When did private property become sacred and the basis for all other rights?

[white_wolf]

I've heard Paul and few others say that private property is the basis for all other rights. I have never understood why he feels this way, since I fail to see the connection between owning a factory and being able to petition the government, or the writ Habeas Corpus, for example.

Secondly, why is the right of private property so strongly defended, while the same defenders of that "right" are willing to throw all other rights away for security? The Patriot Act is fine to these people on the Right, but if you dare mention nationalizing the banks, which are a bigger threat to us than terrorists, it is an an attack on private property and they can't dare give up that right. I don't understand why those same people who are willing to trade all other rights for security are so concerned with protecting private property rights. The American people have given up far more important rights over the years than private property. Why is this the line in the sand?

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. The day that Gawd decided that only He had a right to eat apples.

[leftstreet]

3. Private property is sacred when I have some and you don't

:hi:
It starts with private property, then you have to secure it....then you're living in the shit


The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/

[dhpgetsit]

4. I think Bastiat would be a good answer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastiat#Views

[quinnox]

5. Didn't they have the landowners and peasants back in the middle ages?

I should read the history about that time, it has always sounded interesting to me.

[jwirr]

18. One period during the middle ages all property belonged to the king

and was held for him by his subjects who also let their subjects hold land and so on down to the peasant who was considered part of the land deal.

I am not sure that was any better than private property. Depended on who the overlord was.

[hifiguy]

6. I suspect it has something with the ancien regime notion

that all land belonged to the sovereign king, who could parcel it out to gain support from those he made nobles. Of course, said sovereign king could also march one to the headsman's block for no particular reason other than his later displeasure with those nobles he created and enfoeffed.

The concept remains the same for the reichwing - those with the property make the rules and the rest are but serfs who should be glad that their lot in life is not more miserable. Of course, the new masters reserve to themselves the absolute right to make us serfs even more miserable at their whim.

(I have always wanted to use an obscure word like "enfoeffed" in a post here and I finally got the chance to do it. :))

[GreenStormCloud]

9. It started way before then. See my other post below.

[jwirr]

19. Great word - what does it mean?

[hifiguy]

21. "Given hereditary lands" is the simplest explanation.

As in "Sir Geoffrey Applebanger Snot-Pustule was enfoeffed with His Majesty's lands in the West of Wafflebottom in 1311 and shall be known henceforth as the Duke of Wafflebottom."

[jwirr]

52. Great - thank you - that is my lesson for today.

[FarCenter]

7. With the triumph of the bourgeoisie following WW II

Prior to the Wars of the Reformation and the Thirty Years War, the clergy had supreme power based on their appointment by God.

Prior to the French Revolution/Napoleonic Wars and World Wars I&II, the nobility had supreme power based on inheiritance of noble blood and titles. By the end of WW II, the French Bourbons, German Hohenzollerns, Russian Romanovs, Austrian Hapsburgs, Turkish Ottomans, and Chinese Qings were out of power, while the British Windsors, the Japanese Emperor, and the kings of Belgium, The Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, and Siam, etc. had been reduced to largely ceremonial roles. Only in the Islamic world were monarchs restored to full political power by Britain and the US in Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Morrocco, and Libya, although some of these were short lived, such as King Farouk.

The great businesses and financial figures had won the day, and their position was consolidated with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the capitalist reforms of China.

Thus came the sanctity of property rights and of ownership as the organizing principle of society.

[yellerpup]

8. There was no concept of private property here

before Europeans began to arrive on this continent. This point of view is based on a culture that was willing to kill to the point of genocide to gather wealth. They warred against each other even within families in Europe to consolidate holdings. You can't make a fair treaty when the other side doesn't speak or read your language; someone is sure to get screwed - and it won't be the 1% no matter what era.

[GreenStormCloud]

15. Bullshit!

The Indians in Southern California divided the land up into sections that different families owned. Each family cared for the oak trees on their section and harvested the acorns for meal. Other tribes had begun some farming and with farming goes ownership of the land that one farms.

[SomethingFishy]

33. Yeah but was it "private property"?

Big difference between farming and "GET OFF MY LAWN YOU DAMN HIPPIES... :)

[GreenStormCloud]

49. So farmland isn't private property? N/T

[yellerpup]

40. Sorry, I should have said what is now the Eastern USA

Didn't mean to set off your bullshit exploder.

[GreenStormCloud]

50. Check out the five nations of the Iroquois.

They farmed. You can't have productive agricultrue without a system to protect the labor of the ones doing the farming. That means private property.

[yellerpup]

51. They farmed, but they did not 'own' the land

individually. They shared the food they grew communally. No member became obese while others in the same community starved. When the hunters brought in a deer, for instance, the hunter did not eat it all himself, he shared. They relied on each other and cooperated to feed everyone in the tribe. No one hunted on private property because there was no private property. As with all predators (and humans are very effective predators) they squabbled over territory but no one was 'paid' to farm and their 'labor' was honored when everyone, young, old, sick, or well, ate well because of their labors.

[the other one]

10. When "pursuit of happiness" was changed to "property"

"Pursuit of happiness" as enshrined in the Declaration of Independence was changed to "property" in the Constitution.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. but it had been 'property' before that

See reply #11.

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. John Locke was very influential in this

the right to life, liberty, and property, that have a foundation independent of the laws of any particular society. Locke used the claim that men are naturally free and equal as part of the justification for understanding legitimate political government as the result of a social contract where people in the state of nature conditionally transfer some of their rights to the government in order to better insure the stable, comfortable enjoyment of their lives, liberty, and property. Since governments exist by the consent of the people in order to protect the rights of the people and promote the public good, governments that fail to do so can be resisted and replaced with new governments. Locke is thus also important for his defense of the right of revolution. Locke also defends the principle of majority rule and the separation of legislative and executive powers. In the Letter Concerning Toleration, Locke denied that coercion should be used to bring people to (what the ruler believes is) the true religion and also denied that churches should have any coercive power over their members. Locke elaborated on these themes in his later political writings, such as the Second Letter on Toleration and Third Letter on Toleration.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/

Notice his idea was changed somewhat for the American Declaration of Independence; but Locke was still highly influential in the American Revolution, and capitalism in general.

[wickerwoman]

26. +1. This.

There were property rights before this, but John Locke and the classical liberals made the link between property rights and human rights.

Of course, property rights are still technically contingent. Your freehold title doesn't mean you can do anything you want with your land, just that you can use it reasonably and keep most people off of it. Technically, it still belongs to the government and they can take it any time they want to build a freeway or a school as long as they compensate you for it.

And Locke also said that nothing is more obvious than the fact that property rights also imply a responsibility to care for the environment.

[GreenStormCloud]

13. It began with the agricultural revolution, thousands of years ago.

It got its start the first time somebody worked hard planting some food and then his neighbor who hadn't helped walked into the garden and started eating.

Even animals have territories that they will defend against intruders.

[JNelson6563]

14. It's been with us all along

The punishments for crimes against private property (namely theft) have long been extreme. For ages those with nothing have been encouraged to ignore their own poverty and look forward to the glory of the next life. A famous ancient text propagating such property-owner-friendly pap is the bible.

Julie

[Bosonic]

16. 2380BC Urukagina of Lagash,Mesopotamia?

Not sure all rights are rooted in property rights though (freedom of speech?)

[Zorra]

17. Maybe right after the first time someone stole

a family's last drops of water that they were going to use to keep their children alive with.

After that, different cultures may have begun developing diverse customs regarding property ownership.

Maybe something like that.

It's probably not possible to pinpoint the exact beginning of western culture's laws regarding property, since conquerors, and the superstitious, often write fractured, inaccurate, highly subjective histories.

Here is a brief subjective account of an "observation" supposedly made by Columbus:

Columbus's report to the Court in Madrid was extravagant. He insisted he had reached Asia (it was Cuba) and an island off the coast of China (Hispaniola). His descriptions were part fact, part fiction:
snip--
The Indians, Columbus reported, "are so naive and so free with their possessions that no one who has not witnessed them would believe it. When you ask for something they have, they never say no. To the contrary, they offer to share with anyone...." He concluded his report by asking for a little help from their Majesties, and in return he would bring them from his next voyage "as much gold as they need ... and as many slaves as they ask." He was full of religious talk: "Thus the eternal God, our Lord, gives victory to those who follow His way over apparent impossibilities."

And at a later time, an account by Las Casas:

The Indians, Las Casas says, have no religion, at least no temples. They live in

large communal bell-shaped buildings, housing up to 600 people at one time ... made of very strong wood and roofed with palm leaves.... They prize bird feathers of various colors, beads made of fishbones, and green and white stones with which they adorn their ears and lips, but they put no value on gold and other precious things. They lack all manner of commerce, neither buying nor selling, and rely exclusively on their natural environment for maintenance. They are extremely generous with their possessions and by the same token covet the possessions of their friends and expect the same degree of liberality. ...

http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinncol1.html

Your guess is as good as mine, w_w

[Hugabear]

20. As long as there are people who have more than other people

As long as there are "haves" and "have-nots", then property rights will always be sacred to the "haves". Of course, the wider the gap, the more precious those rights.

[BiggJawn]

22. Non-property owners are Serfs.

To the Libertard mind, only property owners (probably preferably white males, too)have a say in the governing of the country. goes with their "What the Founding Fathers intended" fantasies.

If you have no Property, you have no Rights. Therefore, STFU and stay in your hovel, you failure.

[frebrd]

23. When? About the time humans changed.......

from hunter-gatherers to an agrarian species. Beyond that, different groups have evolved in different ways and at different speeds toward what we now regard as "human rights".

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. Oh where should I start?

Not sacred, but private property goes back to the rise of agriculture. In the present form it is a wide exaggeration of the property rights as understood by liberal democracies.

[zipplewrath]

25. 'Tis always been so

If you read some of the early documents, around the time of the revolution, "property" was an important concept and tied up with rights. Often, the definition of a voting citizen was a white male property owner. Property definitions varied from state to state, but it often meant more than land. Property was seen as the avenue to prosperity. "Public" property was beginning to be conceptualized around this time as well. Prior to that the word public, much less public property was relatively unknown. Also remember that back in England, they still had strong class definitions and it still roughly boiled down to nobles, land owners/landlords, and serfs. "Citizen" was a developing concept (as oppose to "subject").

The Ron Paul/libertarian crowd seizes upon the changing nature and definitions of property over the last 200 years to make their points. Today, property is a broader term, and less connected to rights in anyway. "Ownership" has become a vastly more vague term with far more "corporate" ownership and share holder status. The concept of property has become much less "real" (as in real estate) and far more fungible. John Locke and company wouldn't recognize much of us today, much less agree with much of it. The concept of the modern corporation would have been highly objectionable to them.

[demigoddess]

27. property rights are not sacred if they want to tear down your house

and build a business there. We have had that argument here lately. The city can take your house against your will if they want to put a business there. Apparently if it will bring in sales tax or some equivalent it is considered more important than your right to live in the house you paid for.

[Angry Dragon]

28. They might be setting it up so only people that own property can vote

[SpiralHawk]

48. "Proles should be seen and not heard." - RepubliCorp, Inc. (R)

[slackmaster]

29. The line in the sand is here. If you try to take my toothbrush, I'll beat the crap out of you.

If you try to take over my house, I'll shoot you.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

30. Nice computer. Mind if I take it?

[Cats Against Frist]

34. All I know is that government, corporations AND "hippies" want my fucking property

I'm willing to give some up to the government to stabilize society so I can continue owning property. I'll give to responsible corporations/business when I can to sustain a fun and interesting life.

But the hippies who want my property because of their "lifestyle choice" to be aesthetes and not work -- can fuck off.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[H2O Man]

38. Umm, how many

bathrooms are there in our, uh, yer house?

[onpatrol98]

31. Shouldn't private property rights be defended???

:shrug:

[MisterP]

32. Harriet Martineau and bourgeois bubbles ("I've worked my way up, I've worked for my property")

"this is the land of opportunity--I could make it, therefore, if you haven't you did something wrong"

sheer producerism!

[H2O Man]

35. Recommended.

In the course of human history, that dynamic came into being shortly after agriculture began to create larger surplus inventories; this led to larger, less-mobile societies, that soon became stratified. Once stratification produced an elite class, property rights trumped human rights in far, far too many cases.

[Fire Walk With Me]

36. "The Factory Store".

[Nye Bevan]

39. "Get off my property, I'm a communist" (nt)

[REP]

41. 1615, Magna Carta

[white_wolf]

42. The Magna Cart was signed in 1215.

[REP]

46. Typo

[JanMichael]

43. There is a difference between "private" and "personal" property.

I doubt many people understand that. There's also a difference between "capital" and "non-capital" property. Like a toothbrush v. the oil in the ground.

[white_wolf]

45. Yeah. I've seen a few people mentioning houses and computers.

I consider those things to be personal property. Private property would be factories and such. I've had this personal V. Private property debate here several times and I figure most people here know my opinion on it.

[Odin2005]

44. John Locke, 1680s.

[onpatrol98]

47. Private versus Personal Property

Private property is the right of persons and firms to obtain, own, control, employ, dispose of, and bequeath land, capital, and other forms of property.<1> Private property is distinguishable from public property, which refers to assets owned by a state, community or government rather than by individuals or a business entity.<2> Private property emerged as the dominant form of property in the means of production and land during the Industrial Revolution in the early 18th century, displacing feudal property, guilds, cottage industry and craft production, which were based on ownership of the tools for production by individual laborers or guilds of craftspeople.<3>

Marxists and socialists distinguish between "private property" and "personal property", defining the former as the means of production in reference to private enterprise based on socialized production and wage labor; and the latter as consumer goods or goods produced by an individual.<4><5>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property