Property

[The Terrible Sweal]

I came up with this hypothetical talking with Hugo and I thought it might make an interesting further digression for others on its own. ...

Two men are walking in the wilderness. Man X arrives at a cherry tree and sits beneath it in the shade. Two minutes later Man Y arrives and starts picking cherries. They confront eachother and each asserts his exclusive rights to control and dispose of the tree. What resolves this dispute and why/how?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear The Terrible Sweal,

As you know, I contend that only force is the true method, however, there are 3 possible outcomes.

1. X or Y aquieces and voluntarily cedes 'control' or 'ownership' to the other.

2. X and Y fight over control, and the winner becomes the 'owner'

3. Z shows up, claiming to 'own' the land on which the cherry tree sits, and shoots X and Y for tresspassing. (Or chops down the cherry tree, rendering it valueless, as would be his right under both the 'societal' and Anarchist view of law).

[theloniusfleabag]

Actually, I forgot a fourth outcome, the 'marxist utopian' one. X and Y agree that nobody can own the tree, they can only fight over it, so they agree to share it's benefits equally.

[August1991]

They confront eachother and each asserts his exclusive rights to control and dispose of the tree. What resolves this dispute and why/how?

Swell, you are asking a question of "fairness" or "justice". You are asking, "how do we assign property rights?" [if I own the tree, then I'm richer.]

There is private property (disputed or not) and common property (Thelonious' utopian example).

Societies have used all variations at various times. Sometimes property is both private and common depending on the season.

I would agree, in general, that my property rights must be defendable. If I cannot defend my property, then in effect I don't own it. [That doesn't necessarily mean I need a gun or be the biggest and strongest.]

Now, is there a way to define ownership that is morally correct? I would say yes, and I suspect it follows closely our ordinary, common sense of fairness learned in every elementary schoolyard- depending on the society of course.

Ownership should go to the person who will most likely be best placed to trade the tree to the highest bidder. If that person can't be identified, then it doesn't matter - as long as ownership is clear.

Last point, it is critical to decide ownership quickly. Arguments about ownership are a waste of time.

----

Incidentally, you don't really own something. You own rights. I may own the right to pick cherries but I don't have the right to chop the tree down.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

Incidentally, you don't really own something. You own rights. I may own the right to pick cherries but I don't have the right to chop the tree down.

Well, once you do chop the tree down, you have exercised force, and decided the matter. PS. hope you check your mail soon.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Thelonius:

Actually, I forgot a fourth outcome, the 'marxist utopian' one. X and Y agree that nobody can own the tree, they can only fight over it, so they agree to share it's benefits equally.

I suggest a fifth possibility:

Recognizing their inability to efficiently/effectively resolve their dispute by themselves, they defer to an exogenous arbiter.

[The Terrible Sweal]

I would agree, in general, that my property rights must be defendable. If I cannot defend my property, then in effect I don't own it. [That doesn't necessarily mean I need a gun or be the biggest and strongest.]

Exactly ... Now the next element: what defense is there if one is not the biggest or strongest?

I suggest two possible responses: (1) that the stronger has some incentive to permit property to the weaker or (2) that the weaker can call upon powers other than his own. And though these are divided into two here, the difference is really only perspective.

Now, is there a way to define ownership that is morally correct?  ... Ownership should go to the person who will most likely be best placed to trade the tree to the highest bidder.

That is definitely arguable, but the underlying ethical assumption (efficiency = good) requires a defence (or some qualification).

If that person can't be identified, then it doesn't matter - as long as ownership is clear.

Yes, with the caveat that the 'identification' method may be subject to dispute and to costs. Also, making ownership 'clear' also carries costs.

Last point, it is critical to decide ownership quickly.  Arguments about ownership are a waste of time.

Perhaps. Waste according to who?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

Ownership should go to the person who will most likely be best placed to trade the tree to the highest bidder

You have argued before that the 'morally correct' way is to adhere to the principles of 'adding value, and creating trade to the 'best degree', as it were. However, this should not come into play regarding ownership.

If Bill Gates sits on the billions he earned, where as I might spend it, is it not better for me to have the money than him? I would create more employment, and generate more wealth for more people, by spending the money(or most of it) than he would by saving it. In no way should this translate into me having the 'right to ownership' of what another has.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Bill Gates isn't sitting on his millions. The vast majority of his wealth is invested (notably, in shares of Microsoft, a large employer and a technological innovator).

[Neal.F.]

Two men come upon a tree in the wilderness. Y gets there first and sits under the shade, whhile Y starts to pick cherries..

Lets see, if the two cannot resolve the matter amicably themselves, which should not be difficult since each man wants it for a different, and non conflicting purpose, there is no reason why they cannot agree.

However in the event they do not agree, they need to appeal toa mutually agreed upon independent objective arbiter.

If we look at the Homsteading laws that existed in the early USA, whereby a man could lay claim to a piece of land and mix his labour with it and thus take posession of it, it would seem that the first man since he arrived first, should be able touse it for his purpose in the event of the inability to agree to share it.

However, since he is not mixing labour with the land, he would not be establishing any kind of permanent claim to it, as the cherry picker would. Therefore, since one has to make a living, either through subsistence farming, or through the sale of the fruit, it would seem that the second man would have a more legitimate claim to the tree.

This is why there must be some kind of minimalist government who can be deputized,whose authority is enforceable and thus universally recognized, to make enforceable decisions in such matters. Anarchy would inevitably result in a violent showdown at the OK Corral if the matter could not be resolved amicably or with one party backing down.

[August1991]

Bump.

[Oleg Bach]

Wait till the furniture maker shows up and wants the cherry tree...and this manufacturer needs a million of them - good bye cherry eater and lazy shady lounger...now where is my axe? No one messes with a man with an axe and share holders to answer too..now get off my property - My friend the judge provided me with this order and a deed...now scram and eat cherrys and be a lazy bum else where!