I’ve completed Hobbes’s Leviathan today and this came to my mind because people always refer to Hobbes as the founder of liberalism or at least an important philosopher in the development of liberalism. Many people also say that his ideas are centered on humans being self-preserving entities but he says humans are like that only in the state of nature. And he only mentions property rights and nothing like the existence of inheritence laws or anything. He also mentions that people should have an area in which they are free from other people but not from the sovereign. However, this does not imply liberalism in any way shape or form. I mean are people not allowed to enter eachothers’ houses only in liberal societies?
For example, lets say you are living in some kind of a communist village of 50 families. You are the king and your village has produced 500 breads last week and you are going to distribute them equally among all families and you do this every month after you collect the entire production as tax to redistribute it late. So you gave 10 breads to each family for this week. If there were no property rights, then there is nothing preventing one of those families from stealing a bread from the other. One of those families may be sick which would make them more vulnerable to theft. In conclusion, you can distribute products produced equally but it should still become their property by law am I wrong?
I would write individualism vs collectivism too but it would be too long but in short, I think Hobbes defends collectivism in an indirect way despite popular belief. Hobbes does not say humans are inherently greedy and self-interested self-preserving individuals but they are like that in order to be able to protect themselves in the state of nature.
So I’m not super into philosophers and all that. It mostly goes over my head.
However, I am personally opposed to private property, while I support and defend the right to personal property.
Personal property is anything that you personally and directly use. This is the bread in your scenario, the house you live in, the land under your house, the clothes you wear, the car you drive.
Private property is anything you do not directly use, especially things that are used by others that you charge a fee for or make capital from. This is things like a rental home, leased land under a mobile home someone else owns, your local Wal-Mart, a car factory, etc.
Any appeal to nature that goes against those things for me is just self-serving hand waving. The “nature of man” is irrelevant given our astounding skills and abilities to shape our minds, cultures, and world beyond it’s “natural” state.
I suggest you learn the difference between personal and private property.
Hobbes says people are driven to greed by nature, but Marx posits the type of nature that causes this. Google dialectical materialism. When people get what they need greed is no longer necessary.
I think there is a certain golden rule that should apply. But also I think property rights is more focused on land and resources, rather than a loaf of bread.
The bread was just an example. This can be anything. I mean communism doesnt mean that people can enter your house without your consent. If they need land to live, the society will give them one even if it means giving up some of your own land so no one will be left without somewhere to live but as i said, it will still become their property. So, there is nothing wrong about property ownership as long as you divide them equally.
Well, what if I don’t want to split my land for you? You can move further out. Reducing one’s lifestyle because someone else needs something is cruel, not communism.
Too many people means not enough for everyone. 🤷♂️ but muh childrenz and muh rytz ta breedzz!!!
It is cruel if you keep it while other people dont have anywhere to live.
My stance on this is that it depends on your “lifestyle”.
If the amount of land that you own is excessive in comparison and your lifestyle is dependent on others having less, then it is not cruel to reduce your land.
It is cruel for you to keep it.