Patton
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +105/-139
Posts: 1,808
|
 |
« Reply #45 on: April 11, 2008, 05:31:56 AM » |
|
And I might add that Ivory-Tower-Pie-In-The-Sky thinking is a nice exercise....but worthless when implementation is impossible.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Battle is the most magnificent competition in which a human being can indulge. It brings out all that is best; it removes all that is base. All men are afraid in battle. The coward is the one who lets his fear overcome his sense of duty. Duty is the essence of manhood
-George S. Patton
|
|
|
|
tadpol
|
|
« Reply #46 on: April 11, 2008, 12:01:32 PM » |
|
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.
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. 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. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Dormouse
|
|
« Reply #47 on: April 11, 2008, 12:46:36 PM » |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
IamMe
|
|
« Reply #48 on: April 12, 2008, 12:27:28 PM » |
|
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.
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. 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. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"Anarchism is the ideal to which all societies should approximate\\\\" - Bertrand Russell
If you strike me down I shall become more dead than you can ever imagine.
|
|
|
Patton
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +105/-139
Posts: 1,808
|
|
« Reply #49 on: April 12, 2008, 01:31:00 PM » |
|
Excuse me for wanting nothing to do with that society.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Battle is the most magnificent competition in which a human being can indulge. It brings out all that is best; it removes all that is base. All men are afraid in battle. The coward is the one who lets his fear overcome his sense of duty. Duty is the essence of manhood
-George S. Patton
|
|
|
|
IamMe
|
|
« Reply #50 on: April 12, 2008, 02:04:56 PM » |
|
Excuse me for wanting nothing to do with that society.
Can I ask why? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"Anarchism is the ideal to which all societies should approximate\\\\" - Bertrand Russell
If you strike me down I shall become more dead than you can ever imagine.
|
|
|
Patton
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +105/-139
Posts: 1,808
|
|
« Reply #51 on: April 12, 2008, 02:23:14 PM » |
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Battle is the most magnificent competition in which a human being can indulge. It brings out all that is best; it removes all that is base. All men are afraid in battle. The coward is the one who lets his fear overcome his sense of duty. Duty is the essence of manhood
-George S. Patton
|
|
|
Jericoacoara
Hero Member
Karma: +68/-11
Posts: 895
Fortaleza IAP 1.0
|
|
« Reply #52 on: April 12, 2008, 03:08:47 PM » |
|
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.
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  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The greatest tragedy is for a person to die with the music still within them.
|
|
|
Biker Dude
A TRUE Liberal!
Forum Administrator
Hero Member
Karma: +156/-117
Posts: 2,091
Live to Ride, Ride to Live
|
|
« Reply #53 on: April 12, 2008, 04:32:34 PM » |
|
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. My thoughts also |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
 Who will watch the watchers?Now that it is over, what are we going to talk about? |
|
|
|
IamMe
|
|
« Reply #54 on: April 13, 2008, 02:05:54 PM » |
|
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.
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 Perhaps you misunderstand: those who work hard get more than those who don't. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"Anarchism is the ideal to which all societies should approximate\\\\" - Bertrand Russell
If you strike me down I shall become more dead than you can ever imagine.
|
|
|
|
IamMe
|
|
« Reply #55 on: April 13, 2008, 02:15:14 PM » |
|
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. 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). |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"Anarchism is the ideal to which all societies should approximate\\\\" - Bertrand Russell
If you strike me down I shall become more dead than you can ever imagine.
|
|
|
Jericoacoara
Hero Member
Karma: +68/-11
Posts: 895
Fortaleza IAP 1.0
|
|
« Reply #56 on: April 13, 2008, 03:40:46 PM » |
|
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.
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. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The greatest tragedy is for a person to die with the music still within them.
|
|
|
illy
Hero Member
Karma: +106/-105
Posts: 1,058
illerino if youre not into the whole brevity thing
|
|
« Reply #57 on: April 14, 2008, 04:14:11 PM » |
|
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.
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. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ammunition spitting is him, is it, you listening
Littering written, it\\'s in slippers, get the rebel in him
Sticking it with sinners, sizzlin\\' rhythm, verbally hit him
Did he did it, or did he didn\\'t, admit it -
Rugged Man - Give it Up
|
|
|
|
IamMe
|
|
« Reply #58 on: April 16, 2008, 12:56:21 PM » |
|
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.
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. 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). |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"Anarchism is the ideal to which all societies should approximate\\\\" - Bertrand Russell
If you strike me down I shall become more dead than you can ever imagine.
|
|
|
Jericoacoara
Hero Member
Karma: +68/-11
Posts: 895
Fortaleza IAP 1.0
|
|
« Reply #59 on: April 16, 2008, 01:52:46 PM » |
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The greatest tragedy is for a person to die with the music still within them.
|
|
|
|
