3.10: Do "property rights" exist in nature?
Description
This article is from the Lawful Arrest/Search/Seizure FAQ, by Ahimsa Dhamapada ahimsa@mu.clarityconnect.net with numerous contributions by others.
3.10: Do "property rights" exist in nature?
The "right" of property seems to very ancient in the minds
of many peoples, and the "injuries" of trespass and theft
seem very real, even to this author. Certainly, each living
creature needs the use of a certain amount of "property" in
order to live: land to grow food and build shelter, etc.
But there are a couple of troublesome areas to point
out. (As this is a sidebar to our primary discussion,
we won't draw any conclusions. We leave these issues for
you to explore.)
MIGHT DOES NOT EQUAL RIGHT
While a "just power" may be used to enforce a right, a
power is not the same thing as a right.
Animals can be observed "staking claim" to (and defending
by force) food and water sources, nesting areas, etc.,
but just because something is accomplished by force does
not mean that a right to do so ever existed. Barbarians
have attacked, conquered, and pillaged peaceful societies,
by using force against them, but this does imply the right
to do so.
TITLED LAND INCONSISTANT WITH COMMON USE
The Earth is a living eco-system, and for it to be
healthy (well functioning), certain areas must be left
in a natural state for the benefit and enjoyment of all
living things. And do not all creatures enjoy the same
right to enjoy life and nature's bounty (within reason)?
If all land is titled to an owner who has rights of
possession, modification, and "disposal", what is to
happen to the wetlands needed for water purification,
or forests needed for clean air? Will every square inch
of the earth eventually be devoted to shopping malls,
strip mines, roads, factories, and human housing? Will
all coal be burned and will all rivers be dammed to make
electricity for lighted fast-food restaurant signs? Will
all forests be cut to make grazing land for slave animals
destined for slaughter and human consumption?
OWNERSHIP AS DIFFERENT FROM POSSESSION?
An "owner" is defined as someone who "holds title"
to "property", and is entitled to quiet possession
of the property at the exclusion of all others. The
owner is claimed to have the right to modify, or dispose
of this property.
Should every square inch of the earth have an "owner"?
Does it make sense that ownership should mean something
different than possession? Yes, in a world of bonded
tenants and rent-seeking land-lords, but is this an
ideal system, or the only conceivable one? Can an
artificial person own anything? By what right?
How much land should one man be allowed to "own"?
Could one rich man (or government, or corporation, etc.)
claim title to everything, forcing all creatures to pay rent?
Should every square inch of the earth be "owned" by
someone? Who owns the moon?
SLAVES/"CHATTEL" AS OWNABLE PROPERTY?
Historically, there have been 3 kinds of property:
1) Land (Real property, Real Estate)
2) "Capital", stuff, stored food, tools, fixtures upon land, etc.
3) Living creatures/chattel: slaves, cattle, whores, prisoners,
pets, laborers, lab animals, etc.
This last sort (#3) works contrary to our premise that all
things with eyes and a brain have a right to live and are
born free.
This question is of great importance for all to consider,
not just for "animal rights kooks". Consider that humans
have eyes and a brain and beating hearts and breathe,
... are thus *animals!* What is the basis for granting
rights to *some* animals (humans), and denying them to
others (cows)? What about whores? Which category do you
put them in? Do whores get rights, or are they more like
inanimate property? What about "niggers" or women or Jews
or dope fiends or drunks or untouchables?
Where do you draw the line? And, do you obtain a different
answer depending on who gets to choose?
Living, breathing, self-directed beings possessing the
animating force are by definition free agents: they should
never be considered the "property" of another. Certainly
no such right, for one creature to "own" another, exists.
Some may say that animals do not deserve rights because
they are not "moral agents". While most animals may not
be "moral agents" (neither are most humans!), this is
irrelevant. Moral responsibility is only a requirement
if the creature is engaging in contracts. If the creature
is without moral responsibility, perhaps you should not
make a contract with it! If the creature is a wild savage,
perhaps you should just keep your distance!
A creature with different morals than me is still free,
self-directed, deserving to live. Who am I to judge the
morals of another, especially if they live their lives
peaceably?
Consider the cheetah: a born killer. Proper "moral agents"
may consider the cheetah a savage brute, because it kills,
and these same proper moral agents may feel that "even
though the cheetah has not harmed me, or my family, it
still should die, because it is likely to kill again."
That is, "Society should kill the killer, why? Because
our premise is that killing is wrong!"
Does anyone see the contradiction in this line of thinking?
Do we kill the cheetah for being a killer, and if so, isn't
the executioner a killer too, who should now be killed?
When does the killing stop?
Proper moral agents have no right to kill the cheetah
simply for being a cheetah. The cheetah has "cheetah
nature", and every creature in the jungle understands
the arrangement. The cheetah must kill in order to live.
Intelligent moral agents, who *can* live without killing,
do so by their own free choice. On the other hand,
intelligent creatures, who *can* live without killing,
yet choose to kill for profit or other selfish motive are
by definition: the true savages.
Anything that moves on its own, and cries out and struggles
to be free when captured is asserting "I am a conscious
agent and deserving to be free!", and therefore is.
To say that "a cow is merely an animal" to justify its
imprisonment is the same argument as "a slave is merely
an animal" to justify his.
The animals of the world exist for their own
reasons. They were not made for humans any more
than black people were made for white, or women
created for men. -- Alice Walker
Humans are also "merely" animals: so what? Humans have
all the characteristics of other animals: living breathing
creatures with a beating heart, feels pleasure and pain,
needs food, air and water, self-directed, moves about and
makes sounds, has eyes and a brain, etc. Possessing animal
spirit is justification to DESERVE rights, not to be denied
of right.
If the world is to be considered filled with owners and
property (and I am not saying that it should), and, if
our basic premise is *freedom, and the equal right of life
and freedom for all*, then things that wiggle about, make
unique sounds (name themselves?), have beating hearts and
sensory organs and a central nervous system, are the OWNERS,
and should never be considered the property of another.
(That being said, the remaining "property", the ownable
stuff of the earth, the Body of our Mother Gaia, should never
be treated with selfishness, or without reverence.)
EXCLUSIVE USE? BY WHAT RIGHT?
If you read a deed or a land title, you will see words
like: "The legal holder of this title shall possess
the right to quiet possession at the exclusion of all
others". "Right"? By what right can any creature assert
such a thing? If you trace the title to the previous
owners, from where did this title originate? God? But
why would God grant a greater right to one creature,
at the exclusion of all others? Or is the title a legal
convenience formed by mutual contract of all creatures? And
if *this* is true, then did the excluded creatures agree to
the arrangement? (mutual agreement is an essential element
to all contracts.) Why would they agree to such a thing?
TITLES/OWNERSHIP "MODERN" EUROPEAN CONCEPT
There was a time when land titles did not exist. Sometime
during the middle ages, the King asserted his right to
reign allegedly by divine providence: by the fiat or will
of God. This "sovereign" had an army of savage thugs called
Lords (the English Gentry) that fanned out across Europe
and set up shop. They claimed that since the Christian
God owned everything, and since the King was God's chosen
representative, that all land was therefore "owned"
(controlled, stewarded) by God's representative: the King.
The King granted each lord a region to control, made up
of several feudal serf farmers. The lord would give each
serf a "choice":
1: Acknowledge that the King rules by the Supreme and Divine
will of the Christian God,
2: Acknowledge that this God, the King, and the local lord
are the source (and arbitrator) of all law,
3: Acknowledge that he (the serf) is now a subject of this law
4: To promise a "voluntary" tithe of 10% of all his crops for
perpetuity,
5: To swear allegiance to this thug...
... in exchange for a tenancy, that is, to be allowed
to live on the land that his ancestors had lived on for
perhaps generations! Some deal!
This was acknowledged in a ceremony called "paying homage",
which was denoted with a tap on each shoulder with the tip
of the lord's saber, and a gentle kiss on the cheek. And
what if the serf refused? Then the lord was not so gentle
with the saber! Non-compliance was dealt with swiftly and
harshly, and the severed head was displayed to encourage
others to "make the right decision".
This savagery was the beginning of out modern notion of
"property rights". In this way, it can be shown that
really (in the words of Proudhon),
"ALL PROPERTY IS THEFT"
When America was born, it abandoned many of the precepts
of the former savage system, by creating a separation of
church and state, forbidding the issuance of "titles of
nobility", etc. However, we still held on to the "civilized"
European concept of property, yet ironically dispossessed and
slaughtered nearly all the native Americans in the process
of creating "titles" for the Land of the Free.
Continue to:
My Books
