The Power of Property Rights
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 лют 2025
- Why are property rights important, even for those who own the least? Professor Tom W. Bell of Chapman University School of Law explains that property rights allow people to live together in peace, prosperity, and freedom. They prevent conflicts over scarce resources, encourage productive labor, and discourage waste. Bell bolsters his argument by drawing on classical liberal scholars such as Friedrich Hayek, Randy Barnett, Robert Nozick, and Ludwig von Mises.
Watch more videos: lrnlbty.co/y5tTcY
The problem with property rights was explained by Henry George. Search: Georgism. The rich buy up all the scarce property and get even richer by exploiting the increased scarcity, and then exploit further by renting the land out to the poor. This scheme is super profitable, so prices are driven up by speculators, and housing bubbles occur regularly. Everyday people who happen to buy at a low are indirectly profiting on the scheme, so policy change/tax/regulations are unlikely to occur. Mass immigration becomes profitable. Poor people are forced to fund this entire scheme. Money that should've been allocated into society and thereby enriched it is instead sucked up.
"Diversity of wealth" instead of "Wealth equality".
I like that.
I often dream of living off the land but can't for this reason. I'm glad to know someone else thinks like me.
and even when I do pay the protection money to the government they tell me what I can do with my land, I can't put up a fence, I have to mow the lawn, I can't raise my own chickens.
The beginning of this was filmed on Mount Soledad in La Jolla (San Diego, Ca). I recognize the view!
@tektrades7539 Thanks, that's a nice view. :)
The example of the surfer's rules to share the waves is an example of the "Sharing Economy" NOT PRIVATE RIGHTS!
Here is the first sentence from Wikipedia "Sharing Economy" page: "The *capitalist* sharing economy is a socio-economic system built around the sharing of resources."
And a quote from Investopedia "Property Rights" page "Private Property Rights" section: "Private property rights are one of the pillars of *capitalist* economies, as well as many legal systems, and moral philosophies. Within a private property rights regime, individuals need the ability to exclude others from the uses and benefits of their property."
Wikipedia lists properties (hehe) of a "Property Rights (economics)" as follows:
1) the right to use the good
2) the right to earn income from the good
3) the right to transfer the good to others, alter it, abandon it, or destroy it (the right to ownership cessation)
4) the right to enforce property rights
How you claim (or loose) your rights on a property (wave) is different from conventional sense in surfer's case. Regardless of how you claim, If you have a valid claim on a wave, your rights on the wave fits the description given by Wikipedia. A private party (surfer) has property rights on a property (wave). So private property rights then?
Edit: "The right to earn income from the good" can be thought as "The right to get benefit from the good" and in our case "The right to get enjoyment from the wave".
@CosmicFork The concept of property rights doesn't apply only to quantifiable material things and goods. It is what allows individuals to exercise ownership over oneself, ideas/creativity, fruit of labor, talents, knowledge, etc. The materials goods people claim ownership over are often the product and application of aforementioned things. Advocating property rights doesn't mean that one is being selfish.Rather, it acknowledges the fact that it is individuals with rights that constitute society.
My understanding is that you are saying that no one should have a right to own and have the final say over the river because then they could hoard resources. I'm saying that you still need some entity (the government) to own it so that it is taken care of.
Opps, you said 'trickle down'. That is not an economic theory.
Edit: fee.org/articles/there-is-no-such-thing-as-trickle-down-economics/
Here is a quote from Investopedia "Trickle-Down Theory" page: "Trickle-down economics, or “trickle-down theory,” states that tax breaks and benefits for corporations and the wealthy will trickle down to everyone else." When he says "trickle down" he doesn't mean trickle down economics. Also, Classical Liberals don't want benefits for wealthy, they want government to stop intervening in the economy.
*IT WAS ABOUT WHAT PROFIT MEANS IN FREE MARKET*
Rich people have money to invest. Rich people want to profit. They will invest in profitable things. But what does it mean to profit in an economic system where you have private property rights(or you can say capitalism). If you want to understand this, first you need to understand what prices are. Once you understand what price means, you can understand what profit means.
Here are some links:
ua-cam.com/video/Jtxuy-GJwCo/v-deo.html
Do property rights also apply to human beings classified as property? Prisoners and “wards” of the State?
Edit: I think this link is important so I moved it up here: ua-cam.com/video/Ec2BH82t5vE/v-deo.html
While I was scrolling through comments, I saw a comment about the surfer example. I wrote an answer and then I felt the urge to publish it as a comment.
Here is the original comment (at the time of writing):
"The example of the surfer's rules to share the waves is an example of the "Sharing Economy" NOT PRIVATE RIGHTS!"
Here is my original response to the comment:
"Here is the first sentence from Wikipedia "Sharing Economy" page: "The capitalist sharing economy is a socio-economic system built around the sharing of resources."
And a quote from Investopedia "Property Rights" page "Private Property Rights" section: "Private property rights are one of the pillars of capitalist economies, as well as many legal systems, and moral philosophies. Within a private property rights regime, individuals need the ability to exclude others from the uses and benefits of their property."
Wikipedia lists properties (hehe) of a "Property Rights (economics)" as follows:
1) the right to use the good
2) the right to earn income from the good
3) the right to transfer the good to others, alter it, abandon it, or destroy it (the right to ownership cessation)
4) the right to enforce property rights
How you claim (or loose) your rights on a property (wave) is different from conventional sense in surfer's case. Regardless of how you claim, If you have a valid claim on a wave, your rights on the wave fits the description given by Wikipedia. A private party (surfer) has property rights on a property (wave). So private property rights then?
Edit: "The right to earn income from the good" can be thought as "The right to get benefit from the good" and in our case "The right to get enjoyment from the wave"."
I would like to add something to it because I saw some people thought "Ironically, the wave example is an excellent example of leftist property rights.". Let's see how true is that.
I think my original comment shows that in the surfer example, we have private property rights. When a surfer has a valid claim on a wave or in this specific scenario the surfer is the one who is closest to the wave then he has a right to surf the wave, enjoy the wave, pass the wave to other surfers and enforce his right on the wave. Just because surfers are keen to enforce the private property rights as a community thus cooperating with each other *doesn't* *mean* *they* *are* *owning* *the* *waves* *commonly* . You will learn why they are keen to enforce private property rights in the next paragraph.
My comment would be incomplete without a "leftist property rights" or socialistic version of this scenario. Let's see what we need in order to create a Socialistic example. A quote from Wikipedia "Socialism" page: "Socialism is a political, social and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterized by _social ownership_ ...". Because we have a small community here, _for a socialistic example_ we will use common ownership. If you're familiar to economics, you probably know what happens to common goods and have seen what's coming. Tragedy of commons. If you're unfamiliar, I'm gonna leave links at the end of the comment. Because waves are owned commonly, no one can be excluded from using them. This will cause multiple people trying to surf the wave, but we know a wave can not handle more than one surfer. So surfers will bump into each other thus won't be able to enjoy the wave. You may think some surfers will act virtuous and won't invade a wave with a surfer, but this isn't a good strategy either. They may never even be able to surf because some surfers are not as virtuous as they and surf every wave they see.
After spending ridiculous amount of time on this, I hope some people will find it useful in future.
Link for _Tragedy of Commons_ : mru.org/courses/principles-economics-microeconomics/tragedy-of-the-commons-examples-economics
Another link: ua-cam.com/video/MLirNeu-A8I/v-deo.html
Link for _Tragedy of Commons_ again but watch it after the first link. This contains interesting example but less economics: ua-cam.com/video/jZERvJemQLc/v-deo.html
I’ve been struggling recently with whether I “own” my home/land. If, after decades n decades of “buying” a home n property n I hold the deed, how is it if I miss or refuse to pay my “property tax”, the whole thing can be taken from me? To my mind, this means I never “owned” it and am, instead, continuing to RENT it!
I realize the tax goes to services!! However, unlike a failed hospital bill etc, I’m not merely fined or put in jail, but they can also take my home n land in spite of ownership.
Can you help clarify this for me? Or is my thinking correct?
Hi. Look up the definition of the following 3 means of land title: Allodial, Fee Simple and Lendlease.
Under common law you have a fee simple deed. The state is the ultimate soverign in your case. You do pay taxes to the state but you also receive state protection of your title.
If you had allodial title then you would be the ultimate sovereign. In that case you better get yourself armed so that no other individual takes your property by force. Oh, and currency other than your own is worthless on your land.
Brad Keen Thank you for your kind n patient answer!
And confirming my suspicion that I am a tenant the State’s wave...uh land!
@@perrymalcolm3802 the only 'right' that people have is that of property. If you think about it even speech is a matter of property rights i.e. where the speech takes place. However, so long as we live within a social contract property rights cannot be absolute.
Land tax is to prevent land hoarding. Also you live in a society think of it as paying maintenance. Besides do y'all really believe captialism will function without a state. So what are the court system like in a ancap. Are they gonna be run privately?
@bozolazic
"Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right." Thomas Jefferson
I just saying that I think your issue is not with property rights so much as with monopolies. I'm saying that this issue is solved by acknowledging that certain things are natural monopolies and should be collectively owned by the people and administered by the Government. I was also showing how this collective ownership is similar to corporate collective ownership.
"I'm saying that you still need some entity (the government) to own it so that it is taken care of."
i don't agree. an individual cannot claim a monopoly, or rather cannot *enforce* such a claim, without a government recognizing the supposed legitimacy of the claim in the first place.
Making a choice for yourself is using an inherent property right to your body.
Okay, as long as we're getting into things very few people "living off the land" have access to, let's say we also had a tank with blast shielding. And where did the relatives come from, we're they out of state? Live near you? were they living off the twenty acres you have a great deal of which is now covered by a mine field wide enough to be effective against more than a few people? Do they all have the lifetime of battle experience me and my friends have gained stealing land?
For some reason Libertarians seem to think that their property rights exceed all other rights, Life, Equity, Dignity, and the Human Rights of others. Well they don't. They're wrong! In actuality there are no such things as property rights until we (as a society) agree on them. It is an irreconcilable difference of view, and of life. If you think your "property rights" trump all other Human Rights you're wrong! Property is just things and things can ALWAYS be replaced, PEOPLE CAN'T BE REPLACED!
I would suggest that we go beyond the discussion of property rights. Not by negation (communists) or by confirmation (libertarians). And this wonderful example of riding a wave does it well. First, props to Professor Tom W. Bell for putting it together a witty proposition. But allow me, sir, to develop your concept. In this case of surfing the tides, it's not really property rights, but rather, access rights. And that's the key. Even if a surfer could sell or buy a wave it's not really the property of a wave that's being sold, but the access to it. And that's beautiful, we live in a world of artificial scarcity, hence the problem of property. Access goes beyond. And that could also be said for the land, the sun and even commodities. Just my 2 cents. Peace, people.
How can "access rights" be sold or bought if there is no clear owner of the good in question?
Also, there is hardly anything "artificial" about scarcity. It's an inherent fact of human nature and cannot be done away with on a whim.
+Christopher Zimny Socialism always avoids the question of ownership, because it reveals the fact, that was pretty well known in 18th and 19th Century: the experts and policy advisors end up owning everything.
Scarcity is artificial? Please elaborate.
You're an idiot, and this video is retarded. Search Henry George or Georgism to learn why.
In EVERY libertarian video there is some statement like "These rights help those with the least, the most." Yet why are most libertarians upper middle class white men? Why do see so very few poor libertarians?
What are you talking about, exactly? Are you referencing to something that happened in specific?
I buy something with the legal tender of the country, and as such, I own it and it belongs to me. What more is there to say?
I want to go surfing now
i really don't see your point. what does that have to do with what i'm saying?
Hayek never studied anthropology. Early humans were hunter gathers. In fact they would be more eglatarian which would be communal more than private property.
@ped200014 Worse. Let's say you decide to build a reservoir on your land principally for your own use. Sooner or later, somebody finds that there's an animal living there that didn't do so before, since there was no reservoir there before. Suddenly, thanks to animal protection laws, your reservoir becomes a Wetland, which you cannot use anymore for irrigation or anything else.
This happens more often than not, and it's an extortion racket.
How does one own air?
But how do I get property in the first place? Why do I need to mortgage my life away to get what should be my birthright?
Not saying he's wrong, but I wonder how the scarcity of toilet paper in mid 2020 played into the property rights of those trying to purchase said toilet paper.
Wow, really?
Libertarians place right to own right on top. And because you OWN your life, and everything you mix your labour with, rights to property.
@CosmicFork Is it my human right to take from someone else?
The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land,said"This is mine,"and found people naïve enough to believe him,that man was the true founder of civil society.From how many crimes,wars,and murders,from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind,by pulling up the stakes,or filling up the ditch and crying to his fellows:Beware of listening to this impostor;you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all,and the earth itself to nobody.
@CMLovejoy Yes, however, people do have a hard time understanding this simple concept. Take the average lower income person today and compare them to the equivalent caste at any time in the past. They have it much better today than is lead to believe. Take for example 100 years ago in the USA. The average poor did not own an automobile, while the rich did. 50 years ago it was the TV set. 25 years ago, the cell phone. The problem is only one of expectations.
We must preserve the legal framework that keeps society at bay politically by dividing it economically. In order to preserve this two class model it is essential that we destroy Democracy as quickly and as utterly as possible.
youuuuuu sound very dumb !
@DavidDayPraise I'm not advocating taking from someone else. Instead, allow yourself to imagine what a better world we'd live in, if people valued each other, and our relationships with each other, MORE than we value our property. But we don't. Why do we only value what we can quantify? Why do we only value our material possessions? Why do we only value money & of course, THE GOD OF PROPERTY? It seems to me if we're going to survive as a species, we must learn to value each other & the earth...
Without property rights, how do you know that you own yourself, the food that you have eaten, or your dog. Apperently, according to you, property rights are not as good as human rights. But they are both the same. Think about it.
I see you removed your original response to this. is it because it was ridiculous?
@ihatemoses Never heard that one.Thanks! If you don't know the quote that I wrote it's from Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourses on the Origin of Inequality.I had no room to give him credit.
Some of our chiefs make the claim that the land belongs to us. It is not what the Great Spirit told me. He told me that the lands belong to Him, that no people owns the land; that I was not to forget to tell this to the white people when I met them in council.
---Kanekuk - Kickapoo prophet
Chilean property right is in dangerous times right now¡¡
How utterly satirical... :)
0:42 --> Watch the sign on the _left!_ *It says: " *BANK OWNED* "... The result: neglect, ruin and waste." (>.
I used to think that way till I thought about Property Rights and Environmental issues. I asked, what is the one factor above all others which stands in the way of wholesale consumption of the Planets resources. Ironically I concluded it was the buffer of private property. We clearly need public spaces but we need private areas far more.
Search "Henry George" or "Georgism" for the remedy :) Basically, land tax. Possibly one that increases exponentially by the acre of land one individual owns. And all land, sea, air and resources are fundamentally owned by the people that live there.
The with property rights: The rich buy up all the scarce property and get even richer by exploiting the increased scarcity, and then exploit further by renting the land out to the poor. This scheme is super profitable, so prices are driven up by speculators, and housing bubbles occur regularly. Everyday people who happen to buy at a low are indirectly profiting on the scheme, so policy change/tax/regulations are unlikely to occur. Mass immigration becomes profitable. Poor people are forced to fund this entire scheme. Money that should've been allocated into society and thereby enriched it is instead sucked up.
Let give the government control of everything Because they all ready do so well with so much. Here is a thought not everyone can rich we will always have poverty.Saying that we can redistribute wealth is like saying You can redistribute intelligence.
thank you!
Primitive cultures absolutely dealt with and deal with starvation on a regular basis. Despite averaging over 10 kids per female, these cultures rarely expanded since their mortality rate was so high.
lol, HIS happyness[sic] come from HIM being PART of a happy community.
Traits and actions of a person concerned with self, and how he fits into society as an individual. You enter and leave the world in the same way. Alone. However only a fool would argue that such a view would bring chaos, as most actions anyone takes during the course of a day are beneficial to himself AS WELL as others. Individuals cooperating for self-gain is the desired end, but is impossible if you destroy individuality
I won't feel responsible for something i have no right to
Very little trickles down.
It does if you fashion a water collection device (a metaphor for doing something of value).
Wait what? If a bank owns a house it isn't clear who owns it?
What if you want to build a road and my house is in the way,and i dont want to sell my house.And what if millions of people dont want to sell theyr lands or give access to them to build roads?There is some flaw with libertarian property rights.It seems libertarianism is a system that can succeed only if it hijacks the current infostructure build by the current system.That is the only flaw with libertarianism,land ownership.
Does wealth really trickle down though?
No.
Yes - there is no set totality of wealth so that if someone else has more you must therefore have less. Wealth trickles down because money moves and exchanges hands be it from a bank making a loan to the business owner who takes out the loan to the company he buys machinery or materials from to the worker who sweeps the floor of the shop from which that machinery, ultimately paid for by a bank loan which in itself was financed from deposits at the bank including the person sweeping the floor of the supplier, money moves and had the bank not had the deposits available in such quantities as to make the loan to the business who purchased the materials from the supplier where the person sweeps the floor the market would freeze up, no loan would be made, no machinery or materials ordered, and possibly the factory floor sweeper would see hours cut or a job disappear. The very velocity of money means it trickles down.
@@cxa340 This comment is 9 years old but it still holds true today. The worker sweeping the floor probably didn't get upward mobility from the bank loan or business owner. Both the banker and business owner profited from the venture but the floor sweeper didn't profit from his or her wage.
@@CMLovejoy
wrong - the bank and the business owner may have profited, they also may not, if the company goes bankrupt then only the factory worker has actually made out well and the bank and the business owner have both risked and lost, they provided the capital and they lost their own money. If the investment from the bank creates a job then the factory worker has completely won out because their entire salary is the result of capital moving through the system. Capital is not a zero-sum game, the factory worker does not lose of the bank and business owner make money, and the business does not lose by having to pay the factory worker, the velocity of money means they both can win and both can lose.
What? Objectively primitive civilizations are not ideal communities. People living largely un-contacted today continue to live to sustain themselves through hard labor like hunting with spears. You are living the good life; you have a computer. I was able to see your comment because the internet took me here at light speed by reading a series of ones and zeroes. I can assure you that is a hell of a lot better than hunting and gathering to sustain myself.
Ironically, the wave example is an excellent example of leftist property rights. Use equates ownership.
I've been taking this economics course for a good couple of months now and the words "peace, liberty, and happiness" keep coming up, and it's weird because I'm supposed to be in an economics class, aren't I? So why do all the videos act as if they're bringing world peace and transcendent happiness instead of just **teaching me about economics?** So far the only thing I've learned is a bunch of perfect examples of hypothetical capitalist ideas, and a bunch of real-world examples of failed totalitarian states. I'm not even exaggerating when I say that some of the clips I've been assigned to watch were actual recordings from actual red-scare age propaganda lectures. Not. a. single. reference. to. capitalism. in. real. life. Just a bunch of "this is how it **should** work, isn't it amazing?" over and over and over again. Like jesus christ, do you really think I'm going to trust what you say when you're insisting that everything is perfect? Lay off the political messages for a quick second and teach economics.
Do a youtube search for....George Carlin Talks About "Stuff"
What about women?
wow, such a good viedo
@nilbud If your not going to back up your position, (since you can't) the I am not responding to you again.
What do you think of the argument that some redistribution is ok because the market system tends to fail at absorbing the full cost of a worker's labor for those in the lowest class?
@nilbud Your comments score:
facts: 0
logic: 0
arguments: 0
your score: 0
you lose, try again later.
Lets say me and 15 of my closest friends decide we like the way your land looks, and come to try and take it with our automatic rifles. What do?
ohhh noooooooo!
Property rights are a big deal
Even with that logic, one could ague that certain property is owned by the collective (i.e. the Government). In my mind, this would be no different than having a smaller collective of corporate shareholders own resources.
Your belief that "Property Rights" extend to human life is a logical fallacy. Your reasoning that "your life is your property" assumes that life is a "commodity" that can be bought and sold to others ~ who can then rule over you. Your Libertarian concept of "Self-Ownership" is economistic reductionism to me. I don't want to live in a world where everything, (including my life), is reduced to a commodity to be bought and sold in the marketplace. Self-Rule is the true moral basis for freedom!
property rights are a bastardization of a right to resources. it's one thing to say that one can access a river to fish in order to meet their needs and desires, it's another thing to claim a monopoly on a river and exclude other people from using it.
1:44 :))
Web 3.0
Sickening
All property is theft.
Crap.