Well, I certainly didn't mean it in the way your reading suggests, so that's probably my poor choice of words at work.

Let me try again: Is it possible to formulate a theory of property rights that doesn't reinforce the power of current property owners? Can property rights be "democratized" the way that civil and political rights are "democratized" when the franchise is extended, say?

Any better?

td

[quote1228761961=talking_dog]
Well, I certainly didn't mean it in the way your reading suggests, so that's probably my poor choice of words at work.

Let me try again: Is it possible to formulate a theory of property rights that doesn't reinforce the power of current property owners? Can property rights be "democratized" the way that civil and political rights are "democratized" when the franchise is extended, say?

Any better?

td
[/quote1228761961]
Yes, I figured that you were asking as much. But then again, we must be aware of the ramifications in the way in which we articulate ideas.

As to democratizing property rights, why not? What do you think? Is this not a central issue for political philosophers from left perspectives? In other words, there are a range of traditions that attempt to respond to this situation.

But, I think it is not simply a question of not reinforcing the positions of power of current property owners. The theory would need to take into account how the property is used, questions of accumulation, access, etc.

It is such a deep-seated intuition: my labor, my property.

I can only say that if I am not allowed to own the property I have worked for, then what incentive should I have to work if not for my own interests?

The problem is that, yes, a political philosophy might legitimate a political authority in question. (Every ism in political philosophy about different types of governance in fact tries to do this). However, the larger question they are involved with is what is the proper source of authority? What makes laws or principles of justice legitimate?

Once that question is put on the table, the interplay between these various isms can be seen as addressing a higher question than immediately justifying what they see as their interest. However, this may be the product of academics separating themselves from the political realm unlike our predecessors who thought that if they just appealed to a man's rationality, he might be persuaded like when Plato went to Crete.

However, I want to get back to the rights consideration of property. In philosophy of mind, some may argue that the body schema gets extended in our experience with objects we possess. Our agency includes those items that we are affectively invested in. To destroy a violinist's violin would be to not only destroy the violin, but to destroy his livelihood (notice the embodied-like metaphor talk of livelihood, the imagery of being alive, as a way of comporting oneself). "When you smashed that violin, you destroyed a piece of me." Our agency is extended almost phenomenologically from objects we see as extensions of our body. I would make the claim that such experiences underwrite the original Lockean claim of my hands (agency) mixing with my labor (wealth).

By extension (pun intended), I would make a further claim that since we possess the capacity to plan in our agency, that these plans are owned in the agential sense that the violinist's violin is important to him. The plan isn't tangible, but is as important to himself as the violin from before. Take for example if someone stomped my laptop. On my laptop is a current paper against reading Nietzsche as a naturalist (among other things). This paper is crucial in developing a reading I want to suggest IS better than Leiter and Company. On all accounts, my laptop is repository of my ideas, papers, CV and entertainment. If your actions intervene upon an object of my agency, then there should be a really good reason why. If no justification can be found for interrupting my agency, my plans and my life, then perhaps you've found a way to parse the distinction between inalienable/alienable rights.

I like the idea that you can still go somewhere remote, buy a piece of land, and keep entirely to yourself. I hope that part of it survives whatever modifications you guys intend to carry out.

In philosophy of mind, some may argue that the body schema gets extended in our experience with objects we possess. Jeez, talk about mind/body duality viz "My Labour My Property".

What about the crafstman that crafted the violin? Metallurgists, engineers...?

The property owners have not been the property creators, ever (except for maybe suburban gardeners and crocheting grandmas.)

t_d.

Let me try again: Is it possible to formulate a theory of property rights that doesn't reinforce the power of current property owners? Can property rights be "democratized" the way that civil and political rights are "democratized" when the franchise is extended, say?

Did you have something in mind? Do you mean something like everyone's being entitled to a parcel of land? I hope I won't have to take any old parcel; I'd be willing to trade my parcel for something a little bigger in a remoter location.

When and if we get our parcels, email me to see if we can work something out.