Socialism and property rights

[vostibackle]

I'm very confused by socialism. I consider myself an anarcho-capitalist. My only political belief is that there should be no politics. I also happen to think capitalism is the most efficient anarchist economic system—that is, it's the best way for the most people to get what they want. My confusion with socialism probably stems from my thinking about it from an anarcho-capitalist perspective. If any kind socialist would point out how I've gone wrong or misrepresented socialist views, I'd be grateful.

I really like property rights. I think that if you build a factory, you own it and get to decide who's allowed to use it and on what terms. So the capitalist entrepreneur builds a factory, and announces to everybody that they can use it if they agree to work for a wage. He doesn't use violent force to compel people to work in his factory, people willingly agree to do so. In my view, he has not violated anyone's property rights.

It seems to me that the socialist must respond by claiming that my system of property rights is flawed, and that the workers have an inherent claim of ownership to the factory. This is where I'm confused. Why do they have this claim? The entrepreneur paid for and built the factory. What right do the workers have to demand that they be allowed to use the factory at terms unacceptable to the entrepreneur?

Suppose my neighbor has a saw and some wood which needs to be cut, but he doesn't want to do the work. He agrees to pay me to saw the wood for him. I do. Do I now own his saw? Can I now take the saw and do whatever I want with it, regardless of what he wants? That seems ridiculous to me.

Perhaps the justification for workers' ownership of the means of production is utilitarianism? Socialists seem to think that if the workers owned the means of production, everyone in the world would become happy and peaceful and live great lives. Utilitarianism is unacceptable to me, though (not to mention the fact that I think almost everyone would actually be worse off in a socialist society). Must we accept utilitarianism to justify socialism?

[wackdeafboy]

Anarcho-Capitalism is not that bad based on my opinons. I don't see any flaw in property rights, the only thing I don't like about that is gov is taking more land then we, the people. Putting research center, area 51, those kind of research center that the gov doesn't want us to know. Isn't america citizens has the right to know it? yes but not in this world.

Look at carpenters, The company has to supply tools so the workers can use it, allow to get the job done and help the company to get the money so it can pay to the workers.

I hope that make sense......

[IGOTJOINTS4YA]

Socialism is not substaniable for long periods of time, unless it is a mixture of different systems, because it strives for a system where you try to make everyone not of the working class. It is a noble cause but pure forms of it fail time and time again.

Anarcho Capitalism is a system is moronic in my opinion.

The two guiding rules of Anarcho Capitalism are just ass backwards to how they actually work in practice. Those being.

1. the State is an unnecessary evil and should be abolished
2. a free-market private property economic system is morally permissible.

Here are my problems with those two guidelines of Anarcho Capitalism.

1. Blaming the state for being an unnecessary evil is to blame the military for 9/11 or to blame police for the bank robbery. To blame to controllers of the system with the problems that face the system is stupid. It reminds me of the famous Watchmen comic, where the people of America voted to ban super heros because they said they caused more crime. It is a stupid moronic way of going about doing things, that only people that want to pass the burden onto others would do.

I am not saying the state cannot be corrupt, but that is to be taken care of on a day to day basis, not executed because of it.

2. The free market is not any more morally permissible than the state, to say that it is more allowable morally is even more stupid than the first rule.


Anarcho capitalism works on a small level, tribal level because your wealth creation efficiency if you worked harder than your neighbor highest was about 5 to 1, meaning that if you had lots of children, worked extra hard and had good land you could make on average 5 to 1, means you can create 5 times the wealth of the average guy.


Anarcho capitalism would not work today, because the weath creation effiency is 250 to 1. Which means there are many more factors effecting wealth creation, and those factors create many more problems which impose on the no state control over such things. Major ones being Monopolies and Trusts, but there are hundreds more that would never be fixed without some kind of state control.

[vostibackle]

Originally Posted by IGOTJOINTS4YA

1. Blaming the state for being an unnecessary evil is to blame the military for 9/11 or to blame police for the bank robbery. To blame to controllers of the system with the problems that face the system is stupid. It reminds me of the famous Watchmen comic, where the people of America voted to ban super heros because they said they caused more crime. It is a stupid moronic way of going about doing things, that only people that want to pass the burden onto others would do.

I am not saying the state cannot be corrupt, but that is to be taken care of on a day to day basis, not executed because of it.

The state is not to be executed because it is corrupt. I reject any state, even one with absolutely no corruption. I don't blame the police for bank robbery, I blame them for fucking with me. The government is indeed to blame for some of our crime (most drug-related violence, for example), but even it it weren't, I would still object to it on the grounds that it is coercive. I believe voluntary arrangements can solve the "problems that face the system" better than the government, and without coercion.

Originally Posted by IGOTJOINTS4YA

2. The free market is not any more morally permissible than the state, to say that it is more allowable morally is even more stupid than the first rule.

Good argument . I believe the free market is preferable to government because the free market lacks legitimatized coercion.

[IGOTJOINTS4YA]

Originally Posted by vostibackle

The state is not to be executed because it is corrupt. I reject any state, even one with absolutely no corruption. I don't blame the police for bank robbery, I blame them for fucking with me. The government is indeed to blame for some of our crime (most drug-related violence, for example), but even it it weren't, I would still object to it on the grounds that it is coercive. I believe voluntary arrangements can solve the "problems that face the system" better than the government, and without coercion.

Pure Free market does not solve manipulation, it breeds manipulation, just like any pure system.

As for the system fucking with you, get over it, the government is not as much of a dis-service as most people here put them off to be.

Originally Posted by vostibackle

Good argument . I believe the free market is preferable to government because the free market lacks legitimatized coercion.

Legitimatized coercion?

It is just as legitimatized as free market coercion.

Your the one with the amazing argument buddy.

[vostibackle]

Originally Posted by IGOTJOINTS4YA

Legitimatized coercion?

It is just as legitimatized as free market coercion.

"free market coercion" is an oxymoron. If there were coercion, the market wouldn't be free.

We must have different definitions for the terms "free market" and "coercion".

[IGOTJOINTS4YA]

Originally Posted by vostibackle

"free market coercion" is an oxymoron. If there were coercion, the market wouldn't be free.

We must have different definitions for the terms "free market" and "coercion".

How so because you say it is an oxymoron.



The whole idea of a free market, is to make X amount of wealth as quickly as possible, and when you become good at that, you find ways to cohere the entire system at using it to your own advantage. Just like Politics, just like organized crime, just like everything else, people find ways to manipulate a said system and keep on taking advantage of that task tell it is not available, then they move on.

Like I said, Anarcho socialism worked when it was hard to make a wealth barrier, to create more wealth than your neighbor. Now you can create more wealth than you ever imagined, and people manipulate that function to there own liking.

The modern free market is indeed coercive if you let it be that way.

[vostibackle]

No, we're using different definitions for the word "coercive".

Here's the one I mean (basically): "to restrain or dominate by force". Monopolies don't use force to make you buy their product. If they did, the market would not be free, since a free market consists of only voluntary transactions.

Sure, you may be compelled by hunger to buy food from the single food company in your area at whatever price they set, but the company is not forcing you to, so to me, there is no coercion.

Also, I believe that the state actually helps monopolies with licensing restrictions and regulations. In a free market, the only transactions are voluntary. In a society with a state, the politically powerful (who are often the kind of people who are more likely to own monopolies) can force others to do business with them or prevent competition with legislation.

Anyway, this was supposed to be about socialism, not anarcho-capitalism. Oh well.

[IGOTJOINTS4YA]

Originally Posted by vostibackle

No, we're using different definitions for the word "coercive".

Here's the one I mean (basically): "to restrain or dominate by force". Monopolies don't use force to make you buy their product. If they did, the market would not be free, since a free market consists of only voluntary transactions.

Sure, you may be compelled by hunger to buy food from the single food company in your area at whatever price they set, but the company is not forcing you to, so to me, there is no coercion.

Also, I believe that the state actually helps monopolies with licensing restrictions and regulations. In a free market, the only transactions are voluntary. In a society with a state, the politically powerful (who are often the kind of people who are more likely to own monopolies) can force others to do business with them or prevent competition with legislation.

Anyway, this was supposed to be about socialism, not anarcho-capitalism. Oh well.

When goods are essential for survival and without them you cannot function properly, it is force.

That's not a matter of opinion either, that is a simple fact.

When also those goods impede on further human development(Oil companies owning patents on electric batteries that could make electric cars viable) it is excruciatingly moronic and is why you need an interventionist state to step in and say no you cannot and should not do that.

[vostibackle]

Originally Posted by IGOTJOINTS4YA

When goods are essential for survival and without them you cannot function properly, it is force.

That's not a matter of opinion either, that is a simple fact.

Like I said, we have different definitions for "force" and "coercion".

Here's the definition I really like: coercion is "the violation of what people in a particular society believe to be the rights of individuals with respect to other individuals". A government is then just any agency of legitimized coercion. In modern American society, it is considered a violation of the rights of individual A for individual B to steal food (or money to buy food) from A, even if B is really hungry. But the government has special privileges, and can go around and steal money from people to feed the hungry. That's legitimized coercion.

Now, if we lived in a society in which it was a violation of B's rights for A not to give B food if B is really hungry, then a monopoly which sells food to people at inflated prices would indeed be coercive. But in the anarcho-capitalist society I argue for, this is not the case. It doesn't matter how hungry B is, A has no obligation to give B food. And so, a monopoly which sells food at inflated prices is not coercive (as long as it doesn't maintain its monopoly position by doing something which would be considered a rights violation if done by individuals to individuals).

[IGOTJOINTS4YA]

Originally Posted by vostibackle

Like I said, we have different definitions for "force" and "coercion".

Here's the definition I really like: coercion is "the violation of what people in a particular society believe to be the rights of individuals with respect to other individuals". A government is then just any agency of legitimized coercion. In modern American society, it is considered a violation of the rights of individual A for individual B to steal food (or money to buy food) from A, even if B is really hungry. But the government has special privileges, and can go around and steal money from people to feed the hungry. That's legitimized coercion.

Now, if we lived in a society in which it was a violation of B's rights for A not to give B food if B is really hungry, then a monopoly which sells food to people at inflated prices would indeed be coercive. But in the anarcho-capitalist society I argue for, this is not the case. It doesn't matter how hungry B is, A has no obligation to give B food. And so, a monopoly which sells food at inflated prices is not coercive (as long as it doesn't maintain its monopoly position by doing something which would be considered a rights violation if done by individuals to individuals).

The problem with your A and B comparison is, there is no way for us to function at the level we do without working together.

[Kasu]

Marxist theory is not based on morality. Obviously, a capitalist believes he has the property rights to his factory.

In most cases, however, capitalists don't build their own factories. Workers build their factories. How do they get money to build a new factory? From the exploitation of labor from other workers. Most capitalists get born into their own class, and receive ownership through inheretance. But when you go really far back, you begin to see that all property was originally "stolen" from other people. No one technically has any rights over property, because that property was stolen at some point in time, from someone else. That's how the original capitalists got property, they stole it from the natives and killed them off. It's inherently unjustified and criminal.

But that's not the point. The point is, the exploitation of labour alienates the workers from their own labour, creating class antagonisms, which raise tensions between the working class and the capitalist class. The tensions will manifest themselves into class struggle, with the leadership of the communists. It's not a moral issue, it's an objective understanding of the psychology of workers, and an objective understanding in economics.

"Although no one can provide a blueprint in advance of what such a society would look like, we can say that this form of social ownership and democracy would mean the beginning of the end of the class division of society, and indeed of the social division of labor. The working class having taken power will proceed to radically transform the way the economy and society is run. Socialism is democratic or it is nothing. This refers not to some formal democracy on paper - more accurately bourgeois democracy where you are allowed to vote every few years for a committee (parliament) who then run things in the interests of capitalism - but a democracy where we all play a full and active part not just in voting but in actually running our communities, our workplaces, and our society. Once the modern economy, industry, science, and technology, is in the hands of all members of society, we will be able to achieve full employment and shorter working hours - giving us the time as well as the resources we need to really begin to realize our talents. We could see the economy forge ahead at 10 or even 20% a year! This would be entirely possible once we have done away with the anarchy of private ownership and the profit motive. Such growth could double the wealth of society in five years!

The reduction of the working day, and an increase in the productivity of society are the prerequisites for the disappearance of the class division of society, and for the birth of socialism. It would be, as Marx put it, a society where everyone contributes according to their abilities and receives according to their needs. Such a society is no utopia but the only alternative to a slow and painful descent into barbarism."

[IGOTJOINTS4YA]

Originally Posted by Kasu

Marxist theory is not based on morality. Obviously, a capitalist believes he has the property rights to his factory.

In most cases, however, capitalists don't build their own factories. Workers build their factories. How do they get money to build a new factory? From the exploitation of labor from other workers. Most capitalists get born into their own class, and receive ownership through inheretance. But when you go really far back, you begin to see that all property was originally "stolen" from other people. No one technically has any rights over property, because that property was stolen at some point in time, from someone else. That's how the original capitalists got property, they stole it from the natives and killed them off. It's inherently unjustified and criminal.

But that's not the point. The point is, the exploitation of labour alienates the workers from their own labour, creating class antagonisms, which raise tensions between the working class and the capitalist class. The tensions will manifest themselves into class struggle, with the leadership of the communists. It's not a moral issue, it's an objective understanding of the psychology of workers, and an objective understanding in economics.

"Although no one can provide a blueprint in advance of what such a society would look like, we can say that this form of social ownership and democracy would mean the beginning of the end of the class division of society, and indeed of the social division of labor. The working class having taken power will proceed to radically transform the way the economy and society is run. Socialism is democratic or it is nothing. This refers not to some formal democracy on paper - more accurately bourgeois democracy where you are allowed to vote every few years for a committee (parliament) who then run things in the interests of capitalism - but a democracy where we all play a full and active part not just in voting but in actually running our communities, our workplaces, and our society. Once the modern economy, industry, science, and technology, is in the hands of all members of society, we will be able to achieve full employment and shorter working hours - giving us the time as well as the resources we need to really begin to realize our talents. We could see the economy forge ahead at 10 or even 20% a year! This would be entirely possible once we have done away with the anarchy of private ownership and the profit motive. Such growth could double the wealth of society in five years!

The reduction of the working day, and an increase in the productivity of society are the prerequisites for the disappearance of the class division of society, and for the birth of socialism. It would be, as Marx put it, a society where everyone contributes according to their abilities and receives according to their needs. Such a society is no utopia but the only alternative to a slow and painful descent into barbarism."

All communisits societies run there countries like a corporation, they serve the same purposes. You walk into a meeting in USSR governmental officials a couple years back and it would sound exactly like what a corporation talks about. What are percentages for certain processes to get done, and what is our overhead. Making the destinction between the two are pointless.

Communism is not an efficient way of doing things, it has proven time and time again that it ends up in poverty.

[aaronman]

Joints, can you give me an example of an exploitative/coercive free market monopoly?


Nathaniel Branden:

One of the worst fallacies in the field of economics—propagated by Karl Marx and accepted by almost everyone today, including many businessmen—is that the development of monopolies is an inescapable and intrinsic result of the operation of a free, unregulated economy. In fact, the exact opposite is true. It is a free market that makes monopolies impossible.

It is imperative that one be clear and specific in one’s understanding of the meaning of “monopoly.” When people speak in an economic or political context, of the dangers and evils of monopoly, what they mean is a coercive monopoly—that is; exclusive control of a given field of production which is closed to and exempt from competition, so that those controlling the field are able to set arbitrary production policies and charge arbitrary prices, independent of the market, immune from the law of supply and demand. Such a monopoly, it is important to note, entails more than the absence of competition; it entails the impossibility of competition. That is a coercive monopoly’s characteristic attribute-and is essential to any condemnation of such a monopoly.

In the whole history of capitalism, no one has been able to establish a coercive monopoly by means of competition on a free market. There is only one way to forbid entry into a given field of production: by law. Every single coercive monopoly that exists or ever has existed—in the United States, in Europe or anywhere else in the world—was created and made possible only by an act of government: by special franchises, licenses, subsidies, by legislative actions which granted special privileges (not obtainable on a free market) to a man or a group of men, and forbade all others to enter that particular field.

A coercive monopoly is not the result of laissez-faire; it can result only from the abrogation of laissez-faire and from the introduction of the opposite principle—the principle of statism.

In this country, a utility company is a coercive monopoly: the government grants it a franchise for an exclusive territory, and no one else is allowed to engage in that service in that territory; a would-be competitor, attempting to sell electric power, would be stopped by law. A telephone company is a coercive monopoly. As recently as World War II, the government ordered the two then existing telegraph companies, Western Union and Postal Telegraph, to merge into one monopoly.

One of the best illustrations of the fact that a coercive monopoly requires the abrogation of the principle of laissez-faire is given by Ayn Rand in her “Notes on the History of American Free Enterprise.” She writes:

“ The Central Pacific—which was built by the ‘Big Four’ of California, on federal subsides—was the railroad which was guilty of all the evils popularly held against railroads. For almost thirty years, the Central Pacific controlled California, held a monopoly and permitted no competitor to enter the state. It charged disastrous rates, changed them every year, and took the entire profit of any California farmer or shipper who had no other railroad to turn to. How was this made possible? It was done through the power of the California legislature. The Big Four controlled the legislature and held the state closed to competitors by legal restrictions—such as, for instance, a legislative act which gave the Big Four exclusive control of the entire coast line of California and forbade any other railroad to enter any port. During these thirty years, many attempts were made by private interests to start competing railroads in California and break the monopoly of the Central Pacific. These attempts were defeated—not by methods of free trade and free competition, but by legislative action.

“ This thirty-year monopoly of the Big Four and the practices in which they engaged are always quoted as an example of the evils of big business and Free Enterprise. Yet the Big Four were not free enterprises; they were not businessmen who had achieved power by means of unregulated trade. They were typical representatives of what is now called ‘a mixed economy.’ They achieved power by legislative interference into business; none of their abuses would have been possible in a free, unregulated economy.”

From his essay The Question of Monopolies

Also check out Greenspan's antitrust essay.

[vostibackle]

Originally Posted by IGOTJOINTS4YA

The problem with your A and B comparison is, there is no way for us to function at the level we do without working together.

Indeed. Luckily for us, it's very efficient and profitable for people to work together in a free market.

Originally Posted by Kasu

It's not a moral issue, it's an objective understanding of the psychology of workers, and an objective understanding in economics.

But, it must be a moral issue, unless adherence to socialism just means the belief that "the workers will rise up and take control of the means of production." Does it? I thought socialism was the belief that "the workers should rise up and take control of the means of production." Socialists don't just believe in the objective fact that this will occur, they also belief that this revolution is desirable and/or good, right?

Why do they think it's desirable? Because everyone will be better off (utilitarianism)? Because they'll be better off (haha, selfish socialists..)? Or what? What's the ultimate justification?

Or is socialism really just speculative sociology and not a political belief?