The Right to Property

[tama]

"The original draft of the Declaration of Independence outlined the “inalienable rights” of all men as including “life, liberty, and property.” Benjamin Franklin convinced Thomas Jefferson to change the wording to “and the pursuit of happiness,” simply because it sounded better, but the Lockesian philosophy Jefferson alluded to has remained the cornerstone of American thought. John Locke was one of the great Enlightenment philosophers, one of the first to espouse the idea of “natural rights.” He was, for his time, incredibly radical in that he was among the first to assert that individuals have rights that derive from something more fundamental than the whim or a monarch ruling by divine right. Locke narrowed down these rights to three basics: life, liberty, and property. During the French revolution, one philosopher defined the differences between liberals and conservatives as one of priority: to conversatives, property rights are more important; to liberals, life and liberty. While few would argue Locke’s point on the first two, the right to property remains problematic, at best.

The radical Left of American political philosophy is deeply influenced by Marx, who rejected the notion of personal property as inherently exploitative. This has led to significant questioning of property rights among the Left, but mainstream liberalism still supports the concept of ownership, as Locke described. Yet, Locke’s argument is rife with unexamined implications that we need to examine more closely.

For Locke, the right to property comes from the application of one’s time, talents and labor to an object; it is that part of nature which an individual transforms into something useful and valuable. Thus, to rob a person of his property is to rob her of the products of her past–just as murder robs her of her future life, and slavery of her present liberty. All well and good, if one accepts a pivotal, unspoken assumption that nature has no value of its own and is free for our taking.

This certainly was Locke’s assumption, and the assumption of all his readers. In their understanding, G-d had bequeathed nature to mankind’s use. Humanity was destined to rule as the earth’s masters, and nature existed only to serve mankind. In this context, Locke’s philosophy makes perfect sense. To date, however, no philosopher has ever successfully divorced Lockesian property rights from monotheism."
More: http://anthropik.com/2005/07/the-right-to-property/

Lockean concept of property of ownership can be justified only with a daft monotheistic God. IRL ownership property is theft by the "might makes right" sickness.