Friday, November 02, 2018

A rickety pedestal

How did some property rights-- specifically, real estate rights-- end up on a pedestal; elevated above all other rights, including other property rights? They are being treated by some as superior to the right of self-ownership. Greater than the right to life. More fundamental than the right to control your own body, from which all other property rights-- including property rights over real estate-- arise.

Property rights with regard to real estate are a piece of the puzzle; not the whole picture. They are essential but not sufficient. You don't get to violate every other right in every other person by yelling "property rights!" Yes, I believe in property (real estate) rights, but not to the detriment of all other human rights. I don't believe they are superior to all other rights, or even that they trump other property rights.

I can't square the claim that it's not OK to shoot a kid who's just cutting through my yard with the claim that it is fine to violate people in other ways just because they are on my land, even if I coerced them into agreeing to "suspend" their rights as a condition of entry. It's only a difference of degree, not a difference in kind. If one is OK, then so would the other be-- if we are being consistent.

If I invite you onto my property, I don't demand you surrender or suspend any of your rights, including your property rights, and that would never be a condition of my invitation. It's unthinkable! I assume liberty. I don't pretend I have the right to attack or rob you just because you are visiting. Neither do you have the right to attack or rob me while on my land, but that should be obvious. As long as you don't do those things there will be no issue.

I expect the same consideration from others.

OK, one more day of this topic and it's done.

Reminder: I could really use some help.

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.


  1. two things
    (i) the state claims ownership over property through regulation and inspection and inheritance tax and and property taxation (renters begging for permission to
    use their rented property. So if property is supreme, the govt strongly regulates

    (ii) I do not become your slave just because I step onto your property. Life, liberty, and property are co-equal.

  2. at the core of it, it's one individual attempting to confuse, excuse, enslave,lord over, and dictate to others

  3. dicts gonna try to dictate

  4. If life liberty and property are co-equal, doesn't liberty to do some things become subordinate when on another persons property ? For instance if a person says come on over, but you must leave your shoes at the door, would you have the liberty to enter and drag mud across their floors? Not that I'd shoot anybody for doing so...but dammit I just mopped!

  5. Rightful property ownership is an extension of the individual. Individuals trade their time/life and skills/labor for a medium of exchange called money that is used to purchase property. The rightful owner is ultimate authority on how said property is managed and bears ultimate responsibility for it.

    Real estate is no more applicable than a pipe wrench, uranium, coffee cup, gun or a pillow. Ownership/possession itself is not violence. The property itself is not violence. The act of using it to abuse someone, to violate their rights, is. Beating a nonviolent person with a pipe wrench is abuse, violence. Using it to beat an intruder is defense, rightful.

    Using personal territory (land/home/business,etc) as a reason to violate someone is like saying I own this pipe wrench so I have the right to beat you with it.

    Stipulations on use of territory is no different than stipulations on using a pillow. "Yes, you can borrow my pillow, just as long as you wash it before returning it." - "Yes, you're welcome in my home, just as long as you don't wear shoes inside."