@ pastoralan: "when property rights are given first priority, the people with the most property have the most rights"

pastoralan +1 for using such a lovely turn of phrase. Sums the problem up really nicely.


@Jack_Klein: "Rights are not inherent to anything. That includes the right to live. Its a social construct, because we have decided that murder is detrimental to the common good. It has no force outside our social conventions."

That's fair enough. I accept this point. If you take the view that a right is of no use if it cannot be claimed/enforced, then I am happy to agree with you on this.


@abgemacht:

ME:"The question "does society have property rights?" is moot. If all resources are owned in common by everyone in the country/world, then 'property rights' as they currently exist would simply not be of any relevance."

YOU: "No, this is not moot. If you define society as you have, then which society has the right to the resources? You are giving society a property right."

Okay, I see what you mean. In that case, for the purposes of this discussion society = humanity.

and:

ME: "Where did the previous owner get it from? Trace it back far enough and eventually something was appropriated from a resource which should not be in private hands."

YOU: "You are making a leap of faith here. The fact that it initially wasn't someone's property, does not mean it shouldn't be someone's property."

But I have already put forward that very argument - that it shouldn't be someone's property. And I have given my reasons for taking that position. In the above statement I was reacting specifically to your example about having the right to own an item because you purchased it legally.


@joey: "By eliminating private property, this would create a disencentive for productive labour, and reduce the overall standard of living... By eliminating private property, this would create a disencentive for productive labour, and reduce the overall standard of living."

I do not accept that this is the case. Capitalist 'innovation' is too heavily motivated by "how can I make a profit?" instead of "what does society need?" Also it is clear that socialist models can foster innovation just as well as capitalist ones. Who was the first man in space, for instance?

As for labour productivity and your view that capitalism encourages productivity and socialism does not, I would argue that this is not always the case because money is not the only way of motivating a workforce, and it is possible for a command economy to ensure that a greater proportion of the workforce are in fulfilling jobs they enjoy, which in turn encourages them to be productive. I have discussed this at some length before, but if you want a longer discussion on this point, send me an email.


@stratagos: "If you passionately believe that private property should be eliminated, then logically you should have a good idea of what should replace it - and if so, it's reasonable to be able to explain why the alternate solution is superior to the current one."

I basically accept that, however for the purposes of this thread, I want to keep to property rights and property rights alone. If I fully address your question in this thread, and describe in detail how a command economy which learned the lessons of the USSR could work in practice, firstly this would be pages and pages and pages of text which would bore the pants of most of the other people on the forum, and secondly you (or someone else) would pick me up on some small detail of it, such as "but how would you make the trains run on time in a command economy when Russian trains were so slow in Soviet times?" and suddenly the thread would be dominated by a discussion of railway timetabling. That's the perennial problem of internet forums, they always go off on tangents of tangents of tangents after a while.

So my simple answer is "a command-based economy with the productive forces in the hands of the state acting on behalf of the people, that's how". If you want to engage in a long discussion with me about this, send me an email and I will be happy to have that discussion with you, Sir.

I think that this comes down to a discussion of responsibility. Over what areas of life should the individual be responsible for and what areas should government be.

I would make my list as the Government should be responsible for
- Safety and security (Police/Military, consumer protection, food inspectors etc. )
- Health care
- Sanitation
- Education
- Basic infrastructure
- pure research

Other areas I would leave to individual choices.

"So my simple answer is "a command-based economy with the productive forces in the hands of the state acting on behalf of the people, that's how". If you want to engage in a long discussion with me about this, send me an email and I will be happy to have that discussion with you, Sir. "

While I'm willing to have that discussion, jamie, I think it's going to end up being futile, as I have a strong issue with one of the core tenets of a command economy: a complete lack of freedom to choose my own path in life. No matter how productive a "properly run" might be - even if it was theoretically more productive than capitalism - I'd still have a huge problem with it. I get enough of my freedom restricted in the "Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave" as it is, getting told "by the way, you're going to be traveling to Alaska for the next year, go kiss your wife and son goodbye" would be more than I could take. If I wanted to get my every move dictated to me I would have joined the Marines ;)

If your counterargument is going to be something akin to "but your employer could do that to you now", this is theoretically true (even if I wasn't a contractor), but I could always quit and find another job. That isn't an option in a command economy - instead of a slave to Wall Street I'd be a slave to Washington.

"you (or someone else) would pick me up on some small detail of it, such as "but how would you make the trains run on time in a command economy when Russian trains were so slow in Soviet times?"

While I understand that comparisons to the Soviet Union might be irksome, it *is* the best example of a command economy. I think it's reasonable to ask how the New Command Economy is going to differ from the Old Command Economy, so I don't necessarily think that would be nitpicking.

I don't think we have to resort to a command economy. Elinor Ostrom (nobel laureate, 2009, economics) I think has the answer with her research into collective management of CPR (Common Pool Resources). It would be an extrapolation, but anyone who was really interested in political organization and how a community could manage it's resources could find her work very interesting. I don't know if she would agree, but I would describe her study and findings as anarchist.

@ stratagos: "I have a strong issue with one of the core tenets of a command economy: a complete lack of freedom to choose my own path in life."

And you think you have complete freedom to choose your own path under Capitalism?

also:

ME: "you (or someone else) would pick me up on some small detail of it, such as "but how would you make the trains run on time in a command economy when Russian trains were so slow in Soviet times?"

YOU: "While I understand that comparisons to the Soviet Union might be irksome, it *is* the best example of a command economy. I think it's reasonable to ask how the New Command Economy is going to differ from the Old Command Economy, so I don't necessarily think that would be nitpicking."

I am happy to discuss this with you. However this goes way beyond the issues this thread is intended to cover. That's why I invited you to email me, if you wish.


@mcbry: "Elinor Ostrom (nobel laureate, 2009, economics) I think has the answer"

I'm not familiar with her theories but I will look her up. Thanks.

@ mcbry: I've had a brief look at Ostrom, and her work only appears to apply to particular "common pool resources" such as fishing grounds or oil fields.

From an inital look, I don't see how work in that field would deal with the problem of individuals damaging society by amassing and hoarding wealth and resources.

If you want to actually explain how Ostrom's work solves the problem I have identified, that might be helpful...

"And you think you have complete freedom to choose your own path under Capitalism?"

Absolutely not - but there is a significant difference between reduced freedom and *no* freedom

"I am happy to discuss this with you. However this goes way beyond the issues this thread is intended to cover. That's why I invited you to email me, if you wish."

And while I agree that we'd be getting far afield, I'd be wasting your time to discuss this issue. It may be inflexible of me, but I cannot conceive of ever conceding that a command economy is a good idea due to the aformentioned 'freedom' issues, and without being able to agree on that central premise, I don't see how the details would matter.

In other words, you could have an elegant solution to all the flaws inherent in historical models of a command economy, but the whole 'complete lack of control over my own destiny' thing would mean I'd still be unwilling to embrace it.

While I freely acknowledge that there are severe limitations in what someone can realistically do in a capitalistic system, and that I am fortunate enough to have more options than other people do, I strongly disagree that the solution is to remove *all* choice from the equation in an attempt to equalize society.

It's not a binary solution set, after all, and while I acknowledge that there are flaws in a capitalistic society, those flaws - to me - do not mean that a command economy is the answer to the problem.

This is from the other thread, but I'm just reposting it here so that it can be responded to here instead of there. I hope it doesn't seem too out of context.

"What fundamental human trait distinguishes us from ants and cells. And what is it about humans which supports this concept of a inherent 'natural' property right (though i think the conversation may have gone to another thread...)"

That's a funny way to word it. I would say that all fundamental human traits distinguish us from ants and cells, hence their being human traits. =P

That said, you have to consider the very nature of morality, because I don't think it applies to ants or cells. Morality is meaningless if you're the last person on Earth, it is only once you introduce a second person that you have to extend consideration to their interests as well if you want to cooperate with them. The reason humans can't live like ants is because most humans don't want to live like ants, and it would be immoral to squash their interests and force them to. If a group of humans agreed to live like ants and form a community, then there's nothing unethical about it, it's just that this would probably never happen due to human nature. Ants and cells have entirely different natures due to their reproductive strategies and the evolution that guided them. As I know you know, every ant besides the queen is a sterile sister and they propagate their genes by working as a unit to increase the reproduction of their queen, who births new sisters. It is not the ant that is the reproductive unit, but more the entire colony.

If you want to take the argument to nature, there is precedent for property right all around us. Most higher organisms recognize some sort of possessor's right. If a zookeeper gives a bunch of bananas to one monkey, you see that the other monkeys don't just come over and violently take the bananas, rather they hold their hands out like panhandlers. There's a respect for possession. Every territorial animal has a respect for a sort of land ownership, where the first to stake their territory are by default considered the owner. If another male wanders into the territory, they know that they are intruding and will adopt specific behaviours. The resident will typically defend their territory if provoked.

mcbry, I understand the distinction between the two. It's just that it seems to me that for practical purposes it doesn't have much bearing, which I think we agree upon. You seem to look upon property right with a lot of contempt, which I find strange. I wouldn't argue that property right is some platonic handed-down-from-above concept, I think it's a pretty basic tenet that necessarily exists for the prosperity of any society. I would disagree with Adam Smith (though I admire the man) if he says property rights exist to defend the rich against the poor, because I think that the property right is quite meaningless for the powerful who already have the means to defend their property. Property rights gain their real significance in the context of protecting the property of those who lack the means to defend it themselves. It's just as much protecting the poor from the rich, since the rich are the ones with the means to continue to exploit the poor.

Property rights don't exist simply to justify one person hoarding capital and yelling "property rights!" every time someone tries to take something from them. More than anything, property rights is a simple social guarantee that the one is entitled to the product of one's own labour. I don't think you can reliably cooperate with anyone if you cannot respect each others property rights. What incentive does anyone have to produce beyond subsistence if they cannot be sure that they can reap the benefits of their work. There would be no progress.

Yes, it is a consequence of property rights that some will accumulate more than others, but I don't see that this is necessarily a bad thing. I think there is a fundamental human revulsion to inequality and it often violates our sense of fairness. However, I feel this is an evolutionary holdover. Humans have a folk understanding of physics that is fairly well ingrained within them and it works perfectly well in the practical sphere of day to day life, generally heavier objects seem to fall faster than lighter objects, and friction is ubiquitous. However, our folk physics does not hold up under more rigorous physical scrutiny, and as a result most high school physics tries to dispel our folk physics and replace it with a more accurate model.

In the same sense, I believe that we have a sort of folk economics that was built for the relatively small tribal life that dominated most of our hominid history. In that situation, wealth is a lot more zero sum, in that if one member of the tribe has more, it is often an indication that other members have been deprived. It would make sense to harbor resentment or outright anger at such a selfish member of the tribe. However, with the advent of major trade, surplus, and accumulation of capital, the game changed. Productivity and wealth are no longer zero sum games, and one needs not deprive another in order to accumulate wealth. Of course, I'm sure many people do become rich by exploiting others, but it is not necessary to do so, and is not a consequence of property rights. Our outdated economic sense creates a natural emotional reaction of disgust that is perhaps as unavoidable a feeling as fighter pilots sensing upward pitch as they decelerate. Our old models, where gravity is the only constant acceleration and where production is relatively zerosum, are not applicable to modern times, and we must resist the urge to pull our nose down, lest we crash into the ocean.

I just want to respond to a few random points, sorry if it seems like I'm pigeonholing, it's just that I've come a little late into the discussion and I don't want to post that big a wall of text. =P

"when property rights are given first priority, the people with the most property have the most rights"

"My view is that "property rights" are a cultural convention only and have no moral status. You do not automatically have any property rights - it's up to society. If society decides that property rights are not necessary or desirable, then you have no property rights."

Ok, fine, so what? I honestly don't care if property rights have a moral argument, are handed down by God, or what have you. What matters is if it exists or not. I would argue that society didn't exist first, and then created rights. Rather these concepts existed (if not explicitly in writing) as an implicit agreement between cooperating persons, and this cooperation is what becomes society. Society wouldn't exist if people couldn't trust each other not to go around murdering and stealing.

It's strange to hear people toss around the word society like it was some monolithic creature that must be appeased, when it's just the aggregate result of a lot of people engaging in reciprocal relationships for their mutual benefit.

"Her [Elinor Ostrom] observations contradict claims that common-pool resources should be privatized or else face destruction in the long run due to collective action problems leading to the overuse of the core resource (see: Tragedy of the commons)." - interesting...

@ stratagos:

ME: "And you think you have complete freedom to choose your own path under Capitalism?"

YOU: "Absolutely not - but there is a significant difference between reduced freedom and *no* freedom."

What good is all the freedom in the world if you can't afford to house, feed and clothe yourself? The idea that people living under the yoke of capitalism are 'free' is a myth. Free to be exploited by the rich, maybe...

"While I freely acknowledge that there are severe limitations in what someone can realistically do in a capitalistic system, and that I am fortunate enough to have more options than other people do, I strongly disagree that the solution is to remove *all* choice from the equation in an attempt to equalize society."

Why are you so convinced that under a command economy people would have no choice at all over anything?


@ Chrispminis: "there is precedent for property right all around us. Most higher organisms recognize some sort of possessor's right. If a zookeeper gives a bunch of bananas to one monkey, you see that the other monkeys don't just come over and violently take the bananas, rather they hold their hands out like panhandlers. There's a respect for possession. Every territorial animal has a respect for a sort of land ownership, where the first to stake their territory are by default considered the owner. If another male wanders into the territory, they know that they are intruding and will adopt specific behaviours. The resident will typically defend their territory if provoked."

However, one of the defining factors of civilised society is that we *don't* just behave like wild animals. So you can't just say "we should have a system of property rights, because that's what lions and tigers do".

"What good is all the freedom in the world if you can't afford to house, feed and clothe yourself?"

But I *can* house, feed, and clothe myself, and the vast majority of people in market economies can do the same.

"Why are you so convinced that under a command economy people would have no choice at all over anything?"

Because I don't see how you can allocate labor without a pricing mechanism *without* basically having the central planners make the vast majority of the choices.

Your core premise is 'no private property', which - to me - indicates no pricing on anything. The whole concept of 'buy' and 'sell' implies a change in ownership on a good.

If there is nothing to buy or sell, there is no real need for wages either. Why work 60 hour weeks with 15 hours of commutes if I'm not going to be rewarded any more for it than a guy who bags groceries part time?

So the system would have to either accept that many people are going to maximize their own benefit by *not* choosing to make sacrifices - and hence limit the options that the State can pursue - or *force* people to do things they don't want to do in the name of The Greater Good.

Do you see a flaw in my reasoning?

Additionally, famines tend to occur much more often in centrally planned economies - it is a lot easier to massively screw up when there are fewer people making decisions

@Jamie, yes, you could extrapolate her theories to a general societal model, in fact doing away completely with OWNership in favor of USEage rights and Resource Management, that is management of any particular resource by the people who depend on it. Then, everything becomes a resource: the houses and land in a community, a school, a public park, to be managed by it's constituents. And in the case of larger common-pool resources: organization in the form of multiple layers of nested enterprises, with small local CPRs at the base level.

I admit it's an extrapolation, but it provides an alternative to the Capitalist / Command Communist dichotomy that has taken over this thread.

@Ora: yes, very interesting indeed.

@stratagos:

ME: "What good is all the freedom in the world if you can't afford to house, feed and clothe yourself?"

YOU: "But I *can* house, feed, and clothe myself, and the vast majority of people in market economies can do the same."

Wrong. Fail. Seriously, dude... According to the World Health Organisation, TWO THIRDS of the world's population are either under-fed or starving. Two thirds. And you have the fucking brass neck to claim that the present system basically works. Seriously.

"If there is nothing to buy or sell, there is no real need for wages either. Why work 60 hour weeks with 15 hours of commutes if I'm not going to be rewarded any more for it than a guy who bags groceries part time?"

Because if you were only willing to work part time, the system would not afford you the same standard of living, the same level of luxuries, as someone who was willing to work full time. Money is not the only possible reward.

"So the system would have to either accept that many people are going to maximize their own benefit by *not* choosing to make sacrifices - and hence limit the options that the State can pursue - or *force* people to do things they don't want to do in the name of The Greater Good. Do you see a flaw in my reasoning?"

Yes, I see a flaw. You fail to acknowledge that by forcing us to rely on money, money, money, the capitalist system forces people to do things they don't want to do as well. Lots of people hate their jobs and would rather not do them. However they know they cannot really "choose" to just stop working and lie around on the couch because their income will drop to a point where they cannot pay their rent/mortgage. They have _no_choice_ but to keep going to work.

"Wrong. Fail. Seriously, dude... According to the World Health Organisation, TWO THIRDS of the world's population are either under-fed or starving. Two thirds. And you have the fucking brass neck to claim that the present system basically works. Seriously."

The "current system" isn't capitalism. The "current system" in some parts of the world is some variant of capitalism; in others, it's something else. But the entire world is not capitalist (or any one system), and I can think of some rather large numbers of people in the world that are starving that don't live in countries with market economies. So pinning the WHO's estimate of two-thirds of the world's population starving on capitalism is pretty erroneous. Furthermore, at risk of opening a whole 'nother can of worms, is the Earth even capable of sustaining human populations growing at the rate they are? What if NO system can fix the global hunger crisis?

"Because if you were only willing to work part time, the system would not afford you the same standard of living, the same level of luxuries, as someone who was willing to work full time. Money is not the only possible reward."

Money strikes me as a better reward than the proscribed standard of living/luxuries/etc. Why not let people who work choose (by spending money) what they earn for their labor?

"Yes, I see a flaw. You fail to acknowledge that by forcing us to rely on money, money, money, the capitalist system forces people to do things they don't want to do as well. Lots of people hate their jobs and would rather not do them. However they know they cannot really "choose" to just stop working and lie around on the couch because their income will drop to a point where they cannot pay their rent/mortgage. They have _no_choice_ but to keep going to work."

So... people have to work to meet biological needs. They may not even work where they want, because they have to meet these inherent biological needs. The capitalist system pays folk with an intermediate good -- not able to satisfy these biological needs, but universally accepted as equal in value to the goods which do satisfy these biological needs -- and says "Here, you worked, take this and meet your needs as best you can." I assume the argument has been that because not everyone can meet these needs as best they need to be by meeting them as best they can -- they come short of making ends meet for whatever reason -- capitalism is wrong.

What if the supply just isn't there? If two-thirds of the world's population is starving or undernourished, only one-third have access to drinkable water (http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Resources/Static/Products/Progress2008/MDG_Report_2008_En.pdf#page=44) and neither problem or any other of the smorgasbord of problems relating to meeting basic needs is being fixed any time soon with any issue, is it wrong to conclude that no matter what we do, some people are just going to get left out? And, following from that, is it unreasonable from a pragmatic perspective for:

(1) people in general to advocate the financial equivalent of the driving force behind progression of life on Earth (natural selection), instead of trying to share insufficient resources with everyone;
(2) people from the West in particular to advocate a system that maintains their ability to meet their needs?

Is it really evil to say that, given economic scenario A which favors me at the expense of others, and economic scenario B which favors others at the expense of me, and given as well that neither one can ultimately provide that everyone's needs get met... given all of this, is it really evil for me to say I want A over B? Is that truly so wrong?

N.B.: Since the link stretched the page and can't be C/Ped for your own viewing, I'm reposting it here so you can.

http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Resources/Static/Products/Progress2008/MDG_Report_2008_En.pdf#page=44

...

One more time. (>_>)

http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Resources/Static/Products/
Progress2008/MDG_Report_2008_En.pdf#page=44

Remove the line break, of course. That should do it.

@ Jamie

I would like a little further clarification (sorry if this was already addressed) but you think all significant resources should be held in common. What constitutes "significant"?

For instance say my grandmother knitted a lace tablecloth. It would probably have no significance to society, but has great significance to me. Do I have the right to own that tablecloth as she made it and gave it to me?

"Additionally, famines tend to occur much more often in centrally planned economies - it is a lot easier to massively screw up when there are fewer people making decisions"

Ask the Irish about that. Or the Indians. In fact it was the implementation of laissez-faire in Britain and that led to the Great Famine in Ireland. The British thought helping the Irish would lead to "dependence".

Centrally planned economies in Russia and China put an end to serial famines. Famines used to take place all the time in both countries. Now, they never do.

:)

"For instance say my grandmother knitted a lace tablecloth. It would probably have no significance to society, but has great significance to me. Do I have the right to own that tablecloth as she made it and gave it to me?"

"Significant" means the means of production, the motors of the economy. The tablecloth would not be state-owned, but the factories that produce the material needed to produce the cloth would. I think the notion of 'significant' is obvious, and has been obvious to the dozens of states who have taken control of the 'commanding heights' in the course of their history.

@Putin
"Centrally planned economies in Russia and China put an end to serial famines. Famines used to take place all the time in both countries. Now, they never do."

Hi Capt. Google here, this one was really easy. There was a terrible famine called China's Great Famine under MaoZeDong during the Great Leap Forward.

Here's what Wiki has to say

"Until the early 1980s, the Chinese government's stance, reflected by the name "Three Years of Natural Disasters", was that the famine was largely a result of a series of natural disasters compounded by some planning errors. Researchers outside China, however, generally agree that massive institutional and policy changes which accompanied the Great Leap Forward were the key factors in the famine.[5] Since the 1980s there has been greater official Chinese recognition of the importance of policy mistakes in causing the disaster, claiming that the disaster was 30% due to natural causes and 70% by mismanagement.[citation needed]

During the Great Leap Forward, farming was organized into communes and the cultivation of private plots forbidden. This forced collectivisation substantially reduced the incentives for peasants to work well. Iron and steel production was identified as a key requirement for economic advancement. Millions of peasants were ordered away from agricultural work to join the iron and steel production workforce."

But I'm sure it's not due to govenmental mismanagement even though the official Chinese government stance is that it was it was 70% due to their mismanagement.

"he "current system" isn't capitalism. The "current system" in some parts of the world is some variant of capitalism; in others, it's something else. But the entire world is not capitalist (or any one system), and I can think of some rather large numbers of people in the world that are starving that don't live in countries with market economies. So pinning the WHO's estimate of two-thirds of the world's population starving on capitalism is pretty erroneous. "

This begs the question - if capitalism works so well, why doesn't anybody use it? Doctrinaire market ideologues always like to say that the flaws in capitalist systems are not 'real' capitalism, but their theory only exists in an Econ 101 textbook or an Ayn Rand novel.

"Why not let people who work choose (by spending money) what they earn for their labor?"

Why not let workers collect the full value of their labor, why allow capitalists profit from doing nothing by extracting the surplus from the workers?

What's more important to you, allowing the veneer of 'choice' by letting people buy Pepsi or Coke, or ensuring there is no homelessness, no starvation, and no unemployment?

@Putin

"The tablecloth would not be state-owned, but the factories that produce the material needed to produce the cloth would."

Then you agree that there are property rights that do not amount to theft as Jamie said. The disagreement in not whether individuals have property rights, but to what extent goverments can infringe upon those rights.

Oh boy, wikipedia again. Does wikipedia tell you about the 3 years of natural disasters which occurred from 1958-1960? Does it tell you that if the Chinese didn't industrialize their agricultural sector, agriculture would not be able to feed its population and keep up with the pace of industrialization in the urban sector?

Does wikipedia tell you about all the famines which used to take place under the Qing Dynasty and under the warlords?

How many famines have taken place in China since 1960? Why is it that the horrible Chinese government is the government most responsible for delivering millions from hunger and poverty?