Public property in the free society

[Leonid]

Ayn Rand described public property as a collectivist fiction ( Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, pg 128). Yet she advocated a government that protects individual rights by running police, courts of law and Army. Such a government for its proper function will require a property worth few hundred billions if not  trillions of dollars. By its very nature this property is public. How free society would resolve such a contradiction? Any thoughts?

 

 

[softwareNerd]

See this earlier thread

[2046]

Can't there be a sense in which AR means "collectively owned" as in "we all own this" being a fiction, ie., all property is ultimately controlled by some specific individuals. And then a sense in which a limited government owns property, whether it be the elected officials, or the taxpayers (or voluntary contributors) in a joint-stock company, or whatever.

Edited June 29, 2013 by 2046

[softwareNerd]

Can't there be a sense in which AR means "collectively owned" as in "we all own this" being a fiction, ie., all property is ultimately controlled by some specific individuals. And then a sense in which a limited government owns property, whether it be the elected officials, or the taxpayers (or voluntary contributors) in a joint-stock company, or whatever.

Yes, unless something in the original context says otherwise, I'd say that you're spot on. So, one can distinguish between "public property" and "government property" when one uses those two senses, and then say that the former is just "unowned property" (more accurately, it is not yet property).

Edited June 29, 2013 by softwareNerd

[Leonid]

There is no difference between government and public property.They are essentially the same. Government disposes property which it controls and therefore owns it. Government also owns monetary value of its property. When government sells its assets, it doesn't distribute the money to taxpayers but uses it on its own discretion. Coercive or even voluntary collected taxes don't make taxpayers stock holders, they cannot sell their shares and use the money as they want. In Ayn Rand words such a property " will always be taken over by some political “elite,” by a small clique which will then rule the public"

 

 

Edited June 30, 2013 by Leonid

[Leonid]

In the truly capitalist society all property is privately owned and that includes government property. Therefore such a society should develop a mechanism which will allow a private ownership on government property, be it a share holding or something else. By buying government shares people will fund government and the same time would be able to control its function. They could vote with their wallets so to speak. 

Edited June 30, 2013 by Leonid

[softwareNerd]

In the truly capitalist society all property is privately owned and that includes government property. Therefore such a society should develop a mechanism which will allow a private ownership on government property, be it a share holding or something else. By buying government shares people will fund government and the same time would be able to control its function. They could vote with their wallets so to speak. 

 

No, in a capitalist society, the government will be able to own property as long as it is for legitimate government purposes and as long as it follows whatever checks and balances are put in place. 

Things that are not owned yet, will not be "public property" (which is a fiction); but, the government will definitely own some property.

[Leonid]

No, in a capitalist society, the government will be able to own property as long as it is for legitimate government purposes and as long as it follows whatever checks and balances are put in place. 

Things that are not owned yet, will not be "public property" (which is a fiction); but, the government will definitely own some property.

That would contradict  Ayn Rand's definition of capitalism and will allow some political elite to rule the public. Government represents  the public and therefore all property owned by government is public property. However ownership doesn't always mean control. If I own few hundred shares of Microsoft it doesn't mean I control it, not directly anyway. Government should control the property which is needed for it legitimate function , but property itself  should be privately owned in the form of government shares.

Edited June 30, 2013 by Leonid

[softwareNerd]

That would contradict  Ayn Rand's definition of capitalism...

No, it does not contradict Rand. In fact, it is far more compatible with her approach.

If I own few hundred shares of Microsoft it doesn't mean I control it, not directly anyway. Government should control the property which is needed for it legitimate function , but property itself  should be privately owned in the form of government shares.

You do not offer any justification for your suggestion. If control is key, then having the government control something while others "own" it (whatever that means) seems like a lawyers's way to stick to some letter of a principle. Pointless.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

What if, instead of career-politicians and extravagant governmental buildings, it were all run by volunteers?

 

Imagine a militia, in the truest sense; a rabble of friends, family and neighbors armed to the teeth and united under a common ideal (ala the American Revolution).  Then extrapolate that mechanism to fill all necessary roles of the government.

 

Of course, while on-duty as a public official, each volunteer would have to be subject to the most rigorous set of rules.  You couldn't have just anyone getting drunk and deciding it would be fun to judge some court cases; it would have to be objective and impartial.

 

But if it were done that way, there would be no need for any sort of government funding or official buildings of any sort- the volunteers could use their own equipment.

 

Well, I suppose the obvious exception would be jails.  Perhaps banishment, instead?

 

Or, if imprisonment is an absolute must, the next question is exactly how much space and funding a jail REALLY requires.

[tadmjones]

holycrap

[Leonid]

No, it does not contradict Rand. In fact, it is far more compatible with her approach.You do not offer any justification for your suggestion. If control is key, then having the government control something while others "own" it (whatever that means) seems like a lawyers's way to stick to some letter of a principle. Pointless.

 

 

Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.

 

i

Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal,19

 

Therefore in capitalist society the government property also should be privately owned. The only way to do that is to sell government property to the public in the form of shares. If government doesn't perform, people would disinvest and such a government will fall.If you don't want to stick to the principle then the only way which is open to you is a concrete bound empiricism which is pragmatism. 

Edited July 3, 2013 by Leonid

[Leonid]

What if, instead of career-politicians and extravagant governmental buildings, it were all run by volunteers?

 

Imagine a militia, in the truest sense; a rabble of friends, family and neighbors armed to the teeth and united under a common ideal (ala the American Revolution).  Then extrapolate that mechanism to fill all necessary roles of the government.

 

Of course, while on-duty as a public official, each volunteer would have to be subject to the most rigorous set of rules.  You couldn't have just anyone getting drunk and deciding it would be fun to judge some court cases; it would have to be objective and impartial.

 

But if it were done that way, there would be no need for any sort of government funding or official buildings of any sort- the volunteers could use their own equipment.

 

Well, I suppose the obvious exception would be jails.  Perhaps banishment, instead?

 

Or, if imprisonment is an absolute must, the next question is exactly how much space and funding a jail REALLY requires.

 

The role of government is not that of militia. In Ayn Rand words  "  the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control"

 

    So the proper function of government is to provide the set of rigorous objective and impartial rules, that is-laws. As for the property which law enforced agencies use, people who subscribe for their services would voluntary pay for it, as they pay today to security companies.

Edited July 3, 2013 by Leonid

[Harrison Danneskjold]

The role of government is not that of militia. In Ayn Rand words  "  the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control.

 

So the proper government function is to provide rigorous objective and impartial set of rules, that is -legislation.

 Two questions.

 

Firstly, in a proper society, the government would have a full philosophical backing, right?  So the only need for explicit laws would be to translate political theory into concrete and specific practices.

So wouldn't legislation be somewhat superfluous?

 

Secondly, why would a government be objective if it were run by certain specialized people, rather than volunteers at large?  Yes, your officials have to be bound to a clearly specific code of conduct (per the requirements of objectivity) but assuming that we could apply that to volunteers, the way we do for firefighters currently. . . Why not?

[Leonid]

 Two questions.

 

Firstly, in a proper society, the government would have a full philosophical backing, right?  So the only need for explicit laws would be to translate political theory into concrete and specific practices.

So wouldn't legislation be somewhat superfluous?

 

Secondly, why would a government be objective if it were run by certain specialized people, rather than volunteers at large?  Yes, your officials have to be bound to a clearly specific code of conduct (per the requirements of objectivity) but assuming that we could apply that to volunteers, the way we do for firefighters currently. . . Why not?

 

First, the process of translation of political theory into concrete and specific practices is a legislation. And this is not an easy process, definitely not superfluous. Second, it requires certain skills and educational background. Not everybody could volunteer to be a legislator as not everybody could be a neurosurgeon. Even firefighters need certain skills.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

First, the process of translation of political theory into concrete and specific practices is a legislation. And this is not an easy process, definitely not superfluous.

Fair enough.

 

Second, it requires certain skills and educational background. Not everybody could volunteer to be a legislator as not everybody could be a neurosurgeon.

 But weren't all of the founding fathers exclusively volunteers?  I know they didn't get it quite right and they allowed some deadly contradictions to remain, unexamined, but they came so close!

Picture president Barack Obama, with all of his teleprompters and his polls and his personnel, debating against a sleep-deprived Jefferson or Franklin who was only able to prepare for ten minutes beforehand.

 

Detectives, judges and lawyers. . . You may be right about.  But certainly not legislators?

[Leonid]

Fair enough.

 

 But weren't all of the founding fathers exclusively volunteers?  I know they didn't get it quite right and they allowed some deadly contradictions to remain, unexamined, but they came so close!

Picture president Barack Obama, with all of his teleprompters and his polls and his personnel, debating against a sleep-deprived Jefferson or Franklin who was only able to prepare for ten minutes beforehand.

 

Detectives, judges and lawyers. . . You may be right about.  But certainly not legislators?

Founding Fathers had an extensive education in the field of political philosophy. They were profound thinkers. Obama is simply randomly selected nobody. If everybody were be allowed to volunteer as a legislator, that would bring hundreds of Obamas. You may forget than about objectivity and impartiality.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

If everybody were be allowed to volunteer as a legislator, that would bring hundreds of Obamas.

 Now that's a terrifying thought.

But if you're right about all of the above then I think you've found an unsolvable contradiction.

 

If we need a centralized government in order to live properly, and if said government must consist of a few highly-specialized people (implying that it must be a full-time job with all of the perks afforded to the status quo), then this government must own governmental property.

Government property would be public property (because private-government property would be feudalism), which is incompatible with hands-off capitalism.

 

Somewhere along the line there must be a false premise; otherwise Capitalism is an impossible ideal.

[softwareNerd]

Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.

 

i

Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal,19

 

Therefore in capitalist society the government property also should be privately owned.

We're going around in circles here. As i said earlier, having the government control something while others "own" it (whatever that means) is an attempt to stick to the letter of a principle, ignoring its substance.

You produced a Rand quote, which appears to support your point, if that was the only sentence Rand ever wrote. If Rand meant this in the literal sense you imply, she was wrong. From the rest of her writing -- in fact you can stay within that one book -- it is clear she did not mean this the way you are portraying it.

[2046]

Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.

 

i

Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal,19

 

Therefore in capitalist society the government property also should be privately owned. The only way to do that is to sell government property to the public in the form of shares. If government doesn't perform, people would disinvest and such a government will fall.If you don't want to stick to the principle then the only way which is open to you is a concrete bound empiricism which is pragmatism. 

Why is that the "only" way to do that? Surely one can think of many other ways to go about that than selling off property. Why would you sell it anyway, you can only sell something you own as your property in the first place, and since the reason we're selling it is because you don't want the government to own it, then isn't that a bit weird?

[Leonid]

Why is that the "only" way to do that? Surely one can think of many other ways to go about that than selling off property. Why would you sell it anyway, you can only sell something you own as your property in the first place, and since the reason we're selling it is because you don't want the government to own it, then isn't that a bit weird?

Quite right. Your correction is gratefully accepted. For sure there is more than one way to deal with this issue. And the term "sell" is also wrong. I meant a distribution of the value of the property which is currently owned by government in the form of shares, that is- a privatization. People then could trade these shares but government will use the property. 

[Leonid]

 Now that's a terrifying thought.

But if you're right about all of the above then I think you've found an unsolvable contradiction.

 

If we need a centralized government in order to live properly, and if said government must consist of a few highly-specialized people (implying that it must be a full-time job with all of the perks afforded to the status quo), then this government must own governmental property.

Government property would be public property (because private-government property would be feudalism), which is incompatible with hands-off capitalism.

 

Somewhere along the line there must be a false premise; otherwise Capitalism is an impossible ideal.

 No, it doesn't. Government property could be privatized. To control and to own is not the same. Hospital manager controls hospital property but doesn't own it. He's a payed employee. The government should be exactly the same.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

To control and to own is not the same.

 Truly?  I know they aren't exactly synonymous, but aren't they essentially the same?

 

To use your analogy, a manager controls his building and staff to some extent but only to that extent.  If he makes some truly outrageous decision then the actual owners (ultimately the shareholders) can fire him at any point.

To own something necessarily means to control it.

One may control something without ownership (as with managers) but, in such cases, that control is ownership-by-proxy; the controller has the consent of the true owner to stand in for them conditionally.

 

So, if the government were to control any piece of property as the owner's proxy, the owner (citizens) must retain the right to fire it- which would be revolution.

 

This might provide a solution to your problem (?); I don't know.  But ownership necessitates control.

[softwareNerd]

So, if the government were to control any piece of property as the owner's proxy, the owner (citizens) must retain the right to fire it- which would be revolution.

Exactly... and if citizens revolt, they can do so whether the govt "owns" property or "controls" it. They would simply ignore the fake notion of government non-ownership of property it controls.

This might provide a solution to your problem (?); ... ...

So, no this does not solve Leonid's "problem" in the real world, though it might suffice because the bottom line it to keep to the letter of some sentence. Edited July 7, 2013 by softwareNerd

[Leonid]

 Truly?  I know they aren't exactly synonymous, but aren't they essentially the same?

 

To use your analogy, a manager controls his building and staff to some extent but only to that extent.  If he makes some truly outrageous decision then the actual owners (ultimately the shareholders) can fire him at any point.

To own something necessarily means to control it.

One may control something without ownership (as with managers) but, in such cases, that control is ownership-by-proxy; the controller has the consent of the true owner to stand in for them conditionally.

 

So, if the government were to control any piece of property as the owner's proxy, the owner (citizens) must retain the right to fire it- which would be revolution.

 

This might provide a solution to your problem (?); I don't know.  But ownership necessitates control.

Not by means of revolution but simply by cutting funds. If CEO makes an outrageous decision, values of shares will drop, people will disinvest and the company will go bankrupt. 

Edited July 13, 2013 by Leonid