IAP Political Forum

I am reading a book at the moment (For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto by Murray Rothbard) which sets out the argument for libertarianism (specifically, the anarcho-capitalist version of it; where there is no state, only capitalism). Crucial to his argument is the idea that we all have a "natural right" to property ownership, quoting Locke.

I thought this might make an interesting discussion (especially considering that Locke appears to be one of Callum's favourite philosophers).

I feel Locke is begging the question: he assumes that by "mixing your labour" with something it becomes exclusively yours, but this is what he seeks to prove! I believe that everything on the planet is owned equally by everyone, and that by "fencing it off from the common" (another phrase used) i.e. asserting ownership you are essentially stealing it.

Personally, I tend to be more nationalistic than internationalist. Having said that, the individual can never come before the Motherland, IMHO. This is what I mean by Social Fascism. Patriotism and social justice.

OswaldTheOsprey

I think it's important to note that when Locke was writing the world had a lot more space between elbows. Locke's dismissal of the value of the things removed from the state of nature strikes me as meaning he never considered finite resources.


I think dismissing the value added by labor or effort is at least as bad as only counting it. On Earth I think there is little or no state of nature left, as nations have claimed it all, which makes it harder for Locke's method of creating property to apply.

I don't dismiss it - but a thief expends labour by stealing all someone's stuff: does that mean he has a degree of ownership of it?

It is my belief that there are basic rights and then luxuries. Everyone has a right to shelter-not a mansion; food-not caviar; etc.

OswaldTheOsprey

Me too.

Individual (as opposed to collective) property rights are contrary to that.

Hmmm very good point. I'd say that the stuff is basically unchanged by changing hands or moving around a city, I guess I'd have some doubt about moving it between markets, but I'd cover that by saying since taking it is disallowed the rest gets dismissed.

I don't understand how personal property can exist starting from group ownership.

They most certainly are if unchecked. It is trouble all way round-look at the subprime mess.

OswaldTheOsprey

Unless the "with something" was paid for or procured from someone else.


Hogwash.

What culture does not respect private property rights......whether it is a mudhut or an estate?

Well, I respect Locke for kicking off the British Empirical movement, and for some of his ideas on personal identity.  But I can't say I go for his views on politics in general.  Leads to abhorrent (to me) expressions of extreme individualism and libertarianism such as Nozicks Anarchy State and Utopia.    Any credo that puts projections of the self in material objects (i.e property) above ones obligations to the rest of ones community (for me, humanity in general; for others, their family, lodge, town, state, nation....) -  such a credo is essentially egoism and doomed to contradiction and ultimate self-destruction.

I think you had a good point on question-begging, A. And tadpol re finite resources is good. I doff my cap to both!    But to be fair, the thief scenario is covered by Locke's insistence on "from the common state nature placed it in".  Thieves (rarely) nick raw materials in their original state of nature.   And even if they do, one can argue that by publishing property rights over a resource, one HAS removed it from the state nature etc.

Just goes to show the incoherence of the property meme... but good memes never let reason impede them.....:D    And like other primitive memes it is almost universal  (non-property experiments usually end with the evil of property exercising destructive influence from within or without - the American Constitution - as interpreted by th 'supreme' court - will destroy the Amish, for example)

Patton just because something is near-universal does not make it right.

Then you can hand the keys to your house and car to any Tom, Dick and Harry who feels they should belong to him.....as for mine.....they will be staring down the barrel of my Desert Eagle 0.50......

Nice try. Obviously I'm not going to do that within the system we have.

Oh, I get it....this was all just "pie in the sky" talk.....nothing to do with reality.

"Pie in the sky" perhaps. However, many things we now take for granted were once thus classified.

OswaldTheOsprey

Ermmmm Patton I think you are not getting the point.  If 'your' house,car etc don't 'belong' to you they don't 'belong' to anybody else either.  Think Amish....

Removing the idea of property rights doesn't remove the idea of civilised individual rightful usage of things.  However, take the case of the town I live in now.... there is a chronic housing shortage, yet 20% of homes here are unoccupied for most of the year - they are 'holiday homes'.  But young families who work around here - and service those homes in summer - have nowhere they can afford to buy, and rental is even more than loan costs (and we even have a well regulated loans market - unlike the cancerous US subprime).....   Others living in the 'sticks'  - agricultural or forest workers have no transport and are cindemned to isolation.   But there are numerous unused vehicles around - left for when absentee owners decide to come...

Seems to be a rather wasteful use of finite resources...

From a pragmatic perspective, people are going to strive for property (albeit some in different ways than others). The perfect world doesn't exist, and in this one people want stuff. The issue of property rights is going to come up one way or another. We have three basic ways we can deal with this:

1) We all go and get 0.50's, and the best shot gets the most property.

2) We start a 'workers paradise' in which property rights are abolished.

3) We set up a legal system in which rights are protected.

On a philosophical level I was never able to really rationalize property rights (especially intellectual property rights and land ownership), but on a practical level our society would be screwed without them.

It is not pie in the sky! I'm advocating a complete systemic change, not a pointless one-man revolution ("here take my all my stuff while I lie down in the gutter and die" is not socialism!).

You may not believe a better world is possible but I do.

I believe in a better world...within the confines of reality....vacating personal property rights is not realistic.

Why do you say that?

Go ahead and propose how you will accomplish this.

A loss of property rights would impact the poor the worst. People who have a lot of property usually will find some way of defending it. In this 'better world', the rich would have more and the poor less. My guess is that it would be very similar to feudalism.

In that case there wouldn't be a loss of property rights.


Me,  Patton is old.  You are young.  I'm pretty certain you are both right and wrong in equal measures  :D

I'd have to disagree here.

It's the difference between might and right. Just because you can take and hold something doesn't mean it's your right.

Well the first step is to convince people that it is just - one major mistake made by Communists is that it was a violent revolution by a minority rather than the will of the people. Then, gradually, through political means, the state would begin to take control of essential services, then industry and finally all property (the state, of course, being democratic and hence controlled by the people). The state would then be overhauled, direct democracy (using the internet) would replace representative democracy (thus removing the possibility of state abuse of its newfound power). Then we would have true government of the people, by the people and for the people.

We are here getting to some interesting musings on what are 'rights'....  There are plenty of people who would accept openly, even even more who act as if, might makes right and thats that.    Its hard to divorce power from 'rights' - they do after all need some enforcement mechanism when transgressors violate them. 

It's quite easy to divorce power from rights IMO. For example, most people would accept the existence of a right to life, even in places where murder is rampant.

OK....convince me.


How is this done?


How exactly?


Implemented how?  What of those who have no internet?


Hardly.

I asked how this will be accomplished and you offered  a "pie in the sky" with no basis in reality.......similar to saying:

Well the first step is to develop warp drive.........

That's nice......HOW?

I was trying, until you insisted on dealing with practicalities.


Raise taxes, set up state enterprises to take over essential services, then take control of all other businesses (seize, or buy - buying is probably preferable) in the sector. Same for industry etc. This would have to be gradual change, or else there would be massive resistance and the business owners would have to be compensated.


See below.


That's simple, it only requires legislative change and a little technology. Everyone would have some kind of internet connection - that would have to be in place before anything like that was implemented - or there would have to be places they could go to vote.

This is not essential for socialism BTW, it is just one of my beliefs.


It is not pie in the sky. It is a big change, I grant you, but not impossible.

I agree with you completely. Society cannot function without private property, as it is the most essential component of individual rights, and a basic financial market cannot exist without it. The private sector may be taxed, and wealth publicly redistributed, however private property must be maintained.

You're correct. Rights do need to be backed up by force, and that force (and the power that lies behind it) often do tilt the balance toward their favor at the expense of others rights. I believe this is an inefficiency in the system (no tool can be 100% efficient), not a reason to discard the whole idea.

Sometimes legal property rights strip a people of their lands, and in most cases like that I think if property rights had been better defined the people in question wouldn't have lost their land.

I personally feel that the concept of might = right is erroneous, and more or less just excuses for violating someone's rights.

This is a concept of warfare.

I'm not sure which 'system' your are referring to...  But there is a view that a 'right' is something that is defined by statute and nothing else: thsi certainly accords with your idea of 'system'.  So people lose their lands because either the 'system' is 'inefficient' , or badly worded, or of cousre where two systems are in conflict.  In these cases the common parlance equivalence of 'right' and 'morally correct' is lost, and as Patton implies in warfare no one has any rights except the victor.   An opposing view is that a 'right' is an essential condition of being human.  The Declaration of (American) Independence hints at this, although we are all left to consider just how broad a remit the 'unalienable' rights have  (they certainly did not cover native americans, slaves, and most modern day non-americans, for example).   

Tagging might = right as 'erroneous'  is not very explanatory.  It ceratinly isn't erroneous as a description of some current conflicts for example (if we trade on the equivocation of right as 'morally acceptable' and/or practical-efficient).   In what sense do you mean erroneous, then?    IF we take the second view of 'rights' above (unalienable conditions), then we still have the problem of the relationship to  power.....

That's kind of the point of getting rid of it.

I don't think one can rationally dispute the ownership of one's self as "property".

That being said, I don't see any grounds for transfering this de facto state of property ownership to another object - without the use of force or the aquicience of the collective will.

Ergo, property ownership (beyond that of the 'self') must require either a demonstration of force, or some permission of the collective.

This is essentially what I'm saying.

I think distribution of group owned things has been mixed with how things come to be owned. How does the collective come to own everything? Locke offers solid argument against group ownership coming from God, but I'd guess that's not where you're coming from...

Good post!

I just get hung up on the wealth redistribution part. :D

You've got it right.

The collective gets to own everything when it has the guns!  Thats the lesson from comrades Lenin, Stalin and Mao.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke#Theory_of_value_and_property

Theory of value and property
Locke uses the word property in both broad and narrow senses. In a broad sense, it covers a wide range of human interests and aspirations; more narrowly, it refers to material goods. He argues that property is a natural right and it is derived from labor.

Locke believed that ownership of property is created by the application of labor. In addition, property precedes government and government cannot "dispose of the estates of the subjects arbitrarily." Karl Marx later critiqued Locke's theory of property in his social theory.

Big surprise that Comrade Karl would critique government arbitrarily disposing of private property!

Up to a point, yes, this appears to be so.

However, we certainly disagree about the 'collective' having a defacto or default ownership of all things in the state of nature as Locke suggests.

Locke gives no philosophic or logical argument to support this - he just assumes it.

As I noted above, individuals may have a 'defacto' right of property over their own bodies, but this cannot be extended to other objects or things.  I see no basis for assuming collective 'ownership' of nature.

I appealed to the sanction of the collective as necessary for any given individual act or claim of property ownership, but that is because the collective holds a massive power of force that always trumps any individual claim of physical force.

I'm not claiming right now that I have any logical proof of this. I simply say that Locke has none either and that the collective evrsion is more moral.

I'd like to hear more about how collective ownership is more moral. I am also unclear on how one would move from collective ownership to personal use.

Like tadpol, I too am curious about the justification of 'collective' being "more moral" here.

The traditional Judeo-Christian definition of morality appears to be silent on the moral determination here.

Please be sure to identify the moral system you are using to make your conclusion in your response (for clarity sake).

Well, all you need to do is look around to see the fruits of property rights: we have a world where ~205 of the world's population has ~80% of the wealth, where every 5 seconds a child starves to death, while others are exorbitantly wealth (and die of obesity!) That is gratuitous and immoral, but people are (under a property-rights system) entitled to amass as much wealth as they wish and are under no obligation to share (if one truly accepts property rights then taxation is state-theft; acceptance of tax is the first step towards socialism).

In short, property rights lead necessarily to inequality, and hence poverty. The collective version, on the other hand, allows everyone to get a share, based on need, rather then ability to hoarde.

As for going from collective to personal use: that's simple! You can use something with the (tacit) consent of the collective.

And you honestly can't see how how contributing more but getting the same would lead to people intentionally underachieving?  Your socialism is the epitome of dumbing down a society.

And I might add that Ivory-Tower-Pie-In-The-Sky thinking is a nice exercise....but worthless when implementation is impossible.

I think you have a mediocre defense of group property over personal property, but I still miss how an assumption of group owned things is better than an assumption of unowned things, and I don't think comparing best cases is the best way to explore the difference.

As to tacit approval, I think there has been tacit approval to the vast majority of steps of personal ownership leading to the current situation, and depending on how active disapproval has to be before it's not consent one could call all steps that were not reversed consented, thinking of the overwhelming force of massed humanity.

Since this thread is about 'property rights' I shall offer a brief precis of J.J. Rousseau's award-winning essay On the Origin of Inequality.

Briefly stated, Rousseau agrees that humans are unequal in their natural gifts and talents and that some of these unnaturally gifted people will likely accumulate more 'property' than others who are less gifted.  This is quite normal and not a problem.  Warren Buffett or Bill Gates is a good modern example of this phenomena.

The problem is the institution of inheritance where the large (or unequal) amount property (honestly earned) by the highly talented one is then passed on to their progeny.   The progeny now possesses an unequal amount of property to which they have not earned in any substantive way.  These offspring thus get all the advantages of wealth they didn't earn.

According to Rousseau, the originally gifted on who earned the vast wealth, that kind of inequality is natural and generally accepted.  It is the inequality that goes to the incompetent or lazy offspring that is the problem - that is inequality that isn't earned.

Thus, it is the institution of inheritance of private property that institutionalizes inequality in society.

My vision of socialism is not quite that simple. Our first priority is to ensure that everyone has what they need, after that, whatever is leftt over can be given out based on how hard people work. The difference would be 1) it's not their property but societies reward to them for contributing. 2) You cannot inherit it 3) you cannot trade it (i.e. no one person has more economic power than another.

Excuse me for wanting nothing to do with that society.

Can I ask why?

Sure.

Everone should "get what they need" by demonstrating the ability to work for it....if they can't, then they get a program that meets their "need" and nothing more.

No free rides.

I work very hard to provide for my wife and children and their future....I wish anything I have earned through my hard work to go to them when I die....I earned it, it is mine, and I should be allowed the respect to determine who benefits from the fruit of my labor.

Again, if I earned mine from my labor....and someone else earned theirs through their labor...and we wished to trade...and we both agree to the terms, we should be allowed to do so.

That's a start.

There is only one slight flaw I can see with that. It would never work.

Where is the incentive to work hard in your system? Absolutely none. May as well put your feet up and relax and let everyone do the hard work for you. You are getting everything you need before you start, so why put in the extra yards?


For the bone idle and lazy asses in the world who couldn't be bothered getting up early to do a days work, your system is an absolutely utopia. For the hard working, resourceful and industrious amongst us, it is not a system that wets the appetite.

Just my two cents  :)

My thoughts also

Perhaps you misunderstand: those who work hard get more than those who don't.

What about those who, for whatever reason, cannot work for a living? Do they not, as human beings, have a right to live?

What I'm advocating is something like this: everyone is entitled to have their basic needs met, whether they work or not; anyone who has a job is entitled to more, by virtue of their contribution to society, and will get a dividend of whatever surplus there is proportional to how hard they work.

The fundemental problem with our society is that the means of production are owned by the few, and this fact is used by those few to force the many to work for them, while they take most of the benefit from it (consider that no matter how hard Mr. Coalminer works he will never have as much as the Mine-Owner). When the means of production are owned by the collective, then everyone will get what they deserve (and no more).

That is more or less what happens in most western societies already.

You don't get pure capitalism in western countries. It is capitalism and socialism mixed together. It encourages people to work hard and be entrpereneurial but at the same time provides a safety net for people who find themselves in an unfortunate disposition.

Every person under most western countries, have their basic needs met already. Some would argue that they already have their basic meets met plus more.

I'd agree, and to the extent that some aren't, I think there is some "wealth redistribution" in order from the 'plus more' to total coverage of basic needs.

For instance, I've had neighbors, students when I was a student, who would go on energy assistance and foodstamps. IMO, programs like this should be reserved for the truly needy. College students should not qualify. Young able bodied (and able minded) adults drawing on these programs jeopardizes access for people that actually need it (children, the elderly, the disabled, etc.).

I would say that cleaning up welfare goes hand in hand with enforcement of labor laws (and tax codes). It aggravates me when people collect public assistance while making good money 'under the table'.

Young mothers should not have to stand behind college students and people who just don't feel like paying taxes in the public assistance line.

At the root of it though, I would not describe this concept as a property right of those in need, but as an obligation of those who benefit from the collective efforts of a successful society.

No, there is a crucial difference. There are no property rights in my version: no accumulation of wealth and no trade (the means by which people can exert economic power).

So, how do you provide for yourself when you are old or have stopped working?

If you cannot accumulate wealth, then you are forced to rely on the government to provide for you and somehow that option does not seem very appealing.

That's the premise.



Taking away personal economic power means that economic power gets concentrated somewhere else. One would have to have a lot of confidence in the political system to be content with no economic power.

Well, if people want to leave their financial future in the hands of the government, then thats their business.


Personally, I would never do that for the following reasons;

1)Governments have shown themselves over the years to be incompetent, fiscally irresponsible and short sighted. Leaving your future in the hands of these guys is like playing roulette.

2)It is bad for your pysche to be always relying on other people. Self dependancy develops character, integrity and more importantly self esteem. We already have a generation of people brought up on welfare with absolutely no sense of responsbility of self sufficency. They had over their entire existence to the government. What a terrible waste of a life IMO.

I would imagine that those who are unable to work or who are of retirement age would be provided for to a greater extent than those who are simply lazy.

Why would we want to be providing for people who are simply lazy?  I have not heard you explain how you would motivate anybody to work at all if you are going to be rewarded for being lazy.

Also....who and how is "laziness" determined?

What is the criteria?

Moreover, what if I feel like being lazy?

Should I not be allowed to save up some money to buy myself some slack at some point?

I don't expect the gov to pay for it, but at the heart of things I'm a very lazy man. Busting my ass 50 hours a week nonstop is really part of a long range plan to lounge around and drink beer in the future.


The idea of providing for the simply lazy is preposterous to me. As is the idea that laziness itself should be criticized.


Basically, if someone wants to sit around and do nothing, I don't see why it's any of my business. Neither is the question of how they're going to fund themselves while doing so.

Um...you get more if you work than if you don't. That's the motivation.

Kinda sounds like what we have now.  Work more so you get more. 

I couldn't help but notice you just skipped my first question.

Do you object to the idea of giving more to those who work? Or do you object to providing for those who don't? You cannot object to both, that is a self-contradictory position.

No it's not.  BAsed on that response, your fundamental logic is flawed.

I have explained how it is different (need is priority, no trade, no amassing wealth etc.)
[/quote]


Actually I had an answer but my computer crashed. Basically, everyone has a right to have their basic needs met, worker or not. (Lets not forget that there rarely is a job for everyone)

How do you figure?

Iamme, I think you misunderstood what illy is trying to say.

He is not advocating they get paid by welfare for being lazy. He is saying that people should have the right to work hard at a young age, so they can relax at some later stage and live off their savings if they choose. He is basically making the point that as long as they don't live off the state, they have the right to choose how they live their life.

It is a really good post and point by Illy IMO and one I agree with 100%.

If people want to work extremely hard when they are young, and live off their savings or income from their investments atg a later stage then IMO it is to be applauded. They are not providing a cost for the state as they are self funding their own dream lifestyle(Illy called it laziness but I prefer self funded lifestyle as a term  :)), and they are also paying tax on their income as well. So, I don't see the harm for the government with this.

IMO, this scenario is much more advisable that people living off the state because they are too lazy to work.


There is an expression that sums it up perfectly. Some people work while others play so that they can play whilst others work.  :)

Actually I had an answer but my computer crashed. Basically, everyone has a right to have their basic needs met, worker or not. (Lets not forget that there rarely is a job for everyone)


[/quote]


I know what you are saying Iamme. and your moral stance is an admirable one.

But doesn't this already exist in all western societies?

As far as I know, all citizens basic needs are already met whether they are workers or not. The welfare and social security budgets by Western governments are one of the highest components of overall fiscal spending.

I don't see how your model provides more benefits to people than already exists in most or all western societies today.


Note, I am not having a go at you. It is interesting to read your thoughts and I appreciate how much time you put into thr subject. But I honestly think that western societies already meet all the concerns outlined with your social model. And note, I am a person who has been very critical of trends in western societies.
 

It exists to some extent in the West. The US has a reprehensible system where the unemployed are given welfare for 3 years (I think) and if they don't have a job by that time they are given nothing. Thousands are now entirely dependent on charity as a result.

But even in a society with a decent welfare there is still massive inequality, which cannot just be explained by laziness vs. earnestness. As far as I am concerned, the right to own property is the principle cause of this. Indeed, if one believes in individual property rights, then taxation is a form of state theft, and all that comes from it (welfare included) is the result of theft.

The benefit of my model is that it is much more equitable, without rewarding equally the person who sponges off society. For example, a steelworker may work just as hard as a corporate CEO, but will make many times less money. The same steelworker will never make as much as Paris Hilton has inherited. That is unfair.

So in other words you feel free to criticize what you have no idea about?  You don't know what goes on, but yet it's 'reprehensible'?  Your credentials to even have an opinion do not even exist.  Any semblance of intelligent discussion is gone with that admission.

I would prefer to see aid go to those who truly need it. There are cases where someone can't work, and in those cases I'm not opposed to helping them (I could also agree with income supplement program).

People who just decide not to work, when they could (or work under the table) should not get assistance.


The difference here, as it relates to this thread, is that I see these programs as a safety net, not as an alternative to property rights.

I do know what goes on, I just wasn't 100% sure about the length of time involved. Any semblance of intelligent discussion disappear when you jumped on that single "I think" as a way to dismiss my whole argument.

Perhaps you can describe where I have erred?

How do you separate the lazy from those who are unemployed through no fault of their own?

BTW, its not just about welfare. It is about equality in general - or, more specifically, about getting rid of the massive inequality in our society.

'Your single "I think"' as you put it is fundamental to the whole discussion.  You have shown that you are attempting to dissect and change something that you have no idea about.  So your 'single I think' dismisses your argument for you.  And many people have attempted to show you specifics of where you have erred. 

Who says life is supposed to be fair?

"Fair" goes far beyond the financial......what is "fair" about a 2yr old with cancer?

OK, guess what? I did some research, and it is worse than I thought. I thought it was simply that after X amount of time you needed to have a job or you got nothing. Actually you also have spend time doing compulsory employment in order to make you more suitable for work - the modern day equivalent of slavery.

If anything I have said about Welfare-to-Work is factually inaccurate could you please point out my error?