Private property

[JonnyBGood]

Instead of posting a whole load of shiet that probably won't make sense as I did a close to seven hour english exam today I'll just throw the floor open after a vague initial statement.



I find it impossible to believe in the morality (or legality if you wish) of private property ownership due to the essential contradiction that is the altering, at some point in time, of something that belonged to us all (or if it belonged to nobody should this rationally change my stance?) into something that belonged to only the few and is now currently based in no way on ability or anything practical, but rather on the inheritance of property. Fundamentally I find a stance supporting private property on this premise wholly illogical.




Course I'm still not giving up my house heh. This instant emotional reaction in itself shouldn't really be ignored, perhaps it indicates that this is not an area where we can apply logic solely to find a satisfactory conclusion. All arguments great and small shall be welcomed.

[Nodrog]

There's a difference between claiming ownership of undeveloped land, and claiming ownership of what was built upon the land.

[Muslim]

damm commy
get out of Jolt´s board



seriously thou
thats what the poor have been saying since there was poor and rich dudes

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Nodrog
There's a difference between claiming ownership of undeveloped land, and claiming ownership of what was built upon the land.

So we can claim ownership of buildings but we can't claim the ownership of the materials we used to make those buildings? So if i steal somrthing of yours and change it somehow it becomes mine?

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
So we can claim ownership of buildings but we can't claim the ownership of the materials we used to make those buildings? So if i steal somrthing of yours and change it somehow it becomes mine?

If people only want use of a piece of land because of what has been built upon it, are they genuinelly arguing that "noone should be able to own land"?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Nodrog
If people only want use of a piece of land because of what has been built upon it, are they genuinelly arguing that "noone should be able to own land"?

If I used all the exploitable resources of the world to build myself a house and fill it with various goods somehow altered, thus leaving everyone else without the potential for expansion or the necessary educational/technological tools to expand their limits is that justified?

[Kurashima]

Royalty is just the descendants of a group of people who were better thieves than everyone else. The laws they made were never for the betterment of the people , but for the protection of themselves.

This is what most societies were built on, hence Jonny , this is why your argument , though logical and moral , will always fail.

When a world is anarchic , men are scared , and power over other men makes them less afraid.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Kurashima
Royalty is just the descendants of a group of people who were better thieves than everyone else. The laws they made were never for the betterment of the people , but for the protection of themselves.

This is what most societies were built on, hence Jonny , this is why your argument , though logical and moral , will always fail.

When a world is anarchic , men are scared , and power over other men makes them less afraid.

We should have some power over other men though. For instance if one man runs up to a man he has never met, doesn't know and who did nothing wrong and kills him we can say that's wrong. Objectively speaking it is possible to qualify the degree of power over other men we possess, ie the power to prevent them harming others directly. The power to possess property is something different though.

[Kurashima]

How do we quantify the level of power we are allowed to have over another man. If we say we cannot harm another directly, and we then take property from one person and give it to another , have we directly harmed that person by taking from him his home , and possibly condemning him to a death from exposure through having nowhere to live?

Is our causing his indirect death acceptable?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Kurashima
How do we quantify the level of power we are allowed to have over another man. If we say we cannot harm another directly, and we then take property from one person and give it to another , have we directly harmed that person by taking from him his home , and possibly condemning him to a death from exposure through having nowhere to live?

Is our causing his indirect death acceptable?

No no, I'm saying property is the original crime in itself. Much as a sentence in jail might be the punishment removal of property is the punishment if it is unjustified to own private property. If a man dies in prison from old age because he was sent there for a crime he committed then we are not at fault. Of course if it was through wilful neglect of the prison system we would be. On reflection though you do raise the point that if we disposses all men of their houses we are in fact directly condemning them to death much as hurling a man into a pool of piranhas is equally a crime. This is the inconsistency I hate

[W]

Originally posted by Kurashima
Royalty is just the descendants of a group of people who were better thieves than everyone else. The laws they made were never for the betterment of the people , but for the protection of themselves.

This is what most societies were built on, hence Jonny , this is why your argument , though logical and moral , will always fail.

When a world is anarchic , men are scared , and power over other men makes them less afraid.

I take it you think britains monarchy is the only one in the world?

[Kurashima]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
No no, I'm saying property is the original crime in itself. Much as a sentence in jail might be the punishment removal of property is the punishment if it is unjustified to own private property. If a man dies in prison from old age because he was sent there for a crime he committed then we are not at fault. Of course if it was through wilful neglect of the prison system we would be. On reflection though you do raise the point that if we disposses all men of their houses we are in fact directly condemning them to death much as hurling a man into a pool of piranhas is equally a crime. This is the inconsistency I hate

how do you reconcile the need of mankind to shelter from wind , rain , and the elements without allowing him a degree of ownership of his location? If you assign him a commune , technically a state body would have to be responsible for the ownership of said commune. And is it not therefore eminently logical that those who lead this state body are technically owners of the commune, as they define who lives and who doesnt live there?

[Kurashima]

Originally posted by W
I take it you think britains monarchy is the only one in the world?

I think youd be hard pressed to find a monarchy anywhere in the world which was "Elected" by the population, and maintains that position with the total support of its people.

[Snurx]

There are several "versions" of private property. For example, a gas station can be private, but not in the same way as your house. Or, your house is different from you cellphone, but both are private property.

I find the whole thing ****ed up. Private property is irrational, and stupid. I cant argue the case good, but hey, nobody listens to me anyway.

[GavGull]

Would it be better if each was assigned land to his need rather than his wealth? ie. is the issue private ownership altogether or simply the ability of the rich to own more than the poor?

[queball]

Originally posted by Snurx
There are several "versions" of private property. For example, a gas station can be private, but not in the same way as your house. Or, your house is different from you cellphone, but both are private property.

I find the whole thing ****ed up. Private property is irrational, and stupid. I cant argue the case good, but hey, nobody listens to me anyway.

I listen to you all the time. Mostly the practical stuff, but it's all good.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Nodrog
There's a difference between claiming ownership of undeveloped land, and claiming ownership of what was built upon the land.

Tell you what, you can have the bricks and the mortar, but get off my (our) land.

In a tresspassing case, afaik, if you build a structure (e.g. a house) on someone elses land, they will generally ask you to remove it. If you can't/won't do this, they'll generally demolish it.

Kura : As for your argument - the powers society hold over an individual can generally be established through some kind of liberty principle - you can do whatever you want so long as it doesn't harm me, etc.

As for as "taking away people's land" - I don't see realistically what harm this would do for most big land owners. Obviously the right to a home exists independently of this so it's not like people's homes would be taken away from them.

Generally if I became an Emperor Palpatine style despot tommorow, I'd convert everyone's property deeds into tenancies (for their homes), business leases into fixed-length tenancies and tell all large free-holders to fck off. Tenancies would not be "revokable" except by a court-order where someone had clearly not paid their rent or violated their tenancy in some other way.

Granted, this would destroy our economy (since a lot of loans are secured against property) but duh, I can do lightning bolts, what do I care?

[Kurashima]

Originally posted by GavGull
Would it be better if each was assigned land to his need rather than his wealth? ie. is the issue private ownership altogether or simply the ability of the rich to own more than the poor?

The Private Ownership altogether.

Equality doesnt technically come into this argument, even though most of Jonny's debates are based along the lines of Karl Marx's original ideals, as opposed to the corrupted/very corrupted versions which came through Lenin and Stalin.

[Snurx]

Originally posted by GavGull
Would it be better if each was assigned land to his need rather than his wealth? ie. is the issue private ownership altogether or simply the ability of the rich to own more than the poor?

The whole thing.

Really, who is to decide that that piece of land is mine, just beacause i have money? Or that piece of water is mine, since my daddy owned it?

Its so strange.

[W]

Originally posted by Kurashima
I think youd be hard pressed to find a monarchy anywhere in the world which was "Elected" by the population, and maintains that position with the total support of its people.

Nothing is total.

[Sub]

"Nothing" is totally 'empty'.

[queball]

Originally posted by GavGull
Would it be better if each was assigned land to his need rather than his wealth? ie. is the issue private ownership altogether or simply the ability of the rich to own more than the poor?

annyoing rhetorical question-asking post:

What need?

His need for freedom? What freedom if not even the freedom to build a home and protect it, or to plant a field for his children? His need for food? What use is there in getting food, if he doesn't have the freedom to build a factory that would feed thousands? Or to build a school?

Why would anyone give up their freedom to obtain property in exchange for his base needs being fulfilled? Don't you value the freedom to develop, to improve the world? No-one cares about wealth, except the very vain; we care about the FREEDOM it represents when it is exchanged.

Or if his "needs" includes his need to express himself, then what better judge for allocation of land than landowners?

In America, a man with a good idea who can work hard and learn how to give a good presentation can get a investment, a loan, a contract to exercise that idea. Why would we take away this incentive for some awful communism, or worse yet some "Democratic" (majority-vote-based) process? Why replace millions of diverse, intelligent investors with a single inefficient bureaucratic mess? If I'm presenting a strawman, please give a more full description of your allocation.

[GavGull]

If you're talking about taking away private ownership altogether I must say I think you're a danger to the freedom of the public. In my opinion, people should be allowed some space of their own to do as they wish and be allowed to develop a comfortable home to call their own.

If you're disputing the ability of the wealthy to own disproportionate amounts of land, then you're really disputing a great many parallel situations. Perhaps the financial power of the very rich should be contained, but I really don't have any problem with relatively successful men owning relatively more than the less successful, as long as the gap is not excessive.

[GavGull]

Originally posted by queball
-

I *think* I largely agree with you, I certainly believe that "more productive" members of society should be allowed property that befits their deeds. However, I do feel that the current system provides disproportianate reward for those it finds particularly successful (eg. millionaire mansions, sports car garages and the like).

I also think that initially, as young adults, those from poorer backgrounds should be granted the same opportunities as those from richer backgrounds.

[Dookie Velvet]

Private property is just one of several factors leading free enterprise in capitalist economy, where yet another factor is that certain people will have the potential, through income and occupational sucess, to gain further in personal ownership of certain items. It's fundamentally just one aspect as the whole picture, and it's illogical to single this one part out while forgetting that there are also reasons behind why certain items become the posessions of a selective few instead of the whole or of no-one at all, for example freedom of choice, scarcity of products etc even greed could be used as substantial evidence in some cases as to why free-enterprise societies believe strongly in private property.

[queball]

Originally posted by GavGull
I *think* I largely agree with you, I certainly believe that "more productive" members of society should be allowed property that befits their deeds. However, I do feel that the current system provides disproportianate reward for those it finds particularly successful (eg. millionaire mansions, sports car garages and the like).

I also think that initially, as young adults, those from poorer backgrounds should be granted the same opportunities as those from richer backgrounds.

I'm not sure I understand - how can the reward for success be too large? The saying "you can't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer" is appropriate. Millionaire mansions and sports car garages may seem useless, but if you look at the larger economic picture you might see it's not really bad. The work done to produce those luxuries is well-paid work; as a wise man our millionaire has surely spent his money efficiently. Something like the Playboy mansion is most definitely an investment more than a luxury, and the people employed there and in its construction are certainly glad for it.

People from poorer background are rarely discriminated against by inverstors per se, if this were so then any venture capitalist could make a killing by investing in them.

[rant]
However, I tend to agree that there is a lot of untapped talent from barriers to entry. I find that the barriers are mostly artificial: the biggest employer - small businesses - face high taxation, paperwork, lawsuits. The benefit system, while well-intentioned, seems to have been a huge failure here in Britain - complexity is favoured over simplicity to cut down on applicants. It tends to restrict people much more than freeing them, it is common to hear of someone who could not "afford" to take all the hours of work she could take, because it would invalidate her council flat. Methods that seem to work well are education or self-organisation.
[/rant]

[queball]

Originally posted by Dookie Velvet
Private property is just one of several factors leading free enterprise in capitalist economy, where yet another factor is that certain people will have the potential, through income and occupational sucess, to gain further in personal ownership of certain items. It's fundamentally just one aspect as the whole picture, and it's illogical to single this one part out while forgetting that there are also reasons behind why certain items become the posessions of a selective few instead of the whole or of no-one at all, for example freedom of choice, scarcity of products etc even greed could be used as substantial evidence in some cases as to why free-enterprise societies believe strongly in private property.

I was giving one argument why I think capitalism is great, not a comprehensive review of the nature of enterprise. See? You missed the point of my post. It's hardly "illogical" to start with a simple argument instead of starting with a complex argument, making lots of assumptions. I did touch on a few other effects than simply incentive.

Edit: oh, you might not have been referring to my post?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by queball
Why replace millions of diverse, intelligent investors with a single inefficient bureaucratic mess? If I'm presenting a strawman, please give a more full description of your allocation.

I don't think anyone (sane) would say that all investment decisions would be allocated to one a single body.

Even under our current horribly centralised state structure there are literally dozens of ways you could apply for investment. And investment decisions would always be available to everyone since "investment" in a business (or enterprise more generally) always takes multiple forms. Capital is seen as a big one (and indeed it is) but things like time, publicity, etc are all enormously important for a starting venture. Plus, this thread began by talking about allocation of land or premises not investment in general.

As for your later point about benefits : The benefit system is either a failure or sucess depending on how you look at it. Clearly not everybody in Britain is striving for individual greatness (so you can judge it a failure) and neither has povery been abolished. But at the same time, there are literally thousands of people who would have starved to death or died in other horrific ways if it wasn't for some kind of safety net.

[queball]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
I don't think anyone (sane) would say that all investment decisions would be allocated to one a single body.

Even under our current horribly centralised state structure there are literally dozens of ways you could apply for investment. And investment decisions would always be available to everyone since "investment" in a business (or enterprise more generally) always takes multiple forms. Capital is seen as a big one (and indeed it is) but things like time, publicity, etc are all enormously important for a starting venture. Plus, this thread began by talking about allocation of land or premises not investment in general.

Well, it started with private property. And it depends on the venture, but yes. BTW, I doubt your tenancy-economy would fail terribly; loans could not exactly be secured on the ownership of land, but surely they could be secured on tenancies? So if someone doesn't make their repayments, the bank (which has a prior arrangement with you) gets the land for the rest of the tenancy. Loans are temporary, tenancies are temporary, quite a nice combination in fact. It wouldn't work if you refused to make this sort of contract.

As for your later point about benefits : The benefit system is either a failure or sucess depending on how you look at it. Clearly not everybody in Britain is striving for individual greatness (so you can judge it a failure) and neither has povery been abolished. But at the same time, there are literally thousands of people who would have starved to death or died in other horrific ways if it wasn't for some kind of safety net.

Got any stories about people almost starving to death then being saved by Social Security?

Talking to people here in Reading, the poorest people don't get benefits (I know that's kind of circular heh). They aren't eligible or don't like the application system, various reasons. There is however an excellent emergency shelter, and dozens of charities, and there most certainly is a safety net. Social security is just **** when it comes to the very poor. I wouldn't know about other towns, but the same seems to apply. SS seems to be slightly more repectable but opinions vary wildly, and I don't believe pride is really an important difference between the two safety nets (though it is an issue in general).

I found it difficult to find statistics on starvation (any tips?) but afaik: it has never been a problem outside of famines, it is entirely confined to pensioners and drug addicts who starve anyway, and it certainly has not decreased with the advent of state welfare. Obviously the issue of poverty is much more complicated. Fire away...

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Sub
"Nothing" is totally 'empty'.

no it isn't