Locke and other philosophers asserted that the origin of private property rights was an attachment of labor. That by applying our labor to the resources they were "claimed." Mining claims function in this way to this day. Tomahawk improvements did during the rapid expansion West.
Obviously as LDS we have a somewhat different perspective of the origin, but do you feel that the concept is sound?
I do not and will elaborate later...
The origin of private property rights.
-
SwissMrs&Pitchfire
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 6047
- Location: Driven
-
SwissMrs&Pitchfire
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 6047
- Location: Driven
Refuting the attachment of labor theory.
Three men were stranded on an island. The island has three coconut palms. Two men are content to sit beneath the coconut palms in the shade staring at the horizon waiting to be rescued and eating coconuts and drinking the milk as the coconuts naturally fall off the tree.
The other man thinks that they are lazy and is tired of coconuts. Himself being an industrious man, he has devised a plan to fall his coconut palm and use the trees fibers to weave a net to catch fish. And so he, lacking tools to fell the tree proceeded to dig about the base of the tree until the roots were sufficiently undermined to topple the tree. Thereupon he removed the fronds and build a crude shelter for shade and comfort and was immediately wealthy with green coconuts full of milk but with but little meat. Soon however the supply of coconuts was exhausted and the net still not completed as the fibers proved exceedingly difficult to separate from the trunk.
And so being a learned and wise man, he took to racing the other men for the coconuts that fell from the other two trees, which they protested. They said that he was stealing their coconuts from their trees to which he replied that they were not in fact their trees because they had done nothing by which to claim them. In fact if push came to shove his claim was greater due to the exertion that he undertook to secure the coconuts for himself. He even occasionally shook the tree or used his fronds to try to knock coconuts down as the supply of coconuts was no longer sufficient for three men.
Naturally the story does not end well and features among other things, assault followed eventually by mortal combat and death. Eventually the ruin of the small civilization.
Point being that the three men had equal claim upon the resources and there were sufficient resources for all. The iron law of privatization then is first do no harm. Second that in the event that harm is done, full restitution is required in addition to serving the greater good.
The collectivist argument of the greater good is likewise a fallacy in need of refuting.
Collectivism asserts that human rights are not inalienable but rather transferable and somewhat amorphous. That in collective cooperation the rights, power, or authority of the whole is greater than that of it’s individual parts (taken as a whole or individually). That is that the cumulative of the entire whole in selfish disagreement possesses fewer rights, privileges, power, or authority, than the united whole. This is a fallacy.
The fact of the matter is that rights are inalienable, non-transferable to government which is a collective body united into a whole in cause or purpose with at least occasional dissension.
Government has no power, no rights, and no authority that the individuals themselves lack. The power of government is in the individual man lending himself to the cause by choice, without which government has no power. Government is entirely lacking rights. Ideals, covenants and contracts cannot themselves posses anything. They are no more than they appear to be in the minds of those who embrace them. The authority of government is only a delegation of individual men to individual men so long as they consent to the governance by that authority. It is therein that government may only operate upon the consent of the governed which may be freely given or withdrawn at any time in accordance with the principles upon which individual rights are secured and not in the violation of such principles (Ie. One cannot use the entering and exiting of contracts and covenants to rob another of his rights and/or power).
Collectivism asserts the majority over the minority “for the good of all.” This is an error as rights are inalienable and therefore any one man has equal to any other man and/or group of men since rights cannot be collected or piled atop each other. Truly a group may exercise more power as a stronger man over a weaker man, that is a fact, but he has not the right, nor authority and authority is derived from one of two sources only, individual rights and ultimately God.
This presents a problem for the pagan. It leaves him with no authority from which to assert positive law apart from the individual basis. He can have no authority beyond himself, thus no government, thus forever dooming him to anarchy or tyranny as individuals violate each others rights by use of agency.
All men are given to be agents unto themselves to act according to futurity as they see fit according to the natural law. There is a right to do right in complete freedom, there is power and ability, but no right to do wrong.
The issue of positive law then cannot be born except within an understanding of natural law. That natural law then must transcend the collectivist argument by some virtue unique to itself (lest we be ruled by many laws and many gods as the Greeks). That natural law is God’s law. It is morality and it is His delegated power (solely vested in the priesthood ), authority (delegated through priesthood and the patriarchal order), and authority (granted explicitly through revelation and restoration to man).
It is therefore necessary to discern the natural law before we can assert any positive law.
The earth is full and there is enough and to spare.
If any will take of the abundance and (first do no harm) impart not unto those who depend upon it, he is damned thereby.
Man is to improve without compromise or doing any harm, the world.
Adam and Eve knew what perfection looked like. They had seen the perfected world in the Garden of Eden. After the fall they were told in no uncertain terms that it was their job to restore all as at first (you broke it, you fix it). It was therefore easy for them to see what they could and could not do to restore (repent).
Despite our less clear understanding our job, duties, responsibilities etc… are the same. Therefore we must first figure out what exactly that means so that we heed the admonition to first do no harm.
Surely we may cultivate the soils, trade in an economic system that allows for specialization and transactions in “money .”
One may not however take more land than is his right or violate the freedom of movement through fencing off right of ways, nor deprive any of the resources to which they are accustomed or disposed without fair and just compensation (no harm).
But in prudence and wisdom man may cultivate, domesticate and produce. That man may exchange and develop his property to the benefit or neutrality of all. However man may not monopolize and extort (first do no harm).
Three men were stranded on an island. The island has three coconut palms. Two men are content to sit beneath the coconut palms in the shade staring at the horizon waiting to be rescued and eating coconuts and drinking the milk as the coconuts naturally fall off the tree.
The other man thinks that they are lazy and is tired of coconuts. Himself being an industrious man, he has devised a plan to fall his coconut palm and use the trees fibers to weave a net to catch fish. And so he, lacking tools to fell the tree proceeded to dig about the base of the tree until the roots were sufficiently undermined to topple the tree. Thereupon he removed the fronds and build a crude shelter for shade and comfort and was immediately wealthy with green coconuts full of milk but with but little meat. Soon however the supply of coconuts was exhausted and the net still not completed as the fibers proved exceedingly difficult to separate from the trunk.
And so being a learned and wise man, he took to racing the other men for the coconuts that fell from the other two trees, which they protested. They said that he was stealing their coconuts from their trees to which he replied that they were not in fact their trees because they had done nothing by which to claim them. In fact if push came to shove his claim was greater due to the exertion that he undertook to secure the coconuts for himself. He even occasionally shook the tree or used his fronds to try to knock coconuts down as the supply of coconuts was no longer sufficient for three men.
Naturally the story does not end well and features among other things, assault followed eventually by mortal combat and death. Eventually the ruin of the small civilization.
Point being that the three men had equal claim upon the resources and there were sufficient resources for all. The iron law of privatization then is first do no harm. Second that in the event that harm is done, full restitution is required in addition to serving the greater good.
The collectivist argument of the greater good is likewise a fallacy in need of refuting.
Collectivism asserts that human rights are not inalienable but rather transferable and somewhat amorphous. That in collective cooperation the rights, power, or authority of the whole is greater than that of it’s individual parts (taken as a whole or individually). That is that the cumulative of the entire whole in selfish disagreement possesses fewer rights, privileges, power, or authority, than the united whole. This is a fallacy.
The fact of the matter is that rights are inalienable, non-transferable to government which is a collective body united into a whole in cause or purpose with at least occasional dissension.
Government has no power, no rights, and no authority that the individuals themselves lack. The power of government is in the individual man lending himself to the cause by choice, without which government has no power. Government is entirely lacking rights. Ideals, covenants and contracts cannot themselves posses anything. They are no more than they appear to be in the minds of those who embrace them. The authority of government is only a delegation of individual men to individual men so long as they consent to the governance by that authority. It is therein that government may only operate upon the consent of the governed which may be freely given or withdrawn at any time in accordance with the principles upon which individual rights are secured and not in the violation of such principles (Ie. One cannot use the entering and exiting of contracts and covenants to rob another of his rights and/or power).
Collectivism asserts the majority over the minority “for the good of all.” This is an error as rights are inalienable and therefore any one man has equal to any other man and/or group of men since rights cannot be collected or piled atop each other. Truly a group may exercise more power as a stronger man over a weaker man, that is a fact, but he has not the right, nor authority and authority is derived from one of two sources only, individual rights and ultimately God.
This presents a problem for the pagan. It leaves him with no authority from which to assert positive law apart from the individual basis. He can have no authority beyond himself, thus no government, thus forever dooming him to anarchy or tyranny as individuals violate each others rights by use of agency.
All men are given to be agents unto themselves to act according to futurity as they see fit according to the natural law. There is a right to do right in complete freedom, there is power and ability, but no right to do wrong.
The issue of positive law then cannot be born except within an understanding of natural law. That natural law then must transcend the collectivist argument by some virtue unique to itself (lest we be ruled by many laws and many gods as the Greeks). That natural law is God’s law. It is morality and it is His delegated power (solely vested in the priesthood ), authority (delegated through priesthood and the patriarchal order), and authority (granted explicitly through revelation and restoration to man).
It is therefore necessary to discern the natural law before we can assert any positive law.
The earth is full and there is enough and to spare.
If any will take of the abundance and (first do no harm) impart not unto those who depend upon it, he is damned thereby.
Man is to improve without compromise or doing any harm, the world.
Adam and Eve knew what perfection looked like. They had seen the perfected world in the Garden of Eden. After the fall they were told in no uncertain terms that it was their job to restore all as at first (you broke it, you fix it). It was therefore easy for them to see what they could and could not do to restore (repent).
Despite our less clear understanding our job, duties, responsibilities etc… are the same. Therefore we must first figure out what exactly that means so that we heed the admonition to first do no harm.
Surely we may cultivate the soils, trade in an economic system that allows for specialization and transactions in “money .”
One may not however take more land than is his right or violate the freedom of movement through fencing off right of ways, nor deprive any of the resources to which they are accustomed or disposed without fair and just compensation (no harm).
But in prudence and wisdom man may cultivate, domesticate and produce. That man may exchange and develop his property to the benefit or neutrality of all. However man may not monopolize and extort (first do no harm).
