yego.me
💡 Stop wasting time. Read Youtube instead of watch. Download Chrome Extension

There is no axiomatic proof of property rights


2m read
·Nov 8, 2024

Uh, to avoid confusion, I'll preface this by saying that, um, I'm personally strongly in favor of property rights and their enforcement. So if you're new to my channel, please bear that in mind.

Uh, Stefan Molyneux made a video a while back attempting to offer an axiomatic proof of the existence of property rights. Recently, I made a video where I explained why the phrase "property is theft" is an example of the stolen concept fallacy. A couple of comments made to that video referenced Stefan Molyneux's arguments that a denial of property rights is, in his words, a self-detonating claim.

So the idea is that there is a performative inconsistency involved in expressing the claim "property rights don't exist." Um, so in Molyneux's video, a proof of property rights, Stefan lays out the steps involved in his argument. At one point, uh, he considers the claim "self-ownership is invalid," and his argument depends on rejecting this claim.

So he rejects the claim for the following reason. Um, talking about the person making a claim, he says he is exercising control over his own body to argue that it is impossible to exercise control over his body.

Now, this is a very, there's a very peculiar assumption behind this. Um, for that phrase to be a fair unpacking of the claim "self-ownership is invalid," we need to be defining legitimate ownership of thing X as the ability to exercise control over thing X. Um, and this is a very unusual way of defining property.

Nowhere that I've seen in libertarian writing, or in any other writing for that matter, have I seen property defined this way. If we were to define property in this way, it would have implications that I don't think Molyneux would accept. It would mean, for instance, that if a torturer, um, was able to induce a particular kind of movement in the arm of his victim, it would mean that the torturer was the legitimate owner of the arm.

After all, he would be controlling the arm. It would also mean that if a state official were to seize your laptop and look through your files against your will, then the official would be the legitimate owner of the laptop, uh, since he would be exercising control over it, while you, who had bought the laptop, were not. And the list goes on.

So the definition of property that Molyneux is implicitly depending on, or maybe even explicitly depending on, uh, makes no distinction between legitimate ownership and possession, which is a big blunder in my view. So I think Molyneux fails to demonstrate that the claim property rights exist is a claim that is schematically true. Uh, there's no performative inconsistency involved in the denial of property rights.

More Articles

View All
Ethical Rudeness | The Philosophy of Mencius
We live in an age in which freedom of speech and saying what we want is seen as one of the most important tries of human being. But does that make rudeness a virtue? While I think that people should have freedom of speech and that unpopular opinions shou…
Peter Lynch Warns About the BIG Danger of Index Funds in Recent Interview (2021)
If you’ve been following this channel, you know Peter Lynch is one of my favorite investors to study. However, Peter Lynch hasn’t given an interview in years. So when he finally gave an interview this past week, it got my full attention. In this intervie…
What Makes The Top 10% Of Founders Different? - Michael Seibel
One of the questions I get often during the batch of YC is what separates out a top 10% founder versus everyone else. When I started at YC, I didn’t really have enough context to know as a founder. My own company, of course, had my own friends, but that w…
The View From Above | Stoic Exercises For Inner Peace
It’s funny to look at ourselves and see how we quarrel about the smallest things. Like the behavior of an annoying coworker during a meeting or the person who cuts us off in traffic. From my own experience, it’s very easy to get dragged along by a minor e…
Scaling functions vertically: examples | Transformations of functions | Algebra 2 | Khan Academy
So we’re told this is the graph of function f right over here, and then they tell us that function g is defined as g of x is equal to one third f of x. What is the graph of g? If we were doing this on Khan Academy, this is a screenshot from our mobile app…
The Man Behind a Mysterious Miniature Town | Short Film Showcase
Elgyn part. Yes, it’s a very neutral place; there’s no conflict there. It’s colorless. People who look at my photographs will bring their own stories. They’ll say, “Oh, this reminds me of the house that I grew up in.” “We were in a car crash; it looks som…