Why Should We Care About Property Rights?

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > The Goodmine > Why Should We Care About Property Rights?

jrodefeld: Sep 22, 2012; by Shine

Cemetry Gator posted:

Can you stop with the "left-Progressives" talk. It makes you sound like a loving idiot. I have no idea who the left-Progressives are, or where the right-Progressives live, or what ideology you are discussing. How about just saying "people who advocate for social democracy." Seriously. Reading your posts is like reading a bad student paper. There's a reason why I didn't become a teacher over being a retail manager. If I had to deal with teenagers, I at least didn't want to read their work!

And you do nothing to support this claim. I have no idea how to argue with this claim since it's just there. Like, I don't know what you're seeing that leads you to believe that, so I don't know how to effectively make you see otherwise.

Writing tip: Get rid of phases like "and this should be quite obvious" unless you are trying to emphasize how someone missed something that was very obvious. It just adds to your wordcount without saying something, and frankly, if it's obvious, why do you need to say it and why do you need to tell me that it's obvious? It should be obvious to a good writer that they don't need to talk down to their readers and tell them what's obvious and what's not.

Now, onto what you actually have to say here. Nobody here is arguing that there is some weird force keeping us from sharing our wealth. You're making a non-controversial statement, and trying to argue it like it's some profound rebuttal to what we've been saying all along.

Also, it's amazing that you don't see the immediate problem. It should be obvious to you that if people who had enough were going to share it with people who didn't, we wouldn't have the vast poverty that we have in America. Seriously. Go to Madison, WI and hang around the square. You're in a well-to-do area with a lot of bars and tourists spot. And what will you always see? A gently caress ton of homeless people. Even in the winter, and it gets pretty loving cold out there. So right next to all these luxury apartments and the beautiful lakefront, you have a strong homeless presence.

So yeah. If you're suggestion was a solution, THEN WE WOULDN'T BE HAVING THIS loving CONVERSATION. So clearly, something is breaking down. Something isn't working.

When you look at how income is distributed in America, we have an obscene disparity between the top 1% of the country and the bottom 99%.

So, what's your solution to Madison's homeless problem. Expecting people to be nice and share their money isn't working.

See, JRod, you're confusing "rights" with "abilities." In the scenario you listed, I have the ability not to share my apple with him. There's nothing stopping me. It should be obvious to someone who wants to talk about political philosophy as much you do that rights are not just things you can choose to do, but rather, a series of privileges that people are assumed to have. So, in America, it is assumed that I can express whatever opinion I want without fear of government reprisal. It is my right. However, I can't think of any reason why my ability to not give up an apple to a starving person when I still would have plenty of apples left over would be something that someone would say that I can't have taken away from me under any circumstances.

Now, even if he has the right, we also recognize that not all rights are equal. We find very often that rights are in conflict with each other, and some rights are more important than others. So for example, I may be firing a gun off into the air as an expression against gun control, however, other peoples right to life (in this case, by not being killed by random bullets raining down on them) would be seen as more valuable than my choice of expression, so the state, and others, would have a compelling reason to abridge my right to freedom of speech in that case.

This also brings up another element about rights - they are rarely absolute. Many rights we have can be suspended or taken away based on certain factors. So, for example, if I commit a felony and am sent to federal prison, I lose a lot of rights.

Now, back to what I was saying.

In this case, the starving man has a right to life. And if he were to get one of your apples, he would no longer be starving, and you would still have plenty of apples to survive. So, why shouldn't you be compelled to give him one of your apples. Why does your right to your apples supersede his right to life?

Do you see how hosed up your philosophy is?

You are literally arguing "Hey, these apples are more important than preventing a slow, painful death." This is why people are brutal towards you.

Now, we can discuss how we can best balance these rights.

By the way, did you ever admit to being completely wrong about vaccines before?

I'm not talking about vaccines other than to say that I stand by my view that I oppose the State forcing people to take them against their will. I never said vaccines are "bad", or that people shouldn't take them. I stated something that is true, namely that there is a real danger to granting pharmaceutical companies carte blanche to produce vaccines that the State then MANDATES the public to take. The incentive structure is such that it encourages an overproduction of vaccines and pressure to give more and more vaccines at younger and younger ages, beyond the reasonable demands of public safety. Where's your skepticism of big money and distrust of corporate greed when it comes to vaccine production, Progressives?

Let's not get sidetracked by that subject right now, okay?

You've been involved in these debates with me for a while now, Cemetary Gator. Why do you keep conflating the libertarian policies I endorse with the sort of policies the United States is now living under?

I can practically guarantee that the United States is currently farther away from the sort of policies I'd like that the sort that you'd recommend. Before I delve into that, let me back up my claims about Sweden. Everyone and their grandmother use Sweden as the sort of model social democracy that the United States ought to emulate. Bernie Sanders is doing so right now on the campaign trail. But the truth is that the wealth that Sweden has was created largely during the eighty to one hundred years before the social democratic reforms championed by progressives.

There are two sources I'd like to cite to back up this point.

The first is short article by Nima Sanandaji called "The Swedish Model Reassessed: Affluence Despite the Welfare State":

http://www.libera.fi/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Libera_The-Swedish-model.pdf

Pay careful attention to the charts and especially the list of sources at the end, which further back up the claims made.

Here is something about the author:

"Nima Sanandaji has a Master�s Degree from the Chalmers University of Technology in Gothenburg, anAdvanced Master�s Degree from The Royal Institute of Technology
in Stockholm, and has previously conducted research studies at both Chalmers and the University of Cambridge. He is the president of the think tank Captus.
Nima has previously published six books, covering subjects such as entrepreneurship, women�s career opportunities, and innovation within the IT sector. One of these books,
as well as several published reports, focuses on Swedish integration policies and entrepreneurship within immigrant groups in Sweden. Nima has also written
a number of articles for Swedish newspapers, such as Aftonbladet, Expressen, and Veckans Aff�rer, and international publications, such as The Wall Street Journal.

The second source is an article called "How Laissez-Faire Made Sweden Rich" by Johan Norberg.

I'll post just the epilogue, though please read it in its entirety from the link below:

quote:

Epilogue
It was not socialist policies that turned Sweden into one of the world�s richest countries. When Sweden got rich, it had one of the most open and deregulated economies in the world, and taxes were lower than in the United States and most other western countries. The Social Democrats kept most of those policies intact until the 1970s, when they thought that those excellent foundations�unprecedented wealth, a strong work ethic, an educated work force, world-class exports industries, and a relatively honest bureaucracy�were so stable that the government could tax and spend and build a generous cradle-to-grave welfare state on them.

They couldn�t. At least not without costs. Because that welfare state began to erode the conditions that had made the model viable in the first place. And the fourth richest country became the 14th richest within three decades.

Things have looked up a bit since for this small Nordic country. In the 1990s Sweden had another important reform period in response to sluggish growth and a severe banking crisis. Both Social Democrats and center-right parties contributed when marginal tax rates were reduced; markets for finance, electricity, telecom, and media were deregulated; the central bank was made independent; the pension system was reformed partly with personal accounts; private providers in health care and elderly care were welcomed; and a school voucher system was introduced. During the last few years, Swedish governments have reduced taxes substantially, from 52 to 44 percent of GDP, and abolished taxes on gifts, inheritance, wealth, and housing.

Sweden has yet again increased exports, created private-sector jobs, and seen economic progress that has outpaced the rest of Europe. Sweden has managed the financial crisis much better than most other countries, and public debt is around 30 percent of GDP. But that�s another story�though not entirely, because present-day Swedish liberalization and liberalizers have often been inspired by the history of Swedish individuals, reforms accomplished 150 years ago, and the unprecedented prosperity that they produced. A statue of Lars Johan Hierta has been erected in central Stockholm and a Social Democratic speaker of parliament has proclaimed Anders Chydenius one of the greatest pioneers in the history of the Swedish parliament. On the wall of Finance Minister Anders Borg�s office hangs a portraits of Gripenstedt and Chydenius��the father of Swedish wealth,� according to Borg.

When Sweden liberalizes again, it will be going back to the future. That background�and that future�are the most important lessons from Sweden to the rest of the world.

As Anders Chydenius wrote almost 250 years ago, in the essay contest entry that got Swedish liberalism off to an impressive start: �That which our time tramples on, posterity will pick up, and that which is now called boldness will be honored in the name of truth.�

This essay was syndicated by AtlasOne, a project of the Atlas Network.

http://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/how-laissez-faire-made-sweden-rich#.t3jtth:XePw

The point I am making is that Progressives get confused and think that the market economy is a zero sum game where the rich exploit the poor and people starve and die without access to food, healthcare and needed accessories unless or until someone comes along and constructs a social welfare State that redistributes wealth to the less fortunate members of society. What I am arguing is that the trends that Progressives attribute to State policy (reduction in poverty, access to healthcare, the rise of the middle class) are almost always already existing features of a growing free market economy. The poverty rate was dropping rapidly for decades before the United States adopted any sort of national anti-poverty programs. The rate continued to drop at the same exact speed before flatlining where it has been for several decades now.

Free markets with property rights and contract law are the engine which has lifted humanity out of poverty and provided the means by which starvation has been largely eliminated in the developed world.

The problems that exist in the United States today have to do with State policy that has largely undone the great prosperity and productive capacity of our once great free market economy. The growing gap between rich and poor has nothing to do with the free market and everything to do with our abandonment of a sound currency and our embrace of reckless fiat monetary policy which has empowered the parasitic and unproductive rich while punishing the poor, the savers, and the productive entrepreneur who bears the brunt of the regulations heaped onto the economy. It is indeed a rigged game but don't blame this on the free market or libertarian ideology!

Cato puts out a yearly report where they rank the countries of the world according to their "economic freedom", i.e. correlation of policies with libertarian ideology. This year, the United States ranks 16th.

These are the top countries ranked by their adherence to policies that promote economic freedom:

1. Hong Kong
2. Singapore
3. New Zealand
4. Switzerland
5. United Arab Emirates
6. Mauritius
7. Jordan
8. Ireland
9. Canada
10. United Kingdom
11. Chile
12. Australia
13. Georgia
14. Qatar
15. Taiwan

All these nations are deemed to be more economically free and thus closer to libertarianism than the United States. Interestingly, both Canada and the United Kingdom are ranked higher than the United States. But Progressives frequently cite those countries as the sort of "socialist" nations the "free market" United States ought to emulate.

Let's focus our analysis on the top four most libertarian economies according to Cato. Do you suppose they have widespread starvation in Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand or Switzerland? Obviously not. If one looks at this list, it becomes clear that the more economically free nations have greater general prosperity which doesn't just accrue to the rich, but benefits everyone.

Here is the full report:

http://www.freetheworld.com/2015/economic-freedom-of-the-world-2015.pdf

What this should tell you is that we don't need to invalidate private property rights or embrace so-called "positive" rights (the right to healthcare, the right to a house) to create a prosperous society with a vibrant middle class and very few poor. If we embark down the path of fiat money, growing State debt and redistributive welfare, society will become much poorer in the long run. This is what the United States is teaching us, and Sweden as well. Both were vibrant and prosperous free market economies earlier in their history but later they became mired in repeating economic bubbles, increasing public debt and stagnating or declining growth. Then there is the insidious damage done by inflation which hurts the poorest while incentivising a parasitic class to mooch off the State rather than earn a living off honest, productive labor.

# ? Oct 15, 2015 08:31

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 15, 2024 12:36

jrodefeld: Sep 22, 2012; by Shine

Caros posted:

Doublepost but who gives a poo poo in hellthread...

I'm curious Jrodefeld, do you believe a corporation can homestead? For example if Shell goes drilling for oil in the arctic, is that their oil? Shell isn't owned by one person but as a communal group (shareholders). I mean we clearly know that a factory owner paying someone has to count as jaming his dick in the earth to claim it because otherwise every factory owner ever would have to go down and work on the line for his claim to be mixing his labor with the soil to be valid. What about partnerships. If I start a business with my friend it could be impossible to determine who owns what specific thing in the business but at the same time you clearly have to have the possibility of partnerships for your society to function.

So why is state land impossible? State land is ultimately just a very, very, very large partnership isn't it?

No, a corporation can't homestead. A corporation is simply a contract between multiple people who came into the contract already owning certain things. The contract specifies which person owns what share of the wealth that the company produces. I think what you are implying is that it is contradictory for an employer to hire a worker to produce things for him and keep the excess profit because it is the worker who is actually "mixing his labor" with the raw materials and not the owner. But this is incorrect because the owner and the employee enter into a contract voluntarily. And the homesteading principle only applies in regards to un-owned land. If a worker works in a factory, he is mixing his labor with property which is already owned by the factory owner.

Just as you can't dig up my front lawn and plant some seeds and then claim ownership over it, mixing ones labor with something which has already been homesteaded confers no property transfer or acquisition.

I think I've gone over this before but I'll reiterate it because it is important. The reason that it is not exploitative for the employee to work for the employer but not reap the full return on his labor (the profits if any go to the employer) is because the employee has a high time preference and present goods are more valuable than future goods. And secondly, the employer assumes all the risk in the venture. The employer already has property which allows a worker to be much more productive than he otherwise could be on his own. Machines, forklifts, computers, whatever the case may be. The employee therefore gets to use this capital equipment which makes his labor much more valuable in exchange for a guaranteed weekly or twice monthly wage while not assuming any risk if the end product is not successful.

Meanwhile the entrepreneur, the factory owner, assumes the full risk if his idea, product or service is not successful and he takes losses. Furthermore, there is a time delay before he sees any return on his investment in the form of profits.

Given that it is a voluntary contract that satisfies both sides, it is not exploitative. And since the employer already owned (homesteaded or received via legitimate title transfer) the property he used, the fact that the employee mixes his labor with the property is immaterial.

It is not impossible to determine who owns what in a partnership. As I said, each person who enters into a contract brings some form of legitimate property into the deal. That property was not stolen but was homesteaded or acquired through legitimate title transfer from someone who did homestead it. Then the contract would clearly specify how much of the output or profits of the joint venture each member is entitled to. Since property can be freely given away or sold, this is entirely consistent with libertarian theory and property rights.

States are not like very large partnerships. Partnerships are voluntary and consensual. States, by their very definition, are coercive. If a State constituted just a bunch of people who enter into an agreement with their own property and leave everyone else alone, there is no libertarian objection to it. The problem is that States force everyone in an arbitrary geographic area to submit to its rules and live under its jurisdiction. I am forced to pay taxes to finance the effort. My property is seized whether I like it or not.

Any number of people could enter into a partnership even if they abdicate their property rights in the process. Suppose ten thousand people enter into a contract to form a collective. They all enter into the contract with property they originally homesteaded. They stipulate that all this property is now part of a collective owned by all ten thousand members. If anyone decides to leave the collective in the future, they simply abandon their property. Then suppose the ten thousand decide to democratically decide how the collective property will be used.

I think this would be foolish and would work poorly. But I wouldn't use force to stop them from doing it. The key point is that everyone involved is there of their free will. They are not violating anyone's property rights nor are they stopping anyone from leaving.

# ? Oct 15, 2015 09:01

forkboy84: Jun 13, 2012; Corgis love bread. And Puro

This thread has been very successful in your clearly answering the question in the title OP, so congrats for clearing that up. Property Rights aren't really that important compared to the rights to the access of good healthcare, good education, good housing.

# ? Oct 15, 2015 09:10

Bryter: Nov 6, 2011; but since we are small we may-
uh, we may be the losers