Can freedom exist without private property rights?

I believe private property is the best way for society to operate because it makes economics more efficient because it encourages a phenomena by which the most productive people (i.e. those who produce the most in-demand goods and services, and for the lowest cost, time-wise and physical resource-wise) produce the most and get the most in return (wealth).

The question is, is a system where every physical thing is privately owned and can be privately owned (air, water, rivers and creeks, the Earth and land, everything), the best way to maximize not only socially Darwinistic effects, but freedom?

If you have an area with a lot of raw materials and physical resources in it, one could argue that people should be free to transform these resources via their own labor and then permanently be in sole control over the end product, unless the voluntarily gave it up in return for something.

One could also argue that it's a choice to transform resources via your own labor and get a product (or, to fund said activities with your own capital, i.e. capitalism), and since those things wouldn't be part of your own body and thus not innately owned by you, other people could use said products for their own use if they so choose, and that would be liberty.

One could finally retort by saying that if a product/resource exists by being transformed via the labor of someone else's body and/or brain (both of which everyone privately owns), it's essentially a violation of the person's labor, body and brain (and emotions) to not allow the person to use the products which they produced with their own labor, this it should be privately owned by the producer.


So, which side ends up being the most free? Stateless communism or anarcho-capitalism? Make sure to read my whole OP before you jump to a decision.

 

I think there has to be a balance. Property rights serve the cause of individual freedom up to a point, and then beyond that point they become a detriment to individual freedom.

 

Freedom only will exist without private property rights. Private property rights assure that people that owns the the means of production and land enslave the no-owners.

For me the state-less communism, it is anarchism, is the only way to have real freedom. Anarcho-capitalism mantains the authority coming from the private property, and an owner can have employees, and that is a restriction in the freedom. And not only that, if someone can't access to something, you are restraining his freedom. And there are things that can't be owned by anybody, like the ones that you mentioned like water, air...

So private property is the best way to mantain the slavery. Not freedom.

 

Isn't that what the Chinese "state-capitalism" is doing ? I don't believe in a truly free-market a such monopoly (as the Chinese government micromanaging every bit of economic activity) would exist, because it wouldn't make economic sense (which is the motivation of any "capitalist").

Why would someone be restricted from "accessing something" ? I just can't see that happen in a real free-market.

 

No. [/thread]

________________________________________

 

Silencing dissent? Which of my options suits you best from the poll?

I support private property rights because it leads to the necessary evil of socially Darwinistic capitalism, but the whole vague, fuzzy concept of "freedom" is often stupidly intermingled, unwarranted-ly, when it comes to discussions of collectivist vs. capitalistic economies.

The goals of capitalism don't have anything to do with "freedom". They have to do with social Darwinism and weeding out the economically unfit.

 

In a truly free market corporations will rule the world, and people will be enslaved to them.

Capitalism is new slavery. Like or not. People won't be free. I am not free if I have someone that is giving me orders. I am not free if I don't have access to a shelter, food, cloths or even diversion.

Because in the concept of a private property it means that is mine, and I can forbid you to access to it. Or have the prices for that I want, and there will be people that can't pay that, so I am restricting the access to something. It is easy to understand.

 

Does the Spanish Government pay you to not work?

 

It is possible to have very much freedom (I hesitate to write perfect freedom) without property rights. That being said, it cannot happen in every kind of society. It's not like two socialist votes will turn America into a completely free society.

Communism was on some levels based on the pre-industrial village, with people taking care of each other and all chipping in to help. I think that is fairly close to what you describe, however, I think that's impossible in a large nation such as the US, and I think American culture would make it even harder to create.

 

????

Who did talk about not working? :-S

And in Spain there is the unemployment pay that can last until 2 years depending the time that you've worked.

In other countries you have a payment for all the time that you don't work. But that is not the topic.

 

Nope, not in a freemarket, but in the system we have today the "slavery" you describe is very real. (This "slavery" is the effect of the government being in bed with corporations)

Can i walk into your home (when you're not there) ? Or did you find it reasonable to have access restrictions ?

The other issue you bring up, prices. Price is the result of supply/demand. Ie: Let's say there is this guy that has enough money to buy ALL oil-reserves in the entire world and sets the price per barrel to say 2000$.

First issue this guy would have would be the price, he would be forced to pay for the last oil reserves. The previous owners would jackup the price once they saw that someone is buying them one after the other. Thereafter he has another problem: Alternative energy. With oil price at those levels people would invest (create supply) in alternative energy to the level where it would out-compete oil, and therefore this monopolist guy would be forced to lower his $2000 oil to where people are willing to pay for it, or else he's out of business.
Thesame is true for all other industries, such as you mention; shelter, food,clothes etc.

Reason this problem exists today, is because governments are very much in bed with big-corporations. The corporations lobby the government to create all sort of laws to make "entry to a market expensive" so the existing big-corporations don't face unwated new competition (which would force prices down and with it their dominance).

 

Ok, let's accept that you're right. Now add a problem(that would be easy to solucionate, but I thinkg that I must ask). What is your opinion about patents and intelectual property law? In that system there would be patents and intelectual property law?

If there is the case I can buy the patents of many alternative energies, and block it.

 

Patents & intelectual property, i believe they constitute a fair legal protection to innovators (so industrialists don't get a free tech).

I see a problem with aquiring all (or even most) patents in one single business-sector, it is again the price. But let's assume this one guy manages to buy all the patents on alt-energy, this would make all those innovators extremely rich. Which in turn would motivate people to come up with better tech on alt-energy, in this scenario alt-energy patents would become a far better business than the energy business itself. So in effect, ironically this energy-monopolist would become a victim of his own greed, having to pay a massive premium to acquire patents.

 

Yes, but I'm not against private property rights in any way, shape or form.

In history there have been a lot of cultures which didn't have a real sense of private property and they often worked fine and had sufficient freedoms (though few choices as you focused a lot more on survival in those days).

Such culture is not compatible with modern day civilization.

 

Do you agree with the American patents system? Or you would change it.

And normally(excuse me my bad memory to give concrete examples) patents make that an innovation doesn't come because it is blocked, or you have absurd limitations and the troll patents.

 

Privately owning an "idea" is an absurd concoction first of all, and even if it weren't an absurd concoction, all that would do is make sure un-breakable monopolies existed because other people would be restricted from even following these business' ways. It would work very much against productivity.

 

Ideas should be ownable for a specific amount of time unless they either didn't originate from you or are incredibly obvious.


One example of an owned idea which is ridiculous... are Magic the Gathering Cards.
Now, if you're not a geek like me you won't follow as easily. Basically Magic the Gathering cards are a customizable card game. You customize decks to make different strategies. It's pretty fun.

Anyways, in this game you can "activate" cards. Like if you attacked with on card it would "activate" or "tap". In order to show it's been activated or used you turn it on it's side on the table.

Wizards of the Coast, the owners of Magic the Gathering, literally OWN a patent to "flipping a card any amount of degrees to signify use" or something like that. They literally OWN just manually turning a card... 90 degrees or so...

So if you made a regular card game using regular cards (1-10, Jack, Queen, King, Ace, Joker)... and for some reason in this game you had it so that you'd take a card, turn it on it's side (still facing up) on the table... you'd be open to LAW SUITS.



This constitutes an insane and stupid idea ownership. I could patent freakin' turning a couch on it's back and it would probably be accepted.

And they HAVE sued over this. And WON. FOR TURNING A FREAKIN' CARD AT A DIFFERENT ANGLE!



The problem with our patents and copyrights is they accept almost anything. There's no filters. If you have a brilliant idea that nobody could ever think of I have no real reason to deny you ownership. But most of the stuff is just ABSURD.

 

The form and content of patent/copyright law may be up for some debate but the concept is justified.

 

I absolutely don't agree with it.

The patenting system we have today is a total-blow to productivity as DeathStar and ModerateG points out. (But that is a benefit to the big-biz, unfortunately)

It needs to be modernized.

 

Ideas could not be able to be patented. That is absurd. Also in USA you have patented some algorithms, one of them was how to solutionate the bug of the year 2000. That is absurd. Is like if I patent 2+2=4

But, in theory I refuse the existence of patents, for me are a stop of the creation, creativity.

At least if you patent, patent something done, and not an idea, if not the whole object. If I do something different that would do the similar I can't be sued for that.

Sorry, I think that my English in this post is quite poor. But can be understandable :-S

 

This is what I think, too. The problem with communism (well ... a problem with communism) is that it seems to work better on the small scale where human beings have a personal investment in each other. People seem to have trouble investing in each other personally across geographic distances and economic class distinctions.

 

Great idea!

I just did!

You owe me fifty cents.

 

Is it likely that this would also happen with a Republican administration?

Hasn't there been a Supreme Court case which ruled on a case such as the above New York example?

 

I support private property and the rights of the individual, so I would say no.

That said, not all of those against property rights are alike. I'd take Old Major before Napoleon any day of the week (read your Orwell).

 

It could. Keystone is an example. Provided for in the Takings clause of the 5th Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Republicans are not all that pure. Nixon, a Republican with a Progressive streak, was among the worst in terms of concentrating power in the Federal Government.

The Kelo v New London, CT case split 5-4 with Kennedy siding with the Socialists on the Court. It was about land that was grabbed to be given to a favored developer who, it turned out, couldn't get the project that justified the grab funded. The People's Republic of Connecticut allows land grabs for no earthly reason, which likely explains why the US Constitution lost. Tough call for 10th Amendment enthusiasts.