Discussion of Property Rights

[nawainwright]

I have been reading Machiavelli recently and am fascinated by some of the similarities I see to modern politics. There really is "nothing new under the sun." Regardless as to whether you see "The Prince" as a manual for deception of the populous or a satire based upon the actions of those who govern, I'm interested on your take of the following quote from chapter 19.

...I have spoken of the more important ones, the others I wish to discuss briefly under this generality, that the prince must consider, as has been in part said before, how to avoid those things which will make him hated or contemptible; and as often as he shall have succeeded he will have fulfilled his part, and he need not fear any danger in other reproaches. It makes him hated above all things, as I have said, to be rapacious, and to be a violator of the property and women of his subjects, from both of which he must abstain. And when neither their property nor their honor is touched, the majority of men live content, and he has only to contend with the ambition of a few, whom he can curb with ease in many ways.

While on some levels I applaud the concept behind this from a "leadership" (or "ruler-ship" if you prefer) point of view, however it disturbs me greatly from a "populous" view. I mean if you sum it up, "don't mess with people's families or property and you can do whatever else you want and get away with it" it sounds both good and bad. I realize that it's the joy of philosophers to pose such a conundrum, nevertheless, an astute observer will find things both good and bad in this.

Realistically if the government leaves your property and your family alone, you can forgive most "infringements". I think most of us, whether we want to admit it or not, fall into this category.

On the other hand if you let too many of the other "infringements" pile up then eventually you have nothing left to give but your family and property. I mean it sounds silly to posit that the govt would introduce a "equal use" policy regarding "attractive" spouses....because its only fair.

This is all mute if you believe that people are inherently good and will work toward your best interest rather than their own (good luck with that view).

I don't know that I have a question to pose, I guess I'm just looking to see discussion on the concept.

If you want to read "The Prince" free online: Niccolo Machiavelli: The Prince: List of contents - Free Online Library

 

[hornadylnl]

I mean if you sum it up, "don't mess with people's families or property and you can do whatever else you want and get away with it" it sounds both good and bad.

Realistically if the government leaves your property and your family alone, you can forgive most "infringements". I think most of us, whether we want to admit it or not, fall into this category.

Clearly, there are those here who don't mind infringements on others property. Ala, Hurst. Since he is in the minority, the wants and the desires of others trumps his right to property.

 

[Bubba]

I take the above excerpt as an early hat tip to the concept that government comes from the consent of the governed. Taken loosely, not interfering with a man's wife or property puts a ruler in a fairly narrow box. Slacking off on internal affairs leading to increased crime infringes on a man's property. Unsuccessful foreign policy may allow external enemies to take a man's property through annexation or warfare. Taxation to support an ineffective ruler's lifestyle of excessive luxury deprives a man of goods or money (or women!) without compensating services.

Unfortunately, statists have know since long before Machiavelli that public opinion is not a "closed system". Which is to say, a successful ruler cannot unilaterally take a man's property, but he can purchase it with other happiness-inducing programs. The public games of the Caesars, for one. Public works programs, federally-funded libraries, "free" insurance, and all those other feel-good used by federal politicians on both sides of the aisle for the last century in the U.S. for another.

 

[nawainwright]

I take the above excerpt as an early hat tip to the concept that government comes from the consent of the governed. Taken loosely, not interfering with a man's wife or property puts a ruler in a fairly narrow box. Slacking off on internal affairs leading to increased crime infringes on a man's property. Unsuccessful foreign policy may allow external enemies to take a man's property through annexation or warfare. Taxation to support an ineffective ruler's lifestyle of excessive luxury deprives a man of goods or money (or women!) without compensating services.

Unfortunately, statists have know since long before Machiavelli that public opinion is not a "closed system". Which is to say, a successful ruler cannot unilaterally take a man's property, but he can purchase it with other happiness-inducing programs. The public games of the Caesars, for one. Public works programs, federally-funded libraries, "free" insurance, and all those other feel-good used by federal politicians on both sides of the aisle for the last century in the U.S. for another.

Granted, there will always be people who allow they're rights to be "bought" with entertainment. I mean if you watch the news, any news, its more about what will get ratings. The juicier, the more scandalous, the better. Sure you've got some people reporting on REAL issues, however, they are issues they know will get ratings from sub-groups.

Or take the internet for example, per John Edwards belief, is a RIGHT for American's. Would we be willing to trade our "right" to use the internet for our 2nd Amendment right? I would posit that there are millions who would do just that.

How many of us have traded our freedom to be bothered for the newest cell phone gadget and then complain it controls our life?

 

[hornadylnl]

Which is to say, a successful ruler cannot unilaterally take a man's property, but he can purchase it with other happiness-inducing programs. The public games of the Caesars, for one. Public works programs, federally-funded libraries, "free" insurance, and all those other feel-good used by federal politicians on both sides of the aisle for the last century in the U.S. for another.

In this country, our rulers can take the property of an unwilling 3rd party by giving someone else happiness-inducing programs. I wonder how many millions will relish in that fact in person or on tv this Saturday evening.