The “Grab World” and How It Relates to Property Rights and the Right to Bodily Autonomy

I just read a post on a concept called the “Grab World.” I highly suggest you read it, as well as this post about a Grab World, but I’ve included what I believe is the most important snippet below.

“Property law violates the basic rule that you may not act upon the bodies of others without their consent. A property right is not a right over a piece of the world, but a right over other human beings: a right to physically restrain and interfere with their bodies. Without property law, people are free to move about the world as they please, avail themselves of any material resources they find around them, and so on. But with property law, people find themselves dramatically restricted. Should you move about the world as you please, you will find your body acted upon without your consent.”

While I don’t advocate for a world like this, if I had to choose between a Grab World or the hyper-libertarian/anarcho-capitalist idea that private property is absolute and whoever owns it can do literally whatever they want with it, no matter how it affects other people, I would take the Grab World every time. Of course, I believe the world, and our society, are more complex than either of these, and we need to find a reasonable way to balance the world so that people can have rights over their bodies and rights over their property. But my starting point is that people have rights over themselves and their bodies first, and property rights are secondary.

Of course, everyone who knows me knows I’m a bleeding heart liberal, and I’m happy to jack up taxes on the wealthy to pay for government services such as single payer health care, government funded public university, even universal basic income (I recognize this last one is a very hard sell right now, but I think it would be effective in fixing innumerable economic issues and eradicating poverty.) I don’t even care if these systems are abused by people who don’t need them, as long as they are filling a need for people who do need them, the abuse is incidental and worth the price to ensure people with the least power in our society are getting their needs met. In fact, I would argue that creating these government systems increases bodily autonomy, as people could pursue the path in life that they wish without worrying so much about all of the things that currently tie them to unfulfilling low wage jobs just to get by and get the rent paid.

However, what this Grab World philosophy helps illustrate in my mind is a difficult dichotomy to explain; how do we define freedom? Is it freedom of property? Is is bodily autonomy? And who, if anyone, enforces these rights? To me, bodily autonomy comes first, and property rights come second, though of course in our society we do allow certain property rights to trump certain rights that come with bodily autonomy.

I think this is okay, even necessary in an ideal society, but I think it’s important we prioritize bodily autonomy first, then make reasonable concessions to allow for private property to exist in a reasonable way in a world where we are free to move about as we please and do as we please so long as we aren’t causing harm to others. I think so long as we have large ranging public spaces, for instance, it’s okay to have private property where owners can have their own space and tell others to keep out. But it would not be okay for all land to be private land, where people were restricted only to their own land, if they had any at all, unless they could negotiate with landholders for the “right” to move through their property to get from point A to point B in the world. At the point a world exists where you can be imprisoned within a box of private property, private property has gone too far.

And of course, I believe government should exist to enforce these rights. I think that it should always be done with as little force and restriction of freedom as possible, and we can work on doing better about that than we do in our currently extant world, but there is a role for government to enforce rights as an independent, ideally unbiased, arbitrator.

This really hit on the concept I needed to express the issue I have with extreme private property though. It’s really hard to argue against private property, because I have possessions and property that I value, things I don’t want stolen. However, I value bodily autonomy, the freedom to move about, do things, and experience things, far, far more than I value private property.

Related Posts:

Like this post? Promote it here:
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Slashdot
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Facebook
  • TwitThis
  • Google Bookmarks

Let’s Talk About Third Parties

I’m a liberal independent. By the time I started voting in 2004, the Republican Party had drifted so far rightward that I’ve never once voted for a Republican in my life. I frequently vote Democrat, and occasionally independent when the independent candidate has a enough support to have a chance at winning and better aligns with my values. Rarely, I’ll vote third party, with the same conditions on which I’ll vote for independents.

In practice, this means Democrats nearly always get my vote. And these days, the Republicans are so crazy that I’m willing to let the Democrats do the bare minimum because the alternative is to let the Republicans destroy decades of progress in our country.

“Whoa, whoa, whoa?!” you exclaim. “What about third parties?”

My answer is that they are not a viable alternative. Not right now. If you’re a third party supporter, you likely don’t like that answer. I don’t even like that answer, though some of my reasons are likely different from yours. But that is the answer. Don’t believe me? Look at the two biggest third parties since the year 2000, the Libertarian Party and the Green Party. Libertarian Gary Johnson won 3.28% of the popular vote in the 2016 presidential election. Green Jill Stein won 1.06% of the popular vote in the same election. They’re not anywhere close to winning, despite any claims they make to the contrary. In fact, when they make claims to the contrary, they make their position worse because then they seem like they’re out of touch with reality.

Third parties need a plan. They need a real, believable plan backed by data and presented with a compelling narrative to convince people it’s time to jump ship from one of the major parties and support a winning third party that is the real deal. I would love to begin voting for the Green Party. They’re more in line with my political views than the Democratic Party is (with some exceptions for liberal Democrats, but they aren’t the norm). But I’m not willing to hand the country over to the Republican Party on principle when the Democratic Party is passably capable of governing. It takes more than a wish and a prayer for a third party to win, and all third party candidates and supporters need to get on board with this fact.

Using the Green Party as an example, there’s a lot I need to know from them.

If a large swath of liberal voting Democrats starts voting Green, effectively splitting and killing the Democratic Party, what is the interim plan to prevent Republicans from causing even more harm in the country until the Green Party achieves enough power to seriously challenge the Republican Party? How do we stop them from passing abhorrent laws, repealing helpful laws, or stacking the Supreme Court? Even if I prefer single-payer health care, I like Obamacare better than no health care plan at all. I also like environmental protection and allowing our national scientific organizations to share real, scientific data and facts with us.

What is the plan for achieving this power, and realistically, how long will it take? Are you planning to supplant and replace one of the existing parties? Open up election law and process through ranked choice voting and other reforms to make third parties viable? How will you do either of these? How likely are you to be successful? Back up these answers with real data, facts, and understanding of our political system.

Why should I risk giving Republicans power to destroy decades of progress when I can get 50%-75% of what I want out of Democrats, and maybe 70%-90% of what I want out of the Greens? I know a lot of people talk about how awful the Democrats are, or say they’re just the same as the Republicans. There are times I wish the Democrats had more of a spine, and stood for more liberal values. There are also times where they don’t do enough to protect those who need protecting. But on the whole, they do a reasonably good job, especially in light of Republican obstruction that was rampant through President Obama’s terms as president. And the Democrats are light-years ahead of the Republicans when it comes to governing well and supporting the disadvantaged. Why should I throw that away on the hope the Greens will be better when they haven’t even convinced me voting for them is a risk worth taking? Because again, if the Green Party succeeds enough to split the vote between Democrats and Greens, but not enough to win, then the Republicans win. I’m okay with the Democratic Party winning. I’m not okay with Republican Party winning, not as their party stands today.

In short, if you’re a third party candidate and supporter and want my vote and support, provide me a solid, realistic plan that gets you into power while minimizing the harm caused in the process. Back it up with real data and knowledge of the political system. If you do this, and my values align more with yours than the other parties you’re running against, you will win my vote. Until then, I’m stuck with the Democrats and the occasional safe independent and third party candidate.

Related Posts:

Like this post? Promote it here:
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Slashdot
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Facebook
  • TwitThis
  • Google Bookmarks