Bigger Government or More Privitization

[Grant]

As if political favoritism doesn't happen in the private sector.

It certainly does, though this practice is often defended by leftists. It called "crony capitalism" and is the specialty of the party now in power in the US.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

It certainly does, though this practice is often defended by leftists. It called "crony capitalism" and is the specialty of the party now in power in the US.

The above post is dumb.

 

[Tim Cornelis]

Maybe a moderator can split this into another, more appropriate thread.

True, but its still owned by the group and unlike the alternative its actually agreed on by all the members. It seems to me that if the problem with private property is that people are forced into action this actually resolves it for the people that believe that is so. I think its the perfect middle ground. The people like myself that don't want to join the arrangement they wish can have what they want and the people that want to own it with other people can have what they want.

Freedom is a right. Period. And when people, by the necessity and need to survive, are induced to horrible living and working conditions, and reduced to commodities to be bought and sold, are compelled to sell their labour-power because the means of production are owned by a privileged elite, and thence they lose their personal freedom to become the subject of a boss, they are not free.

As Bob Black said:

The liberals and conservatives and libertarians who lament totalitarianism are phonies and hypocrites. There is more freedom in any moderately deStalinized dictatorship than there is in the ordinary American workplace. You find the same sort of hierarchy and discipline in an office or factory as you do in a prison or monastery. In fact, as Foucault and others have shown, prisons and factories came in at about the same time, and their operators consciously borrowed from each other's control techniques. A worker is a par-time slave. The boss says when to show up, when to leave, and what to do in the meantime. He tells you how much work to do and how fast. He is free to carry his control to humiliating extremes, regulating, if he feels like it, the clothes you wear or how often you go to the bathroom. With a few exceptions he can fire you for any reason, or no reason. He has you spied on by snitches and supervisors, he amasses a dossier on every employee. Talking back is called "insubordination," just as if a worker is a naughty child, and it not only gets you fired, it disqualifies you for unemployment compensation.

The problem is you are abridging rights to make it so. People have a right to what they own and they have shown to fight for it.

People have a right to what they own? That makes no sense, as when I steal your bicycle I own it, but it is not legitimate. The same could be said for slaves, or any physical object.

Limiting private ownership limits growth

Which is again assuming the initial point as it begs the question "why". Limiting private ownership stifles growth (which is not even accurate as I will show in a minute), but why would we want a growth economy? This presupposes "value", prices, exchange, and so forth. None of this will exist in a communist society, and none of it will matter.

That being said, let me cite the following:

In 1913, Mexico and [what was to become the USSR] had almost exactly the same income per capita --in 1990
dollars, the Soviet Union's income was $1,488, compared to Mexico’s $1,467 ... Mexico would not be
held up as the model of [economic] liberalism since then, but having said that, democracy, private
property and the market played a far larger role there than in the USSR. Yet, in 1989,
Soviet income per capita was 46 percent larger than Mexican income, compared to about
1 percent larger in 1913. Despite suffering through two incredibly damaging world wars,
a civil war, the Stalin-induced famines that killed millions in the 1930s, his jail and gulag
system that killed millions more, and a range of environmental disasters, the Soviet
Union’s growth over the period of communism put Mexico’s to shame. Only with the
fall of the communist system did Mexico overtake the USSR --by 1992, Mexican income
was approximately $450 per capita higher than that of the Soviet Union at the eve of
breaking up.

(note: like most liberals, he is reiterating Cold War propaganda by calling the USSR "communist")

So private property does not necessarily encourage economic growth either.

it lowers quality, and it lowers work ethic.

Quality of what? Private property is owned only by capitalists, so it has no affect on those who do not own it and have no chance to own it. I think you are confusing property and remuneration/compensation for labour. Given the limited number of experiments in communist social organisation, I don't have much empirical evidence, but I can point out to the rural anarchist collectives during the Spanish revolution of 1936 that abolished money and operated a partially/mostly communistic economic order, though limited in scope. Work ethic did not suffer an sich in these rural collectives as production went up by 20% in the region of Aragón. Some anecdotal evidence here:

Everything [in the Calanda collective] was systematically organised. Exact statistics were compiled on the hourly, daily, and yearly condition and possibilities of each branch of industry, thus insuring the highest degree of coordination. The collective modernised industry, increased production, turned out better products, and improved public services. For example, the collective installed up-to-date machinery for the extraction of olive oil and conversion of the residue into soap. It purchased two big electric washing machines, one for the hospital and the other for the collectivised hotel. . . .Through more efficient cultivation and the use of better fertilisers, production of potatoes increased 50% (three-quarters of the crop was sold to Catalonia in exchange for other commodities. . . ) and the production of sugar beets and feed for livestock doubled. Previously uncultivated smaller plots of ground were used to plant 400 fruit trees, . . . and there were a host of other interesting innovations. Through this use of better machinery and chemical fertilisers and, but no means least, through the introduction of voluntary collective labour, the yield per hectare was 50% greater on collective property than on individually worked land. These examples finally induced many more "individualists" to join the collective.

(source)

People forget we are not ants that are collective by nature.

Humans, in general, are a social animal (exception being people with social disorders such as sociopaths). There are various books on evolutionary biology that show animals including humans are mostly cooperative. One of them being Mutual Aid: A factor of evolution by biologist Kropotkin (incidentally also an anarcho-communist). His thesis, that interspecies cooperation is often the norm, while extra-species competition is what is meant by "survival of the fittest", has been reinforced by subsequent studies in (evolutionary) biology.

Moreover, communism is in the self-interest of the individual. He will not longer be subject to coercive authority, hierarchy, obnoxious rules, bosses, and managers. He will have his own productive activities under his own control diminishing alienation. Communism fulfills the psychological need for a community and kinship by having participatory communities, while this psychological need now is fulfilled by nationalism, xenophobia, hooliganism, and criminal gangs, as well as religion. Communism, since it eliminates the finance economy as well as the state, will be able to slash the working day by some hours, which is in the interest of the individual.

We are individuals that wish to pull ourselves above and beyond our opponents.We are not merely living for each other like ants, but competitive against each other. We fight for power, we fight for domination, and most of all we fight among ourselves for it.

Why not advocate Social Darwinism if this is true? It is, according to you, in accordance with human nature after all.

This shows something that I think collective minds forget. They assume they can get this out of people and they assume people will merely do it for the greater good, but we won't. We are not ants. You can't make a system that is trying to engineer people. It doesn't work. You have to work with people and go from there.

We are not ants, exactly. Humans are treated as such in capitalism. The collective of workers are reduced to cogs in an inhumane machine to enrich their boss (like ants enrich their queen). Anonymous, alienated, reduced to mere commodities, that's capitalism for the workers.

According to right-wing libertarians:

OPPRESSION:

Peasants cultivating the land owned in common without boss or state for a few hours a day is oppression of land lords.

FREEDOM:

Workers subject to rigid control, hierarchy, and domination, for 13-16 hours a day for a meager wage just to survive is freedom for all.

Now tell me, which of the two is more individualist? Workers' self-management, or such a corporate hierarchy?

Right-wing libertarians have an upside-down world view. Besides the above, right-wing libertarians consider the following:

OPPRESSORS:

For living on the property of another, hard working man, who acquired it justly (1 in 6/7 people on earth are squatters)

VICTIM OF OPPRESSION:

The poor victim of oppression. His land is occupied by the poor people--the oppressors--you see in the above picture, while he is a hard working man.

 

[phattonez]

As if political favoritism doesn't happen in the private sector.

Sure it does. However, there is an issue of profitability. With favoritism, you're necessarily giving up on potential profits. Businesses then have an incentive to invest where their money would reap the most profit. Where is that incentive with government spending.

We have to realize that no system is perfect; what I am arguing for is the superior system.

 

[RGacky3]

As for myself, I disagree with this avenue. We need to uphold justice and due process by the use of courts and not try to dictate business decisions to resolve problems or allow the government to create problems out of thin air to influence the market.

Capitalism has NEVER existed without the state supporting it, never has never will.

So we have 3 options, option 1 is the neo-liberal line, i.e. let buisiness take over the economy and eventually collapse it (as externalities build up and the internal contradictions of capitalism build up), option 2 is the keynsian line, which is stave off collapse for a while with state intervention, or option 3, find a new way to organize the economy.

 

[RGacky3]

Businesses then have an incentive to invest where their money would reap the most profit. Where is that incentive with government spending.

THe incentive is voters, one person one vote, not one dollar one vote.

 

[Centinel]

THe incentive is voters, one person one vote, not one dollar one vote.

One person one vote can be great or it can be horrible. It all depends upon what is being voted on. For example, I wouldn't be keen on a vote to determine whether redheads should be guillotined. There are simply some things that should not even be allowed to be put to a vote.

 

[teamosil]

One person one vote can be great or it can be horrible. It all depends upon what is being voted on. For example, I wouldn't be keen on a vote to determine whether redheads should be guillotined. There are simply some things that should not even be allowed to be put to a vote.

No doubt. The constitution carefully outlines which things can be voted on and which require instead a constitutional amendment. Seems to me they got the list more or less right.

 

[RGacky3]

One person one vote can be great or it can be horrible. It all depends upon what is being voted on. For example, I wouldn't be keen on a vote to determine whether redheads should be guillotined. There are simply some things that should not even be allowed to be put to a vote.

yeah, and many economic issues are one thing that should be one person one vote, becuase economics is by its very nature a social activity.

 

[Centinel]

yeah, and many economic issues are one thing that should be one person one vote, becuase economics is by its very nature a social activity.

What sorts of economic issues?

 

[Henrin]

Shame about Tim Cornelis being banned. I really wanted to respond to that last post.

So we have 3 options, option 1 is the neo-liberal line, i.e. let buisiness take over the economy and eventually collapse it (as externalities build up and the internal contradictions of capitalism build up),

That has never happened by itself. Capitalism by itself can bring rise to monopolies but they are not that powerful by themselves and are built on the demand of the product. The most harmful conditions are not seen through the free market but though a market that allows the government to intervene in the market and assist in goals of the society. This has caused such things as the oil industry which would have never gotten anywhere near as big without government assisting in its goals be it roads, creating oil based products, getting the oil industry off the ground, subsiding cars, etc.

option 2 is the keynsian line, which is stave off collapse for a while with state intervention

Keynesian doesn't starve off collapse. Its ironically enough causes collapses by the expansion of the supply of money to increase economic activity which causes which speculative price bubbles. I said this a few days ago in another thread actually.

or option 3, find a new way to organize the economy.

Socialism is not a new way to organize the economy. It has failed many times over.

 

[RGacky3]

What sorts of economic issues?

Depends, I think if people are direcly effected in an economic issue, then everyone should have say in it, I like Ha-Joon Changs concept that compnaies should be accountable to stakeholders, i.e. the community they serve and the workers than run them, I'm not saying that people in New York should vote on Los Angeles' power industry policy ... becuase they are not stakeholders.

 

[RGacky3]

That has never happened by itself. Capitalism by itself can bring rise to monopolies but they are not that powerful by themselves and are built on the demand of the product. The most harmful conditions are not seen through the free market but though a market that allows the government to intervene in the market and assist in goals of the society. This has caused such things as the oil industry which would have never gotten anywhere near as big without government assisting in its goals be it roads, creating oil based products, getting the oil industry off the ground, subsiding cars, etc.

Not true at all, the collapses happen every time you move in the neo-libral direction, obviously you never get to your perfect neo-liberal paradise because its impossible. The collapses happened without the state, the one now happened after the state got out of regulating derivatives and privitized fannie may and freddie mac and stopped looking at loans and stopped regulating rating agencies.

Keynesian doesn't starve off collapse. Its ironically enough causes collapses by the expansion of the supply of money to increase economic activity causes which speculative price bubbles.

Tell that to the 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s comapred to before and after.

Socialism is not a new way to organize the economy. It has failed many times over.

When have you had a democratic economy, I can think of perhaps anarchist catelonia, but it was destroyed by tanks from fascists and stalinists, other than that I can't really think of any.

 

[Centinel]

Depends, I think if people are direcly effected in an economic issue, then everyone should have say in it, I like Ha-Joon Changs concept that compnaies should be accountable to stakeholders, i.e. the community they serve and the workers than run them, I'm not saying that people in New York should vote on Los Angeles' power industry policy ... becuase they are not stakeholders.

Hm. So brewpub in my neighborhood. Who would vote on economic issues related to that pub, and what sorts of decisions would they be making?

From my own perspective, I "vote" for that pub by either going there and buying a pint, or staying away. I vote with my wallet. What's your alternative?

 

[RGacky3]

Hm. So brewpub in my neighborhood. Who would vote on economic issues related to that pub, and what sorts of decisions would they be making?

From my own perspective, I "vote" for that pub by either going there and buying a pint, or staying away. I vote with my wallet. What's your alternative? .

I don't think that opening a pub is something that needs to be voted on ... Unless of coarse the community is adversely affected.

A brewpub is a bad example, its a small buisiness, not exactly a big issue, but within the pub I think that the workers should have control over it.

But take a power plant for example, if its polluting the air around the community, I think the community has a right to change it.

Or say a cities main economy is tourism, then the pubs there are an important part of it and perhaps the community would wnat to make sure their economy is being served.

 

[Centinel]

I don't think that opening a pub is something that needs to be voted on ... Unless of coarse the community is adversely affected.

A brewpub is a bad example, its a small buisiness, not exactly a big issue, but within the pub I think that the workers should have control over it.

Would this be an example of your suggestion of one person one vote? I'm trying to see how that would work. Would such things as employee salary, operating hours, and whom to hire would be put to a vote? If there were twenty employees and one owner, then are you saying that the owner gets one vote and each employee gets one vote?

In my opinion, voting is a suboptimal decision making system, because it amounts to the majority forcing its will upon the minority. I can see that there might be some times when it is necessary to do so, but putting issues to a vote should be avoided as much as possible, and there should always be the option of, "I don't wish to participate in this collective decision. Please don't make decisions that bind me."

For example, a woman is walking on an isolated street. Four men approach her and say, "You and we are going to vote on whether we rape you." The fact that they vote is irrelevant; the fact that they allow her to cast a (meaningless) vote is irrelevant. Everyone would realize that this is simply not something that can voted on.

The principle of one man one vote is fine, but safeguarding the life, liberty, and property of the minority is the highest priority.

But take a power plant for example, if its polluting the air around the community, I think the community has a right to change it.

Agreed. A polluter is responsible for the damage his pollution does to the life and property of others.

Or say a cities main economy is tourism, then the pubs there are an important part of it and perhaps the community would wnat to make sure their economy is being served.

Again, I'm not sure what ought to be put to a vote here. More specifics might help me understand.

 

[RGacky3]

Would this be an example of your suggestion of one person one vote? I'm trying to see how that would work. Would such things as employee salary, operating hours, and whom to hire would be put to a vote? If there were twenty employees and one owner, then are you saying that the owner gets one vote and each employee gets one vote?

See Anarchist Catelonia as a rough example of how economic democracy works.

In my opinion, voting is a suboptimal decision making system, because it amounts to the majority forcing its will upon the minority. I can see that there might be some times when it is necessary to do so, but putting issues to a vote should be avoided as much as possible, and there should always be the option of, "I don't wish to participate in this collective decision. Please don't make decisions that bind me."

I totally agree with your last statement.

But if certain economic actions directly effect other people, they should have a say in it.

For example, a woman is walking on an isolated street. Four men approach her and say, "You and we are going to vote on whether we rape you." The fact that they vote is irrelevant; everyone would realize that this is simply not something that can voted on.

The principle of one man one vote is fine, but safeguarding the life, liberty, and property of the minority is the highest priority.

Absolutely, but none of this right now is applied to the economy, I want to extend the principles of democracy to the economy.

Agreed. A polluter is responsible for the damage his pollution does to the life and property of others.

Not according to libertarian thought, its an externality, if I dump toxic waste in a river, and downstream people drink it and get sick, how the hell could the people do anything to me? They did'nt "own" the river (no one did), and they can't tell me waht to do with my toxic waste ...

Again, read the history of anarchist catelonia, although it by no means is a perfect model, its a good rough guide.

Again, I'm not sure what ought to be put to a vote here. More specifics might help me understand. .

Let me give you an example, in germany if a factory wants to move, he needs permission from the local government, in certain cities some industries are considered part of the public welfare and thus either put under public control, or very conditional private stewardship.

There are many different examples of this.

Another way to introduce democracy in the economy is cooperatives, in northern italy, the wealthiest part of europe, the cooperative movement is HUGE, and a lot of the buisinesses, if not the majority (I forget the name of the area) are cooperatives, meaning workers democracies, in Italy, there is also a provision for the unemployed where instead of getting unemployment, they can group together with other unemployed and get funding to start up a cooperative.

In Germany and Sweeden you have Co-Determination (in france something similar), in some countries you have public industries.

There are many different models and different solutions.

I'm just saying we need to look beyond "more government or less government," and look at real alternatives to capitalism (or whatever you want to call it, I'm not interested in semantics).

I bring up Anarchist Catelonia because its a great example of an alternative, they did'nt have "more government" infact they basically got rid of it and put in an extremely decentralized democratic system, they also overcame capitalism and created a cooperative democratic economy.

 

[Centinel]

See Anarchist Catelonia as a rough example of how economic democracy works.

Will do, but I don't have time to do that right now. Would the employees of our hypothetical pub vote on things like wages, hiring, product pricing, etc?

I totally agree with your last statement.

But if certain economic actions directly effect other people, they should have a say in it.

I think we're on the same page, but I would put it more generally. One's actions may not damage the life or property of another.

Absolutely, but none of this right now is applied to the economy, I want to extend the principles of democracy to the economy.

As do I. I am in favor of a social and legal order in which it is forbidden to violate the life, liberty, or property of another.

Not according to libertarian thought, its an externality, if I dump toxic waste in a river, and downstream people drink it and get sick, how the hell could the people do anything to me? They did'nt "own" the river (no one did), and they can't tell me waht to do with my toxic waste ...

I'm certainly no expert on what libertarians say, but it seems to me that the people downstream have a preexisting legal claim on the part of the river they are using. I would argue that the people downstream do indeed have a property in the river, and that the polluter is damaging their property with his pollution. The downstream victims would have a valid legal claim against the polluter.

Let me give you an example, in germany if a factory wants to move, he needs permission from the local government, in certain cities some industries are considered part of the public welfare and thus either put under public control, or very conditional private stewardship.

There are many different examples of this.

Another way to introduce democracy in the economy is cooperatives, in northern italy, the wealthiest part of europe, the cooperative movement is HUGE, and a lot of the buisinesses, if not the majority (I forget the name of the area) are cooperatives, meaning workers democracies, in Italy, there is also a provision for the unemployed where instead of getting unemployment, they can group together with other unemployed and get funding to start up a cooperative.

Cooperatives seem like a great way for people to...um....cooperate. Cooperation, as opposed to coercion, is my preferred mode of social interaction.

In Germany and Sweeden you have Co-Determination (in france something similar), in some countries you have public industries.

There are many different models and different solutions.

I'm just saying we need to look beyond "more government or less government," and look at real alternatives to capitalism (or whatever you want to call it, I'm not interested in semantics).

I bring up Anarchist Catelonia because its a great example of an alternative, they did'nt have "more government" infact they basically got rid of it and put in an extremely decentralized democratic system, they also overcame capitalism and created a cooperative democratic economy.

To me the "more or less government" question is essentially "more or less coercion". As a proponent of voluntary cooperation and an opponent of coercion, I tend to see any legal mandates by government as coercion and tend to look for cooperative alternatives.

I will definitely look into the Catelonian anarchists. I would like to read about a real historical example of such a cooperative social order.

 

[RGacky3]

Would the employees of our hypothetical pub vote on things like wages, hiring, product pricing, etc?

Yes, i.e. be their own board of directors.

I think we're on the same page, but I would put it more generally. One's actions may not damage the life or property of another.

Who enforces that, and what constitutes damaging? Say for example I destroy a forest, in my land, which ends up destroying the ecosystem that wipes out many farms, does that count? What about destroying a company for short term profit (like private equity), which in tern destroys the economy of a town?

Heres what I would say, your "property" rights, when it comes to capitalism (i.e. capital and land, economic property), comes secondary to the rights of the community and the economy.

As do I. I am in favor of a social and legal order in which it is forbidden to violate the life, liberty, or property of another.

In my opinion, if workers build up a company and are then fired to make a quick dollar, their life and liberty have been violated ... property is arbitrary, but I say they have just as much a right to the company as anyone else.

I'm certainly no expert on what libertarians say, but it seems to me that the people downstream have a preexisting legal claim on the part of the river they are using. I would argue that the people downstream do indeed have a property in the river, and that the polluter is damaging their property with his pollution. The downstream victims would have a valid legal claim against the polluter.

How can you "own" a river? Also who's gonna recognize their ownershiip? Who says the polluter has to recognize it? Also where do you get the claim for a river?

Also what if it is somehow possible to "own" a river (which it is'nt), but you can't own a river because your too poor?

Cooperatives seem like a great way for people to...um....cooperate. Cooperation, as opposed to coercion, is my preferred mode of social interaction.

Its a great way to run the economy.

I say make coorporations responsible to workers, not just shareholders.

To me the "more or less government" question is essentially "more or less coercion". As a proponent of voluntary cooperation and an opponent of coercion, I tend to see any legal mandates by government as coercion and tend to look for cooperative alternatives.

Its not more of less coercion ... I would argue that more government can sometimes stop coercion by private industry, like making sure a population is always in poverty to keep them slaving for low wages.

But thats not hte point, I'm worried about abuses from the state and from buisiness and capital, and right now, Capital is a much larger problem when it comes to ruling peoples lives.

I will definitely look into the Catelonian anarchists. I would like to read about a real historical example of such a cooperative social order. .

One thing I'd like to say about them, is during the time period they were around, they actually ran a more productive economy than the republican spain AND fascist Spain, and the only reason they are not around any more is because the USSR backed republicans (and communists) and the German backed fascists basically wiped them away with bombs and guns, they just had a volunteer malitia with no foreign support, but they did fight pretty well even against the impossible odds.

 

[Centinel]

Yes, i.e. be their own board of directors.

But they don't own the business. How would they acquire the right to make decisions that are the owner's to make?

Who enforces that, and what constitutes damaging?

The government enforces it, and what constitutes damaging is decided by a jury in a court of law.

Say for example I destroy a forest, in my land, which ends up destroying the ecosystem that wipes out many farms, does that count?

It could. That would be determined in a court of law.

What about destroying a company for short term profit (like private equity), which in tern destroys the economy of a town?

I would think that if the hired management violated their fiduciary responsibility they could be held accountable for their harm to the owners of the company. They would definitely have a valid claim against the management.

Heres what I would say, your "property" rights, when it comes to capitalism (i.e. capital and land, economic property), comes secondary to the rights of the community and the economy.

So you think the community and the economy have more of a right to your property than you do? That seems absurd. We all have a right to our property, and we have a prohibition against violating the property of others. This is what allows people to live together without undue conflict.

In my opinion, if workers build up a company and are then fired to make a quick dollar, their life and liberty have been violated ... property is arbitrary, but I say they have just as much a right to the company as anyone else.

Workers sell labor to an employer. They are paid for every labor-day they provide, just as the copier paper vendor is paid for what he provides. Selling something to a business doesn't give one an ownership stake in that business. The very notion is absurd. If someone cuts your grass for ten years does he own your lawn? Nope.

How can you "own" a river? Also who's gonna recognize their ownershiip? Who says the polluter has to recognize it? Also where do you get the claim for a river?

One can own a portion of a river just as one can own a portion of an island or continent. The concept of ownership is simply a societal agreement about who has the right to use a resource. So if you have the right to use a particular section of a river, you are the owner of that section. And if someone pollutes and damages your property, the polluter has harmed your property and is responsible for compensating you for your loss.

Also what if it is somehow possible to "own" a river (which it is'nt), but you can't own a river because your too poor?

One buys what one can afford. I'm too poor to own many things. One makes do.

I say make coorporations responsible to workers, not just shareholders.

They are responsible to workers for paying them for their service. Everyone who buys something is responsible for paying the seller.

 

[American]

You want a good example of a utopia of private wealth and ownership? It was called the Dark Ages.

How's Russia doing these days?

 

[RGacky3]

How's Russia doing these days?

Not too good, its pretty private free market now, before it was'nt socialist, you just replace the capitalist with a non democratically accountable state, which does'nt democratize the economy at all.

But they don't own the business. How would they acquire the right to make decisions that are the owner's to make?

So what, the point is I'm talking about who controls what to produce, how to produce, what to do with the production and what to do with the revenue.

So it could include a large shareholder, but usually its the board.

Facebook just sold a bunch of shares ... who controls the company has'nt changed, even though "formal" ownership has, shares are just a way to raise capital and disperse risk and have leverage for borrowing, it rarely changes actual power relations, and if it does, then it does.

The government enforces it, and what constitutes damaging is decided by a jury in a court of law.

Anytime they try and do that libertarians cry about the government getting involved.

Also, joe blow gets cancer from pollution, then what? The company has to pay a fine maybe? if he can prove that his cancer is directly related to the polution from that specific company???

When in the real world has this ever worked?

It could. That would be determined in a court of law.

How???

would think that if the hired management violated their fiduciary responsibility they could be held accountable for their harm to the owners of the company. They would definitely have a valid claim against the management.

Except its nearly impossible since the shares are liquid and held so widely you don't even know who else has them.

Also what do the owners care about that town??? They probably don't live there.

When does has that EVER worked? Who has sued the car companies for ruining detroit?

So you think the community and the economy have more of a right to your property than you do? That seems absurd. We all have a right to our property, and we have a prohibition against violating the property of others. This is what allows people to live together without undue conflict.

The only reason I HAVE property beyond possession is because of the state and the economy ... So yeah.

Workers sell labor to an employer. They are paid for every labor-day they provide, just as the copier paper vendor is paid for what he provides. Selling something to a business doesn't give one an ownership stake in that business. The very notion is absurd. If someone cuts your grass for ten years does he own your lawn? Nope.

He's paid for his labor, but not compleatly, otherwise the company would'nt make any profit.

My point is that property beyond possession is arbitrary and only exists because the state exists, Also Capitalist property producing profit only creates profit because of the workers, the capitalist controling the property does'nt add any value to it at all, he only gets the profit because he has state backed rights to it.

So no.

But even beyond the moralistic arguments your making, Capitalism simply does'nt work anymore so we have to find an alternative.

One can own a portion of a river just as one can own a portion of an island or continent. The concept of ownership is simply a societal agreement about who has the right to use a resource. So if you have the right to use a particular section of a river, you are the owner of that section. And if someone pollutes and damages your property, the polluter has harmed your property and is responsible for compensating you for your loss.

EXACTLY, its just a societal agreement, and in a fully democratic society, that agreement can be undone if it is causing more harm than good.

One buys what one can afford. I'm too poor to own many things. One makes do.

Exactly, so if you die from the externalities, sad day for you.

Just like dumping nuclear waste near the slums.

They are responsible to workers for paying them for their service. Everyone who buys something is responsible for paying the seller. .

I mean actually responsble i.e. answerable to the workers.

Right now your just making moralistic arguments, we are talking about actual problems and real solutions.

Anyway have you read about Anarchist Catelonia yet?

 

[Centinel]

So what, the point is I'm talking about who controls what to produce, how to produce, what to do with the production and what to do with the revenue.

So it could include a large shareholder, but usually its the board.

Facebook just sold a bunch of shares ... who controls the company has'nt changed, even though "formal" ownership has, shares are just a way to raise capital and disperse risk and have leverage for borrowing, it rarely changes actual power relations, and if it does, then it does.

If your are talking about the employees buying shares in the business I've got no problem with that. They then become owners and can vote for the board, just like all the other owners.

I may have been mistaken but I thought you were saying that the employees would seize ownership of privately owned companies. If that were the case, I would vehemently oppose such theft.

Anytime they try and do that libertarians cry about the government getting involved.

Again, I'm no expert on libertarians, nor do I care much about their objections. Personally, I don't object to the government courts settling disputes, including disputes over property damage. I see that as the function of the government in the first place.

Also, joe blow gets cancer from pollution, then what? The company has to pay a fine maybe? if he can prove that his cancer is directly related to the polution from that specific company???

Not a fine, but compensation, and possibly punitive damages. It is a long standing principle in the common law that those who damage the property of others (and one's physical body is one's property) are responsible for that damage. Nobody gets a free ride or the ability to damage others with impunity.

Except its nearly impossible since the shares are liquid and held so widely you don't even know who else has them.

Also what do the owners care about that town??? They probably don't live there.

When does has that EVER worked? Who has sued the car companies for ruining detroit?

Perhaps nobody has pursued such a claim because for fear of being laughed out of court.

The only reason I HAVE property beyond possession is because of the state and the economy ... So yeah.

I see. So you believe that the community has more of a right to your property than you do. Does that include your physical person as well? Remember, the only reason your physical person is safe in the first place is because of the state.

He's paid for his labor, but not compleatly, otherwise the company would'nt make any profit.

No. He is paid completely for his labor. And the copier paper vendor is paid completely for the paper he sells to the business. And the internet service provider is paid completely for the internet they provide to the business. And the steel manufacturer is paid completely for the steel they sell to the business. Each of these vendors is paid for what they sell to the business, including the worker. Whether the business makes a profit is an independent issue, having to do with the market for the product being produced.

My point is that property beyond possession is arbitrary and only exists because the state exists,

I agree. The only reason that you can be reasonably sure that the money you think you have in the bank will be there when you go to withdraw it is because we have a government and a system of law that makes this happen. If you would prefer that you had no right to own something no directly in your possession, well then I suggest you move to Somalia, where you and yor buddies must guard your possessions day and night with AKs.

Also Capitalist property producing profit only creates profit because of the workers, the capitalist controling the property does'nt add any value to it at all, he only gets the profit because he has state backed rights to it.

So no.

The capitalist makes a profit if he can combine economic inputs in such a way as to produce a product that will pay for those inputs. Labor is an economic input, but is not the ONLY economic input. Eggs are one ingredient in a cake. If a baker bakes a cake, using eggs, flour, milk, and sugar, it is absurd to claim that the eggs alone created the cake. I see your argument above as exactly the same.

EXACTLY, its just a societal agreement, and in a fully democratic society, that agreement can be undone if it is causing more harm than good.

You are free to push for legislation that eliminates the long standing common law principles of property rights, but I will vehemently oppose such laws. Respect for property is what allows people to feel secure enough to accumulate capital, which is the only path to prosperity. A society that doesn't respect property rights will end up being a violent, impoverished, third world hell hole. See Somalia, as an example.

Exactly, so if you die from the externalities, sad day for you.

In my opinion, if someone injures you, they should be held responsible.

Just like dumping nuclear waste near the slums.

Already been through this. Someone who's property was polluted with nuclear was has a valid claim against the polluter. This is a settled matter of common law.

I mean actually responsble i.e. answerable to the workers.

Right now your just making moralistic arguments, we are talking about actual problems and real solutions.

Anyway have you read about Anarchist Catelonia yet?

No, not yet. My to read pile is bigger than I'd like.

 

[RGacky3]

If your are talking about the employees buying shares in the business I've got no problem with that. They then become owners and can vote for the board, just like all the other owners.

I may have been mistaken but I thought you were saying that the employees would seize ownership of privately owned companies. If that were the case, I would vehemently oppose such theft.

I don't care about ownership I care about control, I'm NOT saying they would buy shares, I'm saying that they have control over the companies, either directly or indirectly.

Again, I'm no expert on libertarians, nor do I care much about their objections. Personally, I don't object to the government courts settling disputes, including disputes over property damage. I see that as the function of the government in the first place.

The question is where is the line you draw, also whatabout personal damage? What about the commons?

Not a fine, but compensation, and possibly punitive damages. It is a long standing principle in the common law that those who damage the property of others (and one's physical body is one's property) are responsible for that damage. Nobody gets a free ride or the ability to damage others with impunity.

No, ones physical body is NOT one's property, you ARE your body.

Perhaps nobody has pursued such a claim because for fear of being laughed out of court.

Because most externalities, are not accounted for in the law, or in the market, (by definition), making them a huge problem for capitalism, thats my point.

I see. So you believe that the community has more of a right to your property than you do. Does that include your physical person as well? Remember, the only reason your physical person is safe in the first place is because of the state.

No, my physical person is noy my property, I am my person, also when I talk about private property I'm using a strict economic (marxian) term, private capitalist property, basically if you need a piece of paper to show you own something, then its private property.

I'm not saying you need the state to protect private capitalist property, I'm saying you need it to be a workable concept at all.

No. He is paid completely for his labor. And the copier paper vendor is paid completely for the paper he sells to the business. And the internet service provider is paid completely for the internet they provide to the business. And the steel manufacturer is paid completely for the steel they sell to the business. Each of these vendors is paid for what they sell to the business, including the worker. Whether the business makes a profit is an independent issue, having to do with the market for the product being produced.

Thats totally arbitrary, a steal worker in the US and one in the Congo are paid much different wages, are they both completely paid for their labor? Even if the product that comes out fetches the same price?

Obviously not, (other than in whatever philisophical/moralistic way), because the value of his production+capital and raw materials ends up higher than the raw materials, capital and his labor, which is pocketed by the capitalist.

I agree. The only reason that you can be reasonably sure that the money you think you have in the bank will be there when you go to withdraw it is because we have a government and a system of law that makes this happen. If you would prefer that you had no right to own something no directly in your possession, well then I suggest you move to Somalia, where you and yor buddies must guard your possessions day and night with AKs.

Thats not what I'm suggesting, I'm using that point to show that private property is arbitrary and not innate.

Private capitalist property not only needs the state for protection, it needs the state to even be a thing.

The capitalist makes a profit if he can combine economic inputs in such a way as to produce a product that will pay for those inputs. Labor is an economic input, but is not the ONLY economic input. Eggs are one ingredient in a cake. If a baker bakes a cake, using eggs, flour, milk, and sugar, it is absurd to claim that the eggs alone created the cake. I see your argument above as exactly the same.

Oh absolutely, the other inputs are capital (created by labor) and natural resources (extracted by labor).

What your saying is like saying that the Roman Emperors actuall built the roads because they allowed them to be made and controlled the resources, No, engineers + slaves + querry workers + planners built the roads.

You are free to push for legislation that eliminates the long standing common law principles of property rights, but I will vehemently oppose such laws. Respect for property is what allows people to feel secure enough to accumulate capital, which is the only path to prosperity. A society that doesn't respect property rights will end up being a violent, impoverished, third world hell hole. See Somalia, as an example.

That rediculous, many countries and many societies have had non-absolute property rights, or contingent property rights, or even nationalization, and they did fine. Please read about Anarchist Catelonia.

Plus I'm not saying that all private capitalist property rights should be abolished, and I am by no means saying personal rights or rights to possession should be abolished, I am saying that private capitalist property rights (things you need a paper to say you own ... roughly), only can exist as concepts through the state and are just subject to the common need, IF you believe that governments should be democratically accountable.

Possession and personhood exist independantly of the state or any government, even if they require protection.

Somalia exists because its a libertarian paradise, (privitized everything).

In my opinion, if someone injures you, they should be held responsible.

How is that workable in the real world ... In a capitalist system??? You get cancer from a polluter, but you can't afford a law suit ... Or how are you going to prove that it was the polluter???

Its all good philisophically, but in the real world how could it possibally work?

Already been through this. Someone who's property was polluted with nuclear was has a valid claim against the polluter. This is a settled matter of common law.

What if they don't own the property??? But just live there? What if its just hte commons, or what if its abandoned (but still owned) property ... What if you have no legal claim (can't prove owenership)? This is not imanignary, millions if not billions live like that.

No, not yet. My to read pile is bigger than I'd like. .

It would be very useful to understand the basic idea I'm looking at, obviously they had problems, but they were in the right direction.

 

[Centinel]

So reviewing this exchange, I see you proposing the following:

• Worker control of businesses.
• A distinction between possessions and title property, and a desire for community control over title property.
• A belief in the Marxian labor theory of value, with the result that you believe business owners extract value from labor in the form of profits.

Please let me know whether I have misinterpreted any of your positions.