I disbelieve that the right to property can be surrendered as it includes proprietorship in oneself.
But certainly, ownership of any individual piece of property--other than in oneself--can be surrendered. We do it all the time. Sometimes we exchange our ownership for money, sometimes we donate property for a good cause, sometimes we create property under a GNU public use license.
Indeed, some here have argued that property is the fundamental right of all. If ownership in oneself is surrendered then what does defense of self defend but another's property.
Particles or waves; Waves or particles? Turns out there are multiple models or theories on which to build an understanding of rights. Your favored model is but one of several that might be valid and useful.
It might just as well be argued that property rights are an extension of the right to life. How does one live without the ability to own and control the property necessary to sustain life?
I have long been a believer that property rights, freedom of conscience, and life were co-equal, intermingled rights (life, liberty, pursuit of property). What matters to a dead man? How free or really living is a man who can't own property or peacefully exercise his conscience? What good is property if we are constrained in our moral and religious beliefs and observances?
However, on another forum someone posited that he viewed property rights as less than natural rights… that property rights were really a construct of society because in most societies common property suffers the tragedy of the commons. He noted that several societies (some American Indian tribes, some Polynesian cultures, etc) have very little concept of or recognition for private property, yet seem to value human life rather strongly. I don't know that I agree fully about property rights being merely a social construct, but there is food for thought as one considers the practical ramifications.
For example, it is clear that legal recognition and protection of intellectual property rights are entirely a construct of "modern" society. If you have a great idea or write a fine book, I have not deprived you of the use of your tangible property if I copy your idea or writings and use or sell the copies as my own. I have clearly infringed your intellectual property, your ability to profit from your ideas or to control their use. But the first guy to figure out how make fire did not lose any ability to actually make or use fire himself simply because someone else watched him and then copied him.
Going further, most in society recognize the necessity and benefits of the judicious use of property taxes, building codes, and eminent domain. All can be abused. But used judiciously, all provide for a better society than would be likely without them. Most non-libertarians would say likewise when it comes to anti-discrimination laws. These all clearly infringe property rights. Do we really consider these to be on equal footing with infringing individual rights? Some do...at least when it comes to advocating against such limits on property rights. But most of us don't. I think we all agree that we'd not want to see some individual rights equivalent of eminent domain or property taxes. No matter how good it might be for society we don’t want to force a man to testify against himself, nor deny him access to counsel. Sometimes OJ gets to walk. These personal, individual rights do
feel differently than if the city has a burning need to widen a road to handle increased traffic and ultimately uses eminent domain to force an unwilling property owner to sell 5 feet of his front yard. For constitutionalists, our governing document makes a clear distinction between property rights (eminent domain permissible if just compensation paid, intellectual property is protected for a season and then reverts to the public domain) and persona, individual rights (an absolute right not to testify against yourself, an absolute right to consult an attorney, congress shall make no law regarding establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed).
Looked at another way, do we really want to devalue our self to mere ownership and property rights? In other words, does equating our freedom to proprietorship in our self serve to elevate property rights to the same level as personal freedom? Or does it instead devalue personal freedom to the same level as our interest in mere property, perhaps merely intellectual, intangible property?
To be clear, I'm not advocating here for any of these particular models or theories of rights. What I find fascinating and useful, however, is to recognize that good men, of honest intent, who strongly advocate for personal liberty and limited government (not an entire absence of government, but limited, constitutional government) can and do approach the subject from very different perspectives. A strong and rational case can be made for each model; with each model yielding different results in terms of what social/legal/government rules/laws/limits constitute violation of fundamental rights vs which are simply practical matters for a functioning society. Some would call any and all limits a violation of natural human rights, equal to all other violations. Most would not call them such, even as they recognize that many theories/models of human rights do not yield perfectly consistent results; they leave room for honest debate at the margins.
Good food for thought, and considering on the different models is at least as interesting as considering on the outcomes demanded by any particular model of rights.
Charles
