The mobius strip of property rights

I love watching, or sometimes reading, someone who is in mid-debate on some topic run through what I call a mobius strip of logical reasoning.  The cognitive dissonance sets in and a drunkard blurry haze begins and on the other end is some rambling exposition on how last night went.

This happens quite often when I discuss property rights and those that try to debate me try pinning me down to some other definition they have in their head that they never explained or even try to define properly.  It's like that scene in one of the 'Transporter' movies where the main guy is covered in motor oil and the 6 guys trying to fight him can't grab a hold and fight him properly.

So typically I'll have some debate, usually political, and then say it's a violation of property rights.  Then some person on the email thread will claim that in certain, extreme situations property rights don't exist.  Now, I'll admit that I haven't defined it before hand but the main problem is my debater has a different idea and has no strict definition at all.

So I paused the debate with "let's all be clear on what I mean by property rights..." and proceeded with my definition which is:

Property Rights: "You own the effects of your actions."

Even with this thrown out there, my debate partner still refused to accept that property rights exist in certain situations or that it can be ignored at will.  Then I proceeded to explain how this debate is made possible without a computer, an internet connection, mail servers, rack space, data centers and the physical property that the data centers are housed at.  Clearly, every link in this chain involves property and an owner of the property for this debate to even exist.

Clearly this posed an initial problem.  This had to be explained away in a manner that needed to appear rational.  The position couldn't be defeated on the first strike.

The defense was that the social structure allowed property rights (their definition) to exist because it's in the interest of society.  I put "their definition" in parenthesis because it was obvious that they were thinking in terms of material objects and ownership of said objects and that is how most people frame it.

However, my opponent already accepted my definition so I just had to press further.

Even without all the physical and virtual property involved in our email thread, I told him that his statement that "Property rights do not exist", after accepting my definition, is a contradiction because he can't say the statement and then say he never said it at the same time.  He was confused.  So I explained it to him.

Property rights definition: You own the effects of your actions.

What is the action? You spoke

What did you speak? You spoke "Property rights don't exist" = "You do not own the effects of your actions."

The effect of speaking, "Property rights don't exist": You hold the position that you don't own the effects of your actions.

Based on what you said: You don't own..."the position that you don't own the effects of your actions."

What I had just displayed was his denial of ever saying anything about property rights since he cannot take ownership of what he just said.

Another way to show this is to go through the email thread and edit their portion it so that it appears there is an agreement and acceptance of your superior intellect.  Once you point out and said "....but you just said this...."  And then watch in amusement, their reaction.

They'll predictably respond as "I never said this, this and that."  They are implicitly denying ownership of something they didn't say.

Another, robust way to combat this, is to start replying to a third party by CCing them into the thread and debate how they are wrong for holding such a position.  The original debating partner will say, "Hello???  You're supposed to be arguing me...not him."  Thus affirming that he is the owner of his actions.

Now that I've explained this mobius strip of Content not following Form, we can move on to more important implications of property rights.

As defined, owning the effects of your actions is a long-winded way of defining the word: responsibility.  But you can't just say that word out in public because it's usually an empty vessel in which people pour into it their own definition.  "Owning the effects of your actions" is much more effective in keeping people inline during debate.

However, once we have this idea firmly planted in our minds, we can then extend this idea that effects go more than just speaking, eating and drinking.  It should be obvious that the effects of eating is fullness and drinking is the removal of thirst.  It should be obvious that effects are fully owned by the individual acting.  However, it goes beyond that.  If you are stranded on an island and catch a fish, it stands to logic, according to the definition, that you have property rights to the fish, because you engaged in the action of fishing.  A farmer has property rights to his crops and a laborer has property rights to his labor because they own the effects of their actions.

Now let's take a moment to reflect what we mean by "owning."  This is not to imply that it is impossible to steal someone else's property.  Clearly it is.  If it were possible to magically displace the food in one's stomach, believe me,  it would have been done but let's face it, man's nature has limits.

In the context of property rights, as it is defined, theft is simply an action that doesn't respect property rights.  What my original debating partner meant to say is respect for property rights could disappear at any time.  That, I agree with.

However, let's think about what it means to respect property rights and then the opposite.

Let's start off with the opposite.  Let's say that we start off in the world where property rights are not respected.  We cannot start off with any preconditions like a government or band of brothers or tribes or anything of the kind to protect us.  To do anything else of the sort would be cheating because we are trying to understand if respecting property rights is inherently good or inherently bad.

So if we start off with the proposition that respecting property rights is bad then what does that mean?  Well, that means that theft is tolerated and also encouraged.  The next logical question would be, "What would there be to steal?"  Well, that would be the effects of someone else's actions.  However, since everyone else knows that theft is allowed, it is not in anyone's interest to more work than it is necessary to fulfill only the most immediate desires, like eating and drinking.

Picking more berries than you can eat in one sitting is at risk of theft.  Carrying bottles of water is at risk of theft.  You get the idea.  Everyone would be literally living hand-to-mouth, moment-to-moment.  Society, as we know it, wouldn't exist.  It is every man for themselves.  There would be no savings of any kind.

Now....consider the opposite.  Imagine where property rights were respected.  Now, people could save.  However, unlike the previous scenario where thieves could not thrive, savings and now a general acceptance of property rights, theft is now possible.  The only thing that helps prevent it is to adopt a moral code to correctly evaluate the violation of property rights.  The idea of good and bad (e.g. morality) is a strong incentive for people to devote plenty of resources to uphold (Christians tithe, environmentalists gladly pay higher premiums for energy if it comes from wind or solar).  So if we evaluate theft as bad then society, now that it has come to being, can minimize it.

Although we may have to deal with the occasional theft, what we get is immeasurable in return.  With savings, individuals can now engage in exchange (e.g. bartering).  After barter, we learned indirect exchange (e.g. using money as a way to exchange goods).  People could now specialize and do what they're most efficient in doing through the division of labor.  Economies grow and wealth is generated.

However, somewhere someone had it in their head that societies need governments.  The idea is to have a governing body to protect property rights.

And exactly how are they going to provide this service?  Taxes.

Since I've never heard of a voluntary tax (i.e. a donation), it seems we've entered another mobius strip of logic.  "We'll violate property rights to protect property rights."

The way I see it, all governments fail because as societies rise, by respecting property rights, governments grow and violate property rights until all of society's savings has been exhausted and is forced to start all over again by respecting property rights.

I would say that governments is Nature's way of reminding man that he still an animal.