The Economics Thread

[Dak]

Watching Ron Paul vs Paul Krugman on Bloomberg. Krugman is a joke. His answer to not having government involved in the market was "well that's just not going to happen". That's a fallacy. Then he credited "mild inflation" after WWII for economic growth, instead of the industrial capacity (outside of the US) of the western world being destroyed, and then of course ignoring the Stagflation shortly thereafter.

 

[viewerfromnihil]

@ Krugman's closing remarks, talk about drinking the Kool-Aid.

 

[Einherjar86]

Damn it, I need to watch this thread closer.

So what? Let's look at it from the other view. No one owns nature (to be defined for the purposes of this example as any theoretically unimproved land) in any way, we just all sort of grab what we can when we can, even possibly in such a way as to not have any conflicts over the resources.

In general, this will lead to immediate depletion in areas, followed by migration and then repetition. Without ownership, the world becomes one big tragedy of the commons. I need to get what I can from Berry Bush X before you come back by, etc. I need to hunt all the animals up before someone else does, etc.

There's no reason to exert labor in land/animal husbandry for someone else to come in and profit off of it at their leisure, or worst case just come in and destroy it for kicks, etc. (which I have no right to defend/prevent as it is not "mine")

At the heart of this argument lies the Human/Nature dichotomy; that idea that nature is something separate from humanity that is at our power to either exploit or preserve. I think this dichotomy is vital to the argument of private property, but I don't think it's necessarily accurate.

No one really "owns" anything in nature, I agree; all we can do is claim something (and hopefully be the first to do so). However, the very argument that private ownership will help preserve natural resources assumes that it's our responsibility to preserve natural resources. An animal population has no concept of the total amount of vital resources at its disposal; it simply takes them as it needs them. There's no reason to assume a plausible human society can't function in the same way.

In truth, human "ownership" of land is just a projection of what we perceive as rights deriving from some kind of claim to property. It creates a kind of human-nature binary, but is nothing more than human beings acting naturally. Furthermore, any "tragedy of the commons" that occurs from a non-gentrified social system isn't a result of humanity exploiting nature (also an interpretation that relies on human-nature binaries) but is simply a consequence of natural circumstances.

If that very basic, core act of living in a place (excluding nefarious means of acquiring the living space) does not grant such authority, certainly nothing else could objectively be held in higher regard.

I don't think anything else should objectively be held in higher regard; the abolition of the concept of "property" doesn't necessitate the institution of something else.

The very basic, core act of living is a human right, I agree; but I don't think it entitles someone to a plot of land. That is something we project. Furthermore, nefarious to whom? If a party has been visiting a site for years and harvesting/gathering resources from it, and then one day they discover a new party has set up shop, or "homesteaded" it, hasn't some nefarious action occurred? Surely it can't be said it's the visiting party's own fault for not settling there in the first place. And now the landowner has the right to institute fares for its use? Simply because that landowner's perspective supposedly entitles him to that piece of land (since "no one else was currently using it") doesn't mean it's a kind of a priori right that functions as part of some primordial "law of the land." I don't see any weight in this.

 

[Dak]

At the heart of this argument lies the Human/Nature dichotomy; that idea that nature is something separate from humanity that is at our power to either exploit or preserve. I think this dichotomy is vital to the argument of private property, but I don't think it's necessarily accurate.

No one really "owns" anything in nature, I agree; all we can do is claim something (and hopefully be the first to do so). However, the very argument that private ownership will help preserve natural resources assumes that it's our responsibility to preserve natural resources. An animal population has no concept of the total amount of vital resources at its disposal; it simply takes them as it needs them. There's no reason to assume a plausible human society can't function in the same way.

I hope you are trying this position as more of a devil's advocate. The obvious difference between man's abilities and the "rest" of the animal kingdom is obvious. With privilege comes responsibility. Or, from another angle: No philosophy is needed to act in an animalistic fashion.

In truth, human "ownership" of land is just a projection of what we perceive as rights deriving from some kind of claim to property. It creates a kind of human-nature binary, but is nothing more than human beings acting naturally. Furthermore, any "tragedy of the commons" that occurs from a non-gentrified social system isn't a result of humanity exploiting nature (also an interpretation that relies on human-nature binaries) but is simply a consequence of natural circumstances.

I see "natural circumstances" vs "exploitation" as a false dichotomy. It's both.

I don't think anything else should objectively be held in higher regard; the abolition of the concept of "property" doesn't necessitate the institution of something else.

It doesn't necessitate it, but something else will institute itself , at a minimum, in a de facto manner.

The very basic, core act of living is a human right, I agree; but I don't think it entitles someone to a plot of land. That is something we project. Furthermore, nefarious to whom? If a party has been visiting a site for years and harvesting/gathering resources from it, and then one day they discover a new party has set up shop, or "homesteaded" it, hasn't some nefarious action occurred? Surely it can't be said it's the visiting party's own fault for not settling there in the first place. And now the landowner has the right to institute fares for its use? Simply because that landowner's perspective supposedly entitles him to that piece of land (since "no one else was currently using it") doesn't mean it's a kind of a priori right that functions as part of some primordial "law of the land." I don't see any weight in this.

IRT "nefarious action", it would be on a case by case basis, and something for the parties involved, whether with or without a mediator, to work out.

To insure we do not lose sight of the original topic, I want to re-iterate that the purpose of private property is for the preservation of nature and the success of humanity. The ability to work and reap the benefits from your labor unmolested. Whether or not claiming a piece of land is an a priori right or primordial is irrelevant to this. I think it's obvious it's not primordial, as hunter/gatherers migrated to a degree (although still kept loose boundaries with other clans), but once food production was able to be stabilized within a smaller/local area, this reduced the need for migration and the boundaries shrunk from roaming size to "home size".

If I busted my ass planting a field, only to see other people harvest much/all of it, I probably wouldn't continue to do so. If I could dig a pool "in my backyard" for relaxing, only to find "the neighborhood" filling it up/ruining it, I probably wouldn't bother, etc etc.

Of course, this does not rule out doing things for other people, but generosity normally springs from abundance, not poverty, and a lack of private property leads to poverty.

 

[Einherjar86]

I hope you are trying this position as more of a devil's advocate. The obvious difference between man's abilities and the "rest" of the animal kingdom is obvious. With privilege comes responsibility. Or, from another angle: No philosophy is needed to act in an animalistic fashion.

I'm always playing devil's advocate.

The obvious difference is obvious. However, I don't see why the absence of private property obviates any sense of responsibility. In a world that lacks private property, can't human beings (as cognitively privileged individuals) be said to have a responsibility to only take what they need to survive?

Of course, the likelihood of everyone "obeying" that mystified designation is low; but the claim of responsibility goes both ways. There can be philosophy and responsible action in a non-gentrified society, and, furthermore, there can be animalistic behavior and irresponsible action in a "privatized" society. It simply matters where we perceive this responsibility to lie.

I see "natural circumstances" vs "exploitation" as a false dichotomy. It's both.

Then that's perfect. We might as well say there is no exploitation; it's simply human beings living off the land. But if this is the case, then any sense of responsibility to preserve it through recourse to private property is equally ludicrous, since no exploitation is taking place (assuming, of course, that one of the primary goals of private propery is to "stop exploitation").

I'm not saying it's pointless to preserve nature, I'm only suggesting that the argument of responsibility still functions without the institution of private property.

It doesn't necessitate it, but something else will institute itself , at a minimum, in a de facto manner.

All the more reason to keep questioning rather than adopt the system that merely appears to be a good fit, or to have come about by "natural" means.

IRT "nefarious action", it would be on a case by case basis, and something for the parties involved, whether with or without a mediator, to work out.

Why can't two parties that have no claim to a piece of land work out a policy between themselves in which each one leaves the table with what they need? Why does property have such an important role to play?

To insure we do not lose sight of the original topic, I want to re-iterate that the purpose of private property is for the preservation of nature and the success of humanity. The ability to work and reap the benefits from your labor unmolested. Whether or not claiming a piece of land is an a priori right or primordial is irrelevant to this. I think it's obvious it's not primordial, as hunter/gatherers migrated to a degree (although still kept loose boundaries with other clans), but once food production was able to be stabilized within a smaller/local area, this reduced the need for migration and the boundaries shrunk from roaming size to "home size".

But property here mystifies the actual circumstance, which is that people can function freely and "unmolested" without having to adopt arbitrary measures that mark a piece of land as theirs. Property weaves an ideological web in which individual parties come to believe they need property in order to function cooperatively. Nothing about property guarantees this though, and nothing suggests that people can't do so without it.

If I busted my ass planting a field, only to see other people harvest much/all of it, I probably wouldn't continue to do so. If I could dig a pool "in my backyard" for relaxing, only to find "the neighborhood" filling it up/ruining it, I probably wouldn't bother, etc etc.

Maybe you wouldn't; but so what? Eventually you would have to, if you don't possess the means or the will to go and take what you need to survive from others. Or you do possess those means, and you're able to wait until another party has to provide for itself and you take some/all of what they have.

Now,I am very aware that what I just wrote is entirely unappealing and not ideal; but it's important to realize that I'm not arguing for such a harsh, dog-eat-dog society. I'm suggesting that if individuals in such a society understood a notion of Responsibility, as you're describing it in relation to a system of privatized property, the problems apparent in such a scenario wouldn't exist, or wouldn't exist on a large scale. Responsibility doesn't need private propery to qualify it, and the argument that property does somehow qualify it is misleading.

Private property doesn't guarantee that everyone will abide by its laws. Of course, there will likely still be those who take what isn't "theirs." Property then nominates a certain right by which the landowner can take action against the perpetrators.

I see no reason why a society organized around the concept of the commons can't arrive at equally effective action against perpetrators, if the society relies on such resources. It could be said they have a "responsibility" as a society to take action. Such claims to responsibility can be made for any scenario and situation; responsibility itself doesn't presuppose propery.

 

[Dak]

I'm always playing devil's advocate.

The obvious difference is obvious. However, I don't see why the absence of private property obviates any sense of responsibility. In a world that lacks private property, can't human beings (as cognitively privileged individuals) be said to have a responsibility to only take what they need to survive?

Of course, the likelihood of everyone "obeying" that mystified designation is low; but the claim of responsibility goes both ways. There can be philosophy and responsible action in a non-gentrified society, and, furthermore, there can be animalistic behavior and irresponsible action in a "privatized" society. It simply matters where we perceive this responsibility to lie.

Short answer: Bingo. Since I have no guarantee you won't clean all the fish out of the lake, and no grounds for preventing you from doing so, there is no reason for me to not clean all the fish out first, since the the actions of others would nullify my "responsible" actions, and potentially leave me starving, etc.

Then that's perfect. We might as well say there is no exploitation; it's simply human beings living off the land. But if this is the case, then any sense of responsibility to preserve it through recourse to private property is equally ludicrous, since no exploitation is taking place (assuming, of course, that one of the primary goals of private propery is to "stop exploitation").

I'm not saying it's pointless to preserve nature, I'm only suggesting that the argument of responsibility still functions without the institution of private property.

I wouldn't say it's a primary goal in my mind, but it is a good byproduct. Exploitation would be the complete destruction/clearing/tapping of any/all resources within a given area, with no thought given to sustainability or ramifications (I know that is not a great definition but servicable for this). This is not a given in the course of human action/interaction with nature.

Of course the responsibility is still there, it's just completely decentivized. Why protect and nourish for someone else to reap/destroy to my detriment? And again, I have no grounds to physically prevent someone from doing so because it's not "mine".

All the more reason to keep questioning rather than adopt the system that merely appears to be a good fit, or to have come about by "natural" means.

Why can't two parties that have no claim to a piece of land work out a policy between themselves in which each one leaves the table with what they need? Why does property have such an important role to play?

So in other words, bare subsistence living. Can't really accumulate anything (savings/capital), since you can't own it, and even if you could acquire things, no where to keep them [safe]. This is possible. Just very few people desire it.

Communal ownership on a scale larger than large family type situation has not worked in history, even though it has been tried over and over.

But property here mystifies the actual circumstance, which is that people can function freely and "unmolested" without having to adopt arbitrary measures that mark a piece of land as theirs. Property weaves an ideological web in which individual parties come to believe they need property in order to function cooperatively. Nothing about property guarantees this though, and nothing suggests that people can't do so without it.

I think this is a tangent, far off the mark. Of course property is not necessary, theoretically, to function cooperatively. That's not what is in question though.

Maybe you wouldn't; but so what? Eventually you would have to, if you don't possess the means or the will to go and take what you need to survive from others. Or you do possess those means, and you're able to wait until another party has to provide for itself and you take some/all of what they have.

Now,I am very aware that what I just wrote is entirely unappealing and not ideal; but it's important to realize that I'm not arguing for such a harsh, dog-eat-dog society. I'm suggesting that if individuals in such a society understood a notion of Responsibility, as you're describing it in relation to a system of privatized property, the problems apparent in such a scenario wouldn't exist, or wouldn't exist on a large scale. Responsibility doesn't need private propery to qualify it, and the argument that property does somehow qualify it is misleading.

Of course. Hunter gatherers. I don't need to plant a field. I'll just keep moving to find berries and more abundant game. Or I'll sneak into a camp and take something.

For a civilization to function at a level higher than this, property must come into the equation. Whether on a low level like a kingdom of serfs working the King's land, or on a high level of autonomous individuals.

Private property doesn't guarantee that everyone will abide by its laws. Of course, there will likely still be those who take what isn't "theirs." Property then nominates a certain right by which the landowner can take action against the perpetrators.

Yes.

I see no reason why a society organized around the concept of the commons can't arrive at equally effective action against perpetrators, if the society relies on such resources. It could be said they have a "responsibility" as a society to take action. Such claims to responsibility can be made for any scenario and situation; responsibility itself doesn't presuppose propery.

And they could. Hunter gatherers had disputes over ranging territory, just as animals do at times.

I've never said people can't live without property, just that there won't be any "civilization" without it.

 

[Einherjar86]

Of course the responsibility is still there, it's just completely decentivized. Why protect and nourish for someone else to reap/destroy to my detriment? And again, I have no grounds to physically prevent someone from doing so because it's not "mine".

No, your language isn't logical here. "Of course the responsibility is still there, it's just completely decentivized": this assumes an a priori notion of responsibility. I'm saying that there is none; so if you're going to argue for it, arguing that is only applicable where a system of private property is in place is flawed, because we can argue that it serves a subjective function in any situation. Private property doesn't solve any dilemma of responsibility, it merely purports to. All it actually does is create a fabricated sense of rights. There can still be a notion of responsibility without property; and if there is, it must be compelled by some incentive.

In short, incentive still works where resources are part of a commons. Once people realize that hoarding will only bring on the wrath of the collective, and that stealing will deter the collective from cooperating with them.

I've never said people can't live without property, just that there won't be any "civilization" without it.

I think this is unfounded. That private property, as a base-level institution that somehow guarantees structure and order, will provide humanity with the conditions necessary for "civilization" is exactly the kind of mentality that is supported... by a privatized system. All the evidence that these arguments use to support the legitimacy and supremacy of a privatized system appear, to me, to be nothing more than mystifications of the actual state of things. That these contribute to an ordered society, I'll readily agree with; I'm just not prepared to agree that any other system is inferior.

 

[Dak]

No, your language isn't logical here. "Of course the responsibility is still there, it's just completely decentivized": this assumes an a priori notion of responsibility. I'm saying that there is none; so if you're going to argue for it, arguing that is only applicable where a system of private property is in place is flawed, because we can argue that it serves a subjective function in any situation. Private property doesn't solve any dilemma of responsibility, it merely purports to. All it actually does is create a fabricated sense of rights. There can still be a notion of responsibility without property; and if there is, it must be compelled by some incentive.

I thought we agreed the privilege of human intellect vs pure animal did come with responsibility. Obviously there is a break with logic without this foundation.

Private property doesn't "solve" the problem. It is an enabler. An incentive and a foundation for positive action.

In short, incentive still works where resources are part of a commons. Once people realize that hoarding will only bring on the wrath of the collective, and that stealing will deter the collective from cooperating with them.

Who said anything about hoarding? Without private property, hoarding isn't a possibility. I just addressed that. Also, stealing is impossible for the same reason. These statements are not logical.

Now, wanton destruction/consumption would lead to a lack of cooperation/potential retaliation from others in the area, but on what grounds? They haven't lost anything on grounds of property, or in the previous case, there was no responsibility to do otherwise on the part of the consumer/destroyer either.

I think this is unfounded. That private property, as a base-level institution that somehow guarantees structure and order, will provide humanity with the conditions necessary for "civilization" is exactly the kind of mentality that is supported... by a privatized system. All the evidence that these arguments use to support the legitimacy and supremacy of a privatized system appear, to me, to be nothing more than mystifications of the actual state of things. That these contribute to an ordered society, I'll readily agree with; I'm just not prepared to agree that any other system is inferior.

Well of course calling a system inferior is inherently subjective. However, historical evidence in the timeline of the development of humanity shows no growth in technology without some measure of private property, whether in a limited or widespread fashion. If we are classifying technological advancement as subjectively (or objectively) "superior", then we can deduce that private property, as an institution, is superior to the lack of such.

 

[Einherjar86]

I thought we agreed the privilege of human intellect vs pure animal did come with responsibility. Obviously there is a break with logic without this foundation.

Private property doesn't "solve" the problem. It is an enabler. An incentive and a foundation for positive action.

I never agreed that human intellect assigns a priori responsibility, and didn't mean to insinuate that. I meant that an argument that appeals to responsibility can be used for either someone taking care of private property or a society organized around a commons. There is no primordial responsibility that pre-exists us and manifests once we reach a certain point of intellectual development; however, having this idea of responsibility certainly helps individuals to function cooperatively.

Who said anything about hoarding? Without private property, hoarding isn't a possibility. I just addressed that. Also, stealing is impossible for the same reason. These statements are not logical.

Why isn't hoarding possible? That doesn't make sense to me.

As for the rest of your comments:

I don't think incentive disappears without property, I just think it's shifted. As you say, historical evidence suggests that private property is closely tied to industrial and technological progress; but there is no reason to believe that this is the be-all and end-all of economic history. That's similar to Francis Fukuyama's argument: that there's a discernable "best possible system" that constitutes a kind of "end of history." I think that jumps to too many conclusions.

 

[Dak]

I never agreed that human intellect assigns a priori responsibility, and didn't mean to insinuate that. I meant that an argument that appeals to responsibility can be used for either someone taking care of private property or a society organized around a commons. There is no primordial responsibility that pre-exists us and manifests once we reach a certain point of intellectual development; however, having this idea of responsibility certainly helps individuals to function cooperatively.

Yes, not having a sense of responsibility is destructive in multiple levels. So you can argue over it's origin, but the effects are obvious, and based on a preference for creation and cooperation over destruction, a necessity.

Why isn't hoarding possible? That doesn't make sense to me.

Where/how can I hoard? Since I don't own anything, if I dig/build a storage facility and fill it, all I did was gather things into a convenient location for everyone else. Hoarding requires the idea of private property.

Of course, I could try to defend said storage, but again, that is under a paradigm of private ownership, not communal, and it is unlikely I can fend off everyone seeking to make use of the communal goods I so nicely collected and stored for them.

As for the rest of your comments:

I don't think incentive disappears without property, I just think it's shifted. As you say, historical evidence suggests that private property is closely tied to industrial and technological progress; but there is no reason to believe that this is the be-all and end-all of economic history. That's similar to Francis Fukuyama's argument: that there's a discernable "best possible system" that constitutes a kind of "end of history." I think that jumps to too many conclusions.

There will never be a perfect system, as systems are created by humans, which are not perfect. Even were there to be a perfect system, someone/something would still try to improve on it or destroy it. Also, systems are not the essence of history. They are merely context for the actions of individuals.

Incentive doesn't have to disappear without private property, but the actions of people will make it do so. Every attempt (that I am aware of) of even small town-sized attempts at fully communal living in a modern (agriculture) sense, led to borderline starvation and/or collapse in no more than ten years, usually much less.

One of the things Chomsky likes to leave out when mentioning historic examples of syndicalism, is that it was always on an extremely short time frame, and under political/military pressure. External threats have the notable ability to cause people to work together in ways they wouldn't under normal circumstances, so even his examples lack extended history under normative conditions.

Mises explained how socialist economies can never function properly over the long term due to a lack of a price mechanism from the market (and you cannot have a market if there is no private property). So any attempt at central planning production will surely fail, and syndicalist/individual attempts will be extremely limited.

 

[Einherjar86]

Where/how can I hoard? Since I don't own anything, if I dig/build a storage facility and fill it, all I did was gather things into a convenient location for everyone else. Hoarding requires the idea of private property.

Of course, I could try to defend said storage, but again, that is under a paradigm of private ownership, not communal, and it is unlikely I can fend off everyone seeking to make use of the communal goods I so nicely collected and stored for them.

That's true; so it makes sense for people not to do so. The collective agreement of a group of people prevents that type of behavior, since the potential "hoarder" likely doesn't want to bring on the disapproval of his community.

Just as a free-market-derived legal system relies upon the ability of private parties to recognize the detrimental costs and hazards in fighting over whose property is whose, a commons-based system relies on the ability of individuals to recognize the detrimental reaction of the community to actions that violate the prior agreed-upon regulations.

There will never be a perfect system, as systems are created by humans, which are not perfect. Even were there to be a perfect system, someone/something would still try to improve on it or destroy it. Also, systems are not the essence of history. They are merely context for the actions of individuals.

Incentive doesn't have to disappear without private property, but the actions of people will make it do so. Every attempt (that I am aware of) of even small town-sized attempts at fully communal living in a modern (agriculture) sense, led to borderline starvation and/or collapse in no more than ten years, usually much less.

One of the things Chomsky likes to leave out when mentioning historic examples of syndicalism, is that it was always on an extremely short time frame, and under political/military pressure. External threats have the notable ability to cause people to work together in ways they wouldn't under normal circumstances, so even his examples lack extended history under normative conditions.

Mises explained how socialist economies can never function properly over the long term due to a lack of a price mechanism from the market (and you cannot have a market if there is no private property). So any attempt at central planning production will surely fail, and syndicalist/individual attempts will be extremely limited.

I agree about no perfect system, but I disagree with Mises that a free-market system would last any longer than a collectivized system. More specifically: I do not believe that a free-market system would exist in its pure and ideal state for an extended period of time, but that it would devolve rather quickly into an intensified hierarchical society with a legal system that favors those who can purchase its administrators.

 

[Dak]

That's true; so it makes sense for people not to do so. The collective agreement of a group of people prevents that type of behavior, since the potential "hoarder" likely doesn't want to bring on the disapproval of his community.

Just as a free-market-derived legal system relies upon the ability of private parties to recognize the detrimental costs and hazards in fighting over whose property is whose, a commons-based system relies on the ability of individuals to recognize the detrimental reaction of the community to actions that violate the prior agreed-upon regulations.

Right, but there is no mechanism for proper allocation or focus of production in such a society(or even the ability to accumulate capital for production requiring lengthened production timelines).

If I come to an agreement with everyone to leave alone the wood I'm stacking for the purpose of building barn, how is this not an instance of private (or some other definition of limited access to) property? Especially if there is a dissenter, who begins to take some of the wood to fuel his fire to save himself time in harvesting. On what grounds can the worker or the rest of the community protest? Since there is no ownership of property, he has as much right to burn it as anyone else has towards it for other purposes, and any ostracization/repercussion is illogical if no one has ownership.

I think you are trying to have it both ways here, and it's illogical.

I agree about no perfect system, but I disagree with Mises that a free-market system would last any longer than a collectivized system. More specifically: I do not believe that a free-market system would exist in its pure and ideal state for an extended period of time, but that it would devolve rather quickly into an intensified hierarchical society with a legal system that favors those who can purchase its administrators.

What administrators?

Edit: Previously I've discussed the difficulty (not impossibility) of the above scenario happening, I would rather you refer back to that instead of having to reiterate it all.

 

[Einherjar86]

Right, but there is no mechanism for proper allocation or focus of production in such a society(or even the ability to accumulate capital for production requiring lengthened production timelines).

If I come to an agreement with everyone to leave alone the wood I'm stacking for the purpose of building barn, how is this not an instance of private (or some other definition of limited access to) property? Especially if there is a dissenter, who begins to take some of the wood to fuel his fire to save himself time in harvesting. On what grounds can the worker or the rest of the community protest? Since there is no ownership of property, he has as much right to burn it as anyone else has towards it for other purposes, and any ostracization/repercussion is illogical if no one has ownership.

I think you are trying to have it both ways here, and it's illogical.

Well, I agree that this is where it gets confusing, and I personally feel that it's a result of our language itself. We feel the need to regard objects, as they're appropriated by humans for use, as property; and that's a cognitive element for which I don't really have an answer.

What I dislike about Orthodox Marxism is the fact that Marx necessitates a dictatorship of the proletariat; that's terrifying to me. In Marx, what we see is a revolution by which the propery of the extremely wealthy is re-appropriated by the masses as "property for all," in some sense. Now, since Marx hadn't truly completed his writings on philosophy, there's some disagreement and controversy over exactly what some of his opinions were among modern Marxists. Michael Hardt, for instance, claims that some interpretations of Marx are misguided, and that ultimately communism doesn't constitute a reclamation and redistribution of property:

"Clearly [Marx] is working on the notion of appropriation against the grain, applying it in a context where it now seems strange: no longer appropriation of the object in the form of private property but appropriation of our own subjectivity, our human, social relations." Essentially, communism is a reclamation of material human conditions and relationships without recourse to (as Hardt claims) the mystifying and mediating mechanism of property in any form.

In the nineteenth century, Proudhon recognized the problem of property in communism, saying that "communism, mistaking uniformity for law, and levelism for equality, becomes tyrannical and unjust." For Proudhon, the reason for this was because Marx's communism didn't absolve society from the bonds of property.

So my reply would be that, according to the formula of the theory, a property-less society would require a revolution by which human beings understand their relations to one another without recourse to property, which mystifies human relations. Now, how in the hell does that happen...?

What administrators?

Edit: Previously I've discussed the difficulty (not impossibility) of the above scenario happening, I would rather you refer back to that instead of having to reiterate it all.

I'm assuming that, in said society referred to above, "law" would emerge based on private contracts between parties that, if need be, would have to rely on some kind of arbitrator when disputes arise concerning whose property is whose (this is what I recall from some of the videos/articles you've posted before). It's claimed that the market would regulate efficiency and effectiveness, but this is far too simplified, in my opinion.

 

[Dak]

Well, I agree that this is where it gets confusing, and I personally feel that it's a result of our language itself. We feel the need to regard objects, as they're appropriated by humans for use, as property; and that's a cognitive element for which I don't really have an answer.

Well, I can accept "I don't know (but)" on it's face value as an honest answer. However, it can easily be construed as a convenient dodge for when the logic fails.

Possession exists in every language (that I am aware of), and even in species without the written or spoken word. Get to close to a beehive or bear den and find out who possesses it.

What I dislike about Orthodox Marxism is the fact that Marx necessitates a dictatorship of the proletariat; that's terrifying to me. In Marx, what we see is a revolution by which the propery of the extremely wealthy is re-appropriated by the masses as "property for all," in some sense. Now, since Marx hadn't truly completed his writings on philosophy, there's some disagreement and controversy over exactly what some of his opinions were among modern Marxists. Michael Hardt, for instance, claims that some interpretations of Marx are misguided, and that ultimately communism doesn't constitute a reclamation and redistribution of property:

"Clearly [Marx] is working on the notion of appropriation against the grain, applying it in a context where it now seems strange: no longer appropriation of the object in the form of private property but appropriation of our own subjectivity, our human, social relations." Essentially, communism is a reclamation of material human conditions and relationships without recourse to (as Hardt claims) the mystifying and mediating mechanism of property in any form.

In the nineteenth century, Proudhon recognized the problem of property in communism, saying that "communism, mistaking uniformity for law, and levelism for equality, becomes tyrannical and unjust." For Proudhon, the reason for this was because Marx's communism didn't absolve society from the bonds of property.

I don't disagree with Marx in general theory that the monopolization of resources by a handful of people is a bad thing. I disagree on the responsible mechanisms and solution. Seizing control of vast amounts of resources through violence and THEN defending them through security costs born by the population is not laissez-faire capitalism. Prior to the Bolshivek revolution Russia had a monarchy.

Either way, Marx still recognized property itself.

So my reply would be that, according to the formula of the theory, a property-less society would require a revolution by which human beings understand their relations to one another without recourse to property, which mystifies human relations. Now, how in the hell does that happen...?

Refer to my previous comment on the idea of possession.

I'm assuming that, in said society referred to above, "law" would emerge based on private contracts between parties that, if need be, would have to rely on some kind of arbitrator when disputes arise concerning whose property is whose (this is what I recall from some of the videos/articles you've posted before). It's claimed that the market would regulate efficiency and effectiveness, but this is far too simplified, in my opinion.

It's simplified from a central planning view, yet quite complex in practice. Far too complex to be centrally planned/organized in fact. So we must reduce discussion to a more generalistic approach, giving an air of simplicity at a glance. Mises definition of human action is an example:

"the basic proposition that all specimens of the species homo sapiens, the homo agens, purposefully utilize means over a period of time in order to achieve desired ends."

What means or ends are not only of no consequence to the statement, it would be an exercise in futility to try and create an exhaustive list of either, and the inter-relations between the two (means and ends).

 

[Einherjar86]

Well, I can accept "I don't know (but)" on it's face value as an honest answer. However, it can easily be construed as a convenient dodge for when the logic fails.

Well, I'm not using it as a copout; but my education (both self- and academic) is far from over, and I'm not prepared to concede anything yet.

Possession exists in every language (that I am aware of), and even in species without the written or spoken word. Get to close to a beehive or bear den and find out who possesses it.

I meant "language" in general, not just the English language. Yes, it's present in every language system; but that's because our entire global system revolves around notions of property.

There's something wrong though with applying "possession" to animal instincts. Natural, biological mechanisms for survival aren't to be confused with human notions of property or possession. If you deprive an animal of something important to its survival, you can be sure it will retaliate; but if you're able to remove the object completely and get away with it, you'll find that the animal won't come tracking you down. If you steal a wolf's prey, it won't search for it, it will just kill something new. The exception here might be offspring, but even that's not certain.

I don't disagree with Marx in general theory that the monopolization of resources by a handful of people is a bad thing. I disagree on the responsible mechanisms and solution. Seizing control of vast amounts of resources through violence and THEN defending them through security costs born by the population is not laissez-faire capitalism. Prior to the Bolshivek revolution Russia had a monarchy.

Either way, Marx still recognized property itself.

As I said earlier, the jury's still out on that. There's no doubt he recognized property as designated by a capitalist system, and even within the communist revolution. There are scholars who suggest he would eventually have argued for its abolition.

It's simplified from a central planning view, yet quite complex in practice. Far too complex to be centrally planned/organized in fact. So we must reduce discussion to a more generalistic approach, giving an air of simplicity at a glance.

Admitting that I don't know all the details of how the ideas of theorists like Mises and Rothbard differ from those of Hayek and Friedman, I can say that I favor the consequentialist approach to the deontological; but even in those arguments, the market itself provides a kind of "legal" structure for human action by providing certain private parties that market themselves as arbitrators. That, no matter how much more complex it gets, seems problematic.

 

[Dak]

Well, I'm not using it as a copout; but my education (both self- and academic) is far from over, and I'm not prepared to concede anything yet.

Good answer. I hope to honestly say the same.

I meant "language" in general, not just the English language. Yes, it's present in every language system; but that's because our entire global system revolves around notions of property.

There's something wrong though with applying "possession" to animal instincts. Natural, biological mechanisms for survival aren't to be confused with human notions of property or possession. If you deprive an animal of something important to its survival, you can be sure it will retaliate; but if you're able to remove the object completely and get away with it, you'll find that the animal won't come tracking you down. If you steal a wolf's prey, it won't search for it, it will just kill something new. The exception here might be offspring, but even that's not certain.

It may not track you (as a human) down, but animals do fight over territory, carcasses, etc.

Interestingly enough, the tracking down example plays in perfectly with the article I'm working on for Sap's magblog for June, and that is the answer to "we need the state for domestic security/"justice".

As I said earlier, the jury's still out on that. There's no doubt he recognized property as designated by a capitalist system, and even within the communist revolution. There are scholars who suggest he would eventually have argued for its abolition.

Possibly, but imo history indicates he would have more likely resembled

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_(Animal_Farm)

Admitting that I don't know all the details of how the ideas of theorists like Mises and Rothbard differ from those of Hayek and Friedman, I can say that I favor the consequentialist approach to the deontological; but even in those arguments, the market itself provides a kind of "legal" structure for human action by providing certain private parties that market themselves as arbitrators. That, no matter how much more complex it gets, seems problematic.

Suggesting that people in the business of mediating would become de facto government, subject to the same bribes and corruption in any other form of the same?

 

[Einherjar86]

It may not track you (as a human) down, but animals do fight over territory, carcasses, etc.

Interestingly enough, the tracking down example plays in perfectly with the article I'm working on for Sap's magblog for June, and that is the answer to "we need the state for domestic security/"justice".

In that case, I'm interested to read it (not implying I wouldn't be if it didn't involve this ).

Suggesting that people in the business of mediating would become de facto government, subject to the same bribes and corruption in any other form of the same?

Yes, for all intents and purposes. I see the following issues arising:

1. Presuming two parties engaged in a dispute can even agree on which arbitrator they want to use, that arbitrator will lose the favor of the party he or she votes against (since two parties would likely not involve an arbitrator if it seemed clear to one side that it couldn't win; why spend money when you know no good will come of it?). This will inevitably result in...

2. Parties unable to agree on an arbitrator to hire, since they each have particular arbitrators that they favor and want to oversee the decision, forcing them to resort to other means.

The opposite pole (and society will always find itself compelled toward these poles) of multiple arbitrators that backed/supported financially by specific parties is the rapid superiority of one arbitrator that claims a kind of unbiased, objective position in all disputes. But that's, of course, bullshit.

 

[Dak]

In that case, I'm interested to read it (not implying I wouldn't be if it didn't involve this ).

For my tl;dr response to the "Tracking down for justice" argument: It's a waste of resources and highly uneconomical. Unless, of course, you can fund it through taxes(violence). A more mature and economically sound course of action is to prepare security, and if it fails, and the defrauder/attacker/etc. gets away, merely strengthen against the future.

If it's more than a one time event, eventually said troublemaker will meet his end against defensive measures. This leaves cost/risk assessment and managementup to individuals and they may choose their own course of action, to include voluntary community cooperatives, without creating stand alone institutions with built in costs and no protection. Our current domestic security and justice system/apparatus is a wasteful and incompetent farce on every conceivable level, both in theory and practice.

Edit: Also quote from another board/discussion from someone I converted to my view on this, who does a much better job of condensing the argument:

Am I for a little woodshed justice exacted by gentlemen? Sure. Do I realize and understand the mob mentality? Of course. And I do realize the dangers present in such a scenario? Yes.

However, as OW notes, he has infected me by forcing me to consider the cost to society. It took him an hour on the phone to make it clear, so maybe he could call you too(!), but in short the societal, economic and human toll of supporting the apparatus we currently have is not more costly than doing nothing (in the long run) it is currently unsustainable regardless of comparative costs.

His (OW's) thesis is based on a simple premise: violent crime occurs regardless of the extremely expensive apparatus we have in place. So, the only question is: would the likelihood of violent crime increase or decrease versus the status quo compared to a "do nothing" scenario, and if it were to increase, would the increase in crime be acceptable in light of the savings society would experience via dismantling the current apparatus? Some would argue that the current apparatus creates jobs (police, attorneys, judges, clerks, jailers, medical/mental staff, cooks, laundry, facilities, etc.) and thus contributes to GDP. On the surface this is true, however, when "thinking large" in terms of societal cost we have to ask, "Are these jobs creating a productive surplus to the nation's wealth, or are they consuming it?" The answer of course, is they are consuming wealth - at staggering rates. So, in the end, it's an academic argument since it has no chance of ever becoming reality, but I have been "infected" to believe that a "do nothing" scenario in terms of crime would a) save society a ton of wealth, while b) increasing civil liberties, and c) correcting behaviors more effectively at the source locally and swiftly.

Yes, for all intents and purposes. I see the following issues arising:

1. Presuming two parties engaged in a dispute can even agree on which arbitrator they want to use, that arbitrator will lose the favor of the party he or she votes against (since two parties would likely not involve an arbitrator if it seemed clear to one side that it couldn't win; why spend money when you know no good will come of it?). This will inevitably result in...

2. Parties unable to agree on an arbitrator to hire, since they each have particular arbitrators that they favor and want to oversee the decision, forcing them to resort to other means.

The opposite pole (and society will always find itself compelled toward these poles) of multiple arbitrators that backed/supported financially by specific parties is the rapid superiority of one arbitrator that claims a kind of unbiased, objective position in all disputes. But that's, of course, bullshit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispute_resolution_organization

Competition and social reputation are the generalized answer to these objections, combined with insurance cooperatives, etc.

This has been discussed before. Ebay is a great example. They provide purchase insurance, mediation services, and a buyer/seller feedback mechanism. Sure, people are occasionally defrauded, but the occurences are negligible and able to be handled without courts.

If monopolies are bad in the market, why are they not bad outside of the market? An arbitrary monopoly on mediation and arbitration would leave no mechanism to judge it's success or failure, and over time leads to a decline in service.

In a field of competition, unsatisfactory products/service lead to loss of customers/money. If DROs polarize and cannot come to agreements, they aren't providing a valuable product or service, and can be supplanted by those who do.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Watching Ron Paul vs Paul Krugman on Bloomberg. Krugman is a joke. His answer to not having government involved in the market was "well that's just not going to happen". That's a fallacy. Then he credited "mild inflation" after WWII for economic growth, instead of the industrial capacity (outside of the US) of the western world being destroyed, and then of course ignoring the Stagflation shortly thereafter.

Seriously... isn't krugman supposed to take the role of a politically disinterested academic who fact-checks the politicians instead of joining them in their rhetoric and generalizations? Just fuck that assbag.

 

[Dak]

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/05/02/why-g-zero-is-a-good-thing/