Recently I've posted concerning the fact that who does what where when matters. It is my understanding thus far that if Person-A performs Act-A at Location-A at Time-A then Persons-Not-A did not, excludability working as it does. Now let's talk about what this means for ethics and jurisprudence! I need a theory of entitlements justified using this 'who what where when' stuff.
Why talk up any theory of entitlements at all? It's an attempt to describe as accurately as possible the conditions under which humans plural will best flourish. So this is purely descriptive ethics, purely an outgrowth of the practical significance of individual actions and the location of those actions in space and time.
It must always be the case that who does what where when matters because for it to be otherwise then there would be no need to find out who committed a murder, or other heinous act. Let's carry this a little further. If they wanted a community, one of whose members had been found brutally murdered, could respond by voting to decide who gets punished for the act, since who does what where when doesn't matter according to the people of this community.
The same epistemological truth that underlies criminality also underlies property rights, since all rights, including the right to life, are entitlements afforded you by others. Therefore the person who acts to claim a previously unclaimed (in reality) resource gains the sole decision-making entitlement over the use of that plot of land.
The only way this can be otherwise is if society as a whole or the collective already enjoys some kind of claim to the land that the first person is claiming, but the collective does not exist absent the agency if its members - only an act of consent can associate a person with a collective - so this is a case of reification. Therefore there is no logically sound justification for subsequent arrivals to claim land that has already been claimed unless the previous claimant chooses to surrender it.
There is also the possession form of property, which is like the private form except that one's claim goes away when one stops occupying or using land. This is not an absurdity because if the owner of the plot of land is absent they are not physically there to protest encroachment by others. See a problem yet? How long is long enough for others to assume you've abandoned your property? Clearly only an action in space and time whereby you say you are abandoning your property, or your death without will can leave it truly unclaimed and open to being claimed anew by others.
The title of this post must be addressed, and the answer is that everyone is entitled to the consequences for their own and for others' autonomous moral agency that arise from their own actions. Taken consistently this entitles people to control what they acquire without force, and to defend that control against incursions. It also entitles 3rd parties to assist in stopping aggressors. It entitles everybody to act non-violently and act violently in defence of their person and stuff.
So private property is fine since it reflects who did what where when better than the public, common or possession kinds. What about political authority? Well, I guess that's for another time.
Comments
Post a Comment