edward H. R. Green

      You are committing the Fallacy of the Stolen Concept by assigning personhood and self-ownership to a fertilized egg, or a fetus at any stage of development.

      • CCblogging

        You are committing the sin of lying. Thy shalt not kill!

  • Troublemaker

    This starts off with an incorrect premise. Some people believe the water is common peppery and no one should have rights over portions of it.

    • autonomous

      Some people are wrong-headed about common property. In every case I’ve heard of, those who have treated property as commonly held, treat it improperly, sometimes, disastrously so.

      • Troublemaker

        Exactly. That had a name: tragedy of the commons. Look it up.

        • Water in general, but the water sitting next to me in the water bottle is mine, because I am going to drink it to live. Eventually that same water will make its way back into common property until someone else claims it to sustain them, and so on.

          • Troublemaker

            In a capitalistic society, yes. In a marxist society, no.

  • Ken Griffith

    Why? You just asserted a set of beliefs based on an argumwnt from nature. In nature animals eat each other. Why shouldnt people do the same?

    • autonomous

      From time to time, they do. Provided they don’t kill to get a human body, it is hard to say that it’s wrong.

  • notwithabang

    Interested in your thoughts, Joe. The premise is bothersome to me though. For example, I wonder what the fish would have to say about H2O ownership…I mean, speciesism you know!

    Not being glib, just sharing and will ponder when time permits.

    • autonomous

      Cute! But fish by nature have no human rights.

    • Keep in mind that you cannot (justly) claim land or water that you are not using. But yes human/ animal rights interactions are an entirely different debate. Since there’s not even a consensus on human rights, we’ll leave that one alone for now.

  • Nobody wants to live in a system with no private property or arbitrary tyranny of government. In practice, people have disagreements about which things/resources should be protected as property by government law and which things/resources should be shared in common. What is the most principled way to resolve those differences? That’s tough to say. Anything one proposes is likely to run into quick objections in some cases. In a happy and just society, all people need paths to pursue their “needs” (in the sense of Maslow), with the more basic needs taking higher priority. The society’s solutions to what is claimed as private property, shared property, (or exclusive to the government property…) should maximize the ability of people to pursue their needs, prioritizing the basic ones, and give them all hope of continuing to improve over time.

  • Rolf Loth

    Ownership refers only to the things one creates, like the government creating a NOM DE GUERRE, i.e. Joe Bloe really has no name, but he uses one, JOE BLOE, that the government has given him, so he can do commerce – it is his ID he needs to cash the cheque at the bank that bears the name of JOE BLOE/Joe Bloe, which (not who) is the transmitting agent of the principal. The owner is the government, and the owner always carries the liability for what he claims. The owner of the house pays for the broken pipe or leaking roof, not the tenant (principal occupant) !
    So, who owns the earth? – He who created it, and we are just the occupants who can use it (albeit having made a mess of it). If nobody uses the land I want to occupy, why should I not be able to claim it for my use? But if it claimed by another, then I must negotiate its use. Then again, the name exists only on paper, has no life of its own, but all I create and work for has value that can be traded for the things that are needed to sustain my life, and that’s where JOE BLOE comes in handy. He does all the commerce with other corp(s)orations for me. I might compensate him for that with a token salary that falls under the exemption for income tax, but the rest of what I worked for is nobody’s business. Income does not fall under wages earned, or remuneration for work. It is the proceeds from corporate activities, such as profit, dividends, capital gains, etc.
    JOE BLO is a person. I am not a person, but a Man/Woman, nothing else, unless I state that I AM JOE BLOE, and there lies the trick we fall victim to. I then become the Trustee and the Government the Beneficiary, instead the Government being the Trustee and I the Beneficiary.

    • Rinkled Nuggets

      Brilliant.

  • WellLahdidah

    If you are going to opine on natural rights, then you discredit your otherwise concise examination of the topic, to not acknowledge the divine origin of those natural rights — and yes, I’m going to say it, the Founders drew from such thinkers as John Locke, and the Roman statesman Cicero on the subject. Cicero from “pagan” Rome, singularly reasoned with the acuity of a scientist, that the natural rights of humankind were and must be derived from a beneficent creator, that they were “inalienable rights” – that they were not derived from the state but rather the Creator.

loading