Discussion of the concept of ownership and property by James Goodfellow
(libertarian)
Monday, November 15, 2010
What does it mean to own? The dictionary definition is circular: To own is to possess and to possess is to own - not very helpful. In our society where property, the object of ownership, plays such a central role, this lack of definition should have grave consequences. Our entire economy, upon which we depend for our very lives, assumes a concept of property. Our laws exist, at least in theory, largely to protect property. Commerce is nothing more than the trading of one property for another.
Wikipedia throws some light on the subject by stating in it's definition of property that "A title, or a right of ownership, establishes the relation between the property and other persons, assuring the owner the right to dispose of the property as they see fit". The first part of this description establishes ownership as a contract, with the owner being able to legally dictate how others in that society may interact with the property. That at least seems clear. The second part deals with ridding oneself of said property. "As one sees fit" seems very broad, especially when dealing with property that is alive, such as livestock, pets and in some ways, real estate.
As disposal is simply one case of use, I will expand my analysis of the second part of the above definition to encompass use in general. The first part of the description above answers the question of who uses the property in question. The question of where is answered by the inclusion of real estate as property. The question of how the property can be used is what I hope to clarify.
It is helpful at this time to further categorize property as either alive or not. We will assume that property that is not alive will not object to how it being used. Thus, you should be able to use your spatula to flip eggs, pound nails, or unclog your garbage disposal. Superglueing it to your TV, or eating it are also valid uses under this definition. This leaves us with the question of how property that is alive can be used.
Would those actions be acceptable on a pet dog? Ignoring the efficacy of flipping eggs with your dog, most of these actions, when performed on a living being, would be seen as cruel. Would those actions be acceptable on myself? Would society frown on my pounding a nail with my fist in the same way it would if I performed that action with my dog? I submit the key to these questions lies in who owns the life being used.
It is difficult to argue with the argument that I own my life. For if not me, then who, and why? I contend that the same holds true for all life. My dog owns his life. I expect a certain behavior because he eats my food, and lives under my roof, but I cannot demand his life for those services. Using that logic, regardless of the benefits gained by using animals, whether for testing of drugs or cosmetics, for farm use or as pets, it is wrong to coerce any animal to submit to your authority. You do not own it's life, what you own the right to keep other people away from it, and of course to eat it should nature demand that.
Are there exceptions to this view?
It is a fact of nature that animals must kill to survive. Nature has also instilled life with an strong instinct to live. Predators kill & eat other animals. Herbivores eat plants that are alive. Omnivores do a little of both. If you differentiate between killing plants and animals, I suggest you read the 1970's best seller "The Secret Life of Plants" by Tompkins & Bird. Try eating spatulas or not eating at all and see how long you remain alive. There are therefore 2 occasions where killing is required: eating and self defense.
Dependent children are another possible exception, although I will defer this to future article.
Is coercion ever justified? It certainly is if your ruling principle is "right makes might". But for the rest of us, I suggest that the answer is no, and I suspect, that this view is largely incompatible with current human behavior in the sphere of property and ownership.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 4
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of James Goodfellow only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
James Goodfellow is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
I use the viewpoint that humans are above all other life forms and may use them as property. While I respect where you're coming from, it's hard to keep your idea...principled.
If a plant is life, do I have no right to make use of it for anything other than eating? Can I not cut down a tree because it's simply in the way?
And then, what about animals we currently use to eat? Your logic suggests it's ok to eat them, but it's not ok to enslave them. I don't see the sense in this.
