Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
Property Rights ARE Human Rights by BlameThe1st Property Rights ARE Human Rights by BlameThe1st
"Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others."

- John Locke, "Of Property," Second Treatise of Government.
Add a Comment:
 
:iconsemerl:
semerl Featured By Owner Dec 20, 2014
I frown on IP law.
Reply
:iconblamethe1st:
BlameThe1st Featured By Owner Dec 20, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Most sensible people do.
Reply
:iconsemerl:
semerl Featured By Owner Dec 20, 2014
Have you read about loss aversion?
Reply
:iconvalendale:
Valendale Featured By Owner Nov 24, 2014  Hobbyist Artist
Property rights for whom, and on what grounds?
Reply
:iconblamethe1st:
BlameThe1st Featured By Owner Nov 24, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
For everyone, because property is the fruit of their labor.
Reply
:iconvalendale:
Valendale Featured By Owner Nov 24, 2014  Hobbyist Artist
Ah I see, so the workers should own the workplace?
Reply
:iconbttlrp:
bttlrp Featured By Owner Oct 24, 2014
It's interesting that Locke argued for the collectivisation of land, citing the Bible. Not very capitalist. He also only argued for property on grounds of scarcity, so he would be totally opposed to artificial monopolies, patents and copyrights.
Reply
:iconzombie-fuckulator:
zombie-fuckulator Featured By Owner Jun 22, 2014
I am astounded of the amount of people below saying that a right to have property or even possess items is bad...

There are always losers and there will always be winners, it has been that way ever since ancient Sumeria and It will not change, soviet or Chinese communist idea cannot change human nature.
Reply
:iconblamethe1st:
BlameThe1st Featured By Owner Jun 22, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Moviebob once put it best: Property is so innate to our nature that even a dog gets angry when you take its bone away from it.
Reply
:iconzombie-fuckulator:
zombie-fuckulator Featured By Owner Jun 22, 2014
That's true.
Reply
:icondeltahd:
DeltaHD Featured By Owner Jun 20, 2014
YOUR A PUPPET OF THE BURGEIOS! :rage:
Reply
:iconblamethe1st:
BlameThe1st Featured By Owner Jun 21, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Cool story, bro!
Reply
:iconryu238:
ryu238 Featured By Owner Jun 22, 2014
...he's no bttlrp that's for sure...
Reply
:iconbttlrp:
bttlrp Featured By Owner Oct 24, 2014
What's that supposed to mean, lol
Reply
:icondeltahd:
DeltaHD Featured By Owner Jun 21, 2014
What that suppose to mean you Capitalist.
Reply
:iconnamezong:
namezong Featured By Owner Feb 20, 2013
-The property rights are Sacred!
-Even if the property is stolen one?
Reply
:iconblamethe1st:
BlameThe1st Featured By Owner Feb 20, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Depends on what you define as "stolen."
Reply
:iconbttlrp:
bttlrp Featured By Owner Feb 20, 2013
Locke here sounds strangely identical to: [link] or even: [link]
Reply
:iconblamethe1st:
BlameThe1st Featured By Owner Mar 26, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Hmm. Well I wouldn't know that much. Seems like a real stretch to me.
Reply
:iconbttlrp:
bttlrp Featured By Owner Mar 27, 2013
Well, obviously Locke (along with all liberals until roughly the mid-to-late 19th century) held a labour theory of value of some sort.
He believed, as per the quote, that everyone was entitled to the direct products of their labour and nothing more. All of the products of nature were to be held in common.

I mean, dude, read the quote again! :P
"...labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer"
"...the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men"
"The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his."

Marx and Bakhunin were continuing the tradition of enlightenment liberalism after it was perverted by the actuality of capitalism.
Reply
:iconblamethe1st:
BlameThe1st Featured By Owner Mar 28, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Yes, the earth and nature are held in common, but once someone uses those resources for their benefit or the benefit of others, then it becomes their property.
Reply
:iconbttlrp:
bttlrp Featured By Owner Mar 30, 2013
If that were true, someone could privatise all the oxygen in the atmosphere and cause all who couldn't afford it (or chose not to buy it from them) to die. Obviously that would be ridiculous, so why so do we allow it for land?
Reply
:iconhdswag:
HDSwag Featured By Owner Jul 5, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Do you like to debate?
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconravajava:
Ravajava Featured By Owner Feb 13, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
I may be mistaken (this being flowery 19th century English) but their seems to be a subtly nuance at the end of the quote. "...no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others." To me, it seems John Locke is saying you have property rights as long as everyone else is doing okay. This would mean that property rights aren't human rights, as your property can be taken away if the common good of others requires it.

Which would mean I agree with him here for the most part.
Reply
:iconblamethe1st:
BlameThe1st Featured By Owner Feb 28, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
I haven't studied the deeper interpretations of this, but I highly doubt that is the case.
Reply
:iconravajava:
Ravajava Featured By Owner Feb 28, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
I'm just reading what you posted :shrug: I'm not sure if it's right or not.
Reply
:iconsonikkubumu:
Sonikkubumu Featured By Owner Feb 13, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
There is a difference between Wants and Necessities. Food, Drink, Water, Shelter are necessities whilst owning large plots of land without a purpose, what is that for? it is not a need. I do agree and disagree with this stamp, but I see a difference between private property and corporate property.
Reply
:iconblamethe1st:
BlameThe1st Featured By Owner Feb 21, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
But what if you use that property to produce things that other people in soceity need. That seems to be the case with most corporate property.
Reply
:iconsonikkubumu:
Sonikkubumu Featured By Owner Feb 22, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
To produce something that is naturally from the Earth and sell it, I find that as a crime. Although, living in a capitalist system you must compete, even if you are right-wing, conservative, liberal, progressive, Labour, Socialist and even anarchist.

I do think that people have the right to some private property like a home but large plots of land which there is no good purpose or owning parts of streets in cities, no I do not think that people have the right to own something that everyone has the right to use. I do not trust the majority of corporate products what are actual needs, they use cheap alternatives to save money, now pretty much everything we eat is covered in GMO. There was a big scandal in the UK and Ireland about Horse meat being in food (not that I have a problem with people who eat horse)and when it comes to medical treatment, well that is a different story to me as I see pros and cons even though I consider myself an anarchist.

If food and water is a human right, then why do we have to pay for it?
Reply
:iconf14ace:
f14ace Featured By Owner Nov 23, 2013
So by your logic, farmers should be expected to give away their produce for free and not be allowed to profit as a reward for busting their asses all year round.
Reply
:iconblamethe1st:
BlameThe1st Featured By Owner Feb 24, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
"If food and water is a human right, then why do we have to pay for it?"

That sounds like a point I would make against healthcare being a right.
Reply
:iconsonikkubumu:
Sonikkubumu Featured By Owner Feb 25, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Well there is a difference to paying for food and water and healthcare, I also see Healthcare as a human right, I am happy to pay for universal Healthcare, but like I say, in a society that is not affected by money then Healthcare is free. And another argument I would have for Universal Healthcare would be even though you pay a small amount in your Taxes, it is way cheaper than looking for a company to preform and operation that would cost thousands.

If there is a part of me what is considered to be out of the anarchist area (I don't know what to call it) I think that Free Healthcare should be available to everyone who chooses to use it nut if you use free healthcare then you pay the small amount in your taxes, but you should not be forced into paying free healthcare if you choose to go private therefore those who choose private should pay for there healthcare and there's only. Would you say that sounds fair?
Reply
:iconbttlrp:
bttlrp Featured By Owner Jun 21, 2013
Then all the rich would cop out, leaving the state program woefully underfunded :/
Reply
:iconkamackazi:
Kamackazi Featured By Owner Feb 13, 2013  Professional Traditional Artist
Unless the property you own is human I suppose, Jesus X. Aardvaark, what drugs are you on?
Reply
:icon1fireycat:
1fireycat Featured By Owner Feb 13, 2013  Student Artist
Pot calling the kettle black..
Reply
:iconblamethe1st:
BlameThe1st Featured By Owner Feb 13, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Aardvaark?

And of course human beings can't be property. That would be slavery.
Reply
:iconbttlrp:
bttlrp Featured By Owner Feb 20, 2013
But they'd still be property. And property is a human right! That's how the founding fathers saw it anyway :D
Reply
:iconblamethe1st:
BlameThe1st Featured By Owner Feb 20, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Human beings can't be property. Case closed.
Reply
:iconbttlrp:
bttlrp Featured By Owner Feb 20, 2013
Why can't they? Why should there be restrictions on property? After all, animals can be property. What makes humans so special?
Reply
:iconblamethe1st:
BlameThe1st Featured By Owner Feb 20, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Because it goes against the basic principles of liberty. You cannot be free and be owned by another human being at the same time. You just can't. And as for animals, they lack the self-awareness to comprehend the concept of rights.
Reply
:iconbttlrp:
bttlrp Featured By Owner Feb 20, 2013
You could be free to own property and also be the propety of another person, like under wage slavery
Reply
:iconblamethe1st:
BlameThe1st Featured By Owner Feb 20, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Slaves don't earn wages. That's why they're slaves.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconshirouzhiwu:
ShirouZhiwu Featured By Owner Feb 12, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
As long as everyone can get land, it works. When one party owns enormous amounts of land and shuts everyone else out, then it all falls down. It's the difference between Cartel Capitalism and Free Market Capitalism.
Reply
:iconbttlrp:
bttlrp Featured By Owner Feb 20, 2013
Monopoly is entailed by capitalism
Reply
:iconshirouzhiwu:
ShirouZhiwu Featured By Owner Feb 20, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Communism is also a monopoly.
Reply
:iconbttlrp:
bttlrp Featured By Owner Feb 20, 2013
Communism is nothing other than a classless, stateless, moneyless society.
Reply
:iconshirouzhiwu:
ShirouZhiwu Featured By Owner Feb 21, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
The soviet Union was a Communist society. They had money, the had classes. The low classes were non government people, the high class people were high class people. All the means of production and distribution were own by one entity: The Government. The government had a monopoly on everything. They were effectively a massive super corporation that, in the end, was run very badly.

Being a kid, you have yet to learn that the way things are supposed to work on paper never actually work very long when real people enter the picture. Kids like you have been making that same mistake for a very long time, you are hardly the first.

Monopolies are an Authoritarian structure, Free Market Capitalism is Libertarian structure. Your Socialist/ Communist economies and your Neo-Con/ Oligarch/ Corporate economies are both authoritarian in their way of doing business, only the flavor of the authoritarian environment is different. The suffering of the people under these schemes are the same.
Reply
:iconbttlrp:
bttlrp Featured By Owner Feb 22, 2013
The Soviet Union was not a communist society, it never claimed to be. Communism is "a a classless, moneyless and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production".
The soviet union had classes, money and regimented states. If anything it was closer to some kind of capitalism because the means of production were owned by a separate entity (the state), not by the community. The people had no control or ownership of the means of production. Because of this, the USSR was in no way socialist or communist. The "law of value" - production for profit - still existed in the USSR and thus it was some form of state capitalism.

"Free market capitalism" in the way you have described it has never existed nor is there any reason to think it will exist. All capitalist societies have had some form of state and thus some form of tax system.
Reply
:iconkullervonsota:
Kullervonsota Featured By Owner Feb 23, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
If a true Free market society, like you say, can never be created due to the need of the state. Then shouldn't the same rules apply to Communism as well?

The Soviet Union argument is a No True Scotsmen by the way, which seems rather unfair in a debate.
Reply
:iconbttlrp:
bttlrp Featured By Owner Feb 23, 2013
Not at all because it's the market dynamic itself which cannot be tamed. Assumptions in general equilibrium models used by mainstream economists are hopelessly unfounded. Communism does not have a market, because it is the absence of scarcity. The state exists to regulate production in the interests of a certain class: So communism is thus without states, classes or markets/money.

It's not a NTS because the Soviet Union never claimed to be communist, though I have to admit I have an apparently different idea of Communism to many stalinists/maoists etc. The notion of a "Communist state" is a contradiction.

"Communism (from Latin communis - common, universal) is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless[1][2] and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order.[3]"


[link]
Reply
(1 Reply)
Add a Comment:
 
×
Download GIF 99 × 57




Details

Submitted on
February 12, 2013
Image Size
1.1 KB
Resolution
99×57
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
1,124
Favourites
28 (who?)
Comments
83
Downloads
3
×