Anyway, I live in a mostly Capitalist system, and it's also authoritarian. The only thing that seems to keep it from spiraling into complete evil is that a democratic Leviathan [2] happens to rule over it. (Of course, the capitalism is always in a constant assault for control).
What's funny to me is that I have several neighbors who fervently describe themselves as pro-capitalist libertarians. Yet, when I'm out of coffee or I need my driveway plowed, they do it for free. Why is that? Probably because we are all friends and have common culture and mutual trust.
When people invoke the idea of communism they usually mean: why can't we all have a society where we all act as neighbors. Sure, that's a daunting goal, of course. But, it's no less impossible as when people invented the idea of the social contract. Or any of the other million inventions that people said were crazy or impossible.
I don't wish to presume anything about you specifically, but I find that your neighbor's behavior only seems paradoxical to those who don't understand what it's actually like to think like and be a libertarian. It's not that libertarians want to assign a price tag to every interaction (as if money were the only thing of value) it's that they would rather appeal to people's self interest to achieve social outcomes than resort to force (which they see as an inevitable result of any form of socialism/communism).
> When people invoke the idea of communism they usually mean: why can't we all have a society where we all act as neighbors. Sure, that's a daunting goal, of course. But, it's no less impossible as when people invented the idea of the social contract. Or any of the other million inventions that people said were crazy or impossible.
A distributist/communitarian might say that, regardless of whether we can be neighborly with all of mankind, we can certainly be neighborly with people who are actually our neighbors, and thus we should aspire to the former without sacrificing the latter. Yet sacrificing the latter is what I tend to see from those who invoke the idea of communism.
Is it obvious that humans can own large areas of land simply because their grandfather did? If so, then in the case of US, why do you start tracking property after the natives who originally used it were forced off the land? And so on.
Property is not a simple concept and something to easily be for or against.
Property is almost always disputed and almost always linked to use of force somehow.
Yes, but we recognize that as a disagreement over who has legitimate claim to the property. With taxes, we take property that practically everyone, except the most snobbish socialist intellectual, and certainly the courts, would recognize as belonging to the individual.
It's on a totally different scale in terms of how certain we can be that it's a violation of property rights.
And who granted anyone else the ownership right to destroy the air I breathe and destroy the climate I depend on? Some taxes are a way to compensate for that.
It is more like a forced VC capital investment in your life... you get a big chunk of education and defense and security paid for you, but if you hit it big you have to pay a lot back for it.
And that neighborhood are the only ones who protect you from the squatters outside with nuclear weapons ready to take the lawn, so they think they have a say. (Unfortunately you are surrounded by neighbors on all sides, so they cannot stop rendering protection services due to laws of geometry). And they are the descendants of the neighbors who helped your great-great-grandfather take the lawn from the Indians in the first place.
I don't agree that there are cleae cut simple examples when it comes to property.
It you want to nitpick on my thought experiment, you could also bring up the fact that a lawn is on top of land, and that there are strong moral arguments against an individual having a natural right to absolute private ownership over land, which in turns provides various justifications for government dictating land-use rules and collecting taxes on land/real-estate.
But I was not trying to make a comment on negative externalities or the right to private land ownership.
I was making the point that the government spending money on something, and this action ending up benefiting you, does not grant the government the moral right to threaten you with imprisonment to force you to pay for that something.
I think "hurting or threatening to hurt people" is a perfectly sufficient definition of aggression, and trying to stretch it to include property rights is a rhetorical trick to try and make a complicated political opinion seem obviously correct.
Property is not extremely complicated. If I take your laptop without your consent, that's a violation of your rights. If you have 20 laptops, that doesn't change that fact. If I have 99 other people that agree that I should be able to take your laptop, that still doesn't change that fact.
But, at that point, laws are no longer 'basic laws of society' but laws of the sovereign - to maintain their power and control. And, interestingly, the soverign is the only one allowed to steal. I'm suggesting that maybe those 'laws' are no longer useful or at least may need to be modified. And, I think it's a cop-out to not try to think beyond that.
But, let's go back before the king. Did people really own land then? Doubtful. Did they even have individual property rights? Probably not in the sense that we do today. Most 'property' was collective. And, people didn't own land, which was thought as sacred.
In fact, behavior within families and kin groups is not much different then it was 12,0000 years ago. And, of all families and kin groups that I know, I see young children taught to share within the group. Where that breaks down is when they encounter strangers or 'invading' groups. And, only then do they rely on the laws of the state to make transactions.
So, that's what I mean when I point out my neighbors' behavior. Their natural inclination is to share (at least with those of their kin group).
Again, I don't think capitalism or communism are the answer. I don't know what is. I just think we can imagine something better.
Maat:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maat#42_Negative_Confessions_....
>42 Negative Confessions (Papyrus of Ani)[edit]
>1. I have not committed sin.
>2. I have not committed robbery with violence.
>3. I have not stolen.
>4. I have not slain men and women.
>5. I have not stolen grain.
Babylonian Law:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/ancient/hamframe.asp
>8. If any one steal cattle or sheep, or an ass, or a pig or a goat, if it belong to a god or to the court, the thief shall pay thirtyfold therefor; if they belonged to a freed man of the king he shall pay tenfold; if the thief has nothing with which to pay he shall be put to death.
>9. If any one lose an article, and find it in the possession of another: if the person in whose possession the thing is found say "A merchant sold it to me, I paid for it before witnesses," and if the owner of the thing say, "I will bring witnesses who know my property," then shall the purchaser bring the merchant who sold it to him, and the witnesses before whom he bought it, and the owner shall bring witnesses who can identify his property. The judge shall examine their testimony--both of the witnesses before whom the price was paid, and of the witnesses who identify the lost article on oath. The merchant is then proved to be a thief and shall be put to death. The owner of the lost article receives his property, and he who bought it receives the money he paid from the estate of the merchant.
Ancient Greek Law:
http://www.ancient-origins.net/history/brutal-draconian-laws...
>Plutarch, another ancient source for Draco, in his Life of Solon , claims that the penalty for the theft of an apple or a cabbage was death, and you could have someone made your personal slave if they owed you money. The writer also records that when Draco was asked the reason for making execution the punishment for most offences, the reply was that ‘Small ones deserve that (i.e. death), and I have no higher for the greater crimes.’
Biblical Law:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+20%3A1%E...
>15 You shall not steal.
And pre-agricultural societies that we have accounts of universally prohibit theft as well. For example Australian Aborigine:
http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1124&contex...
>The process of the law was one of political negotiation that involved everyone in the community. When there was a dispute, the elders met to discuss the punishments: their word was LAW. Offences regarded as unlawful included the unauthorised killing of a person, sacrilege, incest, adultery, theft, unauthorised assault, insult and neglect of kinship obligations. Punishments could range from making compensation over an agreed period of time to having to face a squad of spearmen, with only a shield and that person's ability to protect himself.
The reason laws against theft are universally found is that theft creates harmful incentives. It doesn't matter what stage of civilization we reach: the fundamental dynamics of multiple parties co-existing make theft harmful to creating economic value.
This is something I would argue is self-evident. Not sure why you're so desperate to question the moral principle that theft is wrong.
>I just think we can imagine something better.
Moral principles are timeless. There is nothing "better" than not stealing, because it is a basic requirement for a functioning society. The only type of configuration better than 'not stealing' is 'not stealing' + doing something good. But not stealing, murdering, assaulting etc are the foundational principles that a functioning society has to build on top of.
First Possession at least has been shown in Game Theory simulations to lead to stable equilibriums, so it's not surprising that property rights are so widely observed. I think observance of the Homesteading principle naturally emerges from observance of the First Possession principle.
Where it gets fuzzy, in my opinion, is property rights over natural resources like land, which derive almost all of their value from their natural form, rather than the value done to them by their original appropriator.
Yes it is.
How do you determine it's my laptop? How do you determine I didn't give consent? What about if I wrote a contract to lend you my laptop and we didn't specify a certain edge case? What about if you're using a hose in your garden and you accidentally damage my laptop next door? What about if I sell you the laptop and it breaks a few days later?
There are answers to all these questions, but we need a complicated system of laws to determine them.
How do we determine that you assaulted me? It's your word against mine. We're not talking about the complexity of determining the true account of events, which is obviously great. We're talking about the complexity of establishing what property rights are. It's not complicated at all.
>What about if I wrote a contract to lend you my laptop and we didn't specify a certain edge case?
Then common law, which springs from the first principles of personal and property rights, would preside.
We'd have a similarly difficult time determining if a hockey fight classifies as assault. Or if in a traffic altercation, you stepping out of your car and aggressively approaching me justified my preemptive (or aggressive?) first punch.
>There are answers to all these questions, but we need a complicated system of laws to determine them.
The system of laws being complicated does not mean that it is not generally straightforward to determine what a person has property rights to. The complexity comes from the edge cases, but most cases are not edge cases.
Okay so what are they? What makes your claim to own the things you own correct and someone else's invalid?
Or more generally, how do you go from a world with no property rights, to one where everything has a defined owner, in a way that is simple and obviously fair?
Again, there are answers to these questions, but they are complicated and even within libertarian thought, people disagree about them.
The fact that I made it, or acquired it from someone else through trade.
>Or more generally, how do you go from a world with no property rights, to one where everything has a defined owner, in a way that is simple and obviously fair?
The homestead principle is based on the notion that if something is unclaimed, and someone adds value to it, they should be able to enjoy the full benefit of that value-added thing.
The only 'artificial' private property is scarce natural resources, most importantly land, and that is because much if not most of its value comes from its natural form, rather than anything added to it by its original homesteader, and it is this class of property which society has a moral right to create rules/taxes on.
With respect to this latter class of property, once the rules on its use have been established (say a rule asserting that a property title owner must pay a rent equal to 1% of the value of their land to the government each year) anything the title owner earns in accordance with the rules (e.g. anything they earn on top of the 1% tax) is theirs by right.
Regarding people disagreeing: people also didn't agree that ending ritual sacrifice and slavery were fair, but I don't believe many reasonable people would disagree on the general outlines of what private property is if the discussion is permitted to progress far enough.
I believe counter-notions are mostly a result of demagoguery and would dissipate in the face of reasoned inquiry.
As for outcomes, knowing what we know about incentives and how they affect the behavior of economic agents, and extrapolating the effect of the evolutionary processes of the market, it's inconceivable to me that violating private property rights would result in better outcomes in relation to increasing economic output over the long-run, than protecting them.
I think a Capitalist system needs to be paired with a wealth redistribution mechanism to damp that amplification, such that inequality can only ever be maintained by constant effort.
EDIT: And while you may be right, I think being unable to conceive of ways in which you may be wrong speaks poorly of your imagination.
I also don't believe that inequality is a natural outcome of a market economy. The market will favor efficiency above all things, because it is an iterative process that rewards good utilizers/investors of capital with greater allocations of capital, and it is not efficient for 5 people to own and direct as much capital as 150 million people. More individual owners of capital means much more attention being given in the management of each unit of capital, resulting in higher returns on it.
The sources of income inequality need to be found in the government either not fulfilling its responsibility to manage the commons in the interest of the public, or in authoritarian prohibitions that disproportionately harm the less wealthy and the poor.
Free-market inhibiting factors that could be contributing to income disparity:
* high fixed-costs for participating in business. Fixed costs, unlike variable costs, punish small businesses. Regulations are known in the economics field as a source of fixed costs. A very basic example: you can't offer stock in your company on a stock exchange without having millions of dollars to pay lawyers. This excludes millions of small businesses from one of the best sources of capital: the public stock market. More on regulations causing an upward distribution of income: Working Paper: The Upward Redistribution of Income: Are Rents the Story?: http://cepr.net/publications/reports/working-paper-the-upwar...
* high market transaction costs as a result of regulations and taxes. Why do high market transaction costs contribute to income disparity? Because non-market transactions internal to an organization are not subject to the costs imposed by regulations and taxes. This will result in large corporations having a competitive advantage over small ones that rely on market transactions for a greater portion of their activity. For example, a large corporation doesn't need to pay a sales tax to have its accounting department do an accounting job for it. A small corporation that pays an external company to do it does.
I think we would both agree that the generosity of your neighbors represents the ideal. But if they weren't so generous, how you get them to share their coffee plow your drive way? Would you lobby for regulations to be passed to force them to stop hoarding their coffee? Have the police requisition their plow for the greater good?
Or would you offer to compensate them for their goods and services? And if they refused, would you peacefully resign yourself to some other means of getting your needs met?
The socialist often invokes the spirit of generosity with his rhetoric, but when others are (in his view) insufficiently generous, he is too quick to trade the pen for the club.
Even if there is no money involved, you may repay such favors in the future when they ask you. So it's more like borrowing a favor.
> why can't we all have a society where we all act as neighbors
Why can't we have that within capitalism? What does "act as neighbor" even mean? Does it helping one another for free? That already occurs for small tasks.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not a communist, and I'm not completely against capitalism. Capitalism can be beneficial, especially in distributing resources. And, I understand and agree that capitalism is not a zero sum game (at least at the instant of the transaction). But, transactions are rarely equally beneficial. In fact, in the long run, transactions can actually harm one or more parties, especially those indirectly affected. And, based on my observations, it seems easiest to 'win at capitalism' via monopoly, deception, manipulation, trickery, and abusing intent.
Furthermore, what do we with those who are just unable to produce anything of value? it's implied that they just die.
So, generally, I'm not a fan of it (although I've also made a lot of money from it). But, what I dislike even more is the cop-out that it's somehow impossible for us to do better - that somehow 'natural laws' prevent it.
Capitalism doesn't stop a person from donating to those people. Indeed, that's what happens through the government.
so I think their use of "evil" is fine.
In short: you are doing poor communication to redefine it so differently from normal use.
Communists want for people who do productive work to have an equal say in how work is done and what happens to the product. Not complicated, not unrealistic, and certainly not an inevitable disaster.
In empirical terms, there's a lot more evidence for the disaster-causing tendency of capitalism than communism. At the very worst, the end result of communism is empirically unknown, since, to date, communism has not been allowed to flourish on a noteworthy scale.
The only substantial difference between socialism and capitalism is the democratic control of the workplace. Capitalism's idea of a workplace is inherently totalitarian, socialism's is democratic. That's it.
There is no moral distinction. It's an arbitrary distinction to justify robbing people of the value they generate. It's slavery.
> Nobody is advocating for violating personal private property.
But communists are advocating for violating private property.
>And #2 is not something most mainstream socialists advocate for either, so it's mostly a strawman.
Socialists universally support economic regulations. You have not thought about any of this carefully.
You may be confused as to what 'voluntary economic interactions' means, so I'll explain:
This would be any kind trade enter into by two consenting adults, like for example, doing a number of hours of work in exchange for a number of units of currency. By denying the right of employers to hire workers on any terms other than giving workers all of the revenue generated by the business, communism denies the right to engage in the aforementioned class of voluntary economic interactions.
I really recommend you think about these concepts. You seem to have a very shallow understanding of what communism is, and the implications of what it advocates for.
To advocate for radical reconfigurations of society, brought about by force, without thinking through the moral implications, is very reckless and morally irresponsible.
Having said nothing about how or even if communism should be brought about, I certainly acknowledge that it seeks to bar certain apparently voluntary economic interactions on the grounds that they are not as voluntary as they first seem.
Take the rest of your strawman with you, I have no use for it.
It would bar transactions that any court of law would find to be consensual. It's not a just system.
You're right I can't criticize your views that much because you do not actually outline what they are beyond vaguely saying they're communism but not saying specifically what that means in terms of what happens to the property we earn in private trade, and what private trades we're allowed to engage in.
That suggests to me that you are hiding what you truly believe in because you know it is not palatable while still promoting the 'communism' brand, knowing full well what most interpret that as.
I'm not against capitalism as an economic system, but I find this moralising of its means rather than its end to be very distasteful.
Second, if the government merely stopped protecting private property from aggressive seizure, that would be one thing. But communism advocates the government being the primary instrument by which people aggressively prevent others from existing as independent economic agents (homesteading natural resources).
Nonsense, non-captialist societies may have been less effective, but they were obviously still engaged in economic activity. Unless you define economic activity to mean "trade within a property system" in which case it's a meaningless tautology.
> Without homesteading, we cannot own our own bodies. Appropriation of natural resources is the process by which we assert a right over the bodily material that food (originally unclaimed natural resources) turns into.
That seems like an unnecessarily morbid way to derive the kind of morality you're talking about. (Seriously, we can only have rights because we turned food we owned into our flesh?) I prefer to define my morality in terms of people not property.
>But communism advocates the government being the primary instrument by which people aggressively prevent others from existing as independent economic agents
By which you mean, prevent them from withholding resources from other people.
Again, I'm not saying Communism is good, I just object to the way you're arguing that the problem is breaking some arbitrary principles you like, rather than the very real suffering it caused.
There has never been an economic system that has has zero defence for private property rights (in the abstract sense of one having exclusive rights to that which they appropriate from the natural world or receive from another legitimate owner). The soviet union had small privately owned farms. North Korea has black markets that are widely tolerated by authorities. But even at a more basic level, having an exclusive right to the food that the state gives you is an exercise of private property rights. Economic existence would not be possible with zero observance of economic independence between individuals.
>That seems like an unnecessarily morbid way to derive the kind of morality you're talking about. (Seriously, we can only have rights because we turned food we owned into our flesh?)
I see it in an opposite way. I see property as really our own person. I use the term 'property' because that is better understood. But morally, I think it's more appropriate to see the things we own as an extension of our person, and not as a separate class of matter we call property.
>By which you mean, prevent them from withholding resources from other people.
Withholding resources you created through your own effort, or acquired through private trade trade, is self-defense in my opinion. I think this is common sense and consistent with how we commonly define rights.
Communism is evil because its ideology has no relationship with reality and will inevitably be a practical disaster anywhere it's implemented to the degree that it's implemented as a result. There's no escaping it any more than you can escape the laws of physics.