# Property - Trouble in Paradise **URL:** \ **Category:** Political Philosophy\ **Created:** [September 7, 2026, 4:53pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/property-trouble-in-paradise/2943 "2026-09-07T16:53:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Johnnywas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/22d042/32.png) [@Johnnywas](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Johnnywas)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2026, 4:53pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/property-trouble-in-paradise/2943/1 "2026-09-07T16:53:45Z")
Are rights absolute, or are they contingent on considerations of fairness? Consider Locke’s theory of property. Locke argues that an individual can acquire a legitimate property right by mixing their labour with previously unowned resources. Yet this right is constrained by the requirement that there must remain “enough, and as good” for others. Thus, even where an individual has a strong historical claim to something—because they have acquired it legitimately through their own labour—that claim remains subject to the circumstances and interests of others. Imagine, for example, that a person is shipwrecked on an uninhabited island and spends years cultivating the land and breeding goats. A second family subsequently arrives. The first person’s claim to the land may have been entirely legitimate when it was acquired, but circumstances have changed: continued exclusive control may now leave the newcomers without access to comparable resources. Does this suggest that rights are inherently contingent—that the strength or legitimacy of a right depends not only on how it was acquired, but also on whether its exercise remains compatible with principles of fairness? More generally, can a person possess a genuine right while nevertheless being required to limit, surrender, or modify the exercise of that right when circumstances change and the continued exercise of it would impose an unfair burden on others? ---
**Author:** ![BestGuessYet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/2bfe46/32.png) [@BestGuessYet](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/BestGuessYet)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2026, 5:34pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/property-trouble-in-paradise/2943/2 "2026-09-07T17:34:36Z")
I’m not wanting to be a smartass, but who’s got the biggest gun in this scenario? Because I think he’s the one who’s got to answer it. Even if there’s a judge on this island, the judge on the next island over could rule differently. I’m trying to say that I’m not very good arguing over a concept so large as ‘rights’. It’s just a word people use. People try to work things out. If they can’t, then gun. ---
**Author:** ![Johnnywas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/22d042/32.png) [@Johnnywas](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Johnnywas)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2026, 6:38pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/property-trouble-in-paradise/2943/3 "2026-09-07T18:38:16Z")
> [@BestGuessYet](#): > > I’m not wanting to be a smartass, but who’s got the biggest gun in this scenario? Thars a fair observation, but lets imagine that they want to deal with this peacefuly. ---
**Author:** ![BestGuessYet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/2bfe46/32.png) [@BestGuessYet](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/BestGuessYet)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2026, 7:21pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/property-trouble-in-paradise/2943/4 "2026-09-07T19:21:29Z")
> [@Johnnywas](#): > > Thars a fair observation, but lets imagine that they want to deal with this peacefuly. Well, they can work it out or else they need a judge with a gun. I’m uncomfortable thinking of rights as existing as a noun, is what I’m trying to say. It gets gooey fast. So I’m glad I’m not a philosopher of rights. Not a sociologist. Not a lawyer. Nobody should offer me a job at the UN, especially on a human rights panel. I am suspicious of language, so often finding myself lost within it. And one step further: I often suspect that most everyone else is also lost but just doesn’t want to admit it. ---
**Author:** ![Suny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Suny](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Suny)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2026, 7:50pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/property-trouble-in-paradise/2943/5 "2026-09-07T19:50:34Z")
I see this sometimes, but I don’t understand you people. Is it that hard to imagine that there is an _ought_ and an _is_, and both are totally independent, such that the _is_ has no influence on the _ought_? Assume the guy with the biggest gun gets what they want. What does that tell us about what ought to have happened? Nothing. We can discuss whether there actually is an _ought_, of course, but if that is the objection, be more direct: “Rights don’t exist, so the questions about rights are nonsensical.” This just seems like talking about something irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![gertie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b4bc9f/32.png) [@gertie](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/gertie)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2026, 8:28pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/property-trouble-in-paradise/2943/6 "2026-09-07T20:28:48Z")
Well I’d say Rights are a concept which people have made up, they don’t exist outside of us as something we can point to and check if the first of second islander has the ‘genuine’ Right to the land. In that sense Rights are inherently contingent. As Suny points out, the under-girding of Rights lies in the realm of Morality, of Oughts. They’re used as a category of Oughts which generally trump less significant morality related issues. So you might talk of God-given Rights being inalienable, or secular Human Rights which ought to be protected no matter the flavour of passing governments changing laws. I suppose if you believe in objective morality, you could try to make a case for Rights not being contingent because of an objective moral grounding of some sort (perhaps ‘God-given’ would fit there). Otherwise I think we’re stuck with creating our own moral grounding for Oughts, which Rights might be a component of. ---
**Author:** ![AmadeusD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f9ae1b/32.png) [@AmadeusD](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/AmadeusD)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2026, 8:31pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/property-trouble-in-paradise/2943/7 "2026-09-07T20:31:15Z")
Rights are contingent on the proximate authority’s will. Rights don’t come from anywhere else. ---
**Author:** ![AmadeusD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f9ae1b/32.png) [@AmadeusD](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/AmadeusD)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2026, 8:32pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/property-trouble-in-paradise/2943/8 "2026-09-07T20:32:35Z")
> [@Suny](#): > > Assume the guy with the biggest gun gets what they want. What does that tell us about what ought to have happened? Nothing. I take the point to be that there is no such “ought” to be relied on for a discussion of rights. ---
**Author:** ![Banno](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/banno/32/55_2.png) [@Banno](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Banno)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2026, 9:07pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/property-trouble-in-paradise/2943/9 "2026-09-07T21:07:45Z")
Property is a communal convention. You only own stuff because the folk around you say you do. Even if you have a gun, there are more of them than there are of you. And they make the ammunition. Of course you don’t find rights alongside the rocks and trees. We decide them, then work towards them. That doesn’t make them contingent, it makes them communal. They are what we as a community want. Again, you are free to disagree. But what do _you_ want? ---
**Author:** ![Banno](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/banno/32/55_2.png) [@Banno](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Banno)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2026, 9:10pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/property-trouble-in-paradise/2943/10 "2026-09-07T21:10:16Z")
> [@BestGuessYet](#): > > who’s got the biggest gun in this scenario? Can anyone pick the 'mercan? This is why they can’t have nice things. ---
**Author:** ![BestGuessYet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/2bfe46/32.png) [@BestGuessYet](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/BestGuessYet)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2026, 9:10pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/property-trouble-in-paradise/2943/11 "2026-09-07T21:10:37Z")
> [@Suny](#): > > I see this sometimes, but I don’t understand you people. Is it that hard to imagine that there is an _ought_ and an _is_, and both are totally independent, such that the _is_ has no influence on the _ought_? Hi, Suny. I’m unsure what you’re meaning exactly. But that’s why we’re here, so all is right. I have a quibble to your claim that the _is_ has no influence on the _ought_. I have watched people absorb the way things are and mistake that for the way things ought to be. Drugs make a good example. Since ‘drugs’ are illegal, many think that drugs are immoral. In reality, there is no great difference between marijuana and alcohol, and yet many think otherwise. It’s changing now, but I have lived through times when regular folk morally recoiled from grass while pouring themselves a glass of vodka. Not legally recoiled. Morally recoiled. So I think laws can definitely affect our moral thought. In fact, I am hoping that that very thing might save us. Our moral assumptions, I mean. It would be hard for a wicked administration to re-instate slavery—because we all assume it is evil now. It is hard for us to think otherwise, even if we wanted. > [@Suny](#): > > Assume the guy with the biggest gun gets what they want. What does that tell us about what ought to have happened? Nothing. Well, that certainly seems true. Did you think someone was arguing otherwise? > [@Suny](#): > > We can discuss whether there actually is an _ought_, of course, but if that is the objection, be more direct: “Rights don’t exist, so the questions about rights are nonsensical.” This just seems like talking about something irrelevant. I haven’t seen anyone here suggesting that questions about rights are nonsensical. I love to discuss morality. I just don’t see rights as existing outside of human skulls. Something like that. Do you? ---
**Author:** ![BestGuessYet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/2bfe46/32.png) [@BestGuessYet](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/BestGuessYet)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2026, 9:13pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/property-trouble-in-paradise/2943/12 "2026-09-07T21:13:27Z")
> [@Banno](#): > > Can anyone pick the 'mercan? America is the only place on earth with guns? Are you sure? You might want to double-check your encyclopedia on that. ---
**Author:** ![Banno](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/banno/32/55_2.png) [@Banno](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Banno)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2026, 9:19pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/property-trouble-in-paradise/2943/13 "2026-09-07T21:19:16Z")
> [@BestGuessYet](#): > > America is the only place on earth with guns? Where did you get that idea? No, but the US is one of a very few places were a gun is considered a good response to a disagreement about ownership; where the _immediate_ response is “I’ve got a gun!”, as in your comment. It’s a cultural oddity amongst the countries of the world; but we don’t need yet another thread about gun ownership. ---
**Author:** ![Suny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Suny](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Suny)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2026, 9:20pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/property-trouble-in-paradise/2943/14 "2026-09-07T21:20:16Z")
What do you think rights are, here? ---
**Author:** ![Suny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Suny](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Suny)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2026, 9:25pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/property-trouble-in-paradise/2943/15 "2026-09-07T21:25:28Z")
> [@BestGuessYet](#): > > I have a quibble to your claim that the _is_ has no influence on the _ought_. You showed that what _is_ has an influence on what people think _ought to be_ but not that what _is_ had an influence on what _ought to be_. > [@BestGuessYet](#): > > So I think laws can definitely affect our moral thought. They can, but they don’t affect what ought to be. What ought to be isn’t our moral thought. > [@BestGuessYet](#): > > Well, that certainly seems true. Did you think someone was arguing otherwise? Well, then why is it important to know who has the biggest gun? > [@BestGuessYet](#): > > I just don’t see rights as existing outside of human skulls. Something like that. Just like unicorns don’t exist outside of human skulls? Right are real or they aren’t. ---
**Author:** ![Banno](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/banno/32/55_2.png) [@Banno](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Banno)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2026, 9:39pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/property-trouble-in-paradise/2943/16 "2026-09-07T21:39:07Z")
Yep. It’s odd that someone think property is real, but not rights. It won’t do to say property is “inside a skull” - it takes more than one skull. It is an aspect of communal life. Same with other rights. This is the root absurdity of the libertarian individualism seen in some pop culture, the failure for folk to notice that they are part of a community. ---
**Author:** ![Banno](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/banno/32/55_2.png) [@Banno](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Banno)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2026, 9:47pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/property-trouble-in-paradise/2943/17 "2026-09-07T21:47:03Z")
> [@Johnnywas](#): > > Are rights absolute, or are they contingent on considerations of fairness? While we are here, I should point out that these rights are more about how we manage to live together comfortably, than about fairness. “Contingent” is not a helpful word here; rights are not random, or arbitrary; they’ve developed over thousands of years, as how we interact with each other, a way to avoid unpleasantries. That’s no small thing. The realisation that they are what we say they are, if anything, makes paying them attention more precious. Yes, things could be otherwise, to the detriment of all. ---
**Author:** ![BestGuessYet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/2bfe46/32.png) [@BestGuessYet](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/BestGuessYet)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2026, 9:56pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/property-trouble-in-paradise/2943/18 "2026-09-07T21:56:51Z")
> [@Banno](#): > > Where did you get that idea? Well, you seemed to want to talk about Americans and guns. I have no idea why, but you brought it up, so I tried to go with your flow. Let me know if I’ve misinterpreted you somehow. > [@Banno](#): > > No, but the US is one of a very few places were a gun is considered a good response to a disagreement about ownership; where the _immediate_ response is “I’ve got a gun!”, as in your comment. Oh, I see. You’ve just gotten a little confused. It wasn’t me that said “I’ve got a gun.” Perhaps read back up the thread and find who said it. I didn’t see it myself, or I would have joined you in your concern. In my usage “gun” means “physical force.” It’s a compression. I could have used ‘army’ or ‘sheriff’ or any number of such compressions, but I assume the readers here are comfortable with such shortcuts. > [@Banno](#): > > It’s a cultural oddity amongst the countries of the world; but we don’t need yet another thread about gun ownership. OK. I’m not much interested in guns myself. So I just don’t talk about them much. Would you be more comfortable if I use ‘army’ instead of ‘gun’? Or maybe “coercive force” or something? I don’t want anyone to be confused.. ---
**Author:** ![BestGuessYet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/2bfe46/32.png) [@BestGuessYet](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/BestGuessYet)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2026, 10:12pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/property-trouble-in-paradise/2943/19 "2026-09-07T22:12:05Z")
> [@Suny](#): > > You showed that what _is_ has an influence on what people think _ought to be_ but not that what _is_ had an influence on what _ought to be_. I’m sorry, but I can’t confidently sort that out. Can you say it another way? > [@Suny](#): > > [Laws] can [affect our moral thought], but they don’t affect what ought to be. What ought to be isn’t our moral thought. Are you saying that there is an ‘ought to be’ outside of us? I don’t want to misinterpret you. I’m trying to understand what you’re saying. If what ought to be isn’t a human artifact, what is it? > [@Suny](#): > > Well, then why is it important to know who has the biggest gun? Because that is the ultimate enforcement of rights. Unless you know of another ground for rights. If so, can you tell me what it is? The Bible? The pronouncement of a religious or secular court? I’d really like to know what you are claiming. > [@Suny](#): > > Just like unicorns don’t exist outside of human skulls? Right are real or they aren’t. I don’t know about unicorns. I haven’t seen any, so I’m unsure, although my best guess is No. But I still can’t understand what you’re trying to tell me. It almost seems like you are claiming there is God’s Word somewhere. Is that it? ---
**Author:** ![Banno](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/banno/32/55_2.png) [@Banno](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Banno)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2026, 10:12pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/property-trouble-in-paradise/2943/20 "2026-09-07T22:12:54Z")
> [@BestGuessYet](#): > > Well, you seemed to want to talk about Americans and guns. Hmm. You did say: > [@BestGuessYet](#): > > I’m not wanting to be a smartass, but who’s got the biggest gun in this scenario? And you are a 'mercan, it seems; and that does seem to be a cultural response amongst your folk; to reach for the gun before talking to your neighbour. Or it might just look like that from your movies and television shows. The clincher is not that you have a gun, but that you have to buy your ammunition from someone. Like it or not, you have to work with other people. You could try making them do what you want by pointing a gun at them all the time, but you are not going to get much sleep. A different approach might be preferable. Back to the topic: property is not what you can hold on to at the point of a gun, but what the rest of us allow you to hold onto. [Next page](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/property-trouble-in-paradise/2943.md?page=2)