Lockean property rights

=== defence of pro case === (1) Attribution ownership through work A) Insufficient definition of Life Con claims my definition of life is insufficient because there are examples that fit the definition of life that are typically not categorized as life such as the sun and nuclear reactions. All these examples, however, fit into a broader category of phenomena which includes life, namely Dissipative Structures. [1] Although all living beings are dissipative structures, not all dissipative structures are alive. Something is missing in all other kinds of self-sustaining processes that is present in the living. This is the fact that it creates its own boundary and that it acts to maintain its cohesion through energy dissipation (i.e. work). Nuclear reactions do not fit the bill since they do not generate their own boundary. The sun has a well-defined spherical boundary, but this boundary is not self-produced through work. It is imposed on it extrinsically by gravity. As such the sun resembles the Benard Cell [2] which is organized from without. Life on the other hand is organized from within. It produces its own boundary. B) Infinite regression Although we are partially created by other beings through reproduction, this is just an initial process. Once started we *continuously* create ourselves. If this process stops even for a second the process of death and decay immediately starts. Therefore we may say that the organism is continuously mixing its labor with itself in the process of self-creation. It is created anew continuously. C) Performative Contradiction of Self Creation An organism needs to be bootstrapped, but once an organism exists it does so by creating itself. Childhood can be thought of as this initial bootstrapping period, and only when we are adults do we fully create and sustain ourselves and have full ownership of our bodies. D) Self-creation is Irrelevant Life that does not continuously self-produce cannot exist. A defining characteristic of all living beings is that they have two fundamental possible states: dead or alive. Living beings can be destroyed. Living beings have something to lose (their lives) and therefore have to act to survive. Existence *requires* work. If not, they are not living beings. It is this requirement of self-production that is the biological basis of *values*. Definition: a value is that which we act to gain or keep. Only living beings have values, because only living beings can die. Their primary value is their own life, which they act to gain or keep. As a corollary of the mortality of living beings it also follows that life MUST be self-reproducing as well as self-producing. Self-reproduction in combination with self-production is the only viable strategy for long-term existence. Any living being is therefore overwhelmingly likely to be an offspring and to require continuous work to stay alive. If not they will not be living beings, but something else. (2) Control Ownership Through Work in Humans A) Rights are antisocial Agreed. Rights means what you can legitimately use violence for. However, violence is not the normal conduct of humans. We are NORMALLY social, and violence (in self-defense) is the exception. It is therefore still correct to say that humans are a social species. B) Argument from Biological Happenstance There is nothing automatic about social behavior, but this is what is NATURAL for humans. i) natural rights are rights that build on what is NATURAL for humans. Therefore the fact that we by NATURE are social beings does indeed build a case for natural rights. ii) occasional anti-social behavior in social animals does occur, but it is not NORMAL. It is not what our nature dictates as natural. That some rights have been violated at some point in history is irrelevant, because natural rights is a theory about what is NORMAL and NATURAL for humans to use violence for. Hence the term "natural" rights as opposed to exceptional or artificial rights. 3) Mixing Labor with Nature When we eat we appropriate land (atoms). They then become part of us through the toil of creating something of value to us. (our body) Pouring soup into the ocean is not to mix one's labor with the natural state for the purpose of value creation. As discussed previously all living beings are mortal and therefore have values (that which they act to gain or keep) in order to exist and thrive. They do work because they value it. Pouring soup into the ocean does not fit the bill. === Con Case === 1) theory of self-ownership Theories and rationality do not require one to convince others of their truth. Robinson Crusoe could certainly think of correct theories and behave rationally while all alone on an island. Con is only correct if one needs to *argue* for one's theory, but in what circumstances does this occur? In rational *social* species. Which came first? Sociality or rationality? Evolution says sociality, so Cons argument assumes that peaceful coexistence is already part of our genes and nature. 2) Extension of Self-Ownership Action alone is not sufficient to establish ownership, and it is easy to demonstrate. Suppose I build a statue, because I want to. When I have finished making the statue I have stopped acting on it. It just stands there. Why shouldn't then someone be allowed to take that statue once I'm finished with it? Another example is a cabin that I build. Once I am finished building it, it is not mine according to Con. It is only if I continue acting on it that it is mine. So I need to start using it to live in. But it's a summer cabin so I only stay there for two months a year. Why then shouldn't anyone else be allowed to use the cabin while I'm not using it? Indeed, there are a lot of things I don't use most of the time. I have several toilets that are idle most of the time. Why shouldn't anyone be allowed to enter my home to use my toilets when I don't use them (assuming they cause no harm to it and replace toilet paper, clean up afterwards etc.)? Human action does not make sense other than in one context: values. Values are in turn something that is produced by the organism and thereby become PART of the organism, either as a body or in the case of humans also as property. I am thus not opposed to actions playing an important part in property (values = that which we ACT to gain or keep), but the full context must be value creation that gives rise to ownership. Farming land qualifies, whereas pouring soup into the ocean does not. ----- It is not an accident that all living beings are self-producing. That is the way it MUST be for all living beings. Otherwise they are not alive. The use theory is very closely related to the Lockean property right theory of labor, because use requires action and action requires labor. The Lockean property rights based on labor for the purpose of value creation makes more sense because it does not look at actions in isolation, but on the overarching purpose of the actions in relation to the organism as a whole. When an organism expends energy it is with its own life as a stake. Those actions need to contribute to the replenishment of the organism and its energy store, otherwise it dies. That is why we humans need to have security of property. We need to know that we are not wasting our resources when we build something, and that it is stolen from us or destroyed once we are finished. We therefore need to *control* the *fruits* of our own *labor* for the furtherment of our own lives. [1] http://www.eoht.info... [2] http://www.eoht.info...