On 2010-12-19 10:52, landmark wrote:

Quote:

On 2010-12-18 18:50, gdw wrote:

Quote:

On 2010-12-18 11:49, landmark wrote:

Quote:

On 2010-12-17 16:03, gdw wrote:

Quote:

On 2010-12-17 15:56, landmark wrote:
Gdw said: "I advocate for a society in which there essentially is no "public" property. Any "property" you set foot on would be owned by someone, . . ."


Sorry but I find that notion absolutely nightmarish.

I don't even really feel like arguing it, because it seems so self-evident to me; I think there is a lot of good logic on this board, but we disagree a lot about what set of axioms we're going to start with.

Who gets the property? Who doesn't? Are the lucky ones those that can get to enclose the meadows?

They hang the man, and flog the woman,
That steals the goose from off the common;
But let the greater villain loose,
That steals the common from the goose.

There is a lot out there on this, from Lochian homesteading and beyond. How do you determine who "gets the property" now? The big difference is that you would acually OWN the land your home is on, as apposed to know where you are essentially renting it from the state, hence "property taxes" and the like.

The thing is, the idea of the "problem of the commons" is one that is created by the idea of "public property" to begin with.

As land is a finite resource, the privatization of all property will lead in the direction which we can already observe as present-day capitalism heads on: the concentration of wealth accruing to those who already have wealth. This is an inevitable consequence of capitalism. So while it may be good news to the 1% who will eventually own all the land that the land is truly theirs, it's not so great for the other 99%--no matter how much they may wish to homestead.

Gee, once again, that sounds an AWFUL lot like what we tend to get WITH governments.

Quite right, as I said, this a basic feature--or bug--of capitalism. What the evidence shows, however, is that the wealth gap between rich and poor slows down with governments that have more corporate regulation. And within the US we can see that the wealth gap increased significantly in the last 30 years since privatization and contracting out services increased dramatically. So any push for more privatization of property and services is going to increase the rate of wealth accumulation by those who already have.

landmark:
Quite right, as I said, this a basic feature--or bug--of capitalism. What the evidence shows, however, is that the wealth gap between rich and poor slows down with governments that have more corporate regulation. And within the US we can see that the wealth gap increased significantly in the last 30 years since privatization and contracting out services increased dramatically. So any push for more privatization of property and services is going to increase the rate of wealth accumulation by those who already have.

Quote:

gdw:
No, this is a "bug" of corporatism. It's not just about regulation, but government involvement with private enterprise all together. Everything you have described has involved governments and corporations working together/corporations controlling government.

On 2010-12-19 15:28, landmark wrote:

Quote:

landmark:
Quite right, as I said, this a basic feature--or bug--of capitalism. What the evidence shows, however, is that the wealth gap between rich and poor slows down with governments that have more corporate regulation. And within the US we can see that the wealth gap increased significantly in the last 30 years since privatization and contracting out services increased dramatically. So any push for more privatization of property and services is going to increase the rate of wealth accumulation by those who already have.

Quote:

gdw:
No, this is a "bug" of corporatism. It's not just about regulation, but government involvement with private enterprise all together. Everything you have described has involved governments and corporations working together/corporations controlling government.

But the US government exists at this moment. Therefore, any privatization, at this point in the US will continue to increase the wealth gap. I'm going to assume we are trying to deal with our present day problems. Philosophy and speculation are certainly okay on a magic board, but I'm assuming that libertarians are talking about more than Gilligan's Island?

On 2010-12-19 20:55, Woland wrote:
Redshirt,

The problem with that is called the tragedy of the commons . . . when an individual owns something, he takes care of it. When nobody owns it, and nobody is responsible for it, nobody takes care of it.

Moreover, the fact that individuals don't own the land they live on is one of the major reasons so much of the world remains in poverty.

After the Mexican revolution of 1910, for example, when the great latifundias were expropriated by the government, the land was not turned over to invidiual peasants, but to communes, which held it in common. This was supposedly the ancient Indian way . . .

However, the system of communal land ownership permitted the establishment of a new oligarchy, and prevented industrious individuals from acquiring the benefits of their labor . . . leading to the development of the corrupt, failed state whose imminent collapse threatens the United States today.

A system in which an individual owns the results of his own hard work, energy, and initiative -- the free market -- has proven itself to be the system which produces more benefits for more people than any planned and controlled system, whether imperial, monarchial, or socialist.

Peace Out.

Woland

On 2010-12-19 20:55, Woland wrote:
Redshirt,

The problem with that is called the tragedy of the commons . . . when an individual owns something, he takes care of it. When nobody owns it, and nobody is responsible for it, nobody takes care of it.

Moreover, the fact that individuals don't own the land they live on is one of the major reasons so much of the world remains in poverty.

After the Mexican revolution of 1910, for example, when the great latifundias were expropriated by the government, the land was not turned over to invidiual peasants, but to communes, which held it in common. This was supposedly the ancient Indian way . . .

However, the system of communal land ownership permitted the establishment of a new oligarchy, and prevented industrious individuals from acquiring the benefits of their labor . . . leading to the development of the corrupt, failed state whose imminent collapse threatens the United States today.

A system in which an individual owns the results of his own hard work, energy, and initiative -- the free market -- has proven itself to be the system which produces more benefits for more people than any planned and controlled system, whether imperial, monarchial, or socialist.

Peace Out.

Woland

On 2010-12-19 23:43, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
. . .

Woland, this is a rather gruesome mischaracterization of Garrett Hardin's argument in "The Tragedy of the Commons". Hardin is arguing that Rational Choice Theory predicts that commonly held goods such as clean air and fresh water will be damaged in the long term as agents act in their rational best interests in the short term. Hardin is explicitly arguing against policies that encourage individuals to work only for their own benefit and, in fact, argues that the tragedy of the commons dilemma supports strong central government to regulate resources.

You can read Hardin's article here. I have not read it in over 20 years, so I guess I'll take this opportunity to reread a classic.

John

On 2010-12-20 06:28, Woland wrote:
Magnus,

Another old classic is Governor Bradford's diary of the early years of the Plymouth Colony. He describes how the initial intention of the Pilgrims was to establish a commune in which all goods would be held in common, in emulation of what they thought was described for the early Christians in Acts. However, about half of the colonists were not Pilgrims, and productivity was very poor; the industrious did not like working for the lazy, etc. When after a year or so, the colonists agreed that each man could cultivate his own land, and that the produce of a man's effort would belong to him, prosperity ensued.

"Also ye people of ye plantation begane to grow in their owtward estats, by reason of ye flowing of many people into ye ****rie, espetially into ye Bay of ye Massachusets; by which means corne & catle rose to a great prise, by wch many were much inriched, and comodities grue plentifull; and yet in other regards this benefite turned to their hurte, and this accession of strength to their weaknes. For now as their stocks incresed, and ye increse vendible, ther was no longer any holding them togeather, but now they must of necessitie goe to their great lots; they could not other wise keep their katle; and having oxen growne, they must have land for plowing & tillage. And no man now thought he could live, except he had catle and a great deale of ground to keep them; all striving to increase their stocks. By which means they were scatered all over ye bay, quickly, and ye towne, in which they lived compactly till now, was left very thine, and in a short time allmost desolate. And if this had been it, it had been less, thoug to much; but ye church must also be devided, and those yt had lived to long togeather in Christian & comfortable fellowship must now part and suffer many divissions. First, those that lived on their lots on ye other side of ye bay (called Duxberie) they could not long bring their wives & children to ye publick worship & church meetings here, but with such burthen…"

"The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense."

This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content."

The Pilgrims came to America for one reason – to form a separate community in which they could worship God as they saw fit. They had fled England because King James I was persecuting those who did not recognize the Church of England's absolute civil and spiritual authority.

On the two-month journey of 1620, William Bradford and the other elders wrote an extraordinary charter – the Mayflower Compact. Why was it extraordinary? Because it established just and equal laws for all members of their new community – believers and non-believers alike. Where did they get such revolutionary ideas? From the Bible, of course.

When the Pilgrims landed in the New World, they found a cold, rocky, barren, desolate wilderness. There were no friends to greet them, Bradford wrote. No houses to shelter them. No inns where they could refresh themselves. During the first winter, half the Pilgrims died of sickness or exposure –including Bradford's wife. Though life improved for the Pilgrims when spring came, they did not really prosper. Why? Once again, the textbooks don't tell the story, but Bradford's own journal does. The reason they didn't succeed initially is because they were practicing an early form of socialism.

The original contract the Pilgrims had with their merchant-sponsors in London called for everything they produced to go into a common store. Each member of the community was entitled to one common share. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belonged to the community. Bradford, as governor, recognized the inherent problem with this collectivist system.

"The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years ... that by taking away property, and bringing community into common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing – as if they were wiser than God," Bradford wrote. "For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fir for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense ... that was thought injustice."

What a surprise! Even back then people did not want to work without incentive. Bradford decided to assign a plot of land to each family to work and manage, thus turning loose the power of free enterprise. What was the result?

"This had very good success," wrote Bradford, "for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been."

As a result, the Pilgrims soon found they had more food than they could eat themselves. They set up trading posts and exchanged goods with the Indians. The profits allowed them to pay off their debts to the merchants in London much faster than expected. The success of the Plymouth colony thus attracted more Europeans and set off what we call the "Great Puritan Migration."

But it wasn't just an economic system that allowed the Pilgrims to prosper. It was their devotion to God and His laws. And that's what Thanksgiving is really all about. The Pilgrims recognized that everything we have is a gift from God – even our sorrows. Their Thanksgiving tradition was established to honor God and thank Him for His blessings and His grace.

On 2010-12-20 14:00, Woland wrote:
Magnus,

1) The difference between a free market society, on the one hand, and a controlled statist society on the other hand (whether imperial, fascist, monarchial, socialist, or communist) is precisely the root of this entire discussion.

2) When I referred to the Tragedy of the Commons, I was using the term as it is used in everyday speech, not in reference to Hardin's article of the same title.

3) Don't have my copy of Bradford with me at the moment, but I shall certainly provide you with the particulars. However, I think the passage you bring forward describes a period 5 or 10 years after the Pilgrims abandoned collectivism, and refers not to the establishment of a commune, but to the establishment of new towns and settlements.

"The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense."

On 2010-12-19 23:58, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
GDW did you read the article? Or is it simply contrary to your ideology?

John