Agree with this. The qualification I would put on it is the level of "state" control. My understanding of it, and I'm no lawyer, is that rights of way are enshrined in common law, and similarly spaces such as parks, public beaches and town squares could be kept open in this way without being actually run by the state. Local trusts, charities or volunteers could do this. I don't see much need for active administration of rights of way or open spaces provided there is a mechanism to stop people blocking them.
The Role of Government
- Thread starter Gmart
- Start date
Agree with this. The qualification I would put on it is the level of "state" control. My understanding of it, and I'm no lawyer, is that rights of way are enshrined in common law, and similarly spaces such as parks, public beaches and town squares could be kept open in this way without being actually run by the state. Local trusts, charities or volunteers could do this. I don't see much need for active administration of rights of way or open spaces provided there is a mechanism to stop people blocking them.
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
You think that the right for someone to make a profit (this is what property rights are about, after all), trumps the needs of people to have shelter, warmth and food.
I think that is an aspect of property rights, but not the sole reason for them. Property rights in theory also protect the owner against the state just wondeirng onto your property and doing what they like. They also protect or should against folks dumping toxic waste in your backgarden.
To answer that as well, there is no reason why property rights need trump those things. The lack of public housing is really down to the councils inability to keep up with the demand and government finger twiddling rather then people being excluded by private property in my opinion.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
I didn't say that it negates them. Try reading what I've written.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Except, of course, that the state usually, whatever it's attitude to the primacy of property rights, reserves to itself (via the policing function) the right to "just wander onto your property", with or without probable cause to do so.
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
Except of course in reality they don't.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
rights schmights.
Power.
Power.
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
Which stems from private property rights - someone wants to be paid. There's not much profit to be made in housing people with no money.
Of course, and that is a problem.
The governments inability to keep up with demand for social housing has nothing to do with property rights IMO, and everything to do with mismanagement of money and poor planning across the board. There is no reason why with the vast sums of cash Labour have taken from the public over the past 12 years they couldn't have addressed the social housing problem to the point where this conversation wouldn't be happening.
However their priorities where things like Iraq and yet people still continued to vote them in...
Also somebody would want to be paid anyway, whether it is the builder building council homes, or the person renting their house to the council. We need money to buy food and pay taxes, so either you have the government running the housing and paying people for the upkeep etc. or you have a private entity doing it. I'm not sure how abolition of property rights would change this fact? (sorry if I have misunderstood the point you where making).
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Another top Gmart thread...
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
So private property rights have nothing to do with capitalist exchange?
To add to the above. I do believe in property rights, and do not believe they should be abolished. They probably do need an overhaul though as they are open to abuse.
I'd prefer to see the government spend money on purchasing repossessd homes, old military bases etc. and build a social housing stock that won't be sold off.
In my opinion if somebody has bought a house and decided to leave it vacant then that is up to them what they do with their property. We may not like it because people are homeless, but I think there are other ways of addressing the problem.
I'd prefer to see the government spend money on purchasing repossessd homes, old military bases etc. and build a social housing stock that won't be sold off.
In my opinion if somebody has bought a house and decided to leave it vacant then that is up to them what they do with their property. We may not like it because people are homeless, but I think there are other ways of addressing the problem.
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
Blagsta> That wasn't directed solely towards you but was a general question. If you don't have private property rights, then who decides when to build houses and where. I presume some form of central planning/government planning would be required?
For example your comment:
I'm not sure how a lack of property rights would address this though? Sure people may be able to just walk into an empty building and live in it, but that is hardly a good solution for a family?
Somebody would still need to do some form of planning or allocation of housing stock. If the market + government does not control this, then who? Just the government?
For example your comment:
I'm not sure how a lack of property rights would address this though? Sure people may be able to just walk into an empty building and live in it, but that is hardly a good solution for a family?
Somebody would still need to do some form of planning or allocation of housing stock. If the market + government does not control this, then who? Just the government?
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
This is a bit of a straw man. You don't need to abolish property rights altogether to allow the use of vacant buildings; it's a question of not assuming that property rights trump everything ever. (Not that any government ever has assumed or will assume that, except perhaps when it comes to their own property.)
But clearly, if there is a vacant building that is "owned" by somebody, in an area where there are people who are homeless, enforcing an absolute condition that the "owner" can keep people out of the property regardless means that those people won't be able to live in that property.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Because that would make politics so simple that it wouldn't be amenable to the snake-oil sales tactics of the party hucksters.
I think the two are complimentary. Property rights give the individual the power to protect their property and have a long term stake in it. This gives them an incentive to build a house, improve it, and make sure it's part of a decent community.
Besides, without property rights, even if you could get a roof over your head, you could lose it again just as quickly when you went out and came back to find someone else had moved in.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
If jane and john go out to cut wheat, but jane hasn't tools as good as the ones john inherited from his father, where then is fair society?
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
Also, how have the owners of property obtained this coin they offer in exchange for labour? through their own labour? I doubt it, given the hereditary nature of property rights.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
and what if people say they want more for their labour and their intelligence?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Now we're talking, power.
It's not completely fair, but I don't see that any system could be.
Inherited fortunes can easily be squandered, and new wheat cutting tools can be bought very quickly if they would pay for themselves.
If people want more for their labour then they can ask for it. Whether anyone is prepared to pay more is a different matter.
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
There's the rub. We all need food, shelter, warmth. If you don't own any property, you're beholden to those that do. If they don't want to pay more, what can you do as an individual?
Similar threads
