Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

When did private property become sacred and the basis for all other rights?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
white_wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 02:13 PM
Original message
When did private property become sacred and the basis for all other rights?
I've heard Paul and few others say that private property is the basis for all other rights. I have never understood why he feels this way, since I fail to see the connection between owning a factory and being able to petition the government, or the writ Habeas Corpus, for example.

Secondly, why is the right of private property so strongly defended, while the same defenders of that "right" are willing to throw all other rights away for security? The Patriot Act is fine to these people on the Right, but if you dare mention nationalizing the banks, which are a bigger threat to us than terrorists, it is an an attack on private property and they can't dare give up that right. I don't understand why those same people who are willing to trade all other rights for security are so concerned with protecting private property rights. The American people have given up far more important rights over the years than private property. Why is this the line in the sand?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 02:17 PM
Response to Original message
1. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 02:19 PM
Response to Original message
2. The day that Gawd decided that only He had a right to eat apples.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 02:22 PM
Response to Original message
3. Private property is sacred when I have some and you don't
:hi:
It starts with private property, then you have to secure it....then you're living in the shit


The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dhpgetsit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 02:23 PM
Response to Original message
4. I think Bastiat would be a good answer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quinnox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 02:24 PM
Response to Original message
5. Didn't they have the landowners and peasants back in the middle ages?
I should read the history about that time, it has always sounded interesting to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jwirr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #5
18. One period during the middle ages all property belonged to the king
and was held for him by his subjects who also let their subjects hold land and so on down to the peasant who was considered part of the land deal.

I am not sure that was any better than private property. Depended on who the overlord was.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hifiguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 02:24 PM
Response to Original message
6. I suspect it has something with the ancien regime notion
that all land belonged to the sovereign king, who could parcel it out to gain support from those he made nobles. Of course, said sovereign king could also march one to the headsman's block for no particular reason other than his later displeasure with those nobles he created and enfoeffed.

The concept remains the same for the reichwing - those with the property make the rules and the rest are but serfs who should be glad that their lot in life is not more miserable. Of course, the new masters reserve to themselves the absolute right to make us serfs even more miserable at their whim.

(I have always wanted to use an obscure word like "enfoeffed" in a post here and I finally got the chance to do it. :))
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. It started way before then. See my other post below.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jwirr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #6
19. Great word - what does it mean?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hifiguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. "Given hereditary lands" is the simplest explanation.
As in "Sir Geoffrey Applebanger Snot-Pustule was enfoeffed with His Majesty's lands in the West of Wafflebottom in 1311 and shall be known henceforth as the Duke of Wafflebottom."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jwirr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-30-11 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #21
52. Great - thank you - that is my lesson for today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FarCenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 02:29 PM
Response to Original message
7. With the triumph of the bourgeoisie following WW II
Edited on Tue Nov-29-11 02:33 PM by FarCenter
Prior to the Wars of the Reformation and the Thirty Years War, the clergy had supreme power based on their appointment by God.

Prior to the French Revolution/Napoleonic Wars and World Wars I&II, the nobility had supreme power based on inheiritance of noble blood and titles. By the end of WW II, the French Bourbons, German Hohenzollerns, Russian Romanovs, Austrian Hapsburgs, Turkish Ottomans, and Chinese Qings were out of power, while the British Windsors, the Japanese Emperor, and the kings of Belgium, The Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, and Siam, etc. had been reduced to largely ceremonial roles. Only in the Islamic world were monarchs restored to full political power by Britain and the US in Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Morrocco, and Libya, although some of these were short lived, such as King Farouk.

The great businesses and financial figures had won the day, and their position was consolidated with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the capitalist reforms of China.

Thus came the sanctity of property rights and of ownership as the organizing principle of society.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yellerpup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 02:29 PM
Response to Original message
8. There was no concept of private property here
Edited on Tue Nov-29-11 02:31 PM by yellerpup
before Europeans began to arrive on this continent. This point of view is based on a culture that was willing to kill to the point of genocide to gather wealth. They warred against each other even within families in Europe to consolidate holdings. You can't make a fair treaty when the other side doesn't speak or read your language; someone is sure to get screwed - and it won't be the 1% no matter what era.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #8
15. Bullshit!
The Indians in Southern California divided the land up into sections that different families owned. Each family cared for the oak trees on their section and harvested the acorns for meal. Other tribes had begun some farming and with farming goes ownership of the land that one farms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SomethingFishy Donating Member (552 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 07:33 PM
Response to Reply #15
33. Yeah but was it "private property"?
Big difference between farming and "GET OFF MY LAWN YOU DAMN HIPPIES... :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-30-11 07:49 AM
Response to Reply #33
49. So farmland isn't private property? N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yellerpup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #15
40. Sorry, I should have said what is now the Eastern USA
Didn't mean to set off your bullshit exploder.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-30-11 07:58 AM
Response to Reply #40
50. Check out the five nations of the Iroquois.
They farmed. You can't have productive agricultrue without a system to protect the labor of the ones doing the farming. That means private property.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yellerpup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-30-11 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #50
51. They farmed, but they did not 'own' the land
individually. They shared the food they grew communally. No member became obese while others in the same community starved. When the hunters brought in a deer, for instance, the hunter did not eat it all himself, he shared. They relied on each other and cooperated to feed everyone in the tribe. No one hunted on private property because there was no private property. As with all predators (and humans are very effective predators) they squabbled over territory but no one was 'paid' to farm and their 'labor' was honored when everyone, young, old, sick, or well, ate well because of their labors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
the other one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 02:34 PM
Response to Original message
10. When "pursuit of happiness" was changed to "property"
"Pursuit of happiness" as enshrined in the Declaration of Independence was changed to "property" in the Constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. but it had been 'property' before that
See reply #11.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 02:37 PM
Response to Original message
11. John Locke was very influential in this
the right to life, liberty, and property, that have a foundation independent of the laws of any particular society. Locke used the claim that men are naturally free and equal as part of the justification for understanding legitimate political government as the result of a social contract where people in the state of nature conditionally transfer some of their rights to the government in order to better insure the stable, comfortable enjoyment of their lives, liberty, and property. Since governments exist by the consent of the people in order to protect the rights of the people and promote the public good, governments that fail to do so can be resisted and replaced with new governments. Locke is thus also important for his defense of the right of revolution. Locke also defends the principle of majority rule and the separation of legislative and executive powers. In the Letter Concerning Toleration, Locke denied that coercion should be used to bring people to (what the ruler believes is) the true religion and also denied that churches should have any coercive power over their members. Locke elaborated on these themes in his later political writings, such as the Second Letter on Toleration and Third Letter on Toleration.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/


Notice his idea was changed somewhat for the American Declaration of Independence; but Locke was still highly influential in the American Revolution, and capitalism in general.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wickerwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #11
26. +1. This.
There were property rights before this, but John Locke and the classical liberals made the link between property rights and human rights.

Of course, property rights are still technically contingent. Your freehold title doesn't mean you can do anything you want with your land, just that you can use it reasonably and keep most people off of it. Technically, it still belongs to the government and they can take it any time they want to build a freeway or a school as long as they compensate you for it.

And Locke also said that nothing is more obvious than the fact that property rights also imply a responsibility to care for the environment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 02:38 PM
Response to Original message
13. It began with the agricultural revolution, thousands of years ago.
It got its start the first time somebody worked hard planting some food and then his neighbor who hadn't helped walked into the garden and started eating.

Even animals have territories that they will defend against intruders.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JNelson6563 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 02:41 PM
Response to Original message
14. It's been with us all along
The punishments for crimes against private property (namely theft) have long been extreme. For ages those with nothing have been encouraged to ignore their own poverty and look forward to the glory of the next life. A famous ancient text propagating such property-owner-friendly pap is the bible.

Julie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bosonic Donating Member (774 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 02:56 PM
Response to Original message
16. 2380BC Urukagina of Lagash,Mesopotamia?
Not sure all rights are rooted in property rights though (freedom of speech?)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 03:32 PM
Response to Original message
17. Maybe right after the first time someone stole
Edited on Tue Nov-29-11 03:33 PM by Zorra
a family's last drops of water that they were going to use to keep their children alive with.

After that, different cultures may have begun developing diverse customs regarding property ownership.

Maybe something like that.

It's probably not possible to pinpoint the exact beginning of western culture's laws regarding property, since conquerors, and the superstitious, often write fractured, inaccurate, highly subjective histories.

Here is a brief subjective account of an "observation" supposedly made by Columbus:

Columbus's report to the Court in Madrid was extravagant. He insisted he had reached Asia (it was Cuba) and an island off the coast of China (Hispaniola). His descriptions were part fact, part fiction:
snip--
The Indians, Columbus reported, "are so naive and so free with their possessions that no one who has not witnessed them would believe it. When you ask for something they have, they never say no. To the contrary, they offer to share with anyone...." He concluded his report by asking for a little help from their Majesties, and in return he would bring them from his next voyage "as much gold as they need ... and as many slaves as they ask." He was full of religious talk: "Thus the eternal God, our Lord, gives victory to those who follow His way over apparent impossibilities."

And at a later time, an account by Las Casas:

The Indians, Las Casas says, have no religion, at least no temples. They live in

large communal bell-shaped buildings, housing up to 600 people at one time ... made of very strong wood and roofed with palm leaves.... They prize bird feathers of various colors, beads made of fishbones, and green and white stones with which they adorn their ears and lips, but they put no value on gold and other precious things. They lack all manner of commerce, neither buying nor selling, and rely exclusively on their natural environment for maintenance. They are extremely generous with their possessions and by the same token covet the possessions of their friends and expect the same degree of liberality. ...

http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinncol1.html

Your guess is as good as mine, w_w

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hugabear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 04:30 PM
Response to Original message
20. As long as there are people who have more than other people
As long as there are "haves" and "have-nots", then property rights will always be sacred to the "haves". Of course, the wider the gap, the more precious those rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BiggJawn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 04:43 PM
Response to Original message
22. Non-property owners are Serfs.
To the Libertard mind, only property owners (probably preferably white males, too)have a say in the governing of the country. goes with their "What the Founding Fathers intended" fantasies.

If you have no Property, you have no Rights. Therefore, STFU and stay in your hovel, you failure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frebrd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 04:59 PM
Response to Original message
23. When? About the time humans changed.......
from hunter-gatherers to an agrarian species. Beyond that, different groups have evolved in different ways and at different speeds toward what we now regard as "human rights".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 05:04 PM
Response to Original message
24. Oh where should I start?
Not sacred, but private property goes back to the rise of agriculture. In the present form it is a wide exaggeration of the property rights as understood by liberal democracies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zipplewrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 05:05 PM
Response to Original message
25. 'Tis always been so
If you read some of the early documents, around the time of the revolution, "property" was an important concept and tied up with rights. Often, the definition of a voting citizen was a white male property owner. Property definitions varied from state to state, but it often meant more than land. Property was seen as the avenue to prosperity. "Public" property was beginning to be conceptualized around this time as well. Prior to that the word public, much less public property was relatively unknown. Also remember that back in England, they still had strong class definitions and it still roughly boiled down to nobles, land owners/landlords, and serfs. "Citizen" was a developing concept (as oppose to "subject").

The Ron Paul/libertarian crowd seizes upon the changing nature and definitions of property over the last 200 years to make their points. Today, property is a broader term, and less connected to rights in anyway. "Ownership" has become a vastly more vague term with far more "corporate" ownership and share holder status. The concept of property has become much less "real" (as in real estate) and far more fungible. John Locke and company wouldn't recognize much of us today, much less agree with much of it. The concept of the modern corporation would have been highly objectionable to them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demigoddess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 05:36 PM
Response to Original message
27. property rights are not sacred if they want to tear down your house
and build a business there. We have had that argument here lately. The city can take your house against your will if they want to put a business there. Apparently if it will bring in sales tax or some equivalent it is considered more important than your right to live in the house you paid for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Angry Dragon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 05:48 PM
Response to Original message
28. They might be setting it up so only people that own property can vote
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpiralHawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-30-11 07:26 AM
Response to Reply #28
48. "Proles should be seen and not heard." - RepubliCorp, Inc. (R)
Edited on Wed Nov-30-11 07:27 AM by SpiralHawk
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 05:51 PM
Response to Original message
29. The line in the sand is here. If you try to take my toothbrush, I'll beat the crap out of you.
If you try to take over my house, I'll shoot you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nuclear Unicorn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 05:53 PM
Response to Original message
30. Nice computer. Mind if I take it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cats Against Frist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #30
34. All I know is that government, corporations AND "hippies" want my fucking property
I'm willing to give some up to the government to stabilize society so I can continue owning property. I'll give to responsible corporations/business when I can to sustain a fun and interesting life.

But the hippies who want my property because of their "lifestyle choice" to be aesthetes and not work -- can fuck off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #34
37. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 08:15 PM
Response to Reply #34
38. Umm, how many
bathrooms are there in our, uh, yer house?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onpatrol98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:10 PM
Response to Original message
31. Shouldn't private property rights be defended???
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MisterP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 07:29 PM
Response to Original message
32. Harriet Martineau and bourgeois bubbles ("I've worked my way up, I've worked for my property")
Edited on Tue Nov-29-11 07:31 PM by MisterP
"this is the land of opportunity--I could make it, therefore, if you haven't you did something wrong"

sheer producerism!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 08:07 PM
Response to Original message
35. Recommended.
In the course of human history, that dynamic came into being shortly after agriculture began to create larger surplus inventories; this led to larger, less-mobile societies, that soon became stratified. Once stratification produced an elite class, property rights trumped human rights in far, far too many cases.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire Walk With Me Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 08:08 PM
Response to Original message
36. "The Factory Store".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nye Bevan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 08:55 PM
Response to Original message
39. "Get off my property, I'm a communist" (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
REP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 10:35 PM
Response to Original message
41. 1615, Magna Carta
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
white_wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 10:56 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. The Magna Cart was signed in 1215.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
REP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-30-11 03:37 AM
Response to Reply #42
46. Typo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JanMichael Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 10:59 PM
Response to Original message
43. There is a difference between "private" and "personal" property.
I doubt many people understand that. There's also a difference between "capital" and "non-capital" property. Like a toothbrush v. the oil in the ground.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
white_wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-30-11 01:17 AM
Response to Reply #43
45. Yeah. I've seen a few people mentioning houses and computers.
I consider those things to be personal property. Private property would be factories and such. I've had this personal V. Private property debate here several times and I figure most people here know my opinion on it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 11:05 PM
Response to Original message
44. John Locke, 1680s.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onpatrol98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-30-11 07:04 AM
Response to Original message
47. Private versus Personal Property
Private property is the right of persons and firms to obtain, own, control, employ, dispose of, and bequeath land, capital, and other forms of property.<1> Private property is distinguishable from public property, which refers to assets owned by a state, community or government rather than by individuals or a business entity.<2> Private property emerged as the dominant form of property in the means of production and land during the Industrial Revolution in the early 18th century, displacing feudal property, guilds, cottage industry and craft production, which were based on ownership of the tools for production by individual laborers or guilds of craftspeople.<3>

Marxists and socialists distinguish between "private property" and "personal property", defining the former as the means of production in reference to private enterprise based on socialized production and wage labor; and the latter as consumer goods or goods produced by an individual.<4><5>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct 31st 2024, 06:44 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC