We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
On property The great irony is that the most fundamental right to individual sovereignty—private property—is the one most highly questioned. Property rights are usually construed narrowly to cover only things that can be exchanged, given away, or abandoned. But since a property right is the right to use and dispose of something, it actually has a far broader meaning. One begins with a right to one’s own person, including one’s body and energies. Indeed, this is that basic right that gives rise to the right to appropriate unowned objects from nature and to exchange peacefully acquired property with willing traders. In fact, without property rights there are no no rights at all.
From the Independent Institute.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
I’m not saying the article is wrong in its assertions, but it does a rotten effort of arguing for them. It seems to confuse freedom of speech with freedom to own a printer. A confusion of the practical with the theoretical.
It makes the mistake of assuming that freedom to own is freedom to do. For instance in the US, the government owns all the presses. Sorry, the press is obsolete – it has been replaced by TV – and the governemnt DOES own the airwaves. The Government retains ownership and control of the required portion of the spectrum to broadcast TV – and yet I don’t think the US is without freedom of speech because of it.
Imagine a state where TV sets were owned by the state and loaned to citizens according to need – that would also not prevent free speech.
Don’t get me wrong, there is a strong correlation between governments that inhibit private property and those that inhibit free speech. But the two rights are not linked (or, if they are, this article fails to show how).
I’ve never been a believer in natural human rights, precisely because all these arguments from first principles are so poor. Rights are legal instruments granted by benevolent fellow citizens.
The right to hold private property simply means that the powerful have noticed that it’s not in their long term interest to keep taking things arbitrarily from the weak.
The whole idea of private property is a pipe dream in a tax system that enables the government to take something away if you don’t pay the government for the ‘privilege’ of using that thing or face the consequence of the government taking that thing away. Until a pure consumption tax is instituted, property rights do not exist.
Think about it:
You buy land, purchase it with your own, hard-earned and heavily taxed money, and then you must pay taxes every year on that land or the government can take it away.
Or you are born into a body. It is, apparently, your body. But if you do not pay the government a tax every year on the work that you do with that body, you lose the freedom of using that body how you wish. To survive free, you must pay the government…it’s an interesting concept, this whole ‘tax’ thing!
“I’ve never been a believer in natural human rights”, writes J. Well, that is your view. The doctrine of natural rights is indeed a contested one. Some ground their support for freedom on consequentialist grounds, or utilitarian ones. Others ground their belief on both ethical and consequentialist grounds, as I do, and so on.
I personally find the passage I quoted powerful and essentially correct because it has always struck me that a doctrine of liberty that does not embrace a notion of private property rights is incoherent. I see no reason, after a lot of thinking and reading, to amend that view.
Your points about TV and so on don’t make sense. The right to free speech is not the same, for instance, as the “right” that people should provide one with the means to broadcast TV broadcasts. This of course takes on to the argument put forward many years ago by the late Sir Isiah Berlin about the difference between “positive” and “negative” liberty.
People tend to get this arse about face: start with the notion of self-ownership and head outwards to private property which is not attached to you bodily… it is not about benevolent legal constructs (those are just how you secure rights, rather than their source), it is about how the principle of ownership itself springs from the very concept of ‘self’.
Rights are legal instruments granted by benevolent fellow citizens.
That is correct, but beside the point. Perry is right.
The question is what rights should those “legal instruments” uphold ? You need a phylosophical foundation for that.
You need also those “legal instruments” – but they are built on that phylosophy. They are not arbitrary randomal laws.
I wholeheartedly endorse that quote.
Marx and his opponents agreed about property. If you cannot have it you are a slave. Without property you must ask others for every meal and for shelter in storms and winters, and care during illness. You must comply or die depending upon how charitable others feel.
Philosophers come to different conclusions about how the property problem can be solved. Abolishing private property in favor of an all benevolent state is one idea. The opposite is a world where the wealthy live in private estates ringed with barbed wire and machine guns.
Most societies choose to compromise. The poor are helped but only minimally. And they must obey rather strong rules about how they live.
That’s not really true. Rights are in fact social constructs, although related social constructs are the means of securing them. The idea that rights are natural is, as Mr Pearce says, contested. Of course, that’s putting it rather mildly.
If they are natural rights, why is it that philosophers have been arguing about what they are for centuries and are still doing it? And from where do they come? By what mechanism? There seems to be little agreement on this, which after 6,000 years of recorded civilisation tends to undermine the idea that these things are natural. Even then, what are held to be “natural” rights vary over time.
If they are inherent rights, flowing from our humanity, we could also say that the right not to be discriminated agianst on the grounds of skin colour is a natural inherent right, because it too is a product of our humanity. Some people argue this, others don’t.
The course of history shows extremely clearly that the rights held by people have varied enormously across time and between societies. It is therefore hard to imagine that they are natural, or for that matter inalienable or self-evident. It is, however, very much easier to see that they are pragmatic social constructs which vary as the needs and beliefs of society vary.
There are two things about property rights specifically:
The first is that it is not entirely clear how the idea of owning oneself entitles one to own other things. The idea of owning oneself can help to clarify the concept of the individual as distinct from the tribe or society, but that in itself does not imply a right to own anything else.
The second is the real world fact that property essentially means power. Those who have had property have historically been the ones wielding power, whereas those with no property have almost always been disenfranchised. This helps to explain why the right of private property is contentious, of course – over history it has tended to benefit only a minority. It also perhaps suggests that the defence of the right to property may be little more than an attempted philosophical justification of the established order made by the people who benefit from that order.
EG
To K:
Sorry, you get it completely wrong. Abolishing private property in fact leads a world where the wealthy live in private estates ringed with barbed wire and machine guns. Think North Korea.
Protecting property rights leads to a benevolent state. Think Switzerland.
And THAT is really all you needed to write rather than your over-long comment.
And the answer scarely needs to be much longer.
Starting from the premise that I own myself, I use my reason to form a critical preference for the theory that ownership of anything springs from the self, which leads me to conclude that the best moral theory is the one that places private property at the very heart of all rights because to do otherwise in turn lead to the conclusion I do not own myself, which strikes me as absurd.
Well no, it isn’t. It would just invite the response “Oh no they’re not” which would in turn require the justification.
Doesn’t follow.
Doesn’t follow either.
EG
Can’t remember who said it but something along the lines of:
“Even dogs in fields understand the concept of property. Why do you find it so difficult?”
Property and territory are different things. It is the difference between having something and having title to something.
EG
“Rights are legal instruments granted by benevolent fellow citizens.”
If that’s true, then you have no moral standing to complain when “fellow citizens” decide to rob you.
Dumbass.
It is the difference between having something and having title to something.
But you seem to have decided that no-one has valid title to property because at some time long ago it might have been stolen from some woad painted aboriginal. If no-one has valid title then the state may as well own everything, which is what Comrade Bob seems to think is a good way to run a country.
I think that the notion of “self-ownership” is a good one for describing how I think of what freedom is about. It basically says, “I own my life, my capacities and I also have to take responsibility for what I do and accept the consequences.”
Natural rights are indeed contested – by social authortarians, for example who want to impose their vision of society on others. I am not particularly assured of the doctrine myself. But I think as rational beings with free will, the doctrine does convey how human beings need to be left as free as possible to exercise their powers while respecting the freedom of their fellows to do the same.
One of the problems is that, particularly over the past 100 years, the word “right” has gone from being a negative prohibition on coercion to being a justification for claiming certain resources from others: ie, completely the opposite. In many cases these days “rights” are just another word for demands with menaces.
No, that was discussing the idea of the origination of the concept of property. Now we’re talking about the rights of property, which is a different thing altogether.
I think that the concept of private property (external to one’s self) arose through coercive means. I think this is legitimised by time and custom, and occasionally by right of conquest. I think the rights around property developed as society became progressively larger and more complex, in part to justify the order of things and in part to ensure stability and predictability in society.
What I objected to in the other thread is the notion that property arose peacefully and there is a cosy little world of non-initiation of force all around it. That this is risible is patent from the most casual glance at history. What I object to here, about the right of property, is the idea that it is a “natural” right. I see no cogent explanation of why this should be so, no reasoned explanation of where the right comes from or why it is said to come from it, a lack of understanding of what rights actually are in practice as opposed to theory, and plenty of historical evidence to the contrary.
I think people do have valid title to property, and that property is a valid concept. I just don’t agree with the simplisitic idea that these are natural things. They are the artifice of society, and what society decides to build changes over time & so cannot be held to be natural or immutable, and thus the concept of a “natural” right to property (or anything else) is invalid.
Or alternatively it can be commonly owned. Or completely unowned. Why this constant false dilemma between individual and state, as if no other alternative existed?
EG
Isn’t the key there “as free as possible?”
One cannot have absolute liberty, since it must be constrained by its effect on others. As society becomes more complex and population increases, so the degree of constraint necessarily increases.
I mentioned this before in opposition to the notion that government should restrict itself to “traditional” limits – my view is that this is only possible if technology, population and cultural belief are also restricted to “traditional” limits, which is of course impossible.
EG
EG, I do not contest your argument that in reality, much property rules were borne out of conflict and negotiation (how could I? I know my history, thanks). I am talking about how we think about the idea of property rights from first principles. I know, silly me.
You may be correct up to a point that rules that govern things like property rights are parts of the social order. However, it is not quite right to say they are “socially constructed”. No-one person or body of persons sat down and said, “right, this is how property is going to be held and transferred from now on”. It was more haphazard than that, at least outside the most brutal dictatorships.
I still think that thinking of property rights as “natural” has its uses, if only because freedom is a requirement of human beings given the sort of species that humans are, and hence the ability to hold, acquire and transfer property is also part of the requirements of that nature. It is possible, in other words, to look at what sort of beings humans are and try and figure out what rules are needed for them to thrive and survive. What is so naive to think about it in this way? Take the work of Hermando de Soto, for instance, in identifying property rights as key to beating poverty in the Third World.
Your point on “traditional limits” makes no sensel. Why should, for example, the existence of computers require a certain size of government? Technology may increase the ability of governments to wield power, but that does not mean that it should so wield it.
Or alternatively it can be commonly owned. Or completely unowned. Why this constant false dilemma between individual and state, as if no other alternative existed?
Because that is reality. Governments which abuse private property rights do not do so to establish common land, they do it to nationalise the land and secure their total power. This has happened so many times I can’t even be bothered to cite examples. Try and name one totalitarian state which respects private property rights. It can’t be done. If the state respects private property it sets limits upon its powers, and is therefore not totalitarian. QED.
The reason Euan cannot understand my answer (and he clearly cannot although he will argue otherwise) is that he is looking for an long string of justifications. Yet in truth there are only falsifiable theories and trying to discover which theory is the best at explaining reality is what it is all about. Anything else regresses to nothingness.
John K, to be entirely fair to EG, I think there are examples of commonly owned land, like the Jewish settlements in Israel, various communes, etc. Admittedly in reality, such land has either reverted to private ownership or been grabbed by the state in the name of “eminent domain”. And of course land can be “unowned” if there are no people on a patch of land to claim it, and just wildlife.
But your broader point is correct. In practice, it is either about individuals, or the state.
“… rules that govern things like property rights are parts of the social order”
Sure.
In times when there was no social order, or no strong social order, people just fought among themselves, and used force to secure property. Might was right.
The debate is – on what principles should social order be built , so that the fighting among people be reduced to minimum, and some form of justice established.
The principle of individual property rights, though not the only one imaginable, is the one that is the best, and we are trying to convince society that it is so, in order that it be made the basis for the social order.
Yes, I understand this is what you mean. I just don’t think there’s much utility in trying to derive it from first principles, & I think that’s a rather ideological way to go about it. I can understand that one might want to consider the matter this way, and use the same logic, or at least the same logical method, to argue for other rights both consequent and not. However, in a pragmatic world where reality seldom lives up to ideological preconceptions, does that advance things at all? There is the further danger that if the ideology is shown to be false or unworkable, and they invariably are, the whole foundation of the claim of right collapses.
This indeed rarely happens, but how does that invalidate the idea of right as a social construct? Note, though, that it does happen sometimes – Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the US constitutional conventions, etc.
If we consider right as something that evolves over time, changing as society’s needs change, morality changes, understanding of the world changes, and so on, it is still a social construct. That it doesn’t get codified in a specific sitting of some body or other does not detract from this view. In fact, the organic view of the development of right over time only lends support to the social construct idea.
Yes, I’d agree with that. I think the need for freedom derives from our nature as intelligent beings capable of abstract reasoning. I think, parenthetically, that this implies a grant of right to any other species capable of the same thing, perhaps graduated to reflect a lesser capability.
I think this where we would start to part company. I simply don’t see that a need for freedom necessarily implies the right to control other objects. Certainly it is not necessary in principle, and this can be seen in the example of primitive human societies which don’t have a concept of private property, yet they nevertheless manage. I think perhaps the ability to control property is necessary for development of human society beyond a certain level, which is to say it is necessary for civilised humanity but not for humanity per se. If so, then again we can see the pragmatic development of right as a necessary concomitant of social advance, which takes us back to the social construct idea.
Which is essentially a pragmatic view of the matter.
Again, I’d probably agree with this. I’d think it part of the social development thing.
It is noted that in general as society becomes more complex and the population increases, more rules are required to keep things working. A heavily urbanised population needs more rules than a rural one, if only because the effects of individual behaviour on others are much more direct and often more serious. An example would be fire regulations for buildings – if everyone lives in rural cottages, it’s largely a matter of self-interest and little if any regulation is needed. If everyone lives in urban apartments, then a fire in your home can easily destroy mine and several others, and since nobody wants that to happen or to pay the high insurance premia necessary to cover it, we have rules to limit the probability of you burning my property. It’s not possible to completely eleminate the risk, which what contemporary health & safety culture tries to do, and why it will fail – it’s easy enough to go too far.
Similarly with technological advances, because they can vastly increase the likelihood of problems (although they can equally diminish the likelihood of other, different problems). Consider the need for traffic regulation in a low population horse and cart culture, and then consider the same question for a city of 10 million people with 5 million cars driving around it. See a difference?
EG
Yes, but you’re just saying there can be private ownership of property under a (presumably) democratic government, or there can be totalitarianism. This is overly simplistic.
There are and have been secular and religious communes in various nations, notably America and Israel. In England, large areas of land have for centuries been held in common. These have nothing to do with the state, and exist or existed in nations which respect private property.
It occurs to ask about about Chile under Pinochet. A totalitarian state by any definition, but a capitalist one. What were the laws on private property? I don’t know, so this isn’t a rhetorical question – anyone?
Is that you have gone straight from initial premise to conclusion, without bothering about any steps in between.
Indeed, but you don’t say which one you consider.
You say “I use my reason to form a critical preference for the theory that ownership of anything springs from the self.” Fair enough, but how do you do this? You can’t weasel out of it by going on about multiple falsifiable theories. This shows nothing other than that essentially you have a hunch that this is right but can’t or won’t explain it. There’s nothing wrong with basing it on a hunch, but if that’s what you’re doing you need to admit the fact and not present it as if it were some justifiable, considered thesis.
You say “to do otherwise in turn lead to the conclusion I do not own myself,” but again there is no reason given why this should be so. If you cannot own property outside yourself, in what way is this a cause of your inability to own your self? It simply does not follow.
EG
reply to Pavel:
I didn’t say those were my ideas. I didn’t even say they were correct. But Communism (which had as many twists and facets as any other theory) basically said man will be perfected, property will not be private because there would be no greed, and the government would always act benevolently. Indeed it would almost fade away like the Chesire Cat or the last European Royalty.
Such a Communism seems a death by boredom to me.
The opposite of Communism could be something like North Korea. No rights or possessions except for those with government guns. And the bulk of the population scavenging for survival.
There are always objections whenever something is written about government and property. The best minds wrote millions of word and didn’t solve it because there is no solution, only ideas, most of which fail when tried.
My guess, totally a guess, is that a complete world dictatorship will gain power. It will have such effective surveliance, drugs, lie detection, and mind altering techniques that rebellion becomes impossible. A dismal prospect, I won’t live to see it, and prefer to be wrong.
But what the hell? Today seems OK, time to rake the yard.
To be pedantically accurate, no communist society has ever existed on anything but the smallest scale.
Under true communism, there is no private property and no government, and people do things for the common good rather than selfish interest. The fly in the ointment is that people are not actually like that except when considering their immediate circle, and it is this misunderstanding of human nature that renders communism effectively impossible on anything but the smallest scale. “Communist state” is an oxymoron – under socialism, everything is controlled by a central government, but this is considered only a temporary precursor stage to communism. The regime in North Korea could not be described as communist, and even socialist is stretching it a bit. Aristocracy is probably accurate, though.
Interestingly enough:
1. The government of the USSR never claimed to have instituted communism, merely to be working towards socialism;
2. Communism does work on a small scale, as is evidenced by the numerous communes and kibbutzim that existed (and in some case, still exist) in the US and Israel;
3. Marriage is a limited example of a communist system, in which property is held commonly and, at least in theory, the members work for the common good. This possibly explains why political communism and socialism have such a strong appeal to many people – on a small scale, it’s hard-wired into humanity.
EG
2. Communism does work on a small scale, as is evidenced by the numerous communes and kibbutzim that existed (and in some case, still exist) in the US and Israel;
They “work on a small scale” in fiction.
In reality they don’t work. All Kibutzim in Israel have desintegrated. They are Kibutzim only in name, some not even that. They pay wages, hire managers, own shares in common enterprises, etc. They have adopted a normal (i.e. not communist) way of life. In fact Kibutzim are a very good empirical proof that communism doesn’t work.
“Communist state” is an oxymoron.
False.
Communist state is what you had in the USSR, and still have now in Cuba and North Korea.
The nice points and subtle definitions of communist ideology don’t matter that much, it all just rubbish anyway. When you build a state based on communist ideology, this is what you get, so this is a communist state. Pious good intentions and utopian descriptions don’t matter. What matters is reality.
Euan: I pretty much agree with all you just said.
I hadn’t thought about marriage as communism small scale. But others certainly have, some were lawyers 🙂
My difference with Pavel came, I believe from mixing name with essence. The old Greeks quickly picked up that the name differs from the object.
What NK calls Communism (with or w/o capital C) is a name. It certainly is not C in practice. In a odd way it seems akin to the old ideas that capitalism would destroy itself by concentrating all wealth into so few hands that everyone else would have no reason to support the system.
These excursions are fun at times. Gday mate.
Yes, they do. They are not the most efficient way of doing things, and whether they are viable in the long term depends on other factors, but they do actually work as long as (a) the common goal is shared by all and (b) all are committed to the goal.
Since communes and kibbutzim have existed, and have functioned along communist lines, the idea that they somehow prove that they cannot in fact do this is risible.
True, I’m afraid. Under a true communist system, there is no state. This is precisely why the USSR never claimed to be a communist nation. No nation governed by a communist party has ever claimed to be a communist nation.
What you call communist and what actually is communist seem to be two quite different things.
Ah, I see. So it doesn’t matter what words really mean, only what meaning you wish to attribute?
EG
‘marriage is communism writ small No it is fucken not, and what a load of bollocks that is!
If you like, you might say that communism is an inane attempt at imagining a world involving just one very big family – except, it is exceptionally inane as an analogy since families are vastly more sophisticated and hierarchical enterprises than communism. THe only exception I have ever encountered was in Heinlein and even then there was normally someone who ultimately decided. Not to mention that human families do not exist independently (as does a family of elephants or lions, for example), but within a civilisation, which they are a part of.
Also, the idea that property is a social construct is great, the kind of trite banality that you congratulate your two-year old for, but find odd from your five year-old. Something similarly profound would be ‘Look, the sun!’! So property is a social construct – as much as is the prohibition on my killing you because your arguments annoy me.
In fact, property is a much more fundamental ‘social’ construct than murder :
– Higher order animals do appropriate objects and spaces uniquely to themselves, and defend and trade them.
– Humans were into socially constructing property long before they were into socially constructing murder – we recognised foreigners as capable of having and disposing of (and being) property long before we recognised their capacity to be murdered (as opposed to simply slain).
Property is not logically prior to society: animals have society – but it is logically prior to civilisation.
EG who doesn’t realise that his name appears under his post makes some good if deliberately contrarian points – but if he lives in Oz, I’ll lend him my copy of ‘Anarchy State and Utopia’.
Not entirely related to the discussion, but a quote I think Samizdata will appreciate, from Scott at AMCGLTD…
As for Communism… it can work pretty well, but only on a very small scale, mostly within families. I believe the original inventor of Communism, Charles Fourier, demanded in his manifesto that the world be broken up into communes of no more than 100 people, because Communism wouldn’t work in larger communities.
Of course, such a demand is ludicrous (as were most of Fourier’s writings), but in situations where people are forcibly broken up into such tiny communities (1940s Israel), Communism can keep the community alive and functioning in situations where a capitalist community would fall apart from a lack of a significant middle class.
Interestingly, the kibbutzim used by Israel is distinctly communist in nature, and yet it is also designed to switch into a capitalist system once a settlement grows large enough to support a middle class (or rather, it switches from supporting the settlement to requesting support from the settlement). I think it is probably one of the primary reasons why Israel has been able to hold out for so long against the some of the richest nations and most fanatical armies in the world.
Pretty much, yes.
I don’t think you could say that hierarchy would not exist in a communist society.At a minimum there is a hierarchy amongst people doing the same thing because each of them has different levels of ability. However, since we aren’t likely to see a communist society writ large any time soon, this is rather academic.
I think it more accurate to say within a society. To an extent they are independent of that society, but to another extent dependent upon it.
For a start, the question is of property rights, not property. Secondly, there is a confusion between possession of something and title to something.
A novel concept. Perhaps you’d care to justify this idea?
Although I think it probably is an antecedent of civilisation, I would not say it is a logically necessary antecedent, although I’d be fascinated to read your demonstration of the logic in this matter. Not holding my breath, though….
It’s not contrarian. It’s pointing out flaws in the justification of certain beliefs, and what I see as the lunacy of certain other beliefs. I happen to agree with several ideas that would generally be described as libertarian, although I do not consider them to be absolutes and I think there are multiple means of achieving the ends (I’m not an ideologue). What I object to is the idea that society, civilisation and man’s place therein can be reduced to logical proof, or that everything can be worked out from first principles, or that Homo economicus is a valid concept, or that no recourse to real world verification is needed to test the practical validity of theory (a common notion amongst Austrians). I also reject ideas of natural right, as is tolerably well known.
There is a serious flaw in an ideological approach to right, in that if (or more accurately when) the ideology is shown to be either false or unworkable, the ideological justification for right collapses with it. It also usually flies in the face of history and/or reality, but that’s never bothered the ideologue.
EG
Euan, it is true that primitive societies could “get by” without property. That is why they were “primitive” in the first place! Human societies can indeed get by without private property, but why set the bar so low. I want humans not just to survive at a bare subsistence level, but to thrive to the fullest extent. (I’d imagine that you are and I are on the same page on that.)
I lived under communism until 23 years of my age. I was fortunate enough to have lived in a decaying stage of communism when the government was unable to control lives of its subject the Orwellian way.
Anyway, even the “soft” version of communism meant the following:
– no privately owned businesses; not even barber shops or tobacconists.
– almost no legal way to buy foreign currency.
– no private schools, newspapers, radio, TV.
– the only tolerated kind of ownership was to own a family house; one could not really have owned land, however.
– in short, no utopia but totalitarian government dictatorship. That is communism. No Fourier’s or Owen’s dream phantasies.
If somebody says that communism may work in small scale in marriage, he or she probably means abuse of one partner by the other.
To demonstrate that the concept of private property does not necessarily follow from the mere fact of humanity, and therefore that it cannot be considered a natural right. This implies that any propertarian ideology which depends on a natural right of property is invalid because the initial premise is plainly invalid. If the ideology merely asserts the right, as distinct from depending upon it, then it is not necessarily invalid but it still lacks a justification of the right.
I think on the whole I would say that private property is necessary for society to advance beyond a certain point. I am indeed on the same page as you on this question of the desirability of advance, and therefore I quite accept the practical necessity of private property and of secure property rights, although without making a fetish of them as some do and without declaring them to be absolute. What I DON’T accept is the idea that property rights are natural or inherent rights, and I think this notion can be dispensed with fairly easily.
I think that the idea of necessity for advance shows property rights ARE social constructs, like all other rights, since they are only necessary if society is to progress beyond a certain point.
EG
Well we’ll have to agree to disagree as I think that even in the most basic societies, people have a need to say that “X is mine” and “Y is thine”. In as much as rights can be understood as the concepts beings need to rub along with one another in peace, then I think that a property rights idea is part of that. In that sense then, property rights are “natural”.
I happen to have problems parts of the “natural law” tradition but I also think it is possible to examine what sort of things human beings need to survive and flourish to the fullest extent, and then try to draw out the implications. Note my use of the word “flourish”. Humans, by their nature, don’t tend to want to just live at a basic level. We are curious bastards and try for something more. That’s our nature.
Anyway I have to run and do some work.
This doesn’t match with your earlier statement that primitive societies can get by without the idea of property.
Well, no, because what you’re saying simply means that property rights are a pragmatic necessity. To say something is a natural right is to say it flows necessarily from the fact of being & therefore cannot be legitimately challenged, which is not at all the same thing.
EG
By “get by”, I meant just about hang on to life. No sane human being would be content with that, which is why primitive societies don’t last long. I should have been clearer about that. From my understanding of history, ideas about property popped up pretty quickly, even in the hunter-gatherer phase (such as things like garments, jewellery, weapons, etc)
which is why primitive societies don’t last long
Sorry?
There are still hunter gathering tribe based societies out there who’ve out lasted all the more “advanced” cilvilisations that have come and gone.
That aside, an interesting discussion. I have to find myself agreeing largely with Euan.
One area that I’ve been thinking about recently, with events in South Africa, is the concept of 1at what point do property rights become property rights to be protected. Earlier in the year I read the diaries of H.Ridder Haggard (of King Solomon’s Mines fame). He was a colonial officer in the Empire and was in Natal province during the start of the first Boer War.
He returned to South Africa before WW1 to conduct a review of life there for the British government. One of the actions he flagged as a potential crisis was the start of confiscation of land from the black population in Natal. These were farmers who had paid cash for their farms who were being forceably evicted. He felt this, and the exclusion of the same from schools would store up generations of problems.
The question from that which troubles me is what actually should be done in regress for what was, effectively theft. Under a Libertarian system, how are old state enabled disenfranchisements and thefts to be dealt with?
Is it enough to say, tough – it was a long time ago, get over it?
I think that even in the most basic societies, people have a need to say that “X is mine” and “Y is thine”
Well, even under communist regimes basic property rights exist. You own you personal belongings, you can have savings (money), you own your home, and maybe a patch of garden too, and a bike or a car (if you can afford).
You can’t own “means of production” – i.e. businesses, land, etc. – property that produces income.
Your private belongings are protected against other private persons – no one can invade your garden of home – the state protects you. It is only against the state itself that you are not protected – it can confiscate everything if it deems it necessary “for society”.
An interesting point, and of course perfectly correct – there are hunter-gatherer societies today which have existed unchanged since Romulus was a boy.
It’s interesting to consider that primitive societies with no concept of private property and an essentially communistic social organisation may be more stable than advanced societies with complex rights & philosophies. Does this mean that the price of progress is inherent instability? Not that it isn’t worth paying, but it’s also worth considering the question.
Thinking a little further, does this perhaps not give even further credence to the idea that rights are pragmatic social constructs? The fact that the rights model in use and the society in which it applies seem to rise and fall together would indicate that this is so.
EG
I guess I stand corrected. Some hunter-gatherer societies have lasted a while without settled property in land. Fair enough. The question I put though was what sort of rules humans need to survive, but also, crucially, to thrive. Thrive is the key word here. Natural rights is not just about surviving on the edge.
And hunter-gather societies tend to be vulnerable to things like big changes in climate. They can also be quite violent. Contrary to what the pc Hollywood crowd etc might have one believe. Remember the old saying: good fences make good neighbours.
In practice, I think this is exactly what “natural” rights would limit a society to. It seems plain enough that society advances beyond the primitive stage when it starts to think abstractly about more complex rights and starts laying down rules to assert and enforce them. I think this is the point where it moves into considering rights as social constructs, even if they don’t quite have the phraseology to say that.
Complex advanced societies can also be vulnerable to it – look at New Orleans, for example. Complex societies are also dependent on far more things working reliably and consistently than are primitive ones, and minor disruptions to things such as electricity supply or communications networks can cause major problems.
Unlike advanced societies, who eschew bashing each other with sticks and instead invent the peaceful concepts of combined arms warfare and thermonuclear bombs….
EG
Euan, I was not saying that “advanced societies” are non-violent. (How could I, given the terrible wars of our recent past?). I was making a statement that primitive societies have certain problems and are not quite idyls of sentimental imagery (A whole topic of its own, BTW).
Hence my point about how property rights as a potential solvent of conflict, rather than as a cause of it.
I think we are getting into a semantic scrape about use of the word “natural”. I think property is important given what our natures are, but obviously that leaves a hell of a lot for future development, legal evolution, etc. I see no contradiction between saying that property is a part of our nature and that we are also social beings who need to develop rules to ensure peaceful co-existence. It is not an either/or issue.
I know you weren’t. I was just pointing out that if you can say primitive societies are or can be violent and seriously affected by externalities (with which I agree), so you can say exactly the same thing about advanced societies. It’s simply that the vulnerabilities and violence are of a different kind, but they’re still there.
Of course a system of secure rights under the rule of law will tend to obviate conflict, although precisely what those rights should be is another matter and does vary depending on the needs and beliefs of society. However, I think it’s fair to say that emphasising property right too much tends to concentrate power in the hands of those who have property – this is, after all, the pattern of history in that property = power. I think advocacy of a propertarian system benefits only those who already have property, and thus that over-emphasis on this right is potentially dangerous in that it can provoke violence as the disenfranchised propertyless people rebel.
I’m aware of the potential for confusion here, and have been careful to try and avoid it. There is no reason why one cannot think of some rights as natural, others as social construct and still others as something of both. However, I don’t think this gives an accurate picture of what rights really are.
EG
Hmmm. I don’t think that the benefits of dispersed ownership of property is of no value if one does not have it or only own a small amount of property. The key here is absence of monopoly of ownership.
Side issue: libertarians have to encourage thinking about how to spread ownership of property around more, therby encouraging people to feel they are a part of the system and not excluded. The planning laws could be amended to make it easier for people of modest means to own a bit of land. (That is one reason why the recent Kelo ruling in the States was such a kick in the teeth for the ordinary homeowner.)
We don’t have a monopoly of ownership at present, unless you’re talking about eminent domain (see below).
People say that 2% of the population control 90% of the wealth. Whatever the actual figures, it is true that the majority of wealth is controlled by a tiny minority of the people, and a small number of landowners control the majority of land. In reality, when things are deregulated, what tends to happen is that the advantageous positions of these minorities become entrenched. Perhaps this should not theoretically happen, but it does. If we consider recent attempts to stimulate economies by deregulation, we see that exactly this does happen – in Reagan’s America and in Thatcher’s Britain, the disparity of wealth increased as a result of the various changes. Chile is not perhaps a great example, being a dictatorship, but the decline in real wages and increase in absolute poverty during the “experiment” was striking.
I think it is healthy and indeed necessary to have some disparity to act as an incentive for people to improve themselves. However, and it is a big however, if the disparity is too great then it is not practicably possible for any significant number of the less well-off to improve, and you get further entrenchment of the disparity. Again, history shows this. Shifts away from landed aristocratic and plutocratic systems have only ever occurred as a result of either state compulsion or revolution.
To avoid this, you need to have some form of limitation on property rights, which is simply to say they cannot be absolute. I note your point about libertarians needing to come up with ideas about spreading ownership, and I agree. However, that is the realm of practical politics, and few libertarians seem to have much clue about that. Simply deregulating and slashing taxes will NOT spread ownership. It just doesn’t happen. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Now, eminent domain. Almost every country has this concept, and it is not wholly bad.
If you want to use eminent domain for the purchase of land to build say a railway, or a waterworks, or some such generally useful public utility, this is one thing. To use it simply to make things easy for a business, or for some crony or other, is a completely different (and generally corrupt) thing. I think that if a business wants to buy land, let it seek it on the market. What business has the state acquiring land for someone else’s commercial use?
I think also that if land is required for the provision of a public good that the market cannot or will not supply, then there is a case for eminent domain. Having said that, it needs to be exercised with caution and ideally only as a last resort. I think if this is done and if the state is not hugely active in the market, then the number of times the right of eminent domain is exercised will be very small and the discontent minimal. We’ve always had it, and it has rarely caused a stink.
Considering all that, property rights (howsoever they arise) cannot be absolute. There must be some restraint in order to minimise within reason disparity of ownership, and there must be the ultimate limit of eminent domain as a last resort. I say this not through ideological conviction, but because this is in practice how you run a civilised nation at peace with itself. That, frankly, is more important than a desire not to pay tax or to keep one’s stuff wholly and exclusively to oneself. What’s the merit in being wealthy in an insecure and discontented society?
I could amplify and detail all that a lot more, but that’s a summary & possibly some of it doesn’t instantly make sense because it needs detailed exposition.
EG
“If somebody says that communism may work in small scale in marriage, he or she probably means abuse of one partner by the other.”
Or when you buy gifts for your wife and kids, instead of making them earn them.
Or when you grab the bleach away from your toddler to keep them from drinking it, over his/her screams of protest.
I can understand why someone who grew up in a communist, or even socialist, society would be extremely skeevy of any suggestion that Communism might work in any situation. The misapplication of Communism is responsible for the greatest horrors of the 20th century.
But then, nerve agent is nasty stuff too. Doesn’t stop me from stocking bug spray, though I sure as hell ain’t going to drink it.
Euan, interesting reply; I agree and disagree with it in parts. Let’s leave aside the eminent domain subject, which is too big to deal with here. (A massive issue in the States at the moment). I have no doubt I’ll write on this again in future.
I raised the issue of monopoly to deal with those cases, such as in dictatorships or in isolated communities where a vital resource, like water and fuel, is controlled by one owner. That tends to be very rare in a free market order, though not impossible.
On disparities of wealth: I do not contest that disparities exist. You are 100 pct correct. In fact, I read somewhere – cannot recall where – that they have got wider since 1997, which is ironic given Mr Blair’s “progressive” rhetoric. Whether such disparities get more and more entrenched is difficult to easily measure. Upward mobility can get easier and harder for various reasons. To wit:education, or changing population trends, impact of immigration, etc.
Economic growth is also key here. It is obviously a damned sight easier to tolerate even quite massive inequalities if the economy is growing at a nifty clip and even the poorest person is getting better off at a fast rate.
Another thing to bear in mind when it comes to looking at wealth is age. People tend to accumulate capital as they get into their middle ages, then start drawing down on it in their final years. If you adjust for that, then disparities may – may – not be as big as the headline statistics suggest.
True monopoly is uncommon in the free market, but I think two points should be made:
1. Some of the more shrill libertarians decry state education as “monopoly” when perhaps 90% of children go to state schools. However, when Microsoft operating systems run on 90% of the world’s desktop computers, that is for some reason NOT monopoly. In reality they are the same thing, although neither is a true monopoly. This type of ideological abuse of language needs to be guarded against.
2. Although true monopoly is rare in the free market, monopolistic practices such as oligopoly, cartel and price-fixing are actually common. Some libertarians deny that cartel can arise without state intervention, which is risible. The brutal fact is, whether libertarians wish to acknowledge it or not, that monopolistic practices are alive and well in the free market and will (and do) advance if given the opportunity.
There is no doubt that the lamentable and falling standard of education in this country is a major contributor to social immobility. Demographic shifts such as declining birth rates and an ageing population are probably also contributors. I don’t see that immigration would have a depressing effect on it other than in the shortest term, though, and I would be inclined to discount this as a factor.
More on that tomorrow, though.
Up to a point. I don’t think this holds if the gap between rich and poor is increasing even if the poor are becoming wealthier. This would be an example of disparity being further entrenched. I think for a short period this is acceptable, but in the longer term it is not.
One of the things that occurs to me in this general area is to ask what we want the economy for. What ends are we seeking? Why do some argue for maximal economic efficiency? Why do others say a little more equity at the cost of some efficiency is better?
EG
Once again, correcting Euan’s fundamental mistakes and obfuscations –
#1 http://www.thefreedictionary.com/monopoly(Link) Definition number 2. This is the definition that is generally accepted and expected on Samizdata. This sort of monopoly is impossible in a free market. Once the terms of this definition are met, the terms of ‘free market’ are broken. They are mutally exclusive.
#2 If you choose to ignore the school monopoly, you face armed enforcers and criminal penalties. Even home schoolers are bound to the terms laid down by the school monopoly. On the other hand, defy the Microsoft monopoly by using linux or MacOs and who cares? Certainly no jail sentence.
Let’s try that again –
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/monopoly(Link)
Some points on monopoly:
1. Since we’re talking about economic monopoly in general and not state-directed economic activity in particular, definition 1 in the link is the meaningful one in any reasonable sense.
2. It is rare but not impossible for true monopoly to arise in the free market. See M Friedman’s words cited in definition 1 for a tacit admission of this.
3. Monopoly under the second definition is more common. However, to accept this unqualified as the ruling definition of monopoly is to adopt an ideological position which puts a strain upon the English language it was not intended to bear. It also explicitly discounts monopolistic practices by private concerns, so in effect it says “state bad, private good” and nothing much else.
4. Certainly in Britain (and AIUI in America also) there is no state monopoly in education, even using the self-serving definition 2.
5. If you want to consider state education as a monopoly, you must also consider Microsoft operating systems as a monopoly, because they both meet the same criteria: you don’t need to use a school or an operating system; if you are going to use them, you have a choice; around 90% of the market for each is controlled by a single entity.
Looking more closely at education, I would point out that the legal requirements in Britain have been gone through here before, but to summarise:
The Education Acts require only that a sufficient and reasonable education be given to children. They do not lay down what that education should include or where it should be undertaken or by what method. The parent is at liberty to use a state school, a grant-maintained school, a wholly private school, a school in a foreign country, or to educate at home either personally or with tutors. In what possible way can this be considered a monopoly? The only way “armed enforcers” are going to intrude is if you fail to educate your child. Then again, in Britain they aren’t armed.
I don’t know how the law stands in the US, and it may be that specific requirements are made there as to what an education must comprise. This is not the case in Britain, however. It may be that the British educational system is more liberal than the American, of course…
EG
Euan, you ask the rather intriguing question, what do we want the economy for? I am not sure how to answer that. Who is “we”, for instance? If one starts off with the notion of an economy as a short-hand term for the collective activities of millions of people, all with their own goals, then there is no single overall end to which their activities can be directed, whether that end is called “national efficiency”, equality, or whatever. In a market, people exchange and trade with other people to get what they want.
Anyway, excellent discussion all round!
Midwesterner, excellent point on monopoly. Contrary to what EG claimed, it is very, very hard for a firm in a free market to have a monopoly without active support of the state. Microsoft doesn’t force me to use its products at the point of a gun. Interestingly, at the very point when people slag off a firm like MS for having a “monopoly”, it usually means that other firms are starting to break into the dominant firm’s turf, such as Linux.
Anyway, I’d like to wrap this up and perhaps we can give it a fresh whirl later on.
Ahem. I did actually say:
It is rare but not impossible for true monopoly to arise in the free market
which hardly warrants your comment. Your comment implies that I suggested monopoly can form easily in a free market without state intervention. I didn’t, and I’d prefer not to have words put in my mouth.
Nor does the state force you to use its schools at the point of a gun.
Linux is not a firm, and its rise in not an example of capitalist competition.
Note that I don’t say Microsoft has a monopoly. I do say that if you are going to decry state education as a monopoly, logically you need to do the same for Microsoft. In reality, neither are monopolies.
EG
Such a relief to find out that giving money to the school system is optional over there in the UK. Over here, the sherriff shows up with gun toting deputies and sells your house if you try to not pay the school’s bills for them.
And don’t give me that nonsense about ‘you don’t really have to use the schools, you only have to pay them as though you are’. The government decides the terms by which you can avoid the conscription, but never the cost. And in some states it’s almost impossible to home school in others you merely have to meet a higher standard than the government meets.
In ALL cases you have to buy the product.
No matter how you slice it, you have to educate your children exactly as the government decides, and pay the schools whether they provide that service or not.
I remember when I was growing up. IBM, Xerox, and AT&T were ‘monopolies’. AT&T was the only true monopoly and when it lost its government protection it began unravelling.
Force is necessary for a true monopoly. Anything else is just market share.
Yes, you have to pay tax. Tax is the fee for society. Don’t like it, go join another society – nobody is stopping you.
Perhaps in America. Not over here, though.
EG
No. It’s not for society. It’s for the schools. It says so right on the bill. And your opening statement is that there is no difference between Microsoft’s monopoly and the school’s monopoly.
I say that how the market share is aquired is what monopoly is all about.
Here is your opening salvo on the schools/microsoft/monopoly topic. Just in case you forgot what you believe.
A lot of the arguing about what “monopoly” means is useless. The word is a legal word here in the US and also an economics term. But the meanings are separate.
It is not illegal to have a monopoly here. But it is illegal to achieve a monopoly by certain means. And, if ever it is achieved, the monopolist cannot use certain methods to maintain it. Most of the illegal methods involve either selling product below cost to prevent a rival from making a profit, or interfering with the sales efforts or operational efforts of rivals.
Enough of that. ATT had a monopoly. They not only ran the phones but they manufactured their own equipment. The equipment profits were immense because while ATT phone service profits were regulated the equipment profits were not. They were also into other mischief which prevented competition.
Finally. The public schools. They are simply a manifestation of the governments desire to run everthing they possibly can. In essence they are socialism – the ownership (or right to totally control) an industry.
Whereas a private monopoly may have various goals the goal of government activities is always to increase the employment and circumstances of government employees.
OK, we don’t have that here.
You’re twisting my words, which is odd since you even cited them. What part of “although neither is a true monopoly” is giving you the difficulty?
You’re using an ideologically loaded and self-serving definition of monopoly – an incomplete one at that – to justify your attack on tax funding of education, which is unreasonable. Whether monopoly comes about by state mandate or by private action doesn’t matter. What matters is whether there is a choice. There is a choice in operating systems, therefore Microsoft does not have a monopoly. There is a choice in education, therefore the state does not have a monopoly.
The fact that you are compelled to pay for state education whether or not you use it does NOT make it a monopoly.
Copyright and patents are also monopolies, and these come about by state fiat. I don’t see many people here arguing that these (true) monopolies should be abolished, though. It seems that the acceptable and expected Samizdata definition of monopoly is basically “anything we don’t like.” Not very reasonable.
EG
The part where you said that Microsoft’s market share and government school’s market share “In reality they are the same thing,”
And where you say in your last post
I think most people here would disagree with that statement.
It sounds like your saying that being compelled to buy a product doesn’t matter as long as you don’t have to take delivery.
Euan, I’m away for the rest of the day. My fundamental disagreement with you is summed up in your last statement. I’ll quote it again.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on that.
Yes, they are the same thing – NOT monopolies.
Then, frankly and not wishing to be rude, they are wrong. No reasonable definition of monopoly says one can only use the term when the state gets involved, and to insist that it does is just abusing the language – a common enough ideological trait, but still wrong.
No, I am saying that this does not make it a monopoly, that’s all.
EG
Euan misses the obvious by a mile as usual. No, the state does not use force to make you use its school at the point of a gun; it merely used force to make you pay for its schools at the point of a gun regardless, even if you independently pay for a public school education (for our American friends, that means a private school education). State education is not a monopoly, it is worse than that.
The question was one of monopoly. State education is not a monopoly because you are not forced to use it. That is the point I was making. Nothing has been missed.
Whether it is reasonable to pay for state education whether or not you use it is another matter and has nothing whatever to do with monopoly status.
It seems that in the UK the average per pupil cost of state and private education is about the same, somewhere around £5,000 per annum. I’m quite prepared to accept that if there was a wholly private competitive education system the average price would fall. However, it does need to be remembered that the current average cost of state education alone is more than the direct tax paid by a person on average income in the UK. Even if it were privatised and the cost fell significantly, and even if income tax were abolished altogether, it is certain that there would be a large number of people unable to afford education for their children. And that’s before taking into account the other things they would have to pay privately for, such as unemployment and health insurance.
The idea of subsidising education to some extent through taxation seems to me to be a pragmatic necessity. There are different ways of doing this, but if you do something other than funding from general taxation in an attempt to make it closer to a pay-per-use system, it is inevitable that the burden of paying for it will shift further onto those least able to afford it. I don’t think you can get away from some degree of payment for something you don’t use in the interest of ensuring that those who cannot afford a practical necessity are able to have it.
EG
How anyone can think that the miserable education so many get in ‘sink schools’ is worth even a penny is remarkable. It is even more remarkable that in this age of networks and IT that someone thinks education has to be expensive or that the private sector could not provide adiquate education at least as good as what is offered up by the state to service nay demand. Some people just don’t have very much imagination.